HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC Northwood St Maint 2012-EE
I
N
O
C
M
P
Investm
Northwoo
Owner: The M
Client: Alaska
May 15, 2012
Project # CIR
ment Gra
od Street M
Municipality of
a Housing Fin
2
RI-ANC-CAEC
ade Ene
Maintenan
f Anchorage
nance Corpora
C-43
ergy Au
nce Buildi
ation
udit
ng
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 2 of 60
Project # CIRI-ANC-CAEC-43
Prepared for:
The Municipality of Anchorage
May 15, 2012
Northwood Street Maintenance Building
5701 Northwood Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 3 of 60
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 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photos 20
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 26
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 31
Appendix D: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 36
Appendix E: Specifications supporting EEM’s 43
Appendix F: Benchmark Data 53
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 4 of 60
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 5 of 60
1. Executive Summary
Building Owner:
Municipality of Anchorage
3640 East Tudor
Anchorage, AK 99507
Building contact:
Paul Vanlandingham
General Foreman
907-343-8277
Client:
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 6 of 60
The site visit to this building occurred on February 4th, 2012.
This building houses offices used by street maintenance department dispatch
personnel and a garage and shop used for maintenance and repair of street
maintenance vehicles. The offices are located on two floors on the north side of
the building while the shop occupies a single floor on the southern three
quarters of the building. The building was constructed in 1977; there was a
major remodel of the office portion in 2004.
Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data
Benchmark utility data for this building is inconsistent. Because of the missing
and anomalous data, the most consistent12 consecutive months of data were
used. This is the period from April 2009 through March 2010. It is summarized
in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1
April 2009 ‐ Mar 2010
Consumption Cost
Electricity ‐ kWh 305,244 $ 34,217
Natural Gas ‐ CCF 72,965 $ 69,139
Total $ 103,356
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 – Average EUI and ECI
Subject
Building
(April 2009 ‐
Mar 2010)
New Transit
Maintenance
Building
(Ave.
2009/2010)
Old Transit
Maintenance
Building and
Paratransit Admin
(Ave. 2009/2010)
Public
Order
and
Safety**
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐
kBTU/SF 332 209 196 116
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐
$/SF $3.46 $3.00 $3.33 n/a
** Data retrieved from the US Energy Administration database, these figures are for “Places of
Public Order and Safety”, the most relevant category tracked by the USEA.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 7 of 60
Evaluation of energy consumption & benchmark data
As observed in Table 2 above, the subject building’s energy use per square foot
(EUI) is excessively high when compared with two very similar buildings, the
New Transit Maintenance building and the Old Transit Maintenance building,
while it’s energy cost per square foot (ECI) is only slightly higher. Both buildings
are similar in use and function. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy
between the differences in EUI & ECI can be observed in Chart 1 below. 90% of
the subject buildings (excessive) consumed energy is in the form of NG, which is
1/5th cost per BTU of electricity, hence the ECI is much closer to the comparison
buildings than the EUI.
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.
Chart 1
Chart 1 shows the subject building’s gas and electrical EUI compared to the two
other very similar use buildings in Anchorage. The chart shows clearly that this
building has excessive NG consumption. Reasons and recommendations to
rectify this are discussed now, and again later in this report.
Natural gas consumption:
Having audited all three buildings, the auditor believes that the subject building’s
excessive NG consumption is a result of two factors: the large number of
overhead door openings per day and the large number of overhead doors
relative to the size of the building. These factors cause a huge amount of year
round air infiltration.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Subject Building (April 2009‐March
2010)
New Transit Maintenance Building
(Average 2009/2010)
Old Transit Maintenance Building
and Paratransit Admin (Average
2009/2101)
Natural Gas EUI
Electrical EUI
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 8 of 60
Electrical consumption:
Based on Chart 1, the subject building’s electrical consumption is very much in
line with the two comparison buildings.
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
deemed to be justified or cost effective. The recommended EEM’s were
selected based on consideration from three perspectives: overall efficiency of
building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on
investment (ROI).
Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be
upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate
rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the
fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on
their individual lighting or controls upgrade.
Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped
by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single
upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a
single upgrade, etc.). They are prioritized as a group, with the highest ROI
(shortest payback) listed first. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes
these EEM’s and Appendix B (the AkWarm-C detailed report) and Appendix D
provide additional detail pertaining to each individual recommendation.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 9 of 60
A.) REFRIGERATION & REFRIGERATED VENDING MACHINES
There is one refrigerated beverage vending machine and one full
size residential type refrigerator in this facility. It is recommended
to add a refrigerated vending energy management device such as
the VendingMiser (www.vendingmiser.com) to the vending
machine and at EOL, to replace the refrigerator with an Energy
Star Model. A VendingMiser saves an estimated 46% of energy
costs by cycling the machine during periods of non-use. These
EEM’s are found in Appendix B-3 & B-7, and additional detail is
found in Appendix E.
Combined refrigeration EEM’s:
Estimated cost (incremental difference
for the refrigerator + VendingMiser) $ 475
Annual Savings $ 274
Payback 1.7 years
B.) HVAC SYSTEM & AIR INFILTRATION
Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ):
To maintain vehicle bay air quality and eliminate carbon monoxide
build up, this building was designed with large exhaust fans (EF)
interlocked to a large gas fired make up air (MAU) furnace. These
units, according to onsite personnel, are not generally used. It was
observed during the audit, that the overhead doors were generally
left open, presumably to maintain IAQ, while one of the EF’s and
also the MAU controllers were in the “off” position. It is believed
that the excessive NG use in this facility (see Chart 1) is a result
the duration and frequency of overhead door openings, and the
resulting air infiltration. This is estimated to cost over $35,000
annually.
Install air curtains to reduce Air Infiltration
An air curtain installed at the top of an overhead door prevents up
to 80% of the air infiltration that would normally occur with a door
opening. This is achieved by directing a focused air stream
through the door opening down to the floor. A two-step
recommendation is made: It is recommended to install air curtains
in the 12 overhead door openings, and interlock their control to the
door switch. Estimated cost is $96,000, see Appendix B-6. It is
further recommended to utilize the existing exhaust fans and make
up air after the air curtains are installed, to address carbon
monoxide build up.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 10 of 60
Exhaust fans and make up air versus air scrubbers
After installation of the air curtains, NG and electrical usage by the
EF’s and MAU should be measured via temporary data acquisition
devices. Based on the levels of NG and electrical consumption, a
further recommendation should be considered to replace the EF’s
and MAU with air scrubbers similar to those used in MOA Fire
Stations 11 and 12.
See Appendix D-4 and Appendix E for additional detail on air
curtains, air scrubbers and temporary data acquisition devices.
7-day programmable thermostats
Recognizing the nearly continuous occupancy of the office spaces
in this building, it is recommended to install 7-day programmable
thermostats to control the office hydronics and AHU-1. These
thermostats can be programmed to utilize unoccupied setback
temperatures during the infrequent periods during a typical week
when the offices are not occupied (see Appendix E for sample
specifications). Estimated cost for a unit installed is $1000 and
based on plans, 4 units would be required. See Appendix B-1 for
additional detail.
Variable Frequency Drives (VFD)
It is recommended to retrofit a VFD on the fan motor in AHU-1.
See Appendix D-6 and B-4 for additional detail.
Combined HVAC EEM’s:
Estimated cost $103,395
Annual savings $ 37,487
Payback 2.8 years
C.) PERSONAL COMPUTERS
There are 22 PC’s with monitors in this building, and an additional
7 more monitors. It is recommended to replace these PC’s with
laptops at their EOL A laptop will use approximately 50% of the
energy a desktop PC uses, and the incremental cost is $200 each.
See Appendix B-12. This recommendation is made recognizing
that the 4.7 year payback is very close to or exceeds the life of
many laptops.
PC replacement at EOL, EEM:
Estimated cost $ 4,400
Annual Savings $ 929
Payback 4.7 years
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 11 of 60
D.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS
With the exception of the building exterior and vehicle bay, the
lighting in this building was almost entirely upgraded in 2004. At
the next re-lamp of the building, all T8-32 watt lamps should be
replaced with T8-28 watt energy saver lamps and the remaining
T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts should be replaced with T8-28
watt fixtures with high efficiency electronic ballasts. All exterior
lighting should be replaced with LED lamps and all rooms in the
building should have occupancy sensors installed. The vehicle
bay should have high bay, T5-54watt high output fixtures installed,
with ceiling mounted, zoned occupancy sensors so that only the
row or section of lighting above the occupant is lit.
This EEM summarizes Appendix B-2, 5, 8 through 11, and B-14
through 17. See Appendix E for more information on occupancy
sensors and 28 watt energy saver T8 lamps.
Combined Lighting Control EEM’s:
Estimated cost $144,711
Annual Savings $ 18,682
Payback 7.7 years
E.) HOT WATER PRESSURE WASHERS
The typical life of a gas fired steam pressure washer is
approximately 10 years. The unit in this building is estimated to be
8 years old. Today’s versions produce the same number of gallons
per minute using 15% less natural gas. Additionally, maintenance
costs start to increase as the unit ages. It is recommended to
replace this unit with a new, higher efficiency version at its EOL.
There is no incremental cost for the higher efficiency version and
there is an estimated annual energy savings of $689 (as calculated
by AkWarm-C) and maintenance savings of $500. See Appendix
B-13 and D-2 for detail.
Pressure Washer EEM:
Estimated incremental cost $ 0
(for budgetary purposes, estimated purchase cost is $11,000)
Annual energy savings $ 682
Annual maintenance savings $ 500
Payback n/a
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 12 of 60
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 $ 252,981
Annual Savings $ 58,052
Simple payback 4.5 years
Does not include design or construction management costs
In addition to EEM’s, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECM’s) are
recommended. ECM’s are policies or procedures to be followed by
management and employees that require no capital outlay. ECMs
recommended for this facility include:
1. Turn computers, printers, faxes, etc. and lights when leaving the
office.
2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly
maintained and adjusted to close and function properly.
3. Re-configure building occupants to group un-occupied offices (i.e.
no tenant or staff using the space), rooms and spaces into the
same HVAC zone so that zone’s energy consumption can be set
back to minimal levels.
4. 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.
5. 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. 3000K) 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.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 13 of 60
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 14 of 60
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 15 of 60
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 16 of 60
4. Building Description and Function:
The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on February 4th, 2012.
The ambient outside air temperature was 22.9 F.
This metal building has a two story section of offices in its north end used by
dispatch and administrative staff. The south end of the building is high bay
vehicle maintenance, repair and storage. The offices house a small kitchen as
well as storage and mechanical rooms.
The offices make up 8400 square feet and the shop 16,800 square feet for a
total building size of 25,670 as calculated from plans.
This building is constructed on a 6” reinforced concrete slab poured on grade. A
steel girder and beam structure supports the walls and roof, each is filled with
spray-in foam approximately 8” thick. The insulation value as calculated by
AkWarm-C is R-42.4 for the walls and R-48.9 for the roof. The interior walls
and ceiling in the offices are finished with gypsum, as is the ceiling in the shop.
The lower portion of the shop walls is finished with corrugated metal, the upper
portion with gypsum. All windows in this building appear to be original 1977
construction, are double pane aluminum and in average condition. The interior
of the offices is in excellent condition while the shop and building exterior is in
average condition.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating, Cooling, Ventilation and Controls: Heat is
provided to the offices by a gas fired boiler via hydronic
finned tube baseboard radiators, several unit heaters and the
heating coil in the single, constant volume air handling unit
(AHU-1). Heated make up air is provided by a gas fired Rupp
furnace located in the shop. This furnace is interlocked to the
shop exhaust fans but none appear to be in use, and the two
visible controllers were in the “off” position. There is no
cooling in the building. All hydronics and AHU-1 ventilation
are controlled by local, low voltage thermostats. The unit
heaters have wall mounted thermostats controlling the fan
and fluid valve. There is not a building-wide, integrated
HVAC control system.
Vehicle bay: The HVAC design for this space apparently
called for heat to be provided by (5) gas fired, 300 MBH,
ceiling mounted unit heaters. Ventilation and IAQ appears to
have been managed by the aforementioned exhaust fans and
gas fired MAU. The frequency and duration of open
overhead doors appears to provide enough fresh air to
overcome any ventilation or IAQ issues. (albeit, at a very high
cost)
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 17 of 60
Energy Recovery: There does not appear to be any energy
recovery in this facility.
b. Appliances: There is one residential type refrigerator, an
electric range/oven unit, a dishwasher and two microwaves in
the small kitchenette in this building.
This building has 22 PC’s in use; it is generally recommended
to replace desktop PC’s with laptops at EOL.
c. Plumbing Fixtures: This building contains a total of (6)
toilets, (4) urinals, (5) lavatory sinks and (1) shower. All have
manual valves. The toilets consume 1.6 gallons per flush
(gpf), the urinals 1.0 gpf and the shower heads appear to
have a 2.6 gallons per minute (gpm) flow rate. See Appendix
D-1 for EEM recommendations.
d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water for sinks and showers is
provided by an indirect hot water generator supplied by the
boiler.
e. Interior Lighting & Controls: There does not appear to have
been any lighting upgrades in the shop since the building was
constructed in 1977. The office lighting was renovated and
upgraded in 2004. Office lighting generally consists of T8-
32W fixtures with electronic ballasts, shop lighting is a
combination of 400W metal halide (MH) pendants and T8-32
watt fixtures. All exit signs in the building are either LED or
unlit, self-luminous. There are no occupancy sensors in the
building. Appendix B details the recommendation of a full
lighting upgrade. See Appendix E for additional information
on occupancy sensors.
f. Exterior Lighting: There are (19) wall pack lights on the
exterior of this building; (16) that appear to use 250 watt MH
bulbs and one using a 1000 watt MH bulb and (2) high
pressure sodium (HPS) 35 watt soffit lights.
g. Building Shell: The building shell is described earlier.
h. Motors: There are 4 large (5 HP or larger) motors in use in
this building. They are listed in Appendix C and were
considered for replacement with premium efficiency motors in
Appendix D-6.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 18 of 60
Typically, two year’s worth of natural gas and electricity consumption are
averaged then input into AKWarm-C. In the case of this building, 12 months of
NG usage was used, and 24 months (averaged) of electrical data was used.
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
$3.46/SF, the ECI for two very similar buildings, the New Transit Maintenance
Building and the Old Transit Maintenance building, are $3.00 and $3.33
respectively.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and heating
energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTU/SF. The EUI for this
building is 332 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010 EUI for the New Transit
Maintenance building is 209 kBTU/SF and 196 kBTU/SF for the New Transit
Maintenance building. The average for Public Order and Safety buildings
across the US is 116 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
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 19 of 60
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 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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 20 of 60
Appendix A - Photos
The entire east wall of building consists of overhead doors; when open, a
massive amount heat is lost
Several small maintenance items on building exterior
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 21 of 60
Weather stripping in need of repair over double man-doors on north side of
building
Several overhead doors in need of weather stripping or concrete repair to
reduce infiltration
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 22 of 60
Shop/vehicle bay
Hotsy gas fired steam pressure washer unit
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 23 of 60
Vehicle bay exhaust fans are EF-1North and EF-1South, make up air is a Rupp
unit. EF-1 locked – unknown if HOA switch is “on”, “off” or “auto”; EF-1North
and MAU are both “off”
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 24 of 60
First floor meeting room/break room
Second floor dispatch offices
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 25 of 60
Aerial View of the subject building
Street Maintenance Building
NORTH
Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Northwood Street Maintenance
Page 26
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/15/2012 4:20 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: Northwood Street Maintenance Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 5701 Northwood Dr. Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Anchorage Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522
Client Name: Paul Vanlandingham
Client Address: 5701 Northwood Dr
Anchorage, AK 99517
Auditor Phone: (206) 595‐4361
Auditor FAX: ( ) ‐
Client Phone: (907) 343‐8277 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 25,670 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,489,769
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 1,589,087 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and
25% Safety Margin: 2,422,389 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,
if served.
Typical Occupancy: 68 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: Chugach Electric ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐
Lg
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.162/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.804/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
$56,027 $0 $3,095 $30,528 $1,018 $9,847 $8,098 $0 $2,496 $1,973 $113,082
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$22,932 $0 $3,239 $11,079 $753 $9,012 $7,222 $0 $1,040 $1,973 $57,250
SAVINGS $33,095 $0 ‐$144 $19,449 $265 $835 $876 $0 $1,456 $0 $55,832
Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Northwood Street Maintenance
Page 27
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Cooking
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Northwood Street Maintenance
Page 28
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 7‐day programmable
Thermostat: offices ‐
first and second floor
(see Appendix D‐4)
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Dispatch offices ‐ first and
second floor space.
$2,157 $4,000 6.96 1.9
2 Lighting: Shop: parts
locker
Remove Manual Switching and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
$343 $400 5.27 1.2
3 Refrigeration:
Residential Type
Refrigerator
Replace with Energy Star Version $58 $75 4.75 1.3
4
(see
also
Appe
ndix
D‐6)
Variable Frequency
Drive on AHU‐1 fan
motor
Install Variable Frequency Drive
(VFD) on AHU‐1 fan motor; Yaskawa
softare predicts 69% energy savings.
$1,295 $3,395 4.43 2.6
5 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ HPS‐35
Soffit
Replace with 2 LED 8W Module
StdElectronic
$54
+ $20 Maint.
Savings
$225 3.89 4.2
6 Air Curtain to reduce
infiltration (see also
Appendix D‐4)
Install 12 air curtains to reduce air
leakage by 80%, to 296,800 cfm at 75
Pascals.
$34,035 $96,000 3.15 2.8
7 Refrigerated
Beverage Vending
Machine
Add new Vendingmiser $216 $400 3.33 1.9
8 Lighting: Offices: T8‐
3 lamp, add OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace 78
T8‐32 watt lamps with 78 FLUOR (3)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$2,012 $6,702 1.85 3.3
9 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ MH‐1000
Replace with 2 LED 150W Module
StdElectronic
$479
+ $100
Maint.
Savings
$4,000 1.70 8.4
10 Lighting: Offices: T8‐
2lamp, add OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace 19
T8‐32 watt lamps with 19 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$330 $1,714 1.19 5.2
Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Northwood Street Maintenance
Page 29
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
11 Lighting: Exterior
lighting ‐ MH‐250
Replace with 16 LED 72W Module
StdElectronic
$2,059
+ $800
Maint.
Savings
$30,400 1.11 14.8
12 Other Electrical:
Desktop Computers
Replace with 22 Laptop; This EEM is
not economically justified since
average laptop life is 3‐5 years, but
still recommended as many users
prefer laptops and it does provide
energy savings
$929 $4,400 0.97 4.7
13
(see
also
Appe
ndix
D‐2)
Hotsy NG fired
pressure steam
cleaner
Replace with new version, 15% more
efficienct per Hotsy Sales Engineer;
estimated cost $11,000, estimated
maintenance savings $500/yr
$682
+ $500
Maint.
Savings
(budgetary
cost
$11,000)
0.94 16.1
14 Lighting: Shop: T8‐
2lamp add OS
At next building re‐lamp, replace 20
T8‐32 watt lamps with 20 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$467 $3,120 0.92 6.7
15 Lighting: Shop: Metal
Halide 400W, add OS
Replace with 40 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2"
F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2)
HighEfficElectronic and Remove
Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$10,511
+ $800
Maint.
Savings
$88,800 0.79 8.4
16 Lighting: Office: T12‐
3lamp, add OS
Replace with FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8
28W Energy‐Saver Instant
EfficMagnetic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$52 $950 0.33 18.4
17 Lighting: Shop: parts
locker
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$155 $8,400 0.15 54.2
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:
(10) W.C., (10)
lavatories, (5)
urinals, (6) 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
Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C EEM report
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Northwood Street Maintenance
Page 30
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
See
Appe
ndix
D‐5
Motor replacements Replace the 10 HP Baldor
compressor motor with premium
efficiency motors at its EOL. See
Table 4 Appendix D‐5 for details.
$47.31 (not
included
below)
$200
(increment
al cost, not
included
below)
4.2
TOTAL $55,832
+ $2,220
Maint.
Savings
$252,981 1.87 4.7
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.1, Energy Lib 4/6/2012
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 31 of 60
Appendix C – Equipment Schedules
ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS OR ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION,
WHERE ACCESSIBLE e= estimated
AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
AHU‐1 Trane MCB014UA0D0UA 6,750 5/200/3
MAU‐1
Rupp RAM 25; 1836 MBH, gas
fired furnace
17,000 10/208/3
Unit turned off, does not
appear to be in use; controlled
by tsat with summer/winter
on/off; interlocked to EF‐1 &
EF‐2
EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
TEF‐1 Cook GC‐140 75 43W/120/1
Bathrooms, switched on with
lights
TEF‐2 Cook GC‐160 150 91W/120/1
Bathrooms, switched on with
lights
TEF‐3 Cook GC‐620 375 206W/120/1
Bathrooms, switched on with
lights
VF‐1 Cook 10S15DS 226 .05/120/1
Combustion air supply ‐
mechanical room
RH‐1 Summit 1600EZV20 180 60W/120/1 Range hood
EF‐1 Cook 365SQN‐B 8500 2/208/3
Located in vehicle bay, turned
off, not in use; interlocked to
MAU‐1
EF‐2 Cook 365SQN‐B 8500 2/208/3
Located in vehicle bay, turned
off, not in use; interlocked to
MAU‐1
WE‐1 Carmon FH‐46 1000 .75/120/1 weld exhaust fan
BOILER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
B‐1
Burnham P808NEI‐L2; 462 MBH
input, 369.6 MBH output, 80%
efficient
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 32 of 60
PUMP SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GPM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
PMP‐1 Grundfos US32‐80F 30 280W/115/1 Main Glycol hydronics pump
PMP‐2 Grundfos US32‐80F 30 280W/115/1 alternate
PMP‐3 Grundfos UP15‐10P 1 25W/115/1 DHW recirculation
UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
CUH‐1 Modine; 15 MBH 250 .04/120/1 Vestibule
CUH‐2 Modine; 20.2 MBH 450 .04/120/1 Vestibule
UH‐1 Modine HC‐18; 12.8 MBH 340 .033/120/1
fluid valve controlled, receiving
room
UH‐2 Modine HC‐18; 12.8 MBH 340 .033/120/1
fluid valve controlled, receiving
room
UH‐3 Modine HC‐18; 12.8 MBH 340 .033/120/1
fluid valve controlled, storage
110
UH‐4 (5
units)
Dravo GF‐300X; gas fired, 300
MBH in put, 225 MBH output,
75% efficient e2000 390W/115/1
located in vehicle bay, local low
voltage Tstat control
DESTRATIFICATION FAN SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
DF‐1 (8
units) Leading Edge 5600‐1 27,500 110w/120/1 8 fans in vehicle bay
HOT WATER GENERATOR/HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS
NUMBER OF
ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE
HWG‐1 Amtrol WHS‐80‐ZCDW 80 ‐ indirect hot water generator
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 33 of 60
PLUMBING FIXTURES
SYMBOL FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS
W.C. 1.6 6 manually operated
Urinal 1 4 manually operated
Lavatory ‐ 5 manually operated
Shower 2.6 1 manually operated
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES
SYMBOL FIXTURE
QUANTIT
Y
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
Genisis Vertical Platform Lift ‐
GVL‐SW‐144 1 20A/120/1
Almost Never Used (last used in
'07 or '08)
Overhead Door Opener 12 .75/208/3 Open 50‐60 times per day
Hotsy ‐ S5732‐5; 657MBH 1 47A/208/3
Summer used 8 hours per day;
2 hours per day rest of year
Pedestal Grinder 1
Average of all equipment use: 2
hours per day
Drill Press ‐ Delta 1
Thread Machine ‐ Aeroquip 1
Arc Welder ‐ Lincoln Electric
Invertec V350pro 1 12Kw/208/3
Arc Welder ‐ Lincoln Electric SP‐
135 plus 1 2.3Kw/115/1
Arc Welder ‐ Miller Millermatic
251 1 7.8Kw/208/1
Band Saw 1
Compressor ‐ Ingersoll Rand 1 10/460/3
Hydraulic Shop Press 1
Chop Saw ‐ Milwaukee 2
Plasma Cutter ‐ Thermal
Dynamics Cutmaster 101 1 67A/208/1
PLUG LOAD SUMMARY
SYMBOL FIXTURE
QUANTIT
Y
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
Coffee Machine 1 450w
Large Printer/Scanner/Fax 3 1250w
Personal Printer 5 85w
Large TV 1 450w
Miscellaneous Battery Chargers 28
Microwave 2
4 Burner Electric Stove 1
HP Plotter 1
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 34 of 60
Server/Server Switch/Phone
Backbone 3 est 1000w
Sound System 1 1500w
Oreck Air Purifier 1 47 w
Laptop 2 85w
Fan 1
Video Recorder 1
Water Cooler 1
Coffee Vending Machine 1
Snack Vending Machine 1
Residential Dishwasher 1
4‐burner electric range/oven 1
LIGHTING SCHEDULE
FIXTURE
TYPE DESCRIPTION LAMPS MOUNTING
NUMBER WATTS TYPE HEIGHT
Wall pack Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 175 surface 20'
Recess can HPS Exterior, recessed fixture 1 35 recess soffit
Pendant Metal Halide ‐ interior, magnetic ballast 1 400 suspended 28'
T8‐2 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 2 32 suspended ceiling
T8‐2 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 2 32 surface ceiling
T8‐2 Florescent, T8 U‐tube lamps, electronic ballast 2 40 recess ceiling
T8‐3 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 3 32 surface ceiling
T8‐3 Florescent, T8 plug‐in U tube, electronic ballast 3 40 recess ceiling
T12‐2 X 96" Florescent T12, magnetic ballast 3 40 recess ceiling
T12‐3 Florescent T12, magnetic ballast 3 40 surface ceiling
Recess can CFL, A‐Type 1 17 recess ceiling
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 35 of 60
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)
Utility
Compressor
Motor 1
(Baldor) 10/460/3 85.5% 91.70% 900 $47.31 4.2/$200 25.4/$1200
Utility
Compressor
Motor 2
(Ingersoll
Rand) 10/460/3 89.5% 91.70% 900 $16.04 12.5/$200 74.8/$1200
Rupp MAU
fan motor 10/208/3 e91.7% Installed in 2004, assumed to be premium efficiency
AHU‐1 5/208/3 e88.5% Installed in 2004, assumed to be premium efficiency
Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate
e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate
Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load
Utility compressor motors estimated to run 900 hrs/yr
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 36 of 60
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 in this building already have proximity
sending on/off valves. Urinals should have proximity sensing on/off controls as well.
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 37 of 60
Appendix D-2: : Upgrade Hot Water Pressure Washers
The Hotsy 5732 gas fired hot water pressure washer in the steam clean bay is
estimated to be in use an average of 23 hrs/week, 50 weeks/year. At 657,000 BTU/hr,
its annual consumption is 755 MMBTU. This machine consumes an estimated
$6,060/year of natural gas – nearly 10% of the entire building’s usage. A European
pressure washer manufacturer (Karcher, who also owns the 2 largest US
manufacturers, Hotsy and Landa) has developed a “down draft double pass” burner
system reported to be twice as efficient as Hotsy or Landa burners, but the machine is
only set up for 50Hz operation and is not available in the US yet. That said, today’s
systems are still 15% more efficient than the units in this building, and the unit in this
building are at, or nearing the end of its 10 year life. It is recommended to replace this
unit at its EOL with a new, higher efficiency version. Since the only machines available
today are high efficiency versions, there is no incremental cost to purchase the higher
efficiency version. For budgetary purposes, the estimated replacement cost is
$11,000. This EEM is found in Appendix B-13.
Incremental replacement cost at EOL $ 0
Annual energy savings (calculated by AkWarm-C) $ 689
Annual maintenance costs $ 500
Payback n/a
Appendix D-3
EEM’S considered but not recommended
Variable frequency drives (VFD): Motors considered for VFD’s included the 5 HP and
10 HP fan motors in AHU-1 and MAU-1. The AHU-2 fan motor is recommended to
receive a VFD; the Rupp MAU would be recommended if it was in use. The
compressor motors are not suited for VFD’s due to their constant speed and infrequent
use.
Set back thermostats: The round-the-clock usage of this building precludes the use of
night time temperature setbacks. Instead, a 7-day programmable thermostat can be
utilized to set back temperatures during the weekend and summer hours when the
building is not in use 24/7. This is recommended as an ECM in the executive summary
and in Appendix B-1; the estimated cost is $1000 each for two to four units – one or
two controlling the office hydronics and the third and fourth controlling AHU-1.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 38 of 60
Appendix D-4: HVAC System, Setback Thermostats, Ventilation and indoor air
quality (IAQ) and Vehicle Exhaust
Ventilation and IAQ:
To maintain vehicle bay air quality and eliminate carbon monoxide build up, this
building was designed with large exhaust fans interlocked to a large gas fired
make up air furnace. These units, according to onsite personnel, are not
generally used. It was observed during the audit, that the overhead doors were
generally left open, presumably to maintain IAQ. It is believed that the
excessive NG use in this facility (see Chart 1) is a result of overhead door
opening duration and frequency. This is estimated to cost over $35,000
annually.
Install air curtains
A two-step recommendation is made: It is recommended to install air curtains
(see Appendix E for sample specifications) at each overhead door and to utilize
the existing exhaust fans and make up air. See Appendix B-5.
Exhaust fans and make up air versus air scrubbers
After installation of the air curtains, NG and electrical usage by the EF’s and
MAU should be measured via temporary data acquisition devices (see Appendix
E for sample specifications). Based on the levels of NG and electrical
consumption, a further recommendation should be considered to replace the
EF’s and MAU with air scrubbers similar to those used in MOA Fire Stations 11
and 12.
7-day programmable thermostats
Recognizing the nearly continuous occupancy of the office spaces in this
building, it is recommended to install 7-day programmable thermostats to control
the office hydronics and AHU-1. These thermostats can be programmed to
utilize unoccupied setback temperatures during the infrequent periods when the
offices are not occupied (see Appendix E for sample specifications). Estimated
cost for a unit installed is $1000, based on plans, 3 or 4 units would be required.
See Appendix B-1 for additional detail.
Combined EEM’s:
Estimated cost $103,395
Annual savings $ 37,487
Payback 2.8 years
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 39 of 60
Appendix D-5: Motor replacement with premium efficiency versions
Table 4
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)
Utility
Compressor
Motor 1
(Baldor) 10/460/3 85.5% 91.70% 900 $47.31 4.2/$200 25.4/$1200
Utility
Compressor
Motor 2
(Ingersoll
Rand) 10/460/3 89.5% 91.70% 900 $16.04 12.5/$200 74.8/$1200
Rupp MAU
fan motor 10/208/3 e91.7% Installed in 2004, assumed to be premium efficiency
AHU‐1 5/208/3 e88.5% Installed in 2004, assumed to be premium efficiency
Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate
e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate
Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load
Utility compressor motors estimated to run 900 hrs/yr
It is recommended to replace the Baldor Compressor motor above, at its EOL with a
premium efficiency motor. None of the other 3 motors listed have sufficient hours or a
low enough efficiency to justify replacement.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 40 of 60
Appendix D-6: Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)
If outfitted with a VFD with a programmable input device (PID) which responds to a
process parameter such as duct pressure 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 5 HP supply fan motor in AHU-1 in this building is recommended to be retro-
fitted with a VFD.
This motor load and consumption was evaluated using software called, “Energy
Predictor”, provided by Yaskawa, a manufacturer of VFD’s; excerpts from the detailed
software reports are found below.
A 69% reduction in electrical consumption is predicted by the Yaskawa software for the
AHU-1 supply fan motor; the figure was input into AkWarm-C as a reduction in power
consumption in the ventilation worksheet; the resulting savings are included in
Appendix B-4.
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.
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 41 of 60
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 42 of 60
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 43 of 60
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 NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 44 of 60
Appendix E – Lighting Controls
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 45 of 60
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 46 of 60
Appendix E – 7-day programmable thermostat
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 47 of 60
Appendix E – 7-day programmable thermostat
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 48 of 60
Appendix E – VendingMiser Specifications
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 49 of 60
Appendix E – VendingMiser Specifications
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 50 of 60
Appendix E – Temporary Data Acquisition Devices
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 51 of 60
Appendix E – Air Curtain Spec
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 52 of 60
Appendix E – Air Scrubber Quote
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 53 of 60
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Jan‐09 Apr‐09 Jul‐09 Oct‐09 Jan‐10 Apr‐10 Jul‐10 Oct‐10 Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)
Northwood Street Maintenance‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Electric Cost ($)
Appendix F – Benchmark Data
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Apr‐09 Jun‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Feb‐10 Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)
Northwood Street Maintenance ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs.
Natural Gas Cost ($) ‐ONLY 12 MONTHS SHOWN
Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)
Natural Gas Cost ($)
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 54 of 60
REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form
PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
MOA Municipal
Government/Subdivision
02/04/12
Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage
Northwood Street Maintenance Other 25,670
Building Type Community Population Year Built
1977
Facility Address Facility City
Facility Zip
5701 Northwood Dr Anchorage
99517
Contact Person
First Name Last Name Middle Name Email Phone
Mailing Address City State Zip
Primary Operating
Hours
Monday‐
Friday
Saturday Sunday Holidays
Average # of
Occupants During
Operating Hours
Renovations
Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Details
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 55 of 60
Northwood Street Maintenance
Buiding Size Input (sf) = 25,670
2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 72,965.00
2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 69,139
2009 Electric Consumption (kWh) 285,607
2009 Electric Cost ($) 35,416
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 ($) 0.00
2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 8,271,277
2009 Total Energy Cost ($) 104,555
Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 284.2
2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 38.0
2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0
2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 322.2
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 56 of 60
Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)
2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2.69
2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 1.38
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) 4.07
2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 40,314.00
2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 38,373
2010 Electric Consumption (kWh) 324,881
2010 Electric Cost ($) 33,018
2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Oil Cost ($) 0
2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Propane Cost ($) 0
2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Coal Cost ($) 0
2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Wood Cost ($) 0
2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 0.00
2010 Thermal Cost ($) 0
2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 5,140,219
2010 Total Energy Cost ($) 71,391
Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 157.0
2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 43.2
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 57 of 60
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 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 200.2
Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)
2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 1.49
2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 1.29
2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 0.00
20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 2.78
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 58 of 60
Natural
Gas
Btus/CC
F =100,000
Provider Customer # Month Billing Days
Consumpti
on (CCF)
Consumpti
on
(Therms)
Demand
Use
Natural
Gas Cost
($)
Unit
Cost
($/Ther
m)
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jan‐09 31 14420 14420
Do not
use
$10,027 $0.70
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Feb‐09 32 11673 11673 $11,377 $0.97
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Mar‐
09 27 1101 1101 $9,210 $8.37
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Apr‐09 31 8660 8660 $11,165 $1.29
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
May‐
09 29 4368 4368 $8,847 $2.03
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jun‐09 33 3223 3223 $2,577 $0.80
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jul‐09 30 1440 1440 $814 $0.57
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Aug‐
09 32 1809 1809 $280 $0.15
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Sep‐09 31 4730 4730 $707 $0.15
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Oct‐09 31 7222 7222 $1,509 $0.21
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Nov‐
09 28 6383 6383 $3,330 $0.52
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Dec‐
09 29 7936 7936 $9,296 $1.17
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jan‐10 34 9875 9875 $6,942 $0.70
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Feb‐10 30 9662 9662 $3,623 $0.37
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Mar‐
10 28 8436 8436 $3,519 $0.42
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Apr‐10 33 8329 8329 $4,521 $0.54
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
May‐
10 28 2855 2855 $3,699 $1.30
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jun‐10 29 1157 1157 $2,324 $2.01
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Jul‐10 31 0 0 $1,139
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Aug‐
10 32 0 0 $450
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Sep‐10 30 0 0 $664
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211 Oct‐10 32 0 0 $1,985
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 59 of 60
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Nov‐
10 28 0 0 $4,579
Enstar
9945‐
33378/8211
Dec‐
10 30 0 0 $4,928
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐09
total: 72,965 72,965 0 $69,139
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐10
total: 40,314 40,314 0 $38,373
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09
avg: $1.41
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10
avg: $0.89
Electri
city
Btus/kW
h =3,413
Provid
er Customer # Month
Billin
g
Days
Consumpti
on (kWh)
Consumption
(Therms)
Deman
d Use
Total
Electric
Cost ($)
Unit
Cost
($/kWh
)
Demand
Cost ($)
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jan‐09 0 0 0 0 $0 $0.00
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Feb‐09 0 0 0 0 $0 $0.00
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Mar‐09 30 33079 1128.98627 56 $4,696 $0.14 $621.60
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Apr‐09 31 33695 1150.01035 59.6 $4,496 $0.13 $661.56
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 May‐09 30 32398 1105.74374 54.8 $4,278 $0.13 $608.28
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jun‐09 29 31052 1059.80476 51.6 $4,082 $0.13 $572.76
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jul‐09 32 21858 746.01354 50.4 $2,674 $0.12 $559.44
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Aug‐09 29 21400 730.382 43.6 $2,565 $0.12 $483.96
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Sep‐09 30 22243 759.15359 42.8 $2,650 $0.12 $475.08
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Oct‐09 29 25045 854.78585 48.4 $2,853 $0.11 $560.96
ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA NORTHWOOD STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING
May 15, 2012 Page 60 of 60
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Nov‐09 32 31968 1091.06784 51.6 $3,504 $0.11 $598.04
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Dec‐09 29 32869 1121.81897 54 $3,618 $0.11 $625.86
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jan‐10 30 32541 1110.62433 52.4 $3,216 $0.10 $607.32
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Feb‐10 32 29145 994.71885 43.6 $2,849 $0.10 $505.32
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Mar‐10 30 25883 883.38679 44.8 $2,599 $0.10 $519.23
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Apr‐10 32 27950 953.9335 45.6 $2,881 $0.10 $528.50
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 May‐10 30 27136 926.15168 46 $2,804 $0.10 $533.14
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jun‐10 30 23428 799.59764 48 $2,526 $0.11 $556.32
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Jul‐10 32 21185 723.04405 46.4 $2,224 $0.10 $537.78
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Aug‐10 31 22379 763.79527 43.2 $2,282 $0.10 $500.69
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Sep‐10 32 22805 778.33465 49.2 $2,396 $0.11 $570.23
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Oct‐10 29 26186 893.72818 57.6 $2,769 $0.11 $667.58
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Nov‐10 29 33488 1142.94544 52.8 $3,262 $0.10 $604.56
CEA
37385‐373,
37385‐376 Dec‐10 33 32755 1117.92815 52.4 $3,210 $0.10 $599.98
Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 285607 9747.76691 512.8 $35,416 $5,768
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 324881 11088.18853 582 $33,018 $6,731
Jan ‐09 to Dec ‐ 09
avg: $0.12
Jan ‐10 to Dec ‐ 10
avg: $0.10