Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
KONI-ADQ-CAEC Chiniak School 2012-EE
Chiniak School AkWarm ID No. KONI-ADQ-CAEC-08 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 27, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units KIBSD ....................................................................................................... Kodiak Island Borough School District kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. 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. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, or any other party involved in preparation of this report, accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 1 OF 21 This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Kodiak Island Borough School District Contact: Gregg Hacker 722 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Email: ghacker01@kibsd.org Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The July 2011 – June 2012 fiscal year utility costs at this facility are as follows: School Electricity $ 9,508 School Fuel Oil $ 15,492 Total $ 25,000 School EUI: 89.8 kBtu/sf School ECI: 2.96 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 42.2 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $1,389 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for the Chiniak School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 2 OF 21 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (Years)3 1 Refrigeration - Combined Retrofit: Combined Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $259 $100 37.87 0.4 2 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $1,710 $4,500 5.16 2.6 3 HVAC And DHW Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW circulation to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($6,300). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut- off during non-occupied times ($3,300). $598 + $500 Maint. Savings $6,600 2.48 11.0 4 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch and Improve Daylight Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $1,333 + $1,500 Maint. Savings $36,250 1.15 27.2 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $120 $2,618 1.09 21.9 6 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Incandescent Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $189 $1,500 1.06 8.0 7 Ventilation Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on 2 AHU's $577 + $500 Maint. Savings $16,500 1.02 28.6 TOTAL, all measures $4,785 + $2,500 Maint. Savings $68,068 1.56 14.2 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 3 OF 21 Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $4,785 per year, or 24.8% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $68,068 for an overall simple payback period of 14.2 years. Tables 1.2 following provide a breakdown of the annual energy costs across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $9,944 $1,838 $3,920 $864 $667 $0 $2,045 $19,278 With All Proposed Retrofits $8,354 $671 $2,398 $605 $667 $0 $1,797 $14,493 SAVINGS $1,590 $1,167 $1,522 $259 $0 $0 $247 $4,785 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 4 OF 21 While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 5 OF 21 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 8,450 sf Chiniak School depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative office, and gymnasium. There is also a detached water treatment and generator building on campus. Utility information was collected and analyzed for one year of energy use as this school had been closed and was reopened this past school year. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report for the School and Appendix G for the Benchmark Report for the portable buildings). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 6 OF 21 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on June 1, 2012 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. Thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken during the audit. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 7 OF 21 Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in the library, kitchen, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for the Kodiak Island Borough School District has an index of 124.4 for the villages compared to Anchorage and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Tables 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 8 OF 21 The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 9 OF 21 All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Chiniak School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data for the city of Kodiak, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for the city of Kodiak, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the fuel oil and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 10 OF 21 The structure of Chiniak School is a single story facility built in 1984. The school typically opens at 6AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy until 6PM during the weekdays. Additional occupancy time keeping the school open includes occasional after school and community events. There are an estimated 18 full time students, faculty, and staff occupants using the school. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, wood framed with aluminum cladding windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.59 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be in good condition. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are solid or have partial glass. The doors appear to be in good condition. The below floor exterior walls of the school consist of 6-inch all-weather wood walls filled with fiberglass batt providing an estimated R-18.0 composite value. The above grade wall sections are also built with 6-inch studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation providing an estimated R-16 composite value. Wall height varies from 13 feet to 26 feet, depending on location. The roof system of the school has an attic section with fiberglass batt in place for an estimated average R-35.1 composite value. Installation of an additional R-19 insulation in the attic is evaluated in this report. Heat is provided to the main school building by one fuel oil-fired cast iron boiler installed back in 1984. The boiler is located in the building’s mechanical room. Heat is provided to the hydronic loops and heating coils on the supply air ducts routed to the various zones in the building. The heating plant used in the building is described as follows: Boiler’s 1 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 320,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 87 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic (Glycol) Boiler Operation: All Year The school used to use waste heat from the school generator building, but this system is not in service and electricity is now being purchased from KEA. As a result the boiler now is supplying heat back to the generator/water treatment building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 11 OF 21 Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a side-arm hot water maker off the boiler hydronic loop. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the restrooms, kitchen and various sinks in the building. The hot water makers require the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Side-arm, boiler mate Size: 80 Gallons Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year There are 2 AHU’s operating in the school. The ventilation system uses electronically controlled end devices, controlled by a Barber Colman DDC system. Building exhaust system appeared to operate 24/7. Operational times of the ventilation systems in this school appear to be low. As such, incentive for upgrade is low. However, installation of a variable speed controller on the AHU ventilation fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide moderate energy savings. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant during normal occupied hours to be code compliant, but at even half capacity and at the current occupancy level, the system provides many more two times the required amount of outdoor air. Lowering running times, set-back temperature operation and variable speed controllers can provide energy savings for the school. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system uses old mercury vapor lamps which appears yellow and hard on the eyes. Upgrading to T5HO lights with multi-level and occupancy senor switching is evaluated in this report. One note, there is a yard light being charged at close to $100/day by KEA. This yard light is recommended to be removed from service and a new modern outdoor pole light be installed and connected directly to the generator/water treatment building power. This yard light fee is not included in the school electric usage and has been separated out. There are several plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, shop equipment, computers with monitors, copy machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.1 watts/sf for the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 12 OF 21 Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 13 OF 21 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2011 to June 2012. Kodiak Electric Power Association provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Fuel Oil is provided under contract rate with the school district. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 14 OF 21 The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual fuel oil usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallons (GAL), which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided for the most recent fiscal year, the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Tables 6.1 below. 2011/2112 Electric 0.19 $/kWh Fuel Oil 3.48 $/GAL Total Cost $25,000 ECI 2.96 $/sf Electric EUI 20.2 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 69.6 kBtu/sf Building EUI 89.8 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. For reference, data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 84 schools in the Anchorage School District computed an average EUI of 106.5 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 1.77 $/sf, with an average building size of 86,356 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 89.8 kBtu/sf for the school. This means the school uses a total of 8.2% more energy than the US average and 15.7% less energy than the Anchorage School District on a square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 15 OF 21 At current utility rates, the Kodiak Island Borough School District is modeled to pay approximately $19,278 annually for electricity and fuel costs for Chiniak School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 16 OF 21 Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all Retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The table below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. The fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Refrigeration 407 371 407 394 407 394 407 407 394 407 394 407 Other Electrical 314 286 314 304 314 304 314 314 304 314 304 314 Lighting 2438 2221 2438 2359 1468 281 291 1053 2359 2438 2359 2074 Ventilation Fans 1130 1030 1130 1094 883 569 588 780 1094 1130 1094 837 DHW 254 231 254 245 254 245 254 254 245 254 245 254 Space Heating 677 617 676 653 673 650 670 670 650 674 654 677 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 54 49 54 52 55 56 60 60 54 54 52 54 Space Heating 590 571 536 398 273 127 70 70 185 370 506 582 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 Floor Wall/Door Window Ceiling Air Existing Retrofit Annual Space Heating Cost by Component CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 17 OF 21 Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to thousands of British Thermal Units (or kBtu’s), and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows (See Table 6.4 below for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 52,574 kWh 179,434 3.340 599,308 #2 Oil 4,932 gallons 680,611 1.010 687,418 Total 860,045 1,286,725 BUILDING AREA 8,450 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 102 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 152 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 18 OF 21 The Energy Efficiency Measures for the school building are summarized below: Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Combined Refrigeration 2 Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $259 Breakeven Cost $3,787 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 37.9 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the building, including the kitchen and break room refrigerators. Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 School - Night Setback Thermostat Measure Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. Installation Cost $4,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,710 Breakeven Cost $23,213 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.2 Simple Payback yrs 3 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 19 OF 21 Rank Recommendation 3 Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW circulation to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($6,300). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non-occupied times ($3,300). Installation Cost $6,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $598 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $500 Breakeven Cost $16,368 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback yrs 11 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. This upgrade would include programming the DDC system to better manage the existing heating and ventilation equipment in the school. B. Place the DHW heater on a timed schedule based on occupancy. DHW should not be circulated around the school when unoccupied keeping the boiler in operation and wasting heat. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Gym Lights 16 MV 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch and Improve Daylight Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch Installation Cost $36,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,333 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $1,500 Breakeven Cost $41,792 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback yrs 27 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped elementary gym showing the T5 HO light system. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 20 OF 21 Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 5 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $2,618 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $120 Breakeven Cost $2,841 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 22 Auditors Notes: Addition of insulation to the perimeter of the floor area of the crawlspace will greatly help with heat retention in the building. A well fitted vapor barrier on the floor of the crawlspace will help the fiberglass batt to last longer and reduce undesirable moisture from entering the crawlspace area. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Incandescent Lights 8 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $189 Breakeven Cost $1,588 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluate changing out all of the old incandescent bulbs in the building with CFL type bulbs with occupancy sensors controlling the operation to assure the lamps are not left on when unoccupied. Rank Description Recommendation 7 Ventilation System Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on 2 AHU's Installation Cost $16,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $577 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $500 Breakeven Cost $16,790 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 29 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the ventilation system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. B. Installation of high efficiency premium motors and variable speed controllers on the AHU’s will allow the motors to be operated more efficiently to match the load output requirements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐08 PAGE 21 OF 21 Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Energy Benchmark Data Report CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Gregg Hacker 481‐2288 State Zip AK 99615 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7:00‐5:00 Average # of Occupants During 13 Renovations Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Kodiak Island Borough Regional Education Attendance 06/15/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Chiniak School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 8,450 Building Type Community Population Year Built Mixed 48 1984 Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip Chiniak School Drive Chiniak 99615 Contact Person Email ghacker01@kibsd.org Mailing Address City 722 Mill Bay Rd Kodiak Primary Operating Hours Details 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL Chiniak School Buiding Size Input (sf) =8,450 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)35,593 2009 Electric Cost ($)6,350 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)2,845.92 2009 Oil Cost ($)3,434 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)406,071 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)9,784 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)14.4 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 33.7 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)48.1 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)0.75 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.41 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)1.16 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL 2012 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2012 Electric Consumption (kWh)49,910 2012 Electric Cost ($)9,508 2012 Oil Consumption (Therms)5,881.92 2012 Oil Cost ($)15,492 2012 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Propane Cost ($)0 2012 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Coal Cost ($)0 2012 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Wood Cost ($)0 2012 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Thermal Cost ($)0 2012 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2012 Steam Cost ($)0 2012 Total Energy Use (kBtu)758,535 2012 Total Energy Cost ($)25,000 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2012 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Electricity (kBtu/sf)20.2 2012 Oil (kBtu/sf)69.6 2012 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2012 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)89.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2012 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.13 2012 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.83 2012 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2012 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.96 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOLChiniak SchoolElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)KEA 100.373.606 Jul‐08 31 3,346 114 $648 $0.19KEA 100.373.606 Aug‐08 31 2,774 95 $615 $0.22KEA 100.373.606 Sep‐08 30 3,379 115 $654 $0.19KEA 100.373.606 Oct‐08 31 2,710 92 $489 $0.18KEA 100.373.606 Nov‐08 30 2,665 91 $482 $0.18KEA 100.373.606 Dec‐08 31 3,005 103 $534 $0.18KEA 100.373.606 Jan‐09 31 3,459 118 $566 $0.16KEA 100.373.606 Feb‐09 28 2,886 98 $484 $0.17KEA 100.373.606 Mar‐09 31 2,533 86 $433 $0.17KEA 100.373.606 Apr‐09 30 3,050 104 $496 $0.16KEA 100.373.606 May‐09 31 2,716 93 $450 $0.17KEA 100.373.606 Jun‐09 30 3,070 105 $499 $0.16KEA 5095002 EJul‐11 31 1,143 39 $269 $0.24KEA 5095002 EAug‐11 31 986 34 $249 $0.25KEA 5095002 ESep‐11304,255 145$828 $0.19KEA 5095002 EOct‐11314,434 151 $860 $0.19KEA 5095002 ENov‐11305,013 171 $962 $0.19KEA 5095002 EDec‐11315,504188$1,049$0.19KEA 5095002 EJan‐12314,428151$858$0.19KEA 5095002 EFeb‐12285,601191$1,065$0.19KEA 5095002 EMar‐12314,980170$943$0.19KEA 5095002 EApr‐12304,907167$885$0.18KEA 5095002 EMay‐12315,609191$982$0.18KEA 5095002 EJun‐12303,050104$558$0.18Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:35,5931,215$6,350Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:49,9101,703$9,508$0.18$0.19Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL$0$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,20001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chiniak School ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOLChiniak SchoolOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer #Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jul‐08 31 0 0 $0 0.00Aug‐08 31 0 0 $0 0.00Sep‐08 30 0 0 $0 0.00Oct‐08 31 0 0 $0 0.00Nov‐08 30 0 0 $0 0.00Dec‐08 31 0 0 $0 0.00Jan‐09 31 0 0 $0 0.00Feb‐09 28 0 0 $0 0.00Mar‐09 31 2,156 2,846 $3,434 1.21Apr‐09 30 0 0 $0 0.00May‐09 31 0 0 $0 0.00Jun‐09 30 0 0 $0 0.00CH‐FUEL Jul‐11 31 0 0 $0 0.00CH‐FUEL Aug‐11 31 3,000 3,960 $10,061 2.54CH‐FUEL Sep‐11 30 104 137 $399 2.91CH‐FUEL Oct‐11 31 52 69 $178 2.59CH‐FUEL Nov‐11 30 0 0 $0 0.00CH‐FUEL Dec‐11 31 0 0 $0 0.00CH‐FUEL Jan‐12 31 0 0 $0 0.00CH‐FUEL Feb‐1228300396$1,2603.18CH‐FUEL Mar‐123100$00.00CH‐FUEL Apr‐123000$00.00CH‐FUEL May‐123100$00.00CH‐FUEL Jun‐12301,0001,320$3,5942.72JUYL ‐ 08 to JUNE ‐ 09 total:2,1562,846$3,434$0JULY ‐ 11 to JUNE ‐ 12 total:4,4565,882$15,492$0JULY ‐ 08 to JUNE ‐ 09 avg:1.21$1.59JULY ‐ 11 to JUNE ‐ 12 avg:2.63$3.48APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL$0.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$6,000.00$8,000.00$10,000.00$12,000.0005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chiniak School ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption(Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 1 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/26/2012 4:45 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Chiniak School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: Chiniak School Drive Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Chiniak Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr. Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Gregg Hacker Client Address: 722 Mill Bay Rd Kodiak, AK 99615 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: (907) 481-2288 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 8,450 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 166,057 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 174,797 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 266,458 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 18 people Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average) Actual City: Chiniak Design Outdoor Temperature: 13 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Chiniak Heating Degree Days: 8,539 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Kodiak Electric Assn - Commercial - Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Shore Side Petroleum Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.180/kWh Average Annual Cost/Gallon: $1.99/gallon Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $9,944 $0 $1,838 $3,920 $864 $667 $0 $0 $2,045 $0 $19,278 With Proposed Retrofits $8,354 $0 $671 $2,398 $605 $667 $0 $0 $1,797 $0 $14,493 SAVINGS $1,590 $0 $1,167 $1,522 $259 $0 $0 $0 $247 $0 $4,785 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 2 APPENDIX B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 3 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration - Combined Retrofit: Combined Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $259 $100 37.87 0.4 2 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $1,710 $4,500 5.16 2.6 3 HVAC And DHW Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW circulation to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($6,300). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut- off during non-occupied times ($3,300). $598 + $500 Maint. Savings $6,600 2.48 11 4 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Gym Lights Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Daylight Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $1,333 + $1,500 Maint. Savings $36,250 1.15 27.2 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $120 $2,618 1.09 21.9 6 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Incandescent Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $189 $1,500 1.06 8 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 7 Ventilation Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on 2 AHU's $577 + $500 Maint. Savings $16,500 1.02 28.6 TOTAL $4,785 + $2,500 Maint. Savings $68,068 1.56 14.2 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $2,618 $120 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 5 APPENDIX B 3 Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW circulation to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($6,300). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non-occupied times ($3,300). $6,600 $598 + $500 Maint. Savings Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 School Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 66.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $4,500 $1,710 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on 2 AHU's $16,500 $577 + $500 Maint. Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Gym Lights 16 MV 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Daylight Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $36,250 $1,333 + $1,500 Maint. Savings 6 Incandescent 8 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,500 $189 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Chiniak School Page 6 APPENDIX B 1 Combined Refrigeration 2 Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $100 $259 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.3, Energy Lib 5/18/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 776 OIL/SECTIONAL 320 MBH 87% - 35 7 1984HWH-1 BOILER ROOM DHW HEATER AMTROL WHS80DW SHELL&TUBE 80 GALLONS 75% - 20 10CP-1 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UPC 50-160 INLINE 26 GPM @ 40' 70% 1035 W 10 0CP-2 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UPC 65-80 INLINE 16 GPM @ 25' 70% 810 W 10 5CP-3 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UPC 50-160 INLINE 26 GPM @ 40' 70% 1050 W 10 5CP-4 BOILER ROOM DHW PUMP GRUNDFOS UP 50-64 INLINE 10 GPM @ 5' 70% 380 W 10 0HWCP-1 BOILER ROOM DHW CIRCULATION PUMP GRUNDFOS UP 25-64 SF INLINE 5 GPM @ 5' 70% 180 W 10 0 24/7 OPERATIONAHU-1 CLASS ROOMS VENTILATION/HEAT TRANE CCD8 HORIZONTAL 4950 CFM @ 1.7" 80% 5 HP 25 5AHU-2 GYMNASIUM VENTILATION/HEAT TRANE CCD6 HORIZONTAL 2100 CFM @ 1.25" 80% 1 HP 25 5EF-1 FAN ROOM REST ROOM EXHAUST TRANE 12FC CENTRIFIGUL 1270 CFM @ 0.75" 70% 373 WATTS 20 0EF-2 CEILING JANITOR CLOSET BROAN/NUTONE UNKNOWN CABINET 50 CFM @ 0.25" 70% 105 WATTS 20 ?EF-3 CEILING KITCHEN BROAN/NUTONE UNKNOWN CABINET 50 CFM @ 0.25" 70% 105 WATTS 20 ?EF-4 KITCHEN RANGE HOOD BROAN/NUTONE UNKNOWN HOOD 300 CFM @ 0.25" 70% 160 WATTS 20 ?CUH1-2 VARIOUS LOCALS UNIT HEATERS TRANE VARIOUS UH 600 CFM @ 0.25" 80% 62 WATTS 20 5UH1-4 VARIOUS LOCALS UNIT HEATERS TRANE VARIOUS CUH 300 CFM @ 0.25" 80% 46 WATTS 20 5PF-1 CEILING GYM PENN BREEZEWAY P16 PROPELLER FAN 1400 CFM 80% 96 WATTS 20 5MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. View of the playground side of the building. Lead teacher housing can be seen in background which is on separate oil tank and electric meter. 2. View of the back side of the gym. 3. View of the typical metal clad wood framed windows. 4. View of the typical exterior metal door. 5. View of the attic showing 2 layers of R-19 FGB. 6. View of the crawlspace BGW’s with R-19 FGB in place. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 7. View of the atomic exit signs typical for the school. 8. View from behind the generator/water treatment building. Power is no longer being generated on site and the waste- heat loop is not in service. 9. Interior T8 light fixtures typical of school. 10. Interior 400W multi vapor light fixtures in the gym. This color is hard on the eyes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 11. Close-up view of the single school oil fired boiler installed in 1984 which was tested at 87% efficient. 12. Close-up view of the side-arm indirect fired DHW maker. The circulation pump was operating 24/7 and should be placed on a timer control. 13. View of the AHU-1 for the classrooms with 5HP motor. 14. View of AHU-2 for the gym with 1 HP motor. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 15. Exhaust fan for the restrooms. 16. Barber Colman DDC system in place. 17. View of the kitchen equipment. 18. Typical unit heater in place. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Windows typical of school, exhibited heat loss surrounding windows frame. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. Typical school doorway, exhibited heat loss surrounding door opening indicating deteriorating weather stripping. Heat loss can also be noted from the AHU air intake as these units were not in operation causing the warm air from the building to vent due to stack effect through the closed damper. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. Close-up of school’s foundation rim joist area, heat loss exhibited from the wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Overall view of the gym wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. View of unusual heat loss and water damage from the roof run-off. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. Side of school overall view. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. Typical school doorway. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIBSD CHINIAK SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 8. School’s generator and water treatment building overall view.