Copper Center School - Alaska Energy Efficiency

Transcription

Copper Center School
Silver Springs Loop
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA-Z93-CAEC-01
Submitted by:
Central Alaska Engineering Company
Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A.
32215 Lakefront Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone (907) 260-5311
[email protected]
May 21, 2012
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT PAGE i OF iv
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT PAGE ii OF iv
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers
AHFC ...........................................................................................................Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
AHU.............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit
ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System
ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BPO ....................................................................................................................................Building Plant Operator
BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit
CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company
CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet
CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent
CFM ......................................................................................................................................Cubic Feet per Minute
CRSD.......................................................................................................................... Copper River School District
DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control
deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit
DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water
ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index
EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure
EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System
EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency
EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index
hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s)
HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower
HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium
HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning
IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society
IGA .....................................................................................................................................Investment Grade Audit
kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units
kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour
LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode
ORNL ....................................................................................................................Oak Ridge National Laboratory
sf............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet
SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio
SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback
W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iii OF iv
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT REPORT DISCLAIMER
This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of
the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System
(ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling
software developed under contract by AHFC.
This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DEEE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed,
or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the
value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications
or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed,
experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through
a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of
Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska
Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report.
Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design,
configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures
(EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are
typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM.
Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, or any other party involved in
preparation of this report, accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted
payback periods.
This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a caseby-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iv OF iv
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for:
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Contact: Rebekah Luhrs
4300 Boniface Parkway
Anchorage, AK 99510
Email: [email protected]
Copper River School District
Contact: Ryan Radford
PO Box 108
Glennallen, AK 99588
Email: [email protected]
This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve
energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved
through the wiser and more efficient use of energy.
The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications,
adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and
energy management control systems (EMCS).
The January 2009 – December 2011 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows:
School Electricity
School Fuel Oil
Total
$ 13,638
$ 19,511
$ 33,149
Portables Electricity $ 3,410
Portables Fuel Oil
$ 6,147
$ 9,557
School EUI:
School ECI:
125.9 kBtu/sf
4.03 $/sf
Portables EUI:
Portables ECI:
142.8 kBtu/sf
4.27 $/sf
The estimated energy cost comes out to $910 per building occupant based on $42,706 total energy cost
and 47 occupants for the school and portables combined.
The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Tables 1.1 and 1.3 which
summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for the Copper Center School and the
portable buildings respectively. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two
different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative
because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of
auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals
are obtained.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 1 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Feature
Refrigeration:
Combined
Refrigeration
Setback
Thermostat:
School
On- or BelowGrade Floor,
Perimeter: School
Lighting: Yard
Lights
Lighting:
Mezzanine
Incandescent
Lamps
Exterior Door:
Exterior Doors
Below- (part or
all) Grade Wall:
Crawlspace
Lighting: Exterior
HPS
Ventilation
Lighting: Gym
MH
TOTAL, costeffective
measures
HVAC And
DHW
Window: NSFW
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Annual
Energy
Savings
Improvement Description
Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add
new Seasonal Shutdown
Installed
Cost1
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR2
Simple
Payback
(w/Maint.
Savings)3
$374
$100
54.70
0.3
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
School space.
Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the
Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space
Floor.
Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module
StdElectronic and Add new Motion
Sensors
Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23
W and Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Occupancy Sensor
$2,890
$1,000
39.24
0.3
$318
$1,155
6.53
3.6
$440
$5,000
3.42
11.4
$375
$1,200
3.36
3.2
Remove existing door and install
standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry
wall. Cost does not include studs or
firring strips.
Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module
StdElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch
Install premium motors and variable
speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1.
Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2"
F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L)
HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add
new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level
Switch and Improve Manual Switching
$192
$2,026
2.25
10.5
$343
$3,977
2.05
11.6
$614
$7,500
1.76
12.2
$2,285
$20,000
1.45
8.8
$1,549
$25,200
1.20
16.3
$9,380
$67,158
2.36
7.2
$49
$24,000
0.75
489.4
$413
$10,471
0.69
25.3
$9,842
$101,628
1.81
10.3
Install premium efficiency motors (2 @
$3,000 each = $6,000). Install variable
speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @
$5,000 = $10,000). Implement a reduced
run time scheme through DDC controls
for motors and DHW to reduce heat
wasted during unoccupied hours
($5,000). Install timer controls with
DDC system on DWH circulation pump
to shut-off during non-occupied times
($3,000).
Replace existing window with U-0.22
vinyl window
TOTAL, all
measures
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 2 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Table Notes:
Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools,
12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support
Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation
costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering
completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s
should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced
and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve.
1.
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total
savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR
is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the
project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost).
Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure
(EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first.
2.
Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM
to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in
energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings
of the EEM.
3.
With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $9,842
per year, or 28.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $101,628,
for an overall simple payback period of 10.3 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented
(i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $9,380 per year, or 27.3% of the buildings’
total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $67,158, for an overall simple payback period
of 7.2 years.
Tables 1.2 and 1.4 following provide a breakdown of the annual energy costs across various energy end
use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for
the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building
assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual
energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits.
Description
Existing
Building
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
SAVINGS
Space
Heating
Water
Heating
Lighting
Refrigeration
Other
Electrical
$19,00
$1,484
$6,107
$1,248
$451
$0
$6,056
$34,350
$14,946
$304
$2,928
$874
$451
$0
$5,005
$24,508
$4,058
$1,180
$3,179
$374
$0
$0
$1,051
$9,842
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans
Total
Cost
PAGE 3 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Feature
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Annual
Energy
Savings
Improvement Description
Setback
Thermostat:
Portables
HVAC And
DHW
TOTAL, costeffective
measures
Air Tightening
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg F for the
Portable Classroom space.
Install new modern efficient oil fired
furnace in each portable unit.
Ceiling w/ Attic:
CWA
Lighting: Interior
Lights
Exposed Floor:
AGF
Exterior Door:
ED
Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage
by 3%.
Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to
attic with Standard Truss.
Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
25W Energy-Saver Program LowLight
HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level
Switch
Install R-10 rigid board insulation
Remove existing door and install
standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door,
including hardware.
TOTAL, all
measures
Description
Existing
Building
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
SAVINGS
Space
Heating
Installed
Cost1
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR2
Simple
Payback
(w/Maint.
Savings)3
$617
$500
16.74
0.8
$1,260
$24,000
1.82
19.1
$1,876
$24,500
2.12
13.1
$40
$500
0.75
12.4
$170
$8,960
0.45
52.6
$302
$26,000
0.38
86.1
$134
$9,582
0.33
71.7
$51
$5,065
0.24
99.5
$2,573
$74,607
0.95
29.0
Water
Heating
Lighting
Refrigeration
Other
Electrical
Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans
Total
Cost
$6,580
$0
$601
$0
$2,553
$0
$0
$9,734
$4,472
$0
$136
$0
$2,553
$0
$0
$7,160
$2,109
$0
$465
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,573
With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $2,573
per year, or 26.4% of the portable buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost
$74,607, for an overall simple payback period of 29.0 years. If only the cost-effective measures are
implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,876 per year, or 19.3% of the
portable buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $24,500, for an overall
simple payback period of 13.1 years.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 4 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and
electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which
control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental
leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on
energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be
realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles.
Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically.
These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control
strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection.
Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is
reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy
cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification,
however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy
saving operational profiles and EEMs.
Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given
area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour
events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a
result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy
consumption.
Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and
equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed
to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun.
Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods.
Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points
can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water
circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to
further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is
inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings.
Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples
include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and
completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter
controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access
to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program,
implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the
quantity of equipment involved.
Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health,
safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or
implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical
for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by
excess and sub-optimum usage.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 5 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT This comprehensive energy audit covers the 8,234 square foot Copper Center School with detached two
(2) portable buildings of 1,120 square feet each, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms,
restrooms, administrative offices and gymnasium.
Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This
information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for
comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the
effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate
benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report for the
School and Appendix G for the Benchmark Report for the portable buildings).
The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square
Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track
consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual
consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of
the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low
EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to
calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site
investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 6 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review
the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major
energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition
(HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to
generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were
then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this
information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit).
The site visit was completed on May 11, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and
answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices,
building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption
were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit.
Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D.
Thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken during the audit. These thermal images illustrate
heat loss exhibited by the school and the portable buildings. Several of the thermal images are included
in this report as Appendix E.
The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the
AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing
the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and
building envelope improvements.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 7 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary
audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy
opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building
envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating,
lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to
determine an understanding of how the equipment is used.
The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building
energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was
processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be
considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and
proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building
envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce
annual energy consumption.
EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction
type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are
calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is
proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible.
Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C.
Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in
some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended
EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems
will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced
operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because
there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined
savings is calculated and identified appropriately.
Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were
generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011,
developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects
Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April
2011 for Copper River School District has an index of 113.9 compared to Anchorage and was used in
this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school
renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These
are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable,
maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings.
The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR)
are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Tables 1.1 and 1.3 of this report. The
SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided
by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost.
The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or
altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy
savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 8 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement
options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost
analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the
construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs.
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment
Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When
these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the
Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to
account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in
the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at
least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs.
Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the
first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the
investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component
will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the
payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be
financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project
life.
The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to
energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to
earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these
simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple
Payback measure.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 9 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was
limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although
energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also
achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a
realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results
achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The
design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and
liability for the results.
An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of
the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as
well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment
in place.
The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The
model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects,
including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing
heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside
air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems.
For the purposes of this study, Copper Center School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use
software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Copper
Center, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of
theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were
predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost
estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures.
Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C
model is based on typical mean year weather data for Copper Center, Alaska. This data represents the
average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the fuel oil and
electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from
any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with
unexpectedly moderate weather.
The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior
spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that
have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building.
AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the
same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space).
The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 10 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The structure of Copper Center School is a single story facility with a mezzanine housing the
mechanical equipment and storage area. The school was built in 1981 and received a boiler, DHW
maker and DDC upgrade in the year 2000. This building has had no additions made to it but there have
been to portable outbuildings added to the campus. The school typically opens at 7AM by staff with
faculty and student occupancy from 9AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental occupancy
time keeping the school open includes occasional after school programs and community events. There
are an estimated 47 full time students, faculty, and staff occupants using the school and portable
building.
As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were assumed
using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation
values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The
following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model:
Exterior walls of the building have double paned, metal framed windows in place which have an
estimated U-factor of 0.56 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be weather worn but are in
acceptable condition given their age.
The below grade exterior walls of the high school consist of 2-core concrete block walls furred out with
4-inch studs and insulated with 2-inches of rigid foam board insulation providing an estimated R-25
composite value. The above grade wall sections of the block wall are made similar to the bottom
section, though are furred out with 2-inch studs and insulated with 2-inches of rigid foam board
insulation providing an estimated R-13 composite value. Finally, certain wall sections are built 6-inch
studs filled with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation providing an estimated R-17 composite value. Upper
wall sections are covered in wood siding while lower wall sections are covered in a brick veneer. Wall
height varies from 25 feet to 40 feet, depending on location. The different wall constructions can be
noted in the IR images provided in Appendix E of this report.
The roof system of the school is a sloped cathedral ceiling insulated with fiberglass batt for an insulating
estimated R-40 composite value. The entirety of the roof is covered in wooden shingles which is
unusual for school construction in the KPBSD.
The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not
appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication insulation is installed under the concrete
slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit.
All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are half-windowed or
solid. There are also four (4) overhead doors installed on each of the shop classrooms. The doors appear
to be in adequate condition, but could use additional weather stripping installed.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 11 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) fuel oil-fired cast iron boilers which were
installed in 2000. The boilers are located in the building’s mechanical room which is small and
cramped. Heat is provided to the heating coils on the supply air ducts routed to the various zones in the
building. The boilers do not appear to utilize a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output
temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as
follows:
Boiler’s 1-2
Fuel Type:
Input Rating:
Rated Efficiency:
Heat Distribution Type:
Boiler Operation:
Fuel Oil
303,000 Btu/hr
85 %
Hydronic (Glycol)
All Year
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a side-arm hot water maker off the boiler hydronic loop.
DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the restrooms, kitchen and janitor
sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to
fire to supply heat to the unit.
Storage Water Heater
Fuel Type:
Input Rating:
Rated Efficiency:
Heat Distribution Type:
DHW Maker Operation:
Side-arm, shell and tube exchanger
303,000 Btu/hr
70 % (estimated)
Circulation 24/7
All Year
There is one 7.5 HP supply air fan and one 5 HP exhaust fan compromising the H&V system for the
school. These units are crammed into a mechanical room making maintenance cumbersome at best. At
10% outside air, the unit can bring in an estimated 1,050 CFM, or 22 CFM per occupant indicating the
school is being over ventilated with the current occupant load using the building.
This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major ventilation fans and only operate
while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The outdoor air should never be
provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant to be code compliant, but at even half capacity and at current
occupancy level, the system can provide two times the required amount.
The ventilation system uses electronically controlled end devices, controlled by a Honeywell DDC
system. Building maintenance personnel did not have a clear understanding on how the DDC was
functioning and how to access the controls. This DDC system is considered a good candidate for recommissioning to get the HVAC system operating at peak performance for today’s operational
environment. Running times, set-back temperature operation and variable speed controllers can provide
significant energy savings.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 12 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses
modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system outdated 400-Watt Metal Halide (MH) ligths which are
excellent candidates for upgrades. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for
replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based
controls. The HPS lights mounted on the outside of the building and yard lights are good candidates for
replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace
these systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade
recommendations.
There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment,
computers with monitors, copy machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These
building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.1 watts/sf for the school and
0.5 watt/sf for the portable buildings.
Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created
and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming
items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings.
An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the
equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter
37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the
ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list.
Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an
indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is
available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the
replacement.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 13 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The two (2) onsite portable outbuildings have an area of 1120 square feet each and consist of 2x6 wood
stud wall construction 16 inches on center with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The
exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior
and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end
walls. The above grade floor rests on piling. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor
construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and
has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-30
fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The
doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value.
The portable buildings are heated with a fuel oil fired furnace. The furnaces are inefficient and appear
worn out. The two furnaces are good candidates for replacement as they appear to be at the end of their
useful life. There are no programmable thermostats in place to provide temperature set-back capability
when unoccupied.
The lighting in the portables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-8 light fixtures with electronic ballasts.
Retrofitting the lighting system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast
controlled by occupancy sensors is analyzed in this report and appears to have a poor payout.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 14 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil
energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2008 to June 2010. Copper Valley Electric Association
Inc. provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Fuel Oil was being provided
by Fischer Fuel under their commercial rate schedules.
The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts
(kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the
wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts
running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on
simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of
1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility
must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets
used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several
non-utility generation charges.
Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and
duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit
breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large
amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak
demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days
and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost
for the school building.
Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run
equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as
pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances.
Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may
only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to
figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get
kilowatts.
To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile
information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in
determining when the peak loads occur.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 15 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual fuel oil
usage records were available for both the school and portable buildings, the model used to predict usage
was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallons
(GAL), which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy.
The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage.
Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided, the 2010 through 2011 costs for the energy and
consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Tables 6.1 below.
School Electric
School Fuel Oil
School Total Cost
School ECI
School Electric EUI
School Fuel Oil EUI
School Building EUI
2010
0.25 $/kWh
2.59 $/GAL
$31,339
3.81 $/sf
23.1 kBtu/sf
108.3 kBtu/sf
131.3 kBtu/sf
2011
0.28$/kWh
3.44 $/GAL
$34,957
4.25 $/sf
20.0 kBtu/sf
100.3 kBtu/sf
120.4 kBtu/sf
Average
0.27 $/kWh
3.02 $/GAL
$33,148
4.03 $/sf
21.6 kBtu/sf
104.3 kBtu/sf
125.9 kBtu/sf
Portables Electric
Portables Fuel Oil
Portables Total Cost
Portables ECI
Portables Electric EUI
Portables Oil EUI
Portables EUI
2010
0.25 $/kWh
2.60 $/GAL
$8,662
3.87 $/sf
21.2 kBtu/sf
117.8 kBtu/sf
139.0 kBtu/sf
2011
0.28$/kWh
3.26 $/GAL
$10,451
4.67 $/sf
18.4 kBtu/sf
128.2 kBtu/sf
146.6 kBtu/sf
Average
0.27 $/kWh
2.93 $/GAL
$9,557
4.27 $/sf
19.8 kBtu/sf
123.0 kBtu/sf
142.8 kBtu/sf
Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial
Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy
usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf.
Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 125.9 kBtu/sf
for the school and 142.8 for the portable buildings. This means the school uses a total of 51.7% more
energy than the US average and the portable buildings use a total of 72.1% more energy than the US
average.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 16 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT At current utility rates, the Copper River School District is modeled to pay approximately $34,350
annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Copper Center School and $9,734 for the portable
buildings.
Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based
on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar
shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this
report.
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
$35,000
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
$30,000
$25,000
$10,000
Space Heating
Other Electrical
Lighting
$8,000
$6,000
$20,000
$15,000
$4,000
$10,000
$2,000
$5,000
$0
Existing
$0
Retrofit
Existing
Retrofit
Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels
used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the
“Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are
implemented.
Annual Energy Costs by Fuel
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
#2 Oil
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 Existing
Retrofit
Electricity
PAGE 17 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component
contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused
by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing
building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow
bar) are shown.
The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the
building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses.
School Electrical Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Lighting
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Ventilation Fans
DHW
Space Heating
Space Cooling
2385
407
186
2569
63
186
0
2174
371
169
2341
58
170
0
2385
407
186
2569
63
186
0
2308
394
180
2486
61
180
0
2018
407
150
2014
63
186
0
734
394
25
107
61
180
0
758
407
26
111
63
186
0
School Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
DHW
Space Heating
34
1069
31
796
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 34
695
34
430
37
256
39
125
44
88
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1336
407
82
983
63
186
0
2308
394
180
2486
61
180
0
2385
407
186
2569
63
186
0
2308
394
180
2486
61
180
0
2385
407
186
2569
63
186
0
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
41
128
35
260
35
500
33
781
34
1017
PAGE 18 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of
building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one
year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage.
EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy
performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings
Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking
Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use
compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state.
Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national
average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy
use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the
building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It
incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment
of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source
energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for
evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are
provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use.
The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details):
Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu)
Building Square Footage
Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio)
where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel.
Energy Type
Electricity
#2 Oil
Total
Building Fuel Use per
Year
56,251 kWh
6,575 gallons
Site Energy Use
per Year, kBTU
191,986
907,336
1,099,321
Source/Site
Ratio
3.340
1.010
Source Energy
Use per Year,
kBTU
641,232
916,409
1,557,641
BUILDING AREA
8,234 Square Feet
BUILDING SITE EUI
134 kBTU/Ft²/Yr
189 kBTU/Ft²/Yr
BUILDING SOURCE EUI
* Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating
Source Energy Use document issued March 2011.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 19 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The Energy Efficiency Measures for the school building are summarized below: Electrical&ApplianceMeasures
The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It
should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small
effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease
from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more
energy efficient bulbs give off less heat.
School Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls
Rank
4
Location
Yard Lights
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Existing Condition
Recommendation
4 MV 250 Watt Magnetic with On/Off Photoswitch
Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic
and Add new Motion Sensor
$5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
15 Energy Savings ($/yr)
$440
$17,110 Savings-to-Investment Ratio
3.4 Simple Payback (yrs)
11
Auditors Notes: All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for
replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace
the HPS systems. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early
morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System,
when available.
Rank
5
Location
Mezzanine Incandescent
Lamps
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Existing Condition
16 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual
Switching
Recommendation
Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and
Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$375
3
Auditors Notes: This EEM analysis replacement of the incandescent lamps in the Mezzanine with new compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL’s)
Rank
8
Location
Exterior HPS
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Existing Condition
Recommendation
4 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module StdElectronic
and Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch
$614
12
Auditors Notes: See EEM #4 for similar notes.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 20 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY Rank
10
Location
Gym MH
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Existing Condition
Recommendation
12 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W
High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic
and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch
and Improve Manual Switching
$1,549
16
Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more
efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy
consumption. Assumes $24,000 total for relamping gym. Includes 4 occupancy sensors @ $400 each and 2 multi-level switches @ $400 each.
School Refrigeration Measures
Rank
1
Location
Combined Refrigeration
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Description of Existing
2 Refrigeration
$100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
Efficiency Recommendation
Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal
Shutdown
$374
0
Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the
building, including the kitchen and break room refrigerators.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 21 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT School Night Setback Thermostat Measures
Rank
2
Building Space
School
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Recommendation
Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg
F for the School space.
$2,890
0
Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However
one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently,
there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before
choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The
staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping
with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far
back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water
dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF.
Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water
pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is
required to prevent possible problems.
School Ventilation System Measures
Rank
9
Description
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Recommendation
Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and
EF-1.
$2,285
9
Auditors Notes:
* The cost of upgrading the ventilation system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures.
The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and
therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall
savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system.
A.
The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total
electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant
during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant.
B.
Installation of high efficiency premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1 will allow the motors to be operated
more efficiently to match the load output requirements.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 22 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT School Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure
Rank
11
Recommendation
Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install variable speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 =
$10,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied
hours ($5,000). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non-occupied times ($3,000).
$49
Installation Cost
489
Breakeven Cost
Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations.
The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and
therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall
savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system.
A.
Install premium efficiency motors with variable speed controllers on main building heating circulation pumps.
B.
Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount
of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. This upgrade would include programming the DDC system to better
manage the existing heating and ventilation equipment in the school.
School Insulation Measures
Rank
7
Location
Below- (part or all)
Grade Wall: Crawlspace
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Existing Type/R-Value
Wall Type: All Weather Wood
Insul. Sheathing: None
Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center
R-19 Batt:FG or RW, 5.5 inches
Insulation Quality: Damaged
Modeled R-Value: 18
Recommendation Type/R-Value
Add R-19 fiberglass batts to below grade wall. Cost
does not include studs or firring strips.
$343
12
Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of fiberglass batt insulation to the below grade wall which was found to be poorly
insulated.
Rank
3
Location
On- or Below-Grade
Floor, Perimeter: School
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None
Modeled R-Value: 14.6
Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of
the Crawl Space Floor.
$318
4
Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of fiberglass batt insulation to the crawlspace floor to reduce heat loss through the
concrete footings.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 23 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT School Window Measures
Rank
12
Location
Window: NSFW
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Size/Type, Condition
Glass: Double, glass
Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break
Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch
Gas Fill Type: Air
Modeled U-Value: 0.67
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window
Coverings: 0.46
Recommendation
Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window
$413
25
Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacement of the existing windows in the school with modern triple pane vinyl windows.
School Door Measures
Rank
6
Location
Exterior Door: Exterior
Doors
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Door Type: Entrance, Metal, fiberglass core; metal
edge
Recommendation
Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U0.16 insulated door, including hardware.
$192
11
Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacement of the existing exterior doors in the school with new commercial grade doors.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 24 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT The Energy Efficiency Measures for the portable buildings are summarized below: Portable Buildings Night Setback Thermostat Measures
Rank
1 PB
Building Space
Portable Classroom
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Recommendation
Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg
F for the Portable Classroom space.
$617
1
Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for the school for similar notes.
Portable Buildings Heating System Measure
Rank
Recommendation
2 PB Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit.
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
$1,260
19
Auditors Notes: This EEM reviews the replacement of the existing worn out oil fired furnaces in the portable buildings with new modern efficient
oil fired furnaces.
Portable Buildings Air Sealing Measures
Rank
3 PB
Location
Portable Buildings
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)
Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa)
Air Tightness estimated as: 0.50 cfm/ft2 of abovePerform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%.
grade shell area at 75 Pascals
$40
$375 Savings-to-Investment Ratio
12
Auditors Notes: This EEM can be realized as a result of adding new weather stripping, caulking around leaky areas, etc…
Portable Buildings Ceiling Insulation Measures
Rank
4 PB
Location
Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA
Framing Type: Standard
Framing Spacing: 24 inches
Insulated Sheathing: None
Bottom Insulation Layer: R-38 Batt:FG or RW, 12
inches
Top Insulation Layer: None
Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with
Standard Truss.
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the ceiling to an R-58 insulation value.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 $170
53
PAGE 25 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Portable Buildings Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs
Rank
5 PB
Location
Interior Lights
Existing Condition
48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant
StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Recommendation
Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W
Energy-Saver Program LowLight HighEfficElectronic
and Remove Manual Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level
Switch
$302
86
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to upgrade the lighting system and controls to reduce electric use.
Portable Buildings Floor Insulation Measures
Rank
6PB
Location
Exposed Floor: AGF
Framing Type: 2 x Lumber
Insulating Sheathing: None
Top Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or RW, 9.5
inches
Bottom Insulation Layer: None
Install R-10 rigid board insulation
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the floor to an R-30 insulation value.
$134
72
Portable Buildings Door Measures
Rank
7 PB
Location
Exterior Door: ED
Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane core,
quarter lite
Modeled R-Value: 4
Recommendation
Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U0.16 insulated door, including hardware.
Installation Cost
Breakeven Cost
Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the door assemblies with modern energy efficient doors to reduce heat loss.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 $51
99
PAGE 26 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel,
this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount
of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the
building and, in some cases, will improve it.
Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require
various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are
logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor
is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be
scheduled to occur simultaneously.
The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund
(AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill
220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for
energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System
(REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to
buildings owned by:
a. Regional educational attendance areas;
b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments;
c. The University of Alaska;
d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or
e. The State of Alaska
Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more
information on this program.
AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 27 OF 27 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT
Appendix A
Benchmark Report
APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form
Facility Owner
Building Name/ Identifier
PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Owned By
Date
Regional Education Attendance 05/17/12
Building Usage
Education ‐ K ‐ 12
8,234
Building Type
Wood Frame
Facility Address
Silver Springs Loop
Community Population
335
Facility City
Copper Center
Year Built
1981
Facility Zip
99573
Contact Person
First Name
Loreen
Last Name
Kramer
Middle Name
Email
Phone
822‐3234
[email protected]
Mailing Address
City
State
Zip
P.O. Box 108
Glenallen
AK
99588
Primary Operating Hours
Monday‐
Friday
24‐7
Average # of Occupants During Saturday
Sunday
Holidays
24‐7
24‐7
24‐7
30
0
0
47
Renovations/Notes
Date
Details
08/22/2000 Boiler, DHW and DDC Upgrade
PART II – ENERGY SOURCES
1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source.
2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use.
Heating Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Propane
Wood
Coal
$ /gallon
$ / kWh
$ / CCF
$ / gal
$ / cord
$ / ton
Other energy sources? APPENDIX A
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
Copper Center School Buiding Size Input (sf) =
8,234
2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)
2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)
2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)
2009 Electric Cost ($)
2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)
2009 Oil Cost ($)
2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)
2009 Propane Cost ($)
2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)
2009 Coal Cost ($)
2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)
2009 Wood Cost ($)
2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)
2009 Thermal Cost ($)
2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)
2009 Steam Cost ($)
2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)
2009 Total Energy Cost ($)
Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)
2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)
2009 Oil (kBtu/sf)
2009 Propane (kBtu/sf)
2009 Coal (kBtu/sf)
2009 Wood (kBtu/sf)
2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf)
2009 Steam (kBtu/sf)
2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)
Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)
2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)
2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)
APPENDIX A
0.00
0
55,648
13,824
8,913.96
17,515
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,081,323
31,339
0.0
23.1
108.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
131.3
0.00
1.68
2.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.81
2010 Oil Cost ($)
2010 Coal Cost ($)
2010 Wood Cost ($)
2010 Steam Cost ($)
2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)
2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)
2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)
Note:
1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's
1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's
1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
APPENDIX A
0.00
0
48,352
13,451
8,260.56
21,506
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
991,081
34,957
0.0
20.0
100.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.4
0.00
1.63
2.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.25
Electricity
Provider
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
Btus/kWh = 3,413
Customer #
Month
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Start Date
End Date
Billing Days
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:
Consumption (kWh)
5,856
6,656
5,888
5,824
5,952
4,512
1,568
1,408
2,592
4,448
5,408
5,536
Consumption (Therms)
200
227
201
199
203
154
54
48
88
152
185
189
5,152
5,664
5,696
4,192
4,768
3,552
608
768
2,912
3,808
5,504
5,728
55,648
48,352
176
193
194
143
163
121
21
26
99
130
188
195
1,899
1,650
APPENDIX A
Demand Use
Electric Cost ($)
$1,664
$1,824
$1,553
$1,513
$1,459
$733
$265
$264
$486
$1,032
$1,458
$1,573
Unit Cost ($/kWh)
$0.28
$0.27
$0.26
$0.26
$0.25
$0.16
$0.17
$0.19
$0.19
$0.23
$0.27
$0.28
$1,568
$1,584
$1,674
$1,318
$1,336
$829
$155
$192
$682
$887
$1,494
$1,731
$13,824
$13,451
Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
$0.30
$0.28
$0.29
$0.31
$0.28
$0.23
$0.26
$0.25
$0.23
$0.23
$0.27
$0.30
$0.25
$0.28
Demand Cost ($)
Copper Center School ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
$2,000
7,000
$1,800
6,000
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
4,000
$1,000
3,000
$800
$600
2,000
$400
1,000
$200
$0
0
Date (Mon ‐ Yr)
APPENDIX A
Electric Cost ($)
Electric Consumption (kWh)
5,000
Electric Cost ($)
Oil
Provider
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Btus/Gal = 132,000
Customer #
Month
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Start Date
End Date
Billing Days
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Consumption (Gal)
965
857
730
228
243
0
0
0
0
223
1,841
1,666
1,274
1,131
964
301
321
0
0
0
0
294
2,430
2,199
1,072
359
1,074
573
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,184
1,996
6,753
6,258
1,415
474
1,418
756
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,563
2,635
8,914
8,261
APPENDIX A
Demand Use
Oil Cost ($)
$2,387
$2,168
$1,900
$627
$669
$0
$0
$0
$0
$599
$4,685
$4,480
Unit Cost ($/Therm)
1.87
1.92
1.97
2.08
2.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
1.93
2.04
$3,143
$1,145
$3,760
$2,150
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,184
$7,124
$17,515
$21,506
2.22
2.42
2.65
2.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.68
2.70
1.96
2.60
Demand Cost ($)
Copper Center School ‐ Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)
3,000
$8,000.00
$7,000.00
2,500
$6,000.00
$5,000.00
Oil Cost ($)
Oil Consumption (Therms)
2,000
1,500
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
1,000
$2,000.00
500
$1,000.00
0
$0.00
Date (Mon ‐ Yr)
APPENDIX A
Oil Cost ($)
Appendix B
AkWarm Short Report
APPENDIX B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/18/2012 1:07 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION
Building: Copper Center School
Address: Silver Springs Loop
City: Copper Center
Client Name: Ryan Radford
Client Address: PO Box 108
Client Phone: (907) 822-3234
Client FAX: ( ) Design Data
Building Area: 8,234 square feet
AUDITOR INFORMATION
Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co.
Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA
Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr.
Soldotna, AK 99669
Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311
Auditor FAX: ( ) Auditor Comment:
Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:
209,541 Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 220,570 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency
and 25% Safety Margin: 336,234 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW
load, if served.
Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building
average)
Design Outdoor Temperature: -40.6 deg F
Heating Degree Days: 14,101 deg F-days
Typical Occupancy: 47 people
Actual City: Copper Center
Weather/Fuel City: Copper Center
Utility Information
Electric Utility: Copper Valley Electric Assn,
Commercial - Lg
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.260/kWh
Fuel Oil Provider: Various
Average Annual Cost/gallon: $3.00/gallon
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating
Lighting
Refrige
ration
Other
Electri
cal
Cooking
Clothes
Drying
Ventilatio
n Fans
Service
Fees
Existing
Building
$19,004
$0
$1,484
$6,107
$1,248
$451
$0
$0
$6,056
$0
$34,350
With
Proposed
Retrofits
SAVINGS
$14,946
$0
$304
$2,928
$874
$451
$0
$0
$5,005
$0
$24,508
$4,058
$0
$1,180
$3,179
$374
$0
$0
$0
$1,051
$0
$9,842
Description
APPENDIX B Total
Cost
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL
Page 2
$35,000
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Existing
Retrofit
APPENDIX B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Ran
k
Feature
Recommendation
1
Refrigeration:
Combined
Refrigeration
Setback
Thermostat: School
Replace with 2
Refrigeration and Add
Implement a Heating
Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to
60.0 deg F for the
School space.
Install R-19 Fiberglass
Batts on the Perimeter 2
feet of the Crawl Space
Floor.
Replace with 4 LED (3)
25W Module
StdElectronic and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
Replace with 16 FLUOR
CFL, Spiral 23 W and
Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
Remove existing door
and install standard prehung U-0.16 insulated
door, including
hardware.
Add R-19 fiberglass
batts to masonry wall.
Cost does not include
studs or firring strips.
20W Module
StdElectronic and
Remove Manual
Occupancy Sensor,
On/Off Photoswitch
Install premium motors
and variable speed
controllers on SA-1 and
EF-1.
2
3
Perimeter: School
4
Lighting: Yard
Lights
5
Lighting:
Mezzanine
Incandescent
Lamps
6
Exterior Door:
Exterior Doors
7
Below- (part or all)
Grade Wall:
Crawlspace
8
Lighting: Exterior
HPS
9
Ventilation
Annual Energy
Savings
APPENDIX B Installed
Cost
SIR
Payback
(Years)
$374
$100
54.70
0.3
$2,890
$1,000
39.24
0.3
$318
$1,155
6.53
3.6
$440
$5,000
3.42
11.4
$375
$1,200
3.36
3.2
$192
$2,026
2.25
10.5
$343
$3,977
2.05
11.6
$614
$7,500
1.76
12.2
$2,285
$20,000
1.45
8.8
Page 4
Ran
k
Feature
Recommendation
Annual Energy
Savings
10
Lighting: Gym MH
11
HVAC And DHW
12
Window/Skylight:
NSFW
(6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W
High Lumen (3050 L)
HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and
Add new Occupancy
Sensor, Multi-Level
Switch and Improve
Manual Switching
Install premium
efficiency motors (2 @
$3,000 each = $6,000).
Install varibale speed
controllers on boiler
pumps (2 @ $5,000 =
$10,000). Implement a
reduced run time scheme
through DDC controls
for motors and DHW to
reduce heat wasted
during unoccupied hours
($5,000). Install timer
controls with DDC
system on DWH
circulation pump to shutoff during non-occupied
times ($3,000).
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl
window
TOTAL
Installed
Cost
SIR
Payback
(Years)
$1,549
$25,200
1.20
16.3
$49
$24,000
0.75
489.4
$413
$10,471
0.69
25.3
$9,842
$101,628
1.81
10.3
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Building Envelope
Insulation
Rank
Location
Recommendation Type/RValue
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Page 5
3
Perimeter: School
Insulation for 0' to 2'
Perimeter: None
Insulation for 2' to 4'
Perimeter: None
Install R-19 Fiberglass
Batts on the Perimeter 2
feet of the Crawl Space
Floor.
$1,155
$318
7
Below- (part or
all) Grade Wall:
Crawlspace
Wall Type: All Weather
Wood
Insul. Sheathing: None
Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on
center
R-19 Batt:FG or RW, 5.5
inches
Insulation Quality: Damaged
Modeled R-Value: 18
Add R-19 fiberglass batts
to masonry wall. Cost
does not include studs or
firring strips.
$3,977
$343
Exterior Doors – Replacement
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
6
Exterior Door:
Exterior Doors
Door Type: Entrance, Metal,
fiberglass core; metal edge
door, including hardware.
Installed
Cost
$2,026
Annual
Energy
Savings
$192
Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
12
Window/Skylight
: NSFW
Glass: Double, glass
Frame: Aluminum w/
Thermal Break
Spacing Between Layers:
Quarter Inch
Gas Fill Type: Air
Modeled U-Value: 0.67
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
including Window
Coverings: 0.46
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl
window
Estimated Air Leakage
Recommended Air Leakage
Target
Installed
Cost
$10,471
Annual
Energy
Savings
$413
Air Leakage
Rank
Location
2. Mechanical Equipment
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Page 6
Mechanical
Rank
Recommendation
Installed
Cost
11
Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install
varibale speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 = $10,000).
Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and
DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($5,000). Install timer
controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during nonoccupied times ($3,000).
$24,000
Annual
Energy
Savings
$49
Setback Thermostat
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
2
School
Existing Unoccupied Heating Implement a Heating
Setpoint: 70.0 deg F
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for
the School space.
Installed
Cost
$1,000
Annual
Energy
Savings
$2,890
Ventilation
Rank
Recommendation
Cost
9
Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1.
$20,000
Annual
Energy
Savings
$2,285
3. Appliances and Lighting
Lighting Fixtures and Controls
Rank
Location
Existing
Recommended
4
Yard Lights
4 MV 250 Watt Magnetic
with On/Off Photoswitch
5
Mezzanine
Incandescent
Lamps
16 INCAN A Lamp, Std
75W with Manual Switching
8
Exterior HPS
4 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic
with Manual Switching
25W Module
StdElectronic and Add
new Occupancy Sensor
CFL, Spiral 23 W and
Remove Manual
Occupancy Sensor
20W Module
StdElectronic and
Remove Manual
Occupancy Sensor,
On/Off Photoswitch
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
$5,000
$440
$1,200
$375
$7,500
$614
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software 10
Gym MH
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL
Page 7
12 MH 400 Watt Magnetic
with Manual Switching
(6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W
High Lumen (3050 L)
HighLight
Add new Occupancy
Sensor, Multi-Level
Switch and Improve
Manual Switching
$25,200
$1,549
Refrigeration
Rank
Location
Existing
Recommended
1
Combined
Refrigeration
2 Refrigeration
Replace with 2
Refrigeration and Add
-----------------------------------------AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012
Cost
$100
Annual
Energy
Savings
$374
Appendix C
Major Equipment List
APPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
MODEL
TYPE
CAPACITY
FUNCTION
MAKE
B-1
MECH ROOM
BUILDING HEAT
WEIL MCLAIN
WGO-9
OIL / CAST IRON
303 MBH
80%
0.14 HP
30
18
B-2
MECH ROOM
BUILDING HEAT
WEIL MCLAIN
WGO-10
OIL / CAST IRON
304 MBH
80%
0.14 HP
30
18
DWH-1
MECH ROOM
DOMESTIC HOT WATER
AMTROL
WH-7L-DW
SIDE-ARM
71 GALLONS
76%
-
20
8
CP-1
MECH ROOM
BUILDING HEAT
TACO
1800
INLINE
12 GPM @24'
-
0.25 HP
10
0
CP-2
MECH ROOM
BUILDING HEAT
TACO
1801
INLINE
12 GPM @ 24'
-
0.25 HP
10
0
CP-3
MECH ROOM
DHW CIRCULATION
GRUNDOS
UPS 15-58
INLINE
2 GPM @ 5'
-
0.08 HP
10
0
SA-1
MECH ROOM
SUPPLY AIR
PACE
A-12-SI
HORIZONTAL
11,600 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA STANDARD
7.5 HP
25
0
EF-1
MECH ROOM
EXHAUST AIR
TRANE
MODEL 22
CENTRIFUGAL
7,500 CFM @ 1.25" NEMA STANDARD
5 HP
25
0
EF-2
MECH ROOM
EXHAUST AIR
TRANE
MODEL 10 BI
CENTRIFUGAL
0.33 HP
25
0
APPENDIX C
NEMA STANDARD
MOTOR SIZE
ESTIMATED
REMAINING
USEFUL LIFE
LOCATION
950 CFM @ 0.75"
EFFICIENCY
ASHRAE
SERVICE LIFE
TAG
NOTES
CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY Appendix D
Site Visit Photos
APPENDIX D COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 1.
Side-view of the school.
2.
Back-view of the school and gym.
3.
View of the portable admin and workroom building. The
portable buildings are equipped with restrooms and
inefficient oil fired furnaces.
4.
View of the portable classroom.
APPENDIX D CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 5.
Fuel oil tank (500 gallons) for the school’s portable
buildings.
6.
Fuel oil tank (3000 gallons) for the school building.
7.
Example of metal framed double pane windows installed on
the school. The windows were found to be in poor
condition.
8.
View of the window gap between glass panes.
APPENDIX D CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY 9.
View of the boiler glycol circulation pumps.
10. View of the Amtrol domestic hot water maker.
11. View of the Weil McLain WGO-9 boilers. Not how they
are crammed into the mechanical room making
maintenance difficult.
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 12. View of the Honeywell DDC system in place to control the
HVAC equipment.
APPENDIX D CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 13. View of the heating coil on one of the building’s supply air
duct.
14. View of the supply air fan installed in the mechanical room.
15. View of the pole mounted yard light. This is a good
candidate for replacement with LED yard light.
16. View of inside T-8 fluorescent lights in the admin portable
building.
APPENDIX D CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 17. View of the atomic powered exit light.
18. View of the schools hallway T-8 fluorescent lights.
19. View of the crawlspace area showing ducts pinched off.
Condition of the vapor barrier can be seen.
20. View of the crawlspace area. The below grade walls were
found to not be insulated.
APPENDIX D CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Appendix E
Thermal Site Visit Photos
APPENDIX E CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1.
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Typical school wall heat loss. Note high loss around windows, footing and H&V intake.
IR view of the back storage room off of the gym.
APPENDIX E COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY 3.
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT IR view of the gym wall showing interesting heat loss at the building joints and slab edge.
IR view of the slab edge showing high heat loss.
APPENDIX E COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY 5.
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Portable admin and work room building IR view showing heat loss around foundation, doors, windows and
at the roof eaves. The modular constructed portables are high energy users on a per square foot basis.
IR view of the end of the portable classroom.
APPENDIX E COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT A
7.
IR view of the heat pouring out of the utilidor keeping the water and sewer lines for the portable building’s
restrooms from freezing. Having restrooms in the portable buildings is unusual and expensive to maintain.
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Heat loss shown from the portable building foundation, joint and eaves.
APPENDIX E CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
Appendix F
AkWarm Short Report
School Portable Buildings
APPENDIX F Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/18/2012 2:29 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION
Building: Copper Center School Portables
Address: Silver Springs Loop Portables
City: Copper Center
Client Name: Ryan Radford
Client Address: PO Box 108
Client Phone: (907) 822-3234
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 2,240 square feet
AUDITOR INFORMATION
Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co.
Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA
Auditor Address: 322615 Lakefront Drive
Soldotna, AK 99669
Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311
Auditor FAX:
Auditor Comment:
Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 42,700
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 50,235 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency
and 25% Safety Margin: 76,578 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW
load, if served.
Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building
average)
Design Outdoor Temperature: -40.6 deg F
Heating Degree Days: 14,101 deg F-days
Typical Occupancy: 10 people
Actual City: Copper Center
Weather/Fuel City: Copper Center
Utility Information
Electric Utility: Copper Valley Electric Assn
- Commercial - Lg
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.260/kWh
Fuel Oil Provider: Various
Average Annual Cost/gal: $2.94
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description
Existing
Building
With
Proposed
Retrofits
SAVING
S
Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating
Lighting
Refrige
ration
$6,580
$0
$0
$601
$0
Other
Electri
cal
$2,553
$4,472
$0
$0
$136
$0
$2,109
$0
$0
$465
$0
Cooking
Clothes
Drying
Ventilatio
n Fans
Service
Fees
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,734
$2,553
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,160
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,573
APPENDIX H Total
Cost
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES
Page 2
Annual Space Heating Cost by Component
Air
Ceiling
Window
Wall/Door
Floor
$0
Existing
$500
$1,000
$1,500
Retrofit
APPENDIX H $2,000
$2,500
Page 3
Ran
k
Feature
1
Setback
Implement a Heating
Thermostat:
Temperature
Portable Classroom Unoccupied Setback to
65.0 deg F for the
Portable Classroom
space.
HVAC And DHW Install new modern
efficient oil fired furnace
in each portable unit.
Air Tightening
Perform air sealing to
reduce air leakage by
3%.
Ceiling w/ Attic:
Add R-21 blown
CWA
cellulose insulation to
attic with Standard
Truss.
Lighting: Interior
Lights
(2) T8 4' F32T8 25W
Energy-Saver Program
LowLight
Remove Manual
Occupancy Sensor,
Daylight Sensor, MultiLevel Switch
Exposed Floor:
Install R-10 rigid board
AGF
insulation
Exterior Door: ED Remove existing door
door, including
hardware.
2
3
4
5
6
7
Recommendation
Annual Energy
Savings
TOTAL
Installed
Cost
SIR
Payback
(Years)
$617
$500
16.74
0.8
$1,260
$24,000
1.82
19.1
$40
$500
0.75
12.4
$170
$8,960
0.45
52.6
$302
$26,000
0.38
86.1
$134
$9,582
0.33
71.7
$51
$5,065
0.24
99.5
$2,573
$74,607
0.95
29
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Building Envelope
Insulation
APPENDIX H Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES
Page 4
Rank
Location
Recommendation Type/RValue
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
4
Ceiling w/ Attic:
CWA
Framing Type: Standard
Framing Spacing: 24 inches
Insulated Sheathing: None
Bottom Insulation Layer: R38 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches
Top Insulation Layer: None
Add R-21 blown
cellulose insulation to
attic with Standard Truss.
$8,960
$170
6
Exposed Floor:
AGF
Framing Type: 2 x Lumber
Insulating Sheathing: None
Top Insulation Layer: R-30
Batt:FG or RW, 9.5 inches
Bottom Insulation Layer:
None
Install R-10 rigid board
insulation
$9,582
$134
Exterior Doors – Replacement
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
7
Exterior Door:
ED
Door Type: Entrance, Metal,
polyurethane core, quarter
lite
Modeled R-Value: 4
door, including hardware.
Installed
Cost
$5,065
Annual
Energy
Savings
$51
Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated Air Leakage
Recommended Air Leakage
Target
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Air Tightness estimated as:
0.50 cfm/ft2 of above-grade
shell area at 75 Pascals
Perform air sealing to
reduce air leakage by
3%.
Air Leakage
Rank
Location
3
$500
$40
2. Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical
Rank
Recommendation
2
Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit.
Installed
Cost
APPENDIX H $24,000
Annual
Energy
Savings
$1,260
Page 5
Setback Thermostat
Rank
Location
Size/Type/Condition
Recommendation
1
Portable
Classroom
Existing Unoccupied Heating Implement a Heating
Setpoint: 70.0 deg F
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 65.0 deg F for
the Portable Classroom
space.
Installed
Cost
$500
Annual
Energy
Savings
$617
Ventilation
Rank
Recommendation
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
3. Appliances and Lighting
Lighting Fixtures and Controls
Rank
Location
Existing
Recommended
5
Interior Lights
48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8
32W Standard Instant
StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
(2) T8 4' F32T8 25W
Energy-Saver Program
LowLight
Remove Manual
Occupancy Sensor,
Daylight Sensor, MultiLevel Switch
-----------------------------------------AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012
APPENDIX H $26,000
$302
COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT
Appendix G
Benchmark Report
School Portable Buildings
APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY
REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form
Facility Owner
Building Name/ Identifier
PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Owned By
Date
Regional Education Attendance 05/17/12
Copper Center School Portables
Building Usage
Education ‐ K ‐ 12
2,240
Building Type
Wood Frame
Facility Address
Silver Springs Loop Portables
Community Population
335
Facility City
Copper Center
Year Built
1981
Facility Zip
99573
Contact Person
First Name
Loreen
Last Name
Kramer
Middle Name
Email
Phone
822‐3234
[email protected]
Mailing Address
City
State
Zip
P.O. Box 108
Glenallen
AK
99588
Primary Operating Hours
Monday‐
Friday
24‐7
Average # of Occupants During Saturday
Sunday
Holidays
24‐7
24‐7
24‐7
0
0
0
10
Renovations/Notes
Date
Details
PART II – ENERGY SOURCES
1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source.
2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use.
Heating Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Propane
Wood
Coal
$ /gallon
$ / kWh
$ / CCF
$ / gal
$ / cord
$ / ton
Other energy sources? APPENDIX G
Buiding Size Input (sf) =
2,240
2009 Oil Cost ($)
2009 Coal Cost ($)
2009 Wood Cost ($)
2009 Steam Cost ($)
2009 Oil (kBtu/sf)
2009 Coal (kBtu/sf)
2009 Wood (kBtu/sf)
APPENDIX G
0.00
0
13,912
3,456
2,638.68
5,206
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
311,350
8,662
0.0
21.2
117.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
139.0
0.00
1.54
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.87
2010 Oil Cost ($)
2010 Coal Cost ($)
2010 Wood Cost ($)
2010 Steam Cost ($)
2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)
2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)
2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)
Note:
1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's
1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's
1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
APPENDIX G
0.00
0
12,088
3,363
2,872.32
7,088
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
328,488
10,451
0.0
18.4
128.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
146.6
0.00
1.50
3.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.67
Electricity
Provider
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
CVEA
Btus/kWh = 3,413
Customer #
Month
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Start Date
End Date
Billing Days
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Consumption (kWh)
1,464
1,664
1,472
1,456
1,488
1,128
392
352
648
1,112
1,352
1,384
50
57
50
50
51
38
13
12
22
38
46
47
1,288
1,416
1,424
1,048
1,192
888
152
192
728
952
1,376
1,432
13,912
12,088
44
48
49
36
41
30
5
7
25
32
47
49
475
413
APPENDIX G
Demand Use
Electric Cost ($)
$416
$456
$388
$378
$365
$183
$66
$66
$121
$258
$365
$393
Unit Cost ($/kWh)
$0.28
$0.27
$0.26
$0.26
$0.25
$0.16
$0.17
$0.19
$0.19
$0.23
$0.27
$0.28
$392
$396
$419
$330
$334
$207
$39
$48
$171
$222
$373
$433
$3,456
$3,363
$0.30
$0.28
$0.29
$0.31
$0.28
$0.23
$0.26
$0.25
$0.23
$0.23
$0.27
$0.30
$0.25
$0.28
Demand Cost ($)
Copper Center School Portables ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)
$500
1,800
$450
1,600
$400
1,400
$300
1,000
$250
800
$200
600
$150
400
$100
200
$50
$0
0
Date (Mon ‐ Yr)
APPENDIX G
Electric Cost ($)
$350
1,200
Electric Cost ($)
Oil
Provider
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Fisher Fuel
Btus/Gal = 132,000
Customer #
Month
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Start Date
End Date
Billing Days
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Consumption (Gal)
322
457
181
140
19
0
0
0
0
0
231
649
425
603
239
185
25
0
0
0
0
0
305
857
510
303
377
340
70
0
0
0
0
0
300
276
1,999
2,176
673
400
498
449
92
0
0
0
0
0
396
364
2,639
2,872
APPENDIX G
Demand Use
Oil Cost ($)
$781
$1,155
$467
$384
$52
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$623
$1,744
Unit Cost ($/Therm)
1.84
1.91
1.95
2.08
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.04
2.04
$1,474
$963
$1,328
$1,018
$279
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,056
$970
$5,206
$7,088
2.19
2.41
2.67
2.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.67
2.66
1.97
2.47
Demand Cost ($)
Copper Center School Portables ‐ Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)
900
$2,000.00
800
$1,800.00
$1,600.00
700
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
Oil Cost ($)
600
500
$1,000.00
400
$800.00
300
$600.00
200
$400.00
100
$200.00
0
$0.00
Date (Mon ‐ Yr)
APPENDIX G
Oil Cost ($)

Copper Center School - Alaska Energy Efficiency

Transcription

Similar documents

DATE VENUE EVENT June 7 Marquee Theater TECH N9NE June 7

maryland division of financial regulation

57* $60-$69 $70-$79 $80*-$99

U.S. Department ofLabor Matm`hd Safety Data Sbcet Manufacturer`s

BELLWIRE

Untitled - Caja Rural Granada

airmens fbx poster.indd - Alaska Air Show Association

Z1000 LEAD AUDITOR 5 Days

4-D - Building an IA Function From The Ground-Up

the naturalist - Earth Explore