ENERGY AUDIT REPORT - Akenergy Efficiency · ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Soldotna Police Station 44510 Sterling Hwy Soldotna, AK 99669 CAEC Project No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐08

ENERGY AUDIT REPORT

Soldotna Police Station 44510 Sterling Hwy Soldotna, AK 99669

CAEC Project No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐08

May 2012

SUBMITTED BY: PRIMARY CONTACT:

22010 SE 51st Street 32266 Lakefront Drive Issaquah, WA 98029 Soldotna, Alaska 99669

Phone (425)281‐4706 Fax (425)507‐4350 Phone (907) 260‐5311 Fax (907) 260‐5312 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

CONTACT: Andrew Waymire, C.E.M. CONTACT: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A.

REPORT DISCLAIMER

Privacy The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs 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 DE-EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Limitations of Study This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings, and provide an opinion of the costs to implement the recommendations. This audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. In preparing this report, the preparers acted with the standard of care prevalent in this region for this type of work. All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. Not all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may have been incomplete. This report is not intended to be a final design document. 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 upgrades should undergo a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statutes as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Siemens Industry, Inc (SII) and Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, installation costs, related additional work, or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, many ECMs are interactive, so implementation of one ECM may impact the performance of another ECM. SII and CAEC accept no liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios.

The economic analyses for the ECMs relating to lighting improvements are based solely on energy savings. Additional benefits may be realized in reduced maintenance cost, deferred maintenance, and improved lighting quality. The new generation lighting systems have significantly longer life leading to long term labor savings, especially in high areas like Gyms and exterior parking lots. Lighting upgrades displace re-lamping costs for any fixtures whose lamps would otherwise be nearing the end of their lifecycle. This reduces maintenance costs for 3-10 years after the upgrade. An overall improvement in lighting quality, quantified by numerous studies, improves the performance of students and workers in the built environment. New lighting systems can be designed to address all of the above benefits.

Table of Contents REPORT DISCLAIMER.....................................................................................................................................2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................5 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................7 3. Soldotna Police Station ...........................................................................................................................10 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES..........................................................................................................19 Appendix A – Major Equipment Inventory ............................................................................................22 Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory................................................................................................23 Appendix C – IR Photos / Heat Loss Signature ..................................................................................24 Appendix D – REAL Utility Data.............................................................................................................25

Siemens Industry, Inc. Soldotna Police Energy Audit Report

AkWarm ID No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐08 Page 5 of 30

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City of Soldotna using ARRA funds as part of a contract for:

City of Soldotna Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Kyle Kornelis Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 177 North Birch P.O. Box 10120 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Phone (907) 262‐9107 Phone (907)330‐8141 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] The scope of the audit focused on Soldotna Police Station. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are as follows: $17,258 for Electricity $3,652 for Natural Gas The total energy costs are $20,910 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Soldotna Police Station. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,344 per year.

Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES

Rank

Feature

Improvement Description

Annual Energy Savings

Installed Cost

Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1

Simple Payback (Years)2

1 Lighting Replace with 5 200 W INDUCTION LAMPS

$1,340 $5,000 1.71 3.7

TOTAL, cost-effective measures

$1,340 $5,000 1.71 3.7

The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 2 Lighting Replace with 13 FLUOR (2)

T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic

$4 $1,625 0.02 369.1

TOTAL, all measures $1,344 $6,625 1.30 4.9



Table Notes: 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.

With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,344 per year, or 6.4% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $6,625, for an overall simple payback period of 4.9 years. If only the cost‐effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,340 per year, or 6.4% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $5,000, for an overall simple payback period of 3.7 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost 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.

Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate

Description Space Heating

Space Cooling

Water Heating

Lighting Refrigera

tion Other

Electrical Cooking

Clothes Drying

Ventilation Fans

Service Fees

Total Cost

Existing Building

$10,868

$0 $558 $7,987 $0 $1,046 $0 $0 $0 $451 $20,910

With All Proposed Retrofits

$10,869

$0 $558 $6,642 $0 $1,046 $0 $0 $0 $451 $19,566

SAVINGS ‐$1 $0 $0 $1,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,344



2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND

2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Soldotna Police Station. The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation.

2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey including actual utility bills. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates:

• Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) • Lighting systems and controls • Building‐specific equipment • Water consumption, treatment (optional) & disposal

The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from Soldotna Police Station enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. Soldotna Police Station is classified as being made up of the following activity areas:

1) Police Station: 11,040 square feet

In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy



2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems 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. Our 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 as projected by the Department of Energy are included. 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 $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater 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. Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re‐simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re‐evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed.



It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. 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 a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers.

2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results.



3. Soldotna Police Station

(Photo from Google Maps)

3.1. Building Description The 11,040 square foot Soldotna Police Station was constructed in 1994, with a normal occupancy of 5‐15 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average 18 hours per day. The building is of modern construction with heavily insulated walls, roof and thermal windows. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are constructed of a combination of 8” CMU and stucco covered plywood sheathing. Exterior surfaces are backed by heavily insulated interior walls generally constructed of 2”x6” framing and R19 fiber glass insulation. CMU sections include 4” of rigid insulation. All interior walls are covered with 5/8” GWB (dry wall). The roof of the building is constructed a built up assembly consisting of 2” rigid insulation, 3” Rm. Board, EPDM, 3”EPS, vapor barrier and plywood sheathing. Concrete pavers provide a walking path around the perimeter. The estimated roof assembly insulating value is approximately R30. The floor/foundation of the building is constructed of an insulated concrete slab on grade with 2” rigid insulation. Radiant hot water piping is embedded within the slab. Typical windows throughout the building are constructed of ¾” insulated glass units with thermal broken aluminum frames. The insulating value is estimated at R2.2. Entry doors are store front thermal insulated glass with insulated aluminum frames. The main entry includes an enclosed vestibule. The rear of the facility includes 6 insulated overhead doors. There are 5 hollow metal man doors. Description of Heating and Cooling Plants



The Heating Plants used in the building are: Boilers 1‐5 Nameplate Information: Weil‐McLain GV‐6 Condensing Quantity 5 MBH INOUT: 175/153 Fuel Type: Natural Gas Input Rating: 875 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 87.4 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems Hot water from the boilers noted above is circulated to a hot water coil in AHU‐1, assorted terminal equipment and an in floor radiant heating system. The radiant system carries the majority of the building heating load. The system consists of 10 zones each of which includes a dedicated circulating pump and thermostatic mixing valve. The room thermostat cycles the zone pump. The zone mixing valve has a manual setting capability. Water temperature is constant and was noted to be 165’f when the outside air temperature was approximately 50’f during and the facility was overheating. Zones were manually set from 140’f‐165’f. Domestic Hot Water System Domestic water is created by the main heating boilers via a heat exchanger located in the domestic water tank. A dedicated fractional horsepower circulating pump moves water from the primary heating loop into the domestic water heat exchanger. Description of Building Ventilation System The existing building ventilation system consists of a single air handling unit located in the mechanical room. This is a constant volume unit that serves all interior office spaces. The unit consists of a supply fan, mixing box, heating coil and return fan. Cooling is provided by a one pass cooling coil fed by municipal water. The unit is controlled by an older DDC system. Outside air was noted to be set at approximately 20%‐25%. Fan motor starter was noted to be of two speed configuration but the control circuit was limited to high speed operation. Manual exhaust fans serve a variety of areas including the lab, storage and garage. Lighting The majority of the lighting is provided by 4’ ‐ T8 high efficiency florescent fixtures. The perimeter fixtures are 4’‐T12 standard efficiency fixtures that provide an energy savings retrofit opportunity.



Plug Loads There are limited plug loads consisting of approximately 20 computers, many of which were off during inspection. Major Equipment The equipment list, available in Appendix A, is composed of major energy consuming equipment which through energy conservation measures could yield substantial energy savings. The list shows the major equipment in the building and pertinent information utilized in energy savings calculations.



3.2 Predicted Energy Use

3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs

The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt‐hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. One KW of electric demand is equivalent to 1,000 watts running at a particular moment. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non‐utility generation charges. The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building. If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The propane usage profile shows the propane usage for the building. Propane is sold by the gallon or by the pound, and its energy value is approximately 91,800 BTUs per gallon. The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: Homer Electric Assn (Homer) ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm Natural Gas: Enstar Natural Gas‐ Residential The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges:

Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost

Electricity $ 0.1387/kWh Natural Gas $ 0.72/ccf

3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, City of Soldotna pays approximately $20,745 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Soldotna Police Station. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© 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.



Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use

Figure 3.2 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.

Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type

Figure 3.3 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.



Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000

Floor

Wall/Door

Window

Ceiling

Air

Existing Retrofit

Annual Space Heating Cost by Component

The tables below show AkWarm’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. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Lighting 4972 4531 4972 4812 4972 4812 4972 4972 4812 4972 4812 4972 Other_Electrical 651 593 651 630 651 630 651 651 630 651 630 651 Ventilation_Fans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DHW 56 51 56 54 56 54 56 56 54 56 54 56 Space_Heating 4885 4452 4885 4728 4885 4728 4885 4885 4728 4885 4728 4885 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Natural Gas Consumption (ccf) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

DHW 58 53 58 56 58 56 58 58 56 58 56 58 Space_Heating 635 512 493 357 272 173 130 141 217 369 477 623



3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use 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, 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 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Gas Usage in kBtu + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel.

Table 3.4

Soldotna Police Station EUI Calculations

Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU

Source/Site Ratio

Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU

Electricity 124,468 kWh 424,809 3.340 1,418,863 Natural Gas 5,082 ccf 508,236 1.047 532,124 Total 933,046 1,950,987 BUILDING AREA 11,040 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 85 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 177 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site ‐ Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011.



3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation 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, the Soldotna Police Station was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Soldotna 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. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Soldotna. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas 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.



Figure 3.4 Difference in Weather Data

Soldotna, AK Weather Data

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12/3/2009 1/22/2010 3/13/2010 5/2/2010 6/21/2010 8/10/2010 9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011 2/26/2011

Date

Dry

Bul

b Te

mpe

ratu

re (F

)

Actual Dry Bulb (F) TMY3 Dry Bulb (F)

• 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. • The model 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 in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations.



4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES

4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4.1 Soldotna Police Station, Soldotna, Alaska

PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank

Feature

Improvement Description

Annual Energy Savings

Installed Cost

Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR

Simple Payback (Years)

1 Lighting Replace with 5 200 W INDUCTION LAMPS

$1,340 $5,000 1.71 3.7

TOTAL, cost-effective measures

$1,340 $5,000 1.71 3.7

The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 2 Lighting Replace with 13 FLUOR (2)

T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic

$4 $1,625 0.02 369.1

TOTAL, all measures $1,344 $6,625 1.30 4.9

4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis.



4.3 Building Shell Measures

No building shell improvements are recommended at this time. Primarily Envelope Measures such as windows, doors, weather stripping, and insulation are only considered cost effective if there is a visible deficiency which is noted during the audit. However it is recommended that any time the facility replaces doors or windows that it uses a replacement with a high efficiency rating. Also when renovating or constructing additions to the facility a energy cost analysis should be taken when determining if a material with a greater R‐value should be used instead of that of the code requirements.



4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures

4.5 Electrical & Appliance Measures

4.5.1 Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also 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.

4.5.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs

Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 13 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver

Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 13 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic

Installation Cost $1,625 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $4Breakeven Cost $28 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 369Auditors Notes: ESTIMATE $125/FIXTURE

Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 5 MH 400 Watt StdElectronic Replace with 5 200 W INDUCTION LAMPS

Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,340Breakeven Cost $8,557 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback yrs 4Auditors Notes: 200W INDUCTION LAMPS ESTIMATE $1000/FIXTURE



Appendix A – Major Equipment Inventory

MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY Tag LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY

(input) EFFICIENCY MOTOR ASHRAE

SERVICE LIFE

ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE

NOTES

Blr‐1‐5 Mechanical Room

Bldg Heat Weil McLain PFG‐6 Gas Hot Water

175 mbh 87% est n/a 20 4‐6 Original

PMP‐1,2 Mechanical Room

Bldg Heat Grundfos UPC65‐160 In‐Line 93 gpm 88% est 1.5hp 20 4‐6 Main Circ pmps

Zpmp 1‐9 Mechanical Room

Zone Radiant Grundfos In‐Line Varies per zone

88% est 150 w est 20 4‐6 Cycled by room t‐stat

HWM‐1 Mechanical Room

Domestic Hot Water (DHW)

Amtrol WH‐10 In‐Tank Hx 240 gph n/a 25 8‐10 Blr 1‐5 provide heat source

AHU‐1 Mechanical Room

Occupied Space HVAC

Trane Axial 6410 cfm 174 mbh heat 349 mbh cool

88% est 5hp 25 8‐10 2sp starter not operating

RF‐1 Mechanical Room

Occupied Space HVAC

Trane Avial 85% est 2hp 25 8‐10 Linked to SF‐1

SF‐1 Mechanical Room

Mech Rm Ventilation

Penn Breezway

P16T propeller 1680 cfm 85% est .25hp 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐1 Gun Area Exhaust Penn Z7 In‐line 100cfm 85% est 68w 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐2 Sally Port 117 Exhaust Lennox In‐line 750 cfm 85% est 840w 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐3 Vehicle Evidence

Exhaust Penn Z13 In‐line 1300 cfm 85% est 840w 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐4 Janitor 125 Exhaust Penn Z7 In‐line 100 cfm 85% est 68w 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐5,6 Toilets 126,127


EF‐7 Garage 104 Exhaust Penn Z13 In‐line 1900 cfm 85% est 1hp 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐8 Evidence 115 Exhaust Pace 85/u‐bf‐me Fume Hood 750 85% est .75hp 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐9 Men’s Locker Exhaust Penn Z12 In‐line 400 cfm 85% est 265w 15‐20 5 Manual Control

EF‐10 Women’s Locker




Appendix B – Partial Lighting Inventory

LIGHTING INVENTORY Location 13 W

CFL 150 W MH

1x4x2 T12

1x4x2 T8

2 x 26W CFL

2x4x2 T8

2x4x3 T8

2x4x4 T8

35W MH

400W MH

70W MH

Grand Total

Exterior 5 3 5 5 18Gym 8 8Garage 20 20Hallways 2 21 10 2 1 9 1 46Meeting Rooms

16 6 22

Offices 8 2 11 17 17 55Restrooms 14 14Storage 13 14 12 1 4024 Hour 10 10Grand Total 10 5 33 51 37 2 54 27 3 5 6 233



Appendix C – IR Photos / Heat Loss Signature

Expected heat loss through main door and around windows.

Heat loss through other doors and windows.

Heat from exterior lights.



Appendix D – REAL Utility Data

First Name Last Name Middle Name PhoneKyle Kornelis 262‐9107

State Zip

AK 99669

Monday‐Friday

Saturday Sunday Holidays

24/7 24/7 24/7 24/7

Average # of Occupants During

8 4 0

RenovationsDate

PART II – ENERGY SOURCES

Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal

$ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton

x x

Other energy sources?

City of Soldotna Municipal 08/01/11

REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data FormPART I – FACILITY INFORMATION

Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date

Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square FootagePolice Station Other 11,040

Building Type Community Population Year BuiltMixed 4,021 1994

Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip235 N. Binkley Soldotna 99669

Contact [email protected]

Mailing Address City

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.

Soldotna

Details

177 N. Birch

None

Primary Operating Hours



Soldotna Police Station

Buiding Size Input (sf) = 11,040

2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 6,1592009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 6,5122009 Electric Consumption (kWh) 138,3202009 Electric Cost ($) 22,6372009 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) 1,087,9862009 Total Energy Cost ($) 29,149Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 55.82009 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 42.82009 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) 98.5

Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 0.592009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 2.052009 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) 2.64



2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 4,6482010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 4,3992010 Electric Consumption (kWh) 134,0802010 Electric Cost ($) 20,0272010 Oil Consumption (Therms)2010 Oil Cost ($)2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)2010 Propane Cost ($)2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)2010 Coal Cost ($)2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)2010 Wood Cost ($)2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)2010 Thermal Cost ($)2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)2010 Steam Cost ($)2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu) 922,4152010 Total Energy Cost ($) 24,426Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 42.12010 Electricity (kBtu/sf) 41.52010 Oil (kBtu/sf)2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) 83.6

Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 0.402010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf) 1.812010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf) 2.21

Note:1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's




Natural Gas Btus/CCF = 100,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)

Enstar NGC 5765 Jan‐09 1,248 1,248 $1,300 $1.04Enstar NGC 5765 Feb‐09 886 886 $927 $1.05Enstar NGC 5765 Mar‐09 730 730 $766 $1.05Enstar NGC 5765 Apr‐09 521 521 $550 $1.06Enstar NGC 5765 May‐09 302 302 $324 $1.07Enstar NGC 5765 Jun‐09 197 197 $215 $1.09Enstar NGC 5765 Jul‐09 169 169 $191 $1.13Enstar NGC 5765 Aug‐09 256 256 $280 $1.09Enstar NGC 5765 Sep‐09 270 270 $291 $1.08Enstar NGC 5765 Oct‐09 391 391 $416 $1.06Enstar NGC 5765 Nov‐09 552 552 $582 $1.05Enstar NGC 5765 Dec‐09 637 637 $670 $1.05

Enstar NGC 5765 Jan‐10 620 620 $544 $0.88Enstar NGC 5765 Feb‐10 685 685 $599 $0.87Enstar NGC 5765 Mar‐10 563 563 $495 $0.88Enstar NGC 5765 Apr‐10 312 312 $283 $0.91Enstar NGC 5765 May‐10 302 302 $275 $0.91Enstar NGC 5765 Jun‐10 172 172 $162 $0.94Enstar NGC 5765 Jul‐10 208 208 $193 $0.93Enstar NGC 5765 Aug‐10 187 187 $259 $1.39Enstar NGC 5765 Sep‐10 169 169 $245 $1.45Enstar NGC 5765 Oct‐10 454 454 $473 $1.04Enstar NGC 5765 Nov‐10 346 346 $253 $0.73Enstar NGC 5765 Dec‐10 630 630 $618 $0.98

Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 09 total: 6,159 6,159 0 $6,512 $0.00Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 10 total: 4,648 4,648 0 $4,399 $0.00

$1.07$0.99

Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 09 avg:Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 10 avg:



Soldotna Police Station ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Jan‐09

Feb‐09

Mar‐09

Apr‐09

May‐09

Jun‐09

Jul‐09

Aug‐09

Sep‐09

Oct‐09

Nov‐09

Dec‐09

Jan‐10

Feb‐10

Mar‐10

Apr‐10

May‐10

Jun‐10

Jul‐10

Aug‐10

Sep‐10

Oct‐10

Nov‐10

Date (Mon ‐ Yr)

Natural Gas Con

sumption (The

rms)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Natural Gas Cost ($)

Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)

Natural Gas Cost ($)




Electricity Btus/kWh = 3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)HEA 2002781 Jan‐09 12,120 414 26 $1,818 $0.15 $204.30HEA 2002781 Feb‐09 11,400 389 25 $2,417 $0.21 $182.36HEA 2002781 Mar‐09 10,480 358 23 $1,819 $0.17 $166.30HEA 2002781 Apr‐09 10,680 365 22 $1,836 $0.17 $154.55HEA 2002781 May‐09 10,640 363 23 $1,841 $0.17 $156.16HEA 2002781 Jun‐09 10,520 359 21 $1,837 $0.17 $148.05HEA 2002781 Jul‐09 9,960 340 22 $1,759 $0.18 $152.27HEA 2002781 Aug‐09 11,280 385 22 $1,956 $0.17 $156.49HEA 2002781 Sep‐09 11,160 381 21 $1,678 $0.15 $150.76HEA 2002781 Oct‐09 12,760 435 25 $1,903 $0.15 $178.27HEA 2002781 Nov‐09 12,920 441 25 $1,922 $0.15 $177.41HEA 2002781 Dec‐09 14,400 491 25 $1,851 $0.13 $181.71

HEA 2002781 Jan‐10 11,800 403 24 $1,568 $0.13 $173.11HEA 2002781 Feb‐10 11,160 381 23 $1,496 $0.13 $167.95HEA 2002781 Mar‐10 12,200 416 23 $1,866 $0.15 $175.60HEA 2002781 Apr‐10 12,040 411 21 $1,834 $0.15 $163.14HEA 2002781 May‐10 9,360 319 20 $1,483 $0.16 $151.29HEA 2002781 Jun‐10 10,160 347 19 $1,597 $0.16 $174.00HEA 2002781 Jul‐10 10,280 351 21 $1,628 $0.16 $162.84HEA 2002781 Aug‐10 10,520 359 22 $1,660 $0.16 $163.45HEA 2002781 Sep‐10 10,960 374 21 $1,618 $0.15 $161.27HEA 2002781 Oct‐10 11,080 378 24 $1,656 $0.15 $184.80HEA 2002781 Nov‐10 11,600 396 23 $1,712 $0.15 $178.61HEA 2002781 Dec‐10 12,920 441 26 $1,909 $0.15 $199.04

Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total: 138,320 4,721 281 $22,637 $2,009Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total: 134,080 4,576 268 $20,027 $2,055

$0.17$0.15Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:

Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:



Soldotna Police Station ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Jan‐09

Feb‐09

Mar‐09

Apr‐09

May‐09

Jun‐09

Jul‐09

Aug‐09

Sep‐09

Oct‐09

Nov‐09

Dec‐09

Jan‐10

Feb‐10

Mar‐10

Apr‐10

May‐10

Jun‐10

Jul‐10

Aug‐10

Sep‐10

Oct‐10

Nov‐10

Dec‐10

Date (Mon ‐ Yr)

Electric Con

sumption (kWh)

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Electric Cost ($)

Electric Consumption (kWh)

Electric Cost ($)

ENERGY AUDIT REPORT - Akenergy Efficiency · ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Soldotna Police Station 44510 Sterling Hwy Soldotna, AK 99669 CAEC Project No. CIRI‐SXQ‐CAEC‐08

Documents