Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC

Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Comprehensive Energy Audit of Icy View Fire Station Project # BSNC-OME-RSA-05 Prepared for: The City of Nome October 8, 2011 Prepared by: Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6 Anchorage, AK 99501 and Energy Audits of Alaska P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 98522 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Audit and Analysis Background 9 3. Acknowledgements 10 4. Building Description & Function 11 5. Historic Energy Consumption 12 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 13 7. Loan Program 13 Appendix A: Photos 15 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 18 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 22 Appendix D: Building Plan 24 Appendix E: Lighting Plan 25 Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 26 Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 27 Performed by: James Fowler, PE, CEA CEA #1705 Reviewed by: Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM CEA #178, CEM #13557 2

REPORT DISCLAIMERS The information contained in this report, including any attachments, is intended solely for use by the building owner and the AHFC. No others are authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or part, without written authorization from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6, Anchorage, AK 99501. Additionally, this report contains recommendations that, in the opinion of the auditor, will cause the owner to realize energy savings over time. All recommendations must be designed by a registered engineer, licensed in the State of Alaska, in the appropriate discipline. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statue as well as IES recommendations. Payback periods may vary from those forecast due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, AHFC, or any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC. IGA s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system. 3

1. Executive Summary This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC s Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program. Subject Building: Icy View Fire Station 401 Out of the Way Rd Nome, AK 99762 Building Owner: The City of Nome 102 Division Street Nome, AK 99762 Josie Bahnke, City Manager 907-443-6600 office jbahnke@nomealaska.org Building contacts: Matt Johnson, Fire Chief 907-304-1535 mobile mjohnson@nomealaska.org Alan Maxwell, Building Inspector 907-304-3399 mobile amaxwell@nomealaska.org Jerry Krier, Maintenance supervisor 907-304-3398 mobile The site visit to subject building occurred on September 9 th, 2011. This fire station is a small, 1684 square foot satellite station intended to provide rapid, volunteer response to the Icy View Subdivision and outlying areas of Nome. The energy audit of this building took place on request of the Nome fire chief. The building consists of high bay vehicle storage and a boiler room which also doubles as a toilet room. It is a one story building with a tower formerly used for drying fire hoses, and a small mezzanine used for storage. Plans and equipment schedules could not be located for this building. The plans and schedules found in the Appendix s were created from on-site measurements and observations made during the survey. Building shell details including roof and floor construction, insulation values and structural configuration were assumed based on the auditor s on-site observations and conversations with the maintenance lead. Benchmark data from Central Alaska Engineering Company indicates a 4

build date of 1983. There does not appear to have been any significant upgrades or additions to the structure, plumbing or electrical systems, but the HVAC system appears to have been upgraded around 2002. Considering its age, the building is in average condition. There is apparently a sewer line freeze-up issue, as the sink is left running 24/7/365. Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data Benchmark data - annual fuel oil and annual electricity consumption only - was provided by Central Alaska Engineering Company, and validated with Nome administration by the auditor. The two annual data points provided were distributed by the auditor, to estimate reasonable monthly usage. Summarized data is displayed in Table 1 below: Table 1 2009 2010 Consumption Cost Consumption Cost Electricity kwh 8,374 $ 3,004 6,346 $ 2,695 Fuel Oil gallons 1,817 $ 8,638 2,050 $ 8,730 Totals $ 11,642 $ 11,425 A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings in the area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in terms of kbtu/sf. This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of building area. The comparative values for the subject building Table 2 below - indicate that this building s energy consumption is significantly higher than it comparable buildings in Nome. Table 2 indexes for existing building Average of (4) similar buildings in Nome Ambulance Building Subject Building Energy Use Index (EUI) kbtu/sf 166 124 137 Energy Cost Index (ECI) $/SF $6.85 $4.38 $5.20 After incorporation of the EEM recommendations in this report, there is a reduction in the EUI and ECI, as calculated by AKWarm, as show in Table 5

3 below, bringing the building in line or below, the average Nome buildings. Table 3 indexes after implementation of EEM s Energy Use Index (EUI) kbtu/sf Energy Cost Index (ECI) $/SF Subject Building Average of (4) similar buildings in Nome Ambulance Building 84 124 137 $3.48 $4.38 $5.20 Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to determine if they would be applicable for energy savings with reasonably good payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a reasonably good payback period, 2.) for code compliance, 3.) life cycle replacement or 4.) reasons pertaining to operations, maintenance and/or safety. For example, where a lighting upgrade is recommended from T-12 lamps with magnetic ballasts to T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts, then the entire facility should be re-lamped and re-ballasted to maintain a standard lighting parts inventory, regardless of the payback. An individual storage room that is infrequently used may not show a very good payback for a lighting upgrade, but consistency and ease of maintenance dictates a total upgrade. Specific EEMs recommended for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm Energy Audit Report in Appendix B. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. The higher priority items are summarized below: Lighting Upgrades: This facility has T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts. All lamps should be replaced with new 28 watt, T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Typical savings in power consumption varies from 30-50% with this upgrade. Lighting Control Upgrades: Occupant controls can sense the presence of workers, and turn the lights on at a predetermined level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. This building is intermittently and infrequently occupied. It is recommended to install occupancy sensors in the existing duplex switch boxes and ceiling mounted, dual technology sensors in the vehicle bay. (this prevents obstacles, like trucks, from interfering with line-of-sight sensors) The second mode in a dual technology 6

occupancy sensor is activated by sound. This could reduce power consumption by 60-90%. Exterior Lighting Upgrades: The exterior high pressure sodium lights operate during periods of darkness, which is about half of the year. It is estimated that the use of LED exterior lights can reduce the power consumption by 60% and extend bulb replacement frequency to 5-10 years, further reducing maintenance costs. Setback Thermostat in vehicle bay. It is recommended that lockable setback thermostats be installed and programmed for occupied temperatures of 72 deg F, and unoccupied temperatures of 55 deg F. This has an estimated payback of less than 3 months. Headbolt Heater Controls: There are retrofit headbolt heater receptacles that can replace standard duplex receptacles in the (2) headbolt heaters outside the building. They contain an integrated microprocessor and thermometer that cycles power on and off in response to the outside air temperature. Energy savings is typically 50%. Plumbing fixtures: At end of life (EOL) of the toilet and sink, new fixtures should be installed that have proximity sensing on/off controls. Given the small size and infrequent occupancy of this building this recommendation is not cost effective until EOL of existing fixtures has been reached. It should be noted that this audit does not include water usage and AKWarm does not allow for the modeling of this, but a typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will payback in under 3 years. Installing 2-level flush toilets (.9 gallons per flush for liquids, 1.6 gallons for solids) typically saves 33% water, and pays back in under 2 years. There is a sewer freeze-up problem which is being temporarily solved by continuously running water down the drain. This is estimated to cost $1314/yr and should be fixed. See Appendix G-4. De-stratification Fans: In all high bay facilities air stratification occurs due to the lower density of hot air; there can be a 5 degree F to as much as 15 degree F difference between the floor and ceiling air temperatures. De-stratification fans mix the air and bring higher temperature air down to where occupants are, and where the thermostat is. De-stratifying as little as a 5 degree temperature difference in a warehouse with a 20 ceiling saves 12% in energy costs of heating that space. It is recommended that an industrial de-strat fan be added to 7

the vehicle bay, along with a timer controlled automatic shut off that coincides with thermostat setbacks. Payback is less than 1 year. See Appendix G-5. HVAC: The heating system appears to be relatively new and in good working order, however, all glycol supply and return piping should be insulated. (See Appendix G-2). There is no ventilation in the building, but given its small size, its infrequent occupancy and the high frequency of door openings when occupied, the addition of ventilation is not a cost effective recommendation. Exit Signs: Exit signs were not observed at either man-door. Self luminous signs should be installed for egress safety reasons. See Appendix G-1. Building Shell: Due to the high cost of overhead door replacement, the payback period is very long, and replacement recommendations are reserved for EOL. This said, the 1-1/2 thick, wood overhead doors in this building are in poor condition, appear to be at EOL, and should be replaced. They have an estimated insulation value of R-3, and there is significant air infiltration around the edges and bottom. New, R-14.5 doors should be retrofitted. This reduces heat loss through the door by 60-70%, and further reduces air infiltration which adds to the building heat load. There is a hole in the building siding between the two overhead doors that should be repaired. (See Appendix G-3) Overhead door closing timers should be added, to prevent the doors being left open after an emergency call. One door open left open for 2 hours in -20F weather results in $147 energy cost. In addition to EEMs, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) are recommended since they are policies or procedures that are followed by management and employees that require no capital outlay. Examples of recommended ECMs for this facility include: 1. Repair the waste/sewage freeze problem. (Appendix G-4) 2. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an occupancy sensor. 3. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly maintained and adjusted to close and function properly. 4. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office. 8

The 13 priority recommendations in the detailed report estimate to save $5,606/year, with an installed cost of $14,360. The combined payback on this investment is 2.5 years. This does not include design or construction management services, or the water/sewer savings described in Appendix G-5, 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, other electrical systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Measures were based on their payback period, life cycle replacement or for reasons pertaining to maintenance, operations and/or safety. a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules, where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building condition, including: i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc) ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning iii. Lighting systems and controls iv. Building specific equipment v. Plumbing Systems b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided through AHFC s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming that electrical and gas meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and at the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software program developed specifically for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify forecasted energy consumption which can then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data 9

uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer s cataloged information. Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs are excluded. Costs are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales and Pioneer Door, all in Anchorage were consulted for some of the lighting, boiler and overhead door (respectively) retrofit costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM. The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and return on investment (ROI) is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR found in the AKWarm report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as the breakeven cost divided by the initial installed cost. A simple life-time calculation is shown for each EEM. The life-time for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the life-time of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total life-time multiplied by the yearly savings. d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and may 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. A design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work. 10

3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including: a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP). b. The City of Nome (Owner): The City of Nome provided building sizing information, two years energy billing data, building schedules and functions, as well as building age. c. Central Alaska Engineering Company (Benchmark TSP): Central Alaska Engineering Company compiled the data received from the City of Nome and entered that data into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS). d. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP who was awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Bering Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm gathered all relevant benchmark information provided to them by Central Alaska Engineering Company, cataloged which buildings would have the greatest potential payback, and with the building owner, prioritized buildings to be audited based on numerous factors, including the Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost Index (ECI), the age of the building, the size of the building, the location of the building, the function of the building, and the availability of plans for the building. They also trained their selected sub-contracted auditors, assigned auditors to the selected buildings, and performed quality control reviews of the resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs that each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure current knowledge of existing conditions. e. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also received additional training from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM applications. 11

4. Building Description and Function: The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on September 9 th, 2011. It has one story, with a small mezzanine and a tower formerly used to dry fire hoses. It is constructed on an un-cooled, poured concrete slab. It is not know if there is any insulation beneath the slab. Walls appear to be 2x6 construction with R-19 fiberglass batting, the ceiling insulation is unknown but estimated to have 12 of batting and an R-38. Interior walls are gypsum, exterior walls and roof are metal. Building details are as follows: a. Heating System: Heat is supplied by an oil fired, Burnham 166 MBH, cast iron sectional boiler. Heat is distributed through (2) ceiling mounted, horizontal, hydronic unit heaters running wild (i.e. no modulation of glycol flow). Their fans are controlled by a standard low voltage thermostat. b. Ventilation System: There is no ventilation provided to the building. c. Plumbing Fixtures: The toilet and sink are located in the boiler room, both are manually operated. See Appendix G-4 for EEM recommendations. d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is generated using a 4000 W Rheem electric, 6 gallon water heater, also located in the boiler room. e. Appliances: There are only two significant, energy consuming appliances in the building. The first is a self contained, fan-cooled communications (assumed to be police and fire) equipment rack contains equipment estimated to consume 3000 Watts, 24/7/365. The second is a breathing air system which includes a compressor utilizing a premium efficiency (91% nameplate rating), 20hp, 230V, 3 phase motor. This motor is estimated to run 6-8 hours/month. f. Head Bolt Heaters: There are (2) duplex receptacle head bolt heaters along the West and South sides of the building, both are suitable for retrofit. g. Interior Lighting: Interior lighting is provided by (8) ceiling mounted, 8, 2-lamp, T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts, and (1) incandescent lamp in the boiler room. There are no occupancy sensors in the building. There are no exit signs in the building. h. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of (1) 100 W and (1) 250 W High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall-pack lights on a photocell sensor, and (1) incandescent soffit light. 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes (12) months of data. Because only (2) data points (2 years) of annual utility benchmark data 12

were provided, this data was graphed into a reasonable seasonal curves to create two years of (12) monthly data points, which were then averaged and input into AKWarm-C. Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (ECU). The energy cost index takes the average cost of gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (typically 2 years) and averages the cost, divided by the square footage (SF) of the building. The ECI for this building is $6.85/SF, the average ECI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is $4.38/SF. The energy use index (EUI) is the total average electrical and heating energy consumption per year expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The average EUI for this building is 166 kbtu/sf 2009 and 2010; the average EUI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is 124 kbtu/sf. Both of these index s are high for this building. 6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. For example, if the fan motors are not replaced with premium efficiency motors, then the savings for the project to install variable speed drives (VFDs) on the fans will be increased. In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. For example, the night setback EEM was analyzed using the fan and heating load profile that will be achieved after installation of the VFD project is completed. By modeling the recommended projects sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects between 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 contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties are included in the lighting project analysis that is performed by AkWarm- C. 7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF 13

will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are not eligible for loans under this program. 14

Photos Appendix A View from the West (above), man-door entrance on the right; old fire hose cooling tower shown below, as seen from the East. 15

Interior of building, very clean and well maintained 16

Aerial Views of Nome Icy View Subdivision Airport Nome, downtown Area NORTH Icy View Fire Station 17

Appendix B Energy Audit Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Icy View Fire Station Page 1 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT PROJECT SUMMARY Created 10/8/2011 10:43 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Icy View Fire Station Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska Address: 410 Out of the Way Rd Auditor Name: James Fowler City: Nome Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215 Client Name: Alan Maxwell Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Address: 102 Division Street Nome, AK 99762 Auditor Phone: (206) 954 3614 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 304 1535 Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 1,684 square feet Typical Occupancy: 2 people Actual City: Nome Weather/Fuel City: Nome Utility Information Electric Utility: Nome Joint Utilities Systems Commercial Sm Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.361/kWh Auditor Comment: Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 55,541 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 61,712 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 94,073 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average) Design Outdoor Temperature: 27 deg F Heating Degree Days: 14,371 deg F days Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrica l Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Existing $9,409 $0 $0 $1,134 $806 $0 $0 $0 $36 $11,384 Building With $4,701 $0 $0 $351 $691 $0 $0 $0 $36 $5,778 Proposed Retrofits SAVINGS $4,708 $0 $0 $783 $115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,606 Total Cost

Appendix B Energy Audit Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Icy View Fire Station Page 2 Annual Energy Costs by End Use $12,000 $10,000 Service Fees Space Heating Other Electrical Lighting $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Existing Retrofit

Appendix B Energy Audit Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Icy View Fire Station Page 3 PRIORITY LIST RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings 1 Setback Thermostat: Equipment Bay Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Equipment Bay space. Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) $2,683 $200 201.32 0.1 2 Lighting: Soffit light Replace with LED 12W $70 $30 14.81 0.4 Module StdElectronic and Controls retrofit 3 Lighting: Exterior Replace with LED 72W $236 $800 1.89 3.4 Module StdElectronic 4 Other Electrical: Improve Manual Switching $115 $400 1.84 3.5 Headbolt heaters 5 Lighting: Exterior Replace with LED 25W Module StdElectronic $97 $500 1.24 5.1 6 Lighting: Equipment bay lights 7 Lighting: Boiler room light 8 Garage Door: Overhead Doors Appe ndix G 1 Appe ndix G 2 Appe ndix G 3 Exit Signs Heating pipes Exterior siding Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy Saver HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Replace with LED 12W Module StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Replace existing garage door with R 14.5, polyurethane core replacement door. Add automatic, timer activated door closers. Install self luminous exit signs for egress safety reasons Insulate heating pipes throughout building Repair hole between overhead doors $218 $1,550 0.82 7.1 $13 $180 0.44 13.4 $1,044 $9,000 8.6 negative $400 ($200 ea for self luminous) n/a n/a unknown $500 n/a n/a Maintenance item $100 n/a n/a

Appendix B Energy Audit Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Icy View Fire Station Page 4 PRIORITY LIST RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Appe ndix G 4 Appe ndix G 5 Plumbing Fixtures and sewer freeze up De Stratification Fan in high bay vehicle storage Repair sewer freeze up problem; at end of life (EOL) replace toilet and faucet with auto on/off versions with proximity sensors Install an industrial grade fans in vehicle storage bay Savings $1314 (water/sewer savings, not in AKWarm model) Installed Cost Sewer repair unknown SIR n/a Payback (Years) n/a $1129 $700.6 TOTAL $5,606 $14,360 2.5

Appendix C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM/GPM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS UH 1 Trane UHSA090S8AAAF Hydronic 815.125/115/1 UH 2 Trane UHSA090S8AAAF Hydronic 815.125/115/1 B 1 Burnham 5WFH.14/115/1 166 MBH oil fired, 82% efficiency with Beckett burner motor CP 1 Taco 007 F3 Cartridge Circulator 10 GPM @ 8 HD.04/115/1 Glycol circulation pump CP 2 Grunfos UP 15 18 SF 5 GPM @ 5 HD.74A/115/1 Water supply circulating pump 22

Appendix C Lighting Schedule LIGHTING FIXTURES SYMBOL FIXTURE DESCRIPTION MOUNTING LAMPS TYPE HEIGHT NUMBER WATTS A Wall pack HPS Exterior, magnetic ballast surface 20' 1 250 B Wall pack HPS Exterior, magnetic ballast surface 12 1 100 C T12 2 Florescent, T12 lamps, magnetic ballast surface ceiling 2 75 D Incandescent ceiling fixture surface ceiling 1 60 E Incandescent Exterior entry door surface soffit 1 60 23

Building Floor Plan Appendix D 24

Appendix E Lighting Plan 25

Appendix F Mechanical Schematic CP-2 (water supply re-circ) UH-1 CP-1 B-1 UH-2 26

Appendix G Additional, Building-Specific EEM details G-1: Exit Signs: Self luminous signs should be installed, they are available with 10 year and 20 year battery live, and cost from $150-$200 ea. G-2: Insulate heat circulation pipes throughout building. G-3: Repair hole in siding: 27

G-4: Plumbing fixtures and running water: The sign above this sink (below) says to leave the water running 24/7/365 to prevent sewer main freeze-up. This stream is approximately 1/8 gpm, which is using approximately 65,000 gallons of water per year. Nome s water/sewer rate is approximately $.02-03/gal. At $.02/gal, this stream costs $1314/yr. The freeze-up problem should be fixed. Additionally, at EOL of the toilet and faucet, they should be replaced with automatic fixtures activated by proximity sensors. A typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will payback in under 6 years in a low occupancy building like this one. Installing 2-level flush toilets (.9 gallons per flush for liquids, 1.6 gallons for solids) typically saves 33% water, and pays back in under 4 years in a low use facility. G-5: Install an industrial grade de-stratification fan in high bay vehicle storage area: De-strat fans typically save from 12%-23% in high-ceiling space-heating costs, depending on the temperature difference at the ceiling and at floor level, and the ceiling height. For a 5 degree F temperature difference between the floor and an 18 foot ceiling (most high ceiling spaces have a larger temperature difference), a 12% savings in energy cost for that space should be realized. Estimated cost for (1) fan is $700. A reasonable estimation of annual savings in this building is $1129 (12% of $9408, the total space heating energy costs), the payback on this EEM is 7 months. Additionally, the fan should be on an occupancy sensor, so that is stops running a prescribed time period after non-occupancy. 28