The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutInvestment Grade Energy Audit Alaska Technical Center Dorm 05-12-2012-EE Con Audit pe Energy Au P.O. Bo Anchorag ntact: Jim Fow Jim@jim 206.9 Rich Investm Alask Owner: Th Client rformed by: udits of Alaska ox 220215 ge, AK 98522 wler, PE, CEA m-fowler.com 954.3614 hard S. Ar Mechanical/ ment G ka Technic he Northwest t: Alaska Ho Ma Project # NA a A#1705 rmstrong, /Electrical Eng rade En cal Cente t Arctic Borou using Finance ay 22, 2012 ABSD-OTZ-R Co , PE, LLC gineer nergy A r Dormito gh School Di e Corporation RSA-01 Pr Richard S 2321 M Anch ontact: Dick A darms 9 C Audit ry strict n ime Contracto S. Armstrong, Merrill Field Dr horage, AK 99 Armstrong, PE CEA #178 strong@rsa-a 907.276.0521 or: , PE, LLC rive, C-6 9501 E, CEM #1355 k.com 1 57, ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 2 of 53 Project # NABSD-OTZ-RSA-01 Prepared for: The Northwest Arctic Borough School District May 22, 2012 Subject Building: The Alaska Technical Center Dormitory 843 Fourth Street Kotzebue, AK 99752 ____________________________________________________________ Audit performed by: _______________________________ James Fowler, PE, CEA #1705 Prime Contractor: _______________________________ Richard S. Armstrong, PE, CEM, CEA ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 3 of 53 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Audit and Analysis Background 13 3. Acknowledgements 15 4. Building Description & Function 16 5. Historic Energy Consumption 18 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 18 7. Loan Program 18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Photos 20 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 25 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 30 Appendix D: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 34 Appendix E: Specifications supporting EEM’s 40 Appendix F: Benchmark Data 46 Appendix G: Building Plans & Schematics 50 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 4 of 53 REPORT DISCLAIMERS This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). 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. Energy Audits of Alaska, LLC and Central Alaska Engineering Company bear 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 audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC. IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system. 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. ENERGY May 2 1. E B B G T o e im a A th T (A a a A T m in (H m AUDITS OF 22, 2012 Executive S uilding Owne Northw Scho 744 Ea Kotzeb uilding contac Chery 907-44 ceden Guidance to The Executi wner/opera fficiency c mprovemen nd their es Appendices he owner/op This audit w ARRA) fund nd environ udit and t Assessment The purpose modification nvestigated HVAC), int managemen ALASKA Summary er: west Arctic Bo ool District ast Third bue, AK 9975 ct: Edenshaw 42-3733 shaw@nwarc o the reade ive Summa ator should compares nts should timated an , are back- perator, or was perfor ds to promo mental pro this report t Loans (RE e of the en s, adjustm during the erior and e nt control sy orough 52 ctic.org er: ary is desig d need to with oth be impleme nual saving -up and pr their staff, d rmed using ote the use blems in a are pre-re EAL) progra nergy audit ments, alte e audit incl exterior lig ystems (EM gned to con determine her similar ented, app gs. Section rovide muc desire to in g American e of innovat way that im equisites t am, which i is to ident erations, a uded heati hting, moto MCS). Alaska Ho P.O. Box Anchorag Contact: Energy Sp 907-330-8 rluhrs@ah ntain all the how the s r use bu proximately ns 2 throug ch more de nvestigate fu n Recovery tion and te mproves th to access s available tify cost-effe additions a ing, ventila ors, buildin A ousing Financ 10120 ge, AK 99510- Rebekah Luh pecialist 8141 hfc.us e informatio subject bui uildings, w how much gh 7 of this etailed infor urther. y and Rei echnology to he State’s e AHFC’s R to the build ective syste and retrofi tion, and a ng envelop ATC DORMIT Page 5 of 5 ce Corporatio -1020 hrs on the build ilding’s ene which ene h they will c report and rmation sho nvestment o solve ene economy. Retrofit Ene ding’s owne em and fac ts. Syste air condition e, and ene TORY 53 on ding ergy ergy cost d the ould act ergy The ergy er. cility ems ning ergy ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 6 of 53 The site visit to this building occurred on April 26th, 2012. The outside ambient temperature was 39F and the relative humidity was 30%. The Alaska Technology Center (ATC) is a residential educational facility. The ATC dormitory is adjacent to the school, houses up to 40 students during the school year, has several meeting rooms and offices. It was built in 1986 and no major modifications appear to have been made. There are usually 15-20 students and a resident advisor in the facility’s 22 dorm rooms and 2 efficiency apartments. Energy Consumption and benchmark data This building utilizes fuel oil for heating and electricity generated by the village power plant. Fuel oil and electrical benchmark data was provided by Northwest Arctic Borough School District (NABSD) administrative personnel in Kotzebue. Electrical data was consistent and reasonable, as meters are accurate and readings are taken consistently. Several factors combine to make this fuel oil data inconsistent and/or anomalous: 1.) There are 2 school related fuel tanks 2.) Only fuel tank level readings are taken for each tank, not actual consumption 3.) Fuel may be moved between tanks and not recorded 4.) Additions to the 2 school tanks are not recorded These factors make it difficult to determine fuel consumption for the school building. It is strongly recommended to install cumulative flow meters on the outlet of each tank to directly measure consumption by the boilers. (See Appendix D-5) Given the current lack of direct measurements, best efforts were made to use available data and create reasonable monthly consumption figures. Calculations, assumptions and results are shown in Appendix F. Summarized values for 12 months of electrical and fuel oil consumption are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1 – Subject Building 12 month period from April 2011‐March 2012 Consumption Cost Electricity ‐ kWh 72,749 $29,675 Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 5,867 $33,880 Totals $63,555 A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 7 of 53 0 50 100 150 200 250 Buckland School Gambell School ATC Dormitory Fuel Oil EUI Electrical EUI in the area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in terms of kBTU/square foot (SF). This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar- use buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of building area. There no direct comparison, similar use buildings in the region that have been audited; so the Gambell and Buckland Schools were chosen as comparison buildings. The auditor also performed the energy audits on these buildings. The benchmark data for the comparison schools was from 2009 and 2010 and is averaged in Table 2. Table 2 – 2009 & 2010 Average EUI and ECI Subject Building Gambell School Buckland School Continental US Average for Places of Lodging** Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 90 133 223 97‐109 Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $5.61 $6.22 $10.11 ‐ ** Data retrieved from the US Energy Administration database, these figures are for “Places of Education”, the most relevant category tracked by the USEA. Evaluation of energy consumption & benchmark data Table 2 shows that the subject building’s EUI and ECI is substantially lower than the two comparison buildings. This despite the fact that places of lodging typically have a 10% higher EUI than places of education in the continental US. A deeper investigation into the energy consumption of these three buildings follows: Chart 1 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 8 of 53 Chart 1 above shows the subject building’s gas and electrical EUI compared to the two other buildings. Fuel Oil consumption: All three of the buildings are heavily occupied during the school year. The ATC dorm is closed during the summer while the two schools’ gymnasiums are used through the summer. This factor plus their full size commercial kitchen’s explain some of their higher EUI. The Buckland School’s fuel oil EUI is excessively high (see the Buckland Audit report for detail) and because of this, is considered by the auditor to be an outlier for comparison purposes. Gambell’s higher fuel EUI is explained by the two previously mentioned factors. Electrical consumption: Based on Chart 1, the subject building’s electrical consumption falls right in line with the other two buildings, and appears to be not otherwise noteworthy. Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to determine if they would provide energy savings with reasonably good payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a reasonably good payback period 2.) for code compliance 3.) end of life (EOL) replacement 4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management strategy, operations, maintenance and/or safety All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C Energy Audit Report in Appendix B and in Appendix D. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. The summary EEM’s that follow are the only EEM’s that are recommended for this building. Others have been considered (See Appendix D-3) but are not considered to be justified or cost effective. The recommended EEM’s were selected based on consideration from three perspectives: overall efficiency of building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on investment (ROI). Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 9 of 53 their individual lighting or controls upgrade. Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a single upgrade, etc.). They are prioritized as a group, with the highest ROI (shortest payback) listed first. Maintenance savings are included in the “estimated savings” figures below. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes these EEM’s and Appendix B and Appendix D provide additional detail pertaining to each individual recommendation. A.) REFRIGERATION There are 3 residential type refrigerators in the building school that appear to be greater than 10 years old. At their EOL, they should be replaced with Energy Star versions. See Appendix B-5 for additional detail. Combined refrigeration EEM’s: Estimated cost (incremental difference for the refrigerators) $ 225 Annual Savings $ 230 Payback 1 year B.) HVAC SYSTEM & MOTOR REPLACEMENT Air Handler motor replacement with premium efficiency: The 3 HP motor in SF-1 has a NEMA rated efficiency of 76.9%. Today’s premium efficiency motors are rated at 89.5%. It is recommended to replace this motor now, with a premium efficiency version. Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s): It is further recommended to add a VFD to the new 3 HP fan motor. See Appendix B-7 and D-4 for additional detail on costs and savings. Combined Motor replacement & VFD EEM: Estimated cost $ 4,595 Annual savings $ 1,273 Payback 3.6 years ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 10 of 53 C.) SETBACK THERMOSTATS All building thermostats are either low voltage adjustable or low voltage sensors. It is recommended to replace all thermostats in the common areas with 7-day digital programmable thermostats and all thermostats in the dorm rooms and apartments with occupancy sensor thermostats (see Appendix E). It is further recommended to program the thermostats for setback temperatures of 55F during night time and unoccupied hours.. Appendices B-3 and B-8 provide detail for this EEM. Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 8,800 Annual Savings $ 2,022 Payback 4.3 years D.) DESKTOP COMPUTERS & DESK PLUG LOADS Desktop PC’s with a CRT monitor consume between 300 and 500 watts when in use. Laptops consume between 50 and 100 watts when in use. It is recommended to replace the desktop PC in the facility with a laptop; it also appears to be past its EOL. See Appendix B-10. Certain desk-related plug loads such as task lighting, printers, computer monitors, etc. can be turned off automatically by using a plug strip with an integrated occupancy sensor. When you leave your desk area, this equipment will be turned off while a computer, for example, can be left on. See Appendix E for an example of such a device. Estimated cost for these devices is $125 ea, estimated savings is very difficult to calculate, but anecdotal evidence shows up to a 50% savings of desk-related plug electrical consumption. The costs and savings are not included below, or in Appendix B. Personal Computer EEM: Estimated cost for a new laptop $ 600 Annual savings $ 134 Payback 4.5 years ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 11 of 53 E.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS The lighting in this building is still in its 1986 original configuration, i.e. T12 fixtures with a mix of magnetic and electronic ballasts. Two factors contribute to the long (9.3 year) payback period of the recommended lighting retrofit. First, replacing T12 fixtures with T8 fixtures is expensive; a $700/fixture cost estimate was used, and second, the staff is very conscientious and diligent about turning lights off when rooms are not in use, so energy usage could be much higher for the existing lighting, and the payback on more efficient lighting is longer. It is recommended to replace all the T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts with T8 fixtures with high efficiency electronic ballasts and 28 watt energy saver lamps. It is also recommended to add occupancy sensors to all rooms (except dorm rooms & apartments) and replace all exit signs with LED versions. It is further recommended to replace all exterior High Pressure Sodium (HPS) and Metal Halide (MH) fixtures and lamps with LED fixtures. This EEM summarizes Appendix B-1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and B-11 through 20. See Appendix E for more information on occupancy sensors and energy saver 28 watt lamps. Combined Lighting Control EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 78,680 Annual Savings $ 8,425 Payback 9.3 years A summary of the estimated cost totals and estimated annual savings totals of the five (A. through E.) summary EEM’s listed above, is found in Table 3 below, and again at the end of Appendix B. Table 3 Combined total of recommended EEM’s summarized above: Estimated total cost $ 92,900 Annual Savings (including maintenance savings) $ 12,084 Simple payback 7.7 years Does not include design or construction management costs ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 12 of 53 In addition to EEM’s, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECM’s) are recommended. ECM’s are policies or procedures to be followed by management and employees that require no capital outlay. ECMs recommended for this facility include: 1. Turn lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an occupancy sensor. 2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly maintained and adjusted to close and function properly. 3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office. See sample plug load management device in Appendix E. 4. Re-configure building occupants and activities (in the case of the Rec Center) to group un-occupied offices (i.e. no tenant or staff using the space) or little used spaces, into the same HVAC zone so that zone’s energy consumption can be set back to minimal levels. 5. A building is a living mini-ecosystem and its use changes. Re- evaluate building usage annually and confirm that building set points, zones, lighting levels, etc. are optimized for the current usage and occupancy. 6. Lamp replacement should be a scheduled, preventative maintenance activity. Re-lamp the entire building or entire usage zones (a zone of the building that has similar lighting usage, so lamps have roughly the same lifetime) as part of a scheduled preventative maintenance routine. This assures all lamps are the same color temperature (e.g. 2700K, 3000K, etc.) which enhances occupant comfort and working efficiency. It also minimizes expense because it is more cost effective to order large quantities of the same lamp, and more labor efficient to dedicate maintenance staff to a single re-lamp activity in a building zone, rather than replace individual lamps as they fail. 7. Replace HVAC filters regularly. Maintain optimal operation of all dampers, actuators, valves and other HVAC components. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 13 of 53 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, hot water generation and HVAC equipment. The auditor may or may not identify system deficiencies if they exist. The auditor’s role is to identify areas of potential savings, many of which may require more detailed investigation and analysis by other qualified professionals. a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building condition, including: i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc) ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning iii. Lighting systems and controls iv. Building specific equipment v. Plumbing Systems b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming that meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate or missing, new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software program developed specifically for AHFC to identify forecasted energy consumption. The forecasts can then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information. Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level of audit, and are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Brown Electric, Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales, Pioneer Door, ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 14 of 53 and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted for some of the lighting, boiler, overhead door and air handling retrofit and/or replacement costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM. The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and ROI is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR found in the AkWarm-C report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as the annual savings multiplied by the lifetime of the improvement, divided by the initial installed cost. SIR’s greater than 1.0 indicate a positive lifetime ROI. The life-time for each EEM is entered into AkWarm-C; it is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and may only act as an approximation. Most input data such as building and equipment usage, occupancy hours and numbers, building and HVAC operating hours, etc. was provided to the auditor by on site personnel. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not a design document. A design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 15 of 53 3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including: a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP). b. The Northwest Arctic Borough School District (Owner): The NABSD provided building sizing information, two years fuel oil usage data, building schedules and functions, as well as building age. c. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP who was awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Bering Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm gathered all relevant benchmark information, cataloged which buildings would have the greatest potential payback, and with the building owner, prioritized buildings to be audited based on numerous factors, including the Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost Index (ECI), the age of the building, the size of the building, the location of the building, the function of the building, and the availability of plans for the building. They also trained and assigned their selected sub-contractors to the selected buildings, and performed quality control reviews of the resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs that each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure current knowledge of existing conditions. d. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also received additional training from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM applications. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 16 of 53 4. Building Description and Function: The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on April 26th, 2012. This 11,325 square foot, two story building has a 6,821 square feet on its first floor and 4,504 square feet on its second floor. There are 22 dorm rooms and 2 efficiency apartments. The building was constructed in 1986, on pilings, using glue lam beams and 18” wood trusses to support the floor, with a calculated (by AkWarm-C) insulation value of R-40. The second floor is supported by 24” wood trusses, the roof is supported by wood trusses as well. The roof insulation value is R-44.3. Walls are constructed of 2 x 6 wood studs with nominal R-30 blanket insulation and finished on the exterior with T-111 plywood siding and decorative metal siding band. Interior walls are finished with gypsum. The windows are double pane, aluminum frame and in good condition with the exception of the NW windows in the recreation room. The plans available for this building are barely legible and incomplete, so some reasonable assumptions were made during the AkWarm-C data entry. Overall, the building is in average condition, considering its age. Building details are as follows: a. Heating, Cooling, Ventilation and Controls: Heat is provided by (2) oil fired, Weil McLain, cast iron boilers lacking nameplates; additionally, there is no information in the building plans. They appear to be approximately the same size as Weil McLain 576’s which have a 336 MBH output and 87% efficiency. Circulation pumps supply heat to finned tube baseboard radiators, unit and cabinet unit heaters and air handler (AHU) coil. Fluid valves on all radiant heaters and in the AHU are controlled by local zone, low voltage thermostats. There does not appear to be any heat recovery from exhaust air in this building and there is no cooling. The HVAC system has pneumatic controls and actuators and in addition to the low voltage thermostats, and the AHU is controlled by a time clock. b. Appliances: There are (3) residential type refrigerators, (2) small electric stove/oven combination units, (5) commercial clothes washers and electric dryers, (2) dishwashers and (3) microwaves in this building. There is one desktop PC with a CRT monitor. c. Plumbing Fixtures: This building contains a total of (14) toilets, (2) urinals, (14) lavatory sinks, (15) showers and (4) bathtubs, all with manual valves. The toilets consume 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf), the urinals 1.0 gpf. See Appendix D-1 for EEM recommendations. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 17 of 53 d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water for sinks, showers and the kitchenette’s is provided by (2) indirect, 80 gallon hot water generators located in the boiler room. e. Interior Lighting & Controls: The lighting in this building has not been upgraded. Room, corridor and office lighting generally consists of T12-40W fixtures with magnetic ballasts. There are no occupancy sensors used in the building. Appendix B details the recommendation of a full lighting upgrade. See Appendix E for additional information on occupancy sensors. All exit signs in the building are either florescent or unlit, self-luminous. f. Exterior Lighting: There are (8) HPS or MH fixtures on the exterior of this building, controlled by photo sensors. g. Building Shell: The building shell is described earlier; it is in need of cosmetic maintenance and paint. h. Motors: There is only one motor of 3 HP or greater in this building. It is the fan motor in the AHU, tagged “SF-1”. This motor is listed in Appendix C and was recommended for replacement with a premium efficiency motor (Appendix D-4) as well as a retrofit with VFD’s. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 18 of 53 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes twelve months of data. Normally, two year’s worth of fuel oil and electricity consumption are averaged then input into AKWarm-C. As previously explained, 12 months of data were used for this building. This monthly data is found in Appendix F. Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The energy cost index takes the annual costs of fuel oil and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time, divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $5.61/SF, the ECI for the two comparison buildings, the Gambell School and the Buckland School, are $6.22 and $10.11 respectively. The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and heating energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTU/SF. The EUI for this building is 90 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010 EUI for the Gambell School is 133 kBTU/SF and 223 kBTU/SF for the Buckland School. The average for “Places of Lodging” buildings across the US is 97-109 kBTU/SF as logged by the US Energy Information Administration. This source data can be viewed at: www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbecs_tables_list.htm. 6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented in the order shown in Appendix B. Appendix D-1, D-4 and D-5 are not included in the AkWarm-C model. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. By modeling the recommended projects sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects between the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties resulting from reductions in building electrical consumption are included in the lighting analysis that is performed by AkWarm-C. 7. Loan Program: 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 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 19 of 53 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 of municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are not eligible for loans under this program. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 20 of 53 Appendix A - Photos Building main entrance Superficial maintenance required ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 21 of 53 Main building entry Typical Dorm room ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 22 of 53 Boiler B-1 without nameplate data Recreation room – was considered for light sensing dimmers ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 23 of 53 Laundry room ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 24 of 53 Aerial View of Kotzebue ATC dormitory The ATC building NORTH Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Page 25 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/22/2012 6:18 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska Address: 843 Fourth Street Auditor Name: James Fowler City: Kotzebue Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Name: Chery Edenshaw (Director) & Ted Reynolds Client Address: 843 Fourth Ave Kotzebue, AK 99752 Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 442‐3733 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 11,325 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 287,844 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 302,993 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 461,880 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 30 people Design Indoor Temperature: 68 deg F (building average) Actual City: Kotzebue Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐37 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Kotzebue Heating Degree Days: 16,032 deg F‐days Utility Information Electric Utility: Kotzebue Electric Assn ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.450/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electric al Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $32,414 $0 $9,653 $13,528 $863 $3,085 $0 $56 $5,523 $1,702 $66,824 With Proposed Retrofits $33,600 $0 $9,604 $3,413 $542 $2,749 $0 $55 $4,174 $1,702 $55,840 SAVINGS ‐$1,186* $0 $50 $10,115 $321 $336 $0 $0 $1,349 $0 $10,984 *negative savings indicated a higher consumption for space heating; this is a result of reducing the significant heat produced by the old T12 fixtures and ballasts; this reduction adds heat load for the boilers. Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Page 26 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Page 27 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Exterior: MH‐100 Replace with 6 LED 34W Module StdElectronic $802 + $60 Maint. Savings $450 22.52 0.6 2 Lighting: Exterior: HPS‐100 *** Replace with 2 LED 34W Module StdElectronic $267 + $20 Maint. Savings $150 22.52 0.6 3 Setback Thermostat: Office & common areas Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Office & common areas space. $1,282 $1,600 10.87 1.2 4 Lighting: Apts: Incandescant, OS not needed Replace with 44 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 11W $1,882 $880 9.64 0.5 5 Refrigeration: Residential refrigerators At EOL, replace with 3 Energy Star versions $230 $225 8.25 1 6 Lighting: Apts: Incandescent, OS added to circuit under previous EEM Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $628 $800 4.71 1.3 7 SF‐1 air handler Add VFD to fan motor, Yaskawa software predicts 66% reduction in consumption; this EEM assumes motor has already been replaced with premium efficiency version per Appendix D‐4. $1,154 $3,895 4.19 3.4 8 Setback Thermostat: Apartments Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Apartments space. $740 $7,200 1.39 9.7 9 Lighting: Apts: T12‐ 1lamp, add OS Replace with 13 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $462 + $130 Maint. Savings $3,800 1.16 8.2 10 Other Electrical: PC with CRT Replace with Laptop and plug load management device (see Appendix E) $134 $600 1.00 4.5 11 Lighting: Apts: T12‐ 2lamp, OS added to circuit under previous EEM Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $134 + $30 Maint. Savings $2,100 0.64 15.6 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Page 28 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: Apts: T12‐ 2lamp, add OS Replace with 22 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,359 + $220 Maint. Savings $19,800 0.59 14.6 13 Lighting: Rec Room/Offices: T12‐2, add OS Replace with 42 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,492 + $420 Maint. Savings $32,450 0.48 21.8 14 Lighting: Rec Room/Offices: T12‐ 4lamp, add OS Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver (2) Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $38 + $10 Maint. Savings $900 0.40 23.7 15 Lighting: Laundry: T12‐2lamp, add OS Replace with 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $82 + $40 Maint. Savings $3,000 0.33 36.6 16 Lighting: Rec Room/Offices: T12‐ 2lamp, U‐type, add OS Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 F32T8 30W U‐Tube Energy‐ Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $29 + $10 Maint. Savings $900 0.32 31.4 17 Lighting: Apts: T12‐ 1lamp, 36", add OS Replace with FLUOR T8 3' energy saver and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $17 + $10 Maint. Savings $900 0.22 54.1 18 Lighting: Rec Room/Offices: T12‐ 1lamp, OS added to circuit under previous EEM Replace with FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Program HighEfficElectronic $9 + $10 Maint. Savings $700 0.22 80.9 19 Lighting: Storage: T12‐2lamp, add OS ** Replace with 13 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $120 + $130 Maint. Savings $11,150 0.17 93.3 20 Lighting: Apts: T12‐ 1lamp, 24", OS added to circuit under previous EEM Replace with FLUOR T8 2' Energy‐Saver Instant HighEfficElectronic $4 + $10 Maint. Savings $700 0.17 173.8 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Alaska Technical Center Dormitory Page 29 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) THE FOLLOWING EEM’S WERE CALCULATED OUTSIDE OF AkWARM-C. Savings will affect and be affected by the EEM’s listed above, depending on their order of implementation. Appe ndix D‐1 Plumbing Fixtures: (14) W.C., (14) lavatories, (2) urinals, (15) showers and (4) bathtubs Replace urinal valves with proximity sensing on/off controls, replace urinals with ultra‐low flow and proximity sensing controls; retrofit toilet valves with 2‐stage valves; retrofit lavatory faucets with proximity sensing valves Appe ndix D‐4 Motor replacements Replace (1) motor with premium efficiency motor now; see Table 5 Appendix D‐4 for details. $120 $700 3.4 5.8 Appe ndix D‐5 Fuel metering and energy sub‐metering Add cumulative fuel oil flow meters and BTU meter $1000/flow meter (not included in total below) TOTAL $10,984 + $1,100 Maint. Savings $92,900 1.18 8.5 Sample translations of the nomenclature used above: ** (item 19) Replace the existing T12, 2-lamp fixtures with (13) florescent, 2-lamp T8 fixtures with 28watt “energy saver” lamps and high efficiency electronic ballasts. Replace the manual switches with the appropriate number and type of occupancy sensors. Occupancy sensors cost from $200 -$300 ea. installed. *** (item 2) Replace existing (2) exterior HPS 100watt bulbs with (2) 34 watt LED bulbs. This EEM assumes that the HPS-100 watt bulbs have standard E26, screw-in bases, which means they can be replaced with an commercial grade LED bulb. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.2, Energy Lib 5/18/2012 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 30 of 53 Appendix C – Equipment Schedules ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS OR ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION, WHERE ACCESSIBLE e= estimated AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS SF‐1 Trane H3A2R01ROCJ 4,696 3/200/3; 76.9% HOA switch on "hand" EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS EF‐1 (2 units) Aubrey kitchen range hood ‐ apartment e200 25W/115/1 EF‐2 no nameplate 2732 1.5/208/3 interlocked to SF‐1 EF‐3 Trane UI5N10‐FC e2732 e1.5/208/3 HOA switch on "hand"; interlocked to SF‐1 BOILER SCHEDULE SYMBOL MOTOR MFGR/MODEL MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS B‐1 Weil McLain .5/115/1 No nameplate, no plans: oil fired, size appears to be BL‐576, 336 MBH input, 292.2 MBH output, 87% efficient; on Tekmar 262 controller B‐2 Weil McLain .5/115/1 No nameplate, no plans: oil fired, size appears to be BL‐576, 336 MBH input, 292.2 MBH output, 87% efficient; on Tekmar 262 controller PUMP SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GPM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS CP‐1 Grundfos UPS 40‐160 27 890W/115/1 Secondary Pump 1 CP‐2 Grundfos UPS 40‐160 27 890W/115/1 Secondary Pump 2 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 31 of 53 CP‐3 Grundfos UPC 50‐160 e50 1050W/115/1 Primary loop pump 1 CP‐4 Grundfos UPC 50‐160 e50 1050W/115/1 Primary loop pump 2 ‐ alternate (HOA switch "off") CP‐5 Grundfos UMC 50‐80 18 520W/115/1 Primary loop pump 3 (used during winter months) CP‐6 Grundfos UP 43‐75 e5 215W/115/1 DHW circ CP‐7 Grundfos UP 15‐42 e3 85W/115/1 DHW circ UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS UH‐1 Trane UHSA 038 815 .05/115/1 located in boiler room UH‐2 Trane UHSA 038 815 .05/115/1 CUH‐1 No nameplate,, no plans Vestibule CUH‐2 No nameplate,, no plans Arctic Entry HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS NUMBER OF ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE HWG‐1 Amtrol WH‐10CDW 80 n/a HWG‐2 Amtrol WH‐10CDW 80 n/a PLUMBING FIXTURES SYMBOL FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS W.C. 3.5 13/1 manually operated (1 out of order) Urinal 1.0 2 manually operated Lavatory ‐ 13/1 manually operated (1 not in use) Bathtub ‐ 3/1 manually operated (1 not in use) Shower 2.6 14/1 manually operated (1 not in use) Utility Sink ‐ 2 manually operated ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 32 of 53 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS Clothes Washing Machine, Whirlpool CAM2742TQ0 5/1 405 KWh/yr 1 broken and 1 new but not in use Clothes Dryer 5 electric Gast compressor .17/115/1 fire sprinkler compressor Devilbiss HVAC controls compressor, Baldor motor 2 1.5/208/3; 78% PLUG LOAD SUMMARY SYMBOL FIXTURE QUANTITY MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS Coffee Machine 1 450w Toaster 2 Large TV 2 450w Personal TV 1 Radio 1 Microwave 2 Commercial Coffee 1 Popcorn Maker 1 Sound System 1 LIGHTING SCHEDULE FIXTURE TYPE DESCRIPTION LAMPS MOUNTING NUMBER WATTS TYPE HEIGHT Wall pack Metal Halide ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 150 surface 12' Pole Light Pole mounted, HPS, Exterior 1 100 Pole 20' T12‐1 Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling T12‐1 X 24" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling T12‐1 X 36" Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling T12‐2 Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling T12‐2 U‐Type U‐type Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 recess ceiling T12‐4 Florescent T12, mangentic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling Incandescent Mounted on wall or ceiling (night‐light) 1 60 surface Wall @ 5' Incandescent floor, table and desk lamps 1 60 surface 4' ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 33 of 53 LARGE MOTOR SCHEDULE Motor use & location (3 HP or larger) HP/Volts/Ph Existing Efficiency Premium Efficiency Estimated annual usage (hrs) Annual Savings Burn‐out payback (yrs/cost) Replacement payback (yrs/cost) SF‐1 3/208/3 76.9% 89.5% 3276 $ 119.59 .8/$100 5.9/$700 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 34 of 53 Appendix D Additional, Building-Specific EEM details Appendix D-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals should be replaced, or their valves retrofitted with ultra low flow models. The lavatory faucets and urinals should be retrofitted with proximity sensing on/off controls. All toilets in this building are 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) with manual valves, they should be replaced with 1.6 gpf models with dual flush valves (see below). This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of it, but a typical ultra low flow urinal (1 pint to ½ gallon per flush) can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pays back within 3 years, depending on usage. Dual flush toilet valves will typically pay back within 1-3 years, depending on usage. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture or valve is replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. For an EOL replacement, the cost used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a straight across replacement with the same fixture. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 35 of 53 Appendix D-2: Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) If outfitted with a VFD and a programmable input device (PID) which responds to a process parameter such as duct pressure, CO2 levels, or temperature for an AHU or suction or discharge pressure on a pump, a motor has the capability to only produce enough power to meet the demand. There is tremendous savings potential resulting from the relationship between motor load required and resulting fluid or air flow (Affinity Laws). As an example, if 100% of the air flow requires 100% motor’s horsepower, the Affinity laws state that 70% of air (or fluid) flow requires only 34% of the horsepower. By necessity, fan motors and pumps have to be sized for the worst case load scenario, but under normal operating conditions (80-90% of the time), need only be operating at 30%-70% of their full load. VFD’s are recommended for larger, 3-phase motors that are under varying load and duty cycles, such as air handlers, glycol circulation pumps and reciprocating compressor motors. The fan motor in SF-1 in this building is recommended to be retro-fitted with VFD’s. These motor loads and consumption were evaluated using software called, “Energy Predictor”, provided by Yaskawa, a manufacturer of VFD’s; excerpts from the detailed software reports are found below. A 64% reduction in electrical consumption is predicted by the Yaskawa software for this fan and motor; these figure were input into AkWarm-C as a reduction in power consumption in the ventilation section for the fan motor; the resulting savings are included in Appendix B-7. Note that the percentage reduction in consumption predicted by the Yaskawa software was used in AkWarm-C, rather than the actual KWh energy reduction found in the Yaskawa reports. Overstated savings: It is important to note that if other EEM’s are also incorporated, these savings will be over- stated because they are based solely on the reduction in electrical consumption resulting from the motor speed reduction. When a fan or compressor motor speed is reduced, GPM or CFM is also reduced, so the motor will have to operate at slightly higher load and speed to maintain building parameters, which will erode a small percentage of the electrical savings. Neither the Yaskawa software or the AkWarm-C software has the capability to calculate this iterative condition. The detailed Yaskawa reports follow: ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 36 of 53 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 37 of 53 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 38 of 53 Appendix D-3: Additional EEM’S considered but not recommended Daylight Sensing Light Dimming: Also called “daylight harvesting”, uses sensors to determine the amount of day lighting in a room and dims the room lighting as much as possible while still maintaining pre-determined room light levels. The recreation room in this building has sufficient windows to consider daylight harvesting but upon a brief analysis, the estimated costs to implement this system outweighs the benefits since the building is not in use during 3 of the 6 months when daylight is sufficient. Headbolt heater controls: The 7 duplex headbolt heater outlets on the exterior of the building do not appear to be in use. Replacement of aluminum frame windows with plastic, insulated frame windows: Fiberglass or vinyl, insulated frame, double pane windows with a low-e glass coating have an R- value of R-3.4. The existing windows in this building, which are in very good condition, have an R-value of R-1.2. When these windows reach their EOL, they should be replaced with Fiberglass or vinyl, insulated frame, triple pane, low-e coated glass windows, Estimated (calculated by AkWarm-C) cost to replace all the windows in this building now is $105,479 and the estimated annual savings is $4,886. The long 22 year payback is the reason it is not recommended until EOL of the current windows. The incremental cost difference to replace the windows at their EOL with high efficiency versions has an approximate payback of less than 10 years. Appendix D-4: Motor replacements with premium efficiency versions At the $.45 per KWH cost of electricity in Kotzebue, it is cost effective to replace all standard efficiency motors, 3HP or larger, with premium efficiency motors. Depending on the number of annual operating hours, replacement may be justified immediately, or at EOL. See Table 5 below for a complete listing of large motors and their recommended replacement times. Table 4 LARGE MOTOR SCHEDULE Motor use & location (3 HP or larger) HP/Volts/Ph Existing Efficiency Premium Efficiency Estimated annual usage (hrs) Annual Savings Burn‐out payback (yrs/cost) Replacement payback (yrs/cost) REPLACE IMMEDIATELY WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTOR SF‐1 3/208/3 76.9% 89.5% 3276 $ 119.59 .8/$100 5.9/$700 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 39 of 53 Appendix D-5: Fuel oil metering and adjacent housing sub-metering The lack of accurate energy consumption data, affected by the two factors stated below, is of critical importance to energy reduction efforts for this building. 1.) Actual fuel consumption by the boilers is not measured 2.) Energy outflow to adjacent housing units is not measured The energy savings and payback periods identified in the EEM’s recommended in this report depend on accurate energy consumption data. If the fuel oil consumption is not accurate, the calculated savings and payback figures may be overly optimistic or pessimistic. Therefore it is strongly recommended to add cumulative flow meters to each fuel tank’s outflow line in the appropriate location to directly measure boiler fuel consumption – regardless of the tank fuel level. See Appendix E for a sample meter. It is recommended to add these meters, record 12 months of consumption data, validate (or modify) the benchmark fuel consumption used in this report to determine fuel oil savings and payback figures, adjust as necessary, revise this report and recommendations per the new savings and payback figures, and proceed with the retrofit process. As this issue is primarily related to fuel oil consumption, the savings and payback figures in this report for electrical EEM’s should not be significantly affected. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 40 of 53 Appendix E – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls Occupancy sensors sense the presence of occupants, turn the lights on at a pre-determined level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. Line of sight, motion sensing occupancy sensors can be installed in existing duplex switch boxes, as well as on ceilings. Dual technology sensors are typically ceiling mounted in rooms, lavatories, corridors, vehicle bays and storage areas where obstacles may interfere with line-of-sight sensors. The second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on sound or changes in position, and work even when a person is fully obscured by an obstacle. Zoned occupancy controls are typically recommended for long corridors, large vehicle bays and large storage areas with multiple switches and lighting zones. Zoned controls are designed to activate and de- activate lighting by zone, by row, or even by fixture, based on the location of the occupant. Step-Dim occupancy sensors turn on a portion of room lights (usually 1/3 or 2/3) upon occupancy, and allow the occupant to manually turn on the rest of the lights. Occupancy sensors can reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy sensors range from 1 to 5 years, depending on the light fixture consumption and occupancy of the room. Lighting Management Systems (LMS) today have the capability to manage lighting based on a wide variety of parameters including building usage, daylight conditions and occupancy. They are retro-fittable, and can be stand alone or integrated into a building’s HVAC, alarm or other control systems. Additionally, they can be easily re-configured as a building’s usage or occupancy pattern changes. Sample LMS systems and a sample high bay occupancy sensor (which could be used for zone lighting control) follow. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 41 of 53 Appendix E – Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 42 of 53 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 43 of 53 Appendix E – sample Cumulative Flow meter for Fuel Flow Measurement ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 44 of 53 Appendix E – sample plug load management device ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 45 of 53 Appendix E – sample plug load management device ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 46 of 53 Appendix F – Benchmark Utility data Creating 12 months of reasonable fuel oil consumption data points from the data available: The data in the two bar charts (Charts 6 & 7) at the end of this appendix are required by AkWarm-C, the energy modeling software used for this audit. This is an explanation of how the auditor used the fuel oil data provided to obtain the 12 months of consumption data required. This is a sample of the fuel oil data provided (handwritten comments by the auditor, for explanation purposes in this report) for the month of November 2011: ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 47 of 53 ‐1000 1000 3000 5000 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar APRIL MAY JUNE Chart 2 ‐ATC dorm tank levels ‐1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar APRIL MAY JUNE Chart 3 ‐Smoothed curve of ATC dorm fuel tank level As can be seen, there are 2 fuel oil tanks directly associated with the ATC dorm and school building. At the end of each month, each tank’s fuel level, in gallons, is measured. Fuel tank levels from July 2011 through March 2012 were available in the format above. Charts 2 was created from this data. Data points for months with a declining line slope (September & October, December and February) were re-plotted, based on the assumption that there was no fuel added to the tanks during those months – and the missing data points were interpolated based on an average of the prior and following months consumption. Chart 3 is the result - a “normalized” seasonal curve of the reduction in fuel tank level assuming no additions were made. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 48 of 53 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar APRIL MAY JUNE Chart 4 ‐ATC dorm consumption Chart 4 below, represents the ATC dorm building consumption, as deciphered from the data provided - with the addition of the three missing months of data (April, May and June). This consumption data was used to create the usage charts, # 5 & 6, below. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 49 of 53 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Chart 5 ‐ATC Dorm ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($) Electric Consumption (kWh) Electric Cost ($) $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Chart 6 ‐ATC Dorm ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($) Oil Consumption (Therms) Oil Cost ($) Benchmark Data: 12 Month Fuel Oil and Electricity Consumption (used in AkWarm-C) ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 50 of 53 Appendix G – Plans and Schematics First Floor Plan ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 51 of 53 Second Floor Plan ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 52 of 53 HVAC Schematics ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ATC DORMITORY May 22, 2012 Page 53 of 53 HVAC Schematics