HomeMy WebLinkAboutAND Anderson Public Works 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
City of Anderson
Public Safety and Public Works Building
D 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 N. Young EIT, CEA-IT
July 10, 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\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Building Occupancy and Schedules ............................................................. 3
2.1.2 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 the Anderson Public Works and Safety 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 Operations and Maintenance ................................................... 15
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
2
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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Anderson Public Works and
Safety, a 7,965 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 Anderson
Public Works and Safety. 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 Air Tightening
Perform air sealing of doors
and windows to reduce air
leakage by 20%.
$919 $500 19 0.5
2
Setback
Thermostat:
Public Safety
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Public Safety space.
$640 $600 16 0.9
3 Lighting: Public
Safety Garage
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control $164 $100 13 0.6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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)
4
Setback
Thermostat:
Public Works
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
Public Works space.
$354 $400 13 1.1
5 HVAC And DHW Replace pump and balance
distribution $2,212 $3,600 11 1.6
6 Lighting: Shop Add new Occupancy Sensor $223 $300 6.1 1.3
7 Lighting: Shop
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver
StdElectronic
$179 $600 2.4 3.4
8 Ceiling w/ Attic:
Whole Building
Add R-21 blown cellulose
insulation to attic with
Standard Truss.
$828 $14,317 1.6 17
9 Lighting: Radio
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$24 $125 1.6 5.2
10
Lighting: Public
Safety work
space
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant EfficMagnetic
$27 $150 1.5 5.5
11 Lighting: Outdoor
Lighting
Replace with 8 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor,
Daylight Sensor
$235 $1,900 1.3 8.1
12 Lighting: Public
Safety Garage
Replace with 19 FLUOR (2) T8
8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver
(2) StdElectronic
$180 $1,425 1.0 7.9
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $5,986 $24,017 3.9 4.0
With the energy efficiency measures in place the annual energy cost can be reduced by $ 5,986
or about 29% of the total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $ 24,017 and
have an overall payback of 4 years.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
3
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
The building is composed of two identical, joined, wood-framed warehouses constructed during
the 1980s. One warehouse serves as the Public Safety building for Anderson and the other
serves as the Public Works building. The Public Safety portion includes 2 stories of office space,
while the Public Works is divided into a shop and storage space.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
The typical occupancy of the Public Works area is approximately 3-5 employees. During the
summer, the schedule starts at 6 am and concludes at 4 pm in. Only one part time employee
works during the winter.
The Public Safety area is used as needed with volunteer training occurring periodically.
2.1.2 Building Description
Building Envelope
Both of the warehouse type buildings are one story high with a high bay ceiling insulated with R-
19 batt insulation. The structure has standard 2x6 stud walls spaced at sixteen inches on
center. The ceiling is assumed (it was not accessible and no plans were provided) to be a
standard attic style truss system with fiberglass batt insulation. New man-doors have been
improperly installed and are contributing to the air leakage. Typical windows are double-paned
and vinyl-framed.
New garage doors were installed during the summer of 2010. They are likely to save a
significant amount of energy. This retrofit was modeled in order to estimate annual savings
which are estimated to be $ 2,370.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
4
Heating and Ventilation Systems
Originally the two parts of the building had two separate heating systems. Now, heat from a new
boiler in the Public Safety side is used to provide central heat to the both sides.
Public Safety:
The new boiler is a System 2000, supplying hot water to 5 unit heaters and a small
baseboard system. . It was observed that the distribution system for the main boiler has
been improperly balanced, severely limiting the amount of heat available to the Public
Works area, and causing an excessive load on the less efficient used oil furnaces.
Public Works:
The Public Works area has two used oil fired furnaces that operate primarily during
winter. Purchased fuel oil is added to the used oil tank if there is not enough used oil
generated by maintenance activities.
Cooling System
No cooling system is installed in the building.
Energy Management
No energy management system is installed in the building.
Lighting Systems
Lighting in the Public Safety and open garage areas is primarily high-bay T-12 (1.5-inch
fluorescent tubes) with magnetic ballasts. There are a few incandescent and T-8 bulbs located
in the office area. The storage area in the Public Works shop has 400 watt metal halide fixtures.
Domestic Hot Water
The existing toilets and showers in the Public Safety side have been abandoned in place, so
there is no Domestic Hot Water required in the building.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Safety has an EUI of
90,000 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 Public Works and Safety relative to these values. These findings are
discussed further in Appendix H.
90,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Anderson Public Works & Safety Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety Building is about $2.53. This is based on
utility costs from 2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $0.19 / kWh ($5.54 / Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $2.91 / gallon ($2.06 / 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 Public Works and Safety relative to these values.
More details are included in Appendix H.
$2.53 $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 Public Works & Safety Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather
can be seen in the months with higher usage.
Fuel data was unavailable before January of 2010.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11KWHElectrical Consumption
Anderson Public Works & Safety
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Anderson Public Works & Safety
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 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, such as Smart Meters for
commercial or TED for residential, can be installed. They record and display real-time energy
usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are several other types including OptoEMU
by Opto22 which has all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
12
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Anderson Public Works and Safety
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 Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical
Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans
Service
Fees Total
Existing
Building $13,102 $0 $0 $2,383 $40 $0 $0 $240 $20,567
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$8,634 $0 $0 $866 $40 $0 $0 $240 $14,582
SAVINGS $4,469 $0 $0 $1,517 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,986
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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.
Review of this chart shows that space heating and lighting are the obvious areas to reduce
energy consumption and costs.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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.
The Anderson Public Works and Safety could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the
heating system were adequately modeled in AKWarm and did not require additional
calculations.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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, directs preventative
maintenance, and schedules 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 Operations and Maintenance
The following issues were noted during the site visit:
Housekeeping is poor, with equipment in disarray, creating trip hazards, and reducing
the life of the equipment
Electrical wiring is exposed in many areas. Exposed wiring can create fire hazards;
wiring should be protected by conduit.
There is no protective enclosure for the boiler and related HVAC equipment to provide
separation from the garage space.
The boiler needs routine maintenance and annual tune-ups.
The storage area for the Emergency Medical Service supplies is unsecured.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
16
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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
Programmable thermostats should be installed and programmed in both the Public Safety and
Public Works areas. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setbacks,
which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime
temperature set point in both the areas will decrease the energy usage.
The public safety area is utilized infrequently and must be warm enough for work at a moment’s
notice therefore the recommended setback is 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The thermostat should be
programmed with a timed occupied override, so the heat will automatically shut off after use.
The public works area operates on a consistent schedule and can, therefore be reduced to a
lower temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit during the unoccupied times. The set point can be
increased to 65 degrees Fahrenheit about an hour before occupants arrive.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
2 Public Safety
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for
the Public Safety space.
Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $640
Breakeven Cost $9,525 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 16 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Building Space Recommendation
4 Public Works
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Public Works space.
Installation Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $354
Breakeven Cost $5,274 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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. Many 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.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Public Safety
Garage Multi-level Manual Switching
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control and
rearrange switching levels
Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $164
Breakeven Cost $1,317 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Public Works Shop Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor
Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $223
Breakeven Cost $1,826 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.1 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Public Works Shop
12 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W
Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver
StdElectronic. Leave fixtures
Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $179
Breakeven Cost $1,461 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yr) 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Radio Room 2 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic. Leave
Fixtures
Installation Cost $125 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $24
Breakeven Cost $197 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
19
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
The existing walls have a lower than current standard R-value. However, since the building is
not fully heated or occupied most of the time and adding insulation is expensive, no EEMs are
recommended in this area.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
The building was constructed before it was common practice to insulate the perimeter of the
foundation. Adding insulation to the slab edge would reduce heat losses but the retrofit, at $5.00
per square foot is not cost effective. No EEMs are recommended in this area, however if the
owner can implement the retrofit at a lower cost, it would become an economical EEM.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 Public Safety work
space
3 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant EfficMagnetic. Leave
fixtures
Installation Cost $150 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $27
Breakeven Cost $223 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 Outdoor Lighting 8 HPS 100 Watt Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 8 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor/
Daylight Sensor
Installation Cost $1,900 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $235
Breakeven Cost $2,409 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr) 8
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 Public Safety
Garage
19 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 95W
Energy-Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 19 FLUOR (2) T8
8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver (2)
StdElectronic. Leave fixtures
Installation Cost $1,425 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $180
Breakeven Cost $1,465 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr) 8
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
20
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
No plans were available for this building and there was no access to the attic space. Based on
the time of construction an approximation for the roofing R-value was made. Current standards
for roofing insulation is R-50 for standard truss construction. Adding insulation will help prevent
heat loss through the roof.
A.3.4 Windows
The windows in this facility are aging, but still in good condition. Replacing them at this time
would not result in significant energy savings. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.3.5 Doors
New doors were recently installed and, aside from air sealing and weatherization, they are
energy efficient. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Ceiling w/ Attic:
Whole Building
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
Modeled R-Value: 26.5
Add R-21 blown cellulose
insulation to attic with Standard
Truss.
Installation Cost $14,317 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $828
Breakeven Cost $22,323 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr) 17
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
21
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
A new System 2000 boiler was recently installed in the Public Safety portion of the building, as
the primary source of heat for the building. However the distribution was set up in an
uncontrolled loop so that some zones get preferential flow, leaving the Public Works area with
insufficient heat. Replacing the pump with a variable speed pump and changing from primary-
secondary piping to standard piping will help resolve this issue and save energy by decreasing
the usage of the inefficient used oil furnaces. The System 2000 boiler has provision for outdoor
temperature reset of the boiler temperatures. Utilizing this feature to raise the boiler temperature
during cold weather would also be helpful.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No air conditioning system is installed in the building. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No ventilation system is installed in the building. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
Several of the newly installed man-doors are not air tight, and require rehanging, new weather
stripping or both. This, coupled with the practice of keeping the garage doors closed as much as
possible will decrease the air leakage in the building.
Rank Location
5 Replace pump and balance distribution
Installation Cost $3,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,212
Breakeven Cost $39,185 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 11 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
1 Doorways High volume air leakage Perform air sealing to reduce air
leakage by sealing and closing
doors
Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $919
Breakeven Cost $9,398 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 19 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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)2
11 Lighting: Public safety
Work Space
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
StdElectronic
$18 $150 0.98 8.4
12 Lighting: Upstairs Office
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 32W Standard Instant
StdElectronic
$18 $200 0.75 11
13 Lighting: Shop Office
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
StdElectronic
$15 $135 0.70 8.8
14 Lighting: Storage Replace with 4 LED 100W
Module StdElectronic $39 $500 0.64 13.
15 Lighting: Outdoor
Lighting
Replace with 8 LED 17W Module
StdElectronic $211 $2,400 0.51 11
16 Window/Skylight:
windows
Replace existing window with U-
0.22 vinyl window $38 $1,568 0.47 41
17 Window/Skylight: office Replace existing window with U-
0.30 vinyl window $28 $1,407 0.38 51
18 Lighting: Shop Bathroom
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
EfficMagnetic
$1 $50 0.14 44
19 Lighting: Shop Office Add new Occupancy Sensor $5 $300 0.13 65
20 Lighting: Storage Add new Occupancy Sensor $5 $300 0.13 65
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
23
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Efficiency Notes
(5) Unit Heaters Modine N/A N/A N/A multiple units
Boiler System 2000 EK-3F Fuel Oil #2 80% 363,000 BTU/HR
Used Oil Furnace Clean Burn 525-S2 Fuel Oil #2 70% 280,000 BTU?HR
Used Oil Furnace Reznor N/A Fuel Oil #2 70%
Lighting
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
Air Compressor Shop N/A 9,770 $ 1,856
Headbolt Heaters Outdoors N/A 8,521 1,619
Misc. Tools and Equip. Shop N/A 4,310 819
Garage Door Openers Doors Chamberlain 996 189
Unit heater Fans Shop, Fire dept. Storage Modine 754 143
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.19/kWh
Plug Loads
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Shop Fluorescent T12 12 4,350 $ 826
Public Safety Garage Fluorescent T12 19 3,538 672
Outdoor Lighing High Pressure Sodium 100W 8 2,315 440
Public Safety Work
Space Fluorescent T12 6 689 131
Storage Metal Halide 400W 4 349 66
Radio Fluorescent T12 2 306 58
Upstairs Office Fluorescent T12 4 306 58
Shop Office Fluorescent T12 1 195 37
Shop Bathroom Fluorescent T12 1 19 4
Shop Bathroom Fluorescent T8 1 14 3
Closet Fluorescent T8 1 10 2
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.19/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Anderson Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.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 Public Works and Public Safety
Anderson, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-320 Anderson\50-322 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.10 FINAL AHFC Report
AND Anderson Public Works.Docx
33
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
44’3”
20’
124’3”
N
Floor plan not provided by City of Anderson