HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD Rogers Park Elementary School 2012-EEAudit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page i Anchorage, AK
RREEPPOORRTT DDIISSCCLLAAIIMMEERR
The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be
incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or
public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under
contract by AHFC.
This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number
DE-EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page ii Anchorage, AK
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
ACRONYMS GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE .................................................................................. 1
1.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4
2.1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING ....................................................... 8
2.1.1 Hours of Operation .................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 System Balancing & Duct Cleaning ......................................................... 8
2.1.3 Outside Air Requirements ....................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Heating System Policies .......................................................................... 8
3.0 UTILITY AND BENCHMARKING DATA .......................................................................... 9
3.1 SUMMARY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ..................................................................... 9
3.2 ELECTRICITY ....................................................................................................... 10
3.3 NATURAL GAS ...................................................................................................... 12
4.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 13
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 ......................................................................................... 9
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010 .................................................................................................... 9
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010 ............................................................................................. 9
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003) ............................................................................................ 10
Table 4.1: ECO Summary .......................................................................................................................... 13
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page iii Anchorage, AK
AACCRROONNYYMMSS GGLLOOSSSSAARRYY
Acronym Definition
AHU Air Handling Unit
ARRA The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASD Anchorage School District
ASHRAE American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
BPO Building Plant Operator
CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
DDC Digital Direct Control
DHW Domestic Hot Water
ECO Energy Conservation Opportunity
EIA US Energy Information Administration
EMCS Energy Management Control System
EPDM Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer
ES Elementary School
FCA Fuel Cost Adjustment
GCA Gas Cost Adjustment
GPF Gallons Per Flush
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HEU High-Efficiency Urinals
HID High Intensity Discharge
HP Horsepower
HPS High Pressure Sodium
HS High School
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HX Heat Exchanger
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LED Light Emitting Diode
MBH 1,000,000 BTU*Hours
OA Outside Air
PPA Purchased Power Adjustment
REAL Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans
RSMeans An Industry Standard Cost Estimation Handbook
VAV Variable Air Volume Unit
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 1 Anchorage, AK
EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD PPRREEFFAACCEE
This report summarizes the results of an Ameresco Federal Solutions (Ameresco) Energy Audit of Rogers
Park Elementary School (Rogers Park ES) at 1400 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.
Rogers Park ES, Anchorage, Alaska
Ameresco engineers conducted an energy audit at Rogers Park ES 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. Mr. Holben no longer works for ASD, but provided
valuable assistance to the Ameresco team including providing access to mechanical areas, utility data,
facility drawings, and contact with other pertinent building personnel.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 2 Anchorage, AK
This audit report identifies cost-effective system and facility modifications, alterations, additions,
retrofits, and operations adjustments. Systems investigated include heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, domestic water, motors, building envelope, and
energy management control systems (EMCS). The 55,403 square foot educational facility including
class rooms, offices, computer labs, gymnasiums, and other areas is covered by this energy audit. Table
ES.1 summarizes the 2010 utility cost for this facility.
Table ES.1: Energy Cost Summary 2010
Energy Type Annual Cost
Electricity $ 61,440
Natural Gas $ 34,067
Total $ 95,507
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 as
well as installation.
Table ES.2: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 15 $ 41 2.8
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,658 $ 12,530 7.6
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 138 $ 1,088 7.9
9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 2,283 $ 22,592 9.9
2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 3,626 $ 58,759 16.2
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 3,843 $ 111,792 29.1
18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 5,840 $ 177,972 30.5
5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 1,216 $ 37,375 30.7
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 4,027 $ 129,171 32.1
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 208 $ 12,111 58.2
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 95 $ 9,533 100.3
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
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 Rogers Park ES 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 available,
primarily on lighting calculations with predictable burnout rates, maintenance saving are included in
savings figures. Maintenance costs are not included in controls or mechanical upgrades. 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 Rogers Park ES
Page 4 Anchorage, AK
22..00 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN
General: Rogers Park is a 55,403 square foot elementary school with classrooms, a library,
gymnasium, multipurpose rooms and computer labs. Two relocateable classrooms are used for
additional space. The original building was constructed in 1963 with major additions as recent as
1991. Typical school hours are 8:30am to 3:45pm, Monday-Friday from mid -August to mid-
May. The typical occupancy is 588 people during normal school hours.
Building Envelope: The exterior walls are either 8-inch CMU over 2x4 wooden stud with batt
insulation fill or plywood siding over 2x6 wooden stud with batt insulation fill. Windows are
insulated, double glazing with aluminum clad wooden frames. Exterior doors are either hollow
metal with double pane insulating glass or wood with or without either one-fourth inch (¼”)
single glazing wire glass. The EPDM roof is mounted over plywood sheathing. 8 inches of rigid
insulation is mounted above the vapor barrier. The roof surface appeared to be in good condition.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 5 Anchorage, AK
Table 2.1: Envelope Summary
Envelope Estimated
R–Value
Exterior Walls 24.5-30.0
Roof 32.5
Exterior Doors 1.1-1.6
Exterior Windows 1.9
Air Distribution: Four Trane constant volume central air handling units (AHUs) with glycol
heating coils serve the Multipurpose room, Gym, Stage and Music Rooms, and the Library and
Art rooms. Classrooms are served by unit ventilators (UV) with glycol heating coils. A dedicated
Trane RTU provides cooling for the computer lab year round by mixing return and outside air.
The unit has no coils. AHUs, UVs, and the RTU are all in fair to good condition without
significant air leaks and only normal wear and tear.
Ventilation and Exhaust: Fresh outside air (OA) is supplied by AHUs and at each unit
ventilator. Roof mounted exhaust fans (EFs) relieve air from the building. It is not clear if EFs
are interlocked with associated UV or AHU OA dampers.
Heating: Hot water (HW) for heating is provided by two 3680 MBH input Burnham boilers
with Power- Flame burners. The boiler set operates as lead lag and one boiler can typically carry
the building even on very cold days. HW is served to a heat exchanger inside the boiler room
when energy from the boiler is transferred to the glycol loop that serves AHU HW coils, UVs,
and entryway UHs. All pumping is constant volume and the glycol loops 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.
Cooling: Outdoor air is used for cooling in all areas.
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. There were no audible leaks and
pneumatic air compressor cycle times were within a normal range. UVs have been retrofitted
with electronic actuators on dampers and valves, significantly improving system control and
performance.
Lighting: Interior lighting consists mainly of T12 fluorescents. Several offices have under-shelf
T12 task lighting. Fixtures in smaller areas are controlled by single-zone switching. Larger areas
have multiple circuits by zone and some employ multi-level switching of one to four lamp
fixtures. Light levels vary in the building and are within the ranges recommended by the
Illuminating Engineering Society. Most exit signs are equipped with LEDs. Exterior lighting
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 6 Anchorage, AK
consists primarily of 100-175 W HPS down lights and some halogen floods. Parking lot pole
lamps are 400W high pressure sodium (HPS).
Process Loads and Miscellaneous Equipment: A kitchen also contributes to energy
consumption and heat load. Computer load is typical for educational buildings. One large
computer lab contributes significantly to heat load but has a dedicated RTU for cooling as
mentioned above.
Domestic Water: Domestic water is used in classrooms and restrooms. Hot water is provided
directly from two water heaters: a 125 gallon PVI gas water heater and an 80 gallon G.A.O.
Smith electrical water heater. The gas water heater is equipped with circulating pumps.
Plumbing fixtures include 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets, 1.5 gpf urinals, 0.5 gallon per minute
(gpm) faucets, and 2.2 gpm sinks. These fixtures are compliant with standards set by the 1992
Energy Policy Act.
Pictures of general equipment and building conditions follow this section. A list of major mechanical
equipment is available in Appendix C.
Thermal imaging of the building envelope can provide information about its condition. The building
exterior was scanned using a handheld thermal imager during the site walkthrough. Pictures provided
are meant to provide a sample representative of windows, doors, and roofing on the building shell 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 Rogers Park ES
Page 7 Anchorage, AK
Equipment Photos
88 Boiler Room - Heating Water Boilers 88 Boiler Room - Glycol Heating Pumps
North Fan Room - Typical AHU Computer Lab RTU
Rooftop EF Classroom Unit Ventilator
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 8 Anchorage, AK
22..11 EENNEERRGGYY MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD PPLLAANNNNIINNGG
22..11..11 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 7:00 am and
typically stopped at 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.
22..11..22 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 Rogers Park ES is a good candidate for re-commissioning.
22..11..33 OOuuttssiiddee AAiirr RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss
Air change over requirements can be verified by referring to building equipment design drawings.
22..11..44 HHeeaattiinngg SSyysstteemm PPoolliicciieess
Entryway UHs were producing heat during mild weather. Using the controls system to lock out these
heaters when outdoor air temperature is above 50 deg F would reduce building heating fuel consumption
without significant capital cost.
HW temperature has been a concern. Because of its location, the HW loop temperature sensor reads
several degrees below the hottest water temperature in the loop. This may cause shortened life of glycol
in the system and excess stress on piping components. HW temp setpoint should be adjusted to take these
concerns into account.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 9 Anchorage, AK
33..00 UUTTIILLIITTYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
33..11 SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
Rogers Park ES utilizes electricity and natural gas services. Electricity is provided by 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 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 569,154 kWh 3.413 kBtu/kWh 1,440,603 $ 59,865
Natural Gas 55,201.21 Therm 100 kBtu/Therm 5,685,725 $ 54,793
7,126,328 $ 114,658
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010
Index Value Units
Energy Utilization Index 104.7 kBtu/sq ft
Energy Cost Index 1.72 $/sq ft
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010
Index Month kW W/sq ft
Maximum Demand Jan 169 3.050
Minimum Demand June 82 1.300
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 Rogers Park ES
Page 10 Anchorage, AK
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003)
Category Total
kBtu/sq ft
Elec
kBtu/sq ft
Nat Gas
kBtu//sq ft
Rogers Park ES 104.7 35.1 69.6
50,001 to 100,000 sq ft 83.8 44.7 36.5
Education 83.1 37.6 38.0
Construction Year 1960-69 90.9 40.6 45.3
CBECS Climate Zone 1 93.2 39.3 56.3
Zone 1 - 50,001 to 100,000 sq ft 100.8 40.3 54.0
Zone 1 - Education 91.6 28.0 54.6
Zone 1 - Construction Year 1960-69 108.0 37.9 62.0
Rogers Park ES has an energy consumption rate that is moderately higher than surveyed educational
facilities but on par with other buildings in CBECS climate zone 1. Natural gas consumption is also
moderately higher than other averages. Electric usage is on par with educational facilities overall, but
high for Zone 1. The higher than typical natural gas usage may indicate excess hours of operation, excess
outside air, or reheating of outside air during cooling mode.
33..22 EELLEECCTTRRIICCIITTYY
Rogers Park ES’s blended electricity average FY10 rate was $0.1178/kWh. For FY09 the rate was
$0.1119/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: $0.000492/kWh
Under-grounding Charge: 2% of bill less state and local taxes
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 11 Anchorage, AK
Rogers parks ES FY09 and FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below.
Roger Park ES - Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Date (Mon - Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Electric Cost ($)2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)
2009 Electric Cost ($)2010 Electric Cost ($)
The electric usage pattern moderately reflects the occupancy pattern of the school year. The site does not
use cooling equipment, thus the monthly changes in power consumption are largely due to fan, pump, and
lighting usage. 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 Rogers Park ES
Page 12 Anchorage, AK
33..33 NNAATTUURRAALL GGAASS
Rogers Park ES’s average FY10 natural gas cost was $0.92/Therm. The average FY09 natural gas cost
was $1.02/Therm. The total rate fluctuates depending on the Gas Cost Adjustment (GCA) based on the
actual costs of fuel purchased. Service HSFY09 and FY10 usage and cost data are 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: $0.57409/CCF (Varies)
Rogers Park ES - Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Date (Mon - Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Natural Gas Cost ($)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. The moderate usage for the
summer months may indicate that the boiler and other heating system are not shut down and operate more
than necessary.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 13 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 Rogers Park ES. These products may
or may not be selected for actual implementation. The intent is to provide reasonable cost and
performance data to be used to evaluate ECO feasibility. A balance of cost and performance is
considered when selecting products. Alternative product selection options are not likely to substantially
improve simple payback numbers. A description of each energy conservation opportunity is provided in
this section.
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 9 were calculated
using the efficiency of the new pumps from ECO 8. ECO 18 takes into account savings from ECOs 1-9
but not ECOs 10-16.
Table 4.1: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 3,843 $ 111,792 29.1
2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 3,626 $ 58,759 16.2
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 15 $ 41 2.8
5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 1,216 $ 37,375 30.7
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 95 $ 9,533 100.3
9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 2,283 $ 22,592 9.9
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 4,027 $ 129,171 32.1
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 208 $ 12,111 58.2
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,658 $ 12,530 7.6
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 138 $ 1,088 7.9
18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 5,840 $ 177,972 30.5
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 14 Anchorage, AK
ECO 1 – Exterior Lighting Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing exterior HPS lighting fixtures with high
efficiency LED fixtures via a retrofit kit for existing poles. LEDs have a higher efficacy than
HPS and are commercially available to replace outdoor building and roadway lights. These
fixtures have similar output, longer service life, and better lumen maintenance.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 29.1 years. The simple payback period is longer 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 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 minimum will meet
IES guidelines for spaces renovated.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 14.2 years. The simple payback period is shorter 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 4 – CFL Lighting Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes retrofitting the existing incandescent light bulbs with compact
fluorescent bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs installed in recessed fixtures, track lighting, utility
closets, and other general areas. Over 75% of the energy used by an incandescent light bulb is
converted into heat and is lost. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are much more efficient and can
easily replace incandescent bulbs. Post-light levels will be nearly equal to that of the existing
lighting systems or to IES standards for the present space usage, whichever is lower.
Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone
measure with a simple payback of 2.8 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 Rogers Park ES
Page 15 Anchorage, AK
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 30.7 years. The
simple payback period is more than the typical 15-year length of study period for lighting
upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 2. If ECO 2 is not
implemented, ECO 5 savings will increase.
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 select few with less
than 2 HP. Premium efficiency motors typically increase energy efficiency by 2 to 3%.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 100.3 years. The
simple payback period is more 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 9.9 years. The simple payback period is less than the median expected life of the VFDs. The
energy cost savings justify the initial investment cost.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 16 Anchorage, AK
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 a combustion
efficiency of 80% whereas current generation high efficiency boilers reach 88% efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 32.1 years. The
simple payback period is more than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers.
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 around 80% whereas current generation high efficiency water heaters reach up to
97% efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 58.2. 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. As mentioned earlier, Rogers Park ES employs 1.5 gpf urinals. Energy savings
can be realized by reducing water consumption and wastewater treatment costs. Using the
Caroma HEU utilizes only 0.13 gpf and is equipped with an automatic flush sensor. Where
waterless urinals have the disadvantage of having to maintain urinal cartridges, the Caroma HEU
does not.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 7.6 years. The simple payback period is longer than the typical 5-year length of study
period for domestic plumbing upgrades.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rogers Park ES
Page 17 Anchorage, AK
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 not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 7.9 years. The simple payback period is more than the typical 5-year length of study
period for domestic plumbing upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of
ECO 13. If ECO 13 is not implemented, ECO 16 savings will increase.
ECO 18 – Install AERCO Boilers
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with AERCO units.
The existing boilers are approaching the end of their useful service life. AERCO boilers
employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system
operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average
combustion efficiency of 82.6% whereas AERCO high efficiency boilers can be expected to
obtain an annual average of approximately reach 93% efficiency in this application.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 30.5 years. The
simple payback period is more than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Avoided
costs of replacement are included in this calculation. Annual energy savings for this ECO are
$3,632 and annualized avoided cost savings are $2,208.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Rabbit Creek ES
Page 18 Anchorage, AK
ECO 14 – Install High Efficiency Toilets
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing standard efficiency toilets with low-flow or
high-efficiency units. Existing units are wall-mounted commercial units. These units consume
1.6-3.5 gpf and can be replaced with commercial high-efficiency models which consume as little
as 1.0 gpf.
Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is not recommended as a stand-
alone measure with a simple payback of 6.6 years. The simple payback is more than the 5-year
expected lifespan of the analyzed toilets.
ECO 15 – Install High Efficiency Urinals
Summary: This ECO proposes installing high-efficiency urinals (HEUs) to replace standard
water urinals. As mentioned earlier, Rabbit Creek ES employs 1.5 gpf urinals. Energy savings
can be realized by reducing water consumption and wastewater treatment costs. Using the
Caroma HEU utilizes only 0.13 gpf and is equipped with an automatic flush sensor. Where
waterless urinals have the disadvantage of having to maintain urinal cartridges, the Caroma HEU
does not.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 10.6 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 not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 12.4 years. The simple payback period is longer 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 Rabbit Creek ES
Page 19 Anchorage, AK
ECO 18 – Install AERCO Boiler
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with AERCO units.
The existing boilers are approaching the end of their useful service life. AERCO boilers
employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system
operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average
combustion efficiency of 82.6% whereas AERCO high efficiency boilers can be expected to
obtain an annual average of approximately reach 93% efficiency in this application.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 26.6 years. The
simple payback period is more than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Avoided
costs of replacement are included in this calculation. Annual energy savings for this ECO are
$6,686 and annualized avoided cost savings are $2166.
APPENDIX A
REALS Benchmarking
Data Form
First Name Last NameMiddle NamePhone Steven Golab348‐5132State ZipAK Monday‐FridaySaturday Sunday Holidays8‐4:30 Average # of Occupants During 589 RenovationsDatePART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / tonOther energy sources? 196355,403Year BuiltREAL Preliminary Benchmark Data FormPART I – FACILITY INFORMATIONFacility OwnerMOABuilding Name/ IdentifierBuilding TypeCommunity Population261,500Municipal Government/SubdivisionRogers Park Elementary Education ‐ K ‐ 12Mixed1966 - 5406 SF MPR1963 - 20351 SF OriginalAnchorageBuilding UsageBuilding Square FootageFacility Owned ByDate07/26/11 Total = 55403 SF1968 - 9030 SF Classrooms, IMC1. 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.1972 - 4366 SF ClassroomsCityAnchorage Facility ZipFacility AddressFacility City99517EmailGolab_Steven@asdk12.org1991 - 16250 SF Classrooms, MPR1400 E Northern Lights BlvdDetailsMailing AddressPrimary Operating HoursContact Person
Rogers Park Elementary3.05038Buiding Size Input (sf) =55,4031.299572009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)44,211.002009 Natural Gas Cost ($)44,3242009 Electric Consumption (kWh)604,0712009 Electric Cost ($)70,6712009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Oil Cost ($)02009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Propane Cost ($)0.002009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Coal Cost ($)0.002009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Wood Cost ($)0.002009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Thermal Cost ($)0.002009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Steam Cost ($)0.002009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,482,7942009 Total Energy Cost ($)114,995Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 79.82009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)37.22009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)117.0Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.802009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.282009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.082010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)38,569.002010 Natural Gas Cost ($)34,0672010 Electric Consumption (kWh)569,1542010 Electric Cost ($)61,4402010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Oil Cost ($)0
2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Propane Cost ($)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)5,799,4232010 Total Energy Cost ($)95,507Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)69.62010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)35.12010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)104.7Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.612010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.112010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)1.72Note:1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
Rogers Park ElementaryNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Enstar NGC134885 Jan‐09 01/13/09 02/12/09307,1097,109$7,188$1.01Enstar NGC134885 Feb‐09 02/12/09 03/13/09295,5335,533$5,606$1.01Enstar NGC134885 Mar‐09 03/13/09 04/15/09335,2495,249$5,325$1.01Enstar NGC134885 Apr‐09 04/15/09 05/13/09283,5233,523$3,595$1.02Enstar NGC134885 May‐09 05/13/09 06/15/09331,9931,993$2,062$1.03Enstar NGC134885 Jun‐09 06/15/09 07/15/09301,3791,379$1,444$1.05Enstar NGC134885 Jul‐09 07/15/09 08/17/09331,3361,336$1,403$1.05Enstar NGC134885 Aug‐09 08/17/09 09/14/09281,4371,437$1,507$1.05Enstar NGC134885 Sep‐09 09/14/09 10/13/09291,8521,852$1,925$1.04Enstar NGC134885 Oct‐09 10/13/09 11/12/09303,1963,196$3,273$1.02Enstar NGC134885 Nov‐09 11/12/09 12/10/09285,1645,164$5,246$1.02Enstar NGC134885 Dec‐09 12/10/09 01/13/10346,4406,440$5,750$0.89Enstar NGC134885Jan‐10 01/13/10 02/11/10296,2796,279$5,259$0.84Enstar NGC134885 Feb‐10 02/11/10 03/12/10294,5184,518$3,799$0.84Enstar NGC134885 Mar‐10 03/12/10 04/15/10344,1054,105$3,479$0.85Enstar NGC134885 Apr‐10 04/15/10 05/12/10273,2293,229$2,763$0.86Enstar NGC134885 May‐10 05/12/10 06/11/10302,1592,159$1,876$0.87Enstar NGC134885 Jun‐10 06/11/10 07/13/10321,6771,677$1,465$0.87Enstar NGC134885 Jul‐10 07/13/10 08/13/10311,6441,644$1,577$0.96Enstar NGC134885 Aug‐10 08/13/10 09/14/10321,7451,745$1,751$1.00Enstar NGC134885 Sep‐10 09/14/10 10/14/1030920920$1,086$1.18Enstar NGC134885/194 Oct‐10 10/14/10 11/10/10271,5591,559$1,643$1.05Enstar NGC194 Nov‐10 11/10/10 12/10/10304,1764,176$3,715$0.89Enstar NGC194 Dec‐10 12/10/10 01/13/11346,5586,558$5,654$0.86Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:44,21144,2110$44,324$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:38,56938,5690$34,067$0$1.02$0.92Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
Rogers Park Elem ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Nov‐10Dec‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural GasConsumption (Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)
Rogers Park ElementaryElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)ML&P 1201811 Jan‐09 12/24/2008 1/26/20093358,9682,013182$5,542$0.09$2,157.65ML&P 1201811 Feb‐09 1/27/2009 2/26/20093056,9381,943171$5,226$0.09N/AML&P 1201811 Mar‐09 2/25/2009 3/26/20092960,9232,079159$6,053$0.10$1,879.88ML&P 1201811 Apr‐09 3/25/2009 4/24/20093068,8632,350154$7,530$0.11$1,827.74ML&P 1201811 May‐09 4/27/2009 5/27/20093026,928919147$3,036$0.11$1,745.27ML&P 1201811 Jun‐09 5/27/2009 6/24/20092833,0701,12997$4,335$0.13$1,726.12ML&P 1201811 Jul‐09 6/28/2009 7/27/20092933,5931,147136$4,267$0.13$1,726.12ML&P 1201811 Aug‐09 7/28/2009 8/26/20092940,6531,387147$4,950$0.12$1,726.12ML&P 1201811 Sep‐09 8/26/2009 9/25/20093046,4151,584150$5,338$0.12$1,745.27ML&P 1201811 Oct‐09 9/27/2009 10/26/20092959,4252,028162$6,412$0.11$1,776.55ML&P 1201811 Nov‐09 10/27/2009 11/25/20092958,5671,999165$7,647$0.13$1,922.54ML&P 1201811 Dec‐09 11/28/2009 12/23/20092559,7282,039169$10,335$0.17$1,954.78ML&P 1201811 Jan‐10 12/27/2009 1/25/20102958,6162,001169$984$0.02$2,001.23ML&P 1201811 Feb‐10 1/26/2010 2/23/20102852,4261,789162$5,243$0.10$1,920.65ML&P 1201811 Mar‐10 2/22/2010 3/26/20103253,4711,825149$5,581$0.10$1,764.23ML&P 1201811 Apr‐10 3/28/2010 4/26/20102948,7471,664148$5,944$0.12$1,750.96ML&P 1201811 May‐10 4/27/2010 5/26/20102945,1521,541143$5,678$0.13$1,693.13ML&P 1201811 Jun‐10 5/25/2010 6/28/20103428,70198072$4,110$0.14$1,665.83ML&P 1201811 Jul‐10 6/27/2010 7/27/20103029,4011,003133$4,128$0.14N/AML&P 1201811 Aug‐10 7/27/2010 8/25/20102939,9461,363141$4,930$0.12$1,665.83ML&P 1201811 Sep‐10 8/28/2010 9/24/20102749,0121,673152$5,594$0.11$1,734.09ML&P 1201811 Oct‐10 9/27/2010 10/26/20102951,3181,751156$5,999$0.12$1,872.19ML&P 1201811 Nov‐10 10/26/2010 11/24/20102954,2401,851161$6,389$0.12$1,927.43ML&P 1201811 Dec‐10 11/28/2010 12/23/20102558,1241,984164$6,860$0.12$1,989.57Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:604,07120,6171,839$70,671$20,188Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:569,15419,4251,749$61,440$19,985$0.12$0.11Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
Rogers Park Elementary ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Nov‐10Dec‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($)
APPENDIX B
ECO Calculations
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 01.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Exterior Lighting (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $110 1,389$ 38,687 2,159$ - -$ - - 132 3,548$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material294$ -$ -$ 3,843$ 10,252$ 89,119$ 12,421$ 111,792$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost14 EA - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ 294$ 294$ 294$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost294$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost3 EA 0.3 0.8 Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Material Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal 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 CostsExterior LightingBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 1Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 01.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate12 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 712$ 1,975$ 23,700$ 24,412$ 7 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 416$ 815$ 5,705$ 6,121$ 65 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 3,859$ 625$ 40,625$ 44,484$ 84 EA0.2 Electrician74$ 1,247$ -$ -$ 1,247$ 84 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 1,870$ 5$ 420$ 2,290$ Total Cost8,104$ 70,450$ 78,554$ 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:99,371$ Subtotal:78,554$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 6,459$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):20,817$ Design Cost (6%):5,962$ Subtotal:99,371$ Total Installed Cost:111,792$ ReportTotalRecord OperationTest OperationMisc WiringDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentInstall 221 Watt LED systemInstall 69 Watt LED systemInstall 47 Watt LED systemFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostExterior LightingBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 2Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 01.Rogers Park Elementary3. Replace 12 - 400W HPS system with 12 - 221 Watt LED system.4. Replace 7 - 100W HPS Wall Mount system with 7 - 69 Watt LED system.5. Replace 65 - 100W HPS Ceiling Mount system with 65 - 47 Watt LED system.Annual Demand (kW) = 184 Annual Demand (kW) = 74 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 110 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 64,870 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 26,183 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 38,687 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =2,330$ Demand Cost =940$ Demand Cost Savings =1,389$ Electrical Consumption Cost =3,620$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,461$ Electrical Cost Savings =2,159$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,548$ 6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is HID technology.2. New lighting will be LED technology.b. Equations:Exterior LightingBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 3Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 02.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:T8 Lighting Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $191 2,412$ 18,206 1,016$ - -$ - - 62 3,428$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material1,225$ 1,027$ -$ 3,626$ 39,429$ 12,801$ 6,529$ 58,759$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost49 EA 0.3 14.8 Electrician74$ 1,096$ -$ -$ 1,096$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 129$ 129$ 129$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost1,225$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost41 EA 0.3 12.3 Electrician74$ 914$ -$ -$ 914$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 113$ 113$ 113$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost1,027$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Labor-Hrs TradeNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)T8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 4Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 02.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate77 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 5,714$ 32$ 2,426$ 8,141$ 8 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 594$ 29$ 230$ 824$ 262 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 19,444$ 22$ 5,657$ 25,100$ 3 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 223$ 19$ 57$ 279$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350 EA0.1 Electrician74$ 2,597$ -$ -$ 2,597$ 350 EA0.1 Electrician74$ 2,597$ 5$ 1,750$ 4,347$ Total Cost31,169$ 10,119$ 41,289$ 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:52,230$ Subtotal:41,289$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 3,395$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):10,942$ Design Cost (6%):3,134$ Subtotal:52,230$ Total Installed Cost:58,759$ TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Fixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalMisc WiringInstall 4ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 1 lamp T-8 systemInstall 8ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 8ft 1 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 1 lamp T-8 systemTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 4ft 4 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 3 lamp T-8 systemU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalT8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 5Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 02.Rogers Park Elementary3. Replace 77 - 4ft 4 lamp T-12 system with 77 - 4ft 4 lamp T-8 system.4. Replace 8 - 4ft 3 lamp T-12 system with 8 - 4ft 3 lamp T-8 system.5. Replace 262 - 4ft 2 lamp T-12 system with 262 - 4ft 2 lamp T-8 system.6. Replace 3 - 4ft 1 lamp T-12 system with 3 - 4ft 1 lamp T-8 system.7. Replace 0 - 8ft 2 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 8ft 2 lamp T-8 system.8. Replace 0 - 8ft 1 lamp T-12 system with 0 - 8ft 1 lamp T-8 system.9. Replace 0 - 2ft 2 lamp T-12 U system with 0 - 2ft 2 lamp T-8 system.10. Replace 0 - 2ft 1 lamp T-12 U system with 0 - 2ft 1 lamp T-8 system.Annual Demand (kW) = 505 Annual Demand (kW) = 315 Annual Demand (kW) = 191 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 48,262 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 30,056 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 18,206 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =6,394$ Demand Cost =3,982$ Demand Cost Savings =2,412$ Electrical Consumption Cost =2,693$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,677$ Electrical Cost Savings =1,016$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,428$ 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)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)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)T8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 6Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 04.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:CFL Lighting Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $1 8$ 63 4$ - -$ - - 0 12$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material6$ 3$ -$ 15$ 28$ 9$ 5$ 41$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost0 EA 0.3 0.1 Electrician74$ 5$ -$ -$ 5$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 0$ 0$ 0$ Total Cost6$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost0 EA 0.3 0.0 Electrician74$ 2$ -$ -$ 2$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 1$ 1$ 1$ Total Cost3$ 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 ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostMaterial Cost for PMAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 7Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 04.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate- EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 11$ -$ -$ - EA0.3 Electrician74$ -$ 2$ -$ -$ 1 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 22$ 7$ 7$ 29$ - EA0.3 Electrician74$ -$ 5$ -$ -$ - EA0.3 Electrician74$ -$ 5$ -$ -$ Total Cost22$ 7$ 29$ 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:37$ Subtotal:29$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):2$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):8$ Design Cost (6%):2$ Subtotal:37$ Total Installed Cost:41$ Install 20 W CFLInstall 23 W CFLU/MUnit Labor-HrsDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 5 W CFLInstall 13 W CFLTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostInstall 30 W CFLDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 8Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 04.Rogers Park Elementary5. Replace 1 - 75W Incandescent with 1 - 20 W CFL.Annual Demand (kW) = 1 Annual Demand (kW) = 0 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 1 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 86 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 23 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 63 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =11$ Demand Cost =3$ Demand Cost Savings =8$ Electrical Consumption Cost =5$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1$ Electrical Cost Savings =4$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =12$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)1. Lighting listed for replacement is Incandescent technology.2. New lighting will be CFL technology.10. Fixtures average 1146.6 hours per year.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.12. 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)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:CFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 9Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 05Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ 28,834 1,609$ - -$ - - 98 1,609$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ 393$ -$ 1,216$ 10,391$ 22,831$ 4,153$ 37,375$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 106 EA0.1 5.3 Electrician74$ 393$ -$ -$ 393$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 393$ Total CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostO&M TasksUnit QtyTotal Energy SavingsO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostECO Description:Occupancy Sensors (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Electric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water SavingsInstall Occupancy SensorsBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 10Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 055. Cost Estimate36 EA 0.3 74$ Electrician 882$ 49$ 1,762$ 2,644$ 16 EA0.3 74$ Electrician 392$ 76$ 1,212$ 1,604$ 43 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 3,647$ 138$ 5,954$ 9,601$ 1 EA1.1 74$ Electrician85$ 164$ 164$ 249$ 10 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 848$ 109$ 1,090$ 1,938$ 106 EA0.3 74$ Electrician 2,360$ 74$ 7,867$ 10,226$ 8,214$ 18,048$ 26,262$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total 50$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 33,222$ 26,262$ 2,159$ 6,960$ 1,993$ 33,222$ 37,375$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Design Cost (6%):Subtotal:Total Installed Cost:DutiesTest OperationTotal Annual M&V Cost ($):ReportTotalSubcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Total CostSales Tax (0%):Bond (0%):Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):Labor Rate ($Hr):Inspect EquipmentAnnual Labor Cost ($):Record OperationAnnual Material/Equipment Cost ($):Labor 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 WiringDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeTotal Labor CostInstall Occupancy SensorsBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 11Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 05a. Assumptions:1. Spaces can have occupancy sensors installed to reduce lighting usage.2. Passive Infared (PIR) sensors are used in corridors and rooms with open floor plans.3. Dual technology sensors are used in larger rooms and areas where occupants could potentially be shielded from the PIR on the sensor.4. Percent savings estimates are from the Energy Management Handbook, Turner, 3rd Edition.b. Equations:1. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (Existing Hours) / (1,000)2. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x [(Existing Hours) - (Hours Reduced)] / (1,000)3. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)4. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)- - - 101,887 73,053 Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = 28,834 - - Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =- - - Water Savings (kGal) =- -$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ 5,685$ 4,077$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings = 1,609$ -$ -$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ -$ -$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =1,609$ Water Consumption Cost =Water Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost =Water Consumption (kGal) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost =Demand Cost =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =c. Calculations:Demand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) = Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Demand (kW) = Demand (kW) =8. Energy SavingsBaseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Install Occupancy SensorsBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 12Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 08.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Premium Efficiency Motors (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $ kGal$ mmBtu $0 6$ 1,590 89$ - -$ - - 5 95$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material11$ 11$ -$ 95$ 1,267$ 7,207$ 1,059$ 9,533$ 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$ 5. Cost Estimate5 LS 1.5 74$ 557$ 536$ 2,680$ 3,237$ 1 LS2.0 74$ 148$ 775$ 775$ 923$ 1 LS2.0 74$ 148$ 1,316$ 1,316$ 1,464$ 1 LS2.0 74$ 148$ 926$ 926$ 1,074$ 1,002$ 5,697$ 6,699$ 3 horse5 horseMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotal CostTotal M&L Cost1.5 horse2 horseDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsPremium Efficiency MotorsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 13Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 08.Rogers Park Elementary6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 8,474$ 6,699$ 551$ 1,775$ 508$ 8,474$ 9,533$ 8.97 8.48 0.50 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =29,456.18 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =27,866.12 1,590 Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Savings (mmBtu) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =114$ Demand Cost =107$ Demand Cost Savings =6$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,644$ Electrical Consumption Cost =1,555$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =89$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =95$ c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =Demand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =6. Electrical demand costs = $12.66/kW.7. Electrical consumption costs = $0.055802/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)Design Cost (6%):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 motors & efficiencies: (5) 1.5-hp @ 78.5%; (1) 2-hp @ 84%; (1) 3-hp @ 84%; (1) 5-hp @ 84%3. Proposed motors & efficiencies: (5) 1.5-hp @ 84-88.5%; (1) 2-hp @ 86.5%; (1) 3-hp @ 89.5%; (1) 5-hp @ 89.5%4. Motor load factor = 80%5. Building annual operating hours = 1638 (95% diversity factor)Sales Tax (0%): Bond (0%):Subtotal: Total Installed Cost:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Premium Efficiency MotorsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 14Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 09ECO Description:Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Hot Water SystemRogers Par k ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $kGal$ mmBtu $45 569$ 30,714 1,714$ - -$ - - 105 2,283$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 2,283$ 10,152$ 9,930$ 2,510$ 22,592$ 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$ -$ -$ - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ M&V CostDaily O&MO&M TasksUnit QtyConstruction CostsU/MO&M CostTotal Energy SavingsAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Installed CostTradeU/MElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsAnnual PMUnit QtyWater SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsTotal Labor CostO&M TasksTradeNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial Cost Net Material CostAnnual CostTotal CostNet Material CostApplicable Building:Unit Labor-Hrs Net Labor-HrsTotal CostMaterial CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Hot Water SystemRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 15Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 095. Cost EstimateVFD 3 HP6 EA 10.0 Electrician 74$ 4,453$ 1,000$ 6,000$ 10,453$ 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 Cost8,025$ 7,850$ 15,875$ 6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 20,082$ 15,875$ 1,305$ 4,207$ 1,205$ 20,082$ 22,592$ Controls SetupMisc. piping & InstrumentationDescriptionU/MUnit QtyTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Design Cost (6%):Sales Tax (0%):Total Installed Cost:Material CostBond (0%):Pump Motor WiringSupervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Total M&L CostTotal Labor CostTotal Material CostUnit Labor-HrsSubcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Hot Water SystemRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 16Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 094. The heating water system operates 1754.4 hours per year.3. Motor Load Factor = (Chilled Water Load (%) / 100%)^366.0 21.1 44.9 46,929 16,215 30,714 - - -$ - - - 836$ 267$ 569$ 2,619$ 905$ 1,714$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,283$ 5. 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.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 Month5. kWh Saved = Existing kWh Usage - Proposed kWh Usage6. Annual Cost Savings = kWh Saved x kWh Unit CostWater 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 =Savings:Demand 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) =Demand Savings (kW) =Baseline Condition:Proposed 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 HoursElectrical Consumption Cost =Propane Consumption (Gal) =Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =7. Energy Savings3. Proposed pump system will be a 0 hp primary pump with 0 ft of head and a 9 hp secondary pump with 72 ft of head. The secondary pump will operate with a VFD to modulate flow based on heating water demand.7. Electrical demand costs = $8.89/kW.2. Existing pumping system is rated at 9 hp with flow of 325 gpm, 72 ft. of head, and 89.5% efficiency.6. Electrical consumption costs = $0.0356/kWh.1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK (nearest available NOAA station) applies.a. Assumptions:Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Hot Water SystemRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 17Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 10.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 2,664 1,819$ - - 266 1,819$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material2,208$ -$ -$ 4,027$ 13,674$ 101,144$ 14,352$ 129,171$ 2,208$ 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-$ Avoided CostTotal Installed CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostTradeTradeNet Material CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostO&M TasksUnit QtyUnit Qty U/MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostDaily O&MElectric SavingsDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMInstallation CostsTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostU/MAnnual CostBoiler UpgradeRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 18Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 10.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate3 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 26,652$ 79,956$ 79,956$ 1 LS 128.0 Mechanical 84$ 10,810$ -$ -$ 10,810$ Total Cost10,810$ 79,956$ 90,766$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical 84$ -$ 2,208$ 2,208$ 2,208$ -$ 2,208$ 2,208$ 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:114,818$ Subtotal:90,766$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 7,463$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 24,053$ Design Cost (6%):6,889$ Subtotal:114,818$ Total Installed Cost:129,171$ Total Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostThermal Solution Evo EVAM-2500DescriptionTotal Labor CostDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeTotalTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Record OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)DutiesDemolitionTotal Material CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsBoiler UpgradeRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 19Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 10.Rogers Park Elementary9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings2 11 199711. 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.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 24.2% 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 = $0.68279/CCF9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 82.5%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 88.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%Remaining LifeUnit ReplacedBurnham V115WNG1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.QuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit22,735.17Thermal Solution Evo EVAM-2500Boiler UpgradeRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 20Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 10.Rogers Park Elementaryc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =51,508 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =48,844 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =2,664 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =35,169$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =33,350$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =1,819$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =1,819$ 5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Costb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler Output2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiency3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu UsageBoiler Upgrade Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 21Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13a.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Domestic Hot Water Heater Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 33 23$ - - 3 23$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 23$ 2,159$ 6,288$ 1,056$ 9,503$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMDomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 22Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13a.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate1 EA 15.0 Plumber 74$ 1,108$ 6,316$ 6,316$ 7,424$ 1 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 443$ 180$ 180$ 623$ 1 LS2.1 Plumber74$ 155$ -$ -$ 155$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- Other-$ -$ (1,525)$ (1,525)$ (1,525)$ Total Cost1,707$ 4,971$ 6,677$ 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:8,447$ Subtotal:6,677$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):549$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 1,769$ Design Cost (6%):507$ Subtotal:8,447$ Total Installed Cost:9,503$ Total Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostRHEEM GHE-100-250Flue installation, pipe re-route, misc.Demolition WorkU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Avoided CostsDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalDomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 23Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13a.Rogers Park Elementary8. 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/CCF125 1990 1.076.4 5468,76019,000,000 15,670,1031. Installed Gas Water Heater based on RHEEM GHE-100-250 @ 70 deg F temperature rise3. Existing water heater temperature is 120 degrees F.4. The ambient temperature is 70 degrees F.7. Existing water heaters operate 8,760 hours per year.8. One bank of multiple instantaneous heater will replace each traditional tank heater.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.Existing Water Heater Size (nominal gallons)Existing Water Heater TypeReplacement Water Heater TypeExisting Tank Year InstalledReplacement Value Factor (% of 1 for 1 replacement cost avoided)Surface Area (sq. ft.)Existing Standby Losses (Btu/hr)Hours of Operation (hr)Existing Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Stand-by Savings (Btu.yr)Proposed Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Conventional gas RHEEM GHE-100-250ADomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 24Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13a.Rogers Park Elementaryb. Equations:1. Existing Standby Losses = 1/R x SurfaceArea x (Temp. tank- Temp. ambient)2. Energy Savings per year (kWh/yr.) = Standby Losses x hours /3413Baseline Condition: Proposed Condition: Savings Estiamtes:Demand (kW) = - Demand (kW) = - Demand Savings (kW) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = - Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = 190 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = 157 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) = 33 Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) = - Demand Cost = -$ Demand Cost = -$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =130$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =107$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =23$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =22.74$ 3. Cost Savings = Energy Savings x $0.0360Domestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 25Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Domestic Hot Water Heater Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ 5,496 307$ (179) (122)$ - - 1 185$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 185$ 1,415$ 904$ 290$ 2,608$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMDomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 26Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate1 EA 8.0 Plumber74$ 591$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,685$ 1 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 443$ 180$ 180$ 623$ 1 LS1.1 Plumber74$ 84$ -$ -$ 84$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- Other-$ -$ (560)$ (560)$ (560)$ Total Cost1,118$ 714$ 1,833$ 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:2,318$ Subtotal:1,833$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):151$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 486$ Design Cost (6%):139$ Subtotal:2,318$ Total Installed Cost:2,608$ Total Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostRHEEM RTG-95 DVNFlue installation, pipe re-route, misc.Demolition WorkU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Avoided CostsDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalDomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 27Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13.Rogers Park Elementary8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Tankless sizing based on sum of sink and shower fixture GPM x 60% hot water use with a peak demand of 80% of total GPM5. Surface area of tanks calculated based on capacity and standard sizings.6. Existing water heaters have an R-value of 7.9. Existing annual usage split between existing heaters proportionally with tank size.10. Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 20 year lifecycle at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units with more than 5 years remaining life are excluded from the calculation.12. Natural Gas consumption costs $0.68279/CCF80 1990 1.034.1 1068,76017,674,419 1,084,735 17,882,3531. Installed Tankless Heaters based on RHEEM RTG-95 DVN @ 70 deg F temperature rise3. Existing water heater temperature is 120 degrees F.4. The ambient temperature is 70 degrees F.7. Existing water heaters operate 8,760 hours per year.8. One bank of multiple instantaneous heater will replace each traditional tank heater.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.055802/kWh.Existing Water Heater Size (nominal gallons)Existing Water Heater TypeReplacement Water Heater TypeExisting Tank Year InstalledReplacement Value Factor (% of 1 for 1 replacement cost avoided)Surface Area (sq. ft.)Existing Standby Losses (Btu/hr)Hours of Operation (hr)Existing Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Stand-by Savings (Btu.yr)Proposed Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Min Eff Electric Whole Bldg Gas TanklessDomestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 28Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 13.Rogers Park Elementaryb. Equations:1. Existing Standby Losses = 1/R x SurfaceArea x (Temp. tank- Temp. ambient)2. Energy Savings per year (kWh/yr.) = Standby Losses x hours /3413Baseline Condition: Proposed Condition: Savings Estiamtes:Demand (kW) = - Demand (kW) = - Demand Savings (kW) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 5,496 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = 5,496 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = - Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = 179 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) = (179) Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) = - Demand Cost = -$ Demand Cost = -$ Demand Cost Savings = -$ Electrical Consumption Cost = 307$ Electrical Consumption Cost = -$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings = 307$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = -$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = 122$ Natural Gas Cost Savings = (122)$ Water Consumption Cost = -$ Water Consumption Cost = -$ Water Cost Savings = -$ Total Cost Savings = 184.61$ 3. Cost Savings = Energy Savings x $0.0360Domestic Water HeaterBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 29Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 15.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:High-Efficiency Urinals (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $kWhkWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ - -$ 214.76 1,657.95 - 1,658$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material6,143$ 6,143$ -$ 1,658$ 5,976$ 5,161$ 1,392$ 12,530$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost1,200 EA 0.1 120.0 Janitor 36$ 4,346$ 0.02$ 24$ 4,370$ 24 EA1.0 24.0 Plumber74$ 1,773$ -$ -$ 1,773$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost6,143$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost1,200 EA 0.1 120.0 Janitor 36$ 4,346$ 0.02$ 24$ 4,370$ 24 EA1.0 24.0 Plumber74$ 1,773$ -$ -$ 1,773$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ 58$ -$ -$ Total Cost6,143$ Annual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsHigh Efficency UrinalsBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 30Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 15.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate12 EA 5.3 Plumber 74$ 4,724$ 340$ 4,080$ 8,804$ 12 EA1.1 Plumber74$ 1,013$ -$ -$ 1,013$ Total Cost4,724$ 4,080$ 8,804$ 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:11,137$ Subtotal:8,804$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):724$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):2,333$ Design Cost (6%):668$ Subtotal:11,137$ Total Installed Cost:12,530$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:Total1. 12 existing urinal(s) @ 1.5 gpf.2. 182 weekdays and 0 special occasion days annually.3. 295 male occupants on workdays. 0 male occupants on special occasion days.4. Restroom fixture usage rate = 5X per person per day (National average, AWWA).Test OperationReportTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall High Efficiency UrinalDemo Existing UrinalDescription Unit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)High Efficency UrinalsBldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 31Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 15.Rogers Park Elementary7. 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 $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Savings () =- Water Consumption (kGal) =322 Water Consumption (kGal) =107 Water Savings (kGal) =215 Demand Cost =-$ 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 =2,487$ Water Consumption Cost =829$ Water Cost Savings =1,658$ Total Cost Savings =1,658$ 2. Existing or Proposed Annual Urinal Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Urinal GPF) x (Annual Urinal Use)Weekday] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)special occasionday x (Urinal GPF) (Annual Urinal Use)special occasionday] ) / 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 = 0.51. Annual Urinal Use = [(Total Male Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or special occasion DaysHigh Efficency Urinals Bldg Rogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 32Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 16.Rogers Park ElementaryECO Description:Low Flow Faucets (Bldg Rogers Park Elementary)Applicable Building:Rogers Park Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 57 39$ 12.86 99.31 6 138$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 138$ 421$ 546$ 121$ 1,088$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Total Labor CostMaterial CostDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MMaterial Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsNet Material CostAnnual CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)U/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Energy SavingsM&V CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water SavingsLow Flow FaucetsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 33Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 16.Rogers Park Elementary5. Cost Estimate- EA0.2 Plumber74$ -$ 15$ -$ -$ 27 EA0.2 Plumber74$ 332$ 16$ 432$ 764$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost332$ 432$ 764$ 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:967$ Subtotal:764$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):63$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 203$ Design Cost (6%):58$ Subtotal:967$ Total Installed Cost:1,088$ Test OperationReportTotalDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostUltra Low Flow Faucet AeratorKitchen Faucet Swivel AeratorTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsDescriptionUnit QtyLow Flow FaucetsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 34Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 16.Rogers Park Elementary8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 0 existing lavatory faucets @ 0 gpm; 27 kitchen faucet @ 2.2 gpm.2. 182 weekdays and 0 drill days annually.3. 589 occupant on workdays and 0 on drill days.4. Avg daily use/person: lav faucet = 3 mins, kitchen faucet = 1 min5. Estimate of 20% of occupants use the kitchen faucet once daily.6. Proposed lav faucet @ 0.5 gpm; kitchen faucet @ 1 gpm.7. 60% of domestic water is heated hotwater; 80 temp rise; 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 $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:1. Annual Lav Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill Days2. Annual Kitchen Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days) x (Kitchen Use Use Factor)]Weekday or Drill Days3. Existing or Proposed Annual Lav Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10004. Existing or Proposed Annual Kitchen Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10005. Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Annual Lav Use) + (Annual Kit Use)]Existing/Proposed6. Annual DHW Capacity (kGal) = (% DHW) x (Annual Water Usage)Existing/Proposed7. Heating Energy (mmBtu) = DHW Gal x (8.33 lb/gal) x (1 Btu/lb-°F) x ΔT / 1,000,0008. Fuel Required (mmBtu) = Heating Energy / Boiler Efficiency9. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage10. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Savings x Utility Unit CostLow Flow FaucetsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 35Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:ECO 16.Rogers Park Elementaryc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)210 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)152 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)57 Water Consumption (kGal) =47 Water Consumption (kGal) =34 Water Consumption (kGal) =13 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost143$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost104$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost39$ Water Consumption Cost =364$ Water Consumption Cost =265$ Water Consumption Cost =99$ Total Cost Savings =138$ Low Flow FaucetsRogers Park ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 36Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:M02.Rogers Parks ESECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Rogers Parks ES)Applicable Building:Rogers Parks ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 5,319 3,632$ - - 532 3,632$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material2,208$ -$ -$ 5,840$ 17,309$ 140,889$ 19,775$ 177,972$ 2,208$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA 0.5 60.0 - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS40.0 40.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA 0.5 54.0 - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS36.0 36.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ U/MO&M TasksDaily O&MAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostUnit Qty U/MTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostElectric SavingsDaily O&MO&M TasksTotal Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMInstallation CostsUnit QtyNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostTradeTradeAvoided CostTotal Installed CostAERCO BoilersRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 37Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:M02.Rogers Parks ES5. Cost Estimate2 EA - Mechanical84$ -$ 45,448$ 90,895$ 90,895$ 1 EA- Mechanical84$ -$ 16,887$ 16,887$ 16,887$ 1 LS- Mechanical84$ 1,796$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 5,388$ 1 LS- Mechanical84$ 1,077$ -$ -$ 1,077$ 1 LS128.0 Mechanical84$ 10,810$ -$ -$ 10,810$ Total Cost13,683$ 111,374$ 125,057$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical84$ -$ 2,208$ 2,208$ 2,208$ -$ 2,208$ 2,208$ 7. Measurement and Verification Cost- Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):50$ Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unit Qty U/MInspect EquipmentUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostLabor Requirement (Hours)DutiesDemolitionDescriptionTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportAERCO BMK750Total CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostRecord OperationStartupTotal M&L CostTotalUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostControllerTradeDescriptionAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostAERCO BMK3.0 LNAERCO BoilersRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 38Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:M02.Rogers Parks ES8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:158,197$ Subtotal:125,057$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 10,283$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 33,140$ Design Cost (6%):9,492$ Subtotal:158,197$ Total Installed Cost:177,972$ 9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.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 savings21119973. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 82.5%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 93.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%8. Unoccupied temperature setpoint = 60°F9. Heating setpoint = 68°F9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.10. Natural Gas costs = $0.68279/CCF11. Fuel Oil accounts for less than 7% of basewide heating fuel consumption. For uniformity of calculation among buildings, this ECO assumes all fuel use is gas.Year Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New UnitAERCO BMK750Remaining LifeUnit ReplacedBurnham V115WNG 22,735.17 AERCO BMK3.0 LN & AERCO BMK750Quantity7. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 24.2% of the max output of the boiler system based on these averages and the heating load decreases linearly with increased outdoor air temperature.AERCO BoilersRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 39Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99508ECO NO:M02.Rogers Parks ESb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler Output2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiency3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Costc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = 5,319 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =51,508 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =46,189 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =3,632$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =35,169$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =31,538$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =3,632$ AERCO BoilersRogers Park ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 40Level II Energy Audit Rogers Park ES Anchorage, AK
APPENDIX C
Major Equipment
Survey
Name Location Area ServedMakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesBLR-1 Boiler Rm Burnham Nat Gas 3680 mbh inBLR-2 Boiler Rm Burnham Nat Gas 3680 mbh inF-1 N Fan Rm Multipurpose Rm Pace A-15 AFBI supply airF-2 N Fan Rm Gym Pace A-18 AFBI supply airF-3 S Fan Rm Stage/Music Rm Pace A-12 AFBI supply airF-4 S Fan Rm Library and Art Rms Pace A-15 AFBI supply airF-5 Roof Trane PCC07 FC supply airF-6 Various Penn Zephyr Z-6 RA exhaust airF-7 TLT 167 Penn Zephyr Z-5 RA exhaust airF-8 Boiler Rm Pace A-15 FC supply airF-9 Rm 113 Penn Zephyr Z-8exhaust airF-10 Rm 162 Penn Zephyr Z-101 TDA exhaust airPmp-1 Boiler Rm Boiler Circ257 gpm 1997Pmp-2 Boiler Rm Boiler Circ257 gpm 1997Pmp-3 Boiler Rm Heating154 gpm 1997Pmp-3A Boiler Rm Standby154 gpm 1997Pmp-4 Boiler Rm Heating72.3 gpm 1997Pmp-4A Boiler Rm Standby72.3 gpm 1997Pmp-5 Boiler Rm Heating98.6 gpm 1997Pmp-5A Boiler Rm Standby98.6 gpm 1997Pmp-6 Boiler Rm HTX Circ325 gpm 1997Pmp-6A Boiler Rm Standby325 gpm 1997Mechanical Equipment Summary
APPENDIX D
Thermal Image
Report
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:36:24 PMImage Date
IR_0469.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Minimal convective and conductive heat loss in this
door system
Description
Main Entrance
1 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:43:10 PMImage Date
IR_0477.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Description
Window System
2 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:48:41 PMImage Date
IR_0481.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good weather-stripping
Description
3 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:50:53 PMImage Date
IR_0489.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Some convective heat loss
Description
4 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:51:39 PMImage Date
IR_0491.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Minimal heat loss
Description
5 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:52:04 PMImage Date
IR_0493.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Decent weather-stripping
Description
6 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:53:30 PMImage Date
IR_0495.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good weather-stripping- minimal convective heat loss
Description
7 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:55:49 PMImage Date
IR_0497.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Poor weather-stripping- note 17.3 temperature change
Description
8 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:56:45 PMImage Date
IR_0501.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Note change in temperature- could benefit from better weather stripping
Description
9 (10)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/15/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Rogers Park
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 1400 E Northern Lights
Blvd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:59:25 PMImage Date
IR_0507.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Difference and inconsistency in temperature suggests
poor roof insulation
Description
Icicles
10 (10)
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.