HomeMy WebLinkAboutBIG Fort Greely School 2012-EEManaging Office
2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801
p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813
f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819
www.nortechengr.com
ENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
FORT GREELY SCHOOL
Building 725 - 1st and Clearwater
Fort Greely, Alaska
Prepared for:
Mr. Duncan Ware
PO Box 527
Delta Junction, Alaska
Prepared by:
Douglas Dusek CEA
Jeremy Spargur EIT, CEAIT
July 11, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY
Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915
Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694
Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819
info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final
AHFC Report BIG Fort Greely School.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
2.1.3 Building Description ................................................................................... 3
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010-2011 ................................................. 7
2.2.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010-2011 ....................................................... 8
2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010-2011 ........................................................... 9
2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 10
2.2.5 Future Energy Monitoring ........................................................................ 11
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 12
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 13
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Fort Greely School ......................... 14
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 15
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 16
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 17
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 17
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 17
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final
AHFC Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 19
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 24
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 28
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 31
Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 33
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 34
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 35
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 36
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 37
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 39
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 41
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 42
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Fort Greely School, a
54,674 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 November 17,
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 Fort Greely
School. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3. Details of
each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs that were
evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B.
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
1 Ventilation
Reduce outside air intake to
current ASHRAE standards
with use of CO2 sensors
$27,367 $10,000 36 0.4
2 HVAC And DHW Turn off air handlers at night
with controls $2,964 $1,500 28 0.5
3
Approximately 25
Setback
Thermostats
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
School space.
$20,572 $18,500 14 0.9
4 Lighting: Boy's
and Girl's Bath
Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W $54 $30 11 0.6
5 Lighting: 27 Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 26 W $2 $5 2.7 2.2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
2
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
6 Lighting: Hallway
Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$155 $480 2.0 3.1
7 Lighting:
Custodian
Replace with FLUOR (4) CFL,
Spiral 15 W $5 $20 1.6 3.7
8 Lighting: 40
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$14 $64 1.4 4.4
9 Lighting: Kitchen
Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$29 $128 1.4 4.4
10
Lighting: 28,
Music Room, 14,
Staff Lounge 16
Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$108 $512 1.3 4.7
11 Lighting: Library
Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$108 $512 1.3 4.7
12
Lighting: 15
Science Room,
11 Computer
Class, 12, 13
Replace with 54 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$156 $864 1.1 5.5
13
Lighting:
Incandescent
Exit Signs:
Hallway, Gym,
Library
Replace with 6 LED (2) 4W
Module StdElectronic $79 $450 1.1 5.7
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $51,616 $33,065 20 0.6
It is understood that steam prices may double in 2013. With that in mind, we examined building
shell retrofits and concluded that it is not economical to renovate the building shell even if the
steam prices double.
Further discussion of the building shell EEMs that are not cost effective are given in appendix B.
In our opinion, serious consideration should be given to relocating the students to another
school.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.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
Fort Greely School is used as the junior high school for the Delta Junction and Fort Greely area
students.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
This building is occupied by 100 students and staff during the school year from the middle of
August to the middle of May.
2.1.3 Building Description
The original structure was built in the 1950’s and there have been several additions since. The
original portion included the administration area. The first expansion was the hall heading east
from the administration area, then south to include classrooms, parts of the library, kitchen, and
multi-purpose areas. The next addition expanded the library, kitchen, and cafeteria. The latest
addition was the largest which included a gym, locker rooms, music room and a maintenance
garage.
The original portion of the building consists of 2x6 wood framing while the additions were all
constructed with 2x8’s. The foundation is slab on grade except in the original portion which has
a below grade concrete basement where the air handler and plenum is located. The roof
construction varies in its specifics, but is a flat hot roof throughout consisting of built-up-roof on
rigid insulation. In the classrooms, a large portion of each exterior wall consists primarily of
windows.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x8 studs
spaced 16-inches on center. R-22 fiberglass batt Cafeteria/Library
expansion
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
4
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x8 studs
spaced 24-inches on center. R-22 fiberglass batt
North-south wing
classroom/art room
expansion/gym addition
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x6 studs
spaced 24-inches on center. R-19 fiberglass batt
Original portion/first
classroom
addition/maintenance
garage
Below-grade walls Concrete 2” foam Air handler corridor
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
On grade floor Insulated slab 2” foam Insulation around entire
perimeter
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs Hot flat roof Rigid insulation under
build up roof
Insulation thickness
varies with additions
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Flush metal exterior
doors Insulated metal door, no glass 5 none
Half lite metal exterior
door
Insulated metal door, with
window 3 None
2-Garage door 2” insulated metal clad doors 6.3 Maintenance garage
doors
Window Not south facing, double pane,
vinyl, <3/8” gap, air filled 2 636 SF
Window Not south facing, double pane,
vinyl, >3/8” gap, air filled 1.8 182 SF
Window
Not south facing, triple pane,
aluminum with no thermal break,
<3/8” gap, air filled
1.5 56 SF
Window Not south facing, triple pane,
vinyl, <3/8” gap, air filled 2.6 813 SF
Window Not south facing, triple pane,
vinyl, >3/8” gap, air filled 2.3 993 SF
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
5
Heating and Ventilation Systems
The Fort Greely power plant, operated by Doyon Utilities, provides steam to the building where
it transfers heat through two separate heat exchangers to glycol that runs through the building.
One heat exchanger is located in the north-south wing and provides heat to two air handlers
and classroom baseboards. The other heat exchanger is located near the gym in the newest
addition and provides heat to two air handlers and several cabinet heaters.
The maintenance garage is heated with a single oil fired unit heater.
Air Conditioning System
The building is not equipped with an air conditioning system.
Energy Management
The building is not equipped with an energy management system.
Lighting Systems
The building has a variety of lighting types including high bay fixtures with high pressure sodium
lamps, ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures containing two or three T8 (1” diameter, 4’ long) or
T12 (1 1/2” diameter, 4’long) lamps, and incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps scattered
throughout the building. The building also has several 66 watt incandescent exit signs.
Domestic Hot Water
There are three domestic hot water producers in this building. A semi-instant water heater
provides 110°F hot water to the bathrooms in the classroom portion of the building. An electric
water heater provides 120°F hot water to the bathrooms in the administration portion of the
building. A heat exchanger off the steam lines provides hot water to a 400 gallon storage tank in
the gym portion of the building.
Window
Not south facing, double pane,
aluminum with no thermal break,
>3/8” gap, air filled
1.2 287 SF
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Window
South facing, double pane,
aluminum with no thermal break,
>3/8” gap, air filled
1.2 296 SF
Window South facing, double pane, vinyl,
>3/8” gap, air filled 2.0 332 SF
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
6
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
7
2.2.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010-2011
The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Fort Greely
School. The total annual energy cost for the building is approximately $151,000 per year. These
charts show the portion of use for each fuel type and the portion of its cost.
The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is for steam and the highest
portion of cost is for steam. Steam consumption correlates directly to space heating and
domestic hot water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC
equipment. The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for
savings.
Electric
426
5%
Oil
153
2%
Steam
7,685
93%
Energy Use Total (MMBTU)Electric
$26,824
18%
Oil
$3,742
2%
Steam
$120,513
80%
Energy Cost Total
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
8
2.2.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010-2011
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated
from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square
feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The benchmark analysis found that the Fort Greely School has an EUI of 151,000 BTUs per
square foot per year.
The EUI is useful in comparing this building’s energy use to that of other similar buildings in
Alaska and in the Continental United States. The EUI can be compared to average energy use
in 2003 found in a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of commercial buildings
(abbreviated CBECS, 2006). That report found an overall average energy use of about 90,000
BTUs per square foot per year while studying about 6,000 commercial buildings of all sizes,
types, and uses that were located all over the Continental U.S. (see Table C3 in Appendix I).
In a recent and unpublished state-wide benchmarking study sponsored by the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, schools in Fairbanks averaged 62,000 BTUs per square foot and schools
in Anchorage averaged 123,000 BTUs per square foot annual energy use. The chart below
shows the Fort Greely School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in
Appendix H.
151,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Ft. Greely School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
9
2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010-2011
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 Fort Greely School is about $2.76. This is based on utility costs from 2010-2011
and the following rates:
Electricity at $0.22/ kWh ($6.45/ Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $3.32 / gallon ($2.37 / Therm)
Steam at $1.69 / Mlbs. ($1.69 / Therm)
The cost of steam is projected to increase dramatically, by 10% in 2012 and 100% in 2013,
which can cause the CUI to nearly double at over $5.00/SF or about $300,000/yr. if no EEMs
are instituted.
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 Fort Greely School relative to these values. More details are
included in Appendix H.
$2.76
$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)
Ft. Greely School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
10
2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns
Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The
graphs below show the electric, fuel, and steam consumption of this building over the course of
two years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often
reflects year round lighting consumption. The school is heated with steam and Fuel oil is used
to heat the maintenance shop. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of
cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11KWHElectrical Consumption
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Pounds of SteamSteam Consumption
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
11
2.2.5 Future Energy Monitoring
Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for
the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each
month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and
aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy
accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed
by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then
the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They
display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are
several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
12
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
13
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Fort
Greely School. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling
engine behind the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a
number of years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for
commercial buildings.
Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as:
• Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors,
walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for
each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference
between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library
of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska.
• Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the
winter but north-facing windows do not.
• Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or
natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air,
etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through
pumping.
• Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a
mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around.
• Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light;
ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may
be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be
required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational
hours.
• Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some
units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from
inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the
temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit.
• Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters,
monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption
of the building, as well as contributing to heat production.
• The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc. is a critical component
of how much energy is used.
AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage
schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a
yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12
months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to
make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
14
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Fort Greely School
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the
savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are
better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the
energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended.
Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR.
A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table.
Description Space
Heating
Water
Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical
Ventilation
Fans Total
Existing
Building $142,705 $2,753 $10,730 $912 $3,512 $15 $160,627
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$92,673 $2,119 $9,780 $912 $3,512 $15 $109,011
SAVINGS $50,032 $634 $950 $0 $0 $0 $51,616
Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the
savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved
in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
15
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating. The
energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field inspection and
does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly measured. The current
energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the projected energy costs,
assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
Existing Retrofit
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
16
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 Fort Greely School could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC system were
adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
17
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
4.1 Operations and Maintenance
A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind
energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative
maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the
building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the
proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional
benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early
indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of
overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment
well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits.
Operations and Maintenance staff implementing a properly designed O & M plan will:
Track and document
o Renovations and repairs,
o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and
o System performance.
Keep available for reference
o A current Building Operating Plan including an inventory of installed systems,
o The most recent available as-built drawings,
o Reference manuals for all installed parts and systems, and
o An up-to-date inventory of on-hand replacement parts.
Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel.
Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems perform within the design
or usage ranges of the Building Operating Plan. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as
the last phase in construction. HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time
due to incorrect maintenance, improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or
usage, changes in schedules, and changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning
of a building should occur every five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets
the potentially variable use with the most efficient means.
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
In order for an air handling system to operate properly the delivery system needs to be
balanced. There were complaints about high air speeds and noise and air deflectors in certain
rooms and not enough air in others.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
18
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
19
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
Setback pneumatic thermostats should be installed and programmed in Fort Greely School.
These allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual
setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime temperature set point in the school will decrease the
energy usage.
The exact amount of energy that can be saved per year will vary depending on the temperature
that the building can actually be set during unoccupied periods in order to return to occupied
temperature in an adequate amount of time. The temperature of the unoccupied period during
the middle of winter can be different than the temperature during the shoulder seasons of fall
and spring.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
3 School
Install approximately 25 pneumatic setback
thermostats in the School and set a
Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback
to 60 deg F
Installation Cost $18,500 Estimated Life of Measure
(yrs.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $20,572
Breakeven Cost $267,193 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 14 Simple Payback yrs. 1
The cost of upgrading the pneumatic thermostats should be weighed against the cost of
installing a direct digital control (DDC) system. A DDC system will cost more initially, but may be
a viable option in the event the building continues to operate for an extended period of time.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
20
A.2 Electrical Loads
A.2.1 Lighting
The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where
electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer
temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting
to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control
heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant
increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb
bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that
magnetic ballasts tend to make.
The majority of the lights in Fort Greely School are fluorescent fixtures with 32 watt T8 lamps in
the classrooms and hallways as well as high bay fixtures containing 250 watt metal halides in
the gym. In most cases, replacing the T8 lamps with more efficient 25 watt T8’s will be
economical. Random fixtures containing incandescent lamps and T12’s are economical to
replace at this time.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 Boy's and Girl's Bath 6 INCAN A Lamp, Std 60W with Manual
Switching
Replace with 6 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W
Installation Cost $30 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $54
Breakeven Cost $328 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 11 Simple Payback yrs. 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 27 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with
Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 26 W
Installation Cost $5 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2
Breakeven Cost $14 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback yrs. 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Hallway 60 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $480 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $155
Breakeven Cost $959 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback yrs. 3
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
21
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Custodian INCAN (4) A Lamp, Std 60W with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR (4) CFL,
Spiral 15 W
Installation Cost $20 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5
Breakeven Cost $33 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback yrs. 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 40 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $64 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $14
Breakeven Cost $88 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs. 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Kitchen 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $128 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $29
Breakeven Cost $176 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs. 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 28, Music Room, 14,
Staff Lounge 16
32 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
(2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $512 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $108
Breakeven Cost $657 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback yrs. 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 Library 32 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $512 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $108
Breakeven Cost $657 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback yrs. 5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
22
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
There are no recommended EEMs in this category. Fort Greely School does not have significant
electrical plug loads. Ensuring office equipment, such as computers and printers, are switched
off at night will help lower energy usage.
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
Several retrofits pertaining to insulation were modeled and analyzed and none of them were
found to be cost effective. The size and age of the building make it very difficult to complete
these retrofits economically. The results of the analysis are listed in the Appendix B.
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
There are no recommended EEMs in this category.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
There are no recommended EEMs in this category.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
There are no recommended EEMs in this category.
A.3.4 Windows
There are no recommended EEMs in this category. A lot of energy is being wasted through the
windows in the classrooms. However, replacing 50% of the windows in the classrooms with
insulated walls was found to be not cost effective at this time. With even moderate increases in
heating costs this could be cost effective..
A.3.5 Doors
There are no recommended EEMs in this category.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12
15 Science Room,
11 Computer Class,
12, 13
54 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 54 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $864 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $156
Breakeven Cost $950 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs. 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
13
Incandescent Exit
Signs: Hallway,
Gym, Library
6 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] with Manual
Switching
Replace with 6 LED (2) 4W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $450 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $79
Breakeven Cost $482 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs. 6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
23
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
There are several ways to significantly reduce the energy use of the air handling system
including:
Turning off the air handlers during unoccupied periods as part of the setback routine will
greatly decrease electrical and steam usage. The air handlers are equipped with
controls that allow them to be shut off manually which can be done without significant
costs.
A significant amount of outdoor air is currently being brought into the building which
increases energy costs. Decreasing the amount of air into the building to current
ASHRAE standards will significantly decrease energy usage. An estimate of the savings
is listed in the table below.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
The building is not equipped with an air conditioning system.
A.4.3 Ventilation
There are no recommended EEMs in this category.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
No EEMs are recommended in this area because of the difficulty of quantifying the amount of
leaking air and the savings. However, by using a blower door to depressurize the building and
an infra-red camera, the location of significant air leaks can be determined so they can be
repaired.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
1 Reduce outside air intake to current ASHRAE standards by resetting minimal damper opening and use
of CO2 sensors in the gym
Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 15 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $27,367
Breakeven Cost $355,438 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 36 Simple Payback
yrs. 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 Turn off air handlers at night with timers
Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 20 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $2,964
Breakeven Cost $41,922 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 28 Simple Payback yrs. 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
24
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that
were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not
currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a
small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of
these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer
operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases
in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential
EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would
warrant re-evaluation.
Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures,
hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered
when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing
window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a
window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the
incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient
replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback,
especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units.
Attention should be given to items 22-24, 26, 30-32, 37-46, 50, and 52-54. These items show
the cost of implementing insulation upgrades, the energy savings associated with each, and the
SIR.
The following measures were found not to be cost effective:
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
14
Lighting: Girls
Restroom, 29,
29, 3
Replace with 334 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-
Saver Instant StdElectronic
$403 $2,672 0.92 6.6
15 Lighting:
Cafeteria
Replace with 31 FLUOR (3) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$50 $363 0.84 7.2
16 Lighting: Men’s
Room
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $8 0.80 7.8
17 Lighting:
Multipurpose
Replace with 9 LED 100W
Module StdElectronic $381 $9,200 0.80 24
18 Lighting: Hallway
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$15 $133 0.70 8.9
19
Lighting: 26,
Boy's Locker
Room, Girl's
Locker, 10, 9
Replace with 27 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$20 $216 0.55 11
20 Lighting: School
Garage
Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$23 $256 0.55 11
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
25
The following measures were found not to be cost effective:
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
21 Lighting: Boy's
Bathroom
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $24 0.55 11
22
Window/Skylight:
Double Alum No
Break <3/8 Other
Replace 287 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$519 $15,698 0.55 30
23
Window/Skylight:
Double Alum No
Break >3/8 South
Replace 105 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$336 $10,436 0.53 31
24
Window/Skylight:
Double Alum No
Break South >3/8
Replace 191 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$185 $5,737 0.53 31
25 Lighting: Hall
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$32 $400 0.49 13
26
Window/Skylight:
TRP Alum No
Break Other
Replace 56 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$83 $3,060 0.45 37
27 Lighting: 28
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$8 $133 0.36 17
28 Lighting: 40
Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$118 $1,995 0.36 17
29 Lighting: Gym Replace with 32 LED 100W
Module StdElectronic $524 $27,000 0.35 52
30
Above-Grade
Wall:
Maintenance
Garage
Install R-15 rigid foam board to
exterior and cover with T1-11
siding or equivalent.
$249 $16,355 0.34 66
31
Above-Grade
Wall: Wall Type
E
Install R-15 rigid foam board to
12,376 SF of exterior wall and
cover with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$1,603 $105,420 0.34 66
32
Window/Skylight:
Double Wood -
Vinyl Other <3/8
Replace 182 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$180 $9,950 0.30 55
33 Lighting: 10
Replace with 25 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$157 $3,325 0.29 21
34 Lighting: 20
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $32 0.28 22
35 Lighting: 7
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$4 $96 0.27 22
36 Lighting:
Coaching Office
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W $0 $10 0.27 23
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
26
The following measures were found not to be cost effective:
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
37
Above-Grade
Wall: Wall Type
D
Install R-30 rigid foam board to
8,381 SF of exterior wall and
cover with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$1,069 $92,240 0.26 86
38
Above-Grade
Wall: Wall Type
A
Install R-15 rigid foam board to
3,495 SF of exterior wall and
cover with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$328 $29,771 0.25 91
39
Window/Skylight:
Double Wood -
Vinyl Other >3/8
Replace 636 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$511 $34,730 0.24 68
40
Above-Grade
Wall: Wall Type
C
Install R-15 rigid foam board to
4,578 SF of exterior walls and
cover with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$419 $38,996 0.24 93
41
Above-Grade
Wall: Wall Type
B
Install R-15 rigid foam board to
1,998 SF of exterior walls and
cover with T1-11 siding or
equivalent.
$175 $17,019 0.23 97
42
Window/Skylight:
Double Wood -
Vinyl >3/8 South
Replace 332 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$251 $18,113 0.23 72
43
Window/Skylight:
Triple Wood -
Vinyl >3/8 Other
Replace 993 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$578 $54,273 0.18 948
44
Cathedral
Ceiling:
Original/Admin
Area
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation to 7,512 SF of
ceiling. No cost included for
covering insulation.
$646 $96,090 0.15 150
45
Cathedral
Ceiling:
Classroom
Ceiling
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation to 26,638 SF of
ceiling. No cost included for
covering insulation.
$2,206 $327,950 0.15 150
46
Window/Skylight:
Triple Wood -
Vinyl <3/8 Other
Replace 813 SF of existing
windows with U-0.30 vinyl
windows
$307 $44,411 0.11 150
47 Lighting: 23
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $133 0.10 60
48 Lighting: 23
Replace with 6 FLUOR (3) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$15 $996 0.09 65
49 Lighting:
Coaching Office
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$5 $399 0.07 89
50
Cathedral
Ceiling: Art
Room Addition
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation to 2,794 SF of
ceiling. No cost included for
covering insulation.
$109 $35,740 0.07 330
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
27
The following measures were found not to be cost effective:
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
51 Lighting: Music
Room
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $16 0.05 110
52
Cathedral
Ceiling: Library
Addition
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation to 1,702 SF of
ceiling. No cost included for
covering insulation.
$51 $21,771 0.05 420
53
Cathedral
Ceiling:
Gym/Gym Hall
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation 15,978 SF of ceiling.
No cost included for covering
insulation.
$482 $204,383 0.05 420
54 Cathedral
Ceiling: Cafeteria
Install R-5 rigid board
insulation to 2,748 of ceiling.
No cost included for covering
insulation.
$83 $35,151 0.05 420
55
Lighting:
Multipurpose
Storage
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $266 0.05 130
56 Lighting: HU-2
Room
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $266 0.01 430
57 Lighting:
Concessions
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $399 0.01 640
58 Lighting: Storage
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $133 0.01 610
59
Lighting:
Mechanical
Room -
Multipurpose #1
Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $798 0.01 890
60
Lighting: Gym
Storage,
Mechanical
Room
Replace with 14 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $1,862 0.01 1,100
61 Lighting:
Coaches Office
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$1 $1,064 0.00 1,300
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
28
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Notes
Heat Exchanger Graham System n/a Steam Classrooms/Admin
AHU Pace A-22 Electric Classrooms
AHU n/a n/a Electric Cafeteria
AHU Western Blower n/a Electric Administration
Pump Grundfos n/a Electric CP 1A and CP 1B
Pump Magnetek Century B719 Electric Condensate return
Pump Goulds C48J2DB11C3 Electric Glycol Overflow
Cabinet Heater Trane D16A010 Electric 3 units in old gym
Unit Heater PSC n/a Electric Vestibule
Heat Exchanger Bell and Gossett 575338 Steam Gym
AHU Trane n/a Electric Gym
AHU Trane n/a Electric Lockers/Gym Hall
Pump Grundfos UMC 50-80 Electric 2 units
Pump Grundfos UMS 50-80 Electric 2 units
Pump Grundfos UMS 60-80 Electric 2 units
Cabinet Heater Trane n/a Electric Gym Hall
Cabinet Heater Trane n/a Electric Gym Hall
Cabinet Heater Beacon Morris W82 Electric Gym Addition
Garage Furnace Modine FSH 100A Electric Maintenance garage
Motor Marathon n/a Electric Maintenance garage
Water Heater Ameri-Glas EFR90-82DL Electric 3.4 Kw
Water Heater Ace-Bueler S1-V-5-SP1-25 Steam Classrooms
Water Heater Bell and Gossett n/a Steam Gym Addition
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
29
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Lamp Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Majority of building Fluorescent T8 668 12479 $ 2,745
Gym High pressure
sodium 250 W 32 5812 1,279
Rooms 11, 12, 13, 15 Fluorescent T8 216 4739 1,043
Hallway Fluorescent T8 120 3363 740
Music room, rooms 14,
16,28 Fluorescent T8 256 3348 737
Library Fluorescent T8 128 3276 721
Multi-purpose High pressure
sodium 400 W 9 2343 515
Room 10 Fluorescent T12 50 1905 419
Cafeteria Fluorescent T8 93 1539 339
Room 40 Fluorescent T12 30 1429 314
Parking lot High pressure
sodium 200 W 3 982 216
Kitchen Fluorescent T8 32 895 197
Exterior wall pack High pressure
sodium 100 W 5 826 182
Exit signs Incandescent 30 W 6 809 178
School Garage Fluorescent T8 64 701 154
Rooms 9, 10, 26, boys
locker, girls locker Fluorescent T8 54 604 133
Boys and girls
bathrooms Incandescent 60 W 6 468 103
Room 40 Fluorescent T8 16 448 99
Parking lot LED 50 W 5 430 95
Parking lot Low Pressure
Sodium 70 W 4 409 90
Hallway Fluorescent T12 8 375 83
Hallway High pressure
sodium 50 W 4 300 66
Concessions, Boys
locker, girls locker
High pressure
sodium 70 W 11 198 44
Room 23 Fluorescent T12 18 178 39
Music room High pressure
sodium 70 W 5 156 34
Room 7 Fluorescent T8 24 134 29
Hallway Fluorescent T12 2 127 28
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.22/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
30
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
43-Head bolt heaters parking n/a 4617 $ 1,016
2-refrigerators Break rooms varies 1384 304
Computer monitors Entire School n/a 1260 277
7-Smart Boards Entire School n/a 1225 270
Server Server room n/a 1198 264
Refrigerator Kitchen McQuay 1000 220
Computer towers Entire School n/a 936 206
Booster Heater Kitchen Hatco 875 193
Laptops Entire School Apple 823 181
Soda Machine Hall way n/a 800 176
Fish tank classroom n/a 767 169
2-Coffee makers Classroom n/a 700 154
Air compressor Mechanical room n/a 627 138
Steam table Kitchen n/a 525 116
2-Mini fridges Classrooms varies 460 101
5-projectors Classrooms varies 389 86
Amplifier Music room n/a 389 86
2-Oven Warmers Kitchen n/a 292 64
Ice maker Kitchen n/a 250 55
7-Microwaves Entire School n/a 245 54
Kiln Art room Kuti 219 48
Dishwasher Kitchen Hobart 195 43
20-Ipads Classrooms Apple 195 43
Chilling table Kitchen Atlas 182 40
Water heater Kitchen n/a 146 32
2-Office printers Office n/a 107 24
Electric heater Classroom Qmark 98 22
Walk in refrigerator Kitchen Kalt 68 15
Desk printers Entire School varies 62 14
Popcorn machine Classroom n/a 47 10
Misc. shop tools Shop class varies 29 6
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.22/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
31
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the
local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this
section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit.
Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated
rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates,
rate structures and utility pricing agreements.
Golden Valley Electric Association Rate Structure:
GS-2 General Service Effective Rates***
Customer Charge $20.00
Utility Charge $0.08923 / kWh $0.21660 / 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.
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
32
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
33
Appendix E Analysis Methodology
Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy
consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy
efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to
evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual
energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified
Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer.
EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate
conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions.
Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering
estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage
obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the
cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this
audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that
compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a
project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance
and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as
the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost,
which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one.
EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates
individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of
the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be
recommended by AkWarm. Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation
of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re-
evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested
EEMs have been evaluated.
Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated
based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the
implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later.
The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is
implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced
operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than
implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more
efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings.
Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact
the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower
energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only
so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount
of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage
light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule
or operational change at the facility.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
34
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
35
Appendix G References
Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains
information and insights considered valuable to most buildings.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities.
(1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK:
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC.
ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy
Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in
Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial
Press, Inc.
Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using
CO2 Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf
Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design
Guidelines. Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management
Program: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/
Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Advanced Technology.
International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills,
IL: International Code Council, Inc.
Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical
Support Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings.
Retrieved 2011, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf
Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010).
Handbook of Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey (CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
36
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
37
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
Released: Dec 2006
Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007
Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption
Number of
Buildings
(thousand)
Floor
space
(million
square
feet)
Floor space
per Building
(thousand
square feet)
Total
(trillion
BTU)
per
Building
(million
BTU)
per
Square Foot
(thousand
BTU)
per
Worker
(million
BTU)
All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9
Building Floor space (Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6
5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7
10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0
25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8
50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0
100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3
200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3
Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6
Principal Building Activity
Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7
Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2
Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5
Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0
Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7
Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8
Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5
Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1
Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3
Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5
Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7
Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6
Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0
Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3
Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1
Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1
This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), published by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was expected to compare the annual energy
consumption of the building to average national energy usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison
between one specific building and the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this
report uses a comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An abbreviated
excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
39
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
41
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
Fort Greely School
Fort Greely, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-350 Delta Greely SD\50-359 Fort Greely School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report BIG Fort Greely School.Docx
42
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Plans from on-site fire escape plans