Tribal Council Report - Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

ComprrehenssiveEn
nergyA
Audit
For
Cheffornak
kTriballCoun
ncil
Prrepared For Village
e of Chefornaak Ju
une 6, 2012 Prepared By: AN
NTHC‐DEHE 1901 Brragaw Suite 2200 Anchoraage, Alaska 999508 1 TableofContents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Audit Description ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3. Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................ 7 3. Chefornak Tribal Council .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Building Description ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Predicted Energy Use .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs .................................................................................................................. 8 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) .............................................................................................................. 11 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation ......................................................................................................... 12 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects ........................................................................................................... 13 5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN 16 Appendix A – Listing of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Websites ........................................ 17 PREFACE The Energy Projects Group at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) prepared this document for the Village of Chefornak. The authors of this report are Carl Remley, Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) and Gavin Dixon. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive document that summarizes the findings and analysis that resulted from an energy audit conducted over the past couple months by the Energy Projects Group of ANTHC. This report analyzes historical energy use and identifies costs and savings of recommended energy efficiency measures. Discussions of site specific concerns and an Energy Efficiency Action Plan are also included in this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Energy Projects Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Johnathan Lewis, Tribal Administrator. 2 1.EXECUTIVESUMMARY
This report was prepared for the Village of Chefornak. The scope of the audit focused on Chefornak Tribal Council. 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 $2,502 for Electricity, $5,946 for #1 Oil and total energy costs are $8,448 per year. It should be noted that this facility received the power cost equalization (PCE) subsidy from the state of Alaska last year. If this facility had not received PCE, its total electrical costs would have been $5,004. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Chefornak Tribal Council. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank
1
Feature
Setback Thermostat:
Tribal Office
2
Other Electrical Combined Retrofit:
Coffee Maker
3
Other Electrical Controls Retrofit:
Computers
Ceiling Insulation
4
5
Window/Skylight:
Tribal Office
Window/Skylight:
Tribal Office
HVAC And DHW
6
7
TOTAL, all measures
Improvement Description
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for
the Tribal Office space.
Replace with Single Batch
Coffee Brewer with Thermos
and Improve Manual
Switching
Improve Manual Switching
Add R-30 fiberglass batts to
attic with Standard Truss.
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl window
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl window
A new furnace and ducting
is in order. A hot air furnace
that uses less energy and
runs more efficiently would
dramatically reduce both
fuel and electricity costs.
Annual Energy
Savings
$1,202
Installed
Cost
$200
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR1
80.74
Simple
Payback
(Years)2
0.2
$86
$80
5.80
0.9
$45
$50
4.79
1.1
$1,073
$7,308
3.43
6.8
$45
$523
1.46
11.8
$57
$785
1.25
13.8
$608
+ $25 Maint.
Savings
$10,500
1.01
17.3
$3,115
+ $25 Maint.
Savings
$19,447
2.79
6.2
Table Notes: 3 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 $3,115 per year, or 36.9% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $19,447, for an overall simple payback period of 6.2 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 $6,364 Existing Building With All $3,675 Proposed Retrofits SAVINGS $2,689 Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical $0 $0 $669 $0 $1,415 $0 $0 $0 $8,448 $0 $0 $669 $0 $989 $0 $0 $0 $5,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $426 $0 $0 $0 $3,115 Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost 2.AUDITANDANALYSISBACKGROUND
2.1ProgramDescription
This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Chefornak Tribal Council. 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. 4 2.2AuditDescription
Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. 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 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 Chefornak Tribal Council 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. Chefornak Tribal Council is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Tribal Office: 1,034 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.MethodofAnalysis
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. 5 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. 6 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. 2.4LimitationsofStudy
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.ChefornakTribalCouncil
3.1.BuildingDescription
The 1,034 square foot Chefornak Tribal Council was constructed in 1988, with a normal occupancy of 8 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average seven hours per day, Monday through Friday. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are 2x6 construction with 5.5 inches of old, damaged batt insulation. The building has a cold roof with 3.5 inches of batt insulation. The floor of the building is built on pilings with 6 inches of batt insulation. Typical windows throughout the building are double paned operable windows with wood frames. Doors are metal urethane with a metal edge. Description of Heating Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Hot Air Furnace Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input Rating: 100,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 79 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air 7 Space Heating Distribution Systems A warm air furnace supplies heat to the building with a ventilation fan controlled by an air duct sensor set at 80 for on and 130 for off. The fan cycles on this limit switch, and runs about twice as long as the furnace does. There is no ducted return air for the furnace. Lighting Lighting in the building is primarily a set of 12 T8 electronic fixtures with two four foot long bulbs each. Additionally there are five CFL 20W light bulbs in the facility as well. Exterior Lighting consists of one single Spiral 42 watt Carbon Fluorescent light bulb. Plug Loads The largest individual plug load in the facility is a BUNN coffee maker, which is always plugged in. There are eight desktop computers with monitors, as well as phones, paper shredders, a fax machine, several desktop printers, and electronic calculators. There is a larger Xerox 7120 Printer, and a Dell 3110 Printer as well. A VHF radio is also used in the facility. 3.2PredictedEnergyUse
3.2.1EnergyUsage/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. 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: Naterkaq Light Plant ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm 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
Electricity #1 Oil Average Energy Cost
$ 0.32/kWh $ 7.35/gallons 8 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, Village of Chefornak pays approximately $8,448 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Chefornak Tribal Council. 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 Annual Energy Costs by End Use
$10,000
Space Heating
Other Electrical
Lighting
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Existing
Retrofit
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. 9 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 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. 10 Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Lighting Other_Electrical Space_Heating 178 375 207 162 342 184 178 375 174 172
363
116
178
375
57
172
363
24
178
375
17
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 178
375
23
172
363
44
178 375 103 172 363 150 178
375
208
Fuel Oil #1 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Space_Heating 123 109 104 71
38
20
16
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 19
31
64 90 123
3.2.2EnergyUseIndex(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 + 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) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. 11 Table 3.4 Chefornak Tribal Council EUI Calculations Site Energy Use Source/Site Source Energy Use Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year per Year, kBTU Ratio per Year, kBTU Electricity 7,820 kWh 26,691
3.340 89,147
#1 Oil 809 gallons 106,781
1.010 107,849
Total 133,472
196,996
BUILDING AREA 1,034 Square Feet
BUILDING SITE EUI 129 kBTU/Ft²/Yr
BUILDING SOURCE EUI 191 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. 3.3AkWarm©BuildingSimulation
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 Chefornak Tribal Council was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Chefornak 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 Chefornak. 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. • 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). 12 The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations. 4.ENERGYCOSTSAVINGMEASURES
4.1SummaryofResults
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
Chefornak Tribal Council, Chefornak, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank
1
Feature
Setback Thermostat:
Tribal Office
2
Other Electrical Combined Retrofit:
Coffee Maker
3
Other Electrical Controls Retrofit:
Computers
Ceiling Insulation
4
5
Window/Skylight:
Tribal Office
Window/Skylight:
Tribal Office
HVAC And DHW
6
7
Improvement Description
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for
the Tribal Office space.
Replace with Single Batch
Coffee Brewer with Thermos
and Improve Manual
Switching
Improve Manual Switching
Add R-30 fiberglass batts to
attic with Standard Truss.
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl window
Replace existing window
with U-0.22 vinyl window
A new furnace and ducting
is in order. A hot air furnace
that uses less energy and
runs more efficiently would
dramatically reduce both
fuel and electricity costs.
TOTAL, all measures
Annual Energy
Savings
$1,202
Installed
Cost
$200
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
80.74
Simple
Payback
(Years)
0.2
$86
$80
5.80
0.9
$45
$50
4.79
1.1
$1,073
$7,308
3.43
6.8
$45
$523
1.46
11.8
$57
$785
1.25
13.8
$608
+ $25 Maint.
Savings
$10,500
1.01
17.3
$3,115
+ $25 Maint.
Savings
$19,447
2.79
6.2
4.2InteractiveEffectsofProjects
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. 13 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. 4.3BuildingShellMeasures
4.3.1InsulationMeasures
Rank 4 Location Ceiling Insulation Existing Type/R‐Value Recommendation Type/R‐Value Framing Type: Standard Add R‐30 fiberglass batts to attic with Standard Truss.
Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R‐11 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R‐Value: 13 Installation Cost $7,308 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,073
Breakeven Cost $25,093 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback yrs 7
Auditors Notes: The attic hatch opening is in the mechanical room. When we arrived, the attic hatch was up in the attic. This was resulting in pulling air from the cold attic by the hot air furnace and then heating it. There is also a return air opening in the wall to the hallway for the hot air furnace. 4.3.2WindowMeasures
Rank 5 Location Size/Type, Condition Window/Skylight: Tribal Glass: Double, glass Office Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Installation Cost $523 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
Breakeven Cost $766 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio Auditors Notes: Recommendation Replace existing window with U‐0.22 vinyl window 20 Energy Savings (/yr) 1.5 Simple Payback yrs $45
12
Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 14 6 Window/Skylight: Tribal Glass: Double, glass Office Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.51 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Installation Cost $785 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
Breakeven Cost $978 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio Auditors Notes: Replace existing window with U‐0.22 vinyl window 20 Energy Savings (/yr) 1.2 Simple Payback yrs $57
14
4.4MechanicalEquipmentMeasures
4.4.1Heating/Cooling/DomesticHotWaterMeasure
Rank 7 Recommendation A new furnace and ducting is in order. A hot air furnace that uses less energy and runs more efficiently would dramatically reduce both fuel and electricity costs. Installation Cost $10,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
20 Energy Savings (/yr) $608
Maintenance Savings (/yr) $25
Breakeven Cost $10,639 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback yrs 17
Auditors Notes: The current furnace is old an inefficient, a new furnace with new insulated ducting would save fuel and reduce electrical costs by having a more efficient to move air throughout the facility. 15 4.4.2NightSetbackThermostatMeasures
Rank 1 Building Space Tribal Office Recommendation Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Tribal Office space. Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,202
Breakeven Cost $16,148 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 80.7 Simple Payback yrs 0
Auditors Notes: A setback thermostat should be installed that can be set to heat the building to only 60 degrees when the facility is unoccupied, such as at nights and on weekends. 4.5Electrical&ApplianceMeasures
4.5.1OtherElectricalMeasures
Rank 2 Location Coffee Maker Description of Existing Mini Bunn Coffee Pot with Manual Switching Efficiency Recommendation Replace with Single Batch Coffee Brewer with Thermos and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $80 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
7 Energy Savings (/yr) $86
Breakeven Cost $464 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 5.8 Simple Payback yrs 1
Auditors Notes: Using a coffee pot that doesn’t continuously heat water, and then storing made coffee in an insulated thermos would dramatically reduce electrical costs. The current coffee pot uses a lot of electricity to keep the water always warm so that coffee can be made instantly. Using an insulated thermos would keep coffee warm and minimize burning while reducing the need for electricity. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Computers 16 Desktops and Monitors with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)
7 Energy Savings (/yr) $45
Breakeven Cost $240 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 4.8 Simple Payback yrs 1
Auditors Notes: Using the power management software on the computers operating system to have the computers shut off automatically after 30 minutes of inactivity would reduce electrical cost. 5.ENERGYEFFICIENCYACTIONPLAN
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. 16 AppendixA–ListingofEnergyConservationandRenewable
EnergyWebsites
Lighting Illumination Engineering Society ‐ http://www.iesna.org/ Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program ‐ www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls DOE Solid State Lighting Program ‐ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=lighting.pr_lighting Hot Water Heaters Heat Pump Water Heaters ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12840 Solar Water Heating FEMP Federal Technology Alerts – http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/FTA_solwat_heat.pdf Solar Radiation Data Manual – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook Plug Loads DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – http:apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product The Greenest Desktop Computers of 2008 ‐ http://www.metaefficient.com/computers/the‐greenest‐pcs‐of‐
2008.html Wind AWEA Web Site – http://www.awea.org National Wind Coordinating Collaborative – http:www.nationalwind.org Utility Wind Interest Group site: http://www.uwig.org WPA Web Site – http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov Homepower Web Site: http://homepower.com Windustry Project: http://www.windustry.com Solar NREL – http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/ 17 Firstlook – http://firstlook.3tiergroup.com TMY or Weather Data – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991‐2005/tmy3/ State and Utility Incentives and Utility Policies ‐ http://www.dsireusa.org 18