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 Kenai Airport 2012-EE
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT (Photo From Google Maps) City of Kenai – Airport 305 North Willow Kenai, Alaska 99611 CAEC Project No. CIRI-ENA-CAEC-04 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 Airport Terminal............................................................................................................................11 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES..........................................................................................................21 Appendix A – Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................29 Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory......................................................................................................30 Appendix C – REAL Utility Data...................................................................................................................31 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 5 of 37 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City of Kenai using ARRA funds as part of a contract for: City of Kenai Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rick R. Koch Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 210 Fidalgo Avenue P.O. Box 10120 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone (907) 283‐8222 Phone (907)330‐8141 Email: rkoch@ci.kenai.ak.us Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us The scope of the audit focused on Kenai Airport Terminal. 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: $93,650 for Electricity $35,532 for Natural Gas The total energy costs are $129,182 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Kenai Airport Terminal. 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: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $57 $255 1.41 4.5 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $57 $255 1.41 4.5 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 2 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $120 $764 0.99 6.4 3 HVAC And DHW Condensing Gas Boilers, Hydronic Flush $7,438 $134,198 0.88 18.0 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 6 of 37 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 4 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 10 LED (4) 17W Module StdElectronic $704 $5,090 0.88 7.2 5 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $71 $764 0.59 10.8 6 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 26 LED 150W Module StdElectronic $2,751 $30,540 0.57 11.1 7 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $57 $1,018 0.36 17.8 8 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 17 LED 17W Module StdElectronic $443 $8,653 0.32 19.5 9 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 22 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $356 $7,839 0.29 22.0 10 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic $97 $2,138 0.29 22.0 11 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $76 $1,782 0.27 23.5 12 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 19 LED 60W Module StdElectronic $976 $30,540 0.20 31.3 13 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 5 LED 72W Module StdElectronic $180 $6,108 0.19 33.9 14 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 38 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $308 $13,539 0.14 44.0 15 Setback Thermostat: Airport Terminal Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Airport Terminal space. $1,302 $129,943 0.13 99.8 16 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 31 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $126 $11,045 0.07 88.0 17 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 507 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $2,048 $180,644 0.07 88.2 TOTAL, all measures $17,111 $564,858 0.33 33.0 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 7 of 37 With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $17,111 per year, or 13.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $564,858, for an overall simple payback period of 33.0 years. If only the cost‐effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $57 per year, or 0.0% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $255, for an overall simple payback period of 4.5 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 Refrigera tion Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $65,05 6 $2,628 $570 $39,73 8 $0 $14,342 $0 $0 $3,734 $3,113 $129,182 With All Proposed Retrofits $62,11 9 $2,277 $316 $25,72 8 $0 $14,691 $0 $0 $3,826 $3,113 $112,070 SAVINGS $2,936 $351 $255 $14,01 0 $0 ‐$350 $0 $0 ‐$91 $0 $17,111 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 8 of 37 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Kenai Airport Terminal. 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 Airport Terminal 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 Airport Terminal is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Airport Terminal: 26,092 square feet 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 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 9 of 37 • 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. 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‐ Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 10 of 37 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 Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 11 of 37 3. Kenai Airport Terminal (Photo From Google Maps) 3.1. Building Description The 26,092 square foot Kenai Airport Terminal was constructed in 1968, with a normal occupancy of 200 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average 21 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. Description of Heating and Cooling Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Burnham, Power Flame Burner Nameplate Information: Burnham Corporation Boiler MN Vg06A SN 64567862 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 1,009,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 65 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Electric Ceiling Heater Fuel Type: Electricity Input Rating: 0 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 90 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Gas Firing for H&V Unit Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 850,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 12 of 37 Electric Heating for DHW Heaters Fuel Type: Electricity Input Rating: 0 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 90 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year RTU Gas heating #1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 130,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air RTU Gas heating #2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 125,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air RTU Gas Heating #3 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 125,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air RTU Gas Heating #4 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 130,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air RTU Gas Heating #5 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 125,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 75 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 13 of 37 The Cooling Plants used in the building are: RTU DX Coil 1 Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.40 RTU DX Coil 2 Cooling Capacity: 3.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.40 RTU DX Coil 3 Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.40 RTU DX Coil 4 Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.40 RTU DX Coil 5 Cooling Capacity: 2.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.40 Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems Hot water from the boiler is circulated to unit heaters and convectors. The five roof top units and the Heating and Ventilation unit each have their own heating units. There is also an electric ceiling heater. For cooling, roof top units utilize DX cooling coils. Domestic Hot Water System Domestic water is created by the main heating boilers via a heat exchanger located in the domestic water tank. A dedicated fractional horsepower circulating pump moves water from the primary heating loop into the domestic water heat exchanger. Description of Building Ventilation System The existing building ventilation system consists of a heating and ventilation unit as well as five roof top units. Each rooftop unit has a heating unit and DX cooling coil. Four exhaust fans serve the building. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 14 of 37 Lighting Most of the interior lighting is provided by 4foot 32W T8 fixtures. A variety of incandescent bulbs can be replaced by compact fluorescents. Exterior lighting consists of metal halide and high pressure sodium fixtures. These present good retrofit opportunities. 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 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 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 15 of 37 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 $ 0.1440/kWh Natural Gas $ 0.71/ccf 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, the city of Kenai pays approximately $128,276 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Kenai Airport Terminal. 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. 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 16 of 37 Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type 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. 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 17 of 37 Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 31527 26790 22943 22203 22943 22203 22943 22943 22203 22943 22203 22943 Other_Electrical 8736 7961 8736 8454 8736 8454 8736 8736 8454 8736 8454 8736 Ventilation_Fans 2567 2057 2246 2173 2246 2173 2246 2246 2173 2246 2173 2246 DHW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space_Heating 25784 21434 22996 19764 18313 15036 14029 13607 16214 20235 22076 24978 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 0 32 2677 4265 9399 1287 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 52 48 53 52 55 55 58 58 54 54 51 52 Space_Heating 7519 5718 5987 4425 3418 2287 1783 1877 2703 4470 5696 7076 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 18 of 37 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 Airport Terminal 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 666,634 kWh 2,275,223 3.340 7,599,246 Natural Gas 53,601 ccf 5,360,119 1.047 5,612,045 Total 7,635,342 13,211,291 BUILDING AREA 26,092 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 293 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 506 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 Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 19 of 37 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 Airport Terminal 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 C. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Kenai. 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 Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 20 of 37 Figure 3.4 Difference in Weather Data Kenai, AK Weather Data -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 8/25/2009 10/14/2009 12/3/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010 9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011 DateDry Bulb Temperature (F)Actual Dry Bulb (F)TMY3 Dry Bulb (F) • 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 21 of 37 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 Airport Terminal, 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: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $57 $255 1.41 4.5 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $57 $255 1.41 4.5 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 2 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $120 $764 0.99 6.4 3 HVAC And DHW Condensing Gas Boilers, Hydronic Flush $7,438 $134,198 0.88 18.0 4 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 10 LED (4) 17W Module StdElectronic $704 $5,090 0.88 7.2 5 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $71 $764 0.59 10.8 6 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 26 LED 150W Module StdElectronic $2,751 $30,540 0.57 11.1 7 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $57 $1,018 0.36 17.8 8 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 17 LED 17W Module StdElectronic $443 $8,653 0.32 19.5 9 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 22 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $356 $7,839 0.29 22.0 10 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic $97 $2,138 0.29 22.0 11 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $76 $1,782 0.27 23.5 12 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 19 LED 60W Module StdElectronic $976 $30,540 0.20 31.3 13 Lighting: Exterior fixtures Replace with 5 LED 72W Module StdElectronic $180 $6,108 0.19 33.9 14 Lighting: Offices, luggage Replace with 38 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $308 $13,539 0.14 44.0 15 Setback Thermostat: Airport Terminal Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Airport Terminal space. $1,302 $129,943 0.13 99.8 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 22 of 37 Table 4.1 Kenai Airport Terminal, Kenai, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 16 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 31 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $126 $11,045 0.07 88.0 17 Lighting: Main terminal lobby Replace with 507 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $2,048 $180,644 0.07 88.2 TOTAL, all measures $17,111 $564,858 0.33 33.0 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 Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 23 of 37 4.3 Building Shell Measures No building shell improvements are recommended at this time. Primarily Envelope Measures such as windows, doors, weather stripping, and insulation are only considered cost effective if there is a visible deficiency which is noted during the audit. However it is recommended that any time the facility replaces doors or windows that it uses a replacement with a high efficiency rating. Also when renovating or constructing additions to the facility a energy cost analysis should be taken when determining if a material with a greater R‐value should be used instead of that of the code requirements. 4.3.1 Insulation Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.3.2 Window Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.3.3 Door Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.3.4 Air Sealing Measures (There were no improvements in this category) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 24 of 37 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure The existing Burnham boiler is fully operational but operates at a low efficiency. It is recommended that it be replaced with new high efficiency condensing gas boilers. Rank Recommendation 3 Condensing Gas Boilers, Hydronic Flush Installation Cost $134,198 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) $8,047 Breakeven Cost $128,335 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 17 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 25 of 37 4.4.3 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Setting back the zone temperature to 62degF during unoccupied hours will provide generous heating savings. 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. 4.5.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Building Space Recommendation 15 Airport Terminal Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Airport Terminal space. Installation Cost $129,943 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,417 Breakeven Cost $17,786 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 92 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Main terminal lobby 507 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 507 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $180,644 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,039 Breakeven Cost $12,941 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 89 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 Main terminal lobby 31 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 31 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $11,045 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $125 Breakeven Cost $793 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 88 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 26 of 37 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 Offices, luggage 38 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 38 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $13,539 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $306 Breakeven Cost $1,944 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 44 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Exterior fixtures 5 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 LED 72W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $6,108 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $180 Breakeven Cost $1,140 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 34 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Exterior fixtures 19 MH 175 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 19 LED 60W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $30,540 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $975 Breakeven Cost $6,182 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 31 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Main terminal lobby 5 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $1,782 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $75 Breakeven Cost $479 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 24 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Offices, luggage 22 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 22 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $7,839 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $356 Breakeven Cost $2,257 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 22 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 27 of 37 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Offices, luggage 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,138 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $97 Breakeven Cost $616 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 22 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Main terminal lobby 17 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 17 LED 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $8,653 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $443 Breakeven Cost $2,809 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 20 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Main terminal lobby 2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $1,018 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $57 Breakeven Cost $362 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback yrs 18 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Exterior fixtures 26 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 26 LED 150W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $30,540 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,734 Breakeven Cost $17,328 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 11 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Main terminal lobby 2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $764 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $70 Breakeven Cost $446 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 11 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 28 of 37 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Main terminal lobby 10 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 10 LED (4) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $5,090 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $698 Breakeven Cost $4,427 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 7 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Main terminal lobby 2 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $764 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $118 Breakeven Cost $746 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Main terminal lobby 2 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $255 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $56 Breakeven Cost $354 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 5 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 29 of 37 Appendix A – Major Equipment List MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYTag Location Function Make Model Type Capacity (input) EfficiencyMotorAshrae Service LifeEstimated Remaining Life NotesBoiler 1 Mech Room Bldg Heat Burnham Vg06ANat Gas Hot water 1,009,000 BTUH 65% est n/a 20Unit Heater 1 Bldg Heat Trane 186-S Hot Water 103 MBH 80% est .25 hp 20Unit Heater 2 Bldg Heat Trane 126-S Hot Water 70 MBH 80% est .25 hp 20Ceiling Heater Bldg Heat Chromalox CHX-144 Elec 660Watt 85% est 660Watt 20Circulating Pump Mech Room Bldg Heat Grundfos UMS 5080 Centrifugal 25gpm 80% est .5 hp 20Cabinet Unit Heater 1 Bldg Heat B-Morris K-82 Hot Water 8 MBH 80% est .25 hp 20Cabinet Unit Heater 2 Bldg Heat Trane EX46A004 Hot Water 31 MBH 80% est .25 hp 20Convector Bldg Heat Vulcan FSI 212 Hot Water 750 BTU-FT 80% est 20H&V Unit Roof Heat/Ventilation Mammoth 261 MZ axial 12000cfm 95% est 7.5 hp 20RTU 1 Roof HVAC Trane axial 85% est .5 hp 20RTU 2 Roof HVAC Trane axial 85% est .5 hp 20RTU 3 Roof HVAC Modine axial 85% est .5 hp 20RTU 4 Roof HVAC Modine axial 85% est .5 hp 20RTU 5 Roof HVAC Octagon axial 85% est .5 hp 20Exh Fan 1 Roof Ventilation Mammoth 261 In line 6000cfm 85% est 1.5hp 15-20Exh Fan 2 Roof Ventilation Penn LB24 In line 3950cfm 85% est .75hp 15-20Exh Fan 3 Roof Ventilation Penn Z-8 In line 145cfm 85% est 100Watt 15-20Exh Fan 4 Roof Ventilation Penn Z-10 In line 245cfm 85% est .25hp 15-20 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 30 of 37 Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory LIGHTING INVENTORYLocation T8 32W Incan 60W T12 40W MH 175W HPS 150W HPS 400W TotalOffices, Luggage6666Main Terminal Lobby538 19 25 582Exterior19 5 26 50Grand Total604 19 25 19 5 26698 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 31 of 37 Appendix C – REAL Utility Data First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Rick Koch State Zip AK 99611 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 24‐724‐724‐724‐7 Average # of Occupants During 75 75 75 75 Renovations Date 1983 1989 PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton xx Other energy sources? City of Kenai Municipal 03/07/11 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Kenai Airport Terminal Public Order and Safety 26,092 Facility Address Year Built Mixed Facility City Facility Zip 7,200 1968 Building Type Community Population 305 N. Willow Kenai 99611 210 Fidalgo Ave Kenai Contact Person Email Mailing Address City 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two ‐year period for each energy source you use. None Details Unknown 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. Unknown Primary Operating Hours Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 32 of 37 Kenai Airport Terminal Buiding Size Input (sf) =26,092 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)50,254 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)50,012 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)709,320 2009 Electric Cost ($)120,264 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)7,446,309 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)170,276 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 192.6 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)92.8 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)285.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)1.92 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)4.61 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)6.53 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Airport Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 33 of 37 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)50,139 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)44,227 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)712,440 2010 Electric Cost ($)97,287 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)7,445,458 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)141,514 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)192.2 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)93.2 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)285.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)1.70 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)3.73 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)5.42 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Siemens Industry, Inc. Energy Audit Draft Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 34 of 37 Kenai Airport TerminalNatural 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 ($)Enstar NGC77319 Nov‐08 11/6/2008 12/4/2008 28 6017 6,017 $4,964 $0.82Enstar NGC77319 Dec‐08 12/5/2008 1/5/2009 30 7076 7,076 $7,156 $1.01Enstar NGC77319 Jan‐09 1/6/2009 2/5/2009 29 6874 6,874 $6,954 $1.01Enstar NGC77319 Feb‐09 2/6/2009 3/5/2009 29 8173 8,173 $8,255 $1.01Enstar NGC77319 Mar‐09 3/6/2009 4/2/2009 26 6640 6,640 $6,719 $1.01Enstar NGC77319 Apr‐09 4/3/2009 5/7/2009 34 3624 3,624 $3,696 $1.02Enstar NGC77319 May‐09 5/8/2009 6/11/2009 33 2367 2,367 $2,436 $1.03Enstar NGC77319 Jun‐09 6/12/2009 7/6/2009 24 1697 1,697 $1,766 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Jul‐09 7/7/2009 8/6/2009 29 1600 1,600 $1,669 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Aug‐09 8/7/2009 9/4/2009 27 1409 1,409 $1,477 $1.05Enstar NGC77319 Sep‐09 9/5/2009 10/8/2009 33 1953 1,953 $2,023 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Oct‐09 10/9/2009 11/5/2009 26 2824 2,824 $2,897 $1.03Enstar NGC77319 Nov‐09 11/6/2009 12/3/2009 27 6471 6,471 $6,555 $1.01Enstar NGC77319 Dec‐09 12/4/2009 1/7/2010 33 7137 1,852 $5,968 $0.84Enstar NGC77319 Jan‐10 1/8/2010 2/4/2010 26 7641 7,641 $6,385 $0.84Enstar NGC77319 Feb‐10 2/5/2010 3/4/2010 29 6996 6,996 $5,852 $0.84Enstar NGC77319 Mar‐10 3/5/2010 4/8/2010 33 5395 5,395 $4,572 $0.85Enstar NGC77319 Apr‐10 4/9/2010 5/6/2010 27 4679 4,679 $3,974 $0.85Enstar NGC77319 May‐10 5/7/2010 6/3/2010 26 1791 1,791 $1,563 $0.87Enstar NGC77319 Jun‐10 6/4/2010 7/8/2010 34 1668 1,668 $1,460 $0.88Enstar NGC77319 Jul‐10 7/9/2010 8/5/2010 26 1619 1,619 $1,420 $0.88Enstar NGC77319 Aug‐10 8/6/2010 9/2/2010 26 1283 1,283 $1,388 $1.08Enstar NGC77319 Sep‐10 9/3/2010 10/7/2010 34 1783 1,783 $1,788 $1.00Enstar NGC77319 Oct‐10 10/8/2010 11/4/2010 26 3676 3,676 $3,302 $0.90Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:50,254 50,254 0$50,012 $0.00Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:50,139 44,854 0$44,227 $0.00$1.03$0.90Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. Energy Audit Draft Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 35 of 37 Kenai Airport Terminal ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000Nov‐08Dec‐08Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($) Siemens Industry, Inc. Energy Audit Draft Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 36 of 37 Kenai Airport TerminalElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)HEA 2002759 Nov‐08 10/17/2008 11/19/2008 32 64,680 2,208 $10,244 $0.16HEA 2002759 Dec‐08 11/19/2008 12/18/2008 29 58,080 1,982 $9,304 $0.16HEA 2002759 Jan‐09 12/18/2008 1/21/2009 33 72,840 2,486 $14,323 $0.20HEA 2002759 Feb‐09 1/21/2009 2/20/2009 29 65,640 2,240 $13,053 $0.20HEA 2002759 Mar‐09 2/20/2009 3/20/2009 30 58,920 2,011 $11,814 $0.20HEA 2002759 Apr‐09 3/20/2009 4/20/2009 30 60,600 2,068 $9,654 $0.16HEA 2002759 May‐09 4/20/2009 5/20/2009 30 54,000 1,843 $8,698 $0.16HEA 2002759 Jun‐09 5/20/2009 6/19/2009 29 51,840 1,769 $8,287 $0.16HEA 2002759 Jul‐09 6/19/2009 7/21/2009 32 56,280 1,921 $9,140 $0.16HEA 2002759 Aug‐09 7/21/2009 8/19/2009 28 51,480 1,757 $8,403 $0.16HEA 2002759 Sep‐09 8/19/2009 9/18/2009 29 53,880 1,839 $8,792 $0.16HEA 2002759 Oct‐09 9/18/2009 10/20/2009 32 61,080 2,085 $8,552 $0.14HEA 2002759 Nov‐09 10/20/2009 11/18/2009 28 60,720 2,072 $8,493 $0.14HEA 2002759 Dec‐09 11/18/2009 12/18/2009 30 68,040 2,322 $9,484 $0.14HEA 2002759 Jan‐10 12/18/2009 1/20/2010 32 72,780 2,484 $8,643 $0.12HEA 2002759 Feb‐10 1/20/2010 2/19/2010 29 61,740 2,107 $7,500 $0.12HEA 2002759 Mar‐10 2/19/2010 3/19/2010 30 58,740 2,005 $7,226 $0.12HEA 2002759 Apr‐10 3/19/2010 4/19/2010 30 57,360 1,958 $8,225 $0.14HEA 2002759 May‐10 4/19/2010 5/19/2010 30 52,980 1,808 $7,646 $0.14HEA 2002759 Jun‐10 5/19/2010 6/16/2010 27 47,580 1,624 $6,884 $0.14HEA 2002759 Jul‐10 6/16/2010 7/20/2010 34 57,960 1,978 $8,306 $0.14HEA 2002759 Aug‐10 7/20/2010 8/20/2010 30 56,760 1,937 $8,191 $0.14HEA 2002759 Sep‐10 8/20/2010 9/20/2010 30 59,160 2,019 $8,635 $0.15HEA 2002759 Oct‐10 9/20/2010 10/20/2010 30 58,620 2,001 $8,054 $0.14Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:709,320 24,209 0.00 $120,264 $0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:712,440 24,316 0.00 $97,287 $0$0.17$0.14Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. Energy Audit Draft Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐04 Page 37 of 37 Kenai Airport Terminal ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000Nov‐08Dec‐08Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Nov‐10Dec‐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 ($)