Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-SXQ-CAEC KPBSD Redoubt Elementary 2012-EE Redoubt Elementary School 486 West Redoubt Ave Soldotna, Alaska 99669 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-SXQ-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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE iv OF iv This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 1 OF 29  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 $ 105,565 Natural Gas $ 35,519 Total $ 141,084 Energy Utilization Index: 133.0 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 3.03 $/sf 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 Redoubt Elementary School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 2 OF 29  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Mini-Fridge Add new Seasonal Shutdown $97 $1 1765.50 0.0 (N/A) 2 Refrigeration: Teacher Lounge Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $77 $1 1410.50 0.0 (N/A) 3 Refrigeration: Upright Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $77 $1 1411.75 0.0 (N/A) 4 Refrigeration: Storage Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $62 $1 1123.00 0.0 (N/A) 5 Refrigeration: Chest Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $52 $1 941.50 0.0 (N/A) 6 Refrigeration: Commercial Refer/Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $33 $1 600.25 0.0 (N/A) 7 Refrigeration: Drink Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $340 $300 20.68 0.9 (N/A) 8 Refrigeration: Drink Vending Machines Remove one Vending Machine $397 $1,000 8.21 2.5 (2.2) 9 Lighting: Classroom/Hallway Lights Replace with 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Programmed Start Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $174 $800 5.93 4.6 (2.0) 10 Lighting: Misc. Incandescent Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $630 $2,000 3.63 3.2 (N/A) 11 Lighting: Entrance Lights Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic $159 $900 2.07 5.7 (N/A) 12 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $404 $2,000 1.80 4.9 (N/A) 13 Lighting: Exterior Lights Replace with 16 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Remove Daylight Sensor and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,648 $35,200 1.33 9.6 (8.9) 14 Setback Thermostat: Mechanical Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. $142 $1,560 1.18 11.0 (N/A) 15 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (3) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $1,404 $40,960 0.86 29.2 (13.6) 16 Ventilation 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 ($105,092). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (31 @ $850 = $17,850) $8,683 $131,442 0.80 15.1 (N/A) 17 Lighting: Backlit Announcement Sign Replace with FLUOR (8) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver (4) StdElectronic $135 $2,000 0.79 14.9 (N/A) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 3 OF 29  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 18 HVAC And DHW Replace hot water maker with indirect fired hot water maker ($5,000). Install 3 modern efficient condensing gas boilers (Boilers, 3 @ $18,450 + BMS Panel, 1 @ $4,562 + Shipping, 3 @ $2,300 + Installation, 3 @ $5,000). 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 ($252,221). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (5 @ $850 = $4,250) $8,520 $343,283 0.54 40.3 (29.8) 19 Setback Thermostat: Core & Gymnasium w/Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core & Gymnasium w/Addition space. $794 $23,074 0.44 29.0 (N/A) 20 Lighting: Classroom/Hallway Lights Replace with 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $9,538 $384,800 0.40 40.3 (28.8) 21 Other Electrical: PC CRT Monitor Replace with 30 LCD Monitor $508 $15,000 0.39 29.5 (N/A) 22 Setback Thermostat: East and West Wings Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the East and West Wings space. $1,108 $38,421 0.37 34.7 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $36,982 $1,022,746 0.59 27.7 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. This column includes the SP considering energy savings only as well as the SP with maintenance and energy savings combined. The combined SP is distinguished with brackets and italicized text. Entries of N/A imply that this item retrofit option has no recognized maintenance savings available. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 4 OF 29  With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $36,982 per year, or 26.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $1,022,746, for an overall simple payback period of 27.7 years. If only the measures are implemented with an SIR > 1.0) the annual utility cost can be reduced by $6,292 per year, or 4.5% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $43,766, for an overall simple payback period of 7 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 $33,662 $4,984 $38,902 $3,874 $42,779 $1,756 $184 $13,130 $139,271 With All Proposed Retrofits $26,151 $1,296 $21,102 $2,466 $42,173 $1,756 $184 $7,161 $102,289 SAVINGS $7,511 $3,688 $17,800 $1,408 $606 $0 $0 $5,969 $36,982 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 5 OF 29  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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 6 OF 29  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 46,639 square foot Redoubt Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, an outside portable classroom, 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 7 OF 29  After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on July 25, 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 11, 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 8 OF 29  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 Soldotna has an index of 98.6 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 9 OF 29  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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 10 OF 29  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, Redoubt Elementary School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Soldotna, 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 Soldotna, 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 11 OF 29  The original structure of Redoubt Elementary School is a single story facility that was built in 1978. This building has had one additions made to it, adding a storage space to the gymnasium. The school has a single portable unit located on the northeastern side of the building. The school typically has faculty and student occupancy from 7AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental time keeping the school partially occupied includes an after school and summer program. There are an estimated 400 full time student and staff occupants using the building during normal occupancy hours. As architectural drawings were provided for this audit, shell insulation values were estimated using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned metal framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.60 to 0.83 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be in good condition considering their age. The exterior walls of the elementary school consist of 8-inch, 2-core concrete blocks on the outside, furred with 2x4 studs with R-11 fiberglass batt on the inside. The gymnasium addition does not have a masonry layer and is made of 2x6 studs with R-19 fiberglass batt. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school is insulated with what appears to be 4.5-6 inches of rigid foam insulation board for an average composite value of R-24. This insulating foam board sits on top of 3-inch wood decking. The roof is under insulated but was not evaluated as an energy improvement measure because re-roofing does not appear to be needed at this time and is not justified on energy savings alone. When needed, the school roof is recommended to be upgraded to a minimum of R-50 EPDM when possible to meet current school building standards as listed in Table 6 of the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside except for the section of building added onto the gymnasium. There is no indication of any insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All doors on this building are commercial grade, metal framed and insulated doors that are half- windowed or solid. Several of the exterior doors have single pane windows only but were found to not be cost effective to change out to modern double pane windows. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 12 OF 29  Heat is provided to the main school building by three (3) natural draft, tank type, gas-fired boilers located in the second floor mechanical room. The boilers employ a Hi-Lo Fire operation and heating water reset to improve efficiency, but the boilers are old, tired, inefficient and are recommended to be replaced with a modern condensing boiler package. This would be a good school for a boiler upgrade project to prove out the energy savings from upgrading to the new condensing boiler technology. This was done in 2009 at Klatt Elementary in Anchorage and has been documented to save up to 30% of the schools natural gas usage by taking advantage of the turndown capabilities with the new boiler technology during the shoulder heating seasons. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler room and provides heat to the baseboard system, classroom unit ventilators, cabinet heaters, and air handling units in the building. There is also a furnace installed in the gymnasium addition. This building has end devices using an old pneumatic controls system throughout. Upgrading to a DDC system is evaluated in Section 7.0 of this report. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler 1 Nameplate information A.O. Smith Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 670,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 76.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler 2 Nameplate information A.O. Smith Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 670,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 76.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler 3 Nameplate information A.O. Smith Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 670,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 76.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Gym Addition Furnace Nameplate information Lennox Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 110,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 80.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Forced Air CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 13 OF 29  Domestic hot water heat is supplied by a natural gas fired, natural draft, tank type hot water heater located in the second floor mechanical room. DHW is recirculated 24/7 and supplies hot water to the various plumbing fixtures located throughout the building. Installing a side-arm hot water maker with the condensing boiler package upgrade and putting the circulation pump on a timer is included in the evaluation as part of EEM 18 in this report. The domestic hot water heater is located in the second floor mechanical room and can be described as follows. Domestic Hot Water Heater Nameplate information A.O. Smith Boiler Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 390,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 56.0 % Distribution Type: 24/7 Circulation Outside air is drawn into the classrooms primarily through the use of unit ventilators. There are (4) Air Handling Units located inside of the building providing ventilation to the gymnasium and office areas. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building, a relief air fan located in the mechanical rooms, and relief air dampers located in the main hallways. The ventilation system is controlled by a pneumatic control system with mechanical time clocks. Improved control and operational ability of the heating and ventilation equipment can be achieved by modernizing the pneumatic system to a DDC system to provide energy savings and is evaluated in Section 7.0 of this report. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. Lighting upgrade opportunities provide some of the best investment opportunities in the building. There is an outdated gym lighting system in place which if updated to modern T5HO system can produce more illumination with a third less energy. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building are good candidates for replacement to new Energy-Saver 28W T8 systems with programmed start and occupancy sensor control technology. 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 14 OF 29  Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. The onsite relocatable classroom has an area of 960 square feet and consists of 2x6 wood stud wall construction 16 inches on center with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end walls. The above grade floor rests on sleepers. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-30 fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value. The relocatable classroom at Redoubt is heated with electric resistance baseboards on the perimeter. There is also a natural gas fired, natural draft furnace in the building, but the furnace is original to the structure and is old and inefficient. The electric baseboard temperature set point is controlled by a thermostat on each individual baseboard. This makes it easy for the electric baseboards to be left on at higher temperature than is required which was the typical case found during the audits of these type of portable buildings. There is no temperature set-back capability with the electric baseboard temperature control system in place. The lighting in the relocatable classroom is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-12 light fixtures with magnetic ballasts. Due to the estimated low operational use of the relocatable classroom at Redoubt Elementary (which currently appears to be a music classroom) and low run time of the lights (estimated at 15 hours/week), retrofitting the lights system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors does not appear to be cost effective. In the future, this lighting retrofit may be cost effective if the classroom lighting system is utilized more hours during the week. In addition, upgrading the light system in the future will be necessary as the T-12 systems are phased out of service. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 15 OF 29  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. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedule. Homer Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedule. The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. As 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 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 16 OF 29  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 0.87 $/CCF 0.94 $/CCF 0.91 $/kWh Total Cost $146,625 $135,542 $141,084 ECI 3.14 $/sf 2.91 $/sf 3.03 $/sf Electric EUI 47.9 kBtu/sf 47.7 kBtu/sf 47.8 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 80.5 kBtu/sf 89.8 kBtu/sf 85.2 kBtu/sf Building EUI 128.5 kBtu/sf 137.5 kBtu/sf 133.0 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 133.0 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 60.2% more energy than the US average and 17.3 % more energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 17 OF 29  At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $139,271 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Redoubt Elementary. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Existing Retrofit Natural Gas Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 18 OF 29  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. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 25041 22820 25041 20064 20389 9751 10076 15576 20064 25041 24233 25041 Refrigeration 2055 1873 2055 1989 2055 1989 2055 2055 1989 2055 1989 2055 Other Electrical 30730 28004 28330 20198 20456 7730 7988 14637 20198 28630 29738 30730 Cooking 1118 1019 1118 1082 1118 0 0 1118 1082 1118 1082 1118 Clothes Drying 117 107 117 113 117 0 0 117 113 117 113 117 Ventilation Fans 3890 3545 3890 7135 7373 7135 7373 7373 8446 8728 8446 8728 DHW 454 414 454 439 454 439 454 454 439 454 439 454 Space Heating 1185 1080 1185 1147 1185 1147 1185 1185 1147 1186 1147 1186 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 387 353 387 375 387 375 387 387 375 387 375 387 Space Heating 4240 3362 3186 2994 2282 1913 1531 1383 1819 2773 3969 5275 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 19 OF 29  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 648,221 kWh 2,212,379 3.340 7,389,347 Natural Gas 39,288 ccf 3,928,815 1.047 4,113,469 Total 6,141,194 11,502,816 BUILDING AREA 46,639 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 133 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 247 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    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 20 OF 29  The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below:  Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Mini-Fridge 5 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $97 Breakeven Cost $1,766 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,765.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: During the audit in the summer recess, all refrigerators were noted to be plugged and in operation, but not in use. As this is a cost free measure, simply unplug refrigeration units during summer months that are not in use. Any unnecessary refrigerators are recommended to be removed as they operate on a 24/7 schedule. Also, all refrigerators over 10 years old should be replaced with new energy star rated units which provide less than a 5 year payout in energy savings. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Teacher Lounge Refrigerator 3 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $77 Breakeven Cost $1,411 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,410.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Upright Freezer Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $77 Breakeven Cost $1,412 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,411.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 4 Storage Freezer Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $62 Breakeven Cost $1,123 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,123.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 21 OF 29  Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 5 Chest Refrigerator 2 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $52 Breakeven Cost $942 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 941.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 6 Commercial Refirgerator/Freezer Refrigerator/Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $33 Breakeven Cost $600 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 600.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 7 Drink Vending Machines 1 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $340 Breakeven Cost $6,205 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 20.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 1   Auditors Notes: Remove 1 of the 2 vending machines and begin using seasonal shutdown. Assumes $300 for vending miser controls, $1,000 for removal of one machine. As the vending machines operate 24/7, these units are high energy consumers. Recommend staff come to an agreement on which brand to stock and use just one vending machine to save money. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 8 Drink Vending Machines 1 Vending Machine Replace with Vending Machine Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $397 Breakeven Cost $8,214 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: See EEM #7 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 22 OF 29  Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Classroom/Hallway Lights 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Programmed Start Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $174 Breakeven Cost $4,748 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 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 $960 per troffer with ballast and bulb, $400 per occupancy sensor. Maintenance savings of $10 per light per year. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Misc. Incandescent 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $630 Breakeven Cost $7,251 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: This EEM includes replacement of all incandescent lamps to compact florescent lamps. The energy usage of an incandescent compared to a compact florescent is approximately 3 to 4 times greater. In addition to the energy savings, compact florescent fixtures burn-hours are 8 to 15 times longer than incandescent fixtures ranging from 6,000 to 15,000 burn-hours compared to incandescent fixtures ranging from 750 to 1,000 burn-hours. Assumes maintenance savings of $100 per light per year. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Entrance Lights 6 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic Installation Cost $900 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $159 Breakeven Cost $1,863 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: This EEM includes replacement of all entrance lamps to compact florescent lamps. Assumes $150 per fixture.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 23 OF 29  Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Exterior Lights 16 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching, Daylight Sensor Replace with 16 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Remove Daylight Sensor and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $35,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,648 Breakeven Cost $46,675 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 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. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. Assumes $2,000 per lamp and $400 per occupancy sensor (1 sensor for every 2 lights). Maintenance savings of $20 per light per year. For replacement lamps, as an example look at: http://www.shineretrofits.com/neptun-light-100-watt-led-round-head- parking-lot-street-light-fixture-with-70-000-hr-lights-10-yr-warranty-led-47100.html . Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 Gym Lights 16 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (3) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $40,960 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,404 Breakeven Cost $35,260 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 29 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T-5 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. Retrofit cost assumes $2,360 per troffer with ballast and bulb (16), $400 per occupancy sensor (6), $400 for multi-level switch (2). Maintenance savings of $100 per light per year. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T-5 HO system. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 24 OF 29  Mechanical Equipment Measures Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 Classroom/Hallway Lights 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Installation Cost $384,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $9,538 Breakeven Cost $155,456 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 40 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 $960 per troffer with ballast and bulb, $400 per occupancy sensor. Maintenance savings of $10 per light per year. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Backlit Announcement Sign FLUOR (8) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard (4) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (8) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy- Saver (4) StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $135 Breakeven Cost $1,582 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 15 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing T12 lights in the announcement sign be replaced with 54-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and electronic ballasts. Rank Recommendation 18 Replace hot water maker with indirect fired hot water maker ($5,000). Install 3 modern efficient condensing gas boilers (Boilers, 3 @ $18,450 + BMS Panel, 1 @ $4,562 + Shipping, 3 @ $2,300 + Installation, 3 @ $5,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system and timer controls on DHW recirculation pump. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($252,221). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (5 @ $850 = $4,250) Installation Cost $343,283 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $8,520 Breakeven Cost $184,108 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 30 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. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 25 OF 29  Ventilation System Measures Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Description Recommendation 16 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 ($105,092). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (31 @ $850 = $17,850) Installation Cost $131,442 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $8,683 Breakeven Cost $105,165 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. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. Rank Building Space Recommendation 14 Mechanical Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. This EEM assumes a DDC system is installed. Installation Cost $1,560 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $142 Breakeven Cost $1,835 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Building Space Recommendation 19 Core & Gymnasium w/Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core & Gymnasium w/Addition space. This EEM assumes a DDC system is installed. Installation Cost $23,074 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $794 Breakeven Cost $10,256 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 29 Auditors Notes: See EEM #14 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 26 OF 29  Other Electrical Measures Air Sealing Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 22 East and West Wings Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the East and West Wings space. This EEM assumes a DDC system is installed. Installation Cost $38,421 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,108 Breakeven Cost $14,305 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 35 Auditors Notes: See EEM #14 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 21 PC CRT Monitor 30 CRT Monitor with Manual Switching Replace with 30 LCD Monitor Installation Cost $15,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $508 Breakeven Cost $5,854 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 30   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace old CRT monitor with modern energy efficient LCD monitor or equiv. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 12 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.90 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $404 Breakeven Cost $3,590 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 5   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to tighten the building shell to reduce natural infiltration and heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 27 OF 29  Mechanical Equipment Measures Building Shell Measures: Insulation Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation Relo-1 Relocatable Classroom Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Relocatable Classroom space. Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $726 Breakeven Cost $8,918 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 8   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to monitor and control the relocatable classroom interior temperature which currently is under manual control of the electric heat resistance system. Interface with the building DDC system will allow the automation group to heat the building to 70 deg F during occupied times only. All other unoccupied times, the system can be setback to 60 deg F to save on the electric heat cost. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-2 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt Modeled R-Value: 30.8 Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. Installation Cost $2,803 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $154 Breakeven Cost $3,197 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 18   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the ceiling to an R-50 insulation value. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Relo-3 Exposed Floor: AGF Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: R-19 Batt: FG or RW, 6 inches Modeled R-Value: 25.2 Install R-10 rigid board insulation Installation Cost $2,928 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $155 Breakeven Cost $3,206 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 19   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the floor to an R-30 insulation value. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 28 OF 29  Air Sealing Measures Door Measures Window Measures Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) Relo-4 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.60 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 6%. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $60 Breakeven Cost $527 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 8   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to tighten the building shell to reduce natural infiltration and heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-5 Exterior Door: ED Door Type: Metal - fiberglass or mineral wool Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $2,967 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $150 Breakeven Cost $3,114 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 20   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the door assemblies with modern energy efficient doors to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation Relo-6 Window/Skylight: WNSF Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.67 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.26 vinyl window Installation Cost $2,025 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $133 Breakeven Cost $2,054 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 15   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the window assemblies with modern energy efficient windows to reduce heat loss. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation Relo-7 Interior Lights 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $12,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $35 Breakeven Cost $4,604 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 346   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to upgrade the lighting system and controls to reduce electric use. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 29 OF 29  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  REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A   Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Paul Brenner 907‐714‐8825 State Zip AK 99669 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7 to 50 0 0       Average # of  Occupants  During  400 0 0 0       Renovations / Notes Date None Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  Year Built 1978 Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Facility Zip 4,000 Date 03/13/11Municipal  Redoubt Education 46,639 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. 486 West Redoubt Ave Soldotna Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By 99669 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us Details       1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. Primary  Operating  Hours Contact Person City Soldotna148 N. Binkley St Mailing Address APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Redoubt Buiding Size Input (sf) =46,639 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)37,562 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)32,710 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)655,200 2009 Electric Cost ($)113,915 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2009 Oil Cost ($) 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)5,992,398 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)146,625 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 80.5 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)47.9 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)128.5 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.70 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.44 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/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)3.14 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)41,881 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)38,327 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)652,320 2010 Electric Cost ($)97,215 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2010 Oil Cost ($) 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,414,468 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)135,542 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)89.8 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)47.7 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)137.5 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.82 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.08 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)2.91 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYREDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTRedoubtNatural 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 ($)ENSTAR147546 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008301,4751,475$1,199$0.81ENSTAR147546 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008301,4801,480$1,143$0.77ENSTAR147546 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008291,7241,724$1,321$0.77ENSTAR147546 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008302,8252,825$2,126$0.75ENSTAR147546 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008293,8183,818$2,853$0.75ENSTAR147546 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008303,9593,959$2,995$0.76ENSTAR147546 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009305,8695,869$5,342$0.91ENSTAR147546 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009275,1725,172$4,715$0.91ENSTAR147546 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009304,9034,903$4,473$0.91ENSTAR147546 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/15/2009161,8631,863$1,931$1.04ENSTAR147546 May‐09 4/16/2009 5/18/2009332,5802,580$2,650$1.03ENSTAR147546 Jun‐09 5/19/2009 6/11/2009241,8941,894$1,962$1.04ENSTAR147546 Jul‐09 6/12/2009 7/14/2009331,5711,571$1,640$1.04ENSTAR147546 Aug‐09 7/15/2009 8/11/2009281,7141,714$1,783$1.04ENSTAR147546 Sep‐09 8/12/2009 9/13/2009331,6811,681$1,750$1.04ENSTAR147546 Oct‐09 9/14/2009 10/14/2009312,8482,848$2,921$1.03ENSTAR147546 Nov‐09 10/15/2009 11/16/2009333,9273,927$4,003$1.02ENSTAR147546 Dec‐09 11/17/2009 12/15/2009294,3054,305$4,382$1.02ENSTAR147546Jan‐10 12/16/2009 1/13/2010294,6024,602$3,871$0.84ENSTAR147546 Feb‐10 1/14/2010 2/15/2010335,9495,949$4,986$0.84ENSTAR147546 Mar‐10 2/16/2010 3/16/2010294,7764,776$4,015$0.84ENSTAR147546 Apr‐10 3/17/2010 4/13/2010283,9343,934$3,352$0.85ENSTAR147546 May‐10 4/14/2010 5/18/2010354,1294,129$3,515$0.85ENSTAR147546 Jun‐10 5/19/2010 6/15/2010272,4452,445$2,109$0.86Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:37,56237,5620$32,710$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:41,88141,8810$38,327$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.87Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.94APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYREDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Redoubt ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYREDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTRedoubtElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)Homer Electric 285039 Jul‐08 6/27/20008 7/27/20083129,28099948$4,026$0.14Homer Electric 285039 Aug‐08 7/28/2008 8/28/20083246,8801,60088$6,696$0.14Homer Electric 285039 Sep‐08 8/29/2008 9/28/20083161,6002,10298$8,517$0.14Homer Electric 285039 Oct‐08 9/29/2008 10/28/20083062,8802,14696$10,508$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Nov‐08 10/29/2008 11/25/20082861,7602,108102$10,442$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Dec‐08 11/26/2008 12/28/20083362,2402,124108$10,431$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jan‐09 12/29/2008 1/29/20093266,4002,266105$13,676$0.21Homer Electric 285039 Feb‐09 1/30/2009 2/26/20092863,5202,16896$13,196$0.21Homer Electric 285039 Mar‐09 2/27/2009 3/30/20093258,5601,999100$12,200$0.21Homer Electric 285039 Apr‐09 3/31/2009 4/27/20092856,8001,93992$9,646$0.17Homer Electric 285039 May‐09 4/28/2009 5/27/20093053,9201,84090$9,140$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jun‐09 5/28/2009 6/30/20093331,3601,07053$5,437$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/27/20092724,32083044$4,163$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Aug‐09 7/28/2009 8/27/20093142,2401,44289$7,532$0.18Homer Electric 285039 Sep‐098/28/2009 9/27/20093162,5602,13596$10,568$0.17Homer Electric 285039 Oct‐09 9/28/2009 10/28/20093166,7202,277100$9,788$0.15Homer Electric 285039 Nov‐09 10/29/2009 11/29/20093266,8802,28398$9,827$0.15Homer Electric 285039 Dec‐09 11/30/2009 12/29/20093058,7202,004103$8,777$0.15Homer Electric 285039 Jan‐10 12/30/2009 1/28/20103063,2002,157104$8,230$0.13Homer Electric 285039 Feb‐10 1/29/2010 2/22/20102554,0801,846100$7,165$0.13Homer Electric 285039 Mar‐10 2/23/2010 3/29/20103566,5602,272101$8,472$0.13Homer Electric 285039 Apr‐10 3/30/2010 4/29/20103167,6802,31097$10,104$0.15Homer Electric 285039 May‐10 4/30/2010 5/23/20102445,1201,54096$7,319$0.16Homer Electric 285039 Jun‐10 5/24/2010 6/24/20103134,2401,16966$5,270$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:655,20022,3621,075$113,915$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:652,32022,2641,095$97,215$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYREDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Redoubt ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B Short AKWarm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 2 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 2/23/2012 11:25 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Redoubt Elementary School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 486 West Redoubt Avenue Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring City: Soldotna Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Kevin Lyon Client Address: 47140 East Poppy Lane Soldotna, AK 99669 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: (907) 262-2035 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 46,639 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,256,631 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,282,276 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,954,689 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 400 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70.8 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: $0.905/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electric al Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $33,662 $0 $4,984 $38,902 $3,874 $42,77 9 $1,756 $184 $13,130 $0 $139,271 With Proposed Retrofits $26,151 $0 $1,296 $21,102 $2,466 $42,17 3 $1,756 $184 $7,161 $0 $102,289 SAVINGS $7,511 $0 $3,688 $17,800 $1,408 $606 $0 $0 $5,969 $0 $36,982 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 3 APPENDIX B $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Cooking Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Mini- Fridge Add new Seasonal Shutdown $97 $1 1765.50 0 2 Refrigeration: Teacher Lounge Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $77 $1 1410.50 0 3 Refrigeration: Upright Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $77 $1 1411.75 0 4 Refrigeration: Storage Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $62 $1 1123.00 0 5 Refrigeration: Chest Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $52 $1 941.50 0 6 Refrigeration: Commercial Refirgerator/Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $33 $1 600.25 0 7 Refrigeration: Drink Vending Machines Add new Seasonal Shutdown $340 $300 20.68 0.9 8 Refrigeration: Drink Vending Machines Replace with Vending Machine $397 $1,000 8.21 2.5 9 Lighting: Classroom/Hallway Lights Replace with 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $174 $800 5.93 4.6 10 Lighting: Misc. Incandescent Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $630 $2,000 3.63 3.2 11 Lighting: Entrance Lights Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic $159 $900 2.07 5.7 12 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $404 $2,000 1.80 4.9 13 Lighting: Exterior Lights Replace with 16 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Remove Daylight Sensor and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,648 $35,200 1.33 9.6 14 Setback Thermostat: Mechanical Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. $142 $1,560 1.18 11 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 5 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 15 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (3) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,404 $40,960 0.86 29.2 16 Ventilation 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 ($105,092). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (31 @ $850 = $17,850) $8,683 $131,442 0.80 15.1 17 Lighting: Backlit Announcement Sign Replace with FLUOR (8) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy- Saver (4) StdElectronic $135 $2,000 0.79 14.9 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 6 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 18 HVAC And DHW Replace hot water maker with indirect fired hot water maker ($5,000). Install 3 modern efficient condensing gas boilers (Boilers, 3 @ $18,450 + BMS Panel, 1 @ $4,562 + Shipping, 3 @ $2,300 + Installation, 3 @ $5,000). 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 ($252,221). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (5 @ $850 = $4,250) $8,520 $343,283 0.54 40.3 19 Setback Thermostat: Core & Gymnasium w/Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core & Gymnasium w/Addition space. $794 $23,074 0.44 29 20 Lighting: Classroom/Hallway Lights Replace with 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $9,538 $384,800 0.40 40.3 21 Other Electrical: PC CRT Monitor Replace with 30 LCD Monitor $508 $15,000 0.39 29.5 22 Setback Thermostat: East and West Wings Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the East and West Wings space. $1,108 $38,421 0.37 34.7 TOTAL $36,982 $1,022,746 0.59 27.7 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 7 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R;Value Recommendation Type/R; Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 12 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.90 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $2,000 $404 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 18 Replace hot water maker with indirect fired hot water maker ($5,000). Install 3 modern efficient condensing gas boilers (Boilers, 3 @ $18,450 + BMS Panel, 1 @ $4,562 + Shipping, 3 @ $2,300 + Installation, 3 @ $5,000). 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 ($252,221). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (5 @ $850 = $4,250) $343,283 $8,520 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 14 Mechanical Room Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Mechanical Room space. $1,560 $142 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 8 APPENDIX B 19 Core & Gymnasium w/Addition Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Core & Gymnasium w/Addition space. $23,074 $794 22 East and West Wings Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the East and West Wings space. $38,421 $1,108 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 16 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 ($105,092). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (31 @ $850 = $17,850) $131,442 $8,683 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 9 Classroom/Hallway Lights 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 23 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $800 $174 10 Misc. Incandescent 20 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $2,000 $630 11 Entrance Lights 6 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, Plug-in 26W Quad Tube StdElectronic $900 $159 13 Exterior Lights 16 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching, Daylight Sensor Replace with 16 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Remove Daylight Sensor and Add new Occupancy Sensor $35,200 $3,648 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 9 APPENDIX B 15 Gym Lights 16 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) (3) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $40,960 $1,404 17 Backlit Announcement Sign FLUOR (8) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard (4) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (8) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver (4) StdElectronic $2,000 $135 20 Classroom/Hallway Lights 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 380 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $384,800 $9,538 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Mini-Fridge 5 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $97 2 Teacher Lounge Refrigerator 3 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $77 3 Upright Freezer Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $77 4 Storage Freezer Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $62 5 Chest Refrigerator 2 Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $52 6 Commercial Refirgerator/Freeze r Refrigerator/Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $33 7 Drink Vending Machines 1 Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $300 $340 8 Drink Vending Machines 1 Vending Machine Replace with Vending Machine $1,000 $397 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 21 PC CRT Monitor 30 CRT Monitor with Manual Switching Replace with 30 LCD Monitor $15,000 $508 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Redoubt Elementary School Page 10 APPENDIX B Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Redoubt Elementary ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.1, Energy Lib 2/2/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTERY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT TAG LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZE ASHRAE SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFE NOTES B-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT A.O. SMITH 670 NATURAL GAS 670 MBH 76% 30 0 B-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT A.O. SMITH 670 NATURAL GAS 670 MBH 76% 30 0 B-3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT A.O. SMITH 670 NATURAL GAS 670 MBH 76% 30 0 WH-1 BOILER ROOM DOMESTIC HOT WATER A.O. SMITH HW-399 NATURAL GAS 399 MBH 72%30 0 CP-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CIRC GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE 47.3 GPM @ 31.0' 82% 0.75 HP 10 0 CP-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CIRC GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE 34.4 GPM @ 25.0' 82% 0.5 HP 10 0 CP-3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CIRC GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE 12.0 GPM @ 27.5' 83% 0.5 HP 10 0 CP-4 BOILER ROOM DOMESTIC HOT WATER GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE 5.0 GPM @ 7.5' 82% 0.5 HP 10 0 CP-5 BOILER ROOM DHW CIRC GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE -82% 0.17 HP 10 0 CP-6 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CIRC SPARE GRUNDFOS 50-40 INLINE 54.4 GPM @ 26' 82% 0.75 HP 10 0 F-1 MECH ROOM SUPPLY AIR PACE A20 CENTRIFUGAL 5590 SCFM NEMA 3.0 HP 25 0 F-2 MECH ROOM SUPPLY AIR PACE A20 CENTRIFUGAL 8105 SCFM NEMA 7.5 HP 25 0 F-3 MECH ROOM RETURN AIR PACE A20 CENTRIFUGAL 6113 SCFM NEMA 2.0 HP 25 0 F-4 BOILER ROOM VENT PACE SCF 79B CENTRIFUGAL 1600 SCFM NEMA 0.33 HP 25 0 F-5 CUSTODIAL 111 EXHAUST AIR PACE SCF 73A CENTRIFUGAL 600 SCFM NEMA 0.13 HP 25 0 F-6 STORAGE 128 EXHAUST AIR PACE SCF 57A CENTRIFUGAL 350 SCFM NEMA 0.5 HP 25 0 F-7 TOILET 146/165 EXHAUST AIR PACE MOD DU-150T CENTRIFUGAL 99 SCFM NEMA 0.02 HP 25 0 F-8 CUSTODIAL 102 EXHAUST AIR PACE SCF 52A CENTRIFUGAL 250 SCFM NEMA 0.04 HP 25 0 F-9 MECH ROOM EXHAUST AIR PACE SCF 79B CENTRIFUGAL 1600 SCFM NEMA 0.33 HP 25 0 2-SPEED MOTOR F-10 TOILET EXHAUST AIR PACE U-9F CENTRIFUGAL 600 SCFM NEMA 0.17 HP 25 0 AHU-1 GYM ADD.BUILDING HEAT LENNOX G5OUH NATURAL GAS 110MBH 80% 0.15 HP 25 15 UV-1 CLASSROOMS CLASSROOM VENTALATION TRANE SIZE 10 HYDRONIC 100 CFM 82% 0.5 HP 25 0 UV-2 CLASSROOMS CLASSROOM VENTALATION TRANE SIZE 07 HYDRONIC 750 CFM 82%0.25 25 0 MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY APPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   1. South Facing windows installed in the front wall of the school 2. Northwest facing view of school window installations in the side/rear walls of the school. 3. Example of double pane window air-gap thickness 4. Typical school entry doors. Note these doors have single pane windows in place. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   5. Generator diesel fuel supply tank 6. School’s relocatable classroom unit 7. Roof overview 8. Roof mounted exhaust air damper (typical) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   9. Example of wooden roof decking covered by rigid foam insulation 10. Exterior HPS light fixture (typical) 11. Exterior pole-mounted light fixture typical of school 12. Overall view of the three gas tank type boilers CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   13. Boiler 1 14. Boiler 2 15. Boiler 3 16. Close-up view of typical hydronic circulation pump CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   17. Air Handler Unit F-3 typical of school 18. Hydronic unit heater typical 19. Close-up view of gym addition furnace 20. School’s backlit announcement sign CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   21. Gym addition storage room T-8 light fixtures 22. Typical classroom T-8 light fixture 23. View of relocatable classroom light fixtures 24. Multipurpose room light fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   25. Example of thermostat det to 70 (F) 26. Computer monitors (typical) 27. Domestic refrigeration units typical of school 28. Two beverage vending machines? CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   1. West Wall Double Door Shows Some Expected Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   2. South East Corner Of School, Windows Show Expected Heat Loss Around Frames. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   3. West Wall of School, (A) Heat Loss Around Roof Trim. (B) Expected Heat Loss Around Foundation Slab. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   4. North East Corner Of School Slab Edge Exhibiting Normal Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   5. South-West View of School, (A) Heat Loss From Mechanical Room Exhaust Vent Expected CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   6. West View of School’s South Wing, (A) Note Heat Loss Differential Between Walls. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   7. School’s Portable Classroom Unit, (A) Heat Loss Surrounding Door Expected. (B) Heat Loss From Crawl Space Wall. AB CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   8. Windows Typical of Portable, Heat Loss Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    REDOUBT ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E   9. Portable’s Foundation, Higher Heat Loss around Damaged Panels Exhibited.