The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC Mountain View rec center 2012-EE I M O C M P Investm Mt View B Owner: The M Client: Alaska May 10, 2012 Project # CIR ment Gra Boys & Gi Municipality of a Housing Fin 2 RI-ANC-CAEC ade Ene rls Club C f Anchorage nance Corpora C-50 ergy Au Communit ation udit ty Recreattion Centeer ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 2 of 54 Project # CIRI-ANC-CAEC-50 Prepared for: The Municipality of Anchorage May 10, 2012 Mt View Boys & Girls Club Community Recreation Center 315 Price Street Anchorage, AK 99508 Audit performed by: Energy Audits of Alaska P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 98522 Contact: Jim Fowler, PE, CEA#1705 Jim@jim-fowler.com 206.954.3614 Prime Contractor: Central Alaska Engineering Company 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, AK 99699 Contact: Jerry Herring, PE, CEA #1484 AKEngineers@starband.net 907.260.5311 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 3 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Audit and Analysis Background 13 3. Acknowledgements 15 4. Building Description & Function 16 5. Historic Energy Consumption 18 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 18 7. Loan Program 18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Photos 20 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 26 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 32 Appendix D: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 36 Appendix E: Specifications supporting EEM’s 42 Appendix F: Benchmark Data 48 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 4 of 54 REPORT DISCLAIMERS This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Energy Audits of Alaska, LLC and Central Alaska Engineering Company bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, or any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC. IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 5 of 54 1. Executive Summary Building Owner: Municipality of Anchorage 3640 East Tudor Anchorage, AK 99507 Building contact: David Barney Pat McDonald 907-830-3135 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation P.O. Box 10120 Anchorage, AK 99510-1020 Contact: Rebekah Luhrs Energy Specialist 907-330-8141 rluhrs@ahfc.us Guidance to the reader: The Executive Summary is designed to contain all the information the building owner/operator should need to determine how the subject building’s energy efficiency compares with other similar use buildings, which energy improvements should be implemented, approximately how much they will cost and their estimated annual savings. Sections 2 through 7 of this report and the Appendices, are back-up and provide much more detailed information should the owner/operator, or their staff, desire to investigate further. This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment act (ARRA) funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. The audit and this report are pre-requisites to access AHFC’s Retrofit Energy Assessment Loans (REAL) program, which is available to the building’s owner. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 6 of 54 The site visit to this building occurred on February 5th, 2012. The Mountain View Community Recreation Center, under lease to the Boys & Girls Club of Anchorage, houses on its first floor, a gymnasium, commercial kitchen, several game rooms, a computer room, arts & crafts room and multi- purpose room. The basement level has been built out to accommodate the offices of “Nine Star Education & Employment Services”. This audit combines the basement and first floor, as there is a single electric and gas meter on the premises. The two organizations using this building should consider sub- metering the gas and electric usage between the two floors. The original building was constructed in 1967, it underwent a cosmetic renovation in 1987 and a major (nearly tripling the size of the building) renovation and addition which was completed in 1998 or 1999. No major modifications have been made since then. Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data Benchmark utility data for 2009 and 2010 is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1 2009 2010 Consumption Cost Consumption Cost Electricity ‐ kWh 260,160 $ 26,807 252,480 $ 27,918 Natural Gas ‐ CCF 18,178 $ 18,051 18,448 $ 16,257 Totals $ 44,858 $ 44,175 A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings in the area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of building area. Comparative values are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 – 2009 & 2010 Average EUI and ECI Subject Building Woodland Park School Spenard Recreation Center Public Assembly** Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 90 108 187 89‐102 Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $1.49 $1.65 $2.90 n/a ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 7 of 54 050100150 Subject Building Woodland Park School Spenard Recreation Center Natural Gas EUI Electrical EUI ** Data retrieved from the US Energy Administration database, these figures are for “Places of Public Assembly”, the most relevant category tracked by the USEA. Evaluation of energy consumption & benchmark data As observed in Table 1 above, consumption of natural gas (NG) and electricity held fairly consistent through 2009 and 2010. In a phone conversation with Enstar, the NG provider, in May of 2012, the auditor was informed that this building’s 2011 NG consumption was 30% higher than the 2010 consumption, presumably due to the more severe 2011 winter. Table 2 shows that the subject building’s energy use per square foot falls well below a very similar building, the Spenard Recreation Center, and 17% below a similar building, the Woodland Park School. As is typical for Alaskan buildings, a comparison to similar buildings in the continental US shows Alaska buildings have a much higher EUI – which is to be expected given the weather differences. A deeper analysis of the energy consumption of these three buildings follows: Chart 1 Chart 1 above shows the subject building’s gas and electrical EUI compared to the two other similar use buildings. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 8 of 54 Natural gas consumption: All three of the buildings have a combination of offices, gymnasiums, game, craft and multi-purpose rooms. The auditor also audited the Spenard Rec Center, and having done so, believes that Spenard Rec Center’s NG consumption is excessive, rather than the subject building’s consumption being unreasonably low. See the detailed report for that building for additional detail. Electrical consumption: Based on Chart 1, the subject building’s lower electrical consumption falls between the other two buildings, and appears to be not otherwise noteworthy. Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to determine if they would provide energy savings with reasonably good payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a reasonably good payback period 2.) for code compliance 3.) end of life (EOL) replacement 4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management strategy, operations, maintenance and/or safety All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C Energy Audit Report in Appendix B and in Appendix D. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. The summary EEM’s that follow are the only EEM’s that are recommended for this building. Others have been considered (See Appendix D-3) but are not considered to be justified or cost effective. The recommended EEM’s were selected based on consideration from three perspectives: overall efficiency of building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on investment (ROI). Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on their individual lighting or controls upgrade. Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a single upgrade, etc.). They are prioritized as a group, with the highest ROI (shortest payback) listed first. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes these EEM’s and Appendix B (the AkWarm-C detailed report) and Appendix D ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 9 of 54 provide additional detail pertaining to each individual recommendation. A.) REFRIGERATION & REFRIGERATED VENDING MACHINES There is a full size residential type refrigerator, a refrigerated beverage vending machine and a ¾ size upright freezer in this building. It is recommended to replace the full size refrigerator and the ¾ size freezer at their EOL with Energy Star versions, and to add a VendingMiser (see www.vendingmiser.com) to the refrigerated beverage vending machine. These EEM’s are found in Appendix B-4 & 5. Combined refrigeration EEM’s: Estimated cost (incremental difference for the freezer & refrigerator + VendingMiser) $ 400 Annual Savings $ 232 Payback 1.7 years B.) SETBACK THERMOSTATS The 12 rooftop gas-fired furnaces, and 2 gas fired unit heaters all have low voltage, thermostats located in the zone served by the furnace. It is recommended to replace each of them with a digital model which has these capabilities (see Appendix E for sample): - night time & unoccupied setbacks - 7-day programming - fan only, and fan + heat for periods of occupancy when only ventilation is required, with indoor air quality sensing (IAQ) - temporary over-ride with reversion back to programmed routine Appendices B-1, 3 and 19 provide detail for this EEM. Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 4,000 Annual Savings $ 1,179 Payback 3.4 years ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 10 of 54 C.) DESKTOP COMPUTERS Desktop PC’s consume between 200 and 300 watts when in use. Laptops consume between 50 and 100 watts when in use. It is recommended to replace the 46 desktop PC’s with laptops at their EOL. The incremental difference in cost is estimated to be $200 each and although the payback is at or slightly beyond the life expectancy of a laptop, the recommendation is still made. Personal Computer EEM: Estimated cost $ 9,200 Annual savings $ 1,631 Payback 5.6 years D.) HVAC SYSTEM It is recommended to add Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) to the 15 HP fan motor in RTU-1 and 2 HP fan motor in RTU-9. See Appendix D-3 for additional detail on VFD’s, and appendix B-15 for more detail on cost and savings. If this EEM is implemented then a motor upgrade (to premium efficiency) is NOT recommended for the RTU-1 fan motor; see Appendix D-3. HVAC VFD EEM: Estimated cost $ 10,115 Annual savings $ 1,297 Payback 7.8 years E.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS The lighting in this building appears to have been replaced piece- meal, and is in great need of a consistency upgrade. There are 13 different types of indoor fixtures requiring an inventory of 10 different lamps and bulbs. This creates a large bulb/lamp inventory, requires purchase of small amounts of sometimes difficult to procure bulbs and adds a significant labor requirement to simply change a light bulb. Energy Conservation & Consistency upgrade: It is recommended to survey the light fixtures and re-lamp the entire building with as few variations of bulbs and lamps as possible. This is not recommended as an energy efficiency measure, rather as a building operational efficiency measure (see list of ECM’s at end of this section) ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 11 of 54 Lighting upgrade: At the next building re-lamp, it is recommended to replace all 32 watt T8 lamps with 28 watt lamps. It is also recommended to add occupancy sensors to all rooms, replace all halogen and incandescent bulbs with CFL bulbs and replace the few remaining T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts with T8 fixtures and high efficiency electronic ballasts. It is further recommended to replace the Metal Halide light fixtures in the gymnasium with T5-54watt high output fixtures. This fixture retrofit results in nominal savings, but when occupancy sensors are added (as recommended), the T5 fixtures can be turned off any time the gym is un-occupied (unlike the metal halide bulbs, there is no re-strike delay) and there is a substantial energy savings from this capability. It is recommended to replace all exterior high intensity discharge (HID) lighting (High Pressure Sodium, Mercury Vapor and Metal Halide) with LED fixtures. This EEM summarizes Appendix B-2 through 14, B-16 through 18, B-20 through 22, and B-24 through 31. See Appendix E for more information on occupancy sensors and energy saver 28 watt lamps. Combined Lighting Control EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 86,520 Annual Savings $ 8,907 Payback 9.7 years A summary of the estimated cost totals and estimated annual savings totals of the eight (A. through E.) summary EEM’s listed above, is found in Table 3 below, and again at the end of Appendix B. Table 3 Combined total of recommended EEM’s summarized above: Estimated total cost $ 110,235 Annual Savings (including maintenance savings) $ 13,246 Simple payback 8.3 years Does not include design or construction management costs ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 12 of 54 In addition to EEM’s, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECM’s) are recommended. ECM’s are policies or procedures to be followed by management and employees that require no capital outlay. ECMs recommended for this facility include: 1. Turn lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an occupancy sensor. 2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly maintained and adjusted to close and function properly. 3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office. 4. Re-configure building occupants and activities (in the case of the Rec Center) to group un-occupied offices (i.e. no tenant or staff using the space) or little used spaces, into the same HVAC zone so that zone’s energy consumption can be set back to minimal levels. 5. A building is a living mini-ecosystem and its use changes. Re- evaluate building usage annually and confirm that building set points, zones, lighting levels, etc. are optimized for the current usage and occupancy. 6. Lamp replacement should be a scheduled, preventative maintenance activity. Re-lamp the entire building or entire usage zones (a zone of the building that has similar lighting usage, so lamps have roughly the same lifetime) as part of a scheduled preventative maintenance routine. This assures all lamps are the same color temperature (e.g. 2700K, 3000K, etc.) which enhances occupant comfort and working efficiency. It also minimizes expense because it is more cost effective to order large quantities of the same lamp, and more labor efficient to dedicate maintenance staff to a single re-lamp activity in a building zone, rather than replace individual lamps as they fail. 7. Replace HVAC filters regularly. Maintain optimal operation of all dampers, actuators, valves and other HVAC components. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 13 of 54 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, hot water generation and HVAC equipment. The auditor may or may not identify system deficiencies if they exist. The auditor’s role is to identify areas of potential savings, many of which may require more detailed investigation and analysis by other qualified professionals. a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building condition, including: i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc) ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning iii. Lighting systems and controls iv. Building specific equipment v. Plumbing Systems b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming that meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate or missing, new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software program developed specifically for AHFC to identify forecasted energy consumption. The forecasts can then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information. Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level of audit, and are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Brown Electric, Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales, Pioneer Door, ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 14 of 54 and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted for some of the lighting, boiler, overhead door and air handling retrofit and/or replacement costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM. The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and ROI is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR found in the AkWarm-C report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as the annual savings multiplied by the lifetime of the improvement, divided by the initial installed cost. SIR’s greater than 1.0 indicate a positive lifetime ROI. The life-time for each EEM is entered into AkWarm-C; it is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and may only act as an approximation. Most input data such as building and equipment usage, occupancy hours and numbers, building and HVAC operating hours, etc. was provided to the auditor by on site personnel. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not a design document. A design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 15 of 54 3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including: a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP). b. The Municipality of Anchorage (Owner): MOA provided a review and brief history of the benchmarked buildings, building selection criteria, building plans, equipment specifications, building entry and coordination with on-site personnel. c. Central Alaska Engineering Company (Benchmark TSP): CAEC oversaw the compilation of electrical and natural gas consumption data through their subcontractor, Energy Audits of Alaska, LLC. CAEC also entered that data into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS). CAEC was awarded the auditing contract for this MOA building. d. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also received additional training from CAEC and other TSP’s to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM applications. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 16 of 54 4. Building Description and Function: The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on February 5th, 2012. This is a single story building and a basement, totaling 29,951 square feet, as calculated from plans. The first floor consists of a 7383 square foot gymnasium and 16,535 square feet of offices, multi-purpose rooms, a commercial kitchen, game rooms, arts & crafts rooms and various other common spaces. The basement is configured into offices and meeting rooms totaling 6033 square feet, it is used exclusively from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday while the first floor is used from 7:00 am until 10:00 pm daily and from 8:00 am until 8:00 pm on Saturdays. For its size, the building has a relatively low occupancy, with typically 75 youth going through the first floor daily and 15-20 staff and 10- 20 clients using the basement offices. The basement of this building is constructed using 8” concrete masonry units (CMU’s) with 3” of rigid foam on the exterior. The first floor, where not over the basement, is constructed on a 4” reinforced concrete slab poured on grade. Walls constructed in 1998 are 2x6 studs filled with R-19 batt. Where the original walls exist (part of the south and west walls), they were firred out inside with 2x6 studs, also filled with R-19 batt. The roof is supported by steel trusses covered with metal decking and 8” of rigid insulation with a nominal insulation value of R- 38. Exterior walls are covered either with T-111 plywood siding or roofing shingles (see photos Appendix A). Interior walls are either painted CMU in the basement or gypsum on the first floor. All windows in this building are double pane vinyl and in good condition. Overall, the building is in average condition. Building details are as follows: a. Heating, Cooling, Ventilation and Controls: Heat is provided by (12) rooftop (RTU), gas fired furnaces that provide heated ventilation to (12) zones. These RTU’s vary in efficiency from 73% to 81%. They are controlled by local zone low voltage thermostats – some of which are simple digital models. (7) of the RTU’s have outside air/return air (OSA/RA) mixing capability, which provides for some heat recovery, the other (5) utilize 100% OSA. There is no cooling in the building. There are also two gas fired unit heaters which also have wall mounted thermostats. There is no building-wide, integrated HVAC control system or separate ventilation system. b. Appliances: There is a residential type refrigerator, (2) commercial reach-in refrigerators, a small residential freezer, a commercial reach-in freezer, a 6-burner commercial gas range with standing pilot lights, a large commercial gas fired ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 17 of 54 convection oven, a commercial dishwasher and double warming oven. This building has 46 PC’s in use at various times of day. c. Plumbing Fixtures: This building contains a total of (13) toilets, (5) urinals, (6) lavatory sinks, all with manual valves. The toilets consume 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf), the urinals 1.0 gpf. See Appendix D-1 for EEM recommendations. d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water for sinks and the kitchen is provided by a gas fired, 50 gallon hot water heater. e. Interior Lighting & Controls: As previously mentioned, the lighting in this building is entirely inconsistent and in need of an upgrade. Room lighting generally consists of T8-32W fixtures with electronic ballasts, although there are 98 recessed can lights with between 1 and 3 plug-in CFL lamps per can, as well as low voltage and halogen lighting. The only occupancy sensors in the building are located in the toilet rooms. There are metal halide fixtures in the gymnasium. Appendix B details the recommendation of a full lighting upgrade. See Appendix E for additional information on occupancy sensors. All exit signs in the building are either LED or unlit, self luminous. f. Exterior Lighting: There are (7) wall pack lights on the exterior of this building, again with an inconsistent mixture of HPS and MH lamps. The parking lot pole lights are HPS, the soffit lights appear to be HPS-50. g. Building Shell: The building shell is described earlier; it appears to be in average condition inside and slightly below average on its exterior. h. Motors: There are 2 large (5 HP or larger) motors in use in this building. They are listed in Appendix C and were considered for replacement with premium efficiency motors, neither was found to be justified, see Appendix D-3. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 18 of 54 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data. Two year’s worth of natural gas and electricity consumption were averaged then input into AKWarm-C. This monthly data is found in Appendix F. Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The energy cost index takes the annual costs of natural gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (two years) divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $1.49/SF, the ECI for two very similar buildings, the Woodland Park School and the Spenard Recreation Center, are $1.65 and $2.90 respectively. The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and heating energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTU/SF. The average of the 2009 and 2010 EUI for this building is 90 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010 EUI for the Woodland Park School is 108 kBTU/SF and 187 kBTU/SF for the Spenard Recreation Center. The average for “Places of Public Assembly” buildings across the US is 89-102 kBTU/SF as logged by the US Energy Information Administration. This source data can be viewed at: www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbecs_tables_list.htm. 6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented in the order shown in Appendix B. Appendix D EEM’s are not included in the AkWarm-C model unless referred to in the Appendix B EEM as “see also Appendix D-X”; in these cases, the EEM is included in the AkWarm-C calculations. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. By modeling the recommended projects sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects between the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties resulting from reductions in building electrical consumption are included in the lighting analysis that is performed by AkWarm-C. 7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 19 of 54 “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are not eligible for loans under this program. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 20 of 54 Appendix A - Photos Original old section of the building with T-111 plywood siding and roofing shingles – note several roofing shingles in need of repair One of two glass walls on south side of building, several broken panes should be repaired ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 21 of 54 Gymnasium, note metal halide light fixtures Lobby also doubles as game room ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 22 of 54 Music room Teem room, computer room ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 23 of 54 Commercial kitchen Hobart triple refrigerator and refrigerated beverage vending machine outside kitchen ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 24 of 54 Wolf kitchen stove, with 6 standing pilot lights ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 25 of 54 Aerial View of the Mt. View Community Recreation Center Original section of building built in 1967 New section built in 1998/1999 NORTH Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 26 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/10/2012 5:45 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Mt View Community Recreation Center Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska Address: 315 Price Street Auditor Name: James Fowler City: Anchorage Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Name: David Barney Client Address: 315 Price St Anchorage, AK 99508 Auditor Phone: (206) 595‐4361 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 830‐3135 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 29,951 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 505,821 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 505,821 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 771,069 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 107 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 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: $0.114/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.860/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electric al Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $18,614 $0 $1,319 $14,097 $1,067 $3,556 $1,016 $0 $3,113 $1,842 $44,623 With Proposed Retrofits $18,655 $0 $1,319 $7,262 $825 $1,964 $1,016 $0 $1,624 $1,842 $34,507 SAVINGS ‐$41** $0 $0 $6,835 $242 $1,591 $0 $0 $1,489 $0 $10,116 ** Reductions in electrical consumption inside a building result in a higher building heat load Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 27 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 28 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Gymnasium Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the Gymnasium space. $262 $500 6.76 1.9 2 Lighting: Exterior – HPS‐50 soffitt Replace with 3 LED 17W Module StdElectronic $58 + $30 Maint. Savings $225 4.63 3.9 3 Setback Thermostat: First floor offices, rooms & spaces Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the First floor offices, rooms & spaces space. $840 $2,500 4.34 3 4 Refrigeration: Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $147 $250 3.62 1.7 5 Refrigeration: Residential Refrigerator Replace with 2 Energy Star Version $85 $150 3.49 1.8 6 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ A3 ‐ add OS, vestibules and corridor Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $338 $600 3.48 1.8 7 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐4lamp ‐ OS added to circuit under previous EEM At next building re‐lamp, replace (14) 32 watt lamps with 14 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $61 $168 3.01 2.8 8 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐1lamp ‐ OS added to circuit At next building re‐lamp, replace (8) 32 watt lamps with 8 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $8 $24 2.82 3 9 Lighting: Basement ‐ T8‐2lamp ‐ Add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (7) 32 watt lamps with 7 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $14 $42 2.82 3 10 Lighting: Basement ‐ T8‐1lamp ‐ OS added to circuit under previous EEM At next building re‐lamp, replace (3) 32 watt lamps with 3 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $3 $9 2.82 3 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 29 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 11 Lighting: Basement ‐ T8‐3lamp ‐ already OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (3) 32 watt lamps with FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $3 $9 2.81 3 12 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐2lamp ‐ Teen room hours ‐ add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (18) 32 watt lamps with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $76 $308 1.72 4 13 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐1lamp ‐ add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (47) 32 watt lamps with 5 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $4 $15 1.61 3.8 14 Lighting: Basement ‐ T8‐4lamp ‐ add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (51) 32 watt lamps with 51 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $703 $3,212 1.52 4.6 15 Fan Motors Add VFD to RTU‐1 fan motor, 68% reduction predicted by Yaksawa software (see Appendix D‐ 2); add VFD to RTU‐9 fan motor, 69% reduction in consumption predicted. See Appendix D‐2 for details and cost breakdown. $1,297 $10,115 1.49 7.8 16 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐1lamp ‐ already OS ‐ toilet rooms At next building re‐lamp, replace (5) 32 watt lamps with 5 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $2 $15 1.25 6.6 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 30 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 17 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐3lamp ‐ add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (33) 32 watt lamps with 33 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $242 $1,397 1.20 5.8 18 Lighting: Exterior ‐ MH‐400 Parking lot poles Replace with 8 LED 115W Module StdElectronic $1,008 + $400 Maint. Savings $16,000 1.04 15.9 19 Setback Thermostat: Basement Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Basement Offices space. $77 $1,000 0.99 13 20 Lighting: Rec Buliding ‐ Gym lighting ‐ MH‐400 At next building re‐lamp, replace (16) 32 watt lamps Replace with 16 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,719 + $2,400 Maint. Savings $36,000 0.97 20.9 21 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐2lamp ‐ add OS At next building re‐lamp, replace (47) 32 watt lamps with 47 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Improve Manual Switching $319 $2,082 0.94 6.5 22 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ A1 ‐ add OS ‐ lobby areas Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $55 $400 0.84 7.3 23 Other Electrical: Desktop Computers Replace with 46 Laptop Computers $1,631 $9,200 0.81 5.6 24 Lighting: Exterior ‐ MH‐175 Wall packs Replace with 2 LED 60W Module StdElectronic $108 + $100 Maint. Savings $4,000 0.61 37.1 25 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐2lamp ‐ already OS ‐ toilet rooms At next building re‐lamp, replace (19) 32 watt lamps with 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic $8 $114 0.61 13.7 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Mt View Community Recreation Center Page 31 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 26 Lighting: Exterior ‐ HPS‐250 Wall packs Replace with 5 LED 72W Module StdElectronic $404 + $100 Maint. Savings $10,000 0.59 24.8 27 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T12‐4lamp, Mag ‐ Add OS Replace with 13 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver (2) Instant EfficMagnetic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $553 + $100 Maint. Savings $9,500 0.57 17.2 28 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ Teen room hours ‐ A1 ‐ Add OS Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $47 $800 0.36 16.9 29 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ T8‐1lamp ‐ add OS Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $11 $200 0.34 18.3 30 Lighting: Basement ‐ T8‐2lamp ‐ Add OS Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $25 $1,000 0.15 40.4 31 Lighting: Rec Building ‐ A2 ‐ add OS ‐ vestibules Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $8 $400 0.13 48 THE FOLLOWING EEM’S WERE CALCULATED OUTSIDE OF AkWARM-C. Savings will affect and be affected by the EEM’s listed above, depending on their order of implementation. See Appe ndix D‐1 Plumbing Fixtures: (6) W.C., (6) lavatories, (3) urinals, (12) showers Replace urinal valves with proximity sensing on/off controls, replace urinals with ultra‐low flow and proximity sensing controls; retrofit toilet valves with 2‐stage valves See Appe ndix D‐3 Motor replacements Replacement of RTU‐1 fan motor not recommended if item 15 above is implemented. See Appendix D‐4 for details TOTAL $10,116 + $3,130 Maint. Savings $110,235 1.07 10.9*** *** Maintenance savings are not included in this figure. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.1, Energy Lib 4/6/2012 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 32 of 54 Appendix C – Equipment Schedules ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS OR ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION, WHERE ACCESSIBLE e= estimated COOLING AND HEATING ROOFTOP UNIT SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS RTU‐1 Trane GRBA12GF; 1200 MBH input, 960 MBH output, 80% efficient, gas fired 12,000 15/460/3 Gymnasium heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing RTU‐2 Trane GFNC015; 150 MBH input, 115 MBH output, 77 %, gas fired 1240 .75/208/1 Kitchen heating and ventilation RTU‐3 Trane GFNC020; 200 MBH input, 150 MBH output, 75% efficient, gas fired 2000 .75/208/1 Foyer and Corridor heating and ventilation RTU‐4 Trane GRCA40GF; 400 MBH input, 316 MBH output, 79% efficient, gas fired 3200 1.5/460/3 Kitchen, kitchen storage & multipurpose heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing RTU‐5 Trane GRCA25GF; 250 MBH input, 197.5 MBH output, 79% efficient, gas fired 1960 1/460/3 Multipurpose heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing RTU‐6 Trane YCDDO36C4L; 90 MBH input, 70 MBH output, 78% efficient, gas fired 1350 .4/208/3 Janitor's room, toilet rooms, vestibule and computer room heating and ventilation RTU‐7 Trane YCH075C4H; 205 MBH input, 150 MBH output, 73% efficient 2700 1/460/3 Teen room, toilet room heating and ventilation RTU‐8 Trane YCH048C4L; 90 MBH input, 73 MBH output, 81% efficient 1100 .5/460/3 Arts & Crafts room heating and ventilation RTU‐9 Trane GRAA20GF; 200 MBH input, 160 MBH output, 80% efficient 3300 2/460/3 Foyer and Office heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing RTU‐10 Trane GRCA25GF; 250 MBH input, 197.5 MBH output, 79% efficient 2820 1.5/460/3 Game room and vestibule heating and ventilation; wih OSA/RA mixing RTU‐11 Trane GRCA20GF; 200 MBH input, 160 MBH output, 80% efficient 3500 2/460/3 Basement heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing RTU‐12 Trane GRCA20GF; 200 MBH input, 160 MBH output, 80% efficient 2500 1.5/460/3 Basement heating and ventilation; with OSA/RA mixing ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 33 of 54 EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS EF‐1 Penn Z125 TDA 700 .1/120/1 basement EF‐2 Penn Z125 TDA 575 .1/120/1 toilet room exhaust EF‐3 Penn Fumex 138 roof exhauster 1240 .5/120/1 Kitchen Hood EF‐4 Penn P10R 265 .04/120/1 Elevator mechanical room PUMP SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GPM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS PMP‐2 Grundfos UPS 15‐42 SU 3 85w/115/1 DHW circulation PMP‐3 Simplex grinder 40 2/206/3 sewage lift station pump located in basement UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS UH‐1 Modine PD‐50AA0111 50 MBH 740 1.3A/115/1 located in storage room 126 UH‐2 Modine 30 MBH 440 1.3A/115/1 HOT WATER HEATER SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS NUMBER OF ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE HWH‐1 Rheem RHNG0498122584 50 gas fired, 60,000 BTUH PLUMBING FIXTURES SYMBOL FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS W.C. 1.6 13 manually operated Urinal 1 5 manually operated Lavatory ‐ 6 manually operated ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 34 of 54 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS Elevator 1 15/460/3 used 20‐25x/day PLUG LOAD SUMMARY SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS Personal printers 3 85w personal air cleaners 2 Free‐standing Air Conditioner 1 UPS, Hubs, ethernet switches 1 rack est 1000 w fan 1 gymnasium scoreboards 2 personal coffee machine 2 450w Overhead projector 1 300w Large Screen TV's 3 450w Sound system 1 1500w paper shredders 2 500w large copy/scan/fax machines 3 1250 w toasters 1 used 1 hr/day microwaves 3 used 1 hr/day each Music mixing deck 1 Kinect video game console 1 Snack Vending machine 1 Laptop 1 85w KITCHEN EQUIPMENT Crescor warming oven H1381834 2000w/120/1 used 4 hrs/day Hobart Dishwasher LX3OH 43.6A/206/1 used 2 hrs/day Servewell steam table, Model 38004 16A/120/1 used 6 hrs/day TRUE commercial refrigerator no nameplate Hobart Triple refrigerator/freezer TRUE reach‐in freezer T‐49F .75/115/1 Wolf 6‐burner range est 240 MBH with all burners lit gas fired, standing pilot lights; 4 burners used 1.5 hrs/day Turbofan Convection oven Model G32D5 220w/120/1 33,000 BTU/hr Manitowac Ice maker QM30A 5.3A/1115/1 in use, full of ice ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 35 of 54 LIGHTING SCHEDULE FIXTURE TYPE DESCRIPTION LAMPS MOUNTING NUMBER WATTS TYPE HEIGHT Wall pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 250 surface 20' Wall pack Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 175 surface 20' Recess can HPS Exterior, recessed fixture 1 50 recess soffit Recess can CFL, plug‐n, Extterior, recessed fixture 2 18 recess soffit Pole Light Pole mounted, HPS, Exterior 1 100 Pole 30' Recess can CFL, plug‐in 1 18 recess ceiling Recess can CFL, plug‐in 2 18 recess ceiling Recess can CFL, plug‐in 3 18 recess ceiling Recess can CFL, plug‐in 18 recess ceiling T8‐1 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 1 32 surface ceiling T8‐2 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 2 32 surface ceiling T8‐3 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 3 32 surface ceiling T8‐4 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 4 32 surface ceiling T8‐2 Florescent, T8 U‐tube lamps, electronic ballast 2 40 recess ceiling t8‐3 Florescent, T8 plug‐in U tube, electronic ballast 3 40 recess ceiling T12‐4 Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling Low voltage spot 12VAC Halogen 1 20 Wire suspende d wall pack Halogen plug‐in; interior 1 150 surface 7' wall pack Halogen plug‐in; interior 1 75 surface 7' Recess can CFL, electronic ballast 2 18 recess ceiling Recess can CFL, electronic ballast 2 26 sconce 7' Incandescent floor, table and desk lamps 1 60 surface 4' Pendant Metal Halide ‐ interior, magnetic ballast 1 400 hangin g 28' LARGE MOTOR SCHEDULE Motor use & location (5 HP or larger) HP/Volts/ Ph Existing Efficiency Premium Efficiency Estimated annual usage(hrs) Annual Savings Burn‐out payback (yrs/cost) Replacement payback (yrs/cost) Elevator hydraulics motor 15/460/3 e91% 93.0% 24 $0.57 insufficient hours to justify replacement RTU‐1 fan motor 15/460/3 e91% 93.0% 2925 $68.92 5.8/$400 20.3/$1400 Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load & for RTU‐1 is before implementation of VFD Hydraulic elevator motors only used in "up" mode ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 36 of 54 Appendix D Additional, Building-Specific EEM details Appendix D-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals should be retrofitted or be replaced with ultra low flow models. The lavatory faucets and urinals should be retrofitted with proximity sensing on/off controls. All toilets in this building are 1.6 gallons per flush with manual valves, they should be retrofitted with dual flush valves (see below). This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of it, but a typical ultra low flow urinal (1 pint to ½ gallon per flush) can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pays back within 3 years, depending on usage. Dual flush toilet valves will typically pay back within 1-3 years, depending on usage. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture or valve is replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. For an EOL replacement, the cost used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a straight across replacement with the same fixture. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 37 of 54 Appendix D-2: Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) If outfitted with a VFD and a programmable input device (PID) which responds to a process parameter such as duct pressure or temperature for an AHU or suction or discharge pressure on a pump, a motor has the capability to only produce enough power to meet the demand. There is tremendous savings potential resulting from the relationship between motor load required and resulting fluid or air flow (Affinity Laws). As an example, if 100% of the air flow requires 100% motor’s horsepower, the Affinity laws state that 70% of air (or fluid) flow requires only 34% of the horsepower. By necessity, fan motors and pumps have to be sized for the worst case load scenario, but under normal operating conditions (80-90% of the time), need only be operating at 30%-70% of their full load. VFD’s are recommended for larger, 3-phase motors that are under varying load and duty cycles, such as air handlers, glycol circulation pumps and reciprocating compressor motors. The 15 HP fan motor in RTU-1 and the 2 HP fan motor in AHU-9 in this building are recommended to be retro-fitted with VFD’s. These motor loads and consumption were evaluated using software called, “Energy Predictor”, provided by Yaskawa, a manufacturer of VFD’s; excerpts from the detailed software reports are found below. A 68%-69% reduction in electrical consumption is predicted by the Yaskawa software for these fan motors; these figure were input into AkWarm-C as a reduction in power consumption in the ventilation section; the resulting savings are included in Appendix B-15. Note that the percentage reduction in consumption predicted by the Yaskawa software was used in AkWarm- C, rather than the actual KWh reduction energy reduction. Annual Operating Hours Estimated cost Annual Savings Payback RTU‐1; 15 HP (gymnasium heating & ventilation) 5460 $6,792 $5,498 1.2 RTU‐9; 2 HP (foyer & offices heating & ventilation) 5460 $3,323 $763 4.4 RTU‐11; 2 HP (basement heating & ventilation) 2340 $3,323 $327 10.2 Not recommended Only fan motors 2 HP and larger considered Overstated savings: It is important to note that if other EEM’s are also incorporated, these savings will be over- stated because they are based solely on the reduction in electrical consumption resulting from the motor speed reduction. When a fan or compressor motor speed is reduced, GPM or CFM is also reduced, so the motor will have to operate at slightly higher load and speed to maintain building parameters, which will erode a small percentage of the electrical savings. Neither the Yaskawa software or the AkWarm-C software has the capability to calculate this iterative condition. The Yaksawa reports follow: ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 38 of 54 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 39 of 54 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 40 of 54 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 41 of 54 Appendix D-3: Additional EEM’S considered but not recommended De-Stratification Fans: There was a less than 1 F temperature difference between air at the thermostats and the gymnasium ceiling, and the gym was unoccupied at the time of measurement. This indicates that there would be no advantage resulting from the installation of de-stratification fans. Motor replacements with premium efficiency versions: There is insufficient annual operating hours on the 15 HP elevator hydraulic motor to justify replacement with premium efficiency, now or at EOL. The other large motor in the building, the 15 HP fan motor in RTU-1 has sufficient hours to justify replacement at EOL, but only if EEM Appendix B-15 (Addition of a VFD on this motor) is NOT implemented. If this EEM is implemented, replacement of RTU-1 fan motor is no longer justified. Replacement of RTU’s with high efficiency, condensing furnaces: The AkWarm-C model was run a second time using RTU efficiencies of 94%. The total annual savings for all 12 RTU’s was $930. There would also be some maintenance savings if all the RTU’s were replaced with new, high efficiency models. This said, it is clear that this is not an economically justifiable recommendation, therefore it is not recommended. Replacement of gas fired hot water heater with high efficiency model: The AkWarm-C model was re-run using a 98% efficient gas fired water heater. The annual savings was computed to be $180/year. There would also be some maintenance savings if the hot water heater were replaced with a new, high efficiency model. This said, it is clear that this is not an economically justifiable recommendation, therefore it is not recommended. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 42 of 54 Appendix E – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls Occupancy sensors sense the presence of occupants, turn the lights on at a pre-determined level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. Line of sight, motion sensing occupancy sensors can be installed in existing duplex switch boxes, as well as on ceilings. Dual technology sensors are typically ceiling mounted in rooms, lavatories, corridors, vehicle bays and storage areas where obstacles may interfere with line-of-sight sensors. The second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on sound or changes in position, and work even when a person is fully obscured by an obstacle. Zoned occupancy controls are typically recommended for long corridors, large vehicle bays and large storage areas with multiple switches and lighting zones. Zoned controls are designed to activate and de- activate lighting by zone, by row, or even by fixture, based on the location of the occupant. Occupancy sensors can reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy sensors range from 1 to 5 years, depending on the light fixture consumption and occupancy of the room. Lighting Management Systems (LMS) today have the capability to manage lighting based on a wide variety of parameters including building usage, daylight conditions and occupancy. They are retro-fittable, and can be stand alone or integrated into a building’s HVAC, alarm or other control systems. Additionally, they can be easily re-configured as a building’s usage or occupancy pattern changes. Sample LMS systems and a sample high bay occupancy sensor (which could be used for zone lighting control) follow. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 43 of 54 Appendix E – Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 44 of 54 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 45 of 54 Appendix E – 7-Day Programmable Thermostat with IAQ capability ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 46 of 54 Appendix E – 7-Day Programmable Thermostat with IAQ capability ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 47 of 54 Appendix E – Headbolt Heater controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 48 of 54 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Mountain View Rec Center ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Natural Gas Cost ($) $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 1/1/20093/1/20095/1/20097/1/20099/1/200911/1/20091/1/20103/1/20105/1/20107/1/20109/1/201011/1/2010Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Mountain View Rec Center ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($) Electric Consumption (kWh) Electric Cost ($) Appendix F – Benchmark Data ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 49 of 54 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date (mm/dd/yyyy) MOA Municipal Government/Subdivision 02/06/12 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Mountain View Rec Center 29,951 Building Type Community Population Year Built 261,500 Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip 315 Price St Anchorage 99508 Contact Person First Name Last Name Middle Name Email Phone Cindy Liggett 343‐ 4599 Mailing Address City State Zip Primary Operating Hours Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays Average # of Occupants During Operating Hours Renovations Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Details ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 50 of 54 Mountain View Rec Center Buiding Size Input (sf) = 29,951 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 18,178.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 18,051 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh) 260,160 2009 Electric Cost ($) 26,807 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2009 Oil Cost ($) 0 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($) 0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($) 0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($) 0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 2,705,726 2009 Total Energy Cost ($) 44,858 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 60.7 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 29.6 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 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 90.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 51 of 54 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 0.60 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 0.90 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 1.50 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 18,448.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 16,257 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh) 252,480 2010 Electric Cost ($) 27,918 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2010 Oil Cost ($) 0 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($) 0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($) 0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($) 0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 2,706,514 2010 Total Energy Cost ($) 44,175 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 61.6 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 28.8 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 52 of 54 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 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 90.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 0.54 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 0.93 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 1.47 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 53 of 54 Natural Gas Btus/CCF = 100,000 Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm ) Jan‐09 1/15/2009 33 3620 $3,718 $1.03 Feb‐09 1/15/2009 2/12/2009 30 2591 $2,696 $1.04 Mar‐09 2/12/2009 3/12/2009 28 2231 $2,358 $1.06 Apr‐09 3/12/2009 4/16/2009 33 1918 $2,009 $1.05 May‐09 4/16/2009 5/14/2009 28 558 $644 $1.15 Jun‐09 5/14/2009 6/11/2009 31 158 $230 $1.46 Jul‐09 6/11/2009 7/16/2009 32 141 $210 $1.49 Aug‐09 7/16/2009 8/13/2009 39 267 $75 $0.28 Sep‐09 8/13/2009 9/17/2009 39 249 $64 $0.26 Oct‐09 9/17/2009 10/15/2009 40 1198 $625 $0.52 Nov‐09 10/15/2009 11/12/2009 29 2264 $2,343 $1.03 Dec‐09 11/12/2009 12/10/2009 29 2983 $3,079 $1.03 Jan‐10 12/10/2009 1/14/2010 34 3289 $2,814 $0.86 Feb‐10 1/14/2010 2/11/2010 29 2865 $2,461 $0.86 Mar‐10 2/11/2010 3/11/2010 29 2209 $1,892 $0.86 Apr‐10 3/11/2010 4/15/2010 33 2353 $2,052 $0.87 May‐10 4/15/2010 5/13/2010 28 1283 $1,140 $0.89 Jun‐10 5/13/2010 6/11/2010 29 536 $528 $0.99 Jul‐10 6/11/2010 7/15/2010 33 183 $228 $1.25 Aug‐10 7/15/2010 8/12/2010 30 174 $250 $1.44 Sep‐10 8/12/2010 9/16/2010 30 208 $281 $1.35 Oct‐10 9/16/2010 10/14/2010 32 636 $619 $0.97 Nov‐10 10/14/2010 11/11/2010 28 1606 $1,395 $0.87 Dec‐10 11/11/2010 12/16/2010 30 3106 $2,597 $0.84 Jan ‐09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 18,178 $18,051 Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 18,448 $16,257 Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg: $0.95 Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: $1.00 Electricity Btus/kWh = 3412 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA MT VIEW COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER May 10, 2012 Page 54 of 54 Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Total Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kW h) Jan‐09 1/6/2009 32 25120 $2,183 $0.09 Feb‐09 1/6/2009 2/5/2009 30 24120 $2,128 $0.09 Mar‐09 2/5/2009 3/5/2009 28 20960 $1,882 $0.09 Apr‐09 3/5/2009 4/6/2009 32 21440 $2,215 $0.10 May‐09 4/6/2009 5/6/2009 30 19520 $2,052 $0.11 Jun‐09 5/6/2009 6/4/2009 29 17680 $1,985 $0.11 Jul‐09 6/4/2009 7/7/2009 33 22840 $2,484 $0.11 Aug‐09 7/7/2009 8/6/2009 30 22840 $2,488 $0.11 Sep‐09 8/6/2009 9/4/2009 29 20760 $2,326 $0.11 Oct‐09 9/4/2009 10/6/2009 32 21840 $2,358 $0.11 Nov‐09 10/6/2009 11/5/2009 30 21920 $2,321 $0.11 Dec‐09 11/5/2009 12/3/2009 28 21120 $2,385 $0.11 Jan‐10 12/3/2009 1/5/2010 33 24560 $2,398 $0.10 Feb‐10 1/5/2010 2/3/2010 29 22760 $2,231 $0.10 Mar‐10 2/3/2010 3/5/2010 30 22480 $2,212 $0.10 Apr‐10 3/5/2010 4/6/2010 32 23680 $2,730 $0.12 May‐10 4/6/2010 5/5/2010 29 20080 $2,355 $0.12 Jun‐10 5/5/2010 6/8/2010 34 22040 $2,589 $0.12 Jul‐10 6/8/2010 7/7/2010 29 18200 $2,137 $0.12 Aug‐10 7/7/2010 8/5/2010 29 18360 $2,102 $0.11 Sep‐10 8/5/2010 9/3/2010 29 17320 $2,074 $0.12 Oct‐10 9/3/2010 10/5/2010 32 19800 $2,253 $0.11 Nov‐10 10/5/2010 11/3/2010 29 20880 $2,355 $0.11 Dec‐10 11/3/2010 12/3/2010 30 22320 $2,482 $0.11 Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 260160 $26,807 Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 252480 $27,918 Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg: $0.10 Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: $0.11