Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-NIN-CAEC KPBSD Ninilchik School 2012-EE Ninilchik School 15735 Sterling Highway Ninilchik, Alaska 99639 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-NIN-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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 1 OF 27  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 $ 77,406 Natural Gas $ 45,728 Total $ 123,134 Energy Utilization Index: 123.8 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.23 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 34.2 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $616 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 Ninilchik 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 2 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Residential Refrigerator Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $174 $1 1986.63 0.0 (N/A) 2 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $766 $1,200 7.28 1.6 (N/A) 3 Lighting: Miscellaneous Electric Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $278 $2,000 1.64 7.2 (N/A) 4 Lighting: Pool Lights Add new Occupancy Sensor $197 $2,400 0.96 12.2 (N/A) 5 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 17 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,136 $58,739 0.94 51.7 (20.7) 6 Lighting: Parking Lot Lights Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor, Daylight Sensor and BAS interface $224 $8,800 0.84 39.2 (14.1) 7 Ventilation Refined scheduling for ventilation system to take advantage of the benefits provided by a thermal cover for the swimming pool. Cost of thermal cover is included with heating. Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($130,730). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (23 @ $850 = $19,550) $10,354 $150,280 0.82 14.5 (N/A) 8 Lighting: Exit Signs Replace with 20 LED 2W Module StdElectronic $131 $3,000 0.79 22.9 (N/A) 9 Lighting: Wrestling Room/Shop Lights Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W Standard HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,620 $33,100 0.74 20.4 (15.9) 10 Lighting: Outdoor Building Lights Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor, Daylight Sensor and BAS interface $669 $14,400 0.63 21.5 (18.7) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 3 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 11 HVAC And DHW A thermal cover for the swimming pool when closed to reduce water and heat loss from evaporation should directly affect the daily hot water usage when used in conjunction with stricter pool water pump timing. Assumed to reduce load by 1000 gallons of 135 deg F water per day. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system (estimated to cost $ 13,600, $2,000 installation). Replace burners on boilers with modern, more efficient models (2 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($313,752). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) $9,175 $357,002 0.62 38.9 (29.6) 12 Lighting: Entry Lights Replace with 12 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $390 $12,800 0.58 32.8 (20.3) 13 Lighting: North Classrooms/Lib rary Replace with 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,891 $193,500 0.35 66.9 (34.1) 14 Window: NSFW Single Wood Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $41 $2,700 0.25 66.6 (N/A) 15 Window: SFW Single Wood Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $36 $2,700 0.22 75.7 (N/A) 16 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym/Offices Add R-19 to existing insulation. $1,543 $543,804 0.07 352.5 (N/A) 17 Cathedral Ceiling: Pool/Wrestling Area Add R-19 to existing insulation. $132 $154,281 0.02 1,166.6 (N/A) 18 Cathedral Ceiling: North Wing Add R-19 to existing insulation. $224 $261,183 0.02 1,166.6 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $29,980 $1,801,890 0.32 60.1 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 4 OF 27  Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $29,980 per year, or 23.9% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $1,801,890, for an overall simple payback period of 60.1 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,218 per year, or 1.0% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $3,201, for an overall simple payback period of 2.6 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 $30,390 $31,864 $21,953 $4,789 $24,503 $524 $90 $12,942 $127,056 With All Proposed Retrofits $24,586 $24,832 $14,380 $3,579 $24,503 $524 $90 $4,581 $97,076 SAVINGS $5,804 $7,032 $7,574 $1,210 $0 $0 $0 $8,361 $29,980 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 5 OF 27  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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 6 OF 27  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 55,277 square foot Ninilchik School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 7 OF 27  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 August 2, 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 8 OF 27  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 Ninilchik 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 9 OF 27  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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 10 OF 27  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, Ninilchik School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Ninilchik, 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 Ninilchik, 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 11 OF 27  The original structure of Ninilchik School is a single story facility that was built in 1950. This building has had several additions made to it, including the addition of a swimming pool. The school has one (1) electrically heated storage unit located on the west side of the building as well as a separate shop building that shares the school’s main hydronic loop. The school typically opens at 6AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 8AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental occupancy time keeping the school open includes an after school program. Other rental activities occur in the evenings and weekends in the swimming pool, gymnasium and classroom areas which can require the school to remain open as late as 10PM at times. There are an estimated 200 full time student, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy 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 vary from location to location, depending on the age of the area. Most of the building has double paned, wood or metal framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.48 to 0.91 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be in good condition. This school also has several single paned windows that are in poor condition and are recommended to be replaced. The exterior walls of the north wing of the building consist of 2-core concrete blocks furred out with 6- inch studs and insulated with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-19 value. The walls of the gymnasium, southern classrooms, and administrative office portion of the school consist of 2x6 studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-19 value. The pool and wrestling room addition is built with 2x8 studs and filled with fiberglass batt insulation for an R-30 value. This section of the school makes use of a textured exterior finish that is 1-inch thick. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school varies across the school and the insulation value varies according to the age. The northern classrooms are roofed with 6-inches of rigid board insulation, making use of the IRMA system. The rest of the school has been reroofed to bring to an average insulating value of R-38. The floor/foundation of the majority of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. The gymnasium is built over a 3-foot crawlspace with no floor center or edge insulation. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are quarter-windowed, half-windowed, or solid. The doors appear to be in adequate condition. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 12 OF 27  Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) natural gas-fired boilers. The boilers are located in the building’s boiler room and were installed in 1998. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the mechanical rooms and provides heat to the air handling units and cabinet unit heaters. There are also two (2) heat exchangers that are used to provide heated water to the school’s pool and domestic hot water supply, respectively. This building has a Honeywell control system in place with end devices using pneumatic controls. The boilers utilized a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,049,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 84.4 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 2,049,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 84.4 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic hot water is supplied by an indirect fired hot water maker which was installed in 1977. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the various classroom and janitor sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. There are eight (8) Air Handling Units (AHU’s) located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through these AHU’s. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof mounted exhaust fans and relief air fans. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 19,347 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design specifies 35 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 55,277 sf school = 19,347 CFM). Adding up all of the exhaust capacity equals 49,060 CFM, indicating the school appears to be over ventilated at 47 CFM/occupant when all exhaust systems are operated per design capacity. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major exhaust fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The ventilation system uses pneumatically controlled end devices, controlled by the Honeywell system. The Honeywell system is antiquated and is a good candidate for upgrading to a modern Building Automation System with DDC controller for improved performance and remote monitoring. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 13 OF 27  This school contains a swimming pool that is 50-feet long by 24-feet wide with depth ranging from 3- feet to 9.5-feet. The pool water is kept at 86 deg F as to accommodate a variety of patrons. Heated pool water is generated using a large shell and tube heat exchanger with the hydronic heat coming from the school boilers. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building has been upgraded to more modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system uses 250-watt metal-halide lamps, which are excellent candidates for upgrades. The T12 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The high pressure sodium lights (HPS) mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 1.0 watts/sf. The shop electric loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 1.8 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 14 OF 27  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and natural gas energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2009 to December 2010. Homer Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 15 OF 27  The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.17 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh 0.16 $/kWh Natural Gas 0.85 $/CCF 0.92 $/CCF 0.89 $/CCF Total Cost $128,180 $118,088 $123,134 ECI 2.32 $/sf 2.14 $/sf 2.23 $/sf Electric EUI 30.0 kBtu/sf 30.9 kBtu/sf 30.5 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 95.3 kBtu/sf 91.3 kBtu/sf 93.3 kBtu/sf Building EUI 125.3 kBtu/sf 122.2 kBtu/sf 123.8 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 123.8 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 49.2% more energy than the US average and 9.2% more energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 16 OF 27  At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $124,235 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Ninilchik School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 17 OF 27  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 ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 13505 12307 13505 13069 10088 7040 7274 7274 13069 13505 13069 13505 Other Electrical 15277 13922 15277 14785 11088 7392 7639 7639 14785 15277 14785 15277 Refrigeration 2540 2315 2540 2458 2540 2458 2540 2540 2458 2540 2458 2540 Cooking 278 253 278 269 278 269 278 278 269 278 269 278 Clothes Drying 48 44 48 46 48 46 48 48 46 48 46 48 Ventilation Fans 7732 7046 7732 7482 5866 4189 4329 6085 7482 7732 7482 7732 DHW 3597 3278 3597 3481 3597 3481 3597 3597 3481 3597 3481 3597 Space Heating 3887 3532 3864 3717 3815 3672 3788 3794 3690 3841 3740 3885 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 2304 2111 2331 2291 2424 2414 2527 2500 2353 2367 2255 2307 Space Heating 3917 3200 3117 2216 1412 653 424 630 1272 2297 3040 3839 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 18 OF 27  Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Natural Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBtu Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBtu Electricity 492,615 kWh 1,681,296 3.340 5,615,529 Natural Gas 54,199 CCF 5,419,918 1.047 5,674,654 Total 7,101,214 11,290,183 BUILDING AREA 55,277 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 124 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 204 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 19 OF 27  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Electrical & Appliance 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 3 Miscellaneous Electric 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 50W with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $278 Breakeven Cost $3,271 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback yrs 7 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 4 Pool Lights 18 FLUOR 90 Watt with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $2,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $197 Breakeven Cost $2,313 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 12 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates the installation of occupancy sensors in the pool area, reducing the operating time. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 20 OF 27  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Gym Lights 17 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 17 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $58,739 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 25 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,136 Breakeven Cost $55,143 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 52 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. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Parking Lot Lights 4 HPS 200 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor & Light Sensor Installation Cost $8,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $224 Breakeven Cost $7,410 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 39 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. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. The light sensor would assure the parking lot lights are not operated when there is sufficient daylight available. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Exit Signs 20 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] with Manual Switching Replace with 20 LED 2W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $131 Breakeven Cost $2,375 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 23 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates replacing the existing incandescent exit signs throughout the building with modern, more efficient LED models. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 21 OF 27  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Wrestling Room/Shop Lights 46 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W Standard HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $33,100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,620 Breakeven Cost $24,524 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 20 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 75-Watt T12 lights in the wrestling room and shop be replaced with 59- Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors. Retrofit cost assumes $650 per troffer for bulbs (27), $400 per wall mount type occupancy sensor (4). Maintenance savings of $10 per light. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Outdoor Building Lights 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor & Light Sensor Installation Cost $14,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $669 Breakeven Cost $9,051 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 22 Auditors Notes: See EEM #6 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Entry Lights 12 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $12,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $390 Breakeven Cost $7,447 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 33 Auditors Notes: See EEM #6 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 North Classrooms/Library 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $193,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,891 Breakeven Cost $67,145 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 67 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. Retrofit cost assumes $650 per troffer for bulbs (278), $400 per wall mount type occupancy sensor (32). Maintenance savings of $10 per light. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 22 OF 27  Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Residential Refrigerator/Freezer 7 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $174 Breakeven Cost $1,987 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,986.6 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes:   This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the building, including the Home Economics and break room refrigerators.  Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Vending Machine 4 Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $766 Breakeven Cost $8,741 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.3 Simple Payback yrs 2 Auditors Notes:    There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were not unplugged thereby consuming energy year round. This case study evaluated the use of seasonal shutdown during the summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 23 OF 27  Mechanical Equipment Measures Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Recommendation 11 A thermal cover for the swimming pool when closed to reduce water and heat loss from evaporation should directly affect the daily hot water usage when used in conjunction with stricter pool water pump timing. Assumed to reduce load by 1000 gallons of 135 deg F water per day. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system (estimated to cost $ 13,600, $2,000 installation). Replace burners on boilers with modern, more efficient models (2 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($313,752). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) Installation Cost $357,002 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 25 Energy Savings (/yr) $9,715 Breakeven Cost $221,574 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 39 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 in detail. 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, shown below, 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. This upgrade will also affect the ventilation and heating temperature set point(s) of the building through refined controls and sensors. This new control system includes charging the hydronic loop with water, rather than glycol and installing a plate heat exchanger in the fan room to supply glycol to the AHUs. Assuming 60% of the DDC system cost is attributed to the heating system, this upgrade is expected to cost $313,752 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $3,228 and a maintenance savings of $1,500. B. Replacing the burners on the boilers as well as replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used and the increased efficiency of the new equipment. 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 burner and motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $27,650 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $3,498 and a maintenance savings of $1,500. C. Evaporating water from a pool’s surface robs heat from the pool water, effectively creating a heat load. The evaporated water also creates a high humidity environment that is maintained by removing humid air from the pool environment. It is recommended that a pool cover be employed during the time when the pool is not in use. Manually installed, floating pool covers are estimated to cost $15,600 including installation and provide an annual energy savings equal to $2,944. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 24 OF 27  Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 7 Refined scheduling for ventilation system to take advantage of the benefits provided by a thermal cover for the swimming pool. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system. (included with heating). Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($130,730). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (23 @ $850 = $19,550) Installation Cost $150,280 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $10,354 Breakeven Cost $123,930 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 15 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-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, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Improved control of the ventilation system is within the capacity of a DDC controller, but the existing pneumatic control scheme is antiquated and is recommended to be upgraded to a new operating system. The ventilation equipment may be slowed down to near the surge point on the blower wheels with the installation of VFD controllers. At the time of the field audit, the variable frequency drive controllers where staged but not installed yet. 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 $130,730 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $8,994. 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 $19,550 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,294. 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    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 25 OF 27  Building Shell Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 14 Window: NSFW Single Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $2,700 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $41 Breakeven Cost $674 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 67 Auditors Notes: Due to age, the existing windows on the building have become leaky with degraded seals and poor air tightness. These windows are good candidates for replacement although the payback is poor for this EEM. New windows will reduce heat loss and infiltration and provide an improved solar heat gain. Replacing windows may not seem as an energy saving solution with excellent payback when compared to other options such as sensors for lights or boiler upgrades. It is important to keep in mind that new windows will help reduce the amount of unwanted air leaking into the building, which can make certain areas feel cold. Additionally, new windows are expected to require less maintenance and add to the value of the building. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 15 Window/Skylight: SFW Single Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $2,700 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $36 Breakeven Cost $593 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 76 Auditors Notes: See EEM #14 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 16 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym/Offices Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard) OLD, 4 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 18 Add R-19 to existing insulation. Installation Cost $543,804 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,543 Breakeven Cost $35,837 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 352 Auditors Notes: It is recommended that the roof of the elementary school portion of the building be upgraded to incorporate an average insulating R-value of R-50 or higher. This EEM has a poor simple payback period, and is therefore a difficult upgrade to justify on energy savings alone. However, the implementation of a more insulating roof will reduce the amount of unwanted heat loss while helping to make the school feel more comfortable. A new roof will also require less maintenance than an older roof and will add to the value of the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 26 OF 27  Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 17 Cathedral Ceiling: North Wing Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 38.3 Add R-19 to existing insulation. Installation Cost $261,183 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $224 Breakeven Cost $5,202 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 1166 Auditors Notes: See EEM #16 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 18 Cathedral Ceiling: Pool/Wrestling Area Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 38.3 Add R-19 to existing insulation. Installation Cost $154,281 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $132 Breakeven Cost $3,072 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 1167 Auditors Notes: See EEM #16 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐NIN‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 27 OF 27  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  NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A   Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL 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  200 0 0 0       Renovations / Notes Date 1962 1968 1981 1985 1996 1997 Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  Details 15735 Sterling Hwy Ninilchik Primary  Operating  Hours Contact Person City Soldotna148 N. Binkley St Mailing Address 99639 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us       Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By Date 03/13/11Municipal  Ninilchik Education 55,277 Year Built Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Facility Zip 772 1950 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Ninilchik Buiding Size Input (sf) =55,277 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)52,674 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)45,589 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)485,600 2009 Electric Cost ($)82,591 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2009 Oil Cost ($) 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,924,753 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)128,180 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 95.3 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)30.0 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)125.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.82 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.49 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.32 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)50,485 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)45,867 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)500,240 2010 Electric Cost ($)72,221 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2010 Oil Cost ($) 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,755,819 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)118,088 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)91.3 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)30.9 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)122.2 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.83 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.31 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.14 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTNinilchikNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)ENSTAR7006 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008302,1702,170$1,647$0.76ENSTAR7006 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008302,6572,657$2,003$0.75ENSTAR7006 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008292,6302,630$1,984$0.75ENSTAR7006 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008303,5853,585$2,682$0.75ENSTAR7006 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008295,0455,045$3,749$0.74ENSTAR7006 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008305,2385,238$3,890$0.74ENSTAR7006 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009308,0128,012$7,270$0.91ENSTAR7006 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009276,7296,729$6,116$0.91ENSTAR7006 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009306,5056,505$5,914$0.91ENSTAR7006 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 5/10/2009415,4555,455$5,531$1.01ENSTAR7006 May‐09 5/11/2009 6/7/2009282,6012,601$2,686$1.03ENSTAR7006 Jun‐09 6/8/2009 7/8/2009312,0472,047$2,117$1.03ENSTAR7006 Jul‐09 7/9/2009 8/5/2009282,3702,370$2,441$1.03ENSTAR7006 Aug‐09 8/6/2009 9/8/2009342,5392,539$2,611$1.03ENSTAR7006 Sep‐09 9/9/2009 10/8/2009303,2153,215$3,289$1.02ENSTAR7006 Oct‐09 10/9/2009 11/9/2009324,5394,539$4,617$1.02ENSTAR7006 Nov‐09 11/10/2009 12/6/2009275,5835,583$5,664$1.01ENSTAR7006 Dec‐09 12/7/2009 1/6/2010315,9435,943$4,981$0.84ENSTAR7006Jan‐10 1/7/2010 2/7/2010326,2216,221$5,211$0.84ENSTAR7006 Feb‐10 2/8/2010 3/9/2010305,6275,627$4,719$0.84ENSTAR7006 Mar‐10 3/10/2010 4/6/2010284,6504,650$3,950$0.85ENSTAR7006 Apr‐10 4/7/2010 5/6/2010304,2684,268$3,631$0.85ENSTAR7006 May‐10 5/7/2010 6/9/2010343,4363,436$2,937$0.85ENSTAR7006 Jun‐10 6/10/2010 7/7/2010282,0942,094$1,816$0.87Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:52,67452,6740$45,589$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:50,48550,4850$45,867$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.86Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.92APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Ninilchik ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTNinilchikElectricityBtus/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 2001778 Jul‐08 6/20/2008 7/21/20083228,68097955$3,729$0.13Homer Electric 2001778 Aug‐08 7/22/2008 8/20/20083032,7201,117111$4,595$0.14Homer Electric 2001778 Sep‐08 8/21/2008 9/22/20083346,0401,571120$6,190$0.13Homer Electric 2001778 Oct‐08 9/23/2008 10/23/20083147,2801,614132$7,774$0.16Homer Electric 2001778 Nov‐08 10/24/2008 11/19/20082741,0401,401129$6,860$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 Dec‐08 11/20/2008 12/18/20082944,9201,533147$7,543$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 Jan‐09 12/19/2009 1/22/20093548,0801,641129$9,752$0.20Homer Electric 2001778 Feb‐09 1/23/2009 2/22/20093147,0801,607133$9,598$0.20Homer Electric 2001778 Mar‐09 2/23/2009 3/23/20092940,0401,367127$8,268$0.21Homer Electric 2001778 Apr‐09 3/24/2009 4/22/20093041,6001,420124$6,886$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 May‐09 4/23/2009 5/21/20092939,6801,354126$6,781$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 Jun‐09 5/22/2009 6/22/20093228,44097170$4,615$0.16Homer Electric 2001778 Jul‐09 6/23/2009 7/22/20093023,80081250$3,869$0.16Homer Electric 2001778 Aug‐09 7/23/2009 8/23/20093229,7201,014102$5,098$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 Sep‐098/24/2009 9/22/20093042,3601,446117$7,051$0.17Homer Electric 2001778 Oct‐09 9/23/2009 10/21/20092946,4801,586130$6,701$0.14Homer Electric 2001778 Nov‐09 10/22/2009 11/22/20093250,2001,713127$7,140$0.14Homer Electric 2001778 Dec‐09 11/23/2009 12/21/20092945,2401,544132$6,565$0.15Homer Electric 2001778 Jan‐10 12/22/2009 1/21/20103144,5601,521128$5,654$0.13Homer Electric 2001778 Feb‐10 1/22/2010 2/21/20103149,9201,704134$6,263$0.13Homer Electric 2001778 Mar‐10 2/22/2010 3/22/20102942,3201,444131$5,438$0.13Homer Electric 2001778 Apr‐10 3/23/2010 4/22/20103149,0801,675122$7,162$0.15Homer Electric 2001778 May‐10 4/23/2010 5/23/20103146,2801,580128$6,851$0.15Homer Electric 2001778 Jun‐10 5/24/2010 6/22/20102930,2801,03375$4,429$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:485,60016,5741,404$82,591$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:500,24017,0731,376$72,221$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Ninilchik ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B Short AK-Warm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 1  APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/22/2012 10:59 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Ninilchik School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Company Address: 15735 Sterling Highway Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Ninilchik Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna AK, 99669 Client Name: Kevin Lyon Client Address: 47140 East Poppy Lane N, AK 99669 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 262-2035 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 55,277 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 738,279 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 744,699 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,135,211 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 200 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Soldotna Design Outdoor Temperature: -24 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Soldotna Heating Degree Days: 11,775 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: $0.890/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 $30,390 $0 $31,864 $21,953 $4,789 $24,50 3 $524 $90 $12,942 $0 $127,056 With Proposed Retrofits $24,586 $0 $24,832 $14,380 $3,579 $24,50 3 $524 $90 $4,581 $0 $97,076 SAVING S $5,804 $0 $7,032 $7,574 $1,210 $0 $0 $0 $8,361 $0 $29,980 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 2  APPENDIX B   Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 3  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Residential Refrigerator/Freeze r Add new Seasonal Shutdown $174 $1 1986.63 0 2 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $766 $1,200 7.28 1.6 3 Lighting: Miscellaneous Electric Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $278 $2,000 1.64 7.2 4 Lighting: Pool Lights Add new Occupancy Sensor $197 $2,400 0.96 12.2 5 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 17 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,136 $58,739 0.94 51.7 6 Lighting: Parking Lot Lights Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $224 $8,800 0.84 39.2 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 4  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 7 Ventilation Refined scheduling for ventilation system to take advantage of the benefits provided by a thermal cover for the swimming pool. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system. (included with heating). Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($130,730). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (23 @ $850 = $19,550) $10,354 $150,280 0.82 14.5 8 Lighting: Exit Signs Replace with 20 LED 150W Module StdElectronic $131 $3,000 0.79 22.9 9 Lighting: Wrestling Room/Shop Lights Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W Standard HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,620 $33,100 0.74 20.4 10 Lighting: Outdoor Building Lights Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $669 $14,400 0.63 21.5 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 5  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 11 HVAC And DHW A thermal cover for the swimming pool when closed to reduce water and heat loss from evaporation should directly effect the daily hot water usage when used in conjunction with stricter pool water pump timing. Assumed to reduce load by 1000 gallons of 135 deg F water per day. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system (estimated to cost $ 13,600, $2,000 installation). Replace burners on boilers with modern, more efficient models (2 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($313,752). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) $9,175 $357,002 0.62 38.9 12 Lighting: Entry Lights Replace with 12 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $390 $12,800 0.58 32.8 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 6  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 13 Lighting: North Classrooms/Librar y Replace with 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,891 $193,500 0.35 66.9 14 Window/Skylight: NSFW Single Wood Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $41 $2,700 0.25 66.6 15 Window/Skylight: SFW Single Wood Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $36 $2,700 0.22 75.7 16 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym/Offices Add R-19 to existing insulation. $1,543 $543,804 0.07 352.5 17 Cathedral Ceiling: North Wing Add R-19 to existing insulation. $224 $261,183 0.02 1166.2 18 Cathedral Ceiling: Pool/Wrestling Area Add R-19 to existing insulation. $132 $154,281 0.02 1166.6 TOTAL $29,980 $1,801,8 90 0.32 60.1 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 16 Cathedral Ceiling: Gym/Offices Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard) OLD, 4 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 18 Add R-19 to existing insulation. $543,804 $1,543 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 7  APPENDIX B   17 Cathedral Ceiling: North Wing Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R- 38 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 38.3 Add R-19 to existing insulation. $261,183 $224 18 Cathedral Ceiling: Pool/Wrestling Area Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R- 38 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 38.3 Add R-19 to existing insulation. $154,281 $132 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 14 Window/Skylight : NSFW Single Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $2,700 $41 15 Window/Skylight : SFW Single Wood Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $2,700 $36 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 8  APPENDIX B   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 11 A thermal cover for the swimming pool when closed to reduce water and heat loss from evaporation should directly effect the daily hot water usage when used in conjunction with stricter pool water pump timing. Assumed to reduce load by 1000 gallons of 135 deg F water per day. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system (estimated to cost $ 13,600, $2,000 installation). Replace burners on boilers with modern, more efficient models (2 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($313,752). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (9 @ $850 = $7,650) $357,002 $9,175 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 Refined scheduling for ventilation system to take advantage of the benefits provided by a thermal cover for the swimming pool. Cost of thermal cover is distributed between boiler and ventilation system. (included with heating). Add variable speed DDC System to ventilation system. Assumed that 25% of total cost is attributed to ventilation with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC for all ventilation systems ($130,730). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (23 @ $850 = $19,550) $150,280 $10,354 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 3 Miscellaneous Electric 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 50W with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $2,000 $278 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 9  APPENDIX B   4 Pool Lights 18 FLUOR 90 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,400 $197 5 Gym Lights 17 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 17 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $58,739 $1,136 6 Parking Lot Lights 4 HPS 200 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $8,800 $224 8 Exit Signs 20 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] with Manual Switching Replace with 20 LED 150W Module StdElectronic $3,000 $131 9 Wrestling Room/Shop Lights 46 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 46 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W Standard HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $33,100 $1,620 10 Outdoor Building Lights 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $14,400 $669 12 Entry Lights 12 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $12,800 $390 13 North Classrooms/Libra ry 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 278 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $193,500 $2,891 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Ninilchik School Page 10  APPENDIX B   1 Residential Refrigerator/Free zer 7 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $174 2 Vending Machine 4 Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1,200 $766 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK K-12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYNINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAGLOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCYMOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN88 NAT GAS / CAST IRON 2,049 MBH 84% 3015B2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN88 NAT GAS / CAST IRON 2,049 MBH 84% 3015HX1 BOILER ROOMDHWGRAHAM GPE18 SHELL AND TUBE80% 2410HX2 POOL MECH RM POOL WATER HEATB & GWU 6322 SHELL AND TUBE 230 MBH 95% 240CP1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMC 5080 INLINE PUMP 50 GPM @ 25' 0.4 HP 100CP2A&B BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPC80160 INLINE PUMP 115GPM @ 45' 2 HP 100CP3 BOILER ROOMHWCGRUNDFOS UP 2375F INLINE PUMP 30 GPM @ 15' 0.18 HP 100CP4 POOL MECH RM DHW CIRCGRUNDFOS UP1542 INLINE PUMP10GPM @ 8' 0.05 HP 100CP6 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMC 5040 INLINE PUMP 45 GPM @ 20' 0.5 HP 100CP7 BOILER ROOM DHW SUPPLY GRUNDFOS UP 4375 INLINE PUMP 30 GPM @ 15' 0.17 HP 100PP1 POOL MECH RM POOL HWMARATHON8JBASEMOUNTED150 GPM5 HP 150PP1 POOL MECH RM CHEM PUMPSTARITE JSAEL2A BASE MOUNTED 60 GPM @ 30' 1 HP 150EVP1 ELEVATOR ROOM ELEVATORUS MOTORSIMHBASE MOUNTED72% 20 HP 200TX1 POOL BLDG HEAT RECOVERY ACS HOVEL DG838395 PLATE HEAT EXE 4400 @ .7"N/A 150SF1 POOL BLDGSUPPLY AIRBOHNHD108LF HORIZONTAL 4400CFM @ 1.75" NEMA 3 HP 250SF2 POOL BLDG HEATED AIR CIRCN/AN/AHORIZONTAL1500CFM NEMA 0.5 HP 250WRESTLING ROOM S/AAC1 CRAWLSPACEAIR CIRCPACEA24HORIZONTAL 6600CFM @ 1" NEMA 2 HP 250PHYSICALLY LABLED"Fan #1"AC2 POOL MECH RM AIR CIRCPACEA12HORIZONTAL 1350CFM @ 1" NEMA 0.5 HP 250PHYSICALLY LABLED "Fan #2"AC3 POOL MECH RM AIR CIRCPACEA8HORIZONTAL 650CFM @ 1" NEMA 0.25 HP 250AC4 POOL MECH RM AIR CIRCPACEA18HORIZONTAL 2760CFM @ 1" NEMA 0.75 HP 250AH1FAN ROOMS / R AIRPACE A18 FC DWDI HORIZONTAL 7000CFM @ 1.65" NEMA 3.25 HP 250AH2FAN ROOMS / R AIRPACE A18 FC DWDI HORIZONTAL 7000CFM @ 1.65" NEMA 3.25 HP 250EF1 POOL BLDG EXHAUST AIR LOREN COOK 12 CVB HORIZONTAL 3400CFM @ 1.5" NEMA 3.0 HP 200EF2 POOL BLDG EXHAUST AIR LOREN COOK 12 CVB HORIZONTAL 1000CFM @ 1.5" NEMA 0.75 HP 200EF3ROOFEXHAUST AIRPENN20BUPBLAST95 CFM @ 0.1" NEMA 50 W 200EF4 SCIENCE ROOM EXHAUST AIR AMERICAN STD N/AHORIZONTAL425 CFM NEMA 0.3 HP 250EF5ROOFEXHAUST AIRPENNZ8UPBLAST 210 CFM @ 0.25" NEMA 105 W 200EF1B NORTH WING EXHAUST AIR CENTRI MASTER PRN118EUPBLAST1400 CFM NEMA 0.25 HP 200PHYSICALLY LABELED "EF2"EF2B NORTH WING EXHAUST AIR CENTRI MASTER PRN118EUPBLAST1200 CFM NEMA 0.25 HP 200PHYSICALLY LABELED "EF2"EF3B, 6, 9, 10 NORTH WING EXHAUST AIRN/AN/AUPBLAST~235 CFM NEMA ~105 W 200EF4B FAN ROOMEXHAUST AIRTRANE10FCCENTRIFUGAL 600CFM @ .38" NEMA 0.18 HP 250PHYSICALLY LABLED "F3"EF5B NORTH WING EXHAUST AIRN/AN/AUPBLAST~270 CFM NEMA ~1/12 HP 200EF7KITCHENEXHAUST AIRTRANE16BIUPBLAST2000 CFM NEMA 0.25 HP 200EF8KITCHENEXHAUST AIRTRANE12BIUPBLAST850 CFM NEMA 1/6 HP 200CMP1SHOPAIR COMPGE5K182AL21 CONDENSATE3 HP 25CMP2 FAN ROOMAIR COMP LELAND FARADAY 818228501 CONDENSATE500CFM2 HP 1510CMP3 BOILER ROOMAIR COMPQUINCY NORTHWESTQNWCONDENSATE3 HP 15FP1 FIRE CTRL RM FIRE CTRL PUMP PEERLESS PUMP 8IAF VERTICAL TURBINE 250 GPM3 HP 2018FIL1 POOL MECH RM POOL FILTERPADDOCK 2CELL VERT. SAND/ZEOBRITE FILTER 150 GPMUH14~VariesBUILDING HEATMODINE~UNKHORIZONTAL750CFM~.33 HP~MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Windows Typical of School 2. Example of Window Thickness 3. Doors Typical to School 4. Rear View of Machine Shop Featuring Heavy Equipment Doors CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Generator Fuel Supply Tank & Generator Outbuilding 6. Back/up Generator 7. Machine Shop Dust Filtration System 8. Exterior Light Fixture Typical of School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. Exterior Pole/Mounted Light Fixture 10. Exterior Pole/Mounted Light Fixture (2) 11. Fire Control System Pump 12. Overall of Boiler Room Featuring Boilers 1&2, CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 13. Circulation Pumps 2A & 2B 14. Domestic Hot Water Tank (Center), DHW Supply Pump (Left) & DHW Circulation Pump (Right) 15. Air Handler Unit Typical of School 16. Example of Crawl/Space CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 17. Plate Heat Exchanger & Typical Hot Water/Glycol Circulation Pump (Upper Right) 18. Roof Overview Featuring Centrifugal Roof/Mounted Exhaust Fan 19. Roof Overview (2) 20. Roof/Mounted Exhaust Fans CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 21. Pool Expansion DHW Tank 22. Pool Heat Exchanger 23. Pool Water Chemical Content Control Panel 24. Pool Expansion Heat Recovery System Temperature Display CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 25. Pool Expansion Air Compressor (Right) & Honeywell Air Dryer (Left) 26. Unit Heater Typical of School 27. Machine Shop Centrifugal Exhaust Fan 28. Domestic Refrigeration Unit Typical to School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 29. Computer Monitors Typical to School 30. Monitor Typical to Classrooms 31. Example of “T/12’s” Typical to Certain Areas of School 32. Incandescent Exit Sign Typical to School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 33. Example of Pool Room Light Fixtures 34. Example of Typical Classroom Light Fixtures 35. Typical Hallway Light Fixtures 36. Example of Typical Restroom Light Fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY NINILCHIK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 37. Example of Gymnasium Light Fixtures 38. Example of Machine Shop Light Fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. North East Entrance Of School, Heat Loss Around Door Frames. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. East Wall, Heat Loss Thru Window Glass CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. East Wall (A) Heat Loss Thru Windows And Door Frames (B) Note Heat Loss Pattern On The Wall A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. East (Center) Entrance (A) Heat Loss Thru The Windows (B) Note Heat Loss Pattern At The Top Bottom Of The Wall A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. South East Entrance (A) Heat Loss At Window Frames (B) Heat Loss At Top And Bottom Of Wall A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. East Wall (A) Heat Loss At Window Frames (B) Heat Loss At Top And Bottom Of Wall A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  7. East Wall Note Hot Spots Along Top Of Wall CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  8. South West Wall (A) This Wall Type Showing Thermal Conductance Thru The Wall Stud Framing. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  9. Vocational Ed Building This Side Of building In Direct Sun A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  10. West Wall Some Minor Heat Loss At The Windows A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4 11. West Wall Some Minor Heat Loss Around The Windows CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  12. North West Corner (A)Some Heat Loss Around The Doors A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  13. North East Corner Some Minor Heat Loss At The Windows CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    NINILCHIK K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  14. East Wall.Some Minor Heat Loss At The Window Frames