Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD SAVE High School 2012-EE
SAVE Alternative High School 410 E. 56th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99517 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-ANC-CAEC-23 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASD ................................................................................................................................ Anchorage School District ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 1 OF 24 This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Anchorage School District Contact: Calvin Mundt 1301 Labar Street Anchorage, AK 99515 Email: mundt_calvin@asdk12.org Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The January 2009 – December 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 28,157 Natural Gas $ 16,498 Total $ 44,655 Annual Energy Utilization Index: 132.0 kBtu/sf Annual Energy Cost Index: 2.41 $/sf Annual Energy Use per Occupant: 12.3 MMBtu per Occupant Annual Energy Cost per Occupant: $224 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for SAVE Alternative High School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 2 OF 24 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost 1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/ Maint. Savings) 3 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $190 $1 2236.50 0.0 (N/A) 2 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms/Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $1,907 $2,000 12.00 1.0 (N/A) 3 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $554 $900 7.24 1.6 (N/A) 4 Setback Thermostat: Gym/Storage Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym/Storage space. $877 $2,000 5.52 2.3 (N/A) 5 Lighting: Hallway MH Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Dimmer $1,502 $15,800 2.17 10.5 (5.4) 6 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $2,051 $37,400 1.60 18.2 (7.4) 7 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (4 @ $1,500 each = $6,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $4,000). $543 $10,000 1.38 18.4 (14.4) 8 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Program HighEfficElectronic $335 $4,800 1.12 14.3 (10.6) 9 Lighting: 3-bulb T8 Replace with 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $998 $45,600 0.53 45.7 (22.4) 10 Lighting: 4-bulb T8 Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $137 $7,200 0.48 52.7 (24.2) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 3 OF 24 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost 1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/ Maint. Savings) 3 11 Ventilation Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (4), $1000 per EF (7)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (4 units @ $3,000 each = $12,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $8,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 18,200 CFM = $113,750). Install premium efficiency motors (12 @ $1,000 each = $12,000). $6,132 $158,750 0.47 25.9 (N/A) 12 Lighting: 2-bulb T8 Replace with 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $194 $14,000 0.42 72.2 (28.3) 13 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 1%. $58 $2,000 0.25 34.7 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $15,479 $300,451 0.89 19.4 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 4 OF 24 With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $15,479 per year, or 34.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $300,451, for an overall simple payback period of 19.4 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $7,960 per year, or 17.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $72,901, for an overall simple payback period of 9.2 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $21,727 $0 $1,884 $10,984 $2,800 $2,455 $5,409 $45,260 With All Proposed Retrofits $15,329 $0 $1,419 $5,700 $2,055 $2,455 $2,823 $29,781 SAVINGS $6,398 $0 $465 $5,285 $745 $0 $2,586 $15,479 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 5 OF 24 While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 6 OF 24 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 18,580 square foot SAVE Alternative High School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, and a gymnasium/multipurpose room. There are no relocatable classrooms on campus. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 7 OF 24 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on September 27, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. An additional site visit was completed on October 26, 2011 where thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 8 OF 24 Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for Anchorage has an index of 100 and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 9 OF 24 The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 10 OF 24 All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, SAVE Alternative High School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Anchorage, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Anchorage, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the natural gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 11 OF 24 The SAVE Alternative High School is a single story facility that was built in 1984. The school typical hours during the weekdays are to open at 6AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 7AM to 4PM, and is generally cleaned and closed by 9PM. There is no summer school session using the building. There are an estimated 200 full time students, faculty and staff occupying the building during normal hours. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, metal clad windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.63 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be in good shape. The above grade exterior walls of the building have a composite R-22 value and the crawlspace walls have a composite R-16 value. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The rafter framed roof system of the school has an estimated R-33 composite value. The floor/foundation of the building consists of both a crawlspace section and a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge is not insulated on the outside and there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are full-windowed or solid. The doors appear to be in good condition, but could use additional weather stripping installed. As can be seen in the infrared images, there is heat loss and air infiltration occurring around all of the doors. Heat is provided to the building by three (3) natural gas-fired cast iron boilers which were installed in 2002, replacing the original boilers. The glycol heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the mechanical room. Heat is provided to the air handling units and various in duct heating coils located in the crawlspace. There are electric baseboard heaters located around the building in various locations which must be there for backup heat and should not be normally used. This building has a Siemens DDC system in place with electronic end devices. The boilers utilize a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler’s 1-3 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 462,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 80 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 12 OF 24 Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a natural gas fired hot water heater. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the various classroom and janitor sinks in the building. The hot water heater is located in the boiler room. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 75,100 Btu/hr Steady State Efficiency: 70 % Heat Distribution Type: Water DHW Operation: All Year There are three (4) Air Handling Units (AHU’s) located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through these AHU’s. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof exhaust fans and relief air fans. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 6,475 CFM of outdoor air (IMC design specifies 35 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 18,580 sf school = 6,475 CFM). Adding up all of the exhaust capacity (except kitchen range hood) equals 4,700 CFM, indicating the school appears to be over ventilated at 24 CFM/occupant when all exhaust systems are operated per design capacity. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The ventilation system uses electronic controlled end devices, controlled by the Siemens DDC system. The way the heating system is installed, operation of the AHU’s and variable air volume boxes are required to move heat throughout the building. The electric baseboard heat should only be employed as backup heat, so the ventilation system is required to operate to maintain building heat. Maintenance appears to be important as this system was noted to have balance and heat distribution problems as some areas of the building were not adequately being heated by the forced air system, so the electric generated heat was being used. In the crawlspace, the flex ducts are inadequately supported and were noted to be sagging thereby pinching off and creating uneven air flow. It is recommend the ventilation system be overhauled and be re-commissioned to establish adequate temperature control in all spaces of the building. All outside air dampers should be verified for proper operation and to be fully closed during unoccupied hours with all major exhaust fans being shut-down under this condition. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 13 OF 24 There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses modern T8 lights. The gym was found to be over lit and uses 400W metal-halide lights which are good candidates for replacement. The T12 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the MH systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.4 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 14 OF 24 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Chugach Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 15 OF 24 The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.15 $/kWh 0.13 $/kWh 0.14 $/kWh Natural Gas 1.04 $/CCF 0.88 $/CCF 0.96 $/CCF Total Cost $48,641 $40,669 $44,655 ECI 2.62 $/sf 2.19 $/sf 2.41 $/sf Electric EUI 39.0 kBtu/sf 37.4 kBtu/sf 38.2 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 92.9 kBtu/sf 94.6 kBtu/sf 93.8 kBtu/sf Building EUI 131.9 kBtu/sf 132.0 kBtu/sf 132.0 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 84 schools in the ASD computed an average EUI of 106.5 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 1.77 $/sf, with an average building size of 86,356 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 132 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 59% more energy than the US average and 24% more energy than the ASD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 16 OF 24 At current utility rates, the Anchorage School District is modeled to pay approximately $45,260 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for SAVE Alternative High School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 17 OF 24 Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 7876 7178 7876 7477 5229 3175 3281 5507 7486 7876 7622 7876 Refrigeration 1697 1547 1697 1643 1697 1643 1697 1697 1643 1697 1643 1697 Other Electrical 1761 1605 1761 1704 1174 669 691 1243 1704 1761 1704 1761 Ventilation Fans 3879 3535 3879 3754 2587 1474 1523 2739 3754 3879 3754 3879 DHW 27 24 27 26 27 26 27 27 26 27 26 27 Space Heating 7464 6019 5499 3714 2402 1426 1176 1409 2235 4212 5943 7379 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 163 148 163 157 163 157 163 163 157 163 157 163 Space Heating 2545 2029 1816 1162 669 314 214 301 614 1339 1988 2513 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 18 OF 24 Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 203,831 kWh 695,674 3.340 2,323,552 Natural Gas 17,420 ccf 1,742,025 1.047 1,823,900 Total 2,437,699 4,147,452 BUILDING AREA 18,580 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 131 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 223 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 19 OF 24 The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized as follows: Refrigeration Measures Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Combined Refrigeration Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $190 Breakeven Cost $2,237 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2,236.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the building, including the kitchen and break room refrigerators. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Vending Machine 3 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $900 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $554 Breakeven Cost $6,512 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine. Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Classrooms/Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,907 Breakeven Cost $23,991 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 20 OF 24 Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Building Space Recommendation 4 Gym/Storage Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym/Storage space. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $877 Breakeven Cost $11,038 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Hallway MH 14 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Dimmer Installation Cost $15,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,502 Breakeven Cost $34,359 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. This recommendation includes the practice of a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. The light sensor would assure the parking lot lights are not operated when there is sufficient daylight available. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Gym Lights 24 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $37,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,051 Breakeven Cost $59,909 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 21 OF 24 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 4-bulb T12 12 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $4,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $335 Breakeven Cost $5,372 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 14 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 40-Watt T12 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 3-bulb T8 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $45,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $998 Breakeven Cost $24,139 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 46 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors and controls for daylight harvesting. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 4-bulb T8 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $7,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $137 Breakeven Cost $3,459 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 53 Auditors Notes: See EEM #9 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 2-bulb T8 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $14,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $194 Breakeven Cost $5,860 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 72 Auditors Notes: See EEM #9 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 22 OF 24 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Building Shell Measures Rank Recommendation 7 Install premium efficiency motors (4 @ $1,500 each = $6,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $4,000). Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $543 Breakeven Cost $13,823 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. This can be accomplished through programming with the existing DDC system, this upgrade is expected to cost $4,000 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $265. B. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used and the increased efficiency of the new equipment.. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With burner and motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $6,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $307. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 13 Whole Building Air Tightness estimated as: 0.85 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 1%. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $58 Breakeven Cost $504 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 35 Auditors Notes: This EEM can be realized as a result of adding new weather stripping, caulking around leaky areas, etc… CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 23 OF 24 Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 11 Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (4), $1000 per EF (7)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (4 units @ $3,000 each = $12,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $8,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 18,200 CFM = $113,750). Install premium efficiency motors (12 @ $1,000 each = $12,000). Installation Cost $158,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $6,132 Breakeven Cost $74,999 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 26 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $13,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,099. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps and the reduced power requirements from VFD’s, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement and VFD installation, the total cost is estimated to be $32,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,597. C. Installation of heat recovery systems to augment the capabilities of the AHUs will greatly reduce the amount of energy wasted in heating outside air brought into the building. A heat recovery system is estimated to cost $113,750 for an annual energy savings of $3,753. D. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐23 PAGE 24 OF 24 Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Steven Golab 348‐5132 State Zip AK Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7:00‐4:00 Average # of Occupants During 200 Renovations Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Facility Zip 261,500 99517 Email Golab_Steven@asdk12.org Details Primary Operating Hours Contact Person City Anchorage Mailing Address 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner MOA 410 E 56th Ave Anchorage Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By Date 07/22/11Municipal S.A.V.E High School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 18,580 Facility Address Building Type Mixed Community Population Facility City Year Built 1984 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT S.A.V.E High School Buiding Size Input (sf) =18,580 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)17,264.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)17,671 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)212,287 2009 Electric Cost ($)30,970 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Oil Cost ($)0 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)2,450,936 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)48,641 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 92.9 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)39.0 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)131.9 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.95 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.67 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.62 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)17,570.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)15,326 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)203,824 2010 Electric Cost ($)25,343 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Oil Cost ($)0 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)2,452,651 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)40,669 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)94.6 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)37.4 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)132.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.82 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.36 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.19 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYS.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTS.A.V.E High SchoolNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Meter # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Enstar NGC5589 Jan‐09 01/02/09 02/04/093325412541$2,608$1.03Enstar NGC5589 Feb‐09 02/04/09 03/03/092718651865$1,934$1.04Enstar NGC5589 Mar‐09 03/03/09 04/03/093116711671$1,739$1.04Enstar NGC5589 Apr‐09 04/03/09 05/04/093111951195$1,260$1.05Enstar NGC5589 May‐09 05/04/09 06/03/0930946946$1,014$1.07Enstar NGC5589 Jun‐09 06/03/09 07/06/0933749749$810$1.08Enstar NGC5589 Jul‐09 07/06/09 08/04/0929599599$668$1.12Enstar NGC5589 Aug‐09 08/04/09 09/02/0929625625$664$1.06Enstar NGC5589 Sep‐09 09/02/09 10/02/093012371237$1,291$1.04Enstar NGC5589 Oct‐09 10/02/09 11/02/093112511251$1,305$1.04Enstar NGC5589 Nov‐09 11/02/09 12/02/093022502250$2,337$1.04Enstar NGC5589 Dec‐09 12/02/09 01/05/103423352335$2,041$0.87Enstar NGC5589Jan‐10 01/05/10 02/03/102923382338$2,018$0.86Enstar NGC5589 Feb‐10 02/03/10 03/03/102817621762$1,523$0.86Enstar NGC5589 Mar‐10 03/03/10 04/05/103316561656$1,445$0.87Enstar NGC5589 Apr‐10 04/05/10 05/04/102912391239$1,087$0.88Enstar NGC5589 May‐10 05/04/10 06/01/1028913913$806$0.88Enstar NGC5589 Jun‐10 06/01/10 07/01/1030820820$723$0.88Enstar NGC5589 Jul‐10 07/01/10 08/03/1033731731$646$0.88Enstar NGC5589 Aug‐10 08/03/10 09/01/1029703703$674$0.96Enstar NGC5589 Sep‐10 09/01/10 10/05/1034902902$820$0.91Enstar NGC5589 Oct‐10 10/05/10 11/01/102713581358$1,209$0.89Enstar NGC5589 Nov‐10 11/01/10 12/01/103019651965$1,684$0.86Enstar NGC5589 Dec‐10 12/01/10 01/03/113331833183$2,691$0.85Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:17,26417,2640$17,671$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:17,57017,5700$15,326$0$1.04$0.88Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYS.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,0000500100015002000250030003500Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)S.A.V.E High School ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYS.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTS.A.V.E High SchoolElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)CEA 4‐29634613 Jan‐09 12/17/2008 1/16/2009302064870577$3,361$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 Feb‐09 1/16/2009 2/17/2009321811561877$2,972$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 Mar‐09 2/17/2009 3/19/2009301889564575$3,083$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 Apr‐09 3/19/2009 4/17/2009291824362370$2,828$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 May‐09 4/17/2009 5/19/2009321731859170$2,731$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 Jun‐09 5/19/2009 6/17/2009291307444669$2,054$0.160CEA 4‐29634613 Jul‐09 6/17/2009 7/17/2009301013534641$1,431$0.140CEA 4‐29634613 Aug‐09 7/17/2009 8/17/2009311525152167$2,048$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Sep‐09 8/17/2009 9/16/2009301968067269$2,589$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Oct‐09 9/16/2009 10/15/2009292045169869$2,621$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Nov‐09 10/15/2009 11/16/2009322036869579$2,643$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Dec‐09 11/16/2009 12/15/2009292010968679$2,609$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Jan‐10 12/15/2009 1/14/2010301983867773$2,379$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Feb‐10 1/14/2010 2/15/2010321733659272$2,090$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Mar‐102/15/2010 3/17/2010301775560671$2,272$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Apr‐10 3/17/2010 4/16/2010301714558571$2,212$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 May‐10 4/16/2010 5/18/2010321618955369$2,143$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Jun‐10 5/18/2010 6/17/2010301155939569$1,599$0.140CEA 4‐29634613 Jul‐10 6/17/2010 7/19/2010321068736557$1,387$0.130CEA 4‐29634613 Aug‐10 7/19/2010 8/18/2010301670757066$2,033$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Sep‐10 8/19/2010 9/20/2010321755759967$2,132$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Oct‐10 9/21/2010 10/20/2010292334079769$2,811$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Nov‐10 10/21/2010 11/22/2010321786961075$2,153$0.120CEA 4‐29634613 Dec‐10 11/23/2010 12/28/2010351784260975$2,132$0.120Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:2122877,245842$30,9700Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:2038246,957834$25,3430$0.15$0.13Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYS.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,0000500010000150002000025000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)S.A.V.E High School ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SAVE ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 1 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/30/2012 11:05 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: SAVE Alternative High School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 410 E 56th Ave Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Anchorage Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna AK, 99669 Client Name: Calvin Mundt Client Address: 1301 Labar Street Anchorage, AK 99517 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 348-5213 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 18,580 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 534,941 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 563,096 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 858,378 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 200 people Design Indoor Temperature: 73 deg F (building average) Actual City: Anchorage Design Outdoor Temperature: -18 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Anchorage Heating Degree Days: 10,816 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Chugach Electric - Commercial - Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas - Commercial - Lg Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.140/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.960/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $21,727 $0 $1,884 $10,984 $2,800 $2,455 $0 $0 $5,409 $0 $45,260 With Proposed Retrofits $15,329 $0 $1,419 $5,700 $2,055 $2,455 $0 $0 $2,823 $0 $29,781 SAVING S $6,398 $0 $465 $5,285 $745 $0 $0 $0 $2,586 $0 $15,479 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 2 APPENDIX B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 3 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $190 $1 2236.50 0 2 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms/Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $1,907 $2,000 12.00 1 3 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $554 $900 7.24 1.6 4 Setback Thermostat: Gym/Storage Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym/Storage space. $877 $2,000 5.52 2.3 5 Lighting: Hallway MH Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Dimmer $1,502 $15,800 2.17 10.5 6 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $2,051 $37,400 1.60 18.2 7 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (4 @ $1,500 each = $6,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $4,000). $543 $10,000 1.38 18.4 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 8 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic $335 $4,800 1.12 14.3 9 Lighting: 3-bulb T8 Replace with 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $998 $45,600 0.53 45.7 10 Lighting: 4-bulb T8 Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $137 $7,200 0.48 52.7 11 Ventilation Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (4), $1000 per EF (7)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (4 units @ $3,000 each = $12,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $8,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 18,200 CFM = $113,750). Install premium efficiency motors (12 @ $1,000 each = $12,000). $6,132 $158,750 0.47 25.9 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 5 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: 2-bulb T8 Replace with 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $194 $14,000 0.42 72.2 13 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 1%. $58 $2,000 0.25 34.7 TOTAL $15,479 $300,451 0.89 19.4 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 13 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.85 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 1%. $2,000 $58 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 6 APPENDIX B 7 Install premium efficiency motors (4 @ $1,500 each = $6,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($1,000 per pump = $4,000). $10,000 $543 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Classrooms/Offic es Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 68.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $2,000 $1,907 4 Gym/Storage Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 68.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym/Storage space. $2,000 $877 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 11 Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $1500 per AHU (4), $1000 per EF (7)) Install variable frequency drives to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (4 units @ $3,000 each = $12,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $8,000). Install heat recovery ventilation systems on AHU's (75% efficient, $6.25 per CFM @ 18,200 CFM = $113,750). Install premium efficiency motors (12 @ $1,000 each = $12,000). $158,750 $6,132 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 Hallway MH 14 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Dimmer $15,800 $1,502 6 Gym Lights 24 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $37,400 $2,051 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software SAVE Alternative High School Page 7 APPENDIX B 8 4-bulb T12 12 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic $4,800 $335 9 3-bulb T8 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 104 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $45,600 $998 10 4-bulb T8 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $7,200 $137 12 2-bulb T8 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $14,000 $194 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Combined Refrigeration Refrigeration Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $190 3 Vending Machine 3 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $900 $554 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYS.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEATBURNHAM808BW NAT GAS/CAST IRON 462MBH80%3524B2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEATBURNHAM808BW NAT GAS/CAST IRON 462MBH80%3524B3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEATBURNHAM808BW NAT GAS/CAST IRON 462MBH80%3524WH1 BOILER ROOM DHW SUPPLYAMERICAN WATERHEATER COG6275T754NVNAT GAS/STEEL WATERTUBE75MBH70%2511CP1A&B BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEATARMSTRONG LR4678 INLINE PUMP 60GPM @ 10'.25HP101CP2 CRAWLSPACE BUILDING HEATGRUNDFOS LR4678~ INLINE PUMP60 GPM@ 10' ~1 HP100HWCP1 BOILER ROOM DHW CIRC.GRUNDFOS UPS1555SFC INLINE PUMP 18GPM @ 9'0.04101AHU1 BOILER ROOM SUPPLY AIRTRANEUNK INLINE/HORIZONTAL 8000CFM82%7.5200AHU2 BOILER ROOM SUPPLY AIRTRANEUNK INLINE/HORIZONTAL 3400 CFM82%3HP200AHU3 FAN ROOMSUPPLY AIRTRANEUNKHORIZONTAL1800CFM82%.5HP200AHU4 ATTICAIR HANDLINGTRANEUNKHORIZONTAL ~5,000 CFM1HP200CEF1BOILER ROOM COMBUSTION EXHAUST EXHAUSTORSV014UPBLAST900 CFM82% .25HP200EF1 CORRIDOREXHAUSTUNKUNKUPBLAST800 CFM82% 2.0 HPEF2 CORRIDOREXHAUSTPENNUNKUPBLAST 1000 CFM @ .87 SP 82% .25 HP200EF3RESTROOMEXHAUSTUNKUNKUPBLAST 650 CFM@ .87 SP 82% .25 HP200EF4 LOCKERROOMEXHAUSTUNKUNKUPBLAST 650 CFM@ .87 SP 82% ,25 HP200EF5 RESTROOMSEXHAUSTUNKUNKUPBLAST800 CFM.75 HPEF6 STORAGEEXHAUSTUNKUNKUPBLAST800CFM82% .75 HPEF7 KITCHENEXAUSTGREENHECK GB2415 UPBLAST5000 CFM82% .75 HPMAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Typical School Windows. 2. CloseUp of Typical Window Thickness. 3. Typical School Entry Door. 4. Exterior PoleMounted Light Fixtures Typical. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. Exterior Light Fixture Typical. 6. School’s Natural Gas Meter. 7. Boiler Room Overall Featuring Three Natural Gas Fired Cast Iron Boilers. 8. Natural Gas Fired Domestic Hot Water Heater. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. DHW Circulation Pump. 10. Air Handling Unit Typical. 11. InDuct Heating Coil Typical of School 12. VARITRANE® Variable Volume Unit. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Kitchen Range Exhaust Hood. 14. Digital HVAC Control Panel. 15. Typical hallway Lights. 16. Typical Hallway Can Light Fixtures. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 17. Prep/Break Room Light Fixtures 18. Classroom Light Fixtures Typical of School 19. Light Fixtures typical of School 20. Art Gallery RailMounted Light Fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 21. Gymnasium Light Fixtures 22. Incandescent Exit Sings Typical of School 23. Commercial Refrigeration/Freezer Units 24. Beverage Vending Machine CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 25. Domestic Refrigeration unit Typical of School 26. Monitor Typical of Classrooms. 27. Example of Thermostat Set to 73° (F) 28. Example of Thermostat (2) Set to 70° (F) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Typical School Entry Door, Heat Loss Around Door. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. 3. Typical School Windows, Heat Loss Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Operable Window Typical of School, Heat Loss Expected. 5. 6. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. 8. 9. 10. South*West Corner Overview, Heat Loss Surrounding Windows & Doors Expected. Heat Loss From Exhaust Vent (A) Expected. Note Heat Loss Through Wall Penetration. (B) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Abnormal Heat Loss Exhibited Around Lower Door Area. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 11. School’s Slab Foundation, Showing Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY S.A.V.E HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 12. Abnormal Heat Loss Under Roof Trim & Building Juncture.