Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ENA-CAEC KPBSD Old Kenai Elementary 2012-EE Old Kenai Elementary School 705 Frontage Road Kenai, Alaska 99611 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-ENA-CAEC-01 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01  PAGE i OF iii  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01  PAGE ii OF iii  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 KPBSD .................................................................................................. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District kBTU .............................................................................................................. Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01  PAGE iii OF iii  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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 1 OF 32  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 $ 50,198 Natural Gas $ 37,719 Total $ 87,917 Energy Utilization Index: 134.0 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.22 $/sf The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Old Kenai 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 2 OF 32  Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost 1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR 2 Simple Payback (Years) 3 1 Refrigeration: Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $585 $900 7.44 1.5 2 Refrigeration: Kitchen Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $101 $400 4.60 3.9 3 Refrigeration: Other Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $329 $1,300 4.59 4.0 4 Lighting: Misc. Incandescent Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $230 $1,600 1.66 7.0 5 Lighting: Incandescent Exit Signs Replace with 20 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $81 $3,500 1.46 43.3 6 Lighting: Gym Emergency Circuit Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $55 $518 1.33 9.4 7 Lighting: Exterior MH Replace with LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $199 $2,400 1.22 12.0 8 Setback Thermostat: South Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the South Wing space. $762 $11,756 0.84 15.4 9 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $858 $13,461 0.82 15.7 10 HVAC And DHW Replace existing boilers with 92% efficient boilers, estimated at $60,800 for hardware and shipping. Install cost of $62,500. $10,000 for asbestos hazard removal. $213,152 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers @ $4/sq.ft. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). Additional $10,000 for new furnaces in portable units. $14,172 $360,702 0.77 25.5 11 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,002 $26,400 0.72 26.3 12 Lighting: Emergency Circuit 4-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $81 $2,400 0.51 29.6 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 3 OF 32  Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost 1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR 2 Simple Payback (Years) 3 13 Lighting: 4-bulb Classroom Replace with 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $611 $26,240 0.49 43.0 14 Setback Thermostat: West Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the West Wing space. $1,044 $28,068 0.48 26.9 15 Lighting: 6-bulb Office Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $51 $1,340 0.48 26.4 16 Lighting: 2-bulb Restroom Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $343 $11,040 0.46 32.2 17 Lighting: 2-bulb Offices Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $112 $3,680 0.45 32.9 18 Lighting: 4-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $216 $8,800 0.39 40.8 19 Lighting: 2-bulb Classroom/Offices Replace with 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,213 $264,000 0.37 82.2 20 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $903 $49,100 0.36 54.3 21 Lighting: Emergency Circuit 2-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $121 $7,200 0.32 59.5 22 Lighting: 2-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $237 $17,770 0.26 75.1 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 4 OF 32  Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost 1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR 2 Simple Payback (Years) 3 23 Ventilation Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($88,813). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (33 @ $850 = $28,050). $2,420 $116,863 0.25 48.3 24 Window/Skylight: NSFW Single Pane Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $152 $12,947 0.19 85.4 25 Window/Skylight: NSFW 1/4" Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $1,419 $257,450 0.09 181.4 26 Window/Skylight: SFW 1/4" Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $771 $152,276 0.08 197.5 27 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: West Wing Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $51 $15,126 0.08 299.0 28 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: South Wing Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $39 $11,618 0.08 299.5 29 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Gym Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $42 $12,489 0.08 299.6 30 Other Electrical: CRT TVs Replace with 12 LCD TVs $73 $12,000 0.07 164.4 31 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym and South Wing Install R-14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $1,809 $612,245 0.07 338.4 32 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $19 $7,381 0.06 390.7 33 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $3 $1,845 0.04 592.7 TOTAL, all measures $32,103 $2,054,815 0.30 64.0 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 5 OF 32  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 $32,103 per year, or 36.5% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $2,054,815 for an overall simple payback period of 64 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,581 per year, or 1.72% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $10,618, for an overall simple payback period of 6.7 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $33,761 $305 $4,595 $19,943 $8,032 $17,352 $53 $73 $4,010 $88,132 With All Proposed Retrofits $15,846 $231 $1,9463 $11,634 $6,749 $17,269 $53 $73 $2,211 $56,029 SAVINGS $17,922 $75 $2,632 $8,309 $1,283 $83 $0 $0 $1,800 $32,103 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 6 OF 32  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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 7 OF 32  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 39,749 square foot Old Kenai Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, outside portable classroom units, and a gymnasium. This building serves three (3) organizations. The western wing of the building is primarily used as Aurora Borealis Elementary School. Additionally, some of the rooms in the western wing are used by the Boys and Girls Club, which is typically an after-hours operation. Finally the southern portion of the building is used as Kenai Alternative High School. All of these organizations use the gymnasium located in the northeastern corner as needed. 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 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 8 OF 32  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. 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 July 15, 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 9 OF 32  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 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 Kenai/Soldotna 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 10 OF 32  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 in the first 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 11 OF 32  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, Kenai Elem Elementary School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Kenai, 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 Kenai, 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 12 OF 32  The original structure of Old Kenai Elementary School is a single story facility was built in 1949. This building has had several additions made to it, adding more classroom space, offices, a gymnasium, a second floor to the original school, and an expanded entrance on the northern side of the building. Additionally there have been several renovation projects at this school, bringing it to the condition it is in today. The school is typically occupied from 7AM to 5PM during the weekdays with Boys and Girls Club activities happening occasionally in the evenings and weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas. There are an estimated 200 full time student and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for this audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and condition of the walls in the alternative school were verified as a construction project was underway during the site visit. For the remainder of the school, 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 single and double paned wood and metal framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.51 – 0.94 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be weathered and are in poor condition. The exterior walls of the elementary portion of the school are 2- core concrete blocks furred with 2-inches of fiberglass insulation. The gymnasium and alternative school section of the school has walls made of 8-inches of poured concrete with 2-inches of fiberglass on the interior. Wall height varies from 10 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the original school was recently remodeled to be a built-up roof with rigid foam insulation on top of decking. During the site visit, the gymnasium and alternative school sections were in the process of being re-roofed with rigid insulation. The whole school has been brought to an average insulation value of R-38 over the entire roof. Savings from the first re-roofing project can be seen by the drop in the buildings EUI from 2009 to 2010. 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, metal framed and insulated doors that are half- windowed or solid. Some of the exterior doors are half-windowed with single pane glass. Single pane windows have a higher heat loss rate and are recommended to be replaced with double paned windows. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 13 OF 32  Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) very old boilers converted with natural gas-fired burners. These boilers are old, inefficient and great candidates for replacement. The portable classrooms are heated using two (2) natural gas-fired forced air furnaces. The boilers are located in the first floor mechanical room and the furnaces are located in their respective portables. A hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler room and provides heat to the baseboard system and the air handling units. There is no building DDC control system in place and end devices use pneumatic controls. The heating plants used in the building can be described as follows: Boiler 1 Year Installed (coal fired) 1957 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 3,500,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Year Installed (coal fired) 1957 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 3,500,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Furnace 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 75,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % Heat Distribution Type: Forced Air Furnace Operation: Seasonal Furnace 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 75,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % Heat Distribution Type: Forced Air Furnace Operation: Seasonal CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 14 OF 32  Domestic hot water is supplied by an indirect-fired hot water heater storage tank. DHW is circulated around the building and supplies the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the classroom sinks. The hot water heater is located in the first floor mechanical room. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through classroom unit ventilators. There is one (1) Air Handling Unit (AHU) located inside of the building providing ventilation to the gymnasium. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building. There are dedicated window mounted air conditioning units in the south facing classrooms of the elementary school portion of the building and in the two portable classrooms. The ventilation system is controlled by a pneumatic control system. Improved control and operational ability of the heating and ventilation equipment can be achieved by modernizing the pneumatic system to a DDC system to provide energy savings and is evaluated in Section 7.0 of this report. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. Lighting upgrade opportunities provide some of the best investment opportunities in the building. There is an outdated gym lighting system in place which if updated to modern T5HO system can produce more illumination with a third less energy. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building are good candidates for replacement to new Energy-Saver 28W T8 systems. 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 modeling program at 1.0 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 are 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 15 OF 32  The two (2) onsite relocatable classrooms have an area of 960 square feet each and consists of 2x6 wood stud wall construction 16 inches on center with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end walls. The above grade floor rests on sleepers. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-30 fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value. The relocatable classrooms are heated with electric resistance baseboards on the perimeter and a natural gas fired furnace. The electric baseboard temperature set point is controlled by a thermostat on each individual baseboard. This makes it easy for the electric baseboards to be left on at higher temperature than is required which was the typical case found during the audits of these type of portable buildings. There is no temperature set-back capability with the temperature control system in place. The lighting in the portables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-12 light fixtures with magnetic ballasts. Due to the low operation use of the relocatable classroom at Old Kenai Elementary and low run time of the lights (20 hours/week), retrofitting the lights system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors is not cost effective. In the future, this lighting retrofit may be cost effective if the classroom lighting system is utilized more hours during the week. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 16 OF 32  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2008 to June 2010 (Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010). Homer Electric Association provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR under their large 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 17 OF 32  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 fiscal years 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2008-2009 2009-2010 Average Electric 0.17 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh 0.16 $/kWh Natural Gas 0.86 $/CCF 0.93 $/CCF 0.90 $/kWh Total Cost $92,893 $82,940 $87,917 ECI 2.34 $/sf 2.09 $/sf 2.22 $/sf Electric EUI 27.7 kBtu/sf 26.7 kBtu/sf 27.2 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 109.4 kBtu/sf 104.1 kBtu/sf 106.8 kBtu/sf Building EUI 137.1 kBtu/sf 130.8 kBtu/sf 134.0 kBtu/sf Data from the US Energy Information Administration provides information on US Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the US average energy usage for Education building type 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 134.0 kBtu/sf. So the surveyed facility uses 61.5 % more energy than the US average and 18.2 % more energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 18 OF 32  At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough is modeled to pay approximately $90,705 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Old Kenai Elementary School. 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 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 19 OF 32  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 the AkWarm-C 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. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 11820 10772 11820 11439 9146 6720 6944 9461 11439 11820 11439 11820 Refrigeration 4261 3883 4261 4123 4261 4123 4261 4261 4123 4261 4123 4261 Other Electrical 10651 9706 10651 10308 7536 4810 4971 7902 10308 10651 10308 10651 Cooking 28 26 28 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 27 28 Clothes Drying 39 36 39 38 39 38 39 39 38 39 38 39 Ventilation Fans 2127 1939 2127 2059 2127 2059 2127 2127 2059 2127 2059 2127 DHW 82 75 82 79 82 79 82 82 79 82 79 82 Space Heating 819 746 819 793 819 793 819 819 793 819 793 819 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 329 307 350 366 409 460 545 591 448 375 332 330 Space Heating 6073 4708 4205 2895 2319 1513 1156 971 1608 3086 4509 6031 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 20 OF 32  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 321,674 kWh 1,097,874 3.340 3,666,900 Natural Gas 40,966 ccf 4,096,600 1.047 4,289,141 Total 5,194,474 7,956,041 BUILDING AREA 40,187 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 134 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 203 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      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 21 OF 32  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Electrical & Appliance Measures Lighting 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 4 Misc. Incandescent 16 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W Installation Cost $1,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $230 Breakeven Cost $2,648 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 7 Auditors Notes: This EEM includes replacement of all incandescent lamps to compact florescent lamps. The energy usage of an incandescent compared to a compact florescent is approximately 3 to 4 times greater. In addition to the energy savings, compact florescent fixtures burn-hours are 8 to 15 times longer than incandescent fixtures ranging from 6,000 to 15,000 burn-hours compared to incandescent fixtures ranging from 750 to 1,000 burn-hours. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Exterior MH MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with LED 150W Module Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $2,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $199 Breakeven Cost $2,937 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 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. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Exterior HPS 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 50W Module Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $26,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,002 Breakeven Cost $18,938 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 26 Auditors Notes: See EEM #7 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 22 OF 32  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Gym Emergency Circuit FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic Installation Cost $518 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $55 Breakeven Cost $688 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 9 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 40-Watt T12 emergency light in the gymnasium be replaced with 28- Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 2-bulb Restroom 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $11,040 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $343 Breakeven Cost $5,045 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 32 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the restrooms be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Emergency Circuit 4- bulb Hallway Lighting 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic Installation Cost $2,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $81 Breakeven Cost $1,234 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 30 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the hallways be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 21 Emergency Circuit 2- bulb Hallway Lighting 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic Installation Cost $7,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $121 Breakeven Cost $2,289 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 60 Auditors Notes: See EEM #12 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 23 OF 32  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Incandescent Exit Signs 20 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] Replace with 20 LED 4W Module Standard Electronic Installation Cost $3,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $81 Breakeven Cost $5,104 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 43 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of all the existing exit signs throughout the building with energy efficient LED exit signs. LED exit signs have been manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes. There are also retrofit kits that allow for simple modification of existing exit signs to accommodate LED technology. The benefits of LED technology are substantial. LED exit signs will last 20-30 years without maintenance. Additionally LED exit lights only uses 3.8 Watts. In comparison, conventional exit signs use 30 Watts. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 Gym Lights 30 MH 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $49,100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $903 Breakeven Cost $17,775 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 54 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T-5 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 T-5 HO system. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 6-bulb Office 2 FLUOR (3) T12 F40T12 40W U-Tube Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 F32T8 30W U- Tube Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,340 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $51 Breakeven Cost $648 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 26 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 40-Watt T12 lights in the office found in the gymnasium storage room be replaced with 30-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 24 OF 32  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 4-bulb Classroom 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $26,240 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $611 Breakeven Cost $12,798 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 43 Auditors Notes: See EEM #15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 19 2-bulb Classroom/Offices 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $264,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,213 Breakeven Cost $96,843 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 82 Auditors Notes: See EEM #15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 2-bulb Offices 6 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $3,680 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $112 Breakeven Cost $1,654 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 33 Auditors Notes: See EEM #15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 4-bulb Hallway Lighting 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $8,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $216 Breakeven Cost $3,391 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 41 Auditors Notes: See EEM #15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 22 2-bulb Hallway Lighting 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $17,770 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $237 Breakeven Cost $4,703 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 75 Auditors Notes: See EEM #15 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 25 OF 32  Refrigeration Measures Other Electrical Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Other Refrigerators 13 Other Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1,300 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $329 Breakeven Cost $5,970 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: Unplug refrigeration units during summer months that are not in use. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Kitchen Refrigerators 4 Kitchen Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $101 Breakeven Cost $1,838 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: Unplug commercial refers in the kitchen during summer months. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Vending Machines 3 Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $900 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $585 Breakeven Cost $6,697 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 2   Auditors Notes:    There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine.  Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 30 CRT monitors 12 CRT monitors with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED TVs Installation Cost $12,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $73 Breakeven Cost $846 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 164 Auditors Notes: Cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and computer monitors are an older technology that, by today’s standards, will require an excessive amount of energy to operate. It would be beneficial for the older CRT monitors in the building to be replaced with modern LCD or LED monitors, as these technologies have considerably lower power requirements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 26 OF 32  Mechanical Equipment Measures Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Recommendation 10 Replace existing boilers with 92% efficient condensing gas boilers, estimated at $60,800 for hardware and shipping. Install cost of $62,500. $10,000 for asbestos hazard removal. $104,486 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers @ $4/sq.ft. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $500 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $500 = $2,500). Additional $10,000 for new furnaces in portable units. Installation Cost $360,702 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $14,172 Breakeven Cost $279,209 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 25 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm program calculations The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm 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. Replacing the existing boilers with modern, 92% efficient natural gas-fired condensing boilers has been evaluated as one individual EEM. This upgrade is expected to cost $133,300 for new boilers, installation, and asbestos removal that would be required prior to retrofit. This EEM is expected to produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $13,477. B. 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. Assuming 65% of the DDC system cost is attributed to the heating system, this upgrade is expected to cost $104,486 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $588. C. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors 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 motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $2,500 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $107. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 27 OF 32  Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 23 Pneumatic control system. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers @ $4/sq.ft. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($32,150). Assumes $500 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (33 @ $500 = $16,500). Installation Cost $116,863 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,420 Breakeven Cost $29,150 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 48 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 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. This can be done with the variable frequency drives already in place at the school. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. Upgrading to a DDC 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 $32,150 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $2,144. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors 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 $16,500 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $276. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 28 OF 32  Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 8 South Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the South Wing space. Installation Cost $11,756 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $762 Breakeven Cost $9,834 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 15 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. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The workers are likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point. 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 9 Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $13,461 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $858 Breakeven Cost $11,077 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 16 Auditors Notes: See EEM #8 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 14 West Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the West Wing space. Installation Cost $28,068 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,044 Breakeven Cost $13,483 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 27 Auditors Notes: See EEM #8 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 29 OF 32  Building Shell Measures Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 28 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: South Wing Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). Installation Cost $11,618 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $39 Breakeven Cost $902 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 299 Auditors Notes: Addition of rigid insulation to the slab edge of the school will reduce heat loss into the ground around the building. This insulation should cover the exposed slab and project 2-feet into the ground and 2-feet out from the slab edge of the building. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 29 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Gym Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). Installation Cost $12,489 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $42 Breakeven Cost $969 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 300 Auditors Notes: See EEM #28 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 26 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: West Wing Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-10 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). Installation Cost $15,126 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $51 Breakeven Cost $1,176 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 299 Auditors Notes: See EEM #28 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 31 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym and South Wing Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard), 1 inches Top Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard), 1.5 inches Modeled R-Value: 12.8 Install R-14 rigid board insulation. Installation Cost $612,245 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,809 Breakeven Cost $42,068 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 338 Auditors Notes: The roof of the elementary school portion of the building was recently upgraded to incorporate an average insulating R-value of R-38. During the site visit the roof of the gymnasium and alternative school portion of the building was in the process of being upgraded to match the insulating value of the elementary school. This upgrade has been included in this report to show the expected energy savings that can be expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 30 OF 32  Window Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 24 Window: NSFW Single Pane Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $12,947 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $152 Breakeven Cost $2,523 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 85 Auditors Notes: Due to age, the existing windows on the building have become leaky with degraded seals and poor air tightness. These windows are good candidates for replacement although the payback is poor for this EEM. New windows will reduce heat loss and infiltration and provide improved solar heat gain or reflection, depending on the location and glazing applied to the window. Replacing windows may not seem as an energy saving solution with excellent payback when compared to other options such as sensors for lights or boiler upgrades. It is important to keep in mind that new windows will help reduce the amount of unwanted air leaking into the building, which can make certain areas feel cold. Additionally, new windows are expected to require less maintenance and add to the value of the building. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 25 Window/Skylight: NSFW 1/4" Wood Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.56 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $257,450 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,419 Breakeven Cost $23,620 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 181 Auditors Notes: See EEM #24 for similar notes. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 26 Window/Skylight: SFW 1/4" Wood Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.56 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $152,276 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $771 Breakeven Cost $12,834 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 197 Auditors Notes: See EEM #24 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 31 OF 32  Door Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 32 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Door Type: Metal/PU half lite Modeled R-Value: 3.3 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $7,381 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $19 Breakeven Cost $439 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 391 Auditors Notes: As with new windows, new doors will add to the value of the building while reducing unwanted cold spots and possibly eliminating problem areas of high heat loss Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 32 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Door Type: Metal/PU quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 4 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $7,381 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $19 Breakeven Cost $439 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 391 Auditors Notes: See EEM #32 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐01         PAGE 32 OF 32  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  OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A   Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI 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  200 0 0 0       Renovations / Notes Date 1956 1963 1974 1990 1998 Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  Year Built 1949 Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Facility Zip 7,686 Date 03/13/11Municipal  Kenai Elem.Education 39,749 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD 705 Frontage Rd Kenai Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By 99611 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us Details       Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. 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 OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Kenai Elementary Buiding Size Input (sf) =39,749 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)43,505 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)37,895 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)322,320 2009 Electric Cost ($)54,998 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)5,450,578 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)92,893 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 109.4 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)27.7 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)137.1 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.95 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.38 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.34 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)41,374 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)37,542 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)310,680 2010 Electric Cost ($)45,398 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)5,197,735 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)82,940 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)104.1 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)26.7 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)130.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.94 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.14 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.09 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYOLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTKenai ElementaryNatural 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 ($)Marathon Alaska339 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008301,7061,706$1,308$0.77Marathon Alaska339 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008301,7011,701$1,304$0.77Marathon Alaska339 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008291,7841,784$1,365$0.77Marathon Alaska339 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008302,8232,823$2,125$0.75Marathon Alaska339 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008294,0804,080$3,044$0.75Marathon Alaska339 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008304,5474,547$3,385$0.74Marathon Alaska339 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009307,1537,153$6,497$0.91Marathon Alaska339 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009276,0416,041$5,497$0.91Marathon Alaska339 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009305,7065,706$5,195$0.91Marathon Alaska339 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/29/2009293,5413,541$3,613$1.02Marathon Alaska339 May‐09 4/30/2009 6/1/2009332,5182,518$2,587$1.03Marathon Alaska339 Jun‐09 6/2/2009 7/1/2009301,9051,905$1,975$1.04ENSTAR85482 Jul‐09 7/2/2009 8/3/2009331,8011,801$1,871$1.04ENSTAR85482 Aug‐09 8/4/2009 8/31/2009281,6871,687$1,757$1.04ENSTAR85482 Sep‐09 9/1/2009 10/1/2009312,2042,204$2,275$1.03ENSTAR85482 Oct‐09 10/2/2009 11/2/2009323,1493,149$3,223$1.02ENSTAR85482 Nov‐09 11/3/2009 11/30/2009285,0315,031$5,111$1.02ENSTAR85482 Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/30/2009305,1265,126$4,305$0.84ENSTAR85482 Jan‐10 12/31/2009 1/29/2010305,4855,485$4,601$0.84ENSTAR85482 Feb‐10 1/30/2010 3/2/2010324,8734,873$4,095$0.84ENSTAR85482 Mar‐10 3/3/2010 3/29/2010274,0944,094$3,485$0.85ENSTAR85482 Apr‐10 3/30/2010 5/3/2010353,8313,831$3,266$0.85ENSTAR85482 May‐10 5/4/2010 5/28/2010251,9481,948$1,694$0.87ENSTAR85482 Jun‐10 5/29/2010 7/1/2010342,1452,145$1,858$0.87Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:43,50543,5050$37,895$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:41,37441,3740$37,542$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.86Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.93APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYOLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Kenai Elementary ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYOLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTKenai ElementaryElectricityBtus/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 285061 Jul‐08 6/27/2008 7/25/20082817,12058458$2,384$0.14Homer Electric 285061 Aug‐08 7/26/2008 8/28/20083425,44086876$3,470$0.14Homer Electric 285061 Sep‐08 8/29/2008 9/29/20083229,7201,01481$3,999$0.13Homer Electric 285061 Oct‐08 9/30/2008 10/28/20082927,72094684$4,585$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Nov‐08 10/29/2008 11/26/20082930,5601,04399$5,100$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Dec‐08 11/27/2008 12/29/20083330,2001,03191$4,992$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Jan‐09 12/30/2008 1/29/20093131,8401,08792$6,478$0.20Homer Electric 285061 Feb‐09 1/30/2009 2/25/20092728,00095699$5,830$0.21Homer Electric 285061 Mar‐09 2/26/2009 3/31/20093430,1201,02888$6,135$0.20Homer Electric 285061 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/28/20092826,64090988$4,448$0.17Homer Electric 285061 May‐09 4/29/2009 5/28/20093025,84088297$4,402$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Jun‐09 5/29/2009 6/30/20093319,12065361$3,175$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/27/20092715,36052452$2,614$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Aug‐09 7/28/2009 8/27/20093122,36076375$3,800$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Sep‐098/28/2009 9/28/20093229,8401,01883$4,948$0.17Homer Electric 285061 Oct‐09 9/29/2009 10/28/20093029,16099582$4,185$0.14Homer Electric 285061 Nov‐09 10/29/2009 11/30/20093332,1601,098102$4,702$0.15Homer Electric 285061 Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/30/20093027,52093991$4,051$0.15Homer Electric 285061 Jan‐10 12/31/2009 1/28/20102929,3601,00292$3,755$0.13Homer Electric 285061 Feb‐10 1/29/2010 2/22/20102524,76084597$3,308$0.13Homer Electric 285061 Mar‐10 2/23/2010 3/26/20103229,08099390$3,416$0.12Homer Electric 285061 Apr‐10 3/27/2010 4/30/20103534,2401,16990$5,009$0.15Homer Electric 285061 May‐10 5/1/2010 5/27/20102723,04078680$3,515$0.15Homer Electric 285061 Jun‐10 5/28/2010 6/24/20102813,80047146$2,096$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:322,32011,0011,012$54,998$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:310,68010,604981$45,398$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYOLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Kenai Elementary ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B Short AkWarm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 2    APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 2/15/2012 3:59 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Kenai Elementary Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 705 Frontage Road Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring City: Kenai Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna AK, 99669 Client Name: Kevin Lyon Client Address: 47140 East Poppy Lane Soldotna, AK 99669 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 262-2035 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 40,187 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 736,496 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 773,321 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,178,843 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 335 people Design Indoor Temperature: 72.5 deg F (building average) Actual City: Kenai Design Outdoor Temperature: -9.3 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Kenai Heating Degree Days: 11,395 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: $0.895/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $33,767 $305 $4,595 $19,943 $8,032 $17,35 2 $53 $73 $4,010 $0 $88,132 With Proposed Retrofits $15,846 $231 $1,963 $11,634 $6,749 $17,26 9 $53 $73 $2,211 $0 $56,029 SAVINGS $17,922 $75 $2,632 $8,309 $1,283 $83 $0 $0 $1,800 $0 $32,103 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 3    APPENDIX B   $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling 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  Kenai Elementary Page 4    APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $585 $900 7.44 1.5 2 Refrigeration: Kitchen Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $101 $400 4.60 3.9 3 Refrigeration: Other Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $329 $1,300 4.59 4 4 Lighting: Misc. Incandescent Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $230 $1,600 1.66 7 5 Lighting: Incandescent Exit Signs Replace with 20 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $81 $3,500 1.46 43.3 6 Lighting: Gym Emergency Circuit Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $55 $518 1.33 9.4 7 Lighting: Exterior MH Replace with LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $199 $2,400 1.22 12 8 Setback Thermostat: South Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the South Wing space. $762 $11,756 0.84 15.4 9 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $858 $13,461 0.82 15.7 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 5    APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 10 HVAC And DHW Replace existing boilers with 92% efficient boilers, estimated at $60,800 for hardware and shipping. Install cost of $62,500. $10,000 for asbestos hazard removal. $213,152 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers @ $4/sq.ft. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). Additional $10,000 for new furnaces in portable units. $14,172 $360,702 0.77 25.5 11 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,002 $26,400 0.72 26.3 12 Lighting: Emergency Circuit 4-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $81 $2,400 0.51 29.6 13 Lighting: 4-bulb Classroom Replace with 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $611 $26,240 0.49 43 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 6    APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 14 Setback Thermostat: West Wing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the West Wing space. $1,044 $28,068 0.48 26.9 15 Lighting: 6-bulb Office Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 F32T8 30W U- Tube Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $51 $1,340 0.48 26.4 16 Lighting: 2-bulb Restroom Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $343 $11,040 0.46 32.2 17 Lighting: 2-bulb Offices Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $112 $3,680 0.45 32.9 18 Lighting: 4-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $216 $8,800 0.39 40.8 19 Lighting: 2-bulb Classroom/Offices Replace with 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,213 $264,000 0.37 82.2 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 7    APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 20 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $903 $49,100 0.36 54.3 21 Lighting: Emergency Circuit 2-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $121 $7,200 0.32 59.5 22 Lighting: 2-bulb Hallway Lighting Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $237 $17,770 0.26 75.1 23 Ventilation Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($88,813). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (33 @ $850 = $28,050). $2,420 $116,863 0.25 48.3 24 Window/Skylight: NSFW Single Pane Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $152 $12,947 0.19 85.4 25 Window/Skylight: NSFW 1/4" Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $1,419 $257,450 0.09 181.4 26 Window/Skylight: SFW 1/4" Wood Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $771 $152,276 0.08 197.5 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 8    APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 27 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: West Wing Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $51 $15,126 0.08 299 28 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: South Wing Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $39 $11,618 0.08 299.5 29 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Gym Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $42 $12,489 0.08 299.6 30 Other Electrical: CRT TVs Replace with 12 LCD TVs $73 $12,000 0.07 164.4 31 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym and South Wing Install R-14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $1,809 $612,245 0.07 338.4 32 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $19 $7,381 0.06 390.7 33 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $3 $1,845 0.04 592.7 TOTAL $32,103 $2,054,8 15 0.3 64 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  Kenai Elementary Page 9    APPENDIX B   27 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: West Wing Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $15,126 $51 28 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: South Wing Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $11,618 $39 29 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Gym Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install 2' of R-5 rigid board insulation around perimeter of Slab (vertical or horizontal). $12,489 $42 31 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym and South Wing Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard) OLD, 1 inches Top Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard) OLD, 1.5 inches Modeled R-Value: 12.8 Install R-14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $612,245 $1,809 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 32 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane core, half lite Modeled R-Value: 3.3 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $7,381 $19 33 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane core, quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 4 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,845 $3 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 10    APPENDIX B   Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 24 Window/Skylight : NSFW Single Pane Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $12,947 $152 25 Window/Skylight : NSFW 1/4" Wood Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.56 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $257,450 $1,419 26 Window/Skylight : SFW 1/4" Wood Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.56 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $152,276 $771 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 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 11    APPENDIX B   10 Replace existing boilers with 92% efficient boilers, estimated at $60,800 for hardware and shipping. Install cost of $62,500. $10,000 for asbestos hazard removal. $213,152 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers @ $4/sq.ft. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). Additional $10,000 for new furnaces in portable units. $360,702 $14,172 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 8 South Wing Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the South Wing space. $11,756 $762 9 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $13,461 $858 14 West Wing Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the West Wing space. $28,068 $1,044 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 23 Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($88,813). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (33 @ $850 = $28,050). $116,863 $2,420 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Misc. Incandescent 16 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $1,600 $230 5 Incandescent Exit Signs 20 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] Replace with 20 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $3,500 $81 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 12    APPENDIX B   6 Gym Emergency Circuit FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $518 $55 7 Exterior MH MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with LED 150W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,400 $199 11 Exterior HPS 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $26,400 $1,002 12 Emergency Circuit 4-bulb Hallway Lighting 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $2,400 $81 13 4-bulb Classroom 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $26,240 $611 15 6-bulb Office 2 FLUOR (3) T12 F40T12 40W U-Tube Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 F32T8 30W U- Tube Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,340 $51 16 2-bulb Restroom 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $11,040 $343 17 2-bulb Offices 6 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,680 $112 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 13    APPENDIX B   18 4-bulb Hallway Lighting 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $8,800 $216 19 2-bulb Classroom/Office s 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 500 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $264,000 $3,213 20 Gym Lights 15 MH 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $49,100 $903 21 Emergency Circuit 2-bulb Hallway Lighting 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $7,200 $121 22 2-bulb Hallway Lighting 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $17,770 $237 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Vending Machines 3 Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $900 $585 2 Kitchen Refrigerators 4 Kitchen Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $400 $101 3 Other Refrigerators 13 Other Refrigerators Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1,300 $329 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Kenai Elementary Page 14    APPENDIX B   30 CRT TVs 12 CRT TVs with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LCD TVs $12,000 $73 Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.0, Energy Lib 2/2/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINGEERING COMPANYOLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAGLOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT BIRCH FIELD C240GE NAT GAS/CAST IRON 3500 MBH70%350 Wrapped in asbestosB2 BOILER ROOMBUILDING HEAT BIRCH FIELD C240GE NAT GAS/CAST IRON 3500 MBH70%350 Wrapped in asbestosF1 PORTABLE 1BUILDING HEATRHEEMN/AFORCED AIRN/A~70%N/A180Portable 1F2 PORTABLE 2BUILDING HEATRHEEMN/AFORCED AIRN/A~70%N/A180Portable 2CP1 BOILER ROOMBUILDING HEATN/AN/AINLINE PUMPN/A82%0.25 HP100CP3 BOILER ROOMBUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMC5080 INLINE PUMPN/A82%0.25 HP100CP4 BOILER ROOMBUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMS 5080 INLINE PUMPN/A82%0.25 HP100CP5 BOILER ROOMBUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMS 5580 INLINE PUMPN/A82%0.25 HP100HWCP1 BOILER ROOMDHW CIRCN/AN/AINLINE PUMPN/A82%0.25 HP100AHU1 FAN ROOMAIR CIRCULATIONN/AN/AHORIZONTAL 4500 CFM NEMA2 HP200EF1 FAN ROOMEXHAUSTAMERICAN BLOWER245CENTRIFUGAL 2500 CFM NEMA1 HP250EF2 FAN ROOMEXHAUSTGREENHECK BCF109 CENTRIFUGAL 1210 CFM NEMA 0.25 HP2515KEF1KITCHENKITCHEN EXHAUSTAMERICAN BLOWER135CENTRIFUGAL 1400 CFM NEMA 0.25 HP250DisconnectedUH1 OUTSIDE STORAGE BUILDING HEATN/AN/AHORIZONTAL ~300 CFM 100% ~0.25 HP200UH2KITCHENBUILDING HEATKING PICAWATT HORIZONTALN/A100% 500 W to 2250 W 130UH3 GYMNASIUM STORAGE BUILDING HEATMODINE N/AAXIAL300 CFM0.25 HP200UH4 GYMNASIUM STORAGE BUILDING HEATMODINE N/AAXIAL300 CFM0.25 HP200EUH1 KITCHEN WASHROOM BUILDING HEATBERKON/AHORIZONTAL ~200 CFM 100% ~0.13 HP130CUH1 HALLWAYSBUILDING HEAT DUNHAMBUSH N/AHORIZONTAL ~250 CFM ~0.18 HP200CUH2 CLASSROOMSBUILDING HEATMODINEC4UPBLAST270 CFM 0.18 HP2010CUH3 OFFICE/KITCHEN BUILDING HEATN/AN/AHORIZONTAL ~200 CFM~0.13 HP200PC1 (10) CLASSROOMSCHILLED AIRFRIEDRICH XSTAR HORIZONTAL 7,500 Btu/hr 10.7 EER 0.08 HP230COMP1 FAN ROOMAIR COMPRESSION FURNAS N/ACONDENSATEN/A0.75 HP150MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Western Entrance. 2. Windows Typical Of Elementary School . 3. School Portable Buildings. 4. Rear Of School & Generator Outbuilding. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. Typical School Windows Showing Unit Ventilator Intake (A) And Portable Air Conditioner. (B) 6. Northern Entrance Of School Showing Outdoor Light Fixtures And Windows. 7. Back4Up Generator. 8. Example Of Alternative School Window Thickness. B A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Boiler Room Overall. 10. Domestic Hot Water Tank. 11. Boiler 1. 12. Boiler 2. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D DHW Inline Circulator Pump. Pumps 3 & 4, Building Heat Circulator Pumps. 13. Air Conditioning Unit Typically Located In Elementary School Classrooms. 14. Air Handling Unit & Glycol Control Valve Typical. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 15. Exit Sign Typical Throughout School. 16. Portable Building Furnace. 17. Gymnasium Light Fixtures. 18. Unit Heaters Found In Gymnasium Storage Area. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 19. Kitchen Electric Unit Heater. 20. Kitchen Refrigerators. 21. CRT Computer Monitors Found In Alternative School. 22. Building Construction Project, Showing Wall Make4Up And Insulation. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Windows typical of elementary school with expected heat loss. (A) Solid panels that hold air conditioning units allow for higher heat loss as they have minimal insulation. (B) Warm spot on window indicates glass may be aged. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. (A) Lower window of elementary school with expected heat loss. Reflected temperature of surrounding environment can be seen. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. (A) Windows typical of alternative school with expected heat loss. (B) Note heat loss at wall and foundation. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Eastern entrance of school with heat loss shown in windows with exfiltration around edges of door. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Main elementary school entrance doors showing some heat loss around edges of doors. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. Western wall of elementary school. Heat loss differential between (A) unheated portion of wall, (B) newer construction, and (C) older construction. A B C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. Foundation slab at location of intersecting wall types. Higher heat loss on the older wall type. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 8. Western wall of elementary school. (A) Heat loss shown at corners of ceilings of respective floors. A A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. (A) Northeastern corner with uncovered slab edge showing expected heat loss. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 10. One of two portable classroom units on site. (A) Heat loss at apex of roof where building was joined, (B) expected heat loss around door. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 11. Heat loss from building skirt, possibly from inadequate insulation. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 12. (A)Windows typical of portables, heat loss from window frames expected. (B) Abnormal heat loss exhibited around power line penetration, possibly from sloughing or water damage to insulation. A B