Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC MOA Loussac Library 2012-EE Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99516 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-ANC-CAEC-36 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net May 4, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode MOA .............................................................................................................................. Municipality of Anchorage ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, 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 energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 1 OF 27  This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Municipality of Anchorage Contact: Dave Grubbs 3640 East Tudor Anchorage, AK 99507 Email: grubbscd@muni.org Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This energy audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The January 2009 – December 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 274,669 Natural Gas $ 99,028 Total $ 373,697 Energy Utilization Index: 151.6 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.76 $/sf The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Loussac Library. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 2 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $763 $1,200 12.21 1.6 (N/A) 2 Setback Thermostat: Library Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Library space. $7,576 $20,000 4.89 2.6 (N/A) 3 Lighting: 150 W Incandescent ** Replace with 140 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $5,842 $28,000 2.45 4.8 (3.9) 4 Lighting: 2-bulb T12 ** Replace with 486 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $19,149 $101,200 2.80 5.3 (4.2) 5 Lighting: Exterior Incandescent ** Replace with 102 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $3,808 $20,400 2.79 5.4 (4.2) 6 Ventilation Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $20,000 for all fans) Install variable frequency drives on E/A and S/A fan motors to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (20 units @ $3,000 each = $60,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $40,000). Install premium efficiency motors (42 @ $2,000 each = $84,000). $45,611 $204,000 2.62 4.5 (N/A) 7 HVAC And DHW Replace current boilers with modern, more efficient condensing gas boilers $119,600 (3 @ $32,700 = $98,100; control panel $4,500; shipping $7,000; installation $10,000 ). Install premium efficiency motors (9 @ $3,000 each = $27,000, 1 @ $15,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($20,000). $23,213 $181,600 2.16 7.2 (6.8) 8 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 ** Replace with 81 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,506 $12,950 2.11 8.6 (5.6) 9 Lighting: 40 W Incandescent ** Replace with 866 LED 8W Module StdElectronic $10,232 $173,200 1.29 16.9 (9.2) 10 Lighting: 2-foot 4- bulb T12 ** Replace with 543 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,866 $113,600 0.87 39.6 (13.7) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 3 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 11 Lighting: Exterior HPS ** Replace with 16 LED (2) 150W Module (2) StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Daylight Sensor $1,188 $67,200 0.78 56.6 (15.3) 12 Lighting: 1-bulb T12 ** Replace with 46 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic $97 $9,200 0.72 95.0 (16.5) 13 Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: First Floor North Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $165 $8,846 0.44 52.2 (N/A) 14 Garage Door: Overhead Doors Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $24 $3,510 0.16 145.3 (N/A) 15 Window/Skylight: NSFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $4,736 $770,525 0.10 154.2 (N/A) 16 Window/Skylight: SFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $1,866 $287,250 0.11 151.9 (N/A) 17 Window/Skylight: Skylights Replace existing window with triple pane, low-E, argon window. $3,319 $507,036 0.11 161.2 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $134,033 $2,509,718 0.83 18.7 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. ** These lighting upgrade projects have been recently completed. The building energy consumption used in this analysis was based on utility data with the old lighting system in place. Savings projections are provided for the investment made to upgrade to the new lighting systems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 4 OF 27  With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $134,033 per year, or 35.5% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $2,509,718, for an overall simple payback period of 18.7 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $119,652 per year, or 31.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $742,550, for an overall simple payback period of 6.2 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $109,806 $15,992 $5,539 $74,652 $2,902 $62,948 $106,061 $377,900 With All Proposed Retrofits $71,383 $12,746 $3,024 $31,633 $2,171 $62,948 $59,963 $243,867 SAVINGS $38,423 $3,246 $2,515 $43,019 $732 $0 $46,099 $134,033 While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 5 OF 27  Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage such as over ventilation of an unoccupied space. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 6 OF 27  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 135,671 square foot Loussac Library, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including public assembly areas, storage rooms, restrooms, administrative offices, and an auditorium. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 7 OF 27  After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on April 17, 2012 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. Additionally, during the site visit on April 17, 2012, thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the library. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 8 OF 27  Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, electric motors and lighting. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is estimated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for the renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings.   CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 9 OF 27  The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 10 OF 27  All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case, the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy- conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and any heat recovery equipment which may be in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume control and adjusting outside air ventilation. For the purposes of this study, Loussac Library was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Anchorage was used for analysis. From this, the model was calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy saving measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the EEMs. The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Anchorage, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the natural gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 11 OF 27  The main structure of Loussac Library is a four story facility that was built in 1986. This building has had no additions made to it. From the energy audit performed, it was determined to be a well built and functional library facility. The city of Anchorage has a jewel of an asset here and merits investment to keep the facility functionally operating at peak condition. Monday through Saturday the library opens at 9AM. The building is closed by 10PM except on Friday and Saturday where it closes at 7PM. On Sunday the building is open from 12PM to 6PM. Additional occupancy time keeping the building open includes community events in the theater and meetings in the Assembly Chambers. These after-hour activities can last until late at night, keeping these sections of the building occupied. Actual occupancy numbers were not available for the building. For the purpose of this analysis, there are 200 – 1,500 occupants estimated using the building at any given time during occupied periods. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were modeled in AkWarm-C using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit, so insulation values and conditions were assumed to be as shown in the architectural drawings and in good condition. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, metal framed windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.63 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be weather worn but are in acceptable condition given their age. The exterior walls of the library are consistent throughout the building. The walls consist of formed concrete furred out with 2x6 studs and insulated with fiberglass batt insulation providing an estimated R-21.8 composite value. Wall height varies up to 80 feet, depending on location. Wall heat loss can be noted in the IR images provided in Appendix E of this report. The roof system of the library was replaced in two phases in 2008 and 2009. The roof is slightly sloped for drainage and uses the Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) system. This assembly consists of installation of 5-6 inches of rigid foam board over a moisture barrier and is held down using light weight concrete tiles. The roof assembly was modeled to have an estimated R-29.9 composite insulation value. Glass skylights are installed in two locations consisting of 7% of the building’s roof area and were modeled with an estimated R-1.1 value. These glass ceilings are in place of the insulated roof assembly and are not well suited for the subarctic environment and snow levels received in the Anchorage area. As a result, these window assemblies have a high rate of heat loss and can be prone to water leakage. Maintenance and energy costs are high for the skylight roof system in place and many of the windows show signs of broken seals causing molding between the panes requiring replacement. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration for the most part. Some daylight basement is in place where the floor is below grade level. The slab edges do not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication insulation is installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the energy audit. The floor was modeled to have an estimated R-6.7 on the perimeter and R-35.5 on the center. Exposed overhanging floors consist of 23% of the modeled floor components of the building with an estimated R-24.1 composite value. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 12 OF 27  All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are fully windowed or solid. The doors appear to be in adequate condition, but could use new weather stripping installed. There are also three (3) overhead doors installed on the east side of the building. The overhead doors were evaluated for replacement but where found to have a long payback period. Heat is provided to the main library building by three (3) natural gas-fired cast iron sectional boilers which were installed in 1986. The boilers are located in the building’s mechanical room which is large in size and neatly configured. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by a 10 HP circulation pump located in the mechanical room. Building heat is delivered to the many Variable Air Volume (VAV) boxes and cabinet unit heaters through the various hydronic loops. The building is controlled by an antiquated Honeywell Excel DDC system with pneumatic actuation. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,396,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 66.3 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year, Primary, Secondary and Standby Mode Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,396,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 80.8 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year, Primary, Secondary and Standby Mode Boiler 3 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,396,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 72.0 % (yearly estimated average) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year, Primary, Secondary and Standby Mode The (3) boiler configuration consists of lead, lag and standby mode. During the energy audit, the combustion efficiency of the boiler’s were tested. Boiler 1 was in the lead mode and fired continuously during the audit period. Boiler 2 was in the lag mode and fired intermittently. From the test data, it was noted Boiler 1 was firing poorly at 66% efficient and was noted to be generating over 1000 ppm of Carbon Monoxide indicating inadequate combustion was occurring. This boiler is recommended to be taken off line and have maintenance completed on the boiler’s burner assembly. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 13 OF 27  Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied to the main building by a side-arm hot water maker off the boiler hydronic loop. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the restrooms, employee lounge, and the various sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. Additionally, the southern tower and the café both have individual electric storage water heater tanks in place. These units supply DHW to those specific areas. The hot water circulation system is designed to save water, not energy. It is recommended the circulation be shut-off when the building is in an unoccupied mode and the alarm system is set. This can be easily accomplished as part of installation of a modern DDC system. Side-arm Hot Water Maker Fuel Type: Side-arm, shell and tube exchanger Input Rating: 360,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year Electric Water Heater 1 (South Tower) Fuel Type: Electricity Input Rating: 3.4 kW Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year Electric Water Heater 2 (Café) Fuel Type: Electricity Input Rating: 5.1 kW Rated Efficiency: 90 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: None DHW Maker Operation: All Year There are seven (7) AHU’s providing fresh air and ventilation to the building. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through these AHU’s. Heat is supplied to the various areas of the building using VAV boxes, allowing different sections to be heated individually. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans and relief air fans. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 6,785 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design for public assembly space specifies 10 occupants/1,000 sf @ 5 CFM/occupant for the 135,671 sf library = 6,785 CFM). Adding up all of the exhaust capacity equals 233,095 CFM, indicating the library appears to be well over ventilated when all exhaust systems are operated per design. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major ventilation fans and operate at reduced speed while the library is unoccupied can provide significant energy savings. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 5 CFM/occupant to be code compliant during occupied periods, but at even half capacity and at current occupancy level, the system can provide many more times the required amount. However, during the audit it was noted that many of the exhaust fans were not running. This means that the actual exhaust rate in the building could be a fraction of the calculated capacity at any given time. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 14 OF 27  The ventilation system uses pneumatically controlled end devices, controlled by the antiquated Honeywell Excel DDC system. The Honeywell system is outdated making maintenance and spare parts a problem and is a good candidate for upgrading to a modern DDC controller for improved system performance. Upgrading the DDC system has an impact on several of the EEM’s presented in this energy audit. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building was recently upgraded to use modern T8 and LED lights with occupancy sensors or other controls. The original T12 and incandescent lighting systems of in the building were modeled in AkWarm-C analysis and evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls to allow the MOA to see what the anticipated payback period for this upgrade will be. The MH lights mounted on the outside of the building were also replaced with modern LED street lights with a more sophisticated control system. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 1.2 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 15 OF 27  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Municipal Light & Power provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedule. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their large commercial rate schedule. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which the electricity gets used. From the electric consumption and cost chart shown in Appendix A, the consumption is relatively flat over the two year period not showing any seasonal curve like can be seen in the gas usage chart. This implies the building’s electric load is relatively constant which is usually an indication of ventilation systems, motor, lights and plug loads not varying between occupied and unoccupied conditions by maintaining a 24/7/365 operational schedule. The electric load does not appear to change with the outdoor conditions as does the gas load. Reducing the load on the two (2) main 50HP supply fans to adjust for occupancy with the use of variable speed control and taking advantage for the motor affinity law can provide significant electric energy savings. Also, control of the Demand Cost can be better managed with the installation of a modern DDC system. Identify your library’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your library’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the library building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 16 OF 27  The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. As actual gas usage records were available, the AkWarm-C model was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of hundreds of cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs, or a THERM of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 through 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.09 $/kWh 0.10 $/kWh 0.10 $/kWh Natural Gas 1.01 $/CCF 0.84 $/CCF 0.93 $/CCF Total Cost $381,317 $366,076 $373,697 ECI 2.81 $/sf 2.70 $/sf 2.76 $/sf Electric EUI 73.6 kBtu/sf 73.0 kBtu/sf 73.3 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 84.2 kBtu/sf 72.3 kBtu/sf 78.3 kBtu/sf Building EUI 157.8 kBtu/sf 145.3 kBtu/sf 151.6 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average site energy usage for Public Assembly building activity is shown to be 94 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 54 public facilities in the MOA computed an average EUI of 197.9 kBtu/sf, and average ECI of 3.20 $/sf, with an average building size of 35,262 square feet. The MOA buildings benchmarked varied in occupancy type and use. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 151.6 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 61% more energy than the US average for public assembly and 23% less energy compared to the average MOA building on a per square foot basis. A 30% reduction in energy consumption is possible with implementation of the EEMs provided in this energy audit. This would lower the building EUI to approximately 106 kBtu/sf. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 17 OF 27  At current utility rates, the Municipality of Anchorage is modeled to pay approximately $377,900 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Loussac Library. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 18 OF 27  Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 66694 60778 66694 64543 66694 64543 66694 66694 64543 66694 64543 66694 Refrigeration 2593 2363 2593 2509 2593 2509 2593 2593 2509 2593 2509 2593 Other Electrical 56238 51249 56238 54423 56238 54423 56238 56238 54423 56238 54423 56238 Ventilation Fans 94755 86350 94755 91699 94755 91699 94755 94755 91699 94755 91699 94755 DHW 3081 2808 3081 2981 3081 2981 3081 3081 2981 3081 2981 3081 Space Heating 11427 10413 11427 11059 11427 11059 11427 11427 11059 11427 11059 11427 Space Cooling 3723 3393 3723 4300 24779 30675 33066 29595 23844 3917 3603 3723 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 192 175 192 186 192 186 192 192 186 192 186 192 Space Heating 15188 11699 9857 6168 5048 5561 6095 5771 5238 7418 11743 15096 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 19 OF 27  Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBtu Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBtu Electricity 2,934,676 kWh 10,016,050 3.340 33,453,610 Natural Gas 107,141 CCF 10,714,130 1.047 11,217,700 Total 20,730,182 44,671,303 BUILDING AREA 135,671 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 152 kBtu/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 329 kBtu/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 20 OF 27  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Refrigeration Measures Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Vending Machine 5 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $763 Breakeven Cost $14,647 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes:  There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine.  Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Library Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Library space. Installation Cost $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $7,576 Breakeven Cost $97,858 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 21 OF 27  Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 6 Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $20,000 for all fans) Install variable frequency drives on E/A and S/A fan motors to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (20 units @ $3,000 each = $60,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $40,000). Install premium efficiency motors (42 @ $2,000 each = $84,000). Installation Cost $204,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $45,611 Breakeven Cost $534,815 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic control system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to reduce speed during unoccupied periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low speed periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Installation of demand control on the air handling unit by installing carbon dioxide controllers can be used to optimize run time. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $20,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $12,520. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps and the reduced power requirements from VFD’s, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement and VFD installation, the total cost is estimated to be $184,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $37,145. C. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 22 OF 27  Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Building Shell Measures Insulation Measures Rank Recommendation 7 Replace current boilers with modern, more efficient condensing gas boilers $119,600 (3 @ $32,700 = $98,100; control panel $4,500; shipping $7,000; installation $10,000 ). Install premium efficiency motors (9 @ $3,000 each = $27,000, 1 @ $15,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($20,000). Installation Cost $181,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $25,146 Breakeven Cost $423,924 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. It is also recommended that the current Honeywell control system be replaced with a modern DDC control system. This upgrade would include replacing the Honeywell control boxes throughout the library with the new system, as well as programming the new system to better manage the existing heating and ventilation equipment in the library. This upgrade is expected to cost $20,000 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,446. B. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used and the increased efficiency of the new equipment.. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement and VFD installation, the total cost is estimated to be $42,000 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,143. C. The boilers in the library were tested for efficiency during the audit. B-1 was found to be at 66% efficient, which is severely low for this model of boiler. While these boilers still have a useful life of approximately 10 years, it is recommended that at least two of the boilers be replaced with modern, efficient condensing gas boilers. Additionally, it is recommended that the electric storage water heaters be replaced with a single side-arm water maker to take advantage of the highly efficient condensing gas boilers. This upgrade is expected to cost $119,600 for an estimated annual savings of $21,667. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 13 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: First Floor North Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). Installation Cost $8,846 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $169 Breakeven Cost $3,969 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 52 Auditors Notes: In buildings built with a concrete slab foundation, it can be expected to have heat from the building lost into the surrounding earth. Addition of insulation around the buildings uninsulated slab edge where possible will help with heat retention. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 23 OF 27  Window Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 15 Windows: NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $770,525 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $4,998 Breakeven Cost $83,453 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 154 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates changing the existing windows out with new modern windows. This project does not provide much in the way of annual energy savings relative to the cost and therefore has a low SIR and high SP. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 16 Windows: SFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $287,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,891 Breakeven Cost $31,557 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 152 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #15 for similar notes. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 17 Skylights Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 1.12 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with triple pane, low-E, argon window. Installation Cost $507,036 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,145 Breakeven Cost $52,364 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 161 Auditors Notes: Skylights in the library atrium were noted to be worn and to have many issues. While replacing broken or damaged windows on an as need basis will work, it is recommended to replace the entire section with modern, more efficient glass types to aid in heat retention and reduce maintenance costs. Less windows as a roof system will also help in reducing heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 24 OF 27  Door Measures Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting Energy Efficiency Measures that are cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. It is important to note that several lighting upgrade projects have recently been completed at the Loussac Library. These EEM’s show the estimated benefits from the lighting upgrade projects. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 14 Garage Door: Overhead Doors Door Type: Sectional, polyurethane core, 1-3/8" w/ thermal break Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R-Value: 5.3 Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. Installation Cost $3,510 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $24 Breakeven Cost $563 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 145 Auditors Notes: Overhead doors on the lower portion of the building were noted to be worn. Infrared imaging revealed that there is a large amount heat loss occurring through these doors. Newer overhead doors are recommended in this EEM. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 150 W Incandescent 140 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 140 LED 40W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $28,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,846 Breakeven Cost $85,330 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: A large portion of the incandescent lights throughout the building were replaced with modern, more efficient LED lights. These newer lights can provide the same or more light-output, while reducing the required electrical load significantly. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 25 OF 27  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 2-bulb T12 486 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard StdElectronic Replace with 486 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $101,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $19,153 Breakeven Cost $282,937 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluated the original 40-Watt T12 lights in the building being replaced with 32-Watt T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, some of these lights were installed with occupancy sensors and controls for daylight harvesting. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Exterior Incandescent 102 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 102 LED 40W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $20,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,808 Breakeven Cost $56,902 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #4 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 4-bulb T12 81 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 81 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $12,950 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,507 Breakeven Cost $27,368 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 9 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #5 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 40 W Incandescent 866 INCAN A Lamp, Std 40W with Manual Switching Replace with 866 LED 8W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $173,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $10,242 Breakeven Cost $223,632 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 17 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #4 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 26 OF 27  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 2-foot 4-bulb T12 543 FLUOR T12 F40T12 40W U-Tube Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 543 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $113,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,869 Breakeven Cost $98,501 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 40 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluated the original 40-Watt T12 lights in the building being replaced with 32-Watt T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, some of these lights were installed with occupancy sensors and controls for daylight harvesting. It should be noted that even though AkWarm used U-tube bulbs to model these lights, the power required for operation and the light output levels are similar. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Exterior HPS 16 HPS (2) 400 Watt (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 LED (2) 150W Module (2) StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $67,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,188 Breakeven Cost $52,160 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 57 Auditors Notes: All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology used to replace the HPS systems. This new building operation system assumes a lighting environment where the lights are turned down to a small percentage of the original power draw during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on fully under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. The light sensor assures the parking lot lights are not operated when there is sufficient daylight available. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 1-bulb T12 46 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic Installation Cost $9,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $97 Breakeven Cost $6,629 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 95 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #4 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ANC‐CAEC‐36  PAGE 27 OF 27  Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A  Appendix A ENERGY BENCHMARK DATA REPORT CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Cindy Liggett  343‐4599 State Zip AK   Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 10am‐9pm 10am‐6pm         Average # of  Occupants  During               Renovations Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas  Propane Wood Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy  NOTES TO AUDITOR: Facility Zip 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. Liggettck@ci.anchorage.ak.us 3600 Denali St 99516 Email Anchorage Anchorage Year Built Mixed Community Population Facility City Details 1986261,500 Building Type City Contact Person Facility Address Mailing Address   Primary  Operating  Hours       1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. Loussac Library Other Building Name/ Identifier REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner MOA Facility Owned By 11/08/11 Date Building Square Footage Municipal  135,671 Building Usage APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Buiding Size Input (sf) =135,671 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)114,222.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)115,376 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)2,925,000 2009 Electric Cost ($)265,941 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Oil Cost ($)0 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)21,405,225 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)381,317 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 84.2 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)73.6 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)157.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.85 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.96 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.81 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)98,127.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)82,679 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)2,902,600 2010 Electric Cost ($)283,397 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Oil Cost ($)0 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)19,719,274 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)366,076 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)72.3 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)73.0 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)145.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.61 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.09 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.70 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTLoussac LibraryNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Meter #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jan‐09 1/1/2009 2/2/2009 32 13,848 13,848 $14,029 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Feb‐09 2/1/2009 3/4/2009 31 13,660 13,660 $13,755 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/26/2009259,9359,935$10,021$1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Apr‐09 4/1/2009 5/4/2009 33 9,370 9,370 $9,455 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281May‐09 5/1/2009 5/30/2009 29 6,946 6,946 $7,026 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jun‐09 6/1/2009 7/4/2009 33 6,686 6,686 $6,765 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009307,2787,278$7,364$1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Aug‐09 8/1/2009 9/2/2009 32 7,681 7,681 $7,768 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Sep‐09 9/1/2009 10/1/2009 30 8,436 8,436 $8,526 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/30/2009 29 8,462 8,462 $8,552 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009 29 9,085 9,085 $9,177 $1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Dec‐09 12/1/2009 1/1/20103112,83512,835$12,938$1.01Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jan‐10 1/1/2010 2/5/2010 35 13,617 13,617 $11,329 $0.83Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Feb‐10 2/1/2010 3/2/2010 29 11,906 11,906 $9,914 $0.83Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/29/2010289,6559,655$8,052$0.83Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Apr‐10 4/1/2010 5/2/2010 31 9,596 9,596 $8,079 $0.84Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281May‐10 5/1/2010 5/29/2010 28 6,039 6,039 $5,109 $0.85Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jun‐10 6/1/2010 7/2/2010 31 5,732 5,732 $4,853 $0.85Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Jul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/2010305,8585,858$4,958$0.85Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Aug‐10 8/1/2010 9/3/2010 33 6,807 6,807 $5,807 $0.85Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Sep‐10 9/1/2010 10/1/2010 30 6,305 6,305 $5,405 $0.86Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Oct‐10 10/1/2010 11/3/2010 33 7,285 7,285 $6,189 $0.85Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Nov‐10 11/1/2010 11/26/2010 25 5,486 5,486 $4,750 $0.87Enstar NGC9945‐35208/281Dec‐10 12/1/2010 1/1/2011319,8419,841$8,234$0.84Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:114,222114,2220$115,376$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:98,12798,1270$82,679$0$1.01$0.84Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,00002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Loussac Library ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTLoussac LibraryElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Total Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)ML&P 23776005 Jan‐09 12/22/2008 1/22/2009 31 271,400 9,263 427 $20,870 $0.08 $5,269.80ML&P 23776005 Feb‐09 1/22/2009 2/24/2009 33 272,400 9,297 420 $20,838 $0.08 $5,178.60ML&P 23776005 Mar‐09 2/24/2009 3/24/2009 28 225,600 7,700 408 $17,995 $0.08 $5,033.10ML&P 23776005 Apr‐09 3/24/2009 4/22/2009 29 225,000 7,679 416 $21,491 $0.10 $5,131.70ML&P 23776005 May‐09 4/22/2009 5/22/2009 30 254,400 8,683 433 $23,836 $0.09 $5,336.40ML&P 23776005 Jun‐09 5/22/2009 6/22/2009 31 251,600 8,587 425 $23,542 $0.09 $5,245.20ML&P 23776005 Jul‐09 6/22/2009 7/23/2009 31 242,200 8,266 428 $23,382 $0.10 $5,277.20ML&P 23776005 Aug‐09 7/23/2009 8/24/2009 32 242,800 8,287 398 $23,069 $0.10 $4,912.30ML&P 23776005 Sep‐09 8/24/2009 9/23/2009 30 230,400 7,864 404 $22,212 $0.10 $4,986.20ML&P 23776005 Oct‐09 9/23/2009 10/22/2009 29 227,600 7,768 403 $22,096 $0.10 $4,964.10ML&P 23776005 Nov‐09 10/22/2009 11/23/2009 32 256,800 8,765 413 $24,431 $0.10 $5,097.20ML&P 23776005 Dec‐09 11/23/2009 12/21/2009 28 224,800 7,672 427 $22,179 $0.10 $5,264.90ML&P 23776005 Jan‐10 12/21/2009 1/21/2010 31 248,800 8,492 421 $21,681 $0.09 $4,988.90ML&P 23776005 Feb‐10 1/21/2010 2/19/2010 29 236,000 8,055 414 $20,745 $0.09 $4,906.00ML&P 23776005 Mar‐10 2/19/2010 3/23/2010 32 259,400 8,853 414 $22,255 $0.09 $4,912.00ML&P 23776005 Apr‐10 3/23/2010 4/22/2010 30 241,800 8,253 415 $25,590 $0.11 $4,918.00ML&P 23776005 May‐10 4/22/2010 5/24/2010 32 259,400 8,853 414 $27,074 $0.10 $4,908.00ML&P 23776005 Jun‐10 5/24/2010 6/22/2010 29 225,600 7,700 411 $24,859 $0.11 $5,065.00ML&P 23776005 Jul‐10 6/22/2010 7/22/2010 30 237,000 8,089 406 $23,127 $0.10 $5,008.00ML&P 23776005 Aug‐10 7/22/2010 8/23/2010 32 253,800 8,662 409 $24,432 $0.10 $5,038.00ML&P 23776005 Sep‐10 8/23/2010 9/29/2010 37 293,200 10,007 394 $27,233 $0.09 $4,856.00ML&P 23776005 Oct‐10 9/29/2010 10/22/2010 23 182,000 6,212 406 $19,439 $0.11 $5,001.00ML&P 23776005 Nov‐10 10/22/2010 11/22/2010 31 245,600 8,382 415 $24,547 $0.10 $5,112.00ML&P 23776005 Dec‐10 11/22/2010 12/21/201029220,0007,509405$22,415$0.10$4,994.00Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:2,925,00099,8305,004$265,941$61,697Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:2,902,60099,0664,923$283,397$59,707$0.09$0.10Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Loussac Library ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 1  APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/2/2012 1:56 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Loussac Library Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 3600 Denali St Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Anchorage Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Dave Grubbs Client Address: 3640 E. Tudor Warehouse #1 Anchorage, AK 99507 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: (907) 343-8454 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 135,671 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,934,303 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,934,303 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 2,948,633 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 1,200 people Design Indoor Temperature: 75 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: $0.095/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.925/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electrical Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $109,806 $15,992 $5,539 $74,652 $2,902 $62,948 $0 $106,061 $0 $377,900 With Proposed Retrofits $71,383 $12,746 $3,024 $31,633 $2,171 $62,948 $0 $59,963 $0 $243,867 SAVINGS $38,423 $3,246 $2,515 $43,019 $732 $0 $0 $46,099 $0 $134,033 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 2  APPENDIX B   $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 3  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $763 $1,200 12.21 1.6 2 Setback Thermostat: Library Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Library space. $7,576 $20,000 4.89 2.6 3 Lighting: 150 W Incandescent Replace with 140 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $5,846 $28,000 3.05 4.8 4 Lighting: 2-bulb T12 Replace with 486 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $19,153 $101,200 2.80 5.3 5 Lighting: Exterior Incandescent Replace with 102 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $3,808 $20,400 2.79 5.4 6 Ventilation Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $20,000 for all fans) Install variable frequency drives on E/A and S/A fan motors to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (20 units @ $3,000 each = $60,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $40,000). Install premium efficiency motors (42 @ $2,000 each = $84,000). $45,611 $204,000 2.62 4.5 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 4  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 7 HVAC And DHW Replace current boilers with modern, more efficient condensing gas boilers $119,600 (3 @ $32,700 = $98,100; control panel $4,500; shipping $7,000; installation $10,000 ). Install premium efficiency motors (9 @ $3,000 each = $27,000, 1 @ $15,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($20,000). $25,146 $181,600 2.33 7.2 8 Lighting: 4-bulb T12 Replace with 81 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,507 $12,950 2.11 8.6 9 Lighting: 40 W Incandescent Replace with 866 LED 8W Module StdElectronic $10,242 $173,200 1.29 16.9 10 Lighting: 2-foot 4- bulb T12 Replace with 543 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,869 $113,600 0.87 39.6 11 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 16 LED (2) 150W Module (2) StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Daylight Sensor $1,188 $67,200 0.78 56.6 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 5  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: 1-bulb T12 Replace with 46 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic $97 $9,200 0.72 95 13 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: First Floor North Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $169 $8,846 0.45 52.2 14 Garage Door: Overhead Doors Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $24 $3,510 0.16 145.3 15 Window/Skylight: NSFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $4,998 $770,525 0.11 154.2 16 Window/Skylight: SFW Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $1,891 $287,250 0.11 151.9 17 Window/Skylight: Skylights Replace existing window with triple pane, low-E, argon window. $3,145 $507,036 0.10 161.2 TOTAL $134,033 $2,509,7 18 0.83 18.7 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 13 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: First Floor North Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $8,846 $169 Exterior Doors – Replacement Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 6  APPENDIX B   Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 14 Garage Door: Overhead Doors Door Type: Sectional, polyurethane core, 1-3/8" w/ thermal break Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R-Value: 5.3 Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $3,510 $24 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 15 Window/Skylight : NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $770,525 $4,998 16 Window/Skylight : SFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $287,250 $1,891 17 Window/Skylight : Skylights Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 1.12 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with triple pane, low-E, argon window. $507,036 $3,145 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 7  APPENDIX B   Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 Replace current boilers with modern, more efficient condensing gas boilers $119,600 (3 @ $32,700 = $98,100; control panel $4,500; shipping $7,000; installation $10,000 ). Install premium efficiency motors (9 @ $3,000 each = $27,000, 1 @ $15,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($20,000). $181,600 $25,146 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Library Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Library space. $20,000 $7,576 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Refine operating schedule of ventilation system through DDC controls. Incorporate the use of CO2 sensors to optimize performance. (Assumes $20,000 for all fans) Install variable frequency drives on E/A and S/A fan motors to adjust fan motor HP and CFM (20 units @ $3,000 each = $60,000, $2,000 installation per unit = $40,000). Install premium efficiency motors (42 @ $2,000 each = $84,000). $204,000 $45,611 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 3 150 W Incandescent 140 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 140 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $28,000 $5,846 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  MOA Loussac Library Page 8  APPENDIX B   4 2-bulb T12 486 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard StdElectronic Replace with 486 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $101,200 $19,153 5 Exterior Incandescent 102 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 102 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $20,400 $3,808 8 4-bulb T12 81 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 81 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $12,950 $1,507 9 40 W Incandescent 866 INCAN A Lamp, Std 40W with Manual Switching Replace with 866 LED 8W Module StdElectronic $173,200 $10,242 10 2-foot 4-bulb T12 543 FLUOR T12 F40T12 40W U-Tube Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 543 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $113,600 $2,869 11 Exterior HPS 16 HPS (2) 400 Watt (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 LED (2) 150W Module (2) StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Daylight Sensor $67,200 $1,188 12 1-bulb T12 46 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic $9,200 $97 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Vending Machine 5 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1,200 $763 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX C  Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 86 GAS/CAST IRON 2,396 MBH 66% - 35 10B-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 86 GAS/CAST IRON 2,396 MBH 81% - 35 10B-3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 86 GAS/CAST IRON 2,396 MBH ~72% - 35 10WH-1 BOILER ROOM DHW SUPPLY WHIRLPOOL EIF50RD045V ELECTRIC STORAGE 50 GAL ~85% - 15 0WH-2 BOILER ROOM DHW SUPPLY BRADFORD-WHITE - ELECTRIC STORAGE 50 GAL ~90% - 15 10CP-1 BOILER ROOM HEATING PACO 3095-1 BASE-MOUNTED 370 GPM @ 74' ~82% 10 HP 20 0CP-1S BOILER ROOM HEATING PACO 3095-1 BASE-MOUNTED 370 GPM @ 74' ~82% 10 HP 20 0CP-2 (x3) BOILER ROOM BOILER CIRC GRUNDFOS 80-80 INLINE 160 GPM @ 12' ~82% 0.75 HP 10 0 One pump per boilerCP-3 BOILER ROOM HWC GRUNDFOS - INLINE 8 GPM @ 6' ~82% 0.167 HP 10 0CP-4 BOILER ROOM IRRIGATION PACO 888 INLINE 120 GPM @ 58' ~82% 5 HP 10 0CP-5 MECH ROOM HWC GRUNDFOS - INLINE 5 GPM @ 5' ~82% 0.033 HP 10 0CP-7 JAN ROOM PRESS. BOOST PACO - BASE-MOUNTED 80 GPM @ 46' ~82% 3 HP 20 0CP-8 PUMP ROOM CWS PACO 4095-5 WELL 525 GPM @ 70' ~82% 50 HP 20 13 Replaced CP-6F-1 PENTHOUSE S/A TEMPMASTER - - 52716 CFM @ 4.75" ~82% 75 25 0F-2 PENTHOUSE S/A TEMPMASTER - - 52716 CFM @ 4.75" ~82% 75 25 0F-3 (x4) PENTHOUSE E/A PENN FB 604 - 31500 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 7.5 HP 20 0 Includes F-3a through F-3dF-4 PENTHOUSE E/A PENN 22B - 3365 CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 2 HP 20 0F-5 MECH ROOM 129 S/A PACE A22 - 10860 CFM @ 2.5" ~82% 6.25 HP 25 0F-6 MECH ROOM 129 R/A TRANE MODEL Q - 10000 CFM @ 1" ~82% 3 HP 20 0F-7 FAN ROOM 205 S/A PACE A22 - 10630 CFM @ 2.25" ~82% 5.5 HP 25 0F-8 FAN ROOM 205 R/A PACE U-30F F6 - 9950 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 2 HP 20 0F-9 MECH ROOM 167 S/A PACE A-33 - 18311 CFM @ 5.75" ~82% 25 HP 25 0F-10 ELEC ROOM 178 E/A PENN P-10R - 375 CFM @ 0.1" ~82% 0.1 HP 20 0F-11 CLG SPACE RM 169 R/A PACE A9 - 600 CFM @ 0.17" ~82% 1 HP 20 0F-12 CLG SPACE RM 171 E/A ZEPHYR - - 300 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 130 W 20 0F-13 4TH FLR CEILING E/A GREENHECK SQB-10-4 - 600 CFM @ 0.63" ~82% 0.25 HP 20 0F-14 4TH FLR CEILING E/AGREENHECKSQB-10-4-800 CFM @ 0.63" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-15 GARAGE 121E/APENN14B-1560 CFM @ 0.5" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-16 STORAGE 130E/APENNFB-242-2800 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-17 CLG SPACE RM 101S/APACESCF-73A-800 CFM @ 1.13" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-18 CLG SPACE RM 101S/APACEA-8-1200 CFM @ 1" ~82% 0.75 HP 200F-19 CLG SPACE RM 241S/AGREENHECK SQB-10-4-460 CFM @ 0.5" ~82% 0.17 HP 200F-20 CLG SPACE RM 242S/APACE97A-1210 CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-21 CLG SPACE RM 245S/APACEA-9-1200 CFM @ 0.5" ~82% 0.33 HP 200F-22 CLG SPACE RM 245S/APACESCF-52A-200 CFM @ 0.25" ~82% 0.13 HP 200F-23 CLG SPACE RM 207S/APACESCF-MAM1-___ CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-24 CLG SPACE RM 207S/APACESCF 57A-380 CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-25 CLG SPACE RM 212S/APACESCF 65A-500 CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-26 CLG SPACE RM 300S/APACEA-9-1200 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-27 CLG SPACE RM 302S/APACESCF 79A-___ CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-28 CLG SPACE RM 302S/APACESCF 73A-___ CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.5 HP 200F-29 CLG SPACE RM 303S/APACESCF 63A-___ CFM @ 0.88" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-30 CLG SPACE RM 439S/APACESCF 79A-715 CFM @ 0.5" ~82% 0.25 HP 200F-31 CLG SPACE RM 448S/APENN ZEPHYRZ-8-145 CFM @ .25" ~82% 105 W 200F-32 CLG SPACE RM 404E/APENN ZEPHYRZ-8-145 CFM @ .25" ~82% 105 W 200F-33 CLG SPACE RM 405E/APENN ZEPHYRZ-8-145 CFM @ .25" ~82% 105 W 200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYLOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESF-34 CLG SPACE RM 149 S/A PENN ZEPHYR Z-10 - 310 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 130 W 20 0F-35 MECH RM 124 S/A PACE A-15 - 5000 CFM @ 0.63" ~82% 2 HP 20 0F-36 MECH RM 129 E/A PENN P-151T - 1590 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 0.25 HP 25 0F-37 ELEC RM 128 S/A PENN P-181T - 1590 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 0.25 HP 20 0F-38 PENTHOUSE - JENN-AIR 22CS - 6110 CFM ~82% 0.5 HP 20 0F-39 MECH RM 167 - JENN-AIR 221CS - 4040 CFM ~82% 0.17 HP 20 0F-40 CHLORINE ROOM E/A PACE 57A - 460 CFM @ 0.75" ~82% 0.25 HP 25 0F-41 4TH FLR CEILING E/A PENN PMX - 455 CFM @ 0.38" ~82% 0.33 HP 25 0MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   1. Overview of library. 2. Southern tower of library, showing large windows and a largely exposed surface area. 3. Entrance of library. The large glass ceiling was noted to have issues with leaking. 4. Example of window thickness. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   5. Slab-edge typical of building. No slab insulation noted. 6. Parking lot lights, recently converted to LED technology. 7. Exposed portion of overhanging floor. 8. Nuclear powered exit sign, typical of building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   9. Overview of boilers. (x3) 10. Primary and secondary heated water circulation pumps. 11. Fire-control pump and piping. 12. Back-up generator. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   13. Modern control system for exterior lights. 14. Antiquated Honeywell Excel DDC system. 15. Tested efficiency of boiler B-1 showing a problem with the boiler combustion process. Tune-up required. 16. Tested efficiency of boiler B-2. Good test. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   17. Lighting present in Assembly Chambers. 18. Lighting present in Theater. 19. Close-up of new LED lighting installed throughout the building. 20. Manual dimmer, controlling lighting for both the Theater and Assembly Chambers. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   21. Side-arm hot water heater, used for providing domestic hot water to the main building. 22. Electric water heater #1, used to provide domestic hot water to the southern tower. 23. Electric water heater #2, used to provide domestic hot water to the café. 24. Glycol plate heat exchanger used for providing cooling to the air handling units. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   25. Cold water circulation pump. 26. Variable frequency drive for well pump. 27. Server room chiller package. 28. Top-view of skylight section of entrance. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   29. Roof-mounted exhaust fan. 30. Exhaust air grills for main exhaust fans. 31. Outer wall of main building supply fans. 32. Internal component of server room chiller package. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   33. Sample of vending machines found in the building. 34. Employee’s break room appliances. 35. Overview of a library section, showing typical equipment and lighting found throughout the building. 36. Sample of additional lighting types within building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. Overview of library. Typical areas of heat loss can be seen around windows, doors, and near the roof of the building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. Higher heat loss shown in older windows and at metal frames. Dark colored window tiles imply recently repaired areas. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. Close-up of roof overhang, heat loss exhibited around window frames and portions where ceiling support beams are located. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. Overall view of the southernmost tower. Heat loss at building seams is typical. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. Close-up of building wall. Warmer spots suggest interior wall and floor locations CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. Walkway to southern tower. Heat loss exhibited along roof where support beams are located. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  7. Overhanging floors of library. Lower floors appear cooler as they are slightly shaded from the top floor. Interesting heat loss patterns can be seen above the windows of the 4th floor, possibly from rising internal heat. Unexpectedly high heat loss is seen in the lower right window. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  8. Exposed floor of overhanging section. Heat loss from floor joists and windows is expected. A crack on the exposed concrete shows a higher heat loss than the rest of the floor area. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  9. Overhead doors on lower floor. Doors are expected to have a higher heat loss than man-doors or solid wall areas. Left overhead door is exhibiting unusually high heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  10. Overview of boilers. No abnormalities noted. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    MOA LOUSSAC LIBRARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  11. Heated water supply lines coming from boilers. No abnormalities noted.