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 Admin Building 2012-EE
Kodiak Island Borough Administrative Building 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 AkWarm ID No. KONI-ADQ-CAEC-03 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 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE i OF ii CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE ii OF ii 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, nor 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 KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 1 OF 27 This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us Kodiak Island Borough Contact: Robert Tucker 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Email: btucker@kodiakak.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). Table 1.0 summarizes the utility usage for the building. Energy Type Annual Cost Electricity $62,125 Fuel Oil _______________ Total Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) Energy Cost Index ($/sf) $49,006 ______________ $111,131 137.7 3.89 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 Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) Administrative Building. 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 KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 2 OF 27 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR* Simple Payback (Years)** 1 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 13 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $767 $650 14.49 0.8 2 Setback Thermostat: Northern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Northern Offices space. $1,287 $2,000 9.56 1.6 3 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 10 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $332 $500 8.15 1.5 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawl Space Wall Install R-21batt insulation on basement wall $1,548 $8,133 5.06 5.3 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Hallway Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $77 $475 4.31 6.2 6 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Southern Offices Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $401 $2,480 4.30 6.2 7 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Northern Offices Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $683 $4,242 4.28 6.2 8 HVAC And DHW Replace old boilers with modern efficient oil-fired boilers with similar input ratings. 85 AFUE recommended. Assumes $20,000 per boiler. Upgrade RTUs to more efficient models. Assumes $20,000 per unit, SEER of 14. $13,185 $80,000 3.11 6.1 9 Setback Thermostat: Southern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Southern Offices space. $337 $2,000 2.50 5.9 10 Lighting: Half of Lower Offices Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,565 $14,850 2.12 5.8 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 3 OF 27 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR* Simple Payback (Years)** 11 Lighting: North Wing Upper Offices & half of Lower Offices Replace with 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,440 $15,750 1.90 6.5 12 Lighting: Boiler Room Add new Occupancy Sensor $27 $180 1.85 6.6 13 Lighting: Hallway Lights Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,012 $7,050 1.76 7.0 14 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy- Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $235 $1,860 1.55 7.9 15 Lighting: Conference Room Replace with 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $217 $1,940 1.37 8.9 16 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $334 $3,200 1.06 9.6 17 Cathedral Ceiling: Roof Install R-14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $1,422 $43,005 0.88 30.3 18 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $28 $1,779 0.42 63.6 19 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $25 $2,223 0.30 88.3 20 Window/Skylig ht: NSFW Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $275 $33,689 0.16 122.3 21 Window/Skylig ht: SFW Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $143 $20,930 0.13 146.8 22 Exterior Door: Solid Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $7 $1,779 0.10 257.2 23 Lighting: Boiler Room Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant HighLight HighEfficElectronic $3 $1,800 0.02 578.9 TOTAL, all measures $28,492 $250,515 2.02 8.8 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 4 OF 27 Table 1.1 Notes: *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. **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 $28,126 per year, or 26.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $250,515, for an overall simple payback period of 8.9 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (SIR > 1), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $26,370 per year, or 24.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $145,310, for an overall simple payback period of 5.5 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the estimated annual energy cost 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 Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $39,445 $3,440 $2,883 $15,327 $38,444 $5,907 $0 $105,446 With All Proposed Retrofits $21,830 $1,400 $1,945 $8,572 $38,444 $5,907 $0 $78,097 SAVINGS $17,615 $2,040 $939 $6,756 $0 $0 $0 $27,349 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 5 OF 27 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 28,567 square foot KIB Administrative Building that includes administrative offices, restrooms, conference rooms, hallways, and mechanical rooms. A satellite image of the building is shown below in Figure 2.1. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. 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). 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, mechanical and electrical drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 6 OF 27 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, snow-melt, 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 July 13, 2011, 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. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visit, 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 KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 7 OF 27 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, motors, and plug loads. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm Commercial© Software (AkWarm), a building energy modeling program developed for AHFC. The data was processed by AkWarm 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. 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. 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. Following in Section 7.0 of this report for the Energy Efficiency Measures, the simple lifetime calculation is shown for each EEM. 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. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include labor and equipment to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. The energy analyst’s opinions of probable cost are garnered from Means Cost Data, other industry publications, and local contractors and suppliers. 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). These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 8 OF 27 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) = Lifetime Savings divided by Investment Lifetime 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 $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater 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 KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 9 OF 27 All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case, data were incomplete and 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. Budget for engineering and design of these projects is not included in the cost estimate for each measure. Limitations of the AkWarm Commercial© Software are reviewed on Section 6.0 of this report. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 10 OF 27 The original structure of KIB Administrative Building is a single-story facility connected to a two-story facility via a hallway. This building was built in 1968 and was originally intended to be used as a dormitory with a kitchen facility. There have been no additions made onto this building, though the intended purpose has changed over the years. The facility’s roof was remodeled in 2011 to provide a higher insulation value. Lights are being upgraded on an as-need basis. The KIB Administrative buildings HVAC equipment operation is from 6:00AM to 8:30PM on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Tuesday and Thursday, the schedule is from 6:00AM to 11:00PM. Additionally, the building is scheduled on Saturday and Sunday from 6:00AM to 6:30PM. This time schedule was provided to the auditing team during the site investigation. There are an estimated 98 full time employees that occupy the building. As architectural drawings were provided for this audit, assumptions of the shell insulation values were made using these drawings and no destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and condition could not be verified as access was not available. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm building model: Exterior walls of the building have double pane wood-framed windows in place and have an estimated U-factor of 0.51 Btu/hr-sf-F. These windows appear to be weathered and are in moderate condition. The exterior walls of the structure are strapped masonry walls using 2-core concrete blocks as the masonry layer with 2x4 furring and R-11 fiberglass batt. Wall height varies from 12 feet to 21 feet, depending on location. The roof system is a built-up roof with 4-inches of loose fiberglass insulation underneath corrugated metal decking. The metal decking is covered with 4-inches of rigid insulation over a moisture barrier. This roof was being renovated during the site visit. The foundation of the building is a crawlspace with concrete walls. The walls of the crawlspace are insulated with 2-inches of rigid insulation. There is a moisture barrier throughout the crawlspace that covers the exposed ground as well as the walls. The floor of the building is supported by steel joists on top of the foundation wall. There are three (3) different types of doors used throughout the building. The most common type of door found is a commercial grade door with a quarter-window. Additionally, there are doors that are half- windowed and doors that are solid. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 11 OF 27 Building heat is provided from two (2) fuel oil fired boilers. Building cooling is provided by two (2) Rooftop Units (RTUs) that use R22 as the refrigerant. The RTUs also provide heating to intake air through use of electric resistance heaters. There is also a spot cooler in the server room of the building using R22 refrigerant. The glycol hydronic system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler room and provides heat to the baseboard system. There is no outdoor temperature reset control which is recommended to be added and controlled by the building DDC system. The Heating and Cooling Plants used in the building are: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 2,092,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 75 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 2 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 2,092,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 75 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Server Room Spot Cooler Nameplate Information: Heat Controller Model PAD121-5 Cooling Capacity: 0.8 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air Rated SEER: 8.98 RTU-1 Nameplate Information: York Sunline 2000 D3CE Cooling Capacity: 3.0 Tons Refrigerant: R22 Cooling Distribution Type: Air Rated SEER: 8.5 Heating Input Rating: 5.3 kW Heat Distribution Type: Electric RTU-2 Nameplate Information: Trane Cooling Capacity: 3.0 Tons Refrigerant: R22 Cooling Distribution Type: Air Rated SEER: 8.5 Heating Input Rating: 5.3 kW Heat Distribution Type: Electric CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 12 OF 27 The DHW system utilizes one (1) 80 gallon side-arm hot water storage tank located in the boiler room. Heated water from the boilers is passed through a shell and tube heat exchanger in the mechanical room to heat potable water. DHW is circulated around the building and supplies the restroom sinks. Outside air is drawn into the building through the air handling systems. There are three (3) Air Handling Units (AHU) located inside of the building providing ventilation. The AHU’s appear to be worn but maintained regularly. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building. There are two (2) Rooftop Units that are used to provide heated and cooled air to the southern offices of the building. The ventilation system is controlled by a Barber-Colman DDC System. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. Lighting upgrade opportunities provide some of the best investment opportunities in the building. The hallways and the majority of the offices of the building are using T8 32-watt fluorescent lights. There are still T-12 lighting systems remaining in some of the offices in the building that are good candidates for replacement to new T-8 systems. All of the incandescent lights throughout the building are also good candidates for replacement. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several plug loads throughout the building. This includes televisions, computers with monitors, copy machines, microwave ovens and coffee pots. There are a few high-wattage pieces of equipment in the building that are used occasionally, but not enough to warrant replacing. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm modeling program at 1.7 Watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey, a detailed building major equipment list was created and is attached as Appendix C. Major equipment listed are considered to be the major energy consuming equipment 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 correlating replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 13 OF 27 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2008 to June 2010 (Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010). Kodiak Electric Association provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedules. Fuel oil is billed at the prevailing rate at the time delivered. 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. The fuel oil deliveries reflect the quantities of oil delivered to the building’s tank. This method is accurate for the overall yearly deliveries but does not reflect the daily or monthly actual usage. If the tank was being filled to a volumetric gage line on a site glass, then each delivery would be a reflection of actual volumes consumed since the last delivery. The upper heating value of the fuel oil was assumed to be approximately 132,000 Btu/gallon. 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, the fiscal years 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. Year 2009 2010 Electric 0.16 $/kWh 0.15 $/kWh Fuel Oil 1.96 $/Gal 2.53 $/Gal Total Cost $113,097 $111,131 ECI 3.96 $/sf 3.89 $/sf Electric EUI 51.9 kBtu/sf 48.2 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 104.6 kBtu/sf 89.5 kBtu/sf Building EUI 156.5 kBtu/sf 137.7 kBtu/sf The Energy Cost Index (ECI) is derived by taking the annual cost and dividing it by the building square footage. 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 Office building activity is shown to be 93 kBtu/sf. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average energy utilization index of 147.1 kBtu/sf – or 58.2 % higher than the U.S.A. average. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 14 OF 27 At current utility rates, the Kodiak Island Borough is modeled in AkWarm to pay approximately $105,446 annually for electricity and fuel costs for the KIB Administrative Building. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 15 OF 27 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. Interestingly, Figure 6.3 suggests that the windows, after the recommended retrofit, will provide a slight negative cost for space heating. AkWarm is implying that the building will actually profit from new windows, as solar gain will offset the heat loss through these openings. It is important to realize that this is on an annual analysis, and will likely not hold true during the winter months. The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 8393 7648 8393 8122 8393 8122 8393 8393 8122 8393 8122 8393 Other_Electrical 21051 19183 21051 20372 21051 20372 21051 21051 20372 21051 20372 21051 Ventilation_Fans 3235 2948 3235 3130 3235 3130 3235 3235 3130 3235 3130 3235 DHW 139 126 139 134 139 134 139 139 134 139 134 139 Space_Heating 2837 2679 2692 2154 1926 1481 1386 1370 1506 2119 2565 2966 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 845 841 3073 6318 6785 3753 581 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 82 74 85 91 111 161 262 285 151 100 83 80 Space_Heating 2657 2563 2437 1860 1485 938 677 631 988 1725 2298 2852 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 16 OF 27 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 British Thermal Units (Btu) 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 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 434,532 kWh 1,483,057 3.340 4,953,410 #2 Oil 22,675 gallons 3,129,149 1.010 3,160,441 Total 4,612,206 8,113,850 BUILDING AREA 28,567 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 161 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 284 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 KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 17 OF 27 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, the KIB Administrative Building was modeled using AkWarm energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from the city of Kodiak 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. • The AkWarm model is based on typical mean year weather data for the city of Kodiak. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas 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. • The model 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 in Section 6.0 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 18 OF 27 The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below: Electrical & Appliance Measures Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. 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. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs & Upgrade Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Assembly Chamber 13 INCAN A Lamp, Standard 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 13 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W Installation Cost $650 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $767 Breakeven Cost $9,416 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 14.5 Simple Payback yrs 1 Auditors Notes: Compact fluorescent lamps (CFL’s) were created to be direct replacements for the standard incandescent lamps. The light output of the CFL has been designed to resemble the incandescent lamp. The color rendering index (CRI) of the CFL is much higher than standard fluorescent lighting, and therefore provides a much “truer” light. The CFL is available in a myriad of shapes and sizes depending on the specific application. The CFL is also available for a number of “brightness colors” that is indicated by the Kelvin ratings. A 2700K CFL is the “warmest” color available and is closest in color to the incandescent lamp. CFL’s are also available in 3000K, 3500K, and 4100K. The 4100K would be the “brightest” or “coolest” output. A CFL can be chosen to screw right into existing fixtures, or hardwired into existing fixtures. This EEM involves replacing the 100-watt incandescent lamps in the Assembly Chamber with energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Assembly Chamber 10 INCAN A Lamp, Standard 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 10 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $332 Breakeven Cost $4,074 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.1 Simple Payback yrs 2 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #1 for similar notes. This EEM involves replacing the 60-watt incandescent lamps with energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 19 OF 27 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Half of Lower Offices 60 FLUOR (2) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $14,850 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,565 Breakeven Cost $31,493 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: CAEC recommends a replacement of the existing fixtures containing T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts with fixtures containing T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. New fluorescent lamps and ballasts are available as direct replacement for the existing lamps and ballasts. A simple change from the old to the new can provide substantial savings. A typical drop-ceiling lay in fixture with four, 4-foot lamps (40 Watt lamps) has a total wattage of about 188 Watts. By retrofitting with new lamps, reflector and electronic ballasts the total wattage would be reduced to 91 Watts per fixture and the space light levels and light quality would increase by about 15% and 35% respectively. The new energy efficient, T8 fixtures will provide adequate lighting and will save the Owner on electrical costs due to the better performance of the electronic ballasts. In addition to functional cost savings, the fixture replacement will also provide operational cost savings. The operational cost savings will be realized through the lesser number of lamps that will be required to be replaced per year. The expected lamp life of a T8 lamp, approximately 30,000 burn-hours, is comparison to the existing T12 lamps, approximately 20,000 burn-hours, will provide the Owner with few lamps to replace per year. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 North Wing Upper Offices & Half of Lower Offices 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $15,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,440 Breakeven Cost $29,958 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing T-8 lights in the offices be replaced with 28W energy saver bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Boiler Room 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $180 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $27 Breakeven Cost $333 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback yrs 7 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the installment of occupancy sensors in the boiler room. These sensors will reduce the time that lights are left on in the boiler room and eliminate the possibility of leaving lights on unintentionally. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Hallway Lights 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $7,050 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,012 Breakeven Cost $12,432 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback yrs 7 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing T-8 lights in the hallways be replaced with 28W energy saver bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 20 OF 27 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 Assembly Chamber 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U-Tube Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,860 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $235 Breakeven Cost $2,890 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing U-Tube T-8 lights in the assembly chamber be replaced with 28W energy saver U-Tube bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 Conference Room 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4’ F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4’ F32T8 28W Energy- Saver (2) Program High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,940 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $217 Breakeven Cost $2,667 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 9 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing T-8 lights in the conference room be replaced with 28W energy saver bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 23 Boiler Room 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4’ F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Instant High Light High Efficiency Electronic Installation Cost $1,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3 Breakeven Cost $38 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 579 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing T-12 lights in the boiler room be replaced with 28W energy saver bulbs. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 21 OF 27 Mechanical Equipment Measures Night Setback Thermostat Control Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Northern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 degrees-Fahrenheit for the Northern Offices space. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,287 Breakeven Cost $19,112 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.6 Simple Payback yrs 2 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. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The workers are likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point. 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. Rank Building Space Recommendation 9 Southern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Southern Offices space. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $337 Breakeven Cost $4,993 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #2 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 22 OF 27 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Recommendation 8 Replace old boilers with modern efficient oil-fired boilers with similar input ratings. 85 AFUE recommended. Assumes $20,000 per boiler. Upgrade RTUs to more efficient models. Assumes $20,000 per unit, SEER of 14. Installation Cost* $80,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $13,185 Breakeven Cost $248,550 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: The recommendations of this EEM include replacing the existing boilers with modern, efficient oil-fired boilers, installing an outdoor temperature reset control to the boiler output temperature using the DDC system, and upgrading the Rooftop Units with more efficient cooling plants with similar capacity. The current boilers are used to as the primary heating system of the building as well as heating potable water through an indirect- fired domestic hot water heat exchanger. As noted in Appendix C, these boilers have exceeded their useful life. New, more efficient boilers are projected to use less fuel and require less maintenance. Additionally, a boiler outdoor temperature reset algorithm can reduce the boiler fire time by monitoring the outdoor temperature and setting the boiler temperature to an appropriate level. The existing rooftop units located on the roof of the building are good candidates for replacement. They are beyond their service life as outlined in Chapter 36 of the 2011 ASHRAE Applications Handbook. The rated Energy Efficiency Ratings (EER) of these units is below today’s standards for high efficiency. Savings could be realized if newer, high efficiency units were installed to replace these units. * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm program calculations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 23 OF 27 Building Shell Measures Insulation Measures Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawl Space Wall Wall Type: Masonry Insulating. Sheathing: EPS (Beadboard), 1 inches Masonry Wall: 8” Poured Concrete Modeled R-Value: 6.1 Install R-21batt insulation on basement wall Installation Cost $8,133 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,548 Breakeven Cost $41,145 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.1 Simple Payback yrs 5 Auditors Notes: Addition of R-21 insulation to the below-grade wall of the crawlspace will reduce heat loss into the ground around the building. This insulation should cover the inside of the entire below-grade wall of the building. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 5 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Hallway Insulation for 0’ to 2’ Perimeter: None Insulation for 2’ to 4’ Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 8.8 Install R-30 batt insulation on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $475 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $77 Breakeven Cost $2,045 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.3 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Addition of R-30 insulation to the 4-foot perimeter area of the below-grade floor of the crawlspace will reduce heat loss into the ground around the building. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 6 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Southern Offices Insulation for 0’ to 2’ Perimeter: None Insulation for 2’ to 4’ Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 8.8 Install R-30 batt insulation on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $2,480 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $401 Breakeven Cost $10,673 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.3 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #5 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 24 OF 27 Window Measures Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 7 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Northern Offices Insulation for 0’ to 2’ Perimeter: None Insulation for 2’ to 4’ Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 8.8 Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $4,242 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $683 Breakeven Cost $18,172 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.3 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #5 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 17 Cathedral Ceiling: Roof Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: Fiberglass/Loose fill, 4 inches Top Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard), 4 inches Modeled R-Value: 18 Install R-14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. Installation Cost $43,005 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,422 Breakeven Cost $37,754 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback yrs 30 Auditors Notes: During the site visit, the KIB Administrative building was in the process of being re-roofed. This upgrade has been accounted for in this EEM with an estimated cost and savings, based on what was observed by the auditing team. Addition of insulation to the roof of a building helps to reduce the amount of heat lost. In this case, the drawings of the building showed an estimated existing insulation value of R-18. The additional rigid board insulation being installed is expected to bring the overall insulating value of the roof to R-32. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 20 Window/Skylight: Non- South Facing Windows (NSFW) Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $33,689 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $275 Breakeven Cost $5,244 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 122 Auditors Notes: The existing windows on the building are in poor condition with leaky seals and poor air tightness. These windows are good candidates for replacement although the payback is poor for this EEM. New windows will reduce heat loss and infiltration and provide an improved solar heat gain. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 25 OF 27 Door Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 21 Window/Skylight: South Facing Windows (SFW) Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $20,930 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $143 Breakeven Cost $2,714 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 147 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM #20 for similar notes. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 18 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Door Type: Metal/PU half lite Modeled R-Value: 3.3 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $1,779 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $28 Breakeven Cost $741 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback yrs 64 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the half-windowed exterior doors of the building with more modern energy efficient units. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 19 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Door Type: Metal/PU quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 4 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $2,223 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $25 Breakeven Cost $668 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 88 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the quarter-windowed exterior doors of the building with more modern energy efficient units. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 22 Exterior Door: Solid Door Type: Metal – urethane, therm. Break Modeled R-Value: 5.3 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $1,779 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $7 Breakeven Cost $184 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.1 Simple Payback yrs 257 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the solid exterior doors of the building with more modern energy efficient units. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 26 OF 27 Air Sealing Measures Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 16 Air Tightness estimated as: 1.30 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. Installation Cost $3,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $334 Breakeven Cost $3,401 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback yrs 10 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates improving the air tightness of the building to reduce unwanted and uncontrolled cold air infiltration into the building. This can be accomplished by replacing weather stripping where applicable, assure all operable windows close correctly, maintain outdoor air dampers to assure they close tightly and make-up and exhaust air systems, caulk and seal all thermal/pressure boundary penetrations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AKWARM ID KONI‐ADQ‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 27 OF 27 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 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Robert Tucker 486‐9342 State Zip AK 99615 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7 am to 5 pm 0 0 0 Average # of Occupants During 98 Renovations / Notes Date None PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? 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. Contact Person Email Btucker@kodiakak.us Mailing Address City 710 Mill Bay Rd Kodiak Primary Operating Hours Details Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip 710 Mill Bay Rd Kodiak 99615 Building Type Community Population Year Built Government Office 6,626 1968 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Borough Building Office 28,567 Kodiak Island Borough Municipal 11/08/11 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Borough Building Buiding Size Input (sf) =28,567 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)434,646 2009 Electric Cost ($)68,779 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)29,883 2009 Oil Cost ($)44,318 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)4,471,795 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)113,097 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)51.9 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 104.6 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)156.5 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.41 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.55 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.96 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)403,296 2010 Electric Cost ($)62,125 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)25,571 2010 Oil Cost ($)49,006 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)3,933,553 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)111,131 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)48.2 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)89.5 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)137.7 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.17 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.72 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.89 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORTBorough BuildingElectricityBtus/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 5022200 Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/20083134,5601,18074$6,162$0.18KEA 5022200 Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/20083134,7521,18673$6,186$0.18KEA 5022200 Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/20083037,2481,27175$6,589$0.18KEA 5022200 Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/20083137,1521,26877$5,930$0.16KEA 5022200 Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/20083034,0801,16378$5,507$0.16KEA 5022200 Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/20083140,5121,38377$6,399$0.16KEA 5022200 Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/20093141,2801,40982$6,091$0.15KEA 5022200 Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/20092840,9921,39982$6,054$0.15KEA 5022200 Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/20093130,9121,05578$4,734$0.15KEA 5022200 Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/20093036,1921,23578$5,291$0.15KEA 5022200 May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/20093135,6161,21674$5,197$0.15KEA 5022200 Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093031,3501,07071$4,639$0.15KEA 5022200 Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/20093136,6721,25271$5,403$0.15KEA 5022200 Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20093135,1361,19972$5,210$0.15KEA 5022200 Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093036,7681,25572$5,418$0.15KEA 5022200 Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093133,6001,14770$4,982$0.15KEA 5022200 Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093032,5441,11168$4,837$0.15KEA 5022200 Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093133,6001,14782$5,052$0.15KEA 5022200 Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/20103132,9281,12472$5,116$0.16KEA 5022200 Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/20102833,5041,14374$5,199$0.16KEA 5022200 Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/20103132,7361,11771$5,084$0.16KEA 5022200 Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103032,5441,11169$5,365$0.16KEA 5022200 May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103130,5281,04271$5,090$0.17KEA 5022200 Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/20103032,7361,11764$5,367$0.16Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:434,64614,834917$68,779$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:403,29613,764857$62,125$0$0.16$0.15Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Borough Building‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORTBorough BuildingOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009311,8452,435$2,8001.15Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009283,4414,542$5,8391.29Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009319291,226$1,3711.12Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/2009301,8612,457$2,6401.07May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/2009311,7762,344$3,0821.31Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093000$00.00Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009312,8273,732$5,9951.61Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20093100$00.00Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009304,4995,939$10,0081.69Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/2009312,1932,895$5,0461.74Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009301,6732,208$3,8491.74Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/2009311,5952,105$3,6881.75Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010311,8222,405$4,0941.70Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010281,7312,285$4,0061.75Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010311,9502,574$4,5421.76Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/2010302,1502,838$5,3231.88May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103100$00.00Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/2010303,0684,050$7,6341.89Jul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/2010311,0301,360$2,5301.86Aug‐10 8/1/2010 8/31/2010315269$1241.81Sep‐10 9/1/2010 9/30/2010301,4721,943$3,7601.94Oct‐10 10/1/2010 10/31/2010311,0921,441$3,1932.22Nov‐10 11/1/2010 11/30/2010302,0072,649$5,6192.12Dec‐10 12/1/2010 12/31/2010312,9983,957$8,1812.07Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:22,63929,8830$44,318$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:19,37225,5710$49,006$0Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:1.45Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:1.91APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$6,000.00$8,000.00$10,000.00$12,000.0001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Borough Building‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm Building Simulation Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 2 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 11/16/2011 12:59 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 710 Mill Bay Rd Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring City: Kodiak Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr. Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Robert Tucker Client Address: 710 Mill Bay Rd Kodiak AK, 99615 Auditor Phone: (907) 260‐5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 486‐9342 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 28,567 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 716,595 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 762,692 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,162,640 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 98 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Kodiak Design Outdoor Temperature: 13 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Kodiak Heating Degree Days: deg F‐days Utility Information Electric Utility: Kodiak Electric Assn ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.155/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrica l Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $39,445 $3,440 $2,883 $15,327 $38,444 $0 $0 $5,907 $0 $105,446 With Proposed Retrofits $21,830 $1,400 $1,945 $8,572 $38,444 $0 $0 $5,907 $0 $78,097 SAVINGS $17,615 $2,040 $939 $6,756 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,349 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 3 APPENDIX B $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 13 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $767 $650 14.49 0.8 2 Setback Thermostat: Northern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Northern Offices space. $1,287 $2,000 9.56 1.6 3 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 10 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $332 $500 8.15 1.5 4 Below‐ (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawl Space Wall Install R‐21batt insulation on basement wall $1,548 $8,133 5.06 5.3 5 On‐ or Below‐Grade Floor, Perimeter: Hallway Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $77 $475 4.31 6.2 6 On‐ or Below‐Grade Floor, Perimeter: Southern Offices Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $401 $2,480 4.30 6.2 7 On‐ or Below‐Grade Floor, Perimeter: Northern Offices Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $683 $4,242 4.28 6.2 8 HVAC And DHW Replace old boilers with modern efficient oil‐fired boilers with similar input ratings. 85 AFUE recommended. Assumes $20,000 per boiler. Upgrade RTUs to more efficient models. Assumes $20,000 per unit, SEER of 14. $13,185 $80,000 3.11 6.1 9 Setback Thermostat: Southern Offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Southern Offices space. $337 $2,000 2.50 5.9 10 Lighting: Half of Lower Offices Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,565 $14,850 2.12 5.8 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 5 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 11 Lighting: North Wing Upper Offices & half of Lower Offices Replace with 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,440 $15,750 1.90 6.5 12 Lighting: Boiler Room Add new Occupancy Sensor $27 $180 1.85 6.6 13 Lighting: Hallway Lights Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,012 $7,050 1.76 7 14 Lighting: Assembly Chamber Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $235 $1,860 1.55 7.9 15 Lighting: Conference Room Replace with 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $217 $1,940 1.37 8.9 16 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $334 $3,200 1.06 9.6 17 Cathedral Ceiling: Roof Install R‐14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $1,422 $43,005 0.88 30.3 18 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $28 $1,779 0.42 63.6 19 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $25 $2,223 0.30 88.3 20 Window/Skylight: NSFW Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $275 $33,689 0.16 122.3 21 Window/Skylight: SFW Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $143 $20,930 0.13 146.8 22 Exterior Door: Solid Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $7 $1,779 0.10 257.2 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 6 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 23 Lighting: Boiler Room Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighLight HighEfficElectronic $3 $1,800 0.02 578.9 TOTAL $27,349 $250,515 1.95 9.2 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 4 Below‐ (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawl Space Wall Wall Type: Masonry Insul. Sheathing: EPS (Beadboard), 1 inches Masonry Wall: 8" Poured Concrete Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R‐Value: 6.1 Install R‐21batt insulation on basement wall $8,133 $1,548 5 On‐ or Below‐ Grade Floor, Perimeter: Hallway Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R‐Value: 8.8 Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $475 $77 6 On‐ or Below‐ Grade Floor, Perimeter: Southern Offices Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R‐Value: 8.8 Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $2,480 $401 7 On‐ or Below‐ Grade Floor, Perimeter: Northern Offices Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R‐Value: 8.8 Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $4,242 $683 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 7 APPENDIX B 17 Cathedral Ceiling: Roof Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: Fiberglass/Loose fill, 4 inches Top Insulation Layer: EPS (Beadboard), 4 inches Insulation Quality: Very Damaged Modeled R‐Value: 18 Install R‐14 rigid board insulation. No cost included for covering insulation. $43,005 $1,422 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 18 Exterior Door: Half Windowed Door Type: Metal ‐ EPS insulation; half‐lite Modeled R‐Value: 3 Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,779 $28 19 Exterior Door: Quarter Windowed Door Type: Metal ‐ EPS insulation; quarter lit Modeled R‐Value: 3.6 Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $2,223 $25 22 Exterior Door: Solid Door Type: Metal; EPS insulation Modeled R‐Value: 5 Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,779 $7 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 20 Window/Skylight: NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $33,689 $275 21 Window/Skylight: SFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $20,930 $143 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 8 APPENDIX B Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 16 Air Tightness estimated as: 1.00 cfm/ft2 of above‐grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $3,200 $334 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 8 Replace old boilers with modern efficient oil‐fired boilers with similar input ratings. 85 AFUE recommended. Assumes $20,000 per boiler. Upgrade RTUs to more efficient models. Assumes $20,000 per unit, SEER of 14. $80,000 $13,185 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Northern Offices Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Northern Offices space. $2,000 $1,287 9 Southern Offices Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Southern Offices space. $2,000 $337 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Assembly Chamber 13 INCAN A Lamp, Std 100W with Manual Switching Replace with 13 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W $650 $767 3 Assembly Chamber 10 INCAN A Lamp, Std 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 10 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $500 $332 10 Half of Lower Offices 60 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 60 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $14,850 $2,565 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Kodiak Island Borough Admin Bldg Page 9 APPENDIX B 11 North Wing Upper Offices & half of Lower Offices 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 180 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $15,750 $2,440 12 Boiler Room 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $180 $27 13 Hallway Lights 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $7,050 $1,012 14 Assembly Chamber 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 32W U‐ Tube Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U‐Tube Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,860 $235 15 Conference Room 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver (2) Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,940 $217 23 Boiler Room 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant HighLight HighEfficElectronic $1,800 $3 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYKIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CLEAVER BROOKS CBH186-50A OIL/SHELL-IN-TUBE 2092MBH 75% - 24 0B-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT CLEAVER BROOKS CBH186-50A OIL/SHELL-IN-TUBE 2092MBH 75%-240HX-1 FAN ROOMDHW--SHELL&TUBE---200HX-2 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT--SHELL&TUBE---200CP-1 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPC 50-160 INLINE PUMP19GPM-.25HP 100CP-2 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMS 50-80 INLINE PUMP 23.9GPM-.3HP100CP-3 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMC 50-40 INLINE PUMP7.5GPM-0.08HP 100CP-4 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMC 50-80 INLINE PUMP8.9GPM-.3HP100CP-5 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS-INLINE PUMP56GPM-.25HP 100CP-6 FAN ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UMS 50-40 INLINE PUMP34GPM-.17HP 100CP-7 FAN ROOMDHW PUMPGRUNDFOS UPS 25-42F INLINE PUMP20GPM-.17HP 100CP-8 FAN ROOMDHW PUMPGRUNDFOS UP 15-42SF INLINE PUMP5GPM-0.083100CP-9 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS-INLINE PUMP 54.7GPM-.5HP100CP-10 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS TR80-80/4 INLINE PUMP 105.5GPM-.75HP 100CP-11BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS-INLINE PUMP 22.7GPM-.08HP 100AHE-1 BOILER ROOM AIR HANDLINGPACE-HORIZONTAL 1145CFM NEMA .33HP 200AH-1 FAN ROOM AIR HANDLINGUS ELECTRICAL MOTORS184TTYPE UT TE HORIZONTAL 8620 CFM NEMA 5HP200AH-2 FAN ROOM AIR HANDLING CENTURYPART 6-311455-01 HORIZONTAL 5820CFM NEMA 1.5HP 200EF-1ROOFEXHAUST LOREN COOK 24UCUPBLAST1620CFM NEMA .5HP200EF-2ROOFEXHAUST-UPBLAST EST. 250CFM NEMA EST. .08HP 200EF-3ROOFEXHAUSTJENN-AIR 142 BCRUPBLAST EST. 300CFM NEMA EST. .125HP 200RTU-1 ROOFCOOLINGYORK DC3E036A25C UPBLAST2500CFM 8.5 SEER 1HP200RTU-2 ROOFCOOLINGTRANE-UPBLAST2500CFM 8.5 SEER 1HP200UH-1 HALLWAY BUILDING HEAT RENZOR-HORIZONTAL 300CFM-.25HP 200UH-2 HALLWAY BUILDING HEAT RENZOR-HORIZONTAL 300CFM-.25HP 200N/A BOILER ROOM AIR COMPRESSION A.O. SMITH 2-182711-20 RECIPROCATING--7HP1510MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Windows typical of northern portion of the building. 2. Windows typical of southern portion of the building. 3. Example of window thickness. 4. Boiler/Generator fuel supply tank. 5. Boilers and generator exhaust (center). 6. Back-up generator. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 7. Boiler #1 8. Boiler #2 9. Worn circulation pump. 10. Circulation pump typical of building 11. York roof top unit 12. Generator exhaust outlet CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY KIB ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Roof mounted exhaust fan typical of building. 14. Southern offices roof overview. 15. Roof overview featuring boiler stacks. 16. Example of summer re-roofing project insulation. 17. Quarter-windowed doors. 18. Air handling unit typical of building.