The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAI FNSB Barnette Magnet 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 BARNETTE MAGNET SCHOOL 1000 Barnette Street Fairbanks, Alaska Prepared for: Mr. Larry Morris Fairbanks North Star Borough School District Prepared by: David C. Lanning PE, CEA Douglas Dusek CEA Stephanie Young EIT, CEAIT July 17, 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\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Building Use .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ...................................................................... 4 2.3 Building Description ............................................................................................... 4 3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA .......................................................................... 7 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 ...................................................................... 8 3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ............................................................................ 9 3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .............................................................................. 10 3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ........................................................................... 11 3.5 Future Energy Monitoring .................................................................................... 12 4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION ......................................................................... 13 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 14 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Barnette Magnet School .................................. 15 4.3 Additional Modeling Methods .............................................................................. 16 5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 17 5.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 17 5.2 Commissioning .................................................................................................... 17 5.3 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 17 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx ii APPENDICES Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 19 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 26 Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 27 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 28 Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 30 Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 31 Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 32 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 33 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 34 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 35 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 36 Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 37 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Barnette Magnet School, a 57,800 square foot facility in the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD). The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on April 18, 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 Barnette Magnet 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 Lighting Upgrade (Whole School) Replace all instances of T12 lighting with T8 lighting, replace all ballasts with efficient electronic ballasts, replace all instances of incandescent lighting with $11,223 $50,020 1.5 4.5 2 Ventilation Replace old ventilation units: install VFDs, new motors, heat exchanging units, new controls and CO2 sensors *this will require some design work $9,327 $100,000 1.6 11 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet 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) 3 Envelope Upgrade (Old portions) Upgrade envelope to meet or exceed current city building code modeled with the following R-values: Ceiling R-60, Walls-R-30, Windows R-5, and Doors R-7 $18,474 $1,442,303 0.4 78 TOTAL, all measures in AkWarm $39,024 $1,592,323 0.42 41 3 HVAC Upgrade to District Steam from Aurora Power $34,926 $30,000 37 0.86 TOTAL, all measures including those outside AkWarm $61,760 $1,622,323 0.5 26 The change to steam provided by Aurora Power will reduce the associated monetary savings from the other categories because the reduction in overall energy cost. The total for all measures is calculated with reduced savings from the envelope and ventilation sections. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 3 Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown The above charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Barnette Magnet School. The greatest portion of energy cost for the building is envelope air losses, followed by lighting. Detailed improvements 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:  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.  Envelope o Ceiling—quantified heat loss transferred through the ceiling portion of the envelope. o Window—quantified heat loss through the window portion of the envelope. o Wall/Door—quantified heat loss through the wall and door portions of the envelope. o Floor—quantified heat loss through the floor portion of the envelope.  Water Heating—energy cost to provide domestic hot water.  Fans—energy cost to run ventilation, and exhaust fans.  Lighting—energy cost to light the building.  Refrigeration—energy costs to provide refrigerated goods for the occupants.  Other Electrical—includes energy costs not listed above including cooking loads, laundry loads, other plug loads and electronics. Envelope Air Losses $42,369 28% Ceiling $12,105 8% Window $9,079 6% Wall/Door $11,601 8% Floor $8,575 6% Water Heating $14,735 10% Fans $494 0% Lighting $33,745 23% Refriger- ation $5,094 3% Other Electrical $11,682 8% Existing Building Energy Cost $149,480 Envelope Air Losses $19,386 13% Ceiling $3,579 2% Window $2,684 2% Wall/Door $3,758 3% Floor $5,249 4%Water Heating $15,957 11%Fans $494 0%Lighting $19,836 13% Refriger- ation $5,094 4% Other Electrical $11,682 8% EEM Savings $26,834 18% Steam Savings $34,926 23% Retrofit Building Energy Cost $87,719 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet 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:  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 The Barnett Magnet School is a kindergarten through 8th grade education facility serving students in Fairbanks, Alaska. 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules Approximately 425 students and 30 staff members occupy the building from 7:00 am until 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday during the school year, from September to May. 2.3 Building Description Barnette Magnet School is a two-story structure built on a slab-on-grade foundation. The original portion of the building built in 1959, is a concrete and metal-framed structure. Two subsequent additions have been added, both concrete and metal structures. Building Envelope Building Envelope: Walls Wall Type Description Insulation Notes Above-grade walls: Gym 8-inch poured concrete walls 4-inches rigid foam board insulation R-20 --- Above-grade walls: South 2-inch metal-framed wall 2-inches foam insulation core R-10 --- Above-grade Walls: West Wall 8-inch poured concrete walls 2-inches rigid foam board insulation R-10 --- Above-grade Walls: South Wall 2x4 metal studs 3.5-inch fiberglass batt, 3-inches rigid foam board --- Above-grade walls: East Wall 2x6 metal studs 5.5-inch fiberglass batt insulation, 6-inch rigid foam board with EIFS Finish --- Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 5 Heating and Ventilation Systems Heat is supplied to the building by two oil-fired boilers, capable of producing steam. The steam heat is passed through heat exchangers to heat glycol lines that deliver heat to the school. The heat delivery system is composed of three parts: a system of baseboard heating units, a system of cabinet and unit heaters and the ventilation system. The ventilation system has two large new Air Handling Units (AHUs) that serve the gym, kitchen and a portion of the classrooms, and two AHUs serving the old portion of the building. The main, older portion of the building is regulated by a system of pneumatic thermostats while the new areas including the gym, kitchen, and a few classrooms is controlled by programmable thermostats coordinated by a Direct Digital Control (DDC) system. Air Conditioning System No air conditioning system is installed in the building, however economizer cooling is provided during the spring and fall. Building Envelope: Floors Floor Type Description Insulation Notes Floor Insulated slab 2-inches rigid foam board --- Building Envelope: Roof Roof Type Description Insulation Notes Gym Roof Steel-framed, built-up, hot roof 12-inches insulation --- South Roof Steel-framed hot roof R-30 fiberglass batt insulation --- Old School Roof Steel-framed, built-up concrete roof 3-inches rigid foam insulation --- Building Envelope: Doors and Windows Door and Window Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes All Doors Metal insulated core doors 2.4 --- Main Windows Double or triple-paned with insulated vinyl frames 2.4 --- Old windows Double-paned, no thermal break, aluminum framed windows 1.1 Need replacement Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 6 Energy Management The DDC system and the strong maintenance presence in the school both serve the purpose of reducing energy use in the school. Lighting Systems The old portion of the school is lit by ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T12 (1.5-inch diameter, 4-foot long) bulbs. The new classrooms are lit by ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T8 (1-inch diameter, 4-foot long) bulbs. The gym is lit by high bay fluorescent fixtures with T5 (5/8-inch diameter, 4-foot long) bulbs. The older portions of the building have some incandescent exit lights and fixtures while the new portion has LED exit lights and a few compact fluorescent bulbs. Domestic Hot Water Domestic hot water is provided by an indirect water heater supplied by the boilers during most of the year. During the summer (when the boilers are shut down) hot water for cleaning and maintenance is provided by a small electric hot water heater. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 7 3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 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:  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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 8 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Barnette Magnet School. The total 2010 energy use for the building was 5,761 mmBTU and the total cost was $157,389. 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 fuel oil and the cost is equally distributed between fuel oil and 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 1,501 26% Oil 4,260 74% Energy Use Total (mmBTU) Electric $78,280 50% Oil $79,109 50% Energy Cost Total ($) Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 9 3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated from the utility bills and provides a 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 Barnette Magnet School has an EUI of 100,000 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 Barnette Magnet School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix H. 100,000 62,000 123,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF) Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 10 3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 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 Barnette Magnet School is about $2.72 per square foot per year. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates: Electricity at $ 0.18/ kWh ($ 5.27 / Therm) # 2 Fuel Oil at $ 2.63 / gallon ($ 1.88 / Therm) The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS, 2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square foot. The chart below shows the Barnette Magnet School relative to these values. More details are included in Appendix H. $2.72 $2.42 $2.11 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $/Sq. FtAnnual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF) Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet 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. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10KWHElectrical Consumption Barnette Magnet School 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries Barnette Magnet School Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 12 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 13 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:  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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 14 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Barnette Magnet 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 15 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Barnette Magnet 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 $83,729 $14,735 $33,745 $5,094 $10,853 $738 $91 $494 $149,480 With All Proposed Retrofits $34,656 $15,678 $19,836 $5,094 $10,853 $738 $91 $494 $87,719 Savings $49,073 -$943 $13,909 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,760 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 16 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 Barnette Magnet School was calibrated within NORTECH standards in AKWarm. Retrofits for the type of heating fuel needed to be calculated outside of AkWarm. Please see the table below for more information Conversion to District Steam $30,000.00 Cost to set up (includes 100' Utility extension and minor adjustments to existing steam system) $1.05 Cost per therm for Steam $ 1.88 Cost Per therm for Oil $79,109.00 Annual Oil Cost (2010) 42,079.26 Annual Oil Use (therms) $44,183.22 Annual Steam Cost $34,925.78 Annual Savings in Fuel Cost 44% Percent Annual Savings in Fuel Cost Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 17 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:  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. 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 Barnette Magnet School is well maintained. Mechanical areas are well kept and the systems are currently functioning properly. Some general recommendations for improvements to the FNSBSD maintenance program will be made in a separate report. A Level III Audit and study of electrical demand could yield savings for this building. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 18 APPENDICES Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet 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. The Fairbanks North Star Borough School District has completed the first step in a three phase remodeling project at the Barnette Magnet School. The cost estimates provided are for retrofits and do not include the cost of demolishing the existing old portions of the school and re- building. A.1 Temperature Control Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. However a temperature setback is already used at Barnette Magnet School. No EEMs are recommended in this area. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet 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. Replace the existing incandescent lighting with compact fluorescent bulbs. Replace the incandescent exit lights with LED fixtures and replace the exterior lighting with LED fixtures. Replace all instances of T12 lighting with T8 lighting and efficient electronic ballasts. A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads The main plug loads are necessary to the operation of the school. The head bolt heaters cycle on based on the outdoor temperature. No EEMs are recommended in this area. cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Old School (20 lamps) INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR CFL, Spiral 13 W Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $255 Breakeven Cost $1,785 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 0.8 cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Old School Exit Lights and Exterior Lights (15 fixtures) Incandescent and (37) metal Halide bulbs Replace with LED bulbs and/or fixtures Installation Cost $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $6,038 Breakeven Cost $102,646 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 4.3 cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Old School (530 bulbs, 260 ballasts) FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant High Effic Electronic Installation Cost $29,820 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $4,930 Breakeven Cost $34,510 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 6.1 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 21 A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change A.3.1 Exterior Walls The existing exterior walls in the old portions of the school would benefit from the addition of insulation. Adding insulation will reduce heat loss across the wall. A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace The existing foundation is insulated, therefore no EEMs are recommended in this area. However if excavation is performed during the remodel, then more insulation should be added and care should be taken to preserve the existing insulation. cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Above-Grade Wall: East Wall Type: Other Wall Construction: 2x6 metal stud,24"oc,fiberglass inside,6” EIFS finish Modeled R-Value: 22 Add at least R-10 insulation, modeled with R-25 added Installation Cost $149,574 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $731 Breakeven Cost $17,240 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 205 cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Above-Grade Wall: South Wall 2” aluminum framed panels with foam insulation core R-10 Install R-15 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. Installation Cost $108,170 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,040 Breakeven Cost $24,518 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 104 cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Above-Grade Wall: South End Wall Type: Other Wall Construction: 2x4" Metal Stud Wall, R-19, 16" o.c.+ 3"rigid Modeled R-Value: 14.1 Install R-25 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. Installation Cost $249,021 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2,244 Breakeven Cost $52,906 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yr.) 110 cRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Above Grade West Wall Wall Type: Masonry Insul. Sheathing: EPS Type I - psi 10, 2 inches Masonry Wall: 8" Poured Concrete + 2” rigid foam Modeled R-Value: 9.4 Install R-30 rigid foam board to interior or exterior side of wall. Does not include cost of coverings. Installation Cost $108,334 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,820 Breakeven Cost $42,910 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yr.) 60 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 22 A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling The existing roofing in the old portions of the school would benefit from additional insulation although the savings will not pay for this directly. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Cathedral Ceiling: South End Framing Type: I-Beam (TJI) Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt: FG or RW, 9.5 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 32.6 Add R-19 dense-pack to existing insulation. Installation Cost $241,868 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $649 Breakeven Cost $15,308 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yr.) 370 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Cathedral Ceiling: Old Roof Framing Type: I-Beam (TJI) Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: EPS Type I - psi 10, 3 inches Bottom Insulation Layer: None Top Insulation Layer: None Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R-Value: 13.5 Add R-38 insulation Installation Cost $485,070 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $6,594 Breakeven Cost $155,437 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yr.) 74 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 23 A.3.4 Windows The existing windows in the old portion of the school are old, in poor condition and are inefficient they should be replaced with more efficient vinyl framed windows. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Window/Skylight: Double South Alum Therm Break Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $17,068 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $896 Breakeven Cost $15,526 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yr.) 19 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Window/Skylight: Double South Alum Therm Break Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.62 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $3,029 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $121 Breakeven Cost $2,092 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yr.) 25 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Window/Skylight: Double Other Aluminum No Thermal Break Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.81 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $21,945 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,216 Breakeven Cost $21,085 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 18 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Window/Skylight: Double South Alum No Break <3/8 Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $23,747 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,427 Breakeven Cost $24,743 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 17 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 24 A.3.5 Doors Several doors in the facility are damaged or inefficient. The following doors should be replaced with more efficient doors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Window/Skylight: Double Other Alum No Thermal Break <3/8 Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $16,962 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1,021 Breakeven Cost $17,699 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 17 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Exterior Door: Metal Full Lite Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, half-lite Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $4,624 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $189 Breakeven Cost $4,453 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 24 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Exterior Door: Metal Half Lite Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, half-lite Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $12,891 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $527 Breakeven Cost $12,413 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr.) 24 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 25 A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution No recommendations for improvement were made in this category from within AkWarm. Please see section 4.3 for outside AkWarm calculations. A.4.2 Air Conditioning No air conditioning system is installed in the building therefore no EEMs are recommended in this area. A.4.3 Ventilation The two older AHUs should have their parts replaced with newer more efficient models. This includes the use of variable frequency drives and possible heat recovery units. New motors with variable speed drives should be installed. New sensors, CO2 sensors and a controls setup that can provide demand controlled ventilation with the CO2 and other sensors should be installed for the areas served by the old ventilation units. This EEM will require an engineering design. A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening No other EEMs are recommended in this area because of the difficulty of quantifying the amount of leaking air and the savings. However, using a blower door test with an infra-red camera, the location of significant leaks can be determined and repaired. Rank Recommendation 2 Replace old ventilation units with newer models, add CO2 sensors Installation Cost $100,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $9,327 Breakeven Cost $161,685 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr.) 11 Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 26 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. As the building is being completely re-built all of the EEMs are included in the main portion of the report, whether they are cost-effective or not. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 27 Appendix C Significant Equipment List HVAC Equipment Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated Efficiency Notes Boiler Weil McLain 888 #2 Fuel Oil 75% Two Units Electric Water Heater State Industries 08MC7DE01 Electric 100% Summer Use Only Indirect Water Heater Areoco --- Indirect --- Supplied by boilers DHW Circ Pump Grundfos UP 25-64F Electric --- Runs 24/7 Heat Exchanger Pumps Armstrong 4380 Electric --- 2 units Condensate Pump Taco, GE ,Baldor --- Electric --- 4 Units, all 2 HP Heat Exchanger Pumps Grundfos UPC 65-160E Electric --- 2 Units, 1 HP Various Circulation Pumps Grundfos --- Electric --- 11 Units Cabinet & Unit Heaters Trane --- Electric --- 10 Units Various Fans Peerless --- Electric --- Four Units (Associated with old AHUs) AHU 1&2 (with Heat Recovery) Innovent E-RHXC-1/SP- 3750-HW/N/FE Electric --- Two Units Lighting Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR Classroom and Hall Fluorescent T12 528 88,245 $ 18,531 Exterior Metal Halide 250W, 400W 37 44,330 9,309 Gym, Library Etc. Fluorescent T5 86 23,040 4,838 Classroom And Halls Fluorescent T8 205 21,257 4,464 Exit Lights Incandescent 30W 22 3,920 823 Task Lighting Incandescent 70 W-100W 10 2,346 493 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule and a $ 0.19 per KWH electric rate. Plug Loads Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR Head bolt Heaters Outdoors --- 24,752 $ 5,198 Office Equipment Classrooms & Offices --- 14,798 3,108 Server Server Room --- 10,519 2,209 (9) Refrigerators Offices varies 9,000 1,890 Walk in Fridge and Freezer Kitchen General Electric 9,000 1,890 (14) Mini Fridges Classrooms Varies 7,000 1,470 Computers Classrooms & Offices --- 6,898 1,448 Vending Machine Hall Dixie Narco 4,656 978 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule and a $ 0.19 per KWH electric rate. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 28 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 Electrical Association Rate Structure: GS-2 Large General Service Rate Structure (GVEA) Rate Component Unit Charge Customer Charge $30.00 Utility Charge $0.04843 per kWh Demand Charge $11.06 per KW Cost of Fuel $0.12527 per kWh Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC) $0.000492 per kWh 2010 Average Rate (Barnette Magnet School) $0.19 per kWh GVEA offers five different rates to its members, depending on the classification of the service provided. The rates are divided into two categories: Residential and General Service (GS). Eighty-five percent of the electric services on GVEA's system are single-family dwellings, classified under the Residential rate. The four General Service rates apply to small and large power users that do not qualify for the Residential rate. The General Service rates break down as follows: GS-1 General Service Services under 50 kilowatts (kW) of demand per billing cycle GS-2(S) Large General Service Secondary Services 50 kW and higher of demand per billing cycle GS-2(P) Large General Service Primary Services at primary voltage GS-3 Industrial Service Services at transmission voltage Customer Charge A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service. Utility Charge (kWh charge) This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period. It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires, power poles and transformers. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 29 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. Demand Charge GS2 and GS3 rates for business and industry include a demand charge per kilowatt. Demand is the maximum rate of delivery of electric energy during the month, measured in kilowatts and registered as the highest average rate of energy used over and fifteen-minute period during the month. Copies of bills were not provided by FNSBSD, so it is difficult to determine the size of demand charges. 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 30 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 31 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 32 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 33 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 34 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 35 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 36 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 Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 37 Appendix L Building Floor Plan First Floor Plan provided by FNSBSD. Energy Audit – Final Report Barnette Magnet School Fairbanks, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-100 Doyon Fairbanks Region\50-126 FNSB SD Barnette Magnet\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC Report V2 FAI Barnette Magnet School.Docx 38 Second Floor Plan provided by FNSBSD.