Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ENA-CAEC KPBSD North Star Elementary 2012-EE Nikiski North Star Elementary School 45600 Holt-Lamplight Road Nikiski, Alaska 99635 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-ENA-CAEC-02 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units KPBSD .................................................................................................. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE iv OF iv This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 1 OF 25  This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Kenai Peninsula Borough Contact: Kevin Lyon 47140 East Poppy Lane Soldotna, AK 99669 Email: klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The July 2008 – June 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 39,903 Natural Gas $ 73,188 Total $ 113,091 Energy Utilization Index: 121.9 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.26 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 13.5 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $251 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Nikiski North Star Elementary School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 2 OF 25  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $223 $600 6.73 2.7 (N/A) 2 Lighting: Exterior 35' Lights Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,848 $30,800 2.34 5.3 (5.0) 3 Lighting: Exterior Entry Lights Replace with 14 LED 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,258 $12,880 1.41 10.2 (8.4) 4 Setback Thermostat: Mechanical Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. $95 $980 1.25 10.3 (N/A) 5 Lighting: Misc. Incandescent Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $197 $2,000 1.13 10.1 (N/A) 6 Ventilation Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($110,500). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (14 @ $850 = $11,900) $11,391 $122,400 1.13 10.7 (N/A) 7 Lighting: Exterior 20' Lights Replace with 6 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,051 $13,200 1.04 12.6 (11.3) 8 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $404 $7,837 0.67 19.4 (N/A) 9 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $2,893 $57,482 0.65 19.9 (N/A) 10 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 18 FLUOR (8) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (4) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Manual Dimmer $1,291 $58,010 0.63 44.9 (18.8) 11 HVAC And DHW Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($265,200). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) $4,263 $302,850 0.43 71.0 (41.7) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 3 OF 25  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 12 Lighting: Classroom and Office Lights Replace with 360 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,280 $279,200 0.29 85.1 (40.6) 13 Lighting: Hallway Lights Replace with 75 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic $120 $54,000 0.19 451.5 (62.1) TOTAL, all measures $32,314 $942,239 0.58 29.2 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $32,314 per year, or 28.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $942,239, for an overall simple payback period of 29.2 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $20,063 per year, or 17.8% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $182,860, for an overall simple payback period of 9.1 years. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 4 OF 25  Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $44,087 $4,206 $29,446 $2,131 $7,585 $1,052 $37 $24,062 $112,606 With All Proposed Retrofits $35,135 $3,136 $15,386 $1,850 $7,585 $1,052 $37 $16,111 $80,292 SAVINGS $8,952 $1,069 $14,060 $282 $0 $0 $0 $7,951 $32,314 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 5 OF 25  While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 6 OF 25  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 50,000 square foot Nikiski North Star Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, and a gymnasium. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural, mechanical and electrical drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 7 OF 25  After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on August 4, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. An additional site visit was completed on November 1, 2011 where thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 8 OF 25  Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for Nikiski has an index of 98.6 and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 9 OF 25  The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 10 OF 25  All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Nikiski North Star Elementary School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Nikiski, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Nikiski, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the natural gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 11 OF 25  The original structure of Nikiski North Star Elementary School is a single story facility that was built in 1987. This building has had no additions made to it. The school has three (3) electrically heated storage units located on the west side of the building. The school typically opens at 6AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 8AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental occupancy time keeping the school open includes an after school program. Other rental activities occur in the evenings and weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas which can require the school to remain open as late as 9PM at times. There are an estimated 450 full time student, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned metal framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor of 0.67 Btu/hr-sf-F. There are also skylights in the building with an estimated U-factor of 1.25 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be in good condition. The exterior walls of the elementary school consist of 2-core concrete blocks furred out with 6-inch studs and insulated with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-19 value. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school is a rafter framed assembly with metal roofing. The roof is insulated with 7.5-inches of rigid board insulation with an estimated R-46 value. The metal roof appears to be in good condition. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are half-windowed or solid. The doors appear to be in adequate condition. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 12 OF 25  Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) natural gas-fired boilers. The boilers are located in the building’s mechanical room which is large in size and neatly configured. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the mechanical room and provides heat to the air handling units and cabinet heaters. There is also a heat exchanger that uses glycol to provide heat to the school’s snow melt system. This building has a hybrid DDC Honeywell control system in place with end devices using pneumatic controls. The boilers utilized a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 3,103,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 82.4 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 3,103,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 83.6 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic hot water is supplied by an indirect fired hot water maker. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the various classroom and janitor sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. There are six (6) Air Handling Units (AHU’s) located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through these AHU’s. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof mounted exhaust fans and relief air fans. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 12,500 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design specifies 25 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 50,000 sf school = 12,500 CFM). Adding up all of the exhaust capacity equals 49,060 CFM, indicating the school appears to be way over ventilated at 109 CFM/occupant when all exhaust systems are operated per design capacity. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major exhaust fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The ventilation system uses pneumatically controlled end devices, controlled by the hybrid DDC Honeywell system. The Honeywell system is antiquated and is a good candidate for upgrading to a modern DDC controller for improved performance. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 13 OF 25  There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building has been upgraded to more modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system uses 400-watt metal-halide lamps, which are excellent candidates for upgrades. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The high pressure sodium lights (HPS) mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.4 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 14 OF 25  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Homer Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 15 OF 25  The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.17 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh 0.16 $/kWh Natural Gas 0.85 $/CCF 0.92 $/CCF 0.89 $/CCF Total Cost $118,227 $107,953 $113,090 ECI 2.36 $/sf 2.16 $/sf 2.26 $/sf Electric EUI 31.8 kBtu/sf 30.9 kBtu/sf 31.4 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 90.6 kBtu/sf 90.5 kBtu/sf 90.6 kBtu/sf Building EUI 122.4 kBtu/sf 121.4 kBtu/sf 121.9 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 32 schools in the KPBSD computed an average EUI of 113.4 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 2.71 $/sf, with an average building size of 57,216 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 121.9 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 46.9% more energy than the US average and 7.5% more energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 16 OF 25  At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $112,606 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Nikiski North Star Elementary. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 17 OF 25  Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 17744 16170 17744 17172 17419 7420 7667 12868 17172 17744 17172 17744 Other Electrical 4909 4474 4909 4751 4774 686 709 2877 4751 4909 4751 4909 Refrigeration 1131 1030 1131 1094 1131 1094 1131 1131 1094 1131 1094 1131 Cooking 558 508 558 540 558 540 558 558 540 558 540 558 Clothes Drying 19 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Ventilation Fans 14165 12908 14165 13708 13950 7277 7520 10949 13708 14165 13708 14165 DHW 470 428 470 455 470 455 470 470 455 470 455 470 Space Heating 3950 3579 3906 3736 3826 3676 3783 3784 3685 3854 3776 3942 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 269 248 277 283 316 347 413 410 331 296 269 270 Space Heating 6043 4912 4788 3387 2519 1661 1230 1251 1903 3310 4525 5827 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 18 OF 25  Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBtu Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBtu Electricity 452,988 kWh 1,546,047 3.340 5,163,796 Natural Gas 45,087 ccf 4,508,724 1.047 4,720,635 Total 6,054,771 9,884,431 BUILDING AREA 50,000 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 121 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 198 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 19 OF 25  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Exterior 35' Lights 14 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $30,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,848 Breakeven Cost $72,034 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Exterior Entry Lights 14 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 LED 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $12,880 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,258 Breakeven Cost $18,120 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: See EEM # 2 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Misc. Incandescent 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $197 Breakeven Cost $2,269 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of all the existing incandescent lights around the building with energy efficient CFL lights. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Exterior 20' Lights 6 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $13,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,051 Breakeven Cost $13,780 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 13 Auditors Notes: See EEM # 2 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 20 OF 25  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Gym Lights 18 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (8) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (4) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Dimmer Installation Cost $58,010 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,291 Breakeven Cost $36,365 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 45 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T5 HO system. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Classroom and Office Lights 360 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 360 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $279,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,280 Breakeven Cost $80,700 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 85 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Hallway Lights 75 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 75 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $54,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $120 Breakeven Cost $10,327 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 451 Auditors Notes: See EEM # 12 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 21 OF 25  Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Vending Machines 2 Drink Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $223 Breakeven Cost $4,039 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes:    There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 22 OF 25  Mechanical Equipment Measures Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Recommendation 11 Replace burners on boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($265,200). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) Installation Cost $302,850 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 25 Energy Savings ($/yr) $4,263 Breakeven Cost $129,257 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 71 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Installing an outdoor temperature reset control to the boiler output temperature and installing a Direct Digital Control (DDC) system as a replacement for the current pneumatic control system has been evaluated as a separate EEM. This upgrade will also affect the ventilation and heating temperature set point(s) of the building through refined controls and sensors. This new control system includes charging the hydronic loop with water, rather than glycol and installing a plate heat exchanger in the fan room to supply glycol to the AHUs. Assuming 60% of the DDC system cost is attributed to the heating system, this upgrade is expected to cost $265,200 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,880 and a maintenance savings of $2,000. B. Replacing the burners on the boilers as well as replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used and the increased efficiency of the new equipment.. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With burner and motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $37,650 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,663. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 23 OF 25  Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 6 Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($110,500). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (14 @ $850 = $11,900) Installation Cost $122,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $11,391 Breakeven Cost $137,792 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Improved control of the ventilation system is within the capacity of a DDC controller, but the existing pneumatic control scheme is antiquated and is recommended to be upgraded to a new operating system. The ventilation equipment may be slowed down to near the surge point on the blower wheels with the installation of VFD controllers. At the time of the field audit, the variable frequency drive controllers where staged but not installed yet. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. Upgrading the control system will allow optimizing the “On-Off” run timing for the ventilation system. There is energy to be saved by the automation system including tuning the variable frequency speed controllers of the fans. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $110,500 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $6,390. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With pump replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $11,900 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $5,358. C. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 24 OF 25  Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 4 Mechanical Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. Installation Cost $980 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $95 Breakeven Cost $1,226 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Building Space Recommendation 8 Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $7,837 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $404 Breakeven Cost $5,216 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 19 Auditors Notes: See EEM #4 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 9 School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. Installation Cost $57,482 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,893 Breakeven Cost $37,338 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 20 Auditors Notes: See EEM #4 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 25 OF 25  Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A   Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Paul Brenner 907‐714‐8825 State Zip AK 99669 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 8 to 50 0 0       Average # of  Occupants  During  450 0 0 0       Renovations / Notes Date None Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  Year Built 1987 Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Facility Zip 4,500 Date 03/13/11Municipal  Nikiski North Star Education 50,000 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. 45600 Holt‐Lamplight Rd Nikiski Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By 99635 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us Details       1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. Primary  Operating  Hours Contact Person City Soldotna148 N. Binkley St Mailing Address APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Nikiski North Star Buiding Size Input (sf) =50,000 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)45,279 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)38,704 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)466,480 2009 Electric Cost ($)79,523 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2009 Oil Cost ($) 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,119,996 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)118,227 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 90.6 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)31.8 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)122.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.77 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.59 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.36 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)45,254 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)41,101 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)452,800 2010 Electric Cost ($)66,852 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2010 Oil Cost ($) 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,070,806 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)107,953 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)90.5 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)30.9 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)121.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.82 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.34 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.16 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTNikiski North StarNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)ENSTAR150190 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008302,7992,799$2,107$0.75ENSTAR150190 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008303,4463,446$2,580$0.75ENSTAR150190 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008292,4022,402$1,817$0.76ENSTAR150190 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008303,3893,389$2,538$0.75ENSTAR150190 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008294,1134,113$3,068$0.75ENSTAR150190 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008304,2174,217$3,144$0.75ENSTAR150190 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009306,1356,135$5,581$0.91ENSTAR150190 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009275,5895,589$5,090$0.91ENSTAR150190 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009305,3445,344$4,869$0.91ENSTAR150190 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/29/2009293,5653,565$3,637$1.02ENSTAR150190 May‐09 5/1/2009 5/30/2009332,6732,673$2,743$1.03ENSTAR150190 Jun‐09 6/1/2009 7/1/2009311,6071,607$1,530$0.95ENSTAR150190 Jul‐09 7/2/2009 8/2/2009322,1212,121$2,192$1.03ENSTAR150190 Aug‐09 8/3/2009 8/31/2009291,6111,611$1,680$1.04ENSTAR150190 Sep‐09 9/1/2009 10/1/2009313,0043,004$3,077$1.02ENSTAR150190 Oct‐09 10/2/2009 11/1/2009313,7053,705$3,780$1.02ENSTAR150190 Nov‐09 11/2/2009 11/30/2009295,3735,373$5,453$1.01ENSTAR150190 Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/2009305,6385,638$4,728$0.84ENSTAR150190Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010325,5545,554$4,659$0.84ENSTAR150190 Feb‐10 2/1/2010 3/2/2010304,9844,984$4,187$0.84ENSTAR150190 Mar‐10 3/3/2010 3/31/2010274,2424,242$3,609$0.85ENSTAR150190 Apr‐10 4/1/2010 5/3/2010354,6074,607$3,914$0.85ENSTAR150190 May‐10 5/4/2010 5/30/2010242,4042,404$2,075$0.86ENSTAR150190 Jun‐10 6/1/2010 7/2/2010352,0112,011$1,747$0.87Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:45,27945,2790$38,704$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:45,25445,2540$41,101$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.85Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.92APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Nikiski North Star ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTNikiski North StarElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)Homer Electric 285099 Jul‐08 6/24/2008 7/22/20082930,9601,05784$4,161$0.13Homer Electric 285099 Aug‐08 7/23/2008 8/26/20083547,6801,627126$6,385$0.13Homer Electric 285099 Sep‐08 8/27/2008 9/24/20082938,4801,313132$5,370$0.14Homer Electric 285099 Oct‐08 9/25/2008 10/26/20083242,9601,466135$7,140$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Nov‐08 10/27/2008 11/23/20082838,0001,297137$6,443$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Dec‐08 11/24/2008 12/22/20082944,5601,521147$7,460$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Jan‐09 12/23/2008 1/27/20083652,4001,788145$10,618$0.20Homer Electric 285099 Feb‐09 1/28/2009 2/25/20092942,8001,461143$8,848$0.21Homer Electric 285099 Mar‐09 2/26/2009 3/24/20092734,4801,177143$7,332$0.21Homer Electric 285099 Apr‐09 3/25/2009 4/26/20093340,1601,371135$6,728$0.17Homer Electric 285099 May‐09 4/27/2009 5/26/20093032,9601,125126$5,627$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Jun‐09 5/27/2009 6/28/20093321,04071855$3,411$0.16Homer Electric 285099 Jul‐09 6/29/2009 7/23/20092516,56056554$2,807$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Aug‐09 7/24/2009 8/25/20093327,360934122$4,857$0.18Homer Electric 285099 Sep‐098/26/2009 9/23/20092940,2401,373131$6,804$0.17Homer Electric 285099 Oct‐09 9/24/2009 10/25/20093240,8001,393136$6,006$0.15Homer Electric 285099 Nov‐09 10/26/2009 11/23/20092940,2401,373137$5,947$0.15Homer Electric 285099 Dec‐09 11/24/2009 12/27/20093450,6401,728140$7,250$0.14Homer Electric 285099 Jan‐10 12/28/2009 1/25/20102936,7201,253140$4,876$0.13Homer Electric 285099 Feb‐10 1/26/2010 2/22/20102847,8401,633139$6,045$0.13Homer Electric 285099 Mar‐10 2/23/2010 3/24/20103038,8001,324136$5,071$0.13Homer Electric 285099 Apr‐10 3/25/2010 4/26/20103344,4801,518133$6,626$0.15Homer Electric 285099 May‐10 4/27/2010 5/24/20102837,6001,283140$5,813$0.15Homer Electric 285099 Jun‐10 5/25/2010 6/29/20103531,5201,076101$4,750$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:466,48015,9211,506$79,523$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:452,80015,4541,508$66,852$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Nikiski North Star ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B Short AK-Warm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 1      APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/6/2012 8:47 AM General Project Information  PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION  Building: Nikiski North Star Elementary School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co.  Address: 45600 Holt‐Lamplight Road Auditor  Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA  City: Nikiski Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive  Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Kevin Lyon  Client Address: 139 East Park Avenue  Soldotna, AK 99669  Auditor Phone: (907) 260‐5311  Auditor FAX: (   )    ‐  Client Phone: (907) 262‐2035 Auditor Comment:   Client FAX:   Design Data  Building Area: 50,000 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:  1,354,827  Btu/hour   with Distribution Losses:  1,426,134 Btu/hour   Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and  25% Safety Margin: 2,173,985 Btu/hour   Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,  if served.  Typical Occupancy: 450 people  Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average)  Actual City: Nikiski Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐6.4 deg F  Weather/Fuel City: Nikiski Heating Degree Days: 10,899 deg F‐days     Utility Information  Electric Utility: Homer Electric Assn ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐  Lg  Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.160/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.890/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  $44,087 $0 $4,206 $29,446 $2,131 $7,585 $1,052 $37 $24,062 $0 $112,606  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $35,135 $0 $3,136 $15,386 $1,850 $7,585 $1,052 $37 $16,111 $0 $80,292  SAVINGS $8,952 $0 $1,069 $14,060 $282 $0 $0 $0 $7,951 $0 $32,314    Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 2      APPENDIX B                      $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 3      APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration:  Vending Machines  Add new Seasonal  Shutdown  $223 $600 6.73 2.7 2 Lighting: Exterior 35'  Lights  Replace with 14 LED 150W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $5,848 $30,800 2.34 5.3 3 Lighting: Exterior  Entry Lights  Replace with 14 LED 25W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $1,258 $12,880 1.41 10.2 4 Setback Thermostat:  Mechanical Room  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Mechanical Room  space.  $95 $980 1.25 10.3 5 Lighting: Misc.  Incandescent  Replace with 20 FLUOR  CFL, A Lamp 15W  $197 $2,000 1.13 10.1 6 Ventilation Add variable speed DDC  System to ventilation  system. Assumed that 25%  of total cost is attributed  to ventilation with new  controls on louvers, new  sensors, and better  feedback to DDC for all  ventilation systems  ($110,500). Replace  motors with premium  efficiency motors @ $850  each. (14 @ $850 =  $11,900)  $11,391 $122,400 1.13 10.7 7 Lighting: Exterior 20'  Lights  Replace with 6 LED 50W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $1,051 $13,200 1.04 12.6 8 Setback Thermostat:  Gym  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Gym space.  $404 $7,837 0.67 19.4 9 Setback Thermostat:  School  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the School space.  $2,893 $57,482 0.65 19.9 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 4      APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 10 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 18 FLUOR (8)  T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High  Lumen (3050 L) (4)  HighLight  HighEfficElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor, Manual Dimmer  $1,291 $58,010 0.63 44.9 11 HVAC And DHW Replace burners on  penthouse boilers with  modern, more efficient  models (3 @ $10,000). Add  variable speed DDC System  to heating system.  Assumed that 60% of total  cost is attributed to  heating with new controls  on louvers, new sensors,  and better feedback to  DDC ($265,200). Replace  motors with premium  efficiency motors @ $850  each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650)  $4,263 $302,850 0.43 71 12 Lighting: Classroom  and Office Lights  Replace with 360 FLUOR  (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W  Energy‐Saver (2) Program  HighEfficElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $3,280 $279,200 0.29 85.1 13 Lighting: Hallway  Lights  Replace with 75 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic  $120 $54,000 0.19 451.5 TOTAL $32,314 $942,239 0.58 29.2         ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 5      APPENDIX B   Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 11 Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @  $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of  total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and  better feedback to DDC ($265,200). Replace motors with premium efficiency  motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650)  $302,850 $4,263 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Mechanical Room Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 65.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Mechanical Room  space.  $980 $95 8 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 65.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Gym space.  $7,837 $404 9 School Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 65.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the School space.  $57,482 $2,893 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 6      APPENDIX B   6 Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total  cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and  better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($110,500). Replace motors with  premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (14 @ $850 = $11,900)  $122,400 $11,391 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Exterior 35' Lights 14 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 14 LED 150W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy Sensor  $30,800 $5,848 3 Exterior Entry  Lights  14 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 14 LED 25W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy Sensor  $12,880 $1,258 5 Misc. Incandescent 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen  60W with Manual Switching  Replace with 20 FLUOR  CFL, A Lamp 15W  $2,000 $197 7 Exterior 20' Lights 6 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 6 LED 50W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy Sensor  $13,200 $1,051 10 Gym Lights 18 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 18 FLUOR (8)  T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High  Lumen (3050 L) (4)  HighLight  HighEfficElectronic and Add  new Occupancy Sensor,  Manual Dimmer  $58,010 $1,291 12 Classroom and  Office Lights  360 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W  Standard (2) Instant  StdElectronic with Manual  Switching  Replace with 360 FLUOR (4)  T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver (2) Program  HighEfficElectronic and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $279,200 $3,280 13 Hallway Lights 75 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W  Standard Instant StdElectronic  with Manual Switching  Replace with 75 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic  $54,000 $120 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Vending Machines 2 Drink Vending Machines Add new Seasonal  Shutdown  $600 $223 Other Electrical Equipment Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Nikiski North Star Elementary School Page 7      APPENDIX B   Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  AkWarmCalc Ver  2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 2/2/2012    CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAGLOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN 1088W NAT GAS / CAST IRON 3,103 MBH82%306B2 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN 1088W NAT GAS / CAST IRON 3,103 MBH84%306HWH1 MECHANICAL ROOM DOMESTIC HOT WATER SHELL IN TUBE95%2421HX1 MECHANICAL ROOMSNOW MELTB&GWU SHELL IN TUBE 150 MBH90%240P1 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPSD 80160 INLINE 131 GPM @ 40'2 HP100P2 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPSD 80160 INLINE 102 GPM @ 20'2 HP100P3 MECHANICAL ROOM BOILER CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080 INLINE 20.5 GPM @ 15'0.33 HP 100P4 MECHANICAL ROOM BOILER CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080 INLINE 20.5 GPM @ 15'0.33 HP 100P5 MECHANICAL ROOMCOIL HEATGRUNDFOS UMSD 6580 INLINE33 GPM @ 22'0.75 HP 100P6 MECHANICAL ROOM DHW SUPPLY GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080 INLINE 23.2 GPM @ 20'0.33 HP 100P7 MECHANICAL ROOM DHW SUPPLY GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080 INLINE 23.2 GPM @ 20'0.33 HP 100P8 MECHANICAL ROOMCOIL HEATGRUNDFOS UMSD 5880 INLINE 14.2 GPM @ 20'0.33 HP 100P9 MECHANICAL ROOMDHW CIRCGRUNDFOS UP 1542INLINE3 GPM @ 12'0.05 HP 100P10 MECHANICAL ROOMSPAREGRUNDFOS UPSD 50160 INLINE17 GPM @ 30'0.5 HP 100P11 MECHANICAL ROOMSPAREGRUNDFOS UMSD 5080 INLINE15 GPM @ 20'0.33 HP 100SA1 MECHANICAL ROOMCORE SAPACE A27AFSI HORIZONTAL16,909 CFM @ 3.3"NEMA 15 HP 250SA2 MECHANICAL ROOMNORTH SAPACE A27AFSI HORIZONTAL15,000 CFM @ 2.4"NEMA 10 HP 250SA3 MECHANICAL ROOMSOUTH SAPACE A27AFSI HORIZONTAL15,000 CFM @ 2.4"NEMA 10 HP 250SA4 MECHANICAL ROOMGYM SAPACE A16FC HORIZONTAL6,416 CFM @ 1.75"NEMA5 HP250SA5 MECHANICAL ROOM MECH ROOM SAPACE SCF57A HORIZONTAL 518 CFM @ 0.75" NEMA 0.33 HP 250SA6 MECHANICAL ROOM MECH ROOM SAPACE DO350 HORIZONTAL 130 CFM @ 0.3" NEMA 0.02 HP 250EX1AROOFCORE EFPACE 3008 5H6R21 CENTRIFUGAL 6,860 CFM @ 0.5" NEMA 1.5 HP 250EX1BROOFCORE EFPACE 3008 5H6R21 CENTRIFUGAL 6,860 CFM @0.5" NEMA 1.5 HP 250EX2ROOFNORTH EFPACE A27FC CENTRIFUGAL15,000 CFM @ 1.5"NEMA 7.5 HP 250EX3ROOFSOUTH EFPACE A27FC CENTRIFUGAL15,000 CFM @ 1.5"NEMA 7.5 HP 250EX4ROOFBATHROOM EFPACE U12FC CENTRIFUGAL1,890 CFM @ 1.25"NEMA 1.5 HP 250EX5ROOFBATHROOM EFPACE U9FC CENTRIFUGAL1,250 CFM @ 1.25"NEMA1 HP200EX6ROOFKILN ROOM EFPACE U9FCUPBLAST 825 CFM @ 0.75" NEMA 0.33 HP 200EX7ROOFKITCHEN HOOD EF LOREN COOK 150VCRUPBLAST 1,375 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA1 HP200CUH1(4) VESTIBULE BUILDING HEATPACE SCF52A HYDRONIC 13,208 BTUH NEMA .33 HP 200CUH1(3)NORTH WING HALLWAY BUILDING HEATPACE SCF52A HYDRONIC 13,208 BTUH NEMA .33 HP 200CUH1(3) SOUTH WING HALLWAY BUILDING HEATPACE SCF52A HYDRONIC 13,208 BTUH NEMA .33 HP 200CUH2 MAIN ENTRY VESTIBULE BUILDING HEATPACE SCF52B HYDRONIC 26,000 BTUH NEMA .33 HP 200CUH3 CENTRAL HALLWAY BUILDING HEATPACE SCF52B HYDRONIC 33,000 BTUH NEMA .33 HP 200UH1ROOM 205STORAGE HEAT MODINE HV11BA HYDRONIC 10,000 BTUH NEMA .02 HP 200UH1ROOM 219STORAGE HEAT MODINE HV11BA HYDRONIC 10,000 BTUH NEMA .02 HP 200UH1ROOM 260STORAGE HEAT MODINE HV11BA HYDRONIC 10,000 BTUH NEMA .02HP 200UH1 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT MODINE HV11BA HYDRONIC 10,000 BTUH NEMA .02 HP 200UH1MECHANICAL ROOMBUILDING HEATMODINEHV11BAHYDRONIC10,000 BTUHNEMA.02 HP200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTUH1 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT MODINE HV11BA HYDRONIC 10,000 BTUH NEMA .02 HP 200HX1 MECHANICAL ROOM SNOW MELT SYSTEM UNKUNK Shell and Tube 150 MBHNEMA220H1 MECHANICAL ROOM HUMIDITY CONTROL CARNS HBOA FORCED AIR 30 LB HRNEMA 1.25 HP 150H2 MECHANICAL ROOM HUMIDITY CONTROL CARNS HBOA FORCED AIR 30 LB HRNEMA 1.25 HP 150H3MECHANICAL ROOMHUMIDITY CONTROLCARNSHBOAFORCED AIR30 LB HRNEMA1.25 HP150APPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. East Side Of School 2. Typical Exterior Wall 3. Close Up Of Typical Window Installed On North And South Wings Of School 4. Windows Typical Of Center Section Of school CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. Typical Entry Door 6. Typical Entry Door Window Thickness 7. Typical Window Thickness 8. Loading Dock West Side Of School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Typical Parking Lot Lighting Fixture w/ View of Roof 10. Electrically Wired Out Buildings 11. Electrically Wired Out Buildings 12. Panel Supplying Power to Outbuildings CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Playground Lighting South Wall of Gymnasium and Fuel Oil Tank Self6Luminous Exit Sign Typical Gymnasium Lighting CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Atrium Lighting and Skylights 13. Hallway Lighting Typical In Majority Of School 14. Koehler 100 kW Stand6By Generator 15. Basketball Hoop Motor CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 16. Boiler Room 17. Boiler #1 18. Boiler #2 19. Building Heat Circulator Pump Controls CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 20. Building Circulator Pumps 21. Domestic Hot Water Tank 22. Humidifier #1 23. Humidifier #2 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NIKISKI NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 24. Humidifier #3 25. Typical Air Handling Unit 26. Honeywell HVAC Digital Control Box 27. Pneumatic Tie In to Digital Control Box CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. Doors Typical of School, Heat Loss Surrounding Doors. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. Bay Windows Typical of School, High Heat Loss Expected. Note the Window With Higher Than Normal Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. Close-Up of Heat Loss Areas of Bay Windows CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. Wall Typical of School, Heat Loss at Slab Edge and Windows Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. Kitchen Resupply Door, Heat Loss Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. (A) Gymnasium Slab Edge Exhibiting Heat Loss. Typically Displayed In Un-Insulated Slab on Grade Foundations (B) Note The Difference in Wall Temperature Between The Dissimilar Wall Types A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  7. (A) Slab Edge Exhibiting Normal Heat Loss Typically Displayed In Un-Insulated Slab on Grade Foundations (B) Note Area Covered by Snow (Right) Exhibits Less Heat Loss. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  8. School Overview From the South, Mechanical Room Exhaust Vent Exhibiting Expected Heat Loss CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  9. (A) Gymnasium Roofing Exhibiting Abnormal Heat Loss Areas. (B) Heat Loss From Soffit (Under Overhang) A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  10. Gymnasium Viewed From the North, Abnormal Heat Loss Exhibited From Area Above Mechanical Room Exhaust Vent. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      NIKISKI NORTH STAR ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  11. School Viewed From the North East, Building Juncture Exhibiting High Heat Loss.