Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CIRI-ENA-CAEC KPB Kenai Middle School 2012-EE
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Kenai Middle School 201 N. Tinker Lane Kenai, AK 99611 CAEC Project No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 May 2012 SUBMITTED BY: PRIMARY CONTACT: 22010 SE 51st Street 32266 Lakefront Drive Issaquah, WA 98029 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (425)281‐4706 Fax (425)507‐4350 Phone (907) 260‐5311 Fax (907) 260‐5312 Email: andrew.waymire@siemens.com Email: akengineer@starband.net CONTACT: Andrew Waymire, C.E.M. CONTACT: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. REPORT DISCLAIMER Privacy The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs 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. Limitations of Study This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings, and provide an opinion of the costs to implement the recommendations. This audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. In preparing this report, the preparers acted with the standard of care prevalent in this region for this type of work. All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. Not all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may have been incomplete. This report is not intended to be a final design document. 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 upgrades should undergo a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statutes as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Siemens Industry, Inc (SII) and Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, installation costs, related additional work, or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, many ECMs are interactive, so implementation of one ECM may impact the performance of another ECM. SII and CAEC accept no liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios. The economic analyses for the ECMs relating to lighting improvements are based solely on energy savings. Additional benefits may be realized in reduced maintenance cost, deferred maintenance, and improved lighting quality. The new generation lighting systems have significantly longer life leading to long term labor savings, especially in high areas like Gyms and exterior parking lots. Lighting upgrades displace re-lamping costs for any fixtures whose lamps would otherwise be nearing the end of their lifecycle. This reduces maintenance costs for 3-10 years after the upgrade. An overall improvement in lighting quality, quantified by numerous studies, improves the performance of students and workers in the built environment. New lighting systems can be designed to address all of the above benefits. Table of Contents REPORT DISCLAIMER.....................................................................................................................................2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................5 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................8 3. Kenai Middle School................................................................................................................................11 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES..........................................................................................................20 Appendix A – Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................29 Appendix B – Lighting Inventory.................................................................................................................31 Appendix C – IR Photos...............................................................................................................................32 Appendix D – Utility Data............................................................................................................................33 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 5 of 39 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Kenai Peninsula School District using ARRA funds as part of a contract for: Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Kevin Lyon Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 47140 East Poppy Lane P.O. Box 10120 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone (907) 262‐9657 Phone (907)330‐8141 Email: klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us The scope of the audit focused on Kenai Middle School. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are as follows: $93,643 for Electricity $51,076 for Natural Gas The total energy costs are $144,720 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Kenai Middle School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Lighting: Gym Add new Occupancy Sensor $13,526 $22,571 7.26 1.7 2 Ventilation Demand Ventilation AHU-2, AHU-3 $17,269 $64,285 3.40 3.7 3 Lighting: Parking Replace with 11 200 W Induction $2,653 $15,240 3.35 5.7 4 Lighting: Student Commons Add new Daylight Sensor $192 $1,000 2.34 5.2 5 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 8 120 W Induction $951 $8,425 2.13 8.9 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 6 of 39 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 6 Lighting: Student Commons Add new Daylight Sensor $128 $1,000 1.56 7.8 7 Lighting: Locker Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $582 $6,000 1.18 10.3 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $35,303 $118,521 3.90 3.4 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 8 Lighting: Gym Replace with 52 FLUOR (6) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic $3,179 $44,286 0.87 13.9 9 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching $101 $1,500 0.82 14.9 10 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $56 $1,000 0.69 17.8 11 Lighting: Restrooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $85 $2,500 0.41 29.4 12 Lighting: Hallways Add new Occupancy Sensor $587 $19,000 0.38 32.4 13 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 28 40 W Induction $579 $21,737 0.33 37.5 14 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $9 $500 0.21 56.8 15 HVAC And DHW Hot Water Reset -$13,562 $21,429 -9.88 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $26,337 $230,473 1.33 8.8 Table Notes: 1 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. 2 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 $26,337 per year, or 18.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $230,473, for an overall simple payback period of 8.8 years. If only the cost‐effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $35,303 per year, or 24.4% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $118,521, for an overall simple payback period of 3.4 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 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 7 of 39 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 Refrigera tion Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $64,66 9 $0 $2,727 $60,58 3 $0 $10,458 $0 $0 $3,170 $3,113 $144,720 With All Proposed Retrofits $73,28 8 $0 $2,256 $28,73 2 $0 $10,487 $0 $0 $508 $3,113 $118,382 SAVINGS ‐$8,618 $0 $471 $31,85 1 $0 ‐$29 $0 $0 $2,662 $0 $26,337 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 8 of 39 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Kenai Middle School. The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: • Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) • Lighting systems and controls • Building‐specific equipment • Water consumption, treatment (optional) & disposal The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from Kenai Middle School enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. Kenai Middle School is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Kenai Middle School: 70,000 square feet Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 9 of 39 In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy 2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems 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. Our 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 as projected by the Department of Energy are included. 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 $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 10 of 39 Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re‐ simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re‐ evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. 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 a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 11 of 39 3. Kenai Middle School (Photo from Google Maps) 3.1. Building Description The 70,000 square foot Kenai Middle School was constructed in 1990. The number of hours of operation for this building average 6.8 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. Kenai Middle School is comprised of typical classrooms, offices, computer rooms, gymnasiums, kitchen, as well as specialty classrooms for home economics, art, vocational shops, and music. Description of Building Shell One the first floor, the exterior walls are constructed our of 5/8” gypsum wallboard, vapor barrier, 2” batt insulation, 2x3 studded wall, and an exterior 5” precast panel of exposed aggregate. The second floor exterior wall is comprised of 12” concrete block, vapor barrier, 1.5” rigid insulation, and 2x4 framing. The Roof of the building is constructed steel joists, 1.5” steel deck, vapor barrier, 1” FESCO board, and 1.5” rigid insulation. The Floor/Foundation of the building is constructed concrete slab. Typical windows throughout the building are double paned glass with thermally broken aluminum frames. Doors are metal with interior insulation. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 12 of 39 Description of Heating and Cooling Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Hot Water Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: Two (2) 4,182 MBH boilers that run one at a time Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic HW Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 1,345 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems Hot water from the boilers is distributed to terminal devices by three (3) distribution pumps. Constant volume air is delivered to the academic wing, commons, and gym/music area by three (3) separate dedicated air handling units. Additional reheats, fin tubes and cabinet unit heaters provide additional heat to the building. The building is controlled via a pneumatic control system. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 13 of 39 Domestic Hot Water System Domestic hot water is provided by a stand‐alone 1,345 MBH domestic hot water boiler. Waste Heat Recovery Information No waste heat recovery systems exist. Description of Building Ventilation System Fresh air is brought in through the building’s three AHUs. Exhaust fans also operate in the restrooms, locker rooms and vocational areas. Lighting Lighting is primarily T8 linear fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts and manual switching. The gymnasium uses 400W metal halide lamps and the exterior lighting consists of metal halide lamps of various wattages. Plug Loads The building has standard school‐related plug loads. These consist of items such as computers, printers and fax machines. The home economics class room uses numerous electric appliances and the vocational shop has a high wattage tools that include kilns, welders and table saws. Major Equipment The equipment list, available in Appendix A, is composed of major energy consuming equipment which through energy conservation measures could yield substantial energy savings. The list shows the major equipment in the building and pertinent information utilized in energy savings calculations. 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt‐hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. One KW of electric demand is equivalent to 1,000 watts Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 14 of 39 running at a particular moment. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non‐utility generation charges. 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 propane usage profile shows the propane usage for the building. Propane is sold by the gallon or by the pound, and its energy value is approximately 91,800 BTUs per gallon. The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: Homer Electric Assn (Homer) ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges: Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.1378/kWh Natural Gas $ 0.71/ccf 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, Kenai Peninsula Borough pays approximately $144,720 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Kenai Middle School. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 15 of 39 Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use Figure 3.2 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. Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 Existing Retrofit Natural Gas Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Figure 3.3 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 16 of 39 Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 Floor Wall/Door Window Ceiling Air Existing Retrofit Annual Space Heating Cost by Component The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. 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 42321 38567 42321 40952 32767 24962 25794 33766 40956 42321 40956 42321 Other_Electrical 7886 7187 7886 7632 5017 2569 2655 5355 7632 7886 7632 7886 Ventilation_Fans 1993 1816 1993 1929 1993 1929 1993 1993 1929 1993 1929 1993 DHW 670 610 670 648 670 648 670 670 648 670 648 670 Space_Heating 10416 9492 10416 10080 10416 10080 10416 10416 10080 10416 10080 10416 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 205 187 205 198 205 198 205 205 198 205 198 205 Space_Heating 9706 8031 8100 5880 4629 3148 2356 2162 3147 5680 7487 9477 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 17 of 39 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use 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, 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 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Gas Usage in kBtu + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Table 3.4 Kenai Middle School EUI Calculations Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 679,323 kWh 2,318,530 3.340 7,743,890 Natural Gas 72,216 ccf 7,221,618 1.047 7,561,035 Total 9,540,148 15,304,925 BUILDING AREA 70,000 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 136 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 219 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 18 of 39 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation 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, the Kenai Middle School was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Kenai 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. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Soldotna. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 19 of 39 Figure 3.4 Difference in Weather Data • 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. • The model 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 in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations. Soldotna, AK Weather Data -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5/17/2009 7/6/2009 8/25/2009 10/14/2009 12/3/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010 DateDry Bulb Temperature (F)Actual Dry Bulb (F)TMY3 Dry Bulb (F) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 20 of 39 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C. Table 4.1 Kenai Middle School, Kenai, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Gym Add new Occupancy Sensor $13,526 $22,571 7.26 1.7 2 Ventilation Demand Ventilation AHU-2, AHU-3 $17,269 $64,285 3.40 3.7 3 Lighting: Parking Replace with 11 200 W Induction $2,653 $15,240 3.35 5.7 4 Lighting: Student Commons Add new Daylight Sensor $192 $1,000 2.34 5.2 5 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 8 120 W Induction $951 $8,425 2.13 8.9 6 Lighting: Student Commons Add new Daylight Sensor $128 $1,000 1.56 7.8 7 Lighting: Locker Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $582 $6,000 1.18 10.3 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $35,303 $118,521 3.90 3.4 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 8 Lighting: Gym Replace with 52 FLUOR (6) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic $3,179 $44,286 0.87 13.9 9 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching $101 $1,500 0.82 14.9 10 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $56 $1,000 0.69 17.8 11 Lighting: Restrooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $85 $2,500 0.41 29.4 12 Lighting: Hallways Add new Occupancy Sensor $587 $19,000 0.38 32.4 13 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 28 40 W Induction $579 $21,737 0.33 37.5 14 Lighting: Meeting Rooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $9 $500 0.21 56.8 15 HVAC And DHW Hot Water Reset -$13,562 $21,429 -9.88 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $26,337 $230,473 1.33 8.8 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 21 of 39 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 22 of 39 4.3 Building Shell Measures Staff reported that the first floor exterior walls are either missing or have minimal insulation on the wall sections above the dropped ceiling in certain classrooms and areas. The infrared images that were taken of the school did not show conclusive evidence of significant heat loss. However, upon examining some sections, it did appear that insulation in these areas could be improved. Further investigation would have to take place in order to determine the best solution, but potential options would be to install blown‐in or paneled insulation. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 23 of 39 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Observations – Existing Boiler Operations During low load times (warm winter weather) the boiler cycles on and off often to maintain water supply temperature setpoints. Recommendations Siemens recommends applying hot water reset technology to mitigate energy consumption. The water temperature required to heat a building varies with outdoor temperature. In very cold weather, the heating water temperature needs to be hot. As the outdoor temperature increases, the heating water temperature can be reduced. Most building operators do not manually adjust their temperature controls to maximize system efficiency. Resetting hot water supply temperature to match the anticipated heating load can result in considerable energy savings, increased boiler efficiency, and greater occupant comfort. In order to accomplish this strategy, the pneumatic controls on the boilers would be converted to a more modern DDC system. 4.4.2 Ventilation System Measures Demand Control Ventilation Observation AHU‐2 and AHU‐3 supply air to the gymnasium, music rooms and student commons and have minimum requirements of outside air. This amount of required outside air varies based on occupancy. The more people in the space, the more outside air should be delivered. The occupancy of these spaces varies throughout the day, but the minimum amount of outside air delivered to the space remains constant. Recommendations Siemens recommends using carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors in the return air streams of the air handling units to monitor the percentage of CO2 in the space. Based on that percentage the outside air, return air and exhaust air dampers can be more tightly controlled to supply the space with the proper amount Rank Recommendation 15 Hot Water Reset Installation Cost $21,429 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) ‐$13,562 Breakeven Cost ‐$211,761 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio ‐9.9 Simple Payback yrs 1000 Auditors Notes: Rank Description Recommendation 2 Demand Ventilation AHU‐2, AHU‐3 Installation Cost $64,285 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $17,269 Breakeven Cost $218,504 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback yrs 4 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 24 of 39 of ventilation without conditioning outside air that is not required. This type of control, called demand ventilation, is a newer concept and offers a means of optimizing the amount of ventilation required for a building or space. Energy savings are achieved by limiting the volume of outside air that must be conditioned. Demand control ventilation (DCV) is a control strategy that adjusts the amount of outside air based on the number of occupants and the ventilation needs of those occupants. Not heating or cooling unnecessary quantities of outside air conserves energy. Ventilation is based on the needs of the occupants of the space rather than using a fixed strategy based on design occupancy. DCV modulates ventilation to maintain target cfm‐per‐person ventilation rates based on actual occupancy. CO2 is used as an occupancy indicator to modulate ventilation below the maximum total outdoor air intake rate while maintaining the required ventilation rate per person. DCV avoids excessive over‐ventilation while still maintaining good ventilation and providing required cfm‐per‐person outside air requirements specified by local codes and standards. In order to accomplish this strategy, the pneumatic controls on the boilers would be converted to a more modern DDC system. 4.4.3 Night Setback Thermostat Measures (There were no improvements in this category) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 25 of 39 4.5 Electrical & Appliance Measures 4.5.1 Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also 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. Occupancy Sensors Observations Currently, the lights in the meeting rooms, restrooms and locker rooms are controlled locally by wall switches. These switches allow the teachers, staff and students to turn the light fixtures on and off as required. However, there are times when lights are left on even though the rooms are unoccupied. Recommendations Siemens recommends installing motion/occupancy sensors to turn the lights on and off based on the use of the space. The sensors could be mounted on the ceiling in some areas so that the entire room is sensed. The sensing device would be a dual technology infrared and ultrasonic device. This would sense both noise and motion. The sensors also have time and sensitivity adjustments. Daylight Sensors Observations The student commons have full windows on its east and west side which offer significant natural lighting. However, the lights in the area are left on throughout the day. Recommendations Day lighting controls can be installed using photocells to turn off the lighting controlled when sufficient natural outdoor lighting is present. Furthermore, these systems can be scheduled to leave portions of the area’s lighting on when not enough daylight is available to meet certain light levels. Daylight Sensors Observations Exterior building and parking lot lighting consists of metal halide fixtures of varying wattages. Recommendations It is recommended that the existing exterior metal halide fixtures be replaced with more energy efficient and longer lasting induction lighting fixtures. These systems offer superior light rendering and over 100,000 hours of useful life. This long operational equipment life considerably reduces necessary maintenance and equipment replacement. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 26 of 39 Gymnasium Lighting Observations Gymnasium lighting consists of fifty‐two (52) 400W metal halide lamps. Recommendations It is recommended that metal halide fixtures be replaced with more energy efficient T8 lighting fixtures. These fixtures consume much less energy, offer better light rendering, and offer the ability to turn the lights on and off instantly. Fixtures would be enclosed in a cage to prevent damage from balls and other projectiles. 4.5.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 Meeting Rooms 6 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $9 Breakeven Cost $107 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 57 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Exterior 28 MH 100 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 28 40 W Induction Installation Cost $21,737 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $579 Breakeven Cost $7,112 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 38 Auditors Notes: 40 W Induction $543.43/Fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Hallways 193 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $19,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $587 Breakeven Cost $7,141 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback yrs 32 Auditors Notes: ~6 Fixtures/Sensor ~38 Sensors Needed $500/Sensor Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 27 of 39 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Restrooms 28 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $2,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $85 Breakeven Cost $1,036 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback yrs 29 Auditors Notes: ~5 Sensors Needed $500/sensor Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Meeting Rooms 10 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $56 Breakeven Cost $685 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 18 Auditors Notes: ~2 Sensors Needed $500/sensor Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Meeting Rooms 18 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $101 Breakeven Cost $1,225 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 15 Auditors Notes: ~3 Sensors Rooms Needed $500/Sensor Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Gym 52 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 52 FLUOR (6) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $44,286 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,179 Breakeven Cost $38,622 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 14 Auditors Notes: $596.34/Fix ~$15800 for Retrofit Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Locker Rooms 81 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $582 Breakeven Cost $7,085 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback yrs 10 Auditors Notes: ~12 Sensors Needed $500/sensor Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 28 of 39 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Student Commons 30 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $128 Breakeven Cost $1,558 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: ~$500/fix ~2 fixtures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Exterior 8 MH 250 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 8 120 W Induction Installation Cost $8,425 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)27 Energy Savings (/yr) $951 Breakeven Cost $17,930 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback yrs 9 Auditors Notes: 120W Induction $736.84/Fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Student Commons 36 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $192 Breakeven Cost $2,339 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback yrs 5 Auditors Notes: ~$500/sen ~2 fixtures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Parking 11 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 11 200 W Induction Installation Cost $15,240 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)27 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,653 Breakeven Cost $51,030 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 3.3 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: 200W Induction $969.80/Fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Gym 52 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $22,571 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $13,526 Breakeven Cost $163,921 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 7.3 Simple Payback yrs 2 Auditors Notes: $596.34/Fix ~$15800 for Retrofit Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 29 of 39 Appendix A – Major Equipment List Boilers Tag Make Model Capacity Burner HP Set Point BLR-1 Sellers Boiler C-100-W 4,185.00 5 180 BLR-2 Sellers Boiler C-100-W 4,185.00 5 180 Pumps Tag Serves GPM HP % Eff P1 all 535 20 91.7% P2 all 535 20 91.7% P3 AHU-3 92 2 standard P4 n/a P5 n/a P6 n/a P7 DHW Circ 0.3 P8 DHW Ret 0.1 AHUs Tag Serves CFM HP Eff VAV/CV S,R,E Notes None Boiler Room n/a 1 0.87 CV S Boiler Room cooling. Cycles on t-stat AH-1 Academic 27,625 15 CV S CF-1 Academic 24,865 3 CV R AH-2 Commons 13,865 5 CV S CF-2 Commons 12,480 3 CV R AH-3 Gym/Music 20,000 10 CV S served by P3 CF-3 Gym/Music 17,700 3 CV R Exhaust Fans Tag Serves CFM HP EF-1 Office Academic 1,100 0.2 EF-2 Toilet Academic 1,235 0.25 EF-3 Men's Locker Room 2,000 0.5 EF-4 Women’s Locker Room 2,000 0.5 EF-6 Toilet 1,200 0.25 EF-8 Toilet 1,200 0.2 EF-7 Voc Stor 250 0.05 Vocational Section Exhaust Fans Tag CFM HP Note EF-1 1,800 0.25 Manual operation when equipment in use EF-2 665 0.175 Manual operation when equipment in use EF-3 260 0.175 Manual operation when equipment in use Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 30 of 39 Reheats Tag CFM MBH GOM Qty A 240 11,664 1.17 5 B 365 17,734 1.77 6 C 500 24,300 2.45 7 D 1,000 48,500 4.86 8 E 1,500 72,400 7.28 9 F 2,400 116,640 11.66 10 Cabinet Unit Heaters Tag CFM BTH HP GPM 1 300 13,340 0.20 1.3 2 300 13,340 0.20 1.3 3 600 32,944 0.24 3.2 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 31 of 39 Appendix B – Lighting Inventory 100W HPS 1x4x1 T8 1x4x2 T8 250 W MH 2x2x2U T8 2x4x3 T8 2x4x4 T8 400W MH Grand Total Classrooms 5 72 505 582 Exterior 28 8 11 47 Gym Area 52 52 Hallways 229 30 259 Kitchen 9 10 2 21 Library 54 18 72 Meeting Rooms 6 18 10 34 Offices 2 9 28 29 68 Restrooms 81 28 109 Storage 65 27 92 Weight Room 60 60 Grand Total 28 13 350 8 257 588 89 63 1396 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 32 of 39 Appendix C – IR Photos Heat loss is highest along windows, doors and wall edges. There are several sports around the ceilings as well. Heat loss around ceilings and wall edges Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 33 of 39 Appendix D – Utility Data First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Kevin Lyon 907‐262‐9657 State Zip AK 99669 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 8 to 50 0 0 Average # of Occupants During 450 0 0 0 Renovations / Notes Date None Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Primary Operating Hours Contact Person City Soldotna47140 East Poppy Lane Mailing Address Email klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Details 201 N. Tinker Lane Kenai 99611 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. Facility Owned By Date 03/13/11Municipal Facility Zip 7,686 1972 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Kenai Middle Education 70,000 Year Built Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 34 of 39 Kenai Middle Buiding Size Input (sf) =70,000 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)67,593 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)58,158 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)655,200 2009 Electric Cost ($)113,915 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)8,995,498 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)172,073 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 96.6 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)31.9 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)128.5 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.83 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.63 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.46 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 35 of 39 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)66,148 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)59,771 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)652,320 2010 Electric Cost ($)97,215 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)8,841,168 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)156,986 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)94.5 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)31.8 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)126.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.85 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.39 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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 ($/sf) 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.24 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 36 of 39 Kenai MiddleNatural 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 ($)ENSTAR88144 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008 30 3,152 3,152 $2,365 $0.75ENSTAR88144 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008 30 3,121 3,121 $2,343 $0.75ENSTAR88144 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008 29 3,604 3,604 $2,696 $0.75ENSTAR88144 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008 30 4,905 4,905 $3,647 $0.74ENSTAR88144 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008 29 6,511 6,511 $4,821 $0.74ENSTAR88144 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008 30 6,920 6,920 $5,120 $0.74ENSTAR88144 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009 30 9,651 9,651 $8,745 $0.91ENSTAR88144 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009 27 8,843 8,843 $8,018 $0.91ENSTAR88144 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009 30 7,674 7,674 $6,966 $0.91ENSTAR88144 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/2009 29 5,651 5,651 $5,728 $1.01ENSTAR88144 May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/2009 33 4,428 4,428 $4,502 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/2009 30 3,133 3,133 $3,207 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 8/2/2009 33 3,145 3,145 $3,219 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Aug‐09 8/3/2009 8/30/2009 28 3,192 3,192 $3,266 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Sep‐09 8/31/2009 9/30/2009 31 4,252 4,252 $4,329 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Oct‐09 10/1/2009 11/1/2009 32 5,299 5,299 $5,380 $1.02ENSTAR88144 Nov‐09 11/2/2009 11/29/2009 28 7,505 7,505 $7,592 $1.01ENSTAR88144 Dec‐09 11/30/2009 12/29/2009 30 7,142 7,142 $5,973 $0.84ENSTAR88144 Jan‐10 12/30/2009 1/28/2010 30 7,989 7,989 $6,673 $0.84ENSTAR88144 Feb‐10 1/29/2010 3/1/2010 32 7,686 7,686 $6,422 $0.84ENSTAR88144 Mar‐10 3/2/2010 3/28/2010 27 6,120 6,120 $5,177 $0.85ENSTAR88144 Apr‐10 3/29/2010 5/2/2010 35 6,391 6,391 $5,404 $0.85ENSTAR88144 May‐10 5/3/2010 5/27/2010 25 3,607 3,607 $3,079 $0.85ENSTAR88144 Jun‐10 5/28/2010 7/1/2010 34 3,820 3,820 $3,257 $0.85Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:67,593 67,593 0$58,158 $0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:66,148 66,148 0$59,771 $0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.85Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.92 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 37 of 39 Kenai Middle ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000Jul‐08Aug‐08Sep‐08Oct‐08Nov‐08Dec‐08Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000$10,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 38 of 39 Kenai MiddleElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)Homer Electric 285039 Jul‐08 6/27/20008 7/27/2008 31 29,280 999 92 $4,026 $0.14Homer Electric 285039 Aug‐08 7/28/2008 8/28/2008 32 46,880 1,600 182 $6,696 $0.14Homer Electric 285039 Sep‐08 8/29/2008 9/28/2008 31 61,600 2,102 200 $8,517 $0.14Homer Electric 285039 Oct‐08 9/29/2008 10/28/2008 30 62,880 2,146 205 $10,508 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Nov‐08 10/29/2008 11/25/2008 28 61,760 2,108 218 $10,442 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Dec‐08 11/26/2008 12/28/2008 33 62,240 2,124 207 $10,431 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jan‐09 12/29/2008 1/29/2009 32 66,400 2,266 214 $13,676 $0.21Homer Electric 285039 Feb‐09 1/30/2009 2/26/2009 28 63,520 2,168 221 $13,196 $0.21Homer Electric 285039 Mar‐09 2/27/2009 3/30/2009 32 58,560 1,999 208 $12,200 $0.21Homer Electric 285039 Apr‐09 3/31/2009 4/27/2009 28 56,800 1,939 209 $9,646 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 May‐09 4/28/2009 5/27/2009 30 53,920 1,840 196 $9,140 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jun‐09 5/28/2009 6/30/2009 33 31,360 1,070 132 $5,437 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/27/2009 27 24,320 830 86 $4,163 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Aug‐09 7/28/2009 8/27/2009 31 42,240 1,442 192 $7,532 $0.18Homer Electric 285039 Sep‐09 8/28/2009 9/27/2009 31 62,560 2,135 202 $10,568 $0.17Homer Electric 285039 Oct‐09 9/28/2009 10/28/2009 31 66,720 2,277 217 $9,788 $0.15Homer Electric 285039 Nov‐09 10/29/2009 11/29/2009 32 66,880 2,283 220 $9,827 $0.15Homer Electric 285039 Dec‐09 11/30/2009 12/29/2009 30 58,720 2,004 214 $8,777 $0.15Homer Electric 285039 Jan‐10 12/30/2009 1/28/2010 30 63,200 2,157 218 $8,230 $0.13Homer Electric 285039 Feb‐10 1/29/2010 2/22/2010 25 54,080 1,846 204 $7,165 $0.13Homer Electric 285039 Mar‐10 2/23/2010 3/29/2010 35 66,560 2,272 202 $8,472 $0.13Homer Electric 285039 Apr‐10 3/30/2010 4/29/2010 31 67,680 2,310 205 $10,104 $0.15Homer Electric 285039 May‐10 4/30/2010 5/23/2010 24 45,120 1,540 213 $7,319 $0.16Homer Electric 285039 Jun‐10 5/24/2010 6/24/2010 31 34,240 1,169 124 $5,270 $0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:655,200 22,362 2,285 $113,915 $0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:652,320 22,264 2,297 $97,215 $0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Middle School Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐11 Page 39 of 39 Kenai Middle ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000Jul‐08Aug‐08Sep‐08Oct‐08Nov‐08Dec‐08Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)