HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC MOA Anchorage Senior Center 2012-EE
I
A
O
C
J
P
Investm
Anchorag
Owner: The M
Client: Alaska
June 8, 2012
Project # CIR
ment Gra
e Senior
Municipality of
a Housing Fin
RI-ANC-CAEC
ade Ene
Center
f Anchorage
nance Corpora
C-46
ergy Au
ation
udit
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 2 of 55
Project # CIRI-ANC-CAEC-46
Prepared for:
The Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage Senior Center
1300 E 19th Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
Audit performed by:
Energy Audits of Alaska
P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 98522
Contact: Jim Fowler, PE, CEA#1705
Jim@jim-fowler.com
206.954.3614
Prime Contractor:
Central Alaska Engineering Company
32215 Lakefront Drive
Soldotna, AK 99699
Contact: Jerry Herring, PE, CEA #1484
AKEngineers@starband.net
907.260.5311
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 3 of 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 5
2. Audit and Analysis Background 13
3. Acknowledgements 15
4. Building Description & Function 16
5. Historic Energy Consumption 19
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 19
7. Loan Program 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photos 21
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 27
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 35
Appendix D: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 40
Appendix E: Specifications supporting EEM’s 43
Appendix F: Benchmark Data 49
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 4 of 55
REPORT DISCLAIMERS
This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funds, managed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy
savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the
recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the
savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in
their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough
lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with
State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)
recommendations. Energy Audits of Alaska, LLC and Central Alaska Engineering
Company bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report.
Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final
installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of
recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and
maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so
implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither
the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, or any other party involved in
preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet
the forecasted payback periods.
This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of
Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be
extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC.
IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the
Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system.
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.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 5 of 55
1. Executive Summary
Building Owner:
Municipality of Anchorage
3640 East Tudor
Anchorage, AK 99507
Building contact:
Cathy D. Lee
Executive Director
907-258-7823
asc-director@ak.net
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
P.O. Box 10120
Anchorage, AK 99510-1020
Contact: Rebekah Luhrs
Energy Specialist
907-330-8141
rluhrs@ahfc.us
Guidance to the reader:
The Executive Summary is designed to contain all the information the building
owner/operator should need to determine how the subject building’s energy
efficiency compares with other similar use buildings, which energy
improvements should be implemented, approximately how much they will cost
and their estimated annual savings. Sections 2 through 7 of this report and the
Appendices, are back-up and provide much more detailed information should
the owner/operator, or their staff, desire to investigate further.
This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment act
(ARRA) funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy
and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. The
audit and this report are pre-requisites to access AHFC’s Retrofit Energy
Assessment Loans (REAL) program, which is available to the building’s owner.
The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility
modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems
investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy
management control systems (EMCS).
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 6 of 55
The site visit to this building occurred on March 12th, 2012. The ambient outside
air temperature was 5F.
The Anchorage Senior Center is used Monday through Friday by upwards of
500 people. It is a single story structure with a small attic/mezzanine, and
includes a restaurant, billiards room, exercise facility, offices for staff, numerous
day rooms and a ball room.
The original building was constructed in 1981, it underwent a major addition (the
South wing) in 2001/2002, had an HVAC upgrade to the old building in 2004.
No major modifications have been made since the addition of the South wing,
although other minor upgrades have been implemented since 2004.
Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data
Benchmark utility data for 2009 and 2010 is summarized in Tables 1 and 2
below.
Table 1
2009 2010
Consumption Cost Consumption Cost
Electricity ‐ kWh 419,818 $ 46,559 456,248 $ 53,489
Natural Gas ‐ Therms 50,053 $ 51,221 41,556 $ 33,801
Totals $ 97,780 $ 87,290
A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings
in the area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy
used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value
expressed in terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other
buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area.
Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the
building expressed in $/SF of building area. Comparative values are shown in
Table 2 below.
Table 2 – 2009 & 2010 Average EUI and ECI
Subject
Building
Chugiak Senior
Center
Woodland Park
Boys & Girls Club
Continental US
Average**
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐
kBTU/SF 179 106 108 89‐102
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐
$/SF $2.72 $1.80 $1.65 ‐
** Data retrieved from the US Energy Administration database, these figures are for “Places of
Public Assembly”, the most relevant category tracked by the USEA.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 7 of 55
Evaluation of energy consumption & benchmark data
As observed in Table 1 above, consumption of natural gas (NG) declined by
17% between 2009 and 2010 and electrical consumption increased by 9%.
Table 2 shows that the subject building’s energy use per square foot falls well
above two very similar buildings, the Chugiak Senior Center and the Woodland
Park School.
As is typical for Alaskan buildings, a comparison to similar buildings in the
continental US shows Alaska buildings have a much higher EUI – which is to be
expected given the weather differences.
A deeper analysis of the energy consumption of these three buildings follows:
Chart 1
Chart 1 above shows the subject building’s gas and electrical EUI compared to
the two other similar use buildings. The Chugiak Senior Center is a residential
facility, so one would expect its EUI’s to be higher. Woodland Park School is
used as the headquarters and a local recreation center for the Anchorage Boys
and Girls club, so its use is very similar to the subject building.
Natural gas consumption:
All three of the buildings have a combination of offices, game, craft and multi-
purpose rooms, although only the Chugiak and subject building has a
commercial kitchen in operation. The auditor audited the Chugiak Senior Center,
and having done so, believes that the subject building’s NG consumption is
0 20406080100120140160
Anchorage Senior Center
Chugiak Senior Center
Woodland Park Boys & Girls Club
Natural Gas EUI
Electrical EUI
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 8 of 55
excessive, rather than the other two building’s consumption being unreasonably
low. The excessive consumption is believed to be a result of improper HVAC
settings or improperly functioning HVAC components.
Electrical consumption:
Based on Chart 1, the subject building’s electrical consumption is also
excessive, and looking at Table 1, it is trending worse, rather than better.
Both of these issues are discussed further in this report, and addressed by the
recommendations made in Appendix B and Appendix D.
Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures
Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this
building to determine if they would provide energy savings with reasonably good
payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including:
1.) they have a reasonably good payback period
2.) for code compliance
3.) end of life (EOL) replacement
4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management
strategy, operations, maintenance and/or safety
All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C
Energy Audit Report in Appendix B and in Appendix D. Each EEM includes
payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings.
The summary EEM’s that follow are the only EEM’s that are recommended
for this building. Others have been considered (See Appendix D-2) but are not
deemed to be justified or cost effective. The recommended EEM’s were
selected based on consideration from three perspectives: overall efficiency of
building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on
investment (ROI).
Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be
upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate
rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the
fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on
their individual lighting or controls upgrade.
Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped
by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single
upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a
single upgrade, etc.). They are prioritized as a group, with the highest ROI
(shortest payback) listed first. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes
these EEM’s and Appendix B (the AkWarm-C detailed report) and Appendix D
provide additional detail pertaining to each individual recommendation.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 9 of 55
A.) SETBACK THERMOSTATS
The HVAC controls in this building (per the sequence of operations
found in building plans) execute a timer based, 7-day schedule for
the building’s ventilation, and the ventilation is a backup heat
source if the radiant baseboards or in-floor heating cannot keep up
with demand. It is not clear that night time and unoccupied set
back temperatures are used. Therefore, assuming they are not, it
is recommended to either program setbacks into the DDC control
system or replace the low voltage adjustable thermostats with
digital programmable 7-day units that utilize night time and
unoccupied setbacks.
See Appendices B-1 & B-2.
Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s:
Estimated cost $ 5,000
Annual Savings $ 5,808
Payback 11 months
B.) HVAC SYSTEM
The AHU’s in this building all have VFD’s, the controls are DDC
and the boilers have a reasonable nominal efficiency, so the
building should have a lower NG EUI than similar use buildings;
instead, it’s nearly double similar use buildings (Chart 1).
The HOA switch on the ASU-1 motor controller is on “hand”, which
means it is running continuously, overriding the control system
inputs and timers. It is not clear how long this has been the case;
it may have contributed to, or be the sole cause of the excessive
use of NG in this facility.
It is recommended to perform a retro-commissioning of the
building’s HVAC and optimize its operation. Estimated cost is
$15,000 and the annual savings were investigated two ways.
First, the AkWarm-C model was re-run with the ASU-1 running
normal ventilation hours (i.e. one hour before building opening to
one hour after closing) resulting in an annual savings of $11,637.
Second, by calculating what the NG EUI should be, to bring it into
line with the two comparison building (i.e. 80 kBTU/SF); this
resulted in a reduction of annual NG consumption of 36,000
Therms, or $34,000. These two caclcuylations indicate that ASU-1
on “hand” is not the only issue causing excessive NG consumption
– but obviously should be corrected immediately. Because of the
difficulty in predicting the savings resulting from the recommended
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 10 of 55
retro-commissioning, a conservative estimate of potential savings
is used below, based on correcting the ASU-1 HOA switch. See
Appendix B-3.
HVAC VFD EEM:
Estimated cost $ 15,000
Annual savings $ 11,637
Payback 1.3 years
C.) REFRIGERATION & REFRIGERATED VENDING MACHINES
There are two full size residential type refrigerators in this building
that appear to be 10-15 years old, and one refrigerated beverage
vending machine. It is recommended to replace these full size
refrigerators at their EOL with Energy Star versions, and to add a
VendingMiser (see www.vendingmiser.com) to the refrigerated
beverage vending machine. These EEM’s are found in Appendix
B-7 & B-11, see Appendix E for VendingMiser literature.
Combined refrigeration EEM’s:
Estimated cost (incremental cost difference
for the refrigerators + VendingMiser) $ 400
Annual Savings $ 222
Payback 1.8 years
D.) MOTOR REPLACEMENT WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY
Of the seven motors in this facility that are 5 HP or larger, only two
had nameplates that were accessible to identify their rated
efficiencies. (see Appendix C). One of these motors, the 7.5 HP
motor in ASU-2, should be replaced at its EOL with a premium
efficiency version. See Appendix D-3.
Motor replacement EEM:
Estimated cost (incremental difference
for premium versus standard) $ 200
Annual Savings $ 69
Payback 2.9 years
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 11 of 55
E.) DESKTOP COMPUTERS
Desktop PC’s consume between 180 and 300 watts when in use.
Laptops consume between 50 and 100 watts when in use. It is
recommended to replace the 34 desktop PC’s with laptops at their
EOL. The incremental difference in cost is estimated to be $200
each and although the payback is at or slightly beyond the life
expectancy of a laptop, the recommendation is still made. See
Appendix B-24.
Personal Computer EEM:
Estimated cost $ 6,800
Annual savings $ 1,221
Payback 5.6 years
F.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS
The lighting in this building appears to have been replaced piece-
meal, and is in great need of a consistency upgrade. There are 13
different types of indoor fixtures requiring an inventory of 10
different lamps and bulbs. This creates a large bulb/lamp
inventory, requires purchase of small amounts of sometimes
difficult to procure bulbs and adds a significant labor requirement
to simply change a light bulb.
Energy Conservation & Consistency upgrade:
It is recommended to survey the light fixtures and re-lamp the
entire building with as few variations of bulbs and lamps as
possible. This is not recommended as an energy efficiency
measure (EEM), rather as a building operational efficiency
measure (an “ECM”, see list at end of this section)
Lighting upgrade:
At the next building re-lamp, it is recommended to replace all 32
watt T8 lamps with 28 watt energy saver lamps. Now, it is
recommended to add occupancy sensors to all rooms, replace all
E26-base and E27-base (i.e. standard screw-in, A-type bulb base)
MH and MV bulbs with LED bulbs, replace incandescent bulbs with
CFL bulbs and replace the remaining T12 end caps (“tombstones”)
and magnetic ballasts with T8 end caps and instant start ballasts
using a kit similar to Leviton’s “Zipline” (see Appendix E).
It is recommended to replace all exterior high intensity discharge
(HID) lighting (High Pressure Sodium, Mercury Vapor and Metal
Halide) with LED bulbs or fixtures.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 12 of 55
This EEM summarizes Appendix B-4 through 6, B-8 through 10, B-
12 through 23 and B-25 through 45. See Appendix E for more
information on occupancy sensors and energy saver 28 watt
lamps.
Combined Lighting Control EEM’s:
Estimated cost $ 103,120
Annual Savings $ 9,231
Payback 11.1 years
A summary of the estimated cost totals and estimated annual savings totals of
the five (A. through E.) summary EEM’s listed above, is found in Table 3 below,
and again at the end of Appendix B.
Table 3
Combined total of recommended EEM’s
summarized above:
Estimated total cost $ 130,520
Annual Savings (including
maintenance savings) $ 28,181
Simple payback 4.6 years
Does not include design or construction management costs
In addition to EEM’s, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECM’s) are
recommended. ECM’s are policies or procedures to be followed by
management and employees that require no capital outlay. ECMs
recommended for this facility include:
1. Turn lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an
occupancy sensor.
2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly
maintained and adjusted to close and function properly.
3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office.
Utilize desk plug load management devices such as the “Isola” in
Appendix E.
4. Re-configure building occupants and activities (in the case of the
Rec Center) to group un-occupied offices (i.e. no tenant or staff
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 13 of 55
using the space) or little used spaces, into the same HVAC zone
so that zone’s energy consumption can be set back to minimal
levels.
5. A building is a living mini-ecosystem and its use changes. Re-
evaluate building usage annually and confirm that building set
points, zones, lighting levels, etc. are optimized for the current
usage and occupancy.
6. Lamp replacement should be a scheduled, preventative
maintenance activity. Re-lamp the entire building or entire usage
zones (a zone of the building that has similar lighting usage, so
lamps have roughly the same lifetime) as part of a scheduled
preventative maintenance routine. This assures all lamps are the
same color temperature (e.g. 2700K, 3000K, etc.) which
enhances occupant comfort and working efficiency. It also
minimizes expense because it is more cost effective to order large
quantities of the same lamp, and more labor efficient to dedicate
maintenance staff to a single re-lamp activity in a building zone,
rather than replace individual lamps as they fail.
7. Replace HVAC filters regularly. Maintain optimal operation of all
dampers, actuators, valves and other HVAC components.
2. Audit and Analysis Background
Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and
evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this
project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, hot water generation and
HVAC equipment. The auditor may or may not identify system deficiencies if
they exist. The auditor’s role is to identify areas of potential savings, many of
which may require more detailed investigation and analysis by other qualified
professionals.
a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was
gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility
consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules where
available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual
building condition, including:
i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc)
ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
iii. Lighting systems and controls
iv. Building specific equipment
v. Plumbing Systems
b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided
through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 14 of 55
that meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the
energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate
or missing, new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are
inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and
missing data points are interpolated.
c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and
during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software
program developed specifically for AHFC to identify forecasted energy
consumption. The forecasts can then be compared to actual energy
consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit
options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on
occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building
function, existing conditions, and climatic data uploaded to the program
based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed,
energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged
information.
Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for
the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to
implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs
are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level of audit, and are
derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry
publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment
suppliers. Brown Electric, Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales, Pioneer Door,
and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted for some of the lighting,
boiler, overhead door and air handling retrofit and/or replacement costs.
Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the
energy savings for each EEM.
The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and ROI
is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years
that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net
Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM
recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between
the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being
recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR
found in the AkWarm-C report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as
the annual savings multiplied by the lifetime of the improvement, divided by
the initial installed cost. SIR’s greater than 1.0 indicate a positive lifetime
ROI.
The life-time for each EEM is entered into AkWarm-C; it is estimated based
on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered.
d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input
data provided, and may only act as an approximation. Most input data such
as building and equipment usage, occupancy hours and numbers, building
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 15 of 55
and HVAC operating hours, etc. was provided to the auditor by on site
personnel.
In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings.
This report is not a design document. A design professional, licensed to
practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the
recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results.
Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not
included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs
can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work.
3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals
who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including:
a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant
funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for
providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of
buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical
Service Provider (TSP).
b. The Municipality of Anchorage (Owner): MOA provided a review and brief
history of the benchmarked buildings, building selection criteria, building
plans, equipment specifications, building entry and coordination with on-site
personnel.
c. Central Alaska Engineering Company (Benchmark TSP): CAEC oversaw
the compilation of electrical and natural gas consumption data through their
subcontractor, Energy Audits of Alaska, LLC. CAEC also entered that data
into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information
System (ARIS). CAEC was awarded the auditing contract for this MOA
building.
d. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to
provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers,
certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also
received additional training from CAEC and other TSP’s to acquire further
specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM
applications.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 16 of 55
4. Building Description and Function:
The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on March 12th, 2012.
This is a single story building with a small attic used for storage and as a
mechanical room. There are approximately 27,315 square feet used for offices,
kitchen, dining and common areas, 6023 square feet used for storage and
mechanical rooms for a total building size of 33,338 square feet, as calculated
from plans. The building is used by 500-600 people per day between weekday
hours of 8:00 am until as late as midnight, depending on the day. It is not
generally used on the weekends.
The older, “main building” was constructed on a 4” concrete slab poured on
grade. It uses 2x6 wood stud walls filled with R-21 batt, with 1-1/2” of sprayed on
icynene foam on the exterior, then finished with a brick veneer. Interior walls are
finished with gypsum. The newer, “South wing” is also constructed on a 4” slab
poured on grade, but it has 2” of rigid insulation beneath the slab and in-floor
heating in the slab. It’s walls are also 2x6 wood studs filled with R-21 batt and
finished with a brick veneer, but plans do not show the sprayed on icynene
foam. The roof is supported by glue lam beams and wood trusses with 5” of
rigid foam insulation covered with metal standing seam roofing in the older main
building and 6-3/4” of rigid foam insulation in the south wing.
All windows in this building are double pane aluminum and in reasonably good
condition considering their age. Overall, the building is in above average
condition.
Building details are as follows:
a. HVAC and Controls: The HVAC system in this building was
upgraded in two major steps. When the south wing was
constructed in 2001/2002, the HVAC system for that building
was, of course, state of the art. The HVAC system in the old,
main building was upgraded in 2004 and 2008 to its current
configuration.
Heating: Heat is provided to the old building by (3) gas fired
boilers, and a direct, gas fired make up air unit (MAU)
interlocked to the kitchen exhaust hood. The south wing is
provided with heat by a gas fired hot water boiler supplying
in-floor heating and two air handlers with heating coils.
Cooling: Cooling is provided by two rooftop units (RTU’s)
with a total 55 Ton capacity.
Ventilation: Ventilation is provided by the four air handlers
(AHU’s) and two RTU’s. There are 41 variable air volume
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 17 of 55
(VAV) boxes in the building and all AHU’s have variable
frequency drives (VFD’s) to provide demand controlled VAV.
Controls: HVAC controls are direct digital controls (DDC)
utilizing a combination of low voltage adjustable and sensor
thermostats. The DDC system has carbon dioxide (CO2)
sensing, hot and cold deck and outside air (OSA) resets.
Both DDC systems are timer-based with night mode and day
mode operations. It is not clear that night mode temperature
set backs are used.
b. Appliances: In addition to the well equipped commercial
kitchen (see Appendix C for complete list of kitchen
equipment) there are three residential type refrigerators, a
range of exercise equipment, a residential-type clothes
washer and dryer and 34 personal computers in use in this
building.
c. Plumbing Fixtures: This building contains (13) toilets, (2)
urinals and (13) lavatory sinks with manual valves. There are
(6) additional toilets, (2) urinals and (8) lavatory sinks with
proximity sensing valves. There are 4 showers. The toilets
consume 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf), the urinals 1.0 gpf and
the showers 2.6 gpf (presumed). See Appendix D-1 for EEM
recommendations.
d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water for sinks and the kitchen is
provided by an indirect 45 gallon hot water generator.
e. Interior Lighting & Controls: The lighting in this building is
quite inconsistent and in need of a building-wide upgrade.
Room lighting generally consists of T12-40 watt or T8-32 watt
fixtures with a mixture of magnetic or electronic ballasts.
Additionally, there are CFL’s, incandescent’s, metal halide
and mercury vapor lamps. There are 40 watt U-Tube, 36”,
48” and 96” T12 lamps. There are a number of occupancy
sensors in use, generally in the south wing. See Appendix E
for additional information on occupancy sensors. All exit
signs in the building are either LED or unlit, self luminous. A
complete lighting upgrade is recommended in Appendix B.
f. Exterior Lighting: There are (63) high intensity discharge
(HID) lights on the exterior of this building, including a mix of
high pressure sodium (HPS), metal halide (MH) and mercury
vapor (MV). It is assumed that the 50 and 100 watt HPS and
MH bulbs have an E26 or E27 screw base and therefore are
easily retro-fittable with LED bulbs. The 150, 175 and 250
watt HID lighting is assumed to have a larger base than E26
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 18 of 55
or E27, and therefore is retro-fittable to LED lighting only by
replacing the entire fixture.
g. Building Shell: The building shell is described earlier; it
appears to be in above average condition inside and out.
h. Motors: There are 7 large (5 HP or larger) motors in use in
this building. They are listed in Appendix C and were
considered for replacement with premium efficiency motors in
Appendix D-3.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 19 of 55
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data.
Two year’s worth of natural gas and electricity consumption were averaged then
input into AKWarm-C. This monthly data is found in Appendix F.
Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index
(ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The energy cost index takes the annual
costs of natural gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (two
years) divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is
$2.72/SF, the ECI for two very similar buildings, the Woodland Park School and
the Chugiak Senior Center, are $1.65 and $1.80 respectively.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and heating
energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTU/SF. The average of the
2009 and 2010 EUI for this building is 179 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010
EUI for the Woodland Park School is 108 kBTU/SF and 106 kBTU/SF for the
Chugiak Senior Center. The average for “Places of Public Assembly” buildings
across the US is 89-102 kBTU/SF as logged by the US Energy Information
Administration. This source data can be viewed at:
www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbecs_tables_list.htm.
6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings
assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented in the order shown in
Appendix B. Appendix D EEM’s are not included in the AkWarm-C model
unless referred to in the Appendix B EEM as “see also Appendix D-X”; in these
cases, the EEM is included in the AkWarm-C calculations. If some EEMs are
not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some
cases positively, and in others, negatively.
In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings
associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. By
modeling the recommended projects sequentially, the analysis accounts for
interactive effects between the EEMs and does not “double count” savings.
Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat
within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the
overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency
improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings.
Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating
requirements slightly. Heating penalties resulting from reductions in building
electrical consumption are included in the lighting analysis that is performed by
AkWarm-C.
7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska
Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program
enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855,
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 20 of 55
“Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF will provide loans for
energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment
for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may
finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by:
a. Regional educational attendance areas;
b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal
governments;
c. The University of Alaska;
d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or
e. The State of Alaska
Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government
are not eligible for loans under this program.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 21 of 55
Appendix A - Photos
Main entry lobby with skylight; “leaks like a sieve in the winter and hotter than
hades in the summer” according to on-site personnel
The “Ballroom”
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 22 of 55
Exercise facility
The billiards room
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 23 of 55
Two versions of digital thermostats in use in south wing
Summer/Winter switch for MAU, switched “off”; the third type of thermostat in
use is shown at right
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 24 of 55
Indirect hot water generator; all piping should be insulated
Boiler room in old, main building; boiler on left is hot water for in-floor heat
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 25 of 55
Standing Pilot lights on kitchen cooktops
ASU-2 retrofitted with VFD
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 26 of 55
Aerial View of the Anchorage Senior Center
v
Kitchen Expansion
Original section of building built in 2003
built in 1981
South Wing Expansion
built in 2002
NORTH
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 27
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/6/2012 12:55 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: Anchorage Senior Center Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 1300 E 19th Ave Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Anchorage Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Name: Cathy D. Lee
Client Address: 1300 E 19th Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614
Auditor FAX:
Client Phone: (907) 258‐7823 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 33,338 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,769,225
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 2,052,532 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and
25% Safety Margin: 3,128,860 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,
if served.
Typical Occupancy: 100 people Design Indoor Temperature: 71.7 deg F (building average)
Actual City: Anchorage Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐18 deg F
Weather/Fuel City: Anchorage Heating Degree Days: 10,816 deg F‐days
Utility Information
Electric Utility: Anchorage ML&P ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐
Lg
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.111/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.815/ccf
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting Refrigerat
ion
Other
Electrical Cooking Ventilation
Fans
Service
Fees
Total
Cost
Existing
Building
$36,281 $1,480 $2,486 $18,400 $2,156 $14,554 $482 $8,740 $1,842 $86,422
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$22,615 $1,623 $2,593 $10,624 $1,979 $13,878 $482 $5,232 $1,842 $60,870
SAVINGS $13,666 ‐$144 ‐$106 $7,776 $176 $676 $0 $3,508 $0 $25,552
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 28
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Space Cooling
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Cooking
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 29
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Setback Thermostat:
Common Areas
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Common Areas space.
$3,543 $3,000 15.21 0.8
2 Setback Thermostat:
Office and Kitchen
Areas
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Office and Kitchen Areas space.
$2,262 $2,000 14.57 0.9
3 HVAC system Perform retro‐commission of HVAC
system to correct excessive NG
consumption.
$11,632 $15,000 9.81 1.3
4 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: Incandescent,
OS added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 27 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp
15W
$389 $405 5.91 1
5 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
Incandescent, OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 4 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp
15W
$51 $60 5.25 1.2
6 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
MH‐100
Replace with 5 LED 34W Module
StdElectronic
$102
+ $50
Maint.
Savings
$375 4.66 3.7
7 Refrigeration ‐
Power Retrofit:
Residential
Refrigerator > 10 yrs
old
Replace with 2 Energy Star version at
EOL @ $75 ea incremental cost
$82 $150 4.52 1.8
8 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
MH‐50
Replace with 16 LED 17W Module
StdElectronic
$229
+ $160
Maint.
Savings
$1,200 3.83 5.2
9 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
HPS‐50
Replace with 23 LED 17W Module
StdElectronic
$329
+ $230
Maint.
Savings
$1,725 3.83 5.2
10 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Storage:
Incandescent, add
OS
Replace with 5 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp
15W
$42 $75 3.49 1.8
11 Refrigeration ‐
Controls Retrofit:
Refrigerated Vending
Machine
Add VendingMiser
(www.vendingmiser.com)
$141 $250 3.46 1.8
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 30
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
12 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Common
Area: T8‐3lamp, add
OS
* At next building re‐lamp, replace
(70) T8‐32 watt lamps with 70 FLUOR
(3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
with Instant HighEfficElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$607 $1,580 2.36 2.6
13 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen: T8‐
2lamp, OS added in
circuit under
previous EEM
At next building re‐lamp, replace (4)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 4 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$8 $24 2.00 3.1
14 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T8‐2lamp,
already OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace (4)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 4 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$8 $24 1.95 3.2
15 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T8‐3lamp,
already OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace (97)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 97 FLUOR (3)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$276 $873 1.95 3.2
16 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen: T8‐
3lamp, already OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace (1)
T8‐32 watt lamps with FLUOR (3) T8
4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant
StdElectronic
$3 $9 1.82 3.4
17 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐4lamp, OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 7 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$210
+ $70
Maint.
Savings
$1,680 1.39 8
18 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐4lamp, OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$80
+ $30
Maint.
Savings
$720 1.28 9
19 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐2lamp,
96", OS added to
circuit under
previous EEM
Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$174
+ $80
Maint.
Savings
$1,760 1.21 10.1
20 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Common
Area: Incadescent,
add OS
Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp
15W and Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy Sensor
$242 $1,240 1.20 5.1
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 31
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
21 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐4lamp,
add OS
** Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$143
+ $40
Maint.
Savings
$1,360 1.03 9.5
22 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐4lamp, add OS
Replace with 30 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$880
+ $300
Maint.
Savings
$9,600 0.94 10.9
23 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐2lamp, OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 10 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$132
+ $100
Maint.
Savings
$2,200 0.89 16.6
24 Other Electrical ‐
Combined Retrofit:
Desktop Computers
Replace with 34 Laptops at EOL @
incremental cost of $200 ea
$1,221 $6,800 0.82 5.6
25 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐2lamp,
add OS
Replace with 56 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$991
+ $560
Maint.
Savings
$16,120 0.74 16.3
26 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐1lamp, OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 7 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$55
+ $70
Maint.
Savings
$1,470 0.72 26.6
27 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐2lamp, add OS
Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$377
+ $260
Maint.
Savings
$6,920 0.71 18.4
28 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐2lamp,
24", OS added to
circuit under
previous EEM
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$45
+ $20
Maint.
Savings
$880 0.61 19.7
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 32
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
29 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐2lamp,
36", OS added to
circuit under
previous EEM
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$15
+ $30
Maint.
Savings
$660 0.58 44.2
30 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Storage:
T12‐2lamp, add OS
Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver lamps and
Leviton “Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$385
+ $260
Maint.
Savings
$8,720 0.57 22.7
31 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐2lamp, 36", OS
added to circuit
under previous EEM
Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$27
+ $60
Maint.
Savings
$1,320 0.56 49.7
32 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Storage:
T12‐2lamp, already
OS
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver lamps and Leviton
“Zipline” kit with Instant
StdElectronic ballast
$9
+ $30
Maint.
Savings
$660 0.50 74.1
33 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Storage: T8‐
2lamp, already OS
At next building re‐lamp replace (25)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 25 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$11 $150 0.45 13.8
34 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Storage: T8‐
3lamp, already OS
At next building re‐lamp replace (25)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 2 FLUOR (3)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $18 0.44 13.9
35 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Kitchen: T8‐
4lamp, add OS
At next building re‐lamp replace (25)
T8‐32 watt lamps with 7 FLUOR (4)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$46 $684 0.42 14.8
36 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
MH‐250
Replace with 6 LED 80W Module
StdElectronic
$305
+ $60
Maint.
Savings
$12,000 0.35 39.3
37 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐1lamp, 36", add
OS
Replace with 2 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$6
+ $20
Maint.
Savings
$620 0.32 107.5
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 33
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
38 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Common
Area: T12‐2lamp, U‐
type, OS added to
circuit under
previous EEM
Replace existing fixture with FLUOR
(2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
$15
+ $10
Maint.
Savings
$700 0.30 45.4
39 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Kitchen:
T12‐2lamp, U‐type,
OS added to circuit
under previous
name
Replace existing fixture with FLUOR
(2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
$14
+ $10
Maint.
Savings
$700 0.29 51.1
40 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
MV‐175
*** Replace with 9 LED 60W Module
StdElectronic
$309
+ $90
Maint.
Savings
$18,000 0.25 58.3
41 Lighting ‐ Power
Retrofit: Exterior:
MH‐150
Replace with 2 LED 50W Module
StdElectronic
$60
+ $20
Maint.
Savings
$4,000 0.23 67.2
42 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Storage: T8‐
2lamp, add OS
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
StdElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$7 $206 0.22 27.9
43 Lighting ‐ Combined
Retrofit: Common
Area: T8‐2lamp, add
OS
Replace with 22 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant
StdElectronic and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$82 $3,182 0.16 38.8
44 Lighting ‐ Controls
Retrofit: Storage:
Incandescent, add
OS
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$9 $400 0.14 44.3
45 Lighting ‐ Controls
Retrofit: Kitchen:
CFL‐1lamp, add OS
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$2 $800 0.02 391.6
The following EEM’s were calculated outside of AkWarm‐C and may not consider the interactive affect of
any other EEM’ above, unless specifically stated otherwise. They are not in order of priority or savings,
relative to the EEM’s above.
Appendix B – AkWarm-C detailed report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
Commercial Audit Software
Anchorage Senior Center
Page 34
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
Appe
ndix
D‐1
Plumbing Fixtures:
(19) W.C., (21)
lavatories, (4)
urinals, (4) showers
Replace shower heads and lavatory
fixtures with low flow versions;
replace lavatory valves with
proximity sensing on/off controls,
retrofit residential toilet valves with
dual flush valves, replace urinals with
ultra‐low flow models and proximity
sensing controls
Appe
ndix
D‐3
Motor replacements
with premium
efficiency versions
At EOL. Replace the 7.5 HP motor in
ASU‐2
$69 $200 6.9 2.9
TOTAL $25,621
+ $2,560
Maint.
Savings
$130,520 2.35 5.1
Sample translations of the nomenclature used above:
* (item 12) During the next building re-lamp (i.e. when the lamps were to be replaced anyway, so the cost is the
incremental difference between a 32 watt and 28 watt lamp, estimated to be $3 ea), replace the (70) T8-32 watt lamps
with T8-28 watt “energy saver” lamps; the fixture has a standard electronic ballast; also replace the existing manual
switches with the appropriate number and type of occupancy sensors. Occupancy sensors cost from $200 -$300 ea
installed.
** (item 21) Replace the (4) existing sets of T12, 2-lamp “tombstone” end caps and magnetic ballast with (4) sets of T8
end caps and instant start ballasts using a kit such as Leviton “Zipline” (estimated cost $200/kit installed); replace T12-40
watt lamps with T8-28 watt energy saver lamps (estimated cost $10/lamp). Replace the manual switches with the
appropriate number and type of occupancy sensors.
*** (item 40) Replace existing (9) exterior MV 175watt wall packs with (9) 60 watt LED wall packs with standard
electronic ballast. Wall pack is a type of exterior light fixture.
AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.3, Energy Lib 5/18/2012
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 35 of 55
Appendix C – Equipment Schedules
ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS OR ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION,
WHERE ACCESSIBLE e= estimated
COOLING AND HEATING ROOFTOP UNIT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
RTU‐1 Trane RAUBC406EB10B1; nominal
40T cooling e18,000
20/200/3 Compressor motor 1;
21.8A/200V input
20/200/3 Compressor motor 2
1/200/3 Fan motor (qty of 4);
.95A/200V input
RTU‐2 Trane RAUBC153A; nominal 15T
cooling e22,000 25/230/3 Compressor motor 1
.5/230/3 Fan motor (qty of 3)
ASU‐1 Trane CCDB35KNBC e20,000 25/200/3
fan motor; serves main
building; HOA switch on
"hand"; VFD installed
ASU‐2 Trane CCBB21ABGCO 8940 7.5/200/3;
88.5%
serves main building; new
motor and VFD in 2008
ASU‐3 Rupp CFA‐18 rooftop; 1069 MBH 9000 5/208/3
direct fired NG unit with
VAV and summer/winter
switch; interlocked to EF‐2
exhaust hood provides
MUA; HOA switch "off"
ASU‐X McQuay CAH019FDAM 9000 10/200/3;
91.7%
on VFD; serves kitchen and
main building
BOILER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL EFFICIENCY
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
B‐1 SlantFin GG‐300 80%
300 MBU input, 240 MBH
output, gas fired, serves
main building
B‐2 SlantFin GG‐300 80%
300 MBU input, 240 MBH
output, gas fired, serves
main building
B‐3 SlantFin GG‐300 80%
300 MBU input, 240 MBH
output, gas fired, serves
main building
B‐5 Burnham 80% 1440W/120/1
528 MBH input, 422 MBH
output, gas fired, cast iron
sectional boiler, serving
South wing
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 36 of 55
FAN SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
EF‐X unknown 1045 .25/120/1
EF‐1 Cook GC‐620 360 201W/115/1 on light switch; rooftop
VF‐1 Dayton e350 .05/115/1
combustion air for B‐1, 2
& 3
VF‐2 Greenheck S1‐12‐432G 700 170W/120/1
in new South wing boiler
room
EF‐2 Captivaire Systems 4824 hood 5600 3/208/3
kitchen exhaust hood,
new in 2010; fan on
rooftop
EF‐4 Pace 85A‐SCF‐ME 600 .25/120/1 over dishwasher
EF‐5 Pace 73A SCF ME 550 .25/120/1 toilet room exhaust
EF‐6 Pace SCF‐97A 1100 .5/120/1
serves main building toilet
room exhaust
EF‐7 Pace DD‐250‐0 185 .125/120/1 electrical equipment room
EF‐8 Penn ZT 50 48W/115/1 storage room
PUMP SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GPM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
CP‐1 Grundfos UPC 65‐160 e45 630W/208/3
main glycol circ for main
building; alternates every
200 hrs with CP‐2
CP‐2 Grundfos UPC 65‐160 e45 630W/208/3 alternate
HWCP‐1 Grundfos UP 15‐13 e5 85W/115/1 DHW re‐circ pump
CWS‐1 Taco 1632B3E2 e50 .75/115/1
presumed to be CW
circulation
CP‐10 Grundfos UPS 32‐160 40 430W/208/3
main glycol circ for South
wing, CUH, UH and AHU‐1
coil
CP‐11 Grundfos UPS 32‐160 40 430W/208/3 alternate
CP‐12 Grundfos UPS 32‐160 22 600W/208/3
glycol circ for in‐floor
heating in South wing
CP‐13 Grundfos UPS 32‐160 22 600W/208/3 alternate
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 37 of 55
UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
UH‐1 Beacon Morris; 18 MBH 630 .17/120/1
in main building
boiler room
UH‐2 Modine HS‐18; 13 MBH 340 .02/115/1 kitchen storage
CUH‐1
(2 units) Trane E46‐A08; 28 MBH e450 .125/120/1 vestibule
CUH‐2 Modine CR‐3, 22 MBH 330 .03/120/1 kitchen
CUH‐3 Embassy HAV‐48W; 4 MBH 110 .01/120/1 kitchen
RADIANT PANELS
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL BTUH/LF REMARKS
RP‐1 Airtex HEF‐2 1020 on 24v thermostat
HOT WATER HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS
NUMBER OF
ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE
B‐4
Teledyne Laars Might Max
VW052MN20CCAKXX n/a n/a
520 MBH input, 442 MBH
output, 85% efficient gas
fired hot water boiler
HWG‐1 SuperStor SSU‐45 45
Indirect hot water generator,
set point 145F
PLUMBING FIXTURES
SYMBOL FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS
W.C. 1.6 13 manually operated
Urinal 1 2 manually operated
Lavatory ‐ 13 manually operated
W.C. w/proximity sensor 1.6 6
Urinal w/proximity sensor 1 2
Lavatory w/proximity sensor ‐ 8
Shower ‐ 4 manually operated
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 38 of 55
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES
SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
Keiser Compressor 1 e1200/115/1
air pressure for exercise
equipment
Washer (clothes) 1
Dryer (clothes) 1
Jenny Air Compressor 1 .5/115/1 fire sprinkler pressure
KITCHEN EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES
SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
Beverage Cooler 1 720w/120/1
Hobart Dishwasher 1 15Kw/208/3
1/6 HP motor/200‐230‐
460V/PH3
ISE Disposal 1 3/208/3
Hatco Hot Water Booster 1 9Kw/208/3
Bakers Pride Convection Oven 1 33MBH
gas w/two 1/2 HP
motors
Delfield Food Prep & Cooler 1 1.4Kw/115/1
Frymaster ‐ GF14SD 1 100MBH gas
Imperial 8 Burner Stove 1 8 X 40MBH
assuming 40MBH per
burner (4 standing
pilots)
Imperial Oven (under stove) 2 gas
Wolf Grill 1 5 X 14.5MBH
5 burners at 14.5MBH
each
Manitowac Ice Maker ‐ 600
1
est.
1000Kwh/year
assume 50 lbs. of ice per
day X 5 days X
5.6Kwh/100lbs.
Traulsen Refrigerator ‐ G‐series 1 977w/115/1
Cres‐Cor Crown‐X Warming Tower 2 1.5Kw/120/1 used 2 hrs per day
Vulcan Convection Oven 1 1.2Kw/120/1
KoolStar Refrigerator ‐ B1000 1
compressor not
accessible
.03/115/1
Larkin evaporator,
Heatcraft
LCA690AMC2B
KoolStar Freezer ‐ B2000 1
compressor not
accessible
.13/115/1
Larkin evaporator,
Heatcraft LCE69‐4BMC6
AccuTemp Oven 1 10Kw/208/3 used 2 hrs per day
PLUG LOAD SUMMARY
SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 39 of 55
Coffee Machine 5 450w
Large Copier 2 1250w
Personal Printer 19 85w
Large TV 7 450w
Vending Machine 2
Microwave 7
Fish Tank 2
Plotter 1
Air Cleaner 1
Sound System 1 1500w
Speakers 19
Cash Register 1
Fan 13
7 running; 6 not in
use
Binder 1
Desk Lamp 4
Floor Lamp 1
Toaster 1
Curtis Coffee 1 6Kw/208/1
Drink Dispenser 1
Audio Rack 1 est. 1200w
Elliptical Machine 2
Treadmill 4
Stairmaster Machine 2 26w/120/1
NUsteppers 2 .4A/240V/1
Shredder 1
Iron 2
Sewing Machine 7
Projector 1
Automatic Door Opener‐ DoorBuddy 1
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 40 of 55
Appendix D
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
Appendix D-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals should be retrofitted or be replaced with ultra low
flow models. The lavatory faucets and urinals should be retrofitted with proximity sensing on/off
controls. All toilets in this building are 1.6 gallons per flush with manual valves, they should be
retrofitted with dual flush valves (see below). This audit does not include water usage and
AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of it, but a typical ultra low flow urinal (1 pint to ½
gallon per flush) can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pays back within 3 years,
depending on usage. Dual flush toilet valves will typically pay back within 1-3 years, depending
on usage. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture or valve is
replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. For an EOL replacement, the cost
used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a straight across
replacement with the same fixture.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 41 of 55
Appendix D-2: Additional EEM’S considered but not recommended
Replacement of boilers with high efficiency, condensing models: The AkWarm-C model
was run a second time using boiler efficiencies of 94% rather than the 80% currently in use in
the building. The total annual savings for all 4 boilers was $3563. There would also be some
maintenance savings if all the boilers were replaced with new, high efficiency models, this was
estimated at $500/boiler per year. The life of a condensing boiler is 15 years, versus 30 years
for a cast iron boiler. An estimated cost to replace 4 boilers is $100,000, so the 28 year payback
exceeds the lifetime of the new boilers, This said, it is clear that replacing the functioning boilers
at this time is not economically justifiable and therefore not recommended, however, the
incremental cost is low and it is therefore recommended to replace these boilers with 94%
condensing models at their EOL.
Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s): All of the AHU’s in use have already been fitted with
VFD’s.
Appendix D-3: Motor replacements with premium efficiency versions: Nameplate efficiency
data was not available for the 20 HP motors in RTU-1, for the 25 HP motor in RTU-2, for the 25
HP motor in ASU-1 or the 5 HP motor in ASU-3. Nameplate efficiencies for the 7.5 HP motor in
ASU-2 and the 10 HP motor in the McQuay ASU were available; they were evaluated for
replacement with premium efficiency versions and only the 7.5 HP motor in ASU-2 is
recommended for replacement. See Table 4 below.
LARGE MOTOR SCHEDULE
Motor use & location
(5 HP or larger) HP/Volts/Ph
Existing
Efficiency
Premium
Efficiency
Estimated
annual
usage
(hrs)
Annual
Savings
Burn‐out
payback
(yrs/cost)
Replacement
payback
(yrs/cost)
RTU‐1; compressor 1 20/200/3 unknown 93.0% 180 not available
RTU‐1; compressor 2 20/200/3 unknown 93.0% 180 not available
RTU‐2 25/230/3 unknown 93.6% 180 not available
ASU‐1 Fan Motor 25/208/3 unknown 93.6% 3484 not available
ASU‐2 Fan Motor 7.5/208/3 88.50% 91.7% 3484 $68.48 2.9/$200 13.0/$900
AUD‐3 5/208/3 unknown 89.5% 2340 not available
AHU‐X (McQuay) 10/200/3 91.70% 91.7% 3484 already premium efficiency
Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate
e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate
Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 42 of 55
LIGHTING SCHEDULE
FIXTURE TYPE DESCRIPTION LAMPS MOUNTING
NUMBER WATTS TYPE HEIGHT
Recess can HPS Exterior, recessed fixture 1 50 recess soffit
Recess can A‐Type CFL, plug‐in 1 18 recess ceiling
T8‐2 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 2 32 surface ceiling
T8‐3 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast, troffer 3 32 surface ceiling
T8‐3 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast, parabolic 3 32 surface ceiling
T8‐4 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 4 32 surface ceiling
T12‐1 X 30" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 1 40 surface ceiling
T12‐1 X 48" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 1 40 surface ceiling
T12‐2 X 24" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling
T12‐2 X 30" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling
T12‐2 X 48" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling
T12‐2 X 96" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling
T12‐2 U‐Tube Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling
T12‐4 Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling
Incandescent spotlight/flood 1 60 surface ceiling
Incandescent floor, table and desk lamps 1 60 surface 4'
Mercury Vapor Interior, Flood 1 100 recess ceiling
Mercury Vapor Interior, Flood 1 175 recess ceiling
Mercury Vapor Exterior, Flood 1 175 recess soffit
Pendant Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 50 pole 4'
Pendant Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 100 pole 14'
Pendant Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 150 pole 28'
Pendant Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 250 pole 28'
LARGE MOTOR SCHEDULE
Motor use & location
(5 HP or larger) HP/Volts/Ph
Existing
Efficiency
Premium
Efficiency
Estimated
annual
usage
(hrs)
Annual
Savings
Burn‐out
payback
(yrs/cost)
Replacement
payback
(yrs/cost)
RTU‐1; compressor 1 20/200/3 unknown 93.0% 180 not available
RTU‐1; compressor 2 20/200/3 unknown 93.0% 180 not available
RTU‐2 25/230/3 unknown 93.6% 180 not available
ASU‐1 Fan Motor 25/208/3 unknown 93.6% 3484 not available
ASU‐2 Fan Motor 7.5/208/3 88.50% 91.7% 3484 $68.48 2.9/$200 13.0/$900
AUD‐3 5/208/3 unknown 89.5% 2340 not available
AHU‐? (McQuay) 10/200/3 91.70% 91.7% 3484 already premium efficiency
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 43 of 55
Appendix E – Specifications supporting EEM’s
Lighting Controls
Occupancy sensors sense the presence of occupants, turn the lights on at a pre-determined
level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. Line of sight,
motion sensing occupancy sensors can be installed in existing duplex switch boxes, as well as
on ceilings. Dual technology sensors are typically ceiling mounted in rooms, lavatories,
corridors, vehicle bays and storage areas where obstacles may interfere with line-of-sight
sensors. The second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on sound or changes
in position, and work even when a person is fully obscured by an obstacle. Zoned occupancy
controls are typically recommended for long corridors, large vehicle bays and large storage
areas with multiple switches and lighting zones. Zoned controls are designed to activate and de-
activate lighting by zone, by row, or even by fixture, based on the location of the occupant.
Occupancy sensors can reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy
sensors range from 1 to 5 years, depending on the light fixture consumption and occupancy of
the room.
Lighting Management Systems (LMS) today have the capability to manage lighting based on a
wide variety of parameters including building usage, daylight conditions and occupancy. They
are retro-fittable, and can be stand alone or integrated into a building’s HVAC, alarm or other
control systems. Additionally, they can be easily re-configured as a building’s usage or
occupancy pattern changes.
Sample LMS systems and a sample high bay occupancy sensor (which could be used for zone
lighting control) follow.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 44 of 55
Appendix E – Lighting Controls
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 45 of 55
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 46 of 55
Appendix E – Desk plug load management
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 47 of 55
Appendix E – VendingMiser vending machine controls
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 48 of 55
Appendix E – VendingMiser vending machine controls
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 49 of 55
Appendix F – Benchmark Data
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)
Anchorage Senior Center ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural
Gas Cost ($)
Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)
Natural Gas Cost ($)
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)
Anchorage Senior Center ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Electric Cost ($)
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 50 of 55
REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form
PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
MOA Municipal
Government/Subdivision
03/21/12
Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage
Anchorage Senior Center 33,981
Building Type Community Population Year Built
Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip
1300 E 19th Ave Anchorage 99501
Contact Person
First Name Last Name Middle Name Email Phone
Mailing Address City State Zip
Primary
Operating Hours
Monday‐
Friday
Saturday Sunday Holidays
Average # of
Occupants During
Operating Hours
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 51 of 55
Anchorage Senior Center
Buiding Size Input (sf) = 33,981
2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 50,053.00
2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 51,221
2009 Electric Consumption (kWh) 419,818
2009 Electric Cost ($) 46,559
2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2009 Oil Cost ($) 0
2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2009 Propane Cost ($) 0.00
2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2009 Coal Cost ($) 0.00
2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2009 Wood Cost ($) 0.00
2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2009 Thermal Cost ($) 0.00
2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 6,438,139
2009 Total Energy Cost ($) 97,780
Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 147.3
2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 42.2
2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 189.5
Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 52 of 55
2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 1.51
2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 1.37
2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 2.88
2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 41,556.00
2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 33,801
2010 Electric Consumption (kWh) 456,248
2010 Electric Cost ($) 53,489
2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Oil Cost ($) 0
2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Propane Cost ($) 0
2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Coal Cost ($) 0
2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Wood Cost ($) 0
2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Thermal Cost ($) 0
2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 5,712,774
2010 Total Energy Cost ($) 87,290
Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 122.3
2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 45.8
2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 53 of 55
2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 168.1
Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)
2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 0.99
2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 1.57
2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 2.57
Note:
1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's
1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's
1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 54 of 55
Natural Gas Btus/CCF =100,000
Month Start Date End Date Billing Days
Consumption
(CCF)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Unit Cost
($/Therm)
Jan‐09 8/13/2009 1/15/2009 31 10571 $10,660 $1.01
Feb‐09 1/15/2009 2/12/2009 32 6208 $6,287 $1.01
Mar‐09 2/12/2009 3/12/2009 27 5830 $5,907 $1.01
Apr‐09 3/12/2009 4/16/2009 31 5326 $5,457 $1.02
May‐09 4/16/2009 5/14/2009 29 2970 $3,091 $1.04
Jun‐09 5/14/2009 6/11/2009 33 2260 $2,359 $1.04
Jul‐09 6/11/2009 7/16/2009 30 1530 $1,622 $1.06
Aug‐09 7/16/2009 8/13/2009 32 653 $736 $1.13
Sep‐09 8/13/2009 9/17/2009 31 2240 $2,319 $1.04
Oct‐09 9/17/2009 10/15/2009 31 2974 $3,070 $1.03
Nov‐09 10/15/2009 11/12/2009 28 3641 $3,746 $1.03
Dec‐09 11/12/2009 12/10/2009 29 5850 $5,967 $1.02
Jan‐10 12/10/2009 1/14/2010 34 5657 $4,799 $0.85
Feb‐10 1/14/2010 2/11/2010 30 4805 $4,084 $0.85
Mar‐10 2/11/2010 3/11/2010 28 3795 $3,204 $0.84
Apr‐10 3/11/2010 4/15/2010 33 3905 $3,328 $0.85
May‐10 4/15/2010 5/13/2010 28 2660 $2,044 $0.77
Jun‐10 5/13/2010 6/11/2010 29 2340 $2,540 $1.09
Jul‐10 6/11/2010 7/15/2010 31 2961 $2,515 $0.85
Aug‐10 7/15/2010 8/12/2010 32 2661 $2,123 $0.80
Sep‐10 8/12/2010 9/16/2010 30 2171 $2,680 $1.23
Oct‐10 9/16/2010 10/14/2010 32 2873 $2,500 $0.87
Nov‐10 10/14/2010 11/11/2010 28 3200 $3,984 $1.25
Dec‐10 11/11/2010 12/9/2010 30 4528 $0 $0.00
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 50,053 $51,221
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 41,556 $33,801
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg: $1.04
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: $0.85
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE SENIOR CENTER
June 8, 2012 Page 55 of 55
Electricity Btus/kWh =3,413
Month Start Date End Date Billing Days
Consumption
(kWh)
Total Electric
Cost ($)
Unit Cost
($/kWh)
Jan‐09 0 0 0 44424 $4,447 $0.10
Feb‐09 0 0 0 37994 $3,774 $0.10
Mar‐09 0 0 0 34609 $3,366 $0.10
Apr‐09 0 0 0 38255 $4,167 $0.11
May‐09 0 0 0 32769 $3,789 $0.12
Jun‐09 0 0 0 29265 $3,501 $0.12
Jul‐09 0 0 0 31686 $3,697 $0.12
Aug‐09 0 0 0 30482 $3,646 $0.12
Sep‐09 0 0 0 32612 $3,766 $0.12
Oct‐09 0 0 0 32465 $3,859 $0.12
Nov‐09 0 0 0 36041 $4,028 $0.11
Dec‐09 0 0 0 39216 $4,519 $0.12
Jan‐10 0 0 0 36522 $3,950 $0.11
Feb‐10 0 0 0 33712 $3,623 $0.11
Mar‐10 0 0 0 33836 $3,559 $0.11
Apr‐10 0 0 0 37012 $4,482 $0.12
May‐10 0 0 0 32941 $4,179 $0.13
Jun‐10 0 0 0 41043 $5,394 $0.13
Jul‐10 0 0 0 45123 $5,234 $0.12
Aug‐10 0 0 0 37767 $4,512 $0.12
Sep‐10 0 0 0 37087 $4,418 $0.12
Oct‐10 0 0 0 38278 $4,504 $0.12
Nov‐10 0 0 0 40259 $4,708 $0.12
Dec‐10 0 0 0 42668 $4,926 $0.12
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 419818 $46,559
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 456248 $53,489
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg: $0.11
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: $0.12