HomeMy WebLinkAboutABSN VEEP Executive Summary_Final 2014-VEEP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AEA Village Energy Efficiency Program – ’10-‘12
From August 2010 to August 2012 the following nine rural Alaskan communities received
energy efficiency upgrades, consisting of lighting, weatherization, and/or mechanical measures,
to community buildings:
Chignik, Deering, Kiana, King Cove, Kokhanok, Manokotak, Shishmaref, Teller, and Togiak
Total Program Grant Funds: $1,175,000
Description/Execution of Project:
The Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) was implemented through a strategic method of
collecting local general community information, public building energy audit data and
implementing designed retrofits in order to provide the best improvement options for best
payback.
Project Execution:
o Alaska Building Science Network (ABSN) made initial contact with local city and tribal
government offices via e-mail and phone teleconference to describe ABSN’s role as
project “Technical Service Provider”. The initial teleconference was instrumental in order
to identify primary local staff contacts, grant priorities, building information, local
concerns and preliminary audit site visit coordination.
o ABSN followed up with each community to coordinate an audit site visit in which one or
more energy raters traveled to the community to complete weatherization (Wx), heating
(Hx), and lighting energy (Lx) audits in all identified priority buildings.
o In most cases, the Wx & Hx energy audits relied on AkWarm software to develop an “As-
Is” rating for each building to identify the most cost-effective energy saving improvement
measures for each building. Lighting audits were generally entered into an Excel
spreadsheet or “Lighting Tally sheet” document developed by ABSN for similar analysis.
Additional hard copy building notes, drawings and photos were provided by each rater to
support the audit process.
o Upon completion of the audits, ABSN reviewed all energy efficiency “Improvement
Options Reports” to determine scope of work for each community based on best
payback measures, local input and budgets available. All recommended weatherization,
lighting, and/or mechanical upgrades were provided to each community for review and
approval. Upon local approval, a “Request to Proceed” form was then submitted to
1
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for final approval. Procurement of all necessary Wx, Hx
and Lx materials soon followed to include tools and miscellaneous supplies necessary to
complete the energy efficiency upgrades, to include shipping to each community.
o Next came scheduling of upgrade work, which generally included ABSN Field Manager
sub-contractors as well as various private mechanical and weatherization contractors to
complete work.
o In most cases, building retrofit work involved use of local maintenance staff labor that
received all necessary Wx, Hx and Lx energy efficiency trainings and participated in
building retrofit work.
o After the various upgrades were completed, Field Managers would compile Post-rating
reports for each building based on the energy efficiency measures that were
accomplished. These reports are the basis for calculating the projected electrical and
heating fuel energy savings for each building upgraded.
Successes and Accomplishments:
This summary highlights the accomplishments of the Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP)
for nine rural Alaskan communities.
As of August 30th, 2012, Alaska Building Science Network (ABSN) completed weatherization,
lighting, and mechanical energy audits and upgrades in these nine VEEP communities: Chignik,
Deering, Kiana, King Cove, Kokhanok, Manokotak, Shishmaref, Teller, and Togiak. A total of
70 public buildings and 37 school district owned buildings received energy audits. Of those, 52
public buildings (approximately 109,154 square feet) received energy efficient lighting,
weatherization, and/or mechanical retrofits, while the communities of King Cove and Manokotak
were retrofitted with 68 and 23 LED street light fixtures, respectively. Approximately 125 local
community maintenance staff participated in weatherization, lighting, and mechanical energy
efficiency trainings and upgrade work across the nine VEEP communities.
The various energy efficiency and conservation measures resulted in a grant wide total
projected electrical energy savings of 220,425 kWh (see Figure 1) and $110,067 electrical
energy cost savings, while a projected 24,238 gallons (see Figure 2) of heating fuel and
$139,571 in fuel cost savings. The total combined electrical energy and heating fuel cost
savings for all VEEP communities is projected at $249,638 (see Figure 3). These calculations
are based on actual local fuel and electricity rates which averaged 59 cents/kWh and $5.71 per
gallon for # 2 diesel heating fuel. These results achieved a projected simple pay back of 4.71
years on the entire $1,175,000 VEEP grant (or 5.38 years when In-kind contributions are
included).
2
Figure 1 – Annual kWh savings (all measures) for all VEEP communities.
Further analysis revealed a village average 4.81 years simple payback on completed measures
based on actual VEEP village budgets. When accounting for the additional village-wide In-kind
expense contribution per community (i.e. total project cost to support these projects) the same
calculation reveals an average of 5.47 years simple payback (see Figure 4).
The In-kind contributions highlight another significant accomplishment of these projects, which
proved valuable toward extending the reach of these grants and energy efficiency measures
completed. Various local In-kind contributions include village maintenance staff payroll, local
transportation & fuel cost, and ABSN field staff lodging. To further maximize value, some
communities opted to purchase additional materials to include building retrofits not afforded by
the grants. Throughout the duration of these projects a (modest) estimate of $167,112 was
contributed In-kind by the nine VEEP communities. ABSN worked vigorously to negotiate and
encourage these contributions where possible in an effort to best utilize VEEP funds in each
community.
Another accomplishment occurred in our multi-grant communities that received a combination of
EECBG, VEEP and, on some occasions, funds received by Bristol Bay Native Association –
Tribal Energy Program EECBG program. In those cases, ABSN worked to consolidate audit
and upgrade activities which served to extend and maximize the reach of all funds that were
applied to those communities.
3
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
21,648
12,975
9,447
55,386
1,248
29,781
32,883
18,566
38,493
Annual kWh Savings -VEEP Grants '10-'12
Annual kWh Savings
(Gallons)
Figure 2 – Annual fuel savings in gallons (Wx &Hx) for all VEEP communities.
Issues and Problems Discovered / Lessons Learned:
The following information summarizes challenges and problems encountered during the two
year period of the VEEP grants.
Since August 2010, the cost to deliver work outlined in these grant contracts increased
considerably over the two year period. During that time, we noticed a steady increase in
materials costs, airfare, and freight charges which made it difficult to budget energy audits and
upgrade work. For example, various insulation product costs increased by 15-30%, while
fluorescent lamp costs increased approximately 100% during that same period of time. These
ever-increasing costs made it challenging to deliver even basic energy efficiency measures
within budget. Despite these challenges, ABSN continued to work with communities in an effort
to select the most cost effective energy efficient measures which provided the best payback,
while meeting the priorities identified by each community. To do so, ABSN utilized bulk
purchasing of tools and materials. Further efforts were made to charter air cargo carriers to
serve multiple communities and maximize freight services while negotiating discounted back-
haul agreements to conserve funds. ABSN continued to leverage In-kind donations and
services from village-based and regional entities to include city, tribal, Alaska Native
corporations, housing authorities, churches and school districts in an effort to extend the reach
of these grants.
4
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Annual Heating Fuel Savings -VEEP Grants '10-'12
Annual Fuel Savings
Our biggest challenge came during the 2012 construction season in efforts to complete work by
the August 30th, 2012, end of construction deadline. Summer in Alaska is often a difficult time to
find available trained workers due to numerous other seasonal job opportunities available.
Often we were in direct competition with the commercial fishing season, or other construction
projects which sharply reduces the available local labor pool. During that time, much of the
village leadership personnel and decision makers are also unavailable thus making it difficult to
do the planning necessary for these types of projects. Thankfully, many local city, tribal
government, and school district administrative staff stepped up to coordinate all of the
necessary local support to deliver these projects, often on short notice.
Other challenges included identification, selection, and availability of American made products
for compliance with “Buy American” provisions outlined in the VEEP program. To do so, ABSN
communicated closely with vendors during the procurement process to provide adequate
documentation, ensuring that all products met Buy American requirements where applicable,
and that all Buy American waivers were understood and applied appropriately when necessary.
An ongoing challenge occurred in efforts to receive local village labor reimbursement invoicing
from village entities in a timely manner. This often led to increased ABSN staff time to acquire
invoices, to include unexpected accounting challenges and general unnecessary strain on both
the community and ABSN staff resources. To eliminate this issue, ABSN added language in our
Labor Reimbursement Agreement form stating that the reimbursement invoice must be received
by ABSN within 15 days of completion of projects or it will be considered an in-kind contribution
if not adhered to by the agreed upon pay schedule. This approach resolved most of the labor
reimbursement invoicing challenges.
Despite these and other challenges, ABSN worked to the best of our ability to deliver these
projects and meet the expectations of the communities in which we served.
Tips and Traps:
o Project planning and implementation should take into account subsistence, commercial
fishing and other seasonal activities which affect local available labor pool and local
staffing support. Generally the construction season conflicts with these other seasonal
activities, which is often unavoidable.
o The ABSN Weatherization Program utilized a regional multi-village approach for
conducting energy audits, materials bulk purchasing, shipping and ultimately scheduling
weatherization and mechanical upgrade work for VEEP communities. This approach
proved critical to get things done by the August 30th, 2012, End of Construction deadline.
This approach also greatly conserved grant funds by enabling discounted materials bulk
purchasing, multi-village air cargo and barge deliveries, scheduling Field personnel for
multi-village audit and upgrade travel, and reducing ABSN staff time required to
coordinate and manage these projects.
5
o Upon completion of audits/upgrades, final Metrics reporting should begin immediately.
Often, the time elapsed between site visits and final reporting was too long which
resulted in an information gap. Field personnel should submit reports within two weeks
of the audit & upgrade travel to avoid this gap.
o Plan, plan, plan! Weather delays, travel mishaps, no-show local labor, sick Field
personnel will affect project planning and execution. Ensuring materials are shipped well
in advance of scheduled upgrades while having a back-up plan for absent Field
personnel and local laborers proved critical for successful delivery of these projects.
Such flexibility and careful planning helped the program to work around weather/travel
delays, while minimizing unanticipated costs to the grant to include air carrier change
fees, lodging, transportation and additional Field personnel per diem expenses.
Benefits to Alaska:
The successes and accomplishments outlined above emphasize substantial energy cost
savings benefits to local communities. With annual increases in heating and electrical utility
costs in rural Alaska, these benefits become more substantial over the lifetime of the energy
efficiency measures installed in each building. Even the smallest energy efficiency
improvement measures can make an impact on the cost of heating or lighting in a building.
Given these results, the VEEP program served somewhat as a demonstration project by
showcasing the energy efficiency cost savings that can be achieved through public use facility
building retrofits. Such projects that target public facilities provide direct economic benefits and
relief to local city government entities which often struggle to pay utility bills. Similarly, the State
of Alaska Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program benefits due to reduced electricity
consumption in community facilities which are eligible for PCE subsidies.
Additional benefits to Alaska include:
o Local job creation during the audit and upgrade phase in each community.
o An enhanced statewide maintenance labor pool who received significant weatherization,
mechanical and energy efficient lighting retrofit training hours and certifications as a
result of these projects.
o Statewide building usage “behavior” changes by getting people to turn lights off and turn
down the heat when buildings are not in use.
o A general increase in energy conservation awareness and outreach in communities
served.
6
Combined Annual Energy Cost Savings – VEEP Grants ’10-’12
Figure 3 – Combined Annual Electrical and Fuel Cost Savings for all VEEP Communities.
Recommendations for Further Actions:
Although every effort was made to ensure the most cost-effective measures were completed,
not every building achieved the maximum energy efficiency upgrade potential due to budget
constraints. To achieve maximum benefit of the work done under the VEEP, we strongly urge
local community leaders to seek additional funding to complete any additional retrofits not
achieved by this program. Even where outside funding is not available, we encourage local city
and tribal governments to consider budgeting for additional building retrofits prioritizing those
measures that provide the quickest payback.
Regardless of the funding source, now is the time to continue moving forward on those
additional retrofits since many of the initial audits have been completed and paid for under the
VEEP grants, especially when considering the trained local work force that is already in place in
most communities served. Now is the time to seize on that momentum, since communities will
not have to absorb expenses for audits and work force technical training.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Annual Electrical Cost Savings
Annual Fuel Cost Savings
7
Additional technical training, education and certifications for public facility maintenance staff and
operators will be beneficial in making sure that the various energy efficiency measures installed
are maintained. Such trainings include general building maintenance and repair,
boiler/mechanical maintenance & repair, as well as lighting retrofit and repair. Such trainings
would go a long way to ensure that upgraded buildings continue to operate efficiently. It is
important to emphasize that the retrofits should not be considered a “one-time deal” and that
continued maintenance will be required in making sure that the maximum energy savings
benefits are achieved throughout the life of the measures installed.
In addition, a locally trained workforce will encourage local hire and reduce the need to bring in
contractors from outside for repairs and routine maintenance. Local hire will also help to avoid
the often higher cost of sub-contracting the work to those from outside of the community.
Simple Payback All Measures – VEEP Grants ’10-’12
Figure 4 – Simple Payback in years (all measures) for all VEEP communities.
8
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
4.20
3.51
6.82
6.03
3.66
5.43
4.44
5.49
3.72
5.37
3.72
7.65
6.75
3.85
5.76
4.77
6.05
5.28
Simple Payback in Years
Simple Payback w/In-kind in Years
It would also be a benefit to the communities to implement some type of monitoring program
and process through which we could obtain actual energy saving data. Though it would be
unrealistic to monitor each village, case studies of a sampling of villages would help to solidify
actual energy savings and benefits of the lighting, weatherization and heating measures
implemented in the program.
Conclusions:
Although there were many obstacles and challenges throughout the two year grant period, the
staff and contractors at ABSN are pleased to report the work completed in the nine VEEP
communities. The success of this project is attributed to the hard work and commitment of
ABSN staff, various program partners, State of Alaska agencies and technical experts who
supported these projects. Over the course of the projects, ABSN built strong partnerships with
our VEEP communities, to include local and regional city and tribal governments, state
agencies, housing authorities, and school districts to complete these projects. Additionally,
ABSN established strong working relationships with our vendors, freight companies and various
subcontractors who contributed greatly toward the success of this program. Most critical is the
local support provided by the recipient communities, whom, without their support and buy-in,
these projects would not have been possible. ABSN of course encourages the State of Alaska
to continue allocating funds toward these types of programs that provide energy audits and
retrofits for public use facilities.
9
AEA Village Energy Efficiency Program – Summary of Savings For All Grant Activities: VEEP ’10-’12
With Building Use Estimates of 7 hrs/day, 250 days/year:
Energy Costs by AkWarm Library & Alaska PCE Report FY 2011
VILLAGES Grant Total
Annual
Savings
(kWh) (By
Grant
=Total)
Electricity
Cost per
kWh
(w/out
PCE) (By
Grant =
Ave)
Annual
Village-
wide
electrical
savings
(dollars)
(By Grant
=Total)
Annual
Savings
(Gal) (By
Grant =Total)
Heating fuel oil
-Diesel #2-cost
per gallon (By
Grant =Ave)
AkWarm Library
Annual Village-wide
fuel savings
(dollars) (By Grant =
Total)
Annual energy cost
savings (dollars) -
All Measures
Simple
Payback
(Years)
Village-wide
In-kind
valuation
(dollars)
Simple
Payback
(Years) -
incl In-kind
Chignik $75,000 21,648 $0.4646 $10,057 2,561 $3.05 $7,811 $17,868 4.20 $20,935 5.37
Deering $100,000 12,975 $0.7737 $10,038 2,866 $6.44 $18,457 $28,495 3.51 $6,074 3.72
Kiana $150,000 9,447 $0.6352 $6,000 2,285 $7.00 $15,995 $21,995 6.82 $18,280 7.65
King Cove $150,000 55,386 $0.2600 $14,400 2,241 $4.67 $10,465 $24,866 6.03 $17,870 6.75
Kokhanok $100,000 1,248 $0.9000 $1,123 3,332 $7.86 $26,190 $27,313 3.66 $5,263 3.85
Manokotak $150,000 29,781 $0.5500 $16,380 1,919 $5.85 $11,226 $27,606 5.43 $8,882 5.76
Shishmaref $150,000 32,883 $0.5921 $19,470 2,491 $5.75 $14,323 $33,793 4.44 $11,200 4.77
Teller $150,000 18,566 $0.6159 $11,435 3,326 $4.78 $15,898 $27,333 5.49 $15,349 6.05
Togiak $150,000 38,493 $0.5498 $21,163 3,217 $5.97 $19,205 $40,369 3.72 $63,259 5.28
VEEP
TOTALS $1,175,000 220,425 ----- $110,067 24,238 ----- $139,571 $249,638 4.81 $167,112 5.47
VEEP
Averages ----- 24,492 $0.5935 $12,230 2,693 $5.71 $15,508 $27,738 4.71 $18,568 5.38
$249,638 Projected Annual Energy Cost Savings (dollars) all Measures
$1,175,000 Total VEEP Grant Funds
$1,342,112 Total Project Cost (Incl. Village In-kind Contributions)
4.71 Simple Payback (yrs) on entire VEEP Grant
5.38 Simple Payback (yrs) on entire VEEP Grant (Incl. Village In-kind Contributions)
10
11