The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAND Anderson School 2012-EEManaging Office 2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801 p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813 f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819 www.nortechengr.com ENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT ANDERSON SCHOOL Denali Borough School District 116 W First Street Anderson, Alaska Prepared for: Mr. Justin Mason Denali Borough School District Anderson, Alaska Prepared by: David C. Lanning PE, CEA Douglas Dusek CEA Stephanie Young EIT, CEAIT July 25, 2012 Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095” ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915 Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694 Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819 info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description ......................................... 7 2.1.1 Building Use ............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ......................................................... 7 2.1.3 Building Description .................................................................................. 7 2.2 Benchmarking .................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 ........................................................ 11 2.2.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ............................................................. 12 2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................. 13 2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ............................................................... 14 2.2.5 Future Energy Monitoring ....................................................................... 15 3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS.............................................. 16 3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 17 3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Anderson School ........................... 18 3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 19 3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm ................................. 20 4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 21 4.1 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 21 4.2 Building Specific Recommendations .................................................................. 21 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx ii APPENDICES Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................... 23 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 37 Appendix C Significant Equipment List ...................................................................... 39 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ..................................................................... 41 Appendix E Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 43 Appendix F Audit Limitations ..................................................................................... 44 Appendix G References ............................................................................................. 45 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 46 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. ................................... 47 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 48 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 48 Appendix L Building Floor Plan ................................................................................. 49 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Anderson School, a 46,664 square foot facility. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on September 1, 2011 to obtain information about the lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling and other building energy uses. The existing usage data and current systems were then used to develop a building energy consumption model using AkWarm. Once the model was calibrated, a number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) were developed from review of the data and observations. EEMs were evaluated and ranked on the basis of both energy savings and cost using a Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). While these modeling techniques were successful in verifying that many of the EEMs would save energy, not all of the identified EEMs were considered cost effective based on the hardware, installation, and energy costs at the time of this audit. While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, upgrading specific systems often requires collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. The necessity and amount of design effort and cost will vary depending on the scope of the specific EEMs planned and the sophistication and capability of the entire design team, including the building owners and operators. During the budgeting process for any major retrofit identified in this report, the building owner should add administrative and supplemental design costs to cover the individual needs of their own organization and the overall retrofit project. The following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the Anderson School. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3. Details of each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs that were evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B. PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Hallway A Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $104 $24 26 0.2 2 Lighting: Hallway B Replace with FLUOR CFL, Spiral 26 W $25 $10 15 0.4 3 Lighting: Multi- Purpose Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) CFL, Spiral 20 W $34 $25 15 0.7 4 Garage Door: Garage Add R-5 insulating blanket to garage door $413 $446 13 1.1 5 Lighting: Staff Lounge Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 15 W $12 $6 12 0.5 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 2 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 6 Lighting: Sprinkler Room Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $19 $12 9.4 0.6 7 Lighting: Sprinkler Room Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $8 $5 9.4 0.6 8 Lighting: Gym Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 42 W $663 $800 8.8 1.2 9 Lighting: Gym Replace with 24 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 42 W $791 $960 8.7 1.2 10 Lighting: Concessions Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $9 $10 8.8 1.1 11 Lighting: Sec/Files Replace with 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $32 $36 7.6 1.1 12 Lighting: Principal Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $22 $24 7.6 1.1 13 Lighting: outdoor lights Replace with 14 LED 20W Module StdElectronic $1,721 $3,150 6.8 1.8 14 Lighting: Hallway D Exit Light Replace with 3 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $23 $50 5.2 2.1 15 Setback Thermostat: Anderson School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Anderson School space. $7,007 $20,000 4.7 2.9 16 Lighting: Elementary 4-5 Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $51 $96 4.2 1.9 17 Lighting: Resource Replace with 16 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $362 $700 4.1 1.9 18 Lighting: Reading Replace with 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $206 $468 3.7 2.3 19 Lighting: SERV Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic $7 $16 3.6 2.4 20 Lighting: Elementary 6 Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $9 $16 3.5 1.7 21 Lighting: English Replace with 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $48 $108 3.5 2.3 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 3 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 22 Lighting: K-1-2-3 Classroom Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $28 $100 3.1 3.5 23 Lighting: Hallway C Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $7 $25 3.1 3.5 24 Lighting: Boys & Girls Restroom Replace with 12 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $282 $778 3.1 2.8 25 Lighting: HS Pit Replace with 11 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $176 $503 2.8 2.9 26 HVAC And DHW Replace one boiler in each of the two sets leave one for standby, Replace the forced air furnace, Replace oil-fired water heater with indirect water heater off boilers, Replace one circulator for each zone and leave one of the existing for standby, and Replace circulators for DHW. $11,191 $80,000 2.7 7.1 27 Lighting: Multipurpose Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) CFL, A Lamp 15W $8 $20 2.4 2.5 28 Lighting: Hallway C Replace with 7 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $71 $340 2.3 4.8 29 Lighting: B&G Restroom Gym Replace with 10 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $111 $400 2.3 3.6 30 Lighting: Elementary 4-5 Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $268 $945 2.3 3.5 31 Lighting: Reading Replace with 4 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $13 $48 2.2 3.8 32 Lighting: Boys and Girls Locker Room Replace with 9 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $75 $200 2.2 2.7 33 Lighting: K-1-2-3 Classroom Replace with 18 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $469 $1,275 2.2 2.7 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 4 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 34 Lighting: Sam’s Diner Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $9 $50 2.1 5.5 35 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5%. $649 $3,000 2 4.6 36 Lighting: Math Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $196 $781 2 4.0 37 Ventilation Reduce outside air due to low occupancy, install a small DDC system to control ventilation only and install CO2 sensors in each of the AHUs $5,098 $35,000 2 6.9 38 Lighting: Hallway A Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $36 $144 2 4.0 39 Lighting: Hallway B Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $5 $16 2 3.2 40 Lighting: Hallway D Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $13 $40 1.9 3.2 41 Lighting: Wood Shop Replace with 41 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $541 $1,750 1.9 3.2 42 Lighting: HS Pit Display Cases Replace with 4 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $28 $126 1.8 4.5 43 Lighting: Entry Display Cases Replace with 6 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $42 $189 1.8 4.5 44 Lighting: Art Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic $58 $264 1.7 4.6 45 Lighting: Home Ec. Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $57 $288 1.7 5.0 46 Lighting: Hallway A Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $200 $960 1.7 4.8 47 Lighting: HS Pit Exit Replace with 2 LED (2) 4W Module StdElectronic $18 $65 1.6 3.7 48 Lighting: Science Replace with 14 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic $22 $115 1.5 5.1 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 5 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 49 Setback Thermostat: High School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 63.0 deg F for the High School space. $327 $3,000 1.5 9.2 50 Lighting: Music Room Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $165 $676 1.5 4.1 51 Lighting: Auto Shop Maint Replace with 2 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $12 $90 1.4 7.8 52 Lighting: Boys and Girls Locker Room Replace with 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $45 $200 1.4 4.4 53 Lighting: Art Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $12 $71 1.3 5.9 54 Refrigeration: Home Ec Replace with 3 Kenmore $482 $3,000 1.3 6.2 55 Lighting: Nurse Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $15 $100 1.3 6.5 56 Lighting: History Replace with 12 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $102 $624 1.3 6.1 57 Lighting: Library Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $218 $1,900 1.3 8.7 58 Lighting: Multi- Purpose Replace with 40 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $197 $1,750 1.3 8.9 59 Lighting: Hallway D Replace with 10 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $98 $475 1.2 4.8 60 Lighting: Boys and Girls Restroom Replace with 6 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $140 $700 1.2 5.0 61 Lighting: Auto Shop Maint. Replace with FLUOR T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver HighEfficElectronic $9 $50 1.1 5.3 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $33,059 $167,020 2.8 5.1 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 6 Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown The following charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Anderson School. The chart breaks down energy usage by cost into the following categories: • Envelope Air—the cost to provide heated fresh air to occupants, air leakage, heat lost in air through the chimneys and exhaust fans, heat lost to wind and other similar losses. • Envelope o Ceiling—quantified heat loss transferred through the ceiling portion of the envelope. o Window—quantified heat loss through the window portion of the envelope. o Wall/Door—quantified heat loss through the wall and door portions of the envelope. o Floor—quantified heat loss through the floor portion of the envelope. • Water Heating—energy cost to provide domestic hot water. • Fans—energy cost to run ventilation, and exhaust fans. • Lighting—energy cost to light the building. • Refrigeration—energy costs to provide refrigerated goods for the occupants. • Other Electrical—includes energy costs not listed above including cooking loads, laundry loads, other plug loads and electronics. Modeled Existing Total Energy Cost $ 98,818 Modeled Retrofit Total Energy Cost $ 66,777 The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are ventilation and lighting followed by the floor and wall heat loss. This indicates that the greatest savings can be found in reducing the amount of outside air provided to the building mechanically or through air leakage, upgrading lighting and potentially upgrading the envelope. Detailed improvements for ventilation, air leakage, lighting and other cost effective measures can be found in Appendix A. Envelope Air $24,074 Ceiling $8,637 Window $5,075 Wall/Door $12,438 Floor $16,425 Water Heating $4,967 Lighting $22,842 Refriger ation $1,334 Other Electrical $2,721 Existing Building Energy Cost Breakdown Envelope Air $13,198 Ceiling $7,012 Window $4,124 Wall/Door $9,507 Floor $12,881 Water Heating $3,753 Lighting $11,609 Refriger ation $646 Other Electrical $2,721 Savings $33,061 Retrofit Building Energy Cost Breakdown Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 7 2.0 INTRODUCTION NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings of the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications, and building use changes that are expected to save energy and money. The report is organized into sections covering: • description of the facility, • the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking), • estimating energy use through energy use modeling, • evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and • recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings. 2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description 2.1.1 Building Use Anderson School serves as both the elementary and secondary school (K-12) for the Anderson community. 2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules The typical occupancy is approximately 30 students and five staff members. The school opens at seven am and closes by six pm, Monday through Friday. The school operates seasonally from mid-August until mid-May each year. During the summer the school is completely shut down. 2.1.3 Building Description This is a single-story, wood-framed building with a partial slab on grade and partial crawlspace foundation. The original building was constructed in 1973 and has undergone several additions and remodels. The new gym addition consists of a 9,568 square foot facility with adjoining locker rooms, concession stand, weight room and office. Other additions are a 3,500 square foot elementary school wing and 3,426 square foot library remodel, a 1,600 square foot assembly/lunch room, a teaching and maintenance shop and several classrooms and offices associated with the high school and school administration. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 8 Building Envelope Building Envelope: Walls Wall Type Description Insulation Notes Gym Walls Steel framed walls with corrugated steel siding 10-inch fiberglass batt insulation None Main Building Walls 2x6 Wood framed walls R-19 fiberglass batt insulation None Building Envelope: Floors Floor Type Description Insulation Notes Below Grade Floor Below Grade slab 2-inches expanded polystyrene foam board perimeter insulation (R-10) None Building Envelope: Roof Roof Type Description Insulation Notes Old Gym Roof Cold, Steel Framed Roof R-38 fiberglass batt insulation None Main Roof Cold Wood-Framed Roof R-38 fiberglass batt insulation None New Gym Roof Vented Flat Roof 5-inches expanded polystyrene foam board insulation (R-25) None Building Envelope: Doors and Windows Door and Window Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes Full-Glass Doors Storefront: double-paned glass in aluminum frames with no thermal break. 1 Should be replaced with metal doors Metal Doors 2-inch thick metal man-doors 3.5 Most need weather stripping replaced Garage Doors 2-inch sectional wooden door with no additional insulation 1.8 Needs weather stripping replaced Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 9 Heating and Ventilation Systems Heat is provided to the building by a system of four oil-fired boilers. Distribution to the building is composed of seven zones to: • the new gym, • the elementary classrooms, • the elementary crawl space, • the kitchen, • the concession area, • the weight room and restrooms, • the high school classroom baseboards, and • the three air handling units which provide ventilation to the above areas. Additionally, an oil-fired, forced-air furnace provides heat and ventilation to the old gym area which includes the maintenance and wood shops. Air Conditioning System No air conditioning system is installed in the building; however economizer cooling is possible through the use of the ventilation system. Energy Management No energy management system is installed in the building, however summer shutdown helps to conserve energy and the school is in the midst of a lighting upgrade. Lighting Systems Lighting in the Anderson School is primarily composed of ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T12 (1 ½-inch tube) lamps and magnetic ballasts in the offices and classrooms. A small portion of these have been replaced with T8 (1-inch tube) lamps and electronic ballasts. The gym has high-bay fixtures with 250-watt, metal halide lamps. The maintenance shop has high bay, fluorescent fixtures with T5 (5/8-inch tube) lamps. Domestic Hot Water Domestic Hot Water is supplied by an oil-fired water heater with a 125 gallon storage tank. Hot water is continuously circulated by two pumps. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 10 2.2 Benchmarking Benchmarking building energy use consists of obtaining and then analyzing two years of energy bills. The original utility bills are necessary to determine the raw usage and charges as well as to evaluate the utility’s rate structure. The metered usage of electrical and natural gas consumption is measured monthly, but heating oil, propane, wood, and other energy sources are normally billed upon delivery and provide similar information. During benchmarking, information is compiled in a way that standardizes the units of energy and creates energy use and billing rate information statistics for the building on a square foot basis. The objectives of benchmarking are: • to understand patterns of use, • to understand building operational characteristics, • for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and • to offer insight in to potential energy savings. The results of the benchmarking, including the energy use statistics and comparisons to other areas, are discussed in the following sections. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 11 2.2.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Anderson School. The total annual energy cost for the building is $ 104,650 per year. These charts show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost. The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is for heating oil and the highest portion of cost is for heating oil. Heating oil consumption correlates directly to space heating and domestic hot water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC equipment. The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for savings. Electric 752.77 19% Oil 3,308.06 81% Energy Use Total in MMBTU Electric $39,447 38% Oil $65,204 62% Energy Cost Total Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 12 2.2.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year. The benchmark analysis found that the Anderson School has an EUI of 87,000 BTUs per square foot per year. The EUI is useful in comparing this building’s energy use to that of other similar buildings in Alaska and in the Continental United States. The EUI can be compared to average energy use in 2003 found in a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of commercial buildings (abbreviated CBECS, 2006). That report found an overall average energy use of about 90,000 BTUs per square foot per year while studying about 6,000 commercial buildings of all sizes, types, and uses that were located all over the Continental U.S. (see Table C3 in Appendix I). In a recent and unpublished state-wide benchmarking study sponsored by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, schools in Fairbanks averaged 62,000 BTUs per square foot and schools in Anchorage averaged 123,000 BTUs per square foot annual energy use. The chart below shows the Anderson School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix H. 87,000 62,000 123,000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Btu/ Sq. Ft Annual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF) Anderson School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 13 2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity, can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts of the country. The CUI for Anderson School is about $2.24. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates: Electricity at $0.18 / kWh ($5.27 / Therm) # 2 Fuel Oil at $2.53 / gallon ($1.89 / Therm) The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS, 2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square foot. The chart below shows the Anderson School relative to these values. More details are included in Appendix H. $2.24 $2.42 $2.11 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF) Anderson School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 14 2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The graphs below show the electric and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often reflects year round lighting consumption. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage. Fuel data was not available before July 2009 or after October 2010. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11KWH Electrical Consumption Anderson School 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Gallons Fuel Oil Deliveries Anderson School Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 15 2.2.5 Future Energy Monitoring Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 16 3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS After benchmarking of a building is complete and the site visit has identified the specific systems in the building, a number of different methods are available for quantifying the overall energy consumption and to model the energy use. These range from relatively simple spreadsheets to commercially available modeling software capable of handling complex building systems. NORTECH has used several of these programs and uses the worksheets and software that best matches the complexity of the building and specific energy use that is being evaluated. Modeling of an energy efficiency measure (EEM) requires an estimate of the current energy used by the specific feature, the estimated energy use of the proposed EEM and its installed cost. EEMs can range from a single simple upgrade, such as light bulb type or type of motor, to reprogramming of the controls on more complex systems. While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, the specific system upgrades often require collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators, auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. Common EEMs that could apply to almost every older building include: • Reduce the envelope heat losses through: o increased building insulation, and o better windows and doors • Reduce temperature difference between inside and outside using setback thermostats • Upgrade inefficient: o lights, o motors, o refrigeration units, and o other appliances • Reduce running time of lights/appliances through: o motion sensors, o on/off timers, o light sensors, and o other automatic/programmable systems The objective of the following sections is to describe how the overall energy use of the building was modeled and the potential for energy savings. The specific EEMs that provide these overall energy savings are detailed in Appendix A of this report. While the energy savings of an EEM is unlikely to change significantly over time, the cost savings of an EEM is highly dependent on the current energy price and can vary significantly over time. An EEM that is not currently recommended based on price may be more attractive at a later date or with higher energy prices. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 17 3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Anderson School. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling engine behind the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a number of years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for commercial buildings. Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as: • Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors, walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska. • Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the winter but north-facing windows do not. • Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air, etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through pumping. • Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around. • Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light; ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational hours. • Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit. • Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters, monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption of the building, as well as contributing to heat production. • The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc. is a critical component of how much energy is used. AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12 months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 18 3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Anderson School Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators, auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended. Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR. A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Total Existing Building $66,648 $4,967 $22,842 $1,334 $1,747 $902 $72 $98,510 With All Proposed Retrofits $46,722 $3,753 $11,609 $646 $1,747 $902 $72 $65,451 Savings $19,925 $1,213 $11,233 $688 $0 $0 $0 $33,059 Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved in replacing lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 19 3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating and lighting The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right. This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 20 3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm The AkWarm program effectively models wood-framed and other buildings with standard heating systems and relatively simple HVAC systems. AkWarm models of more complicated mechanical systems are sometimes poor due to a number of simplifying assumptions and limited input of some variables. Furthermore, AKWarm is unable to model complex HVAC systems such as variable frequency motors, variable air volume (VAV) systems, those with significant digital or pneumatic controls or significant heat recovery capacity. In addition, some other building methods and occupancies are outside AkWarm capabilities. This report section is included in order to identify benefits from modifications to those more complex systems or changes in occupant behavior that cannot be addressed in AkWarm. The Anderson School could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC system were adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 21 4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) 4.1 Operations and Maintenance A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits. Operations and Maintenance staff implementing a properly designed O & M plan will: • Track and document o Renovations and repairs, o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and o System performance. • Keep available for reference o A current Building Operating Plan including an inventory of installed systems, o The most recent available as-built drawings, o Reference manuals for all installed parts and systems, and o An up-to-date inventory of on-hand replacement parts. • Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel. • Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals. Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems perform within the design or usage ranges of the Building Operating Plan. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction. HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time due to incorrect maintenance, improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or usage, changes in schedules, and changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning of a building should occur every five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets the potentially variable use with the most efficient means. 4.2 Building Specific Recommendations The building appears to be well maintained, however the building occupancy has significantly dropped in recent years and some areas of the school are no longer in use. These areas should be set to the lowest heating set points possible to reduce energy use. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 22 APPENDICES Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 23 Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures A number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) are available to reduce the energy use and overall operating cost for the facility. The EEMs listed below are those recommended by AkWarm based on the calculated savings/investment ration (SIR) as described in Appendix E. AkWarm also provides a breakeven cost, which is the maximum initial cost of the EEM that will still return a SIR of one or greater. This section describes each recommended EEM and identifies the potential energy savings and installation costs. This also details the calculation of breakeven costs, simple payback, and the SIR for each recommendation. The recommended EEMs are grouped together generally by the overall end use that will be impacted. A.1 Temperature Control Approximately 24 programmable thermostats should be installed and programmed in the Anderson School. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the unoccupied temperature set points will decrease the energy usage. The existing heating system has two types of thermostat control. In most of the school a pneumatic control system with single setting thermostats is in place. To create an unoccupied setback, new thermostats must be installed and a second pressure line off the existing pneumatic controller system compressor must be installed. Rank Building Space Recommendation 15 Anderson School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Anderson School space. Installation Cost $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $7,007 Breakeven Cost $94,777 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 In the newer high school area the heat is controlled by Dan Foss type manually adjustable thermostatic valves, located on the radiators. These should be replaced with a programmed radiator thermostat to create a scheduled unoccupied setback. Rank Building Space Recommendation 49 High School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 63.0 deg F for the High School space. Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $327 Breakeven Cost $4,419 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr.) 9 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 24 A.2 Electrical Loads A.2.1 Lighting The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8 (one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that magnetic ballasts tend to make. Incandescent lighting is extremely inefficient and should be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Hallway A 6 INCAN A Lamp, Std 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $24 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $104 Breakeven Cost $615 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 26 Simple Payback (yr.) 0 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Hallway B 6 INCAN A Lamp, Std 100W with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR CFL, Spiral 26 W Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $25 Breakeven Cost $149 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 15 Simple Payback (yr.) 0 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Multi-Purpose 2 INCAN (3) A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) CFL, Spiral 20 W Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $34 Breakeven Cost $368 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 15 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Staff Lounge 2 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 15 W Installation Cost $6 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $12 Breakeven Cost $72 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12 Simple Payback (yr.) 0 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 25 The metal halide lamps in the gym are inefficient; replacing them with large CFL lamps that fit in the existing fixtures will result in significant savings. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Sprinkler Room 3 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W Installation Cost $12 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $19 Breakeven Cost $113 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Sprinkler Room 3 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W Installation Cost $5 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $8 Breakeven Cost $47 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Concessions 3 INCAN A Lamp, Std 200W with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9 Breakeven Cost $80 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 27 Multipurpose 2 INCAN (3) A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $20 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $8 Breakeven Cost $47 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Gym 20 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 42 W Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $663 Breakeven Cost $7,002 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Gym 24 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 24 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 42 W Installation Cost $960 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $791 Breakeven Cost $8,334 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 26 Many of the areas with T8 lighting have more light than standards call for. Replacing the 32-W T8 lamps with energy saver 25-W lamps will reduce the electric load. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Sec/Files 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $36 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $32 Breakeven Cost $273 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Principal 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $24 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $22 Breakeven Cost $181 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 Elementary 4-5 Classroom 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $96 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $51 Breakeven Cost $399 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 19 SERV 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $16 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $7 Breakeven Cost $57 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 Elementary 6 Classroom 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $16 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9 Breakeven Cost $56 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.5 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 21 English Classroom 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $108 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $48 Breakeven Cost $377 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.5 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 27 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 22 K-1-2-3 Classroom 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $28 Breakeven Cost $313 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 23 Hallway C 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $7 Breakeven Cost $77 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 31 Reading 4 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $48 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $13 Breakeven Cost $107 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 34 Sam’s Diner 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9 Breakeven Cost $103 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 6 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 39 Hallway B 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $16 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5 Breakeven Cost $30 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 40 Hallway D 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $40 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $13 Breakeven Cost $75 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 28 The outdoor high pressure sodium lighting should be replaced with LED lights. Incandescent and fluorescent exit lighting should be replaced with LED exit lights. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 44 Art Classroom 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 33 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic Installation Cost $264 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $58 Breakeven Cost $457 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 48 Science Classroom 14 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic Installation Cost $115 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $22 Breakeven Cost $177 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 14 outdoor lights 14 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 14 LED 20W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $3,150 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,721 Breakeven Cost $21,271 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 Hallway D Exit Light 3 FLUOR 15 W with Manual Switching Replace with 3 LED 4W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $23 Breakeven Cost $259 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 47 HS Pit Exit 2 FLUOR (2) T5 with Manual Switching Replace with 2 LED (2) 4W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $65 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $18 Breakeven Cost $107 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 29 Replacing T12 bulbs and ballasts with more efficient T8 bulbs using electronic ballasts proved to be economical. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Resource 16 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $700 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $362 Breakeven Cost $2,860 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 Reading 9 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $468 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $206 Breakeven Cost $1,739 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 25 HS Pit 11 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Replace with 11 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $503 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $176 Breakeven Cost $1,386 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 28 Hallway C 7 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 7 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $340 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $71 Breakeven Cost $792 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 30 Elementary 4-5 15 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $945 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $268 Breakeven Cost $2,130 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 33 K-1-2-3 Classroom 18 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,275 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $469 Breakeven Cost $2,805 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 30 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 36 Math 11 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $781 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $196 Breakeven Cost $1,544 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 38 Hallway A 3 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $144 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $36 Breakeven Cost $286 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 41 Wood Shop 41 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 41 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $541 Breakeven Cost $3,236 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 42 HS Pit Display Cases 4 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching, Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control Replace with 4 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $126 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $28 Breakeven Cost $222 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 43 Entry Display Cases 6 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $189 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $42 Breakeven Cost $333 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 45 Home Ec. 6 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $288 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $57 Breakeven Cost $484 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 31 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 46 Hallway A 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $960 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $200 Breakeven Cost $1,582 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 50 Music Room 11 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $676 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $165 Breakeven Cost $983 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 51 Auto Shop Maint 2 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $90 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $12 Breakeven Cost $129 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 53 Art Classroom FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $71 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $12 Breakeven Cost $94 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 6 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 55 Nurse 2 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $15 Breakeven Cost $129 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 7 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 56 History Class 12 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $624 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $102 Breakeven Cost $802 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 6 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 32 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 57 Library 44 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,900 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $218 Breakeven Cost $2,419 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 9 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 58 Multi-Purpose 40 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 40 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $1,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $197 Breakeven Cost $2,186 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 9 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 59 Hallway D 10 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 10 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $475 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $98 Breakeven Cost $583 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 61 Auto Shop Maint. FLUOR T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver HighEfficElectronic Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9 Breakeven Cost $56 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 33 The bathroom lights in the school are on turned on all day long. Due to infrequent use, the bathrooms are an ideal location for occupancy sensors. Installation of occupancy sensors and replacing the lighting with more efficient bulbs will provide energy savings. In addition the bathroom exhaust fans should be wired to the occupancy sensors with 15-30 minute timers to reduce run time and the cost or reheating the replacement air. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 24 Boys & Girls Restroom 12 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $778 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $282 Breakeven Cost $2,375 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 29 B&G Restroom Gym 10 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 10 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $111 Breakeven Cost $931 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 31 Boys and Girls Locker Room 9 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $75 Breakeven Cost $450 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 52 Boys and Girls Locker Room 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant HighEfficElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $46 Breakeven Cost $276 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 60 Boys and Girls Restroom 6 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $700 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $140 Breakeven Cost $834 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 34 A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads The three refrigerators in the Home Economics room are old and inefficient. Significant energy savings can be achieved by replacing them. A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change A.3.1 Exterior Walls The exterior walls are in good condition and retrofits do not result in significant savings. A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace No EEMs are recommended as retrofits are not economical at this time. A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling No EEMs are recommended in this area as retrofits are not economical at this time. A.3.4 Windows The existing windows are in good condition; replacing them is not economical at this time. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 54 Home Ec 3 Kenmore refrigerators Replace with 3 newer models Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $482 Breakeven Cost $3,882 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 6 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 35 A.3.5 Doors Installing an insulated blanket on the garage door will help decrease energy A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution The existing boilers and pumps are well maintained, however they are inefficient by current standards. Replacing one boiler and one pump in each set with a more efficient version and leaving the other as a back-up will reduce energy use while economically providing back-up in the system. Once the new boilers are installed the oil-fired water heater should be replaced with an indirect water heater supplied by the boilers. The existing furnace is aging and should be replaced with a more efficient model. A.4.2 Air Conditioning No air conditioning system is installed in the building, therefore no EEMs are recommended in this area. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Garage Door: Garage Door Type: 1-piece 8'x7' door, Wood un- insulated Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R-Value: 1.8 Add R-5 insulating blanket to garage door Installation Cost $372 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $345 Breakeven Cost $4,675 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr.) 1 Rank Recommendation 26 Replace one boiler in each of the two sets leave one for standby, Replace the forced air furnace, Replace oil-fired water heater with indirect water heater off boilers, Replace one circulator for each zone and leave one of the existing for standby, and Replace circulators for DHW. Installation Cost $80,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $11,191 Breakeven Cost $212,100 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 7 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 36 A.4.3 Ventilation The building occupancy has been greatly reduced from the designed building capacity, however ventilation is still being provided at the design capacity level. Reducing the fresh air provided to current ASHRAE standards will result in energy savings. To ensure that adequate ventilation is provided, CO2 sensors should be installed in each of the six Air Handling Units and a small DDC system should be installed to control the ventilation system to provide just enough outside air to meet occupant needs. A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening The doors in the building are poorly sealed with damaged weather stripping. Replacing the weather stripping will reduce air leakage and save energy. Rank Recommendation 37 Reduce outside air due to low occupancy. Install a small DDC system to control ventilation only and install CO2 sensors in each of the AHUs. Installation Cost $35,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5,098 Breakeven Cost $68,953 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 7 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 35 Doors High volume of air leakage Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5%. Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $649 Breakeven Cost $6,023 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 5 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 37 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would warrant re-evaluation. Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures, hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback, especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units. The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 62 Lighting: Boys and Girls Locker Room Replace with 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $12 $75 0.99 6.0 63 Lighting: Attic Above Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic $45 $290 0.92 6.5 64 Refrigeration: Sam's Diner Replace with Gibson Freezer $117 $800 0.91 6.8 65 Lighting: Video Conference Replace with 8 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic $46 $416 0.87 9.0 66 Lighting: Counselor Replace with FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1 $5 0.89 6.7 67 Lighting: Staff Lounge Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $33 $275 0.72 8.2 68 Window/Skylight: Elem. 6 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $64 $1,550 0.72 24 69 Window/Skylight: Elementary 4-5 Classroom Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $128 $3,094 0.72 24 70 Lighting: Boys and Girls Locker Room Replace with 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $50 $450 0.66 9.0 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 38 71 Lighting: B&G Restroom Gym Replace with 10 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $26 $340 0.63 13 72 Refrigeration: Sam's Diner Replace with Frigidaire $86 $1,000 0.53 12 73 Lighting: Above Shop Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver HighEfficElectronic $3 $50 0.41 15 74 Lighting: Generator Room Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver HighEfficElectronic $3 $50 0.39 16 75 Lighting: Janitor Closet Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1 $16 0.20 30 76 Lighting: Coaches Room Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1 $35 0.19 32 77 Lighting: Weight Room Replace with 6 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $10 $315 0.18 33 78 Lighting: Boys and Girls Locker Room Replace with FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1 $45 0.13 47 79 Lighting: Coaches Room Replace with 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $3 $160 0.10 60 80 Lighting: Boiler Room Replace with 3 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $1 $132 0.04 140 81 Lighting: Sec/Files Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant EfficMagnetic -$1 $24 0 1,000 Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 39 Appendix C Significant Equipment List HVAC Equipment Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated Efficiency Notes Boiler Burnham PF-S04 #1 Fuel Oil 78% Two Units Boiler Burnham FF-S07 #1 Fuel Oil 75% Two units Furnace Jackson and Church n/a #1 Fuel Oil 74% Pumps Grundfos Varies Electric Varies Eight Units Fan Dayton H56 Electric n/a 3/4 HP Water Heater Nickelshield Maxim #1 Fuel Oil 75% 125 gallon storage DHW Pumps Grundfos 26-64 Electric n/a Three Units Air Handling Units Trane Varies n/a n/a Six Units, all contain fans Lighting Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR Classrooms Fluorescent T12 153 32,516 $ 5,853 Gym Metal Halide 250 Watt 44 22,125 3,983 Outdoors High Pressure Sodium 150 Watt 14 11,076 1,994 Hallways Fluorescent T12 57 9,159 1,685 Resource Room Fluorescent T12 16 6,303 1,135 Elementary 4-5 Fluorescent T12 15 6,066 1,092 Classrooms Fluorescent T8 56 6,062 1,091 Restrooms/Locker Rooms Fluorescent T12 and T8 47 5,171 931 Library Fluorescent T12 44 4,200 756 HS Pit Fluorescent T12 11 3,014 543 Nurse/Reading Fluorescent T12 6 2,359 425 English Class Fluorescent T8 9 2,146 386 Elementary 4-5 Fluorescent T8 6 1,893 341 Reading/Secretary Fluorescent T8 9 1,808 325 Auto Shop Fluorescent T5 8 1,188 214 Exit Signs Fluorescent T5 11 1,101 198 Conference Fluorescent T12 8 962 173 Attic Fluorescent T12 5 847 152 Staff Lounge Fluorescent T12 8 733 132 Entry Display Fluorescent T12 6 706 127 Principal Fluorescent T8 3 598 108 Display Case HS Pit Fluorescent T12 4 471 85 Server Room Fluorescent T8 2 205 37 Multipurpose Room Incandescent Halogen 2 96 17 Coaches Room Fluorescent T12 and T8 7 86 15 Main Entry Fluorescent CFL 5 84 15 Concessions Incandescent A-Bulb 3 64 12 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.18/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 40 Plug Loads Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR Server Tower Server Varies 8,766 $ 1,578 Refrigerator Home Ec. Kenmore 5,259 947 Freezer Sam's Diner Gibson 1,250 225 Refrigerator Sam's Diner Frigidaire 900 162 Printers Secretary Varies 616 111 Dishwasher Home Ec. Whirlpool 282 51 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.18/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 41 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit. Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates, rate structures and utility pricing agreements. Golden Valley Electric Association Rate Structure: GS-2 (S) Large General Service Secondary Effective Rates*** Customer Charge $30.00 Demand Charge $11.06 / KWH Utility Charge $0.04843/ KWH $0.1737 / KWH ***The effective rate is all of the charges totaled together and divided by the kilowatt hour used. GVEA offers five different rates to its members, depending on the classification of the service provided. The rates are divided into two categories: Residential and General Service (GS). Eighty-five percent of the electric services on GVEA's system are single-family dwellings, classified under the Residential rate. The four General Service rates apply to small and large power users that do not qualify for the Residential rate. The General Service rates break down as follows: GS-1 General Service Services under 50 kilowatts (kW) of demand per billing cycle GS-2(S) Large General Service Secondary Services 50 kW and higher of demand per billing cycle GS-2(P) Large General Service Primary Services at primary voltage GS-3 Industrial Service Services at transmission voltage Customer Charge A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service. Utility Charge (kWh charge) This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period. It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires, power poles and transformers. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 42 Fuel and Purchased Power This charge is based on a combination of forecasted and actual power costs. The monthly charge allows Golden Valley to pass on increases and decreases in fuel and energy purchases to our members. It is calculated quarterly and multiplied by the kilowatt-hours used each month. Regulatory Charge This charge of .000492 per kWh is set by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Since November 1, 1992, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has been funded by a Regulatory Charge to the utilities it regulates rather than through the State general fund. The charge, labeled "Regulatory Cost Charge." on your bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail kilowatt-hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 43 Appendix E Analysis Methodology Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer. EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost, which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one. EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be recommended by AkWarm . Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re- evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested EEMs have been evaluated. Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later. The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings. Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule or operational change at the facility. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 44 Appendix F Audit Limitations The results of this audit are dependent on the input data provided and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several EEMs or installation methods may achieve the identified potential savings. Actual savings will depend on the EEM selected, the price of energy, and the final installation and implementation methodology. Competent tradesmen and professional engineers may be required to design, install, or otherwise implement some of the recommended EEMs. This document is an energy use audit report and is not intended as a final design document, operation, and maintenance manual, or to take the place of any document provided by a manufacturer or installer of any device described in this report. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each EEM. Estimated costs include labor and equipment for the full up-front investment required to implement the EEM. The listed installation costs within the report are conceptual budgetary estimates and should not be used as design estimates. The estimated costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, local contractors and equipment suppliers, and the professional judgment of the CEA writing the report and based on the conditions at the time of the audit. Cost and energy savings are approximations and are not guaranteed. Additional significant energy savings can usually be found with more detailed auditing techniques that include actual measurements of electrical use, temperatures in the building and HVAC ductwork, intake and exhaust temperatures, motor runtime and scheduling, and infrared, air leakage to name just a few. Implementation of these techniques is the difference between a Level III Energy Audit and the Level II Audit that has been conducted. Disclaimer: "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." Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 45 Appendix G References Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains information and insights considered valuable to most buildings. Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities. (1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC. ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low- Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial Press, Inc. Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using CO2 Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines. Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management Program: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/ Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Advanced Technology. International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, IL: International Code Council, Inc. Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical Support Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings. Retrieved 2011, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010). Handbook of Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/ Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 46 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage This report provides data on typical energy costs and use on selected building in Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska for comparative purposes only. The values provided by the US Energy Information Administration CBECS study included a broader range of building types for the Continental U.S. are not necessarily good comparatives for buildings and conditions in Alaska. An assortment of values from CBECS may be found in Appendix I. The Alaska data described in this report came from a benchmarking study NORTECH and other Technical Services Providers (TSPs) completed on publicly owned buildings in Alaska under contract with AHFC. This study acquired actual utility data for municipal buildings and schools in Alaska for the two recent full years. The utility data included costs and quantities including fuel oil, electricity, propane, wood, steam, and all other energy source usage. This resulted in a database of approximately 900 buildings. During the course of the benchmarking study, the comparisons made to the CBECS data appeared to be inappropriate for various reasons. Therefore, this energy use audit report references the average energy use and energy cost of Anchorage and Fairbanks buildings as described below. The Alaska benchmarking data was evaluated in order to find valid comparison data. Buildings with major energy use information missing were eliminated from the data pool. After detailed scrutiny of the data, the most complete information was provided to NORTECH by the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) and the Anchorage School District (ASD). The data sets from these two sources included both the actual educational facilities as well as the district administrative buildings and these are grouped together in this report as Fairbanks and Anchorage schools. These two sources of information, being the most complete and reasonable in-state information, have been used to identify an average annual energy usage for Fairbanks and for Anchorage in order to provide a comparison for other facilities in Alaska. Several factors may limit the comparison of a specific facility to these regional indicators. In Fairbanks, the FNSBSD generally uses number two fuel oil for heating needs and electricity is provided by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). GVEA produces electricity from a coal fired generation plant with additional oil generation upon demand. A few of the FNSBSD buildings in this selection utilize district steam and hot water. The FNSBSD has recently (the last ten years) invested significantly in envelope and other efficiency upgrades to reduce their operating costs. Therefore a reader should be aware that this selection of Fairbanks buildings has energy use at or below average for the entire Alaska benchmarking database. Heating in Anchorage is through natural gas from the nearby natural gas fields. Electricity is also provided using natural gas. As the source is nearby and the infrastructure for delivery is in place, energy costs are relatively low in the area. As a result, the ASD buildings have lower energy costs, but higher energy use, than the average for the entire benchmarking database. These special circumstances should be considered when comparing the typical annual energy use for particular buildings. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 47 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. Released: Dec 2006 Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007 Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption Number of Buildings (thousand) Floor space (million square feet) Floor space per Building (thousand square feet) Total (trillion BTU) per Building (million BTU) per Square Foot (thousand BTU) per Worker (million BTU) All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9 Building Floor space (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6 5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7 10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0 25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8 50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0 100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3 200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3 Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6 Principal Building Activity Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7 Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2 Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5 Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0 Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7 Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8 Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5 Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1 Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3 Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5 Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7 Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6 Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0 Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3 Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1 Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1 This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was expected to compare the annual energy consumption of the building to average national energy usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison between one specific building and the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this report uses a comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An abbreviated excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 48 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units 1 British Thermal Unit 1 Watt 1 horsepower 1 horsepower 1 "ton of cooling” 1 Therm 1 KWH 1 KW 1 Boiler HP 1 Pound Steam 1 CCF of natural gas 1 Pascal (Pa) 1 Pascal (Pa) BTU CCF CFM GPM HP Hz kg kV kVA kVAR KW KWH V W is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr. is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr. is approximately 746 Watts is 12,000 BTU/hr., the amount of power required to melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours = 100,000 BTU = 3413 BTU = 3413 BTU/Hr. = 33,400 BTU/Hr. = 1000 BTU = about 1 Therm = 1 inch H2O = 0.363 pounds/square inch (psi) = 0.0025 atmospheres (atm) British Thermal Unit 100 Cubic Feet Cubic Feet per Minute Gallons per minute Horsepower Hertz Kilogram (1,000 grams) Kilovolt (1,000 volts) Kilovolt-Amp Kilovolt-Amp Reactive Kilowatt (1,000 watts) Kilowatt Hour Volt Watt Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 48 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ACH Air Changes per Hour AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency Air Economizer A duct, damper, and automatic control system that allows a cooling system to supply outside air to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling. Ambient Temperature Average temperature of the surrounding air Ballast A device used with an electric discharge lamp to cause the lamp to start and operate under the proper circuit conditions of voltage, current, electrode heat, etc. CO2 Carbon Dioxide CUI Cost Utilization Index CDD Cooling Degree Days DDC Direct Digital Control EEM Energy Efficiency Measure EER Energy Efficient Ratio EUI Energy Utilization Index FLUOR Fluorescent Grade The finished ground level adjoining a building at the exterior walls HDD Heating Degree Days HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning INCAN Incandescent NPV Net Present Value R-value Thermal resistance measured in BTU/Hr.-SF-̊F (Higher value means better insulation) SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Savings over the life of the EEM divided by Investment capital cost. Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. Set Point Target temperature that a control system operates the heating and cooling system Simple payback A cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of an EEM is divided by the first year’s savings of the EEM to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. Energy Audit – Final Report Anderson School Anderson, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-360 Denali Borough SD\50-361 Anderson School\Reports\Final\2012.07.12 Final AHFC Report Anderson School.Docx 49 Appendix L Building Floor Plan Floor plan provided by Anderson School N 92’ 117’8”