The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEGL K12 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 EAGLE SCHOOL Eagle, Alaska Prepared for: Mr. Randy Warren Maintenance Coordinator P.O. Box 226 Tok, Alaska Prepared by: David C. Lanning PE, CEA Pauline E. Fusco 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\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 2.0INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1Building Use .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2Building Occupancy and Schedules ...................................................................... 4 2.3Building Description ............................................................................................... 4 3.0BENCHMARKING 2011 UTILITY DATA .......................................................................... 7 3.1Total Energy Use and Cost of 2011 ...................................................................... 8 3.2Energy Utilization Index of 2011 ............................................................................ 9 3.3Cost Utilization Index of 2011 .............................................................................. 10 3.4Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ........................................................................... 11 3.5Future Energy Monitoring .................................................................................... 13 4.0MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION ......................................................................... 14 4.1Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 15 4.2AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Eagle K12 School ...................................... 16 4.3Additional Modeling Methods .............................................................................. 17 5.0BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 18 5.1Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 18 5.2Commissioning .................................................................................................... 18 5.3Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 18 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx ii APPENDICES Appendix ARecommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 20 Appendix BEnergy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 25 Appendix CSignificant Equipment List ....................................................................... 26 Appendix DLocal Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 27 Appendix EAnalysis Methodology .............................................................................. 28 Appendix FAudit Limitations ...................................................................................... 29 Appendix GReferences .............................................................................................. 30 Appendix HTypical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 31 Appendix ITypical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 32 Appendix JList of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 33 Appendix KList of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 34 Appendix LBuilding Floor Plan .................................................................................. 35 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Eagle K12 School, a 17,092 square foot facility in the Alaska Gateway School District. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on May 10th and May 11th, 2012 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 recommended EEMs for the Eagle K12 School are summarized in the table below. 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 Temperature Setbacks Install (11) programmable thermostats and institute night- time and unoccupied temperature setbacks to 55°F. $5,169 $8,200 8.4 1.6 2 Lighting Retrofit T12 lamps to LED lamps, HPS pendants in the gym to LED fixtures, and exterior lighting to LED wall packs. $17,592 $57,400 4.6 3.3 3 Garage Door Add an insulating blanket and weather stripping to the garage door. $109 $367 4.0 3.4 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 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) 4 Refrigeration Replace 2 existing full-size refrigerators with Tier III Energy Star refrigerators, continue to consolidate existing refrigeration capacity and unplug unused refrigerators, instituting summer shutdown of refrigerators, and consolidating frozen items in order to shut down unused freezers during the summer. 1,389 2,400 3.8 1.7 5 HVAC and DHW Replace two primary glycol circulation pumps and the DHW circulation pump with Grundfos Magna or Alpha circulation pumps or equivalent. Replace the AHU fan motors with more efficient motors rated at 89.5% NEMA efficiency or greater such as a Baldor Reliance Super-E. Install a timer on the DHW circulation pump limiting pump run time to during occupied hours. $5,067 $15,000 2.9 3.0 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $29,324 $83,367 4.0 2.8 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 3 Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown The above charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Eagle School. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are lighting and envelope air losses. Detailed improvements for cost effective measures can be found in Appendix A. 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 above on the left hand pie graph and the projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right. The chart breaks down energy usage by cost into the following categories: x Envelope Air Losses—the cost to provide heated fresh air to occupants, air leakage, heat lost in air through the chimneys and exhaust fans, heat lost to wind and other similar losses. x Envelope o Ceiling—quantified heat loss transferred through the ceiling portion of the envelope. o Window—quantified heat loss through the window portion of the envelope. o Wall/Door—quantified heat loss through the wall and door portions of the envelope. o Floor—quantified heat loss through the floor portion of the envelope. x Water Heating—energy cost to provide domestic hot water. x Fans—energy cost to run ventilation, and exhaust fans. x Lighting—energy cost to light the building. x Refrigeration—energy costs to provide refrigerated goods for the occupants. x Other Electrical—includes energy costs not listed above including cooking loads, laundry loads, other plug loads and electronics. Envelope Air Losses $20,907 25% Ceiling $2,489 3% Window $2,091 2% Wall/Door $4,181 5% Floor $5,177 6% Water Heating $2,976 4% Fans $324 0% Lighting $26,155 31% Refriger- ation $4,483 5% Other Electrical $15,625 19% Existing Building Energy Cost $84,408 Envelope Air Losses $15,915 19% Ceiling $1,989 2% Window $1,691 2% Wall/Door $2,984 3% Floor $4,078 5% Water Heating $2,189 3% Fans $324 0% Lighting $7,295 9% Refriger- ation $2,995 4% Other Electrical $15,625 18% Lighting Savings $17,592 21% Other EEMs $11,731 14% Retrofit Building Energy Cost $55,084 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 4 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: x description of the facility, x the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking), x estimating energy use through energy use modeling, x evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and x recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings. 2.1 Building Use The Eagle School provides educational services to kindergarten through 12th grade students in Eagle. The school also occasionally hosts intramural sports, community meetings, and serves as a repeating station for public radio. 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules The building is occupied by 21 students, 3 teachers, and 3 other full- and part-time staff members during the school year, August through May, from approximately 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, weekdays. A custodian cleans the building daily. 2.3 Building Description The single-story wood-framed school was constructed in 1986 on an all-weather wood frame foundation. Building Envelope Building Envelope: Walls Wall Type Description Insulation Notes Main Wood-framed with 2x8 studs spaced 16-inches on center. Approximately R-30 fiberglass batt insulation. Existing on-site floor plans are not legible. Building Envelope: Floors Floor Type Description Insulation Notes Crawlspace Vapor barrier over non-frost- susceptible fill. None. None. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 5 Heating Systems Two oil-fired boilers, supplemented by cogenerated heat from Alaska Light and Power, provide heat to the building via baseboards, heating coils to the Air Handling Units (AHUs), cabinet heaters, and unit heaters. Commonly-used rooms are equipped with nonprogrammable thermostats set at about 70°F and rarely-used rooms are equipped with nonprogrammable thermostats set at about 60°F. Building Envelope: Roof Roof Type Description Insulation Notes Roof Metal-clad wood-framed roof. R-76 fiberglass batt insulation. Interior of roof framing is now dry walled. Building Envelope: Doors and Windows Door and Window Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes Doors Metal doors and frame with quarter-lite or no lite. R-2.0 to 2.5 Weather stripping needs repair. Garage Door Standard 10’x10’ garage door. R-2.6 Weather stripping needs repair. Windows Wood-framed double-pane windows. R-2.0 Caulking in poor repair. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 6 Ventilation Systems Two Air Handling Units (AHU) provide demand-controlled ventilation and some heat to the building. x AHU-1 serves the gym, and is the only source of heat for the gym. x AHU-2 serves the library and commons area. Air Conditioning System Economizer cooling is possible with the existing ventilation system. Energy Management The maintenance department shuts down the heating and ventilation systems in late April and does not restart the systems until October to minimize heating costs. Lighting Systems Most rooms are lit using fluorescent fixtures with T12 (1.25-inch diameter tubes) lamps, the gym is lit using high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps, and the exterior is lit using 100W metal halide lamps. The crawlspace and some low-use spaces are lit by incandescent lamps in utility fixtures. Domestic Hot Water An oil-fired hot water heater provides hot water to the building all year. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 7 3.0 BENCHMARKING 2011 UTILITY DATA 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: x to understand patterns of use, x to understand building operational characteristics, x for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and x 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 8 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2011 The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Eagle K12 School. The total 2011 energy use for the building was 1,643 mmBTU and the total cost was $80,774. These charts show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost. The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is for oil and the highest portion of cost is for electricity. Fuel oil consumption correlates directly to space heating and domestic hot water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC equipment. The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for savings. Electric 240 15% Cogener -ation 615 37% Oil 784 48% Propane 4 0% Energy Use Total (mmBTU) Electric $49,698 61% Cogener -ation $7,379 9% Oil $23,467 29% Propane $360 1% Energy Cost Total ($) Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 9 3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2011 The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated from the utility bills and provides a 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 Eagle K12 School has an EUI of 96,000 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 Eagle K12 School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix H. 96,000 62,000 123,000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF) Eagle K12 School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 10 3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2011 Another useful benchmarking statistic 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 Eagle K12 School is about $4.73 per square foot per year. This is based on utility costs from 2011 and the following rates: Electricity at $ 0.72 / kWh ($ 21.10 / Therm) # 1 Fuel Oil at $ 4.01 / gallon ($ 2.99 / Therm) Cogeneration Heat at $ 12.00 / mmBTU ($ 1.20 / Therm) Propane at $ 4.89 / gallon ($ 5.34 / Therm) Utility costs are expected to be significantly higher in Fall 2012. For example, the most recent electricity rate is approximately $0.81/kWh. 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 Eagle K12 School relative to these values. More details are included in Appendix H. $4.73 $2.42 $2.11 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $/Sq. FtAnnual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF) Eagle K12 School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 11 3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The graphs below show the electric and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often reflects year round lighting consumption while the heating fuel baseline often reflects year round hot water usage. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage. Fuel Oil Consumption was calculated by distributing the deliveries over the estimated consumption period by daily local heating degree days. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Jul-11Sep-11Nov-11KWHElectrical Consumption Eagle K12 School 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Jul-11Sep-11Nov-11GallonsFuel Oil Consumption Eagle K12 School Estimated Consumption Deliveries Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 12 The March 2011 cogenerated heat invoice was for cogenerated heat delivered from October 2008 to March 2011. To obtain the estimated monthly cogenerated heat consumption, the deliveries were distributed over the consumption period by daily local heating degree days. 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Jul-11Sep-11Nov-11kBTUCogenerated Heat Invoices Eagle K12 School Estimated Consumption Invoices 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Jul-11Sep-11Nov-11GallonsPropane Deliveries Eagle K12 School Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 13 3.5 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 14 4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION 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: x Reduce the envelope heat losses through: o increased building insulation, and o better windows and doors x Reduce temperature difference between inside and outside using setback thermostats x Upgrade inefficient: o lights, o motors, o refrigeration units, and o other appliances x 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 15 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Eagle K12 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: x 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. x Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the winter but north-facing windows do not. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 16 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Eagle K12 School Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators, auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended. Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR. A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Existing Building $34,845 $2,976 $26,155 $4,483 $10,971 $253 $4,401 $324 $84,408 With All Proposed Retrofits $26,657 $2,189 $7,295 $2,995 $10,971 $253 $4,401 $324 $55,084 Savings $8,188 $787 $18,860 $1,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,324 Savings in these categories represent the overall savings for the building, and reflect any added cost that might occur because of a retrofit. For example, installing more efficient lights will increase the heating load and creating or lowering an unoccupied setback temperature will increase hot water heat losses and cost. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 17 4.3 Additional Modeling Methods 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 #1 fuel and cogenerated heat consumption was not regularly metered, and therefore the data was distributed over the year based on local daily heating degree days in order to obtain the annual consumption of #1 fuel and cogenerated heat. As a result, the Eagle K12 School was not calibrated within NORTECH standards in AKWarm and EEM savings have a larger error than normal. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 18 5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) 5.1 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. Such a plan includes a regularly scheduled inspection 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: x Track and document o Renovations and repairs, o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and o System performance. x 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. x Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel. x Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals. 5.2 Commissioning 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. 5.3 Building Specific Recommendations The existing maintenance plan appears to have the positive outcome of a well-maintained building with lower annual heating costs. Currently, the custodian performs daily maintenance, the itinerant maintenance staff performs repairs and scheduled skilled maintenance tasks, and the principal is vested in energy efficiency. The AHU access doors need to be repaired. The doors have to be forced open and could trap personnel in the AHU mechanical rooms. Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 19 APPENDICES Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 20 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 The existing non programmable thermostats should be replaced with programmable thermostats. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime and unoccupied temperature set point will decrease the energy usage. Since the gym and shop are only occupied about two hours a day, the unoccupied temperature setback for those areas should be instituted for the remainder of the time for further savings. Rank Location Recommendation 1 2nd floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55°F for night-time and unoccupied periods. Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,009 Breakeven Cost $13,460 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 67 Simple Payback (yr.) 0 Rank Location Recommendation 1 1st floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55°F for night-time and unoccupied periods. Installation Cost $8,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $4,160 Breakeven Cost $55,491 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 21 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 lamps) to T8 (one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED lamps provides a significant increase in efficiency. LED lamps can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED lamp bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that magnetic ballasts tend to make. T12 lamps should be retrofitted to 17W LED lamps, which are 180° beam angle linear LED tubes that simply bypass the existing ballast, to achieve significant energy savings. For further energy savings in high-use areas with adequate window day lighting, lighting should be controlled by daylight sensors. Sensor units are available which control lighting with both a daylight sensor and an occupancy sensor in a single device if occupancy sensors are also desired. The HPS gym lighting should be replaced with LED fixtures. Occupancy sensors are not being recommended at this time because the gym is only used about two hours a day on average. Exterior light fixtures should be retrofitted to LED wall packs and ceiling packs controlled by a combination of on/off photocells and occupancy sensors. Incandescent lamps should be retrofitted to 13W spiral CFLs or LED lamps. Lighting design by a qualified professional will be required due to the extent of the EEM, therefore some basic design costs are factored into the lighting retrofits. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 T12 3/2 40w school schedule 70 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace T12 lamps with 70 LED (3) 17W lamps and add daylight sensors. Installation Cost $22,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9,777 Breakeven Cost $119,444 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 T12 2/1 School schedule 63 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace T12 lamps with 63 LED (2) 17W lamps Installation Cost $12,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 17 Energy Savings (/yr.) $4,989 Breakeven Cost $63,787 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 22 A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads In order to achieve energy savings, replace two existing full-size refrigerators with Tier III Energy Star refrigerators rated to use approximately 650 kWh or less annually. Continue to consolidate existing refrigeration capacity and unplug unused refrigerators, institute summer shutdown of refrigerators, and consolidate frozen items in order to shut down unused freezers during the summer to maintain existing energy conservation success. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Exterior 8 MH 100 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 LED 35W wallpacks and add occupancy sensors and on/off photocell sensors. Installation Cost $6,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 13 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,985 Breakeven Cost $20,781 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Gym 12 HPS 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 80W fixtures. Installation Cost $8,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 17 Energy Savings (/yr.) $582 Breakeven Cost $7,438 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 14 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 T12 3/2 40w part-time avg. 25 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 25 LED (2) 17W lamps Installation Cost $7,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 17 Energy Savings (/yr.) $259 Breakeven Cost $3,316 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 29 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Kitchen Full-size refrigerator operating during the school year. Replace with Tier III Energy Star refrigerator. Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $784 Breakeven Cost $4,837 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Shop Full-size refrigerator operating year round. Replace with Tier III Energy Star refrigerator. Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $605 Breakeven Cost $3,729 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 2 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 23 A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change A.3.1 Exterior Walls No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. A.3.4 Windows No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. A.3.5 Doors Adding an insulating blanket to the garage door will yield energy savings. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Shop 10’ by 10’ sectional metal garage door. Add an R-3.5 insulating blanket and weather stripping to the garage door. Installation Cost $367 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $109 Breakeven Cost $1,450 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 3 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 24 A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution Replacing the primary circulation pumps and the DHW circulation pump with more efficient pumps such as the Grundfos Alpha or Magna, which are more efficient due to the improved motor design, will result in significant energy savings. Replacing the existing fan motors in the AHUs with more-efficient fan motors with a NEMA efficiency rating of at least 91% will result in significant energy savings. Limiting the DHW circulation to occupied hours will reduce electrical consumption and yield energy savings. Installing 0.5 gpm aerators on faucets and 1 gpm aerators to showerheads will reduce hot water consumption, reducing fuel oil consumption and resulting in energy savings. A.4.2 Air Conditioning No EEMS are recommended in this area because the existing AHUs can provide economizer cooling. A.4.3 Ventilation No EEMs are recommended in this area because of the difficulty of quantifying the amount of ventilation air and the savings. 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 5 HVAC (2) Grundfos primary circulation pumps, (1) Grundfos circulation pumps, older AHU fan motors, DHW circulating 24/7, and 2 gpm faucet flow rate minimum. Replace (2) primary circulation pumps and (1) DHW circulation pumps with Grundfos Magna, Alpha or equivalent. Replace AHU motors with higher- efficiency motors of at least 89.5. Install a timer to limit DHW circulation to occupied hours and add 0.5 gpm aerators to faucets and 1 gpm aerators to showerheads to reduce water consumption. Installation Cost $15,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 10 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5,067 Breakeven Cost $43,804 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 3.0 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 25 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would warrant re-evaluation. Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures, hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback, especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units. The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 12 Exterior Door: 1/4 lite Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $64 $2,026 0.7 31 13 Exterior Door: Flush Metal Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $126 $5,444 0.5 43 14 Window/Skylight: Other Wood double pane Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $243 $22,177 0.2 91 15 Window/Skylight: South-east and south-west Wood double pane Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $560 $53,421 0.2 95 Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 26 Appendix C Significant Equipment List HVAC Equipment Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Notes (2) Boilers Weil-McLain BL-676-WS 402,000 BTU, supplemented by cogenerated heat from local utility. (2) Primary Circulation Pumps Grundfos UPS 55-60 B 1325 W pumps. (2) Circulation Pumps Paco Smart Pump No nameplate. Oil-fired DHW maker Bock 51E 50 gallon capacity. (2) AHU Trane “Basic Unit” AHU-1 supply fan: 2 HP, no motor nameplate. AHU-2 supply fan: ¾ HP Century motor. Oil Pump Emerson -- ¼ HP, runs continuously. Exhaust Fans Penn varies -- DHW Circulation Pump Grundfos UPS15-42F 1/25 HP Lighting Location Lighting Type Lamp Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost per Year Building-wide Fluorescent T12 386 28,500 $ 23,085 Gym High Pressure Sodium 250W 12 1,150 931 Exterior Metal Halide 100W 8 2,600 2,106 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.81/kWh Plug Loads Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR* Cost per Year** Refrigeration Kitchen, Shop varies 5,550 $ 4,495 Office Equipment Classrooms, Office varies 2,300 1,863 Washer and Dryer Shop varies 7,700 6,237 Range Kitchen varies 4,500 3,645 Server Tower Attic Storage varies 8,750 7,087 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.81/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 27 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. Eagle K12 School is classified as a Government customer. 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. Demand Charge This charge is based upon high KW demand during the month or 85% of the highest KW demand (rachet) during the past 12 months, whichever is higher. Energy Charge This charge is intended to compensate for increases in energy costs. The energy charge may also be a credit if energy costs decrease. 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 28 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 29 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 30 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 31 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 32 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 33 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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 34 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-ࡈF (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 Eagle School Eagle, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-301 Eagle Community School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 EGL-K12 School.Docx 35 Appendix L Building Floor Plan