Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Role of Electric Power in the Southeast Alaska Energy Economy - Phase I, March 1979JUN 011 RECEIVED C. 2 The Role of Electric Power “““"“"“""" in the Southeast Alaska Energy Economy Phase 17 March 1979 Prepared for U. S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration Under Contract No. EW-78-R-85-0003 vi - 34 ISSUED TO ia \t | ie ia: | HIGHSMITH 42225 PRINTED IN U.S.A. eal NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, 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 eny specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, 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. The Role of Electric Power in the Southeast Alaska Energy Economy Phase 7 March 1979 Prepared By: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington R & M Consultants, Inc. Juneau, Alaska Science Applications, Inc. La Jolla, California For The U. S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Under Contract No. EW-78-R-85-0003 Foreward This report was prepared under contract for the Alaska Power Admini- stration, Department of Energy. The primary purpose was to develop information for use in estimating future electric power requirements in the Juneau-Douglas area and other areas of Southeast Alaska. This report explains: (1) the present role of electric power in the Juneau-Douglas energy economy, and (2) electric use, including space heating in selected residential, commercial, and government structures. Several important energy conservation aspects for 16 buildings were examined in the course of the investigation. It is APA's hope that the report will be of interest and use to those involved in energy and power planning in Southeast Alaska and a con- tribution toward the goal of improving efficiency of energy use. CHAPTER I II III IV TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE INTRODUCTION AN ENERGY-USE INVENTORY FOR THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU Energy Use by Source Electricity Petroleum Products Wood Estimated 1977 Expenditures for Energy Goods THE ENERGY AUDIT MAJOR POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR STRUCTURES IDENTIFIED IN THE NON-RANDOM SAMPLE Heat Load Analysis - Methodology Results of the Load Analysis Energy Conservation Economics Reduction of the Residential Infiltration Heat Load, Costs and Savings Reduction of the Residential Non-Infiltration Heating Load, Costs and Savings Other Retrofit Measures Retrofit Measures for Commercial-Public Structures Other Conservation Measures PAGE 10 18 27 eT 30 56 57 63 75 76 84 87 93 95 CHAPTER VI VII ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) TITLE HEATING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE AND THE ECONOMICS OF RETROFITTING Technical Approach The Climatological Conditions Electric Space Heating Systems Performance The Balance Point Temperature and Heat Pump Sizing Results Conclusions COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE INSULATION LEVELS AND HEATING SYSTEMS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION The Economics of Improving Insulation Levels The Economics of Alternative Heating Systems CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 97 98 101 101 104 109 114 116 116 117 121 TABLE NO. 10 11 12 13 14 iii LIST OF TABLES TITLE Selected Data for the State of Alaska and the Juneau Labor Market Area Conversion and Comparison Factors for Energy Sources and Units Total Energy Consumption, by Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area Percent of Total Energy Consumption, by Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area Electricity Consumption by Billing Period, by Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area Average Daily Use of Electricity, By Billing Period, and by Sector in the Juneau-Douglas Area Monthly Generation of Electricity (including Line Losses) in the Juneau-Douglas Area Annual Electricity Consumption, by Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area Annual Consumption of Electricity by All-Electric Residential Customers in the Juneau-Douglas Area Monthly and Annual Heating Degree Days, 65° Base at Juneau Airport Weather Station Annual Billings and Apparent Average Cost per kwh for Selected All-Electric Residential Customers Estimated Total Consumption of Petroleum Products in the Juneau-Douglas Area Estimated Annual Consumption of Petroleum Products, by Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area Estimated Consumption of Petroleum Products, Ly Sector, in the Juneau-Douglas Area PAGE 1 \2 13 15 16 19 21 23 25 26 TABLE NO. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 iv TITLE Estimated Expenditure for Energy Goods in the Juneau-Douglas Area in 1977 (1,000 Dollars) Residential, Commercial, and Public Structures in the Energy Audit Energy Survey, Juneau Residential Structure Energy Survey, Juneau Commercial Structure Energy Survey, Juneau Public Structure Estimated Consumption and Cost of Fuel Oil and Electricity for Five Selected Residential Structures in Juneau, 1977 Estimated Consumption and Cost of Fuel Oi] and Electricity for Selected Commercial Structures in Juneau, 1977 Estimated Consumption and Cost of Fuel Oil and Electricity for Selected Public Structures in Juneau, 1977 Comparative Heat Transfer Multipliers for Juneau Heating Conditions Design Load Calculation for a Residential structure in Juneau, Alaska Heat Load Analysis of Sample Juneau Buildings Assuming -5° Outdoor Temperature and 70° Indoor Temperature Recommended Number of Air Changes for Selected Juneau Structures Residential Building Heating Statistics Commercial/Public Building Subset Heating Statistics Basic Minimum Hourly Wage Estimate of Material Cost Estimate of Material Plus Installation Cost PAGE 29 31 34 40 46 53 54 55 62 64 67 70 Ue 73 77 78 79 TABLE NO. 32 33 34 35 36 St 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 TITLE Annual Savings Necessary to Warrant the Investment of One Dollar in Conservation Measures at Alterna- tive Payback Periods (Life Cycles) and Interest Rates (Dollars) Amount of Investment Economically Justified per Dollar of Savings per Year at Alternative Interest Rates and Life of Investment (Dollars) Manual N Infiltration Levels Estimated Cost of Installing Weather-Stripping Around Windows, Estimated Annual Savings, and Payback Periods for Conservation Investment, Assuming a 10 Percent Interest Rate Residential Non-Infiltration Load Component Statistics Estimated Cost of Installing Additional Storm Windows, Annual Savings, and Payback Periods for Five Juneau Residences Average Annual Cost of Non-Infiltration Heat Loss for a 2,000 ft2 Juneau Residence, by Structure Components Installation Cost Estimate Summary Commercial/Public Building Subset Heating Statistics Seasonal Performance Model Output for Full-Time/ No Setback Conditions Heat Pump Balance Point Temperature Sizing Data - Residential Heat Pump Balance Point Temperature Sizing Data - Commercial i Comparative Heating System Purchase Pricés Annual Fixed, Operating, and Total Costs for Alternative Space Heating Systems PAGE 80 8] 82 85 86 88 89 92 94 99 106 108 110 112 vi TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE 46 Cost Estimates of Different Insulation Levels for 119 a Newly Constructed Juneau Residence (1,200 Sq. Ft.) 47 Cost Estimates of Different Insulation levels for 120 a Newly Constructed Juneau Residence (2,000 Sq. Ft.) vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE 1 Structure Heat Load Profile versus Outdoor 59 Dry-Bulb Temperature Zz Comparative Heating System - Annual Operating 113 Costs CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study, The Role of Electric Power in the Southeast Alaska Energy Economy, was to develop information on current energy use patterns in the Juneau-Douglas area, conservation options and their costs, and opportunities for substituting electricity for other fuels in space heating in existing and new structures. The data which were as- sembled and the findings of the research team will be useful for deter- mining the future demand for all forms of energy in Juneau and should be helpful to individuals, firms and public agencies who are considering alternative energy conservation measures. The study is divided into six additional chapters. Chapters II through VI present and discuss five separate tasks. The first task was to obtain a cross-section of total consumption of and expenditures on all forms of energy in Juneau-Douglas in 1977. Energy consumption was disaggregated into usage by sector, i.e. residential, commercial and industrial, government, and transportation. For each of the sectors, total energy corsumption was also disaggregated into the various energy goods actually consumed, such as electricity, liquid petroleum products, and liquid petroleum gas. The results are given in Chapter II. The second task was to conduct a limited energy audit of a non- random sample of residential, commercial, and public structures in the Juneau-Douglas area. Since space heating accounts for from 50 to more than 80 percent of the total energy consumed in the three sectors, the focus of the energy audit was on the thermal envelope of the structures. The major parameters affecting energy use were identified and described. For each structure, the 1977 energy consumption and expenditures were estimated. Sample audits of a private home, commercial building, and elementary school are provided in Chapter III. A complete set of the survey data for the sixteen structures is provided in Appendix A The third task was to identify and discuss energy conservation measures applicable to the structures in the sample, and to evaluate these measures in terms of their estimated costs and energy savings. This analysis was based on specific heat load analysis performed for each structure, estimated local costs for retrofitting options, and a determination of the present value of the expected future savings of these measures. The results of this task are presented in Chapter IV. The results of the structure specific heat load analyses are separately provided in Appendices B-D. Task four required the identification of opportunities to convert space heating systems from non-electric sources to electricity. Since a preliminary investigation indicated that, under 1977 energy supply and price conditions, the heat-only heat pump (HOHP) was a very economical and cost effective electric space heating system, an extensive analysis of it was undertaken. This analysis and a discussion are presented in Chapter V. The last task was to estimate the costs of alternative levels of in- sulation in two new residential structures and the likely energy savings that could be obtained therefrom. The cost comparisons of different levels of insulation is new 1,200 ft? Chapter VI. This chapter also contains an analysis of the annual fixed and 2,000 ft? residences are presented in and operating costs for four different spcae heating systems installed in the 2,000 ft? house. The conclusions and recommendations are found in Chapter VII. CHAPTER II AN ENERGY-USE INVENTORY FOR THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU The energy-use inventory was conducted in order to gain an under- standing of the total energy consumption, by major consuming sector and by type of energy good (electricity, fuel oil, gasoline, etc.). Under ideal circumstances; the inventory would have included a detailed end-use analysis. In order to comment on the technical and economic feasibilities of energy conservation and converting from one fuel to another, it would have been valuable to know, for example, what fractions of electric energy consumption in the residential sector were accounted for by space heating, water heating, cooking, lighting, refrigeration, radios and television, and other smal] appliances. Similarly, in the commercial and industrial sectors, specific information on consumption of energy for processing, Space heating, water heating, and lighting would have been useful. Time constraints prohibited obtaining these data. Nevertheless, the data collected and displayed below provide a clear picture of the aggregate energy consumption for the year 1977, by major energy good, and by sector. The data were obtained by direct can- vassing of both wholesalers and retailers of energy goods (electricity and petroleum products) and were augmented by selective interviews with retailers and major energy users. In some instances, information for the calendar year 1977 was not available, because records were kept on incongruent or fiscal year bases. By collecting additional information for previous and later periods, energy consumption estimates were made for those months in the calendar year 1977 for which actual sales or consumption were not available. Some additional caveats about the data presented must be noted. The classification of end-users of energy is somewhat ambiguous. The use of energy in apartment buildings, for example, should be classified as =9= "residential." Since apartment houses, however, are owned by commercial ventures, they will typically appear in the commercial sector. Fuels used for transportation purposes were placed in the transportation sector, even though the purchasers may have been a government entity or a commercial enterprise. Some gasoline sold by service stations and classified as having been consumed in the surface transportation sector may actually have been used for such non-transportation purposes as lawn mowers, chain saws, snow machines, or outboard motors. Some fuels classified as having been used for surface transportation may indeed have been used for bunkering of larger vessels. It is expected that these discrepancies are small and do not materially alter the interpretation of the classifications. The most detailed information was available for electricity con- sumption. The information was obtained from actual billing records of the two utilities. The billing periods, however, varied in length. Monthly billings, therefore, do not accurately reflect monthly consump- tion. One method of overcoming unexpected monthly variations in energy consumption was to divide the total consumption by sector in each period by the number of days in each billing cycle and then multiply by the number of days in each month. The consumption pattern thus obtained is still not completely congruent with the more reliable generation data. Thus, while the monthly electricity use data by sector obtained from the billing records does not precisely reflect actual consumption, the annual data do. With respect to fuel oi] consumption for space and water heating, and to a minor degree for cooking, the data shown below represent sales rather than actual consumption. If one assumes, however, that fuel oi] inventories held by the ultimate consumers do not vary greatly, the sales data are reasonable proxies for consumption. The energy consumption picture for 1977 which emerged is, of course, atypical when compared with other cities and boroughs of similar size, particularly in the lower 48 states. Two reasons for this atypical con- sumption pattern can be advanced. First, as Table 1 indicates, the Manufacturing employment as a percentage of annual average non-agricultural wage and salary employment (NAWSE) in Juneau is very small. In 1977, only 1.1 percent of non-agricultural wages and salary was accounted for by the manufacturing sector, contrasted with 6.6 percent for the state as a whole. Government employment, on the other hand, accounted for 58.6 percent of total NAWSE, whereas in the state as a whole it represented only 29.8 percent. Secondly, the relatively small fraction of total energy con- sumption represented by the on-road use of motor fuels reflects the limited driving opportunities in the City and Borough. Thus, the consump- tion of energy in the manufacturing sector and in the transportation sector accounts for a smaller percentage of total energy consumption than would be typical for other jurisdictions elsewhere in the State of Alaska or the lower 48 states. As Table 3 shows, in 1977 approximately 3.4 trillion Btu's of energy goods were consumed in the Juneau-Douglas area. (The conversion factors are given in Table 2.1) Fuel oil, used for space heating, water heating, and to a limited degree for cooking purposes was the predominant energy good, representing approximately 45.9 percent of total energy consumption. The next most important energy good was gasoline for surface and marine uses, accounting for 25.3 percent of total energy consumption. Electricity accounted for only 11.1 percent of total energy consumption. Among the end-use sectors, residential uses consumed 38.6 percent of total consumption, followed by surface transportation (28.1 percent), air transportation (10.5 percent), government (10.2 percent), and the combined commercial and industrial sectors (9.3 percent). (Table 4.) lin order to be able to compare the consumption of different types of energy, e.g. electricity, gasoline, heating oi], etc. by the various consuming sectors, the separate energy goods were reduced to a common denominator, the British thermal unit (Btu). The conceptual problems of reducing energy consumption to this common denominator are discussed in Appendix A. TABLE 1 SELECTED DATA FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA AND THE JUNEAU LABOR MARKET AREA (1977) Juneau/Douglas Alaska Qu) ___ (2) _(3) | Annual Average Population 18,886! 411,211 (Number of persons) Average Annual Total 9,788 164,320 Non-Agricultural Wage and Salary Employment (Number of Persons) Manufacturing 107 (1.1%) 10,895 (6.6%) Government 5,722 (58.5%) 48,950 (29.8%) All Others 3,959 (40.4% 104,475 (63.6%) Ipased on Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section estimates. The Planning Department of the City and Borough of Juneau estimates the 1977 population at 20,465 persons. SOURCE: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section. TABLE 2 CONVERSION AND COMPARISON FACTORS FOR ENERGY SOURCES AND UNITS Electricity 1 kwh = 3,413 Btu (assuming an end use efficiency rating of 1) Petroleum Products Motor & Aviation Gasoline Diesel Fuel Distillate Fuel Oi] (Heating 0i1) Residual Fuel Oi] Propane Jet Fuel 1 gallon ane gallon _ gallon 1 gallon 1 gallon 1 gallon 125,000 Btu 138,095 Btu 138,095. Btu 149,762 Btu 90,476 Btu 131,667 Btu TABLE 3 TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, million Btu) Sector Electricity Gasoline Diesel Fuel Oi] Aviation Fuel Jet Fuel Propane Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Residential 146,735 1,130,172 27,007 1,303,914 ee srg 22,095 174,414 9,003 313,222" Government 95,922 248,709 344,631 Transportation Surface 809,875 139,614 949,489 Marine 46,250 44,052 90,302 Air 95,875 259,120 354 ,995 Other” 25,472 25,472 TOTAL 375,839 856,125 205,761 1,553,295 95,875 259,120 36,010 3,382,025 * : Represent line losses. * “Includes 22,095 Btu x 10 6 used for generating electricity. See footnotes in Table 13. SOURCE : Applied Economics Associates, Inc. ' @ ' TABLE 4 PERCENT OF TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, percent) Aviation Sector Electricity Gasoline Diesel Fuel 071] Fuel Jet Fuel Propane Total Q) (2) (3) _(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Residential 4.34 33.42 -80 38.56 Commercial and 3.18 -65 5.16 =e 9.26 Industrial Government 2.84 7338 10.19 Transportation Surface 23495 4.13 28.08 Marine 1.37 1.30 2.67 Air 2.83 7.66 10.49 Other 75 £75 TOTAL We 25.32 6.08 45.93 2uee 7.66 1.07 100.00 * Represents line losses. Percentage totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See footnotes in Table ]3. SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -10- ENERGY USE BY SOURCE Electricity Monthly energy sales (consumption) data were obtained from the billing records provided by the two Juneau-Douglas utilities (Table 5). The monthly "consumption" data thus obtained showed some anomalies such as a relatively high consumption of electricity in July and exceedingly low consumption in December. The reason for these atypical consumption patterns was the varying lengths of the billing periods which ranged from 16 to 43 days. In order to "normalize" the monthly sales by sector reported by the utilities, the reported sales were divided by the number of days in the billing period. The number obtained was then multiplied by the number of days in each month in order to estimate monthly consump- tion (Table 6 ). While that procedure removed some of the anomalies shown in Table 5, namely, an atypically low load in December, some problems remained. For example, the average daily use of electricity by all sectors for the month of July 1977, (Column 8, Table 6) was 1.21 times greater than the average annual use. Since there are no a priori reasons to assume that that should be the case, only part of the problem caused by the differing billing periods had been resolved. Because the sales data themselves appeared to yield some misleading information, generation data were substituted. (Table 7.) They reflect electric energy usage in the Juneau-Douglas area more correctly. Average daily generation during the month of May, for example, of 284,000 kilowatt hours represents about 90 percent of the average daily generation for the year aS a whole, 317,000 kilowatt hours. As could be expected, the months of January-February, and November-December of 1977 were peak months for all systems. Though relatively little confidence can be attached to the monthly consumption data, by sector, because of the billing system problems -ll- TABLE 5 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY BILLING PERIOD, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, 1,000 kwh) Number of Days In Billing Billing . Period Period Residential Commercial Industrial Government Total QQ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) J 28 4,057 2,438 88 £5527 9,110 F 29 3,830 2,346 58 2,440 8,674 M 31 3,156 2,185 64 2,262 7,666 A 36 2,811 2,426 71 23523 8,832 M 29 35532 2,708 93 2,597 8,930 J 33 3,069 2,379 120 2,128 7,696 J 24 3,075 2,637 133 2,187 8,032 A 33 2,922 2,417 152 1,806 7,298 S 36 3,677 2,932 173 2,340 9,122 0 34 3,963 2,948 173 2,823 9,908 N 43 5,049 3,139 83 2,698 10,968 D 16 2,854 1,768 27 Tarde 6,422 Year 372 42,993 30,324 T5235 28,105 102,657 Percent 41.9% 29.5% 1.2% 27.4% 100% SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, Glacier Highway Electric Association, and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. TABLE 6 AVERAGE DAILY USE OF ELECTRICITY, BY BILLING PERIOD, AND BY SECTOR IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, 1,000 kwh). Number of Use as a Days in Fraction of Billing Billing Residential Commercial Industrial Government Total Use Average Period Period use/day use/day use/day use/day per day Annual Use Q) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) _(7) oN: J 28 144.9 87.1 3.1 90.3 322.1 Te P 29 132.0 80.9 220 84.1 299.1 1.08 M 31 108.8 70.5 ool 73.0 247.3 -90 A 36. 105.9 67.4 2.0 70.1 345.3 -89 M 29 121.8 93.4 Sad 89.6 265.0 -96 J 33 93.0 Veal 326 64.5 233.0 - 84 J 24 128.1 109.9 S15) 91.0 334.7 leet A 34 88.5 Uelo? 4.6 70.9 Zell -80 S 36 102.1 81.5 4.8 65.0 2531.4 92 0 34 T6355) 86.7 Sel 83.0 291.4 1.06 N 43 117.4 730 1.9 62.7 255.1 . 92 D 16 178.4 110.5 ley 110.8 401.4 1.45 Yearly 372 115.6 81.5 5c) 75.6 276.0 1.00 SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, Glacier Highway Electric Association, and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -Z2L- -13- TABLE 7 MONTHLY GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY (INCLUDING LINE LOSSES) IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, 1,000 kwh) Generation (includes 1 Line Losses) Percent of Billing Period Per Average Daily or Month Month Day Generation ) (2) (3) (4) J 10,270 331 104.4 FE 9,043 323 101.9 M 9,93] 320 101.0 A 9,240 308 97.2 M 8,810 284 89.6 J 8,651 288 90.8 J 8,846 285 89.9 A 9,081 293 92.4 S 9,341 311 98.1 0 10,076 325 102.5 N 10,631 354 i? D 11,933 385 121.4 Year 115,854 317 Vine losses are estimated at 6.8 percent. SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, Glacier Highway Electric Association, and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -14- discussed above, the annual consumption of electricity by major sector shown in Table 8 accurately reflects actual consumption. The resi- dential sector accounts for approximately 42 percent of total electric energy consumption (excluding line losses). Consumption in the com- mercial sector accounts for approximately 29.5 percent of annual consump- tion, followed by the government sector with 24.7 percent and, finally, the industrial sector, which accounts for only 1.2 percent (Table 8). The distribution of electricity consumption among the various sec- tors indicates the obvious, namely, that Juneau is a government town without an industrial base. In comparison, in the Pacific Northwest (in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho), the residential sector accounted for 34 percent of total electricity consumption, the commercial sector including government for 16 percent, the industrial sector for 43 percent, and irrigation and other uses for 7 percent. Equally surprising is the very small fraction of (total and resi- dential) electric energy consumption accounted for by all-electric cus- tomers. (All-electric customers are those who use electricity as their primary source for space and water heating, cooking, refrigeration, etc.). For the whole year of 1977, only 20 out of a total of approximately 6,300 residential customers were identified as "all-electric." (Table9.) (An additional three customers received service during only part of the year.) Total 1977 consumption of 484,330 kilowatt hours by "all-electric" consumers represented only 1.1 percent of all residential consumption. Their average annual consumption of 24,216 kwh, however, was about 3.5 times greater than the average of 6,824 kwh for all residential customers. The number of "all-electric" customers of Alaska Electric Light and Power Company rose from 6, in 1973, to 20 in 1977. Not only has the number of all-electric customers increased, but the average annual -15- TABLE 8& ANNUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977) Kilowatt hours Percent of Sector x 40 Btu's x 10 Total Consumption =r (2) (3) (4) Residential 42,993 146,735 41.9 Commercial 30,324 103,495 29.5 Industrial 1,235 4,215 1.2 Government 38,105 95,922 27.4 Total Consumnotion 102,657 350,367 100.0 Line Losses 7,463 25,472 6.8 Total Consumption 110,126 375,839 plus lines losses SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, Glacier Highway Electric Association, and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -16- TABLE 9 ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY BY ALL-ELECTRIC RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA. (1973--June 1978, kwh) Customer 1978 Number 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 (January-June) Sete ee eee ee (4) (5) (6) (7) 112471233 3,800 9,260 8,980 7,840 7,210 3,500 330167511 24,520 20,640 15,450 20,710 21,580 9,950 340172412 14,850 13,386 15,510 13,420 13,060 7,010 460391412 29,420 11,580 460391515 37,760 24,480 15,790 470335822 38,780 25,930 22,500 16,970 15,790 8,540 470340412 45,990 39,290 40,370 16,230 474220013 21,660 7,260 475321821 25,500 4,870 475335821 22;5750—27-,600—26 ,520 15,560 620239712 20,680 19,720 8,960 625263815 13,460 5,810 625263911 60,630 30,490 625264116 15,730 9,220 625264213 16,770 7,310 640213811 33,930 42,070 47,050 23,910 640218613 18,220! 38,310 46,260 36,050 53,890 27,900 640220421 30,900 32,090 37,270 19,490 5,440 -l7- TABLE 9 (continued) Customer 1978 Number 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 (January-June) OO) (2) (3) (4) 5) (6) (7) 640222531 14,210 640248221 680201822 20,300 17,230 17,980 8,740 680204235 18, 260° 27,030 29,610 35,470 238,730 12,160 680209442 11,250 6,740 13,040 7,180 5,860 6,110 TOTAL 119,100 196,646 316,440 340,680 484,330 255,020 Average 19,859 21,848 26,370 24,334 24,216 12,144 n 6 9 12 14 20 2] 4 "ouly to December only. eMay to December only. SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -18- consumption increased as well, from approximately 19,800 kwh/year in 1973 to 24,216 kwh/year in 1977. It should be noted that both 1976 and 1977 were reasonably mild years, as indicated by the monthly and annual average heating degree days shown on Table 10. Table 11 provides the data on annual billings and the apparent average cost per kilowatt hours for 8 selected all-electric residential customers for whom data were available for the 1973 to June 1978 period. Between 1973 and 1977, the average cost! per kwh paid by all-electric residential consumers rose between 1.23 percent to 10.46 percent per year, depending on usage. During the same time period, the U.S. All Items Con- sumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 7.78 percent, whereas the average annual compound growth rate for the Anchorage All Items CPI increased by 9.71 percent during the same interval. Thus, the real average cost? per kwh consumed by the residential all-electric customers declined in all but one instance. The Anchorage Fuel Oi] and Coal CPI rose at an average annual rate of 16.75 percent between 1973 and 1977 (using 4th quarter data), significantly faster than the highest rate of change of all-electric residential rates. Petroleum Products The estimated consumption of petroleum products in the Juneau-Douglas area is shown in Table 12. Sales data were obtained from the two petro- leum products wholesalers (Union 0i1 Company and Chevron-Standard Oi] Company) and from selected retailers. Some of the information was only available on a fiscal year basis, which straddled the 1977 calendar year. Therefore, interpolations had to be made. Since the sale of petroleum products and their consumption is not a simultaneous event, because certain Taverage cost is defined as total billings divided by total kwh. It should not be confused with the average price for energy, since total billings include a fixed charge component. 2"Real" cost is defined as the nominal money cost adjusted for increases in the CPI. =19= TABLE 10 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HEATING DEGREE DAYS, 65° BASE AT JUNEAU AIRPORT WEATHER STATION Average! Month (1941-70) 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jan 1,287 1,429.1 1,556.2 1,298.9 Vester 930.0 Feb 1,036 1,13) -2 1,013.6 1,134.0 1,097.6 697.2 Mar 1,026 995.1 1,249.3 1,066.4 1,010.6 899.0 Apr 783 762.0 771.0 801.0 717.0 681.0 May 564 592.1 564.2 545.6 604.5 536.3 Jun 354 411.0 444.0 408.0 390.0 327.0 July 288 350. 3 356.5 282.1 288.3 248.0 Aug 332 409.2 319.3 344.1 282.1 201.5 Sep 474 510.0 450.0 408.0 432.0 435.0 Oct 719 737.8 697.5 719.2 706.8 700.6 Nov 975 1,260.0 858.0 1,095.0 723.0 1,068.0 Dec 1,169 1,147.0 967.2 1,249.3 948.6 1,429.1 Total 9,007 9,734.8 9,246.8 9,351.6 8,338.2 8,152.7 See footnote and source on following page. -20- TABLE 10 (continued) TBureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1977, p. 219. (This average is based on the thirty year period 1940 to 1970. ) The heating degree day values have been calculated by the method used by the Bureau of the Census and reported in the Statistical Abstract of the United States. The approach used is to compute heating degree days from monthly mean temperature and a base of 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Heating degree days, by definition, are never negative. For example, if a particular area has a monthly mean temperature of 70 degrees, then the monthly heating degree days are zero for that particular area and month. For Juneau the monthly mean temperature was subtracted from the base of 65 degrees, and the result was then multiplied by the number of days in the respective month. This process yields monthly heating degree days. Annual heating degree days are obtained by a simple summation of the monthly values. Sample calculations for three hypothetical areas for the month of June are shown below: Monthly Mean Number of Monthly Heating Temperature 65-T Days in Month Degree Days CTY} RMU HC (3) (4) 750 -10 30 0 650 0 30 0 550 10 30 300 SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environ- mental Data Service, Climatological Data, "Annual Summaries: Alaska," selected years. Computations made by Applied Economics Associates, Inc. TABLE 11 ANNUAL BILLINGS AND APPARENT AVERAGE COST PER kwh FOR SELECTED ALL-ELECTRIC RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS! (1973-JUNE 1978, ANNUAL BILLINGS IN DOLLARS, AVERAGE COST PER kwh IN CENTS) Average Annual Increase of Average Cost/kwh Customer 1978 1973-1977 Number 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Jan-June (percent) Q) a2) (3) (4) Cay: = (6) (7) (8) 112471233 Ape 318.54 332.46 361.37 354.39 327.19 168.83 c/kwh? 3.62 3.59 4.02 4.52 4.54 4.82 5.82 330167511 AB? 739.74 733.15 546.78 816.84 833.75 402.18 c/kwh? 3.00 3.55 3.54 3.94 3.86 4.04 6.50 340172412 AB 480.34 435.64 552.87 530.33 533.11 290.92 c/kwh? 3.23 3.25 3.56 3.95 4.08 4.15 6.01 470335822 AB? 836. 32 796.24 823.67 617.35 641.42 349.34 c/kwh? 3.08 3.07 3.66 3.64 4.06 4.09 7.15 640218613 Ape 656.06° 1,379.99 1,638.02 1,274.22 2,036.83 1,085.73 c/kwh? 3.60 3.56 3.54 3.53 3.78 3.89 1.23 -L2- TABLE 14 (continued) Average Annual Increase of Average Cost/kwh Customer 1978 1973-1977 Number 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Jan-June (percent) __) (2) _(3) (4) (5) (6) Se a8 re 640220421 AB? 943.42 967.06 1,264.32 734.42 248.43 43.45 c/kwh® 3.05 3.01 3.39 3.77 4.57 4.09 10.64 680204235 AB? 541.839 824.78 948.06 1,273.58 1,104.31 483.59 c/kwh? 2.97 3.05 3.20 3.59 3.84 3.97 6.63 680209442 ABe 372.45 246.24 479.45 3,243.20 259.12 256.03 c/kwh? 2 3.65 3.68 4.52 4.42 4.19 7.50 ] 2 annual Billings (dollars) 3average Cost per kwh (cents) 4july to December only. May to December only. SOURCE: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. Average Cost is defined as total billings divided by total kwh consumption. -22- Product Sekt Gasoline Diesel Fuel Oi] Aviation Fuel Jet Fuel Propane TOTAL SOURCE : -23- TABLE 12 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977). Estimated Consumption 6 Percent of (x 10% gallons) Btu's x 10 Total Btu's (2) (3) (4) 6,849 856,125 28.48 1,490 205,761 6.84 11,248 1,553,290 5 367 767 95,875 3.19 1,968 259,120 8.62 398 36,010 1.20 22,720 3,006,181 100.00 Selected Juneau-Douglas products wholesalers and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. and retailers, -24- inventories are carried by the end-users as well as by the retailers, the consumption for the calendar year 1977 had to be estimated. As Table 13. indicates, fuel oi] (No. 1 and No. 2) which is primarily used for space and water heating, but is also supplying limited energy for cooking purposes, represented more than half of the consumption of petroleum products. Next in relative importance was the consumption of gasoline for both on-road and marine uses, followed by jet fuel. Table 13 divides the estimated annual consumption of petroleum products by consuming sector. The most noteworthy datum in that table is the fact that the resi- dential sector consumed approximately 8.2 million gallons of fuel oi] (No. 1 and No. 2), approximately 72.8 percent of the total fuel oi] consumption in the Juneau-Douglas area. Finally, Table 14 provides information on the distribution of petroleum products consumption among the various sectors. The residential sector consumes approximately 38.5 percent of all petroleum products. Surface transportation accounts for 31.6 percent of consumption, followed by air transport and government. The 1977 residential consumption of petroleum products (in terms of Btu's, 1,157 x 10°) was approximately 8 times greater than that of electricity (147 x 10°) Btu). The reason for this inordinately high dependence on fuel oi] can be found in past uncertainties about electric energy availability and in the relative prices of electricity and fuel oil. TABLE 13 ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, 1,000's of gallons) Sector Gasoline! Diesel Fuel Oi] Aviation Gas? Jet Fuel? Propane? Q) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Residential 8,184 299 Commercial and 160 1,263° 99 Industrial Government 1,801° ' oO Transportation Surface” 6,479 1,011 Marine® 370 319 Air 767 1,968 TOTAL 6,849 1,490 11,248 767 1,968 398 ] purposes. 2 Includes Kerosine (about 8,000 gallons). Primarily fiscal year figures from March 1977 to March 1978. 3Estimated for calendar year 1977. 4 May include smal] amounts used for transportation. All gasoline was assumed to be used for transportation Some fuels classified as surface use may actually have been used for marine transportation purposes. Ssates from marinas only. SOURCE: Associates, Inc. Selected Juneau-Douglas petroleum products wholesalers and retailers, and Applied Economics -26- TABLE 14 ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, BY SECTOR, IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA (1977, billion Btu) Estimated Consumption Percent of Sector (Btu's x 109) Total Consumption —O) — (2) Residential 1,157.22 38.51 Commercial and 205.47 6.84 Industrial Government 248.71 8.28 Transportation Surface 949.48 31.59 Marine 90.30 3.00 Air 354.00 11.78 TOTAL 3,005.18 100.00 SOURCE: Selected Juneau-Douglas petroleum products wholesalers and retailers, and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. =2]- Wood An attempt was made to obtain information about the quantities of wood consumed in the residential sector for heating and, to a limited degree, for cooking purposes. No data were obtainable. Much of the wood consumed is cut by the ultimate consumers; little enters into the market systems where data would be kept. While wood may be a supplemental source of energy, it is not an important primary source of either heating or cooking fuel. In 1970, only 43 out of 4,586 year-round housing units relied on wood as a primary heating ruel, and only 21 units cooked with wood. ! Estimated 1977 Expenditures for Energy Goods Table 15 provides estimates of the 1977 expenditures for the various energy goods consumed in the several sectors; e.g., residential, commercial, etc. These expenditure estimates were developed by multi- plying the estimated consumption of each energy good by the non-weighted prices given in footnote 1, Table 15. These prices are, at best, first approximations of the actual transfer prices paid by the various con- sumers. Prices paid for electricity, for example, vary significantly among and between rate schedules; fuel oi] prices increased during. the year and varied with the quantities purchased; and gasoline and diesel fuels carry different taxes depending on end-use. Thus, the average Prices shown in Table 15 may vary by as much as 15 percent and, as a result, so may the aggregate expenditure estimate. Of the total estimated expenditures for all energy goods of 17.6 million dollars, the residential sector accounted for 6.2 million dollars, or 35 percent of total regional expenditures. All forms of transportation U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970, Detailed Housing Characteristics, Alaska, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., V971S per 78: -28- accounted for 39 percent, followed by the commercial-industrial and the government sectors with 13 and 12 percent respectively. Among all the non-transportation uses, space heating (predominantly fuel oil) accounted for at least 50 percent, and in the residential sector for at least 63 percent of all expenditures for energy goods. TABLE 15 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE FOR ENERGY GOODS IN THE JUNEAU-DOUGLAS AREA IN 1977 (1,000 dollars)! Fuel 071] Sector Electricity 2 ner (Wane Maen Sa evans; Residential 2,042 3,928 Commercial 1,440 606 Industrial 58 Government 1,334 864 Transportation Surface Marine Air TOTAL 4,874 5,398 Aviation Propane Gasoline Diesel Gasoline Jet Fuel Total icc (7) ict a 269 6,239 89 86 2,279 2,198 4,665 546 5,211 27 172 199 499 984 1,483 358 4,692 804 499 984 17.609 ‘The expenditure estimates are based on the fullowing non-weighted average energy prices prevailing in 1977: electricity: 4.75¢/kwh fuel oil: 48.0¢/gallon gasoline: 72.0¢/gallon propane: 90.0¢/gallon jet fuel: 50.0¢/gallon aviation gas: diesel fuel: 65.0¢/gallon 54.0¢/gallon zExcludes line losses. SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -62- CHAPTER III. THE ENERGY AUDIT An energy audit of sixteen different structures was conducted in order to provide an engineering and economic costs basis for examining potential energy conservation measures, and the potential for converting Space heating plants from fuel oi] to electricity. In addition to con- ducting on-site investigation, local governmental agencies and private individuals (architects and engineers) were consulted for additional information regarding the structural and thermal characteristics of each building. Energy consumption data were obtained from both the owner- occupants and from fossil fuel (oil and propane) and electricity sup- pliers. Because the primary focus of the audit was the thermal envelope of each of the structures, particular attention was given to the insula- tion of floors, walls and ceilings, and to the thermal characteristics of windows and exterior doors. The structures surveyed included five residences, geographically distributed within the borough and ranging in age from over eighty years to less than three years; seven commercial structures of widely differing characteristics, including a restuarant, shopping centers and downtown office structures; and four public structures chosen for their diversity of size, age, and use. They are listed in Table 16. The results obtained from the survey are specific to each of the structures. They can not be extrapolated to the total stock of residences, commercial/industrial, and public builcings in Juneau, because the sample is not necessarily representative of the area as a whole. The energy audit describes the principal use of each structure, its location, age, and type of construction. The data obtained also include the following: e The volume of each building and segments thereof; e The area (in square feet) of the floors, walls, ceilings, windows, and exterior doors; =30= CATEGORY aia Residential Commercial Public -31- TABLE 16 RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND PUBLIC STRUCTURES IN THE ENERGY AUDIT 1 12 13 14 15 16 DESCRIPTION (3) Juneau, 80t+ty old, 1570 ft Home with rental, Douglas, 23y old, 728 ft? Condominium, Douglas, 3 floors, 10y old, 11,865 ft Mendenhall Valley, 2.5y old, 1,296 ft? Auke Bay, 4y old, 3,590 ft? 2 2 Mendenhall Valley Stores and Shops State Trooper Building, 2 floors Dental Office, 2 floors Nugget Mall Stores and Shops Juneau Office Buildings, 3 floors Butler Building Office and Warehouse Douglas Restaurant, 2 floors Auke Bay School, 2 floors Highway Complex, 2 floors Hospital, 3 floors State Office Building, 7 floors -32- e The insulation levels of walls, ceilings, and floors; @ The thermal characteristics of windows, e.g., whether single or double glazed, whether equipped with storm sashes, and whether frames were caulked or not; e The thermal characteristics of exterior doors; whether storm doors were installed, whether the door frames were caulked, and whether weather stripping was appliea to the door frames. In addition, a description of each heating plant and major electricity consuming plant or appliance such as freezers, refrigerators, dishwashers, etc., was obtained. For each structure, the 1977 consumption (purchase) data for fuel oil and electricity were also collected. Sample audits for a structure in each catagory (residential, commercial, public) can be found in Tables 17, 18, and 19. The complete set of audits is provided in Appendix A. The estimated 1977 energy ex- penditures for fuel oi] and electricity for all structures in the sample are shown in Tables 20 - 22. These estimates are based on non-weighted average prices of fuel oil and electricity. Thus, for the five residences, average prices of 48.3 cents/gallon of fuel oi] and 4.75 cents/kwh are chosen even though the actual prices paid will have fluctuated around those averages. (AELP estimates its average revenue per kwh sold to all residential customers at 4.606 cents.) Moreover, fuel oi] consumed during the first months of 1977 may actually have been purchased in the latter part of 1976, and fuel oil purchased in the latter months of 1977 may not have been consumed until early in 1978. Never-the-less, we believe that the energy consumption and expenditure estimates are good approximations. The fuel oi] and electricity prices paid by industrial-commercial and public consumers were assumed to differ slightly from those paid by residential customers. Fuel oil prices, for example, were assumed to be lower; i.e., 45 cents/gallon, because of volume discounts; the average 33" electricity price of 5.1 cents/kwh was obtained by using AELP's average revenue of 5.12 cents/kwh for sales to all commercial, manufacturing, and processing customers and 5.072 cents/kwh for sales to government. Column 9, Table 20, provides an estimate of the average annual electricity cost per square foot of heated space in residential struc- tures. That figure was calculated because in some of the residences Supplemental electric heating may have been used. A similar number was not calculated for the commercial-industrial and public structures, because supplemental electric heat was not assumed there. Of interest is the observation that heating costs per square foot varied widely in all three sectors -- residential, commercial-industrial, and public. Some of that variance may be explained by different uses of the structures. But as the heat load analyses performed confirm, many of the differences in heating costs must be ascribed to different thermal characteristics of the structures. -34- TABLE 17 ENERGY SURVEY, JUNEAU RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE Older House (Juneau) Building I. Structure: x A) Type: Resident Commercial Public B) Principal Use: II. Location: x Juneau Douglas Rural (Specify) III. Age of Building: 80+ years IV. Type of Construction: Two-story wood frame with partial basement, all on concrete found- ation. Ceiling on the upper area floor is partially vaulted (30 percent). SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. Older House (Juneau) Building VI. Windows (Exterior) : Area Total Glaze Storm Sash Frames Caulked Type _ Number (Each) Area Single Double Yes ..No Yes No Comments ———____ = rua es Re eee ad ry ae PO er ee a Pe pra st Pelee ie | ee 5° x 3.3' Umit od eee Possible plastic storm w. sansa 6 fifo LT Le [i [| reste str wn swirl we duvet [omedhpes S| fe Pal cht owe eee ee a eee ag PTS cede Sele ab etre Peso pie mabe det sl eee ge (panutquos) 7, 378vL -St- Older House (Juneau) Building -36- TABLE 17 (continued) i EARL i ifefelelelst || te 3 es-fiber . " batting Wo-concrete slab on grade Y. Size (Heated Space) Ist and Total Crewl Space - Basement Older House (Juneau) VII, Number of Exterfor Doors Bul ding Doors Framed Weather Door Storm Door Caulked Stripped = Area Total Number Single Double Yes No Yes No Yes No (Each) Area Comments Wood door with window for storm door 1 Single Total (panutjuo3) 21 318VvL -LE- -38- TABLE 17 (continued) Building VIII. Heating Plant A). Description B). Fuel Consumption Data (In Gallons) *From records obtained, unable to determine if additional fuel eonsumed 392 TABLE 17 (continued ) Older House (Juneau) Building 1X. Electrical Energy Consuming Plants/Appliances A). Description: 2 - electric ranges 2.-- refrigerator/freezers 1 - dishwasher 1 - freezer 3 - TV's 2 - stereos Washer and dryer B). Electrical Consumption (Kilowatt Hours) January February March April May June July August September October November December Total C). Other (Gas, Wood, Etc.) 2 - fireplaces aI PUI LV. -40- TABLE 18 ENERGY SURVEY, JUNEAU COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE Nugget Mall Structure: Building A) Type: Resident xX _ Commercial Public B) Principal Use: _ Stores and shops Location: Juneau Douglas x Rural (Specify) Mendenhall Valley, 9 Mile, Glacier Highway Age of Building: 3 years Type of Construction: 6" tilt-up pre-cast concrete panels. Built-up flat roof. SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. Hugget Mal) Bullding Size (Heated Spsce) v. Comments =4te TABLE 18 (continued ) 2 -= a i |} - a aa ae = 3: ; ee TACT me Wo-4" concrete slab on grade i yECCECLLLUE : Phase I Phase II Total Nugget Mall Bul}ding VI. Windows (Exterior) F : Area‘ Total Glaze Storm Sash Frames Caulked Type Number (Each) Area Single Double Yes .No Yes No Comments ; meet | «|» | fe | oT fe roe} s tui» { =| | [. | | exre| > [oto] | | ft. | | sexosd ¢ [| ojo | | ft ts | pase |e |e | we foe =| | fk | 2'g" x 3! veo | 2 | w}o] | | fe | | exes [2 [wo {wo} of | ie [ ee Toute} e? ot tte] Eo et Fe slo i 2 (panutjuo>) BL 31a8vL -2p- Nugget mall VII. Number of Exterior Doors But Iding Doors Framed Weather Door Storm Door Caulked Stripped Area Total Number Single Double Yes No Yes No Yes No (Each) Area Comments Phase I 2 - 3'x7' | Storm Door 6 - 6'x7' | Double-glass i" tempered plate 4 - 3'x7' 1 - 7'x@s} Roll down Loading entrance 1 - 8'x7' | Double-glass " tempered plate 1 - 8'x9' | Roll down Loading entrance 1 - 4'x7' | ao | Loading entrance 1 - 3'x7' pede { fap [as \" tempered plate et ete 3 -3'x7' eee k" tempered plate A a Total 782 sf (panutquo>) 9) 3181 -¢v- =Aa- TABLE 18 (continued) Nugget Mall Building VIII. Heating Plant A). Description The mal] area is heated by two 350 MBh “Singer” oil-fired, foreed-air furnaces. In addition, there are three of the same 350 MBh furnaces heating the drug store at one end of the mal] and two of the same “Singer” 350 MBh furnaces heating the department store at the other end of the mal]. Each shop in the malT is equipped with its own furnace; however, of] consumption records reveal that these shop furnaces are rarely used. Total fuel consump- tion figures are therefore a composite of the main units and the few smaller units that records indicate were operated. It is assumed that the "spill-off" of heat from the main stores and the main mal] furnaces is the primary heat source for the shops in the mall. Special note regarding total] fuel consumption data: in compiling fuel consumption data for the mal] and shops, information supplied by various heating companies was sometimes sketchy and incomplete. Because of the turn- over in ownership of several shops, and the limited usage of heating plants in others, no continuous records were kept by the heating companies. In many cases, fuel was delivered and paid for immediately without an account record being kept. B). Fuel Consumption Data (In Gallons) January | February March April May June July August September October November December Total TABLE 18 (continued) Nugget Mall Building IX. Electrical Energy Consuming Plants/Appliances A). Description: B). Electrical Consumption (Kilowatt Hours) January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 85,550 91,500 59,460 82,210 95,860 86,550 ~ 81,990 77,550 108,760 85,500 113,260 99,510 1,067,590 C). Other (Gas, Wood, Etc.) -46- TABLE 19 ENERGY SURVEY, JUNEAU PUBLIC STRUCTURE Auke Bay Elementary School Building Te) Structure: A) Type: Resident : Commercial x Public B) Principal Use: School II. Location: Juneau Douglas x Rural (Specify) Auke Bay, 13 Mile, Glacier Highway III. Age of Building: 10 ‘years IV. Type of Construction: 8" concrete basement walls, conventional wood frame construction with 4" x 6" tongue and groove solid roof and floor decking. Cathedral roof. Partial crawl space, Ist floor, heated by ven- tilating system exhaust air. 4" concrete slab with vapor barrier under remaining of Ist floor. SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. ementary School Size — Space) -47- “ TABLE 19 (continued) ve ted Comments ‘ wood with 1° furring end 5/8" accoustical 60 percent of wall back?! Roof uninsulated, 4° tongue and ea LLL & ‘oundation wall \er 4° concrete s w/ vapor barr Floor Total Ist Space Crawl VI. Windows (Exterfor) : 5 Area Total Glaze Type Number (Each) Area Single Double Storm Yes > Ce en eel ae [Te | ee Pana corel | few serel [a awe | werel Ts Paw 5.5' x 2! bie Wi | 44st ace 6.5' x 2% aie 13 52 sf Auke Bay Elementary School Comments Buf lding Sash Frames Caulked ..No Yes No a Thermopane Window (panutquod) ¢§) 378vL -8¢- But Iding VI. Windows (Exterior) Area Tota) Glaze Storm Sash Frames Caulked Type Number (Each) Area Single Double Yes ..No Yes No Comments 3' x 2! x-Hopper Wind. Single Pane 3" x 4' Single Pane Tota) 3136 sf (panutjuod) ¢, 3TavL VII. Number of Exterior Doors Doors Framed Weather / Door Storm Door Caulked Stripped Area Total Number Single Double Yes No Yes No Yes No (Each) Area single-aluminum 15-3" x: 74 erame with glass single-solid 18-3' x 7] wood doors double-solid 2-6' x 7] wood doors Total ’ Auke Bay Elementary School Bul lding Comments (panutquo>) 6, T1avL -0S- AR TABLE 19 (continued) Auke Bay Elementary School ET Building VIII. Heating Plant A). Description Two "Cleaver-Brooks," o1l-fired, circulating hot weer boilers rated at 3,346 MHb. Maximum output (each) with a 22.5 GPH (each) maximum of] con- sumption. Light-grade of] burned in boilers. Building maintenance foreman rates this facility as one of the most economical of the Borough schools to heat. The but Iding! s heat retention characteristics are excellent. B). Fuel Consumption Data (In Gallons) -52- TABLE 19 (continued) Auke Bay ‘Elementary School Building . IX. Electrical Energy Consuming Plants/Appliances A). Description: B). Electrical Consumption (Kilowatt Hours) January 23,600 February 29,200 March 30,920 April 27,040 May 26,760 June ~ 10,800 ‘July 4,920 August 7,600 September 23,960 October ° | 25,600° November 32,080 December 26,920 Total 269,400 C). Other (Gas, Wood, Etc.) TABLE 20 ' ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION AND COST OF FUEL OIL AND ELECTRICITY FOR FIVE SELECTED RESIDENTJAL STRUCTURES IN JUNEAU, 1977 Type of Consumption Estimated! Expenditures Consumption Estimated@ Expenditures Total Structure Heated Space Age of Fuel Oi] Expenditure per sq. ft. of Electricity Expenditures per sq. ft. Expenditures Residential (sq. ft.) (years ) (gallons) (dollars) (dollars) (kwh) (dollars) (dollars) (dollars) Q) (2) (3) (4) 5 6 7 10 ID 1 1,570 80+ 1,057 507.36 32 12,950 615.12 39 1,122.48 2 728 23 1,338 642.24 88 9,850 467.88 64 1,110.12 3 11,865 10 6,933 3,327.84 +28 49,670 2,359.32 +20 5,687.16 4 1,296 2-5 1,092 524.16 -40 7,470 354.82 aor 878.98 5 3,590 4 2,114 1,014.72 +28 14,646 695.68 19 1,710.40 ‘eased on 48.0¢/gallon epased on 4.75¢/kwh SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -€S- TABLE 21 ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION AND COST OF FUEL OIL AND ELECTRICITY FOR SELECTED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IN JUNEAU, 1977 : 1 Estimated. 2 Type of Consumption Estimated Expenditures Consumption Estimated Total Structure Heated Space Age of Fuel Oi] Expenditure per sq. ft. of Electricity Expenditures Expenditures Commercial (sq. ft.) (years) (gallons) (dollars) (dollars) (kwh) (dollars) (dollars) Q) (2) (3) _(4) (5) (6) (7) 8 10 6 28,790 1 12,422 5,590 +19 65,950 3,363 8,953 7 8,000 4 9,580 4,311 -54 81,810 4,172 8,483 8 4,295 5 2,879 1,256 +30 23,780 1,213 2,469 9 106,163 3 21,180 9,531 -09 1,067 ,590 54,447 63,978 10 7,935 3 2,661 1,197 a5 56,760 2,895 4,092 nN 6,000 4 5,040 2,268 +38 26,020 1,327 3,595 12 5,599 20.5 2,825 1,271 ees 112,880 5,757 7,028 lbased on 45¢/gallon eBased on 5.1¢/kwh 3pid not begin operation until mid-year. SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -~S- TABLE 22 ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION AND COST OF FUEL OIL AND ELECTRICITY FOR SELECTED PUBLIC STRUCTURES IN JUNEAU, 1977 ] Estimated 2 Type of Consumption Estimated Expenditures Consumption Estimated Structure Heated Space Age of Fuel Oi] Expenditure per sq. ft. of Electricity Expenditures Public (sq. ft.) (years ) (gallons) (dollars) (dollars ) (kwh) (dollars) 0) 2 (3) (4) 45). 6) 7 ID 13 49,630 10 25,550 11,498 723 269,400 13,739 14 43,263 5 47,893 21,552 5] 659,400 33,629 15 67,510 7 118,611 53,375 79 1,541,000 78,591 16 189,680 5 247,890 111,551 -59 7,389,000 376,839 ‘eased on 45¢/gallon Based on 5.1¢/kwh SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. Total Expenditures (dollars) 25,237 55,181 131,966 488,390 -SS- CHAPTER IV MAJOR POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR STRUCTURES IDENTIFIED IN THE NON-RANDOM SAMPLE This chapter examines selected conservation measures applicable to the structures in the energy audit, and estimates the costs and energy savings of these measures. Since it was determined that energy used for space heating represented from 50 to more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption of the structures (Chapter III), the analysis of con- servation measures is focused on the thermal envelope of each structure. Non-infiltration heat losses of buildings can be reduced by increasing the levels of insulation (R values) in ceilings, walls, floors, by adding storm windows/doors, and by double-glazing windows. The caulking and weatherstripping of outside openings reduces the infiltration of cold air and thereby reduces heat losses and conserves energy required to warm the interior air. An analysis of heat loads affected by ventilation is presented for the commercial/public structures. Although other aspects of conservation (e.g. lowering thermostats) are not analyzed specifically, they are identified and briefly discussed at the end of the chapter. The methodology employed for this analysis was to conduct a heat load analysis of each structure in the sample. This provided the basic data necessary to evaluate the costs and energy savings for specific conservation measures. The procedure for performing a heat load analysis is explained in this chapter, and its results are presented in tabular form (Tables 24 through 28) along with a narration analysis of the results for selected structures. The costs and energy savings of the specific conservation measures were based on the cost assumptions which are tabulated in Tables 29, 30, 31, 35, and 36. These cost data were derived from information obtained from Juneay/ Douglas suppliers and contractors. The analysis of the potential energy -56- Eye savings was performed by examining the heat loads of specific structures and estimating the value of the change in heat losses after applying con- servation measures. A calculation and explanation of the costs and energy savings for selected residential structures appears in the Energy Conser- vation Economics section of this chapter. HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS -- METHODOLOGY The technical approach to assessing the thermal envelope charac- teristics has been to perform a heat load analysis of sixteen Juneau buildings for which on-site energy audits were conducted (see Chapter III and Appendix A). The purpose of a heat load analysis is to determine the heat loss through the thermal envelope. The heat loss is a function of the outdoor dry-bulb temperature and the thermal characteristics of structure components. The thermal envelope is segregated into its several distinct elements, which include the following: windows, doors, walls, ceilings, and floors. A structure loses heat not only through the above components of the thermal envelope, but also because of air infiltration and ventilation. The infiltration/ventilation load component has been treated separately from the other thermal envelope components listed above. The procedure for performing a heat load analysis is set forth in "Manual J," a standardized manual used by heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) engineers for sizing heating and cooling equipment for -58- residential buildings. The "Manual J" procedure is based on "design tem- perature," "design loads" (DL), and "heat transfer multipliers" (HTM). There are two design temperatures for any geographic location: a cooling design temperature that is exceeded less than 2.5 percent of the time during the year, and a heating design temperature that is exceeded 97.5 percent of the time during a typical year. For Juneau, the cooling design temperature is 70°F, indicating that air conditioning is not normally required. The heating design temperature for Juneau is -5°r. There are also two design loads for any structure: a cooling design load and a heating design load. The cooling design load is the heat gain of the structure (Btu/hr) at the cooling design temperature on a clear sunny afternoon in mid-summer. The cooling design conditions involve more than the design temperature, which causes HVAC contractors to refer to a "design day;" i.e., a theoretical day that imposes maximum cooling con- ditions on structures in the specific geographical area. The heating design load is the heat loss of the structure (Btu/hr) at the heating design temperature. Heat loss is generally assumed to be a function of temperature only; ji.e., other variables such as wind speed and relative humidity that could affect the actual heat load at any given temperature are not specifically considered in determining the heating design load. Also, since the heating load is dominantly influenced by the outdoor dry-bulb temperature, structure heat loads are characterized at all other temperatures by linear interpolation between the design load at the design temperature, and zero load at 65°F outdoor temperature. Figure I illustrates the relationship graphically. INational Environmental Systems Contractors Association, Manual J -- Load Calculation for Residential Winter and Summer Air Conditioning, (Arlington, Virginia), 1975. HEAT LOAD (BTU PER HOUR) -25 Design Heat Load N Coe reccresccccccccem cece cccccccccccscccccccescocsesceasseees NN FIGURE I STRUCTURE HEAT LOAD PROFILE VERSUS OUTDOOR DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) Indoor Thermostat Setting -6S- -60- The zero heat load at 65°F is the load on the heating system, not the structure. It assumes an indoor temperature of 70°F, and adequate indoor heat sources (people and lights) to maintain the 70°F indoor temperature even though it is 65°F outdoors. For any lower outdoor temperature, the internal sources are inadequate to satisfy the load, and therefore the heating system must supply the additional heat required to maintain a 70°F indoor temperature. The assumption of linearity illustrated in Figure I is typical and valid for the heating season. (The cooling load profile is not correspondingly linear, because solar heat gains are not a function of outdoor temperature, and must be treated separately.) The assumption of linearity is implicit in the general usage of heating degree days. For example, the heating degree day approach assumes that if the heating degree days double, the heating system energy consumption also doubles; i.e., a linear relationship exists. The heat load profile shown in Table 25 is a function of outdoor temperature only. It, therefore, does not by itself indicate the annual energy consumption required by the structure. It is necessary to weigh the heat load against the frequency of occurrence of the various tempera- tures to determine annual energy consumption. The procedure is illustrated below, Chapter V, in the discussion of the Seasonal Performance Models. In order to size a heating system, the following steps are taken: @ The heating design temperature is determined from the climatological conditions at the site. It is that temperature which is exceeded 97.5 percent of the time; @ The heat load of the structure is calculated at the heating design temperature; the resulting heat load is referred to as the design heating load; and e The heat loads at all other temperatures are determined by linear interpolation as illustrated in Figure I. Thus, the heating design load for a structure completely charac- terizes the structure heat loads at all outdoor temperatures. -61- The detailed calculation of the heating design load is based on "heat transfer multipliers" of HTM's, which are the coefficients that, when multiplied times the area of perimeter of an individual load component (e.g., a wall area), produce the value of heat loss associated with that component. The heat loads of walls, doors, windows, ceilings and most floors are characterized by area (Btu/hr/ft2). The heat losses of heated concrete slabs and crawl Spaces occur primarily at the edges of the slab and craw] space, and therefore are characterized in terms of perimeter (Btu/hr/ft). Table 23 lists comparative HTM's for the various load components under Juneau conditions. The HTM's fully characterize the probable ranges of heat loss for the same load components; e.g., door, window, etc., given alternative weatherization of insulation levels. For example, Table 23 illustrates that: e A door without any protection has 3.4 times (340/100) the heat loss of a door that is weather-stripped and provided with a storm door; e Storm sashes approximately halve (65/110) the heat loss of windows ; e Minimal wall insulation reduces the heat loss to 8/19 or approximately 42% of its uninsulated value, and increasing the insulation levels from R7 to R13 reduces the heat loss to 4.5/8.0 or approximately 56% of the R7 value; e The heat loss of uninsulated ceilings can be very large (HTM = 23), and 3 to 3% inches of insulation will reduce the heat loss to 5/23 or approximately 22% of the uninsu- latea level; e Installing 2 inches of edge insulation to concrete slab floors approximately halves (70/145) the heat loss. It is common to specify the thermal characteristics of walls, ceilings and floors in terms of their thermal resistance, or R values, some of which are noted in Table 23. HTM's and R values are inversely -62- TABLE 23 COMPARATIVE HEAT TRANSFER MULTIPLIERS FOR JUNEAU HEATING CONDITIONS LOAD COMPONENTS fd alte Doors? Windows4 Walls Ceilings Floors Over Unconditioned Space Heated Concrete Slab Floors 1 inside temperature: 70 HTM {2) 340 180 100 110 145/ft 90/Fft 70/ft OF). CONFIGURATIONS (3) no protection 2 1 level prot. (W/S or S/D) 2 level prot. (W/S and S/D) single double or insulated storm - sash no insulation 2-3/4" insulation (R7) 3's" - insulation (R11) 3-4" insulation (R13) uninsulated 3-345" insulation (R11) 54-6!5" insulation (R19) 10" insulation (R30) no insulation 2-2-3/4" insulation (R7) 3-3's" insulation (R11) 6" insulation (R19) no edge insulation 1" edge insulation 2" edge insulation Design temperature difference is 75°F (outside temperature: -5°F, 2u/s = weather-stripped; S/D storm doors. 3 Typical infiltration levels included in the HTMs. “ery low infiltration levels assumed in the HTMs. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -63- related; i.e., doubling the R value halves the HTM. However, it should be noted that the HTM's of Table 23 consider the total wall, ceiling or floor construction, not just the insulation level. Thus, the thermal characteristics of the wall siding and studs, as well as the insulation, are included in the wall HTM's, whereas the R values listed apply to the insulation alone. RESULTS OF THE LOAD ANALYSIS Table 24 illustrates the heat load analysis results obtained for one of the residential structures included in the field survey. The detailed survey data were computerized in a properly formatted data base for computer analysis. The "Component Load Characteristics," column of Table 24, lists the HTM's of the components (a zero indicates that that type of component was not present) and the heat load of the component in Btu/hr (at the heating design temperature). While the area of the com- ponent is not listed in Table 24, it was included in the data base, so that Btu/hr could be calculated from HTM and area (or perimeter for a few special cases as noted above). The component loads exclude the infil- tration/ventilation factors as much as practicable. For doors and windows, the HTM's listed in "Manual gel include some infiltration. The HTM's for the other load components do not include any allowance for infiltration. The "Totul Loads Without Infiltration" column of Table 24 simply aggregates the component data. The final column, "Total Loads With Infiltration," assumes one air change per hour in the structure as an infiltration/ventilation load, and adds the infiltration/ventilation component to the results in the previous column for a determination of the potential significance of infiltration/ventilation. It should be noted leg, footnote 1, p. 58. “our Ssuotzedtiddy aduatosg § :49yNDS SERSERAARAER AAA ARER SAE CAAA ARERA AAA AARAAAS AERA A ALAA AAA LAAAERA TAA AAAAARARAKS ALKA AAERAA CARER eRe RE REE * * * * « = "6 “egssz x "2% “esace * ‘eer “eggcz * TvLOLans * * * * * * SRRRREAAAAAA ARR AEA AAA AA AAA ERA A AAA AR AAAS AAA SAAR ASAE LA ARREARS EAR AAA ARARAAAKAAAERARAARSA RESTATE EEE EREE * * * * ® * * ee e 0e°e@ * FOVdS ‘TAVHO? * * * * * LNGWISVd GINOILIGNOD * io * eee: “8 @ * xD1ua * * ® * 3% “9099 ee'9 * GaLv inst * * * e "OL “e661 00°61 * dALv INS 1 wn * ® ® * * STIVA * * * ® * ® ARERR ARAEAA SAAR ARS AA AAA ARERR AA AAA ARAAARARARA AAA AAARSLALACAAA ASAE RAK AACA ASR AATAAR AERA TERRT RSET SET ER ES * * * * * 6 "0966 + PE: "9966 x “oa! “8966 * TWLOLENS . * x . ® . SRARASRAAAAAAAAAAATRS SARA A REAR RAAAATAAAAATAAAAAAA SAAR AAA AA ATA ART AAA AAR AKA AAARE RASTA RERASeE RSE E REE * x ® ® . * x 6S “8069 ne'eel «x a-WHOLS 8 dIULS-4 * * * RH aeS “e908 ee'eet (-HHOLS HO dIi¥LS-A ® * * « 8 “e 00° * d-WHO!'S HO dIHLS-A OW * ® - * * YaBLO = x * s ‘6 ® eee = a1anoa s * x ee 8 9e0°e * qFINIS . = * * * Ssv19 OMIGITS . * * * * <y00d ® 2 © ® * . SRRRRRE AAA AAAS CREE A CAAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAARAAAAAAAAARARALAAA LARA AKA ALARA ARTA AA ACALA ARATE RAE RE REESE EEE = ® * + cre =z ‘8% “egg s ‘8% “ge89z% x “00! “96897 * TvVLOLaNS * * * * ® * ARREARS AARSCAAAARAARS ARREARS AAA SRASA TA SARAALSAAAAASS ELAR AAAS SES ARASKAAAAAASACKARECAKAAAK AERA TARE RRR R EERE * zx * * ® * * « "Sy “Ssizt 60°99 * aSV8 WHOLS * = * . 6 *e * SsSv19 G4aLVINSNI z = * BG *e * ssv19 a1anoa . 2 * a “evlsl ee * SSV'ID FIONIS * * * * * SMOGMIA ® * * * * . SRRERAAERAAAAERAA AAAS AARAAAARARAAAAAAASALA LARA ATA ATAREAAASAAA SAA AARAAARAKSRAA KEATS RRR RAE R KATE E RARE EERE * * * ® * * a/OLa - * a/nLa - * a/7OLa KLE * ® * x * * « * MOLLVULTI ANT * MOLLVULTI ANT * * * * ALIA * LOORLIA * 891 LSIWALIVUVHD * * * SaVO1 TVLOL x Savol TVLOL * dvo1 LWaN0dwOo * LNINOdNOD = * * * * RSCR AERA CARR RAE RS ER ES EE SeaRRa eRe eR ER SARASAATRER AREA AAR AEA KARR KAAS ARR E RRR RR EE eR ERTS UH’ @@°I «= SADMVHD WIV 40 WaUWOM “M10 SUVaA +08 «‘AVaNOr “JOMadISTM “‘t = WaeWow dI waseez (Z 40 1) WOILVINITVD GVOl LVGH WOISID eeeenenese VASWTV SNVANNC NI FYNLINYLS WILNIGIS3Y VY 4¥Os NOILVINIIVI dvOT NOIS3d be W1aVvL -~9- TABLE 24 (continued) saeezeaees DESICN HEAT LOAD CALCULATION (2 OF 2) #¥eeeenaee RESTLESS TEAESTAAE TATA SA ACSA T SAS SAAT AAAS TLE RA ERS CAST SAA ASA ALERAKSSAALESEAAATAALAL ASST AATSAAACAAAAERLES RE s = 4 s . ® COMPONENT . COMPONERT LOAD * TOTAL LOADS = TOTAL LOADS ® s . CHARACTERISTICS . WITHOUT * WITH ® * * s INFILTRATION ® INFILTRATION ® s = . * = s * Em BTU/H x ff BTU/E x ® BTU/E x = x * * ® SSSSSCSEKTSASAAE ASS eAAeASH RASS eS SST: SSSASTK TSS Tea ASST A ALS SAAS TAA eeAS CAAA AAS SAAS ESA ER EEE SE = x * ® ® = CEILINGS * * * ® = UN INSULATED = 23.00 22318. 106. = . ® s INSULATED = 0.08 e. e ® = * . ® * ® RASA AAR AAS AAA ATLA AAAAAA SA AAS RASS AAAS AAR AAR TARA R eS ASAE STA ASS AAAS S SSAA SAAR SAAS TASES REe SE * z * ® ® x SUBTOTAL * 22318. 100. *® 22318. 23. * 22318. 260. * = . * . * RERSACARA SAAS AA ASTAATAALTSAAARAAS HSN AAAATAA RATA AAA ASAE RAAASSAAATAAA SSA TSAATAAAARSRAAAATAARS SESE SE 7 , 7 = z 2 FLOORS ® x * ® ® UNINSULATED OVER = * * ® s UNCONDITIONED SPACE z 11.00 10678. 106. = * * * INSULATED OVEK z z * * s UNCONDITIONED SPACE * e@.ee e. 6. * = ® HEATED BASEMENT FLOOR = @.e0 e. eo. *® = ® s HEATED CONCRETE SLAB = * = ® s (BASED ON PERIMITER) = @.00 e. eo. FF * . = HEATED CRAWL SPACE = * = * x (BASED ON PERIMITER) * @.08 e. eo. ® x = . = = * = BRESARAS ST ATAAARAAAAAATAATAAAAAAAASSAAAAATAACAAA AAAS AAA AAAS SSS RATS SAERSKSSASASAAR LAS TARAT LALA SERRE ESS = : = * * * SUBTOTAL * 10678. 100. = 10676. 11. 10670. 16. *® . . . * = SRST AAAAAASS ASS AAAAAATER CASAS AASAT ARACEAE A RSA AAA SRS AAA ASRS RA LASS ELSA ASAE RAK TA SAAS LATA LRAERSSE * x * * * = INFILTRATION ® * * ® s TOTAL @ 1.06 AIR ® . * * s CHANCES/AOUR * 16551. 100. * * * = . * * *. RRECSASSAAASATARTAAAAAATAAAASATAAS AS AAAS AAALAC AA ASA AAAS ERA KRESS AE ASA ESATA AL ERATTATSSAARASSERERSSERS TT = 7 . » . = SUBTOTAL # 16551. 106. ® * 16551. 16. # = . : = = RERSAARERAEAAASASAERASSAASA ALARA eS AAAAAA AAA RS ERAAAA SSS LA AA ELESASRAASAA SEAS ATA AE RAR ARERERRAAETR SARE RES RRAATAAARAALAAAALALERAARASR AERA ASTRA LAE LAE EAA ERARALAAATAERARA SCARS LA ARREST ACAS AR AERAREAEARERA ALAA AARERREE * ® ® * ® * GRAND TOTAL * = 95385. 100. *® 111936. 100. # ® ® * * e RRRAAAASRAAARAAEESERERAA KAAAAAAAARLA TAT TAAAAAARAAAE LESS AAAARERAALSALE TAAL S LAAAAEKSKERTAELL ARTS ALA AARTS LIVIRC AREA = 1870. FT**2 VOLUME = 12260. FT®*3 HEATING OIL = 1057. CAL DL/LIVING AREA = 68.75 DL/HEATING OIL = 90.24 _”, FLOORS © 2 D4ilt tic gapatart enn: -66- that the simple field surveys conducted did not produce sufficient data to determine the actual infiltration/ventilation levels. Therefore, the analysis treats it as a floating rather than a fixed parameter. Each of the major columns of Table 24 also lists the percentages associated with each load component. Thus, for example, the windows represent 28% of the total load if infiltration/ventilation is not considered, and 24% of the total load if infiltration/ventilation is included. Design loud analyses for all sixteen structures included in the field survey are listed in Appendices B-D: residential structures are found in Appendix B; commerical structures in Appendix C; and public structures in Appendix D. The structures that were included in the field survey are listed in Table 26. The total design loads, with and without infiltration/ventilation, for each of the structures in the sample are Shown in Table 25. The detailed calculations are presented in Appendices B-D. Table 25 also lists the heating system output rates for an assumed conversion efficiency of 55% for the sample buildings. The input rates of the heating system furnaces were determined during the survey. A comparison of the estimated output of the heating systems with the calculated design loads provides one measure of the reasonableness of the latter. In the case of a number of the commercial-public struc- tures, the calculated heating design loads appear much too small. The reasons are believed to be the following: o Typical ventilation requirements are greater than one air change per hour in many types of commercial structures. lc. footnote 1, Table 22. TABLE 25 HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE JUNEAU BUILDINGS ASSUMING -5°F. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE AND 70°F. INDOOR TEMPERATURE DESIGN HEAT LOADS (kBtu/h) EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM INPUT CATEGORY ID DESCRIPTION NO INFILTRATION INFILTRATION @ 1 CHANGE/HOUR Rating x 55% (kBtu/h) O) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Residential 1 Juneau, 80+y old, 1,570 Ft? 95.4 112.0 --- 2 Home with rental, Douglas, 27.9 35.2 --- 23y old, 728 ft? 5} Condominium, Douglas, 3 205.0 349.0 234.0 floors, 10y old, 11,865 #t? 4 Mendenhall Valley, 2.5y old, 25.4 49.4 63.3(°) 1,296 Ft? 5 uke Bay, 4y old, 3,590 ft” 60.1 92.1 90.2 Comercial 6 Mendenhall] Valley Stores 279.0 981.0 (861) 737.0 and Shops 7 State Trooper Building, 2 floors 147.0 260.0 (276) 323.08) 8 Dental Office, 2 floors 99.7 152.0 104.0 9. Nugget Mall Stores and Shops 1,390.0 4,010.0 1,350.0'@) 10 Juneau Office Buildings, 159.0 263.0 (284) 375.04) 3 floors W Butler Building Office 110.0 304.0 309.0 and Warehouse 12 Douglas Restaurant, 2 floors 87.9 157.0 193.06) .--continued ~L9- CATEGORY ID DESCRIPTION TABLE 25 (continued) DESIGN HEAT LOADS (kBtu/h) NO INFILTRATION INFILTRATION @ 1 CHANGE/HOUR EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM INPUT Rating x 55% (kBtu/h) (i) (2) (3) (4) (5) __(6) Public 13. Auke Bay School, 2 floors 730.0 1,440.0 (3,690) 3,680.02) 14 Highway Complex, 2 floors 1,260.0 2,290.0 (4,865) 3,450.0(3) 15 Hospital, 3 floors 660.0 1,750.0 (6,110) 11,500.01) 16 State Office Building, 7 floors 3,830.0 7,620.0 (7,220) 7,360.0 Notes: 1. The parenthetical numbers in Column 6 indicate oversizing ranked by the percentage discrepancy. The (a) indicates undersizing below the lowest estimated design load. 2. The parenthetical load estimates in Column 5 are based on recalculations using other estimates of ventilation requirements; see text. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -89 - -69- o Commercial building furnaces may be selected on the basis of their ability to heat up the building rapidly in the early morning hours before the occupants arrive. The capacity required for such heating would normally be much greater than the capacity required to maintain the building at 70 F on a continuous basis. Several recalculations of the ventilation loads were made on the basis of ASHRAE 62-73 recommendations. 2 are displayed in Table 26. The calculations by structure The Highway Complex includes vehicle maintenance areas that require a large number of air changes per hour, independent of the height of the building. Hospitals have separate requirements, expressed in number of air changes per hour, independent of ceiling height.¢ The other values were obtained from: NAC = (Recommended Cubic Feet per Minute x 60) x (Estimated Number of People/1,000 ft?) x (1/height of the room). Both the recommended CFM (which is multiplied by 60 to obtain NAC in per hour units) and the estimated number of people per 1,000 Ft? were obtained from the reference listed in footnote 1 below. For cases where the recalculated NAC's improved the relationships in Table 25, the recalculated results are indicated in parentheses in Column 5. It is apparent that in several cases, the much larger ventilation requirements explain all or a major part of the discrepancy between the heat load calculations and the capacity of the existing heating system. the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory: Applications, Chapter 7, "Health Facilities," 1978. 2cf. NOTES, Table 26. =70- TABLE 26 RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF AIR CHANGES FOR SELECTED JUNEAU STRUCTURES Recommended Number of Air Changes Per Hour Structure Description For the Function For the Actual Building eee _(2) _{3) Mendenhall Valley Stores 15/hei ght 0.33 State Trooper Building 12/height 1.14 Dental Office Building 31.5/height 3.50 Nugget Mall Stores 15/height 0.88 Juneau Office Building 12/height 1220 Butler Building 3.75/height 0.16 Douglas Restaurant 73.5/height 8.20 Auke Bay School 37.5/height 4.20 Highway Complex wren nee 3.50 HOS pilical) jena) et sia aia allel seis ccreceees 5.00 State Office Building 12/height 0.89 Notes: e Column 2 is based on the function of the structure, the cubic feet per minute per occupant that should be supplied to the interior of a structure that serves that function, and the "design level" number of occupants that should be assumed for a structure used for that function. Although perhaps not obvious, the number of air changes per hour that is required thus depends on the ceiling height of the occupied volume. ° Column 3 is Column 2 with he ight replaced by the actual height in feet of the actual building as determined from the field survey. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. eT ie The heating statistics for both the residential and commercial- public buildings are shown in Table 25. The data shown in Table 25 for the commercial/public buildings present the results only for the “most reasonable cases;" i.e., the ones for which the heating system capacity and calculated design loads show reasonable agreement. The data shown in Tables 27 and 28 were obtained in the following manner: Column (3): Infiltration or ventilation percent total: infil- tration or ventilation component load value divided by the total design load; Column (4): Energy Consumption/Area: energy consumed by the furnace in thousand Btu per year and per ft¢, based on actual oi] consumption, assuming a 55 percent conversion efficiency divided by the occupied floor area; Column (5): Design Load/Floor Area: the calculated design load (Btu/hr) divided by the occupied floor area; Column (6): dto., with infiltration or ventilation. Perhaps the most obvious conclusion regarding the heating statistics in Tables 27 and 28 is that each building must be considered separately. While there are some consistencies in the residential sector, the commercial- public sector is very heterogeneous. It does appear that ventilation caused heat loads of the commercial- public structures can be a much larger fraction of the total load than is infiltration in residential structures, 56.2 percent in Table 28 (Column 3) versus 28.0 percent in Table 27 (Column 3). However, even this generaliza- tion need not be valid, because ventilation air can be recirculated, whereas infiltration air cannot. If half the ventilation air were to be recircu- lated after filtering and combined with half outdoor air, the ventilation air load component would be halved. The specific treatment of ventilation TABLE 27 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEATING STATISTICS -7/- INFILTRATION , DESIGN LOAD/FLOOR AREA (Btu/h/ft?) % TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTJON/AREA WITHOUT WITH 1D DESCRIPTION @ 1 CHANGE/h (kBtu/y/ft) INFILTRATION INFILTRATION QO) =a(2) _(3) (4) SS ee ee 1 Juneau 80+y old, 1,570 ft? 14.8 aa 60.8 71.3 2 Douglas rental, 23y old, 728 Ft? 20.7 253.0 38.2 48.3 3 Condominium, 10y old, 11,865 ft? 41.3 80.6 17.3 29.4 4 Mendenhall Valley, 2.5y old, 48.3 116.0 C/E) 38.1 1,296 ft? 5 Auke Bay, 4y old, 3,590 ft¢ 34.7 81.3 16.7 25.7 AVERAGES 28.0 133.0 32.1 42.6 loi consumption (gal/y) x 138 (kBtu/gal) x 0.55/area (Ft?) SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. TABLE 28 COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC BUILDING HEATING STATISTICS ] VENTILATION ENERGY CONSUMPT IQN/AREA DESIGN LOAD/FLOOR AREA (Btu/h/ft?) ) {D DESCRIPTION % TOTAL (kBtu/y/ft WITHOUT VENT WITH VENT QO) a iii, {4) (5) 6 MENDENHALL VALLEY, 67.6 59.6 9.68 29.9 STORES AND SHOPS 7 STATE TROOPER BUILDING 46.7 165.0 18.4 34.5 10 JUNEAU OFFICE BUILDING 44.0 46.4 20.1 35.9 11 BUTLER BUILDING 63.8 116.0 18.3 50.5 12 DOUGLAS RESTAURANT 44.0 69.6 15.7 28.0 13. AUKE BAY SCHOOL 80.2 nA 14.7 74.4 16 STATE OFFICE BUILDING 46.8 180.0 20.2 37.9 AVERAGES 56.2 101.0 16.7 41.6 loi consumption (gal/y) x 138 (kBtu/gal) x 0.55/area (Ft2). SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -€l- 7A air in each of the commercial-public structures was not determined during the survey. It would, therefore, be speculative to estimate the degree of energy conservation that could be effected by modifying the ventilation system. However, it is apparent that ventilation must be a major con- sideration when estimating the heat loads of commercial-public buildings. The last three columns of Tables 27 and 28 provide some measure of the “energy efficency" of the structures with respect to space heating. Thus, it is apparent in Table 27 that the very old Juneau house is also very inefficient. The condominium and Auke Bay houses require the least amount of furnace capacity per square foot of living area, and consume the fewest Btu per year per square foot. It is worth noting that Columns 5 and 6 are based on design load calculations, whereas Column 4 is based on field data; the consistency in behavior indicates that the calculations incorporate the dominant heat loss mechanisms with reasonable accuracy. A corresponding comparison in Table 28 illustrates a much greater discrepancy between the calculations and field data. The differences are at least partially attributable to the widely varying use patterns of commerical-public buildings. The design loads per unit area of Columns 5 and 6 are independent of the use pattern (by definition they are based on the most severe conditions expected, which corresponds to one hypo- thetical instant in time), whereas the actual energy consumption data of Column 4 certainly reflect the actual use pattern. It is also apparent in Column 5 of Table 28, that if ventilation is improved, the variation in building energy efficiency is not nearly so large as is found in residential structures (Column 5 of Table 27). The nominal range in Table 28 is 15-20 Btu/hr/ft®, whereas the Table 27 range is 17-60 Btu/hr/ft if Structure 1 is included and 17-38 Btu/hr/ft2 if Structure 1 is excluded. Much of the superiority of commercial -75- structures over residential structures is caused purely by geometry rather than superior insulation practices. Generally, a multi-story structure should require fewer Btu/hr/ft® simply because the usable floor area divided by total volume is greater. Thus, it is difficult to draw con- clusions regarding the quality of the design practices without examining the detailed analysis of the particular structure as found in Appendices B-D. ENERGY CONSERVATION ECONOMICS This section contains estimates of the present costs and energy savings for specific conservation measures -- weather-Stripping, installing storm windows, and adding insulation -- which would significantly reduce the heat loss of structures in the energy audit. The heat load of any structure is the sum of the infiltration/ ventilation and the non-infiltration loads. Infiltration accounted for an average 28.0 percent of the total heat load of the five residences surveyed, varying from a low of 14.8 to a high of 41.3 percent. (Table 27, Column 3.) For commercial-public buildings, the average ventilation load was estimated to be 56.2 percent of the total load, with a range from 44.0 to 80.2 percent. The non-infiltration/ventilation loads, heat losses through the several structural components such as walls, ceilings, floors and windows accounted for the remainder. The willingness of the owners of residences, businesses, or public structures to take one or the other energy conservation measure depends upon their desire to save energy, and on whether the present and expected future energy and dollar savings are justified by the current conservation expenditures. The future dollar savings are the product of the conservation measure-caused reduction of energy consumption and the prices of energy goods. The current costs include materials, labor, and the cost of -76- money -- the interest rate. The current material and labor costs in Juneau are given in Tables 29, 30, and 31. Table 32 presents a series of calculations of the annual savings which must be realized in order to justify the investment of one dollar, given different interest rates and useful lives of the conservation measures. The values shown in Table 33 represent the investments that are economically justified by the savings realized from conservation measures, again at different interest rates and life cycles. Reduction of the Residential Infiltration Heat Load, Costs and Savings A typical pre-energy conservation era residence experienced one (1) air change per hour during the heating season (Table 34, Columns 4, 5) which could potentially be reduced by 50 percent by installing weather- stripping windows and exterior doors, by caulking, installing storm sashes, or by constructing entry ways or vestibules. An example of the calculation which must be made in order to determine whether an investment in weather-stripping is justified is as follows. Assume a residence of 2,000 Ft? has 200 lineal feet (In. ft.) of window edges which could be weather-stripped at a cost of $.25/In. ft.3 that the average annual consumption of energy for space heating was 133,000 Btu/ft® (133 kBtu/yr/ft2); that infiltration accounted for 28 percent of the total heat load; and that weather-stripping can reduce the infiltration heat load by 50 percent. The savings realized would be: +28 x 133 kBtu x 2,000 Ft? or 37,240 kBtu/yr or 270 gal/yr or $130.41/yr (based on an average fuel oil price of 48.3¢ per gallon). -77- TABLE 29 BASIC MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE (JUNEAU, ALASKA, 1978) Classification Base Fringe Benefits Total a 42) ___ (3) (4) Roofers $15.30 $3.65 $18.95/hour Roofers (Bituminous Material) 16.80 3.65 20.45/hour Carpenter 16.19 2.40 18.59/hour Laborer Carpenter Tender 13.10 3.52 16.62/hour Other 13.90 3.52 17.42/hour SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. E784 TABLE 30 ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL COST (JUNEAU, ALASKA, 1978) Insulation gees ((12) Hee Fiberglass Batts 10" w/R-30 6" w/R-19 3 5/8" w/R-13 Blown Insulation 8 3/4" w/R-19 4" (ceiling) w/R-7 4" (wall) w/R-14 Urethane Sheet Stock 3/4" w/R-5 Spray 235" w/R-19 Spray 3's" w/R-20 Rigid Insulation (Insul foam) 2" Insulfoam Sheathing R-14 4" Insulfoam Sheathing R-30 Insulated Window Replacement Cost - approximately Wall Exterior Siding Cost - approximately ] 2 3 Installation cost included. SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. Approximate Cost Estimate (2) $0.65/square foot 0.35/square foot 0.27/square foot 1.34/square foot, 0.61/square foot, 0.80/square foot 0.31/square foot, 1.50/square foot, 1.70/square foot 1.15/square foot 2.30/square foot 12.00/square foot? 0.55/square foot? As a result of higher resultant density of insulating material in the wall, a higher R value is obtained. Approximate average cost of various stock brand materials. -79- TABLE 31 ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL PLUS INSTALLATION COST (JUNEAU, ALASKA, 1978) Item Material and Installation Cost Estimate 1) pte I ly ihe 10" batt insulation $0.75/square foot 6" batt insulation 0.45/square foot 3 5/8" batt insulation 0.35/square foot 8 3/4" blown insulation 4" blown insulation (ceiling) 4" blown insulation (wall) -40/square foot -70/square foot -85/square foot oe = Urethane Sheet Stock (3/4") 0.38/square foot Urethane (Spray) - See Table XXX Estimate of Insulation Material Cost Rigid Insulation _ 2" insulfoam sheathing -45/square foot 4" insulfoam sheathing 2.90/square foot Exterior wall siding 0.75/square foot Roofing - built-up over rigid insulation 0.40/square foot Window replacement and new installation 13.50/square foot Door replacement and new installation 9.40/square foot SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. -30- TABLE 32 ANNUAL SAVINGS NECESSARY TO WARRANT THE INVESTMENT OF ONE DOLLAR IN CONSERVATION MEASURES AT ALTERNATIVE PAYBACK PERIODS (LIFE_CYCLES) AND INTEREST RATES (dollars)! puueaee Interest Rate (years) (percent) 5 725) 10 15 20 pes (113) Bes (2)" (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 $1.050 $1.075 $1.100 $1.150 $1.200 2 - 538 B57, -576 -615 -655 3 - 367 - 385 -402 - 438 -475 4 - 282 -299 eID - 350 - 386 5 s2ol -247 - 264 -298 +334 6 -197 -213 - 230 .264 -301 7 As} -189 «205 -240 SOU 8 155) -171 - 187 wees -261 9 +147 a Se .174 alle) - 248 10 - 130 - 146 - 163 -199 eae 5 -096 ans, -131 al/Al na4 20 - 080 -098 oie - 160 -205 ‘Investment is assumed at the beginning of the period and the savings are realized at the end of the period. SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. . ” i -8l- TABLE 33 AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED PER DOLLAR OF SAVINGS PER YEAR AT ALTERNATIVE INTEREST RATES AND LIFE OF INVESTMENT! (dollars) Interest Rate (percent ) Life of Investment (years) 5 7.5 10 15 20 ae (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ] $ .950 $ .930 $ .909 $ .870 $ .830 2 1.859 1.796 1.736 1.626 1.528 3 2.723 2.600 2.487 2.280 2.106 4 3.546 3.349 3.170 2.855 2.589 5 4.329 4.046 3.791 3.352 2.991 10 7: 722 6.864 6.145 5.019 4.192 15 10.380 8.827 7.606 5.847 4.675 20 12.462 10.194 8.514 6.259 4.870 investment is assumed at the beginning of the period and the savings are assumed to be realized at the end of the period. SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. TABLE 34 MANUAL N- INFILTRATION LEVELS! Air Changes per Hour Kind of Room Summer Winter or Buiicing Ordinary Weatherstripping Ordinary Weatherstrinping or Storm Sash or Storm Sash Q) (2) (3) (3) (5) No windows or outside doors 0.30 0.15 0.50 0.25 Entrance halls 1.20-1.80 0.60-0.90 2.00-3.00 1.00-1.50 Reception halls 1320 0.60 i 2.00 1.00 Bathrooms 1.20 0.60 2.00 1.00 Infiltration through windows: Rooms, ] side exposed 0.60 0.30 1.00 0.50 Rooms, 2 sides exposed 0.90 0.45 Yok) 0.75 Roons, 3 sides exposed 1.20 0.60 2.00 1.00 Rooms, 4 sides exposed 1.20 0.60 2.00 1.00 ‘The total simultaneous infiltration for an entire building will be approximately 50 percent of the sum of the infiltration allowances of individual rooms. SOURCE: Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Washington, D.C. Manual N - Load Calculation for Commercial Summer and Winter Air Conditioning (Using Unitary Equipment). -28- =83= The cost of installing 200 In. ft. of weather-stripping is $50.00. Thus, the investizent is clearly justified since the first year savings of $80.41 alone pays for the conservation measure. Averages are, of course, misleading. Two examples will illustrate the point. The least energy efficient residence (ID-2) used 253 kBtu/yr/#t2, or 1,335 gallons of fuel oi] in 1977. Infiltration was estimated to account for 20.7 percent of the heat load (Table 27, Column 3). If, with proper weather-stripping, the heat loss due to infiltration could be reduced by 50 percent, the annual savings would be: 2207 x 253 kBtu x 728 Ft” or 19,063 kBtu/hr or 138 gal/yr or $66.72/yr. The building has approximately 106 ft? of windows and 145 In. ft. of edging. The installed cost of weather-stripping at $.25/In. ft. or $36.25 is significantly less than the estimated annual saving of $66.72/yr. Even if the infiltration load were reduced by only 25 percent, the first year's savings would nearly pay for the weather-stripping installation. The most energy efficient residence (ID-5) consumed only 81.3 kBtu/ yr/ft?, or 2,115 gallons of fuel oi] per year. Infiltration was estimated to account for approximately 34.7 percent of the total heat load, or 734 gallons of fuel oi], or $354.52. That residence was recently constructed, the windows are double glazed, the frames are caulked, and all but one of five doors have storm doors. It is doubtful that by weather-stripping the total infiltration load could be reduced by more than ten percent, for an annual savings of $35.45. Weather-stripping approximately 285 In. ft. of window edges would cost $71.25. At an interest rate of ten percent, the -84- investment would be recovered in 2.35 years. Since good weather-stripping can be expected to last five years, the annual savings of $35.45 (assuming constant fuel oi] prices) would warrant an investment of at least $124.38. Table 35 summarized the estimated costs of installing weather-stripping at the five residences surveyed and analyzed, the estimated annual savings, and the payback periods. What is apparent, except for ID-1, is that an investment in weather-stripping is returned over a relatively short period of time, even if the infiltration load is reduced by only ten percent. The question that remains unanswered is whether new stripping will indeed reduce the infiltration loads by the assumed percentages. While the heat load analyses do so suggest, it is largely a function of the quality and age of the stripping currently in place. Such qualitative data were not obtained in the survey. Reduction of the Residential Non-Infiltration Heating Load, Costs and Savings The non-infiltration loads, by structure component, were estimated for each of the five residences and are shown in Table 36. As can be seen, the average heat loads of windows are significantly larger than those of any other component, accounting for 31 percent of the total (non-infiltration) load, or heat loss. (This is particularly surprising since 2,065 ft?, 85 percent, out of a total window area of 2,427 Ft? in the five residences are double glazed.) Walls accounted for 22 percent, doors for 21 percent, and ceilings and floors each for 13 percent of the total non-infiltration heat loss. There were, of course, significant variances around the nean heat loss estimates. For example, the heat losses through the windows of ID-3 (41 percent) were much higher then for ID-4 (24 percent). Alter- natively, ceiling heat losses of ID-3 (5 percent) were less than half of those for ID-4 (11 percent). TABLE 35 ESTIMATED COST OF INSTALLING WEATHER-STRIPPING AROUND WINDOWS, ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS, AND PAYBACK PERIODS FOR CONSERVATION INVESTMENT, ASSUMING A TEN PERCENT INTEREST RATE! Estimated Cost of Estimated Annual Savings Payback Period Weather-stripping If Infiltration Load is Reduced By If Infiltration Load is Reduced By 2 25 percent 310 percent 25 percent 10 percent TsO (dollars) (dollars) (years ) 1 2 z 4 5 6 1 85.75 27.04 10.82 4.0 16.5 2 36.25 33.36 Sec 12 3.3 a 3 328.50 354.59 138.23 1.0 2.8 v 4 36.00 37.23 14.89 lst 2.9 5 71.25 88.62 35.44 0.9 2.4 Tassume investment is made at the beginning of the period and savings are realized at the end of the period. Installed cost estimated at $0.25/In. ft. 3assumes fuel oi] price of 48.3¢/gal. 2 SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -86- TABLE 36 RESIDENTIAL NON-INFILTRATION LOAD COMPONENT STATISTICS (percent) 1D DESCRIPTION WINDOWS DOORS WALLS CEILING FLOOR Q) (2) (3) Pas ee Lae (7) 1 Juneau, 80+ yrs old 28 10 27 23 1] 1,560 sq. ft. 2 Douglas Rental, 23 yrs old 28 20 23) 3 16 3 Condominium, 10 yrs old 4] 26 18 5 9 11,865 sq. ft. 4 Mendenhall Valley, 24 yrs old 24 29 18 B| 18 1,296 sq. ft. 5 Auke Bay, 4 yrs old 35 19 23 uy 12 3,590 sq. ft. av 31 21 22 Vs is) SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. =87 = Storm Windows Because windows accounted for a large fraction of the total residential heat loads, calculations were made to determine the annual dollar savings and payback periods that could be realized from installing additional glass storm windows which would lower the window heat losses by 50 percent. These calculations are shown in Table 37. It is apparent that, using average fuel oi] prices of $0.483/gallon, and assuming a zero (0) interest rate, the shortest payback period was 20 years, and the longest 49 years. Simpler measures as, for example, self-installed polyethylene storm windows could also reduce the heat loads and heating bills. However, no estimates of either were available. Other Retrofit Measures The average annual costs of the total non-infiltration heat losses through the structural components of a 2,000 ft? Juneau residence are shown in Table 38. (It should be remembered that the infiltration loads were estimated to be 28 percent of the total load. Thus, the non-infiltration load accounts for 72 percent of the total heat load. Table 27.) For example, if by upgrading the wall insulation the heat losses could be re- duced by 50 percent, the energy (Btu) savings that would be obtained are calculated as follows. Total non-infiltration load x fraction accounted for by walls x reduction of heat load x annual energy consumption/ft2 x area; or -72 x .22 x .5 x 133,000 x 2,000 = 21,067,200 Btu Dividing by the Btu value of a gallon of fuel oil (138,000) yields the energy saving in gallons of oi] -- 153. Multiplying by the price of fuel -88- TABLE 37 ESTIMATED COST OF INSTALLING ADDITIONAL STORM WINDOWS, ANNUAL SAVINGS, AND PAYBACK PERIODS FOR FIVE JUNEAU RESIDENCES Cost of Storm Payback Period Windows! Annual Savings@ at Zero Interest Rate 1.0. (dollars ) (dollars ) (years ) Q) (2) (3) (4) ] 4,334 87.17 49 2 1,431 71.57 20 3 17,739 833.90 21 4 1,539 45.27 34 5 S153 116.74 32 Tat $13.50 #t? eat 48.3¢/gal >» installed SOURCE: Applied Economics Associates, Inc. -89- TABLE 38 ANNUAL AVERAGE COST OF NON-INFILTRATION HEAT LOSS FOR A 2,000 FT® JUNEAU RESIDENCE, BY STRUCTURE COMPONENT! Component Average Annual Cost of Heat Loss? sie Tg (2) Windows $208.00 Doors 141.00 Walls 147.00 Ceilings 87.00 Floors 87.00 TOTAL $670.00 lassumes a total annual energy consumption of 133 kBtu/yr/ft?, and non-infiltration heat loads of structure components shown in Table 35. 2 assumes a 1977 fuel oi] price of $0.483/gallon. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -90- oi] ($0.483/gallon), yields the dollar savings -- $73.73. (Note that the savings are one-half, 50 percent, of the estimated average annual cost of the total heat loss accounted for by walls, $147.00. Table 38, Column 2.) All of the buildings surveyed had wall insulation of at least R-11. Upgrading that insulation to R-19 in all residences was estimated to cost approximately $24,201 (16,134 rt? x $1.50/ft?). The resulting fuel oil savings were estimated to be approximately 2,408 gallons, or $1,163. Assuming constant 1977 oil prices, and a zero rate of interest, the payback period is approximately 21 years. As oil prices rise, the investment obviously becomes more attractive. Thus, given 1978 average fuel oil prices of $0.56/ gallon, the payback is reduced to 18 years at a zero interest rate. The heat losses through the ceilings averaged only 13 percent of the total non-infiltration loads (Table 36). Three of the houses had ceiling insulation of at least R-19; one had R-30. One house, ID-1 appears to have no ceiling insulation at all. Installing R-30 insulation at a cost of $450.00 (600 sq. ft. x $.75/sq. ft.) would drastically reduce heat losses and could save approximately 102 gallons of fuel oil, or $49.25 per year. However, at zero percent interest, the payback period is slightly more than nine years and at 10 percent it would be 26 years. ID-2 has only R-8 ceil- ing insulation. Upgrading it to R-30 would cost $546.00 (728 sq. ft. x $.75/sq. ft.) and save 96 gallons of fuel oi], or $46.50 per year. At zero percent interest, the payback period is 12 years, and at 10 percent it would exceed 40 years. A sample calculation was made to compare the costs of completely retro- fitting one of the least energy efficient houses, ID-2, with the resulting energy savings (Table 39). The total cost of retrofitting was estimated to be $4,632. In 1977, the space heating plant consumed 1,335 gallons of fuel oil. If the maximum reduction of fuel consumption is assumed to be 50 percent, the energy and dollar savings would be 667.5 gallons and $322.40, respectively. =9)= The payback period for an investment of $4,634 that yields annual savings of $322.40 at a zero rate of interest is approximately 14 years; at 5 percent it would be 26 years. All of the above calculations were based on an average 1977 fuel oi] price of 48.3¢/gal. As that price rises, everything else such as the cost of installing insulation remaining constant, the economics of conservation clearly improve. Moreover, in the calculations made, it was assumed that the various retrofit measures would be undertaken by professionals which increas- ed the costs and made the measures less economic. Such measures as weather- stripping, caulking, and adding plastic storm windows can usually be done by the homeowner at significantly lower costs if time is assumed to be costless. On the other hand, the cost of professionally installed insulation materials may differ greatly from those used in the calculations. They depend in large Measure on the design (geometry) and age of the buildings. It may, for example, be relatively easy to add wall insulation, but more difficult and costly to add insulation to floors and ceilings. Three of the five buildings, ten or fewer years old, have reasonably or well insulated floors, walls, and ceilings and the windows are double glazed. It, therefore, appears that major retrofitting by adding additional insulating materials is currently not economically justifiable. However, minor improvement, weatherstripping, for example, is economic. The two older buildings which were less well insulated do not justify major expenditures, since the payback periods appear to exceed their useful lives. Weather- stripping, however, again proved to be very cost-effective. In determining whether an investment in a major conservation measure was economic or not, the interest rate or expected return to investment proved to be a critical variable. The return to the investment was, in each case, assumed to accrue solely to the private person who made it. There are, of course, also returns to society at large. Conservation not only saves resources of the private consumer, but frees resources generally. The social returns to conservation were not included in the calculus. Structure Area ole Ley") | | eat Ceiling 728 square Wall a). Window 41 square b). Basement Wall 405 square c). First Floor 108 square d). Siding 108 square Entrance Doors 56 square Floor 728 square TOTAL (OLDER feet feet feet feet feet feet feet TABLE 39 INSTALLATION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY HOUSE - DOUGLAS; AREA = 1,456 SQUARE FEET) Installation Item (3) 4" of rigid insulation plus built-up roofing Thermopane 2" insulation 2" insulation New New 6" batt SOURCE: R & M Consultants, Inc. See; Tables 29, 30, and 31 for sources of Cost Estimate (4) $2,402 554 Represents approximately 587 40% of total window area 156 81 526 328 $4,634 or $3.18/square foot cost estimates. i Oo i) ' -93- RETROFIT MEASURES FOR COMMERCIAL-PUBLIC STRUCTURES The ventilation loads of the commercial-public structures were estima- ted to account for an average of 56.2 percent of the total heat loads, with a range of from 44.0 to 80.2 percent. (This compares with an average infil- tration load of only 28 percent for residences.) The ventilation loads are Obviously a function of the uses of the buildings and the regulations that govern the required number of air changes per hour. Without a detailed, ad hoc analysis that covers both aspects, no conservation strategies can be suggested, nor could their costs and energy savings be calculated. The non-ventilation loads of the structure components were also calcu- lated and are shown in Table 40. Windows again accounted for a large fraction of the non-ventilation loads (34 percent), followed by walls, ceilings, doors, and floors. What is immediately apparent from Table 40 is that there are no norms of heat loads for the commercial-public structures. In the State Office Building, for example, windows accounted for 71 percent of the non-infiltration, Or 37.8 percent of the total heat load. (The windows, through relatively thick and bronzed, are single glazed.) Equally surprising (not shown in Table 40, c.f. Appendix D) is the fact that doors accounted for 72 percent of the non-ventilation load of the Highway Complex. This is very likely due to the vehicle maintenance facility which is located there. An attempt was made to prepare summary statistics of the benefit- cost ratios of alternative retrofitting measures. However, because of the heterogeneity of the structures, and because the costs of retrofitting varied significantly from building to building, no general conclusions could be reached. -94- TABLE 40 COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC BUILDING SUBSET NON-VENTILATION LOAD COMPONENT STATISTICS (percent) ID DESCRIPTION WINDOWS DOORS WALLS CEILING FLOOR (1) __(2) __(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 6 Mendenhall Valley stores 16 15 18 31 20 7 State Trooper Building 46 9 22 VW 1] 10 Juneau Office Building 40 17 20 5 18 11 Butler Building 8 ic 35 27 23 12 Douglas Restaurant 31 25 25 1 8 13 Auke Bay Schnol 29 19 14 31 8 16 State Office Building 71 5 12 7 6 av 34 14 21 18 13 SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -95- OTHER CONSERVATION MEASURES A large number of other energy conservation measures have been proposed. Most important among them in terms of potential energy savings is the thermostat setback. While an overall reduction of temperature levels in all heated areas during all times of the day may reduce "comfort levels" and would therefore fall into the category of "belt tightening," thermostat setback at night or when space is not actually occupied does not materially affect the standard of life. Similarly, reducing the thermostat setting on hot water heaters to a level of 130°F, for example, also produces significant energy savings, as does modifying the use pattern of appliances, using cooler water for clothes washing, or less frequent use of dishwashers. Some energy savings in the residential sector can also be obtained by replacing filament bulbs with flourescent lighting, although it is atcompanied by some heat loss which has to be compensated for during the heating season. Finally, federal mandate requires that all new appliances sold in the U.S. meet certain energy efficiency criteria.! Since a large fraction of the heat loss of residences is due to the opening of exterior doors, double-door entry ways are advisable. In new construction, exterior openings facing northward should be minimized, and in existing structures they should be particularly well weather-stripped and caulked. Other areas where substantial energy savings can be obtained are the heating, cooling and ventilation systems themselves. The heating (or cooling) plants in many older buildings may be larger than necessary leederal Energy Administration, "Energy Conservation Program for Appliances: Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets," Federal Register, Part III, July *%5, 1977. -96- for the heating loads they carry, and are therefore inefficient. Many types of furnaces or boilers can be "de-rated" by reducing the size of the fuel feed lines and the nozzles to the combustion chambers. Air required for combustion muy be pre-heated by recovering exhaust air,! and furnaces or boilers (and hot water heaters) located in unheated areas can be insulated, as can be ducts and pipes. In the commercial-industrial and government sectors, lighting accounts for a significant fraction of total energy consumption. His- torically, lighting intensities have been increased to unnecessarily high levels. To conserve energy, the federal government has recommended a general reduction in lighting intensities, and a recent ASHRAE study con- cluded that current industry lighting standards can be significantly reduced without impacting human safety and comfort.” For example, energy savings can be obtained by shifting from general area to work-area lighting, by light intensity controls, and by time or sunshine-control led switches. A determination of the efficacy of these energy conservation measures would have required an extensive end-use analysis which was not undertaken. lpatterson, N.R., "Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings," Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning, January 1978. 2Federal Energy Administration, Office of Conservation and Environment, Lighting and Thermal Operations, Energy Management Action Program for Commercial, Public and Industrial Buildings: Guidelines. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, p. 2. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE Standard 90-75: Energy Conservation in New Building Design, 1975. CHAPTER V HEATING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE AND THE ECONOMICS OF RETROFITTING All five residences surveyed (Chapter III) were heated with oil-fired space heating plants. Space heating accounted for from 77 to 86 percent of the total residential energy consumption. It is apparent, therefore, that converting the space heating systems from fuel oi] to electricity offers the best opportunity to increase the demand for electric energy. In this chapter the costs of owning and operating alternative electric and oil space heating systems are compared. However, the actual total cost of converting oi] systems to electricity for each structure could not be obtained. The total costs of conversion, including in- stallation and structural modifications, depend upon the specific design and geomotry of each house. They were unobtainable. One form of conversion is the installation of supplemental baseboard or other forms of electrical resistance heat. It was not con- sidered except in the case of conversion to heat only heat pumps (HOHP), because the range of alternatives made the quantifications of costs and energy consumption impractical. In order to quantitatively compare the technical performance and economics of different heating systems, a sophisticated computer model was utilized. This model explicitly compares an HOHP-assisted electrical heating system with oil-fired systems of different efficiencies. The performance of electric resistance heating systems has also been ascertained by use of the model. -97- -98- TECHNICAL APPROACH The seasonal performance of selected space heating systems for Juneau conditions has been evaluated using a Seasonal Performance Model (SPM) originally developed for the Department of Energy (DOE) and modified for the Juneau application. | Table 41 is a computer listing of the SPM output, as modified. A brief discussion of the output listing will identify the techniques that have been employed and the types of results that have been obtained. The data shown in Table 41 compare a heating only heat pump system against oil-fired systems of various efficiencies. The three variables noted above the main segment of Table 41, i.e., ICYCLE, IAF, and TIDB, have the following meanings: ICYCLE = 0 cyclic degradation is not considered IAF = ] the Autofan mode is assumed, i.e., the indoor fan is ON only when the compressor is running TIDB = 70 the indoor thermostat setting in degrees F Cyclic degradation considers the losses associated with each turn-ON and turn-OFF of the compressor. Manufacturer specification data are not adequate to characterize cyclic degradation and, therefore, it is assumed to have zero effect. Iscience Applications, Inc., Energy Efficiency Program for Room Air Conditioners, Central Air Conditioners, Dehumidifiers, and Heat Pumps, Department of Energy, Contract #CR-04-60724-00, March 1978. TABLE 41 SEASONAL PERFORMANCE MODEL OUTPUT FOR FULL-TIME/NO-SETBACK CONDITIONS seseeeese® BEASONAL PEIFONMANCE DATA - RESIDENTIAL *eeaeeneee 1 Tov ALO ns 3 62.¢@ 5e.6 292. 4 57.0 61.4 649. 5 32.8 63.5 1192, 6 47 79.3 7 42 64.5 6 av 91.2: 9 3 we 89.6 u 07.8 12 84.5. 13 61.7 4 79.8 iS 61.8 6 67.@ 17 94.7 18 -13.@ 100.5 TUTALS us27. AVERAGES NOTES: 1. 2. se 4 6 6 7. 8. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. JANITHOL UEATING ONLY BP (WATTSAVER, JUNE 1977 SPEC BHEET, 1200 CFM) JUNEAU, AK (AFM 88-6, 16 JUNE 1967) ICYCLE? @ tars 48 Tipu CPURS HT-LOAD HP-CAP 6H-CAP HP-KITU SH-KBTU FIP-KWU COP IPCT-ON ArcT-OR 16. 44000. e. 7Ob,. e. 61. 3.99 5.65 5.65 99. 42000. e. 4154. e. 366. 3.39 13.2 15.2 u16. 39000. @. 12997. e. 1120, 3.22 26.7 26.7 476. . @. 17901. e. 1695. 3.19 29.5 39.6 633. 21518. 6. 2056. 3.07 54.1 64.1 1026. 3239. 2.93 78.8 7t.8 1017, . 31e1. 2. 91.0 645. 2126. 1600. 2. 114.7 320. 34tt. 995. 2. 143.3 200. 3980. 556. 2. 178.6 163. 3733. 440. 2. 217.4 3499. 316. 1 265.1 2094. 156. 1 325.2 1172. 74. 1 360.6 413. 23. t. 467.2 1e2. 5. i. 542.6 10 6042 161360. 19069. 15652. 20062. 300624. 2.63 59.5 FOR THI8 SITE: FOR THIS SITE: TODU* -6.0 TODCs 7v.e RANCE* e QiDL* 36000. QsDL* e. RESVOL* e. RESAREA* e. FOR THIS SITE AND THIS PRODUCT THE KBTU LosT TO THE DEFROST CYCLES » 17372. KBTU WHICH IS 11.48 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL, OUTPUT KBTU OF TIE BEAT PUMP. THE BALANCE POINT TEMPERATURE IS: 30.@ DEC-F TUE SYSTEM SEASONAL COP 18: 2.336 . THE SUPPLEMENTARY TNEATER ENERCY CONSUMPTION IS: 5022. Kwil. . THE TOTAL SEASONAL ENERCY CONSUMPTION 18: 21474. Kwul. . THE TOTAL SEASONAL ENERCY OUTPUT 18: 171237. KBTU. THE ANNUAL OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS AT 4.88 AND 5.13 CENTS/KWH [81 @ 1040. 64.00 @ 1102. THE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT CALLONS OF OIL ENENCY CONSUMPTION AT 5@, 53, 60, AND 65 PERCENT EFFICIENCY FOR 5.0 MILLION BTU/BBL OR 134008 BTU/CAL 18: 2402. U5OR 2256. 2006. eoo% 1909. THE ANNUAL OPERATING COST AT 40.3 CENIN PEN GALLON @ 1199. e50% 6 1690. 8 999. 00% 6 922. Te.8 Fcy 6.409 1.335 2.968 2.934 2.922 2.333 1.814 @5.13 @55% e55*% @o5% eeo-eeee7 SHHROOOOOD—— 23.83 -66- The other TODB RHO HRS CPHRS HTLOAD HP-CAP SH-CAP HP-KBTU SH-KBTU HP- KWH coP IPCT-ON, APCT-ON FCY Pw-I, PW-ACT -100- Main table column headings have the following meanings: " " outdoor dry bulb temperature relative humidity average annual hours at temperature TODB compressor ON hours (at lower TODBs it becomes a larger fraction of HRS) heat load in Btu/hr heat pump capacity in Btu/hr supplementary heater capacity in Btu/hr (SH-CAP + HP-CAP equals HTLOAD) heat delivered by the heat pump in kBtu heat delivered by the supplementary heaters in kBtu input energy to the heat pump (compressor, outdoor fan and indoor fan) in kwh energy consumption of an electric resistance heat system energy consumption of a heat pump system (coefficient of performance) percent ON time in the bin, "Ideal" and "Actual" cycle frequency of the compressor in cycles/hr duration of each ON period in minutes, "Ideal" and "Actual" The distinction between "Ideal" and "Actual" would be more relevant if cyclic degradation were considered. This analysis did not consider it. All the other columns to the right of COP in Table 41 primarily are checks on the performance of the thermostat control system, not of particular significance here. The design load used to calculate the data in Table 41 is 56,000 Btu/hr (QHDL), and the design load outdoor temperature for Juneau was specified as -5°F (TODB). The cooling design temperature, TODC, is 70°F, -101- which indicated that cooling would be appropriate only if the building had exceptionally large internal cooling loads, e.g., a computer room or a densely occupied office area. The Climatological Conditions The heating season climatological conditions are modeled by the "bin method," primarily because that is the way the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the branches of the U.S. military store climatological data. The temperature bins are noted under TODB (outdoor dry-bulb temperature) in Column 2. The RHO is an outdoor relative humidity determined from the outdoor temperature noted, and the “mean coincident wet bulb temperature" as tabulated in Air Force Manual 88-8. It is only an indicator of prevailing humidity conditions, since actual humidity levels vary significantly from the mean. 1 The "HRS" column of Table 41 lists the average annual hours found in each temperature bin. Since the total is 8,526 hours, and since there are 8,760 hours in a year, the outdoor temperature is greater than 60°F only 233 hr/year; heating conditions prevail 97 percent of the time. The HRS were obtained from the Air Force Manual 88-8 and are averages over a ten-year period. ELECTRIC SPACE HEATING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE The most efficient electric space heating system, given present technology, is a heat pump system. Heat pumps move heat from outdoors to indoors, completely analogously to an air conditioner which moves heat from indoors to outdoors. The efficiency of heat pump systems depends on the outdoor and indoor temperatures, the design of the particular system, lair Force Manual 88-8. Engineering Weather Data, Chapter 6, 15 June 1967. -102- and numerous other factors. Typically, a heat pump system can deliver the same heat to a dwelling at energy and monetary costs 30 to 60 percent less than an electric resistance heating system. The comparative performance factor of a heat pump is referred to as the coefficient of performance (COP), defined as follows: energy consumption of an electric resistance heat system cop’ = energy consumption of a heat pump system where the load is the same for both systems. Typical seasonal heat pump system COPs are 1.5-2.5. Space cooling (i.e. air conditioning) is not required in Juneau. Thus, a heating-only heat pump (HOHP) is all that is required and the only type that is considered. (A standard heat pump provides both cooling and heating capabilities; the system switches from one mode to the other, as appropriate.) There is only one manufacturer of HOHPs, the Janitrol division of Tappan Corporation, and the number of models available is very limited. As noted in the first line of output, the Janitro] Wattsaver HOHP was used for the evaluations. It has a capacity of 36,500 Btu/hr at 47°F outdoor temperature (Line 6, HP-CAP) and a capacity of 21,000 Btu/hr at 17°F outdoor temperature (Line 12); these are the “rating conditions" used for all heat pumps. The COPs for different outdoor temperatures are listed under "COP" in Table 41. The COPs for the HOHP that was selected are 3.19 at 47°F and 2.29 at 17°F. Both values are large compared to standard heat pumps that provide both cooling and heating. A major reason for the Wattsaver's efficiency is that it is designed solely for heating. It is not a recently developed product. If it were redesigned today to take advantage of more current technology, particularly improved efficiency compressors, the COPs might readily be increased by 0.5 at both rating points. -103- The two columns, "HP-CAP" and "COP", in Table 41 characterize the HOHP over all Juneau operating conditions. In actuality, the HOHP is modeled in terms of capacity (Btu/hr) and input power (kwh), and the COP is derived from the two input parameters. The HOHP model is based on manufacturer specifications as noted. The average heat load of 20,082 Btu/hr is the total heating system output (HP-KBTU + SH-KBTU) divided by the total heating season hours (HRS). Thus, the average heat load over the heating season of a building with a design load of 56,000 Btu/hr is 20,082 Btu/hr or approximately 36 percent of the design load. The average HP-CAP is the total heat output of the heat pump (HP-KBTU) divided by the total ON hours (CPHRS) ((HP-KBTU)/CPHRS = (1.5084x108)/5042 = 30,024). Since 30,024 is approximately midway between HP-CAP at 32 and 37°F, the outdoor temperature that best charac- terizes the requirements imposed on the heat pump over the course of the season is approximately 35°F, a relatively high temperature for a site such as Juneau with 9,007 average annual heating-degree days. The Juneau climatological conditions are conducive to heat pump systems. The average COP of 2.83 is for the heat pump only. The system COP considers both the heat pump and the supplementary heaters, which are less efficient (COP = 1) than the heat pump, causing the system COP to be less than the average heat pump COP, or 2.336. The other Notes in Table 41 have the following meanings. Note 1 estimates that 11.48 percent of the heat pump energy consumption is associated with the defrost cycle of the HOHP. It is irrelevant for present purposes. The balance point temperature is indicated in Note 2 as being 30°F. The balance point temperature is critical for sizing and is, therefore, discussed separately, below. -104- The Balance Point Temperature and Heat Pump Sizing Standard heat pumps are sized based on the cooling load, not the heating load. The methodology is as follows: e Select a heat pump based on its cooling capacity compared to the cooling design load for the site and structure under consideration; e Determine the heating design load and the capacity of the heat pump at the heating design temperature; e Add supplementary heaters to the heat pump in sufficient quantity to accommodate the difference between the design load and heat pump capacity at the heating design temperature. There are economic reasons for utilizing the above methodology for standard heat pumps. There are no generally accepted sizing procedures for HOHP's. Con- sequently, a sizing rationale had to be developed. The procedure that was implemented is as follows: Assume a fixed heating load at the design temperature; Select a balance point temperature for the HOHP; Determine the required capacity of the HOHP; Use supplementary heaters to accommodate the balance of the load as required at temperatures below the balance point; e@ Evaluate the economic implications of the sizing results as a function of balance point temperature. The balance point temperature is simply that outdoor temperature at which the heat pump capacity exactly equals the heat load. In the example of Table 41, the balance point temperature is 30°F, and it is apparent from the data in Column 8 (SH-CAP) that no supplementary heat is used at outdoor temperatures higher than 30°F. -105- If the capacity of the HOHP in Table 41 were increased, the balance point temperature would be decreased. In actuality, the analysis was conducted in reverse fashion, i.e. by selecting a balance point temperature and determining the required heat pump capacity. Table 42 presents the balance point temperature sizing results for residential applications. The judgement criterion is the change jn annual operating cost, AAOC, versus the change in purchase price, APP, required for the different capacity heat pumps. The interpretation of the last two columns is as follows: @ Reducing the balance point temperature from 35°F to 30°F reduced annual operating costs $95 but requires a $790 greater initial cost. @ Reducing the balance point temperature from 30°F to 25°F reduced annual operating costs $57 but requires a $950 greater initial cost. Since the life of a heat pump is nominally ten years, it appears appropriate to use a ten year period to recover the increase in the initial investm2nt. Assuming ten years is a reasonable criterion, and assuming a 5 percent interest rate, the economically proper balance point temperature is 30°F. The issue of balance point temperature is not an academic one, because the balance point temperature used for sizing affects the competi- tiveness of heat pump systems vis-a-vis oil-fired systems. The AOC for an oil-fired system for the conditions of Table 42 is $1,090, based on 55% system efficiercy. The AOC of the heat pump system can vary between $905 and $1,483 for the same application, depending on the sizing procedure, i.e. the balance point temperature. Thus, it is interesting to note that the larger the heat pump, the larger the seasonal COP and the smaller the AOC. However, the last step TABLE 42 HEAT PUMP BALANCE POINT TEMPERATURE SIZING DATA - RESIDENTIAL Balance Point HP System Temperature Seasonal 47°F Capacity AOC @ (°F) cop (Btu/h) 4.88¢ PP AAOC APP. 45 1.651 16,450 $1,483 $ 1,680 ($191) $ 570 40 1.895 22,100 1,292 2,250 (149) 680 35 2.141 28,700 1,143 2,930 (95) 790 30* 20930) 36,500 1,048 3,720 (57) 950 25 2.470 45,800 991 4,670 (37) 1150 20 2.566 57,100 954 5,820 _. = 15 2.635 70,500 929 7,190 __ _ 10 2.680 85,900 913 8,760 (8) 1940 5 2.705 105,000 905 10,700 Notes: 1. Heating design load = 56,000 Btu/h. 2. AOC for oi] @ 48.3¢/gal and 55% efficiency is $1,090 3. APP based on $102 per kBtu/h capacity increase at 47°F. *This is the proper sizing balance point temperature based on the criteria that APP be returned in less than 10 years. Abbreviations: AOC = Annual Operating Cost; PP = Purchase Price; ( ) = Reduction. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. OS -107- in Table 42 indicates that a $1,940 incremental investment would be required to lower the AOC an additional $8. Clearly, taking the last step indicated in Table 42 would be irrational, given present cost configurations. The purchase prices of Table 42 are based on data presented below in Table 44 which shows a 36,500 Btu/hr heat pump system costs $3,665 or $102/kBtu/hr. Analyses were also made for night setback of the thermostat to simulate conditions that might routinely be expected in commercial buildings. The setback analyses were conducted as follows: e The heating season hours were partitioned into two groups, hoyrs during which the indoor temperature is maintained at 70°F, and those hours during which the indoor thermostat is set back a prescribed number of degrees. e SPM analyses were performed for the two conditions separately. e The results from the two separate analyses were summed to determine the seasonal performance characteristics. When making the two analyses, it was assumed that the setback time was 16 hours of each 24 hour day and that the setback temperatures were from 5 - 30°F. The largest setback of 30°F would correspond to a building being maintained at 70°F for 8 hours of the day, and no more than 40°F for 16 hours of the day,which is obviously an extreme condition. Table 4% illustrates that under such extreme conditions, a 40°F balance point temperature would be proper, rather than the 30°F temperature for residential applications. Table 43 also indicates that under part- time thermostat setback conditions, a heat pump system becomes less competitive with an oil-fired system than is the case for full-time/no thermostat-setback conditions. The annual operating cost of the heat -108- TABLE 43 HEAT PUMP BALANCE POINT TEMPERATURE SIZING DATA - COMMERCIAL (30°F NIGHT SETBACK) Balanced Point HP System Tempepature AOC AAOC APP ("F) (dollars) (dollars ) (dollars) etl) Ee (2) (3) (4) 45 551 (65) 570 40* 486 (48) 680 35 438 (32) 790 30 406 (21) 950 25 385 (11) 1,150 20 374 *This is the proper sizing balance point temperature based on the criteria that APP be returned in less than 10 years. NOTES: 1. APP is the same as in Table 35. 2. Heating design load = 56,000 Btu/h 3. AOC for oi] @ 48.3¢/gallon and 55% efficiency is $417. 4. APP based on $102 per kBtu/h capacity increase at 47°F. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -109- pump system at the "proper" balance point temperature of 40°F in Table 43 is $486 compared to $417 (see notes Table 41) for an oil-fired system. The reversal is cauSud by the higher balance point temperature, since it is evi- dent in Table 43 that for a 30°F balance point temperature, the AOC for the heat pump system is less than that for the oil-fired system. The use pattern changes the economics of balance point temperature selection. RESULTS Converting the heating system currently in use in the five residences involves replacement of the heating plants themselves, and may require the installation of new ductwork. Each of the houses, because of their differences in size and floor plan, were shown to have widely ranging heat loads (Table 27). Given the budgetary constraints, it was impossible to calculate the retrofit costs for each individual structure. Instead, comparative cost statistics were computed for a house with a single, representative design load of 56,000 Btu/hr. Table 44 lists purchase price data for the competitive heating systems. It is based on a study done for the contiguous U.S. at nine sites; in general, the purchase prices presented are for Philadelphia, which was representative. The data are suspect with respect to the labor-intensive costs, in particular, the costs of ductwork installation. Conversations with local contractors indi- cate that the ductwork costs are optimistic, but it was not possible to obtain superior data. It should be noted that the design load for the Gordian Associates study was 42,500 Btu/hr, whereas a 56,000 Btu/hr design load is assumed here. The same heat pump system that would satisfy a 42,500 Btu/hr heat load in the contiguous U.S. would be adequate for a 56,000 Btu/hr design load in Juneau (cf. Table 44). Thus, the Adjusted Gordian Associates cost of $3,665 is retained for the larger Juneau design load. The costs of the other systems have been increased in proportion of 56,000/42,500 for the comparison in the final column of Table 44. COMPARATIVE HEATING SYSTEM PURCHASE PRICES -110- TABLE 44 SYSTEM PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE CITED DESIGN LOAD (DOLLARS) 42,500 Btu/hr? SYSTEM 56,000 Btu/hr (4) (2) | (3) Heat pump (36,000 Btu/hr @ 47°F): Heat pump 3,114 Ductwork 551 3,665 3,665 Electric furnace: Furnace 1,232 Ductwork 545 1,777 2,340 Electric baseboard: 1,415 1,865 Oil Furnace, Forced Air: Furnace 1,420 Ductwork 466 Chimney 237 Oil tank 359 2,482 3,270 Oil fired, hydronic: 2,550 NOTES: 1. Costs, which are for 35-50,000 Btu/hr design loads 42,500 Btu/hr), have been scaled at 10 percent per year to obtain estimated October 1978 (average = prices. 2. Installation costs are based upon new construction, not retrofit. lvevaluation of the Air-to-Air Heat Pump for Residential Space Conditioning - Final Report." FEA Contract C0-04-50171-00. Associates, Inc., New York, April 23, 1976. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. Gordian iil Table 45 provides data on the annual fixed, operating and total costs of alternative space heating systems. It is apparent that a new HOHP system is currently competitive with a new forced air oil furnace (column 4). That is not necessarily the case, however, when a HOHP is substituted for a heating plant in an existing structure. It is axiomatic that retrofitting will only take place when the total (annual) cost of the new system is equal to or less than the operating costs of the old system. Oi] furnaces currently are esti- mated to cost $1,263/year to operate, whereas the total annual cost of the HOHP system is $1,644. Thus, oil prices would have to rise by 30 percent, from the 1978 price of $0.56/gallon to $0.73/gallon, before a homeowner would consider a changeover. Alternatively, a drop in the relative price of elec- tricity may also induce a quicker change to the HOHP system. At current electricity prices, complete electric baseboard or forced air furnaces do not appear to be competitive. The economics of using baseboard heaters for supple- mental heat was not considered. Figure 2 summarizes the annual operating costs of alternative heating systems. The calculations shown there were based on the 1977 oil prices of $0.483/gallon and electricity prices of $0.0488/kwh (Table 41). Since those calculations were made, average 1978 oi] prices have risen to $0.56/gallon. Therefore, the operating costs of oi] fired furnaces have increased from $8.77/kBtu/h to $10.17/kBtu/h under the 30°F setback assumption, and from $19/46/kBtu/h to $22.56/kBtu/h for the no-setback condition. Operating costs for electric heating systems have not changed in the interim. -112- TABLE 45 ANNUAL FIXED, OPERATING, AND TOTAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE SPACE HEATING SYSTEMS Heating System Annual Fixed! Annual Operating” Total Annual Costs (Dollars) Costs (Dollars) Costs (Dollars) (1) (2) (3) (4) Heat Pump (HOHP) 596 1,048 1,644 Electric Baseboard 269 2,448 2,717 Electric Furnace (Forced Air) 258 2,448 2,706 0i1 Furnace (Forced Air) 360 1,263 1,623 0i1 Fired (Hydronic) 281 1,263 1,544 Tassumes economic life of heat pump of ten years; economic life of other systems of 25 years; interest rate of ten percent. 2Fuel oil prices of $0.56/gallon; electricity price of $0.0488/kwh. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. and Applied Economics Associates, Inc. AOC ($) -113- FIGURE 2 COMPARATIVE HEATING SYSTEM ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS 3500 NO SETBACK = Na S ey 3000 s AY 30°F. SETBACK a y 9 S 2500 ¥ yy ‘ Gy g) a 9 § LY ¥ y 5 No 2000 > s \ S S a SETBACK & Sy Ws oS Y <o\ x ¥ ay sh A Wk og: 1500 & RS Yy 4 C SS Br 30°F S oS Y K 1000 Sr yee SETBACK or" RY 96 SR e i) AS gu ee y om web BT oul <) @ Be qk 500 OX FEN 0.1 ere) \ eo Fine? git 0 ' 9 20 40 60 60 100 DESIGN HEAT LOAD (kBtu/h ‘Assumes higher oi] prices of $0.56/gallon. SOURCE: Science Applications, Inc. -114- CONCLUSIONS Virtually all space heating systems in Juneau are oil-fired, cir- culating hot water, although oil-fired forced air systems are used in some commercial applications. Since hydroelectric power is available in abundance, conversion from oil-fired to electric space heating systems in existing struc- tures, and installation of electric rather than oil-fired space heating systems in new construction would substitute a renewing energy supply for a non- renewable supply. The use of electricity for space heating in Juneau is particularly appealing from an energy conservation standpoint, because excess hydrocapacity exists and is currently available only to users in the Juneau area. In the contiguous U.S., a gallon of oi] that is replaced by electricity (generated by fossil fules) for heating and other end-uses is not really saved; it is in effect moved to the utility so that it can generate the electricity demanded. Such is not the case in Juneau; a gallon of oi] that is replaced by electricity is in fact a gallon of oil that is saved. Retrofitting existing oil fired furnaces with electric resistance heating (baseboard or central furnace) is currently not very attractive, because the operating costs of the latter are relatively high. Heat pump systems, on the other hand, may well become competitive in the near future, if heating oi] prices continue to rise at rates observed over the last few years. While a heat pump system may cost $2,000 more to install than the least expensive electric resistance heating system (all cost data in this section are based on a 56,000 Btu/hr design load), the AOC of the heat pump system would be approximately $1,500/year less (cf. Figure 2 at 56,000 Btu/h) Whether a new heat pump is installed or an oil-fired furnace is kept, depends in some meaSure on the structural characteristics of the house and the ductwork that is currently in place. The ductwork for oil-fired furnaces is usually of smaller size than that required by the HOHP system. The economic advantage of lower annual operating costs for the heat pump system would disappear if the ductwork were not replaced, except in instances where it was initially oversized. OS The HOHP used in the above analysis has a modest efficiency by present standards. A new generation of HOHP's with a COP at least 0.5 greater can be expected in the near future. Such an improvement would significantly increase the savings that can be obtained from the HOHP system and would increase its competitiveness vis-a-vis oil-fired systems. CHAPTER VI COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE INSULATION LEVELS AND HEATING SYSTEMS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION This chapter first presents an analysis of the comparative costs and benefits of increasing insulation levels in new residential construction. The analysis focuses on two houses with different areas of heated spaces. The second section addresses the economic considerations relevant to the selection of space heating systems for new structures. This comparison follows the analyses of alternative heating systems reported in Chapter V. THE ECONOMICS O- IMPROVING INSULATION LEVELS Upgrading the ceiling insulation from R-19 to R-30, that of walls from R-11 to R-19, floors from R-11 to R-22, and installing thermopane windows raises the cost of the 1,200 ft? house by $1,474 (Table 46, columns 4-6). For the 2,000 Ft? house, the incremental cost was calculated at $1,845 (Table 48). In order to compare the incremental insulation costs with the energy saving benefits, the Juneau specific heat transfer multipliers (HTM's, Table 23) were multiplied by the respective areas of the structures' components. For the two differently insulated 1,200 #t? houses, the heat load sav- ings were 9,248 Btu/h (20,472 Btu/h for the well and 29,820 Btu/h for the less well insulated house). For the differently insulated 2,000 #t? houses, the heat load savings were 13,458 Btu/h (41,170 Btu/h vs. 27,712 Btu/h). The nexe step was to determine whether the increased investment in the improved insulation would be justified over a 30-year life of each of the resi- dences. The answer was positive. The non-infiltration heat load of the less well insulated 1,200 #2 house was assumed to be 88 kBtu/yr/#t2 or 765 gallons or $428/yr (at 1978 oi1 prices of $0.56/ballon). The improved insulation would -116- Ads reduce the consumption by 31 percent for an annual saving of $133. Assuming constant oil prices through time, the investment of $1,474 in the additional insulation would yield a return of 9.1 percent over an assumed 30-year life of the building. Since oil prices will undoubtedly rise, the net rate of return to the investment is certain to be higher. For the less well insulated 2,000 Ft? house, the non-infiltration heat load was assumed to be 100 kBtu/year, resulting in an annual consumption of fuel oi] of 1,449 gallons and an expenditure of $812 (at $0.56/gallon). Im- proving the insulation would save 473 gallons of oil, or $265/yr. The incre- mental cost of the improved insulation was earlier estimated at $1,845. The rate of return to that investment over a 30-year pericd (the life of the building) is at least 16.6 percent, again assuming constant oil prices. The rate of return to the investment in insulation in the larger, 2,000 Ft? house is approximately 82 percent greater than that obtained in the smaller house. That is predominantly a function of the relative heat loads of the structure components which do not change linearly with a change in the square footage of the residence. THE ECONOMICS OF ALTERNATIVE HEATING SYSTEMS A comparison of the costs of operating alternative heating systems in a new 2,000 Ft? Juneau residence was made. The results were already shown in Table 45. The assumptions underlying the calculations are: e@ The economic life of a heat pump is 10 years. @ The economic lives of other heating systems are 25 years. e Energy prices are $0.56/gallon of fuel oi] and $0.0488/kwh e The interest rate is 10 percent -118- Since in new construction the necessary ductwork can be sized correctly at the outset, the fixed and total annual costs are certain and as shown in Table 45. The HOHP system, therefore, appears to be very competitive with the oil-fired systems. Particularly so, when one considers the expected future relative prices of oil and electricity. One issue that needs further clarification is the reliability of the HOHP. Whether homeowners wil] install the HOHP system depends upon the local availability of experienced service personnel and the cost of maintenance and repair services that may be required and which would affect the annual opera- ting costs. Those questions remain unanswered. Structural Components (1) Ceilings Walls Floors Windows Doors TOTAL Footnote: Source: TABLE 46 COST ESTIMATES OF DIFFERENT INSULATION LEVELS FOR A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 1,200 ft Area (Ft2) _(2) 1,200 1,124 1,200 100 36 Area: 1,200 ft?; Sing Floor Area: 1,200 ft Wall Area: 1,124 ft@ Doors: Two 3 x 6 = 36 Item and R Value (3) 10" batt R-30 6" batt R-19 Additional 25.2 x 6 studs 6" batt R-22 thermopane solid le Story Ft? R &M Consultants, Inc. ,and Applied 2 JUNEAU RESIDENCE Cost Item and R Cost (dollars) Value (dollars) (4) (5) (6) 876 6" batt 516 R-19 483 3 5/8" batt 371 R-11 = ta 188 516 3.5" batt 396 R-11 1,283 single glazed 769 322 solid 322 3,848 2,374 Economics Associates, Inc. Structural Components Q) Ceilings Walls Floors Windows Doors TOTAL Source: R & M Consultants, TABLE 47 COST ESTIMATES OF DIFFERENT INSULATION LEVELS FOR A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 2,000 ft Area (ft2) (2) 2,000 1,454 2,000 130 36 Item and R Value (3) 10" batt R-30 6" batt R-19 Additional 155)2-x 6 studs 6" batt R-22 thermopane solid Inc., and Applied 2 Cost (dollars) (4) 1,460 625 232 860 1,668 B22 5,167 JUNEAU RESIDENCE Item and R Value (5) 6" batt R-19 3-5/8" batt R-11 3.5" batt R-11 single glazed solid Economics Associates, Inc. Cost (dollars) (6) 860 sOc l= 480 660 1,000 322 3,322 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The total 1977 energy consumption in Juneau was estimated to have been 3.4 trillion Btu (3.4 x 10!2 able data for wood consumption, frequently used to supplement space heating, ). This estimate has a lower bias, because reli- were not available. The transportation sector accounted for 41.2 percent of total consump- tion, followed by the residential sector (38.6 percent), government (10.2 percent), and the commercial/industrial sectors (9.3 percent). (The remain- ing 0.7 percent represents electric line losses.) The area relied very heavily on petroleum products. They represented 88.9 percent of the total energy consumption (excluding wood). Electricity supplied the remaining 11.1 percent. Among the petroleum products consumed, heating oi] ranked first (51.7 percent), followed by gasoline (28.5 percent), aviation and jet fuels (11.8 percent), diesel (6.8 percent), and propane (1.2 percent). The 1977 consumption of electricity, excluding line losses, was esti- mated at 102.7 million kilowatt hours (kwh). The residential sector used 43.0 million kwh (41.9 percent), and commercial/industrial sectors 31.6 million kwh (30.7 percent), and government 28.1 million kwh (27.4 percent). The industrial sector alone was an insignificant electric energy consumer. Total expenditures on all energy goods were estimated at $17.6 million. Expenditures on fuel oi] amounted to $5.4 million (30.6 percent), followed by electricity, $4.9 million (27.7 percent), and by gasoline, $4.7 million (26.6 percent). Aviation fuels, diesel, and propane accounted for the remaining $2.7 million (15.3 percent). -121- -122- A limited energy audit of five residences, seven commercial/industrial, and four government structures was conducted. The purpose of the audit was to obtain base data necessary to later conduct analyses of optimal conservation and retrofit measures, and to develop information on the technical feasibilities and economics of alternative space heating systems. Because space heating accounted for approximately 82 percent of the total non-transportation energy demand in the three sectors (residential, commercial/industrial, and govern- ment), the audit focused on the thermal envelopes of the structures in the non-random sample. The buildings surveyed were chosen for their diversity of age, location, size, and use or function. Estimates of the consumption of and expenditures on energy goods were made for all buildings in the sample. These estimates showed that in the resi- dential sector, the consumption of energy for space heating per Ft? varied sig- nificantly, as did the consumption of electric energy In the commercial/ industrial and government sectors, the variances of energy consumption per ft? waS even more pronounced. However, because no end-use analysis was made, it is not clear whether these variances indicate different energy efficiencies of the structures, differing efficiencies of the heating plants and appliances, or differences in their use patterns. In order to determine the major conservation measures that could be employed to make the structures in the non-random sample more energy efficient, a detailed heat load analysis was performed. The analysis showed that during the heating season residences lost an average of 28 percent of their energy through the infiltration of cold air. Of the remaining heat losses (the non- ilfiltration heat load), windows accounted for 22 percent, walls for 15.8 percent, doors for 15.1 percent and ceilings and floors 9.4 percent each. For each of the residences analyzed, the heat load variances around the mean values were large, indicating widely varying levels of insulation in the structural building components. -123- The commercial/industrial and government buildings lost an average of 56.2 percent of their heating energy due to infiltration and/or ventilation. That heat loss must, in part, be ascribed to ventilation standards and regu- lations which prescribe differing numbers of required air changes per hour for buildings used for various purposes, e.g. hospitals, restaurants, and offices. Although no analyses of heat recovery have been performed in the context of this study, it is reasonable to assume that most of the heat losses due to ventilation can be reduced by a variety of techniques. The radiation heat losses through the various structural components of the buildings again varied widely among and between buildings. On the average, windows accounted for the largest fraction of the total heat loads (14.9 per- cent), followed by walls (9.2 percent), ceilings (7.9 percent), doors (6.1 percent), and floors (5.7 percent). Based upon these structure specific heat load analyses, the economies of a number of conservation retrofits were explored. Our general conclusion was that the most cost-effective and easiest measure that can be taken in the residential sector is the reduction of the infiltration of cold air by weather-stripping around windows and exterior doors and by caulking outside openings. Since windows were a large source of the non-infiltration heat losses, they were considered next. Most of the residences already had double-glazed windows. The calculations made showed that even if the installation of addi- tional storm windows were to reduce their heat losses by 50 percent (an optimistic assumption), the economics were not favorable. Since all of the five residences: ‘had: adequate levels of wall insulation, R-11, it appears that the future savings realized by upgrading them to R-19 do not justify the current expenditures, given current prices of fuel oil. -124- Similarly, improving the ceiling insulation of three of the five houses in the sample proved uneconomic at this time. Only one house, which apparently has no ceiling insulation at all, could now be retrofitted economically. The lifecycle calculus of completely retrofitting one of the older houses was made. The results were that, given current (1977) prices of fuel oi], and assuming a low interest rate of 5 percent, the payback period for the total energy conservation investment would be 26 years. An attempt was made to prepare similar summary statistics for the commercial/industrial and public sectors. Because of the heterogeneity of the structures in the sample, that proved impossible. All rate of return or payback calculations were based on 1977 oi] prices and on alternative rates of interest. The results obtained could change radicaliy if other, higher future oil prices were assumed, and if potential investment credits or other "subsidies" were considered. Juneau is currently in the enviable position of having excess hydro- electric energy generating capacity. Since that is a renewable energy source, other fuels could be saved if heating plants were converted from oil to elec- tricity. Currently, only very few houses and other structures are heated electrically, although some supplemental electric space heating may be used in the residencial sector. In order to compare the technical performance and the economics of different heating systems, information necessary to decide whether and when to convert existing oil-fired space heating systems to electricity, and whether it is economic to install electric furnaces in new construction, a sophisticated computer model was utilized. The results obtained clearly show that, in new construction, heat only heat pump (HOHP) assisted electri- cal systems are currently very competitive with oil-fired forced air or 2-7 hydronic systems. Electric baseboard or forced air furnaces, however, appear not competitive because of their higher operating costs at currently (1978) prevailing relative prices of oil and electricity. The economics of converting existing oil space heaters to electricity are less clear, because data on the age of the existing oi] systems and the size of the ductwork which channels heat throughout the buildings were not available. (HOHP's require larger ductwork than forced air oi] furnaces and, unless the ductwork currently in place is oversized, it must be replaced so as to not lower the HOHP efficiency.) It must be emphasized that the annual operating cost data developed are based on current (1978) energy prices. Just in one year, from 1977 to 1978, the average price of fuel oi] rose by approximately 16 percent. If fuel oil prices continue to escalate at that rate and electricity prices remain constant, HOHP assisted electric heating systems will become competi- tive in the retrofit market in two to three years. Finally, an analysis of the costs and benefits of increasing the insulation in two new Juneau houses, one of 1,200 #t? heated space, the other of 2,000 ft? was made. It showed that the investment necessary to upgrade ceiling insulation from R-19 to R-30, walls from R-11 to R-19, floors from R-11 to R-22, and installing thermopane windows would yield a rate of return of 9.1 percent over the 30 year life of the 1,200 #2 house, and 16.6 percent for the 2,000 Ft? house (assuming 1978 energy prices). If the future rate of change of oil prices is greater than that of labor and materials, the net benefits will, of course, increase. -126- RECOMMENDATIONS 1]. The heat load analysis model developed should be installed in Juneau and be made generally accessible. Energy conservation conscious owners or operators of all types of buildings could then, by supplying limited data on the thermal characteristics of their properties, be pro- vided with information about structure specific optimal conservation measures. 2. The Alaska Power Administration and/or local utilities should sponsor a number of demonstration projects which permit the field testing of HOHP systems as retrofit units in old and as original heating equipment in new construction. Careful monitoring of the performance of the HOHP system then permits valid comparisons with oi] fired space heaters. 3. Since the economics of increasing the levels of insulation are very good, we recommend that the Borough government adopt an ordinance which requires minimum insulation standards in new construction - R-30 for ceilings, R-19 for walls, R-22 for floors, edge insulation for concrete slab construction, and double glazed windows. 4. Owners and operators of buildings should be made aware of any federal, state, and local economic incentives for energy conservation measures that are indicated by using the Juneau heat load analysis model.