Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD Chinook Elementary School 2012-EE Chinook Elementary School 3101 West 88th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-ANC-CAEC-25 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASD ................................................................................................................................ Anchorage School District ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s 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. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 1 OF 30  This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Anchorage School District Contact: Calvin Mundt 1301 Labar Street Anchorage, AK 99515 Email: mundt_calvin@asdk12.org Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The January 2009 – December 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 73,135 Natural Gas $ 45,423 Total $ 118,558 Energy Utilization Index: 119.9 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.07 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 11.6 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $201 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Chinook Elementary School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 2 OF 30  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $149 $1 1687.75 0.0 (N/A) 2 Setback Thermostat: Core Area B Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area B space. $1,621 $1,000 20.94 0.6 (N/A) 3 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $185 $300 11.84 1.6 (N/A) 4 Setback Thermostat: Pod 2 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 2 space. $683 $1,000 8.83 1.5 (N/A) 5 Setback Thermostat: Pod 4 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 4 space. $541 $1,000 6.99 1.8 (N/A) 6 Setback Thermostat: Pod 1 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 1 space. $468 $1,000 6.04 2.1 (N/A) 7 Setback Thermostat: Pod 3 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 3 space. $467 $1,000 6.03 2.1 (N/A) 8 Setback Thermostat: Core Area A Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area A space. $326 $1,000 4.21 3.1 (N/A) 9 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (10 @ $3,000 each = $30,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $10,000). $7,967 $40,000 3.76 5.0 (4.7) 10 Lighting: Parking Lot Light Controls Add new Motion Sensor & Photo Switch. Refer to EEM 13 for light upgrade $401 $2,400 1.96 6.0 (N/A) 11 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,177 $40,000 0.66 34.0 (17.9) 12 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 Replace with 116 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,036 $59,240 0.64 29.1 (18.5) 13 Lighting: Parking Lot Lights Replace with 12 LED 80W Module StdElectronic. Refer to EEM 10 for controls $816 $24,000 0.52 29.4 (22.7) 14 Lighting: U- tube T12 Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $455 $23,340 0.46 51.3 (25.5) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 3 OF 30  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 15 Lighting: 3-bulb T12 Replace with 73 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Controls retrofit $686 $37,370 0.45 54.5 (26.4) 16 Other Electrical: Relocatable Replace with 3 Energy Efficiency Upgraded Relocatable Classroom $1,991 $87,672 0.42 44.0 (35.2) 17 Ventilation Fix broken exhaust fans on roof (3 @ $2,000). Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (10), $1000 per EF (15)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (8 units @ $3,000 each = $24,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $16,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 35000 CFM = $218,750). Install premium efficiency motors (25 @ $1,000 each = $25,000). $10,303 $315,750 0.40 30.6 (N/A) 18 Lighting: 3-bulb T8 Replace with 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,335 $100,040 0.39 74.9 (30.4) 19 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 2%. $386 $10,000 0.34 25.9 (N/A) 20 Lighting: 2-bulb T8 Replace with 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,128 $138,880 0.33 123.1 (36.1) 21 Window/Skylig ht: SFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $323 $17,663 0.30 54.7 (N/A) 22 Lighting: Recessed Ceiling Lights Replace with 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug- in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $39 $1,600 0.29 40.7 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $33,484 $904,256 0.64 27.0 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 4 OF 30  2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $33,484 per year, or 28.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $904,256, for an overall simple payback period of 27 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $12,808 per year, or 10.8% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $48,701, for an overall simple payback period of 3.8 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $77,215 $2,601 $18,387 $1,554 $10,423 $9,012 $119,191 With All Proposed Retrofits $59,727 $2,071 $10,313 $1,164 $8,432 $4,000 $85,707 SAVINGS $17,488 $530 $8,074 $390 $1,991 $5,012 $33,484 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 5 OF 30  While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 6 OF 30  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 57,314 square foot Chinook Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, and a gymnasium/multipurpose room. There are also three relocatable classrooms on campus. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 7 OF 30  After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on September 27, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. An additional site visit was completed on October 26, 2011 where thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 8 OF 30  Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for Anchorage has an index of 100 and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 9 OF 30  The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 10 OF 30  All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Chinook Elementary School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Anchorage, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Anchorage, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the natural gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 11 OF 30  The original structure of Chinook Elementary School is a single story facility that was built in 1968. This building has had two (2) additions made to it. The school has three (3) electrically heated relocatable classroom units located on the west side of the building. The school typically opens at 7AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 8AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental occupancy time keeping the school open includes an after school program. Other rental activities occur in the evenings and weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas which can require the school to remain open as late as 9PM at times. There are an estimated 525 full time students as well as 65 full- time faculty and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, metal clad, wood and vinyl framed windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.67 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be heavily weather worn. The south facing windows on the original building are in poor condition and are recommended to be replaced. The exterior walls of the original elementary school consist of poured concrete walls furred out with 2-inch studs and insulated with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-4 value. The newer wall sections of the school are made with 2-core concrete blocks that are furred out with 2- inch studs and insulated with an R-8 value. These walls also have an R-11 sheathing layer. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school varies across the school as does the insulation. The addition section is roofed with 3-4 inches of rigid board insulation, making use of the IRMA system, for an estimated R-20. The rest of the school appears to have been reroofed with 6-inches of rigid insulation with an estimated R-30 value. The roof appears to be in good condition although the IRMA section is under insulated. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are half-windowed or solid. The doors appear to be in adequate condition, but could use additional weather stripping installed. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 12 OF 30  Heat is provided to the main school building by three (3) natural gas-fired cast iron sectional boilers which were installed in 1996. The boilers are located in the building’s mechanical room which is large in size and neatly configured. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the mechanical room. Heat is provided to the air handling units and cabinet heaters through a glycol loop attached to a heat exchanger. This building has a hybrid DDC Siemens control system in place with end devices using pneumatic controls. The boilers utilized a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,132,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 85.1 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,132,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 85.1 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 3 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,132,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 85.1 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a side-arm hot water heater. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the various classroom and janitor sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Side-arm Input Rating: 360,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: N/A Boiler Operation: All Year CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 13 OF 30  There are three (3) Air Handling Units (AHU’s) located inside of the building and five (5) Roof Top Units (RTU’s) located on the roof of the building providing ventilation to the school. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through these AHU’s and RTU’s. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof mounted exhaust fans and relief air fans. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 14,330 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design specifies 25 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 57,314 sf school = 14,329 CFM). Adding up all of the exhaust capacity equals 20,560 CFM, indicating the school appears to be over ventilated at 34.9 CFM/occupant when all exhaust systems are operated per design capacity. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major exhaust fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The ventilation system uses pneumatically controlled end devices, controlled by the hybrid DDC Honeywell system. The Honeywell system is antiquated and is a good candidate for upgrading to a modern DDC controller for improved performance. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 14 OF 30  There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses older T12 lights with some upgraded to more modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system uses 106 2-bulb T12 fluorescent lamps, which are excellent candidates for upgrades. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The metal-halide lights (MH) mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the MH systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.3 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 15 OF 30  The three (3) onsite relocatable classrooms have an area of 960 square feet each and consists of either 2x4 or 2x6 wood stud wall construction 16 inches on center with either R-11 fiberglass batt insulation or R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs respectively. The exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end walls. The above grade floor rests on sleepers. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-19 fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value. The relocatable classrooms at Chinnok Elementary are heated with electric resistance baseboards on the perimeter and an electric classroom unit ventilator. The electric baseboard temperature set point is controlled by a thermostat on each individual baseboard. This makes it easy for the electric baseboards to be left on at higher temperature than is required which was the typical case found during the audits of these type of portable buildings. There is no temperature set-back capability with the temperature control system in place. Due to the need to keep these buildings portable and due to combustion safety concerns, the ASD standard is to keep all portable buildings on electric resistance heat and not use natural gas for heating. The lighting in the portables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-12 light fixtures with magnetic ballasts. Due to the low operation use of the relocatable classroom, retrofitting the lights system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors is not cost effective. In the future, this lighting retrofit may be cost effective if the classroom lighting system is utilized more hours during the week. Refer to the Sand Lake Elementary School Relocatable Pilot Project underway to improve the energy efficiency of the portable classrooms. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 16 OF 30  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Chugach Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 17 OF 30  The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.13 $/kWh 0.11 $/kWh 0.12 $/kWh Natural Gas 0.88 $/CCF 1.01 $/CCF 0.95 $/CCF Total Cost $133,513 $103,602 $118,558 ECI 2.33 $/sf 1.81 $/sf 2.07 $/sf Electric EUI 35.7 kBtu/sf 35.2 kBtu/sf 35.5 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 93.1 kBtu/sf 75.8 kBtu/sf 84.5 kBtu/sf Building EUI 128.8 kBtu/sf 111.0 kBtu/sf 119.9 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 84 schools in the ASD computed an average EUI of 106.5 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 1.77 $/sf, with an average building size of 86,356 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 119.9 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 44.5% more energy than the US average and 12.6% more energy than the ASD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 18 OF 30  At current utility rates, the Anchorage School District is modeled to pay approximately $119,191 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Chinook Elementary. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Natural Gas Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 19 OF 30  Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 15092 13753 15092 14605 14773 5022 5189 10300 14605 15092 14605 15092 Other Electrical 1099 1002 1099 1064 1099 1064 1099 1099 1064 1099 1064 1099 Refrigeration 8679 7909 8679 8399 8479 2400 2480 5679 8399 8679 8399 8679 Ventilation Fans 6502 5925 6502 6292 6483 5703 5893 6207 6292 6502 6292 6502 DHW 28 25 28 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 27 28 Space Heating 23834 21720 23834 23065 23834 23065 23834 23834 23065 23834 23065 23834 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 230 210 230 223 230 223 230 230 223 230 223 230 Space Heating 7842 6303 5707 3520 1931 624 476 476 1572 3911 6007 7682 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 20 OF 30  Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 609,272 kWh 2,079,446 3.340 6,945,350 Natural Gas 48,761 ccf 4,876,055 1.047 5,105,230 Total 6,955,501 12,050,580 BUILDING AREA 57,314 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 121 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 210 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 21 OF 30  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Parking Lot Light Controls 12 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Add new Motion Sensor & Light Sensor Installation Cost $2,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $401 Breakeven Cost $4,707 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. This EEM is to install new controls. Refer to EEM #13 for the LED light upgrade work. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Gym Lights 24 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $40,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,177 Breakeven Cost $26,483 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 34 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T5 HO system. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 22 OF 30  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 4-bulb T12 116 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 116 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $59,240 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,036 Breakeven Cost $37,767 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 29 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 34-Watt T12 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Parking Lot Lights 12 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 80W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $24,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $816 Breakeven Cost $12,448 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 29 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. The light sensor would assure the parking lot lights are not operated when there is sufficient daylight available. See EEM #10 light controls upgrade. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 U-tube T12 46 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube Energy- Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add New Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $23,340 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $455 Breakeven Cost $10,834 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 51 Auditors Notes: See EEM #12 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 3-bulb T12 73 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 73 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic Add New Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $37,370 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $686 Breakeven Cost $16,767 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 55 Auditors Notes: See EEM #12 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 23 OF 30  Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 3-bulb T8 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add New Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $100,040 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,335 Breakeven Cost $39,084 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 75 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors and controls for daylight harvesting. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 2-bulb T8 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add New Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $138,880 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,128 Breakeven Cost $45,725 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 123 Auditors Notes: See EEM #18 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 22 Recessed Ceiling Lights 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic and Add New Occupancy Sensor & Light Dimmer Controls Installation Cost $1,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $39 Breakeven Cost $461 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 41 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends implementing a reduced operating schedule for the can lights throughout the school. A reduced operating schedule can be accomplished through the use of an occupancy sensor or other modern control systems. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Combined Refrigeration Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $149 Breakeven Cost $1,688 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,687.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes:   This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the building, including the kitchen and break room refrigerators.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 24 OF 30  Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Vending Machine Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $185 Breakeven Cost $3,551 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 11.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes:    There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine.  Rank Recommendation 9 Install premium efficiency motors (10 @ $3,000 each = $30,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $10,000). Installation Cost $40,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $7,967 Breakeven Cost $150,238 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. This can be accomplished through programming with the existing DDC system, this upgrade is expected to cost $10,000 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,880 and a maintenance savings of $5,968. B. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used and the increased efficiency of the new equipment.. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With burner and motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $30,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,870. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 25 OF 30  Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 17 Fix broken exhaust fans on roof (3 @ $2,000). Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (10), $1000 per EF (15)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (8 units @ $3,000 each = $24,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $16,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 35000 CFM = $218,750). Install premium efficiency motors (25 @ $1,000 each = $25,000). Installation Cost $315,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $10,303 Breakeven Cost $127,200 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 31 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $32,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $5,628. This cost includes the cost of fixing broken exhaust fans. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps and the reduced power requirements from VFD’s, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement and VFD installation, the total cost is estimated to be $65,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,023 C. Installation of heat recovery systems to augment the capabilities of the AHUs will greatly reduce the amount of energy wasted in heating outside air brought into the building. A heat recovery system is estimated to cost $218,750 for an annual energy savings of $3,100. D. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 26 OF 30  Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Core Area B Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area B space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,621 Breakeven Cost $20,936 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 20.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Building Space Recommendation 4 Pod 2 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 2 space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $683 Breakeven Cost $8,826 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 5 Pod 4 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 4 space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $541 Breakeven Cost $6,988 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 6 Pod 1 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 1 space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $468 Breakeven Cost $6,044 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 27 OF 30  Building Shell Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 7 Pod 3 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 3 space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $467 Breakeven Cost $6,027 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 8 Core Area A Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area A space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $326 Breakeven Cost $4,211 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 19 Air Tightness estimated as: 1.13 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 2%. Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $386 Breakeven Cost $3,432 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 26 Auditors Notes: This EEM can be realized as a result of work done to accomplish other EEMs. This includes replacing windows, adding new weather stripping, caulking around leaky areas, etc… Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 21 Window/Skylight: SFW Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 1.30 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $17,663 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $323 Breakeven Cost $5,374 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 55 Auditors Notes: Due to age, the existing windows on the building have become leaky with degraded seals and poor air tightness. These windows are good candidates for replacement although the payback is poor for this EEM. New windows will reduce heat loss and infiltration and provide an improved solar heat gain. Replacing windows may not seem as an energy saving solution with excellent payback when compared to other options such as sensors for lights or boiler upgrades. It is important to keep in mind that new windows will help reduce the amount of unwanted air leaking into the building, which can make certain areas feel cold. Additionally, new windows are expected to require less maintenance and add to the value of the building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 28 OF 30  Mechanical Equipment Measures Building Shell Measures: Insulation Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation Relo-1 Relocatable Classroom Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Relocatable Classroom space. Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $726 Breakeven Cost $8,918 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 8   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to monitor and control the relocatable classroom interior temperature which currently is under manual control of the electric heat resistance system. Interface with the building DDC system will allow the automation group to heat the building to 70 deg F during occupied times only. All other unoccupied times, the system can be setback to 60 deg F to save on the electric heat cost. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-2 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt Modeled R-Value: 30.8 Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. Installation Cost $2,803 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $154 Breakeven Cost $3,197 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 18   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the ceiling to an R-50 insulation value. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-3 Exposed Floor: AGF Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: R-19 Batt: FG or RW, 6 inches Modeled R-Value: 25.2 Install R-10 rigid board insulation Installation Cost $2,928 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $155 Breakeven Cost $3,206 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 19   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the floor to an R-30 insulation value. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 29 OF 30  Air Sealing Measures Door Measures Window Measures Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) Relo-4 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.60 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 6%. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $60 Breakeven Cost $527 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 8   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to tighten the building shell to reduce natural infiltration and heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-5 Exterior Door: ED Door Type: Metal - fiberglass or mineral wool Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $2,967 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $150 Breakeven Cost $3,114 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 20   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the door assemblies with modern energy efficient doors to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-6 Window/Skylight: WNSF Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.67 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.26 vinyl window Installation Cost $2,025 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $133 Breakeven Cost $2,054 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 15   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the window assemblies with modern energy efficient windows to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation Relo-7 Interior Lights 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $12,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $35 Breakeven Cost $4,604 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 346   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to upgrade the lighting system and controls to reduce electric use. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐25  PAGE 30 OF 30  Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A   Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone  Steven Golab 348‐5132 State Zip AK   Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 8‐4:30          Average # of  Occupants  During  555           Renovations Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?    Mailing Address Facility Zip 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. 1995 - 11810 SF Addition Total = 57314 SF 3101 W 88th Ave Anchorage 1968 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage 261,500 99517 Email Golab_Steven@asdk12.org 1982 - 8476 SF Classrooms 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  Hours Contact Person City       Details Anchorage REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner MOA Facility Owned By 1970 - 7336 SF Addition 1968 - 29692 SF Original Date 07/26/11Municipal  Chinook Elementary Education ‐ K ‐ 12 57,314 Facility Address Building Type Mixed Community Population Facility City Year Built APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Chinook Elementary Buiding Size Input (sf) =57,314 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)53,371.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)52,958 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)598,810 2009 Electric Cost ($)80,555 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Oil Cost ($)0 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)7,380,839 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)133,513 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 93.1 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)35.7 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)128.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.92 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.41 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.33 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)43,451.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)37,888 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)590,835 2010 Electric Cost ($)65,714 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Oil Cost ($)0 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,361,620 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)103,602 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)75.8 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)35.2 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)111.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.66 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.15 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)1.81 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTChinook 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 NGC202 Jan‐09 01/06/09 02/05/09307,2107,210$7,290$1.01Enstar NGC202 Feb‐09 02/05/09 03/04/09275,9135,913$5,990$1.01Enstar NGC202 Mar‐09 03/04/09 04/06/09335,9565,956$6,034$1.01Enstar NGC202 Apr‐09 04/06/09 05/05/09293,4713,471$3,543$1.02Enstar NGC202 May‐09 05/05/09 06/04/09302,6352,635$2,705$1.03Enstar NGC202 Jun‐09 06/04/09 07/07/09332,3442,344$2,415$1.03Enstar NGC202 Jul‐09 07/07/09 08/05/09291,5791,579$1,648$1.04Enstar NGC202 Aug‐09 08/05/09 09/03/09292,2262,226$2,297$1.03Enstar NGC202 Sep‐09 09/03/09 10/05/09323,3153,315$3,389$1.02Enstar NGC202 Oct‐09 10/05/09 11/03/09294,3324,332$4,409$1.02Enstar NGC202 Nov‐09 11/03/09 12/03/09306,8486,848$6,933$1.01Enstar NGC202 Dec‐09 12/03/09 01/06/10347,5427,542$6,304$0.84Enstar NGC202Jan‐10 01/06/10 02/04/10295,5665,566$4,669$0.84Enstar NGC202 Feb‐10 02/04/10 03/04/10284,6074,607$3,875$0.84Enstar NGC202 Mar‐10 03/04/10 04/06/10334,8974,897$4,156$0.85Enstar NGC202 Apr‐10 04/06/10 05/05/10293,1993,199$2,739$0.86Enstar NGC202/375 May‐10 05/05/10 06/02/10282,2912,291$1,981$0.86Enstar NGC375 Jun‐10 06/02/10 07/02/10301,9701,970$1,713$0.87Enstar NGC375 Jul‐10 07/02/10 08/04/10331,7971,797$1,568$0.87Enstar NGC375 Aug‐10 08/04/10 09/03/10302,8082,808$2,608$0.93Enstar NGC375 Sep‐10 09/03/10 10/06/10332,1442,144$2,076$0.97Enstar NGC375 Oct‐10 10/06/10 11/02/10272,9762,976$2,742$0.92Enstar NGC375 Nov‐10 11/02/10 12/03/10314,5864,586$4,030$0.88Enstar NGC375 Dec‐10 12/03/10 01/05/11336,6106,610$5,731$0.87Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:53,37153,3710$52,958$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:43,45143,4510$37,888$0$1.01$0.88Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chinook Elementary ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTChinook 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 1‐15175316 Jan‐09 12/19/2008 1/19/20093160,9012,079174$9,184$0.15$1,935.80CEA 1‐15175316 Feb‐09 1/20/2009 2/19/20093054,4961,860165$8,135$0.15$1,829.30CEA 1‐15175316 Mar‐09 2/19/2009 3/23/20093254,7771,870151$8,062$0.15$1,678.30CEA 1‐15175316 Apr‐09 3/23/2009 4/23/20093151,5961,761146$7,361$0.14$1,625.00CEA 1‐15175316 May‐09 4/23/2009 5/21/20092844,9421,534144$6,562$0.15$1,598.40CEA 1‐15175316 Jun‐09 5/21/2009 6/19/20092932,8981,123121$4,743$0.14$1,340.90CEA 1‐15175316 Jul‐09 6/19/2009 7/21/20093233,7421,152121$4,401$0.13$1,216.60CEA 1‐15175316 Aug‐09 7/21/2009 8/19/20092941,3061,410139$5,331$0.13$1,340.90CEA 1‐15175316 Sep‐09 8/19/2009 9/18/20093051,3461,752148$6,293$0.12$1,545.10CEA 1‐15175316 Oct‐09 9/18/2009 10/16/20092856,3111,922161$6,744$0.12$1,715.30CEA 1‐15175316 Nov‐09 10/20/2009 11/17/20092857,9641,978169$6,895$0.12$1,863.70CEA 1‐15175316 Dec‐09 11/18/2009 12/16/20092858,5311,998169$6,844$0.12$1,956.40CEA 1‐15175316 Jan‐10 12/17/2009 1/15/20102957,2401,954170$6,295$0.11$1,956.40CEA 1‐15175316 Feb‐10 1/19/2010 2/16/20102852,2881,785170$5,648$0.11$1,965.70CEA 1‐15175316 Mar‐102/19/2010 3/18/20102755,8341,906153$6,046$0.11$1,771.00CEA 1‐15175316 Apr‐10 3/23/2010 4/21/20102952,1491,780146$5,776$0.11$1,696.80CEA 1‐15175316 May‐10 4/22/2010 5/19/20102746,2141,577142$5,479$0.12$1,650.40CEA 1‐15175316 Jun‐10 5/24/2010 6/17/20102434,7721,187129$4,102$0.12$1,492.80CEA 1‐15175316 Jul‐10 6/22/2010 7/19/20102734,5051,178133$3,915$0.11$1,168.30CEA 1‐15175316 Aug‐10 7/23/2010 8/23/20103141,6801,423142$4,790$0.11$1,539.10CEA 1‐15175316 Sep‐10 8/23/20103049,4151,687149$5,413$0.11??CEA 1‐15175316 Oct‐103164,8552,214168$7,095$0.11??CEA 1‐15175316 Nov‐103053,7211,833174$5,845$0.11??CEA 1‐15175316 Dec‐103148,1621,644174$5,310$0.11??598,81020,4371,808$80,555$19,646590,83520,1651,850$65,714$13,241$0.13$0.11Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000$10,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chinook Elementary ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 1  APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/29/2012 2:54 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Chinook Elementary Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 3101 West 88th Avenue Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Anchorage Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Calvin Mundt Client Address: 1301 Labar Street Anchrage, AK 99517 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: ( ) - Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 57,314 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,530,069 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,609,794 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 2,453,954 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 590 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Anchorage Design Outdoor Temperature: -18 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Anchorage Heating Degree Days: 10,816 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Chugach Electric - Commercial - Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas - Commercial - Lg Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.120/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.945/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $77,215 $0 $2,601 $18,387 $1,554 $10,42 3 $0 $0 $9,012 $0 $119,191 With Proposed Retrofits $59,727 $0 $2,071 $10,313 $1,164 $8,432 $0 $0 $4,000 $0 $85,707 SAVING S $17,488 $0 $530 $8,074 $390 $1,991 $0 $0 $5,012 $0 $33,484 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 2  APPENDIX B   $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 3  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $149 $1 1687.75 0 2 Setback Thermostat: Core Area B Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area B space. $1,621 $1,000 20.94 0.6 3 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $185 $300 11.84 1.6 4 Setback Thermostat: Pod 2 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 2 space. $683 $1,000 8.83 1.5 5 Setback Thermostat: Pod 4 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 4 space. $541 $1,000 6.99 1.8 6 Setback Thermostat: Pod 1 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 1 space. $468 $1,000 6.04 2.1 7 Setback Thermostat: Pod 3 Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 3 space. $467 $1,000 6.03 2.1 8 Setback Thermostat: Core Area A Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area A space. $326 $1,000 4.21 3.1 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 4  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 9 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (10 @ $3,000 each = $30,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $10,000). $7,967 $40,000 3.76 5 10 Lighting: Parking Lot Lights Add new Occupancy Sensor $401 $2,400 1.96 6 11 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,177 $40,000 0.66 34 12 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 Replace with 116 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,036 $59,240 0.64 29.1 13 Lighting: Parking Lot Lights Replace with 12 LED 80W Module StdElectronic $816 $24,000 0.52 29.4 14 Lighting: U-tube T12 Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U- Tube Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $455 $23,340 0.46 51.3 15 Lighting: 3-bulb T12 Replace with 73 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Controls retrofit $686 $37,370 0.45 54.5 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 5  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 16 Other Electrical: Relocatable Replace with 3 Energy Efficiency Upgraded Relocatable Classroom $1,991 $87,672 0.42 44 17 Ventilation Fix broken exhaust fans on roof (3 @ $2,000). Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (10), $1000 per EF (15)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (8 units @ $3,000 each = $24,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $16,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 35000 CFM = $218,750). Install premium efficiency motors (25 @ $1,000 each = $25,000). $10,303 $315,750 0.40 30.6 18 Lighting: 3-bulb T8 Replace with 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,335 $100,040 0.39 74.9 19 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 2%. $386 $10,000 0.34 25.9 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 6  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 20 Lighting: 2-bulb T8 Replace with 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,128 $138,880 0.33 123.1 21 Window/Skylight: SFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $323 $17,663 0.30 54.7 22 Lighting: Recessed Ceiling Lights Replace with 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $39 $1,600 0.29 40.7 TOTAL $33,484 $904,256 0.64 27 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 7  APPENDIX B   21 Window/Skylight : SFW Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 1.30 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $17,663 $323 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 19 Air Tightness estimated as: 1.13 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 2%. $10,000 $386 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 9 Install premium efficiency motors (10 @ $3,000 each = $30,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $10,000). $40,000 $7,967 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Core Area B Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area B space. $1,000 $1,621 4 Pod 2 Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 2 space. $1,000 $683 5 Pod 4 Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 4 space. $1,000 $541 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 8  APPENDIX B   6 Pod 1 Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 1 space. $1,000 $468 7 Pod 3 Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Pod 3 space. $1,000 $467 8 Core Area A Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core Area A space. $1,000 $326 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 17 Fix broken exhaust fans on roof (3 @ $2,000). Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (10), $1000 per EF (15)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (8 units @ $3,000 each = $24,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $16,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 35000 CFM = $218,750). Install premium efficiency motors (25 @ $1,000 each = $25,000). $315,750 $10,303 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 10 Parking Lot Lights 12 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,400 $401 11 Gym Lights 24 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $40,000 $1,177 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 9  APPENDIX B   12 4-bulb T12 116 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 116 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $59,240 $2,036 13 Parking Lot Lights 12 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 80W Module StdElectronic $24,000 $816 14 U-tube T12 46 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U- Tube Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $23,340 $455 15 3-bulb T12 73 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 73 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Controls retrofit $37,370 $686 18 3-bulb T8 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 196 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $100,040 $1,335 20 2-bulb T8 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 272 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $138,880 $1,128 22 Recessed Ceiling Lights 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 85 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 13W Twin Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,600 $39 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  ASD Chinook Elementary Page 10  APPENDIX B   1 Combined Refrigeration Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $149 3 Vending Machine Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $300 $185 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 16 Relocatable 3 Relo Classroom with Manual Switching Replace with 3 Energy Efficiency Upgraded Relocatable Classroom $87,672 $1,991 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN 1088 GAS/CAST IRON 2132MBH 85.1% 2 HP 35 20B2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN 1088 GAS/CAST IRON 2132MBH 85.1% 2 HP 35 20B3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN 1088 GAS/CAST IRON 2132MBH 85.1% 2 HP 35 20WH1 BOILER ROOM DHW SUPPLY STATESBF70 360 GAS/SHELL&TUBE 360MBH 80%249HX1 BOILER ROOM GLYCOL HEATING TRANTER GXD042L6KP55 PLATE HEAT EXE 80%2421HWCP1 BOILER ROOM DHW CIRCGRUNDFOSINLINE 5 GPM @ 10' 0.05 HP 100CP1 BOILER ROOM HOT WATER SYSTEMS ARMSTRONG 4030/4x3x10 BASEMOUNTED 400GPM @ 65' 86% 10 HP 157CP2 BOILER ROOM HOT WATER SYSTEMS ARMSTRONG 4030/4x3x11 BASEMOUNTED 400GPM @ 65' 86% 10 HP 157CP3 BOILER ROOM GLYCOL SYSTEMS ARMSTRONG 4030/4x3x12 BASEMOUNTED 175GPM @ 85' 86% 7.5 HP 157CP4 BOILER ROOM GLYCOL SYSTEMS ARMSTRONG 4030/4x3x13 BASEMOUNTED 175GPM @ 85' 86% 7.5 HP 157CP5 BOILER ROOM BOILER CIRC ARMSTRONG 1050/1.5BINLINE 45GPM @ 20' 0.5 HP 157CP6 BOILER ROOM BOILER CIRC ARMSTRONG 1050/1.5BINLINE 45GPM @ 20' 0.5 HP 157CP7 BOILER ROOM BOILER CIRC ARMSTRONG 1050/1.5BINLINE 45GPM @ 20' 0.5 HP 157UV1 1994 POD 2 EXT BUILDING HEATAMERICAN AIR FILTERAV4000 VERTICAL1000CFM @ .9".13 HP 203CUH1 ENTRANCES BUILDING HEATTRANEE46AO02UPBLAST 230 CFM.02 HP 203CUH2 ENTRANCES BUILDING HEATTRANEB12AO02UPBLAST 230 CFM.02 HP 203CUH3 ENTRANCES BUILDING HEATTRANEH46AO02UPBLAST 230 CFM.02 HP 203AHU1 FAN ROOMAIR CIRCSCOTT SPRINGFIELDAHU9000H HORIZONTAL9258CFM @ 1.75"NEMA 7.5 HP 203AHU2 FAN ROOMAIR CIRCSCOTT SPRINGFIELDAHU3000H HORIZONTAL2745CFM @ 1.25"NEMA 1.5 HP 203AHU3 FAN ROOMAIR CIRCSCOTT SPRINGFIELDAHU1000H HORIZONTAL980CFM @ 1"NEMA .5 HP 203CAF1 BOILER ROOM COMBUSTION FAN MCQUAY INT'L LH0108CH HORIZONTAL3890CFM @ 1.25"84% 2 HP 203CAF2 BOILER ROOM COMBUSTION FAN MCQUAY INT'L LH0108CH HORIZONTAL3890CFM @ 1.25"84% 2 HP 203RTU1 ROOFAIR CIRCPACEB14 SICENTRIFUGAL EST 3500CFM 90% 2 HP 250RTU2 ROOFAIR CIRCPACEB14 SICENTRIFUGAL EST 3500CFM 90% 2 HP 250RTU3 ROOFAIR CIRCPACEB14FCENTRIFUGAL EST 3500CFM 90% 2 HP 250RTU4 ROOFAIR CIRCPACEB 16 FC SI CENTRIFUGAL9000CFM @ 1"90% 2.6 HP 250RTU5 ROOFAIR CIRCPACEB12 SICENTRIFUGAL EST 2500CFM 84% 1.5 HP 250PHC1 ROOF HEATED AIR SUPPLY TRANEPENTPAK HEATING COIL85%2517PHC2 ROOF HEATED AIR SUPPLY TRANEPENTPAK HEATING COIL85%2517PHC3 ROOF HEATED AIR SUPPLY TRANEPENTPAK HEATING COIL85%2517PHC4 ROOF HEATED AIR SUPPLY TRANEPENTPAK HEATING COIL85%2517EF1 ROOFEXHAUSTAMMERMAN CO. INC.BRC75PUPBLAST 140CFM @ .25" NEMA .04 HP 200EF2 ROOFEXHAUSTUPBLAST 180CFM @ .25" NEMA .08 HP 200EF3 ROOFEXHAUSTAMMERMAN CO. INC.UPBLAST 3820CFM @ .24" NEMA .5 HP 200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESEF4 ROOF EXHAUSTAMMERMAN CO. INC.BRC 30MUPBLAST 4860CFM @ .24" NEMA .75 HP 200EF5 ROOFEXHAUSTAMMERMAN CO. INC.BRC 30MUPBLAST 4860CFM @ .24" NEMA .75 HP 200EF6 ROOFEXHAUSTPENNZEPHYRETTE UPBLAST 85CFM @ .25" NEMA .10HP 200EF7 ROOFEXHAUSTPENNA10UPBLAST 245CFM @ .38" NEMA .5HP 200EF8 ROOFEXHAUSTAMMERMAN CO. INC.RCM48X98 CENTRIFUGAL 2975CFM @ .38" NEMA .5 HP 250EF9 ROOFEXHAUSTGREENHECK RE218423 B6X CENTRIFUGAL 1200CFM @ .75" NEMA .3 HP 258EF10 ROOFEXHAUSTGREENHECK FHI16X20GBS CENTRIFUGAL 1200CFM @ .75" NEMA2517EF11 ROOFEXHAUSTPENNZ8 TDAUPBLAST 90CFM @ .25" NEMA 185W 203EF12 ROOFEXHAUSTPENNZ8 TDAUPBLAST 90CFM @ .25" NEMA 185W 203TEF1 RESTROOMEXHAUSTPENNZ6 TDAUPBLAST 90CFM @ .25" NEMA 105W 203TEF2 RESTROOMEXHAUSTPENNZ6 TDAUPBLAST 120 CFM @ .25" NEMA 105W 203TEF3 RESTROOMEXHAUSTPENNZ9 TDAUPBLAST 360 CFM @ .25" NEMA 185W 203``MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Windows Typical of School 2. Example of Window Width 3. Doors typical of School 4. School’s Natural Gas Meter CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. School’s Portable Classroom 6. School’s Portable Classroom (2) 7. Example of Portable’s (1) Insulation Width 8. Example of Portable’s (2) Insulation Width CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Exterior Light Fixture Typical of Doorways 10. Pole2Mounted Exterior Light Fixture Typical of School 11. Exterior Light Fixture Typical of School 12. Roof Overview CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Roof Overview (2) 14. Roof Overview (3) 15. Roof Overview (4) Featuring Automatic Fire Vents 16. Close2Up of Automatic Fire Vent CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 17. Boiler Room Overall 18. Close2Up of Boiler 1, Typical of School 19. Boiler Technical Specifications 20. Honeywell Burner Control Box Mounted to Boiler’s Burner CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 21. Close2Up of Boiler 2 Featuring Typical Inline Hot Water/Glycol Circulation Pump 22. Natural Gas2Fired Domestic Hot Water Heater 23. Primary Base2Mounted Circulation Pumps 24. Plate Heat Exchanger CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 25. Hot Water Expansion Tanks 26. Air handling Unit Typical of School 27. Pre2Heating Coil (Left) & Roof Top Air Handling Unit (Right), One (1) of Four (4) Pairs Situated on Roof 28. Roof2Mounted Exhaust Fan Typical of Older Wings of School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 29. Centrifugal Roof2Mounted Exhaust Fan Typical of Newer Wings of School 30. One of Several Broken Roof2Mounted Exhaust Fans 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. DDC System 38. Kitchen Exhaust Hood CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 39. Typical Portable Classroom Light Fixtures Commercial Freezer/Refrigeration Units 40. Domestic Refrigeration Unit Typical of School, 41. Water Standing On Roof CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. Typical School Doorway, Expected Heat Loss Surrounding Door Opening. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. Windows Typical of School, Expected Heat Loss Surrounding Windows. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. Close-Up of Roof Overhang, Heat Loss Exhibited Under Roof Eave CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. North Facing Wall Overall View, Heat Loss Around Windows & Door Expected CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. School’s Slab Foundation, Heat Loss Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. (A) Mechanical Room Air Intake Vent (B) Unusual Heat Loss From Overhang Area. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  7. (A) Exhaust Vents Typical of School, Heat Loss Expected (B) Note Heat Loss Around Speaker A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  8. School’s Portable Classroom Units, Heat Loss Exhibited Around Doors (A) And Under Eaves (B) A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  9. Side View Of Portable, Heat Loss Surrounding Window Expected CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  10. (A) Heat Loss Exhibited Thru Windows. (B) Note Heat loss At The Top Of Building Juncture A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      CHINOOK ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  11. Heat Loss Exhibited Around Operable Windows