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 Recreation Center 2012-EE
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT City of Kenai – Recreation Center 227 Caviar St. Kenai, Alaska 99611 CAEC Project No. CIRI-ENA-CAEC-07 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. Recreation Center...................................................................................................................................11 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES..........................................................................................................21 Appendix A – Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................26 Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory......................................................................................................27 Appendix C – REAL Utility Data...................................................................................................................28 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 5 of 34 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 Recreation Center. 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: $23,598 for Electricity $10,321 for Natural Gas The total energy costs are $33,919 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Recreation Center. 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: Teen Center, Gym Lobby Replace with 5 FLUOR (3) CFL, A Lamp 15W $251 $468 3.41 1.9 2 Lighting: Teen Center Replace with 28 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $542 $2,619 1.31 4.8 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $793 $3,087 1.63 3.9 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 3 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 13 LED 72W Module StdElectronic $1,690 $12,163 0.89 7.2 4 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 4 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $307 $2,807 0.70 9.1 5 Ventilation Demand Control ventilation $3,628 $85,000 0.54 23.4 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 6 of 34 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 Setback Thermostat: Recreation Center Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Recreation Center space. $523 $80,082 0.08 153.0 7 Lighting: Teen Center Replace with 101 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $330 $33,073 0.06 100.2 8 HVAC And DHW Condensing Gas (Capital Improvement), New RTU (Capital Improvement), Demand Control Vent, Heat Recovery -$285 $159,204 -0.02 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $6,986 $375,415 0.18 53.7 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 $6,986 per year, or 20.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $375,415, for an overall simple payback period of 53.7 years. If only the cost‐effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $793 per year, or 2.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $3,087, for an overall simple payback period of 3.9 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 7 of 34 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 $19,95 2 $1,398 $903 $6,551 $0 $3,794 $0 $0 $684 $637 $33,919 With All Proposed Retrofits $14,48 2 $3,836 $724 $3,119 $0 $3,794 $0 $0 $342 $637 $26,933 SAVINGS $5,471 ‐$2,438 $180 $3,432 $0 $0 $0 $0 $342 $0 $6,986 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 8 of 34 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Recreation Center. 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 Recreation Center 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. Recreation Center is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Recreation Center: 10,581 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 9 of 34 • 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 10 of 34 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 11 of 34 3. Recreation Center (Photo From Google Maps) 3.1. Building Description The 10,581 square foot Recreation Center was constructed in 1980, with a normal occupancy of 50 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average 13.2 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. Description of Heating and Cooling Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: DHW Boilerx2 AO Smith Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 310,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 1 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year DHW Boiler 1 Nickel Shield Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 720,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 1 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Gym Hastings Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 608,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 12 of 34 East Lennox Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 90,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Mid Trane Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 120,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air West Hastings Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 159,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Far HRU Hastings Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 190,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Close HRU Hastings Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 190,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat Distribution Type: Air The Cooling Plants used in the building are: Gym Hastings Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 East Lennox Cooling Capacity: 3.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 Mid Trane Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 West Hastings Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 13 of 34 Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 Far HRU Hastings Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 Close HRU Hastings Cooling Capacity: 5.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 0.15 Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems The six roof top units each have their own gas powered heating systems. Two of the roof top units also have DX cooling coils. Domestic Hot Water System Domestic hot 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 six roof top units as well as various exhaust fans. Lighting A majority of the lighting consists of T8 lams. There are some incandescent bulbs. Exterior lighting consists of high pressure sodium and mercury vapor lights. Plug Loads Plug loads consist mostly of computers. 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 14 of 34 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 ‐ Sm Natural Gas: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm 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 $ 0.1380/kWh Natural Gas $ 0.71/ccf Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 15 of 34 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, City of Kenai pays approximately $40,079 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Recreation Center. 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 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 16 of 34 Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 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. Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 17 of 34 Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Other_Electrical 3444 3138 3444 3333 3444 816 843 843 816 927 3333 3444 Lighting 5947 5419 5947 5755 5947 1409 1456 1456 1409 1601 5755 5947 Ventilation_Fans 426 388 426 412 426 412 426 426 412 426 412 426 DHW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space_Heating 7571 6899 7571 7326 7460 6094 4787 3129 6521 7571 7327 7571 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 1 119 1335 3015 4910 874 0 0 0 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 112 102 112 108 112 108 112 112 108 112 108 112 Space_Heating 1719 1411 1403 996 726 699 632 712 771 1175 1313 1679 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 18 of 34 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 Recreation Center 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 170,967 kWh 583,510 3.340 1,948,924 Natural Gas 14,554 ccf 1,455,359 1.047 1,523,761 Total 2,038,869 3,472,685 BUILDING AREA 10,581 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 193 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 328 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 19 of 34 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 Recreation Center 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. 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) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 20 of 34 • 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 Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 21 of 34 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 Recreation Center, 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: Teen Center, Gym Lobby Replace with 5 FLUOR (3) CFL, A Lamp 15W $251 $468 3.41 1.9 2 Lighting: Teen Center Replace with 28 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $542 $2,619 1.31 4.8 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $793 $3,087 1.63 3.9 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 3 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 13 LED 72W Module StdElectronic $1,690 $12,163 0.89 7.2 4 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 4 LED 40W Module StdElectronic $307 $2,807 0.70 9.1 5 Ventilation Demand Control ventilation $3,628 $85,000 0.54 23.4 6 Setback Thermostat: Recreation Center Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Recreation Center space. $523 $80,082 0.08 153.0 7 Lighting: Teen Center Replace with 101 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic $330 $33,073 0.06 100.2 8 HVAC And DHW Condensing Gas (Capital Improvement), New RTU (Capital Improvement), Demand Control Vent, Heat Recovery -$285 $159,204 -0.02 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $6,986 $375,415 0.18 53.7 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; Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 22 of 34 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. 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. Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 23 of 34 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure 4.4.2 Ventilation System Measures 4.4.3 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Recommendation 8 Condensing Gas (Capital Improvement), New RTU (Capital Improvement), Demand Control Vent, Heat Recovery Installation Cost $159,204 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) ‐$285 Breakeven Cost ‐$3,884 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 1000 Auditors Notes: Rank Description Recommendation 5 Demand Control ventilation Installation Cost $85,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,628 Breakeven Cost $46,049 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback yrs 23 Auditors Notes: Rank Building Space Recommendation 6 Recreation Center Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the Recreation Center space. Installation Cost $80,082 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $523 Breakeven Cost $6,665 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 153 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 24 of 34 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 Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Teen Center 101 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 30W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 101 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $33,073 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $330 Breakeven Cost $2,096 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 100 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Exterior 4 MV 175 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED 40W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,807 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $307 Breakeven Cost $1,959 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 9 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Exterior 13 HPS 310 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 13 LED 72W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $12,163 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,690 Breakeven Cost $10,798 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 7 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 25 of 34 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Teen Center 28 INCAN Reflector, Halogen IR+ 67W PAR38 with Manual Switching Replace with 28 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $2,619 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $542 Breakeven Cost $3,438 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback yrs 5 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Teen Center, Gym Lobby 5 INCAN (3) A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (3) CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $468 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $251 Breakeven Cost $1,593 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback yrs 2 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 26 of 34 Appendix A – Major Equipment List MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYTag Location Function Make Model Type Capacity (input) EfficiencyMotorAshrae Service LifeEstimated Remaining Life NotesBlr1-2 Mech Room Bldg Heat AO Smith BT 15577CWNat Gas/ Water 155,000BTUH 75% est n/a 20DHW Blr Mech Room DHW Nickel Shield 72-N-250-A- GNat Gas/ Water 720,000BTUH 75% est n/a 20Gym RTU Roof HVAC Hastings RHVB-800-G Inline 7550cfm 85% est 5hp 20East RTU Roof HVAC Lennox GCS16-036-90-3Y Inline 85% est .5hp 20Mid RTU Roof HVAC Trane YSC048A3RHA1ED Inline 85% est .33hp 20West RTU Roof HVAC Hastings RHVA-300-G Inline 2610cfm 85% est 1hp 20Far HRU Roof HVAC Hastings RHVA-210-G Inline 3500cfm 85% est 1.5hp 20Close HRU Roof HVAC Hastings RHVA-210-G Inline 3500 cfm 85% est 1.5hp 20 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 27 of 34 Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory LIGHTING INVENTORYLocation Incan 60W T8 32W HPS 310W MV 175W Incan 67W TotalTeen Center28 101 129Gym Lobby55Exterior413 17Grand Total28 101 4 13 5151 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 28 of 34 Appendix C – REAL Utility Data First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Rick Koch State Zip AK 99611 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 6:00 ‐ 10:00 6:00 ‐ 10:00 6:00 ‐ 10:00 Average # of Occupants During 45 60 60 Renovations Date 1983 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 03/09/11 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Recreation Center Public Assembly 10,581 Facility Address Year Built Mixed Facility City Facility Zip 7,200 1980 Building Type Community Population 227 Caviar Kenai 99611 381 Senior Ct.Kenai Contact Person Email Mailing Address City 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two ‐year period for each energy source you use. Details 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. Primary Operating Hours Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 29 of 34 Recreation Center Buiding Size Input (sf) =10,581 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)16,364.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)16,665 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)197,160 2009 Electric Cost ($)34,933 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)2,309,307 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)51,598 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 154.7 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)63.6 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)218.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)1.57 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)3.30 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)4.88 Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 30 of 34 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)14,075.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)12,741 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)179,000 2010 Electric Cost ($)25,782 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)2,018,427 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)38,523 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)133.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)57.7 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)190.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)1.20 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.44 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)3.64 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 31 of 34 Recreation CenterNatural 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 11/7/2008 12/4/2008 27 1,992 1,992 $1,694 $0.85Enstar NGC77319 Dec‐08 12/5/2008 1/5/2009 30 2,602 2,602 $2,698 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Jan‐09 1/6/2009 2/12/2009 36 3,317 3,317 $3,436 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Feb‐09 2/6/2009 3/5/2009 29 2,572 2,572 $2,667 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Mar‐09 3/6/2009 4/2/2009 26 1,804 1,804 $1,874 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Apr‐09 4/3/2009 5/7/2009 34 1,213 1,213 $1,264 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 May‐09 5/8/2009 6/11/2009 33 669 669 $703 $1.05Enstar NGC77319 Jun‐09 6/12/2009 7/6/2009 24 376 376 $401 $1.07Enstar NGC77319 Jul‐09 7/7/2009 8/6/2009 29 402 402 $428 $1.06Enstar NGC77319 Aug‐09 8/7/2009 9/4/2009 27 200 200 $219 $1.10Enstar NGC77319 Sep‐09 9/5/2009 10/8/2009 33 490 490 $518 $1.06Enstar NGC77319 Oct‐09 10/9/2009 11/5/2009 26 727 727 $763 $1.05Enstar NGC77319 Nov‐09 11/6/2009 12/3/2009 27 1,940 1,940 $2,016 $1.04Enstar NGC77319 Dec‐09 12/4/2009 1/7/2010 33 1,768 1,768 $1,528 $0.86Enstar NGC77319 Jan‐10 1/8/2010 2/4/2010 26 1,975 1,975 $1,706 $0.86Enstar NGC77319 Feb‐10 2/5/2010 3/4/2010 29 1,622 1,622 $1,403 $0.86Enstar NGC77319 Mar‐10 3/5/2010 4/8/2010 33 1,386 1,386 $1,215 $0.88Enstar NGC77319 Apr‐10 4/9/2010 5/6/2010 27 1,148 1,148 $1,007 $0.88Enstar NGC77319 May‐10 5/7/2010 6/3/2010 26 584 584 $519 $0.89Enstar NGC77319 Jun‐10 6/4/2010 7/8/2010 34 533 533 $475 $0.89Enstar NGC77319 Jul‐10 7/9/2010 8/5/2010 26 522 522 $465 $0.89Enstar NGC77319 Aug‐10 8/6/2010 9/2/2010 26 436 436 $458 $1.05Enstar NGC77319 Sep‐10 9/3/2010 10/7/2010 34 411 411 $438 $1.07Enstar NGC77319 Oct‐10 10/8/2010 11/4/2010 26 1,750 1,750 $1,511 $0.86Nov ‐ 08 to Oct ‐ 09 total:16,364 16,364 0$16,665 $0Nov ‐ 09 to Oct ‐10 Total:14,075 14,075 0$12,741 $0$1.04$0.92Nov ‐08 to Oct ‐ 09 avg:Nov ‐ 09 to Oct ‐ 10 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 32 of 34 Recreation Center ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)05001000150020002500300035004000Jan‐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)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)05001000150020002500300035004000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($) Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 33 of 34 Recreation CenterElectricityBtus/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 2002747 Nov‐09 10/17/2009 11/19/2009 32 20,920 714 $3,501 $0.17HEA 2002747 Dec‐08 11/19/2008 12/18/2008 29 17,280 590 $2,896 $0.21HEA 2002747 Jan‐09 12/18/2008 1/20/2009 32 19,520 666 $4,032 $0.21HEA 2002747 Feb‐09 1/20/2009 2/20/2009 30 18,800 642 $3,884 $0.21HEA 2002747 Mar‐09 2/20/2009 3/20/2009 30 16,960 579 $3,506 $0.21HEA 2002747 Apr‐09 3/20/2009 4/17/2009 27 16,480 562 $2,757 $0.17HEA 2002747 May‐09 4/17/2009 5/19/2009 32 16,800 573 $2,810 $0.17HEA 2002747 Jun‐09 5/19/2009 6/18/2009 29 11,120 380 $1,868 $0.17HEA 2002747 Jul‐09 6/18/2009 7/21/2009 33 15,760 538 $2,676 $0.17HEA 2002747 Aug‐09 7/21/2009 8/19/2009 28 12,920 441 $2,198 $0.17HEA 2002747 Sep‐09 8/19/2009 9/18/2009 29 13,120 448 $2,232 $0.17HEA 2002747 Oct‐09 9/18/2009 10/20/2009 32 17,480 597 $2,573 $0.15HEA 2002747 Nov‐09 10/20/2009 11/18/2009 28 18,080 617 $2,660 $0.15HEA 2002747 Dec‐09 11/18/2009 12/18/2009 30 18,320 625 $2,695 $0.15HEA 2002747 Jan‐10 12/18/2009 1/20/2010 32 19,200 655 $2,481 $0.13HEA 2002747 Feb‐10 1/20/2010 2/19/2010 29 17,720 605 $2,292 $0.13HEA 2002747 Mar‐10 2/19/2010 3/19/2010 30 16,880 576 $2,184 $0.13HEA 2002747 Apr‐10 3/19/2010 4/19/2010 30 16,720 571 $2,533 $0.15HEA 2002747 May‐10 4/19/2010 5/19/2010 30 14,560 497 $2,209 $0.15HEA 2002747 Jun‐10 5/19/2010 6/17/2010 28 11,880 405 $1,807 $0.15HEA 2002747 Jul‐10 6/17/2010 7/20/2010 33 12,160 415 $1,869 $0.15HEA 2002747 Aug‐10 7/20/2010 8/17/2010 27 9,800 334 $1,511 $0.15HEA 2002747 Sep‐10 8/17/2010 9/20/2010 33 11,520 393 $1,772 $0.15HEA 2002747 Oct‐10 9/20/2010 10/19/2010 29 12,160 415 $1,769 $0.15Nov ‐ 08 to Oct ‐ 09 total:197,160 6,729 0 $34,933 $0Nov ‐ 09 to Oct ‐ 10 total:179,000 6,109 0 $25,782 $0$0.18$0.15Nov ‐ 09 to Oct ‐ 10 avg:Nov ‐ 08 to Oct ‐ 09 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. Kenai Recreation Center Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐ENA‐CAEC‐07 Page 34 of 34 Recreation Center‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)020004000600080001000012000Jan‐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)050010001500200025003000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)