The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD MLK Career Center 2012-EEAudit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page i Anchorage, AK RREEPPOORRTT DDIISSCCLLAAIIMMEERR The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page i Anchorage, AK TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS ACRONYMS GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE .................................................................................. 1 1.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING ....................................................... 9 2.1.1 Power Quality .......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Hours of Operation .................................................................................. 9 2.1.3 System Balancing & Duct Cleaning ........................................................10 2.1.4 Outside Air Requirements ......................................................................10 3.0 UTILITY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ........................................................................ 11 3.1 SUMMARY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ................................................................... 11 3.2 ELECTRICITY ....................................................................................................... 12 3.3 NATURAL GAS ..................................................................................................... 14 4.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 15 AAPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS APPENDIX A – REALS BENCHMARKING DATA FORM ....................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B – ECO CALCULATIONS ................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C – MAJOR EQUIPMENT SURVEY .................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D – THERMAL IMAGE REPORT ......................................................................... D-1 APPENDIX E – ASHRAE LEVEL II DESCRIPTION ................................................................ E-1 LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS Table ES.1: Energy Cost Summary 2010 .................................................................................................... 2 Table ES.2: ECO Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2.1: Envelope Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010 ....................................................................................... 11 Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010 .................................................................................................. 11 Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010 ........................................................................................... 11 Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003) ............................................................................................ 12 Table 4.1: ECO Summary .......................................................................................................................... 15 Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page ii Anchorage, AK AACCRROONNYYMMSS GGLLOOSSSSAARRYY Acronym Definition AHU Air Handling Unit ARRA The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASD Anchorage School District ASHRAE American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers BPO Building Plant Operator CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey CCF 100 Cubic Feet DDC Digital Direct Control DHW Domestic Hot Water ECO Energy Conservation Opportunity EIA US Energy Information Administration EMCS Energy Management Control System EPDM Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer ES Elementary School FCA Fuel Cost Adjustment GCA Gas Cost Adjustment GPF Gallons Per Flush GPM Gallons Per Minute HEU High-Efficiency Urinals HID High Intensity Discharge HP Horsepower HPS High Pressure Sodium HS High School HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning HX Heat Exchanger IES Illuminating Engineering Society kWh Kilowatt-hour LED Light Emitting Diode MBH 1,000,000 BTU*Hours OA Outside Air PPA Purchased Power Adjustment REAL Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans RSMeans An Industry Standard Cost Estimation Handbook VAV Variable Air Volume Unit VFD Variable Frequency Drive Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 1 Anchorage, AK EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD PPRREEFFAACCEE This report summarizes the results of an Ameresco Federal Solutions (Ameresco) Energy Audit of the King Career Center (King CC) at 2650 E. Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, Alaska, 99517. The intent of this report is to evaluate energy consumption and costs and to recommend improvements to reduce consumption and costs. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) provided funding for this audit via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with the end goal of improving the economy by reducing state-wide energy consumption and environmental impact. King CC, Anchorage, Alaska Ameresco engineers conducted an energy audit at King CC in several phases during the months of September and October 2011. The engineers were assisted primarily by Bob Holben, Anchorage School District (ASD) Plan Constructability Examiner and Paul Kapinos, Energy Conservation Manager. Mr. Holben is no longer with ASD, but Mr. Holben and Mr. Kapinos provided valuable assistance to the Ameresco team including providing access to mechanical areas, utility data, facility drawings, and contact with other pertinent building personnel. The purpose of the audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, alterations, additions, retrofits, and operations adjustments. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, domestic water, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The 133,669 square foot educational facility including class rooms, offices, shops, garages, and other areas is covered by this energy audit. Table ES.1 summarizes the 2010 utility cost for this facility. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 2 Anchorage, AK Table ES.1: Energy Cost Summary 2010 Energy Type Annual Cost Electricity $ 158,153 Natural Gas $ 96,419 Total $ 254,572 Table ES.2 lists energy conservation opportunities (ECO) with estimated cost and savings figures. ECOs are prioritized first according to recommendation status and then by simple payback number. Recommended ECOs are listed before not recommended ECOs and simple paybacks are listed from low to high. Savings figures are estimated based on information available at the time of the audit and conforming to the level of detail recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Level II Audit standards. For official ASHRAE Level II description, please see Appendix E. Costs are estimated based on industry standard references and Ameresco’s experience with relevant constructed energy conservation projects. Costs include equipment and installation. Table ES.2: ECO Summary ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback 16 Low Flow Faucets $ 12,820 $ 972 0.1 4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 215 $ 438 2.0 9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 6,709 $ 22,794 3.4 3 T5 Lighting Upgrade $ 3,428 $ 12,829 3.7 8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 3,698 $ 20,388 5.5 7 Vending Misers $ 452 $ 3,162 7.0 15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,405 $ 15,662 11.1 2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 1,600 $ 18,191 11.4 1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 6,368 $ 99,190 15.6 5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 968 $ 18,548 19.2 11 Weather-stripping $ 313 $ 6,591 21.0 10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 8,492 $ 185,897 22.0 18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 12,443 $ 280,859 22.6 13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 582 $ 43,015 73.9 Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 3 Anchorage, AK 11..00 MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY Prior to the site survey, the audit team gathered information about the site including utility data for electric and natural gas services. This data was collected in the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) Preliminary Benchmark Data Form attached in Appendix A. Analysis of utility data reveals operational characteristics and usage trends which help identify savings measures. Historical utility data is also useful for establishing a baseline for future savings and benchmarking King CC against similar facilities. The first step of the site survey was a review of drawings onsite to get an overview of building construction and mechanical design. The drawings were then compared to the actual facility during a walkthrough of the facility which included a thorough inspection of mechanical systems, lighting, envelope, domestic water fixtures, and other energy using equipment. Referencing data collected from the drawings and the walkthrough, the audit team determined a series of ECOs feasible for implementation to analysis for cost-effectiveness. These ECOs were evaluated taking into account utility data and rates, local climate conditions, operating schedules, building occupancy, and the condition of building systems and equipment. The audit team employs proven system simulation techniques to model energy upgrades. Energy consumption of new equipment is based on up-to-date data for commercially available systems. Material costs and labor hour data is calculated from RSMeans Cost Data or other industry standards. Recent quotes or costs from other Ameresco projects are used when available. Labor rates are based on Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for the Anchorage area. Where reliable figures are a vailable, primarily on lighting calculations with predictable burnout rates, maintenance saving are included in savings figures. Maintenance savings are not included in controls or mechanical upgrades. Avoided costs of replacement are not included in these calculations. LIMITATIONS OF STUDY All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. Not all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may have been incomplete. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted. Ameresco and CAEC accept no liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios. This report is not intended to be a final design document. Budget for engineering and design of these projects is not included in the cost estimate for each measure. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Ameresco and Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 4 Anchorage, AK 22..00 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN  General: King CC is a vocational education center with classrooms, auto garages, electric and carpentry shops, meeting rooms, and computer labs. Also onsite, apart from the main building, are two double wide trailers used for additional class space and a greenhouse. The building was constructed in 1974 with major renovations as recent as 1991. Total building floor area is 133,669 square feet. Primary operating hours are 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday-Friday. Typical occupancy during primary operating hours is approximately 1,200 students, teachers, and administrators.  Building Envelope: The exterior walls are 4-clay brick over 8” CMU steel stud framing with 1 ½ in of rigid insulation. Exterior doors are either hollow metal type with or without one-fourth inch (¼”) single glazing wire glass. Workshop areas are equipped with insulated sectional doors. The concrete surface inverted roof is mounted over metal decking with 5 to 7 ½ in of rigid insulation. Windows are insulated, double glazing with aluminum frames. Wall and roof insulation values exceed ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design guideline for new facilities. Windows and doors do not meet this standard; however, no upgrades are recommended. The table below summarizes the thermal resistance characteristics of building envelope components. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 5 Anchorage, AK Table 2.1: Envelope Summary Envelope Estimated R–Value Exterior Walls 20.9 Roof 25.0-32.0 Exterior Doors 1.1 Exterior Windows 1.7  Air Distribution: The ground floor on King CC is served by a primary-secondary fan system. A single large constant volume (CV) air handling unit (AHU) brings in all outside air (OA) for the first floor. Then, secondary fans located in a supply air tunnel pull air from the tunnel and blow through zone heating coils to serve air to the occupied spaces. Secondary return fans in a parallel tunnel collect return air (RA) from the spaces and direct it back to the large AHU where the primary return fan forces air through a set of relief and return dampers. The upper floor and auditorium addition have a more conventional design with CV AHUs with hot water (HW) reheat coils serving a few rooms each. Shop areas have 100% OA makeup air units (MAUs) to provide the necessary ventilation air.  Ventilation and Exhaust: For the ground floor supply and return tunnel system, all OA intake and exhaust relief air is provided by the large central AHU in room 211. Auditorium and upper floor AHUs mix return air with OA intakes at each unit to provide ventilation air. Relief is provided by rooftop exhaust fans (EFs) mounted throughout the served space. Shop areas are ventilated by 100% OA units and large general EFs as well as targeted ducted exhaust for work benches.  Heating: HW for heating is provided by two 5773 MBH input Burnham boilers with Power- Flame burners. The boiler set operates as lead-lag and one boiler can carry the building on most days. HW is served to a heat exchanger (HX) inside the boiler room where energy from the boiler is transferred to the glycol loop that serves HW coils throughout the building. All pumping is constant volume and the glycol loop is equipped with one lead and one stand-by pump. Primary loops have three pumps: a main loop pump, a booster pump for boiler circulation, and a warm-up pump to avoid boiler shock from cold starting. Shop area MAUs are equipped with two natural gas fired heating coils each in addition to glycol unit heaters served by the boiler. The auditorium addition has an independent heating system with two redundant residential style Weil-McLain boilers. A pair of lead-standby circulation pumps serve AHU and perimeter radiators in this area.  Cooling: Outdoor air is used for cooling in all areas. Several server and telecom areas have supplemental split units for additional cooling. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 6 Anchorage, AK  Controls: A Honeywell pneumatic control system was originally installed and all of the pneumatic actuators are still in place on AHU dampers and valves. The actuators have been integrated with a Siemens Apogee system, which is the standard control system throughout the district. Both the electronic and pneumatic portions of the system are in fair to good shape. Pneumatic actuators on AHU seem to have been maintained. The pneumatic portion of the system is aging, but there were no audible leaks and pneumatic air compressor cycle times were within a normal range.  Lighting: Interior lighting consists mainly of T8 and T12 fluorescents with a few incandescent fixtures. Most of the corridors and large classroom areas are controlled by occupancy sensors but workshops including the automobile shop, welding, and painting areas are on manual switching. The corridor light levels are adjusted by daylight harvesting photocells. Corridor lighting override switches located inside janitor closets were in HAND status during the audit. Under- shelf T12 task lighting is present in several offices. Exit signs are LED. Parking lot pole lights are 400W HPS. Wall mounted exterior fixtures have been upgrade it to 40W LED. Other exterior fixtures are 100W-250W MV. Green house lighting is a combination of T12, MH and HPS fixtures. The T12 lamps are controlled by manual switching while the twenty-nine 1000W HPS lamps are controlled by mechanical timers. Four relocatable classrooms employ T12 interior lighting and 100W HPS for exterior fixtures. All exterior lights are controlled by photo cells and the DDC. These lights shut off once when the alarm system is activated and return to photo cell once the system is disarmed.  Process Loads and Miscellaneous Equipment: Wood, metal working, and other technical equipment contribute to building electric loads. Also, there is an air compressor for tool air. A full service educational kitchen also contributes to energy consumption and heat load.  Domestic Water: Domestic hot water is used in restrooms, staff break rooms, the photography and science labs, as well as classrooms, the daycare center, and the kitchen. Hot water is provided by two water heaters, an A.O. Smith 140 G and a Solid State 75 Gallon water heater. A circulation pump maintains hot water temperature on each loop. Flow rates for plumbing fixtures were 1.6 and 3.6 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets; 1.0 gpf urinals; 0.5, 2.0 and 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm) lavatory sinks; and 2.0 and 2.2 gpm kitchenette sinks. Additional heating for kitchen DHW is provided by Amtrol Boilermate indirect heaters. Pictures of general equipment and building conditions follow this section. A list of major mechanical equipment is available in Appendix C. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 7 Anchorage, AK Thermal imaging of the building envelope can provide information about its condition. The building exterior was scanned using a handheld thermal imager during the site walkthrough. Pictures provided are meant to provide a sample representative of windows, doors, and roofing at the location to give general feedback about conductive and convective heat loss. Pictures are not meant to be used to find specific problem areas and therefore exact locations are not discussed. Images captured during the scan are shown in Appendix D. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 8 Anchorage, AK Equipment Photos Supply Air Tunnel – Reheat Coils and Capped Duct Return Air Tunnel – Return Fan Room 119 - Burnham Boiler Room 119- DDC Panel Roof – Surface and AHU Intake/Exhaust Shop – Makeup Air Unit Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 9 Anchorage, AK 22..11 EENNEERRGGYY MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD PPLLAANNNNIINNGG 22..11..11 BBuuiillddiinngg EElleeccttrriiccaall SSyysstteemm DDiissttuurrbbaanncceess During the audit, Ameresco learned the King CC had a previous project where lighting upgrades and controls were installed, but this facility has experienced problems with poor performance of ballasts and occupancy sensors. Paul Kapinos from ASD requested Ameresco’s assistance with determining the cause of this problems and recommendations for future actions. Ameresco electrical engineer Jim Jameson spoke with Mr. Kapinos regarding this issue and the troubleshooting he has done to date to solve the problem. Lighting and control work was done at several schools under the same contract so Mr. Kapinos had eliminated material and workmanship as causes. Mr. Kapinos did testing and monitoring of the building and utility power but nothing has surfaced as the source of the problem. He did send some of the failed power packs to Watt Stopper and they all had a blown resistor that appeared to have been caused by a short or ground fault and the report recommended testing the neutral wire. The building was built in the early 70s so it is rather old and may have some wiring issues. Mr. Kapinos also mentioned there are a lot of welders and old printing press equipment that might be a possible source for power spikes as they may have grounding systems that are not up to current standards. Based on the information above, Ameresco recommends a power monitor study with harmonics analysis be performed at various building electrical panels to include the panel powering the welding and printing press equipment. The presence of excess harmonics or voltage spikes may be the cause of voltage spikes or surges causing the occupancy sensors to fail. If this is determined to be the cause of the problems, surge protection and/or harmonic filters may be installed to mitigate these problems. Products from Environmental Potential (website http://ep2000.com/ ) or ACT Communications (website http://act- communications.com/ ) may help solve the problems. The building grounding system should also be studied to make sure the wiring meets the current electrical codes and is not causing power disturbances within the facility. 22..11..22 HHoouurrss ooff OOppeerraattiioonn Areas of the building are leased for various activities before and after primary operating hours, year round. In years 2009 and 2010, these activities, known as ‘Rentals’, began as early as 6:45am and closed as late as 9pm Monday through Friday. This accounted for a substantial number of hours per week of extra occupancy. It is our understanding that the renters of these areas do not pay directly for their energy use. It could be advantageous for ASD to reevaluate Rentals prices to ensure ASD utility costs are covered. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 10 Anchorage, AK 22..11..33 SSyysstteemm BBaallaanncciinngg && DDuucctt CClleeaanniinngg System air balance and the condition of ductwork were not inspected by Ameresco. Air balancing can greatly improve occupant comfort, and as part of a re-commissioning project has been consistently shown to save 5% to 20% of HVAC energy consumption. A preliminary air-balance assessment would be able to determine if King CC is a good candidate for re-commissioning. 22..11..44 OOuuttssiiddee AAiirr RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss Air change over requirements can be verified by referring to building equipment design drawings. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 11 Anchorage, AK 33..00 UUTTIILLIITTYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA 33..11 SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA King CC utilizes electricity and natural gas services. Electricity is provided by the Anchorage Municipal Light & Power. Natural gas is supplied by ENSTAR Natural Gas. Natural gas is used primarily in boilers for hydronic space heating and indirect domestic hot water (DHW) heating via heat exchangers with the boiler system. The tables below summarize the annual utility consumption of the site. Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010 Energy Type Total Annual Use Units Conversion kBtu Annual Cost Electricity 1,547,647 kWh 3.413 kBtu/kWh 5,282,119 $ 158,153 Natural Gas 121,580.76 Therm 100 kBtu/Therm 12,158,076 $ 96,419 17,440,195 $ 254,572 Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010 Index Value Units Energy Utilization Index 130.5 kBtu/sq ft Energy Cost Index 1.90 $/sq ft Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010 Index Month kW W/sq ft Maximum Demand Dec 391 2.925 Minimum Demand June 289 2.162 Benchmarking the site’s energy consumption per square foot to facilities in the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database gives an estimate of the site’s energy efficiency. Benchmarking comparisons are shown in Table 3.4 on the following page. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 12 Anchorage, AK Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003) Category Total kBtu/sq ft Elec kBtu/sq ft Nat Gas kBtu//sq ft MLK Career Center 130.5 39.5 91.0 100,001 to 200,000 sq ft 103.0 53.6 37.4 Education 83.1 37.6 38.0 Construction Year 1970-79 95.0 54.3 45.8 CBECS Climate Zone 1 93.2 39.3 56.3 Zone 1 - 100,001 to 200,000 sq ft 89.4 42.3 37.3 Zone 1 - Education 91.6 28.0 54.6 Zone 1 - Construction Year 1970-79 109.8 50.5 56.4 King CC has an energy consumption rate that is substantially higher than surveyed educational facilities as well as other buildings in CBECS climate Zone 1. Natural gas consumption is higher than all averages. However, King CC has various wood and metalworking shops with high ventilation requirements. The extra ventilation requires increased heating consumption during colder months. Electric usage is in line with other educational facilities, but is somewhat higher than the average Zone 1 education building. The shops mentioned above also have higher than typical electrical equipment loads which contribute this discrepancy. 33..22 EELLEECCTTRRIICCIITTYY King CC’s blended electricity average FY10 rate was $0.10/kWh. For FY09 the rate was $0.11/kWh. The kWh consumption rate fluctuates depending on a Cost of Power Adjustment (CPA) based on the actual costs of fuel and power purchased from other electrical generation companies. CPA varies quarterly. The energy rate schedule is calculated as follows as of 10/1/2011: Customer Charge: $44.15 per meter per month Demand Charge: $12.66/kW Energy Charge: $0.036040/kWh Cost of Power Adjustment: $0.01927/kWh Regulatory Cost Charge: $0.000492/kWh Under-grounding Charge: 2% of bill less state and local taxes Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 13 Anchorage, AK King CC FY09 and FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below. King CC - Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Date (Mon - Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Electric Cost ($)2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)2009 Electric Cost ($)2010 Electric Cost ($) Electric usage shows a weak correlation with the typical school year. The connection is likely weak due to the unique trimester class schedule which keeps King CC occupied year round. High CPA rates in the last quarter of 2009 and low CPA rates in the first quarter of 2010 caused cost to track poorly with consumption in those quarters. The low value for cost in January 2010 is likely an error in the data provided or a billing irregularity. Original bills were not available for this audit. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 14 Anchorage, AK 33..33 NNAATTUURRAALL GGAASS King CC’s average FY10 natural gas cost was $0.8532/Therm. The average FY09 fuel oil cost was $1.0031/Therm. The total rate fluctuates depending on the Gas Cost Adjustment (GCA) based on the actual costs of fuel purchased. King CC FY09 and FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below. The natural gas rate schedule is calculated as follows: Customer Charge: $109.00 per account per month Base Rate: $0.1087/CCF Gas Cost Adjustment: $0.57409/CCF (Varies) King CC - Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Date (Mon - Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Natural Gas Cost ($)2009 Natural Gas Consumption (kWh)2010 Natural Gas Consumption (kWh)2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) Natural gas usage for both 2009 and 2010 follows a typical seasonal pattern. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 15 Anchorage, AK 44..00 EENNEERRGGYY CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTIIEESS Table 4.1 summarizes the ECOs identified during the energy audit and evaluated for implementation. Potential ECOs for this report were identified based on observations made during the energy audit, a review of historical energy consumption data, building drawings, and input from maintenance personnel. These opportunities were evaluated for detailed savings, cost estimate, and life-cycle costs. Product selections in each ECO indicate suitable and available products for King CC. These products may or may not be selected for actual implementation. The intent is to provide reasonable cost and performance data to be used to evaluate ECO feasibility. A balance of cost and performance is considered when selecting products. Alternative product selection options are not likely to substantially improve simple payback numbers. A description of each energy conservation opportunity is provided in this section. A description of each energy conservation opportunity is also provided in this section. Table 4.1 presents total costs and annual savings for ECO in the order they were calculated. Sequential calculation avoids savings overlaps. For example, for this school savings from ECO 11 were calculated using the efficiency of the new boilers from ECO 10. ECO 18 takes into account savings from ECOs 1-9 but not ECOs 10-16. Table 4.1: ECO Summary ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback 1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 6,368 $ 99,190 15.6 2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 1,600 $ 18,191 11.4 3 T5 Lighting Upgrade $ 3,428 $ 12,829 3.7 4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 215 $ 438 2.0 5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 968 $ 18,548 19.2 7 Vending Misers $ 452 $ 3,162 7.0 8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 3,698 $ 20,388 5.5 9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 6,709 $ 22,794 3.4 10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 8,492 $ 185,897 22.0 11 Weather-stripping $ 313 $ 6,591 21.0 13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 582 $ 43,015 73.9 15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,405 $ 15,662 11.1 16 Low Flow Faucets $ 12,820 $ 972 0.1 18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 12,443 $ 280,859 22.6 Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 16 Anchorage, AK ECO 1 – Exterior Lighting Upgrade  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing exterior HPS lighting fixtures with high efficiency LED fixtures via a retrofit kit for existing poles. LEDs have a higher efficacy than HPS and are commercially available to replace outdoor building and roadway lights. These fixtures have similar output, longer service life, and better lumen maintenance.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 15.6 years. The simple payback period is slightly longer than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. However, most of the lighting fixtures analyzed in this calculation had a life span of greater than 20 years in this application, and thus would pay back within their lifetime. Maintenance savings due to longer life of recommended lamps are included in this calculation. ECO 2 –T8 Lighting Upgrade  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing T12 lighting fixtures with high efficiency T8 fixtures. T12 fixtures using magnetic ballasts are highly energy inefficient. Also, T12 lamps are no longer in production and will be unavailable when warehouse reserves run out. Post-light levels are generally nearly equal to that of the existing lighting systems and at a minimum will meet IES guidelines for spaces renovated.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 11.4 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. Maintenance savings due to longer life of recommended lamps are included in this calculation. ECO 3 – T5 Lighting Upgrade  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems in the medium and high bay areas such as gyms, auditoriums, workshops, etc. with T5 fluorescent fixtures. HID lighting is often used in areas with high ceilings or roof structures. The fixtures generate high luminous flux, are reasonably energy efficient, and are long lasting. Such systems often remain illuminated continuously since the re-strike times make periodic switching in irregularly occupied spaces a nuisance. Continuous operation of HID fixtures reduces the overall energy efficiency of lighting systems designed around their use. Newer high output fluorescent sources characterized by quick warm-up with instant light output and improved efficiency are now being used in place of many medium wattage HID fixtures in low- and high-bay applications. Post-light levels will be nearly equal to that of the existing lighting systems.  Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 3.7 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. Maintenance savings due to longer life of recommended lamps are included in this calculation. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 17 Anchorage, AK ECO 4 – CFL Lighting Upgrade  Summary: This ECO proposes retrofitting the existing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps. Incandescent light bulbs installed in recessed fixtures, track lighting, utility closets, and other general areas. Over 75% of the energy used by an incandescent light bulb is converted into heat and is lost. Compact fluorescent lamps are much more efficient and can easily replace incandescent bulbs. Post-light levels will be nearly equal to that of the existing lighting systems or to IES standards for the present space usage, whichever is lower.  Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 2.0 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. Maintenance savings due to longer life of recommended lamps are included in this calculation. ECO 5 – Install Occupancy Sensors  Summary: This ECO proposes installing sensors to shut off lighting in unoccupied spaces. Lighting systems are often left energized in unoccupied areas. Common sensing technologies include infrared, ultrasonic, and audible sound often combining multiple types of sensing in one unit to avoid shutting off lights in an occupied area. Potential areas for occupancy control in this facility include classrooms, offices, corridors, break areas, and utility closets.  Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 19.2 years. The simple payback period is more than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. However, this ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 2. If ECO 2 is not implemented, ECO 5 savings will increase. ECO 7 – Vending Miser Controls  Summary: This ECO proposes installing vending controls on vending machines throughout the base. These machines operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week regardless of building occupancy. The heat generated by the refrigeration process is dumped into interior building space and contributes to the building cooling load. Lighting in the machines contributes to building energy consumption. VendingMiser® manufactures a control device that will power down the machine until occupancy is detected. The miser’s intelligent controller is designed to record occupancy patterns and modify the machine’s time-out period accordingly. Most importantly, the miser monitors the ambient temperature while the machine is powered down and automatically powers up the machine at appropriate intervals, independent of occupancy, to ensure that the beverage products stay cold.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 7.0 years. The energy cost savings justify the investment costs. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 18 Anchorage, AK ECO 8 – Premium Efficiency Motors  Summary: This ECO proposes installing National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) premium efficiency motors to replace standard and high efficiency motors. This replacement would cover all fan and pump motors 2HP and higher as well as a select few with less than 2 HP. Premium efficiency motors typically increase energy efficiency by 2 to 3%.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 5.5 years. The simple payback period is less than the 20-year median expected life of the new motors. Maintenance savings were not included in this calculation. ECO 9 – Variable Secondary Pumping  Summary: This ECO proposes modifying the existing pumping configuration to a variable secondary configuration. Existing hydronic systems use constant volume secondary loops with three-way control valves on terminal devices. By eliminating the three-way control valves at the terminal devices and installing VFDs on secondary loop pumps to modulate pump speed, a significant quantity of pumping energy can be saved. This ECO assumes pump motors have been upgraded to premium efficiency inverter duty motors.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 3.4 years. The simple payback period is less than the 10-year median expected life of the VFDs. The energy cost savings justify the initial investment cost. ECO 10 – Install Higher Efficiency Boilers  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with higher energy efficiency units. The existing boilers are approaching the end their useful service life. Boilers employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average combustion efficiency of 82.7% whereas current generation high efficiency boilers reach 88% efficiency.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 22.0 years. The simple payback period is less than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Total annual savings amount to $8,492. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 19 Anchorage, AK ECO 11 – Weather Stripping  Summary: This ECO proposes applying weather stripping to exterior door perimeters to reduce air infiltration into the buildings. Reducing infiltration improves building performance by reducing envelope heat loss. Many building doors have existing weather stripping material which is worn or missing. Replacing this weather stripping will have significant impact.  Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 21.0 years. The simple payback period is more than the 15-year expected lifespan of the analyzed weather- stripping. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 10. If ECO 10 is not implemented, ECO 11 savings will increase. ECO 13 – Install Higher Efficiency Domestic Water Heaters  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing domestic water heating units with higher efficiency domestic hot water heaters. The current water heaters operating have a nominal efficiency of 80% whereas current generation high efficiency water heaters reach up to 97% efficiency.  Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 73.9 years. The simple payback period is more than the typical 20-year median expected life of the new hot water heaters. Avoided costs of replacement are included in this calculation. ECO 15 – Install High Efficiency Urinals  Summary: This ECO proposes installing high-efficiency urinals (HEUs) to replace standard water urinals. Energy savings are realized by reducing water consumption and wastewater treatment costs. The Caroma HEU utilizes only 0.13 gpf and is equipped with an automatic flush sensor. Waterless urinals have the disadvantage of urinal cartridge maintenance which the HEU does not.  Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 11.1 years. The simple payback period is longer than the typical 5-year length of study period for domestic plumbing upgrades. ECO 16 – Low Flow Faucets  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing conventional kitchen and lavatory faucets with low-flow units to reduce water and fuel consumption. Existing units operate at 1.0-2.2 gpm or more. New kitchen faucets will be 1.5 gpm and lavatory faucets will be 0.5 gpm. New faucets will also have internal ceramic components, ensuring longer service life and requiring less maintenance.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback of 0.1 years. The simple payback period is much less than the typical 5-year length of study period for domestic plumbing upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 13. If ECO 13 is not implemented, ECO 16 savings will increase. Audit Report Level II Energy Audit Ameresco Federal Solutions King CC Page 20 Anchorage, AK ECO 18 – Install AERCO Boilers  Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with AERCO units. The existing boilers are approaching the end of their useful service life. AERCO boilers employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average combustion efficiency of 82.6% whereas AERCO high efficiency boilers can be expected to obtain an annual average of approximately reach 93% efficiency in this application.  Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 22.6 years. The simple payback period is less than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Avoided costs of replacement are included in this calculation. Annual total cost savings for this ECO are $12,429. APPENDIX A REALS Benchmarking Data Form First Name Last NameMiddle NamePhone Steven Golab348‐5132State ZipAK Monday‐FridaySaturday Sunday Holidays08:00‐5:00 Average # of Occupants During 1000 RenovationsDatePART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / tonOther energy sources? Total = 133669 SF1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source.2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. 1991 - 10514 SF Meeting Rooms1974 - 123155 SF Original Structure2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage99517EmailGolab_Steven@asdk12.orgDetailsREAL Preliminary Benchmark Data FormPART I – FACILITY INFORMATIONFacility OwnerMOABuilding Name/ Identifier Building UsageBuilding Square FootageFacility AddressBuilding TypeMixedFacility Zip261,500MLK Career CenterOther133,669Primary Operating HoursContact PersonCityAnchorage Mailing AddressFacility Owned ByDate07/23/11Municipal Government/SubdivisionCommunity PopulationFacility CityYear Built1974 MLK Career CenterBuiding Size Input (sf) =133,6692009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)127,421.1412,742,1142009 Natural Gas Cost ($)131,2462009 Electric Consumption (kWh)1,745,2025,956,3742009 Electric Cost ($)192,7402009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Oil Cost ($)02009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Propane Cost ($)0.002009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Coal Cost ($)0.002009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Wood Cost ($)0.002009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Thermal Cost ($)0.002009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Steam Cost ($)0.002009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)18,698,4882009 Total Energy Cost ($)323,986Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 95.32009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)44.62009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)139.9Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.982009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.442009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.42 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)121,580.7612,158,0762010 Natural Gas Cost ($)96,4192010 Electric Consumption (kWh)1,547,6475,282,1192010 Electric Cost ($)158,1532010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Oil Cost ($)02010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Propane Cost ($)02010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Coal Cost ($)02010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Wood Cost ($)02010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Thermal Cost ($)02010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Steam Cost ($)02010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)17,440,1952010 Total Energy Cost ($)254,572Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)91.02010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)39.52010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)130.5Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.722010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.182010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.0020010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)1.90Note:1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's MLK Career CenterNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($)Enstar NGC Combined Jan‐09 01/13/09 02/12/093021,76117,895$21,938Enstar NGC Combined Feb‐09 02/12/09 03/13/092914,55413,406$14,709Enstar NGC Combined Mar‐09 03/13/09 04/15/093313,55813,840$13,716Enstar NGC Combined Apr‐09 04/15/09 05/13/092810,5617,971$10,712Enstar NGC Combined May‐09 05/13/09 06/15/09337,9827,850$8,130Enstar NGC Combined Jun‐09 06/15/09 07/15/09305,7124,288$5,849Enstar NGC Combined Jul‐09 07/15/09 08/17/09333,9883,804$4,127Enstar NGC Combined Aug‐09 08/17/09 09/14/09284,2364,553$4,355Enstar NGC Combined Sep‐09 09/14/09 10/13/09296,4377,541$6,550Enstar NGC Combined Oct‐09 10/13/09 11/12/093010,37911,663$10,527Enstar NGC Combined Nov‐09 11/12/09 12/10/092815,09116,217$15,278Enstar NGC Combined Dec‐09 12/10/09 01/13/103417,15218,393$15,355Enstar NGC Combined Jan‐10 01/13/10 02/11/102915,99214,435$13,375Enstar NGC Combined Feb‐10 02/11/10 03/12/102912,26511,583$10,265Enstar NGC Combined Mar‐10 03/12/10 04/15/103411,32811,694$9,530Enstar NGC Combined Apr‐10 04/15/10 05/12/10278,8546,651$4,638Enstar NGCCombined May‐10 05/12/10 06/11/10306,9176,255$3,585Enstar NGC Combined Jun‐10 06/11/10 07/13/10325,2114,914$4,429Enstar NGC Combined Jul‐10 07/13/10 08/13/10314,6724,608$4,113Enstar NGC Combined Aug‐10 08/13/10 09/14/10324,5834,712$4,128Enstar NGC Combined Sep‐10 09/14/10 10/14/10306,2317,818$5,442Enstar NGC Combined Oct‐10 10/14/10 11/10/10279,9229,964$8,455Enstar NGC Combined Nov‐10 11/10/10 12/10/103014,92016,844$12,426Enstar NGC Combined Dec‐10 12/10/10 01/13/113419,26622,103$16,033Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:131,411127,4210$131,246Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:120,161121,5810$96,419Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: MLK Career Center ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($) MLK Career CenterElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($)ML&P 21477698 Jan‐09 12/23/2008 1/23/200931168,2215,741441$14,910ML&P 21477698 Feb‐09 1/23/2009 2/25/200933162,3175,540441$14,225ML&P 21477698 Mar‐09 2/25/2009 3/25/200928188,9376,448435$18,232ML&P 21477698 Apr‐09 3/25/2009 4/23/200929214,3697,316426$22,435ML&P 21477698 May‐09 4/23/2009 5/26/20093397,3453,322426$10,108ML&P 21477698 Jun‐09 5/26/2009 6/23/200928130,5504,456310$14,223ML&P 21477698 Jul‐09 6/23/2009 7/24/200931113,6133,878323$12,928ML&P 21477698 Aug‐09 7/24/2009 8/25/200932117,0623,995355$13,150ML&P 21477698 Sep‐09 8/25/2009 9/24/200930129,4264,417374$14,298ML&P 21477698 Oct‐09 9/24/2009 10/23/200929141,9404,844379$15,651ML&P 21477698 Nov‐09 10/23/2009 11/24/200932143,6794,904389$19,060ML&P 21477698 Dec‐09 11/24/2009 12/22/200928137,7434,701389$23,520ML&P 21477698 Jan‐10 12/22/2009 1/22/201031131,0034,471358$446ML&P 21477698 Feb‐10 1/22/2010 2/22/201031127,7264,359361$9,977ML&P 21477698 Mar‐10 2/22/2010 3/25/201031139,8294,772361$14,540ML&P 21477698 Apr‐10 3/25/2010 4/23/201029133,2724,549360$15,985ML&P 21477698 May‐10 4/23/2010 5/25/201032122,5664,183355$14,758ML&P 21477698 Jun‐10 5/25/2010 6/25/201031109,4023,734289$13,141ML&P 21477698 Jul‐10 6/25/2010 7/28/201033113,5373,875296$12,447ML&P 21477698 Aug‐10 7/28/2010 8/24/201027114,7523,916372$13,382ML&P 21477698 Sep‐10 8/24/2010 9/23/201030127,1554,340372$14,458ML&P 65378623 Oct‐10 9/23/2010 10/25/201032137,2764,685380$15,494ML&P 65378623 Nov‐10 10/25/2010 11/23/201029142,9304,878384$16,392ML&P 65378623 Dec‐10 11/23/2010 12/22/201029148,1995,058391$17,133Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:1,745,20259,5644,688$192,740Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:1,547,64752,8214,279$158,153Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: MLK Career Center ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($) APPENDIX B ECO Calculations Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E01.King Career CenterECO Description:Exterior Lighting (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $188 2,384$ 66,373 3,704$ - -$ - - 227 6,088$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material280$ -$ -$ 6,368$ 10,252$ 77,918$ 11,021$ 99,190$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost14 EA - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ 280$ 280$ 280$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost280$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost3 EA 0.3 1.0 Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsNet Material CostAnnual CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MMaterial Cost for PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostExterior LightingBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 1Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E01.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate7 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 416$ 815$ 5,705$ 6,121$ 65 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 3,859$ 498$ 32,370$ 36,229$ 12 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 712$ 1,925$ 23,100$ 23,812$ 84 EA0.2 Electrician74$ 1,247$ -$ -$ 1,247$ 84 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 1,870$ 5$ 420$ 2,290$ Total Cost8,104$ 61,595$ 69,699$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:88,169$ Subtotal:69,699$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 5,731$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):18,470$ Design Cost (6%):5,290$ Subtotal:88,169$ Total Installed Cost:99,190$ Install 221 Watt LED systemFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalU/MUnit Labor-HrsDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 69 Watt LED systemInstall 106.3 Watt LED systemTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostMisc WiringDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalExterior LightingBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 2Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E01.King Career Center3. Replace 7 - 100W HPS system with 7 - 69 Watt LED system.4. Replace 65 - 250W MV system with 65 - 106.3 Watt LED system.5. Replace 12 - 400W HPS system with 12 - 221 Watt LED system.Annual Demand (kW) = 309 Annual Demand (kW) = 121 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 188 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 108,861 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 42,487 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 66,373 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =3,910$ Demand Cost =1,526$ Demand Cost Savings =2,384$ Electrical Consumption Cost =6,075$ Electrical Consumption Cost =2,371$ Electrical Cost Savings =3,704$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =6,088$ 1. Lighting listed for replacement is HID technology.2. New lighting will be LED technology.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Exterior LightingBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 3Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E02.King Career CenterECO Description:T8 Lighting Upgrade (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $84 1,067$ 8,056 450$ - -$ - - 27 1,517$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material513$ 430$ -$ 1,600$ 11,359$ 4,810$ 2,021$ 18,191$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost21 EA 0.3 6.2 Electrician74$ 459$ -$ -$ 459$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 54$ 54$ 54$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost513$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost17 EA 0.3 5.2 Electrician74$ 383$ -$ -$ 383$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 47$ 47$ 47$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost430$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMT8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 4Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E02.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate59 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 4,379$ 32$ 1,859$ 6,238$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 29$ -$ -$ 62 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 4,601$ 22$ 1,339$ 5,940$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 19$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 35$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 24$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 31$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 Electrician74$ -$ 24$ -$ -$ 121 EA0.1 Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 121 EA0.1 Other-$ -$ 5$ 605$ 605$ Total Cost8,980$ 3,803$ 12,782$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:16,170$ Subtotal:12,782$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 1,051$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):3,387$ Design Cost (6%):970$ Subtotal:16,170$ Total Installed Cost:18,191$ DescriptionUnit QtyTotal Labor CostMaterial CostFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalMisc WiringInstall 8ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 8ft 1 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 1 lamp T-8 systemTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 4ft 4 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 3 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 1 lamp T-8 systemU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalT8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 5Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E02.King Career Center3. Replace 59 - 4ft 4 lamp T-12 system with 59 - 4ft 4 lamp T-8 system.4. Replace 0 - 4ft 3 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 4ft 3 lamp T-8 system.5. Replace 62 - 4ft 2 lamp T-12 system with 62 - 4ft 2 lamp T-8 system.6. Replace 0 - 4ft 1 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 4ft 1 lamp T-8 system.7. Replace 0 - 8ft 2 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 8ft 2 lamp T-8 system.8. Replace 0 - 8ft 1 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 8ft 1 lamp T-8 system.9. Replace 0 - 2ft 2 lamp T-12 U system with 0 - 2ft 2 lamp T-8 system.10. Replace 0 - 2ft 1 lamp T-12 U system with 0 - 2ft 1 lamp T-8 system.Annual Demand (kW) = 212 Annual Demand (kW) = 127 Annual Demand (kW) = 84 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 20,226 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 12,170 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 8,056 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =2,680$ Demand Cost =1,612$ Demand Cost Savings =1,067$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,129$ Electrical Consumption Cost =679$ Electrical Cost Savings =450$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =1,517$ 2. New lighting will be T8 technology with electronic ballast.24. Fixtures average hours per year.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is T12 technology with magnetic ballast.c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:25. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.26. Electrical demand costs $12.66/kW.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months)/ (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)T8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 6Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E03.King Career CenterECO Description:T5 Lighting Uprgrade (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $187 2,361$ 25,461 1,421$ - -$ - - 87 3,782$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material122$ 476$ -$ 3,428$ 5,717$ 5,686$ 1,425$ 12,829$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost2 EA 0.3 0.7 Electrician74$ 53$ -$ -$ 53$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 69$ 69$ 69$ Total Cost122$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost21 EA 0.3 6.4 Electrician74$ 476$ -$ -$ 476$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost476$ Material Cost for PMAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsAnnual CostAnnual O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsT5 Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 7Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E03.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate29 EA 1.5 Electrician 74$ 3,228$ 150$ 4,350$ 7,578$ - EA0.8 Electrician74$ -$ 169$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 Electrician74$ -$ 130$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 Electrician74$ -$ 150$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 Electrician74$ -$ 169$ -$ -$ 29 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 646$ -$ -$ 646$ 29 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 646$ 5$ 145$ 791$ Total Cost4,520$ 4,495$ 9,015$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:11,403$ Subtotal:9,015$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):741$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):2,389$ Design Cost (6%):684$ Subtotal:11,403$ Total Installed Cost:12,829$ TotalInspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportInstall 4ft 6 lamp T-5 systemFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalMisc WiringDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Install 4ft 2 lamp T-5 systemInstall 4ft 4 lamp T-5 systemU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 4ft 9 lamp T-5 systemInstall 4ft 6 lamp T-5 systemTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyT5 Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 8Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E03.King Career Center3. Replace 29 - 1000W HPS system with 29 - 4ft 9 lamp T-5 system.Annual Demand (kW) = 383 Annual Demand (kW) = 196 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 187 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 52,252 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 26,791 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 25,461 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =4,846$ Demand Cost =2,485$ Demand Cost Savings =2,361$ Electrical Consumption Cost =2,916$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,495$ Electrical Cost Savings =1,421$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,782$ c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)2. New lighting will be T5 technology.4. Fixtures average 1638 hours per year.5. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.6. Electrical demand costs $12.66/kW.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is HID technology.T5 Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 9Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E04.King Career CenterECO Description:CFL Lighting Upgrade (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $7 86$ 648 36$ - -$ - - 2 122$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material122$ 29$ -$ 215$ 310$ 80$ 49$ 438$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost5 EA 0.3 1.5 Electrician74$ 112$ -$ -$ 112$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 10$ 10$ 10$ Total Cost122$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost1 EA 0.3 0.3 Electrician74$ 23$ -$ -$ 23$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 6$ 6$ 6$ Total Cost29$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Unit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 10Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E04.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate5 EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ 111$ 4$ 22$ 134$ 6 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 134$ 7$ 41$ 174$ Total Cost245$ 63$ 308$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:389$ Subtotal:308$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):25$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):82$ Design Cost (6%):23$ Subtotal:389$ Total Installed Cost:438$ Total M&L CostInstall 13 W CFLLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostUnit Labor-HrsTradeDescriptionTest OperationDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Install 20 W CFLU/MReportTotalUnit QtyInspect EquipmentTotal Material CostRecord OperationCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 11Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E04.King Career Center3. Replace 5 - 60W Incandescent with 5 - 13 W CFL.4. Replace 6 - 75W Incandescent Can with 6 - 20 W CFL.Annual Demand (kW) = 9 Annual Demand (kW) = 2 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 7 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 860 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 212 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 648 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =114$ Demand Cost =28$ Demand Cost Savings =86$ Electrical Consumption Cost =48$ Electrical Consumption Cost =12$ Electrical Cost Savings =36$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =122$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is Incandescent technology.2. New lighting will be CFL technology.5. Fixtures average 1146.6 hours per year.6. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.7. Electrical demand costs $12.66/kW.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:CFL Lighting UpgradeBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 12Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E05King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ 20,607 1,150$ - -$ - - 70 1,150$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ 182$ -$ 968$ 5,340$ 11,147$ 2,061$ 18,548$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 49 EA0.1 2.5 Electrician74$ 182$ -$ -$ 182$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 182$ ECO Description:Occupancy Sensors (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:Electric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostTotal CostInstall Occupancy SensorsBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 13Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E055. Cost Estimate4 EA 0.3 74$ Electrician98$ 49$ 196$ 294$ 13 EA0.3 74$ Electrician 318$ 76$ 985$ 1,303$ 6 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 509$ 138$ 831$ 1,340$ 6 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 509$ 164$ 985$ 1,494$ 20 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 1,696$ 109$ 2,179$ 3,876$ 49 EA0.3 74$ Electrician 1,091$ 74$ 3,636$ 4,727$ 4,222$ 8,812$ 13,033$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total 50$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 16,487$ 13,033$ 1,072$ 3,454$ 989$ 16,487$ 18,548$ DescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeTotal Labor CostLabor Requirement (Hours)Material CostTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostWall Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorWall Mount Dual Technology Occ SensorCeiling Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorCeiling Mount Dual Technology Occ SensorCorner Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorMisc WiringTotal CostSales Tax (0%):Bond (0%):Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):Labor Rate ($Hr):Inspect EquipmentAnnual Labor Cost ($):Record OperationAnnual Material/Equipment Cost ($):DutiesTest OperationTotal Annual M&V Cost ($):ReportTotalSubcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Design Cost (6%):Subtotal:Total Installed Cost:Install Occupancy SensorsBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 14Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E05a. Assumptions:1. Spaces can have occupancy sensors installed to reduce lighting usage.2. Passive Infared (PIR) sensors are used in corridors and rooms with open floor plans.3. Dual technology sensors are used in larger rooms and areas where occupants could potentially be shielded from the PIR on the sensor.4. Percent savings estimates are from the Energy Management Handbook, Turner, 3rd Edition.b. Equations:1. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (Existing Hours) / (1,000)2. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x [(Existing Hours) - (Hours Reduced)] / (1,000)3. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)4. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)- - - 40,241 19,633 Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = 20,607 - - Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =- - - Water Savings (kGal) =- -$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ 2,246$ 1,096$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings = 1,150$ -$ -$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ -$ -$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =1,150$ Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:8. Energy Savingsc. Calculations:Demand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) = Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Demand (kW) = Demand (kW) =Water Consumption (kGal) = Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost = Demand Cost =Natural Gas Consumption Cost = Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Consumption Cost = Water Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost = Electrical Consumption Cost =Install Occupancy Sensors Bldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 15Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E07.King Career CenterECO Description:Vending Miser Controls (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $1 18$ 12,559 701$ - -$ - - 43 719$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ 267$ -$ 452$ 845$ 1,966$ 351$ 3,162$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9 EA0.2 1.8 Electrician74$ 134$ -$ -$ 134$ 9 EA0.2 1.8 Electrician74$ 134$ -$ -$ 134$ Total Cost267$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTradeMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeSemi-Annual PMTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Vending Miser ControlsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 16Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E07.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate6 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 445$ 179$ 1,074$ 1,519$ 3 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 223$ 160$ 480$ 703$ Total Cost668$ 1,554$ 2,222$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:2,811$ Subtotal:2,222$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):183$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):589$ Design Cost (6%):169$ Subtotal:2,811$ Total Installed Cost:3,162$ Total Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s)Install Snack Machine Vending Miser Kit(s)U/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalVending Miser ControlsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 17Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:E07.King Career Center4. Install 6 - Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 6 - Standard Soda Machine(s).5. Install 3 - Snack Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 3 - Standard Snack Machine(s).6. Install 0 - Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 0 - Delamped Soda Machine(s).Annual Demand (kW) = 3 Annual Demand (kW) = 1 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 1 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 23,258 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 10,699 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 12,559 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =34$ Demand Cost =15$ Demand Cost Savings =18$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,298$ Electrical Consumption Cost =597$ Electrical Cost Savings =701$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =719$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Soda vending machines consume an average of 400W, delamped soda machines 220W, and snack machines 85W.2. Vending machines operate 8,760 hours/year.3. VendingMisers® will reduce run hours to 4730.4 hours or by 46%.7. Machines average 8760 hours per year.8. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.9. Electrical demand costs $12.66/kW.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Vending Miser ControlsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 18Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 08.King CCECO Description:Premium Efficiency Motors (Bldg King CC)Applicable Building:King CC1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $ kGal$ mmBtu $12 152$ 63,559 3,547$ - -$ - - 217 3,698$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material11$ 11$ -$ 3,698$ 3,990$ 14,133$ 2,265$ 20,388$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost1 LS 0.4 0.4 Electrician30$ 11$ -$ -$ 11$ 11$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost1 LS 0.4 0.4 Electrician30$ 11$ -$ -$ 11$ 11$ Total CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeNet Labor-Hrs TradeTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsKing CCPage 1Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 19Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 08.King CC5. Cost Estimate3 LS 1.5 74$ 334$ 308$ 923$ 1,256$ 1 LS2.0 74$ 148$ 330$ 330$ 478$ 4 LS2.0 74$ 594$ 340$ 1,360$ 1,954$ 5 LS2.0 74$ 742$ 430$ 2,150$ 2,892$ 1 LS3.0 74$ 223$ 545$ 545$ 768$ 2 LS3.0 74$ 445$ 660$ 1,320$ 1,765$ 1 LS3.0 74$ 223$ 845$ 845$ 1,068$ - LS- 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 LS3.0 74$ 445$ 1,850$ 3,700$ 4,145$ 3,154$ 11,173$ 14,327$ 6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 18,123$ 14,327$ 1,178$ 3,797$ 1,087$ 18,123$ 20,388$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Design Cost (6%):Subtotal:Total Installed Cost:Sales Tax (0%):Bond (0%):25 horse30 horseTotal Cost15 horse20 horseMaterial CostTotal Material Cost3 horse5 horse7.5 horse10 horseTotal M&L Cost1.5 horse2 horseDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostKing CCPage 2Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 20Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 08.King CC113.76 101.79 11.98 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =522,909.62 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 459,350.36 63,559 Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Savings (mmBtu) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =1,440$ Demand Cost =1,289$ Demand Cost Savings =152$ Electrical Consumption Cost =29,179$ Electrical Consumption Cost =25,633$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings = 3,547$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,698$ Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =7. Electrical consumption costs = $0.055802/kWh.Demand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =2. Existing/Proposed Motor Consumption (kWh) = (Motor Demand) x (Diversity Factor) x (Annual Hours)3. kW Savings = [(Baseline kW) - ( Proposed kW)] x 124. kWh Savings = (Baseline kWh) - ( Proposed kWh)5. Energy Cost Savings = Energy Savings (kW or kWh) x (Energy Unit Cost)c. Calculations:b. Equations:1. Existing/Proposed Motor Demand (kW) = (Motor HP) x (Load Factor) x (0.746 kW/HP)/ Motor Efficiency7. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. This ECO considers replacing existing motors with NEMA premium efficiency motors.2. Existing motor efficiencies are from EPACT standard when nameplate information is not available.3. Proposed motor efficiencies are based on NEMA Premium standard.4. Pump annual operating hours = 58085. Fan annual operating hours = 58086. Electrical demand costs = $12.66/kW.King CCPage 3Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 21Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 09ECO Description:Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Chilled Water SystemKing CC1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $kGal$ mmBtu $136 1,720$ 89,411 4,989$ - -$ - - 305 6,709$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 6,709$ 9,003$ 11,259$ 2,533$ 22,794$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance CostEA0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS1.0 - Electrician-$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance CostEA0.3 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS1.0 - Electrician-$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Applicable Building:Unit Labor-Hrs Net Labor-HrsTotal CostMaterial CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Labor-HrsDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial Cost Net Material CostAnnual CostTotal CostNet Material CostTotal Labor CostO&M TasksTradeAnnual PMUnit QtyWater SavingsU/MInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsTotal Energy SavingsAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Installed CostTradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsM&V CostDaily O&MO&M TasksUnit QtyConstruction CostsU/MO&M CostVariable Secondary PumpingKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 22Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 095. Cost EstimateVFD 30 HP2 EA 23.9 Electrician 74$ 3,545$ 3,525$ 7,050$ 10,595$ 1 LS30.0 Mechanical84$ 2,534$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 4,334$ 1 LS10.0 Electrician74$ 742$ 50$ 50$ 792$ 2 2.0 Electrician74$ 297$ -$ -$ 297$ Total Cost7,117$ 8,900$ 16,017$ 6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 20,262$ 16,017$ 1,317$ 4,245$ 1,216$ 20,262$ 22,794$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Total M&L CostTotal Labor CostTotal Material CostUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostDesign Cost (6%):TradeSales Tax (0%):Total Installed Cost:Bond (0%):Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Controls SetupMisc. piping & InstrumentationDescriptionU/MUnit QtyLabor Rates ($/Hr)Pump Motor WiringVariable Secondary PumpingKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 23Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 094. The heating water system operates 1754.4 hours per year.3. Motor Load Factor = (Chilled Water Load (%) / 100%)^3200.3 64.5 135.8 142,341 52,930 89,411 - - -$ - - - 2,536$ 816$ 1,720$ 7,943$ 2,954$ 4,989$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,709$ 7. Electrical demand costs = $8.89/kW.2. Existing pumping system is rated at 30 hp with flow of 788 gpm, 96 ft. of head, and 92.4% efficiency.6. Electrical consumption costs = $0.0356/kWh.1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK (nearest available NOAA station) applies.a. Assumptions:3. Proposed pump system will be a 0 hp primary pump with 0 ft of head and a 30 hp secondary pump with 96 ft of head. The secondary pump will operate with a VFD to modulate flow based on heating water demand.7. Energy SavingsElectrical Consumption Cost =Propane Consumption (Gal) =Demand Savings (kW) =Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Baseline Condition:c. Calculations:1. Pump horsepower (hp) = (Pump flow (gpm) x Total Dynamic Head (ft.)) / (3960 x Pump Eff.)b. Equations:2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = Baseline Pump HP x 0.746 x Operating HoursSavings:4. Proposed Usage= (Primary Pump HP x 0.746 x Hours) + (Secondary Pump HP x 0.746 X Hours x Motor Load Factor)7. Monthly Demand Savings = Baseline Demand - Demand at Peak OAT for MonthDemand Cost =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Total Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Cost Savings =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =Propane Savings (Gal) =Water Consumption Cost = Water Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = Propane Consumption (Gal) =Water Savings (kGal) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost Savings =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost =5. kWh Saved = Existing kWh Usage - Proposed kWh Usage6. Annual Cost Savings = kWh Saved x kWh Unit Cost5. The heating water demand is 100% of capacity at the design OAT and 0% at 62°F, and the load profile is linear between these points.Variable Secondary PumpingKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 24Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 10.King CCECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg King CC)Applicable Building:King CC1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 7,633 5,211$ - - 763 5,211$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material3,248$ -$ -$ 8,459$ 22,220$ 143,021$ 20,655$ 185,897$ 3,248$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 60.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS40.0 40.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 54.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS36.0 36.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Construction CostsAnnual CostU/MAnnual CostUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsAnnual PMDaily O&MElectric SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsM&V CostO&M TasksDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Qty U/MMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTradeTradeNet Material CostNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostAvoided CostTotal Installed CostBoiler UpgradeKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 25Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 10.King CC5. Cost Estimate4 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 26,652$ 106,608$ 106,608$ 2 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 3,226$ 6,452$ 6,452$ 1 LS 208.0 Mechanical 84$ 17,566$ -$ -$ 17,566$ Total Cost17,566$ 113,060$ 130,626$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical 84$ -$ 3,248$ 3,248$ 3,248$ -$ 3,248$ 3,248$ 7. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:165,241$ Subtotal:130,626$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 10,741$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 34,616$ Design Cost (6%):9,914$ Subtotal:165,241$ Total Installed Cost:185,897$ Unit QtyLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostRecord OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Total Material CostDemolitionTradeU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportBurnham ESC8-NI-GSTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DutiesTotal Labor CostTotalDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostThermal Solutions Evo EVAM-2500DescriptionBoiler UpgradeKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 26Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 10.King CC9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings2 11 19972 2 198811. Fuel Oil accounts for less than 7% of basewide heating fuel consumption. For uniformity of calculation among buildings, this ECO assumes all fuel use is gas.23,197.28 Thermal Solutions Evo EVAM-2500QuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New UnitRemaining LifeUnit Replaced1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 80.8%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 87.8%7,850.00 Burnham ESC8-NI-GS5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%Burnham V1123Weil CG-87. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 31.5% of the max output of the boiler system based on these averages and the heating load decreases linearly with increased outdoor air temperature.8. Unoccupied temperature setpoint = 60°F9. Heating setpoint = 68°F10. Natural Gas costs = $0.68279/CCF9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.Boiler UpgradeKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 27Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 10.King CCc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =109,839 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =102,206 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =7,633 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =74,997$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =69,785$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =5,211$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =5,211$ 3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Cost2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiencyb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler OutputBoiler UpgradeKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 28Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisECO 11 - WeatherstrippingECO NO:ECO 11.King Career CenterECO Description:Weatherstripping (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 459 313$ - - 459 313$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 313$ 2,237$ 3,981$ 373$ 6,591$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Net Labor-HrsO&M TasksInstallation CostsUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostMaterial CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTradeM&V CostDaily O&MO&M TasksNet Material CostUnit Labor-HrsTotal Installed CostTradeAnnual CostUnit Qty U/MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMElectric SavingsTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsCCFNet Labor-HrsConstruction CostsUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)U/MWeatherstrippingKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 29Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisECO 11 - WeatherstrippingECO NO:ECO 11.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate14 EA 1.00 Carpenter 68$ 949$ 113$ 1,578$ 2,526$ 7 EA1.50 Carpenter68$ 712$ 197$ 1,378$ 2,089$ - EA2.50 Carpenter68$ -$ --$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost1,660$ 2,955$ 4,616$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (6.5%):380$ Subcontractor Contingency (26.5%):1,223$ Subtotal:6,218$ Subtotal:5,839$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6%):373$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (0%):-$ Design Cost (0%):-$ Subtotal:5,839$ Total Installed Cost:6,591$ U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostUnit Material CostTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportDoor Gasket Material Single DoorDoor Gasket Material Double DoorInspect EquipmentUnit QtyLabor Requirement (Hours)DescriptionTotal Material CostTotalRecord OperationDoor Gasket Material Overhead DoorTradeDutiesWeatherstrippingKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 30Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisECO 11 - WeatherstrippingECO NO:ECO 11.King Career Center8. Energy Savings3. Existing total door perimeter is 560. ft.a. Heating setpoint = 68b. Cooling setpoint = 72c. Total boiler efficiency = 85. %d. Total chiller COP = 3e. Door Leakage Factor (in2/ft2)Non-WeatherstrippedWeatherstrippedSingle Door = 0.157Single Door = 0.114Double Door = 0.16Double Door = 0.114Electric Demand Savings (kW) =- Electric Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =459 Water Savings (kGal) =- Electric Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electric Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =313$ Water Cost Savings =-$ 313$ a. Assumptions:1. Weatherstripping will be applied to door perimeter to stop air infiltration.2. Window air infiltration is considered in a separate ECO.4. Air Infiltration (CFM) = Specific Infiltration x Door Leakage Area5. Electric Demand costs $12.66/kW6. Electric Consumption costs $0.055802/kWh7. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/CCFb. Equations:1. Door Leakage Area (in2) = Door Area x Door Leakage Factor2. Specific Infiltration (CFM/in2) = [ (Stack Coefficient x ΔT) + (Wind Coefficient x [Wind Speed]2 )]1/23. ΔT = Heating Setpoint Temp - Bin Temp4. Calculations performed with RETScreen v4c. Calculations:Total Cost Savings =5. Heat Loss Rate (Btu/hr) = 1.08 x Air Infiltration x ΔT6. Heating Load (mmBtu) = Heat Loss Rate x Bin Hours / 1,000,0007. Energy Savings = Baseline - ProposedWeatherstrippingKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 31Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 13.King Career CenterECO Description:Domestic Hot Water Heater Upgrade (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 852 582$ - - 85 582$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 582$ 4,505$ 33,731$ 4,779$ 43,015$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Labor-Hrs TradeNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Domestic Water HeaterBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 32Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 13.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate2 EA15.0 Plumber74$ 2,216$ 14,666$ 29,331$ 31,547$ 2 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 886$ 180$ 360$ 1,246$ 2 LS3.1 Plumber74$ 459$ -$ -$ 459$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- Other-$ -$ (3,026)$ (3,026)$ (3,026)$ Total Cost3,561$ 26,665$ 30,226$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:38,236$ Subtotal:30,226$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 2,485$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 8,010$ Design Cost (6%):2,294$ Subtotal:38,236$ Total Installed Cost:43,015$ TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationDemolition WorkAvoided CostsDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Total Material CostTotal M&L CostSTATE SUF 130 500NEAFlue installation, pipe re-route, misc.U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyTest OperationReportTotalDomestic Water HeaterBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 33Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 13.King Career Center8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Gas water heater sizing based on sum of sink and shower fixture GPM x 60% hot water use with a peak demand of 80% of total GPM5. Surface area of tanks calculated based on capacity and standard sizings.6. Existing water heaters have an R-value of 7.9. Existing annual usage split between existing heaters proportionally with tank size.10. Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 20 year lifecycle at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units with more than 5 years remaining life are excluded from the calculation.12. Natural Gas consumption costs $0.68279/CCF1401991 1.061.1 4368,762332,906,977277,422,481751990 1.042.8 3058,761178,343,023148,619,186b. Equations:1. Existing Standby Losses = 1/R x SurfaceArea x (Temp. tank- Temp. ambient)2. Energy Savings per year (kWh/yr.) = Standby Losses x hours /3413Baseline Condition: Proposed Condition: Savings Estiamtes:Demand (kW) = - Demand (kW) = - Demand Savings (kW) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =5,113 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =4,260 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =852 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =3,491$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =2,909$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =582$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =581.79$ Surface Area (sq. ft.)Existing Standby Losses (Btu/hr)1. Installed Gas Water Heaters based on STATE SUF 130 500NEA @ 70 deg F temperature rise3. Existing water heater temperature is 120 degrees F.4. The ambient temperature is 70 degrees F.Hours of Operation (hr)Existing Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Conventional gas STATE SUF 130 500NEA7. Existing water heaters operate 8,760 hours per year.8. One bank of multiple instantaneous heater will replace each traditional tank heater.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.Existing Water Heater Size (nominal gallons)Existing Water Heater TypeReplacement Water Heater TypeExisting Tank Year InstalledReplacement Value Factor (% of 1 for 1 replacement cost avoided)Stand-by Savings (Btu.yr)Proposed Annual Usage (Btu.yr)3. Cost Savings = Energy Savings x $0.0360Conventional gas STATE SHE 50 75 NEDomestic Water HeaterBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 34Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:W02.King Career CenterECO Description:High-Efficiency Urinals (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $kWhkWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ - -$ 182.00 1,405.04 - 1,405$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material7,679$ 7,679$ -$ 1,405$ 7,470$ 6,452$ 1,740$ 15,662$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost1,500 EA 0.1 150.0 Janitor 36$ 5,433$ 0.02$ 30$ 5,463$ 30 EA1.0 30.0 Plumber74$ 2,216$ -$ -$ 2,216$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost7,679$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost1,500 EA 0.1 150.0 Janitor 36$ 5,433$ 0.02$ 30$ 5,463$ 30 EA1.0 30.0 Plumber74$ 2,216$ -$ -$ 2,216$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ 58$ -$ -$ Total Cost7,679$ Installation CostsO&M TasksO&M TasksDaily O&MUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsUnit Labor-HrsU/MU/MTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostAnnual CostElectric SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostTradeDaily O&MAnnual PMNet Material CostUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostMaterial Cost for PMUnit QtyTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsWaterless UrinalsBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 35Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:W02.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate15 EA5.3 Plumber74$ 5,905$ 340$ 5,100$ 11,005$ 15 EA1.1 Plumber74$ 1,266$ -$ -$ 1,266$ Total Cost5,905$ 5,100$ 11,005$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:13,922$ Subtotal:11,005$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):905$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):2,916$ Design Cost (6%):835$ Subtotal:13,922$ Total Installed Cost:15,662$ Demo Existing UrinalMaterial CostTotalDutiesInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Record OperationTest OperationReportUnit Qty U/MDescriptionUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTradeTotal Labor CostTotal M&L CostInstall High Efficiency UrinalLabor Rates ($/Hr)Waterless UrinalsBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 36Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:W02.King Career Center8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:7. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.8. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.9. Electric Consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.10. Electric Demand costs $12.66/kW.11. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Savings () =- Water Consumption (kGal) =364 Water Consumption (kGal) =182 Water Savings (kGal) =182 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =2,810$ Water Consumption Cost =1,405$ Water Cost Savings =1,405$ Total Cost Savings =1,405$ 1. 15 existing urinal(s) @ 1 gpf.2. 182 school days annually.3. 500 male occupants on school days.4. Restroom fixture usage rate = 5X per person per day (National average, AWWA). (Annual Urinal Use)Drillday] ) / 10003. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage4. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Water Savings x Utility Unit Cost5. Males use the urinal 4 time(s) per day for liquid waste.6. Proposed flush avg. GPF = 0.52. Existing or Proposed Annual Urinal Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Urinal GPF) x (Annual Urinal Use)Weekday] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Urinal GPF) x1. Annual Urinal Use = [(Total Male Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill DaysWaterless UrinalsBldg King Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 37Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 16.King Career CenterECO Description:Low Flow Faucets (Bldg King Career Center)Applicable Building:King Career Center1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 5,296 3,616$ 1,192.14 9,203.29 530 12,820$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 12,820$ 389$ 474$ 108$ 972$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Total Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsElectric SavingsDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostTradeTradeNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)O&M TasksUnit QtyNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsU/MDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsInstallation CostsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMO&M TasksConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostAnnual CostUnit Qty U/MLow Flow FaucetsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 38Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 16.King Career Center5. Cost Estimate25 EA 0.2 Plumber 74$ 308$ 15$ 375$ 683$ - EA0.2 Plumber74$ -$ 16$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost308$ 375$ 683$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:864$ Subtotal:683$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):56$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):181$ Design Cost (6%):52$ Subtotal:864$ Total Installed Cost:972$ DutiesInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Ultra Low Flow Faucet AeratorKitchen Faucet Swivel AeratorUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotalDescriptionTest OperationReportTradeTotal M&L CostRecord OperationLow Flow FaucetsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 39Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 16.King Career Center8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 25 existing lavatory faucets @ 1.9556 gpm; 0 kitchen faucet @ 0 gpm.2. 182 weekdays and 0 special occasion days annually.3. 1000 occupant on workdays and 0 on special occasion days.4. Avg daily use/person: lav faucet = 3 mins, kitchen faucet = 1 min5. Estimate of 20% of occupants use the kitchen faucet once daily.6. Proposed lav faucet @ 0.5 gpm; kitchen faucet @ 1 gpm.7. 60% of domestic water is heated hotwater; 80 temp rise; 90% water heater efficiency.8. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.9. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.10. Electric Consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.11. Electric Demand costs $12.66/kW.12. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:1. Annual Lav Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or special occasion Days2. Annual Kitchen Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days) x (Kitchen Use Use Factor)]Weekday or special occasion Days3. Existing or Proposed Annual Lav Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)special occasionday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)special occasionday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10004. Existing or Proposed Annual Kitchen Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)special occasionday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)special occasionday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10005. Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Annual Lav Use) + (Annual Kit Use)]Existing/Proposed6. Annual DHW Capacity (kGal) = (% DHW) x (Annual Water Usage)Existing/Proposed7. Heating Energy (mmBtu) = DHW Gal x (8.33 lb/gal) x (1 Btu/lb-°F) x ΔT / 1,000,0008. Fuel Required (mmBtu) = Heating Energy / Boiler Efficiency9. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage10. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Savings x Utility Unit Costc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)7,116 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)1,819 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)5,296 Water Consumption (kGal) =1,602 Water Consumption (kGal) =410 Water Consumption (kGal) =1,192 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost4,858$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost1,242$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost3,616$ Water Consumption Cost =12,365$ Water Consumption Cost =3,161$ Water Consumption Cost =9,203$ Total Cost Savings =12,820$ Low Flow FaucetsKing Career CenterAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 40Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 18.King CCECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg King CC)Applicable Building:King CC1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 13,468 9,196$ - - 1,347 9,196$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material3,248$ -$ -$ 12,443$ 25,855$ 223,797$ 31,207$ 280,859$ 3,248$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 60.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS40.0 40.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 54.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS36.0 36.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Construction CostsAnnual CostU/MAnnual CostUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsAnnual PMDaily O&MElectric SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsM&V CostO&M TasksDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Qty U/MMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTradeTradeNet Material CostNet Labor-HrsAvoided CostTotal Installed CostInstall AERCO BoilersKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 41Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 18.King CC5. Cost Estimate3 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 45,448$ 136,343$ 136,343$ 1 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 6,518$ 6,518$ 6,518$ 1 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 30,462$ 30,462$ 30,462$ 1 LS - Mechanical 84$ 1,796$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 5,388$ 1 LS - Mechanical 84$ 1,077$ -$ -$ 1,077$ 1 LS 208.0 Mechanical 84$ 17,566$ -$ -$ 17,566$ Total Cost20,439$ 176,915$ 197,353$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical 84$ -$ 3,248$ 3,248$ 3,248$ -$ 3,248$ 3,248$ 7. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ControllerUnit QtyLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostRecord OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Total Material CostDutiesDemolitionTradeU/MUnit Labor-HrsStartupTotalTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportAERCO Esteem 399Total CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostAERCO BMK3.0 LN & AERCO BMK2.0AERCO BMK2.0 LNDescriptionInstall AERCO BoilersKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 42Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 18.King CC8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:249,652$ Subtotal:197,353$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 16,227$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 52,299$ Design Cost (6%):14,979$ Subtotal:249,652$ Total Installed Cost:280,859$ 9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings2 11 19972 2 198811. Fuel Oil accounts for less than 7% of basewide heating fuel consumption. For uniformity of calculation among buildings, this ECO assumes all fuel use is gas.23,197.28AERCO BMK3.0 LN & AERCO BMK2.0 LNQuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.7,850.00 AERCO Esteem 399AERCO BMK2.0 LNRemaining LifeUnit ReplacedBurnham V1123Weil CG-83. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 80.8%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 93.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%7. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 31.8% of the max output of the boiler system based on these averages and the heating load decreases linearly with increased outdoor air temperature.8. Unoccupied temperature setpoint = 60°F9. Heating setpoint = 68°F10. Natural Gas costs = $0.68279/CCF9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.Install AERCO BoilersKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 43Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, AK 99517ECO NO:ECO 18.King CCc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =110,711 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =97,243 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =13,468 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =75,592$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =66,396$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =9,196$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =9,196$ 3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Cost2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiencyb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler OutputInstall AERCO BoilersKing CCAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 44Level II Energy Audit King CC Anchorage, AK APPENDIX C Major Equipment Survey Name Location Area Served MakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesB-1 Mech Rm 211 Main BldgBurnham3957 MBH outputB-2 Mech Rm 211 Main BldgBurnham3957 MBH outputB-3 118AAudtiorium Addition Weil-McLain194 MBH outputB-4 118AAudtiorium Addition Weil-McLain194 MBH outputAHU-1Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire5597 CFM1995AHU-2Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire4145 CFM1995AHU-3Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire7345 CFM1995AHU-4Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire5148 CFM1995AHU-5Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire5533 CFM1995AHU-6Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire10720 CFM1995AHU-7Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire5034 CFM1995AHU-8Upper FloorAirTherm Centralaire3754 CFM1995P-3A Mech Rm 211 Main BldgGec Alsthom Ventpak HE788 GPM, 30HP1973P-3B Mech Rm 212 Main BldgBaldor H4104T788 GPM, 30HP1973MAU 1Auto Body Shop WeatherRite1080 MBH, 10000 CFM 1995MAU 2Auto MaintWeatherRite810 MBH, 7500CFM1995MAU 3Carpentry Shop Trane500 MBH, 3500 CFM2002MAU 4Masonry Shop Trane500 MBH, 3500 CFM2002MAU 5Small Engine Shop WeatherRite864 MBH, 8000 CFM1995MAU 6WeatherRite648 MBH, 6000CFM1995F-1 Mech Rm 211 Lower FloorPace44937 CFM1995F-2 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace9570 CFM1995F-3 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace5422 CFM1995F-4 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace5490 CFM1995F-5 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace7750 CFM1995F-6 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace9670 CFM1995F-7 Supply Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace7035 CFM1995F-8 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace2100 CFM1995F-9 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace4735 CFM1995F-10 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace5489 CFM1995F-11 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace6015 CFM1995F-12 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace8175 CFM1995F-13 Return Air Tunnel Lower FloorPace6335 CFM1995F-14 Mech Rm 212 Lower FloorPace32849 CFM1995Mechanical Equipment Summary APPENDIX D Thermal Image Report Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:11:18 PMImage Date IR_0513.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Some convective heat loss Description Main Entrance 1 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:11:44 PMImage Date IR_0515.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Convective heat loss shown by white area; a symptom of poor weather-stripping Description Exterior door system 2 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:12:07 PMImage Date IR_0517.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Minimal convective heat loss Description Window system on building shell 3 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:14:18 PMImage Date IR_0519.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Good door system- relatively low heat loss Description 4 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:16:45 PMImage Date IR_0525.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Icicles can be a symptom of poor insulation- this picture confirms there is heat loss through the roof Description 5 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:17:15 PMImage Date IR_0527.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Poor weather-stripping Description Exterior module classroom door 6 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:18:19 PMImage Date IR_0529.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Image shows convective heat door system losses and conductive heat roof losses Description 7 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:19:16 PMImage Date IR_0531.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Some convective heat loss Description Overhead door 8 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:19:31 PMImage Date IR_0533.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Maximum difference in temperature shown at 5.5 Description Exterior door 9 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:27:56 PMImage Date IR_0551.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Exterior door with change in temperature 16.8 Description Exterior door near East Entrance 10 (11) Inspection Report Report Date 11/21/2011 Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School District- MLK Career Center Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2650 E Northern Lights Blvd Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person Image and Object Parameters Text Comments FLIR T300Camera Model 11/10/2011 7:28:49 PMImage Date IR_0555.jpgImage Name 0.95Emissivity 68.0 °FReflected apparent temperature 3.3 ftObject Distance Conductive heat losses through window Description 11 (11) APPENDIX E ASHRAE Level II Description 5 Levels of Effort Depending on the physical and energy-use characteristics of a building and the needs and resources of the owner, these steps can require different levels of effort. A commercial building energy analysis can generally be classified into the following levels of effort. OVERVIEW Preliminary Energy Use Analysis Analyze historic utility use and cost. Develop the Energy Utilization Index (EUI) of the building. Compare the building EUI to similar buildings to determine if further engi- neering study and analysis are likely to produce significant energy savings. Level I—Walk- Through Analysis Assess a building’s energy cost and efficiency by analyzing energy bills and con- ducting a brief on-site survey of the building. A Level I energy analysis will identify and provide a savings and cost analysis of low-cost/no-cost measures. It will also provide a listing of potential capital improvements that merit further consideration, and an initial judgment of potential costs and savings. A walk-through analysis of a facility will utilize all the forms in this publication except those in the section on “Building and Systems Report.” Level II—Energy Survey and Analysis This includes a more detailed building survey and energy analysis. A breakdown of the energy use within the building is provided. A Level II energy analysis will identify and provide the savings and cost analysis of all practical measures that meet the owner’s constraints and economic criteria, along with a discussion of any changes to operation and maintenance procedures. It may also provide a listing of potential capital-intensive improvements that require more thorough data collection and engineering analysis, and a judgment of potential costs and savings. This level of analysis will be adequate for most buildings and measures. Level III—Detailed Analysis of Capital-Intensive Modifications This level of engineering analysis focuses on potential capital-intensive projects identified during the Level II analysis and involves more detailed field data gathering as well as a more rigorous engineering analysis. It provides detailed project cost and sav- ings calculations with a high level of confidence sufficient for major capital investment decisions. 6 · Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits Discussion There are not sharp boundaries between these levels. They are general categories for identifying the type of information that can be expected and an indication of the level of confidence in the results. It is possible that while performing an energy analysis in a par- ticular building, various measures may be subjected to different levels of analysis. Some readers of an energy analysis report may be unable to comprehend the techni- cal analysis involved, while others may demand a full presentation of the analysis for critique. Consequently, technical material should be presented in an appendix to the report, while the body of the report guides the reader through the technical material and summarizes the findings. Information presented here outlines the engineering procedures that should be fol- lowed while performing an energy analysis. It is assumed that the analyst is a knowl- edgeable and competent individual. No attempt is made in this publication to prescribe specific methods of data gathering or data analysis. To assist with the organization of the data collected and the calculation procedures, this publication contains guideline forms that suggest the type of data to be gathered and its organization. It is recommended that the analyst develop and use appropriate data col- lection and organization forms specific to the size and type of building(s) being ana- lyzed. The forms presented in the first two sections are building characteristic forms on which basic building information and energy use can be recorded. Use of these forms by all engineering analysts will result in a uniform procedure for reporting the results of an analysis. It is recommended that these forms be completed without modification. PRELIMINARY ENERGY USE ANALYSIS Before any level of energy analysis is begun, it is valuable to perform a preliminary energy use analysis to determine a building’s current energy and cost efficiency relative to other, similar buildings. This is normally done by calculating the energy use and cost per square foot per year, which can indicate the potential value of further levels of analy- sis. This preliminary analysis generally includes the following steps. 1. Determine the building’s gross conditioned square footage and record this on the building characteristics form. Classify the primary use of the building. Ensure that the standard definition of gross area is used. 2. Assemble copies of all utility bills and summarize them for at least a one-year period, preferably three years. Review the monthly bills for opportunities to obtain a better price through taking advantage of different utility rate classes. Review the monthly patterns for irregularities. Note if a bill is missing or if it is estimated rather than actual consumption. 3. Complete the energy performance summary to develop the energy index and the cost index for each fuel, or demand type, and their combined total using ASHRAE Standard 105 methods. 4. Compare the Energy Utilization Index (EUI) and the cost index with buildings having similar characteristics. The owner of the subject building may have sim- ilar buildings for this comparison. Comparison should also be made with pub- licly available energy indices of similar buildings. In all cases, care should be taken to ensure that comparison is made with current data, using consistent def- initions of building usage and floor area. 5. Derive target energy, demand, and cost indices for a building with the same characteristics as this building. A range of methods are available for this work: • Pick from any database of similar buildings those buildings with the lowest energy index. • Pick an index based on the knowledge of an energy analyst experi- enced with this type of building. 6. Compare the energy and cost savings for each fuel type if the building were to reach the target Energy Utilization Index. Using these value(s), determine if further engineering analysis is recommended. Levels of Effort · 7 LEVEL I— WALK-THROUGH ANALYSIS This process includes all of the work done for the preliminary energy use analysis, plus the following. 1. Perform a brief walk-through survey of the facility to become familiar with its construction, equipment, operation, and maintenance. 2. Meet with owner/operator and occupants to learn of special problems or needs of the facility. Determine if any maintenance problems and/or practices may affect efficiency. 3. Perform a space function analysis, guided by the forms in the “Walk-Through Data” section. Determine if efficiency may be affected by functions that differ from the original functional intent of the building. 4. Perform a rough estimate to determine the approximate breakdown of energy use for significant end-use categories, including weather and non-weather- related uses. 5. Identify low-cost/no-cost changes to the facility or to operating and mainte- nance procedures, and determine the savings that will result from these changes. 6. Identify potential capital improvements for further study, and provide an initial estimate of potential costs and savings. The report for a Level I analysis should contain the building characteristics and energy use summary as well as the following. 1. Quantification of savings potential from changing to a different utility price structure. 2. Discussion of irregularities found in the monthly energy use patterns, with sug- gestions about their possible causes. 3. The energy index of similar buildings. Report the source, size, and date of the sample used in this comparison. The names of comparable buildings should be given if known. 4. The method used to develop the target indices. Where comparison is made to other buildings, state their names. Where the experience of someone other than the author is used to develop the target, provide the source. Where the target is developed by calculation, show the calculation or quote the name and version of software used and include both input and output data. 5. Total energy and demand cost by fuel type for the latest year and preceding two years if available. Show potential savings in dollars using the energy index for- mat of ASHRAE Standard 105. 6. The fraction of current costs that would be saved if the energy index were brought to the target level. 7. A summary of any special problems or needs identified during the walk- through survey, including possible revisions to operating and maintenance pro- cedures. 8. A preliminary energy use breakdown by major end uses. 9. The listing of low-cost/no-cost changes with the savings for these improve- ments. 10. The potential capital improvements, with an initial estimate of potential costs and savings LEVEL II—ENERGY SURVEY AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS This analytical procedure is guided by Level I analysis and includes the following additional work: 1. Review mechanical and electrical system design, installed condition, mainte- nance practices, and operating methods. Where drawings have been kept up to date, this task will be much easier. 8 · Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits 2. Review existing operating and maintenance problems. Determine planned build- ing changes. 3. Measure key operating parameters and compare to design levels, for example, operating schedules, heating/cooling water temperature, supply air temperature, space temperature and humidity, ventilation quantities, and light level at the task. Such measurements may be taken on a spot basis, or logged, manually or electronically. 4. Prepare a breakdown of the total annual energy use into end-use components, as illustrated in the 1999 ASHRAE Handbook—Applications, Chapter 34, Fig- ure 4, or as shown in the section “Energy Analysis Summary and Recommen- dations.” A number of calculation methods are available, ranging from simplified manual calculations to fully detailed computer simulation of hour- by-hour building operations for a full year. 5. List all possible modifications to equipment and operations that would save energy. Select those that might be considered practical by the owner. List pre- liminary cost and savings estimates. 6. Review the list of practical modifications with the owner/operator and select those that will be analyzed further. Prioritize the modifications in the antici- pated order of implementation. 7. For each practical measure, estimate the potential savings in energy cost and its energy index. To account for interaction between modifications, assume that modifications with the highest operational priority and/or best return on invest- ment will be implemented first. A number of calculation methods are available, ranging from simplified manual calculations to rerunning computer simula- tions, if performed in Step 4, above. 8. Estimate the cost of each practical measure. 9. Estimate the impact of each practical measure on building operations, mainte- nance costs, and non-energy operating costs. 10. Estimate the combined energy savings from implementing all of the practical measures and compare to the potential derived in the Level I analysis. It should be clearly stated that savings from each modification are based on the assump- tion that all previous modifications have already been implemented and that the total savings account for all of the interactions between modifications. 11. Prepare a financial evaluation of the estimated total potential investment using the owner’s chosen techniques and criteria. These evaluations may be per- formed for each practical measure. 12. Following submission of the report of the Level II analysis, meet with the owner to discuss priorities and to help select measures for implementation or further analysis. The report for a Level II analysis should contain at least the following. 1. A summary of energy use and cost associated with each end-use. Show calcula- tions performed or quote the name and version of software used and include both input and output pages. Provide interpretation of differences between actual total energy use and calculated or simulated end-use totals. 2. A description of the building, including typical floor plans and inventories of major energy-using equipment. (This information may be included as an appendix.) 3. A list of measures considered but felt to be impractical, with brief reasons for rejecting each. 4. For each practical measure, provide • a discussion of the existing situation and why it is using excess energy; • an outline of the measure, including its impact on occupant health, comfort, and safety; Levels of Effort · 9 • a description of any repairs that are required for a measure to be effec- tive; • the impact on occupant service capabilities, such as ventilation for late occupancy or year-round cooling; • an outline of the impact on operating procedures, maintenance proce- dures, and costs; • expected life of new equipment, and the impact on the life of existing equipment; • an outline of any new skills required in operating staff and training or hiring recommendations; • calculations performed or provide the name and version of software used and include both input and output data. 5. A table listing the estimated costs for all practical measures, the savings, and financial performance indicator. For the cost of each measure, show the esti- mated accuracy of the value quoted. This table should spell out the assumed sequence of implementation and state that savings may be quite different if a different implementation sequence is followed. 6. A discussion of any differences between the savings projected in this analysis and the estimated potential derived in the Level I analysis. 7. Overall project economic evaluation. 8. Recommended measurement and verification method(s) that will be required to determine the actual effectiveness of the recommended measures. 9. Discussion of feasible capital-intensive measures that may require a Level III analysis. LEVEL III—DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL-INTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS This analytical procedure is guided by Levels I and II analyses and the owner’s selection of measures for greater definition. It must follow such Level I and II work. 1. Expand definition of all modifications requiring further analysis. 2. Review measurement methods, and perform additional testing and monitoring as required to allow determination of feasibility. 3. Perform accurate modeling of proposed modifications. Ensure that modeling includes system interaction. 4. Prepare a schematic layout of each of the modifications. 5. Estimate the cost and savings of each modification. 6. Meet with owner to discuss/develop recommendations. The report for a Level III analysis should include the following, as a minimum. 1. Include text, schematics, and equipment lists necessary to completely describe all proposed changes to physical equipment. Matters of a final design nature may be left to subsequent engineering as long as the cost of such engineering is included in the budget. Firm price contractor quotations for key parts of any measure may be included. Cost estimates shall show contingencies separately and report the expected accuracy of the budget. 2. Prepare a financial evaluation of the estimated capital investment and projected savings. Use the owner’s chosen techniques and criteria.