Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CIRI-HOM-CAEC Anchor Point Chapman Elementary 2012-EE
Chapman Elementary School 34215 Sterling Highway Anchor Point, Alaska 99556 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-HOM-CAEC-01 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units KPBSD .................................................................................................. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iv OF iv This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 1 OF 26 This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Kenai Peninsula Borough Contact: Kevin Lyon 47140 East Poppy Lane Soldotna, AK 99669 Email: klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The July 2008 – June 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 40,959 Fuel Oil $ 47,273 Total $ 88,232 Energy Utilization Index: 139.2 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 3.48 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 32.4 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $788.20 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Chapman Elementary School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 2 OF 26 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Lighting: 2- Bulb Classroom Lights Replace with 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,328 $16,000 3.61 12.1 (3.2) 2 HVAC And DHW New burners as school is switching over to natural gas. Assumed $20,000 per burner. $164,590 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). $25,551 $208,840 2.35 8.2 (7.6) 3 Lighting: 1- Bulb Office Lights Replace with 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor $41 $1,600 1.71 39.3 (6.9) 4 Lighting: 2- Bulb Office Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor $99 $2,400 1.67 24.3 (7.1) 5 Lighting: Misc Incandescent Replace with 15 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $193 $1,500 1.48 7.8 (N/A) 6 Lighting: 3- Bulb Library Lights Replace with 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $188 $4,000 1.47 21.3 (8.0) 7 Lighting: 1- Bulb Misc Replace with 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor $53 $1,600 1.32 30.0 (9.0) 8 Ventilation $4,000 for Gym CO2 sensors with installation and hook-up to existing ventilators. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($50,643). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (16 @ $850 = $13,600). $6,031 $68,243 1.07 11.3 (N/A) 9 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $390 $7,152 0.70 18.3 (N/A) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 3 OF 26 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 10 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms/O ffices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $1,618 $30,831 0.68 19.1 (N/A) 11 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 28 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,373 $52,200 0.62 38.0 (18.8) 12 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 2 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $131 $4,400 0.46 33.5 (25.7) 13 Other Electrical: PC CRT Monitors Replace with 25 LCD TVs $116 $3,600 0.37 31.1 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $37,111 $402,366 1.74 10.8 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. This column includes the SP considering energy savings only as well as the SP with maintenance and energy savings combined. The combined SP is distinguished with brackets and italicized text. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 4 OF 26 With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $37,111 per year, or 41.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $402,366, for an overall simple payback period of 10.8 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $33,482 per year, or 37.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $304,183, for an overall simple payback period of 9.1 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. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $41,916 $8,569 $11,960 $6,266 $11,549 $20 $110 $9,465 $89,855 With All Proposed Retrofits $18,899 $3,038 $7,849 $6,266 $11,415 $20 $110 $5,147 $52,744 SAVINGS $23,017 $5,531 $4,111 $0 $134 $0 $0 $4,318 $37,111 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 5 OF 26 While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 6 OF 26 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 26,767 square foot Chapman Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, outside portable classrooms, and a gymnasium. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural, mechanical and electrical drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 7 OF 26 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on July 14, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. An additional site visit was completed on November 18, 2011 where thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 8 OF 26 Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for Anchor Point has an index of 105.5 and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 9 OF 26 The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 10 OF 26 All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Chapman Elementary School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Anchor Point, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Anchor Point, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the natural gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 11 OF 26 The original structure of Chapman Elementary School is a single story facility that was built in 1958. This building has had three (3) additions made to it in 1968, 1978, and 1982. The school has two relocatable (portable) classrooms located on the back side of the campus. The school typically has faculty and student occupancy from 7AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional occupancy (rental) time keeping the school open includes an after school program. Other rental activities occur in the evenings and weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas which require the school to remain open as late as 9PM at times. There are an estimated 114 full time student, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for this audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have several types of windows in place varying from old double paned metal framed to triple pane windows in place. The windows have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.34 – 0.91 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be weathered but are in good condition and were not found to be economically beneficial to change out at this time. The exterior walls of the elementary school vary depending on age and generally consist of 6-inch studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-19 value. The original section of the school appears to have an estimated R-11 insulation in place. The gymnasium is built of strapped masonry walls with 2-core concrete blocks furred out with 2x2 studs and are insulated with an estimated R-11 fiberglass batt. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school varies from location to location. The southern portion of the school has a built up roof with 3-inches of wood decking supporting 4-inched of rigid board insulation. The gymnasium uses 6x8 tongue and groove decking, insulated with 3-inches of rigid foam board. Finally, the newest portion of the school is a built up roof with 4-inches of rigid foam board covering R-30 fiberglass batt insulation. The floor/foundation of the building is mostly a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside, though there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. The original portion of the school is built over a 4-foot crawlspace with 2 inches of foam insulation on the walls. All doors on this building are commercial grade, metal framed and insulated doors that are half- windowed or solid. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 12 OF 26 Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) sectional oil-fired boilers which have been refitted with natural gas-fired burners. The boilers are located in the second floor mechanical room. The relocateable classrooms are heated with electrical baseboard. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler room and provides heat to the air handling units, unit heaters and baseboards located throughout the building. There is a hybrid building DDC control system (Andover Controls) in place with end devices using pneumatic controls. The heating plants used in the building are summarized as follows: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas (converted) Maximum Input Rating: 2,049,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 78.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas (converted) Maximum Input Rating: 2,049,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 78.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic hot water is supplied by a side-arm hot water maker using hydronic heat from the boilers. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the classroom sinks. The hot water heater is located in the mechanical room. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through air handling units. There are eight (8) Air Handling Units (AHUs) located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof mounted exhaust fans and relief air fans. The ventilation system is pneumatically controlled via the hybrid DDC system. Based on the air flow ratings from the exhaust fans in this school, air is ventilated at a rate of 65 CFM per Occupant indicating when all fans are operating at normal speed, the building will be typically over ventilated. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The entirety of the building has been upgraded to more modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system in place uses 250-Watt metal-halide bulbs. The high pressure sodium lights (HPS) mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 13 OF 26 There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 1.2 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. The two onsite relocatable classrooms have an area of 960 square feet each and consists of 2x6 wood stud wall construction 16 inches on center with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end walls. The above grade floor rests on sleepers. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-30 fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value. The relocatable classrooms at Chapman are heated with electric resistance baseboards on the perimeter. The electric baseboard temperature set point is controlled by a thermostat on each individual baseboard. This makes it easy for the electric baseboards to be left on at higher temperature than is required which was the typical case found during the audits of these type of portable buildings. There is no temperature set-back capability with the temperature control system in place. The lighting in the portables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-12 light fixtures with magnetic ballasts. Due to the low operation use of the relocatable classroom at Chapman Elementary and low run time of the lights (20 hours/week), retrofitting the lights system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors is not cost effective. In the future, this lighting retrofit may be cost effective if the classroom lighting system is utilized more hours during the week. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 14 OF 26 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Homer Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Harbor delivered the fuel oil under contract with the KPBSD. Since the time of the audit, the boilers have been converted to natural gas being delivered by Enstar Natural Gas Company at their large commercial rate schedule. The energy consumption below is based on the fuel oil used at the school during the period which the utility data was analyzed. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 15 OF 26 The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual oil usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallons, which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy per gallon. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2008-2009 2009-2010 Average Electric 0.17 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh 0.16 $/kWh Fuel Oil 1.95 $/Gallon 1.64 $/Gallon 1.80 $/Gallon Total Cost $91,726 $84,735 $88,231 ECI 3.62 $/sf 3.34 $/sf 3.48 $/sf Electric EUI 33.3 kBtu/sf 34.2 kBtu/sf 33.8 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 106.1 kBtu/sf 104.8 kBtu/sf 105.5 kBtu/sf Building EUI 139.3 kBtu/sf 139.0 kBtu/sf 139.2 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 32 schools in the KPBSD computed an average EUI of 113.4 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 2.71 $/sf, with an average building size of 57,216 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 139.2 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 67.7% more energy than the US average and 22.8% more energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. This is a good indication of the old age of the building, condition of the shell components and HVAC systems causing a high energy consumption per square foot. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 16 OF 26 At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $89,855 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Chapman Elementary. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 17 OF 26 Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C estimates of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 7743 7056 7743 7493 4731 2178 2251 5085 7493 7743 7493 7743 Refrigeration 3324 3029 3324 3216 3324 3216 3324 3324 3216 3324 3216 3324 Other Electrical 7488 6824 7488 7247 4555 2070 2139 4900 7247 7488 7247 7488 Cooking 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 11 10 11 10 11 Clothes Drying 58 53 58 57 58 57 58 58 57 58 57 58 Ventilation Fans 6137 5592 6137 5939 3733 1697 1753 4016 5939 6137 5939 6137 DHW 33 30 33 32 33 32 33 33 32 33 32 33 Space Heating 1836 1673 1836 1776 1835 1775 1834 1835 1776 1836 1776 1836 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 219 206 233 251 309 406 536 458 324 263 227 221 Space Heating 2498 2019 1959 1377 963 510 284 435 794 1377 1869 2420 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 18 OF 26 Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBtu Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBtu Electricity 268,071 kWh 914,927 3.340 3,055,856 #2 Oil 20,156 gallons 2,781,523 1.010 2,809,338 Total 3,696,450 5,865,194 BUILDING AREA 26,767 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 138 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 219 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 19 OF 26 The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below: Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 2-Bulb Classroom Lights 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $16,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,328 Breakeven Cost $57,831 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 lights in the building be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 1-Bulb Office Lights 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $41 Breakeven Cost $2,738 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 39 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 2-Bulb Office Lights 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $2,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $99 Breakeven Cost $4,003 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 24 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 20 OF 26 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Misc Incandescent 15 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $193 Breakeven Cost $2,222 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of all the existing incandescent lights around the building with energy efficient CFL lights. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 3-Bulb Library Lights 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $4,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $188 Breakeven Cost $5,867 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 21 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 1-Bulb Misc 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $53 Breakeven Cost $2,108 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 30 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Gym Lights 28 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 28 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight Programmable Start Ballast and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $52,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,373 Breakeven Cost $32,609 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 38 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T5 HO system. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 21 OF 26 Mechanical Equipment Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Exterior HPS 2 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $4,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $131 Breakeven Cost $2,018 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 34 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 13 PC CRT Monitors 25 CRT Monitors with Manual Switching Replace with 25 LCD TVs Installation Cost $3,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $116 Breakeven Cost $1,340 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 31 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the outdated televisions throughout the school be replaced with modern, more efficient models. Rank Recommendation 2 New burners as school is switching over to natural gas. Assumed $20,000 per burner. $164,590 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). Installation Cost $208,840 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $25,551 Breakeven Cost $489,975 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Installing an outdoor temperature reset control to the boiler output temperature and installing a Direct Digital Control (DDC) system as a replacement for the current pneumatic control system has been evaluated as a separate EEM cost. This upgrade will also affect the ventilation and heating temperature set point(s) of the building through refined controls and sensors. Assuming 65% of the DDC system cost is attributed to the heating system, this upgrade is expected to cost $164,590. B. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $4,250. C. Installation of new burners was in progress during the site visit. These new burners will allow the school to use natural gas as the primary fuel for heating. With the addition of new burners and changing the fuel type used, the school will see significant savings in energy bills as well as an increased performance from the boilers. Replacement of the burners is modeled to cost $40,000 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 22 OF 26 Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 8 $4,000 for Gym CO2 sensors with installation and hook-up to existing ventilators. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($50,643). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (16 @ $850 = $13,600). Installation Cost $68,243 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $6,031 Breakeven Cost $72,842 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Improved control of the ventilation system is within the capacity of a DDC controller, but the existing pneumatic control scheme is antiquated and is recommended to be upgraded to a new operating system. The ventilation equipment may be slowed down to near the surge point on the blower wheels with the installation of VFD controllers. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. Upgrading the control system will allow optimizing the “On-Off” run timing for the ventilation system. There is energy to be saved by the automation system including tuning the variable frequency speed controllers of the fans. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $50,643. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With pump replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $13,600. C. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 23 OF 26 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 9 Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $7,152 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $390 Breakeven Cost $5,034 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Building Space Recommendation 10 Classrooms/Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. Installation Cost $30,831 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,618 Breakeven Cost $20,895 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 19 Auditors Notes: See EEM #9 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 24 OF 26 Mechanical Equipment Measures Building Shell Measures: Insulation Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation Relo-1 Relocatable Classroom Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Relocatable Classroom space. Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $726 Breakeven Cost $8,918 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to monitor and control the relocatable classroom interior temperature which currently is under manual control of the electric heat resistance system. Interface with the building DDC system will allow the automation group to heat the building to 70 deg F during occupied times only. All other unoccupied times, the system can be setback to 60 deg F to save on the electric heat cost. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-2 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt Modeled R-Value: 30.8 Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. Installation Cost $2,803 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $154 Breakeven Cost $3,197 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the ceiling to an R-50 insulation value. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-3 Exposed Floor: AGF Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: R-19 Batt: FG or RW, 6 inches Modeled R-Value: 25.2 Install R-10 rigid board insulation Installation Cost $2,928 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $155 Breakeven Cost $3,206 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 19 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the floor to an R-30 insulation value. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 25 OF 26 Air Sealing Measures Door Measures Window Measures Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) Relo-4 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.60 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 6%. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $60 Breakeven Cost $527 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to tighten the building shell to reduce natural infiltration and heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-5 Exterior Door: ED Door Type: Metal - fiberglass or mineral wool Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $2,967 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $150 Breakeven Cost $3,114 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 20 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the door assemblies with modern energy efficient doors to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-6 Window/Skylight: WNSF Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.67 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.26 vinyl window Installation Cost $2,025 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $133 Breakeven Cost $2,054 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 15 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the window assemblies with modern energy efficient windows to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation Relo-7 Interior Lights 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $12,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $35 Breakeven Cost $4,604 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 346 Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to upgrade the lighting system and controls to reduce electric use. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐HOM‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 26 OF 26 Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Paul Brenner 907‐714‐8825 State Zip AK 99669 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7 to 50 0 0 Average # of Occupants During 114 0 0 0 Renovations / Notes Date 1969, 78, 82 Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Year BuiltBuilding Type Community Population Building Usage Building Square Footage Chapman Education 25,348 Facility Zip 1,845 Unknown Renovation Anchor Point Facility Address Facility City School 1958 Primary Operating Hours Contact Person City Soldotna148 N. Binkley St Mailing Address REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD Building Name/ Identifier Municipal Facility Owned By Date 03/15/11 99556 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us Details 34215 Sterling Hwy 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Chapman Buiding Size Input (sf) =25,348 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)247,040 2009 Electric Cost ($)44,089 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)26,890 2009 Oil Cost ($)47,637 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 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)3,532,106 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)91,726 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)33.3 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 106.1 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)139.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.74 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.88 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)3.62 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)253,920 2010 Electric Cost ($)37,828 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)26,565 2010 Oil Cost ($)46,908 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 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)3,523,103 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)84,735 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)34.2 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)104.8 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)139.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.49 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.85 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.34 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTChapmanElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)Homer Electric 285401 Jul‐08 6/25/2008 7/29/2008346,88023527$986$0.14Homer Electric 285401 Aug‐08 7/30/2008 8/26/20082813,20045166$1,988$0.15Homer Electric 285401 Sep‐08 8/27/2008 9/25/20083021,12072175$3,575$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Oct‐08 9/26/2008 10/28/20083325,04085576$4,144$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Nov‐08 10/29/2008 11/25/20082823,68080882$3,989$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Dec‐08 11/26/2008 12/26/20083124,80084682$5,125$0.21Homer Electric 285401 Jan‐09 12/27/2008 1/27/20093227,52093983$5,628$0.20Homer Electric 285401 Feb‐09 1/28/2009 2/24/20092825,04085585$5,186$0.21Homer Electric 285401 Mar‐09 2/25/2009 3/26/20093024,24082780$4,049$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Apr‐09 3/27/2009 4/27/20093223,20079275$3,866$0.17Homer Electric 285401 May‐09 4/28/2009 5/28/20093119,76067470$3,338$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Jun‐09 5/29/2009 6/26/20092912,56042954$2,214$0.18Homer Electric 285401 Jul‐09 6/27/2009 7/27/2009316,80023226$1,180$0.17Homer Electric 285401 Aug‐09 7/28/2009 8/27/20093114,00047881$2,616$0.19Homer Electric 285401 Sep‐098/28/2009 9/24/20092817,84060974$2,734$0.15Homer Electric 285401 Oct‐09 9/25/2009 10/26/20093221,60073780$3,238$0.15Homer Electric 285401 Nov‐09 10/27/2009 11/25/20093026,88091792$3,976$0.15Homer Electric 285401 Dec‐09 11/26/2009 12/28/20093326,88091784$3,439$0.13Homer Electric 285401 Jan‐10 12/29/2009 1/26/20102925,52087185$3,301$0.13Homer Electric 285401 Feb‐10 1/27/2010 2/23/20102825,44086886$3,298$0.13Homer Electric 285401 Mar‐10 2/24/2010 3/25/20103024,72084482$3,742$0.15Homer Electric 285401 Apr‐10 3/26/2010 4/26/20103228,40096982$4,213$0.15Homer Electric 285401 May‐10 4/27/2010 5/26/20103023,280795159$4,149$0.18Homer Electric 285401 Jun‐10 5/27/2010 6/25/20103012,56042944$1,941$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:2470408431.4752855.1$44,089$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:2539208666.2896974.8$37,828$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chapman Elementary ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTChapmanOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Harbor15303 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008301,1591,530$5,1443.36Harbor15303 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/200830582768$2,4673.21Harbor15303 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008297721,019$3,0412.98Harbor15303 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008302,6323,474$7,6032.19Harbor15303 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008292,4333,212$5,5681.73Harbor15303 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008302,1092,784$3,8291.38Harbor15303 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009302,8833,806$5,6031.47Harbor15303 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009273,1434,148$5,7131.38Harbor15303 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009301,2721,680$2,0461.22Harbor15303 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/2009291,1361,500$1,9851.32Harbor15303 May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/2009301,0001,320$1,9241.46Harbor15303 Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/2009291,2491,649$2,7151.65Harbor15303 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009301,2571,659$2,9211.76Harbor15303 Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/2009308001,056$1,9391.84Harbor15303 Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009291,8592,454$4,0181.64Harbor15303 Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/2009301,0031,324$2,2891.73Harbor15303 Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009291,3521,785$1,6190.91Harbor15303 Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/2009303,0203,986$6,8781.73Harbor15303 Jan‐101/1/2010 1/31/2010302,5763,400$6,4011.88Harbor15303 Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010272,4163,189$5,9921.88Harbor15303 Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010302,5363,348$6,6381.98Harbor15303 Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/2010291,4001,848$3,9032.11Harbor15303 May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/2010301,5622,062$4,2602.07Harbor15303 Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/201029344454$500.11Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:20,37126,8900$47,637$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:20,12526,5650$46,908$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:1.95Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:1.64APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$3,000.00$4,000.00$5,000.00$6,000.00$7,000.00$8,000.0005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chapman Elementary‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B Short AkWarm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 2 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 2/21/2012 9:46 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Chapman Elementary School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 34215 Sterling Hwy Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring City: Anchor Point Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna AK, 99669 Client Name: Dave Spence Client Address: 139 East Park Avenue Soldotna, AK 99669 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 714-8875 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 26,767 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 662,557 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 697,428 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,063,153 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 114 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Anchor Point Design Outdoor Temperature: -2 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Anchor Point Heating Degree Days: 10,115 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Homer Electric Assn - Commercial - Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas - Commercial - Lg Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.160/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.96/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $41,916 $0 $8,569 $11,960 $6,266 $11,54 9 $20 $110 $9,465 $0 $89,855 With Proposed Retrofits $18,899 $0 $3,038 $7,849 $6,266 $11,41 5 $20 $110 $5,147 $0 $52,744 SAVING S $23,017 $0 $5,531 $4,111 $0 $134 $0 $0 $4,318 $0 $37,111 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 3 APPENDIX B $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: 2-Bulb Classroom Lights Replace with 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,328 $16,000 3.61 12.1 2 HVAC And DHW New burners as school is switching over to natural gas. Assumed $20,000 per burner. $164,590 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). $25,551 $208,840 2.35 8.2 3 Lighting: 1-Bulb Office Lights Replace with 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $41 $1,600 1.71 39.3 4 Lighting: 2-Bulb Office Lights Replace with 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $99 $2,400 1.67 24.3 5 Lighting: Misc Incandescent Replace with 15 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $193 $1,500 1.48 7.8 6 Lighting: 3-Bulb Library Lights Replace with 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $188 $4,000 1.47 21.3 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 5 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 7 Lighting: 1-Bulb Misc Replace with 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $53 $1,600 1.32 30 8 Ventilation $4,000 for Gym CO2 sensors with installation and hook-up to existing ventilators. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($50,643). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (16 @ $850 = $13,600). $6,031 $68,243 1.07 11.3 9 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $390 $7,152 0.70 18.3 10 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms/Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $1,618 $30,831 0.68 19.1 11 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 28 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,373 $52,200 0.62 38 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 6 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 2 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $131 $4,400 0.46 33.5 13 Other Electrical: PC CRT Monitors Replace with 25 LCD TVs $116 $3,600 0.37 31.1 TOTAL $37,111 $402,366 1.74 10.8 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 New burners as school is switching over to natural gas. Assumed $20,000 per burner. $164,590 for addition of variable speed DDC System to ventilators/boilers. Assumed that 65% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC. Assumes $850 per premium efficiency pump upgrade with installation (5 @ $850 = $4,250). $208,840 $25,551 Setback Thermostat Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 7 APPENDIX B Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 9 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $7,152 $390 10 Classrooms/Offic es Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms/Offices space. $30,831 $1,618 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 8 $4,000 for Gym CO2 sensors with installation and hook-up to existing ventilators. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 20% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($50,643). Assumes $850 per motor for premium efficiency motors with installation (16 @ $850 = $13,600). $68,243 $6,031 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 2-Bulb Classroom Lights 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 360 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $16,000 $1,328 3 1-Bulb Office Lights 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 19 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,600 $41 4 2-Bulb Office Lights 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,400 $99 5 Misc Incandescent 15 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $1,500 $193 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chapman Elementary School Page 8 APPENDIX B 6 3-Bulb Library Lights 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 31 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $4,000 $188 7 1-Bulb Misc 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 25 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,600 $53 11 Gym Lights 28 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 28 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $52,200 $1,373 12 Exterior HPS 2 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $4,400 $131 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 13 PC CRT Monitors 25 CRT Monitors with Manual Switching Replace with 25 LCD TVs $3,600 $116 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.0, Energy Lib 2/2/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN 786 NAT GAS/CAST IRON 1200MBH80%.5HP350EFF SET TO 80%B2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN 786 OIL/CAST IRON 1200MBH80%350EFF SET TO 80% SOON WILL BE NAT GASDHW1 BOILER ROOMDHW SUPPLYAJAX BOILER INCVG20004K41024JSHELL&TUBE90 GAL75%2411CP1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS50160 INLINE PUMP 24GPM @ 37' 0.75100CP2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UNK INLINE PUMP 40GM @ 40'.3HP100CP3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMS6580 INLINE PUMP 33.4GPM @ 20' .5HP100CP4 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS50160 INLINE PUMP 27GPM @ 33' .75HP100CP5CRAWLSPACE ACCESSBUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS50160 INLINE PUMP 4.6GPM @ 28' .5HP100CP6 BOILER ROOM DHW CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UP2542 INLINE PUMP 1.5GPM @ 7' .05HP100CP7 ROOM 14BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP8 ROOM 15BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP9 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP10 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP11 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP12 MECHANICAL ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK~.75HP100CP13LOWER CRAWL SPACEBUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS ~UPS50160 INLINE PUMPUNK.5HP100UH1 Room 36 BBUILDING HEAT VULCAN 28H9 HORIZONTAL~500 CFM~.08HP200UH2 Mechanical Rm BUILDING HEAT VULCAN 44H10 HORIZONTAL 500CFM.08HP200CUH1 GymnasiumBUILDING HEATPACE 520AXIAL200CFM.17HP200CUH2 GymnasiumBUILDING HEAT BEACON 40UPBLAST~150CFM.08HP200SF1 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR SUPPLYPACE A16 HORIZONTAL 6700CFM @ 2"-7.5HP200SF2 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR SUPPLYPACE SCF97A HORIZONTAL 1200CFM.3HP200AHU1 BOILER ROOM AIR CIRCULATION PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK~1.5HP200AHU2 ROOM 14AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK1.5HP200AHU3 ROOM 15AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK1.5HP200AHU4 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK3HP200AHU5 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK3HP200AHU6 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK3HP200AHU7 MECHANICAL ROOM AIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK3HP200AHU8LOWER CRAWL SPACEAIR CIRCULATION ~PACE UNK HORIZONTALUNK1.5HP200EF1 MECHANICAL ROOM EXHAUSTPACE U22F CENTRIFUGAL 6400CFM5HP250EF2Roof EXHAUSTPACE CREGF UPBLAST400 CFM.17HP200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Example of Typical Windows 2. Rear View of School 3. Close up of Older Window 4. Example of Window Thickness CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Example of Typical Doors 6. View Of Schools Outbuildings 7. Example of Typical Kitchen Appliances, 8. Example of Existing Chest Freezer CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. Boiler 1 Configured for Natural Gas 10. Boiler 2 Configured for Oil (Natural Gas Retrofit Incomplete at Time of Audit) 11. Boiler Room Exhaust Fan & Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank (Left) 12. Air Handling Unit 1 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 13. Glycol Circulation Pump 1 14. Combustion Air Fan (Right) & Pneumatic Control Air Dryer (Left) 15. Digital Controller Box, HVAC 16. Back Up Generator CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 17. Ceiling Mounted Cabinet Unit Heater 18. Example of Crawl Space CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. HEAT LOSS AT THE WINDOW FRAMES AND GLASS CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. HEAT LOSS (A) SHOWING AT THE WINDOW FRAMES (B) THE WINDOW (C) THE WALL UNDER THE WINDOW AND (D) THE FOUNDATION SLAB. NOTE THE BUILDING IS SHADED AT THIS LOCATION (E) D C B A E CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. EXPECTED HEAT LOSS AROUND WINDOW FRAMES (A) AND AT THE ROOF SOFFIT (B) A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. (A) HEAT LOSS AT BUILDING JUNCTURE AND (B) AROUND DOOR A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. (A) ANOMALOUS HEAT LOSS UNDER THE SOFFIT A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. ENTRY DOOR SHOWING VARYING DEGREES OF HEAT LOSS 7. 8. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. (A) TYPICAL HEAT LOSS THRU THE WINDOWS (B) NOTE SHADOW OF AIR INTAKE HOOD A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 10. (A) HEAT LOSS THRU THE DOOR GLASS AND (B) AT THE TOP OF THE DOOR A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 11. HEAT LOSS PATTERN SHOWING VARIATIONS IN INSULATION EFFECTIVENESS