HomeMy WebLinkAboutNUL Andrew K. Demoski 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
ANDREW K. DEMOSKI SCHOOL
Nulato, Alaska
Prepared for:
Ms. Kerry Boyd
4762 Old Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Steven Billa EIT, CEAIT
July 10, 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\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 Andrew K. Demoski 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 ................................................................... 18
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 20
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 28
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 30
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 32
Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 34
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 35
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 36
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 37
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 38
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 39
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 40
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 41
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Andrew K. Demoski School,
a 24,971 square foot facility in Nulato. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a
calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on
January 24, 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 following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the Andrew K.
Demoski School. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3.
Details of each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs
that were evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B.
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
1
18 Setback
Thermostat:
School
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
School space.
$11,234 $18,000 8.4 1.6
2 HVAC And DHW
Replace CP1A, CP2A, CP3A
with Grundfos Magna or
equivalent, Replace hot water
circ. pump with Grundfos
Alpha or equivalent, install
vent dampers on chimney
connectors
$3,996 $14,000 4.1 3.5
3 Lighting: Entire
School
Upgrade school lighting to
Fluorescent lighting $6,302 $15,530 2.6 2.5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 4 LED 50W
Module StdElectronic $1,107 $3,553 1.9 3.2
5
Exterior Door:
Full Lite and ¼
Lite
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door, including
hardware.
$297 $5,442 1.2 18
Cost-effective measures in AkWarm $22,936 $56,525 4.6 2.5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
3
Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown
The above charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Andrew K.
Demoski School. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building is lighting and envelope
air losses. 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
$59,695
46%
Ceiling
$11,625
9%
Window
$943
1%
Wall/Door
$10,054
8%
Floor
$11,939
9%
Water
Heating
$3,274
3%
Lighting
$22,044
17%
Refriger-
ation
$3,168
2%
Other
Electrical
$5,802
4%
Cooking
$762
1%
Clothes
Drying
$274
0%
Existing Building Energy Cost
Breakdown $ 129,580
Envelope
Air Losses
$47,406
37%
Ceiling
$11,313
9%
Window
$718
1%Wall/Door
$9,338
7%
Floor
$11,672
9%
Water
Heating
$3,009
2%
Lighting
$13,151
10%
Refriger-
ation
$3,168
2%
Other
Electrical
$5,802
4%
Cooking
$762
1%
Clothes
Drying
$274
0%
Savings
$22,967
18%
Retrofit Building Energy Cost
Breakdown $106,613
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation contracted with NORTECH 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
Andrew K. Demoski School is a pre-school through 12th grade school composed of classrooms,
a gymnasium, and offices.
2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
Andrew K. Demoski School has an average of 38 students and 10 faculty members Monday
through Friday. The school year is seasonal from the beginning of August to the end of May.
Hours of operation in Andrew K. Demoski School is primarily from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday
through Friday, but may be used after hours for various activities.
2.3 Building Description
Andrew K. Demoski School is a one-story wood framed building on pilings with a subfloor utility
space, originally constructed in 1974. An addition was made to the building in 1978.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x8 studs
spaced 16-inches on center. R-25 fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation
damage.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Exposed Floor 2x6 joists on pilings R-19 fiberglass batt -
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
5
Heating and Ventilation Systems
The heat in this building is provided by a pair of oil fired boilers. Circulation pumps distribute
heat throughout the building to:
Baseboard heaters in the classrooms
Heat coils in Air Handling Units (AHUs)
Unit heaters
Heat is controlled by 18 pneumatic thermostats located throughout the building.
Within Andrew K. Demoski School, there are three ventilation units:
Supply Fan-1 (SF-1) provides ventilation and heat to the gym
SF-2 provides ventilation and heat to classrooms offices
AHU-1 provides ventilation and heat to classrooms and offices
Air Conditioning System
There is no air conditioning system installed in this building.
Energy Management
An energy management system is installed for the heating system but is currently being run on
“hand”.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs Cathedral Style Roof, 2x8 joists 6-inches of rigid foam -
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Door Type 1 Metal: Full Lite Glass 1.7 42 sq. ft.
Door Type 2 Metal: Quarter Lite Glass 2.0 84 sq. ft.
Door Type 3 Metal: Flush 2.7 140 sq. ft.
Window Type 1 Vinyl: Triple Pane Glass 2.6 280 sq. ft.
Window Type 2 Vinyl: Double Pane Glass 2.0 38 sq. ft.
Window Type 3 Aluminum: Single Pane Glass 0.8 32 sq. ft.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
6
Lighting Systems
Lighting in Andrew K. Demoski school primarily consists of ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures
with T12 (1.5-inch diameter, 4-foot long) lamps. Gym lighting consists of ceiling mounted
fixtures with metal halide lamps.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is provided by an indirect hot water heater with a 119 gallon storage
capacity. The system circulates to provide instant hot water.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 Andrew K.
Demoski School. The total annual energy use for the building in 2010 was 3,559 mmBTUs at a
cost of $133,261.These charts show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost.
The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is Oil and the highest portion of
cost is for Electricity. Fuel oil consumption correlates directly to space heating and domestic hot
water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC equipment.
The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for savings.
Electric
537
16%
Oil
2,892
84%
Energy Use Total (mmBTU)
Electric
69,153
52%
Oil
64,108
48%
Energy Cost Total ($)
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square
feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The benchmark analysis found that the Andrew K. Demoski School has an EUI of 137,000
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 Andrew K. Demoski School relative to these values. These findings are discussed
further in Appendix H.
137,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Andrew K. Demoski School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 Andrew K. Demoski School is about $5.34/SF. This is based on utility costs from
2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $ 0.44 / kWh ($ 12.89 / Therm)
# 1 Fuel Oil at $ 2.97 / gallon ($ 2.22 / 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 Andrew K. Demoski School relative to these values. More
details are included in Appendix H.
$5.34
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$/Sq. FtAnnual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Andrew K. Demoski School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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.
The high use of electricity in May 2011 does not appear to be of normal building usage.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11KWHElectrical Consumption
Andrew K. Demoski School
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11GallonsEstimated Fuel Oil Consumption
Andrew K. Demoski School
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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, such as Smart Meters
for commercial or TED for residential, can be installed. They display and record real-time energy
usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are several other types including OptoEMU
by Opto22 which has all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
14
4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm-C model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Andrew
K. Demoski 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, referred to AkWarm-C. Although this report and commercial energy
auditors often refer to AkWarm, the actual model program used for this project is AkWarm-C.
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
15
4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Andrew K. Demoski 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
(1)
Water
Heating
(1)
Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical Cooking Clothes
Drying Total
Existing
Building $94,255 $3,274 $22,044 $3,168 $5,802 $762 $274 $129,580
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$80,477 $3,009 $13,151 $3,168 $5,802 $762 $274 $106,613
Savings $13,778 $265 $8,893 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,967
1) Savings in these categories are a reflection of the 2010 fuel oil price. These savings can
be achieved with completed the EEMs. Next year’s savings will be higher due to higher
current fuel prices.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 Andrew K. Demoski School could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC
system were adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations.
However, due to insufficient oil data, consumption had to be estimated based on Nulato Heating
Degree Days (HDDs). The total amount of gallons of fuel for 2010 and 2011 were added, then
distributed over 24 months based on a gallons/HDD average. This estimated oil consumption
was the baseline for modeling the heating portion of Andrew K. Demoski School in AkWarm.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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, directs preventative
maintenance, and schedules 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.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
18
5.3 Building Specific Recommendations
During the visit, it was noted that general housekeeping was poor in the upper mechanical
room. The disorganized storage obstructs access to mechanical equipment causing
maintenance to be more difficult and possibly proposing numerous safety issues. It is
recommended that this area be cleaned so that mechanical systems can run at their safest and
most efficient levels.
The subfloor utility space was reported being kept at 110 degrees F in order to keep the pipes
from freezing. Potential savings can be found in this area by having heat tape and/or insulation
installed to all piping in the utility space. During the visit, only a partial amount of the
crawlspace was accessible making it difficult to determine actual construction in this area.
General Maintenance Issues
The energy management system for the boilers was set to “hand” mode. This system
can potentially save the building money if used properly. It is recommended that a
controls contractor come look at the system for evaluation and provide significant
training for staff.
Windows should normally be kept closed during the winter months. Doing so will allow
for room temperatures to be regularly controlled.
Weather-stripping around doors and windows should be evaluated and replaced as
needed.
Ventilation Savings Potential
The AkWarm model was modeled with a minimum estimated amount of outside air (OSA) of
1,200 CFM. It may be possible to save money from reducing the amount of OSA being used in
the ventilation system. However, retrofits have not been made in this area due to the difficulty in
determining the actual OSA amounts as the dampers appear to be manually opened and
closed. Outside air can be automatically controlled by installing demand sensors such as CO2
or occupancy sensors to monitor room occupancy. Paired with a variable frequency drive
(VFD), savings can be achieved as long as there is varying occupancy within the school. Also,
OSA levels should be kept to level to meet minimum ASHRAE standards. Additional evaluation,
such as bin monitoring of individual AHU activity, would be necessary to calculate associated
savings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
19
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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
18 Programmable pneumatic thermostats should be installed and programmed in Andrew K.
Demoski School. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which
reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime temperature set
point in the classrooms, gymnasium, and offices will decrease the energy usage.
During the visit, the compressor was running constantly. This could be due to a leak in the
pneumatic lines which potentially causes many problems in a pneumatic system. Air pressure
in the lines is very important when it comes to controlling valves: as too high or too low of
pressure can cause valves to open at an incorrect set point. This retrofit includes an estimate
for replacing all pneumatic lines and installing brand new thermostats. Savings associated with
this retrofit could be higher than estimated due to more even temperatures.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 School
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
School space.
Installation Cost $18,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $11,234
Breakeven Cost $150,438 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.4 Simple Payback yrs 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski 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 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.
Incandescent lamps of various wattages are found throughout the school. This type of lighting
is very inefficient and should be replaced with more efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)
which will save energy.
The primary room lighting in Andrew K. Demoski School is ceiling mounted fixtures with T12
lamps. These lamps should be replaced with more efficient T8 lamps which will produce similar
levels of lighting at a much lower energy use.
T12 U-tube style lamps are found in some areas of Andrew K. Demoski School. This style of
lighting can be retrofitted with T8 U-tubes that are made with the same T12 connector spacing.
These lamps have a lower wattage and will save energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Men's Restroom,
Women's Restroom
2 INCAN A Lamp, Std 40W with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 13 W
Installation Cost $12 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $41
Breakeven Cost $254 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 21 Simple Payback yrs 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Janitor 2 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W
Installation Cost $12 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $23
Breakeven Cost $144 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Vestibule 2
FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $55 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $77
Breakeven Cost $467 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.5 Simple Payback yrs 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
22
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Staff Lounge 3 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $215 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $249
Breakeven Cost $1,539 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.2 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Hs Corridor 12 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W
Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $462 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $383
Breakeven Cost $2,328 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.0 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 West Entry FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $39 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $32
Breakeven Cost $194 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.0 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Office 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $286 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $227
Breakeven Cost $1,404 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.9 Simple Payback yrs 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3
Principal, 5th and
6th Grade, 2nd 3rd
& 4th Grade, K-12
Reading
43 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 43 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $3,075 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,876
Breakeven Cost $11,413 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.7 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Girl's Locker, Boy's
Locker
22 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 22 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $363 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $201
Breakeven Cost $1,247 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback yrs 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
23
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 North Vestibule FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $39 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $22
Breakeven Cost $133 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Girls Toilet, Boy's
Toilet
6 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $330 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $142
Breakeven Cost $880 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Gym Corridor
12 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $660 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $284
Breakeven Cost $1,760 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 South Entry
4 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $220 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $95
Breakeven Cost $587 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Elementary Corridor 36 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 36 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $1,188 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $495
Breakeven Cost $3,010 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback yrs 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3
Math/Science 9-12,
English 9-12,
Cafeteria
33 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 33 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $2,360 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $976
Breakeven Cost $5,935 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback yrs 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
24
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 North Entry
2 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $110 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $36
Breakeven Cost $222 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3
Library, Computer
Lab, Kindergarten &
1st Grade
27 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W
Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 27 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $1,930 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $583
Breakeven Cost $3,548 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 7th-8th Grade 6 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $429 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $130
Breakeven Cost $788 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback yrs 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Special Education
8 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $440 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $64
Breakeven Cost $398 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 7
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Tool Storage,
Welding
5 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 5 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $193 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $25
Breakeven Cost $149 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 8
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
25
Exterior lighting is currently 250 watt metal halide lamps. This style of lighting is typically
retrofitted with LED style wall packs fixtures which produce similar levels of light, use less
energy and save money.
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
No EEMs are recommended in this area because there are no significant plug loads in Andrew
K. Demoski School.
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMs are recommended in this area. Reinsulating exterior walls with rigid insulation and
T1-11 siding upgrade was considered but was not economical at this time.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Kitchen 10 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 10 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighLight
HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $550 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $68
Breakeven Cost $416 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 8
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Vocation Shop 33 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 33 FLUOR (3) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant EfficMagnetic
Installation Cost $2,178 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $236
Breakeven Cost $1,437 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 9
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Laundry
7 FLUOR (2) T12 F40T12 35W U-Tube
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 7 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic
Installation Cost $385 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $37
Breakeven Cost $231 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 10
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 Exterior 4 MH 250 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 4 LED 50W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $3,553 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,107
Breakeven Cost $6,855 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback yrs 3
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
26
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area. Although adding additional insulation to the exposed
floors would result in savings, it is not recommended at this time due to the risk of creating a
second vapor barrier.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
No EEMs are recommended in this area because the roof already has a sufficient amount of
insulation and additional insulation is not economical at this time.
A.3.4 Windows
No EEMs are recommended in this area. An upgrade from the existing windows to better
insulated vinyl windows was considered but was not economical at this time.
A.3.5 Doors
The doors in Andrew K. Demoski are not sufficiently insulated and can be replaced. New doors
with new weather-stripping insulation will save energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 Exterior Door: Metal
1/4 Lite
Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core,
metal edge, quarter lite
Modeled R-Value: 2
Remove existing door and install
standard pre-hung U-0.16
insulated door, including
hardware.
Installation Cost $3,625 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $184
Breakeven Cost $4,283 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback yrs 20
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Exterior Door: Full
Lite Metal
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 $1,817 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $113
Breakeven Cost $2,620 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 16
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
27
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
Andrew K. Demoski’s heating system currently uses single speed pumps. The standby pumps
can be left alone but the operating pumps should be replaced with more efficient variable speed
pumps comparable to Grundfos Magnas. These pumps have been shown to save a minimum of
50% of electrical energy over conventional pumps due to the motor design. Variable speed
pumps work well in systems that experience flow variation, as the pumps are capable of
changing speeds and reduced speeds save energy.
The existing pumps that are being used to recirculate domestic hot water circulation are
inefficient, and should be replaced with variable speed pumps such as Grundfos Alphas.
Vent dampers can be installed on the existing boiler chimney connectors which will reduce
boiler standby losses and save energy.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMs are recommended in this area because there is no air conditioning system in Andrew
K. Demoski School.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No EEMs are recommended in this area. Outside air levels in the current ventilation system are
already kept to a minimum during cold weather.
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, using a blower door test with an infra-red camera, the
location of significant leaks can be determined and repaired.
Rank Recommendation
2 Replace CP1A, CP2A, CP3A with Grundfos Magna or equivalent, Replace hot water circ. pump with
Grundfos Alpha or equivalent, install vent dampers on chimney connectors
Installation Cost $14,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,996
Breakeven Cost $57,578 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.1 Simple Payback yrs 4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
28
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.
Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
7
Window/Skylight:
Single Other
Aluminum
Replace existing window with
U-0.30 vinyl window $157 $2,871 0.94 18
8 Exterior Door:
Metal
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door, including
hardware.
$200 $6,057 0.77 30
9 Gymnasium
Replace with 10 FLUOR (4) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-
Saver HighEfficElectronic
$674 $7,200 0.57 11
10 Weight Room
Replace with 8 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
$16 $264 0.38 16
11 Janitor
Replace with 2 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant HighEfficElectronic
$4 $66 0.38 16
12 Storage
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$11 $220 0.30 21
13
Window/Skylight:
Double
Wood/Vinyl
Other
Replace existing window with
U-0.30 vinyl window $50 $3,388 0.25 67
14 Above-Grade
Wall: West, East
Install R-30 rigid foam board to
exterior and cover with T1-11
siding or equivalent.
$1,261 $115,592 0.25 92
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
29
Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
15
Above-Grade
Wall: North,
South
Install R-30 rigid foam board to
exterior and cover with T1-11
siding or equivalent.
$2,783 $255,797 0.25 92
16
Window/Skylight:
Triple South
Vinyl
Replace existing window with
U-0.30 vinyl window $109 $14,041 0.13 129
17 Counsel
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8
F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-
Saver Instant
HighEfficElectronic
$2 $220 0.06 97
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
30
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
Oil Boilers Burnham V911A #1 Oil 80% Two units
PMC-1A, PMC-1B Armstrong HB4154FJ Electric - 1.5 HP, 1725 rpm
CP-1A, CP-1B Grundfos UPS 50-160F Electric - Set on speed 3
CP-2A, CP-2B Grundfos UPS 50-160F Electric - Set on speed 3
CP-3A, CP-3B Grundfos UPS 40-160F Electric - Set on speed 3
SF-1 Motor Marathon Electric E717 Electric 84% 2 HP, 1735 rpm
RF-1 Motor AO Smith C48AN9A01 Electric - 0.75 HP, 1725 rpm
SF-2 Motor Marathon Electric H665 Electric - 1.5 HP, 1735 rpm
RF-2 Motor Marathon Electric 5KC46 Electric - 0.75 HP, 1725 rpm
AHU-1 Motor Magnetec 939132763 Electric 87.5% 5 HP, 1740 rpm
REF-1 Motor Dayton 3H358 Electric - 1.5 HP, 1745 rpm
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Principal, 5th and 6th
Grade, 2nd 3rd & 4th
Grade, K-12 Reading
Fluorescent T12 43 11,967 $ 5,265
Math/Science 9-12,
English 9-12, Cafeteria Fluorescent T12 33 6,227 2,740
Gymnasium Metal Halide 250 watt 12 5,797 2,551
Library, Computer Lab,
Kindergarten & 1st
Grade
Fluorescent T12 27 3,092 1,360
Exterior Metal Halide 250 watt 4 3,065 1,349
Elementary Corridor Fluorescent T12 36 2,883 1,269
Vocation Shop Fluorescent T12 33 2,453 1,079
Girl's Locker, Boy's
Locker Fluorescent T8 22 2,186 962
Hs Corridor Fluorescent T12 12 2,027 892
Gym Corridor Fluorescent T12 U Tube 12 1,712 753
Office Fluorescent T12 4 1,113 490
Staff Lounge Fluorescent T12 3 1,013 446
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule and a $ 0.44 per KWH electric rate.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
31
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
Refrigerators/Freezers varies varies 7,200 $ 3,168
Arc Welders Shop varies 5,036 2,216
Compressor Upper Mechanical Gould 3,068 1,350
Laptops Classrooms varies 937 412
Booster Water Heater Kitchen Rheem 878 386
Large Copier/Printer Teacher Workroom varies 539 237
Computer Towers Classrooms varies 492 216
Computer Monitors Classrooms varies 258 114
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.44/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
32
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. Andrew K. Demoski School is classified as a
Large Power GS-2 customer.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC)
4831 Eagle St.
Anchorage, Alaska, 99503
(907) 561-1818
AVEC Large Power (GS-2) Rate Structure
Rate Component Unit Charge
Customer Charge $45.00
First 1500 kWh $0.12 per kWh
Over 1500 kWh $0.04 per kWh
Demand Charge $45.00/KW
Cost of Fuel $0.3582 per kWh
Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC) $0.000492 per kWh
Average 2010 Rate (Andrew
K. Demsoki School) $0.44 per kWh
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.
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
33
Demand Charge
This charge is based upon high KW demand during the month or 85% of the highest KW demand
(ratchet) during the past 12 months, whichever is higher.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
34
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
35
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
36
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
37
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
38
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
39
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units
1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F°
1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts
1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to
melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU
1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU
1 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm
1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa)
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
GPM Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
Hz Hertz
kg Kilogram (1,000 grams)
kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts)
kVA Kilovolt-Amp
kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive
KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts)
KWH Kilowatt Hour
V Volt
W Watt
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
40
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
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
41
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Floor Plan Provided by Yukon Koyukuk School District
Energy Audit – Final Report
Andrew K. Demoski School
Nulato, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-568 Nulato School\Reports\Final\20120710 Final AHFC
Report NUL Andrew K. Demoski School.Docx
42
Floor Plan Provided by Yukon Koyukuk School District