HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD Service High School 2012-EEAudit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
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 Service HS
Page ii Anchorage, AK
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
ACRONYMS GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE .................................................................................. 1
1.0 METHODOLGY ............................................................................................................... 4
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 5
2.1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING ..................................................... 11
2.1.1 Hours of Operation .................................................................................11
2.1.2 System Balancing & Duct Cleaning ........................................................11
2.1.3 Outside Air Requirements ......................................................................11
3.0 UTILITY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ........................................................................ 12
3.1 SUMMARY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ................................................................... 12
3.2 ELECTRICITY ....................................................................................................... 13
3.3 NATURAL GAS ..................................................................................................... 15
4.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 16
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 ..................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010 ....................................................................................... 12
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010 .................................................................................................. 12
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010 ........................................................................................... 12
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003) ............................................................................................ 13
Table 4.1: ECO Summary .......................................................................................................................... 16
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
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 Service HS
Page 1 Anchorage, AK
EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD PPRREEFFAACCEE
This report summarizes the results of an Ameresco Federal Solutions (Ameresco) Energy Audit of
Service High School (Service HS) at 5577 Abbott Rd, Anchorage, Alaska 99507. 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.
Service HS, Anchorage, Alaska
Ameresco engineers conducted an energy audit at Service HS 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 is no longer with ASD, but provided
valuable assistance to the Ameresco team by 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 Service HS
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 323,941 square foot educational facility including
class rooms, offices, labs, gymnasiums, and other areas are 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 $ 385,719
Natural Gas $ 237,614
Total $ 623,333
Table ES.2 lists energy conservation opportunities (ECO) with estimated cost and savings figures. ECOs
are prioritized first according to recommendation status and then by simple payback number.
Recommended ECOs are listed before not recommended ECOs and simple paybacks are listed from low
to high. Savings figures are estimated based on information available at the time of the audit and
conforming to the level of detail recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Level II Audit standards. For official ASHRAE Level II
description, please see Appendix E. Costs are estimated based on industry standard references and
Ameresco’s experience with relevant constructed energy conservation projects. Costs include equipment
and installation.
Table ES.2: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
17 Low Flow Showerheads $ 26,995 $ 1,714 0.1
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 31,254 $ 8,441 0.3
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 334 $ 867 2.6
12 Air-side Energy Recovery Loop $ 16,493 $ 54,125 3.3
7 Vending Misers $ 2,012 $ 7,378 3.7
6 LED Exit Sign Upgrade $ 338 $ 3,000 8.9
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 2,880 $ 26,065 9.0
5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 5,589 $ 71,347 12.8
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 841 $ 11,042 13.1
2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 19,051 $ 257,370 13.5
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 7,294 $ 107,501 14.7
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 19,012 $ 364,625 19.2
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 3 Anchorage, AK
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
11 Weather-stripping $ 1,138 $ 22,738 20.0
18 Install AERCO Boiler $ 31,339 $ 671,360 21.4
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 15,055 $ 408,519 27.1
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 4 Anchorage, AK
11..00 MMEETTHHOODDOOLLGGYY
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 Service HS 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 Service HS
Page 5 Anchorage, AK
22..00 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN
General: Service HS is a 323,941 square foot high school with three classroom wings,
gymnasiums, lecture halls, band and choir areas, science labs, a cafeteria, and a theater. The
building was originally constructed in 1971 with major mechanical and landscaping renovations
as recent as 2006. The typical operating hours for the offices and administrative areas are 7:00am
to 4:00pm, Monday-Friday from mid-August to mid-May. Summer school is offered during
certain years, lasts 6 weeks, and operates from 7:00am to 4:00 pm. The average full occupancy
profile is 2,050 people during school hours.
Building Envelope: The exterior walls are precast concrete panels over steel-stud framing with
R-19 batt insulation. Windows are insulated, double glazing with aluminum frame with thermal
break. Exterior doors are hollow metal type with or without insulated double glazing glass. The
EPDM roof is mounted over 5 inch rigid insulation on metal decking. The roof is ventilated
through the perimeter soffit with R-33 batt insulation on the attic floor above the vapor barrier.
Maintenance staff did report trouble with roof leaks, but the attic insulation was in good
condition. Wall and roof insulation values meet ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design guideline
for new facilities. Windows and doors do not meet this standard; however, no upgrades are
recommended. The table on the following page summarizes the thermal resistance characteristics
of building envelope components.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 6 Anchorage, AK
Table 2.1: Envelope Summary
Envelope Estimated
R–Value
Exterior Walls 21.5
Roof 26.0
Exterior Doors 1.1-1.6
Exterior Windows 1.7
Air Distribution: Service HS is arranged as one main complex of seven buildings and a separate
auxiliary gym. Each building and the auxiliary gym has its own fan room with central air
handling units (AHUs). Building A is served by one variable air volume (VAV) AHU with both
the supply fan (SF) and the return fan (RF) located in the mechanical room. The SF is equipped
with a variable frequency drive (VFD). 16 VAV boxes serve the offices in Building A. The
AHU and much of the ducting are original to building construction, but the VAV boxes and VFD
were added during a later renovation. Building B has three mechanical rooms with large AHUs
and a small AHU mounted above the ceiling grid which serves the theatre. The rooftop
mechanical room at Building B houses a VAV AHU-2B installed in the mid 2000s for the
renovated classrooms on the south side upper level of Building B. The AHU-2B SF is equipped
with a VFD. AHU-1B is located in room NB109. This unit is a VAV AHU. The SF is equipped
with a VFD. The third mechanical space is located in room B107 and houses a building original
AHU which serves the cafeteria and kitchen areas. This unit has both a constant volume (CV) SF
and a CV RF. The HVAC system in Building C is almost identical to Building A with an original
construction AHU retrofitted with a VFD on the SF and VAV boxes in the mid 1990s. A RF and
ducted EFs are mounted in the mechanical penthouse. Building D and Building G have similar
HVAC designs as well. Each building has 2 large VAV AHUs with VFDs and glycol preheat
coils. The penthouse mechanical rooms serve as the return plenum for these units. AHU H is
constant air volume (CAV) VFD relative humidity (RH) coils in ducts by area. A single, very
large CV AHU with SF and RF serves Building EF.
Ventilation and Exhaust: Building A outside air (OA) is supplied through the central AHU with
dampers capable of 100% OA for cooling. Relief air is removed by exhaust fans (EF) are located
in the mechanical space and ducted from inside the building. All three central AHUs have OA
intakes with dampers capable of 100% OA for cooling. Relief air for AHU-1B is provided by
rooftop EFs. AHU-2B in the penthouse has EFs in the mechanical space which appeared to be
controlled by static pressure, but neither was running at the time of our visit even though the
AHU was running at 100% OA. Several art room exhaust hoods were observed operating in
empty class rooms. Air relieved here could bring the static pressure low enough to prevent
energizing of mechanical room relief fans. Relief for AHU B2 in room B11 is provided by
dampers after the RF which direct air either to exhaust or return ducting. The AHU for the
theatre provides OA and relief air. Similar to Building A, Building C brings in OA through the
central AH and relieves air via EFs in the mechanical penthouse. For both Buildings D and G
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 7 Anchorage, AK
bring in up to 100% OA from cooling and ventilation. A large CV EF is mounted in a separate
room in both mechanical penthouses. A bank of relief fans inside each mechanical room are
started one by one based on building static pressure. Additional relief is provided by rooftop EF
for spaces with elevated exhaust requirements. AHU-1H is a 100% OA unit. Relief is provided by
general exhaust fans and by laboratory exhaust units energized in science classrooms when
necessary for hazard control. AH-1EF supplies supply air (SA) to the gymnasium via its SF and
damper system. Return air passes through the RF inside the unit and is spilt by a damper system
into recirculation and relief air streams. One dedicated EF serves each of two locker areas.
Heating: Hot Water (HW) for heating is provided by two redundant 16,470 MBH input Sellers
boilers. Three pumps provide HW for the main campus loop. These pumps are connected to
VFDs and are staged together on demand. Building A is heated primarily by hot water
(HW) perimeter radiators with supplemental heating provided by cabinet unit heaters (CUH) at
entry ways and VAV boxes that serve perimeter spaces. CUHs do not have control valves and
booster pumps circulate HW to these units even in cooling mode. The AHU is equipped with a
HW preheat coil. CV HW booster pumps provide circulation for this building from the main
campus loop. AHUs 1B and 2B have HW to glycol heat exchangers (HXs) with lead-standby CV
circulating pumps on both the HW and glycol sides of the HX. The HW circulation pumps
draw HW from the main campus loop. Both sets of pumps seem to run whenever the system is
in occupied mode, whether or not there is a call for heating. AHU-B2 is equipped with a
single HW booster pump for its large preheat coil. Another pair of lead-standby HW booster
pumps serves heating coils and radiators in the space. The AHU above the ceiling for the
theatre also has a small booster pump for its coil. Similar to Building A, Building C has an HW
booster pump in the mechanical penthouse that serves a preheat coil in the AHU and perimeter
radiators. Buildings D and G have glycol preheat coils with booster pumps on both the HW
and glycol sides of a HX. The glycol loop serves AHU preheat coils. The HW booster pumps
serve the HX, perimeter radiators, and entry way CUHs as well as reheat coils in the VAV
boxes. The pumping setup in Building H is similar to D and G with the addition of VFDs on the
HW booster pumps for variable flow control. Rather than having reheat coils in VAV boxes,
AHU-1H is constant volume and employs duct HW heating coils on a zone basis. Building
EF original had a HW preheat coil and enthalpy wheels; however, both have been removed and
all heat for the building is now provided by baseboard radiators and CUHs. Throughout the
building, glycol pumps and HW booster pumps were observed operating with no load on the
corresponding coils. Using the DDC to shut down this pumps when valves are closed or above a
certain outside air temperature could create significant savings with little to no cost.
Cooling: All AHUs are capable of 100% OA for cooling. No mechanical cooling is available.
Controls: A Honeywell pneumatic control system was originally installed and pneumatic
actuators are still in place on older units. The pneumatic components have been integrated with a
Siemens Apogee system, which is the standard control system throughout the district. Newer
units are equipped with all digital sensors and controls. Both the electronic and pneumatic
portions of the system seem to be in good shape. Maintenance staff is satisfied with the Apogee
system and the pneumatic system does not seem to be a maintenance issue. Often pneumatic
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 8 Anchorage, AK
systems this age are deteriorating and require significant upkeep, but there was no evidence of
significant issues at Service HS.
Lighting: Interior lighting is a mixture. T12 lamps in older classrooms areas are controlled by
manual switching. T8 fluorescents in classroom areas in more recent additions have occupancy
switches with manual off overrides. CFL and incandescent fixtures provide supplemental
illumination. Corridor lighting is integrated with the building control system with manual
overrides for after-hours usage. Exterior lighting consists of 100W and 150W high pressure
sodium (HPS) wall mounts controlled by a roof mounted photocell. Parking lot pole lamps are
250W and 400W HPS controlled by photocell. Exterior and parking lighting is also integrated
with the security system to shut off when the alarm is set. Skylights in the building may be good
candidates for photocell based indoor lighting control.
Process Loads and Miscellaneous Equipment: Shops with wood and metal working
equipment contribute to building electric loads. Also, there is an air compressor for tool air. A
cafeteria kitchen also contributes to energy consumption and heat load. Science labs also have
heavier than typical equipment and computer loads. There are also vending machines that
contribute to building electricity consumption and heating load.
Domestic Water: Domestic water is used in classrooms, laboratories, restrooms, showers, and
utility sinks. Domestic water is heated indirectly by four 119 gallon Amtrol heat exchangers
storage tanks tied to the building heating water loop. The auxiliary gym has a 70 gallon natural
gas fired water heater. This heater used to serve showers, which have since been eliminated, and
continues to serve bathroom lavatories. Plumbing fixtures include 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf)
toilets, 1.0 gpf urinals, 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) showers, 2.2 gpm classroom sinks, 0.5 gpm
lavatory sinks, and 3.6 gpm gang hand washing sinks in some restrooms.
Pictures of general equipment and building conditions follow this section. A list of major mechanical
equipment is available in Appendix C.
Thermal imaging of the building envelope can provide information about its condition. The building
exterior was scanned using a handheld thermal imager during the site walkthrough. Pictures provided
are meant to provide a sample representative of windows, doors, and roofing at the location to give
general feedback about conductive and convective heat loss. Pictures are not meant to be used to find
specific problem areas and therefore exact locations are not discussed. Images captured during the scan
are shown in Appendix D.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 9 Anchorage, AK
Equipment Photos
Heating Water Boilers Indirect DHW Heaters
AHU 2B HW circulating Pumps
Pneumatic Controls Compressor HW to Glycol HX
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 10 Anchorage, AK
Equipment Photos (continued)
Building D Relief Fans Laboratory EF
Building D AHU Digital Controls Panel
Pneumatic Actuator Auxiliary Gym Natural Gas Fired Unit
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 11 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 7am and closed as
late as 10pm Monday through Saturday and some Sundays, year round. 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 Service HS 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.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 12 Anchorage, AK
33..00 UUTTIILLIITTYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
33..11 SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
Service HS utilizes electricity and natural gas services. Electricity is provided by the Chugach Electric
Association. Natural gas is supplied by ENSTAR Natural Gas. Natural gas is used primarily in boilers
for hydronic space heating and indirect domestic hot water (DHW) heating via heat exchangers with the
boiler system.
The tables below summarize the annual utility consumption of the site.
Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010
Energy Type Total Annual Use Units Conversion kBtu Annual Cost
Electricity 3,418,244 kWh 3.413 kBtu/kWh 11,666,466 $ 385,719
Natural Gas 278,891 Therm 100 kBtu/Therm 27,889,100 $ 237,614
39,555,566 $ 623,333
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010
Index Value Units
Energy Utilization Index 125.6 kBtu/sq ft
Energy Cost Index 1.98 $/sq ft
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010
Index Month kW W/sq ft
Maximum Demand March 999 3.17
Minimum Demand July 618 1.96
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 Service HS
Page 13 Anchorage, AK
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003)
Category Total
kBtu/sq ft
Elec
kBtu/sq ft
Nat Gas
kBtu//sq ft
Service HS 125.6 37.0 88.6
200,001 to 500,000 sq ft 101.0 51.2 36.1
Education 83.1 37.6 38.0
Construction Year 1970-79 95.0 54.3 45.8
CBECS Climate Zone 1 93.2 39.3 56.3
Zone 1 - 200,001 to 500,000 sq ft 111.8 42.0 55.2
Zone 1 - Education 91.6 28.0 54.6
Zone 1 - Construction Year 1970-79 109.8 50.5 56.4
Service HS has an energy consumption rate that is substantially higher than surveyed educational
facilities as well as other buildings in CBECS climate Zone 1. Natural gas consumption is higher than all
averages. Electric usage is in line with other educational facilities, but may be a bit high for a Zone 1
education building. The higher than typical natural gas usage may indicate an excess of outside air
intake, extra hours of operation, poor overall heating system efficiency, or some combination of the three.
33..22 EELLEECCTTRRIICCIITTYY
Service HS’s blended electricity average FY10 rate was $0.1100/kWh. For FY09 the rate was
$0.1517/kWh. The kWh consumption rate fluctuates depending on a Fuel Cost Adjustment (FCA) and a
Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) based on the actual costs of fuel and power purchased from other
electrical generation companies. The energy rate schedule is calculated as follows as of 8/29/2011:
Basic Charge: $55.00 per meter per month
Demand Charge: $11.48/kW
Energy Charge: $0.02496/kWh
Fuel Cost Adjustment: $0.05741/kWh
Purchased Power Adjustment: $0.00575/kWh
State Tax: $0.000492/kWh
Under-grounding Charge: 2% of bill less state and local taxes
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 14 Anchorage, AK
Service HS FY09 and FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below.
Service HS - Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Date (Mon - Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Electric Cost ($)2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)
2009 Electric Cost ($)2010 Electric Cost ($)
The electric usage pattern reflects the occupancy pattern of the school year. The site does not use cooling
equipment; thus, the monthly changes in power consumption are largely due to fan, pump, and lighting
usage. The cost of electricity tracks well with usage indicating that large fluctuations of the FCA and
PPA are not common. Though the 2010 overall kWh usage was higher than 2009, costs were lower due
to lower FCA and PPA charges.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 15 Anchorage, AK
33..33 NNAATTUURRAALL GGAASS
Service HS’s average FY10 natural gas cost was $0.8232/Therm. The average FY09 natural gas cost
was $1.6179/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 is presented in the
figure below. The natural gas rate schedule is calculated as follows:
Customer Charge: $109.00 per account per month
Base Rate: $0.1087/CCF
Gas Cost Adjustment: $0.57409/CCF (Varies)
Regulatory Charge (RCC): 0.345% of total bill
Service HS - Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Date (Mon - Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Natural Gas Cost ($)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. Service HS had summer
school activity in 2010, but not 2009. The high gas use in the summer months of 2010 most likely
occurred for this reason and indicates that heating systems were running.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 16 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 Service HS. 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, school savings from ECO 11 were calculated using
the efficiency of the new boilers from ECO 10. ECO 18 takes into account savings from ECOs 1-8 but
not ECOs 10-17.
Table 4.1: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 15,055 $ 408,519 27.1
2 T8 Lighting Upgrade $ 19,051 $ 257,370 13.5
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 334 $ 867 2.6
5 Install Occupancy Sensors $ 5,589 $ 71,347 12.8
6 LED Exit Sign Upgrade $ 338 $ 3,000 8.9
7 Vending Misers $ 2,012 $ 7,378 3.7
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 841 $ 11,042 13.1
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 19,012 $ 364,625 19.2
11 Weather-stripping $ 1,138 $ 22,738 20.0
12 Air-side Energy Recovery Loop $ 16,493 $ 54,125 3.3
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 7,294 $ 107,501 14.7
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 2,880 $ 26,065 9.0
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 31,254 $ 8,441 0.3
17 Low Flow Showerheads $ 26,995 $ 1,714 0.1
18 Install AERCO Boiler $ 31,339 $ 671,360 21.4
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 17 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 27.1 years. The simple payback period is longer than the typical 15-year length of
study period for lighting upgrades. However, some of the lighting fixtures analyzed in this
calculation had a life span of greater than 27.1 years in this application, and thus would pay back
within their lifetime. Maintenance savings due to longer life of recommended lamps are included
in this calculation.
ECO 2 –T8 Lighting Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing T12 lighting fixtures with high efficiency T8
fixtures. T12 fixtures using magnetic ballasts are highly energy inefficient. Also, T12 lamps are
no longer in production and will be unavailable when warehouse reserves run out. Post-light
levels are generally nearly equal to that of the existing lighting systems and at minimum will
meet IES guidelines for spaces renovated.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 13.5 years. The simple payback period is within 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 2.6 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 Service HS
Page 18 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 recommended with a simple payback of 12.8 years. The simple
payback period is less 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 6 – LED Exit Sign Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing the existing incandescent and compact fluorescent exit
signs with light emitting diode (LED) units. LED exit signs are typically 3.8 watts per unit.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 8.9 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 LED lamps are included in this
calculation.
ECO 7 – Vending Miser Controls
Summary: This ECO proposes installing vending controls on vending machines throughout the
facilities. These machines operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week regardless of building
occupancy. Lighting and refrigeration in the machines contributes to building energy
consumption. VendingMiser® manufactures a control device that will power down the machine
until occupancy is detected. The miser’s intelligent controller is designed to record occupancy
patterns and modify the machine’s time-out period accordingly. Most importantly, the miser
monitors the ambient temperature while the machine is powered down and automatically powers
up the machine at appropriate intervals, independent of occupancy, to ensure that the beverage
products stay cold.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 3.7 years. The energy cost savings justify the investment costs.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 19 Anchorage, AK
ECO 8 – Premium Efficiency Motors
Summary: This ECO proposes installing National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) premium efficiency motors to replace standard and high efficiency motors. This
replacement would cover all fan and pump motors 2HP and higher as well as a select few with
less than 2 HP. Premium efficiency motors typically increase energy efficiency by 2 to 3%.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 13.1 years. The simple
payback period is less than the 20-year median expected life of the new motors. Maintenance
savings were not included in this calculation.
ECO 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 79% whereas current generation high efficiency boilers reach 88% efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 19.2 years. The simple
payback period is less than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Avoided costs of
replacement are included in this calculation. Energy savings for this ECO were $15,678 and
annualized avoided cost savings were $3,334.
ECO 11 – Weather Stripping
Summary: This ECO proposes applying weather stripping to exterior door perimeters to reduce
air infiltration into the buildings. Reducing infiltration improves building performance by
reducing envelope heat loss. Many building doors have existing weather stripping material which
is worn or missing. Replacing this weather stripping will have significant impact.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 20.0 years. The
simple payback period is more than the 15-year expected lifespan of the analyzed weather-
stripping. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 10. If ECO 10 is not
implemented, ECO 11 savings will increase.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Service HS
Page 20 Anchorage, AK
ECO 12 – Air-Side Energy Recovery Loop
Summary: Large buildings require outside air intake in order to maintain adequate indoor air
quality. However, expelling indoor air and replacing it with outdoor air requires a significant
amount of energy to heat the outdoor air during winter months and to cool outdoor air during
summer months. In order to reduce this heating/cooling load, the expelled indoor air and fresh
outdoor air may be passed through a set of coils connected by glycol loop sides,
preheating/cooling the outdoor air before it is conditioned in the air handler. This ECO proposes
to install such energy recovery loops on AHUs where recommended.
Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone
measure with a simple payback of 3.3 years. The energy cost savings justify the investment
costs. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 10. If ECO 10 is not
implemented, ECO 12 savings will increase.
ECO 13 – Install Higher Efficiency Domestic Water Heaters
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing domestic water heating units with higher
efficiency domestic hot water heaters. The current water heaters operating have a nominal
efficiency of 80% whereas current generation high efficiency water heaters reach up to 97%
efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended with a simple payback of 14.7 years. The simple
payback period is less than the typical 20-year median expected life of the new hot water heaters.
Avoided costs of replacement are not included in this calculation.
ECO 15 – Install High Efficiency Urinals
Summary: This ECO proposes installing high-efficiency urinals (HEUs) to replace standard
water urinals. Energy savings are realized by reducing water consumption and wastewater
treatment costs. The Caroma HEU utilizes only 0.13 gpf and is equipped with an automatic flush
sensor. Waterless urinals have the disadvantage of urinal cartridge maintenance which the HEU
does not.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 9.0 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 Service HS
Page 21 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 recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 0.3 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 5-year length of study period for
domestic plumbing upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 13. If
ECO 13 is not implemented, ECO 16 savings will increase.
ECO 17 – Low Flow Showerheads
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing showerheads with low-flow units to reduce
water and fuel consumption. Existing units operate at 2.5 gpm. New showerheads with be 1.5
gpm.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 0.1 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 5-year length of study period for
domestic plumbing upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 13. If
ECO 13 is not implemented, ECO 17 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 recommended with a simple payback of 21.4 years. The simple
payback period is less than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers. Avoided costs of
replacement are included in this calculation. Annual energy savings for this ECO are $28,005
and annualized avoided cost savings are $3,334.
APPENDIX A
REALS Benchmarking
Data Form
First Name Last NameMiddle NamePhone Steven Golab348‐5132State ZipAK Monday‐FridaySaturday Sunday Holidays7:00‐4:00 Average # of Occupants During 2050 RenovationsDatePART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / tonOther energy sources? 99517EmailGolab_Steven@asdk12.orgDetailsMailing Address2005 - 16600 SF Phase 2AFacility Zip261,500 Anchorage 2006 - 19500 SF Phase 2BTotal = 314941 SF2001 - (-17256 SF) Pool SC Transfer to Muni1. 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.2001 - 2570 SF Greenhouse07/23/111983 - 17256 SF Pool, Sports Complex1971 - 276271 SF Original5577 Abbott RdAnchorage5 electric bills & 3 Gas BillsPrimary Operating HoursContact PersonCityYear BuiltREAL Preliminary Benchmark Data FormPART I – FACILITY INFORMATIONFacility OwnerMOABuilding Name/ Identifier Building UsageBuilding Square FootageFacility Owned ByDate1971Municipal Government/Subdivision Service High SchoolEducation ‐ K ‐ 12314,941Facility AddressBuilding TypeMixedCommunity PopulationFacility City
Service High SchoolBuiding Size Input (sf) =314,9412009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)205,456.002009 Natural Gas Cost ($)292,7512009 Electric Consumption (kWh)3,197,1512009 Electric Cost ($)447,5922009 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)31,457,4762009 Total Energy Cost ($)740,343Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 65.22009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)34.62009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)99.9Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.932009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.422009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.352010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)278,891.002010 Natural Gas Cost ($)237,6142010 Electric Consumption (kWh)3,418,2442010 Electric Cost ($)385,7192010 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)39,555,5672010 Total Energy Cost ($)623,333Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)88.62010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)37.02010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)125.6Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.752010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.222010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)1.98Note:1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
Service High SchoolNatural 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 NGCCombined Jan‐09 12/23/08 01/28/093635,93335,933$48,251$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Feb‐09 01/28/09 02/25/092823,77123,771$35,411$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Mar‐09 02/25/09 03/26/092924,82624,826$36,717$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Apr‐09 03/26/09 04/28/093319,18219,182$27,426$1.01Enstar NGCCombined May‐09 04/28/09 05/26/092811,48911,489$14,237$1.02Enstar NGCCombined Jun‐09 05/26/09 06/25/09306,0756,075$6,358$1.03Enstar NGCCombined Jul‐09 06/25/09 07/28/0933416416$816$8.27Enstar NGCCombined Aug‐09 07/28/09 08/26/09294,4304,430$8,482$1.04Enstar NGCCombined Sep‐09 08/26/09 09/25/09308,8658,865$17,399$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Oct‐09 09/25/09 10/26/093116,43216,432$25,341$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Nov‐09 10/26/09 11/23/092826,17926,179$35,838$1.01Enstar NGCCombined Dec‐09 11/23/09 12/23/093027,85827,858$36,475$1.01Enstar NGCCombinedJan‐10 12/23/09 01/25/103330,33630,336$30,684$0.83Enstar NGCCombined Feb‐10 01/25/10 02/22/102830,49730,497$25,370$0.83Enstar NGCCombined Mar‐10 02/22/10 03/26/103229,99429,994$24,999$0.83Enstar NGCCombined Apr‐10 03/26/10 04/26/103124,14824,148$20,307$0.84Enstar NGCCombined May‐10 04/26/10 05/25/102920,43920,439$17,225$0.84Enstar NGCCombined Jun‐10 05/25/10 06/24/103013,04513,045$11,040$0.85Enstar NGCCombined Jul‐10 06/24/10 07/26/103213,24813,248$11,219$0.85Enstar NGCCombined Aug‐10 07/26/10 08/25/103013,38613,386$11,288$0.85Enstar NGCCombined Sep‐10 08/25/10 09/24/103015,32815,328$12,819$0.84Enstar NGCCombined Oct‐10 09/24/10 10/25/103121,74421,744$17,949$0.68Enstar NGCCombined Nov‐10 10/25/10 11/22/102828,87028,870$23,685$0.82Enstar NGCCombined Dec‐10 11/22/10 12/21/102937,85637,856$31,029$0.82Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:205,456205,4560$292,751$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:278,891278,8910$237,614$0$1.62$0.82Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
Service High School ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Jan‐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$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural GasConsumption (Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)
Service High SchoolElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)0 Combined Jan‐09 12/29/2008 1/31/200933315,60701,059$47,879$0.15$11,697.910 Combined Feb‐09 1/31/2009 2/28/200928271,28801,019$44,475$0.15$11,153.510 Combined Mar‐09 2/28/2009 3/31/200931271,8360994$43,793$0.15$10,881.330 Combined Apr‐09 3/31/2009 4/29/200929279,9410980$42,179$0.15$10,872.670 Combined May‐09 4/29/2009 5/28/200929261,9500914$39,436$0.15$10,150.060 Combined Jun‐09 5/29/2009 6/29/200931186,9780594$26,612$0.15$6,440.450 Combined Jul‐09 6/29/2009 7/30/200931191,3740515$23,482$0.15$5,557.110 Combined Aug‐09 7/30/2009 8/30/200931235,2710919$31,981$0.15$10,050.820 Combined Sep‐09 8/30/2009 9/29/200930279,1980948$36,275$0.15$10,370.730 Combined Oct‐09 9/29/2009 10/29/200930307,6160988$38,268$0.15$11,283.560 Combined Nov‐09 10/29/2009 11/29/200931294,7300996$36,569$0.15$11,386.260 Combined Dec‐09 11/29/2009 12/30/200931301,3620934$36,643$0.15$10,657.000 Combined Jan‐10 12/31/2009 1/31/201031306,8290996$34,393$0.11$11,378.830 Combined Feb‐10 1/31/2010 2/28/201028276,3120984$32,329$0.11$11,227.890 Combined Mar‐10 2/28/2010 4/1/201032296,7740999$31,697$0.10$11,420.210 Combined Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/29/201028287,9680974$34,969$0.12$11,100.530 Combined May‐10 4/29/2010 5/31/201032285,2810939$33,544$0.11$10,717.050 Combined Jun‐10 5/31/2010 6/29/201029163,1210626$20,545$0.12$7,068.290 Combined Jul‐10 6/29/2010 7/31/201032211,0800618$22,891$0.11$7,046.490 Combined Aug‐10 7/31/2010 8/31/201031270,7020816$29,806$0.11$9,369.120 Combined Sep‐10 1/0/1900 1/0/19000317,09900$34,862$0.11??0 Combined Oct‐10 1/0/1900 1/0/19000343,253012$38,124$0.11??0 Combined Nov‐10 10/28/2010 11/30/201033323,4340922$34,750$0.11??0 Combined Dec‐10 1/0/1900 1/0/19000336,39100$37,809$0.11??Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:3,197,151010,860$447,592$120,501Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:3,418,24407,885$385,719$79,328$0.15$0.11Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
Service High School ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000Jan‐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$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($)
APPENDIX B
ECO Calculations
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 01.Service High SchoolECO Description:Exterior Lighting (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $331 3,803$ 116,774 10,348$ - -$ - - 399 14,151$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material904$ -$ -$ 15,055$ 34,050$ 329,078$ 45,391$ 408,519$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost48 EA - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ 904$ 904$ 904$ Total Cost904$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost13 EA 0.3 3.8 Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Installation CostsTradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Labor CostNet Labor-HrsNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Material CostMaterial Cost for PMExterior LightingBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 1Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 01.Service High School5. Cost Estimate99 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 5,878$ 815$ 80,685$ 86,563$ 67 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 3,978$ 625$ 41,875$ 45,853$ 57 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 3,384$ 498$ 28,386$ 31,770$ 56 EA0.8 Electrician74$ 3,325$ 1,925$ 107,800$ 111,125$ 279 EA0.2 Electrician74$ 4,141$ -$ -$ 4,141$ 279 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 6,212$ 5$ 1,395$ 7,607$ Total Cost26,917$ 260,141$ 287,058$ 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:363,128$ Subtotal:287,058$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 23,603$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):76,070$ Design Cost (6%):21,788$ Subtotal:363,128$ Total Installed Cost:408,519$ Inspect EquipmentTotal Material CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Unit QtyRecord OperationInstall 106.3 Watt LED systemInstall 221 Watt LED systemFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalMisc WiringDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Total M&L CostInstall 69 Watt LED systemInstall 47 Watt LED systemU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionTest OperationReportTotalExterior LightingBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 2Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 01.Service High School3. Replace 99 - 70W HPS system with 99 - 69 Watt LED system.4. Replace 67 - 100W HPS system with 67 - 47 Watt LED system.5. Replace 57 - 175W MV system with 57 - 106.3 Watt LED system.6. Replace 56 - 400W HPS system with 56 - 221 Watt LED system.Annual Demand (kW) = 672 Annual Demand (kW) = 341 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 331 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 236,967 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 120,193 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 116,774 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =7,718$ Demand Cost =3,914$ Demand Cost Savings =3,803$ Electrical Consumption Cost =20,998$ Electrical Consumption Cost =10,651$ Electrical Cost Savings =10,348$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =14,151$ 2. New lighting will be LED technology.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is HID technology.4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition: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)Exterior LightingBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 3Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 02.Service High SchoolECO Description:T8 Lighting Upgrade (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $911 10,458$ 87,046 7,713$ - -$ - - 297 18,172$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material5,481$ 4,601$ -$ 19,051$ 170,446$ 58,327$ 28,597$ 257,370$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost219 EA 0.3 65.8 Electrician74$ 4,886$ -$ -$ 4,886$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 595$ 595$ 595$ Total Cost5,481$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost183 EA 0.3 55.0 Electrician74$ 4,083$ -$ -$ 4,083$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 518$ 518$ 518$ Total Cost4,601$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMT8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 4Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 02.Service High School5. Cost Estimate322 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 23,896$ 32$ 10,146$ 34,043$ 453 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 33,618$ 29$ 13,028$ 46,647$ 443 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 32,876$ 22$ 9,564$ 42,441$ 243 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 18,034$ 19$ 4,578$ 22,612$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52 EA1.0 Electrician74$ 3,859$ 24$ 1,226$ 5,085$ 1,513 EA0.1 Electrician74$ 11,228$ -$ -$ 11,228$ 1,513 EA0.1 Electrician74$ 11,228$ 5$ 7,565$ 18,793$ Total Cost134,740$ 46,108$ 180,848$ 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:228,773$ Subtotal:180,848$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 14,870$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):47,925$ Design Cost (6%):13,726$ Subtotal:228,773$ Total Installed Cost:257,370$ TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DescriptionUnit QtyFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalMisc WiringInstall 4ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 1 lamp T-8 systemInstall 8ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 8ft 1 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 2 lamp T-8 systemInstall 2ft 1 lamp T-8 systemTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 4ft 4 lamp T-8 systemInstall 4ft 3 lamp T-8 systemU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalT8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 5Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 02.Service High School3. Replace 322 - 4ft 4 lamp T-12 system with 322 - 4ft 4 lamp T-8 system.4. Replace 453 - 4ft 3 lamp T-12 system with 453 - 4ft 3 lamp T-8 system.5. Replace 443 - 4ft 2 lamp T-12 system with 443 - 4ft 2 lamp T-8 system.6. Replace 243 - 4ft 1 lamp T-12 system with 243 - 4ft 1 lamp T-8 system.7. Replace 52 - 2ft 1 lamp T-12 U system with 52 - 2ft 1 lamp T-8 system.Annual Demand (kW) = 2,251 Annual Demand (kW) = 1,340 Annual Demand (kW) = 911 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 215,130 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 128,084 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 87,046 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =25,847$ Demand Cost =15,389$ Demand Cost Savings =10,458$ Electrical Consumption Cost =19,063$ Electrical Consumption Cost =11,350$ Electrical Cost Savings =7,713$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =18,172$ 2. New lighting will be T8 technology with electronic ballast.8. Fixtures average 1146.6 hours per year.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is T12 technology with magnetic ballast.c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:9. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.10. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months)/ (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)T8 Lighting Upgrade Bldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 6Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 04.Service High SchoolECO Description:CFL Lighting Upgrade (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$kGal$ mmBtu $14 159$ 1,324 117$ - -$ - - 5 276$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material116$ 58$ -$ 334$ 591$ 180$ 96$ 867$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost5 EA 0.3 1.4 Electrician 74$ 107$ -$ -$ 107$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 8$ 8$ 8$ Total Cost116$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost2 EA 0.3 0.6 Electrician 74$ 45$ -$ -$ 45$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 14$ 14$ 14$ Total Cost58$ Net Material CostAnnual CostMaterial Cost for PMAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MTotal Labor CostMaterial CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Material CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 7Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 04.Service High School5. Cost Estimate- EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 5$ -$ -$ - EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 4$ -$ -$ 21 EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ 468$ 7$ 142$ 609$ - EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ - EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ Total Cost468$ 142$ 609$ 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:771$ Subtotal:609$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):50$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):162$ Design Cost (6%):46$ Subtotal:771$ Total Installed Cost:867$ 5. Replace 21 - 75W Incandescent with 21 - 20 W CFL.6. Fixtures average 1146.6 hours per year.7. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.8. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.Record OperationTest OperationReportTotal8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is Incandescent technology.2. New lighting will be CFL technology.TradeInstall 23 W CFLDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Unit QtyInspect EquipmentTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 5 W CFLInstall 13 W CFLInstall 20 W CFLInstall 23 W CFLU/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostDescriptionCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 8Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 04.Service High SchoolAnnual Demand (kW) =19 Annual Demand (kW) =5 Annual Demand Savings (kW) =14 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =1,806 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =482 Electrical Savings (kWh) =1,324 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 =217$ Demand Cost =58$ Demand Cost Savings =159$ Electrical Consumption Cost =160$ Electrical Consumption Cost =43$ Electrical Cost Savings =117$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =276$ 5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)CFL Lighting Upgrade Bldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 9Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 05Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ 72,702 6,442$ - -$ - - 248 6,442$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ 853$ -$ 5,589$ 14,834$ 48,585$ 7,927$ 71,347$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 230 EA0.1 11.5 Electrician74$ 853$ -$ -$ 853$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 853$ Total Installed CostECO Description:Occupancy Sensors (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostTotal Energy SavingsO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostTotal CostInstall Occupancy SensorsBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 10Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 055. Cost Estimate95 EA 0.3 74$ Electrician 2,327$ 49$ 4,650$ 6,977$ 34 EA0.3 74$ Electrician833$ 76$ 2,576$ 3,408$ 96 EA1.1 74$ Electrician 8,143$ 138$ 13,292$ 21,435$ 5 EA1.1 74$ Electrician424$ 164$ 821$ 1,245$ - EA1.1 74$ Electrician-$ 109$ -$ -$ 230 EA- 74$ Electrician-$ 74$ 17,069$ 17,069$ 11,727$ 38,407$ 50,134$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total 50$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 63,419$ 50,134$ 4,122$ 13,285$ 3,805$ 63,419$ 71,347$ Ceiling Mount Dual Technology Occ SensorCorner Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorMisc WiringDescription Unit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostWall Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorWall Mount Dual Technology Occ SensorCeiling Mount Passive Infrared Occ SensorLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeTotal Labor CostTotal CostSales Tax (0%): Bond (0%):Record OperationReportTotalLabor Requirement (Hours)Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):DutiesTest OperationTotal Annual M&V Cost ($):Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):Labor Rate ($Hr):Inspect EquipmentAnnual Labor Cost ($):Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): Design Cost (6%):Subtotal: Total Installed Cost:Install Occupancy SensorsBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 11Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 05a. Assumptions:1. Spaces can have occupancy sensors installed to reduce lighting usage.2. Passive Infared (PIR) sensors are used in corridors and rooms with open floor plans.3. Dual technology sensors are used in larger rooms and areas where occupants could potentially be shielded from the PIR on the sensor.4. Percent savings estimates are from the Energy Management Handbook, Turner, 3rd Edition.b. Equations:1. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (Existing Hours) / (1,000)2. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x [(Existing Hours) - (Hours Reduced)] / (1,000)3. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)4. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)- - - 218,850 146,148 Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = 72,702 - - Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =- - - Water Savings (kGal) =- -$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ 19,393$ 12,950$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings = 6,442$ -$ -$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ -$ -$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =6,442$ Proposed Condition:Demand Cost =Demand Cost =8. Energy Savingsc. Calculations:Demand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) = Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Demand (kW) = Demand (kW) =Baseline Condition:Natural Gas Consumption Cost = Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Consumption Cost = Water Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) = Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Electrical Consumption Cost = Electrical Consumption Cost =Water Consumption (kGal) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Install Occupancy SensorsBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 12Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 06.Service High SchoolECO Description:LED Exit Sign Upgrade (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$kGal$ mmBtu $0 4$ 2,681 238$ - -$ - - 9 241$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material164$ 67$ -$ 338$ 845$ 1,822$ 333$ 3,000$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost6 EA 0.3 1.8 Electrician 74$ 134$ -$ -$ 134$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ 30$ 30$ 30$ Total Cost164$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost3 EA 0.3 0.9 Electrician 74$ 67$ -$ -$ 67$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost67$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeO&M TasksUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Labor CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMNet Labor-HrsLED Exit Sign UpgradeBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 13Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 06.Service High School5. Cost Estimate- EA 0.3 Electrician 74$ -$ 15$ -$ -$ 30 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 668$ 48$ 1,440$ 2,108$ - EA0.3 Electrician74$ -$ 15$ -$ -$ Total Cost668$ 1,440$ 2,108$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:2,667$ Subtotal:2,108$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):173$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):559$ Design Cost (6%):160$ Subtotal:2,667$ Total Installed Cost:3,000$ Total Labor CostDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Material CostDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Replace 20W CFL ExitReplace 14W Inc ExitInstall 7W CFL ExitTotalInspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportLED Exit Sign UpgradeBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 14Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 06.Service High School3. Replace 0 - 20W CFL Exit with 0 - 3.8 W LED Exit.4. Replace 30 - 14W Inc Exit with 30 - 3.8 W LED Exit.Annual Demand (kW) = 0 Annual Demand (kW) = 0 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 0 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 3,679 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 999 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 2,681 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) = - Demand Cost = 5$ Demand Cost = 1$ Demand Cost Savings = 4$ Electrical Consumption Cost = 326$ Electrical Consumption Cost = 88$ Electrical Cost Savings = 238$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = -$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = -$ Natural Gas Cost Savings = -$ Water Consumption Cost = -$ Water Consumption Cost = -$ Water Cost Savings = -$ Total Cost Savings = 241$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is incandescent or CFL technology.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)2. New lighting will be LED technology.5. Fixtures average 8760 hours per year.6. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.7. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)LED Exit Sign UpgradeBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 15Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:E07.Service High SchoolECO Description:Vending Miser Controls (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $3 38$ 29,305 2,597$ - -$ - - 100 2,635$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ 623$ -$ 2,012$ 1,971$ 4,587$ 820$ 7,378$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21 EA0.2 4.2 Electrician74$ 312$ -$ -$ 312$ 21 EA0.2 4.2 Electrician74$ 312$ -$ -$ 312$ Total Cost623$ Semi-Annual PMTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeTotal Labor CostMaterial CostTradeMaterial CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsVending Miser ControlsService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 16Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:E07.Service High School5. Cost Estimate14 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 1,039$ 179$ 2,506$ 3,545$ 7 EA 1.0 Electrician 74$ 519$ 160$ 1,120$ 1,639$ Total Cost1,558$ 3,626$ 5,184$ 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:6,558$ Subtotal:5,184$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):426$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):1,374$ Design Cost (6%):394$ Subtotal:6,558$ Total Installed Cost:7,378$ ReportTotalDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationU/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s)Install Snack Machine Vending Miser Kit(s)TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostDescriptionUnit QtyMaterial CostVending Miser ControlsService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 17Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:E07.Service High School4. Install 14 - Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 14 - Standard Soda Machine(s).5. Install 7 - Snack Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 7 - Standard Snack Machine(s).6. Install 0 - Soda Machine Vending Miser Kit(s) on 0 - Delamped Soda Machine(s).Annual Demand (kW) = 6 Annual Demand (kW) = 3 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 3 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 54,268 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 24,963 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 29,305 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) = - Demand Cost = 71$ Demand Cost = 33$ Demand Cost Savings = 38$ Electrical Consumption Cost = 4,809$ Electrical Consumption Cost = 2,212$ Electrical Cost Savings = 2,597$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = -$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost = -$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =-$ Proposed Condition:b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)1. Soda vending machines consume an average of 400W, delamped soda machines 220W, and snack machines 85W.2. Vending machines operate 8,760 hours/year.3. VendingMisers® will reduce run hours to 4730.4 hours or by 46%.7. Machines average 8760 hours per year.8. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.9. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:Vending Miser ControlsService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 18Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 08.Service High SchoolECO Description:Premium Efficiency Motors (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $ kGal$ mmBtu $2 27$ 9,193 815$ - -$ - - 31 841$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material11$ 11$ -$ 841$ 2,535$ 7,280$ 1,227$ 11,042$ 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 Estimate4 LS 1.5 74$ 445$ 308$ 1,230$ 1,675$ - LS- 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 LS2.0 74$ 297$ 465$ 930$ 1,227$ 4 LS2.0 74$ 594$ 430$ 1,720$ 2,314$ 2 LS3.0 74$ 445$ 545$ 1,090$ 1,535$ 1 LS3.0 74$ 223$ 785$ 785$ 1,008$ 2,004$ 5,755$ 7,759$ Total CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor Cost3 horse5 horse7.5 horse10 horse1.5 horse2 horseDescriptionUnit Qty U/MTotal CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostUnit Labor-HrsAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Energy SavingsO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsAnnual CostTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostNet Labor-HrsTradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsPremium MotorsService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 19Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 08.Service High School6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 9,815$ 7,759$ 638$ 2,056$ 589$ 9,815$ 11,042$ 39.82 37.50 2.32 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =161,140.72 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 151,947.53 9,193 Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Savings (mmBtu) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =457$ Demand Cost =431$ Demand Cost Savings =27$ Electrical Consumption Cost =14,279$ Electrical Consumption Cost =13,464$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =815$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =841$ Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =b. Equations:1. Existing/Proposed Motor Demand (kW) = (Motor HP) x (Load Factor) x (0.746 kW/HP)/ Motor EfficiencyDemand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =2. Existing/Proposed Motor Consumption (kWh) = (Motor Demand) x (Diversity Factor) x (Annual Hours)3. kW Savings = [(Baseline kW) - ( Proposed kW)] x 124. kWh Savings = (Baseline kWh) - ( Proposed kWh)5. Energy Cost Savings = Energy Savings (kW or kWh) x (Energy Unit Cost)c. Calculations:3. Proposed motor efficiencies are based on NEMA Premium standard.4. Pump annual operating hours = 58085. Fan annual operating hours = 58086. Electrical demand costs = $/kW.7. Electrical consumption costs = $11.48/kWh.Subtotal: Total Installed Cost:7. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. This ECO considers replacing existing motors with NEMA premium efficiency motors.2. Existing motor efficiencies are from EPACT standard when nameplate information is not available.Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): Design Cost (6%):Sales Tax (0%): Bond (0%):Premium MotorsService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 20Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 10.Service HSECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Service HS)Applicable Building:Service HS1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 22,962 15,678$ - - 2,296 15,678$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material3,334$ -$ -$ 19,012$ 59,529$ 264,582$ 40,514$ 364,625$ 3,334$ 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/MAnnual CostTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostDaily O&MElectric SavingsDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMInstallation CostsUnit Qty U/MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostO&M TasksUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostTradeTradeNet Material CostAvoided CostTotal Installed CostHigh Efficency BoilerService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 21Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 10.Service HS5. Cost Estimate4 EA 107.3 Mechanical84$ 36,249$ 52,289$ 209,156$ 245,405$ 1 LS128.0 Mechanical84$ 10,810$ -$ -$ 10,810$ Total Cost47,058$ 209,156$ 256,214$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical84$ -$ 3,334$ 3,334$ 3,334$ -$ 3,334$ 3,334$ 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:324,111$ Subtotal:256,214$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 21,067$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 67,897$ Design Cost (6%):19,447$ Subtotal:324,111$ Total Installed Cost:364,625$ Unit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostRecord OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)DutiesDemolitionTradeTotalTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostBurnham CW-200DescriptionHigh Efficency BoilerService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 22Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 10.Service HS9. 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 0 196911. 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.24,803.05 Burnham CW-200QuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.Remaining LifeUnit ReplacedSellers S-400-W9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 77.5%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 86.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%7. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 26.3% 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 = $0.68279/CCFHigh Efficency BoilerService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 23Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 10.Service HSc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =260,233 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =237,271 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =22,962 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =177,684$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =162,006$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =15,678$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =15,678$ 3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usageb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler Output2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiency5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit CostHigh Efficency BoilerService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 24Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 11.Service HSECO Description:Weatherstripping (Bldg Service HS)Applicable Building:Service HS1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 1,667 1,138$ - - 1,667 1,138$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 1,138$ 7,579$ 13,872$ 1,287$ 22,738$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ U/MAnnual PMTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsCCFNet Labor-HrsConstruction CostsUnit Labor-HrsAnnual CostDaily O&MElectric SavingsMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeUnit Qty U/MNet Material CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsO&M TasksAnnual CostMaterial CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTradeDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMInstallation CostsUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsO&M TasksTotal Installed CostM&V CostWeatherstrippingService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 25Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 11.Service HS5. Cost Estimate32 EA 1.00 Carpenter68$ 2,169$ 113$ 3,606$ 5,775$ 34 EA1.50 Carpenter68$ 3,457$ 197$ 6,691$ 10,148$ - EA2.50 Carpenter68$ -$ --$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost5,625$ 10,297$ 15,922$ 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 ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TradeDutiesTotalRecord OperationU/MDoor Gasket Material Overhead DoorLabor Requirement (Hours)DescriptionTotal Material CostUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostUnit Material CostTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportDoor Gasket Material Single DoorDoor Gasket Material Double DoorInspect EquipmentUnit QtyWeatherstrippingService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 26Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 11.Service HS7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (6.5%):1,309$ Subcontractor Contingency (26.5%):4,219$ Subtotal:21,451$ Subtotal:20,142$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6%):1,287$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (0%):-$ Design Cost (0%):-$ Subtotal:20,142$ Total Installed Cost:22,738$ 8. Energy Savings3. Existing total door perimeter is 2000. ft.a. Heating setpoint = 68b. Cooling setpoint = 72c. Total boiler efficiency = 85. %d. Total chiller COP = 3e. Door Leakage Factor (in2/ft2)Non-WeatherstrippedWeatherstrippedSingle Door = 0.157Single Door = 0.114Double Door = 0.16Double Door = 0.1145. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW6. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh7. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/CCF4. Calculations performed with RETScreen v4a. Assumptions:1. Weatherstripping will be applied to door perimeter to stop air infiltration.2. Window air infiltration is considered in a separate ECO.WeatherstrippingService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 27Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 11.Service HSElectric Demand Savings (kW) =- Electric Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =1,667 Water Savings (kGal) =- Electric Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electric Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =1,138$ Water Cost Savings =-$ 1,138$ Total Cost Savings =5. Heat Loss Rate (Btu/hr) = 1.08 x Air Infiltration x ΔT6. Heating Load (mmBtu) = Heat Loss Rate x Bin Hours / 1,000,0007. Energy Savings = Baseline - Proposed4. Air Infiltration (CFM) = Specific Infiltration x Door Leakage Areab. Equations:c. Calculations:1. Door Leakage Area (in2) = Door Area x Door Leakage Factor2. Specific Infiltration (CFM/in2) = [ (Stack Coefficient x ΔT) + (Wind Coefficient x [Wind Speed]2 )]1/23. ΔT = Heating Setpoint Temp - Bin TempWeatherstripping Service HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 28Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 12.Service High SchoolService High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 24,155 16,493$ - - 2,416 16,493$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 16,493$ 14,529$ 33,582$ 6,014$ 54,125$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA0.2 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.2 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.4 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsECO Description:Applicable Building:Total Energy SavingsTotal Installed CostQuarterly PM (Wheel)Unit Qty U/MU/MO&M TasksEquipment ReplacementQuarterly PMWater SavingsAnnual PM (Wheel)Semi-Annual PMAnnual PMUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsConstruction CostsUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsSemi-Annual PM (Wheel)Annual PM (Heat Pipe)Total CostMonthly PM (Wheel)O&M TasksNet Material CostTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal CostAnnual CostAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeTradeTotal Labor CostO&M CostInstallation CostsM&V CostUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Energy Recovery Unit (Bldg Service High School)Net Labor-HrsEnergy Recovery UnitService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 29Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 12.Service High School5. Cost Estimate2 EA20.0 Mechanical84$ 3,378$ 2,102$ 4,204$ 7,582$ 2 EA20.0 Mechanical84$ 3,378$ 2,760$ 5,519$ 8,897$ 2 EA5.3 Mechanical84$ 901$ 1,775$ 3,550$ 4,451$ - EA- Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 LS7.6 Mechanical84$ 3,828$ 2,212$ 13,274$ 17,102$ Total Cost11,485$ 26,547$ 38,032$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total 50$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ 48,111$ 54,125$ 11. Integration costs for energy wheels (i.e. additional ductwork, AHU expansion, etc.) is 100% of the energy wheel material cost plus 50% of the labor cost.Description1.5 HP PumpCoil C-37. Energy SavingsTotal Installed Cost:DutiesCoil C-4-Labor Requirement (Hours)Integration with Existing Air HandlerRecord OperationUnit Labor-HrsUnit Qty U/MTrade1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.3. Existing and proposed day setpoints: 70°F, 40% RH (Heating); 72°F, 50% RH (Cooling)7. Energy recovery efficiency = 0%4. Total Min OA CFM = 13550 for 6 AHUs5. Existing cooling efficiency = 0 kW/ton6. Existing heating efficiency = 88%8. Electrical demand costs = $11.48/kW.9. Electrical consumption costs = $0.088612/kWh.10. Natural gas costs = $0.68279/CCF.2. The ERU recovers heat from the exhaust air during the winter and pre-cools & dehumidifies during the summer.Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):Annual Labor Cost ($):Subtotal:a. Assumptions:Inspect EquipmentLabor Rate ($Hr):Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):Total Material CostMaterial CostTotal M&L CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Energy Recovery UnitService High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 30Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 12.Service High School358 358 - 261,369 261,369 - 42,173 18,018 24,155 - - - 4,111$ 4,111$ -$ 23,160$ 23,160$ -$ 28,795$ 12,302$ 16,493$ -$ -$ -$ 16,493$ b. Electric Resistance (kWh) = Σ[(MBH / 3.412 MBH/kW) x (Heating Element Efficiency) x (Bin Heating Hours)]Bin2. Existing Heat Load (MBH) = 60 min/hr x 0.018 Btu/lbm-ºF x (OA CFM) x ( Heating SP Temp - Bin Mean Temp) / 1,000a. Fuel Heating (mmBtu) = Σ[(MBH x Bin Heating Hours) / (1,000 x Boiler Efficiency)]BinWater Consumption Cost =Water Consumption Cost =Water Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Cost Savings =Demand Cost =Demand Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Water Savings (kGal) =Demand Savings (kW) =Demand (kW) =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =b. Heat Pump (kWh) = Σ[(MBH / 15 MBH/ton) x (Heat Pump Efficiency, kW/ton) x (Bin Heating Hours)]Bin3. Proposed Heating (MBH) = 60 min/hr x 0.018 Btu/lbm-ºF x (OA CFM) x ( Heating SP Temp - Bin Mean Temp) x (1 - ERU Efficiency) / 1,000Demand (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =7. Existing/Proposed Annual Cooling Demand (kW) = Σ[(Total Cooling Load) x (Cooling Efficiency) / 12,000]Bin8. Existing/Proposed Annual Cooling Consumption (kWh) = Σ[(Cooling Demand) x (Bin Hours)]Binc. Calculations:10. Annual Cost Savings = Annual Savings x Energy Unit Cost6. Proposed Cooling Load (Btu/Hr) = 60 min/hr x 0.075 lba/ft3 x (OA CFM) x (Bin Mean Enthalpy - Cooling Setpoint Enthalpy) x (1 - ERU Efficiency)Total Cost Savings =Saving Calculation:5. Existing Cooling Load (Btu/Hr) = 60 min/hr x 0.075 lba/ft3 x (OA CFM) x (Bin Mean Enthalpy - Cooling Setpoint Enthalpy)b. Equations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:9. Annual Savings = Existing Condition - Proposed Condition4. Annual Heating Consumption:1. Existing and proposed heating and cooling hours are based on bin hours and estimated building occupancy periods.Energy Recovery Unit Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 31Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 13.Service High SchoolECO Description:Domestic Hot Water Heater Upgrade (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 10,683 7,294$ - - 1,068 7,294$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 7,294$ 19,197$ 76,360$ 11,945$ 107,501$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial Cost for PMNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water SavingsTotal Energy SavingsM&V CostDomestic Water HeaterBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 32Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 13.Service High School5. Cost Estimate8 EA 11.0 Plumber74$ 6,500$ 3,306$ 26,445$ 32,945$ 5 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 2,216$ 6,316$ 31,579$ 33,795$ 13 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 5,761$ 180$ 2,340$ 8,101$ Demolition Work13 LS0.7 Plumber74$ 698$ -$ -$ 698$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost15,175$ 60,363$ 75,539$ 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:95,556$ Subtotal:75,539$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):6,211$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 20,018$ Design Cost (6%):5,733$ Subtotal:95,556$ Total Installed Cost:107,501$ Test OperationReportTotalTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostSTATE SHE 50 100NERHEEM GHE-80-130AFlue installation, pipe re-route, misc.U/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor Cost Material CostInspect EquipmentRecord OperationDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)DescriptionUnit QtyDomestic Water HeaterBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 33Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 13.Service High School8. 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/CCF40 1995 0.926.7 1918,760290,449,531 242,041,27640 1995 0.926.7 1918,760290,449,531 242,041,27680 1995 0.937.2 2668,760580,899,063 692,786 484,082,55280 1995 0.937.2 2668,760580,899,063 692,786 484,082,55280 1995 0.937.2 2668,760580,899,063 692,786 484,082,55280 1995 0.937.2 2668,760580,899,063 692,786 484,082,552120 1995 0.947.2 3378,760871,348,594 127,978 726,123,828120 1995 0.947.2 3378,760871,348,594 127,978 726,123,828120 1995 0.947.2 3378,760871,348,594 127,978 726,123,828120 1995 0.947.2 3378,760871,348,594 127,978 726,123,828Conventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEStand-by Savings (Btu.yr)Proposed Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Conventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEConventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NE7. Existing water heaters operate 8,760 hours per year.8. One bank of multiple instantaneous heater will replace each traditional tank heater.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.Existing Water Heater Size (nominal gallons)Existing Water Heater TypeReplacement Water Heater TypeExisting Tank Year InstalledReplacement Value Factor (% of 1 for 1 replacement cost avoided)Surface Area (sq. ft.)Existing Standby Losses (Btu/hr)1. Heaters based on STATE SHE 50 100NE and RHEEM GHE-80-130A @ 70 deg F temperature rise3. Existing water heater temperature is 120 degrees F.4. The ambient temperature is 70 degrees F.Hours of Operation (hr)Existing Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Conventional gas STATE SHE 50 100NEDomestic Water HeaterBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 34Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 13.Service High Schoolb. Equations:1. Existing Standby Losses = 1/R x SurfaceArea x (Temp. tank- Temp. ambient)2. Energy Savings per year (kWh/yr.) = Standby Losses x hours /3413Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings Estiamtes:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =63,932 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =53,249 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =10,683 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =43,652$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =36,358$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =7,294$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =7,294.00$ 3. Cost Savings = Energy Savings x $0.0360Domestic Water HeaterBldg Service High SchoolAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 35Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 15.Service High SchoolECO Description:High-Efficiency Urinals (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $kWhkWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ - -$ 373.10 2,880.33 - 2,880$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material13,734$ 13,734$ -$ 2,880$ 10,696$ 12,473$ 2,896$ 26,065$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost2,900 EA 0.1 290.0 Janitor 36$ 10,504$ 0.02$ 58$ 10,562$ 58 EA 1.0 58.0 Plumber 55$ 3,173$ -$ -$ 3,173$ - LS - - Plumber55$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost13,734$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost2,900 EA 0.1 290.0 Janitor 36$ 10,504$ 0.02$ 58$ 10,562$ 58 EA 1.0 58.0 Plumber 55$ 3,173$ -$ -$ 3,173$ - LS - - Plumber55$ -$ 58$ -$ -$ Total Cost13,734$ Total Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostAnnual PMTradeMaterial Cost for PMUnit QtyDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsElectric SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostAnnual CostNet Material CostInstallation CostsO&M TasksO&M TasksDaily O&MUnit QtyTotal Cost SavingsUnit Labor-HrsU/MU/MWaterless UrinalsBldg 1Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 36Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 15.Service High School5. Cost Estimate29 EA 5.3 Plumber 55$ 8,455$ 340$ 9,860$ 18,315$ 29 EA 1.1 Plumber 55$ 1,813$ -$ -$ 1,813$ Total Cost8,455$ 9,860$ 18,315$ 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:23,168$ Subtotal:18,315$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 1,506$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):4,853$ Design Cost (6%):1,390$ Subtotal:23,168$ Total Installed Cost:26,065$ Unit Labor-HrsTotal Labor CostInstall High Efficiency UrinalLabor Rates ($/Hr)Unit Qty U/MDescriptionTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostTotalDutiesInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Record OperationTest OperationReportTradeMaterial CostDemo Existing UrinalWaterless UrinalsBldg 1Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 37Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 15.Service High School8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:7. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.8. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.9. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.10. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.11. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Savings () =- Water Consumption (kGal) =746 Water Consumption (kGal) =373 Water Savings (kGal) =373 Demand Cost =-$ 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 =5,761$ Water Consumption Cost =2,880$ Water Cost Savings =2,880$ Total Cost Savings =2,880$ (Annual Urinal Use)Drillday] ) / 10003. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage4. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Water Savings x Utility Unit Cost5. Males use the urinal 4 time(s) per day for liquid waste.6. Proposed flush avg. GPF = 0.52. Existing or Proposed Annual Urinal Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Urinal GPF) x (Annual Urinal Use)Weekday] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Urinal GPF) x1. Annual Urinal Use = [(Total Male Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill Days1. 29 existing urinal(s) @ 1 gpf.2. 182 weekdays and 0 drill days annually.3. 1025 male occupants on workdays. 0 male occupants on drill days.4. Restroom fixture usage rate = 5X per person per day (National average, AWWA).Waterless UrinalsBldg 1Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 38Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 16ECO Description:Low Flow Faucets (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 12,912 8,816$ 2,906.45 22,437.79 1,291 31,254$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 31,254$ 3,286$ 4,216$ 938$ 8,441$ 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-$ Net Material CostAnnual CostMaterial Cost for PMDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MTotal Labor CostMaterial CostUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Material CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsLow Flow FaucetsService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 39Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 165. Cost Estimate43 EA 0.2 Plumber74$ 529$ 15$ 645$ 1,174$ 168 EA0.2 Plumber74$ 2,069$ 16$ 2,688$ 4,757$ Total Cost2,598$ 3,333$ 5,931$ 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:7,503$ Subtotal:5,931$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):488$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 1,572$ Design Cost (6%):450$ Subtotal:7,503$ Total Installed Cost:8,441$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 43 existing lavatory faucets @ 2.2 gpm; 168 kitchen faucet @ 2.2 gpm.2. 182 weekdays and 0 drill days annually.3. 2050 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 $0.088612/kWh.11. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.12. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.Test OperationReportTotalDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostUltra Low Flow Faucet AeratorKitchen Faucet Swivel AeratorTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsDescription Unit QtyLow Flow FaucetsService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 40Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 16b. Equations:1. Annual Lav Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill Days2. Annual Kitchen Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days) x (Kitchen Use Use Factor)]Weekday or Drill Days3. Existing or Proposed Annual Lav Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10004. Existing or Proposed Annual Kitchen Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10005. Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Annual Lav Use) + (Annual Kit Use)]Existing/Proposed6. Annual DHW Capacity (kGal) = (% DHW) x (Annual Water Usage)Existing/Proposed7. Heating Energy (mmBtu) = DHW Gal x (8.33 lb/gal) x (1 Btu/lb-°F) x ΔT / 1,000,0008. Fuel Required (mmBtu) = Heating Energy / Boiler Efficiency9. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage10. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Savings x Utility Unit Costc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)17,139 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)4,227 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)12,912 Water Consumption (kGal) =3,858 Water Consumption (kGal) =951 Water Consumption (kGal) =2,906 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost11,702$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost2,886$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost8,816$ Water Consumption Cost =29,783$ Water Consumption Cost =7,345$ Water Consumption Cost =22,438$ Total Cost Savings =31,254$ Low Flow FaucetsService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 41Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 17.Service High SchoolECO Description:Low Flow Showerheads (Bldg Service High School)Applicable Building:Service High School1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 13,592 9,280$ 2,294.57 17,714.04 1,359 26,995$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 26,995$ 840$ 683$ 190$ 1,714$ 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-$ Electric SavingsTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostTradeTradeNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)O&M TasksUnit QtyNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsU/MDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsInstallation CostsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMO&M TasksConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostAnnual CostUnit Qty U/MBldg 1Page 1Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 42Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 17.Service High School5. Cost Estimate27 kW 0.3 Plumber74$ 664$ 20$ 540$ 1,204$ - - - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost664$ 540$ 1,204$ 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:1,523$ Subtotal:1,204$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):99$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 319$ Design Cost (6%):91$ Subtotal:1,523$ Total Installed Cost:1,714$ DutiesInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Low Flow ShowerheadUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotalDescriptionTest OperationReportTradeTotal M&L CostRecord OperationBldg 1Page 2Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 43Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 17.Service High School8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 27 existing showerheads @ 2.5 gpm.2. 182 weekdays and 0 drill days annually.3. 2050 occupant on workdays and 0 on drill days.4. Avg daily uses/person = 15. Estimate of 75% of occupants use the shower once daily on week days.5. Estimate of 5% of occupants use the shower once daily on drill days.6. Proposed showerhead @ 1.5 gpm7. 80% of shower water is heated; 80 temp rise; 90% water heater efficiency.8. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.9. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.10. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.11. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.12. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)33,980 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)20,388 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)13,592 Water Consumption (kGal) =5,736 Water Consumption (kGal) =3,442 Water Consumption (kGal) =2,295 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost23,201$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost13,921$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost9,280$ Water Consumption Cost =44,285$ Water Consumption Cost =26,571$ Water Consumption Cost =17,714$ Total Cost Savings =26,995$ 6. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage7. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Savings x Utility Unit Cost1. (Annual Shower Use)Weekday/Drillday = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days) x (Shower Use Factor)]Weekday/Drillday2. Existing or Proposed Annual Water Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Shower Runtime/Use)Weekday x (Annual Shower Use)Weekday x (GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Shower Runtime/Use)Drillday x (Annual Shower Use)Drillday x (GPM)] ) 10003. Annual DHW Capacity (kGal) = (% DHW) x (Annual Water Usage)Existing/Proposed4. Heating Energy (mmBtu) = DHW Gal x (8.33 lb/gal) x (1 Btu/lb-°F) x ΔT / 1,000,0005. Fuel Required (mmBtu) = Heating Energy / Boiler EfficiencyBldg 1Page 3Audit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 44Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 18.Service HSECO Description:AERCO Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Service HS)Applicable Building:Service HS1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 41,015 28,005$ - - 4,101 28,005$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material3,334$ -$ -$ 31,339$ 17,309$ 579,456$ 74,596$ 671,360$ 3,334$ 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/MAnnual CostTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostDaily O&MElectric SavingsDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMInstallation CostsUnit Qty U/MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMM&V CostO&M TasksUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostTradeTradeNet Material CostTotal Installed CostAvoided CostAERCO BoilersService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 45Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 18.Service HS5. Cost Estimate10 EA - Mechanical84$ -$ 45,448$ 454,476$ 454,476$ 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$ 458,068$ 471,751$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical84$ -$ 3,334$ 3,334$ 3,334$ -$ 3,334$ 3,334$ 7. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)DutiesDemolitionTotalTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Record OperationDescriptionTotal Labor CostDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeControllerStartupTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostAERCO BMK3.0 LNAERCO BoilersService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 46Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 18.Service HS8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:596,765$ Subtotal:471,751$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 38,790$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 125,014$ Design Cost (6%):35,806$ Subtotal:596,765$ Total Installed Cost:671,360$ 9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings2 0 196911. 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.24,803.05 AERCO BMK3.0 LNQuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.Remaining LifeUnit ReplacedSellers S-400-W3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 77.5%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 93.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%7. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 26.3% 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 = $0.68279/CCF9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.AERCO BoilersService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 47Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99507ECO NO:ECO 18.Service HSc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =260,233 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =219,218 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =41,015 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =177,684$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =149,680$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =28,005$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =28,005$ 3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Costb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler Output2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing EfficiencyAERCO BoilersService HSAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 48Level II Energy Audit Service HS Anchorage, AK
APPENDIX C
Major Equipment
Survey
NameLocation Area ServedMakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesPump A2 Fan Rm A Bldg A B&G AF28 HW Pump 70 GPM, 1.5 HPPump A1 Fan Rm A Bldg A MagneTek/Paco R146 HW Pump 70 GPM, 1.5 HPAH-1A Fan Rm A Bldg A Trane T-12 AHUAH-1A SF Fan Rm A Bldg A MagneTek E300 Supply Fan 7.5 HPAH-1A CF Fan Rm A Bldg A Baldor N354ST Return Fan 1 HPWH-EF1 Aux Gym Aux Gym State SB70 500 Domestic Water Heater 70 gal, 420 GPHAir Comp Aux Gym Aux Gym Dayton 241Y6D1COC Pneumatic Controls Air Comp Oct-83AHU-1 Aux Gym Aux Gym Flexaire SDF-60-GMFH-MB-RH Nat Gas Furnace600 MBH output1983 (as builts)Supply Fan Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Nat Gas Furnace Blower Motor 10900 CFM, 3 HPInducer Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Nat Gas Furnace Inducer Motor 1/4 HPBurner Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Nat Gas Furnace Burner Motor 1/3 HPAHU-2 Aux Gym Aux Gym Flexaire SDF-60-GMFH-MB-RH Nat Gas Furnace300 MBH output1983 (as builts)Supply Fan Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Nat Gas Furnace Blower Motor 7300 CFM, 3 HPInducer Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Marathon Electric NQA48S17D952E Nat Gas Furnace Inducer Motor 1/4 HPBurner Motor Aux Gym Aux Gym Nat Gas Furnace Burner Motor 1/3 HPAHU B2 B11 B Bldg LF Trane T-50 Torrivent AHUAHU B2 B11 B Bldg LF Marathon Electric SF MotorAHU B2 B11 B Bldg LFRF MotorAHU 2B B Rooftop Mech B UF South CRs Haakon Airpak VAV VFD SF 7000 CFM 2005AHU 1B NB109 B Bldg UF Haakon Airpak VAV VFD SF 8000 CFM 2005P-2B Fan Rm B Armstrong 2D-4360 Glycol Circ Pump 75 GPM, 1 HPP-1B Fan Rm B Armstrong 2D-4360 Glycol Circ Pump 75 GPM, 1 HPHX-1B Fan Rm B Graham Co. GP-161 Heat ExchangerWH B11 Rheem RUUD G76-200 Gas Water Heater 76 gal. 181.1 GPHP-4D Fan Rm D Armstrong 3D-4360 Glycol Circ Pump 100GPM, 2 HPP-3D Fan Rm D Armstrong 3D-4360 Glycol Circ Pump 100 GPM, 2 HPHX-1D Fan Rm D Graham Co. GP-161 Heat ExchangerP-2D Fan Rm D Grundfos HW Circ pump 85WP-1D Fan Rm D Grundfos HW Circ pump 85WWH-2D Fan Rm D A.O. Smith BT-100-112 Domestic Water Heater NG 98gal 72.82 GPHWH-1D Fan Rm D A.O. Smith BT-100-112 Domestic Water Heater NG 98gal 72.82 GPHAHU-2D Fan Rm D Haakon Airpak 38000 CFM, 40 HPAHU-1D Fan Rm D Haakon Airpak 38000 CFM, 40 HPEF-4D Fan Rm D Marathon Electric CVK145TTFR4027AE EF MotorDust Colector Side of Bldg Reliance Electric P18S3076 Dust Collector Motor 5 HPPump-S3 Boiler Rm EF-39 Pacific PumpingCo. B2G17461 HW Pump 275 GPM, 5 HPPump-7 Boiler Rm EF-39 Armstrong 3D-4280Pump-6 Boiler Rm EF-39Pump-5 Boiler Rm EF-39Small Circ pumps Boiler Rm EF-392 small circ pumps on DHWWH Boiler Rm EF-39 Amtrol Indirect Water HeaterWH Boiler Rm EF-39 Amtrol Indirect Water HeaterWH Boiler Rm EF-39 Amtrol Indirect Water HeaterWH Boiler Rm EF-39 Amtrol Indirect Water HeaterPump-S5 Boiler Rm EF-39Pump-S4 Boiler Rm EF-39B1 Boiler Rm EF-39AHU-EF1 Boiler Rm EF-39EF-2 Boiler Rm EF-39P-12 B11. Pacific PumpingCo. HW Pump 158 GPM, 1 HPP-11 B11. Pacific PumpingCo. B2G17456B HW Pump 326 GPM, 7.5 HPP-10 B11. Pacific PumpingCo. B2G17456A HW Pump 326 GPM, 7.5 HPP-C1. Fan Rm C C Bldg Pacific PumpingCo. B2G17458A 85 GPM, 1.5 HPP-C2 Fan Rm C C Bldg B&G 2AC625PF 85 GPM, 1.5 HPAH-1C SF Fan Rm C C Bldg10 HPAH-1C SF Fan Rm C C Bldg3 HPP-4G Fan Rm G US Electric G154 Glycol Circ Pump 100GPM, 2 HPMechanical Equipment Summary
NameLocation Area ServedMakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesMechanical Equipment SummaryP-3GFan Rm GUS ElectricG154Glycol Circ Pump100 GPM, 2 HPHX-1GFan Rm GGraham Co.GPF-18Heat ExchangerP-2G Fan Rm G Grundfos HW Circ pump 85WP-1G Fan Rm G Armstrong HW Circ pump 110WWH-2G Fan Rm G A.O. Smith BT-100-112 Domestic Water Heater NG 98gal 72.82 GPHWH-1G Fan Rm G A.O. Smith BT-100-112 Domestic Water Heater NG 98gal 72.82 GPHAHU-2G Fan Rm G Huntair CSU-30K 38000 CFM, 40 HP 2000AHU-1G Fan Rm G Huntair CSU-30K 38000 CFM, 40 HP 2000EF-4G Fan Rm G Marathon Electric CVK145TTFR4027AE EF MotorPMP-1H Fan Rm H Armstrong 3x3x8 3080 HW Circ pump 278 GPM, 5 HPPMP-2H Fan Rm H Armstrong 3x3x8 3080 HW Circ pump 278 GPM, 5 HPHX-1H Fan Rm H Tranter UFX-12 Heat ExchangerPMP-4H Fan Rm H Armstrong 2x2x8 4380 Glycol Circ Pump 130 GPM, 5 HPPMP-3H Fan Rm H Armstrong 2x2x8 4380 Glycol Circ Pump 130 GPM, 5 HPHWG-2H Fan Rm H Amtrol WH7CDW Indirect Water Heater 41 GalHWG-2H Fan Rm H Amtrol WH7CDW Indirect Water Heater 41 GalAHU-1H Fan Rm H Trane Airpak 38000 CFM, 40 HP 2002
APPENDIX D
Thermal Image
Report
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 5:48:35 PMImage Date
IR_0441.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Convective heat losses minimal
Description
Main Entrance
1 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 5:51:33 PMImage Date
IR_0445.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Note difference in spot point temperatures
Description
2 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 5:57:46 PMImage Date
IR_0453.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Air-tight door
Description
Newer construction area with air-tight doors
3 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:00:41 PMImage Date
IR_0455.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Note Sp1 compared to Sp2 and Sp3
Description
Obvious convective heat loss around doors
4 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:01:06 PMImage Date
IR_0457.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Heat loss shown at Sp1
Description
Lack of weather-stripping beneath door
5 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:02:11 PMImage Date
IR_0459.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Heat loss shown at Sp1
Description
6 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:04:26 PMImage Date
IR_0461.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good representation of door heat losses due to lack of weather-stripping
Description
7 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:05:45 PMImage Date
IR_0463.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Multiple areas that lack good weather-stripping
Description
8 (9)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/14/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Service High
School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 5577 Abbott Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
11/10/2011 6:08:51 PMImage Date
IR_0467.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Conductive heat loss
Description
9 (9)
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.