HomeMy WebLinkAboutTKJ Tok 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
TOK SCHOOL
249 Jon Summar Way
Tok, Alaska
Prepared for:
Mr. Randy Warren
P.O. Box 226
Tok, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Steven Billa EIT, CEAIT
July 11, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY
Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915
Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694
Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819
info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Building Use .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ...................................................................... 5
2.3 Building Description ............................................................................................... 5
3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA .......................................................................... 8
3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 ...................................................................... 9
3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 .......................................................................... 10
3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .............................................................................. 11
3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ........................................................................... 12
3.5 Future Energy Monitoring .................................................................................... 13
4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION ......................................................................... 14
4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 15
4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Tok School ....................................................... 16
4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .......................................... 17
4.4 Additional Modeling Methods .............................................................................. 18
5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 19
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 19
4.2 Commissioning .................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 19
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 21
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 33
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 34
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 36
Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 38
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 39
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 40
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 41
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 42
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 43
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 44
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 45
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
2
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Tok School, a 74,619
square foot facility. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the
energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on October 20, 2011 to
obtain information about the lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling and other building energy
uses. The existing usage data and current systems were then used to develop a building
energy consumption model using AkWarm.
Once the model was calibrated, a number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) were
developed from review of the data and observations. EEMs were evaluated and ranked on the
basis of both energy savings and cost using a Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). While these
modeling techniques were successful in verifying that many of the EEMs would save energy,
not all of the identified EEMs were considered cost effective based on the hardware, installation,
and energy costs at the time of this audit.
While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, upgrading
specific systems often requires collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that
are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. The necessity and amount of design effort
and cost will vary depending on the scope of the specific EEMs planned and the sophistication
and capability of the entire design team, including the building owners and operators. During
the budgeting process for any major retrofit identified in this report, the building owner should
add administrative and supplemental design costs to cover the individual needs of their own
organization and the overall retrofit project.
The following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the Tok
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
Setback
Thermostat:
Entire School
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Entire School space.
$31,256 $1,200 350 0.0
2
Other Electrical:
Hallway Vending
Machine
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control
$644 $25 150 0.0
3 Ventilation
Reduce Fresh air into the
building to ASHRAE minimum
by installing demand control
sensors such as CO2.
$59,559 $10,000 80 0.2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
3
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 HVAC And DHW
Add vent dampers to chimney
connectors, replace domestic
hot water circulation pump with
a Grundfos alpha or
equivalent.
$6,715 $2,700 43 0.4
5
Lighting: Multi-
Purpose Room
Track Lights
Replace with 14 LED 25W
Module StdElectronic $624 $350 22 0.6
6 Lighting: Exterior
HID Lights
Replace with 26 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic $2,308 $5,000 5.7 2.2
7
Other Electrical:
Head Bolt
Heaters
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control
$1,286 $2,000 5.4 1.6
8
Other Electrical:
Coffee Maker:
Teachers’
Lounge,
Conference
Room
Replace with 2 Replace with
energy efficient coffee maker
with thermos
$95 $125 4.6 1.3
9 Lighting: Entire
School
Replace with 1,827 FLUOR T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$13,733 $33,621 2.6 2.45
10 Refrigeration:
Refrigerators Replace with 10 Refrigerators $2,340 $10,000 2.6 4.3
11
Exterior Door:
Exterior Metal
Door
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door, including
hardware.
$147 $1,747 2 12
12 Exterior Door:
Metal Half Lite
Remove existing door and
install standard pre-hung U-
0.16 insulated door, including
hardware.
$215 $3,844 1.3 18
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $118,922 $70,612 21 0.6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
4
Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown
These charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Tok School.
The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are from Envelope Air Losses and Lighting.
This indicates that the greatest savings can be found in reducing the amount of outside air
provided to the building mechanically or through air leakage, upgrading lighting and potentially
upgrading the envelope. Detailed improvements for ventilation, air leakage, lighting and other
cost effective measures can be found in Appendix A.
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
Leakage
$201,833
51%
Ceiling
$19,393
5%
Window
$5,746
1%
Wall/Door
$12,929
3%
Floor
$33,759
9%
Water
Heating
$19,170
5%
Fans
$1,327
0%
Lighting
$62,523
16%
Refriger-
ation
$12,210
3%
Other
Electrical
$25,701
7%
Cooking
$1,428
0%
Clothes
Drying
$183
0%
Existing Building Energy Cost
Breakdown $ 396,202
Envelope
Air
Leakage
$116,629
29%
Ceiling
$18,718
5%
Window
$3,600
1%Wall/Door
$11,519
3%Floor
$31,677
8%
Water
Heating
$17,042
4%
Fans
$1,327
0%
Lighting
$41,973
11%
Refriger-
ation
$9,870
3%
Other
Electrical
$23,312
6%
Cooking
$1,428
0%
Clothes
Drying
$183
0%
Savings
$118,925
30%
Retrofit Building Energy Cost
Breakdown $ 277,277
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
5
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
Tok School is used as a Pre-Kindergarten-12 school and is composed of classrooms, a
gymnasium, offices, and a library.
2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
Tok School has about 195 students and 25 staff members Monday through Friday. The school
year is seasonal from the beginning of August to the end of May. Hours of operation in Tok
School for students is primarily from 8:00 am – 4:00 pm, while staff members use the building
from 7:00 am – 7:00 pm.
2.3 Building Description
Tok School is a two-story wood framed building on a concrete slab foundation with an insulated
perimeter, constructed in 1994.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x12 studs
spaced 24-inches on center. 10.5” fiberglass batt. 22,733 square feet
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
School Floor Insulated Slab 6-inches of rigid foam -
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
6
Heating and Ventilation Systems
The heat in this building is provided by two boilers. The boilers provide heat to:
Heat coils in Air Handling Units (AHUs)
Baseboard slant fin heaters in classrooms
Cabinet heaters in vestibules
Baseboard heaters are controlled by 24 pneumatic thermostats.
Recently, a biomass boiler was installed in Tok School. Although this biomass boiler typically
has the capability of heating the entire school, the oil boilers supplement the biomass system in
case of biomass boiler repair or insufficient heat. 2010 heating with oil boilers was modeled in
AkWarm because there was fuel oil baseline data but insufficient cost data on the biomass
process and maintenance.
Within Tok School, there are five AHUs:
AHU-1 provides ventilation and heat to the auto shop, wood shop, tech room, drafting
room, and rooms 113-117.
AHU-2 provides ventilation and heat to the library and rooms 123, 106, staff lounge,
special services, correspondence, and surrounding restrooms.
AHU-3 provides ventilation and heat to the cafeteria, music room, home economics, and
the kitchen.
AHU-4 provides ventilation and heat to the front offices and rooms 101-112.
AHU-5 provides ventilation and heat to the gym, boys and girls locker rooms, and
surrounding rooms.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
School Roof Cathedral style roof: Wood-
framed 24-inches on center.
Two layers of R-30
fiberglass batt. -
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Door Type 1 Metal: EPS core:
Metal edge 2.5 69 square feet
Door Type 2 Metal: EPS Core: Half-Lite 3.0 138 square feet
Door Type 3 Garage Door: Metal: 2-inches
foam 6.3 110 square feet
Window Type 1 Triple Glass: Alaska Window 2.9 1,877 square feet
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
7
Air Conditioning System
No air conditioning system is installed in this building.
Energy Management
Tok School does not have any form of energy management system in the building.
Lighting Systems
Lighting consists of fluorescent ceiling-mounted fixtures with T12 lamps (1.5 –inch diameter, 4
foot long). The gym and multipurpose room lighting consists of ceiling mounted fixtures with
400 watt and 250 watt HID lamps respectively. Exterior lighting consists of wall pack style
fixtures with 70 watt HID lamps.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is provided by an oil fired hot water heater.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
8
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
9
3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010
The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for Tok School. The total
annual energy used was 8,180 mmBTUs which cost $ 315,627. 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,
1,822, 22%
Oil, 6,358,
78%
Energy Use Total (mmBTU) in 2010
Electric,
$195,162,
62%
Oil,
$120,465,
38%
Energy Cost Total ($) in 2010
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
10
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 Tok School has an EUI of 110,000 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 Tok School relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix
H.
110,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Tok School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
11
3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010
Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost
for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the
cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost
even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating
and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity,
can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts
of the country.
The CUI for Tok School is about $4.23/SF. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the
following rates:
Electricity at $ 0.37 / kWh ($ 10.78 /Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $ 2.63 / gallon ($ 1.88 /Therm)
The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS,
2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the
Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average
cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square
foot. The chart below shows the Tok School relative to these values. More details are included
in Appendix H.
$4.23
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Tok School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
12
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 and heating usage. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold
weather can be seen in the months with higher usage.
Fuel oil data available from December 09 to February 11.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Jun-09Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11Jun-11KWHElectrical Consumption
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jun-09Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10Dec-10Feb-11Apr-11Jun-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
13
3.5 Future Energy Monitoring
Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for
the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each
month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and
aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy
accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed
by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then
the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They
display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are
several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Tok School now uses a Biomass boiler to produce most of the schools heating needs. The
amount of fuels that this boiler actually burn is unknown which makes it difficult to quantify the
amount of energy or cost being used in Tok School. An easy way to monitor energy in terms of
heat for Tok School would be to set up a BTU meter to measure the amount of energy being
used in the school. Totalized BTU data can be recorded monthly to help evaluate energy use in
Tok School.
Similarly, a bookkeeping account should be set up to track all expenses for the Biomass
system, including but not limited to:
Purchase of biomass
Transportation
Labor in field
Labor at the school
Parts and repair costs
Labor to oversee the boiler
Replacement capitalization costs
Since Tok is a leader in Biomass heating, Tok School should maintain an accounting of the full
costs of the Biomass operation not only for Tok but other owners use as well.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
14
4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
After benchmarking of a building is complete and the site visit has identified the specific systems
in the building, a number of different methods are available for quantifying the overall energy
consumption and to model the energy use. These range from relatively simple spreadsheets to
commercially available modeling software capable of handling complex building systems.
NORTECH has used several of these programs and uses the worksheets and software that
best matches the complexity of the building and specific energy use that is being evaluated.
Modeling of an energy efficiency measure (EEM) requires an estimate of the current energy
used by the specific feature, the estimated energy use of the proposed EEM and its installed
cost. EEMs can range from a single simple upgrade, such as light bulb type or type of motor, to
reprogramming of the controls on more complex systems. While the need for a major retrofit
can typically be identified by an energy audit, the specific system upgrades often require
collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the
Level II energy audit.
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. Common EEMs that could apply to almost
every older building include:
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
15
4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Tok
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
16
4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for Tok School
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the
savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are
better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the
energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended.
Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR.
A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table.
Description Space
Heating
Water
Heating Lighting Refrig-
eration
Other
Electrical Cooking Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans Total
Existing
Building $273,660 $19,170 $62,523 $12,210 $25,701 $1,428 $183 $1,327 $396,202
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$182,143 $17,042 $41,973 $9,870 $23,312 $1,428 $183 $1,327 $277,277
Savings $91,518 $2,128 $20,551 $2,340 $2,389 $0 $0 $0 $118,925
Savings associated with space heating reflect the amount of money saved if the building were to
be completely heated with #2 heating fuel. The AkWarm model projects an annual savings of
19,600 gallons of #2 heating fuel with proposed retrofits. This amount of fuel is the equivalent of
about 2,744 mmBTUs. Assuming biomass in Tok is mostly White Spruce (energy content of
about 18,000,000 Btu/cord); this is an estimated annual savings of about 152 cords/ year.
Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the
savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved
in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
17
4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating and
lighting. The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field
inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly
measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the
projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
Existing Retrofit
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Cooking
Clothes Drying
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
18
4.4 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.
Tok School currently utilizes a biomass boiler to heat the building, only using the two oil fired
boilers during maintenance or times of insufficient heat. Due to the lack of utility bills and
accurate biomass consumption, Tok School was modeled based on pre-Biomass utility
consumption and prices (from 2010). Savings presented in this report reflect savings
associated with heating the building entirely with fuel oil. Savings in gallons can be related to
usage in mmBTUs which can then be compared to potential savings in biomass.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
19
5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
4.1 Operations and Maintenance
A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind
energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative
maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the
building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the
proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional
benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early
indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of
overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment
well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits.
Operations and Maintenance staff implementing a properly designed O & M plan will:
Track and document
o Renovations and repairs,
o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and
o System performance.
Keep available for reference
o A current Building Operating Plan including an inventory of installed systems,
o The most recent available as-built drawings,
o Reference manuals for all installed parts and systems, and
o An up-to-date inventory of on-hand replacement parts.
Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel.
Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals.
4.2 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.
4.3 Building Specific Recommendations
Heating costs of Tok School that have been estimated in this report are a reflection of only using
#2 heating fuel. To maximize energy savings in heating, Alaska Gateway School District should
institute an operation and maintenance program (O&M) to make sure that the biomass boiler
operates at top efficiency. Avoiding #2 heating fuel can significantly lower the operating costs of
Tok School.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
20
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
21
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
Approximately 24 programmable thermostats should be installed in Tok School. Programmable
thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than
manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime temperature set point in Tok School will decrease
the energy usage.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 Entire School
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Entire School space.
Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $31,256
Breakeven Cost $421,516 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 350 Simple Payback (yrs.) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
22
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.
In the Multi-Purpose Room, there is a set of track lights that use 100 watt halogen lamps. This
style of lighting is very inefficient. A common retrofit for this style of lighting is LED lamps which
produce similar levels of light and save energy. An additional benefit to the LED changeover is
that heat generated by the inefficient lights can be replaced by much cheaper Biomass heat.
Exterior lighting for Tok School currently consists of inefficient high intensity discharge (HID)
lamps. A common retrofit for this type of lighting is LED wall packs which produce similar levels
of light and save energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 Multi-Purpose Room
Track Lights
14 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 100W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 14 LED 25W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $350 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 16 Energy Savings (/yr.) $624
Breakeven Cost $7,710 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 22 Simple Payback (yrs.) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Exterior HID Lights 26 HID 70 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 26 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 16 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $2,308
Breakeven Cost $28,524 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.7 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
23
Primary lighting in Tok School is fluorescent fixtures with T12 lamps. This style of lighting is
very inefficient and should be replaced with more efficient T8 lamps. The energy efficient T8s
will result in around 8% light compared to the T12s but the decrease in lighting should not be a
major concern as most of the lighting levels were greater than recommended levels.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Gymnasium T-12 4 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $154 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $376
Breakeven Cost $2,291 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 15 Simple Payback (yrs.) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 34w 3 lamp
Troffer: Teachers
Preparation,
Technology Room,
117 , 128 ,
Principals Office,
Front Office
61 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W
Energy-Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 61 FLUOR (3) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $2,684 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2,340
Breakeven Cost $14,486 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.4 Simple Payback (yrs.) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Kitchen 10 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 10 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $495 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $345
Breakeven Cost $2,089 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 T-12 4 Lamp Troffer
- Rooms 113, 114
24 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 24 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,188 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $827
Breakeven Cost $5,006 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Classroom 106
Correspondence
11 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $787 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $494
Breakeven Cost $3,058 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.9 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
24
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Multi-Purpose Room
T-12
4 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $154 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $90
Breakeven Cost $556 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Girls Locker Room -
Vanity
FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $29
Breakeven Cost $173 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.5 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12, 34w Strips:
Classrooms 101-
112, 115, 116,
Welding Room, H1
Hallway
328 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W
Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual
Switching, Multi-Level Switch
Replace with 328 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $12,628 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $5,687
Breakeven Cost $34,419 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 2 Lamp Wrap 7
to 7: Boys and Girls
Elementary
Bathrooms
2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $77 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $33
Breakeven Cost $199 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 2 Lamp Troffer
7 to 7: Hallway 4,
Girls and Boys
Restroom
21 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 21 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $809 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $345
Breakeven Cost $2,087 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
25
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12, 34w 2 lamp
wrap: Girls Locker
Room, Boys Locker
Room, Locker Room
Hallway
36 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 36 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,386 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $591
Breakeven Cost $3,574 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Weight Room 12 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $462 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $197
Breakeven Cost $1,191 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 2 Lamp Strip 7
to 7: Hallway 2 and
3
48 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,848 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $786
Breakeven Cost $4,755 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 34w 2 lamp
Troffer - Vo-Tech
Hallway, GAP
14 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 14 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $540 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $229
Breakeven Cost $1,385 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 T-12 24/7: Hallway
2,3, and 4
7 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 7 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $270 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $114
Breakeven Cost $692 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
26
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Boys Locker Room FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $33 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $10
Breakeven Cost $63 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yrs.) 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 T12 1 lamp: Hallway
1 and 4
41 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 41 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,353 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $428
Breakeven Cost $2,589 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yrs.) 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Multi-Purpose Room
T-12
3 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $31
Breakeven Cost $189 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yrs.) 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Custodian and
Office
6 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $429 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $98
Breakeven Cost $594 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs.) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Room 127 - Home
Ec
17 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 17 FLUOR (3) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,122 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $239
Breakeven Cost $1,442 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs.) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Wood Shop 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $770 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $163
Breakeven Cost $987 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs.) 5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
27
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Conference Room 4 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (3) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $176 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $28
Breakeven Cost $168 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs.) 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Archery Room T-12
Troffer
16 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $792 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $81
Breakeven Cost $490 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 10
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Cad Tech Room 9 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 9 FLUOR (3) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $594 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $60
Breakeven Cost $364 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs.) 10
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Archery Room T-12
Wrap
2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $77 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5
Breakeven Cost $31 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs.) 15
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
Mechanical Rooms
301-304, Boiler
Room
69 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 69 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $2,657 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $70
Breakeven Cost $425 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 38
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Training Room 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 StdElectronic
Installation Cost $193 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $5
Breakeven Cost $32 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 37
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
28
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Network Room 4 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $154 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $4
Breakeven Cost $24 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 39
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Gymnasium Office 2 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2)
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $132 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $3
Breakeven Cost $21 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs.) 38
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Custodian 1 and 2 2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $77 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2
Breakeven Cost $11 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 41
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Storage Above
Wood Shed
12 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Program StdElectronic
Installation Cost $462 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $11
Breakeven Cost $69 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 40
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Rooms 115 and 116 2 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (3) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $88 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2
Breakeven Cost $9 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 59
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Multi-Purpose Room
T-12 - 1hr/wk.
3 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $116 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $2
Breakeven Cost $10 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 69
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
29
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
There is a vending machine in the hallway that is left on 24/7. Turning this vending machine off
during unoccupied times will save energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9
T-12 2 Lamp Troffer
1 hr./wk.: Front
Office, Studio
9 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 9 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $346 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $4
Breakeven Cost $22 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 94
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Gym Storage 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $308 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $3
Breakeven Cost $19 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 97
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Library Mezzanine
T-12 34w
2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $77 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1
Breakeven Cost $5 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback (yrs.) 99
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Front Office T-12 1
Lamp
FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $33 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings (/yr.) $1
Breakeven Cost $1 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback (yrs.) 150
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 Hallway Vending
Machine
Pepsi Vending Machine 540PC000047 with
Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control
Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $644
Breakeven Cost $3,860 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 150 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
30
Head bolt heaters use a considerable amount of energy when vehicles are left plugged in
continuously and having the head bolt heaters on for the entire day is not always necessary.
Installing a timer to alternate the head bolt heaters will help decrease energy usage. When the
temperature is above 20°F all of the outlets will be off, when the temperature is between -20°F
and 20°F half of the outlets will be on and rotate on half hour cycles through the day, and at
below -20°F all the outlets will be on.
Bunn coffee makers keep water warm continuously to allow for coffee to be made at any time.
While this is convenient there is a large amount of energy being used during this process. The
Bunn coffee makers should be replaced with energy efficient coffee makers which use insulated
pots to keep coffee warm and do not continuously heat water.
The refrigerators in Tok School show signs of age and should be replaced. Energy efficient
refrigerators are available today that use only around 400 kWh of electricity a year which is
more than a 50% reduction in electrical usage.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Head Bolt Heaters 12 Head Bolt Heater Plug Ins with Manual
Switching
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control
Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 10 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $1,286
Breakeven Cost $10,833 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.4 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8
Coffee Maker:
Teachers’ Lounge,
Conference Room
2 Bunn Coffee Maker UP7-2 with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 Replace with
energy efficient coffee maker
with thermos
Installation Cost $125 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 7 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $95
Breakeven Cost $575 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 Refrigerators 10 Refrigerators Replace with 10 Refrigerators
Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 14 Energy Savings
(/yr.) $2,340
Breakeven Cost $26,015 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback
(yrs.) 4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
31
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMs are recommended in this area because additional insulation is not economical at this
time.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area because additional insulation is not economical at this
time.
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 because Tok School already has efficient vinyl
windows and there is no upgrade to be made.
A.3.5 Doors
The metal doors in Tok School should be replaced with better insulated vinyl doors. Upgrading
the insulation value to these doors will save energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 Exterior Door:
Exterior Metal Door
Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane
core, metal edge
Modeled R-Value: 2.5
Remove existing door and install
standard pre-hung U-0.16
insulated door, including
hardware.
Installation Cost $1,747 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $147
Breakeven Cost $3,463 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yrs.) 12
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 Exterior Door: Metal
Half Lite
Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core,
metal edge, half-lite
Modeled R-Value: 3
Remove existing door and install
standard pre-hung U-0.16
insulated door, including
hardware
Installation Cost $3,844 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 30 Energy Savings (/yr.) $215
Breakeven Cost $5,053 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs.) 18
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
32
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
Installing vent dampers in the chimney connectors will reduce boiler standby losses.
Tok School’s domestic hot water circulating pump is a single speed pump. This pump should
be replaced with a more efficient variable speed pump comparable to a Grundfos Alpha. This
style of pump has been shown to save a minimum of 50% of electrical energy over conventional
pumps due to the motor design.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMs are recommended in this area because there are no air conditioning units present in
Tok School.
A.4.3 Ventilation
Based on field observations, Tok School currently uses more outside air (OSA) than current
ASHRAE standards require. OSA brought into the building months has to be heated. The OSA
level should be set to a level that meets minimum current ASHRAE standards to avoid heating
unnecessary air. The OSA for the AHUs for this calculation was estimated to total 21,000 cfm
before the retrofit and 7,500 cfm after the retrofit. The necessary levels of OSA can be
controlled by modifying the schedules or installing a demand sensor such as a CO2 sensor in
the return ducts or occupancy sensors in the rooms.
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
4 Add vent dampers to chimney connectors, replace domestic hot water circulation pump with a Grundfos
alpha or equivalent.
Installation Cost $2,700 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 20 Energy Savings (/yr.) $6,715
Breakeven Cost $115,444 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 43 Simple Payback (yrs.) 0
Rank Recommendation
3 Reduce Fresh air into the building to ASHRAE minimum by installing demand control sensors such as
CO2.
Installation Cost $10,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs.) 15 Energy Savings (/yr.) $59,559
Breakeven Cost $803,417 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 80 Simple Payback (yrs.) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
33
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that
were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not
currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a
small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of
these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer
operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases
in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential
EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would
warrant re-evaluation.
Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures,
hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered
when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing
window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a
window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the
incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient
replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback,
especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units.
The following measures were not found to be cost-effective:
Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
13 Lighting: Gymnasium
HID
Replace with 32 FLUOR (6)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Energy-Saver StdElectronic
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$1,783 $35,680 0.34 20
14 Lighting: Multi-
Purpose Room HID
Replace with 20 FLUOR (4)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Standard StdElectronic
$445 $19,800 0.14 45
15 Lighting: Hallway 1
HID
Replace with 8 FLUOR (4) T5
45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-
Saver StdElectronic
$180 $7,920 0.14 44
16 Lighting: Multi-
Purpose Room HID
Replace with 13 FLUOR (4)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Energy-Saver StdElectronic
$162 $12,870 0.08 80
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
34
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
Boiler 1 Weil-McLain 1288 #2 oil 78.0%
Estimated Input
Rating: 3,000,000
BTU/hr.
Boiler 2 Weil-McLain 1289 #2 oil 78.0%
Estimated Input
Rating: 3,000,000
BTU/hr.
Circ Pump 1 Baldor Reliance EM32 18 T Electric 89.5% 5 HP, 1750 rpm
Circ Pump 2 Baldor Reliance EM32 18 T Electric 89.5% 6 HP, 1750 rpm
Domestic Hot
Water Boiler
A.O. Smith
Commercial
COF-600-
1250 #2 oil 80.0% 600 gallon capacity
AHU-1 Motor Super E Baldor E12515E Electric 93.0% 20 HP, 1760 rpm
AHU-2 Motor 1 Century E Plus n/a Electric 86.5% 5 HP, 1745 rpm
AHU-2 Motor 2 Century E Plus E303 Electric 89.9% 10 HP, 1750 rpm
AHU-3 Motor Magnetek E203 Electric 86.5% 5 HP, 1745 rpm
AHU-4 Motor Super E Baldor EM2513T Electric 92.4% 15 HP, 1760 rpm
AHU-4 Motor 1 Magnetek E203 Electric 86.5% 5 HP, 1745 rpm
AHU-4 Motor 2 Magnetek E303 Electric 89.5% 10 HP, 1750 rpm
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/Yr.
Freezer Kitchen Jordon 18,500 $ 7,215
Refrigerators School Varies 10,000 3,900
Water Heater Booster Kitchen Hatco 9,849 3,841
Laptops Classrooms Varies 7,940 3,097
Head Bolt Heaters Exterior n/a 6,597 2,573
Welders Shop Miller 6,000 2,340
Computer Towers Classrooms Varies 5,515 2,151
Hallway Vending
Machine Hallway n/a 4,998 1,949
Food Warmer Kitchen Duke 3,447 1,344
Computer Monitors Classrooms Varies 2,758 1,076
Smart Board Setups Classrooms Smart Board 2,364 922
Wire Feed Welders Shop Lincoln Electric 1,976 771
Warmer Cabinet Kitchen Winston
Industries 1,964 766
Air Compressor Shop Ingersoll Rand 1,260 491
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on Wattage and an electric rate of $0.39/KWH
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
35
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/Yr.
101-112,115,116,
Welding Room, H1
Hallway
Fluorescent T12 328 45,544 $ 17,762
Gymnasium HID 400 watt 26 19,042 7,426
Teachers Preparation,
Technology Room, 117 ,
128 , Principals Office,
Front Office
Fluorescent T12 61 12,710 4,957
Library Mezzanine, H1
Hallway Fluorescent T5 75 9,849 3,841
Multi-Purpose HID 250 watt 20 9,183 3,581
Exterior HID 70 watt 26 8,057 3,142
113,114 Fluorescent T12 24 6,348 2,476
Hallway 2, Hallway 3 Fluorescent T12 48 6,348 2,476
Multi-Purpose HID 250 watt 12 5,510 2,149
Girls Locker Room,
Boys Locker Room,
Locker Room Hallway
Fluorescent T12 36 4,761 1,857
Hallway 1 HID 250 watt 8 3,673 1,432
Hallway 1, Hallway 4 Fluorescent T12 41 3,121 1,217
106 Fluorescent T12 11 2,909 1,135
Gymnasium Fluorescent T12 4 2,825 1,102
Hallway 4, Girls and
Boys Restroom Fluorescent T12 21 2,777 1,083
Kitchen Fluorescent T12 10 2,645 1,032
127 Fluorescent T12 17 1,860 725
Vo Tech, Gap Fluorescent T12 14 1,851 722
Weight Room Fluorescent T12 12 1,587 619
Wood Shop Fluorescent T12 20 1,322 516
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on Wattage and an electric rate of $0.39/KWH
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
36
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.
Tok School classifies under Alaska Power Company’s A-3 General Service.
Alaska Power Company Rate Structure:
A-3 General Service
Base Rate $0.1121 / KWH
Energy Charge $0.2780 / KWH
RCC (Regulatory Charge) $0.000492 / KWH
Overall Rate $0.3906 / KWH
Customer Charge $140.86
Security Light Service $ 9.94
Alaska Power Company offers their customers in a series of different rates, depending on the
classification of the service provided. The rates start at the lowest level, A-1 and work up to A-
5. A-1 is the only classification that does not get charged for demand.
General Service rates break down as follows:
A-1 Service Services under 25,000 KWH of usage per billing cycle
A-2 – A-5 Services Services 25,000 KWH and higher of usage per billing cycle
Customer Charge
A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service.
Utility Charge (kWh charge)
This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period.
It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires,
power poles and transformers.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
37
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
38
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
39
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
40
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
41
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
42
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
43
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
44
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
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
45
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
1st Floor plan drawn by NORTECH based on field measurements
Energy Audit – Final Report
Tok School
Tok, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-300 Doyon Other Region\50-300 Alaska Gateway SD\50-311 Tok School\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 Final AHFC
Report TKJ Tok School.Docx
46
2nd Floor plan drawn by NORTECH based on field measurements