OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Energy Study: Energy Conservation Measure Analysis. January 25, 2012 {Revised April 30, 2012}

Transcription

1 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis January 25, 2012

2

3 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary Building descriptions Richardson Hall Peavy Hall Building Operations (observed) Observed Operation Issues Overview of Technical Approach Building Operation Schedules Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems Building Envelope Lighting Levels Miscellaneous Equipment Model Renderings Baseline Model Calibration Achievable Targets Operational Conservation Measures ECM A: Replace Pipe Insulation Removed During Maintenance ECM B: Temperature Set Point Adjustment for Peavy Hall & Richardson Hall ECM C: Implement Setback Set Point during Unoccupied Hours Peavy Hall Analyzed Richardson Hall Conservation Measures ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing ECM #4: West (Admin) Penthouse Envelope insulation ECM #5: Lighting Controls for Classrooms ECM #6: Daylighting Controls Where Applicable ECM #7: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant ECM #8: Steam Trap Monitoring ECM #9: Demand Control Ventilation with CO 2 sensors ECM #10: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures ECM #11: Exterior Lighting Control ECM #12: Egress Lighting Controls ECM #13: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves ECM #14: Insulate CHW, Steam and HW piping iii

4 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.1 ECM #15: Lighting Upgrade in Lumber Bay Analyzed Peavy Hall Conservation Measures ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing ECM #4: Convert Controls to DDC ECM #5: Convert Constant Volume Lab Hoods to Variable Volume ECM #6: Lighting Controls for Classrooms ECM #7: Lighting Controls for Intermittent Spaces ECM #8a: Replace Air Handling Unit ECM #8b: Replace VAV Terminal Boxes ECM #8c: Incorporate Economizer Controls ECM #9: Variable Speed Drives for Fans ECM #10: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant ECM #11: Steam Trap Monitoring ECM #12: Demand Control Ventilation with CO 2 sensors ECM #13: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures ECM #14: Exterior Lighting Control ECM #15: Egress Lighting Controls ECM #16: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves ECM #17: Insulate CHW and HW piping ECM #18: Replace Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors ECM #19: Lighting Upgrades Additional Conservation Measures Not Analyzed Results of ECM Analysis Evaluation plan iv

5 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis FIGURES Figure 1: Richardson Hall EUI Comparison [kbtu/sf/yr]... 2 Figure 2: Peavy Hall EUI Comparison [kbtu/sf/yr]... 2 Figure 3: Lab OCC Schedule : Weekday... 6 Figure 4: Lab OCC Schedule: Weekend... 6 Figure 5: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekday... 6 Figure 6: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekend... 6 Figure 7: Lab Light: Weekday... 7 Figure 8: Lab Light: Weekend... 7 Figure 9: Admin Light: Weekday... 7 Figure 10: Admin Light: Weekend... 7 Figure 11: Lab Equip.: Weekday... 7 Figure 12: Lab Equip.: Weekend... 7 Figure 13: Richardson Hall 3-D Rendering...12 Figure 14: Peavy Hall 3-D Rendering...12 Figure 15: Richardson Billed Use Comparison...13 Figure 16: Peavy Billed Use Comparison...13 Figure 17: With Building Cooling...14 Figure 18: Without Building Cooling...14 Figure 19: With Building Cooling...14 Figure 20: Without Building Cooling...14 Figure 21: Richardson Floor 1 Daylight Sensors...21 Figure 22: Richardson Floor 2 Daylight Sensors...22 Figure 23: Richardson Floor 3 Daylight Sensors...22 TABLES Table 1: Chilled Water Model Parameters... 8 Table 2: Air Handler Parameters for Richardson Hall... 8 Table 3: Air Handler Parameters for Peavy Hall... 8 Table 4: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Richardson Hall... 9 Table 5: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Peavy Hall...10 Table 6: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting...10 Table 7: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting...11 Table 8: Richardson EUI Comparisons...15 Table 9: Richardson Cost Comparisons...15 Table 10: Peavy EUI Comparisons...16 Table 11: Peavy Cost Comparisons...16 Table 12: List of Current ECMs for Richardson Hall...18 Table 13: List of Current ECMs for Peavy Hall...30 Table 14: List of ECMs Considered, But Not Pursued...45 Table 15: and Results for ECM Analysis for Richardson Hall...46 Table 16: and Results for ECM Analysis for Peavy Hall v

6 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER Oregon State University Larrie Easterly Project Manager ENERGY PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc. ANALYST 808 SW 3 rd Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR Steve Reidy, PE, LEED AP Project Manager, P.I.C. stever@pae-engineers.com Jeff Becksfort, PE, LEED AP Mechanical Lead jeffb@pae-engineers.com Mike Smith, LEED AP Mechanical mike.smith@pae-engineers.com Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of under Award Number DE-EE Disclaimer: 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 vi

7 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon State University Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall have been studied to examine potential cost-effective energy upgrades for the buildings. A tour of the buildings was conducted and an energy conservation measure (ECM) list was developed to perform an energy analysis using computer simulation software. Using equest (DOE2.2) energy analysis software baseline energy models were developed and each ECM was modeled individually against the baseline to determine the anticipated energy savings expected by installing the energy efficiency upgrade to the building. This report presents these results and gives economic considerations for ECM decision making. In addition, building operational issues were identified that need to be addressed and impact the performance and energy use of the buildings. The energy use of Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall were compared to similar typical buildings. Figures 1 and 2 below indicate a breakdown comparing energy use intensity (EUI) values for the current energy bills, the modeled existing buildings and average results from the US Commercial Building Survey (CBECS 2003). use for Richardson Hall is currently approximately 7.1% higher than an average comparable building. use for Peavy Hall is currently approximately 18.3% higher than an average comparable building. The annual building energy costs are also approximately 4.7% and 21.5% higher than average for Richardson and Peavy Halls, respectively. PAE targeted energy reductions of 25% energy cost below the CBECS average for these buildings as achievable with appropriate energy conservation measures. Please see section 5 for a full analysis of building energy use and energy cost comparisons. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this report describe the operational and analyzed ECMs developed for the building and the anticipated impact to building performance and energy use. Implementation of the full ECM package could save 20% of the annual energy costs for Richardson Hall and 50% of the annual energy costs for Peavy Hall compared to the modeled baselines. This would result in a total energy cost savings of approximately $47,000 for Richardson and $167,000 for Peavy Hall and with a simple payback on investment of approximately 15 and 11 years, respectively. PAE recommends implementation of all analyzed energy conservation measures studied to maximize the opportunity of energy savings. However, the feasibility of increasing insulation for exterior walls and replacing windows should be studied further prior to implementation to verify the costs associated with these measures. In addition, it is recommended that ECMs identified in Section 9 be considered for further study for possible implementation. In particular, Peavy Hall has an open roof that may accommodate a rooftop solar heating system for either heating water, hot water or ventilation air preheat

8 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Richardson EUI Comparison [KBTU/SF/YR] % 7.1% CURRENT BUILDING MODEL CBECS Figure 1: Richardson Hall EUI Comparison [kbtu/sf/yr] Peavy EUI Comparison [KBTU/SF/YR] % 18.3% CURRENT BUILDING MODEL CBECS Figure 2: Peavy Hall EUI Comparison [kbtu/sf/yr]

9 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS 2.1 Richardson Hall Richardson Hall houses the department offices and laboratories for the College of Forestry Wood Science & Engineering Department. Richardson Hall was completed in All spaces appear to be used in their originally designed function. The HVAC systems serving Richardson Hall are primarily central VAV air handling systems with chilled water and heating water coils with reheat terminal units serving individual zones. Chilled water is provided by a water-cooled chiller and cooling tower while heating water is provided by a steam-to-water heat exchanger connected to the campus steam system. Lab spaces are served by separate air handling systems with supply and exhaust air valves and dedicated exhaust fans for the hoods in the labs. The building is controlled by a DDC system tied into the central campus control system. 2.2 Peavy Hall Peavy Hall is connected to Richardson Hall and houses most of the teaching classrooms for the College of Forestry Wood Science & Engineering Department. Specific Wood Science facilities include: Wood Chemistry Teaching and Research Laboratories. Original construction of Peavy Hall was completed in The building has undergone several renovations through the years to accommodate the changing needs of the building. Several of the classrooms have been converted to computer labs and have significantly larger equipment energy and heat loads than originally designed for. There are a significant number of faculty offices on each floor of the building. These rooms appear to be used as per their original intent. Several labs and classrooms have been renovated for use as graduate and department office space with updated HVAC and electrical services. The HVAC system serving Peavy Hall is a central air handling unit located in the basement with chilled water and heating water coils with duct mounted heating coils. Chilled water is provided from the Richardson Hall chiller system while heating water is provided by a steam-to-water heat exchanger connected to the campus steam system. The building is controlled by a pneumatic control system with minimal connection to the central campus control system. 2.3 Building Operations (observed) On May 13 th, 2011 and June 3 rd, 2011 the PAE energy analysts toured the Richardson and Peavy buildings to observe the condition of building energy using systems. As part of the walkthrough there was a building tour that accesses each room. While in each space equipment was catalogued along with the apparent operation (if it is left on while room appears unoccupied). Lighting type, condition and controls were observed and listed according to space. The envelope was inspected to note the conditions and functionality windows and doors to assist in estimating infiltration rates. Mechanical rooms were inspected to note what equipment was present with identification tags and appearance of functionality. The tour also included the facilities office that controls the operation of the building systems for Richardson and Peavy

10 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis The list of observations was then used to generate inputs for the baseline model. Equipment was input into the model on a space-by-space basis to capture the energy use and heat into the space. Photos of lighting fixtures were reviewed with lighting designers in an attempt to estimate the energy use per fixture. All mechanical equipment manufacturer information was used to gather equipment operating information to help guide modeling of HVAC systems. Trend data was requested to verify the operation of the mechanical systems but this information has not been able to be provided. Trend data would be used to verify system controls and operation of the mechanical system for operating schedules, outside airflow rates, reset schedules, setback temperatures, reset temperatures, etc. 2.4 Observed Operation Issues The general findings of the walkthrough are noted for both buildings in sections 3.2 through 3.5. Some current operational issues that should be addressed in the short term are mentioned below Peavy Library Remodel While inspecting the library in Peavy building there were some occupants that noted some space heating issues in the space. It seems that the space is experiencing control issues and is overheating the space during occupied hours. In addition many of the lights were not working and looked to be very old. The occupants were packing library materials in preparation for a remodel which is supposed to address some of the space issues Richardson Main Lobby Daylighting Controls While walking through the west lobbies of Richardson Hall daylight sensors were observed but seem to not be properly calibrated or controlled. This was noticed by the high lighting levels while there was direct sunlight entering the space. Please see the ECM analysis below (Section 5) for approximated energy savings for this operational energy conservation measure Richardson Wood Science Research Lab While walking through the high-bay research lab, a head OSU researcher took the opportunity to express the lack of proper HVAC system operation. His concern was with regard to proper space temperatures to ensure wood experiments would be allowed to dry in a controlled environment. He gave detailed description of how the space would reset after attempts to setback temperatures and how his colleagues would be forced to physically override terminal units in the ceiling. The nearby lab space containing the kiln also had issues keeping up with the equipment load of the space. It is suspected this issue was due to the drying kiln being larger than anticipated in the Richardson building design

11 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Pipe Insulation It was observed that pipe insulation at some valves and fittings were removed to service equipment but not replaced. Significant energy loss will result from the missing insulation for the steam and chilled water systems. Refer to ECM 14 for Richardson Hall and ECM 17 for Peavy Hall for approximate energy savings that will result from replacement of insulation that has been removed. 3.0 OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL APPROACH The energy analysis for the OSU Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall buildings was performed using standard engineering calculation procedures and the DOE2.2 computer analysis program. The building was modeled by using DOE2.2 inputs that closely approximate the actual building. The floor plans of the building serve as the foundation of the model, with individual spaces and areas divided into zones based upon space type, usage and the HVAC system serving the zone. The exterior of the building, or envelope, is added to the perimeter zones, complete with windows, geographical orientation (North, South, etc.), glass type, external shading, construction type, insulation values and interior space finish (carpet, concrete, etc.). Internal heat loads are modeled by adding people, lights, and equipment to each zone. Occupancy schedules model the movement of people in and out of the zones over the course of a day. Lighting schedules model the time of use of lighting in each zone. Space temperatures to be maintained for each zone in heating and cooling modes are specified. The DOE2.2 simulation was run using hourly Corvallis, Oregon weather data. The weather data simulates the effect of solar energy, outdoor air temperature, and wind speeds on the envelope of the building and the outside air used for ventilation. The predicted energy use and costs generated by the baseline model are a function of the local utility rates and the efficiencies of the HVAC systems modeled. Each energy conservation measure (ECM) is analyzed separately. Then a model with all of the recommended measures is performed to determine the final energy performance to capture the interactions between them. ASHRAE Appendix G, as well as design drawings/specifications, were used to determine the recommended building and baseline model characteristics. Disclaimer Building energy models are intended to show relative savings and determine the cost effectiveness of conservation measures. They are not intended to be used for predicting the actual energy use of proposed building. Actual utility billing is based on a number of factors determined only after the building has been built and operating. models are based on the best information available but cannot account for every factor that affects actual building s energy use. Therefore the information presented here should be understood as a best estimate

12 12-1AM PM AM 12-1AM PM AM Percent of Max Percent of Max 12-1AM PM AM 12-1AM PM AM Percent of Max Percent of Max January 25, 2012 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 3.1 Building Operation Schedules Peavy Hall consists of mostly offices and laboratories with some classroom spaces. Richardson Hall is of similar nature, but with higher activity laboratories which includes high equipment loads with many large refrigerators and deep freezers for laboratory materials. Both buildings have high lab hood and exhaust fan loads which adds to HVAC needs. The two buildings appear to be open all year with reduced usage in the summer while school is out of session. Below are sample figures showing some of the schedules used for the baseline models. For similar space types, the same schedules were used for both buildings. Figures 3 through 12 show the schedules that were developed for the energy models to help predict energy usage in the building. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB OCC WEEKDAY IN SESSION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB OCC OUT OF SESSION Figure 3: Lab OCC Schedule : Weekday Figure 4: Lab OCC Schedule: Weekend 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ADMIN OCC WEEKDAY IN SESSION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ADMIN OCC OUT OF SESSION Figure 5: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekday Figure 6: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekend

13 12-1AM PM AM 12-1AM PM AM Percent of Max Percent of Max 12-1AM PM AM 12-1AM PM AM Percent of Max Percent of Max 12-1AM PM AM 12-1AM PM AM Percent of Max Percent of Max January 25, 2012 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB LIGHT WEEKDAY IN SESSION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB LIGHT OUT OF SESSION Figure 7: Lab Light: Weekday Figure 8: Lab Light: Weekend 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ADMIN LGT WEEKDAY IN SESSION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ADMIN LGT OUT OF SESSION Figure 9: Admin Light: Weekday Figure 10: Admin Light: Weekend 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB EQPT WEEKDAY IN SESSION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LAB EQPT OUT OF SESSION Figure 11: Lab Equip.: Weekday Figure 12: Lab Equip.: Weekend

14 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 3.2 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems Both buildings are connected to the OSU campus steam plant which is used for all heating and hot water needs. There is one chiller located in a Richardson Hall mechanical room that serves both buildings with chilled water for cooling needs. Parameters for the chilled water system are listed below in Table 1. Central Chilled Water Parameters Capacity [Tons] EWT [ F] LWT [ F] Pump Operation * Ratio CH One Speed *Rides pump curve with primary-secondary loop configuration Table 1: Chilled Water Model Parameters For Richardson all the main air handling units (AHUs) were input according to the as-built documents and observed operation. The as-built documents for Peavy Hall were limited in mechanical design information so some assumptions were made based on the era when the building was constructed. Tables 2 and 3 give parameters used in the models to simulate the air-side HVAC systems for Richardson and Peavy Halls. Richardson Main Air Handling Unit Parameters Supply Eff. kw/cfm Return Eff. kw/cfm Fan Percent CFM Operation OSA Cooling Heating AHU-1 75, VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils AHU-2 36, VAV 20% CHW Coils HW Coils AHU-3 19, VAV 8% CHW Coils HW Coils HVU-1 6, VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils HVU-2 5, VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils Table 2: Air Handler Parameters for Richardson Hall Peavy Main Air Handling Unit Parameters CFM Supply TSP [in] Return TSP [in] Fan Operation Percent OSA* Cooling Heating AHU-1 53, CV 25% CHW Coils HW Coils AHU-2 74, CV 25% CHW Coils HW Coils *Not found in design documents. Table 3: Air Handler Parameters for Peavy Hall

15 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 3.3 Building Envelope Richardson Hall has modern levels of envelope insulation which exceeded OR energy code levels in 1997 while in design. Being constructed in the early 1970 s Peavy hall has little to no insulation in many of the exterior surfaces along with an expectedly higher infiltration rate as compared to newer buildings. Tables 4 and 5 show the envelope parameters used for the Richardson and Peavy building models. The tables below give a breakdown of the building envelope parameters used to model Richardson and Peavy halls. Richardson Envelope Parameters Category Existing Building 4" Brick Veneer Air Space Wall Construction 2x6 metal wall with R-19 Batt 5/8" Gyp Board Overall U-Value = [Btuh/ft2/ F] Built-up roofing Vapor barrior Roof Construction 2.5" of R-5/in rigid insulation Ceiling tile Overall U-Value = [Btuh/ft2/ F] Double pane Aluminum frame with thermal breaks Window Glazing Clear tint glazing Overall U-Value = [Btuh/ft2/ F] Shading Coefficient = 0.81 Infiltration 0.1 Air changes per hour Table 4: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Richardson Hall

16 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Peavy Envelope Parameters Category Existing Building 4" Brick Veneer Air Space Wall Construction No Insulation 5/8" Gyp Board Overall U-Value = [Btuh/ft2/ F] Built-up roofing Vapor barrior Roof Construction 1" of polystyrene rigid insulation Ceiling tile Overall U-Value = [Btuh/ft2/ F] Single pane Aluminum frame without thermal breaks Window Glazing Clear tint glazing Overall U-Value = 1.30 [Btuh/ft2/ F] Shading Coefficient = 1.00 Infiltration 0.38 Air changes per hour Table 5: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Peavy Hall 3.4 Lighting Levels Richardson Hall was constructed with modern lighting technology with appropriate use of lighting controls. Richardson design documents were used to estimate the lighting levels in the building with operating schedules. Peavy Hall has many older lighting fixtures through the building which are assumed to be significantly less efficient as compared to the current energy code or standard lighting technology being used today. Lighting power densities were raised assuming the inefficiency of fixtures and design. Table 6 below gives estimated lighting power densities used in the baseline models. Lighting Power Densities [W/sf] Richardson Peavy Office Classroom Lab Restroom 1 1 Corridor Lobby Table 6: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting

17 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 3.5 Miscellaneous Equipment During the building walk through spaces with notably high equipment loads were recorded. This includes office equipment, lab equipment (including hoods and large refrigerators/freezers), elevators and any other miscellaneous loads found. Richardson hall houses numerous computer labs and office spaces making the miscellaneous equipment loads expectedly higher than Peavy Hall. Peavy hall has a significant load due to research labs, but does not have as many spaces with high office equipment loads. Table 7 below gives the assumed equipment power densities used in the baseline models. Equipment Power Densities [W/sf] Richardson Peavy Office* Classroom* Lab* Restroom Corridor Lobby* *Spaces with noticable equipment loads were tallied individually Table 7: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting

18 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 4.0 ENERGY MODEL RENDERINGS Figure 13: Richardson Hall 3-D Rendering Figure 14: Peavy Hall 3-D Rendering

19 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 4.1 Baseline Model Calibration The existing building energy bills were examined to help guide the construction of the baseline models and provide preliminary understanding of where the facilities are currently using energy. While some monthly recordings were missing an average monthly and annual energy use by the buildings was developed. Figures 15 and 16 show a current comparison between the energy bills and the baseline energy models. The MBTU unit for steam is equal to 1-million BTUs. 1,600 Richardson Monthly Comparison 1,400 1,200 1,000 BILLED ELEC (KWH) ELEC (KWH) BILLED STEAM (MBTU) STEAM (MBTU) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 15: Richardson Billed Use Comparison Peavy Monthly Comparison 1,400 1,200 1,000 BILLED ELEC (KWH) ELEC (KWH) BILLED STEAM (MBTU) STEAM (MBTU) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 16: Peavy Billed Use Comparison

20 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis After conducting a building walk through and examining the energy bills from both buildings it is understood that the cooling energy (including pumping power and heat rejection) for both buildings is being captured by the Richardson building meter. To account for this the building energy models were calibrated to get the proper energy end use breakdown that is reasonable for the building type and loads. With the models calibrated the modeled cooling energy is then shifted from the Peavy building to the Richardson building. A result for doing this has made the models match the energy bills much more closely. Figures 17 through 20 show the energy end use breakdown for the baseline models with and without proper accounting for cooling energy. Vent Fans, , 21% Pumps & Aux, 742.1, 5% Space Cooling, , 12% Figure 17: With Building Cooling DHW, 111.3, 1% Ext. Usage, 357.9, 3% Richardson BL End Uses Space Heating, , 35% Lights, , 8% Misc. Equip., , 15% Pumps & Aux, , 12% Space Cooling, , 19% Vent Fans, , 17% [MBTU] DHW, 111.3, 1% Figure 18: Without Building Cooling Ext. Usage, 357.9, 2% Lights, , 7% Misc. Equip., , 13% Space Heating, , 29% Vent Fans, , 16% Pumps & Aux, , 6% DHW, 117.9, 1% Ext. Usage, Peavy BL End Uses 445.8, 2% 445.8, 3% Lights, Lights, DHW, 117.9, 948.6, 6% 948.6, 5% 1% Misc. Equip., , 6% Vent Fans, , 18% Ext. Usage, Misc. Equip., , 7% Space Cooling, , 8% Figure 19: With Building Cooling Space Heating, , 56% Figure 20: Without Building Cooling Space Heating, , 65%

21 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 5.0 ACHIEVABLE ENERGY TARGETS To assist in future goals for the buildings Table 8 through Table 11 give a breakdown of targets for building energy and energy cost. Using CBECS as a comparison a few options for paths are listed including a building that would meet the AIA 2030 Building Challenge, which currently equates to an energy savings of 60% over a CBECS average building (if achieved before year 2015). A goal of decreasing annual energy use to approximately 25% below the CBECS average is achievable RICHARDSON EUI ENERGY TARGETS [KBTU/SF/YR] CURRENT BUILDING CBECS TARGET (25% BELOW CBECS) BUILDING WITH ECMS 2030 CHALLENGE BLDG Table 8: Richardson EUI Comparisons RICHARDSON EUI ENERGY COST TARGETS $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $298,000 $284,000 $200,000 $150,000 $213,000 $195,000 $100,000 $114,000 $50,000 $0 CURRENT BUILDING Table 9: Richardson Cost Comparisons CBECS TARGET (25% BELOW CBECS) BUILDING WITH ECMS 2030 CHALLENGE BLDG

22 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis PEAVY EUI ENERGY TARGETS [KBTU/SF/YR] CURRENT BUILDING CBECS TARGET (25% BELOW CBECS) BUILDING WITH ECMS 2030 CHALLENGE BLDG Table 10: Peavy EUI Comparisons $300,000 PEAVY EUI ENERGY COST TARGETS $250,000 $256,000 $200,000 $201,000 $150,000 $100,000 $151,000 $158,000 $50,000 $81,000 $0 CURRENT BUILDING CBECS TARGET (25% BELOW CBECS) BUILDING WITH ECMS 2030 CHALLENGE BLDG Table 11: Peavy Cost Comparisons

23 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 6.0 OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Trend data was requested to verify the operation of the mechanical systems but this information has not been able to be provided due to control system maintenance and upgrades occurring. Trend data would be used to verify system controls and operation of the mechanical system for operating schedules, outside airflow rates, reset schedules, setback temperatures, reset temperatures, etc. The buildings would benefit from a retro-commissioning process that could optimize the building operation and performance. Trend logs would be required for this process. It is estimated that between 5% and 15% energy savings would be realized from this process. This equates to annual energy cost savings of approximately $15,000 to $35,000 for Richardson Hall and $15,000 to $35,000 for Peavy Hall. 6.1 ECM A: Replace Pipe Insulation Removed During Maintenance It was observed that pipe insulation in many locations was removed to service valves and/or steam traps or repair piping. Failure to replace the insulation will result in heat loss (or gain for chilled water systems). Please refer to ECM 14 for Richardson Hall and ECM 17 for Peavy Hall for approximate energy savings that will result from replacement of insulation that has been removed. This is a no cost measure when insulation is replaced after servicing equipment. 6.2 ECM B: Temperature Set Point Adjustment for Peavy Hall & Richardson Hall Adjusting temperature set points in the buildings will result in energy savings. Allowing for a wider comfort range and educating/encouraging users to adapt to the climate is a no cost energy conservation measure. It is approximated that raising the cooling set point by one degree and lowering the heating set point by one degree will result in annual energy savings of $4,000 for Richardson Hall and $4,000 for Peavy Hall. 6.3 ECM C: Implement Setback Set Point during Unoccupied Hours Peavy Hall It was observed that Peavy Hall does not have a setback schedule due to the inability to program this from the central control system. Implementation of a DDC control system to control the building systems would enable more efficient control over all building systems including scheduled operation, temperature setbacks, reset schedules, etc. Please refer to ECM 4. This is a significant energy conservation measure and should be studied further

24 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.0 ANALYZED RICHARDSON HALL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES PAE conducted a meeting on June 24, 2011 to review the preliminary energy modeling results and determine which energy conservation measures will continue to be studied. The following results incorporate the comments from this meeting. See appendix for a copy of the information discussed and the comments documented on this information. The costs for each measure have been approximated based on compliance with the Buy American and Davis-Bacon requirements. 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Code levels) 4 West (admin) penthouse envelope insulation 5 Lighting controls for the classrooms 6 Daylighting controls where applicable 7 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 8 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 9 CO 2 demand based ventilation 10 Low flow plumbing fixtures 11 Exterior lighting control 12 Egress lighting controls 13 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 14 Insulate steam and condensate piping where missing (traps, PRV's, etc.) 15 Lighting upgrade for Lumber Bay Richardson Hall - Conservation Measures Table 12: List of Current ECMs for Richardson Hall 7.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation Wall Area Currently the building has R-19 batt insulation between 2x6 metal wall studs as shown in the original design documents. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the wall insulation from the existing conditions to meet the current 2010 Oregon Code levels. This consists of adding rigid insulation to the wall construction to meet an overall assembly value of U = Btu/h-ft 2 - F. This is assumed to be achieved by adding blown-in insulation to the wall with the addition of more rigid insulation if necessary to meet code Levels. This measure should also help in reducing infiltration and make occupants closer to the perimeter more comfortable throughout the year. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Existing Baseline ECM #1: Richardson Improved Wall Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 43,090 SF U = U = $144,000 44,547 $

25 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.2 ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation Roof Area The building currently has about 2.5-inches of rigid insulation in the built-up roof. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the roof insulation from the existing levels to meet the current 2010 Oregon Code levels (U = Btu/h-ft2- F). This consists of adding more rigid insulation to the roof assembly such that the overall roof assembly meets OR code. The additional insulation will make a difference in occupant comfort for those occupants in the top floor of the building. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Existing Baseline ECM #2: Richardson Improved Roof Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 35,930 SF U = U = $96, ,300 $4, ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing The windows shown in the drawing, and appear to be installed in the building, are double-pane windows with aluminum frames that are thermally broken. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of replacing the windows with glazing that has a higher thermal resistance with better shading properties. The windows studied for the ECM match the new 2010 OR Code with U-0.45 Btu/h-ft2- F and shading coefficient of Replacing these windows should have a beneficial impact on maintenance cost since they will be new and operate better with less leaks and similar problems. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Glazing Area ECM #3: Richardson Improved Glazing Parameters Existing Baseline ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 10,640 SF U = 0.67 SC = 0.81 U = 0.45 SC = 0.46 $240, ,770 $14,

26 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.4 ECM #4: West (Admin) Penthouse Envelope insulation Roof Area The West penthouse currently has no insulation above the mechanical room. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of adding insulation in the penthouse that is above the mechanical room in the admin area. It is assumed that R-13 batt could be laid in this space to help reduce heat gain/loss from the mechanical room to nearby interior spaces. This should have no added maintenance staff impacts or other effects other than reducing heat loss from the mechanical room. ECM #4: Richardson Mechanical Penthouse Insulation Parameters Existing Baseline ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 3,080 SF No Insulation U = 0.077* $20,000 69,750 $1, *Assuming continuous lay in of batt insulation 7.5 ECM #5: Lighting Controls for Classrooms Currently many classrooms lack the ability to automatically shut down lights when the space is unoccupied. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by adding lighting controls for classroom spaces. This would consist of adding occupancy sensors to ensure lights power down when classrooms are not in use. Since there is no way to explicitly analyze how often the lights could be powered down during a typical school day in session it is customary to take a 10% credit from the lighting power density. The credit was taken for five classrooms in the building (Classroom 107, GIS 203, GIS 217, Computer Lab 215, Wood Science Teaching 243). This measure will have added maintenance costs to keep occupancy sensors and controls working properly to serve the space well by shutting down lights at appropriate times without disruption of function to space. The savings estimates are seen as conservative and should save a minimum of 10% off of the lighting in the space. will depend on how frequently particular classrooms are currently having lights left on when people leave the classroom. ECM #5: Richardson Classroom Lighting Control Parameters Rooms Existing Baseline ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] 5 No Sensors Sensor in each of 5 classrooms $1,500 11,770 $

27 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.6 ECM #6: Daylighting Controls Where Applicable Richardson Hall currently has daylight sensors in the main lobby and upper west lobbies. Many of these spaces are receiving ample light to have daylighting photo sensors added along ballast controls. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of adding daylighting controls where they are not already in place (or not fully functioning) in areas of adequate sun exposure. It was assumed that multi-step dimming fixtures would be used to adjust lighting levels when receiving natural light. Daylighting sensors were placed in the model as shown below. Some of the spaces given daylighting control include the lobby, first floor classroom, west and south facing offices. Office lights could be controlled by photo sensors with occupants given the ability to override controls or use task lighting if needed. Below are floor plans showing placement of sensors in the energy model. The sensors places in the model do not necessarily suggest the number of sensor that would have to be purchased to control the spaces that are daylight controlled in the model. This measure will add costs for maintenance to keep sensors and lighting controls operating properly. The energy model is able to predict the hours of the year when there will be sufficient sunlight to shut the lights off. Using the 30-year-average weather file the model uses this to predict the total energy savings throughout the year. The actual performance of the added daylighting sensors will heavily depend on actual weather and proper installation of sensors and controls. Figure 21: Richardson Floor 1 Daylight Sensors

28 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Figure 22: Richardson Floor 2 Daylight Sensors Figure 23: Richardson Floor 3 Daylight Sensors

29 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Daylight Spaces ECM #6: Richardson Daylighting Control Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Existing Baseline Cost 14 No Sensors Daylight sensor in 14 spaces $3,000 32,726 $ ECM #7: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant The existing central chiller system currently has no water-side economizer. This ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding water-side economizer operation to the central chiller plant to take advantage of free cooling opportunities. This involves adding a plate and frame heat exchanger and pumps to help bypass the chiller when it is not necessary to run it. Modeled energy savings are broken out separately for each building even though there is one central chiller plant for both buildings. This measure will be an added maintenance cost to the facility. The pumps and heat exchanger will have to be maintained plus facility operators will have to make sure that the chilled water system is operating as designed to take advantage of free cooling when conditions allow. Existing Baseline No Central Waterside Economizer ECM #7: Richardson Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plants ECM Add Waterside Economizer to Central Chiller Plant First Cost [KBTU] Cost $51, ,937 $2, ECM #8: Steam Trap Monitoring The building currently has steam traps delivering steam to the building from the campus steam plant. As with all steam traps there is a certain amount of steam that is being wasted by the traps being stuck open. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of adding a temperature sensor to steam traps to ensure that steam is not wasted when traps become stuck open. When this happens the trap allows steam into the condensate reservoir which then becomes a waste. A hand calculation was performed to estimate the amount of steam and thus energy that could be saved throughout the year by installing these sensors that will alert anytime the trap fails and allows steam to be wasted. This measure should add no maintenance coast to the facility and potentially save money by making facility personnel aware when traps are failing to close. Accuracy of the calculation resides on the assumption that traps fail 10% of the operating hours throughout the year. This is expected to be quite conservative relative to how much the trap often do fail in practice

30 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Richardson Steam Trap Monitor Calculation Building Steam Trap: 9284 lb/hr 15 psi Assumption: Trap fails 10% of the time = 365*24*.1 = 876 hours annually Safety Factor: 9284 lb/hr x 2.0 safety factor = 18,600 lb/hr Trap Orifice Size: 21/32" from catalog for 15psi and 18,600 lb/hr Steam Flow Using Using Napier formula: 24.24*P a *D 2 = 24.24*( )*(21/32)^2 = 310 lb/hr Average : 876 hours * 310 lb/hr = 271,600 lbs 15 psi = 945 Btu/lb Average (Mbtu/year): 271,600 lbs * 945 Btu/lb = 256,663 Mbtu/year Existing Baseline No Steam Trap Monitoring ECM #8: Richardson Steam Trap Monitoring Parameters ECM Monitoring of Steam Trap Through Temp Sensors First Cost [KBTU] Cost $9, ,663 $5, ECM #9: Demand Control Ventilation with CO 2 sensors The building does not appear to currently have CO2 sensors that monitor building occupancy. This ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding CO 2 sensors on the return side of the air handlers. This would allow systems to turn down the minimum outside air when spaces are not occupied. The savings will be most significant for spaces with high intermittent occupancy. This measure is modeled by turning on sensors in the main air handlers and when the occupancy schedules show rooms being less occupied it turns down the minimum outside air that is required. The addition of CO2 sensors will add maintenance expenses to keep sensors and controls working properly. Accuracy of energy savings estimates will depend primarily on how intermittent spaces are used and the amount of time the system can ramp down minimum ventilation requirements. Main Air handlers AHU-1 to -3 ECM #9: Richardson Demand Control Ventilation Parameters Existing Baseline ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] Return Sensors No DCV in Main Air Handlers $89, ,905 $13,

31 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.10 ECM #10: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures According to design documents the plumbing fixtures are relatively efficient for the period when they were installed, but are now inefficient by standards of today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing low flow plumbing fixtures for sinks and shower heads to conserve water and save domestic hot water (DHW) heating. Of the steam used in the building it was estimated that 111,300 MBTUs (2.5% of total steam used in building) of steam is used for domestic hot water. Using this total and distributing it accordingly with the occupancy in the building, over the course of the year, gives a peak DHW flow of 1.57 gpm. With new low flow fixtures it is estimated that this peak could be cut in half. Some of the fixtures used for the estimate are listed below. This measure should not add any maintenance costs for the facility once installed. The amount of energy saved is expected to be accurate depending on the level of usage of plumbing fixtures in the building. Fixture Water Use Urinal gal/flush Toilet gal/flush Showers 1.5 gpm Bathroom Sink 0.35 gpm Existing Baseline ECM #10: Richardson Low Flow Plumbing Fixture Parameters ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] 1.57 gpm gpm $12,000 55,650 $1, ECM #11: Exterior Lighting Control Currently the exterior lighting is lacking sufficient controls to ensure that lights are not on when there is sufficient sunlight outside. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate outdoor lighting to ensure exterior fixtures operate only when needed throughout the year. Based on the site plans and electrical plans there appears to be about 24 kw of exterior lighting on the building. Adding photo sensors to control the lights will make sure that they are turned off when not necessary. Further examining particular lights that can be turned on by motion sensor would also make an improvement to the energy usage by exterior lighting. Exterior lighting schedules were adapted to help show expected savings through controls (10% credit on early and late night lighting levels). In addition to schedule modifications the peak wattage was changed from 24W to 20W for anticipated savings through use of motion sensors for non-essential exterior lighting. There will be minor maintenance costs added to the systems to ensure lighting controls are working properly. The accuracy of

32 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis the energy savings projections is expected to be accurate depending how scheduling of exterior lights is programmed. ECM #11: Richardson Exterior Lighting Control Parameters Existing ECM First Cost Baseline Cost [KBTU] Minimal Controls Photo and Motion Sensors $2,000 59,925 $1, ECM #12: Egress Lighting Controls Currently corridors and egress paths are lacking controls to shut off lights when not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate egress lighting to ensure that they are on only when needed. This would involve interfacing with the DDC system and installing motion sensors to turn egress lighting on only when needed during unoccupied hours. could also be achieved through scheduling in the DDC system to turn lights off during unoccupied periods. To model this savings a 15% credit on the lighting power density was taken for applicable corridors to account for unoccupied hours when lights could be powered down. This should add some maintenance costs to ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings estimates are expected to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be turned off when not needed. Existing Baseline ECM #12: Richardson Egress Lighting Control Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 0.75 w/sf 0.64 w/sf $3,500 17,664 $ ECM #13: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves The central chilled, hot and condenser water loops currently run as constant volume with the use of three way valves. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing variable frequency drives and two-way valves to operate pumps for hot, chilled and condenser water loops that serve the building. Two way valves replace the need for a primary-secondary system using three-way valves since pumps will be able to ramp down flows to the loop. Below are a list of the pumps that were modeled with variable flow for the ECM. There will be minor maintenance costs additions do to the addition of variable speed drives, controls, and two-way valves. The accuracy of the energy savings for this measure depends on the loads of the building systems and demand on circulation loops

33 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Pump System Served GPM HP HWP-1 Heating Water HWP-2 Heating Water CHP-1 Secondary Chilled CHP-2 Primary Chilled CHP-3 Intertie Chilled CWP-1 Condenser Water ECM #13: Richardson Variable Speed Pumping Parameters Existing Baseline ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] Constant flow loops with three-way valve operation Varible flow loops with two-way valves $48,000 94,870 $1, ECM #14: Insulate CHW, Steam and HW piping There currently appears to be places in the mechanical space where much of the piping insulation has been removed and not replaced or not ever installed initially. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing insulation for all main CHW and HW pipe mains. This would help minimize heat loss while transferring chilled and hot water to conditioned spaces. Calculations for energy savings and insulation cost were done on a linear foot basis so both measures are scalable while keeping payback estimates the same. There should be no added maintenance cost to deal with the addition or replacement of piping insulation. Accuracy of energy saving estimates resides on how much piping insulation is needed on the circulation loop mains and the operation of the system. Maintenance staff will need to be educated of the importance of replacing piping insulation when it is removed to service equipment. It was approximated during site visits that the following pipe sizes and lengths were not insulated. Chilled Water Piping Steam Piping Pipe Pipe Size (in.) Length (ft.) Size (in.) Length (ft.)

34 Chilled Water Piping Steam / Hot Water Piping January 25, 2012 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Pipe Size (NPS, in) Insulation Thickness Pipe Heat Loss [btu/hr/ft] No Insulation With Insulation Cost ($/lf) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $17.06 Existing Baseline Uninsulated Pipe ECM #14: Richardson Pipe Insulation Parameters ECM Insulation on HW and CHW Pipe Mains First Cost [KBTU] Cost $29, ,830 $4,

35 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 7.1 ECM #15: Lighting Upgrade in Lumber Bay The lighting the Lumber Bay appears to be 1000 Watt Metal halide. These lamps may be retrofitted with either a multi-lamp CFL equivalent or T5HO High Bay type lamps for significant energy savings. This information was provided by Greg Smith (OSU) for inclusion in this report. #of Lamps 10 ECM #15: Richardson Lighting Upgrade for Lumber Bay Existing Baseline 1000 Watt Metal Halide ECM CFL Equivalent or T5HO Highbays First Cost [KBTU] Cost $7, ,507 $1,

36 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.0 ANALYZED PEAVY HALL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES PAE conducted a meeting on June 24, 2011 to review the preliminary energy modeling results and determine which energy conservation measures will continue to be studied. The following results incorporate the comments from this meeting. See appendix for a copy of the information discussed and the comments documented on this information. The costs for each measure have been approximated based on compliance with the Buy American and Davis-Bacon requirements. 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Code levels) 4 Convert controls to DDC controls (set back and schedule savings) 5 Constant volume to variable volume lab hood conversions 6 Lighting controls for classrooms 7 Occupancy sensors for commons & restrooms 8a 8b 8c Replace air handling unit Replace VAV boxes Incorporate economizer controls 9 Variable speed fans for fan systems 10 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 11 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 12 CO 2 demand based ventilation 13 Low flow plumbing fixtures 14 Exterior lighting control 15 Egress lighting controls 16 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 17 Insulate CHW, HW, steam and condensate piping where missing 18 Replace motors with premium efficient motors 19 Lighting upgrade for offices and classrooms Table 13: List of Current ECMs for Peavy Hall Peavy Hall - Conservation Measures

37 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation Wall Area Currently the building has little to no insulation in the walls as shown in the original design documents. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the wall insulation from the existing amount to meet the new 2010 Oregon Code levels. This consists of adding rigid insulation to the outer portions of the wall construction to meet an overall assembly value of U = Btu/h-ft2- F. This is assumed to be achieved by adding blown-in insulation to the wall with the addition of more rigid insulation if necessary to meet the 2010 Oregon Code Levels. This measure should also help in reducing infiltration and make occupants closer to the perimeter more comfortable throughout the year. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Existing Baseline ECM #1: Peavy Improved Wall Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 26,815 SF U = U = $105, ,270 $11, ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation Roof Area The building currently has about 1-inch of rigid insulation in the layers. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the roof insulation from the existing levels to meet the current 2010 Oregon Code levels (U = Btu/h-ft2- F). This consists of adding more rigid insulation to the roof assembly such that the overall roof assembly meets OR code. The additional insulation will make a difference in occupant comfort for those occupants in the top floor of the building. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Existing Baseline ECM #2: Peavy Improved Roof Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 81,910 SF U = U = $70, ,675 $14,

38 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.3 ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing The windows in the original drawings and observed during the walk through are clear single pane windows with aluminum frames that have no thermal breaks. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of replacing the windows with ones that have a higher thermal resistance with better shading properties. The windows studied for the ECM meet the new 2010 OR Code with U-0.45 Btu/h-ft2- F and SHGC of Replacing these windows should have a beneficial impact on maintenance cost since they will be new and operate better with less leaks and similar problems. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns. Glazing Area Existing Baseline ECM #3: Peavy Improved Glazing Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 3,310 SF U = 1.30 SC = 1.00 U = 0.45 SC = 0.46 $175, ,670 $9, ECM #4: Convert Controls to DDC The building currently lacks direct digital controls. As a result there is no night setback operation of the HVAC system. This ECM evaluates the energy savings through installation of DDC controls for building automation. This will allow the building to save energy by using setback operation during unoccupied hours. The modeled energy savings focuses only on the HVAC systems (heating, cooling, fans, pumps, auxiliary). There are many other energy saving opportunities with DDC controls (demand control ventilation, interior lighting, exterior lighting, plug loads, etc), but these are accounted for in other ECMs. To show energy savings for the installation of the DDC system schedules for the operation of the HVAC system were adjusted to account for when the DDC system would be able to operate the building in an unoccupied mode. It was assumed, due to the age of the building, that the building does not have a true setback mode to ramp down HVAC operation. This measure will have added cost maintenance to the facility. The DDC controls will need to be adjusted and reprogrammed to make sure building systems are operating as expected. Assuming that the schedules of the automation system are properly adjusted to capture setback periods when the building unoccupied, the energy savings are expected to be accurate. Existing Baseline ECM #4: Peavy DDC System Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost No DDC Installed DDC system for HVAC setback and operations $336,000 3,627,440 $66,

39 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.5 ECM #5: Convert Constant Volume Lab Hoods to Variable Volume Currently the lab hoods run on constant speed drive motors with no ability to modulate flow of hood. This ECM evaluates the energy savings by installing variable frequency drives to have the ability to turn down the air flows for lab fume hoods. There were 19 lab fume hoods inputted (350cfm to 2,600cfm) into the model with schedules applied to simulate the expected usage. Variable frequency drives were added to allow the hood to ramp down to 30% when not fully needed. This measure should add little maintenance costs to the facility and add better functionality to lab researchers. The results of the analysis depend on the actual needs of the lab hoods and when they can be modulated to minimum flows or be shut off. Existing Baseline ECM #5: Peavy Variable Volume Lab Hoods Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost Constant Volume Lab Hoods Installed VFDs to Vary Hood Flow $250, ,860 $16, ECM #6: Lighting Controls for Classrooms Rooms Currently classrooms in Peavy Hall are lacking lighting controls that will ensure that lights are shut off when the facility is unoccupied. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by adding lighting controls to these spaces. This would consist of adding occupancy sensors to ensure lights power down when spaces are not occupied. Since there is no way to explicitly analyze how often the lights could be powered down during a typical work day it is customary to take a 10% credit from the lighting power density. This measure will have added maintenance costs to keep occupancy sensors and controls working properly to serve the space well by shutting down lights at appropriate times without disruption of function to space. The savings estimates are seen as conservative and should save a minimum of 10% off of the lighting in the space. will depend on how frequently particular classrooms are currently having lights left on when people leave the classroom. Existing Baseline 20 No Sensors ECM #6: Peavy Classroom Lighting Control Parameters ECM Sensor installed in space First Cost [KBTU] Cost $11,000 46,130 $

40 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.7 ECM #7: Lighting Controls for Intermittent Spaces Rooms Currently intermittent spaces in the building are lacking controls to shut off lights when not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by adding lighting controls to spaces of intermittent occupancy (restrooms and meeting rooms). This would consist of adding occupancy sensors to ensure lights power down when spaces are being used. Since there is no way to explicitly analyze how often the lights could be powered down during a typical work day it is customary to take a 10% credit from the lighting power density. The credit was taken for 2 meeting rooms and 6 restrooms throughout the building. This should add some maintenance costs to ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings estimates are expected to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be turned off when not needed. ECM #7: Peavy Intermittent Space Lighting Control Parameters Existing Baseline ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] 8 No Sensors Sensor installed in space $2,100 12,220 $ ECM #8a: Replace Air Handling Unit Currently the building is served by a central air handling unit in the basement that is very old and lacks modern functionality and efficiency. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by replacing the main air handling unit (AHU) in the basement with a more efficient and up to date model that includes more operational capabilities. A new air handler can be installed with premium efficient motors (94% efficient for 50 HP motor) that will be significantly more efficient than the main fan motors that are in place (probably 60% efficient). Along with a more efficient motor, the fans will operate on a VFD allowing the main supply fans to ramp down to close to 30% when conditions allow. The added maintenance would be for the new controls and operating of a new AHU. This may actually be a cost savings depending on how much maintenance the old air handler required. This would need to be further evaluated by maintenance personnel. The exact operation of the current AHU can be a bit of a mystery, but based on the technology of the time of installation, energy use estimates are expected to have good accuracy. Existing Baseline Orginal Basement Air Handlers ECM #8a: Peavy New Air Handling Unit Parameters ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] New AHU's with premium efficiency motors and VFD fan operation $250, ,335 $4,

41 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 8.9 ECM #8b: Replace VAV Terminal Boxes The building is currently be served by old standard terminal units that lack the ability to mix return air with incoming outside air from the main air handler. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by replacing the existing standard VAV terminal units with parallel fan powered boxes. This includes installing the boxes with fans to reuse air from the space to save on cooling and heating energy. Each parallel fan powered box was modeled with a fan power of W/sf. There will be added maintenance costs with the addition of fan powered boxes. With use of these units maintenance personnel will have to change filters in the boxes once to twice a year up in the ceiling where they are installed. The results from the energy model are expected to be accurate and will fluctuate based on the great demands on the HVAC system. Existing Baseline ECM #8b: Peavy VAV Terminal Boxes Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost Standard Terminal Units New Parallel Fan Powered Boxes $125, ,510 $8, ECM #8c: Incorporate Economizer Controls The current main air handles lack the ability to take advantage of economizer hours and save on cooling energy. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by incorporating economizer controls at the central air handling units. This would involve tying the main air handlers into a DDC system so the outdoor air dampers will be opened when air temperatures are at appropriate levels for the HVAC supply air. This measure should pose little to no cost add for maintenance once the dampers are installed and properly calibrated. The accuracy of this measure is expected to be accurate from the results found in the energy model. Existing Baseline ECM #8c: Peavy AHU Economizer Controls Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost No Economizer Operation Air Handlers Controlled for Economizer Operation $50, ,940 $2,

42 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 9.0 ECM #9: VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES FOR FANS Currently the supply and return fans for the main air handlers run on constant volume drives. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing variable frequency drives (VFD) to existing fans so the volume of air being supplied can be ramped down when design conditions are not needed. Below shows the supply fans where VFDs were installed for this ECM. This will add minor cost adds for maintenance. The VFD will need to be maintained and ensured that they are operating properly. This should be of minor, but noticeable costs. The energy savings predictions are expected to be accurate based on expected building loads and ability to ramp down fans. Pump System Served CFM HP B-1 Basement Supply Fan B-6 AHU Supply Fan Existing Baseline ECM #9: Peavy Variable Speed Fan Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost Constant Volume Fan Operation Install VFD for Variable Air Volume Supply Fan Operation $70, ,175 $10, ECM #10: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant The existing central chiller system currently has no water-side economizer. This ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding water-side economizer operation to the central chiller plant to take advantage of free cooling opportunities. This involves adding a plate and frame heat exchanger and pumps to help bypass the chiller when it is not necessary to run it. Modeled energy savings are broken out separately for each building even thought there is one central chiller plant for both buildings. This measure will be an added maintenance cost to the facility. The pumps and heat exchanger will have to be maintained plus facility operators will have to make sure that the chilled water system is operating as designed to take advantage of free cooling when conditions allow. Existing Baseline No Central Waterside Economizer ECM #10: Peavy Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plants ECM First Cost [KBTU] Add Waterside Economizer to Central Chiller Plant Cost $23, ,248 $2,

43 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 9.2 ECM #11: Steam Trap Monitoring The building currently has steam traps delivering steam to the building from the campus steam plant. As with all steam traps there is a certain amount of steam that is being wasted by the traps being stuck open. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of adding a temperature sensor to steam traps to ensure that steam is not wasted when traps become stuck open. When this happens the trap allows steam into the condensate reservoir which then becomes a waste. A hand calculation was performed to estimate the amount of steam and thus energy that could be saved throughout the year by installing these sensors that will alert anytime the trap fails and allows steam to be wasted. This measure should add no maintenance coast to the facility and potentially save money by making facility personnel aware when traps are failing to close. Accuracy of the calculation resides on the assumption that traps fail 10% of the operating hours throughout the year. This is expected to be quite conservative relative to how much the trap often do fail in practice. Building Steam Trap: 8,000 lb/hr 60 psi Peavy Steam Trap Monitor Calculation Assumption: Trap fails 10% of the time = 365*24*.1 = 876 hours annually Safety Factor: 8,000 lb/hr x 2.0 safety factor = 16,000 lb/hr Trap Orifice Size: 21/32" from catalog for 15psi and 16,000 lb/hr Steam Flow Using Using Napier formula: 24.24*P a *D 2 = 24.24*( )*(21/32)^2 = 780 lb/hr Average : 876 hours * 780 lb/hr = 683,280 lbs 60 psi = 904 Btu/lb Average (Mbtu/year): 683,280 lbs * 904 Btu/lb = 617,685 Mbtu/year Existing Baseline No Steam Trap Monitoring ECM #11: Peavy Steam Trap Monitoring Parameters ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] Monitoring of Steam Trap Through Temp $15, ,685 $12, Sensors 10.0 ECM #12: DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION WITH CO 2 SENSORS The building does not currently have CO 2 sensors that monitor building occupancy and allow minimum ventilation rates to be reduced. This ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding CO 2 sensors on the return side of the air handlers. This would allow systems to turn down the minimum outside air when spaces are not occupied. The savings will be most significant for spaces with high

44 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis intermittent occupancy. This measure is modeled by turning on sensors in the main air handlers and when the occupancy schedules show rooms being less occupied it turns down the minimum outside air that is required. The addition of CO2 sensors will add maintenance expenses to keep sensors and controls working properly. Accuracy of energy savings estimates will depend primarily on how intermittent spaces are used and the amount of time the system can ramp down minimum ventilation requirements. Main Air handlers AHU B-1 and B-6 ECM #12: Peavy Demand Control Ventilation Parameters Existing Baseline No DCV ECM Return Sensors in Main Air Handlers First Cost [KBTU] Cost $105,000 1,944,500 $35, ECM #13: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures The building currently contains older plumbing fixtures that are not efficient by standards of today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing low flow plumbing fixtures for sinks and shower heads to conserve water and save domestic hot water (DHW) heating. Of the steam used in the building it was estimated that 118,000 MBTUs (2.0% of total steam used in building) of steam is used for domestic hot water. Using this total and distributing it accordingly with the occupancy in the building, over the course of the year, gives a peak DHW flow of 1.35 gpm. With new low flow fixtures it is estimated that this peak could be cut by 20%. Some of the fixtures used for the estimate are listed below. This measure should not add any maintenance costs for the facility once installed. The amount of energy saved is expected to be accurate depending on the level of usage of plumbing fixtures in the building. Fixture Urinal Toilet Bathroom Sink Water Use gal/flush gal/flush 0.35 gpm Existing Baseline ECM #13: Peavy Low Flow Plumbing Fixture Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 1.35 gpm 1.08 gpm $8,000 24,000 $

45 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 10.2 ECM #14: Exterior Lighting Control Currently the exterior lighting is lacking sufficient controls to ensure that lights are not on when there is sufficient sunlight outside. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate outdoor lighting to ensure exterior fixtures operate only when needed throughout the year. Based on the site plans and electrical plans there appears to be about 41 kw of exterior lighting on the building. Adding photo sensors to control the lights will make sure that they are turned off when not needed. Selection of individual lights that can be turned on by motion sensor will also make an improvement to the energy usage by exterior lighting. To account for the savings through control strategies it is estimated that 15% of the lighting load can be saved annually. This brings lighting levels from 41 kw to approximately 34 kw. There will be minor maintenance costs added to the systems to ensure lighting controls are working properly. The accuracy of the energy savings projections is expected to be accurate depending how scheduling of exterior lights is programmed. Existing Baseline Minimal Controls ECM #14: Peavy Exterior Lighting Control Parameters ECM Photo and Motion Sensors First Cost [KBTU] Cost $12,000 74,327 $1, ECM #15: Egress Lighting Controls Currently corridors and egress paths are lacking controls to shut off lights when not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate egress lighting to ensure that lights are only on when needed. This would involve interfacing with the DDC system and installing motion sensors. could also be achieved with scheduling the DDC system to turn lights off during unoccupied periods. To model this savings a 20% credit on the lighting power density was taken for applicable corridors to account for unoccupied hours when lights could be powered down. This should add some maintenance costs to ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings estimates are expected to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be turned off when not needed. Existing Baseline ECM #15: Peavy Egress Lighting Control Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Cost 1.0 w/sf 0.8 w/sf $25,000 17,590 $

46 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 11.0 ECM #16: VARIABLE SPEED PUMPING WITH VFD AND TWO-WAY VALVES The central chilled, hot and condenser water loops currently run as constant volume with the use of three way valves. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing variable frequency drives and two-way valves to operate pumps for hot, chilled and condenser water loops that serve the building. Two way valves replace the need for a primary-secondary system using three-way valves since pumps will be able to ramp down flows to the loop. Below are a list of the pumps that were modeled with variable flow for the ECM. Since Peavy shares the hot and chilled water plants with Richarson, the energy savings is calculated through the energy model according to the needs of the building for hot and chilled water to meet HVAC loads. There will be minor maintenance costs additions do to the addition of variable speed drives, controls, and two-way valves. The accuracy of the energy savings for this measure depends on the loads of the building systems and demand on circulation loops. Pump System Served GPM HP HWP-1 Heating Water HWP-2 Heating Water CHP-1 Secondary Chilled CHP-2 Primary Chilled CHP-3 Intertie Chilled CWP-1 Condenser Water Existing Baseline Constant flow loops with three-way valve operation ECM #16: Peavy Variable Speed Pumping Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Varible flow loops with two-way valves Cost $12,000 40,000 $ ECM #17: Insulate CHW and HW piping There currently appears to be places in the mechanical space where much of the piping insulation has been removed and not replaced or not ever installed initially. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing insulation for all main CHW and HW pipe mains. This would help minimize heat loss while transferring chilled and hot water to conditioned spaces. Calculations for energy savings and insulation cost were done on a linear foot basis so both measures are scalable while keeping payback estimates the same. There should be no added maintenance cost to deal with the addition or replacement of piping insulation. Accuracy of energy saving estimates resides on how much piping insulation is needed on the circulation loop mains and the operation of the system. Maintenance staff will need to be educated of the importance of replacing piping insulation when it is removed to service equipment

47 Chilled Water Piping Steam / Hot Water Piping January 25, 2012 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Chilled Water Piping Steam Piping Pipe Pipe Size (in.) Length (ft.) Size (in.) Length (ft.) Pipe Size (NPS, in) Insulation Thickness Pipe Heat Loss [btu/hr/ft] No Insulation With Insulation Cost ($/lf) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

48 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis Existing Baseline Uninsulated Pipe ECM #17: Peavy Pipe Insulation Parameters ECM First Cost Cost [KBTU] Insulation on HW and CHW $36, ,260 $4, Pipe Mains

49 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 11.2 ECM #18: Replace Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors The building currently has older motors that are much less efficient compared to what can be installed today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing new premium efficiency motors in replacement of existing motors used for fans and pumps in the building. Using these new motors saves various amounts of electricity over the course of the year depending on motor run time. The motors that operate the largest number of hours stand to save the most electricity. The motors that are currently installed in Peavy hall are assumed to be operating between 60% and 70% efficiency depending on size. This measure is expected to have no added maintenance cost. It may even be cheaper since new motors will be less likely to fail or breakdown. The energy savings estimates were based on assumed usage and expected motor efficiency. The calculated savings are expected to be conservative, but real savings could vary widely. Below is a list of the main motors looked at for the study. The number of run hours is determined by the energy model and need for HVAC operation. Below is a table that compares modern standard and premium motor efficiencies with an annual energy comparison for a motor running for 2,000 hours per year. Motor HP Standard Efficiency Premium Effciency Std kw Prem kw Std kwh/year Prem kwh/year ,808 1, ,664 2, ,552 3, ,174 5, ,526 8, ,644 12, ,670 16, ,593 24, ,791 32, ,676 39, ,441 47, ,171 63, ,214 78,

50 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis The following motors were considered for replacement for this ECM. Motor HP Basement Supply Fan 50 1st & 2nd ffloor Supply Fan 75 AUD Supply Unit 7.5 EXH. Recirc Fan 40 Reheat Coil Circ Pump 10 Duplex Cond. Return Pump 2 Existing Baseline Existing Motors (60%-70% efficient) ECM #18: Peavy Premium Efficiency Motor Parameters ECM First Cost [KBTU] Replace Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors Cost $36, ,117 $10, ECM #19: Lighting Upgrades The lighting the classrooms and offices in Peavy Hall appear to be T12 lamps. These lamps may be retrofitted with T8 lamps for significant energy savings. This information was provided by Greg Smith (OSU) for inclusion in this report. # of Lamps ECM #19: Peavy Lighting Upgrade for Classrooms and Offices Existing ECM First Cost Baseline Cost [KBTU] 1, T12 Lamps 2 - T8 Lamps $123, ,933 $10,

51 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 11.4 Additional Conservation Measures Not Analyzed Other high-performance ECMs were considered for both buildings, but given the potential scope of building upgrades many were not considered to be ideal for this project or requiring a large amount of capital investment making them less realistic for consideration. Table 14 below gives a list of other ECMs that were not analyzed, but could be considered in a future retrofit for the two buildings. 1 Chiller Repair (Steam Leaks) 2 Heat Recovery High-Efficiency Chiller 3 High-Efficiency VRF HVAC System 4 Skylights with Additional Daylighting Controls 5 Geothermal HVAC Loop 6 Rooftop Solar Air Preheat System 7 Solar HW System for HVAC 8 Solar HW System for Domestic Hot Water 9 Lab Kiln Heat Recovery 10 Occupancy Controls (Receptacles, HVAC Setback, HVAC Window Switches) Table 14: List of ECMs Considered, But Not Pursued Conservation Measures Not Pursued

52 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 12.0 RESULTS OF ECM ANALYSIS Table 15 below shows the energy savings for each of the ECMs studied for Richardson Hall Preliminary Conservation Measure Analysis Oregon State University - Richardson Hall ANNUAL SAVINGS Measure # ECM / Model Description Electricity Usage (KWH) Steam Usage (KBTU) Total Usage (KBTU) Use Index (KBTU/SF) TOTAL ($) (KBTU) (%) ($) Cost (%) PAE Estimated Increment al Cost (years) ROI (%) Baseline Building 2,477,076 4,761,300 13,213, $236, ECM 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2,492,244 4,665,000 13,168, $235,518 44,547 0% $998 0% $144, % ECM 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2,475,875 4,522,000 12,969, $231, ,398 2% $4,736 2% $96, % ECM 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Code levels) 2,381,393 4,301,000 12,426, $221, ,770 6% $14,525 6% $240, % ECM 4 West (admin) penthouse envelope insulation 2,477,076 4,691,550 13,143, $235,156 69,750 1% $1,360 1% $20, % ECM 5 Lighting controls for the classrooms 2,473,626 4,761,300 13,201, $236,316 11,771 0% $200 0% $1, % ECM 6 Daylighting controls where applicable 2,464,759 4,770,600 13,180, $235,983 32,726 0% $533 0% $3, % ECM 7 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 2,428,443 4,761,300 13,047, $233, ,937 1% $2,821 1% $51, % ECM 8 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 2,477,076 4,504,637 12,956, $231, ,663 2% $5,005 2% $9, % ECM 9 CO 2 demand based ventilation 2,650,111 3,575,000 12,617, $223, ,905 5% $13,097 6% $89, % ECM 10 Low flow plumbing fixtures 2,477,076 4,705,650 13,157, $235,431 55,650 0% $1,085 0% $12, % ECM 11 Exterior lighting control 2,459,601 4,761,000 13,153, $235,496 59,925 0% $1,019 0% $2, % ECM 12 Egress lighting controls 2,471,899 4,761,300 13,195, $236,215 17,664 0% $300 0% $3, % ECM 13 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 2,447,307 4,768,000 13,118, $234,920 94,872 1% $1,596 1% $48, % ECM 14 Insulate steam and condensate piping where missing (traps, PRV's, etc.) 2,414,576 4,739,723 12,978, $232, ,827 2% $4,046 2% $12, % ECM 15 Lighting upgrade for Lumber Bay 2,447,326 4,761,300 13,111, $234, ,507 1% $1,726 1% $7, % Interactive Total of ECMs 2,061,353 3,962,219 10,995, $194,078 2,217,529 17% $42,438 18% $719, % Table 15: and Results for ECM Analysis for Richardson Hall Table 16 below shows the energy savings for each of the ECMs studied for Peavy Hall Measure # ECM / Model Description Electricity Usage (KWH) Steam Usage (KBTU) (KBTU) Use Index (KBTU/SF) TOTAL ($) (KBTU) (%) ($) (%) l Cost (years) ROI (%) Baseline Building 2,312,772 10,246,000 18,137, $333, ECM 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2,208,795 9,956,500 17,492, $322, ,270 4% $11,676 3% $105, % ECM 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Code levels) 2,171,308 9,942,000 17,350, $319, ,675 4% $14,133 4% $70, % ECM 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Code levels) 2,219,523 10,032,500 17,605, $324, ,666 3% $9,572 3% $175, % ECM 4 Convert controls to DDC controls (set back and schedule savings) 1,850,218 8,196,800 14,509, $267,150 3,627,436 20% $66,788 20% $336, % ECM 5 Constant volume to variable volume lab hood conversions 2,197,133 9,733,700 17,230, $317, ,859 5% $16,697 5% $250, % ECM 6 Lighting controls for classrooms 2,293,316 10,266,256 18,091, $333,204 46,129 0% $733 0% $11, % ECM 7 Occupancy sensors for commons & restrooms 2,298,347 10,283,000 18,124, $333,823 12,218 0% $115 0% $2, % ECM 8a Replace air handling unit 2,227,387 10,246,000 17,845, $328, ,335 2% $4,952 1% $250, % ECM 8b Replace VAV boxes 2,270,079 9,942,160 17,687, $325, ,507 2% $8,401 3% $125, % ECM 8c Incorporate economizer controls 2,274,690 10,246,000 18,007, $331, ,937 1% $2,209 1% $50, % ECM 9 Variable speed fans for fan systems 2,227,387 9,942,160 17,542, $323, ,175 3% $10,877 3% $70, % ECM 10 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 2,273,133 10,246,000 18,001, $331, ,248 1% $2,299 1% $23, % ECM 11 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 2,312,772 9,628,315 17,519, $321, ,685 3% $12,045 4% $15, % ECM 12 CO 2 demand based ventilation 2,012,800 9,325,000 16,192, $298,580 1,944,504 11% $35,358 11% $105, % ECM 13 Low flow plumbing fixtures 2,312,771 10,222,000 18,113, $333,470 24,003 0% $468 0% $8, % ECM 14 Exterior lighting control 2,290,988 10,246,000 18,062, $332,674 74,327 0% $1,263 0% $12, % ECM 15 Egress lighting controls 2,307,617 10,246,000 18,119, $333,639 17,589 0% $299 0% $25, % ECM 16 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 2,134,144 10,268,000 17,549, $324, ,479 3% $9,931 3% $51, % ECM 17 Insulate CHW, HW, steam and condensate piping where missing 2,235,768 10,219,478 17,847, $328, ,260 2% $4,983 1% $36, % ECM 18 Replace motors with premium efficient motors 2,130,147 10,261,000 17,529, $323, ,117 3% $10,300 3% $36, % ECM 19 Lighting upgrade for classrooms and offices 2,131,080 10,246,000 17,517, $323, ,933 3% $10,538 3% $123, % Interactive Total of ECMs 1,075,296 4,763,756 8,432, $158,709 9,704,513 54% $175,229 52% 1,878, % Table 16: and Results for ECM Analysis for Peavy Hall Preliminary Conservation Measure Analysis Oregon State University - Peavy Hall Total Usage ANNUAL SAVINGS Cost PAE Estimated Incrementa

53 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis 13.0 EVALUATION PLAN Once the building energy efficiency measures are completed it is suggested that a measurement and verification plan be developed and implemented to observe the new performance of the building and ensure new installed systems are operating as expected. The objective of the M&V plan is to provide the owner with valuable feedback on the operation of the building systems. As commissioning is important in tuning the building systems to operate correctly after installation, similarly, the M&V plan will provide continual feedback of the building performance over time which allows the owner the ability to view the benefit of the various energy conservation measures incorporated into the building design as well as the opportunity to address energy inefficiencies. Electricity use of major building components should be metered and logged into a readily accessible on-site computer. Making hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly data trends available will better inform the owner of required maintenance, repair or replacement of building components. Once the building has been fully occupied and completes a minimum of one year of stable and optimized operation variables will be documented and incorporated into the design and baseline building energy models. The energy analyst will compare the revised baseline and design energy models to one another and generate a report summarizing the results, including but not limited to whole building performance and performance of specific energy conservation measures. Weather for the period of observation must be considered and factors developed to normalize the energy bills to account for any weather patterns differentiating from the 30-year norm for that location

54 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis APPENDIX JUNE 24, 2012 MEETING NOTES I

55 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis II

56 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis III

57 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis IV

58 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis V

59 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis VI

60 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Study: Conservation Measure Analysis VII