The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAEA Renewable Energy Round VIII application - Kayhi FINALKETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH OFFICIAL BOROUGH DOCUMENT Type of Document: Grant Description of Document: Amendment or attachment I to existing Borough Document No.: .___ ____ _, AEA Grant Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Parties to Document: Ketchikan Gatewa Borou h and Alaska Ener Authority Begin Date: 9/22/2014,End Date: Return This Form To: ~l·tfu_ro_l~yA_IP_~a_A~ag~e_Fs-~~(V}~o=~~~~~~n-'-1-/~P~u=-'-)~~~~~J [Department or Responsible Perso/iju ..,.---"---------9_/2_/2_0_1_4 1. Assembly Approval [If Required] Include Ordinance or Resolution Number -...,..,.,...,..-,.,--,-------,.--2. Contractor, Lessee, Other Sign ..,.M~o~rg,.,,a,,...n,.,...B __ ..,--_____ 3. Responsible Dept. Head ___________ 4. Responsible Dept. Head q/jr;}-Jt l-f '?. (?:f?. 5. Borough Attorney .,...n_1a...,···~.,...··· '""'/...,,. ....•.. ~-··· -•.... -.2-z ........ ._1_l(_·_1f_...--;: ;;~:~:: :~::t:~er _n_la_· .,--'-________ 8. Borough Assessor Content Review Taxes Owed Status Legal Review/Approved as to Form Review for all Grant Agreements Certify Funds Available n/a 9. Borough Assistant Manager .,...--,.... .. -0'. .. ,.... ""'· ... -= .. -• ...,...9;-/2-c,....L-k-. l!P,,,..., -'/C-/--1 O. Borough Manager Review for all Lease Agreements Task Tracker ====·. ""'·==w .... •.~. ·=·-:-_-_-r- 1 °1= 1 =(,_1/.-_'""~:-:,+:=_·""'" _-_-11. Borough Clerk PE41Yl;RABLES CHECKLIST REQUIRED: 0 Th~ dcicum~rifto be filed must be the original with original signatures. If the document is a copy explain 0 why .and ,list location of original. Attach~ents? [List] ,', · .. ;· ... ' Ex.hibits? [List] D D Review Attest CHECKLIST $1.288.018.oo I Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Application Forms and Instructions This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for Round VIII of the Renewable Energy Fund Heat Projects only. If your application is for energy projects that will not primarily produce heat, please use the standard application form (see RFA section 1.5). An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and both application forms are available online at: www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. • If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org. • If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. • Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and budget for each phase of the project. • In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC 107.605(1). • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. • If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. • In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided, often under the section heading. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed. REMINDER: • Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. • All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. • In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. AEA 15003 Page 1 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Type of Entity: Second-Class Borough Fiscal Year End: June 30 Tax ID # 92-0084626 Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one) Date of last financial statement audit: 6/30/2013 Mailing Address: Physical Address: 1900 First Avenue, Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 1900 First Avenue, Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 228-6738 managersoffice@kgbak.us eds@kgbak.us 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name: Title: Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager Mailing Address: 1900 First Ave., Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 228-6738 managersoffice@kgbak.us danb@kgbak.us 1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Ed Schofield (907) 228-6645 eds@kgbak.us 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) ☐ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or ☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or ☒ A local government, or ☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities) AEA 15003 Page 2 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued) Please check as appropriate. ☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/vREFund8.html. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box) SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below. Ketchikan Gateway Borough – Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031. 55.352793,-131.67743; 2610 Fourth Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Ketchikan Gateway Borough AEA 15003 Page 3 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type ☐ Wind to Heat ☒ Biomass or Biofuels ☐ Hydro to Heat ☐ Solar Thermal ☐ Heat Recovery from Existing Sources ☐ Heat Pumps ☐ Other (Describe) ☐ 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting ☐ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒ Construction 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project. Ketchikan Gateway Borough seeks to secure its future energy independence through the construction of modifications to the existing heating system to install two biomass-fired boilers. The woody biomass fired boilers will replace outdated heating oil boilers, which will become more costly to maintain and are run on heating oil number 2, a more expensive fuel source than locally sourced woody biomass. These systems, in turn, will help to stabilize and secure the forest products industry of Southeast Alaska through the sourcing of locally produced wood pellets. Work will include construction of biomass system, including storage bin, collection bin, motors, fans, controls, circulation pumps, accumulator tanks and valves. 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this heat project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.) In direct benefit to the Borough, this project will produce cost savings from reduced fuel costs and lower energy costs due to the use of modern, highly energy-efficient systems. Economic benefits will include short term jobs due to construction and long-term jobs in operating the plant, in addition to stimulating a biomass “micro-economy” in order to generate and utilize a locally available fuel source. The direct and indirect employment opportunities resulting from this project benefit both the Ketchikan Gateway Borough as well as the overall local and regional economy. The pellet production industry in and around Ketchikan will receive the greatest long-term beneficial impact from the construction of the biomass energy facilities in Ketchikan, as each project provides additional (1) market security for producers to respond with construction of pelletmaking machinery, and (2) further stimulus for the local timber industry to justify equipment to harvest young growth thinning opportunities as well as gather post-harvest forest residues commonly left in the forest. AEA 15003 Page 4 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Currently, the Federal Government, Forest Service, and City of Ketchikan have biomass boilers in service. The stimulation of the local biomass “micro-economy” will foster others to embrace biomass boilers in the community and the region. Moreover, the conversion of Ketchikan High School to biomass heating, while requiring a modest amount of additional electricity per year, will enable the Borough to utilize locally available renewable energy resources without having to compete with industrial users for the use of the region’s primary renewable energy resource, hydroelectricity, at the time of boiler replacement. This trend has been particularly pronounced in Ketchikan, given the ready availability of hydroelectric resources and the market fluctuations of fuel oil in recent years. As noted by Black & Veatch in the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resources Plan, “the ‘achilles heal’ of the current hydro system is the recent trend toward conversion of fuel oil space heating to electric space heating in those communities with access to low cost hydroelectric.” Given the susceptibility of Ketchikan to both market fluctuations and supply shocks, such as refinery issues, local energy independence is critical. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. Ketchikan Gateway Borough is requesting $1,288,018 through the Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII to pay for the installation of (2) biomass fueled boilers at Ketchikan High School, intended to act as lead and lag boilers for heating the school. At this time, no matching funds for construction have been identified by the Borough. Funds towards assessing the project viability previously allocated towards this project include the AHFC-funded Energy Audit of the Ketchikan High School performed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in 2011; AEE funded a Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems of Ketchikan High School by CTA in 2012; and $15,000 from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District towards the Heating System Retrofit Analysis by Alaska Engineering, LLC in 2013. Design funds allocated towards this project consist of $114,890 towards the design, of which $86,167.50 was provided by a USFS Woody Bug Utilization Grant (WBUG) and the remaining $28,722.50 paid from the School Bond CIP Fund. 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Summarize the grant request and the project’s total costs and benefits below. Costs for the Current Phase Covered by this Grant (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $ 1,288,018 . 2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $ 00.00 2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $ 00.00 2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $ 00.00 2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $1,288,018 AEA 15003 Page 5 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Other items for consideration 2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved $ 0 2.7.7 Biomass or Biofuel Inventory on hand $ 0 2.7.8 Energy efficiency improvements to buildings to be heated (upgraded within the past 5 years or committed prior to proposed project completion) $ Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) 2.7.9 Total Project Cost Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4, including estimates through construction. $ 1,408,908 2.7.10 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not covered by the project but required for the Grant Only applicable to construction phase projects $ 0 2.7.11 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) The economic model used by AEA is available at www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. This economic model may be used by applicants but is not required. Other economic models developed by the applicant may be used, however the final benefit/cost ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. $ 3,633,684 20-year cycle per CTA Pre- Feasibility Study 2.7.12 Other Public Benefit If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in Section 5 below. $ AEA 15003 Page 6 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant anticipates project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. The Borough intends to release a Request for Proposals to hire a Project Manager capable of providing the appropriate guidance and recommendations to the Borough to ensure that the project is designed and executed to the maximum efficiencies, control scope, maintain the project schedule, and keep costs in line. In-house project oversight will be conducted by Ed Schofield, Public Works Director for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, in partnership with Mike Williams, Ketchikan Gateway School District Maintenance Superintendent. 3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project. Please fill out form provided below. You may add additional rows as needed. Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Energy Audit Complete 10/11 10/11 Pre-Feasibility Complete 2/13 10/13 Design: Discovery 9/8/14 9/18/14 project kick-off meeting 9/8/14 9/8/14 prepare engineering memo on fuel requirements 9/8/14 9/8/14 first site visit - meeting with owner 9/15/14 9/15/14 first site visit - field data collection 9/15/14 9/17/14 energy consumption and climate history 9/17/14 9/18/14 Design: Engineering Evaluation and Analysis 9/18/14 9/29/14 establish interconnect and interoperability requirements 9/18/14 9/19/14 determine size and space constraints 9/19/14 9/29/14 preliminary building and equipment layout diagrams 9/18/14 9/19/14 biomass and trim boiler system sizing 9/19/14 9/22/14 energy and mass balance 9/23/14 9/23/14 hydraulic model 9/24/14 9/24/14 AEA 15003 Page 7 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Design: Permitting 9/29/14 9/30/14 determine regulatory requirements 9/29/14 9/29/14 complete and submit required permitting documents 9/30/14 9/30/14 Design: Mechanical Design 10/27/14 11/20/14 major system and component selection 10/27/14 10/29/14 detailed equipment design, layout and system drawings 10/29/14 11/6/14 generate electrical and structural coordination sheets 11/6/14 11/7/14 piping system schematic design and layout 11/7/14 11/12/14 define sequence of operations and controls interface 11/12/14 11/13/14 prepare commissioning plan and O&M manuals 11/13/14 11/14/14 prepare mechanical (div 15) specifications 11/14/14 11/18/14 finalize mechanical drawings and equipment lists 11/18/14 11/20/14 Design: Electrical Design 11/7/14 11/20/14 prepare power system design, layout and drawings 11/7/14 11/12/14 prepare lighting system design, layout and drawings 11/12/14 11/17/14 prepare electrical (div 16) specifications 11/17/14 11/18/14 finalize electrical drawings 11/18/14 11/19/14 control system design and (DDC) integration 11/19/14 11/20/14 Design: Structural Design 11/7/14 11/26/14 structural calculations 11/7/14 11/11/14 prepare slab and wall design, layout and drawings 11/11/14 11/18/14 prepare building design, layout and drawings 11/18/14 11/24/14 prepare structural specifications 11/24/14 11/25/14 finalize structural calculations and drawings 11/25/14 11/26/14 Design: Financial Analysis 11/10/14 11/20/14 develop capital cost estimate 11/10/14 11/13/14 develop operating cost estimate 11/13/14 11/14/14 prepare and report financial model 11/14/14 11/20/14 Design: Design Reviews and Completion 12/8/14 12/31/14 30% design review 12/8/14 12/8/14 design completion to 90% 12/8/14 12/24/14 90% design review and final design updates 12/24/14 12/31/14 Permitting and Bidding 12/31/14 2/5/15 release permit set 12/31/14 12/31/14 prepare and release bid set 1/7/15 1/15/15 solicit RFQ for construction and installation 1/15/15 4/15/15 prepare bidder request for information (RFI) responses 1/15/15 2/5/15 Vendor selected and award in place 1/15/15 4/15/15 negotiate vendor contract 1/15/15 1/31/15 construction plan and schedule 2/1/15 4/15/15 AEA 15003 Page 8 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Construction 5/1/15 8/15/15 site grading, equipment pad 5/1/15 6/1/15 process equipment 6/1/15 7/15/15 utility hook-ups 7/15/15 8/15/15 construction monitoring 5/1/15 8/15/15 actively track project costs against budget 5/1/15 8/15/15 Environmental monitoring 6/15/15 8/15/15 Modifications to final design during construction 5/1/15 8/15/15 Integration and Testing 6/15/15 8/15/15 Piping and interconnection to Energy Users 7/15/15 8/15/15 Commissioning plan and schedule 7/15/15 8/15/15 Coordination of conversion, integration or surplus of existing system 7/15/15 8/15/15 Final Acceptance, Commission and Start up complete 8/15/15 9/31/15 Commissioning of Equipment - Start up 8/15/15 9/1/15 Update business plans and power purchase agreements (as needed) 9/1/2015 9/30/15 Operations Reporting 7/1/14 9/30/15 Operations and Reporting Equipment 7/1/14 9/30/15 Continuous monitoring to verify and update projections and system efficiency 9/30/15 N/A 3.3 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough has awarded design of the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler System to Wisewood, Inc. Wisewood was selected through an open Request for Proposals procurement process and was determined to be the best candidate based on a proposal review team consisting of eight individuals, including staff from the Borough and School District, an Assembly member; and three experts in the field. Work under this contract will consist of feasibility and preliminary design, engineering design and specifications, bid assistance, inspection and commissioning. The following Borough employees will provide administrative support throughout the project. Resumes are attached as Exhibit B-2: Edward Schofield, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Public Works Director Ed Schofield has over twenty years experience in electrical systems management, having worked as Operations Manager for Ketchikan Public Utilities and as Operations Manager for Southeast Alaska Power Agency. Ed also has an extensive background in the maintenance and construction fields. As Public Works Director for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ed will be the primary AEA 15003 Page 9 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects contact for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, and will coordinate the design and construction with the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District. Amy Briggs, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Procurement Officer As the Borough’s Procurement Officer, Amy has worked as both Project Administrator and Grant Administrator for several years. She has been directly involved in the procurement of millions of dollars in goods and services utilizing grant funds. She is also the Borough’s contract writer. Mike Williams, Ketchikan School District, Project Manager Mike Williams is the supervisor of all School District buildings and grounds, Mike has over 30 years in the maintenance and construction field. For the last 7 years he has been responsible for the maintenance of all the Borough School buildings totalling $90 million in assets. In 2011 he managed the $3.4 million re-roof of the Ketchikan High School. In 2013 will be managing the Valley park Elementary school reroof costing $1.7 million. 3.4 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Please provide an alternative contact person and their contact information. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough project manager will be responsible for project monitoring and direct contact with AEA. The project manager will, at a minimum, provide AEA with monthly progress reports, report dispersal of grant funds, and organize monthly update meetings. Progress Reports Written progress reports will highlight activities undertaken with dates, results achieved, progress towards stated milestones, and outline any unexpected delays, problems or difficulty that arise as the project progresses. Reports will be submitted on a monthly basis. Financial Reports Concurrent with the progress reports, a financial report will be submitted. This report will outline the utilization and dispersal of grant funding for the month, and over the life of the project. This report will also actively track project costs against the project budget. Propose budget modifications and manage cost overruns, as needed. Monthly Meetings Monthly meetings will take place via conference call or in person at a mutually agreed upon time. Meetings will routinely take place 3-5 business days after progress and financial reports are submitted. This is intended to allow AEA the opportunity to review the reports and ask questions regarding project progress and grant utilization. Monitoring and Performance Reporting Plan Regular monitoring and performance will be documented and submitted to AEA for approval. This will include continuous monitoring to verify and update projections and system efficiency. 3.5 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. Risk is extremely low for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction project. AEA 15003 Page 10 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects The Borough is largely insulated from common sources of risk such as financial instability, though the funding source for the overall project has yet to be determined and will likely be through a mixture of local expenditures and federal and state grant, as they may become available. Moreover, per Volume 2 of the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) by Black & Veach, in discussing the project development and operational risks, that document identifies resolving the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of individual projects through a coordinated process of developing biomass resources. With the ongoing Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Projects currently under design, the Borough has shown its intent to focus on biomass on a facility-wide scale in order to create the base for the industry. Relative to feedstock availability, per the Southeast Area Integrated Resource Plan by Black & Veatch, Volume 2 section 17.1.28, “The region’s abundance of biomass resources… allows the opportunity for the region to provide the majority of their space heating needs through local sustainable renewable resources,” but it does identify the fuel supply risk as moderate, primarily due to the feedstock availability being within the Tongass National Forest. As noted in that report in section 15.7, “… the minimum amount of pellets necessary to initially support a mill is approximately 10,000 tons annually.” Along with recent projects completed at the Ketchikan Federal Building, U.S. Forest Service Southeast Alaska Discovery Center and City of Ketchikan Public Library, the progress conversion of public facilities to biomass heat, alone, will likely provide the base for a local pellet industry. In terms of public support, the project is perceived positively throughout the community. As noted by Black & Veatch: “the concept of using a local renewable resource that creates local jobs is well received.” In terms of siting, the Borough-owned property on which it is intended to be located has ample space for a new structure, either adjacent to or within the existing footprint of the high school. Finally, the boilers are slated for replacement within the next ten years. There is a pressing need to see this project accomplished as the boilers reach the age of replacement. 3.6 Project Accountant(s) Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to solicit project accounting support. Mike Houts, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Finance Director Mike has over 30 years of financial management experience specializing in accounting systems for Forest Products and Construction Companies. Maureen Crosby, CPA., Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Controller Maureen has been a Certified Public Accountant for 13 years, and has been in public accounting for nearly 20. 3.7 Financial Accounting System Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and who will be the primary user of the accounting system. AEA 15003 Page 11 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects The Ketchikan Gateway Borough utilizes Financial Edge software by Blackbaud, of which the Borough’s Finance Department is the primary user. 3.8 Financial Management Controls Discuss the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement from the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. Throughout the project, costs allocated to the project will be reviewed by Borough staff tasked with Contract Administration to determine their compliance with grant conditions. Prior to issuance of reimbursement request, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s Finance Department staff also review the cost allocation to verify grant conditions have been met. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough also receives a yearly audit by the State of Alaska and employs a Third-Party auditor to prepare a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which is made publically available on the Ketchikan Gateway Borough website (http://www.kgbak.us), to verify that all internal controls are in order. Auditors also review each ongoing and finalized grant for compliance with all grant conditions. AEA 15003 Page 12 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. If some work has already been completed on the project and the funding request is for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available, in the market, to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application. Pellet fuels are the most consistent of all biomass feedstocks. Pre-processing of pellets to standard specifications greatly reduces compatibility problems and operational issues with combustion equipment. It is anticipated that the project will seek Pellet Fuels Institute Standard-grade fuel pellets and equipment will be engineered to handle this grade. The higher allowable ash content in the Standard-grade pellet can be made from non-merchantable biomass containing some bark rather than the clean white heartwood required for Premium-grade pellets. Equipment designed for Standard-grade pellets will accept Premium-grade pellets if that is the only supply availability. It is expected that the recommended pellet boiler equipment be capable of processing microchip fuel should that become available in the area. Fuel pellet specifications can be found at the Pellet Fuels Institute website http://pelletheat.org/pfi standards/pfi-standards-program/. Feedstock will be delivered via bulk truckload delivery by fuel contractor. • Amount: Combined Approximately 1,409 tons/year • Pricing: 500 Tons/Year over 5 years: $275/ton • Infrastructure requirements: Pellet Silo, Feed Auger 4.1.1 For Biomass Project only Identify any wood inventory questions, such as: • Ownership/Accessibility. Who owns the land and are their limitations and restrictions to accessing the biomass resource? • Inventory data. How much biomass is available on an annual basis and what types (species) are there, if known? Please attach any forest inventory reports The Ketchikan Gateway Borough is committed to using locally sourced woody biomass in order to support Alaskan business. KGB has previously contacted Tongass Forest Enterprises to secure a long term supply of wood pellets. Tongass Forest Enterprises has identified two local entities from which they will be purchasing pulp-grade wood to produce wood pellets. • Leask Lakes sale • Brown mountain road boundary sale Other projects in progress in the Tongass National Forest from which biomass may become available include the Big Thorne and Saddle Lake sales. AEA 15003 Page 13 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects In a letter to the Borough, Tongass Forest Enterprises is on record as offering contracts up to 5 years in length, for volumes exceeding 500 tons/year at a price that is financially viable for this project. Southeast Alaska as a whole has an opportunity, and perhaps a need to leverage woody biomass resources for energy purposes. Moreover, in a 2010 study conducted by the USFS entitled “Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska: Envisioning a Sustainable Economy with Thriving Communities”, it is noted that: “A potential young growth market is biomass energy, although the potential remains unclear. Current demand for biomass in Southeast Alaska is relatively small; wood chips and other mill wastes are sufficient to meet local heating demands. But diesel is widely used for power and heat in Southeast Alaska, and biomass might be developed into a more cost-effective energy sources. Wood fiber produced from thinning young forests might be processed into wood pellets and other energy sources if demand comes to exceed supply of wastes.” This same report notes that 400,000 acres of Tongass National Forest are in young growth of various native species, thus ensuring an ample supply for this and other wood energy projects in the area. In the event of a shortfall in available pellets from local manufacturers, Ketchikan is easily accessible by barges from Seattle providing weekly scheduled service, by which means the Washington, Oregon and Idaho pellet manufacturers may be tapped. Prince Rupert, a Canadian town in British Columbia located ninety miles south of Ketchikan, also bears Pinnacle Renewable Energy, Inc., the largest pellet manufacturer in North America. 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Heating Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. Ketchikan High School also uses fuel oil –fired boilers, and is heated by three units, one at 3.7 MMBTU/hr and two at 4.07 MMBTU/hr. The project feasibility study specifies one 4.07 MMBTU/hr pellet-fuel system in a stand-alone boiler housing, though this is subject to change as the design phase progresses. Existing oil-fired boiler equipment can be salvaged for use after installation of a pellet-fired heating system, and can account for 15% of average load requirements and peak heating needs, reducing capital cost and scale required for the pellet system. 4.2.2 Existing Heating Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. The primary fuel source presently used to generate heat in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is fuel oil. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s current contract for fuel oil #2 is $3.42 - $3.47/gallon. Calls to a local distributor indicate residential rates are as high as $4.07 - $4.34/gallon. The proposed project will help the community by reducing the use of expensive fuel oil. The key impact on infrastructure will involve changing buildings from liquid to solid fuel storage systems. This is anticipated to be accomplished by erecting storage facilities adjacent to the heating buildings. AEA 15003 Page 14 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects 4.2.3 Existing Heating Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The proposed project does not anticipated selling heat on the open market. It is intended to offset present use of heating oil for boilers operated by the applicant. At present, total fuel oil usage for Kayhi is 127,900 Gallons per year, with a fuel price of approximately $3.42-$3.47/gallon of fuel oil. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods The Ketchikan Borough is proposing the construction of a boiler system to be installed at Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School. Preliminary feasibility studies have been performed for this system and can be found in the appendix. Pelleted woody biomass fuel will be produced by an independent biomass vendor, and transported to Ketchikan by barge. The wood pellets will then be transported to the boiler site, via truck. The heating area of Ketchikan High School is approximately 110,000 square feet and is presently serviced by one 3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers, all of which are run on fuel oil. These boilers are original to renovation work in the mid 1990’s and remain in good condition. However, a recent feasibility study determined that two 4.07 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler heaters would be able to pick up base load and peak load demands. It is estimated a single 4.07 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler is sufficient to meet base load demands equal to 85% the facility’s thermal usage in a given year: the second will cover the peak demand. The existing 3.7 MMBtu/hr fuel oil boiler is intended to remain as a standby for use during peak loading and biomass boiler downtime. To date, conceptual programming operated from the assumption that the project will entail a standalone boiler building with silo adjacent, and augur running from one to the other as a feedstock transfer system. Fuel flow is thereby automated. System ash will be removed manually according to vendor specifications and transported to the local landfill. Please note, however, that the current design contract with Wisewood, Inc. will consider the most appropriate location for the biomass boiler system, whether this is containerized, located within the footprint of the building, or installed adjacent to the school. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. AEA 15003 Page 15 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects All lands associated with the construction of this project are in the ownership of the applicant. Biomass harvested for use in this project will be locally sourced: any ownership issues associated with biomass harvest will be the responsibility of the biomass supplier, not the applicant. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and discuss potential barriers Anticipated permits for operation of this facility include a variety of federal, state and local environmental, construction and land use permits. It is likely that the facility will be below the air permitting requirements pursuant to Alaska Air Quality Regulations 18-AAC-50. An Air Quality Feasibility Study was conducted by Resource Systems Group, Inc. in conjunction with the Ketchikan High School Feasibility Study (Ketchikan HS Pre-Feasibility Assessment, Appendix 1B) which determined that project would not require an air permit. This will be reviewed early in the engineering and permitting process under this proposed grant. Other permits are expected to be required, including EPA construction general permit and NPDES storm water permit for the High School facility building construction, local construction and operating approvals, and Boiler permitting and boiler operator licenses per Alaska Statutes, Sec. 18.60.210 (a) (9), and Sec. 18.60.395 (b) (2), respectively. It is not expected that these permitting and regulatory procedures will impact the overall project schedule or scope. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: • Threatened or endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts • Identify and discuss other potential barriers • • Threatened or endangered species /Habitat Issues o No endangered or threatened species will be impacted by the construction of this project. Per the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the following endangered species are listed and occur in the State of Alaska: Short-Tailed Albatross Polar Bear Wood Bison Eskimo Curlew Spectacled Eider AEA 15003 Page 16 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Stellar’s Eider Northern Sea Otter Stellar Sea Lion Leatherback Sea Turtle Beluga Whale Blue Whale Bowhead Whale Finback Whale Humpback Whale Sperm Whale. None of the animals identified above are listed for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Most are associated with coastal marine environments or the northern Alaska Regions, and therefore outside the range of this project given its location approximately 1,200 feet mile inland, with a grade difference of approximately 180-feet between the shoreline and the school. o Biomass will only be purchased from vendors who practice sustainable harvesting techniques. • Wetlands and other protected areas O Direct disturbance associated with any new boiler structures outside the footprint of the Ketchikan High School will likely be on portions of the High School Tract that have been disturbed for over 40 years. It is extremely unlikely creek located at the northwest corner of the High School Tract will be impacted by the construction of the new facility. In any event, however, appropriate environmental permitting will be sought to support the construction of this facility. O Biomass will only be purchased from vendors who practice sustainable harvesting techniques. • Archaeological and historical resources O Construction will take place within the footprint of existing facilities which have undergone assessments for archaeological and historically significant sites. • Land development constraints o None anticipated • Telecommunications interference o None anticipated. Infrastructure will be at height with surrounding buildings. • Aviation considerations o None anticipated. Infrastructure will be at height with surrounding buildings. • Visual and Aesthetic Considerations o None anticipated. Given the extent of surrounding construction, any new construction can easily be visually shielded from any of the viewshed angles of Ketchikan High School or other surrounding public assets (i.e. playfields, streets, parking lots). Any aesthetic disturbance will be minimal. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the AEA 15003 Page 17 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects source of their cost data. For example: Applicant’s records or analysis, industry standards, consultant or manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: • Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase • Requested grant funding • Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind • Identification of other funding sources • Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system • Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system A detailed financial analysis supporting the costs associated with this project can be found in Appendix B-3. A summary of the requested parameters is provided below. Total anticipated project cost. $ 1,402,908 Cost for this phase: $ 1,288,018 Requested Grant Funding: $ 1,288,018 Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions , in-kind $ 0 Identification of other funding sources: See Section 2.6 for a breakdown of associated costs. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for any new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of recording the impacts of AEA projects on the communities they serve.) The Pre-Feasibility Study for integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report by CTA Architects & Engineers estimated the necessary additional funding for O&M to be approximately $3,200/year. Please note that, per CTA’s study, the finished project will reduce the fuel oil used by Kayhi by some 108,715 gallons, but require 1049 tons of pellets and an additional 25,000 kW/hr electrical to run the system. It is important to note that the new boilers will replace existing systems. Thus, fuel costs previously budgeted for the existing system will largely be displaced, and operations and maintenance costs will be only modestly expanded to reflect requirements of the new system. Moreover, the anticipated increased costs for O&M represent a significant improvement over the status quo, given the public benefits to accrue locally from the use of biomass rather than fuel oil. 4.4.3 Heating Purchase/Sale The heat purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential energy buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential heat purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project AEA 15003 Page 18 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Heat generated from the proposed system would be used by the applicant, and thus will not be made available for sale. The primary revenue stream for this project, is then avoided costs of energy purchases. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Please fill out the form provided below and provide most recent heating fuel invoice that supports the amount identified in “Project Benefits” subpart b below. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average wood pellets available are in excess of the 1,227 tons/year required for the proposed system at the Ketchikan High School. Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3 ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 2 units @ 4.07 MMBtu/Hr 1 unit @ 3.7 MMBtu/Hr iii. Generator/boilers/other type Boilers – oil fueled iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 22 years v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 70% b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor $ 4,620 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $ 150 c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 0 ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 00 Other 0 iii. Peak Load 0 iv. Average Load 0 v. Minimum Load 0 vi. Efficiency 0 vii. Future trends 0 d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) 1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. AEA 15003 Page 19 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 127,900 ii. Electricity [kWh] 11,121 (approximately) iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 0 vi. Other 0 Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] Woody Biomass Pellets 2 units @ 4.07 MMBtu/Hr b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] + 25,000 kWh ii. Heat [MMBtu] 4.6 MMBtu/Hr. c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons, dry tons] 1,049 tons iv. Other 19,185 gallons of heating fuel Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $1,402,908 b) Development cost $1,600 (first two years) c) Annual O&M cost of new system +$3,200 (above existing) d) Annual fuel cost $314,781 Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 0 ii. Heat 127,900 gallons iii. Transportation 0 b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.42 - $3.47 c) Other economic benefits The Borough will become the base for a sustainable secondary wood product industry by purchasing pellets for the boiler systems. d) Alaska public benefits Per the pre-feasibility assessment and the Southeast Alaska IRP, the public benefit will be the ability to avoid switching to electric heat for lead or secondary AEA 15003 Page 20 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects heat generation, thereby freeing up that usage for industrial activities that benefit all Alaskans, including active shipbuilding and potential mining developments in the area. Heat Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for heat purchase/sale N/A Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio 2.30 @ 20 years; wood fuel b/c ratio exceeds 1.0 @ 20 years Payback (years) 8.1 4.4.5 Impact on Rates Please address the following items related to the proposed location of the heating project. If more than one building will be impacted, please address this information for each building. • Building name Ketchikan High School • Type or primary usage of the building School • Location 2610 Fourth Avenue, Ketchikan, AK 99901 • Hours of operation Monday – Friday, 6am – 9pm; also most weekends • Single structure or multiple units Single structure. • Total square footage 180,614 • Electrical consumption per year None relating to building heat • Heating oil/fuel consumption per year 127,900 gallons • Average number of occupants Students – 560; Staff - 40 • Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if applicable. Yes – November 2012 • Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed? o If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and anticipated savings associated with upgrades. AEA 15003 Page 21 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Yes. In 2011, the entire roof of Kayhi was replaced to eliminate leaks, thereby mitigating failure of the insulated substrate at a cost of $3.4-million. No cost savings have been calculated. o Estimated annual heating fuel savings $80,164.00 • If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available. N/A AEA 15003 Page 22 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project. In order for the applicant to receive credit for heating fuel displaced the applicant must provide the most recent invoice for heating fuel purchased. • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Heat Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate) • Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) • Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project Bioenergy facility construction produces multiple positive effects for a region or locality in which the facility is built. Firstly, it will displace the use of heating oil in the project’s effected area. Over a 20 year lifespan, the proposed system would displace over 2.20 Million gallons of diesel fuel, worth nearly $8 Million in today’s dollars. This displacement will save the Borough over 600 thousand dollars in direct fuel costs. Engineering and construction jobs will also be created during plant construction, and jobs for personnel to manage and operate the facility are also created. Indirect jobs and industries also benefit from the feedstock and other supply materials logistical requirements of the facility. The facility support impacts spread further and affect more industries than the facility itself. Known as multipliers, these effects are often far greater than the direct production of the facility. Per the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code, there are provisions allowing the preferential bidding status of local contractors. Moreover, the intended design will included locally sourced materials where possible. Where possible, the intent is to enable the local distribution of funding dollars through the construction process. It is anticipated the prime contracting or any of the subcontracting work will be performed by local, qualified firms throughout the construction phase. Upon completion, the project is expected to create several direct full time positions for each facility in the form of qualified boiler operators. Additional job creation benefits will spread far into the community, including local pellet fuel providers, forest industry, civil and electrical facility maintenance services, and other local industries. A region-wide expansion to pellet fuel heat can produce cost savings on the order of $2.1 billion in cumulative net worth over a 50-yr period while increasing job opportunities and reinvesting capital directly into the community. Per the McDowell Group, for every 5 positions directly created through new economic activity, an additional 1.15 indirect positions will also be created. As the Borough’s intention is to become the anchor client for a local pellet production industry, the vast majority of the economic activity generated will be within the community. Finally, a wood pellet boiler system has significant positive benefits relative to greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions. First, conceptually, biomass heat is a “cleaner” source of energy, as the carbons storage utilized for heating is being restored on a continual basis, as opposed to fossil fuels, in which case the carbon storage is effectively removed for all time. Moreover, Ketchikan is located amidst a myriad of potential biomass sources, such as longstanding logging operations on Prince AEA 15003 Page 23 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects of Wales Island, occasional resource extraction projects from the USFS and State of Alaska, and local site development and the resultant wood waste byproducts. All petroleum fuel sources are required to be shipped to southeast Alaska, requiring a significant carbon footprint on top of their development cost. The removal of wood wastes from clearcut areas may also promote the regrowth of logged areas as a sustainable long-term source of wood resources and fuel. AEA 15003 Page 24 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss the operation of the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: • Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. • How the maintenance and operations of the completed project will be financed for the life of the project • Identification of operational issues that could arise. • A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation • Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits Proposed business structure: • The Ketchikan High School Wood Biomass Boiler project will not require a complicated business structure, as the resources for this project are entirely within the ownership of the Borough. The Borough does not intend to sell heat, so billing and business structures and reimbursements will not be necessary. All supplies and contractual services purchased during this project and through the subsequent operation will be per the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s procurement procedures. How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project: • Maintenance and operations of the Wood Biomass Boiler at the Ketchikan High School will be financed through the School District’s regular budgetary process, with funds to come from the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development and local matching funds. Operational Costs: • Wood pellet acquisition will be borne by the applicant comparable to the procurement currently in place for the diesel boiler system. Preliminary statements from local vendors indicate the material may be purchased from local suppliers at a rate of $300/ton of pellets for a period of five years. Operational issues: • A period of adjustment during which the maintenance staff familiarize themselves with the wood pellet boiler system is anticipated. In advance of that period, the administrative staff have been examining comparable systems, both locally and within the northwest, and consulted with energy engineers to identify known operational issues (i.e. clinkers, boiler load requirements, etc.) in order to minimize frustration during startup. Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: • The Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District are committed to tracking costs associated with the use of the biomass boiler system and any other economic metrics determined necessary by AEA to determine the impacts resulting from use of the wood pellet boiler system. In addition, as determined necessary, Staff are committed to providing operational data to AEA for use in studying the viability of wood biomass projects in Southeast Alaska. AEA 15003 Page 25 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Prior to apply for grant funding from AEA, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has taken multiple steps to ensure project success. Third party engineering firms have been hired to perform energy audits for all effected facilities, and to perform feasibility studies regarding construction of the proposed biomass boilers. In 2011, an energy audit to determine viable conservation measures for the Ketchikan High School was funded by AHFC (attached as Exhibit B-5), followed by the Heating System Retrofit Analysis performed for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s school facilities in 2012, for which the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and School District funded $48,860. The Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report by CTA Architects was funded by AEA and the USFS and issued on July 24, 2012 (see Exhibit B-3). Data from these studies was used to apply for the USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant. The Borough received $129,210 in grant funding from the USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant in May of 2013, which will be used to fund final design of facilities. $86,176.50 was allocated towards a design contract with Wisewood, Inc., with a local match of $28,722.50, for a total contract of $114,890 awarded at the Assembly meeting of July 7, 2014. See attached Exhibit A-3 for the submitted proposal and agreement. In recognition of its efforts towards determining the viability of a biomass boiler project, the Alaska Energy Authority awarded the Ketchikan Gateway Borough a $620,000 grant through the Round VII Renewable Energy Fund. This was out of a request for $1,412,889 intended for construction of wood biomass boilers at the Ketchikan International Airport and at Ketchikan High School. The grant was reduced as additional evaluation of the intended system at Ketchikan High School was yet required. Please note that, simultaneously to the process underway for the Ketchikan High School, the legislature recognized the viability of these efforts by designating $1,197,500 in direct legislative grants for the Ketchikan International Airport biomass project. In-kind participation from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District will be provided by staff time necessary to oversee and internally manage the project. SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of support or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 2, 2014. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough strongly supports the creation of a biomass industry in Southern Southeast Alaska. Resolution 2552, attached as Exhibit D authorizes the submittal of an application for the Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII. AEA 15003 Page 26 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Per Exhibit B-1, local governments supporting this project include the City of Ketchikan, per the attached letter of support from David Martin, Assistant General Manager for the City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District also support this project, as evidenced by the attached letter from Robert Boyle, Superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District. This is crucial for the success of the project, as the School District will be tasked with operating and maintaining the biomass boiler ultimately selected. Supporting resolutions from the Borough are also attached, as Exhibit B-2. These include: Resolution 2505-A, supporting a prior Renewable Energy Fund Grant, Resolution 2471-Amended, in which the Borough Assembly approved urging the U.S. Forest Service to include “biomass as a use designated by the Land Use Designation” in the Tongass Land Management Plan, and Resolution 2470, which authorized the submittal applications for grant funding for engineering services for wood-fired heating systems. SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. 9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the project Ketchikan Gateway Borough is requesting $1,288,018 through the Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII to pay for the installation of (2) biomass fueled boilers at Ketchikan High School, intended to act as lead and lag boilers for heating the school. At this time, no matching funds for construction have been identified by the Borough. Funds towards assessing the project viability previously allocated towards this project include the AHFC-funded Energy Audit of the Ketchikan High School performed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in 2011; AEA funded a Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems of Ketchikan High School by CTA in 2012; and $43,860.00 from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District towards the Heating System Retrofit Analysis by Alaska Engineering, LLC in 2013. Design funds allocated towards this project consist of $114,890 towards the design, of which $86,167.50 was provided by a USFS Woody Bug Utilization Grant (WBUG) and the remaining $28,722.50 paid from the School Bond CIP Fund. 9.2 Cost Estimate for Metering Equipment Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment, and its related use to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. AEA 15003 Page 27 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 28 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction and Commissioning). Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project’s budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org. Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS 1. Design and Feasibility Requirements complete 2/5/15 $ 63,098 $ 0 $ 63,098 2. Vendor selected and award in place 4/15/15 $ 5,000 $ 0 $ 5,000 3. Construction 8/15/15 $ 1,081,200 $ 0 $ 1,081,200 4. Integration and Testing 8/15/15 $ 83,720 $ 0 $ 83,720 5. Final Acceptance, Commission and Start up complete 9/30/15 $ 40,000 $ 0 $ 40,000 6. Operations Reporting 9/30/15 $ 15,000 $ 0 $ 15,000 TOTALS $ 1,288,018 $ 0 $1,288,018 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ Travel & Per Diem $ $ Equipment $ $ Materials & Supplies $ $ Contractual Services $ $ Construction Services $ $ $ 1,288,018 Other $ $ TOTALS $ $ $ 1,288,018 AEA 15003 Page 29 of 42 7/2/14 ··~···A~~·· I,',;:. ,,~~·.~A~~ ~L :, ENERGY AUTHORITY SECTION 10 -AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Community/Grantee Name: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Regular Election is held: First Tuesday in October /Date: J Authorized Grant Signer(s): Printed Name Title Term Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager N/A I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official Printed Name Title Term Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager Per Borough Resolution 2552 J Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Address: 1900 First Ave., Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Phone Number: (907) 228-6625 Fax Number: (907) 228-6684 E-mail Address: danb@kgbak.us or amyb@.kgbak.us Federal Tax ID #: 92-0084626 ... I Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. AEA 15003 Page 30 of 42 7/2/14 SECTION 11 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Contact information and r~sumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6. Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applicauons in separate electronic documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site. B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 8. C. For heat projects only: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project. D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA Section 1.7. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name Dan Bockhorst Signature Title Borough Manager Date September 22, 2014 AEA 15003 Page 31of42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT A-1: Contact Information: Owner: Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 First Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 • Borough Manager: Dan Bockhorst, danb@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6641 • Assistant Borough Manager: Cynna Gubatayo, cynnag@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6633 • Project Manager: Ed Schofield – Public Works Director, eds@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6664 • Finance Director: Mike Houts, mikeh@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6649 • Controller: Maureen Crosby, maureenc@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6624 • Administrative Personnel: Amy Briggs – Administrative Assistant II, amyb@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6637 Operator: Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 333 Schoenbar Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 • School District Superintendent: Robert Boyle, Robert.Boyle@kgbaksd.org, (907) 225-2118 • School District Maintenance: Mike Williams, Department Head, Mike.Williams@kgbaksd.org, (907) 225-2416 Pellet Supplier (Proposed): Tongass Forest Enterprises ATTN: Trevor Sande 355 Carlanna Lake Road, Suite 100 Ketchikan, AK 99901 info@akforestenterprises.com (907) 225-4541 AEA 15003 Page 32 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT A-3: • Submitted Proposal from Wisewood, Inc. • Contractual Services Agreement AEA 15003 Page 34 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT B-1: • Letters of support: o Robert Boyle, Superintendent, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District o David Martin, Assistant General Manager, City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities o US Forest Service Issue Paper dated April, 2014 by Daniel Parrent AEA 15003 Page 35 of 42 7/2/14 Woody Biomass Energy in Alaska Background According to the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, biomass accounted for more than 53% of all renewable energy consumed in the U.S. in 2010, with “wood and derived fuels” contributing ~25% of the total (http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/trends/pdf/table1.pdf). Alaska recognized this potential and has dramatically increased the number of wood-fired boilers in the State in recent years. Wood fuel has several environmental advantages over fossil fuel. The main advantage is that wood is a home-grown, locally available, renewable resource offering a sustainable, dependable supply. Other advantages include the fact that the net amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emitted during the burning process is ~90% less than when burning fossil fuel. Wood fuel contains minimal amounts of sulfur and heavy metals. It does not contribute to acid rain pollution and particulate emissions are controllable. Issues Seventeen percent of all U.S. forest land is located in Alaska. While parts of Alaska are treeless tundra, ice fields and mountains, much of Alaska is heavily forested. • For the forest landowner/manager, biomass utilization can provide opportunities to mitigate the costs associated with pre-commercial thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, forest restoration, and habitat enhancement (moose, deer and salmon are important sources of protein for many rural Alaskans). • For the forest products industry, biomass markets can mean new, or more profitable, local opportunities to utilize processing by-products, such as sawdust and bark. • For communities, biomass fuels can save facility operators money, create and sustain local jobs, and reduce local economic leakage (i.e., keep energy dollars in the community) There are more than 100 communities in Alaska that are only accessible by air or water. The prices of petroleum fuels in these communities are among the highest in the nation. Heating oil prices in some remote communities, where winter temperatures can reach -60oF, exceed $10.00 per gallon due largely to transportation costs. Some villages have had to close public libraries, community centers, and auxiliary school facilities, such as pools and gymnasiums, because they cannot afford to heat them. Biomass boiler (far left) with oil-fired back up boilers (center and right) Small diameter, low-value wood suitable for use as wood fuel Issue Paper April 2014 Woody Biomass Energy in Alaska Page 2 of 2 Programmatic Efforts 1. With Economic Action Program (EAP) funding from 2004–2008, Alaska Region State & Private Forestry was a key participant in the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group (AWEDTG), which was created to explore opportunities to increase the utilization of wood for energy in Alaska. With new Federal and matching State funds, AWEDTG was reinstituted in 2011. Additional funding was provided by a Statewide Wood Energy Team grant in 2013. A competitive application program was created, and selected private, public and not-for-profit applicants can receive initial feasibility assessments for heating local facilities with wood. More than 100 preliminary feasibility assessments have been conducted to date. A number of applicants from previous years have gone on to apply for and receive funding for engineered designs, construction, or both. There are ~25 non-industrial biomass heating now installed and operating in Alaska 2. USDA agencies, led by the Forest Service and Rural Development, have been directed to develop a strategy known as the Tongass Transition Framework to help Southeast Alaska communities transition to a more diversified economy. Renewable energy, forest restoration, and young-growth forest management are a few of the components of the transition strategy. In partnership with the State Division of Forestry and U.S. Coast Guard, work on the Southeast Alaska Wood-to-Energy Initiative began in October 2012. Staff are providing direct technical assistance, conducting public outreach and education, and drafting a strategy document to convert 30 percent of southeast Alaska’s heating oil consumption to biomass over the next 10 years. Recent Accomplishments In Alaska, wood biomass heating systems have already been successfully installed in a number of non-industrial facilities. The first large non-industrial biomass system was commissioned in Craig, Alaska in April 2008. The system provides heat to the Craig elementary and middle schools and the nearby community pool. Using 4 to 5 thousand pounds of mill residues daily, the system saves the community ~$85,000 annually in heating costs. Some other operational systems include: • Sealaska Corporation office building in Juneau, AK • Schools in Tok, Delta Junction, Tetlin, Tanana, Thorne Bay, and Coffman Cove • Washeteria and city offices in Tanana, AK • Ionia Community Center in Kasilof, AK • District heating system in Gulkana, AK • USDA Forest Service, Southeast Alaska Visitor Information and Discovery Center in Ketchikan, AK • Ketchikan Public Library in Ketchikan, AK • GSA Federal office building in Ketchikan, AK • University of Alaska, Fort Yukon Campus, Fort Yukon, AK • Galena Senior Center, Galena, AK Several more biomass heating systems are currently in development, including: • Chilkoot Indian Association, Haines, AK – Pellet plant designs (2013 WBU grant) • Fort Yukon School, Gymnasium, Vocational Education Center and Health Clinic, Fort Yukon, AK • Ketchikan, AK – Heating system designs for the airport and high school (2013 WBU grant) • Haines, AK – Biomass conversions at 10 city facilities including school and pool • City of Nulato, AK - water plant/washeteria/school (2012 Woody Biomass Utilization Grant recipient) • Fort Greely, U.S. Army, Delta Junction, AK More Information Daniel Parrent, Program Manager–Biomass Utilization & Forest Stewardship, USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry, Alaska Region, (907) 743-9467, djparrent@fs.fed.us. Issue Paper April 2014 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT B-2: • Resolution 2470 – authorization the application for and acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, for wood energy projects that require engineering services. • Resolution 2471 – comments on the U.S. Forest Service Five Year review of its 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan • Resolution 2505-Amended – authorization the application for and of a grant from AEA for construction of wood energy projects at the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School AEA 15003 Page 36 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT B-3: Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report – Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School, by CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Services, dated July 24, 2012 AEA 15003 Page 37 of 42 7/2/14 Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report July 24, 2012 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School Ketchikan, Alaska Presented by CTA Architects Engineers Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz Lars Construction Management Services Rex Goolsby For Ketchikan Gateway Borough School Ketchikan Indian Association In partnership with Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group Funded by Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service 306 W. Railroad, Suite 104 Missoula, MT 59802 406.728.9522 www.ctagroup.com CTA Project: FEDC_KETCHCRAIG_KHS Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers i July 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Building Systems.......................................................................................... 3 4.0 Energy Use ............................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Biomass Boiler Size ................................................................................................... 3 6.0 Wood Fuel Use .......................................................................................................... 4 7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access ....................................................................... 5 8.0 Integration with Existing Heating Systems ................................................................. 5 9.0 Air Quality Permits ..................................................................................................... 5 10.0 Wood Heating Options .............................................................................................. 6 11.0 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 6 12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................... 6 13.0 Results of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 7 14.0 Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 7 15.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 8 16.0 Recommended Action ............................................................................................... 8 Appendixes Appendix A: Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost .................................................. 1 page Appendix B: Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................... 2 pages Appendix C: Site Plan ................................................................................................. 1 page Appendix D: Air Quality Report ............................................................................... 11 pages Appendix E: Wood Fired Heating Technologies ........................................................ 3 pages Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 1 of 7 July 24, 2012 1.0 Executive Summary The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High School in Ketchikan, Alaska. The following tables summarize the current fuel use and the potential wood fuel use: Table 1.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230 Table 1.2 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary Chipped/ Fuel Wood Ground Oil Pellets Wood (Gallons) (Tons) (Tons) High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9 Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use. Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options reviewed were as follows: Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options: A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage. Wood Pellet Boiler Options: B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo. The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option: Table 1.3 - Economic Evaluation Summary Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System Year 1 NPV NPV 20 Yr 30 Yr Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8 B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 2 of 8 July 24, 2012 Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be recommended over the chip system. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 3 of 8 July 24, 2012 2.0 Introduction The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High School in Ketchikan, Alaska. 3.0 Existing Building Systems The Ketchikan High School is a steel and concrete framed building originally constructed in 1953 and expanded and remodeled extensively in mid 1990’s. The facility is approximately 110,000 square feet and is heated by one 3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers. Domestic hot water is provided by three 120 gallon indirect water heaters using the boiler water as a heating source. These domestic water heaters then feed a single 1,500 gallon storage tank. The existing boilers are original to the renovation work in the mid 1990’s and are in good condition. Most of the heating system infrastructure was also updated in the mid 1990’s and is in good condition. Facilities Dropped from Feasibility Study No facilities were dropped from the feasibility study. Facilities Added to Feasibility Study No facilities were added to the feasibility study. 4.0 Energy Use Fuel oil bills for the facilities were provided. The following table summarizes the data: Table 4.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230 Electrical energy consumption will increase with the installation of the wood fired boiler system because of the power needed for the biomass boiler components such as augers, conveyors, draft fans, etc. and the additional pumps needed to integrate into the existing heating systems. The cash flow analysis accounts for the additional electrical energy consumption and reduces the annual savings accordingly. 5.0 Biomass Boiler Size The following table summarized the connected load of fuel fired boilers: Table 5.1 - Connected Boiler Load Summary Likely Peak System Output Load Peak MBH Factor MBH Gateway Borough School Boiler 1 Fuel Oil 3770 0.65 2451 Boiler 2 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646 Boiler 3 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646 Total 11910 7742 Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 4 of 8 July 24, 2012 Typically a wood heating system is sized to meet approximately 85% of the typical annual heating energy use of the building. The existing heating boilers would be used for the other 15% of the time during peak heating conditions, during times when the biomass boiler is down for servicing, and during swing months when only a few hours of heating each day are required. Recent energy models have found that a boiler sized at 50% to 60% of the building peak load will typically accommodate 85% of the boiler run hours. Table 5.2 - Proposed Biomass Boiler Size Likely Biomass System Biomass Boiler Peak Boiler Size MBH Factor MBH High School 7742 0.6 4645 6.0 Wood Fuel Use The types of wood fuel available in the area include wood pellets and chipped/ground wood fuel. The estimated amount of wood fuel needed for each wood fuel type for each building was calculated and is listed below: Table 6.1 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary Chipped/ Fuel Wood Ground Oil Pellets Wood (Gallons) (Tons) (Tons) High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9 Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use. The amount of wood fuel shown in the table is for offsetting 85% of the total fuel oil use. The moisture content of the wood fuels and the overall wood burning system efficiencies were accounted for in these calculations. The existing fuel oil boilers were assumed to be 80% efficient. Wood pellets were assumed to be 7% MC with a system efficiency of 70%. Chipped/ground fuel was assumed to be 40% MC with a system efficiency of 65%. As can be seen from the potential wood fuel use, the volume of wood is such that a cord wood system is not really practical and further analysis will look at pellet and chipped/ground fuel options. There are sawmills and active logging operations in the region. Tongass Forest Enterprises has stared up a pellet plant in Ketchikan and is providing pellets to Sealaska. Pellets are also available from plants in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. There appears to be a sufficient available supply to service the boiler plant. The unit fuel costs for fuel oil and the different fuel types were calculated and equalized to dollars per million Btu ($/MMBtu) to allow for direct comparison. The Delivered $/MMBtu is the cost of the fuel based on what is actually delivered to the heating system, which includes all the inefficiencies of the different systems. The Gross $/MMBtu is the cost of the fuel based on raw fuel, or the higher heating value and does not account for any Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 5 of 8 July 24, 2012 system inefficiencies. The following table summarizes the equalized fuel costs at different fuel unit costs: Table 6.2 - Unit Fuel Costs Equalized to $/MMBtu Net Gross System System Delivered Gross Fuel Type Units Btu/unit Efficiency Btu/unit $/unit $/MMBtu $/MMBtu Fuel Oil gal 138500 0.8 110800 $3.50 $31.59 $25.27 $4.00 $36.10 $28.88 $4.50 $40.61 $32.49 Pellets tons 16400000 0.7 11480000 $300.00 $26.13 $18.29 $350.00 $30.49 $21.34 $400.00 $34.84 $24.39 Chips tons 10800000 0.65 7020000 $75.00 $10.68 $6.94 $100.00 $14.25 $9.26 $125.00 $17.81 $11.57 7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access The boiler room is not large enough to accommodate a new wood fired boiler so a new stand-alone plant would be required. The best location for a plant would be just northwest of the boiler room, adjacent to the tennis courts to the north. Any type of biomass boiler plant will require access by delivery vehicles, typically 40 foot long vans or some similar type of trailer. The school is built on a steep site, limiting vehicle access and space for constructing wood heating systems. A wood pellet boiler with adjacent silos appear to the most appropriate solution. Wood pellet fuel would need to be conveyed into the silo utilizing a pneumatic blower or grain auger. A pneumatic blower allows greater flexibility in the relationship between the delivery vehicle and silo. 8.0 Integration with Existing Heating System Integration of a wood fired boiler system would be relatively straight forward in the building. The field visit confirmed the location of the boiler room in order to identify an approximate point of connection from a biomass boiler to the existing building. Piping from the biomass boiler plant would be run below ground with pre-insulated pipe and extended to the face of each building, and extended up the exterior surface of the school in order to penetrate exterior wall into the boiler room. Once the hot water supply and return piping enters the existing boiler room it would be connected to existing supply and return pipes in appropriate locations in order to utilize existing pumping systems within each building. 9.0 Air Quality Permits Resource System Group has done a preliminary review of potential air quality issues in the area. Southeast Alaska is has meteorological conditions that can create thermal inversions, which are unfavorable for the dispersion of emissions. The proposed boiler size at this location is small enough, that the boiler is not likely to require any State or Federal permits. Since this plant will be located at a school and is also located in the populated area, the air quality will likely be scrutinized and modeling of emissions, the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 6 of 8 July 24, 2012 stack height, and of air pollution control devices is recommended. RSG also recommends pellet systems over chip systems for the ability of pellets to burn cleaner than chip systems. See the air quality memo in Appendix D. 10.0 Wood Heating Options The technologies available to produce heating energy from wood based biomass are varied in their approach, but largely can be separated into three types of heating plants: cord wood, wood pellet and wood chip/ground wood fueled. See Appendix E for these summaries. Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options reviewed were as follows: Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options: A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage. Wood Pellet Boiler Options: B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo. 11.0 Estimated Costs The total project costs are at a preliminary design level and are based on RS Means and recent biomass project bid data. The estimates are shown in the appendix. These costs are conservative and if a deeper level feasibility analysis is undertaken and/or further design occurs, the costs may be able to be reduced. 12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions The cash flow analysis assumes fuel oil at $3.70/gal, electricity at $0.10/kwh, wood pellets delivered at $300/ton, and ground/chipped wood fuel delivered at $100/ton. The fuel oil and electricity costs were based on utility bills. Pellet costs were obtained from Tongass Forest Enterprises. It is assumed that the wood boiler would supplant 85% of the estimated heating use, and the existing heating systems would heat the remaining 15%. Each option assumes the total project can be funded with grants and non obligated capital money. The following inflation rates were used: O&M - 2%, Fossil Fuel – 5%, Wood Fuel – 3%, Discount Rate for NPV calculation – 3%. The fossil fuel inflation rate is based on the DOE EIA website. DOE is projecting a slight plateau with a long term inflation of approximately 5%. As a point of comparison, oil prices have increased at an annual rate of over 8% since 2001. The analysis also accounts for additional electrical energy required for the wood fired boiler system as well as the system pumps to distribute heating hot water to the buildings. Wood fired boiler systems also will require more maintenance, and these additional maintenance costs are also factored into the analysis. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 7 of 8 July 24, 2012 13.0 Results of Evaluation The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option: Table 13.1 - Economic Evaluation Summary Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System Year 1 NPV NPV 20 Yr 30 Yr Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8 B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11 The benefit to cost ratio (B/C) takes the net present value (NPV) of the net energy savings and divides it by the construction cost of the project. A B/C ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 indicates an economically advantageous project. Accumulated cash flow (ACF) is another evaluation measure that is calculated in this report and is similar to simple payback with the exception that accumulated cash flow takes the cost of financing and fuel escalation into account. For many building owners, having the accumulated cash flow equal the project cost within 15 years is considered necessary for implementation. If the accumulated cash flow equals project cost in 20 years or more, that indicates a challenged project. Positive accumulated cash flow should also be considered an avoided cost as opposed to a pure savings. Because this project involves as school, a life cycle cost analysis following the requirements of the State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development was completed and the data is summarized in the following table: Table 13.2 Life Cycle Costs of Project Alternatives Alternate #1 Alternate #2 Existing Boiler Wood Pellet Boiler Initial Investment Cost $0 $1,400,000 Operations Cost $11,098,820 $6,160,797 Maintenance & Repair Cost $0 $56,725 Replacement Cost $0 $0 Residual Value $0 $0 Total Life Cycle Cost $11,098,820 $7,617,523 This life cycle cost analysis also indicates a pellet boiler system is a strong project. 14.0 Project Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District may pursue a biomass project grant from the Alaska Energy Authority. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 8 of 8 July 24, 2012 The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District could also enter into a performance contract for the project. Companies such as Siemens, McKinstry, Johnson Controls and Chevron have expressed an interest in participating in funding projects of all sizes throughout Alaska. This allows the facility owner to pay for the project entirely from the guaranteed energy savings, and to minimize the project funds required to initiate the project. The scope of the project may be expanded to include additional energy conservation measures such as roof and wall insulation and upgrading mechanical systems. 15.0 Summary Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3. Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be recommended over the chip system. Additional sensitivity analysis was performed on the wood pellet option. The cost of the wood fuel was varied, and the 20 year B/C ratio exceeds 1.0 up to $385/ton. 16.0 Recommended Actions Most grant programs will likely require a full feasibility assessment. A full assessment would provide more detail on the air quality issues, wood fuel resources, and a schematic design of the boiler systems and system integration to obtain more accurate costs. It is recommended that the best location for a boiler plant be reviewed in more detail. A boiler plant located further east than shown on the drawing may be avoid taking up parking spots, but a portion of the tennis court may be lost to accommodate the plant. The route and method of delivering pellets needs to be investigated further as this will affect the best location for the boiler plant as well. APPENDIX A Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating Options Ketchikan, AK Option A.1 Wood Chip Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000 Wood Heating & Wood Handling System:$325,000 Stack/Air Pollution Control Device:$180,000 Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$150,000 Underground Piping $25,000 KHS Integration $56,000 Subtotal:$1,006,000 30% Remote Factor $301,800 Subtotal:$1,307,800 Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $196,170 Subtotal:$1,503,970 15% Contingency:$225,596 Total Project Costs 1,729,566$ Option B.1 Pellet Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000 Wood Heating & Wood Handling System:$265,000 Stack/Air Pollution Control Device:$50,000 Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$150,000 Underground Piping $25,000 KHS Integration $56,000 Subtotal:$816,000 30% Remote Factor $244,800 Subtotal:$1,060,800 Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $159,120 Subtotal:$1,219,920 15% Contingency:$182,988 Total Project Costs 1,402,908$ APPENDIX B Cash Flow Analysis Ketchikan High SchoolOption A.1Ketchikan, AKWood Chip Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.60$3.60$3.60 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500 138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Chips$/ton: $100.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 40% MC 5400 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.2,019Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,71625 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.69 Project Capital Cost-$1,730,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use45000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.280 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,730,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning3.040120 $20.00 $2,400Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 8.1 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$10,248,706$8,518,706 5.92$5,796,128$4,066,1283.35Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost7Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$100.0085%1716 tons$171,590 $176,738 $182,040 $187,501 $193,126 $198,920 $204,888 $211,034 $217,365 $223,886 $230,603 $237,521 $244,646 $251,986 $259,545 $300,884 $348,807 $404,363Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$2,400$2,448Additional Electrical Cost $0.280$12,600 $12,978 $13,367 $13,768 $14,181 $14,607 $15,045 $15,496 $15,961 $16,440 $16,933 $17,441 $17,965 $18,504 $19,059 $22,094 $25,613 $29,693Annual Operating Cost Savings$212,455$226,930$244,739$260,984$278,161$296,319$315,511$335,793$357,224$379,864$403,779$429,035$455,706$483,865$513,592$688,814$917,714$1,215,958Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow212,455 226,930 244,739 260,984 278,161 296,319 315,511 335,793 357,224 379,864 403,779 429,035 455,706 483,865 513,592 688,814 917,714 1,215,958Accumulated Cash Flow212,455 439,385 684,125 945,109 1,223,269 1,519,588 1,835,099 2,170,893 2,528,117 2,907,981 3,311,760 3,740,795 4,196,501 4,680,366 5,193,958 8,268,776 ######### 17,827,143Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis): Ketchikan High SchoolOption B.1Ketchikan, AKWood Pellet Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel OilFuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.70$3.70$3.70 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Pellets$/ton: $300.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 70% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 7% MC 8200 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.1,234Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,04925 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.42 Project Capital Cost-$1,400,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use25000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.100 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,400,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning2.04080 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 17.5 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$6,373,815$4,973,815 4.55$3,213,382$1,813,3822.30Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$300.0085%1049 tons$314,781 $324,224 $333,951 $343,970 $354,289 $364,918 $375,865 $387,141 $398,755 $410,718 $423,039 $435,731 $448,803 $462,267 $476,135 $551,970 $639,885 $741,802Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600$1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.100$2,500 $2,575$2,652 $2,732 $2,814 $2,898$2,985 $3,075 $3,167 $3,262 $3,360 $3,461 $3,564 $3,671 $3,781 $4,384 $5,082$5,891Annual Operating Cost Savings$80,164$90,662$103,543$115,552$128,366$142,030$156,594$172,108$188,628$206,211$224,916$244,806$265,950$288,416$312,280$455,438$647,168$902,321Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow80,164 90,662 103,543 115,552 128,366 142,030 156,594 172,108 188,628 206,211 224,916 244,806 265,950 288,416 312,280 455,438 647,168 902,321Accumulated Cash Flow80,164 170,827 274,370 389,922 518,287 660,317 816,910 989,019 1,177,647 1,383,858 1,608,773 1,853,580 2,119,529 2,407,946 2,720,226 4,694,187 7,524,448 11,496,899Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis): APPENDIX C Site Plan NEW BOILER BUILDINGNEW SILOSCHOOL94'-0"NORTHREF.LEGENDPIPE ROUTINGBOILER ROOM120'60'30'0SCALE: 1:60MISSOULA, MT(406)728-9522Fax (406)728-8287Date®BIOMASS PRE-FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTKETCHIKAN, ALASKAKETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOLSSFNHR07/24/12FEDCJ:ketchSCOLSITE PLAN APPENDIX D Air Quality Report 55 Railroad Row  White River Junction, Vermont 05001 TEL 802.295.4999  FAX 802.295.1006  www.rsginc.com INTRODUCTION At your request, RSG has conducted an air quality feasibility study for seven biomass energy installations in Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These sites are located in the panhandle of Alaska. The following equipment is proposed:  Ketchikan o One 4,700,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan High School. o One 800,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility. o One 150,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School. o One 200,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the old Ketchikan Indian Council Administration Building.  Craig o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Craig Tribal Association Building. o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler near the Fire Hall. o One 250,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Shaan‐Seet Office. To: Nick Salmon From: John Hinckley Subject: Ketchikan‐Craig Cluster Feasibility Study Date: 24 July 2012 Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 2 A USGS map of the Ketchikan study area is provided in Figure 1 below. As shown, the area is mountainous, with Ketchikan located on the southwest side of a mountain range. Ketchikan has a population of 14,070. The area is relatively fairly well populated and developed relative to other areas in Alaska. The area is also a port for cruise ships, which are significant sources of air pollution. The topography, population, level of development, and existing emission sources has the potential to create localized, temporary problematic air quality. Figure 1: USGS Map Illustrating the Ketchikan Study Area Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 3 Figure 2 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the Ketchikan High School. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction with the grade becoming very steep to the northeast of the High School building. The school building is between two to three stories high. The biomass facility will be located in a stand‐alone building on the north side of the school building, which is the high side of the building. There are residential areas west, north, and east of the proposed biomass facility which are uphill (above) the facility. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of the biomass building from the other buildings will create a buffer for emissions dispersion. Figure 2: Site Map of the Ketchikan High School Project Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 4 Figure 3 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are buildings above and below the site. The biomass facility will be located in a stand‐alone building on the northeast (uphill) side of the school building. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of the biomass building from the other buildings will create a small buffer for emissions dispersion. Figure 3: Site Map of the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 5 Figure 4 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School (marked Stedman) and Ketchikan Indian Council Admin Building (marked Deermount). The sites slope moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are buildings above and below the sites. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 4: Site Map of Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School (Stedman) and the Admin Building (Deermount) Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 6 A USGS map is provided below in Figure 5. As shown, Craig Island is relatively flat with mountainous terrain to the west, and water in all other directions. The area is relatively sparsely populated. The population of Craig is 1,397. Our review of the area did not reveal any significant emission sources or ambient air quality issues. Figure 5: USGS Map Illustrating the Craig Study Area Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 7 Figure 6 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility and the surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building to the west of the Tribal Association Building and east of another building. The stack should be designed to provide plume rise above both of these buildings. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 6: Site Map of the Craig Tribal Association Building Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 8 Figure 7 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the proposed Shaan‐Seet biomass facility and the surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 7: Site Map of Shaan‐Seet Boiler Plant Site Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 9 METEOROLOGY Meteorological data from Annette, AK, was reviewed to develop an understanding of the weather conditions. Annette is the closest weather data representing the climactic conditions occurring in the Panhandle and is therefore a good proxy of Ketchikan and Craig weather conditions. This data indicates calm winds occur only 10% of the year when, which suggests there will be minimal time periods when thermal inversions and therefore poor emission dispersion conditions can occur.1 Figure 8: Wind Speed Data from Annette, AK 1 See: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Wind/Speed/Annette/ANN.html Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 10 DESIGN & OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following are suggested for designing this project:  Burn natural wood, whose characteristics (moisture content, bark content, species, geometry) results in optimal combustion in the equipment selected for the project.  Do not install a rain cap above the stack. Rain caps obstruct vertical airflow and reduce dispersion of emissions.  Construct the stack to at least 1.5 times the height of the tallest roofline of the adjacent building. Hence, a 20 foot roofline would result in a minimum 30 foot stack. Attention should be given to constructing stacks higher than 1.5 times the tallest roofline given higher elevations of surrounding residences due to the moderate to steep slopes present.  Operate and maintain the boiler according to manufacturer’s recommendations.  Perform a tune‐up at least every other year as per manufacturer’s recommendations and EPA guidance (see below for more discussion of EPA requirements)  Conduct regular observations of stack emissions. If emissions are not characteristic of good boiler operation, make corrective actions.  For the Ketchikan High School: install at minimum a multicyclone to filter particulate matter emissions. These design and operation recommendations are based on the assumption that state‐of‐the‐ art combustion equipment is installed. STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS This project will not require an air pollution control permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Quality given the boilers’ relatively small size and corresponding quantity of emissions. However, this project will be subject to new proposed requirements in the federal “Area Source Rule” (40 CFR 63 JJJJJJ). A federal permit is not needed. However, there are various record keeping, reporting and operation and maintenance requirements which must be performed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in the Area Source Rule. The proposed changes have not been finalized. Until that time, the following requirements are applicable:  Submit initial notification form to EPA within 120 days of startup.  Complete biennial tune ups per EPA method.  Submit tune‐up forms to EPA. Please note the following:  Oil and coal fired boilers are also subject to this rule. Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 11  Gas fired boilers are not subject to this rule.  More requirements are applicable to boilers equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr heat input. These requirements typically warrant advanced emission controls, such as a baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The compliance guidance documents and compliance forms can be obtained on the following EPA web page: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/ SUMMARY RSG has completed an air quality feasibility study for Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These boilers are not subject to state permitting requirements, but are subject to federal requirements. Design criteria have been suggested to minimize emissions and maximize dispersion. The following conditions suggest advanced emission control devices (ESP, baghouse) are not mandatory in Ketchikan and Craig: 1. The wood boilers will be relatively small emission sources. 2. Most of the wood boilers will be located in a separate building which will create a dispersion buffer between the boiler stack and the building. 3. There are no applicable federal or state emission limits. 4. Meteorological conditions are favorable for dispersion. The following conditions suggest additional attention should be given to controlling emissions in Ketchikan: 1. Presence of other emission sources. 2. Relatively high population density. 3. The sensitive populations housed by all Ketchikan buildings. While not mandatory, we recommend exploring the possibility of a cyclone or multi‐cyclone technology for control of fly ash and larger particulate emissions for all the aforementioned boilers. We also recommend developing a compliance plan for the aforementioned federal requirements. Given its size and sensitive population served, air dispersion modeling can be performed for the Ketchikan High School site to determine the stack height and degree of emission control (multicyclone vs ESP). Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. APPENDIX E Wood Fired Heating Technologies WOOD FIRED HEATING TECHNOLOGIES CTA has developed wood-fired heating system projects using cord wood, wood pellet and wood chips as the primary feedstock. A summary of each system type with the benefits and disadvantages is noted below. Cord Wood Cord wood systems are hand-stoked wood boilers with a limited heat output of 150,000- 200,000 British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hour). Cord wood systems are typically linked to a thermal storage tank in order to optimize the efficiency of the system and reduce the frequency of stoking. Cord wood boiler systems are also typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Garn, HS Tarm and KOB identify outputs of 150,000-196,000 Btu/hr based upon burning eastern hardwoods and stoking the boiler on an hourly basis. The cost and practicality of stoking a wood boiler on an hourly basis has led most operators of cord wood systems to integrate an adjacent thermal storage tank, acting similar to a battery, storing heat for later use. The thermal storage tank allows the wood boiler to be stoked to a high fire mode 3 times per day while storing heat for distribution between stoking. Cord wood boilers require each piece of wood to be hand fed into the firebox, hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Cordwood boilers are manufactured by a number of European manufacturers and an American manufacturer with low emissions. These manufacturers currently do not fabricate equipment with ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) certifications. When these non ASME boilers are installed in the United States, atmospheric boilers rather than pressurized boilers are utilized. Atmospheric boilers require more frequent maintenance of the boiler chemicals. Emissions from cord wood systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 >0.08 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.23 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 195 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Small size Lower cost Local wood resource Simple to operate Disadvantages: Hand fed - a large labor commitment Typically atmospheric boilers (not ASME rated) Thermal Storage is required Page 1 Wood Pellet Wood pellet systems can be hand fed from 40 pound bags, hand shoveled from 2,500 pound sacks of wood pellets, or automatically fed from an adjacent agricultural silo with a capacity of 30-40 tons. Pellet boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from KOB, Forest Energy and Solagen identify outputs of 200,000-5,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning pellets made from waste products from the western timber industry. A number of pellet fuel manufacturers produce all tree pellets utilizing bark and needles. All tree pellets have significantly higher ash content, resulting in more frequent ash removal. Wood pellet boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash 2-3 times a week. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into pellet boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Pellet storage is very economical. Agricultural bin storage exterior to the building is inexpensive and quick to install. Material conveyance is also borrowed from agricultural technology. Flexible conveyors allow the storage to be located 20 feet or more from the boiler with a single auger. Emissions from wood pellet systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 >0.09 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 220 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Smaller size (relative to a chip system) Consistent fuel and easy economical storage of fuel Automated Disadvantages: Higher system cost Higher cost wood fuel ($/MMBtu) Page 2 Page 3 Wood Chip Chip systems utilize wood fuel that is either chipped or ground into a consistent size of 2-4 inches long and 1-2 inches wide. Chipped and ground material includes fine sawdust and other debris. The quality of the fuel varies based upon how the wood is processed between the forest and the facility. Trees which are harvested in a manner that minimizes contact with the ground and run through a chipper or grinder directly into a clean chip van are less likely to be contaminated with rocks, dirt and other debris. The quality of the wood fuel will also be impacted by the types of screens placed on the chipper or grinder. Fuel can be screened to reduce the quantity of fines which typically become airborne during combustion and represent lost heat and increased particulate emissions. Chipped fuel is fed from the chip van into a metering bin, or loaded into a bunker with a capacity of 60 tons or more. Wood chip boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Hurst, Messersmith and Biomass Combustion Systems identify outputs of 1,000,000 - 50,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning western wood fuels. Wood chip boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash daily. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into wood chip boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Emissions from wood chip systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 0.21 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 195 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Lowest fuel cost of three options ($/MMBtu) Automated Can use local wood resources Disadvantages: Highest initial cost of three types Larger fuel storage required Less consistent fuel can cause operational and performance issues Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT B-4: Price Proposal from Tongass Forest Enterprises – dated April 23, 2012 AEA 15003 Page 38 of 42 7/2/14 355 Carlanna Lake Road, Suite 100 • Ketchikan, AK 99901 Phone (907) 225-4541 • Fax (907) 220-0645 • info@akforestenterprises.com April 23, 2012 Mr. Dan Bockhorst Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 First Avenue, Suite 201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Wood Pellet Supply Contracts Dear Mr. Bockhorst, The purpose of this letter is to let potential customers know that there is a tremendous opportunity for Tongass Forest Enterprises to secure a long term supply of fiber here on Revillagigedo Island for making pellets. We are in talks with Alcan Forest Products to purchase the remaining pulp grade wood from the Leask Lakes sale which is winding down. We are also looking at purchasing much of the pulp grade wood from the Boundary Sale which is located near the Brown Mountain Road. The Boundary Sale will likely be the closest timber sale to Ketchikan for many years to come and offers very inexpensive trucking to Ketchikan. There is opportunity for future customers to take advantage of this sale by committing to long term pellet contracts with TFE. We offer the following pricing of premium grade wood pellets for long term commitments if agreements are signed by August 2012. Tons / Year 1 year 2 year 3 year 5 year 0 -200 305 300 295 290 200-500 300 295 290 280 ¾ 500 290 285 280 275 Please call if you have any questions with this pricing. (907) 617-1441. Sincerely Trevor Sande cc: Ed Schofield, Mike Williams, Robert Boyle Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT B-5: Energy Audit – Ketchikan High School, by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, dated October, 2011 AEA 15003 Page 39 of 42 7/2/14 Ketchikan High School Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Funded by: Final Report October 2011 Prepared by: Energy Audit Exhibit A Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary 2 Section 2: Introduction 8 Section 3: Energy Efficiency Measures 10 Section 4: Description of Systems 20 Section 5: Methodology 24 Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 27 Appendix A: Energy and Utility Data 38 Appendix B: Equipment Data 44 Appendix C: Abbreviations 50 Appendix D: Audit Team The energy audit is performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC of Juneau, Alaska. The audit team consists of:  Jim Rehfeldt, P.E., Energy Engineer  Jack Christiansen, Energy Consultant  Brad Campbell, Energy Auditor  Loras O’Toole P.E., Mechanical Engineer  Will Van Dyken P.E., Electrical Engineer  Curt Smit, P.E., Mechanical Engineer  Philip Iverson, Construction Estimator  Karla Hart, Technical Publications Specialist  Jill Carlile, Data Analyst  Grayson Carlile, Energy Modeler Exhibit A Section 1 Executive Summary An energy audit of the Ketchikan High School was performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC. The investment grade audit was funded by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify opportunities to improve the energy performance of public buildings throughout Alaska. Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms, commons, a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical support spaces. Building Assessment The following summarizes our assessment of the building. Envelope The exterior of the building appears to have been well maintained and should provide many more years of service. Of particular interest was the newly completed re-roofing project that covered the majority of the building. The project showed good attention to detail, to include a reduction in the number of roof penetrations that often lead to integrity failures. The audit team was also informed that the roofing contractor had uncovered, identified, and successfully repaired a significant air leakage path around the perimeter of every one of the newly roofed spaces. In addition to this improvement to the building envelop integrity, additional insulation was added to the roof to increase the average insulation value of the tapered roof system to R-34. While this was an improvement over the previous roof insulation value, it is recommended that future roofing projects target the high performance building standard for roofing insulation of R-46 based on an optimization for life cycle cost. The Humanity Wing roof was also recently replaced using an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA). This style roof typically has an initial waterproof layer such as EPDM, then a layer of foam insulation, then a fabric cloth cover then an LG board – a thinner layer of foam adhered to a roofing paver. The Humanity Wing utilized a base layer of foam that was approximately 4” thick at the inspected roof drain with 2” layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at the inspected location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the expanded polystyrene foam, however it has been determined that the IRMA is a flawed system that is particularly ineffective and inefficient in Southeast Alaska. This is because the IRMA allows water to flow between the layers of insulation to the waterproof membrane below before it flows to the roof drains. This presents a two-fold problem. First, the expanded foam eventually becomes waterlogged and loses some of its insulating properties. Secondly, any outdoor temperature water moving through the foam against the warm roof surface below will remove heat as it travels to the roof drain. In a climate such as Ketchikan’s, imagine the number of days/year that the roof and underside of the ceiling is being cooled to the temperature of the rain water. That number is simply the number of rainy days/year. A similar roof is also used on the 2nd floor south facing balcony at the building entrance. A life cycle cost analysis for replacement of the Humanity Wing roof with a tapered roof system buildup to optimum insulation levels is outlined in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measure 25. Exhibit A The exterior tile wall surface appears to be problematic due to a lack of backer-board to provide additional support to the tile when it is impacted by an object. Without the backer board, impact results in a broken tile. The main entry double door system appears to be serving the facility well. The middle column provides two opportunities for weather stripping to properly seal the door, a design that is far superior to that used on similar applications. The windows of the school are failing at an unacceptable rate. Maintenance staff believes that the original window glazing is failing due to flexing of the internal and external panes. This may be due to an excessive gap between the panes or the glazing being too thin for the applied external forces. Solar gain and wind are two such forces. The larger the air gap between the panes, the greater the amount of potential expansion and contraction. An additional potential cause for failure is the expansion and contraction of the aluminum frames themselves. The failed windows were replaced by windows manufactured locally with a smaller air gap between the internal and external panes. The audit team was informed by maintenance staff that the new windows were also routinely failing. Maintenance staff replaced 51 windows last year alone and it appeared at the time of the audit that there were 10 more that had failed since. While aluminum is the material of choice by many architects for window wall curtains such as in the lobby and library, it has one of the poorest performances from the perspective of energy conservation due to high thermal conductivity of the aluminum and its ability to transfer heat from the interior spaces to the outside through the window frames. The insulation value for these large window curtains could be as low as R-1. If a simple solution to this reoccurring problem is not found, such as a window replacement with slightly smaller window dimensions, then an excellent opportunity exists to replace the windows with smaller, more energy efficient units. The exterior doors are not thermally broken. Future exterior door replacement selection should include this feature. Weather-stripping on a high percentage of the exterior doors is in need of replacement. Heating System The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems, fan coil units, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters in the humanity wing. At the time of the audit Boiler #1 was running and the remaining two boilers were on-line and not isolated. Circulating heating water through a non-necessary boiler results in a significant amount of heat loss. The boilers are reported to be significantly oversized—one boiler is capable of heating the building on all but the coldest days. All boilers have jacket losses and cycling losses from turning on and off; oversized boilers have greater losses with no benefit. Electric heating is less expensive when surplus hydroelectric power exists. Adding an electric boiler will utilize the cost advantage and provide a more efficient heating plant for warm days when loads are small. The pumping system does not utilize variable speed pumping to reduce energy costs. There is no incentive to convert due to the large number of three-way valves in the systems. The remainder of the fuel oil boiler heating system appears to be in good condition; however fairly simple improvements can be made to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. These are outlined in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures. Exhibit A Ventilation System The building ventilation systems consist of thirteen large air handling units located in four fan rooms. In addition to the large air handling units there are five return fans and thirty four exhaust fans mounted throughout the building and on the roof top for the purposes of cooling spaces, improving building air quality, and kitchen operations. The overall condition of the systems is good, however issues include:  HVAC systems could be optimized to reduce ventilation and fan power through control sequence modifications. Once optimization is achieved then a retro-commissioning should be performed on all HVAC systems to integrate operations and further increase efficiencies.  AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. Short-circuiting of supply air flow due to an approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing is reducing the air flow supplied by the unit while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor  The cooling system for the building was removed, but all of the cooling coils still remain in the AHU systems. Removal of these unnecessary cooling coils will decrease the pressure that the supply fans are operating against.  The fan schedules were found to be inconsistent with the occupancy and use of the building. This is true of both the school-year and the summer season. There is opportunity to fine-tune the schedules and reduce energy consumption.  AHU-1 operates whenever functions occur in the gymnasium and auditorium. This system supplies the lobby and several school wings with a high rate of outside air flow. Reducing the operating hours of the system and the volume of outside air flow when it is operating will significantly reduce energy costs.  The Humanity Wing does not recirculate building air, but instead heats full outside air whenever it operates. A significant amount of energy would be saved if a large portion of conditioned air was re-circulated.  The fan belt guard had been removed and had not been replaced on AHU-11. Ventilation system capacity is determined by the amount of air flow needed to cool the building on the hottest day. The ventilation systems are oversized for a school building with no summer operation and located in a temperate rain forest climate. The existing peak air flow rate of 1.25 cfm/sqft is much higher than a more appropriate rate of 0.75 to 1.0 cfm/sqft. The existing continuous exhaust air requirement for the building is 29,000 cfm, which the ventilation systems must makeup with outside air. For the current population of 600 students and staff, the building ventilation rate is 48 cfm/person, more than 3 times the required rate of approximately 15 cfm/person. Typically, the heating of ventilation air is 60% to 80% of the building heating load, so there is substantial incentive to scrutinize and reduce exhaust air flows, which would allow a reduction in the ventilation air requirement, and save energy. To reduce energy consumption, it is recommended that the ventilation systems be tailored to the actual use, function, and occupancy, optimal control sequences be implemented, and the systems retro-commissioned. Opportunities include:  Modify AHUs where applicable to operate as variable air systems with the addition of variable frequency drives  Verify CO2 sensor controls and sequences to the associated space AHUs so that air flow can be reduced to save energy while maintaining healthy air quality within those spaces. CO2 sensors have been added to AHU-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13. Exhibit A  Reduce the continuous exhaust air requirement for the school by reducing exhaust air flow from toilet rooms and other exhaust areas. Consider variable exhaust flow for toilet rooms to increase air flow when a room is in use.  Optimize schedules. The current schedules appear to have unneeded operating hours and are not tailored to the current building use.  Perform an integrated building-wide retro-commissioning upon implementation of optimization of control sequences. Cooling Systems There are two computer IT rooms that are cooled by mechanical cooling systems that reject the heat outdoors. The heat is generated continuously; recovering the heat will reduce the heating load on the boilers. Control System The building control system is a combination of pneumatic and electric components. Many of the original pneumatic system components are being replaced by outside contractors and maintenance staff. Upon completion of pneumatic component replacement, optimal control sequences should be implemented and the systems retro-commissioned to ensure proper operation. Lighting Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff have done an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption through lighting modifications. The interior lighting and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by photocells in a manner that minimizes lighting operational hours. Opportunities to further reduce lighting loads include the replacement of the metal halide lighting in the automotive bay and woodshop, the perimeter wall pack units, and the parking lot lighting. An excellent selection for replacement is the induction lighting systems that Dale Reed has already used on other applications. These fixtures will reduce energy consumption by approximately 50%. Summary It is the assessment of the energy audit team that the greatest potential for reducing energy consumption is through proper scheduling and right-sizing of the heating and ventilation systems. A building optimization analysis is recommended in which the building systems are reconfigured and optimized for the actual use. The analysis should evaluate if there is incentive to install electric boilers to take advantage of favorable electric rates when there is low-cost hydroelectric power. Integrating the four phases of construction through a building-wide commissioning effort is a necessary step towards improving the indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency of the building. While a complete optimization analysis is beyond the scope of this energy audit, several EEMs show that there is considerable financial incentive to tailor the systems to the actual building use. Exhibit A Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) All buildings have opportunities to improve their energy efficiency. The energy audit revealed numerous opportunities in which an efficiency investment will result in a net reduction in long-term operating costs at the Ketchikan High School. Behavioral and Operational EEMs The following EEMs require behavioral and operational changes in the building use. The savings are not readily quantifiable but these EEMs are highly recommended as low-cost opportunities that are a standard of high performance buildings. EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating The summary table of high and medium Priority Energy Efficiency Measures recommended for the Ketchikan High School follows on the next page. Exhibit A High and Medium Priority EEMs The following EEMs are recommended for investment. They are ranked by life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR). This ranking method places a priority on low cost EEMs which can be immediately funded, generating energy savings to fund higher cost EEMs in the following years. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. 25-Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis Investment Operating Energy Total SIR High Priority EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6 EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9 EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2 EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0 EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1 EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3 EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6 EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7 EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4 EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1 EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0 EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1 EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8 EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0 EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9 EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8 EEM-21: Rooms 151 & 131 Heat Recovery $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9 Medium Priority EEM-22: Install Auto Valves on Unit Heaters $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7 EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2 EEM-24: Upgrade Motors $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0 Totals* $645,600 $43,200 ($5,637,800) ($4,949,000) 8.7 *The analysis is based on each EEM being independent of the others. While it is likely that some EEMs are interrelated, an isolated analysis is used to demonstrate the economics because the audit team is not able to predict which EEMs an Owner may choose to implement. If several EEMs are implemented, the resulting energy savings is likely to differ from the sum of each EEM projection. Summary The energy audit revealed numerous opportunities for improving the energy performance of the building. It is recommended that the behavioral and high priority EEMs be implemented now to generate energy savings from which to fund the medium priority EEMs. Another avenue to consider is to borrow money from AHFCs revolving loan fund for public buildings. AHFC will loan money for energy improvements under terms that allow for paying back the money from the energy savings. More information on this option can be found online at http://www.ahfc.us/loans/akeerlf_loan.cfm. Exhibit A Section 2 Introduction This report presents the findings of an energy audit of Ketchikan High School located in Ketchikan, Alaska. The purpose of this investment grade energy audit is to evaluate the infrastructure and its subsequent energy performance to identify applicable energy efficiencies measures (EEMs). The energy audit report contains the following sections:  Introduction: Building use and energy consumption.  Energy Efficiency Measures: Priority ranking of the EEMs with a description, energy analysis, and life cycle cost analysis.  Description of Systems: Background description of the building energy systems.  Methodology: Basis for how construction and maintenance cost estimates are derived and the economic and energy factors used for the analysis. BUILDING USE The Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms, commons, a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical support spaces. The building is occupied by 560 students and 40 staff members. It is occupied in the following manner: Offices & Commons: 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F) Kitchen 6:00 am – 12:00 pm (M-F) Classrooms: 7:30 am - 3:30 pm (M-F) - lighting controlled by teachers Main Gym 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F) 30-40 people Auxiliary Gym 3:00 pm – 9:00 pm Auditorium 12:00 pm – 10:30 pm (Mon and Thur) 600 people – 8x per year Building History The building was fully renovated in four phases from 1994 to 1996. Subsequent improvements from an energy perspective included complete mechanical and electric system replacements, in-house interior lighting upgrades, roof replacement to the Humanity’s Wing in 2005, and a roof renovation of the remainder of the building in 2011. Exhibit A Energy Consumption The building energy sources include an electric service and a fuel oil tank. Fuel oil is used for the majority of the heating loads and domestic hot water while electricity serves all other loads and a limited amount of space heating. The following table shows annual energy use and cost. Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Source Consumption Cost Energy, MMBtu Electricity 1,979,000 kWh $192,100 6,800 27% Fuel Oil 134,900 Gallons $461,400 18,300 73% Totals $653,500 25,100 100% Electricity This chart shows electrical energy use from 2007 to 2010. The staff was unable to offer insight into the reason for the monthly fluctuations in energy use. The effective cost—energy costs plus demand charges—is 9.7¢ per kWh. Fuel Oil This chart shows heating energy use from 2007 to 2010. The chart compares annual use with the heating degree days which is a measurement of the demand for energy to heat a building. A year with a higher number of degree days reflects colder outside temperatures and a higher heating requirement. The current cost of fuel oil in Ketchikan is $3.47 per gallon. Assuming a fuel oil conversion efficiency of 70% and an electric boiler conversion efficiency of 95%, oil heat at $3.47 per gallon equates to $35.79 per MMBtu. Since the current cost of electricity at 9.7¢ per kWh equates to $29.95 per MMBtu, electric heat is less expensive than fuel oil heat. Exhibit A Section 3 Energy Efficiency Measures The following energy efficiency measures (EEMs) were identified during the energy audit. The EEMs are priority ranked and, where applicable, subjected to energy and life cycle cost analysis. Appendix A contains the energy and life cycle cost analysis spreadsheets. The EEMs are grouped into the following prioritized categories:  Behavioral or Operational: EEMs that require minimal capital investment but require operational or behavioral changes. The EEMs provide a life cycle savings but an analysis is not performed because the guaranteed energy savings is difficult quantify.  High Priority: EEMs that require a small capital investment and offer a life cycle savings. Also included in this category are higher cost EEMs that offer significant life cycle savings.  Medium Priority: EEMs that require a significant capital investment to provide a life cycle savings. Many medium priority EEMs provide a high life cycle savings and offer substantial incentive to increase investment in building energy efficiency.  Low Priority: EEMs that will save energy but do not provide a life cycle savings. BEHAVIORAL OR OPERATIONAL The following EEMs are recommended for implementation. They require behavioral or operational changes that can occur with minimal investment to achieve immediate savings. These EEMs are not easily quantified by analysis because they cannot be accurately predicted. They are recommended because they offer a life cycle savings, represent good practice, and are accepted features of high performance buildings. EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors Purpose: The weather stripping on many of the single-wide exterior doors is in poor condition. Energy will be saved if doors are properly weather-stripped to reduce infiltration. Scope: Replace weather stripping on exterior doors. EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing Purpose: An unacceptably high number of window glazing units have failed at the high school. Although 51 glazing units were replaced last year, an additional 10 window glazing assemblies have since failed. Energy will be saved if the failed units are replaced. Scope: Replace failed glazing sections. Exhibit A EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan Purpose: The AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. The supply air flow is short-circuiting through an approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing — recirculating air back to the fan cabinet while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor. Scope: Properly align AHU-1 supply fan on the shaft. EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating Purpose: Energy will be saved if an electric boiler is installed to shift the heating load from oil to electricity when there is surplus hydroelectric power. Scope: Perform an analysis to determine if there is sufficient hydroelectric resource to invest in an electric boiler to heat the building. Electric heat is currently less expensive than fuel oil heat. With fuel oil inflation also predicted to be higher than electricity inflation, shifting 75% of the current fuel oil consumption to electric could have a life cycle savings of $4.9 million dollars. HIGH PRIORITY The following EEMs are recommended for implementation because they are low cost measures that have a high savings to investment ratio. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours Purpose: The HVAC systems average 3,000 occupied mode operating hours per year. While operating hours are rightly determined based on school and community use of the building, this is significantly higher than the average of 1,600-2,400 hours for high school. Energy will be saved if the operating schedules are reviewed and adjusted to minimize the operating hours for the systems. Scope: Optimize operating schedules. The following analysis is based on reducing fan system occupied mode operation to 2,200 hours per year. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($67,010) ($67,010) $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6 Exhibit A EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers Purpose: Only one boiler is needed to heat the building; however the other two remain on-line and hot. In addition, the boilers are not turned off during the summer months when heating requirements are very low. Circulating hot water through an isolated boiler in a multiple boiler system can result in efficiency loss due to the isolated boilers acting as heat sinks. Energy will be saved by turning off the boilers in the summer and isolating the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons. Scope: Isolate the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons and turn off the boilers during the summer months. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $960 ($13,250) ($12,290) $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9 EEM-7: Perform a Boiler Combustion Test Purpose: Operating the boiler with an optimum amount of excess air will improve combustion efficiency. Annual cleaning followed by a combustion test is recommended. Scope: Annually clean and perform a combustion test on the boiler. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $360 ($2,480) ($2,120) $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2 EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System (Lobby, Classrooms) Purpose: The AHU-1 system has excessive outside air and exhaust air flows. Energy will be saved if AHU-1 control sequences and air flows are optimized to ensure the system is operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize AHU-1 as follows: - Reduce the minimum outside air volume by reducing the minimum outside air requirement for the science fume hoods and the exhaust fan make-up. The analysis is based on reducing the fume hood makeup from all fans to two fans operating concurrently. The toilets rooms have sporadic heavy use between classes but are lightly used much of the time. The analysis reduces the air exchange from 7.5 minutes per change to 10 minutes per change. - Reduce Operating Hours: The system operates with the auditorium and gym during non-school hours. We recommend not operating the system during these periods unless the commons is heavily used. - Modify the RF-1 pressure controls to preclude unnecessary exhaust of return air from the building. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($18,220) ($18,220) $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0 Exhibit A EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls Purpose: The existing boiler burners do not properly modulate to increase the cycle time and decrease the number of cycles. The DDC system starts the burners on low fire, quickly modulates them up to high fire, and then overshoots the setpoint. Adjusting the DDC response rate using a rate-of-rise control is necessary to keep from ramping up the burner when the boiler is gaining on loop temperature. Energy will be saved if the DDC burner control is set up to monitor the rate of rise so it does not overshoot its setpoint. Scope: Modify the DDC control sequence to increase cycle run time. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($3,720) ($3,720) $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1 EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System (Vocational Education) Purpose: The mixed air temperature control on AHU-13 is set at 50°F, which is bringing in more outside air than required. Energy will be saved if a direct-measure outside air damper is installed and the outside air flow reduced to match the exhaust air requirement. Scope: Optimize AHU-13 as follows: - Install direct-measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($18,890) ($18,890) $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3 EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System (Gym Lockers) Purpose: The lockers exhaust air flow rate is excessive due to minimal use of showers by the students. Energy will be saved if the exhaust air flow is reduced and a direct-measure outside air damper is installed so the outside air flow is constant. Scope: Optimize AHU-12 as follows: - Reduce locker room exhaust air flow. - Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($6,390) ($6,390) $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6 Exhibit A EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery Purpose: The electrical room has a 225 kVA transformer in the space. The room has a 1,500 cfm exhaust grille which highly over-exhausts the room, transferring more heat from the building than the transformer produces. Energy will be saved if the heat generated from these transformers is transferred to the AHU-1 return air plenum. Scope: Cap the existing exhaust grille and rebalance the exhaust fan. Install a transfer fan to supply the warm air from the electric room to the AHU-1 return air plenum. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $50 ($4,750) ($4,700) $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7 EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads Purpose: Energy and water will be saved by replacing the lavatory aerators and showerheads with low-flow models. Scope: Replace lavatory aerators and showerheads with water-conserving fixtures. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($1,960) ($1,960) $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4 EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System (Auxiliary Gym) Purpose: AHU-8 is controlling to a 55°F mixed air temperature which is over-ventilating the building. Energy will be saved by using a direct measure outside air damper to maintain a constant outside air rate that matches the exhaust requirements. Scope: Optimize AHU-8 as follows: - Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($14,900) ($14,900) $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1 EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers Purpose: Currently, two of the boilers are kept hot but do not operate to supply heat. Air flow through an idle boiler carries heat up the chimney. Energy will be saved if flue dampers are installed on the boilers to reduce the air flow through the boiler when it is not firing. Scope: Install a flue damper on each boiler. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($2,000) ($1,700) $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0 Exhibit A EEM-16: Electrical Room 208 Heat Recovery Purpose: The electrical room in the mezzanine has a 150 kVA and a 250 kVA transformer in the space. The heat from the transformers is exhausted to the outdoors via EF-34. Energy will be saved if the heat generated from these transformers is used within the building envelope. Scope: Modify the EF-34 ductwork to supply the heated exhaust air to the gym. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($2,630) ($2,330) $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1 EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 (Music, Art, Kitchen) Purpose: AHU-7 is over-ventilating the building by providing makeup air for the kitchen hood which only operates 2 hours per week. Energy will be saved if the minimum outside air rate is reduced to ensure the system is operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize AHU-7 as follows: - Install a direct-measure minimum outside air damper. - Modulate the relief damper with building pressure. - Optimize the fan schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($5,010) ($5,010) $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8 EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 (North Wing) Purpose: AHU-3 and AHU-4 are configured as full outside air systems. They are over- ventilating the spaces, resulting in excessive energy consumption. Energy will be saved if AHU-3 and AHU-4 controls and equipment are optimized to ensure the systems are operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize the AHU-3 and AHU-4 system by converting to mixed air systems. Additional optimization recommendations include: - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure - Optimize the fan schedules - Optimize night setback sequence Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $200 ($18,210) ($18,010) $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0 Exhibit A EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils Purpose: The cooling system for the school building was recently removed; however, cooling coils still remain in the AHU systems. Energy will be saved if these unnecessary cooling coils are removed to decrease the pressure that the supply fans are operating against. Scope: Remove the AHU-5 cooling coil and AHU-6 zone cooling coils. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR ($180) ($260) ($440) $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9 EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery Purpose: The boiler room utilizes a combustion air fan to cool the room when it gets too hot. The audit team found the room to be 65°F due to nearly continuous cooling fan operation. The boiler efficiency is lower if the combustion air is at a lower temperature. Energy will be saved if the boiler room is kept warmer and the heat generated in the boiler room is utilized within the building envelope rather than discharged outdoors. Scope: Install a heat pump in the boiler room and transfer the heat a fan coil unit installed in the gym. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $250 ($10,730) ($10,480) $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8 EEM-21: Heat Recovery from Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151 Purpose: Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151 contains switches, servers, a 75 kVA transformer, and some additional heat generating electrical equipment. The spaces are cooled by three A/C units, which reject the heat outdoors. Energy will be saved if heat generated in the server spaces is transferred to Corridor 128. Scope: Install a split A/C unit to cool the server room and electrical room. Circulate air from the server and electrical rooms through the A/C unit evaporator to maintain the rooms at 65°F. Transfer the heat to corridor 128/100 by circulating it through the A/C unit condenser. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($8,080) ($7,780) $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9 Exhibit A MEDIUM PRIORITY Medium priority EEMs will require planning and a higher level of investment. They are recommended because they offer a life cycle savings. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters Purpose: Energy will be saved if the ten unit heaters each have an automatic valve that shuts off the heating flow when heat is not needed. Currently the coils in the unit heaters are continuously hot and the thermostat turns on the fan to supply the heat to the room. When heat is not needed, convective heat loss from the coil occurs; some of the heat loss may be useful, but a large percentage is not. Scope: Install automatic valves in the heating supply to each unit heater and control them from the fan thermostat. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($680) ($680) $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7 EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers Purpose: Existing transformers are not TP-1 rated. Energy will be saved if these less-efficient transformers are replaced with energy efficient models that comply with NEMA Standard TP 1-2001. Scope: Replace less-efficient transformers with NEMA Standard TP 1-2001 compliant models. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($9,790) ($9,790) $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2 Exhibit A EEM-24: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency Purpose: Although many motor labels were not accessible or had been painted during preservation efforts, the equipment inspection identified thirteen motors that could be upgraded with premium efficiency models to save energy. They are:  AHU-3 5 HP  AHU-5 20 HP  AHU-6 15 HP  AHU-11 3 HP  AHU-12 7-½ HP  AHU-13 15 HP  RF-12 1-½ HP  RF-13 7-½ HP  EF-1 5 HP  P-9A 3 HP  P-9B 3 HP  P-11A 7-½ HP  P-11B 7-½ HP Scope: Replace identified motors with premium efficiency motors. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($1,300) ($1,300) $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0 Exhibit A LOW PRIORITY Low priority EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended. EEM-25: Replace Humanity’s Wing Roof Insulation Purpose: A 112’ x 120’ section of the Humanity’s Wing roof uses an IRMA roof system with a base layer of foam that is approximately 4” thick at the inspected roof drain with a 2” layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at the inspected location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the expanded polystyrene foam; however the IRMA roof system is de-rated by approximately 50% as outlined in the executive summary. This results in an overall roof insulation value of only R-12 for over 13,000 square feet of roofing. Replacing the Humanity’s Wing roof with a tapered roof system similar to that used in the school re-roofing project, with an optimum insulation value of R-46, will save energy; however, our analysis shows it will not produce a life cycle cost savings. Scope: Replace Humanity’s wing IRMA roof system with R-46 tapered roof system. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($8,050) ($8,050) $357,000 $0 ($228,100) $128,900 0.6 EEM-26: Install Toilet Room Lighting Control Purpose: Toilet room lighting is currently controlled with the corridor lights. Electric energy would be saved if the corridor lighting hours were reduced by installing a separate circuit to control the toilet room lighting with an occupancy sensor within the toilet rooms. Scope: Install separate circuit for toilet lights and control with occupancy sensors. A preliminary analysis determined that this EEM will not realize a savings over a 25- year life cycle because the lighting produces beneficial heat for the building. This heat would otherwise be provided by the fuel oil boilers. Fuel oil heat has much higher inflation than electric heat so over time the cost of the fuel oil heat is much higher than the cost of keeping the corridor lighting on. Exhibit A Section 4 Description of Systems ENERGY SYSTEMS This section provides a general description of the building systems. Energy conservation opportunities are addressed in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures. Building Envelope R-value Component Description (inside to outside) Existing Optimal Exterior Wall Tile panel, studs, R-19 batt, 1” foil faced insulation, 5/8” gyp bd R-20 R-24 Main Roof Metal roof deck, 6” rigid insulation, ½” OSB, Membrane R-34 R-46 Humanity’s Roof Metal roof deck, EPDM, 4” EPS, 2” EPS w/ 1/2” aggregate R-12 R-46 Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-10 Foundation 8” concrete with 1-1/2” rigid insulation on interior surface R-8 R-15 Windows Aluminum double pane R-1.5 R-4 Doors Aluminum (main entries) and steel (all others) w/o thermal break, glazing where used is double pane R-1.5 R-4 Domestic Hot Water System Three indirect hot water heaters and an auxiliary storage tank supply domestic hot water to the fixtures. The water conservation efficiency of the lavatory aerators and the showerheads can be improved. Cooling Systems The building has three space cooling systems for temperature control of the two IT rooms. Automatic Control System The building has a DDC system to control the operation of the heating and ventilation systems. Lighting Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff has done an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption within the building envelope through lighting modifications. The interior lighting schedule and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by photocells in an effort to minimize lighting operational hours. Exhibit A Electric Equipment Commercial kitchen equipment for food preparation at Ketchikan High School is located in the food prep area. Heating System The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems, 10 fan coil unit heaters, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters located in the Humanity’s wing. The heating system has the following pumps:  P-1A and P-1B are the building circulation pumps  P-2A and P-2B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-3A and P-3B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-4A is a boiler circulation pump for boilers 1, 2, and 3  P-5 is a glycol make-up pump  P-6A and P-6B are utilidoor sump pumps  P-7A and P-7B are domestic hot water circulation pumps  P-8A and P-8B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-9A and P-9B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-11A and P-11B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-12A and P-12B are secondary building circulation pumps  P-13 is a secondary building circulation pump  P-14A and P-14B are domestic hot water circulation pumps  P-15A and P-15B are domestic hot water circulation pumps Exhibit A Ventilation Systems Area Fan System Description Phase 1 Wing AHU-1 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil East ½ Gymnasium AHU-2 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil North Wing 1st Floor AHU-3 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan North Wing 2nd Floor AHU-4 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan Auditorium AHU-5 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Stage Area and Green Room AHU-6 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Music, Kitchen, and Art AHU-7 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Auxiliary Gym AHU-8 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Arts Room AHU-9 Not in service Auditorium AHU-11 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan Gym Lockers AHU-12 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Technology Complex AHU-13 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Phase 1 Wing RF-1 35,500 cfm return fan with (2) 10 HP motors Auditorium RF-2 21,900 cfm 10 HP return fan Gym RF-3 13,500 cfm 7.5 HP return fan Classrooms RF-4 20,115 cfm 7.5 HP return fan Auxiliary Gym RF-5 11,800 cfm 5 HP return fan Toilet Rooms by Commons EF-1 739 cfm 5 HP Science Room EF-2 190 cfm for animal dissections Science Room EF-3 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-4 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-5 1495 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-6 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Exhibit A Ventilation Systems, continued. Area Fan System Description Science Rooms EF-7 2060 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-8 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-9 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-10 2440 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Utilidor EF-11 2200 cfm ¾ HP ventilation AHU-3 Mechanical EF-13 9300 cfm 5 HP AHU-3 relief AHU-4 Mechanical EF-14 1200 cfm ¾ HP AHU-4 relief Auditorium EF-15 1000 cfm ½ HP spotlight exhaust air Stage Craft EF-16 2000 cfm ½ HP Stage Craft EF-17 500 cfm 1/6 HP bathroom exhaust Kitchen EF-18 4400 cfm 3 HP roof top mounted kitchen hood exhaust fan Kitchen EF-19 600 cfm ¼ HP roof top mounted dishwasher exhaust fan Art/Music Restrooms EF-20 1200 cfm ½ HP rooftop mounted exhaust fan Art Room EF-21 532 cfm ¼ HP art room main exhaust Kiln Room EF-22 880 cfm ¼ HP kiln exhaust fan Aux Gym Restrooms EF-23 2325 cfm ¾ HP exhaust fan Training Room EF-24 725 cfm general exhaust fan Locker Rooms EF-26 5,155 cfm 3 HP exhaust fan Applied Technology EF-27 810 cfm ½ HP exhaust fan Wood Shop EF-28 1,650 cfm 5 HP sawdust collection fan Auto Shop EF-29 2,000 cfm 1 ½ HP solvent collection tank exhaust fan Auto Shop EF-30 1,000 cfm 2 HP grinding table exhaust fan Auto Shop EF-31 2,000 cfm 5 HP automotive exhaust fan Hot Water Tank Room EF-32 1,500 cfm ½ HP general exhaust Auto Shop EF-33 2,250 cfm 2 HP outboard engine exhaust Electric Room EF-34 2,370 cfm ½ HP general exhaust Exhibit A Section 5 Methodology Information for the energy audit was gathered through on-site observations, review of construction documents, and interviews with operation and maintenance personnel. The EEMs are evaluated using energy and life cycle cost analyses and are priority ranked for implementation. Energy Efficiency Measures Energy efficiency measures are identified by evaluating the building’s energy systems and comparing them to systems in modern, high performance buildings. The process for identifying the EEMs acknowledges the realities of an existing building that was constructed when energy costs were much lower. Many of the opportunities used in modern high performance buildings—highly insulated envelopes, variable capacity mechanical systems, heat pumps, daylighting, lighting controls, etc.— simply cannot be economically incorporated into an existing building. The EEMs represent practical measures to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings, taking into account the realities of limited budgets. If a future major renovation project occurs, additional EEMs common to high performance buildings should be incorporated. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The EEMs are evaluated using life cycle cost analysis which determines if an energy efficiency investment will provide a savings over a 25-year life. The analysis incorporates construction, replacement, maintenance, repair, and energy costs to determine the total cost over the life of the EEM. Future maintenance and energy cash flows are discounted to present worth using escalation factors for general inflation, energy inflation, and the value of money. The methodology is based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Life cycle cost analysis is preferred to simple payback for facilities that have long—often perpetual— service lives. Simple payback, which compares construction cost and present energy cost, is reasonable for short time periods of 2-4 years, but yields below optimal results over longer periods because it does not properly account for the time value of money or inflationary effects on operating budgets. Accounting for energy inflation and the time value of money properly sums the true cost of facility ownership and seeks to minimize the life cycle cost. Construction Costs The cost estimates are derived based on a preliminary understanding of the scope of each EEM as gathered during the walk-through audit. The construction costs for in-house labor are $60 per hour for work typically performed by maintenance staff and $110 per hour for contract labor. The cost estimate assumes the work will be performed as part of a larger renovation or energy efficiency upgrade project. When implementing EEMs, the cost estimate should be revisited once the scope and preferred method of performing the work has been determined. It is possible some EEMs will not provide a life cycle savings when the scope is finalized. Exhibit A Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs are based on in-house or contract labor using historical maintenance efforts and industry standards. Maintenance costs over the 25-year life of each EEM are included in the life cycle cost calculation spreadsheets and represent the level of effort to maintain the systems. Energy Analysis The energy performance of an EEM is evaluated within the operating parameters of the building. A comprehensive energy audit would rely on a computer model of the building to integrate building energy systems and evaluate the energy savings of each EEM. This investment grade audit does not utilize a computer model, so energy savings are calculated with factors that account for the dynamic operation of the building. Energy savings and costs are estimated for the 25-year life of the EEM using appropriate factors for energy inflation. Prioritization Each EEM is prioritized based on the life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR) using the following formula: Prioritization Factor = Life Cycle Savings / Capital Costs This approach factor puts significant weight on the capital cost of an EEM, making lower cost EEMs more favorable. Economic Factors The following economic factors are significant to the findings.  Nominal Interest Rate: This is the nominal rate of return on an investment without regard to inflation. The analysis uses a rate of 5%.  Inflation Rate: This is the average inflationary change in prices over time. The analysis uses an inflation rate of 2%.  Economic Period: The analysis is based on a 25-year economic period with construction beginning in 2010. Fuel Oil Fuel oil currently costs $3.47 per gallon for a seasonally adjusted blend of #1 and #2 fuel oil. The analysis is based on 6% fuel oil inflation which has been the average for the past 20-years. Electricity Electricity is supplied by Ketchikan Public Utilities. The building is billed for electricity under their commercial service rate. This rate charges for both electrical consumption (kWh) and peak electric demand (kW). Electrical consumption is the amount of energy consumed and electric demand is the rate of consumption. Exhibit A Summary The following table summarizes the energy and economic factors used in the analysis. Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Rate Electricity ($ / kWh ) $0.0897 Demand ( $ / kW ) $2.91 Customer Charge ( $ / mo ) $36.30 Summary of Economic and Energy Factors Factor Rate or Cost Factor Rate or Cost Nominal Discount Rate 5% Electricity $0.099/kwh General Inflation Rate 2% Electricity Inflation 2% Fuel Oil Cost (2012) $3.68/gal Fuel Oil Inflation 6% Exhibit A Appendix A Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School Basis Economic Study Period (years) 25 Nominal Discount Rate 5%General Inflation 2% Energy 2011 $/gal Fuel Inflation 2012 $/gal Fuel Oil $3.47 6% $3.68 Electricity $/kWh (2011)$/kW (2011)Inflation $/kWh (2012)$/kW (2012) w/ Demand Charges $0.090 $2.91 2% $0.091 $2.97 w/o Demand Charges $0.097 -2% $0.099 - EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Reprogram operating schedules 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$750 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725 Design fees 0 10%$748 Project management 0 8%$658 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -250,000 kWh $0.091 ($400,923) Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -12,000 gal $3.68 ($1,251,083) Net Present Worth ($1,643,100) EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers Energy Analysis Boiler Input MBH Loss %Loss MBH Hours, exist Hours, new kBtu η boiler Gallons B-1 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 6,840 -43,086 68%-457 B-2 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573 B-3 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573 67 -339,300 -3,603 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Implement boiler operating procedure, DDC controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Annual Costs Boiler shutdown and restart 1 - 25 16 hrs $60.00 $16,346 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,603 gal $3.68 ($375,604) Net Present Worth ($354,300) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test Energy Analysis Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal 134,900 -0.5% -675 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Purchase combustion analyzer 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Annual Costs Combustion test 1 - 25 6 hrs $60.00 $6,130 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -675 gal $3.68 ($70,321) Net Present Worth ($63,200) EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-1 Existing -60,000 58 65 -454 1,800 -816,480 68%-8,669 Optimized 60,000 62 65 194 1,800 349,920 68%3,715 -466,560 -4,954 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Rebalance air systems 0 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$750 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725 Design fees 0 10%$748 Project management 0 8%$658 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,954 gal $3.68 ($516,480) Net Present Worth ($507,600) EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls Energy Analysis Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal 134,900 -0.75% -1,012 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Modify and commisison DDC burner controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,012 gal $3.68 ($105,482) Net Present Worth ($100,500) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-13 Existing -14,930 50 66 -258 3,000 -773,971 68%-8,218 Optimized 14,930 60 66 97 3,000 290,239 68%3,082 .-483,732 -5,136 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475 Overhead & profit 0 30% $5,692.50 Design fees 0 10% $2,466.75 Project management 0 8% $2,170.74 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -5,136 gal $3.68 ($535,489) Net Present Worth ($506,200) EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-12 Existing -6,310 55 68 -89 3,000 -265,777 68%-2,822 Optimized 6,310 63 68 34 3,000 102,222 68%1,085 -163,555 -1,737 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Balance systems 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,050 Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,415 Design fees 0 10%$1,047 Project management 0 8%$921 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,737 gal $3.68 ($181,055) Net Present Worth ($168,600) EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Exhaust Grille CFM Troom Tosa MBH Hours Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -1,510 70 40 -49 3,000 -146,772 82% -1,292 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Transfer ran, ductowrk, electrical, balancing 0 1 LS $5,500 $5,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$825 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,898 Design fees 0 10%$822 Project management 0 8%$724 Annual Costs Fan maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $50.00 $851 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,292 gal $3.68 ($134,736) Net Present Worth ($124,100) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads Energy Analysis Fixture Existing Proposed Uses/day Days Water,Gals % HW kBTU kWh Summer Showerhead 20.0 10.0 20 60 -12,000 80% -6,405 -1,877 Lavatories 0.3 0.2 200 60 -2,160 80% -1,153 -338 School Year Showerhead 20.0 10.0 30 180 -54,000 80% -28,823 -8,448 Lavatories 0.3 0.2 1,800 180 -58,320 80% -31,129 -9,123 -126,480 -19,786 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Replace lavatory aerators 0 60 ea $35 $2,100 Replace showerhead 0 27 ea $35 $945 Energy Costs Electric Energy (Effective Cost)1 - 25 -19,786 kWh $0.099 ($34,313) Net Present Worth ($31,300) EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-8 Existing -15,100 55 70 -245 1,800 -440,316 68%-4,675 Optimized 15,100 68 70 33 1,800 58,709 68%623 -381,607 -4,052 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Balance system 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$3,525 Overhead & profit 0 30%$8,108 Design fees 0 10%$3,513 Project management 0 8%$3,092 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,052 gal $3.68 ($422,438) Net Present Worth ($380,700) Gallons per Use Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers Energy Analysis Number CFM T,flue T,room MBH kBTU η boiler Gallons 3 -20 160 70 -6 -51,088 68% -542 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Install flue dampers 0 3 ea $1,200 $3,600 Estimating contingency 0 15%$540 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,242 Design fees 0 10%$538 Project management 0 8%$474 Annual Costs Flue damper maintenance 1 - 25 3 ea $100.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -542 gal $3.68 ($56,555) Net Present Worth ($45,100) EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Transformer kVA ηnew KW kWh Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons 150 98.9% -1.7 -14,454 -49,317 82% -434 225 99.0% -2.3 -19,710 -67,251 82% -592 -116,568 -1,026 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -116,568 3 11,388 38,856 82% -342 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Seal EF-34 exhaust through roof 0 1 LS $600 $600 Install ductowrk to supply heated air to gym, balancing 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,140 Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,622 Design fees 0 10%$1,136 Project management 0 8%$1,000 Annual Costs A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 11,388 kWh $0.091 $18,263 Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,026 gal $3.68 ($107,009) Net Present Worth ($68,300) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-7 Existing -12,000 55 65 -130 1,800 -233,280 68%-2,477 Optimized 12,000 60.5 65 58 1,800 104,976 68%1,115 -128,304 -1,362 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475 Overhead & profit 0 30%$5,693 Design fees 0 10%$2,467 Project management 0 8%$2,171 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,362 gal $3.68 ($142,032) Net Present Worth ($112,700) EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-3 Existing -6,900 40 65 -186 1,800 -335,340 68%-3,561 Optimized 6,900 62 65 22 1,800 40,241 68%427 AHU-4 Existing -4,000 40 65 -108 1,800 -194,400 68%-2,064 Optimized 4,000 62 65 13 1,800 23,328 68%248 -466,171 -4,950 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs AHU-3 Reconfigure ductwork 0 1 LS $4,100 $4,100 Toilet exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 Copier room transfer fan 0 1 LS $2,700 $2,700 Convert EF-13 to return fan 0 1 LS $7,300 $7,300 General exhaust fan 0 1 LS $15,800 $15,800 Balancing 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 AHU-4 Return ductowrk 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 New exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 New return fan 0 1 LS $19,000 $19,000 Remove EF-14 System 0 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Balancing 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15% $10,710 Overhead & profit 0 30% $24,633 Design fees 0 10% $10,674 Project management 0 8%$9,393 Annual Costs Fan maintenance 1 - 25 2 LS $100.00 $3,405 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,950 gal $3.68 ($516,050) Net Present Worth ($385,800) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils Energy Analysis Fan Energy Unit CFM ΔP η, fan BHP kW Hours kWh AHU-5 21,300 -0.25 50% -1.7 -1.2 1,040 -1,300 AHU-6 CC 12,880 -0.25 50% -1.0 -0.8 1,040 -786 -2.0 -2,086 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Remove AHU-5 coil 0 1 LS $500 $500 Remove AHU-6 reheat coils 0 5 LS $300 $1,500 Annual Costs Coil maintenance 1 - 25 -6 ea $30.00 ($3,065) Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -2,086 kWh $0.091 ($3,345) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -24.1 kW $2.97 ($1,254) Net Present Worth ($5,700) EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Heat Recovery Input, MBH Jacket Loss MBH Hours Loss, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons 4,848 -1.0% -48 8,760 -424,641 75% -318,481 82%-2,804 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -318,481 3 31,114 106,160 82% -935 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Boiler room heat pump 0 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Gym fan coil unit 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Piping between heat pump and fan coil 0 1 LS $22,000 $22,000 Controls 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,350 Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,905 Design fees 0 10%$7,326 Project management 0 8%$6,446 Annual Costs Heat pump maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $250.00 $4,257 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 31,114 kWh $0.091 $49,897 Electric Demand 1 - 25 60.0 kW $2.97 $3,126 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,739 gal $3.68 ($389,819) Net Present Worth ($245,500) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-21: Electrical 151 and Server Room 131 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Server Room Heat Recovery Input, MBH Hours Heat, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons -27 8,760 -239,113 100% -239,113 82% -2,105 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -239,113 3 23,360 79,704 82% -702 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Split A/C Unit with ducted condenser 0 1 LS $37,000 $37,000 Ductwork amd grilles, balancing 0 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 Piping 0 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,275 Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,733 Design fees 0 10%$7,251 Project management 0 8%$6,381 Annual Costs A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 23,360 kWh $0.091 $37,462 Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,807 gal $3.68 ($292,673) Net Present Worth ($162,100) EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters Energy Analysis Loss, BTUH Number Factor Loss, kBTU Boiler Effic Fuel, gals -1,000 10 20% -17,520 70% -185 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Install automatic valves and connect to fan wiring 0 10 ea $400 $4,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$600 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,380 Design fees 0 10%$598 Project management 0 8%$526 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -185 gal $3.68 ($19,329) Net Present Worth ($12,200) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers Energy Analysis Number kVA ηold ηnew KW kWh 2 75 97.4% 98.7% -1.95 -17,082 3 225 98.0% 99.0% -6.75 -59,130 1 300 98.0% 99.0% -3.00 -26,280 -11.7 -102,492 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Replace transformer, kVA 75 0 2 LS $10,400 $20,800 Replace transformer, kVA 225 0 3 LS $18,200 $54,600 Replace transformer, kVA 300 0 1 LS $22,800 $22,800 Estimating contingency 0 10%$9,820 Overhead & profit 0 30% $32,406 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -102,492 kWh $0.091 ($164,366) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -140 kW $2.97 ($7,315) Net Present Worth ($31,300) EEM-24: Upgrade Motors Energy Analysis Equip Number HP ηold ηnew kW Hours kWh RF-12 1 1.5 84.5% 86.5% -0.02 2,610 -58 AHU-11 1 3 86.5% 89.5% -0.07 2,160 -145 P-9A 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784 P-9B 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784 AHU-3 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 6,205 -694 EF-1 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 1,800 -201 AHU-12 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,530 -274 RF-13 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,800 -322 P-11A 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274 P-11B 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274 AHU-6 1 15 71.0% 92.4% -2.39 1,800 -4,310 AHU-13 1 15 90.2% 92.4% -0.25 1,800 -443 AHU-5 1 20 87.0% 93.0% -0.90 1,800 -1,611 -5.1 -12,177 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs HP Replace motor 1.5 0 1 LS 955 $955 Replace motor 3 0 3 LS 1,080 $3,240 Replace motor 5 0 2 LS 1,290 $2,580 Replace motor 7.5 0 4 LS 1,690 $6,760 Replace motor 15 0 2 LS 2,660 $5,320 Replace motor 20 0 1 LS 3,160 $3,160 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -12,177 kWh $0.091 ($19,529) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -62 kW $2.97 ($3,218) Net Present Worth ($700) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-25: Replace Humanity's Wing Roof Insulation Energy Analysis Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons Roof 13,440 12 40 30 -23.5 -206,035 68%-2,188 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Remove pavers and foam insulation 0 13,400 sqft $1 $13,400 Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000 Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000 Tapered insulation 0 13,400 sqft $4 $53,600 Estimating contingency 0 15% $30,150 Overhead & profit 0 30% $69,345 Design fees 0 10% $30,050 Project management 0 8% $26,444 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,188 gal $3.68 ($228,080) Net Present Worth $128,900 Exhibit A Appendix B Energy and Utility Data Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School ELECTRIC RATE Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Electricity ($ / kWh )$0.0897 Cost of Power Adjustment ($ / kWh)$0.0000 Demand ( $ / kW )$2.91 Customer Charge ( $ / mo )$36.30 Sales Tax ( % )0.0% ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW Jan 188,200 454 200,800 470 157,600 457 181,200 483 181,950 Feb 182,300 485 212,000 464 172,600 457 198,000 539 191,225 Mar 153,900 509 164,600 450 134,800 481 172,400 465 156,425 Apr 209,700 479 180,500 445 183,200 529 180,800 467 188,550 May 153,200 476 154,200 492 169,600 463 174,400 439 162,850 Jun 172,900 263 135,900 440 199,400 443 158,800 467 166,750 Jul 93,300 294 116,200 209 108,000 311 126,800 301 111,075 Aug 107,800 474 69,200 311 131,600 273 102,200 255 102,700 Sep 159,400 502 177,000 421 157,800 427 166,800 423 165,250 Oct 191,000 477 148,600 427 184,400 469 112,200 419 159,050 Nov 208,100 450 175,000 471 181,600 473 235,000 507 199,925 Dec 182,900 472 165,800 457 225,800 495 197,400 465 192,975 Total 2,002,700 1,899,800 2,006,400 2,006,000 1,978,725 Average 166,892 445 158,317 421 167,200 440 167,167 436 164,894 Load Factor 51%51%52%53%435 ELECTRIC BILLING DETAILS Month Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total % Change Jan $14,137 $1,257 $36 $15,430 $16,254 $1,333 $36 $17,623 14.2% Feb $15,482 $1,257 $36 $16,776 $17,761 $1,496 $36 $19,293 15.0% Mar $12,092 $1,327 $36 $13,455 $15,464 $1,280 $36 $16,781 24.7% Apr $16,433 $1,467 $36 $17,936 $16,218 $1,286 $36 $17,540 -2.2% May $15,213 $1,275 $36 $16,524 $15,644 $1,205 $36 $16,885 2.2% Jun $17,886 $1,216 $36 $19,139 $14,244 $1,286 $36 $15,567 -18.7% Jul $9,688 $832 $36 $10,556 $11,374 $803 $36 $12,213 15.7% Aug $11,805 $722 $36 $12,563 $9,167 $669 $36 $9,873 -21.4% Sep $14,155 $1,170 $36 $15,361 $14,962 $1,158 $36 $16,156 5.2% Oct $16,541 $1,292 $36 $17,869 $10,064 $1,147 $36 $11,247 -37.1% Nov $16,290 $1,304 $36 $17,630 $21,080 $1,403 $36 $22,518 27.7% Dec $20,254 $1,368 $36 $21,658 $17,707 $1,280 $36 $19,023 -12.2% Total $ 179,974 $ 14,486 $ 436 $ 194,896 $ 179,938 $ 14,346 $ 436 $ 194,720 -0.1% Average $ 14,998 $ 1,207 $ 36 $ 16,241 $ 14,995 $ 1,196 $ 36 $ 16,227 -0.1% Cost ($/kWh)$0.097 92% 7% 0% $0.097 -0.1% Month 2007 2008 2009 Average Electrical costs are based on the current electric rates. 2009 2010 2010 Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Electric Consumption 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Use (kWh)Month of the Year Electric Use History 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Demand (kW)Month of the Year Electric Demand History 2007 2008 2009 2010 Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Electric Cost 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School 2010 $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Cost (USD)Month of the Year Electric Cost Breakdown 2010 Electric Use (kWh) Costs Electric Demand (kW) Costs Customer Charge and Taxes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Electric Demand (kW)Electric Use (kWh)Month of the Year Electric Use and Demand Comparison 2010 Electric Use Electric Demand Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Fuel Oil Consumption 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School Year Fuel Oil Degree Days 2,007 136,000 7,430 2,008 106,835 7,385 2,009 131,125 7,538 2,010 137,556 7,390 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 Degree DaysGallons of Fuel OilYear Annual Fuel Oil Use Fuel Oil Degree Days Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Energy Cost $/MMBtu Area ECI EUI Fuel Oil $3.47 $35.79 180,614 $3.66 139 Electricity $0.097 $29.95 Source Cost Electricity 1,978,725 kWh $192,100 6,800 27% Fuel Oil 134,894 Gallons $468,100 18,300 73% Totals $660,200 25,100 100% Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Consumption Energy, MMBtu $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 Fuel Oil ElectricityCost $ / MMBtuCost of Heat Comparison Exhibit A Appendix C Equipment Data Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficP 2AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Unit Loop7.5 HP/ 480 VP 3AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Fan Loop3 HP/ 480 VP 4 P 1 Boiler Room Head Circulation2 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm/ 82.5% not usedP 5 P 1 Boiler Room Glycol Make up1/3 HP/ 120 V/ 3450 rpmP 6AB P 1 Utilidor Utilidor Sump Drain1/3 HP/ 120 VP 1AB Boiler Room Fuel Oil Circulation1/2 HP/ 120 V1/2 HP/ 120 V1 WP 2ABBoiler Room Generator Fee Water3 HP/ 208 VB1 Boiler Room Primary Boiler Weil Mclain 14943770 MBHPrimary Burner Gordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingB2 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15944070 MBHLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingAC 1 UtilidorLab SystemChampion HR7B-25275 CFM 7 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 1745 rpm/ 82.9% dual motorAC 2 Boiler Room Control System20 HP/ 480 VB3 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15942 HP/ 208 VLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingPMP 7 ABBoiler Room DHW18.5 GPM 3/4 HP/ 460 VPMP 8ABUtilidor Unit VentsSecondary Heading Circulation 125 GPM 3 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 9ABUtilidor Fan HCSecondary Heading Circulation 50 GPMPMP 11ABUtilidorSecondary Hydronic Loop260 GPM 7 1/2 HP/ 1150 rpmPMP 13 Boiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop62 GPM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 15ABBoiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop40 GPM 1/4 HP/ 120 VAHU 1 R1 Penthouse Phase 1 Constitution Temtrol DH-164P41000 CFM 60 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%SF AHU 160 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%AHU 2 R1 Penthouse GymTemtrol DH-27P13500 CFM 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpmAHU 3 Mechanical 303 Phase 2Pace6900 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 4 Mechanical 301Pace 1A24AFST4000 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 5 Mechanical Mezz.PACE 98-73200-0121900 CFM 20 HP/ 460 V/ 1758 rpm/ 87%Ketchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make Model Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 6 Mechanical Mezz.PACE DF 33AFSWSI13730 CFM 15 HP/ 480 V/ 1785 rpm/ 71%AHU 7 Mechanical Mezz. ClassroomPACE PF-40AFSWSI22615 CFM 40 HP/ 480 V/ 1480 rpmAHU 8 Auxiliary GymPACE PF-33AFSWSI13500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%AHU 9 Art & Pottery900 CFM 10 HPAHU 10 Corridor4500 CFM 5 HPAHU 11 P IV Penthouse Gym West Side Haakon AIRPAK13500 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%SF for AHU 1115 HP/ 460 V/ 4130 rpmRF 1A P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%RF 1B P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%EF 1 P1 Penthouse Men's Bathroom Exhaust Greenheck SFB-18-50730 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 86.5%EF 2 Chemical Storage Animal Dissection Fan190 CFMLow UseEF 3 Room 123 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 4 Chemistry Lab 120 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 5 Physics Lab Fume hood1495 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 6 Science 115 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 7 Science 115 General Science Exhaust2060 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 8 Physics 1252180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 9 Chemistry Lab 120 General Science Exhaust2180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 10 Biology 117 General Science Exhaust2440 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 11 Boiler Room Utilidor Vent2200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpm Low UseCF 1 Boiler Room Combustion Air Fan4200 CFM 1 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpmEF 13 AHU 3 Mechanical Relief AHU 3 Pace U-30AFSTD9300 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%EF 14 AHU 4 Mechanical Relief AHU 4 Pace U-11FCSTD1200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmsecured, only used for 1 floorEF 15 BalconySpot Light Exhaust Air1000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1750 rpmnever runsEF 16 Mechanical Mezz. Stage CraftPace PF-16B1SWS12000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 17 Stage Craft Bathroom Exhaust Pace SCF65AM1500 CFM 1/6 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 18 Mechanical Mezz. Kitchen Fume Hood4400 CFM 3 HPEF 19 Above 247 Dishwasher Fan600 FRM 1/4 HPauto on w/dishwasherExhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelEF 20 Above 247 Bathroom Exhaust1200 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1725 rpmEF 21 Arts Room Art Main Exhaust532 CFM 1/4 HPEF 22 Kiln Room Kiln Exhaust880 CFM 1/4 HPEF 23Mechanical Room 8Auxiliary Gym BathroomPace SCF-124AM12325 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiency EF 24 Training Room Space Exhaust725 CFMRF 2Mech. Mezz. AuditoriumReturn AirPACE PF40 AFSWSQ21900 CFm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%RF 3Mechanical Mezz. StageReturn AirPACE PF36 AFS113530 CFM 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1765 rpm/ 91.7%RF 4Mech. Mezz. ClassroomReturn AirPACE PF44 AFSWS129225 CFM 7.5 HP/ 48 VRF 5Mech. Mezz. Aux. GymReturn AirPACE PF 36 AFSWS11800 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 89.5%EF 26Boiler Room PenthouseLocker RoomsSnyder General22RDKB1CW5155 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 89.5%EF 27Boiler Room PenthouseApplied Tech810 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1627 rpmEF 28 Sawdust 200A Collection Fan1640 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 3450 rpmEF 29Welding Shop CeilingSolvent Tank HoodSnyder General16RPKB1CCW10 2000 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1730 rpmEF 30 Auto Shop Grinding Table1000 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1047 rpmEF 31Boiler Room PenthouseAutomotive ExhaustSnyder General110TCCW2000 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpmEF 32 203Hot Water Tank Room McQuay1500 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 775 rpm offEF 33 Auto Shop Outboard Engine2250 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1810 rpmEF 34Boiler Room PenthouseElectric Room2370 CFM 1.5 HP/ 120 V/ 737 rpm 2nd deck191 Maintenance TransformerSquare D EE 150 T3HF150 KVA 115° Temp RiseTP RatedBoiler Room TransformerSquare D 225T3H225 KVA 150° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 75T3HETSNIP75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 300T90HFTSNLP 300 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 225T3HFTSNLP 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedUtilidorTransformerSquare D 35549-17222-022 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedRoofFridge/Freezer Condenser20 B 30 13 Amp 6.3 KVAServer Room TransformerSquare D 34349-17212-064 75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedAHU 12 P-IV Penthouse Gym LockersHaakon AIRPak6310 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1755 rpm/ 88.5%3" water columnRF 12 204 Penthouse Return1660 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 84% Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 13 P-IV Penthouse Technology Complex Haakon AIRPak14930 CFM 15 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpm/ 90.2%RF 13 204 Penthouse Return10490 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1775 rpm/ 88.5%WH1 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH2 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH3 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectCH1 Roof70 tonsAC 3 Boiler RoomIngersol Rand2-253E55 HP/ 230 V/ 1725 rpm/ 81.5%AC 4 Boiler Room Air Compressor ShopIngersol Rand234 D-22 HP/ 208 V/ 1725 rpm/ 78.5%AC 5 Boiler Room Dry Pipe SprinklerIngersol RandP307120T7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1725 rpm/ 85.5%3 KitchenHot Food Service Seco Elite 3-HF3 KVA 208 V/ 14 Amps5a KitchenBeverage Dispenser Servend MD-250.30 KVA 120 V/ 2.5 Amps5b KitchenIce DispenserServend Series C41.85 KVA 120 V/ 15.4 Amps8a KitchenShake Machine Sanserver 826E1.49 KVA 208 V/ 4.14 Amps8b KitchenSoft Serve Machine Sanserve 826E2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps9 KitchenHot CabinetPrecision RSU-4011.01 KVA 120 V/ 8.40 Amps10a KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps10b KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps11 KitchenRangeLang 3 6-521 KVA 208 V/ 58.29 Amps13 KitchenVentilatorLighting0.60 KVA 120 V/ 5 Amps14a KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge21.18 KVA 208 V/ 58.5 Amps14b KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge2.4 KVA 120 V/ 2 Amps15 KitchenSteamerMarketForge9.01 KVA 208 V/ 25 Amps17 KitchenKettle24.14 KVA 208 V/ 67 Amps20 KitchenWalk-in Freezer6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps22 KitchenWalk-in Cooler6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps25 KitchenDisposer2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps27 KitchenDishwashing44.17 KVA 208 V/ 51 AmpsP 1A Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LegPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93% 71 TPH Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelP 1B Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LeadPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93%P 7A Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiencyP 7B Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpmP 12ASecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H1C220 370 gpm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 96.7%P 12BSecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H16760 370 gpmP 14AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 14BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 2A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 2B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 3A UtilidorAHU 1&2Paco162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 3B UtilidorAHU 1&2 Heating Loop Paco painted over162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 11A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 11B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 9A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 208 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 9B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 203 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 8A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-14421 HP/ 208 V/ 1745 rpmP 8B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-1442 Exhibit A Appendix D Abbreviations AHU Air handling unit BTU British thermal unit BTUH BTU per hour CBJ City and Borough of Juneau CMU Concrete masonry unit CO2 Carbon dioxide CUH Cabinet unit heater DDC Direct digital controls DHW Domestic hot water EAD Exhaust air damper EEM Energy efficiency measure EF Exhaust fan Gyp Bd Gypsum board HVAC Heating, Ventilating, Air- conditioning HW Hot water HWRP Hot water recirculating pump KVA Kilovolt-amps kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LED Light emitting diode MBH 1,000 Btu per hour MMBH 1,000,000 Btu per hour OAD Outside air damper PSI Per square inch PSIG Per square inch gage RAD Return air damper RF Return fan SIR Savings to investment ratio SF Supply fan UV Unit ventilator VAV Variable air volume VFD Variable frequency drive Exhibit A Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT C: CURRENT CONTRACTUAL FUEL PRICES Per the attached Agreement for Delivered Heating Fuel and Fuel on a Card Reader System with Anderes Oil, Inc. at a cost of $0.39/gallon over OPIS for delivered fuel. Also attached is an invoice from August 18, 2014. AEA 15003 Page 40 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT D: RESOLUTION FROM GOVERNING BODY Resolution 2552 – authorizing application for and acceptance of a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for installation of the biomass heating system at Ketchikan High School and pre- feasibility studies for various other Borough facilities. AEA 15003 Page 41 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT D: RESOLUTION FROM GOVERNING BODY Resolution 2552 – authorizing application for and acceptance of a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for installation of the biomass heating system at Ketchikan High School and pre- feasibility studies for various other Borough facilities. AEA 15003 Page 41 of 42 7/2/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application – Heat Projects EXHIBIT E: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Benefit/Cost scenario developed by CTA as part of the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report – Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School AEA 15003 Page 42 of 42 7/2/14 Ketchikan High SchoolOption B.1Ketchikan, AKWood Pellet Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel OilFuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.70$3.70$3.70 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Pellets$/ton: $300.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 70% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 7% MC 8200 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.1,234Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,04925 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.42 Project Capital Cost-$1,400,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use25000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.100 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,400,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning2.04080 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 17.5 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$6,373,815$4,973,815 4.55$3,213,382$1,813,3822.30Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$300.0085%1049 tons$314,781 $324,224 $333,951 $343,970 $354,289 $364,918 $375,865 $387,141 $398,755 $410,718 $423,039 $435,731 $448,803 $462,267 $476,135 $551,970 $639,885 $741,802Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600$1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.100$2,500 $2,575$2,652 $2,732 $2,814 $2,898$2,985 $3,075 $3,167 $3,262 $3,360 $3,461 $3,564 $3,671 $3,781 $4,384 $5,082$5,891Annual Operating Cost Savings$80,164$90,662$103,543$115,552$128,366$142,030$156,594$172,108$188,628$206,211$224,916$244,806$265,950$288,416$312,280$455,438$647,168$902,321Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow80,164 90,662 103,543 115,552 128,366 142,030 156,594 172,108 188,628 206,211 224,916 244,806 265,950 288,416 312,280 455,438 647,168 902,321Accumulated Cash Flow80,164 170,827 274,370 389,922 518,287 660,317 816,910 989,019 1,177,647 1,383,858 1,608,773 1,853,580 2,119,529 2,407,946 2,720,226 4,694,187 7,524,448 11,496,899Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):