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 KPB North Peninsula Administration Building 2012-EE
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Kenai Peninsula Borough – Administration Building 144 N. Binkley Soldotna, AK 99669 CAEC Project No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 May 2012 SUBMITTED BY: PRIMARY CONTACT: 22010 SE 51st Street 32266 Lakefront Drive Issaquah, WA 98029 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (425)281‐4706 Fax (425)507‐4350 Phone (907) 260‐5311 Fax (907) 260‐5312 Email: andrew.waymire@siemens.com Email: akengineer@starband.net CONTACT: Andrew Waymire, C.E.M. CONTACT: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. REPORT DISCLAIMER Privacy The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Limitations of Study This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings, and provide an opinion of the costs to implement the recommendations. This audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. In preparing this report, the preparers acted with the standard of care prevalent in this region for this type of work. All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. Not all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may have been incomplete. This report is not intended to be a final design document. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting upgrades should undergo a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statutes as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Siemens Industry, Inc (SII) and Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, installation costs, related additional work, or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, many ECMs are interactive, so implementation of one ECM may impact the performance of another ECM. SII and CAEC accept no liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios. The economic analyses for the ECMs relating to lighting improvements are based solely on energy savings. Additional benefits may be realized in reduced maintenance cost, deferred maintenance, and improved lighting quality. The new generation lighting systems have significantly longer life leading to long term labor savings, especially in high areas like Gyms and exterior parking lots. Lighting upgrades displace re-lamping costs for any fixtures whose lamps would otherwise be nearing the end of their lifecycle. This reduces maintenance costs for 3-10 years after the upgrade. An overall improvement in lighting quality, quantified by numerous studies, improves the performance of students and workers in the built environment. New lighting systems can be designed to address all of the above benefits. Table of Contents REPORT DISCLAIMER.....................................................................................................................................2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................5 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................8 3. KPB Administration Building...................................................................................................................11 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES..........................................................................................................20 Appendix A – Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................31 Appendix B – Lighting Inventory.................................................................................................................33 Appendix C – IR Photos / Heat Loss Signature............................................................................................34 Appendix D – Utility Data............................................................................................................................35 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 5 of 41 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Kenai Peninsula Borough using ARRA funds as part of a contract for: Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Kevin Lyon Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 47140 East Poppy Lane P.O. Box 10120 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone (907) 262‐9657 Phone (907)330‐8141 Email: klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us The scope of the audit focused on KPB Administration Building. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are as follows: $131,352 for Electricity $19,944 for Natural Gas The total energy costs are $151,297 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the KPB Administration Building. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Lighting Replace with 4 200w Induction $1,072 $3,879 5.32 3.6 2 Lighting Replace with 18 120W Induction $3,135 $13,263 4.55 4.2 3 Ventilation Demand ventilation & DDC $15,233 $125,000 1.52 8.2 4 Lighting Replace with 106 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1,457 $16,000 1.12 11.0 5 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic $72 $798 1.10 11.1 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 6 of 41 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $20,968 $158,940 1.82 7.6 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 6 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $99 $1,250 0.97 12.6 7 HVAC And DHW Replace Boilers, HW reset, DDC $8,053 $165,000 0.88 20.5 8 Lighting Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $8 $161 0.63 19.4 9 Lighting Replace with 16 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $92 $2,280 0.49 24.7 10 Lighting Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $49 $1,250 0.48 25.5 11 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $31 $855 0.45 27.1 12 Lighting Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic $20 $399 0.31 20.2 13 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $59 $1,250 0.30 21.3 14 Lighting Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $30 $665 0.29 22.0 15 Lighting Replace with 3 40W Induction $5 $1,630 0.06 322.0 TOTAL, all measures $29,415 $333,680 1.31 11.3 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life‐cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost‐effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first‐year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $29,415 per year, or 19.4% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $333,680, for an overall simple payback period of 11.3 years. If only the cost‐effective Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 7 of 41 measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $20,968 per year, or 13.9% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $158,940, for an overall simple payback period of 7.6 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigera tion Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $30,90 6 $797 $451 $32,79 1 $0 $65,735 $0 $0 $19,980 $637 $151,297 With All Proposed Retrofits $16,17 3 $2,212 $256 $26,57 9 $0 $65,735 $0 $0 $10,289 $637 $121,881 SAVINGS $14,73 3 ‐$1,415 $194 $6,212 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,691 $0 $29,415 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 8 of 41 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the KPB Administration Building. The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: • Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) • Lighting systems and controls • Building‐specific equipment • Water consumption, treatment (optional) & disposal The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from KPB Administration Building enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. KPB Administration Building is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) KPB Administration Building: 42,269 square feet Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 9 of 41 In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy 2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life‐Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by the Department of Energy are included. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time‐value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost‐effective—total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time‐value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 10 of 41 Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re‐ simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re‐ evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 11 of 41 3. KPB Administration Building (Photo From Google Maps) 3.1. Building Description The 42,269 square foot KPB Administration Building was constructed in 1971, with a normal occupancy of 125 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average 10 hours per day, five days of the week. The Administration Building is occupied by the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. The mayoral, finance, accounting, geographic information, and information technologies offices as well as the general assembly meeting room are located in the building. Many of the floor sections have been renovated over the years to include more office space. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are constructed of a strapped concrete wall with insulated 2x2 frames. Exterior surfaces consist of aggregate panels. The Roof of the building is constructed of a built up roof system with corrugated Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 12 of 41 metal, air spaces, and 2” to 4” of rigid insulation. The Floor/Foundation of the building is constructed slab concrete. Typical windows throughout the building are typically operable aluminum frames with double pane glass. Doors are full glass at the main entrance and metal on most side entrances. Description of Heating and Cooling Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Hot Water Heating System Nameplate Information: Two (2) Thermo Pak, Mod: GW‐A668N Fuel Type: Natural Gas Total Input Rating: 1,376,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 80 % Idle Loss: 1 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year The Cooling Plants used in the building are: Computer Room Nameplate Information: Liebert indoor with indoor compressor + Liebert remote condenser Lieber indoor + Aaon remote compressor/condenser Cooling Capacity: 15.0 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air kW/Ton Efficiency 1.10 Notes: Two units serve same space, one as primary the other as a backup. Primary system uses a remote condenser with internal compressor. The backup uses a remote compressor/condenser. Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems The KPB Administration Building is heated by two (2) Thermo Pak Boilers rated at 688 MBH input. A hot water distribution system distributes hot water to the buildings air handling units (AHUs) and the building’s radiant perimeter heating. A number of AHUs have been added with each renovation to the building over the years. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 13 of 41 Two Liebert air conditioning systems cool the basement’s IT area. Domestic Hot Water System Domestic hot water is provided by a 100 gallon, 100MBH AO Smith boiler. Domestic hot water is primarily used in the building’s restrooms. Waste Heat Recovery Information No waste heat recovery systems exist. Description of Building Ventilation System The existing building ventilation needs are served by the building’s air handling units. The building’s windows are operable and numerous windows were left open during the time of our walkthrough. Lighting Interior lighting typically consists of T8 linear fluorescent lamps with electronic ballast except for much of the second floor which has T12 linear fluorescent lamps with magnetic ballasts. Exterior lights are typically metal halide lamps of varying wattages. Plug Loads The building was noted to have a significantly large plug load. Most desks had personal computers and many had their own personal printers. Multiple kitchenettes on each floor had coffee makers, microwaves and refrigerators. Many cubicle desks had the portable heaters and portable fans. The information technology center in the building’s basement also has numerous servers that contribute to plug loads. Major Equipment The equipment list, available in Appendix A, is composed of major energy consuming equipment which through energy conservation measures could yield substantial energy savings. The list shows the major equipment in the building and pertinent information utilized in energy savings calculations. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 14 of 41 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt‐hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. One KW of electric demand is equivalent to 1,000 watts running at a particular moment. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non‐utility generation charges. The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The propane usage profile shows the propane usage for the building. Propane is sold by the gallon or by the pound, and its energy value is approximately 91,800 BTUs per gallon. The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: Homer Electric Assn (Homer) ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm Natural Gas: Enstar Natural Gas ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges: Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.1366/kWh Natural Gas $ 0.70/ccf 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, Kenai Peninsula Borough pays approximately $151,297 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the KPB Administration Building. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 15 of 41 figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 Existing Retrofit Natural Gas Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 16 of 41 Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 Floor Wall/Door Window Ceiling Air Existing Retrofit Annual Space Heating Cost by Component The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 20412 18602 20412 19754 20412 19754 20412 20412 19754 20412 19754 20412 Other_Electrical 40920 37290 40920 39600 40920 39600 40920 40920 39600 40920 39600 40920 Ventilation_Fans 11016 12664 13897 13449 13897 13449 13897 13897 13449 13897 4685 8347 DHW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space_Heating 6432 7503 8234 7968 8234 7968 8234 8234 7968 8234 2490 4764 Space_Cooling 382 445 488 473 488 851 488 813 501 488 148 283 Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 54 49 54 53 56 55 59 58 55 55 55 55 Space_Heating 3652 3725 3721 2706 2042 1310 998 1046 1560 2694 1526 2960 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 17 of 41 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Gas Usage in kBtu + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Table 3.4 KPB Administration Building EUI Calculations Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 961,290 kWh 3,280,882 3.340 10,958,150 Natural Gas 28,599 ccf 2,859,861 1.047 2,994,274 Total 6,140,743 13,952,420 BUILDING AREA 42,269 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 145 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 330 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site ‐ Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 18 of 41 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, the KPB Administration Building was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Soldotna was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Soldotna. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 19 of 41 Figure 3.4 Difference in Weather Data • The heating and cooling load model is a simple two‐zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. • The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations. Soldotna, AK Weather Data -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5/17/2009 7/6/2009 8/25/2009 10/14/2009 12/3/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010 DateDry Bulb Temperature (F)Actual Dry Bulb (F)TMY3 Dry Bulb (F) Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 20 of 41 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C. Table 4.1 KPB Administration Building, Soldotna, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Lighting Replace with 4 200w Induction $1,072 $3,879 5.32 3.6 2 Lighting Replace with 18 120W Induction $3,135 $13,263 4.55 4.2 3 Ventilation Demand ventilation & DDC $15,233 $125,000 1.52 8.2 4 Lighting Replace with 106 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1,457 $16,000 1.12 11.0 5 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic $72 $798 1.10 11.1 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $20,968 $158,940 1.82 7.6 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 6 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $99 $1,250 0.97 12.6 7 HVAC And DHW Replace Boilers, HW reset, DDC $8,053 $165,000 0.88 20.5 8 Lighting Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $8 $161 0.63 19.4 9 Lighting Replace with 16 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $92 $2,280 0.49 24.7 10 Lighting Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $49 $1,250 0.48 25.5 11 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $31 $855 0.45 27.1 12 Lighting Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic $20 $399 0.31 20.2 13 Lighting Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $59 $1,250 0.30 21.3 14 Lighting Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic $30 $665 0.29 22.0 15 Lighting Replace with 3 40W Induction $5 $1,630 0.06 322.0 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 21 of 41 Table 4.1 KPB Administration Building, Soldotna, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) TOTAL, all measures $29,415 $333,680 1.31 11.3 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 22 of 41 4.3 Building Shell Measures The building shell was noted to be in serviceable working condition and no measures are recommended at this time. It should be noted that during the time of our audit, numerous windows were left open during heating mode. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 23 of 41 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Observation – Existing Boilers The existing boiler is old and inefficient. It appears that the existing boilers do not allow for adequate burner turndown and as a result parts of the building are overheated during shoulder heating periods of the year Recommendation Replacement of existing boilers with high efficiency boilers will significantly reduce the fuel consumption for the buildings. The efficiency and operating life of a boiler is influenced by numerous factors. Boiler failure is typically a slow, progressive process that happens over a long period of time. Materials begin to fail with repeated thermal stress, boiler tubes gradually begin to leak, and scaling buildup prevents the boiler from meeting the heating load. When deciding whether to replace or repair an inefficient boiler, one should assess its overall condition and determine where losses are occurring. Combustion efficiency should be analyzed, since too much combustion air will decrease boiler efficiency. Scaling within the boiler tubes should also be investigated, since scaling decreases the overall heat transfer ability of the boiler. Benefits include: • More efficient boiler operation • Better boiler turndown • Lower operating costs • Greater comfort for building occupants Observations – Existing Boiler Operations During low load times (warm winter weather) the boiler cycles on and off often to maintain water supply temperature setpoint. The boilers have a purge cycle prior to firing that reduces the overall efficiency of the system. In colder temperatures the boiler stays on longer minimizing purge losses. Recommendations Siemens recommends applying hot water reset technology to mitigate energy consumption. Rank Recommendation 7 Replace Boilers, HW reset, DDC Installation Cost $165,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) $8,053 Breakeven Cost $145,289 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 20 Auditors Notes: High Efficiency Boiler Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 24 of 41 The water temperature required to heat a building varies with outdoor temperature. In very cold weather, the heating water temperature needs to be hot. As the outdoor temperature increases, the heating water temperature can be reduced. Most building operators do not manually adjust their Observation – AHU Controls The existing controls are mostly pneumatic. In general, the existing controls provide space level control. Day to day temperature fluctuations in the spaces can be a distraction to the occupants and the staff. Because heating poorly distributed and controlled in certain areas, occupants have resulted to using personal fans and plug‐in radiant heating. Recommendations Recommend that a new direct digital control system be installed to provide automatic control to the air handling units, the boilers and radiant heating systems. The new system will improve the building engineer's ability to maintain comfort and enhance the learning environment in the classrooms. An Insight Workstation will be included to allow the Building Engineer access to this control system and its functions. Improvements will be made in response time and troubleshooting of occupant comfort problems. The following summarizes the potential capabilities and benefits of new building automation system. • Each air handling unit will have the following control sequences: economizer control, mixed air reset control, discharge air reset based on return air/space temperatures, optimal start/stop, night setback/morning warm‐up, IAQ monitoring of return air, demand ventilation control and alarming upon system failures. • The pumps and the boilers will be enabled and disabled based on the demand for heating. The operation of the pumps will be proofed and alarmed when failure occurs. In the heating plant, the boilers will be sequenced to maintain a hot water supply temperature reset by outside air temperature. • The Insight Workstation will be located in the boiler mechanical room. The operators will have the capability to monitor HVAC systems district wide. At the Insight Workstation, the operator will be able to input the building operating schedule and specific after hours functions, specific holidays and days when classes end early. • Logging, recording, run time tracking and trending operation of equipment. • The optimal start/stop and scheduling programming will be incorporated into all the systems. These schedules will be software adjustable so that the engineer can adjust the schedule to the changing needs of the building through the central operator station. • This system will be equipped for remote communication for ease of trouble shooting and system monitoring by the staff during the day as well as after hours. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 25 of 41 4.4.2 Ventilation System Measures Observation The existing air handling units supply air to the spaces and have minimum requirements of outside air. This amount of required outside air varies based on occupancy. The more people in the space, the more outside air should be delivered. The occupancy of these spaces varies throughout the day, but the minimum amount of outside air delivered to the space remains constant. Recommendations Siemens recommends using carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors in the return air streams of the air handling units to monitor the percentage of CO2 in the open office spaces. Based on that percentage the outside air, return air and exhaust air dampers can be more tightly controlled to supply the space with the proper amount of ventilation without conditioning outside air that is not required. This type of control, called demand ventilation, is a newer concept and offers a means of optimizing the amount of ventilation required for a building or space. Energy savings are achieved by limiting the volume of outside air that must be conditioned. Demand control ventilation (DCV) is a control strategy that adjusts the amount of outside air based on the number of occupants and the ventilation needs of those occupants. Not heating or cooling unnecessary quantities of outside air conserves energy. Ventilation is based on the needs of the occupants of the space rather than using a fixed strategy based on design occupancy. DCV modulates ventilation to maintain target cfm‐per‐person ventilation rates based on actual occupancy. CO2 is used as an occupancy indicator to modulate ventilation below the maximum total outdoor air intake rate while maintaining the required ventilation rate per person. DCV avoids excessive over‐ventilation while still maintaining good ventilation and providing required cfm‐per‐person outside air requirements specified by local codes and standards. Payback for DCV can range from a few months to two years and is greatest in high‐density spaces subject to variable or intermittent occupancy that normally used a fixed ventilation strategy. Rank Description Recommendation 3 Demand ventilation & DDC Installation Cost $125,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $15,233 Breakeven Cost $189,501 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 26 of 41 4.5 Electrical & Appliance Measures 4.5.1 Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy‐efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. 4.5.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Observations Some part of the KPB Administration building has inefficient 34W T12 lamps with magnetic ballasts. Exterior building and parking lot lighting consists of metals halide fixtures of varying wattages. Recommendations Replace lower efficiency fluorescent lamps and magnetic ballasts with second generation T‐8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts. T‐12 and T‐8 lamps fit into the same size sockets, so some of the existing fixtures can be easily retrofitted with the latest lamp and ballast technologies. In areas with old and inefficient fixtures, Siemens will replace the fixture with a new, efficient and aesthetically pleasing fixture. Electronic ballasts use less energy and reduce flicker, glare, noise, and heat output. Older T12 magnetic ballasts may also contain PCB’s that cannot be disposed of in ordinary waste streams. The proper disposal of these PCB ballast is a maintenance cost that is eliminated when fixtures are retrofitted with new electronic ballast. Siemens also recommends replacing the existing exterior metal halide fixtures with more energy efficient and longer lasting induction lighting fixtures. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 3 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 3 40W Induction Installation Cost $1,630 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)27 Energy Savings (/yr) $6 Breakeven Cost $107 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 293 Auditors Notes: 543.43/fix Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 27 of 41 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 4 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $665 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $33 Breakeven Cost $211 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 20 Auditors Notes: 161.16/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 6 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $64 Breakeven Cost $411 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 19 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 3 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $399 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $22 Breakeven Cost $138 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 18 Auditors Notes: 132.94/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 6 FLUOR T12 F40T12 35W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $855 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $35 Breakeven Cost $423 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback yrs 25 Auditors Notes: 142.49/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 5 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $54 Breakeven Cost $658 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback yrs 23 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 28 of 41 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 16 FLUOR T12 F40T12 35W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,280 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $101 Breakeven Cost $1,243 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback yrs 22 Auditors Notes: 142.49/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $161 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $9 Breakeven Cost $112 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 18 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 6 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $110 Breakeven Cost $1,344 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 11 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 6 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $798 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $80 Breakeven Cost $975 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback yrs 10 Auditors Notes: $132.94/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 106 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 106 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $16,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,838 Breakeven Cost $22,569 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 9 Auditors Notes: Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 29 of 41 4.5.1b Lighting Measures – Lighting Controls (There were no improvements in this category) 4.5.2 Refrigeration Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.5.3 Other Electrical Measures The building was noted to have a significantly large plug load. Most desks have personal computers and many had their own personal printers. Multiple kitchenettes on each floor have coffee makers, microwaves and refrigerators. Many cubicle desks have portable heaters and portable fans. Eliminating these loads by installing a DDC system that can more accurately match heating needs of occupants will significantly decrease plug loads. Please note that part of the cost for eliminating these devices is included in the previously listed cost of installing a new DDC system. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 18 MH 250 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 18 120W Induction Installation Cost $13,263 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)27 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,135 Breakeven Cost $60,306 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 4.5 Simple Payback yrs 4 Auditors Notes: 736.84/fix Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 4 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 4 200w Induction Installation Cost $3,879 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)27 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,072 Breakeven Cost $20,619 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 5.3 Simple Payback yrs 4 Auditors Notes: 969.80/fix Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 8 Person Fans 21 Small propeller fans Remove with 21 Small propeller fans Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $906 Breakeven Cost $10,990 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 11 Auditors Notes: Part of Cost of DDC. Use primary AHU, properly balance air and remove personal fans. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 30 of 41 Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Portable Heaters 18 Portable electric heater Remove 18 Portable heater Installation Cost $50,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $8,794 Breakeven Cost $107,038 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Part of cost for DDC. Balance air and water so that portable heater not required Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 31 of 41 Appendix A – Major Equipment List Boilers Make Model Quantity MBH in MBH out Thermo Pak GW-A688N 2 688 550 DHW Heaters Make Model MBH Gal Gal/Hr Rec. AO Smith BT 100 230 75 100 76.9 AHUs & Fans Tag Serves CFM HP Eff (est) VAV/C V S,R,E Coil (MBH) Notes AHU-1 SE Lower Level 2,800 1.5 85.5% CV S 125 Rev 1979 AHU- 2N 1st Floor 3,900 5 82.0% CV S 125 Rev 1979 AHU- 2S 1st Floor 3,900 5 82.0% CV S 125 Rev 1979 AHU- 2AN 2nd Floor 4,600 5 82.0% CV S 125 Rev 1979 AHU- 2AS 2nd Floor 4,600 5 82.0% CV S 125 Rev 1979 AHU-3 Lower Level 2,600 1 82.0% CV S 100 Rev 1979 AHU-4 Lower Level 2,600 1 82.0% CV S AHU-5 Server 3,000* 1.5 F7 Technicians Room 800 0.33 88.0% CV S 60* New AHU F8 Print Shop 2,100 0.66 88.0% CV S 80* New AHU w/ humidifier F9 UPS 1,200 0.5 88.0% CV S New AHU *Estimate Server Room Air Conditioning Unit Make BTH Volts Phas e FLA HP CFM Notes AC-1 Liebert 210,100 208 3 107.0 7.5 9,600 R-407A Refrigerant Pump / Drycooler Liebert 208 3 23.9 AC-2 Liebert 140,000 208 3 30.0 5 5,900 Chilled Water Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 32 of 41 Circulation Pumps Pumps Size GPM P1 950/1000/1300 W 60 P2 950/1000/1300 W 60 Cabinet Unit Heaters Units MBH HP Quantity CUH-1 10 0.05 1 CUH-2 15 0.04 1 CUH-3 28 0.06 8 CUH-4 17 0.04 1 Other Fans Fan CFM HP EF-1 2,800 0.5 EF-2 2,800 0.5 TE-1 1,200 0.25 TE-2 1,200 0.25 F-fan 900 0.25 Ice Melt System Flat Plate HX 131 00 2947 Primary Pump 150/179/197 W, FP5X12-40 Secondary Pump 150/179/197 W, FP5X12-41 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 33 of 41 Appendix B – Lighting Inventory Hour Usage Code 100W Incandescent 1x2x2 T12 1x2x2 T8 1x4x2 T12 1x4x2 T8 250 W MH 2x2x2U T12 2x2x2U T8 2x2x4 T12 2x2x4 T8 2x4x4 T12 2x4x4 T8 400W MH Grand Total Assembly 2 31 33 Copier Room 9 9 Exterior 18 4 22 Hallways 16 4 1 6 45 72 Meeting Rooms 3 20 23 Offices 5 42 4 3 6 106 354 520 Restrooms 6 2 6 6 4 24 Storage 3 2 15 7 27 Grand Total 3 22 4 13 57 18 4 7 1 6 121 470 4 730 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 34 of 41 Appendix C – IR Photos / Heat Loss Signature Infrared images were taken before dawn. The building is sufficiently insulated however infrared photos can show that heat is being lost through windows that are left open overnight. Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 35 of 41 Appendix D – Utility Data First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Kevin Lyon 907‐262‐9657 State Zip AK 99669 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 8:00 ‐ 5:00 Average # of Occupants During 125 10 0 0 Renovations / Notes Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton xx Other energy sources? 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Details 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. Contact Person Email klyon@borough.kenai.ak.us Mailing Address City 47140 East Poppy Lane Soldotna Primary Operating Hours Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip 144 N. Binkley Soldotna 99669 Building Type Community Population Year Built Masonary 54,665 1971 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Administration Building Office 42,269 Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipal 03/24/11 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 36 of 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration Building Buiding Size Input (sf) =42,269 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)30,478 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)31,326 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)988,960 2009 Electric Cost ($)172,981 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)6,423,120 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)204,307 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 72.1 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)79.9 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)152.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.74 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)4.09 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)4.83 Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 37 of 41 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)28,739 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)24,578 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)1,023,440 2010 Electric Cost ($)158,953 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms) 2010 Oil Cost ($) 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,366,901 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)183,531 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)68.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)82.6 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)150.6 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.58 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)3.76 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)4.34 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 38 of 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration BuildingNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Enstar NGC147098Jan‐09 12/12/08 1/15/09 29 4400 4400 $4,474 $1.02Enstar NGC 147098Feb‐09 1/16/09 2/19/09 33 3952 3952 $4,025 $1.02Enstar NGC147098Mar‐09 2/20/09 3/19/09 30 3188 3188 $3,259 $1.02Enstar NGC 147098Apr‐09 3/20/09 4/16/09 29 2512 2512 $2,582 $1.03Enstar NGC147098May‐09 4/17/09 5/21/09 33 2128 2128 $2,197 $1.03Enstar NGC 147098Jun‐09 5/22/09 6/18/09 24 1535 1535 $1,603 $1.04Enstar NGC147098Jul‐096/19/09 7/23/09331344 1344 $1,412$1.05Enstar NGC 147098Aug‐09 7/24/09 8/20/09 28 1383 1383 $1,451 $1.05Enstar NGC147098Sep‐09 8/21/09 9/17/09 33 1409 1409 $1,477 $1.05Enstar NGC 147098Oct‐09 9/18/09 10/22/09 31 2224 2224 $2,295 $1.03Enstar NGC147098Nov‐09 10/23/09 11/19/09 33 3007 3007 $3,080 $1.02Enstar NGC 147098Dec‐09 11/20/09 12/17/09 29 3396 3396 $3,471 $1.02Enstar NGC147098 Jan‐10 12/18/09 1/21/10 29 3539 3539 $2,992 $0.85Enstar NGC 147098Feb‐10 1/22/10 2/18/10 33 3934 3934 $3,319 $0.84Enstar NGC147098 Mar‐10 2/19/10 3/18/10 29 3168 3168 $2,685 $0.85Enstar NGC 147098Apr‐10 3/19/10 4/22/10 28 2436 2436 $2,102 $0.86Enstar NGC147098 May‐10 4/23/10 5/20/10 35 2346 2346 $2,027 $0.86Enstar NGC 147098Jun‐10 5/21/10 6/17/10 27 1351 1351 $1,196 $0.89Enstar NGC147098 Jul‐10 6/18/10 7/22/10 35 1709 1709 $1,495 $0.87Enstar NGC 147098Aug‐10 7/23/10 8/19/10 30 1435 1435 $1,259 $0.88Enstar NGC147098 Sep‐10 8/20/10 9/16/10 27 1244 1244 $1,106 $0.89Enstar NGC 147098Oct‐10 9/17/10 10/28/10 36 2583 2583 $2,178 $0.84Enstar NGC147098 Nov‐10 10/29/10 11/18/10 28 1858 1858 $1,598 $0.86Enstar NGC 147098Dec‐10 11/19/10 12/16/10 27 3136 3136 $2,621 $0.84Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:30,478 30,478 0$31,326 $0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:28,739 28,739 0$24,578 $0$1.03$0.86Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 39 of 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration Building ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)0500100015002000250030003500400045005000Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Nov‐10Dec‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500$5,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($) Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 40 of 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration BuildingElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)HEA 364391 Jan‐09 1/2/09 2/3/09 31 80,720 2,755 3 $17,799 $0.22 $1,317.00HEA 364391 Feb‐09 2/4/09 3/3/09 29 73,200 2,498 2 $16,204 $0.22 $1,336.00HEA 364391 Mar‐09 3/4/09 4/2/09 30 80,160 2,736 2 $14,278 $0.18 $1,317.00HEA 364391 Apr‐09 4/3/09 4/30/09 27 74,800 2,553 2 $13,402 $0.18 $1,263.00HEA 364391 May‐09 5/1/09 6/1/09 31 81,040 2,766 2 $14,256 $0.18 $1,243.00HEA 364391 Jun‐09 6/2/09 7/2/09 30 82,960 2,831 2 $14,715 $0.18 $1,216.00HEA 364391 Jul‐09 7/3/09 7/30/09 27 75,360 2,572 2 $13,581 $0.18 $1,205.00HEA 364391 Aug‐09 7/31/09 8/31/09 31 90,480 3,088 2 $15,901 $0.18 $1,259.00HEA 364391 Sep‐09 9/1/09 9/30/09 29 83,760 2,859 2 $13,044 $0.16 $1,280.00HEA 364391 Oct‐09 10/1/09 11/2/09 30 92,480 3,156 2 $14,163 $0.15 $1,301.00HEA 364391 Nov‐09 11/3/09 12/3/09 30 86,240 2,943 2 $13,509 $0.16 $1,359.00HEA 364391 Dec‐09 12/4/09 1/4/10 31 87,760 2,995 2 $12,129 $0.14 $1,359.00HEA 364391 Jan‐10 1/5/10 2/2/10 27 82,800 2,826 2 $11,710 $0.14 $1,411.00HEA 364391 Feb‐10 2/3/10 3/2/10 29 78,160 2,668 2 $11,048 $0.14 $1,325.00HEA 364391 Mar‐10 3/3/10 3/31/10 28 83,360 2,845 2 $13,467 $0.16 $1,394.00HEA 364391 Apr‐10 4/1/10 5/4/10 32 97,680 3,334 2 $15,303 $0.16 $1,408.00HEA 364391 May‐10 5/5/10 6/1/10 28 80,320 2,741 2 $13,080 $0.16 $1,393.00HEA 364391 Jun‐10 6/2/10 7/2/10 30 87,760 2,995 2 $14,098 $0.16 $1,359.00HEA 364391 Jul‐10 7/3/10 8/2/10 31 84,640 2,889 2 $13,595 $0.16 $1,397.00HEA 364391 Aug‐10 8/3/10 9/1/10 30 84,800 2,894 2 $13,685 $0.16 $1,342.00HEA 364391 Sep‐10 9/2/10 10/1/10 30 82,880 2,829 2 $12,736 $0.15 $1,351.00HEA 364391 Oct‐10 10/2/10 11/2/10 31 86,960 2,968 2 $13,241 $0.15 $1,360.00HEA 364391 Nov‐10 11/3/10 12/2/10 30 81,600 2,785 2 $12,753 $0.16 $1,436.00HEA 364391 Dec‐10 12/3/10 1/4/11 31 92,480 3,156 2 $14,237 $0.15 $1,460.00Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:988,960 33,753 25 $172,981 $15,455Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:1,023,440 34,930 24 $158,953 $16,636$0.18$0.16Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg: Siemens Industry, Inc. KNP Admin Building Energy Audit Report AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐09 Page 41 of 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Administration Building ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000Jan‐09Feb‐09Mar‐09Apr‐09May‐09Jun‐09Jul‐09Aug‐09Sep‐09Oct‐09Nov‐09Dec‐09Jan‐10Feb‐10Mar‐10Apr‐10May‐10Jun‐10Jul‐10Aug‐10Sep‐10Oct‐10Nov‐10Dec‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)