HomeMy WebLinkAboutAND Anderson City Hall 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT - FINAL REPORT
Anderson City Hall
260 West First Street
Anderson, Alaska
Prepared for:
Ms. Darla Coghill
260 West First Street
Anderson, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning, PE, CEA
Douglas S. Dusek, CEA
Stephanie Young, EIT, CEAIT
July 9, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095
Managing 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
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\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description .......................................... 3
2.1.1 Building Use ................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Occupancy and Schedules ........................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Building Description ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns .................................................................. 8
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ............................................................................. 9
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 10
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 11
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Anderson City Hall ............................... 12
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 13
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 14
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 15
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 15
4.2 Building Specific Maintenance and Operations ................................................... 15
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 17
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 22
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 23
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 24
Appendix E Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 26
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 27
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 28
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 29
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 30
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 31
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 32
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 33
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Anderson City Hall, a 3,578
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 8, 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
City Hall. 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 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
Setback
Thermostat: Post
Office and Council
Chambers
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F
for the Post Office and Council
Chambers space.
$408 $200 31 0.5
2
Setback
Thermostat:
DMV/City Hall
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F
for the DMV/City Hall space.
$168 $200 13 1.2
3 Lighting: Exit Replace with LED (2) 4W Module
StdElectronic $39 $95 4.4 2.4
4 Lighting: Outdoor
Lighting
Replace with 5 LED 12W Module
StdElectronic $164 $750 2.8 4.6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.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)
5 Above-Grade Wall:
Offices
Install R-30 rigid foam board to
exterior and cover with T1-11
siding or equivalent.
$1,662 $29,837 1.5 18
6 Ceiling w/ Attic:
House
Add R-21 blown cellulose
insulation to attic with Standard
Truss.
$618 $11,619 1.4 19
7 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air
leakage by 15%. $137 $1,000 1.4 7.3
8 Above-Grade Wall:
Boiler Room
Add R-30 rigid foam to interior or
exterior of existing wall; cost does
not include siding or wall
coverings.
$113 $2,639 1.2 23
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $3,309 $46,340 1.7 14
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform an 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 City Hall, a one-story, wood-framed building, houses the local Alaska Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) office, Post Office, and City Council meeting place, and serves as office
space for the City Clerk and Mayor’s secretary. The building was constructed in the 1980’s, and
the Post Office is a later addition.
2.1.2 Occupancy and Schedules
Normal occupancy is 3-5 employees during the daytime schedule of 8 am to 4 pm, four days per
week. Some offices operate on shorter schedules.
2.1.3 Building Description
Building Envelope
The structure has standard 2x4 stud walls at sixteen inches on center, with R-13 fiberglass batt
insulation. The roof is constructed of homemade wood trusses with plywood gusset plates and
R-25 fiberglass batt insulation. New metal doors, with thermal breaks, have been installed,
however they were improperly installed and allow drafts. The majority of the windows have been
recently replaced with double-paned, wood framed windows. These were not installed
completely and lack trims and a seal to the building.
Heating and Ventilation Systems
Two furnaces, burning # 2 fuel oil, supply heat to the building. The smaller furnace supplies heat
to the clerk’s office and the DMV. A new larger furnace, located in a poorly insulated mechanical
room accessible only from the outdoors, heats the rest of the building including the Post Office,
council room and secretary’s office.
The heat supply is controlled by two non-programmable thermostats near the clerk’s office. The
temperature is set back manually at night.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
4
Cooling System
The building does not have air conditioning.
Energy Management
The building does not have an energy management program or system.
Lighting Systems
The building is primarily lit by 4-foot long, T-12 (1.5-inch) fluorescent tubes, in ceiling mounted
fixtures. There are a few incandescent bulbs and T-8’s (1-inch).
Domestic Hot Water
The hot water heater is an electric, 80 gallon model. The system is incorrectly wired to 120 volt
rather than 240 volt. This lengthens the hot water response time.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
5
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
6
2.2.1 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 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 City Hall has an EUI of 122,000 BTUs per
square foot per year. This seems high for a wood-framed building with no ventilation system.
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 City Hall relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in
Appendix H.
122,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Anderson City Hall Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
7
2.2.2 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 City Hall is about $2.73. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the
following rates:
Electricity at $0.26 / kWh ($7.37 / Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $3.23 / gallon ($2.11 / 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 City Hall relative to these values. More details are
included in Appendix H.
$2.73
$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 City Hall Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
8
2.2.3 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 while the heating fuel baseline often reflects year round hot
water usage. 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 for the period before January 2010.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jun-09Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11KWHElectrical Consumption
Anderson City Hall
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jun-09Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Anderson City Hall
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
9
2.2.4 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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
10
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
11
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
Nortech used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at (Building
Name). 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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
12
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Anderson City Hall
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
recommendation based 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
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting Other
Electrical Cooking Ventilation
Fans
Service
Fees Total
Existing
Building $10,496 $0 $172 $521 $43 $0 $0 $0 $11,553
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$7,422 $0 $172 $285 $43 $0 $0 $0 $8,244
SAVINGS $3,074 $0 $0 $235 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,309
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
13
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 direct
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.
The graph clearly indicates that space heating costs are the obvious place to look for
opportunities to reduce total energy costs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
14
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.
Anderson City Hall could be modeled well in AKWarm; no calculations outside AKWarm were
necessary.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
15
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.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems act within the design or
usage ranges. 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 Maintenance and Operations
During the site visit, several issues were noted.
1. The flammable insulation in the attic does not have the required 2 inch separation from
the furnace chimney. When cellulose insulation is added per recommendation #5, it will
increase the safety risk unless a 26 gage steel sleeve with 2-inches of separation is
installed.
2. Annual maintenance is important both from a safety and efficiency perspectives. Both
furnaces need annual maintenance to ensure optimal efficiency and safety.
3. Combustion processes consume fresh air. For optimum efficiency a furnace needs to be
able to draw fresh air from the room into the combustion chamber. The small furnace
currently has no makeup air if the main door is closed. Fresh air can be provided by
cutting the door bottom to have at least a 1-inch gap.
4. The water heater was replaced with a one. However the old water storage tank was not
removed from the premises and its possible that the insulation covering the tank may be
an asbestos containing material. We recommend that the insulation be inspected by
professionals.
5. The well has no casing cover. Anderson is located in a flood plain and this cover is
required.
6. The new hot water heater is not properly wired. This is creating stress on the equipment
and a delay in the hot water response. The new water heater is oversized for the
building usage and is in a cold semi-exterior location. Replacing it with a small water
heater in the largest bathroom and running a line to the nearest bathroom and the
kitchen will decrease energy losses from the circulation pipes. The DMV bathroom hot
water could be provided using an instant, in-line hot water heating unit.
All of these issues represent health or safety hazards for the building occupants.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
16
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
17
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
Two programmable thermostats should replace the existing non-programmable thermostats in
the DMV/City Hall area and the Post Office and Council Chambers area. The programmable
thermostats should be set to 60 degrees Fahrenheit during unoccupied periods, and back to 70
degrees Fahrenheit about an hour before the occupants arrive.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 Post Office and Council Chambers
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Post Office and Council Chambers space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $408
Breakeven Cost $6,099 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 31 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
2 DMV/City Hall
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
DMV/City Hall space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $168
Breakeven Cost $2,513 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
18
A.2 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.
Exit Lighting
Exit lights consume significant amounts of energy because of the duration of operation.
Replacing inefficient incandescent exit lights saves a significant amount of energy over the life
of the bulb.
Outdoor Lighting
Inefficient outdoor lighting has no additional heating benefits to the building and therefore should
be replaced with the most efficient lighting available, if economical. The existing five, high
pressure sodium lights should be replaced with LED fixtures. This replacement will save energy
and also improve the color quality of the light.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Exit INCAN (2) A Lamp, Std 25W with Manual
Switching
Replace with LED (2) 4W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $95 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $39
Breakeven Cost $414 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.4 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 Outdoor Lighting 5 HPS 70 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 5 LED 12W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $750 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $164
Breakeven Cost $2,120 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
19
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
In areas with significant heating loads, like Interior Alaska, envelope improvements can have a
major impact on energy use. The current standards for wall insulation in the interior are at least
R-30.
The building walls have a low R-Value, compared to the current standards. The addition of
insulation to the exterior of the building and replacement of the siding will significantly decrease
the space heating costs. This is complicated by furring out the windows, doors and lights.
In the City Hall, one of the furnaces and the hot water heater are located in a poorly insulated
space. Adding insulation to the inside of the exterior walls will help reduce energy losses in both
space heating and domestic hot water.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5
Above-Grade Wall:
Office
Wall Type: Single Stud
Siding Configuration: Just Siding
Insul. Sheathing: None
Structural Wall: 2 x 4, 16 inches on center
R-11 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches
Window and door headers: Insulated
Modeled R-Value: 10.6
Install R-30 rigid foam board to
exterior and cover with T1-11
siding or equivalent.
Installation Cost $29,837 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,662
Breakeven Cost $44,587 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 18
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 Above-Grade Wall:
Boiler Room
Wall Type: Single Stud
Siding Configuration: Just Siding
Insul. Sheathing: None
Structural Wall: 2 x 4, 16 inches on center
R-13 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches
Window and door headers: Insulated
Modeled R-Value: 11.5
Add R-30 rigid foam to interior or
exterior of existing wall
Installation Cost $2,639 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $113
Breakeven Cost $3,039 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr) 23
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
20
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area. The interior of the existing crawlspace has sprayed-in
place polyurethane foam insulation. Additional insulation is not economical.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
One of the most important envelope components is the ceiling in a cold roof design. A large
portion of the total heat loss in a building moves through the ceiling, especially if that component
is under-insulated. Current standards call for a minimum roof insulation of R-49 in Interior
Alaska.
The cold roof, with homemade trusses and R-25 existing insulation is substandard. Adding
blown in cellulose insulation to increase the R-value will provide a significant energy savings.
A.3.4 Windows
No EEMs are recommended in this area. The windows have been recently replaced.
A.3.5 Doors
No EEMs are recommended in this area. The doors have been recently replaced, but they
should be refitted.
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
One of the existing furnaces has been newly replaced; however it has a low efficiency. It is not
economical to replace it again.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMs are recommended in this area. No air conditioning is required for this facility. Opening
windows is sufficient for the occupants’ needs.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Ceiling w/ Attic:
Offices
Framing Type: Standard
Framing Spacing: 24 inches
Insulated Sheathing: None
Bottom Insulation Layer: R-25 Batt:FG or
RW, 8 inches
Top Insulation Layer: None
Insulation Quality: Damaged
Modeled R-Value: 25.3
Add R-21 blown cellulose
insulation to attic with Standard
Truss.
Installation Cost $11,619 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $618
Breakeven Cost $16,563 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yr) 19
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
21
A.4.3 Ventilation
There is no existing ventilation system; natural air leakage is sufficient for ventilation needs. No
EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
The new doors and windows installed during the summer of 2011 were incompletely installed.
Rehanging the door(s) to close properly and hang straight, installing weather stripping, trim and
properly sealing the exterior of the window framing will result in reduced natural air leakage and
lower heat bills.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Doors and Windows High Volume of Air Leakage Perform air sealing to reduce air
leakage by 15%.
Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $137
Breakeven Cost $1,401 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yr) 7.3
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
22
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 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 the 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, SIR1
Simple
Payback
(Years)
11 Lighting: Health Office
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$6 $100 0.36 16
12 Lighting: Main Bath Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 20W $0 $12 0.29 25
13 Lighting: Secretary
Office
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$3 $98 0.24 32
14 Lighting: Main Entry
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$3 $98 0.24 32
15 Lighting: City Clerk
Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$8 $245 0.24 32
16 Lighting: Hallway B
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$1 $49 0.16 47
17 Lighting: Council Room
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Program HighEfficElectronic
$1 $186 0.04 205
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
23
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Efficiency Notes
Furnace Intertherm N/A # 2 Fuel Oil 80%
Furnace Olesen BCL-190 # 2 Fuel Oil 78%
Hot Water Heater/Tank GE 0508R18309 Electric 100%
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/Yr
Exit Light Incandescent A Bulb 1 365 $ 94.93
Health Office Fluorescent T12 2 163.3 42.46
Post Office , Office Fluorescent T8 3 161 41.76
City Clerk Fluorescent T12 5 124 32.34
DMV Fluorescent T12 4 100 25.95
Hallways Fluorescent T12 3 70 18.25
Secretary Office Fluorescent T12 2 50 12.92
Post Office Lobby Fluorescent T8 2 50 12.92
Kitchen Fluorescent T12 2 49.7 12.92
Porch Light Incandescent A Bulb 2 45 11.70
City Clerk Fluorescent T8 2 36 9.36
DMV Office Fluorescent T12 2 34 8.79
DMV Entry Fluorescent T12 1 14 3.61
Council Room Fluorescent T12 4 12.7 3.30
Bathrooms Incandescent A Bulb 3 9 2.39
Closets Incandescent A Bulb 3 6 1.48
Furnace Room Fluorescent T12 1 4 1.09
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.26/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/Yr
Freezer/Refrigerator
Combo Kitchen Whirlpool 890 $231.30
Refrigerator DMV General Electric 385 100.20
Computers Offices N/A 110 28.52
Printers Offices N/A 62 16.17
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.26/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
24
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-1 General Service Effective Rates***
Customer Charge $20.00
Utility Charge $0.08712 / kWh $0.19655 / 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.
For our example of the average residential bill, the Utility Charge is calculated:
700 x $.08791 = $61.537
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.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
25
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
26
Appendix E Analysis Methods
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
27
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
28
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 Efficiency 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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
29
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
30
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
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.
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)
Floorspace
(million
square feet)
Floorspace
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 Floorspace (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
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
31
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units
1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F°
1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts
1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to
melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU
1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU
1 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm
1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa)
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
GPM Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
Hz Hertz
kg Kilogram (1,000 grams)
kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts)
kVA Kilovolt-Amp
kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive
KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts)
KWH Kilowatt Hour
V Volt
W Watt
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
32
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 City Hall
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-323 City Hall\Reports\Final\2012 7 6 FINAL AHFC Report AND
Anderson City Hall.Docx
33
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Floor Plan provided by Anderson City Hall