The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRBY Merreline A. Kangas School 2012-EE Managing Office 2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801 p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813 f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819 www.nortechengr.com ENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT MERRELINE A. KANGAS SCHOOL Ruby, Alaska Prepared for: Ms. Kerry Boyd 4762 Old Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska Prepared by: David C. Lanning PE, CEA Douglas Dusek CEA Steven Billa 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\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 the Merreline A. Kangas 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 ...................................................................... 31 Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 32 Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 33 Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 34 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 35 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 36 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 37 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 38 Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 39 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Merreline A. Kangas School, a 13,847 square foot facility in the Lower Koyukuk School District. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on February 14, 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 Merreline A. Kangas 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 Setback Thermostat: School 3 Pneumatic Thermostats Fix heating controls to keep building Temperature Setpoint at 68.0 deg F during Occupied times, and Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $14,593 $15,000 13 1.0 2 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Main Building Install Poly-Wrapped R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $1,350 $7,400 4.0 5.5 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Lighting: Entire School Replace incandescent lighting with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and T8 lamps with LED tubes $9,588 $44,099 2.6 4.6 4 Ventilation Place Girls and Boys Restroom's exhaust fans on occupancy sensors to reduce time on, disconnect fan in room 202 $389 $1,000 4.5 2.6 5 HVAC And DHW Replace boilers with premium efficient boilers (86% eff), replace 2 main circulating pumps with Grundfos Magnas or equivalent, install vent damper on chimney connectors, plumb hydronic piping over to sprinkler room and install a hydronic heater to replace electric heaters $13,407 $93,000 2.2 6.9 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $39,327 $160,499 3.7 4.1 About twenty five percent of these savings (or $10,000) is based on turning down the temperature in the school from 78 degrees F to 68 degrees F. If the normal condition in the school is not the 78 degrees F that we found during the audit, this $10,000 savings may not be achievable. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 3 Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown The above charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Merreline A. Kangas School. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building is lighting, wall/door, floor, celling, 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 po41rtions 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 $21,632 24% Ceiling $9,007 10% Window $1,348 2% Wall/Door $15,532 17% Floor $8,511 9% Water Heating $1,332 1% Fans $545 1% Lighting $23,723 26% Refriger- ation $2,080 2% Other Electrical $3,903 4% Cooking $2,328 3% Clothes Drying $624 1% Existing Building Energy Cost $ 90,565 Envelope Air Losses $10,808 12% Ceiling $4,835 5% Window $626 1%Wall/Door $8,248 9% Floor $3,698 4% Water Heating $1,041 1%Fans $115 0% Lighting $12,932 14% Refriger- ation $2,080 2% Other Electrical $3,903 4% Cooking $2,328 3% Clothes Drying $624 1% 78° - 68° Savings $10,000 11% Savings $29,327 32% Retrofit Building Energy Cost $ 51,238 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School provides Pre-School through 12th Grade education in Ruby, Alaska. The school is composed of classrooms, a woodshop, a kitchen, offices and a gymnasium. 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules Merreline A. Kangas School has an average of 30 students and 10 faculty members. The facility operates during the regular school year, which takes place from the middle of August to the end of May. Regular occupancy takes place 7:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. 2.3 Building Description Merreline A. Kangas School is a one-story wood framed building on a crawlspace, originally built in 1978. Located directly north of the school is 680 square foot one-story wood framed Mechanical Room which houses the boilers for the school. The Mechanical Room is included in square footage and the energy calculation for this report. A small wood framed utilidor runs from the Mechanical Room to the school. 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. Crawlspace Walls Wood-framed with all-weather 2x8 studs spaced 16-inches on center R-25 fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation damage. Boiler Building Walls Wood-framed with 2x6 studs spaced 16-inches on center. R-19 fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation damage. Boiler Room Utilidor to School Wood-framed with 2x6 studs spaced 16-inches on center. R-19 fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation damage. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 5 Building Envelope: Floors Floor Type Description Insulation Notes Crawlspace Floor Dirt floor with 6 mil vapor barrier None - Boiler Building Floor Uninsulated slab None - Building Envelope: Roof Roof Type Description Insulation Notes All Roofs Cold roofs framed with wood trusses. 10-inches of fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation damage. Building Envelope: Doors and Windows Door and Window Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes Door Type 1 Wood: Flush: Solid Core 3.7 40 sq ft Door Type 2 Metal: Flush: Metal Edge 2.7 89 sq ft Door Type 3 Metal: ¼ lite Glass: Metal Edge 2.0 62 sq ft Window Type 1 Vinyl: Triple Pane Glass: Lowe 2.9 71 sq ft Window Type 2 Vinyl: Triple Pane Glass 2.6 137 sq ft Window Type 3 Vinyl: Double Pane Glass 2.0 18 sq ft Window Type 4 Wood: Single Pane Glass: Storm Glass 1.8 36 sq ft Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 6 Heating and Ventilation Systems Heat in Merreline A. Kangas School is provided by two oil fired boilers, located in the separate Mechanical Room. Circulation pumps distribute heat throughout the building to:  Baseboard heaters in classrooms  Cabinet heaters in entry ways  Hydronic heaters in the gymnasium Heat is controlled by 3 pneumatic thermostats and Danfoss valves in respective baseboard zones. Air Conditioning System There is no air conditioning system installed in this building. Energy Management There is no specific of energy management equipment installed in this building. Lighting Systems Primary lighting in Merreline A. Kangas School is provided by ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T8 lamps (1-inch diameter, 4-foot long). Lighting in the gym is provided by high bay mounted fluorescent fixtures with T5 lamps (5/8-inch diameter, 4 foot long). Domestic Hot Water A shell-in-tube heat exchanger uses the general heating supply to produce domestic hot water for this building. The water is stored in a hot water storage tank so that hot water is readily available. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 8 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Merreline A. Kangas School. The total 2010 energy use for the building was estimated to be 1,644 mmBTU and the total cost was $122,540. These charts show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost. The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is for oil and the highest portion of cost is for electric. 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 495 30% Oil 1,149 70% Energy Use Total (mmBTU) Electric $75,600 62%Oil $46,940 38% Energy Cost Total ($) Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School has an EUI of 119,000 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 Merreline A. Kangas School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix H. 119,000 62,000 123,000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF) Merreline A. Kangas School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School is about $7.92/SF. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates: Electricity at $ 0.52 / kWh ($ 15.24 / Therm) # 1 Fuel Oil at $ 4.15 / gallon ($ 3.10 / 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 Merreline A. Kangas School relative to these values. More details are included in Appendix H. $7.92 $2.42 $2.11 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $/Sq. FtAnnual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF) Merreline A. Kangas School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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. Estimated fuel oil consumption based on run time hour meters placed on boilers during the visit along with respective Ruby Heating Degree Day (HDD) data. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11KWHElectrical Consumption 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries 0 500 1,000 1,500 Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11GallonsEstimated Fuel Oil Consumption Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 14 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Merreline A. Kangas 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 15 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Merreline A. Kangas 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)(2) Water Heating (1)(2) Lighting (1)(2) Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans (1)(2) Total Existing Building $56,030 $1,332 $23,723 $2,080 $3,903 $2,328 $624 $545 $90,565 With All Proposed Retrofits $28,215 $1,041 $12,932 $2,080 $3,903 $2,328 $624 $115 $51,238 Savings $27,815 $291 $10,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $430 $39,327 1) 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. 2) With electrical inputs gathered during the visit, AkWarm models the building to only use 108,714 kWh per year. However, benchmark data for 2010 shows that annual consumption for the building at 145,011 kWh. The difference of 36,297 kWh is caused by some unknown continuous load of about 3000 kWh a month (a 4 kW constant demand). That is to say that we cannot account for this 4 kW and don’t know what load is drawing that demand. Savings associated with making retrofits in the above categories are achievable while the total electric cost may be higher than this projection if the 4 kW load is still present. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 majority of Merreline A. Kangas School was calibrated within NORTECH standards in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC system were adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional outside calculations. One retrofit that could not be modeled well in AkWarm is the repair of the pneumatic heating controls in the building. During the visit, 3 thermostats were all set to an average temperature of 65 degrees F while the actual building temperature was about 78 degrees F. This difference between set point and operating point could be caused by a number of different malfunctions in the pneumatic control 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. Along with malfunctioning valves, windows in the building were left open even during cold winter days. Cooling down the room with the thermostat by opening windows makes the zone call for more heat, which eventually leads every other room on that zone much warmer than desired. To estimate the SIR of repairing this pneumatic control problem, two AkWarm models were created:  AkWarm with 78 degrees F as building space temperature setpoint.  AkWarm with 68 degrees F building space temperature setpoint and a complete pneumatic setback thermostat retrofit to 60 degrees F for unoccupied times. The estimated cost for heating the building at 78 degrees F in AkWarm is $56,030 while the estimated cost for heating the building at 68 degrees F is $44,155, a difference of $10,540. The estimated savings associated with setting back the building unoccupied setpoint to 60 degrees F is $4,053 and when added to the heating setpoint savings, the associated savings from installing new thermostats and redoing the pneumatic lines is $14,593. The estimated cost for replacing 3 pneumatic thermostats with pneumatic setback thermostats, along with installing 800 linear feet of new pneumatic tubing, 3 new zone valves, and 2 setback Danfoss valves is $15,000. The SIR for this retrofit is 13 with a simple payback of 1 year. Keeping the building at a desired temperature set point will allow for better building comfort and will save energy. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 18 5.3 Building Specific Recommendations A primary area of concern for energy savings in this building is controlling the heat. The following measures should be instituted:  Thermostats and zone valves should be inspected regularly for proper functionality  Heating set points should be kept at a common temperature that meets room comfort levels in respective zones.  Windows should mostly be kept shut during winter months to avoid entire heating zones from being affected by a thermostat in a cold room.  The boilers should have regular maintenance done to maintain high efficiency. It was also noted in some areas of attic access, batt insulation was moved and disturbed in many areas. This insulation should be re-laid in order to maintain effective insulation values. Current ventilation in the building is inadequate. If a ventilation system is desired or required in this building, it is recommended to install an energy management system along with the ventilation system. Turning down the outside air ventilation during unoccupied times in winter months will save energy. Also, the boilers for the boiler retrofit should be sized accordingly to meet future ventilation needs. Find the phantom 4 kW load by doing a load demand study of the main electrical panels. The EEM ranked number 5 is the boiler replacement. The $93,000 capital cost is a large investment and some additional work to determine the overall efficiency of the boiler and the idle losses which we estimated to be 76% and 3% should be done to confirm our assumptions and compare to retrofit efficiencies of boilers and standby losses of about 84% and 1.5%. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 19 APPENDICES Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 Programmable pneumatic thermostats should be installed and programmed in Merreline A. Kangas 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 school will decrease the energy usage. Currently, temperature control in Merreline A. Kangas School is poor. In section 4.3, a retrofit to completely redo the existing heating control system is estimated. Reliably controlling the building temperature set point will provide better building comfort and save energy. Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 Merreline A. Kangas School 3 Pneumatic Thermostats Setback Danfoss Valves in respective zones Fix heating controls to keep building Temperature Setpoint at 68.0 deg F during Occupied times, and Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. Installation Cost $15,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $14,593 Breakeven Cost $187,509.30 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1.0 SIR and Simple Payback are calculated in section 4.3 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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 are inefficient and any instance should be replaced with more efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 109 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR CFL, Spiral 26 W Installation Cost $12 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $96 Breakeven Cost $595 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 52 Simple Payback yrs 0 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 204 INCAN (2) A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (2) CFL, Spiral 26 W Installation Cost $23 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $82 Breakeven Cost $506 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 22 Simple Payback yrs 0 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 110 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR CFL, Spiral 26 W Installation Cost $12 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $18 Breakeven Cost $114 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.9 Simple Payback yrs 1 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 22 The primary existing lighting in the majority of the school is ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T8 lamps. Merreline A. Kangas School experiences high costs of electricity and these inefficient lamps should be replaced. Along with the high energy usage, most of the rooms in the school are over-lit. The existing 32 watt T8 lamps can easily be replaced with 17 watt LED lamps. LED lamps result in a light difference of about 10 percent when compared to current T8 lamps, but this should not be an issue with the current lighting levels. The existing exterior lighting is currently high wattage high pressure sodium lamps. This type of lighting is commonly retrofitted with wall pack style fixtures with LED lamps which use much lower amounts of wattage and will save energy. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 120, 111, 113, 114 7 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 7 LED (3) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,254 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,406 Breakeven Cost $16,521 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.3 Simple Payback yrs 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 120 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with LED (3) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $322 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $167 Breakeven Cost $1,957 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.1 Simple Payback yrs 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: Exterior 3 HPS 250 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 LED 50W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $3,174 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,546 Breakeven Cost $18,157 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.7 Simple Payback yrs 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: Exterior 3 HPS 150 Watt StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 LED 27W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $1,920 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $931 Breakeven Cost $10,937 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.7 Simple Payback yrs 2 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 23 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 103, 104, 106, 107, 120, 111 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $1,794 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $858 Breakeven Cost $10,084 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.6 Simple Payback yrs 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 207, 208, 209, 115 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with LED (3) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $322 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $114 Breakeven Cost $1,286 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.0 Simple Payback yrs 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 207, 208, 209, 115 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $449 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $147 Breakeven Cost $1,656 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.7 Simple Payback yrs 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 101 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with LED 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $127 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $41 Breakeven Cost $457 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback yrs 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 103, 104, 106, 107, 120, 111 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 9 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,018 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $312 Breakeven Cost $3,661 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback yrs 6 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 124 5 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $1,121 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $165 Breakeven Cost $1,881 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback yrs 7 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 24 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 118, 119 18 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 LED (3) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $5,796 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $765 Breakeven Cost $8,697 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback yrs 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 115 35 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 35 LED (3) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $11,270 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,477 Breakeven Cost $16,765 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback yrs 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 121, 122 5 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 5 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,099 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $270 Breakeven Cost $3,067 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback yrs 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 201 15 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 15 LED (3) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $4,830 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $586 Breakeven Cost $6,648 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 108, 112 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $4,037 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $485 Breakeven Cost $2,958 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback yrs 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Lighting: 122, 121 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,519 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $123 Breakeven Cost $1,395 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 21 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 25 A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads There are no EEMs recommended as there are no significant plug loads in Merreline A. Kangas School. A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change A.3.1 Exterior Walls No EEMs are recommended in this area. An insulation upgrade by adding rigid foam and T1-11 to the current walls was considered but is not economical at this time. A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace The perimeter of the crawlspace floor can be further insulated by laying down poly-wrapped or encapsulated fiberglass batts. This is a recently developed method to save additional energy and keep the crawlspace warmer. A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling No EEMs are recommended in this area. A recent roof upgrade was made to the building in 1999 and an additional roof upgrade is not economical at this time. A.3.4 Windows No EEMs are recommended in this area. Adding a storm glass to each window to increase the insulation value was considered but is not economical at this time. A.3.5 Doors No EEMS are recommended in this area. An upgrade from the existing doors to better insulated doors was considered but is not economical at this time. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Main Building Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None ModeLED R-Value: 16.7 Install Poly-Wrapped R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $7,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,350 Breakeven Cost $29,496 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.0 Simple Payback yrs 5 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 26 A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution The existing boilers in Merreline A. Kangas School which were installed in 1992 show signs of aging and inefficiency. A primary concern noticed during the visit is that the mechanical room was over 100 degrees F during the cold winter day. This can be caused by a high amount of boiler idle loss or other boiler inefficiencies. A lack of boiler maintenance can be a cause for reduced boiler efficiency and reduced overall life of the boiler. Replacement of these boilers is economical at this time and vent dampers can be installed on the chimney connectors to help reduce boiler idle loss. The two existing primary pumps that are being used for heating circulation are inefficient, and should be replaced with variable speed pumps such as Grundfos Magnas. These pumps have been shown to save a minimum of 50% of electrical energy over conventional pumps due to motor design. The redundant pumps should stay the same and kept for backup. Although not modeled, controls can be installed on the pumps to only circulate when the zones are calling for heat which can save energy. Also, pumps should be shut off during times of boiler shut down. Three electric heaters were found in the sprinkler room of the building. Due to the high cost of electricity compared to heating fuel, this is a very inefficient method for heating this room. Plumbing hydronic tubing and installing a new hydronic heater in this room will save significant cost. The existing electric heaters could be kept in the room for a backup source of heating. A.4.2 Air Conditioning No EEMs are recommended in this area as there is no air conditioning system installed in this building. A.4.3 Ventilation The boys and girls bathrooms both have exhaust fans that run for the entire school day. These fans should be placed on an occupancy sensor to reduce the amount of time on. Also, in room 202 there is a fan that runs continuously pushing heat from the room into the gym. This fan should be disconnected once heating controls are fixed. Rank Recommendation 5 Replace boilers with premium efficient boilers (84% eff), replace 2 main circulating pumps with Grundfos Magnas or equivalent, install vent damper on chimney connectors, plumb hydronic piping over to sprinkler room and install a hydronic heater to replace electric heaters Installation Cost $93,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $13,407 Breakeven Cost $207,802 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback yrs 7 Rank Recommendation 4 Place Girls and Boys Restroom's exhaust fans on occupancy sensors to reduce time on, disconnect fan in room 202 Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $389 Breakeven Cost $4,518 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.5 Simple Payback yrs 3 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 27 A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening No specific air tightening retrofit was made in the AkWarm model. However, by fixing the heating controls and keeping windows closed, this will reduce the amount of unnecessary air changes in the building during the cold winter months. This extra air will then no longer need to be heated and the building will save energy. 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. Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.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. The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 20 Exterior Door: Metal 1/4 Lite Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $267 $8,008 0.76 33 22 Above-Grade Wall: Boiler Building Install R-30 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $519 $17,637 0.67 34 23 Window/Skylight: Single w/ storm wood other Install single pane storm window on exterior $61 $1,678 0.61 28 24 Window/Skylight: Double Other Install single pane storm window on exterior $25 $839 0.51 33 26 Exterior Door: Flush Metal Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $251 $11,551 0.49 46 27 Above-Grade Wall: Main Building Install R-30 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $4,313 $200,769 0.49 47 28 Window/Skylight: Triple Other Vinyl Install single pane storm window on exterior $29 $1,641 0.30 56 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 29 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 29 Exterior Door: Flush Wood Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $61 $5,192 0.27 85 30 Window/Skylight: Triple Other Vinyl Lowe <3/8 Install single pane storm window on exterior $48 $3,301 0.24 69 31 Window/Skylight: Triple South <3/8 Install single pane storm window on exterior $69 $4,765 0.24 69 32 Lighting: Sprinkler Room Replace with LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $4 $224 0.21 53 33 Lighting: Basement Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $10 $897 0.13 88 Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 30 Appendix C Significant Equipment List HVAC Equipment Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated Efficiency Notes Boilers Burnham V-904 #1 76% qty: 2 Circulation Pumps 1+2 Grundfos UMC-65-80 Electric - Set on Speed 3 Circulation Pumps 3+4 Bell & Gosset M10532 Electric - 1/4 HP, 1725 rpm Hydronic Heater Type 1 Trane 38-S Electric - 1/20 HP, qty: 2 Hydronic Heater Type 2 Dunham Bush n/a Electric - 1/20 HP Lighting Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 115 Fluorescent T8 35 8,668 $ 4,507 118, 119 Fluorescent T8 18 4,458 2,318 102 Fluorescent T5 24 4,121 2,143 103, 104, 106, 107, 120, 111 Fluorescent T8 8 4,035 2,098 120, 111, 113, 114 Fluorescent T8 15 3,715 1,932 Exterior High Pressure Sodium 250 watt 3 3,620 1,882 201 Fluorescent T8 15 3,611 1,878 108, 112 Fluorescent T8 18 2,930 1,524 Exterior High Pressure Sodium 150 watt 3 2,184 1,135 121, 122 Fluorescent T8 5 1,628 847 103, 104, 106, 107, 120, 111 Fluorescent T8 9 1,465 762 207, 208, 209, 115 Fluorescent T8 2 1,009 525 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.52/kWh Plug Loads Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR Server Tower Server Storage varies 3,506 $ 1,823 Commercial Refrigerator Kitchen Hobart 2,000 1,040 Full Size Refrigerator/Freezer qty:2 Kitchen varies 2,000 1,040 Laptops Classrooms varies 1,240 645 Air Compressor Motors Mechanical Room Baldor 1,233 641 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.52/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 31 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit. Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates, rate structures and utility pricing agreements. 2010 Ruby Electric Rate Structure: Ruby Electric does not currently have a customer charge, or any other charges to go along with their basic electric rate. The current electric rate is as follows: Electricity used under 700 KWH $0.76 / KWH Electricity used over 700 KWH $0.48 / KWH 2012 Ruby Electric Rate Structure: Electricity used under 700 KWH $0.84 / KWH Electricity used over 700 KWH $0.53 / KWH Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 32 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 33 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 34 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 35 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 36 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) Floorspace (million square feet) Floorspace per Building (thousand square feet) Total (trillion BTU) per Building (million BTU) per Square Foot (thousand BTU) per Worker (million BTU) All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9 Building Floorspace (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6 5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7 10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0 25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8 50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0 100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3 200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3 Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6 Principal Building Activity Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7 Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2 Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5 Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0 Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7 Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8 Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5 Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1 Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3 Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5 Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7 Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6 Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0 Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3 Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1 Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 37 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 38 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 Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 39 Appendix L Building Floor Plan Floor Plan Provided by USKH and Yukon Koyukuk School District Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 40 Floor Plan Provided by USKH and Yukon Koyukuk School District Energy Audit – Final Report Merreline A. Kangas School Ruby, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-560 Yukon Koyukuk SD\50-569 Ruby School\Reports\Final\2012.05.03 Final AHFC Report V2 RBY Merreline A. Kangas School R1.Docx 41 Floor Plan Provided by USKH and Yukon Koyukuk School District Full Basement Crawlspace Utilidor Slab on Grade