Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CIRI-SXQ-CAEC KPBSD Soldotna Elementary 2012-EE
Soldotna Elementary School 162 E. Park Ave Soldotna, Alaska 99669 AkWarm ID No. CIRI-SXQ-CAEC-02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 IRMA ............................................................................................................. Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly kBTU .............................................................................................................. Thousands of British Thermal Units KPBSD .................................................................................................................. Kenai Peninsula 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 $ 75,441 Natural Gas $ 39,422 Total $ 114,863 Energy Utilization Index: 111.8 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 2.12 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 15.9 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $302 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Soldotna 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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: Chest Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $128 $1 2459.25 0.0 (N/A) 2 Refrigeration: Milk Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $32 $1 615.00 0.0 (N/A) 3 Cooking and Clothes Drying – Cooking Equipment Turn off pilot lights in kitchen during summer (Seasonal Shutdown) $1 $1 15.50 0.8 (N/A) 4 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $282 $600 5.51 2.1 (N/A) 5 Other Electrical: Electric Heat Trace Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $1,220 $5,000 2.87 4.1 (N/A) 6 Lighting: Exterior Pole Lights Replace with 10 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,034 $22,000 2.80 4.4 (4.2) 7 Lighting: Misc Incandescent Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $267 $1,500 2.02 5.6 (N/A) 8 Lighting: Exterior Wall Lights Replace with 30 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Switching, Occupancy Sensor $5,924 $66,000 1.16 11.1 (10.1) 9 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 10%. $1,017 $10,000 0.90 9.8 (N/A) 10 Setback Thermostat: Hallway Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hallway space. $63 $1,100 0.74 17.6 (N/A) 11 Setback Thermostat: Penthouse Boiler Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Penthouse Boiler Room space. $89 $1,560 0.74 17.6 (N/A) 12 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,184 $50,400 0.65 42.6 (18.1) 13 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $402 $9,565 0.54 23.8 (N/A) 14 Setback Thermostat: Montessori Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Montessori space. $483 $11,542 0.54 23.9 (N/A) 15 Setback Thermostat: Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $676 $16,281 0.54 24.1 (N/A) 16 Setback Thermostat: Original School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Original School space. $1,338 $32,601 0.53 24.4 (N/A) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 3 OF 29 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 17 Lighting: Exterior Recessed Replace with 21 LED 20W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,594 $50,800 0.47 31.9 (25.2) 18 Lighting: Classroom Lights (Old Section) Replace with 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $5,360 $233,500 0.45 43.6 (26.4) 19 HVAC And DHW Install modern efficient condensing gas boiler in Montessori school boiler room (Boiler @ $18,450 + BMS Panel @ $4,562 + Shipping @ $2,300 + Installation @ $5,000). Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($314,814). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (7 @ $850 = $5,950) $5,542 $381,076 0.42 68.8 (44.6) 20 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 ($121,082). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (21 @ $850 = $17,850) $4,498 $138,932 0.39 30.9 (N/A) TOTAL, all measures $35,132 $1,032,460 0.57 29.4 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 4 OF 29 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 retrofit option has no recognized maintenance savings available. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $35,132 per year, or 29.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $1,032,460, for an overall simple payback period of 29.4 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $12,887 per year, or 10.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $95,103, for an overall simple payback period of 7.4 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 $44,015 $5,200 $44,571 $4,303 $12,516 $620 $82 $8,971 $120,277 With All Proposed Retrofits $34,609 $3,938 $25,119 $3,861 $11,296 $591 $82 $5,644 $85,140 SAVINGS $9,406 $1,262 $19,452 $442 $1,220 $28 $0 $3,327 $35,137 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 6 OF 29 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 54,177 square foot Soldotna Elementary School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices, an outside relocatable 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 7 OF 29 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. 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 27, 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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, Soldotna 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 11 OF 29 The original structure of Soldotna Elementary School is a single story facility that was built in 1960. This building has had six (6) additions made to it, adding considerably more classroom space and a gymnasium. The most recent addition was built in 1987. The school has a single relocatable (portable) unit located on the northern side of the building, behind the gymnasium. The school typically has faculty and student occupancy from 7AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional occupancy (rental) time keeping the school open includes an after school program. Other rental activities occur in the evenings and weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas which require the school to remain open as late as 9PM at times. There are an estimated 380 full time student, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. As architectural drawings were provided for this audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned wood and metal framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.43 – 0.83 Btu/hr-sf-F. Windows on the non-south facing older sections of the school appear to be in poor condition. Wood framed windows on the southern side of the school were recently replaced with argon filled, low emissivity glass and are in good condition. This has helped reduce overheating of the south facing classrooms from solar gain. Metal framed windows on the Montessori school section are in good condition. The exterior walls of the elementary school vary in construction from section to section. The majority of the school is built with 6-inch studs filled with fiberglass batt for an R-19 insulating value. The Montessori section of the school is built with 2- core concrete blocks furred out with 6-inch studs and filled with R-19 fiberglass batt. This section of the school also has 2-inches of rigid insulating foam board as sheathing on the outside of the masonry layer. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 25 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school is a flat roof across the entire building except for the gymnasium. The majority of the southern portion of the school, excluding the 1986 addition, is insulated with 6-inches of rigid foam board on top of structural decking. The foam board is covered with a moisture barrier. The 1986 addition and the Montessori school section make use of an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) which consists of a total of 3-inches of rigid foam board over a moisture barrier, supported by structural decking. The foam on this section of the school is covered with a 1-inch thick layer of concrete squares over the entirety of the roof, forming the IRMA protective layer. Finally, the gymnasium portion of the school is a rafter framed roof assembly with sprayed polyurethane and fiberglass batt for an R-30 insulation rating. The floor/foundation of the majority of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge appears to be insulated on the outside, though there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. The older portion of the school is built on a crawlspace with 1-inch of rigid foam board covering the walls. All doors on this building are commercial grade, metal framed and insulated that are either half- windowed or solid. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 12 OF 29 Heat is provided to the main school building by three (3) natural gas-fired boilers. The Montessori portion of the school is heated by a separate natural gas-fired packaged boiler system. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler rooms and provides heat to the air handling units. There is a control system in place with end devices using pneumatic controls. The heating plants used in the building are: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 1,357,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 80.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operations: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 1,357,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 80.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler 3 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 1,357,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 80.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Montessori Boilers Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 750,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 78.0 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic hot water is supplied to the main school by indirect-fired water heaters. The Montessori school is provided domestic hot water by a natural gas fired tank type hot water heater. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies the kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, and the classroom sinks. The indirect-fired hot water heater is located in the second floor mechanical room, in the gym mechanical room, and the gas water heater is located in the same room as the packaged boilers. Tank Type Water Heater Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 75,100 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 64.0 % Operation: All Year CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 13 OF 29 Outside air is drawn into the building primarily air handling units and classroom unit ventilators. There are four (4) Air Handling Units (AHUs) located inside of the building providing ventilation to most of the school and the classroom unit ventilators are located in the 1975 addition. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of roof mounted exhaust fans and relief air fans located in the mechanical room. The ventilation systems are controlled with an antiquated Honeywell pneumatic controls system with mechanical time clocks. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The entirety of the building has been upgraded to more modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system in place uses 250-Watt metal-halide bulbs. The high pressure sodium lights (HPS) mounted on the outside of the building are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. 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 0.2 watts/sf. There is also a manually controlled high energy consuming heat trace system for the building roof drains in place. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 14 OF 29 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 Soldotna Elementary is heated with electric resistance baseboards on the perimeter and an antiquated gas furnace. 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 relocatable buildings. There is no temperature set-back capability with the temperature control system in place. The lighting in the relocatables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-12 light fixtures with magnetic ballasts. Due to the low operation use of the relocatable classroom at Soldotna Elementary and low occupancy time of the lights (20 hours/week), retrofitting the light system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors is not cost effective. In the future, this lighting retrofit may become cost effective if the classroom lighting system is utilized more hours during the week. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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. Chugach Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedules. Natural gas is provided by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 16 OF 29 The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 Btu’s of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and natural gas utility data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009 2010 Average Electric 0.17 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh 0.16 $/kWh Natural Gas 0.86 $/CCF 0.96 $/CCF 0.91 $/kWh Total Cost $122,524 $107,200 $114,862 ECI 2.26 $/sf 1.98 $/sf 2.12 $/sf Electric EUI 29.3 kBtu/sf 29.7 kBtu/sf 29.5 kBtu/sf Natural Gas EUI 86.6 kBtu/sf 78.0 kBtu/sf 82.3 kBtu/sf Building EUI 115.9 kBtu/sf 107.7 kBtu/sf 111.8 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 32 schools in the KPBSD computed an average EUI of 113.4 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 2.71 $/sf, with an average building size of 57,216 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 111.8 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 34.7% more energy than the US average and 1.4% less energy than the KPBSD average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 17 OF 29 At current utility rates, the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $120,277 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for Soldotna 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 estimates of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 27635 25183 27635 26743 27024 8419 8700 18473 26743 27635 26743 27635 Refrigeration 2282 2080 2282 2209 2282 2209 2282 2282 2209 2282 2209 2282 Other Electrical 7860 7163 7860 7607 7673 2003 2070 5058 7607 7860 7607 7860 Cooking 291 265 291 282 291 282 291 291 282 291 282 291 Clothes Drying 43 40 43 42 43 42 43 43 42 43 42 43 Ventilation Fans 5664 5162 5664 5482 5526 1323 1367 3585 5482 5664 5482 5664 DHW 57 52 57 55 57 55 57 57 55 57 55 57 Space Heating 4402 4011 4402 4260 4402 4259 4400 4401 4260 4402 4260 4402 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Cooking 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 DHW 431 396 439 438 472 510 575 553 476 453 424 431 Space Heating 5794 4680 4482 3189 2412 1314 961 1114 1821 3273 4466 5706 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 496,221 kWh 1,693,602 3.340 5,656,631 Natural Gas 44,925 ccf 4,492,508 1.047 4,703,656 Total 6,186,110 10,360,287 BUILDING AREA 54,761 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 113 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 189 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 20 OF 29 The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below: Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Exterior Pole Lights 10 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 10 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy and Daylight Sensors Installation Cost $22,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,034 Breakeven Cost $61,514 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: All of the metal-halide and high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. As a note, the exterior parking lot lights were noted to be in operation at the time of the audit during the full daylight of summer indicating the sensor was not functioning properly. Assumes $2,000 per lamp and $400 per occupancy sensor (1 sensor for every 2 lights). Savings of $20 per light. For example replacement lamps, 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 7 Misc Incandescent 30 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $267 Breakeven Cost $3,033 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of all the existing incandescent lights around the building with energy efficient CFL lights. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Exterior Wall Lights 30 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 30 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Switching, Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $66,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,924 Breakeven Cost $76,744 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: Assumes $2,000 per lamp and $400 per occupancy sensor (1 sensor for every 2 lights). Savings of $20 per light. For example replacement lamps, look at: http://www.ledtronics.com/products/ProductsDetails.aspx?WP=C878K762 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 21 OF 29 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Gym Lights 16 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $50,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,184 Breakeven Cost $33,009 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 43 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T5 HO system. AK Schools Cost Estimator assumes $50,427 for re-lamping of Gym. Retrofit cost assumes $2,950 per troffer with ballast and bulb (16), $400 per occupancy sensor (6), $400 for multi-level switch (2). Maintenance savings of $100 per light. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Exterior Recessed 21 MH 50 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 21 LED 20W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $50,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,594 Breakeven Cost $23,741 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 32 Auditors Notes: See EEM #6 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 Classroom Lights (Old Section) 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Installation Cost $233,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,360 Breakeven Cost $104,744 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 44 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 22 OF 29 Other Electrical Measures Cooking Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Chest Freezer 2 Chest Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $128 Breakeven Cost $2,459 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2,459.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends performing no cost seasonal shutdown procedures of the refrigeration appliances in the building. During the summer audit when school was not in session, all appliances were found to be plugged in and consuming power although not in use. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Milk Refrigerator Milk Cooler Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $32 Breakeven Cost $615 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 615.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 4 Vending Machine 2 Drink Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $282 Breakeven Cost $3,308 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 5 Electric Heat Trace Roof Drain Heat Trace with Manual Switching Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,220 Breakeven Cost $14,333 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the installation of an outdoor temperature control for the electrical heat trace, as well as the addition of a time clock to control the on-time of the snow melt system on the roof. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Turn off pilot lights in kitchen during summer (Seasonal Shutdown) Installation Cost $1 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1 Breakeven Cost $16 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 15.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends performing no cost seasonal shutdown procedures of the kitchen cooking systems to turn off the gas pilots during the summer break while the appliances are not in use. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 23 OF 29 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Recommendation 19 Install modern efficient condensing gas boiler in Montessori school boiler room (Boiler @ $18,450 + BMS Panel @ $4,562 + Shipping @ $2,300 + Installation @ $5,000). Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($314,814). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (7 @ $850 = $5,950) Installation Cost $381,076 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 25 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,544 Breakeven Cost $159,426 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 69 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Replacing the existing burners with modern, more efficient models and replacing the current packaged boiler in the Montessori school with an efficient, natural gas-fired condensing boiler has been evaluated as one individual EEM. This upgrade is expected to cost $60,312 for a new boiler and burners, including installation as would be required. This EEM is expected to produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $4,697 for a simple payback period of 12.8 years and a maintenance savings of approximately $1,500 annually for a combined simple payback period of 9.7 years. B. Installing an outdoor temperature reset control to the boiler output temperature and installing a Direct Digital Control (DDC) system as a replacement for the current pneumatic control system has been evaluated as a separate EEM. This upgrade will also affect the ventilation and heating temperature set point(s) of the building through refined controls and sensors. This new control system includes charging the hydronic loop with water, rather than glycol and installing a plate heat exchanger in the fan room to supply glycol to the AHUs. Assuming 60% of the DDC system cost is attributed to the heating system, this upgrade is expected to cost $314,814 and produce an annual energy savings equivalent to $45 and a maintenance savings of approximately $1,000. C. Replacing the electric motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient motors, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With motor replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $5,950 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $1,052 and a maintenance savings of approximately $500. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 24 OF 29 Ventilation System Measures Rank Description Recommendation 20 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 ($121,082). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (21 @ $850 = $17,850) Installation Cost $138,932 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $4,498 Breakeven Cost $54,200 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 31 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the pneumatic system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades, shown below, do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Improved control of the ventilation system is within the capacity of a DDC controller, but the existing pneumatic control scheme is antiquated and is recommended to be upgraded to a new operating system. The ventilation equipment may be slowed down to near the surge point on the blower wheels with the installation of VFD controllers. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. Upgrading the control system will allow optimizing the “On-Off” run timing for the ventilation system. There is energy to be saved by the automation system including tuning the variable frequency speed controllers of the fans. The entire DDC system will be spread across the heating and setback temperature controls and has some of the overall cost partitioned within these areas. For the ventilation system, this upgrade is expected to cost $121,082 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $3,956. B. Replacing the motors throughout the building with premium efficiency motors, combined with installing variable frequency drives, will produce an energy savings based on the reduced amount of power used. With this EEM, a refined schedule from a DDC system will reduce the savings from more efficient pumps, as mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of this EEM. With pump replacement, the total cost is estimated to be $17,850 for an annual energy savings equivalent to $705. C. There is peak electric demand costs which can be reduced by operating the equipment strategically to minimize all building lights and electric fan motors from being brought on line at once causing a large demand charge from the electric utility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 25 OF 29 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 10 Hallway Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hallway space. Installation Cost $1,100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $63 Breakeven Cost $810 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Building Space Recommendation 11 Penthouse Boiler Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Penthouse Boiler Room space. Installation Cost $1,560 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $89 Breakeven Cost $1,148 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 18 Auditors Notes: See EEM #10 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 13 Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $9,565 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $402 Breakeven Cost $5,191 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 24 Auditors Notes: See EEM #10 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 14 Montessori Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Montessori space. Installation Cost $11,542 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $483 Breakeven Cost $6,241 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 24 Auditors Notes: See EEM #10 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 26 OF 29 Building Shell Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 15 Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. Installation Cost $16,281 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $676 Breakeven Cost $8,734 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 24 Auditors Notes: See EEM #10 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 16 Original School Section Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Original School space. Installation Cost $32,601 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,340 Breakeven Cost $17,299 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 24 Auditors Notes: See EEM #10 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 9 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.85 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 10%. Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,017 Breakeven Cost $9,029 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: This EEM is included to model the expected reduction in air leakage throughout the building through inspection and repair of weather stripping around doors and windows and as a result of refined equipment maintenance. As an example, the relief air damper in the gym was found to be stuck in the open position and should have maintenance performed to assure proper operation. This applies to all outside air dampers. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 27 OF 29 Relocatable Building Mechanical Equipment Measures Relocatable Building Shell 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 PAGE 28 OF 29 Relocatable Building Air Sealing Measures Relocatable Building Door Measures Relocatable Building Window Measures Relocatable Building Lighting Measures 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SQX‐CAEC‐02 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 SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA 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 300 0 0 0 Renovations / Notes Date 1961 1962 1968 1975 1987 Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Year Built 1960 Facility Address Building Type School Community Population Facility City Facility Zip 4,000 Date 03/13/11Municipal Soldotna Elementary Education 54,177 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner KPBSD 162 E. Park Ave Soldotna Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By 99669 Email pbrenner@kpbsd.k12.ak.us Details Drawings are maintained at district maintenance office in Soldotna. 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Primary Operating Hours Contact Person City Soldotna148 N. Binkley St Mailing Address APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Soldotna Elementary Buiding Size Input (sf) =54,177 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)46,895 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)40,265 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)465,374 2009 Electric Cost ($)82,259 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2009 Oil Cost ($) 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,277,821 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)122,524 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 86.6 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)29.3 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)115.9 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.74 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.52 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.26 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)42,271 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)38,578 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)471,514 2010 Electric Cost ($)68,622 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)5,836,377 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)107,200 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)78.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)29.7 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)107.7 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.71 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.27 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/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)1.98 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTSoldotna ElementaryNatural 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 ($)ENSTAR146354 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/2008301,6451,645$1,264$0.77ENSTAR146354 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008301,8201,820$1,391$0.76ENSTAR146354 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008292,6222,622$1,978$0.75ENSTAR146354 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008303,8613,861$2,883$0.75ENSTAR146354 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008294,9474,947$3,677$0.74ENSTAR146354 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008305,3275,327$3,955$0.74ENSTAR146354 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009307,0537,053$6,407$0.91ENSTAR146354 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009276,3556,355$5,779$0.91ENSTAR146354 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009306,0136,013$5,471$0.91ENSTAR146354 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/15/2009162,2812,281$2,350$1.03ENSTAR146354 May‐09 4/16/2009 5/18/2009333,2503,250$3,321$1.02ENSTAR146354 Jun‐09 5/19/2009 6/11/2009241,7211,721$1,789$1.04ENSTAR146354 Jul‐09 6/12/2009 7/14/200933323323$388$1.20ENSTAR146354 Aug‐09 7/15/2009 8/11/200928526526$592$1.13ENSTAR146354 Sep‐09 8/12/2009 9/13/2009332,1312,131$2,202$1.03ENSTAR146354 Oct‐09 9/14/2009 10/14/2009313,3333,333$3,407$1.02ENSTAR146354 Nov‐09 10/15/2009 11/16/2009334,5274,527$4,605$1.02ENSTAR146354 Dec‐09 11/17/2009 12/15/2009294,7734,773$4,852$1.02ENSTAR146354Jan‐10 12/16/2009 1/13/2010294,9874,987$4,190$0.84ENSTAR146354 Feb‐10 1/14/2010 2/15/2010336,1826,182$5,178$0.84ENSTAR146354 Mar‐10 2/16/2010 3/16/2010294,6744,674$3,931$0.84ENSTAR146354 Apr‐10 3/17/2010 4/13/2010284,2054,205$3,578$0.85ENSTAR146354 May‐10 4/14/2010 5/18/2010354,3314,331$3,684$0.85ENSTAR146354 Jun‐10 5/19/2010 6/15/2010272,2792,279$1,971$0.86Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:46,89546,8950$40,265$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:42,27142,2710$38,578$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.86Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.96APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Soldotna Elementary ‐Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTSoldotna ElementaryElectricityBtus/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 285048 Jul‐08 7/2/2008 7/30/20082914,37849140$1,989$0.14Homer Electric 285048 Aug‐08 7/31/2008 9/2/20083435,5501,213130$5,086$0.14Homer Electric 285048 Sep‐08 9/3/2008 10/1/20082945,5041,553132$7,573$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Oct‐08 10/2/2008 10/30/20082947,4881,621142$7,920$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Nov‐08 10/31/20008 12/1/20083250,9691,740143$8,436$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Dec‐08 12/2/2008 1/4/20093447,7671,630146$9,857$0.21Homer Electric 285048 Jan‐09 1/5/2009 2/2/20092948,0801,641148$9,949$0.21Homer Electric 285048 Feb‐09 2/3/2009 3/2/20092844,4531,517138$9,207$0.21Homer Electric 285048 Mar‐09 3/3/2009 4/1/20093041,5471,418136$7,015$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Apr‐09 4/2/2009 4/29/20092839,7051,355134$6,734$0.17Homer Electric 285048 May‐09 4/30/2009 5/31/20093234,9101,191127$5,991$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Jun‐09 6/1/2009 7/1/20093115,02351336$2,502$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Jul‐09 7/2/2009 7/29/20092814,93851041$2,522$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Aug‐09 7/30/2009 8/31/20093333,5561,145124$5,833$0.17Homer Electric 285048 Sep‐099/1/2009 9/29/20092941,2771,409133$6,089$0.15Homer Electric 285048 Oct‐09 9/30/2009 11/1/20093349,3821,685140$7,139$0.14Homer Electric 285048 Nov‐09 11/2/2009 12/2/20093149,1861,679141$7,123$0.14Homer Electric 285048 Dec‐09 12/3/2009 1/3/20103240,5831,385143$5,351$0.13Homer Electric 285048 Jan‐10 1/4/2010 2/1/20102948,2681,647141$6,151$0.13Homer Electric 285048 Feb‐10 2/2/2010 3/1/20102843,5921,488139$5,640$0.13Homer Electric 285048 Mar‐10 3/2/2010 3/30/20102939,4881,348132$6,040$0.15Homer Electric 285048 Apr‐10 3/31/2010 5/3/20103450,8211,735131$7,456$0.15Homer Electric 285048 May‐10 5/4/2010 5/31/20102835,9231,226127$5,543$0.15Homer Electric 285048 Jun‐10 6/1/2010 7/2/20103124,50083673$3,735$0.15Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:465,37415,8831,453$82,259$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:471,51416,0931,465$68,622$0Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:$0.17Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.15APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Soldotna Elementary ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY OLD KENAI ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B Short AK-Warm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 1 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 2/28/2012 2:15 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Soldotna Elementary School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Company Address: 162 East Park Avenue Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA 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: 54,177 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,147,026 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,207,396 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,840,543 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 380 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Soldotna Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐24 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Soldotna Heating Degree Days: 11,775 deg F‐days Utility Information Electric Utility: Homer Electric Assn ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.160/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.910/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 $44,015 $0 $5,200 $44,571 $4,303 $12,51 6 $620 $82 $8,971 $0 $120,277 With Proposed Retrofits $34,609 $0 $3,938 $25,119 $3,861 $11,29 6 $591 $82 $5,644 $0 $85,140 SAVINGS $9,406 $0 $1,262 $19,452 $442 $1,220 $28 $0 $3,327 $0 $35,137 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 2 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 Soldotna Elementary School Page 3 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Chest Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $128 $1 2459.00 0 2 Refrigeration: Milk Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown $32 $1 615.00 0 3 Cooking and Clothes Drying ‐ CookingEquipment Turn off pilot lights in kitchen during summer (Seasonal Shutdown) $1 $1 15.50 0.8 4 Refrigeration: Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $282 $600 5.51 2.1 5 Other Electrical: Electric Heat Trace Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $1,220 $5,000 2.87 4.1 6 Lighting: Exterior Pole Lights Replace with 10 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,034 $22,000 2.80 4.4 7 Lighting: Misc Incandescent Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $267 $1,500 2.02 5.6 8 Lighting: Exterior Wall Lights Replace with 30 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Switching, Occupancy Sensor $5,924 $66,000 1.16 11.1 9 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 10%. $1,017 $10,000 0.90 9.8 10 Setback Thermostat: Hallway Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hallway space. $63 $1,100 0.74 17.5 11 Setback Thermostat: Penthouse Boiler Room Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Penthouse Boiler Room space. $89 $1,560 0.74 17.6 12 Lighting: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $1,184 $50,400 0.65 42.6 13 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $402 $9,565 0.54 23.8 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 14 Setback Thermostat: Montessori Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Montessori space. $483 $11,542 0.54 23.9 15 Setback Thermostat: Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $676 $16,281 0.54 24.1 16 Setback Thermostat: Original School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Original School space. $1,340 $32,601 0.53 24.3 17 Lighting: Exterior Recessed Replace with 21 LED 20W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,594 $50,800 0.47 31.9 18 Lighting: Classroom Lights (Old Section) Replace with 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $5,360 $233,500 0.45 43.6 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 5 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 19 HVAC And DHW Install modern efficient condensing gas boiler in Montessori school boiler room (Boiler @ $18,450 + BMS Panel @ $4,562 + Shipping @ $2,300 + Installation @ $5,000). Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($314,814). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (7 @ $850 = $5,950) $5,544 $381,076 0.42 68.7 20 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 ($121,082). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (21 @ $850 = $17,850) $4,498 $138,932 0.39 30.9 TOTAL $35,137 $1,032,460 0.57 29.4 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 6 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 9 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.85 cfm/ft2 of above‐grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 10%. $10,000 $1,017 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 19 Install modern efficient condensing gas boiler in Montessori school boiler room (Boiler @ $18,450 + BMS Panel @ $4,562 + Shipping @ $2,300 + Installation @ $5,000). Replace burners on penthouse boilers with modern, more efficient models (3 @ $10,000). Add variable speed DDC System to heating system. Assumed that 60% of total cost is attributed to heating with new controls on louvers, new sensors, and better feedback to DDC ($314,814). Reduce DHW storage capability. Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (7 @ $850 = $5,950) $381,076 $5,544 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 10 Hallway Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hallway space. $1,100 $63 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 7 APPENDIX B 11 Penthouse Boiler Room Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Penthouse Boiler Room space. $1,560 $89 13 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $9,565 $402 14 Montessori Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Montessori space. $11,542 $483 15 Addition Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $16,281 $676 16 Original School Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Original School space. $32,601 $1,340 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 20 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 ($121,082). Replace motors with premium efficiency motors @ $850 each. (21 @ $850 = $17,850) $138,932 $4,498 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Exterior Pole Lights 10 HPS 400 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 10 LED 100W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $22,000 $5,034 7 Misc Incandescent 30 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $1,500 $267 8 Exterior Wall Lights 30 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 30 LED 50W Module StdElectronic and Add new Manual Switching, Occupancy Sensor $66,000 $5,924 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Soldotna Elementary School Page 8 APPENDIX B 12 Gym Lights 16 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $50,400 $1,184 17 Exterior Recessed 21 MH 50 Watt Magnetic with Daylight Sensor Replace with 21 LED 20W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $50,800 $1,594 18 Classroom Lights (Old Section) 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 350 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $233,500 $5,360 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Chest Freezer 2 Chest Freezer Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $128 2 Milk Refrigerator Milk Cooler Add new Seasonal Shutdown $1 $32 4 Vending Machine 2 Drink Vending Machine Add new Seasonal Shutdown $600 $282 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 Electric Heat Trace Roof Drain Heat Trace with Manual Switching Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $5,000 $1,220 Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 3 Turn off pilot lights in kitchen during summer (Seasonal Shutdown) $1 $1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 2/2/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESH.W. BOILER MONTESSORI BUILDING HEAT HYDROTHERM MR750 NAT GAS / CAST IRON 750 MBH80%300B1 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN AH588 WS NAT GAS / CAST IRON 1,357 MBH 82% 0.75HP 305B2 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN AH588 WS NAT GAS / CAST IRON 1,357 MBH 82% 0.75HP 305B3 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT WEILMCLAIN AH588 WS NAT GAS / CAST IRON 1,357 MBH 82% 0.75HP 305DHW MONTESSORI DOMESTIC HOT WATER STATE GS675XRRS NAT GAS / SELF STORAGE 75.1 MBH85%3025DHW1 MONTESSORI MONTESSORI DHW GRUNDFOS UPS 1542 SFINLINE5 GPM @ 7.5'0.08 HP 100CP 1A, 1B PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080INLINE18 GPM @ 23' 0.5 HP 100CP 2A, 2B PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMSD 5080INLINE23 GPM @ 23' 0.5 HP 100CP 3A, 3B PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMSD 6580INLINE20 GPM @ 25' 0.5 HP 100CP 4A, 4B PENTHOUSE BOILER CIRC GRUNDFOS UPSD 80160INLINE160 GPM @ 22' 1.25 HP 100CP 5A, 5B OLD MECH RM BOILER CIRC GRUNDFOS UMSD 6580INLINE40 GPM @ 20' 0.75 HP 100CP 6A, 6B OLD MECH RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPSD 65160INLINE63 GPM @ 34' 1.5 HP 100CP 7A, 7B OLD MECH RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPSD 65160INLINE60 GPM @ 43' 1.5 HP 100 CP 8 PENTHOUSEDHW CIRCGRUNDFOS UP 2696 BFINLINE14 GPM @ 15' 0.08 HP 100E13A MONTESSORI MONTESSORI BOILERS GRUNDFOS UMC 8080INLINE25 GPM @ 29' 0.5 HP 101E13B MONTESSORI MONTESSORI BOILERS GRUNDFOS UMS 8080INLINE25 GPM @ 29' 0.5 HP 100CUH1(A) MONTESSORI BUILDING HEAT MC QUAY TSF121CUPBLAST750 CFM0.13HP 200CUH2(B) MONTESSORI BUILDING HEAT MC QUAY TSF121CUPBLAST780 CFM0.13HP 200CUH3(C) MONTESSORI BUILDING HEAT MC QUAY TSF081CUPBLAST475 CFM0.13HP 200CUH4 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEATTRANE E46AC04HORIZONTAL630 CFM0.13HP 200CUH5 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEATTRANE E46A008HORIZONTAL870 CFM0.13HP 200CUH6 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEATTRANE E46A008HORIZONTAL870 CFM0.13HP 200UH1 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEATTRANE 38SHORIZONTAL300CFM0.05HP 200UH2 PENTHOUSE BUILDING HEATTRANE 38SHORIZONTAL300CFM0.05HP 200UH3 MONTESSORI BUILDING HEATTRANE 38SHORIZONTAL300CFM0.05HP 200UH4 MONTESSORI BUILDING HEATTRANE 38SHORIZONTAL300CFM0.05HP 200UH5 MONTESSORI BUILDING HEATTRANE 38SHORIZONTAL300CFM0.05HP 200AHU1 PENTHOUSEAIR CIRCPACE A30 AF SI HORIZONTAL 13500 CFM @ 1.5" 5HP200AHU2 PENTHOUSEAIR CIRCPACE SFC 114A CENTRIFUGAL 2000 CFM @ .63" 0.5HP250RF1 MONTESSORIAIR CIRCPACE 19SIHORIZONTAL 7920 CFM @ .75" 3HP200RF2 MONTESSORIAIR CIRCPACE 19SIHORIZONTAL 7920 CFM @ .75" 3HP200SF1 MONTESSORI AIR SUPPLYCHICAGO BLOWER CORP22.25CENTRIFUGAL9500 CFM 5HP250SF2 MONTESSORI AIR SUPPLYCHICAGO BLOWER CORP22.25CENTRIFUGAL10575 CFM 5HP250EF1ROOFEXHAUSTPENN BB45UPBLAST800 CFM @ .25" 0.25HP 200EF2ROOFEXHAUSTPENN LB24UPBLAST2900 CFM @ .18" 0.33HP 200EF3ROOFEXHAUSTPENN LB24UPBLAST2900 CFM @ .18" 0.33HP 200EF4ROOFEXHAUSTPACE CRE9FUPBLAST750 CFM @ .25" 0.25HP 200EF5ROOFEXHAUSTPENNZ8UPBLAST140 CFM @ .1" 0.13HP 200EF6ROOFEXHAUSTPACE CRE8FUPBLAST480 CFM @ .25" 0.25HP 200EF7ROOFEXHAUSTPENNZ8UPBLAST230 CFM @ .1" 0.13HP 200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYSOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESACU1 MONTESSORI AIR COMPRESSION QUINCY?RECIPROCATING.75HP + .75HP200ACU2 PENTHOUSE AIR COMPRESSION QUINCY?RECIPROCATING2HP200ADU1 MONTESSORI COMPRESSED AIR DRYING HANKISON 8010REFRIGERATED10CFM 0.17HP 200ADU2 PENTHOUSE COMPRESSED AIR DRYING HANKISON 8010REFRIGERATED10CFM 0.17HP 200UV1 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 750 CFM @0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV1 CLASSROOOM SUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 750 CFM @0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV1 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 750 CFM @0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV1 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 750 CFM @0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV1 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 750 CFM @0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV2 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 780 CFM@0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV2 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF121C CENTRIFUGAL 780 CFM@0.10 SP NEMA .25HP180UV3 CLASSROOMSUPPLY AIRMcQuay TSF081C CENTRIFUGAL 475 CFM@0.10SP NEMA .25HP180MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Typical School Windows 2. Example of Window Thickness 3. Typical School Entry Doors 4. Montessori Charter School Outbuilding CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. Storage Outbuilding 6. Typical Exterior Light Fixture 7. Exterior Light Fixture (2) 8. Roof Overview CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Roof Overview of Addition Featuring Typical Roof Mounted Exhaust Fans 10. Addition Boiler Room Overview 11. Addition 33in31 Boiler Package 12. 33in31 Boiler Package Rear View CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Nat Gas Fired Domestic Hot Water Heater 14. Main School Building Boiler Room Overall 15. Close Up Of Boiler 16. Side Arm DHW Heater CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 17. Pumps 133 18. Close3Up Of Pump 2, Hot Water Circulation Pump Typically Installed In School 19. Side3Arm Hot Water Maker & Hot Water Control Valve Located In Roof Crawlspace 20. Typical Air Handling Unit CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 21. Typical Unit Heater 22. Unit Heater Rear View 23. School Addition Air Compressor 24. School Addition Hankison Air Dryer CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 25. School Addition Honeywell Digital HVAC Control System Addition Of Variable Speed DDC System To Ventilators/Boilers 26. Main Building Honeywell Digital HVAC Control System Addition Of Variable Speed DDC System To Ventilators/Boilers 27. Example Of Thermostat Set To 72° (F) 28. Example Of Thermostat (2) Set To 76° (F) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 29. Roof Heat Drain Manual Switch 30. Commercial Freezer & Refrigeration Units In Kitchen 31. Drink Vending Machine & Domestic Refrigeration Unit 32. Domestic Freezer Unit Typical To School CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 33. Computer Monitors Typical To School 34. Monitor Typical To Classrooms 35. Classroom Light Fixtures Typical Of School 36. Library Light Fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 37. Gymnasium Light Fixtures 38. Typical Hallway Light Fixtures 39. Typical Restroom Light Fixtures 40. Computer Lab Light Fixtures CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Typical School Doors, Heat Loss Expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. Older School Doors, High Heat Loss Exhibited. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. (A)Typical School Windows, Heat Loss Expected. (B) Note Operable Windows Exhibit Higher Heat Loss A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. (A)Windows Typical of Gymnasium, Heat Loss Expected. (B) Mechanical Room Exhaust Vent Heat Loss Expected. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Slab Edge Exhibiting Normal Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. Damaged Slab Edge Cover Exhibiting Heat Loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. North-West View of School, High Heat Loss From Roof Access Door Exhibited. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 8. Decorative Mural Viewed From South, Metal Decoration Acts Like Heat Sink. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. Heat Loss From Soffit Expected CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3 10. Roof Of Gymnasium Exhibiting Heat Loss CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 11. Thermal Conduction Exhibited thru Nails In Lap Siding CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY SOLDOTNA ELEMENTARY ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 12. Thermal Conduction Exhibited thru Screws In Metal Siding