ashrae level 1 energy study for - civicweb e… · ashrae level 1 energy study for: community...

www.sesconsulting.com

ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Study for: Community Energy Association Building

Energy Assessments

The District of Sparwood

Attention: Mr. Duane Lawrence,

Director of Community and Facility Services

Prepared by: SES Consulting Inc.

Suite 410 – 55 Water Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1A1

Tel: 604.568.1800 Hwww.sesconsulting.com

May 21, 2013

The District of Sparwood ASHRAE Level 1 Study

www.sesconsulting.com Page: 1

Document Information and Revision History

Version Date Author(s) Revision History

Final.doc May 3, 2013 B. Miltimore Edits and format changes.



Executive Summary

I. Background of the Project This report presents the findings of the ASHRAE Level 1 energy assessment, including the as-found conditions and carbon emissions reduction recommendations, for the following District of Sparwood facilities; Fire Hall #1, Fire Hall #2, Public Works Buildings (Office, Main Shop, Truck Bays, Water Treatment plant and Lab), and the Pump Houses (Pump Houses 1, 2, 3 and Buckhorn Lift Station). The objective of the report is to identify a bundle of recommendations that will meet the financial tests of providing a return on investment and reducing carbon emissions. As well, we would like to simplify the effort required for reporting your successes in achieving targets. Further, when possible, we would like to identify demonstration opportunities for engaging the public and supporting local industry.

The energy analysis in this report provides a strong business case for implementing a comprehensive project to reduce energy use, upgrade existing capital replacement programs for HVAC equipment, and reduce carbon emissions from your operations.

The as-found condition of the lighting and HVAC equipment in these facilities is a mix of modern high efficiency devices and obsolete technologies. There are many examples of modern T8 lighting fixtures being used in the same facility as obsolete T12 and 100 watt incandescent lights. There are many opportunities to improve lighting and reduce energy use by coordinating with maintenance services to eliminate the use of obsolete products. All of the HVAC equipment and most of the lighting systems are standard efficiency and long past their expected service life. Much of the HVAC equipment in the Pump houses and the Public Works is of standard efficiency and long past the expect service life. The Public Works buildings lighting systems are of the obsolete Low Pressure Sodium and T12 lamps. The Firehalls have newer T8 lamps and some motion sensors, but there are still economic upgrades measures for controlling the lights. Other HVAC and lighting controls consist primarily of standard residential type thermostats and line voltage wall switches for room controls. These controls would perform much better if they were low voltage zone controls. These legacy systems offer an excellent opportunity to install automatic lighting controls and a web based building automation system that will be cost effective and eligible for utility incentives. Just doing the controls efficiency measures will save energy costs, reduce carbon emissions, provide reports on savings, increase occupant comfort, reduce maintenance costs and extend the service life of equipment.

II. Consumption and Benchmarking These facilities currently produce 250 tonnes of Annual CO2 emissions based on the current energy consumption. Costs have remained constant over the last two years even though the total energy consumed went down. However, the cost per square foot is higher than we would have expected for the type of facilities and uses. Comparable facilities in the region operate at 50% or more less cost per square foot. Normalized1 Annual Utility Costs (Inc taxes) and Consumption for Sparwood Fire Halls #1 & #2, Pump houses & Lift stations (including process load), and Public Works:

Utility 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011Gas 4,075 4,695 1,844 2,125 $45,396 $47,767 $1.91 $2.01Electricity 2,203 2,332 997 1,055 $48,495 $47,085 $2.04 $1.98

Total 6,279 7,027 2,841 3,180 $93,891 $94,852 $3.95 $3.99

Energy Use (GJ) BEPI (MJ/m2) Cost ($) Cost ($/ft2)

1The billing information is normalized for weather differences between billing periods from year to year and for the number of days per billing period.



The consumption data is normalised for weather and while the total costs for energy decreased 1% from 2011 to 2012, the decrease was much less than the consumption decrease of 11% over the same time period. This will put the regional district at future risk of energy cost increases unless an aggressive strategy is initiated to reduce and control energy consumption. There are cost effective conservation measures in all the facilities to achieve this goal. The important indicator for cost savings opportunities is the higher than expected cost per square foot. If all the recommended conservation measures are implemented the cost per square foot could be reduced by 50%.

BEPI Comparison

Average Public Administration Building ‐

BC, 930

Average Public Administration Building ‐

Canada, 1,220

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 Pumphouses & Liftstations

Public Works Buildings

BEPI (M

J/m²)

Electricity

Gas

III. Recommended Projects

We have identified a number of excellent opportunities to reduce electricity, gas and water consumption in the facility and recommend the implementation of the following projects:

Implement low cost measures as soon as possible:

a) Control system optimization including: scheduling reductions, optimal start and enhanced warm-up, furnace summer shut down, eliminate heating and cooling conflicts

b) Replace all existing fluorescent T12 lamps with extra long life low wattage T8 lamps and in addition considering de-lamping for some areas that are overly bright. Also replacement of existing incandescent and CFL lamps with LED during the next maintenance cycle.

c) Conserve water by installing low flow devices and rain water capture (for landscape irrigation). Capital projects that are recommended are:

1. Install simple to use web based wireless Building Automation System to control and monitor equipment operations.

2. Implement capital upgrades (condensing furnaces, lighting control retrofit, heat recovery ventilators, and lighting retrofits) as efficiency projects.



IV. Results If the recommended measures2 are implemented the annual savings will be $47,390 and 107 tonnes of GHG emissions will be saved. The simple payback is very attractive and this bundle of recommendations should be evaluated for potential implementation. The business case associated with each of these projects is summarized below:

Measure Capital Cost Savings Electricity Gas Payback BEPI GHGDescription (kWh) (GJ) MJ / m² (Tonnes)BAS System Measures $40,500 $23,020 38,100.00 1,420 1.8 700 71

Building System Optimization Measures $10,500 $6,276 35,950.00 170 1.7 140 10

Low Cost Lighting Measures $13,900 $5,820 54,800.00 - 2.4 90 1

Major Capital Measures $57,300 $12,274 52,300.00 500 4.7 310 26

Project Total $122,200 $47,390 181,150 2,090 2.6 1,240 107

Annual Savings

These projects have the potential to produce the following outcomes:

Energy footprint Greenhouse gases Cost per ft2

39% 43% 50% If all of the proposed measures were to be implemented, these facilities in The District of Sparwood would achieve an overall reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 40%, a significant step on the road to carbon neutrality.

V. Demonstration and Leadership The Sparwood Community Sustainability Plan identifies energy use as one of the three main areas of deficiency. The Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) in this report will set the stage for broad public engagement concerning available technologies they can use. By installing web based DDC systems to control facility equipment you will be able to present your energy savings on a routine basis using a consistent, easy to communicate report format. This information will be suitable for presentation to the public as a newsletter, monthly press release and/or display on a public bulletin board at each location that has been included in this Energy analysis Report.

The water conservation measures are an example of leadership in conservation ethics that have many co-benefits for The District of Sparwood. Water conservation aligns with your Water Smart program for community sustainability and would be a highly visible step in support of your Community Sustainability Committee's work. Conserving water reduces demand for potable water on the distribution system and reduces the amount of water required during peak seasons. Also, the load sent to the Sewage Treatment Plant will be reduced. The major co-benefits of water conservation are dramatic cost savings in terms of capital renewal and expansion for Municipal Water Systems.

2 The cost estimates do not include incentives, design engineering and project management costs for the recommended conservation measures as these costs vary with timing and scope of projects.



VI. The Next Steps The next Steps to reduce your energy consumption, Greenhouse Gas emissions and reduce operating coast are:

1. Review the completed ASHRAE Level 1 energy assessment report.

2. Select ECM’s for further development into a business case for implementation.

3. Identify opportunities for capital funding and incentives to be accessed.

4. Coordinate with other communities for synergies and economies of scale.

5. Prepare business case complete with design engineering, project schedules and tender documents.

6. Construct conservation measures.

7. Commission the new systems, train staff on the proper use of the new systems

8. Set up the monitoring program to ensure the savings and emissions reductions are realised.



Acknowledgements

SES Consulting Inc. would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the following personnel in providing the necessary information for this report.

This report was created and written by Brian Miltimore, AScT, with the assistance of Angie Weddell, BASc (Eng.), Review Engineer, Brad White, P.Eng.

In addition, this report was prepared with the assistance of Duane Lawrence, Director of Community and Facility Services and Wayne Kopan, Maintenance.

As well, Dale Littlejohn and Megan Lohmann of the Community Energy Association contributed significantly to this project. The enthusiasm of all for this project, their cooperation and many contributions are greatly appreciated and are reflected in the quality of the report.

The cooperation and contributions by others, on and off site, to the project providing technical details and offering suggestions is greatly appreciated.



District of Sparwood - ASHRAE Level 1 Study-

Table of Contents FINAL.DOC .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

MAY 3, 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

B. MILTIMORE ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

EDITS AND FORMAT CHANGES. ................................................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 6

LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. 10

1. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 11

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 11

3. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY OPTIONS EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................. 11

4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND UTILITY INCENTIVES .................................................................................. 11

5. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................. 12

6. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 12

BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES ............................................................................................................... 13

7. OVERVIEW AND FACILITY USE FOR FIRE HALL #1 ................................................................................................ 13

7.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION ................................................................................................................................................ 13 7.2 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................................... 16 7.3 ENERGY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 7.4 CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 20 7.5 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES ....................................................................................................................................... 23 7.6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 25

8. OVERVIEW AND FACILITY USE THE FIRE HALL #2 ................................................................................................ 26

8.2 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................................... 27 8.3 ENERGY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 8.4 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES ....................................................................................................................................... 34 8.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 35

9. OVERVIEW AND FACILITY USE FOR PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS .............................................................. 36

9.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION ................................................................................................................................................ 36 9.2 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................................. 36 9.3 ENERGY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 9.4 CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 40 9.5 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES ....................................................................................................................................... 43 9.6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 44

10. OVERVIEW AND FACILITY USE AT THE PUBLIC WORKS .................................................................................... 45

10.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION ................................................................................................................................................ 45 10.2 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................................. 46 10.3 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................................... 47 10.4 ENERGY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 47



10.5 CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 51 10.6 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES ....................................................................................................................................... 54 10.7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 55

List of Figures FIGURE 1: FIRE HALL #1 UN‐INSULATED TRUCK BAY DOORS ............................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 2: FIRE HALL #1 DHW SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 3: FIRE HALL #1 INCANDESCENT EXIT SIGNS ....................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 4: FIRE HALL #1 HIGH ILLUMINATION LEVELS TRAINING ROOM .............................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 5: FIRE HALL #1 HIGH ILLUMINATION LEVELS TRUCK BAYS .................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 6: FIRE HALL #1 TRUCK BAY SPACE TEMPERATURE .............................................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 7: FIRE HALL #1 EXISTING WATER CLOSET ......................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 8: FIRE HALL #1 BEPI COMPARISON ................................................................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 9: FIRE HALL #1 MONTHLY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION ........................................................................................................ 18 FIGURE 10: FIRE HALL #1 BUILDING MONTHLY GAS CONSUMPTION PROFILE ...................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 11: FIRE HALL #1 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 12: FIRE HALL #1 ELECTRICITY AND GAS CONSUMPTION ....................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 13: FIRE HALL #2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 14: FIRE HALL #2 BEPI COMPARISON ............................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 15: FIRE HALL #2 MONTHLY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 16: FIRE HALL #2 BUILDING MONTHLY GAS CONSUMPTION PROFILE ...................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 17: FIRE HALL #2 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 18: FIRE HALL #2 ELECTRICITY AND GAS CONSUMPTION ....................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 19: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS BEPI COMPARISON .................................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 20: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS MONTHLY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION ......................................................................... 38 FIGURE 21: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS BUILDING MONTHLY GAS CONSUMPTION PROFILE ......................................................... 38 FIGURE 22: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION ....................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 23: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS ELECTRICITY AND GAS CONSUMPTION .......................................................................... 40 FIGURE 24: PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE ............................................................................................................................................. 45 FIGURE 25: PUBLIC WORKS BEPI COMPARISON ............................................................................................................................ 48 FIGURE 26: PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION ................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 27: PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY GAS CONSUMPTION PROFILE ................................................................................................. 49 FIGURE 28: PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION ................................................................................................................. 50 FIGURE 29: PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRICITY AND GAS CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................... 50

List of Tables TABLE 1: FIRE HALL #1 HISTORICAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION ............................................................................................................ 17 TABLE 2: FIRE HALL #1 NORMALIZED GAS CONSUMPTION ............................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 3: FIRE HALL #1 RATE SCHEDULES ...................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 4: FIRE HALL #1 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 21 TABLE 5: FIRE HALL #1 BAS SYSTEM MEASURES ........................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 6: FIRE HALL #1 BUILDING SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION MEASURES ................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 7: FIRE HALL #1 LOW COST LIGHTING MEASURES SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 23 TABLE 8: FIRE HALL #1 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 9: FIRE HALL #1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 25 TABLE 10: FIRE HALL #2 HISTORICAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION .......................................................................................................... 28 TABLE 11: FIRE HALL #2 NORMALIZED GAS CONSUMPTION ............................................................................................................. 30 TABLE 12: FIRE HALL #2 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 31 TABLE 13: FIRE HALL #2 BAS SYSTEM MEASURES ......................................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 14: FIRE HALL #2 BUILDING SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION MEASURES .............................................................................................. 33 TABLE 15: FIRE HALL #2 LIGHTING MEASURES SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 16: FIRE HALL #2 MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 34



TABLE 17: FIRE HALL #2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 18: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS HISTORICAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION .............................................................................. 37 TABLE 19: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS NORMALIZED GAS CONSUMPTION ................................................................................ 39 TABLE 20: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 40 TABLE 21: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS BAS MEASURES SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 41 TABLE 22: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS BUILDING OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS SUMMARY ................................................................ 42 TABLE 23: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS LIGHTING MEASURES SUMMARY ................................................................................... 42 TABLE 24: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES SUMMARY.......................................................................... 43 TABLE 25: PUMP HOUSES AND LIFT STATIONS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 26: PUBLIC WORKS HISTORICAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION ........................................................................................................ 47 TABLE 27: PUBLIC WORKS NORMALIZED GAS CONSUMPTION .......................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 28: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 29: PUBLIC WORKS BAS MEASURES SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 51 TABLE 30: PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 52 TABLE 31: PUBLIC WORKS LOW COST LIGHTING MEASURES SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 53 TABLE 32: PUBLIC WORKS MAJOR CAPITAL MEASURES SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 33: PUBLIC WORKS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 55

Note to Readers: To reduce the time commitment of the Reader and to the extent that it is practical, we will only provide detailed descriptions of re-occurring energy conservation measures (ECM’s) for the first building discussed in the Report. When the ECM re-occurs in other buildings we will only include new information and not repeat the whole description. Where individual buildings require solutions that differ from the re-occurring ECM’s the ECM will be fully described.



List of Acronyms

BAS: Building Automation System

BEPI: Building Energy Performance Index

BOMA: Building Owners and Managers Association

CFL: Compact Fluorescent Lamp

CNK: Carbon Neutral Kootenays

DDC: Direct Digital Control

DHW: Domestic Hot Water

ECM: Energy Conservation Measure

EMIS: Energy Monitoring Information System

ESCO: Energy Service Company

GHG: Greenhouse Gas

HDD: Heating Degree Day

HID: High Intensity Discharge

HRV: Heat Recovery Ventilator

HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IRR: Internal Rate of Return

LED: Light-Emitting Diode

MH: Metal Halide

NPV: Net Present Value

NTSB: Nighttime Setback

OAT: Outdoor Air Temperature

OS: Occupancy Sensor

PHT: Predicted High Temperature



1. Background of the Project

SES Consulting Inc. was engaged by the Community Energy Association to provide ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Studies for The District of Sparwood, City of Nelson, The Village of Salmo, City of Grand Forks and the City of Fernie. All five communities are part of the Carbon Neutral Kootenays (CNK) project and they are all signatories to the BC Climate Action Charter. SES Consulting’s approach to this diverse set of facilities and communities was to analyse each specific site for conservation opportunities and then to characterise the conservation opportunities in a way that would facilitate collaboration between communities, reduce procurement costs, allow for coordination of implementation and offer opportunities for demonstration of local leadership in sustainability. Other considerations that SES included are for the improvement of facility condition assessments, increased occupant comfort and ease of on-going maintenance of the proposed system improvements

2. Methodology

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate opportunities to significantly reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption at these facilities. To do this we have gathered up-to-date site equipment information from the mechanical, lighting and electrical systems that emit Greenhouse Gases and consume significant amounts of energy. We then analysed the utility billing history for each site, if available, and estimated an energy balance to understand the breakdown of usage for each of the systems in each facility. Beyond that we created a list of potential conservation projects and evaluated the business case associated with these ideas. Project Costs are estimated, GHG emissions reductions and the energy savings are projected using a combination of reasonable assumptions and spreadsheet based modelling. The water conservation projects are estimated using the USGBC Water Credit calculator used for modelling baseline water use for submission documents.

3. Alternative Energy Options Evaluations

Many alternative energy technologies, such as wind generation, micro-turbine installation, CHP (combined Heat and Power) and Waste to Energy projects are not saleable at this time to the facilities in the scope of this report. We did examine solar domestic hot water systems and solar photovoltaic systems and did not find them to have reasonable payback periods. These could be undertaken as demonstration projects in the future as the technologies come down in cost or if a partner is found to support a project.

4. Implementation Strategies and Utility Incentives

Energy savings are a cash flow projection for recovering costs from implementing ECM’s. It is a serious challenge to assign and commit the capital required to construct the ECM’s needed to conserve the energy to pay for the implementation process. Using existing Operational accounts is difficult as most of these are fixed expenses. Creating new capital projects requires facing some difficult prioritization issues that have political consequences. Looking to utilities is a tried and proven approach to creating additional funding as the utility has an incentive to see its clients consume less energy. Utilities can provide up to 100% for some ECM’s to be implemented, but usually the incentive is in the 10 to 20% range and only fully paid after savings are confirmed. As a result, short term construction financing is still required.

Although government and utility incentive programs are constantly changing and being revised, they continue to be a source of funding for energy projects of all scale. Incentive funding is potentially available from:

1. FortisBC Electric offers a Product Rebate Program for lighting, DDC controls, HVAC equipment and commercial kitchen equipment.

2. FortisBC offers an Efficient Boiler and Water Heater Program natural gas supplied hot water heating equipment.



There are a number of options for whole project financing and implementation that should be considered if currently available capital funding is insufficient to implement the economically viable ECM’s and the chosen demonstration projects. With a credit worthy energy analysis, funding is available from Energy Service Companies (ESCO’s) who provide a wide range of project scope. These firms can deliver turnkey projects with or without savings guarantees or they can provide access to financing only. In the case of the ECM’s identified in this report our recommendation would be to use the financing only services, if required, as that will preserve more capital for ECM implementation projects and greater savings for the local government.

5. Demonstration Projects

Demonstration projects are often costly and difficult to justify on a onetime stand-alone analysis. By building on the economically viable ECM’s we are able to bundle demonstration projects that are revenue neutral on the total budget. We are also recommending using social marketing as a method to guide behavior for increased energy conservation using your own facilities as examples of leadership and energy awareness.

Using an Energy Management Information System to monitor the primary utility meters will provide an opportunity for staff to meet the challenge of reducing consumption within their control. By providing a display screen in the main entrance you can engage the public by providing real time information on your conservation success story.

Social marketing campaigns, for staff engagement, are increasingly seen as the preferred method of maintaining persistence of energy savings after the implementation period has ended. Using communication tools will keep information relevant to conservation goals being presented to your staff. When properly executed social marketing campaigns can provide 3-5% direct savings improvement, but the true value of this program is to avoid preventable slippages in energy savings by operations changes that put the entire project at risk.

A low cost demonstration of conservation and GHG reduction is water conservation. The less water that is heated, pumped and flushed the less cost to the local government for transportation, service piping and treatment charges. Also, the requirement for operating funds and capital funds decreases as water use decreases. Therefore water conservation is one of the low cost demonstration recommendations we are making.

6. Financial Analysis Assumptions

Savings calculations should be considered as estimates as the scope of this study did not include a detailed energy balance against an inventory of building equipment. The savings estimates are based industry accepted methods for a Level I energy assessment.

Our financial analysis is based an annual fuel cost escalation rate of 2.1%, and a conservative discount rate of 7.5%. In the event municipal borrowing costs are lower than assumed here, project economics will improve.

The Net Present Value (NPV) is the best measure of an individual energy conservation measure or a total project’s economics. It is the difference between the present value of ECM or project’s net savings over its useful life expectancy and capital cost. If the NPV is positive, then the project is worth doing because the present value of its net savings is greater that its capital cost. A weighted average life expectancy has been used to analyze the ‘Total’ NPV of projects.

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is equivalent to the average annual rate of return on an investment. If an individual energy conservation measure or a total project’s IRR is greater than the cost of borrowing, the project is worth doing. The IRR is more useful as a measure of overall project economics than it is for comparing the economics of individual measures.

Please note that any incentives that may be available from government or utility incentive programs have not been included in our financial evaluation. This report will be used by the utilities to review the incentive they can contribute for the conservation measures.



Background Description of Facilities

7. Overview and Facility Use for Fire Hall #1

The Fire Hall #1 is located at 479 Pine Avenue in The District of Sparwood. The Fire Hall was recently constructed in 1998, and there have been no major renovations or extensions to date. The current square footage is 8,200 sqft with hose tower and 6 truck bays. The main level consists of the hose tower, truck bays, shop space, equipment storage, kitchen, washrooms, gym area, administration and reception desk. The second level is training, storage, washroom, administration and sleeping space.

The facility operates in a state of full operational readiness without a specific occupancy schedule. On the day of the site visit the facility had 1 occupant.

7.1 Physical Condition

The building systems are in good condition. The truck bay doors are not insulated (Figure 1). The building envelop is in good condition and well maintained.

Figure 1: Fire Hall #1 Un-insulated Truck Bay Doors

7.1.1 Mechanical Systems

7.1.1.1 Heating and Ventilation System

The administration area and training room are air conditioned by two roof top units each providing 115,000 BTUH I/P of heat for the spaces. The truck bays are heated by thermostat controlled ceiling mounted natural gas Infrared heater and a roof mounted make up air unit that supplies 3,400 CFM of fresh air and can provide 374,000 BTUH I/P for space heating.



7.1.1.2 Domestic Hot Water

Two 45,000 BTUH input natural gas water heaters, shown in Figure 2, provides domestic hot water to the building. The piping is exposed and can be insulated to reduce line losses. The two DHW storage tanks appeared to be in good condition.

Figure 2: Fire Hall #1 DHW System

7.1.2 Lighting System

Lighting systems in the building is modern fluorescent T8 technology with motion sensors at the wall switch. In most areas lighting remains on throughout the day. The exit lights (Figure 3) are 50 watt incandescent lamps that are on continuously and they are easily upgraded to 2 watt LED.

Lighting levels in the building were generally very bright and were measured on site in the range of 900 to 1,100 Lux (Figure 4 and Figure 5); we have suggested projects to reduce light levels by 50% in over illuminated areas. A typical work shop or truck bay space would be 150 to 300 lux, with task lighting for specific work areas as needed.

Figure 3: Fire Hall #1 Incandescent Exit Signs



Figure 4: Fire Hall #1 High Illumination Levels Training Room

Figure 5: Fire Hall #1 High Illumination Levels Truck Bays

7.1.3 Mechanical Control Equipment

The building is controlled by residential style thermostats and with no method of providing an occupancy schedule. No time clock was found on site so most equipment is assumed to run continuously unless turned off manually. There are no interlocks to prevent heating from being on when the truck bay doors are open. In all instances the measured truck bay temperature was much higher than the design temperature for a garage space of 18 ºC. The truck bay space temperature setpoint was set at 13 ºC and the measures space temperature was 24.6 ºC (Figure 6). The Hose tower did have electric baseboard heaters and they were set to maintain a low space temperature.



Figure 6: Fire Hall #1 Truck Bay Space Temperature

7.1.4 Plug Load

Major plug load consist vehicle block heaters (winter only), computers, air compressor, office equipment, Vehicle battery charging equipment and kitchen appliances.

7.2 Demonstration Projects

The following are two low cost demonstration projects that are suited to self implementation by in-house maintenance staff.

7.2.1 Water Consumption Systems

Water fixtures in the building are not equipped with low flow devices (Figure 7). We recommend installing faucet aerators (0.03 l/s), low flow shower heads and new low flow toilets (6 litres/flush). Water consumption for the Fire Hall was an estimated 553,000 litres per year. The water use can be reduced by 45% if the simple, low cost measures are implemented.

Figure 7: Fire Hall #1 Existing Water Closet

7.2.2 Social Marketing




7.3 Energy Analysis

7.3.1.1 Historical Data

Table 1 presents the annual average energy consumption based on the historical billing data from 2009 to 2011.

Table 1: Fire Hall #1 Historical Energy Consumption

Fire Station #1 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011Gas 612 699 803 917 $6,757 $8,018 $0.82 $0.98Electricity 248 199 325 262 $6,294 $4,744 $0.77 $0.58Total 860 898 1,128 1,179 $13,051 $12,762 $1.59 $1.56

BEPI (MJ/m2) Cost ($) Cost ($/ft2)Energy Use (GJ)

Figure 8 shows the building’s Building Energy Performance Index (BEPI) compared to benchmark buildings. The Fire Hall has an estimated BEPI of 1128 MJ/m2. This is higher than the NRCan public administration average of 930 MJ/m2 for British Columbia, and close to the national average of 1,220 MJ/m2. These references come from Natural Resources Canada, Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey (2007). Also of note is that the national average for BOMA BESt certified buildings is 1194 MJ/m2

, so while the building is doing well compared with the public administrative class of facilities it should be compared to facilities of similar size and construction. With the current technology in the building it is possible to strive for even better performance.

803

325930

1,220

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Fire Station #1 Average Public Administration Building - BC

Average Public Administration Building -

Canada

BEPI (M

J/m²)

Total

Electricity

Gas

Figure 8: Fire Hall #1 BEPI Comparison



7.3.1.2 Energy Use Profiles

Figure 9 presents the building’s electrical consumption since 2008. This follows a profile with highest usage during the winter months when the heating systems are most active. Electricity use has been consistently increasing since 2008, with a significant jump in 2012.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectricity

Con

sumption (kWh)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 9: Fire Hall #1 Monthly Electrical Consumption

Figure 10 presents gas consumption since for 2011 and 2012. There is a strong seasonal fluctuation and occasional large variations month to month, suggesting an opportunity for improved control of HVAC equipment.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Gas con

sumption (GJ)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 10: Fire Hall #1 Building Monthly Gas Consumption Profile As presented in

Table 2, the gas consumption normalized against heating degree days (HDD) has remained mostly consistent over the past 2 years. The summer months gas consumption is the base load for heating domestic hot water and is about 7% of total gas use.Significant gas savings can be achieved through increased automation of controls and implementation of advanced DDC strategies, as will be presented later in this report.



Table 2: Fire Hall #1 Normalized Gas Consumption

Year GJ HDD GJ/HDD2011 699 3,700 0.192012 612 3,630 0.17

7.3.1.3 End Use Breakdown

Our estimated percentage of electricity consumption by building system is presented in Figure 11. This ballpark breakdown is based on very rough estimates based on a thorough site visit and our experience doing energy audits on hundreds of buildings. These ratios have been used to estimate savings from measures associated with these systems. This methodology is valuable for the process of discussing ideas in the ASHRAE Level 1 scope, but it should not be considered as an accurate evaluation of actual system operations as these are rough estimates. We estimate that largest end uses of electrical energy in the building are lighting, ventilation, and plug load, which make up 40% (lighting) and 20% (each ventilation and plug load) of consumption respectively. Electric heat and the AC system represent 15% and 5% of the load respectively.

Ventilation20%

Electric heating15%

Plug Load20%

Lighting40%

AC System5%

Figure 11: Fire Hall #1 Electricity Consumption



The estimated percentage of total energy consumption by building system is presented in Figure 12. Heating energy consumption from the RTUs and radiant heaters makes up the majority of energy use in the building at approximately75% of overall energy consumption. DHW has a small load at 5% of total energy use or 7% of gas use in the Fire Hall. The truck bays radiant heaters consume 60% of the gas and this is a very significant load representing very high operating times for this equipment. Lighting, ventilation, and plug load make up 8% and 4% each (ventilation and plug load) followed by electric heating and the AC system.

Ventilation4%

Electric heating3%

Plug Load4%

Lighting9%

AC System1%

RTU Gas Heating27%Domestic hot

water5%

Supplemental gas heating

47%

Figure 12: Fire Hall #1 Electricity and Gas Consumption

7.4 Conservation Opportunities

A primary objective of this study was to identify and analyse energy conservation opportunities at the Fire Hall. The rate schedules used in this analysis for financial savings estimates are presented in Table 3. The financial savings estimates include GST. Both electricity and gas rates are based on billing data from January 2009 to April 2012. Estimated electricity savings therefore represent both consumption and demand savings. For Greenhouse Gas estimates, we have used emissions factors of 6 tCO2e / GWh of electricity FortisBC, and 0.0503 tCO2e/GJ for natural gas.

Table 3: Fire Hall #1 Rate Schedules

UtilityElectricity

Marginal Consumption $0.108 / kWh (inc taxes)

GasRecent Gas Consumption $13.43 / GJ (inc taxes)

Rate

A number of potential conservation opportunities have been analyzed and are presented in

Table 4. A detailed explanation as well as an estimated cost and energy saving potential are summarized in the following sections.




Table 4: Fire Hall #1 Project Summary

Measure Capital Cost Savings Electricity Gas Payback BEPI GHGDescription (kWh) (GJ) MJ / m² (Tonnes)BAS System Measures $7,800 $2,000 1,600 130 3.9 180 6.6

Building System Optimization Measures $500 $620 1,000 30 0.8 40 1.6

Low Cost Lighting Measures $800 $690 6,700 - 1.2 30 0.1

Major Capital Measures $1,300 $300 2,400 - 4.3 10 -

Project Total $10,400 $3,610 11,700 160 2.9 270 8.3

Annual Savings

7.4.1 Low Cost Measures

A summary of the analysis for the recommended low cost measures are presented in the following tables. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

7.4.1.1 Web based Building Automation System

The building controls at the Fire Hall #1 are not sophisticated enough to meet the needs of the occupants. The current controls are not able to maintain reliable space temperatures nor to meet the requirements for energy and GHG emissions reductions that are the purpose of this energy analysis. See Figure 6 for an example of setpoints being far off control points

We highly recommend the installation of a standardised BAS control system for all the facilities. The system should be simple, web based and low cost. The market for systems that can be applied to small facilities has grown and there are products available that can meet the requirements of organizations that do not have the resources to operate and maintain demanding systems. There are several products on the market that are wireless and require little in the way on on-going maintenance after initial set up and commissioning. These new web based systems reduce the cost of maintenance because they can be remotely interrogated and many issues can be resolved on line without a costly trouble call out. An analysis of projects possible with the installation of a BAS is presented in Table 5, and a detailed description of these measures follows. The BAS System cost is for the network devices and system controllers that are necessary to support the energy saving control strategies described below.

Table 5: Fire Hall #1 BAS System Measures

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$5,000

$500 1.3 $400 20 600 1.2$500 1.0 $500 30 400 1.7$500 1.3 $400 30 300 1.3$500 1.9 $300 20 200 0.9$500 2.9 $200 10 100 0.6$300 1.0 $200 20 - 0.9

$7,800 3.9 $2,000 130 1,600 6.6Total

BAS SystemOAT Lockout/Weather PredictorEliminate Heat/Cool ConflictOptimal Start/Advanced Morning Warmup

Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback

Annual SavingsDescription

Security System InterconnectionTruck Bay Door Lockout

• Outdoor air temperature (OAT) lockout and predicted high temperature (PHT) lockout: If the

control equipment is upgraded then implementing an (OAT) lockout would disable furnaces when OAT is greater than 15°C. PHT lockout estimates the daily high temperature early in the morning before operating schedule starts, and locks out heating systems when the predicted high temperature will be



warmer than 21ºC (adjustable). These strategies will greatly reduce unnecessary heating on warm days while maintaining occupant comfort.

• Eliminate Heat/Cool conflicts: Interlocks are needed to prevent the heating system, electric baseboard and air conditioning equipment from operating at the same time, with one system trying to heat the space while the other is trying to cool the space. This will allow for better temperature control of offices and reduce energy use when systems are in shoulder seasons or in enhanced warm-up mode.

• Optimal Start and Enhanced Warm-up. In conjunction with the security system connection measure, it is recommended that optimal start programming be added. The optimal start routine evaluates the difference between space temperature and set point several hours before the schedule begins and decides how early to start up the furnaces in order to achieve desirable space conditions at the beginning of the schedule. This measure allows the schedules to not begin until the spaces are actually occupied to prevent unnecessary heating or cooling.

• Security system Interconnection. Setback the space temperatures whenever the building is un-occupied and the security system is armed.

• Truck Bay Door Heating System Lock Out. Install and commission end switches on the truck bay doors to lock out the space heating and Make Up Air fan whenever a door is open.

• Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback. The Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank temperature can be setback during un-occupied periods and programmed to be at the required temperature just prior to the scheduled occupancy.

7.4.1.2 Building System Optimization

A number of additional low cost efficiency improvements were also identified at this site. These measures are analysed in Table 6, and a detailed description follows.

Table 6: Fire Hall #1 Building System Optimization Measures

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$200 1.2 $200 10 - 0.6$100 0.2 $300 20 - 1.0$100 2.1 $50 - 400 - $100 1.5 $70 - 600 - $500 0.8 $620 30 1,000 1.6

DescriptionAnnual Savings

Domestic Hot Water Pipe InsulationPotable Water Use ReductionComputer & Plug Load SavingsOccupant EngagementTotal

• Domestic Hot Water Storage: The DHW exposed hot water piping should be insulated. • Domestic Water System: When the facility is occupied there is as a high demand for water use.

Replacing toilets with low flow alternatives is recommended. Installing low flow devices on all kitchen sinks, lavatories and urinals is recommended as a Demonstration project to promote conservation.

• Computer and Monitor: Turn off monitors and implement energy saving software on computers. • Plug Load: Ensure the rescue vehicle battery chargers are switch mode chargers rather than linear

type. The Switch Mode style of battery chargers are more energy efficient, have shorter charge times and generate less heat. Provide intelligent power strips for the audio visual equipment, bench tools, kitchen appliances such as coffee makers, microwaves and Beverage coolers. In each application attention must be paid to selecting the correct power strip for the specific application requirements. This will prevent operational issues that may cause the occupants to disable the power strip functions.

• Occupant Engagement: Energy efficiency strategies will be far more effective if building occupants are included in the process in a series of communications to encourage energy awareness behaviour. We highly recommend an occupant engagement strategy be put in place in order to educate building occupants on the ideas and options for energy conservation in this facility, such as the proper use of power strips, closing window blinds when leaving a room as well as turning out the lights. Research



highlights that occupant engagement enables positive outcomes and culture change that encourages energy efficient behaviour.

7.4.1.3 Low Cost Lighting measures

A summary of the analysis for the recommended low cost lighting measures is presented in Table 7. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

Table 7: Fire Hall #1 Low Cost Lighting Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$100 3.7 $40 - 400 - $500 0.9 $600 - 5,800 0.1$200 4.1 $50 - 500 - $800 1.2 $690 - 6,700 0.1

Washroom OSDelamping and RelampingLED Exit LightsDescription

Annual Savings

Total

7.4.1.4 LED Exit Lights

The existing Exit Lights are of the obsolete incandescent type and can be changed for either the LED or the photo luminescent replacements

7.4.1.5 Lighting De-lamping and Re-lamping

As previously mentioned, measured light levels in the facility is higher than necessary at more than 1100 Lux in some areas. There is significant potential to reduce lighting energy and demand by initiating de-lamping over the entire building. In particular, we noted that there is an opportunity to reduce the light levels in the truck bays and to use multi-level switching increase the illumination when needed for specific tasks. T8 fixtures (4 lamp), which are common throughout the building, offer potential for de-lamping in areas where the current lighting is in excess of those required for the space. In addition, re-lamping should be conducted with lower wattage extended life 25 W T8 lamps with ultra low mercury content. De-lamping would simply involve removing one of the lamps and labeling the fixture with a sticker to ensure it wasn’t replaced by maintenance staff in the future. Offices and corridors throughout the building are also over lit and should be de-lamped. This opportunity is relatively low cost, and will result in very reliable long term energy savings, in addition to increased workplace comfort. In general, overly bright lighting results in eye tension and headaches that impact staff and users, so this is a win-win low cost opportunity. In many areas of the building the lights were on and they were un-occupied.

7.4.1.6 Washroom Occupancy Sensors

We recommend the installation of occupancy sensors for washroom lighting. In addition, in the absence of automated lighting system upgrades staff should be encouraged to manually turn off lights and close window coverings during un-occupied periods.

7.5 Major Capital Measures

A summary of the analysis for the recommended major capital measures is presented in Table 8. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.



Table 8: Fire Hall #1 Major Capital Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$300 5.3 $100 - 500 - $500 4.9 $100 - 900 - $500 4.5 $100 - 1,000 -

$1,300 4.3 $300 - 2,400 -

Annual SavingsDescriptionWinter Vehicle Block Heater ControlEnergy Star AppliancesLighting Control MeasuresTotal

7.5.1 Winter Vehicle Block Heater Control

Vehicle block heaters can be a significant electrical load in winter. To reduce this load we recommend the installation of cycle timers on the parking lot block heater receptacles.

7.5.2 Energy Star Appliances

Energy Star approved appliances can reduce electricity usage by 20 – 30% when compared to conventional appliances. Replace all future dishwashers, microwave ovens, washers, dryers and refrigerators with energy efficient Energy Star approved appliances.

7.5.3 Lighting Control Measures

Inter-locking the lighting system to the security system would provide an effective means of ensuring all lighting is off when the building is un-occupied. Many rooms currently have motion control wall switches and installing these devices on the remaining room wall switches will turn off lights in offices when they are not in use during the day.

Day light harvesting was not an option at this building because the window area is low compared to the office area. There may be some individual offices and areas that can use daylighting for periods of time and building occupants should be advised of this opportunity during training on energy awareness.

A number of other lighting control opportunities also exist. These include:

• Adding a light switch motion sensors in the truck bays, storage areas and offices to turn off lighting when the space is un-occupied.



7.6 Financial Analysis Table 9 presents a financial analysis of the energy and water conservation measures presented above.

Table 9: Fire Hall #1 Financial Analysis Annual Life

Description Cost Payback Savings Expectancy NPV IRRBas System $5,000 10

OAT Lockout/Weather Predictor $500 1.3 $400 10 $2,500 84%Eliminate Heat/Cool Conflict $500 1.0 $500 10 $3,300 104%Optimal Start/Advanced Morning Warmup $500 1.3 $400 10 $2,500 84%Security System Interconnection $500 1.9 $300 10 $1,800 63%Truck Bay Door Lockout $500 2.9 $200 10 $1,000 41%Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback $300 1.0 $200 5 $600 64%

Building SystemsDomestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation $200 1.2 $200 20 $2,200 104%Potable Water Use Reduction $100 0.2 $300 10 $2,200 308%Computer & Plug Load Savings $100 2.1 $50 4 $100 38%Occupant Engagement $100 1.5 $70 2 $30 28%

Low Cost LightingLED Exit Lights $100 3.7 $40 20 $400 43%Delamping and Relamping $500 0.9 $600 10 $4,100 125%Washroom OS $200 4.1 $50 10 $200 24%

Major CapitalWinter Vehicle Block Heater Control $300 5.3 $100 14 $700 35%Energy Star Appliances $500 4.9 $100 10 $300 18%Lighting Control Measures $500 4.5 $100 10 $300 18%

Total Recommendations $10,400 2.9 $3,610 10.1 $17,100 35%

Our financial analysis is based an annual fuel cost escalation rate of 2.1%, and a and a conservative discount rate of 7.5%. In the event municipal borrowing costs are lower than assumed here, project economics will improve. Please note that a weighted average life expectancy has been used to analyze the ‘Total’ NPV of these projects.

In particular, the low cost projects involving controls optimization, and lighting re-lamping and de-lamping have very attractive Net Present Value, and are highly recommended.



8. Overview and Facility Use the Fire Hall #2

The Fire Hall #2 is located at 1391 Ponderosa Avenue in The District of Sparwood. The Fire Hall is a concrete block building that has been well maintained and that has extended the working life of this facility. The original building was constructed in 1986. The current square footage is 2,400 sqft with a useable mezzanine for storage. The main level consists of the truck bays, shop space, equipment storage, washrooms, administration and reception desk. The second level a mezzanine space used for storage.

The facility operates in a state of full operational readiness without a specific occupancy schedule. On the day of the site visit the facility had no occupants.

8.1.1 Physical Condition

The building systems are in generally fair condition. The truck bay doors have been replaced and are not insulated. In general the envelope is in good condition from a ventilation perspective (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Fire Hall #2

8.1.2 Mechanical Systems

8.1.2.1 Heating and Ventilation System

The building is heated by a standard efficiency ceiling mounted natural gas Unit Heater. The 3 truck bays are heated by thermostat mounted on the outside wall. The outdoor air temperature was 3°C, the thermostat set point was 15°C and the space temperature was 17°C. The Unit Heater was short cycling for the duration of the site visit.

8.1.2.2 Domestic Hot Water

One 50 gallon, 6,000 watt, 240 volt, electric water heater provides domestic hot water to the building. The piping is exposed and can be insulated to reduce line losses.


Lighting systems in the building is obsolete fluorescent T12 technology and should be changed as soon as possible to conform to the T8 standard in the other buildings. This will reduce maintenance stocking costs for inventory. The lighting is controlled by room wall switches. In all areas lighting remains off throughout the day, no emergency lighting was on.

Lighting levels in the building were consistent with the IES guidelines for the type of space uses found in a fire hall.




The building is controlled by residential style thermostat located on the outside wall. This will cause the temperature to over shot in the space and the Unit Heater will consume excess fuel. No time clock was found on site so most equipment is assumed to run continuously unless turned off manually. Generally indoor space temperatures were within the comfort range of 17 to 21 ºC depending on the area use. There is one unheated storage space.

The Domestic hot water tank is a major consumer of electricity and can be setback during periods of no occupancy.

8.1.5 Plug Load

Major plug load consist vehicle block heaters (winter only), bench tools, air compressor and Vehicle battery charging equipment.


Water fixtures in the building are not equipped with low flow devices. We recommend installing faucet aerators (0.03l/s) and new low flow toilets (6 litres/flush). The site is paved with asphalt and there is no or little landscaping that requires water.


The following are two low cost demonstration projects that are suited to self implementation by the staff on site at the facilities.

8.2.1.1 Water Consumption Systems

Water fixtures in the building are not equipped with low flow devices. We recommend installing faucet aerators (0.03 l/s), and a new low flow toilets (6 litres/flush). Water consumption for the Fire Hall was an estimated 33,000 litres per year. The water use can be reduced by 45% if the simple, low cost measures are implemented.

8.2.1.2 Social Marketing


8.3 Energy Analysis

8.3.1 Historical Data




Table 10: Fire Hall #2 Historical Energy Consumption

Fire Station #2 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011Gas 162 221 727 993 $45,396 $47,767 $18.91 $19.90Electricity 25 30 110 135 $678 $773 $0.28 $0.32

Total 187 252 837 1,128 $46,074 $48,541 $19.20 $20.23


Figure 14 shows the building’s Building Energy Performance Index (BEPI) compared to benchmark buildings. The Fire Hall has an estimated BEPI of 945 MJ/m2. This is close to the NRCan public administration average of 930 MJ/m2 for British Columbia, and better than the national average of 1,220 MJ/m2. These references come from Natural Resources Canada, Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey (2007). Also of note is that the national average for BOMA BESt certified buildings is 1194 MJ/m2

, so while the building is doing well compared with the public administrative class of facilities it should be noted that the natural gas consumption is much higher than was expected form a building of this type. Further investigation is warranted as savings will be significant.

727

110930

1,220

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Fire Station #2 Average Public Administration Building - BC


Canada

BEPI (MJ/m²)

Total

Electricity

Gas

Figure 14: Fire Hall #2 BEPI Comparison




Figure 15 presents the building’s electrical consumption since 2008. This follows a profile with highest usage during the winter months when the heating systems are most active.

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000


Electricity Co

nsum

ption (kWh)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 15: Fire Hall #2 Monthly Electrical Consumption

Figure 16 presents gas consumption for 2011 and 2012. There is a strong seasonal fluctuation and occasional large variations month to month, suggesting an opportunity for improved control of HVAC equipment. Gas consumption has dropped significantly during 2012.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Gas con

sumption (GJ)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 16: Fire Hall #2 Building Monthly Gas Consumption Profile



As presented in Table 11, the gas consumption normalized against heating degree days (HDD) has declined over the past 2 years. Still, significant gas savings can be achieved through increased automation of controls and implementation of advanced DDC strategies, as will be presented later in this report.

Table 11: Fire Hall #2 Normalized Gas Consumption

Year GJ HDD GJ/HDD2011 221 3,700 0.06 2012 162 3,630 0.04


Our estimated percentage of electricity consumption by building system is presented in Figure 17. This ballpark breakdown is based on very rough estimates based on a thorough site visit and our experience doing energy audits on hundreds of buildings. These ratios have been used to estimate savings from measures associated with these systems. This methodology is valuable for the process of discussing ideas in the ASHRAE Level 1 scope, but it should not be considered as an accurate evaluation of actual system operations as these are rough estimates. We estimate that largest end uses of electrical energy in the building is lighting at 40%, followed by electric heating at 30%, plug load at 20% and domestic hot water at 10%.

Electric heating30%

Domestic hot water10%Plug Load

20%

Lighting40%

Figure 17: Fire Hall #2 Electricity Consumption



The estimated percentage of total energy consumption by building system is presented in Figure 18. Heating energy consumption makes up the majority of energy use in the building at 88% of overall energy consumption.

Electric heating4%

Domestic hot water1%

Plug Load2%

Lighting5%

Supplemental Gas Heating

88%

Figure 18: Fire Hall #2 Electricity and Gas Consumption

A number of potential conservation opportunities have been analyzed and are presented in Table 12. A detailed explanation as well as an estimated cost and energy saving potential are summarized in the following sections.


Table 12: Fire Hall #2 Project Summary

Measure Capital Cost Savings Electricity Gas Payback BEPI GHGDescription (kWh) (GJ) MJ / m² (Tonnes)BAS System Measures $2,900 $1,020 900 70 2.8 330 3.1Building System Optimization Measures $800 $136 450 - 5.9 10 0.2

Low Cost Lighting Measures $300 $40 400 - 7.5 10 -

Major Capital Measures $5,700 $444 2,000 20 12.8 120 1.1

Project Total $9,700 $1,640 3,750 90 5.9 460 4.4

Annual Savings


A summary of the analysis for the recommended low cost measures is presented below.




We highly recommend the installation of a standardised BAS control system for all the facilities. The system should be simple, web based and low cost. The market for systems that can be applied to small facilities has grown and there are products available that can meet the requirements of organizations that do not have the resources to operate and maintain demanding systems. There are several products on the market that are wireless and require little in the way on on-going maintenance after initial set up and commissioning. An analysis of projects possible with the installation of a BAS is presented in Table 13, and a detailed description of these measures follows.

Table 13: Fire Hall #2 BAS System Measures

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$1,200

$500 5.0 $100 10 100 0.3$200 0.8 $300 20 200 0.9$300 1.1 $300 20 200 1.0$500 2.0 $300 20 200 0.9$200 9.2 $20 - 200 -

$2,900 2.8 $1,020 70 900 3.1

Annual SavingsDescriptionBAS SystemOAT Lockout/Weather PredictorOptimal Start/Advanced Morning WarmupSecurity System InterconnectionTruck Bay Door LockoutDomestic Hot Water Tank SetbackTotal • Outdoor air temperature (OAT) lockout and predicted high temperature (PHT) lockout: If the

control equipment is upgraded then implementing an (OAT) lockout would disable furnaces when OAT is greater than 15°C. PHT lockout estimates the daily high temperature early in the morning before operating schedule starts, and locks out heating systems when the predicted high temperature will be warmer than 21ºC (adjustable). These strategies will greatly reduce unnecessary heating on warm days while maintaining occupant comfort.

• Optimal Start and Enhanced Warm-up: In conjunction with the security system connection measure, it is recommended that optimal start programming be added. The optimal start routine evaluates the difference between space temperature and set point several hours before the schedule begins and decides how early to start up the furnaces in order to achieve desirable space conditions at the beginning of the schedule. This measure allows the schedules to not begin until the spaces are actually occupied to prevent unnecessary heating or cooling.

• Security system Interconnection: Setback the space temperatures, turn off all interior lights and Domestic Hot Water Tank whenever the building is un-occupied and the security system is armed.

• Truck Bay Door Lock Out End Switches: Install end switches on the truck bay doors to lock out the space heating whenever the door is open.If no activity is sensed in a space the temperature will re-set to un-occupied mode. This will prevent spaces from being heated when they are un-occupied for long lengths of time.

• Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback: The Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank temperature can be setback during un-occupied periods and programmed to be at the required temperature just prior to the scheduled occupancy. Adding additional insulation to the tank will enhance the energy savings of this measure.





Table 14: Fire Hall #2 Building System Optimization Measures

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$200 20.5 $10 - 100 - $100 9.0 $6 - 50 - $300 4.4 $100 - 100 0.2$100 9.6 $10 - 100 - $100 9.8 $10 - 100 - $800 5.9 $136 - 450 0.2

Building Envelope Sealing

Annual SavingsDescriptionDomestic Hot Water Pipe InsulationPotable Water Use Reduction

Computer & Plug Load SavingsOccupant EngagementTotal

• Domestic Hot Water Storage: The DHW storage tank should be insulated and the exposed hot water piping should be insulated. The DHW is electric and the demand is low, therefore the storage tank can be scheduled for setback operation during un-occupied periods.

• Domestic Water System: When the facility is occupied there is as a high demand for water use. Replacing the lavatory faucet and the toilet with a low flow alternative is recommended. Installing low flow devices on all.

• Building Envelop Sealing: Ensuring that building envelop penetrations are sealed and water tight will reduce loss of heated air in winter.

• Plug Load: Ensure the rescue vehicle battery chargers are switch mode chargers rather than linear type. The Switch Mode chargers are more efficient and generate less heat.

• Occupant Engagement: Energy efficiency strategies will be far more effective if building occupants are included in the process in a series of communications to encourage energy awareness behaviour. We highly recommend an occupant engagement strategy be put in place in order to educate building occupants on the ideas and options for energy conservation in this facility, such as the proper use of power strips, closing window blinds when leaving a room as well as turning out the lights. Research highlights that occupant engagement enables positive outcomes and culture change that encourages energy efficient behaviour.


A summary of the analysis for the recommended lighting measures is presented in Table 15. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

Table 15: Fire Hall #2 Lighting Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$100 5.0 $20 - 200 - $200 9.2 $20 - 200 - $300 7.5 $40 - 400 -

Annual Savings

DelampingWashroom OS

Description

Total

8.3.2.4 Lighting De-lamping

There is a potential to reduce lighting energy and demand by initiating re-lamping over the entire building. De-lamping would simply involve removing one of the lamps and labeling the fixture with a sticker to ensure it wasn’t replaced by maintenance staff in the future. This opportunity is relatively low cost, and will result in very reliable long term energy savings, in addition to increased workplace comfort. In general, overly bright lighting results in eye tension and headaches that impact staff and users, so this is a win-win low cost opportunity. In many areas of the building the lights were on and they were un-occupied.



8.3.2.5 Washroom OS

We recommend the installation of occupancy sensors for washroom lighting. In addition, in the absence of automated lighting system upgrades staff should be encouraged to manually turn off lights and close window coverings during un-occupied periods.



Table 16: Fire Hall #2 Major Capital Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$3,500 10.5 $300 20 300 1.1

$300 12.5 $24 - 200 - $1,700 12.7 $100 - 1,300 -

$200 9.8 $20 - 200 - $5,700 12.8 $444 20 2,000 1.1

Winter Vehicle Block Heater Control

DescriptionCondensing Unit Heater

Lighting Control MeasuresTotal

Annual Savings

T12 Retrofit

8.4.1 Condensing Unit Heater upgrade

Heating is by far the largest end use of energy in the building. The existing Unit Heater is original and nearing end of life. The unit heater is in need of major servicing at this point and replacement is a consideration. In order to improve the efficiency of the system the Unit Heater could be upgraded to a high efficiency condensing model.


Vehicle block heaters can be a significant electrical load in winter. To reduce this load we recommend the installation of cycle timers on the block heater receptacles.

8.4.3 T12 Retrofit

There is significant potential to reduce lighting energy and demand by upgrading the building’s T12 fixtures. Re-lamping should be conducted with lower wattage extended life 25 W T8 lamps with ultra low mercury content.





8.5 Financial Analysis

Table 17 presents a financial analysis of the energy and water conservation measures presented above.

Table 17: Fire Hall #2 Financial Analysis

Annual LifeItem Description Cost Payback Savings Expectancy NPV IRR

Bas System $1,200 104.2.1 OAT Lockout/Weather Predictor $500 5.0 $100 10 $300 18%4.2.2 Optimal Start/Advanced Morning Warmup $200 0.8 $300 10 $2,100 155%4.2.3 Security System Interconnection $300 1.1 $300 10 $2,000 104%4.2.4 Truck Bay Door Lockout $500 2.0 $300 10 $1,800 63%4.2.5 Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback $200 9.2 $20 5 ($100) -18%

($100)($100) -6%

($100) -27%($100)

($50)

($600)($100) -2%($900) -7%($50)

($600)

Building Systems4.2.6 Domestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation $200 20.5 $10 20 2%4.2.7 Potable Water Use Reduction $100 9.0 $6 104.2.8 Building Envelope Sealing $300 4.4 $100 10 $500 34%4.2.9 Computer & Plug Load Savings $100 9.6 $10 44.2.10 Occupant Engagement $100 9.8 $10 2

Low Cost Lighting4.2.11 Delamping $100 5.0 $20 10 $100 18%4.2.12 Washroom OS $200 9.2 $20 10 2%

Major Capital4.2.13 Condensing Unit Heater $3,500 10.5 $300 14 5%4.2.14 Winter Vehicle Block Heater Control $300 12.5 $24 104.2.15 T12 Retrofit $1,700 12.7 $100 104.2.16 Lighting Control Measures $200 9.8 $20 10 2%

Total Recommendations $9,700 5.9 $1,640 11.4 5%

Our financial analysis is based an annual fuel cost escalation rate of 2.1%, and a conservative discount rate of 7.5%. In the event municipal borrowing costs are lower than assumed here, project economics will improve. Please note that a weighted average life expectancy has been used to analyze the ‘Total’ NPV of these projects.

In particular, the low cost projects involving controls optimization, Building Sealing to prevent air infiltration and lighting de-lamping have very attractive Net Present Value, and are justifiable on their own merits. The Condensing Unit Heater, DHW conservation ECM’s, plug load reduction and the Lighting fixture upgrade from T12 to T8 are still important to do, and some such as the Unit Heater and the T12 replacements may be required to do.

We recommend the entire bundle in Table 17 be done as a comprehensive package, to take advantage of the synergies between the saving for the ECM’s and to gain the benefits of economies of scale large projects have over smaller projects.



9. Overview and Facility Use for Pump Houses and Lift Stations

The Pump Houses 1, 2, 3, Buckthorn and Water Treatment Lift Stations are located in the District of Sparwood. All these buildings are of similar construction, concrete block and similar size, 76 sqft to 572 sqft. None have been renovated and maintenance requirements are minimal as the building service systems are very simple. The buildings are typically windowless with one entry door. They have electric baseboard heaters, gas fired Unit Heaters, furnaces and exhaust fans as typical heating and ventilation equipment.


The building systems are in generally fair to good condition. The doors seals were showing signs of wear, but not ready for replacement. The buildings were un-insulated. The building envelop did have a number of through the wall penetrations that should be sealed to prevent leakage of heated air from the building, in general the envelope is in fair condition from a ventilation perspective.

9.2 Mechanical Systems

9.2.1 Heating and Ventilation System

The Pump Houses and Lift Stations are heated by natural gas residential style standard efficiency furnaces and Unit Heaters. As well there are electric baseboard heaters that are controlled by internal thermostats. The Exhaust Fans provide ventilation cooling and are controlled by a thermostat with an adjustable setpoint.

9.2.2 Domestic Hot Water

Three of the stations have lavatories and small domestic hot water tanks (electric).The Typical Domestic Hot Water tank is electric 14 to 28 litres capacity and 1500 watts. These units usually service 1 lavatory for hand washing. There is no setback or standby mode; therefore these units operate at full capacity year round.


The lighting system in the buildings is obsolete fluorescent T12 technology. The exterior lighting was provided by HID wall packs. At two stations the exterior lights were on during the day when there was sufficient ambient light. All lighting is controlled by wall switches. In most areas lighting remains off throughout the day and is on only when there is activity in the building. The light levels at the stations ranged from 300 to 800 Lux. In general the spaces are over illuminated for the general use and task lighting should be used when required. There were no motion sensors or interlocks to security systems at any of the stations.


The each building is controlled by a residential style thermostat. No time clock was found on site so most equipment is assumed to run continuously unless turned off manually. The interlocks to co-ordinate heating and cooling (by the Exhaust Fan) are not consistent with the objective of stopping the heating cycle and starting the cooling cycle. There are conflicting set points that cause the sequence of operations to fail. In all buildings the space temperature was much higher than the thermostat setpoint. This would cause the exhaust fan to come on in cooling mode and force the heating system to operate at full capacity as the outdoor air temperature was 3ºC at the time of the site inspection. Some of the electric heaters had concealed thermostat setpoints and it could not be determined if they were operating correctly.



9.2.5 Process Loads

The largest electricity consumption in the Pump Houses is the pumping process itself. This area of investigation is out of scope for this study, but it should be considered in the future and could be included as part of an implementation strategy for project arising out of this report. We have recommended VFD’s for process pumps on other sites when, after investigation, it is determined that the pumping load requirements are variable.

9.3 Energy Analysis


Table 18 presents the annual average energy consumption based on the historical billing data from 20011 to 2012. Consumption is presented here as an estimated 6% of total consumption; the remainder due to the process loads.

Table 18: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Historical Energy Consumption

2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011Gas 1,044 1,188 7,245 8,244 $12,039 $14,478 $7.76 $9.34Electricity 119 139 828 964 $2,728 $2,930 $1.76 $1.89

Total 1,164 1,327 8,073 9,208 $14,766 $17,409 $9.52 $11.23

Energy Use (GJ) BEPI (MJ/m2) Cost ($) Cost ($/ft2)Pumphouses & Liftstations

Figure 19 shows the building’s Building Energy Performance Index (BEPI) compared to benchmark buildings. The pumping houses and lift stations have an estimated combined BEPI of between 21,000 and 25,000 MJ/m2. This extremely high value compared to other municipal facilities is due to the large pumping process load and un-insulated structures. With the current technology in the building it is possible to strive for significantly improved performance.

7,245

828

930 1,220

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Pumphouses & Liftstations Average Public Administration Building - BC


Canada

BEPI (M

J/m²)

Total

Electricity

Gas

Figure 19: Pump Houses and Lift Stations BEPI Comparison

9.3.2 Energy Use Profiles

Figure 20 presents the building’s electrical consumption since 2008. This follows a profile with highest usage during the summer months when ventilation fans are most active. Electricity use has been largely consistent over the past several years.



0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000


Electricity Co

nsum

ption (kWh)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 20: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Monthly Electrical Consumption

Figure 21 presents gas consumption since 2011. There is a strong seasonal fluctuation and occasional large variations month to month, suggesting an opportunity for improved control of HVAC equipment. Gas consumption has remained constant over the past 2 years.

0

50

100

150

200

250


Gas con

sumption (GJ)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 21: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Building Monthly Gas Consumption Profile



As presented in Table 19 the gas consumption normalized against heating degree days (HDD) has remained constant. The Average Monthly Temperature in Sparwood is above 50C from May to October, during this period there should be no gas consumed in the Pumphouses. Significant gas savings can be achieved through increased automation of controls and implementation of advanced DDC strategies, as will be presented later in this report.

Table 19: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Normalized Gas Consumption Year GJ HDD GJ/HDD

2011 1,188 3,700 0.32 2012 1,044 3,630 0.32

9.3.3 End Use Breakdown

Our estimated percentage of electricity consumption by building system is presented in Figure 22. This breakdown is based on estimates based on a thorough site visit and our experience doing energy audits on hundreds of buildings. These ratios have been used to estimate savings from measures associated with these systems. This methodology is valuable for the process of discussing ideas in the ASHRAE Level 1 scope, but it should not be considered as an accurate evaluation of actual system operations as these are rough estimates. We estimate that largest end use of electrical energy in the building is the process load at 80 to 90% of consumption. In order to see the consumption of the building service systems we have removed the process load from the end use analysis. Lighting is the next largest load at 40%, followed by electric heating, Domestic Hot Water and the Exhaust Fan Cooling system (see AC system below).

Electric heating40%


AC system10%

Lighting40%

Figure 22: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Electricity Consumption



The estimated percentage of total energy consumption by building system is presented in Table 25. Heating energy consumption represents 90% of overall consumption. Pumping process loads represent 80 to 90% of the total energy use, to be able to see the other energy uses wehave excluded process load from the end use analysis. Therefore we are only displaying the consumption of lighting, electric heating, domestic hot water and the Exhaust Fan Cooling systems below. Note the disporpotionate gas usage, this is a major conservation opportunity.

Electric heating4%

Domestic hot water1% AC system

1%Lighting4%

Gas boiler90%

Figure 23: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Electricity and Gas Consumption




Table 20: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Summary

Measure Capital Cost Savings Electricity Gas Payback BEPI GHGDescription (kWh) (GJ) MJ / m² (Tonnes)BAS System Measures $13,800 $6,900 6,100 460 2.0 3,340 23.2

Building System Optimization Measures $1,800 $620 1,300 40 2.9 310 1.8

Low Cost Lighting Measures $600 $170 1,600 - 3.5 40 -

Major Capital Measures $17,200 $2,430 5,600 140 7.1 1,110 6.9

Project Total $33,400 $10,120 14,600 640 3.3 4,810 31.9

Annual Savings






We highly recommend the installation of a standardised BAS control system for all the facilities. The system should be simple, web based and low cost. The market for systems that can be applied to small facilities has grown and there are products available that can meet the requirements of organizations that do not have the resources to operate and maintain demanding systems. There are several products on the market that are wireless and require little in the way on on-going maintenance after initial set up and commissioning. An analysis of projects possible with the installation of a BAS is presented in Table 21, and a detailed description of these measures follows.

Table 21: Pump Houses and Lift Stations BAS Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$8,200 $1,200 1.0 $1,200 70 2,600 3.6$2,200 0.5 $4,700 330 2,100 16.6

$500 0.9 $600 40 500 1.9$500 1.5 $300 20 300 1.1

$1,200 19.4 $100 - 600 - $13,800 2.0 $6,900 460 6,100 23.2

Description

Domestic Hot Water Tank SetbackTotal

Security System Interconnection

Annual Savings

BAS SystemOAT Lockout/Weather PredictorEliminate Heat/Cool ConflictReduce Setpoints

• Outdoor air temperature (OAT) lockout and predicted high temperature (PHT) lockout: If the

control equipment is upgraded then implementing an (OAT) lockout would disable furnaces when OAT is greater than 15°C. PHT lockout estimates the daily high temperature early in the morning before operating schedule starts, and locks out heating systems when the predicted high temperature will be warmer than 21ºC (adjustable). These strategies will greatly reduce unnecessary heating on warm days while maintaining occupant comfort.

• Eliminate Heat/Cool conflicts: Interlocks are needed to prevent the heating system and the exhaust fan system from operating at inappropriate times, with one system trying to heat the space while the other is trying to cool the space. This will allow for better temperature control of space and reduce energy use when systems are in shoulder seasons or in enhanced warm-up mode.

• Reduced indoor air temperature setpoints: Set baseboard and furnace to exactly the same temperature and then lock them in position. Space setpoints could be revised lower and within ASHRAE recommended levels of 16ºC for heating and 26ºC for cooling for this type of building.

• Security system Interconnection: Setback the space temperatures whenever the building is un-occupied and the security system is armed.

• Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback: The Domestic Hot Water Storage Tanks temperature can be setback during un-occupied periods and programmed to be at the required temperature just prior to the scheduled occupancy.



9.4.2 Building System Optimization


Table 22: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Building Optimization Systems Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$300 4.8 $100 - 600 -

$1,300 2.4 $500 40 500 1.8$200 8.4 $20 - 200 -

$1,800 2.9 $620 40 1,300 1.8Occupant EngagementTotal

Annual SavingsDescriptionDomestic Hot Water Pipe InsulationBuilding Envelope Sealing

• Domestic Hot Water Storage: The DHW storage tanks should be replaced on the next lifecycle

change with an instantaneous water heater located at the point of use. In the mean time the DHW is electric and the demand is low, therefore the storage tank can be scheduled for setback operation during un-occupied periods. It may be possible to remove the lavatory and use industrial strength environmentally friendly hand cleaner stations instead of hot water and lavatories.

• Building Envelop Sealing: Ensuring that building envelop penetrations are sealed and water tight will reduce loss of heated air in winter.

• Occupant Engagement: Energy efficiency strategies will be far more effective if building users are included in the process in a series of communications to encourage energy awareness behavior.

9.4.3 Low Cost Lighting measures

A summary of the analysis for the recommended lighting measures is presented in Table 23. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

Table 23: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Lighting Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$600 3.4 $170 - 1,600 - $600 3.5 $170 - 1,600 -

Annual SavingsDescriptionDelampingTotal

9.4.3.1 Lighting De-lamping and Re-lamping

As previously mentioned, measured light levels in the facility is higher than necessary at more than 700 Lux in areas that generally do not require that level of illumination. There is significant potential to reduce lighting energy and demand by initiating de-lamping over each building. De-lamping would simply involve removing one of the lamps and labeling the fixture with a sticker to alert future maintenance that the fixture is intentionally de-lamped and they are not replace the missing lamp. Lowering the light levels can be achieved by providing portable task lighting or switchable multi-level lighting for the pump houses.




A summary of the analysis of the total costs for the recommended major capital measures is presented in Table 24. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

Table 24: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Major Capital Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$15,000 7.5 $2,000 140 1,800 6.8$1,400 3.8 $400 - 3,500 0.1

$800 26.0 $30 - 300 - $17,200 7.1 $2,430 140 5,600 6.9

Annual SavingsDescriptionCondensing Unit HeaterT12 RetrofitLighting Control MeasuresTotal

9.5.1 Condensing furnace and Unit Heater upgrade

Heating is the largest end use of energy in the buildings next to pumping energy. Although the existing furnaces and unit heaters are in fair condition, they should be planed for up grading at the next major repair or change out. Given the age of the equipment it is unlikely they would pass a heat exchanger test and this should be considered when evaluating this ECM. In order to improve the efficiency of the system the equipment should be upgraded to a high efficiency condensing models.

9.5.2 T12 Retrofit







Table 25 presents a financial analysis of the energy conservation measures presented above.

Table 25: Pump Houses and Lift Stations Financial Analysis Annual Life

Description Cost Payback Savings Expectancy NPV IRRBAS System $8,200 10

OAT Lockout/Weather Predictor $1,200 1.0 $1,200 10 $7,900 104%Eliminate Heat/Cool Conflict $2,200 0.5 $4,700 10 $33,600 220%Reduce Setpoints $500 0.9 $600 10 $4,100 125%Security System Interconnection $500 1.5 $300 10 $1,800 63%Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback $1,200 19.4 $100 5 ($800) (22%)

($200) (62%)

($600) (13%)

Building SystemsDomestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation $300 4.8 $100 20 $900 36%Building Envelope Sealing $1,300 2.4 $500 10 $2,500 40%Occupant Engagement $200 8.4 $20 2

Low Cost LightingDelamping $600 3.4 $170 10 $700 28%

Major Capital 0.0 $0Condensing Unit Heater $15,000 7.5 $2,000 14 $4,400 12%T12 Retrofit $1,400 3.8 $400 10 $1,600 28%Lighting Control Measures $800 26.0 $30 10

Total Recommendations $33,400 3.3 $10,120 11.7 $49,400 31%

Our financial analysis is based an annual fuel cost escalation rate of 2.1%, and a conservative discount rate of 7.5%. In the event municipal borrowing costs are lower than assumed here, project economics will improve. Please note that a weighted average life expectancy has been used to analyze the ‘Total’ NPV of these projects.

Providing better control of the Pump houses will improve work space comfort and operations savings. These BAS ECM’s have attractive Net Present Value, and are highly recommended.



10. Overview and Facility Use at the Public Works

The Public Works (Figure 24) is located at 136 Spruce Avenue in The District of Sparwood. The Public Works has a two story office building with a useable basement and truck bays. The square footage is 2,400 sqft excluding the useable basement and the truck bays. The main level consists of the office and reception desk. The second level is training, storage, washrooms and meeting area. The basement serves as furnace room, storage, and change room space. The 5 truck bays serve as welding shop, equipment assembly and service vehicle parking.

The out buildings include the Wash Bay building (1,372 sqft), the Main Shop (6,636 sqft), Lab Building (777sqft) and the Chlorine Room (95 sqft).

The facility operates in a state of full operational readiness with a specific occupancy schedule Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. On the day of the site visit the facility had 12 occupants initially, and then the work crews dispersed leaving 6 occupants on site. This is expected to vary over the course of the day and the type of tasks being performed.


The Office building service systems are in generally good condition. The truck bay doors are insulated. The windows are double pane. The building envelop is in good condition from an infiltration perspective. The truck bays are insulated and heated. The bay doors do not have end switches to shut off heating when the doors are open. The office and truck bays are illuminated by obsolete T12 foot and eight foot lamps.

Figure 24: Public Works Office

The Wash Bay Building has 4 truck bays and 1 storage space. The building lighting is modern T8 lamps. The building is un-insulated and heated by ceiling mounted Unit Heaters in each bay.

The Main Shop is separated into service and storage bays. The heating is by Unit Heaters and furnaces. The lighting system is T12. The building was un-occupied when the site inspection occurred and all the interior lights were on.

The Lab Building and Chlorine Room are part of the Water Treatment Plant and are in good condition



10.2 Mechanical Systems

10.2.1 Heating and Ventilation System

The Public Works Office is heated by 2 natural gas residential style standard efficiency furnaces, with DX cooling installed for the administration space. The 5 truck bays are heated by thermostat controlled ceiling mounted natural gas unit heaters. The furnaces are older and in fair/poor condition. The basement is heated by in slab electric heat that is thermostatically controlled.

The out buildings are heated by natural gas unit heaters, electric baseboard and furnaces. None of the overhead doors have end switches to isolate the heating system when they are open.

10.2.2 Domestic Hot Water

The Public Works Office has a 150 Liter tank with 30,000 BTUH input natural gas water heater provides domestic hot water to the building. The piping is exposed and can be insulated to reduce line losses.

The Truck Wash Bay building has a 150 Liter tank with 30,000 BTUH input natural gas water heater provides hot water for vehicle washing. The hot water needs to be available only when the trucks are being washed, therefore it can be set back or turned off until required. The piping is exposed and can be insulated to reduce line losses.


Lighting systems in the buildings is predominantly obsolete fluorescent T12 technology with the Public Works Office and the Wash Bay buildings being the exception; these areas have T8 lighting. The lighting is controlled by room wall switches. The exit lights can be upgraded from incandescent to LED. Lighting levels in the building were very bright generally and were measured on site in the range of 700 Lux. A typical office space would be 300 to 500 lux depending on use. We have suggested projects to reduce light levels by 50% in over illuminated areas

The lighting in the Main Shop building was on when the building was un-occupied. We are recommending that the lights be controlled by motion sensors to activate only on the presence of activity in the space.

The exterior lighting and yard lighting were on, see figure 14, during the day.


The buildings areas controlled by residential style thermostats and most did not have a consistent schedule programmed in them. No time clock was found on site for HVAC or Lighting, so most equipment is assumed to run continuously unless turned off manually. There are no interlocks to prevent heating and cooling conflicts between the DX air conditioning unit, electric slab heating and the electric base board heaters in the offices. Generally indoor space temperatures were within the comfort range of 17 to 21 ºC depending on the area use.

10.2.5 Plug Load

Major plug load consist vehicle block heaters (winter only), computers, office equipment, work bench equipment, Vehicle battery charging equipment and kitchen appliances.




The following are two low cost demonstration projects that are suited to self implementation by the staff on site at the facilities.


Water fixtures in the building are not equipped with low flow devices. We recommend installing faucet aerators (0.03 l/s), low flow shower heads and new low flow toilets (6 litres/flush). Water consumption for the Fire Hall was an estimated 38,227 litres per year. The water use can be reduced by 45% if the simple, low cost measures are implemented.

The Truck Wash Bay is an opportunity to use captured rainwater from the roof to rinse off the vehicles after washing with hot water.

10.3.2 Social Marketing


10.4 Energy Analysis



Table 26: Public Works Historical Energy Consumption

Public Works Buildings 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011Gas 2,257 2,586 2,089 2,394 $24,579 $22,496 $2.11 $1.94Electricity 1,833 1,964 1,697 1,818 $38,796 $38,638 $3.34 $3.32

Total 4,090 4,550 3,786 4,211 $63,375 $61,133 $5.45 $5.26


Figure 25 shows the building’s Building Energy Performance Index (BEPI) compared to benchmark buildings. The Public Works has an estimated BEPI of 3,786 MJ/m2. This is significantly higher than the NRCan public administration average of 930 MJ/m2 for British Columbia, and better than the national average of 1,220 MJ/m2. These references come from Natural Resources Canada, Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey (2007). Also of note is that the national average for BOMA BESt certified buildings is 1194 MJ/m2

. Much of the high energy use is a result of high plug loads for tools and equipment, as well as poorly controlled heating devices. This presents a significant opportunity for energy savings.



2,089

1,697

9301,220

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Public Works Buildings Average Public Administration Building - BC


Canada

BEPI (M

J/m²)

Total

Electricity

Gas

Figure 25: Public Works BEPI Comparison


Figure 26 presents the building’s electrical consumption since 2008. This follows a uniform profile with little change in consumption throughout the year due to the relatively small electric heating and cooling loads. Electricity use has been remained mostly consistent over the past several years. From this profile it appears that there are constant loads on the electrical system or equipment is left on continuously.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


Electricity

Con

sumption (kWh)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 26: Public Works Monthly Electrical Consumption



Figure 27 presents gas consumption since 2011. There is a strong seasonal fluctuation and variations month to month; suggesting that the gas consumption is completely seasonally dependant. Therefore, improving the HVAC control systems will reduce gas used for heating purposes.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Gas con

sumption (GJ)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 27: Public Works Monthly Gas Consumption Profile

As presented in Table 27, the gas consumption normalized against heating degree days (HDD) has increased dramatically over the past 2 years. As well, gas consumption is very high in the shoulder seasons of April and May and October and November. Significant gas savings can be achieved through increased automation of controls and implementation of advanced DDC strategies, as will be presented later in this report.

Table 27: Public Works Normalized Gas Consumption

Year GJ HDD GJ/HDD2011 2,586 3,700 0.70 2012 2,257 3,630 0.62


Our estimated percentage of electricity consumption by building system is presented in Figure 28. This is based on a thorough site visit and our experience doing energy audits on hundreds of buildings. These ratios have been used to estimate savings from measures associated with these systems. This methodology is valuable for the process of discussing ideas in the ASHRAE Level 1 scope, but it should not be considered as an accurate evaluation of actual system operations as these are estimates.



We estimate that largest end use of electrical energy is equipment, tools, battery chargers, etc., that are left on for work related reasons, we estimate this load to be 40%. This is followed by the lighting load at 30% and electric heating and the AC system which each make up 15% of the consumption.

Electric heating15%

AC system15%

Plug Load40%

Lighting30%

Figure 28: Public Works Electricity Consumption

The estimated percentage of total energy consumption by building system is presented in Figure 29. Heating energy consumption makes up the majority of energy use in the building at 56% of overall energy consumption. Lighting and plug load make up 30% of consumption. The high gas consumption has a seasonal profile that suggests there are many opportunities to improve system controls.

Electric heating6%

AC system6%

Plug Load17%

Lighting13%

Gas Heating56%


Figure 29: Public Works Electricity and Gas Consumption






Table 28: Public Works Project Summary

Measure Capital Cost Savings Electricity Gas Payback BEPI GHGDescription (kWh) (GJ) MJ / m² (Tonnes)BAS System Measures $16,000 $13,100 29,500 760 1.2 800 37.8Building System Optimization Measures $7,400 $4,900 33,200 100 1.5 200 5.9

Low Cost Lighting Measures $12,200 $4,920 46,100 - 2.5 150 1.0

Major Capital Measures $33,100 $9,100 42,300 340 3.6 460 17.9

Project Total $68,700 $32,020 151,100 1,200 2.1 1,610 62.6

Annual Savings




Given the very high gas consumption on site and the condition that many buildings are not insulated, the low cost solution is to provide better controls so that HVAC equipment operates only when the space is occupied. We highly recommend the installation of a standardised BAS control system for all the facilities. The system should be simple, web based and low cost. The market for systems that can be applied to small facilities has grown and there are products available that can meet the requirements of organizations that do not have the resources to operate and maintain demanding systems. There are several products on the market that are wireless and require little in the way on on-going maintenance after initial set up and commissioning. An analysis of projects possible with the installation of a BAS is presented in Table 29, and a detailed description of these measures follows.

Table 29: Public Works BAS Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$5,000 $1,900 1.4 $1,300 90 1,100 4.5$1,800 0.5 $4,000 130 21,700 6.7$2,200 1.4 $1,600 100 3,100 4.8$1,000 0.3 $3,200 220 2,200 11.0$2,400 0.8 $2,800 200 1,400 9.9$1,700 7.0 $200 20 - 0.9

$16,000 1.2 $13,100 760 29,500 37.8Domestic Hot Water Tank SetbackTotal

Optimal Start/Advanced Morning WarmupSecurity System InterconnectionTruck Bay Door Lockout

DescriptionBAS SystemOAT Lockout/Weather PredictorEliminate Heat/Cool Conflict

Annual Savings



• Outdoor air temperature (OAT) lockout and predicted high temperature (PHT) lockout: If the control equipment is upgraded then implementing an (OAT) lockout would disable furnaces when OAT is greater than 15°C. PHT lockout estimates the daily high temperature early in the morning before operating schedule starts, and locks out heating systems when the predicted high temperature will be warmer than 21ºC (adjustable). These strategies will greatly reduce unnecessary heating on warm days while maintaining occupant comfort.

• Eliminate Heat/Cool conflicts: Interlocks are needed to prevent the heating system, electric baseboard, in slab heaters and DX air conditioning equipment from operating at the same time, with one system trying to heat the space while the other is trying to cool the space. This will allow for better temperature control of offices and reduce energy use when systems are in shoulder seasons or in enhanced warm-up mode.

• Optimal Start and Enhanced Warm-up for the Office: In conjunction with the security system connection measure, it is recommended that optimal start programming be added. The optimal start routine evaluates the difference between space temperature and set point several hours before the schedule begins and decides how early to start up the furnaces in order to achieve desirable space conditions at the beginning of the schedule. This measure allows the schedules to not begin until the spaces are actually occupied to prevent unnecessary heating or cooling.

• Security system Interconnection: Setback the space temperatures whenever the building is un-occupied and the security system is armed.

• Motion Sensing/Lockout for Truck Bays and Shops. Install end switches on the truck bay doors to lock out the space heating (except infrared heaters) whenever the door is open.If no activity is sensed in a space the temperature will re-set to un-occupied mode. This will prevent spaces from being heated when they are un-occupied for long lengths of time.

• Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback: The Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank temperature can be setback during un-occupied periods and programmed to be at the required temperature just prior to the scheduled occupancy. In the Wash Bay building adding additional insulation to the tank and exposed piping will enhance the energy savings of this measure. It should be tested in the field to determine if the DHW tank can be shut off till needed of if a programmed start schedule can be used in place of having the tank a full temperature 24 hours a day.



Table 30: Public Works Building Optimization Systems Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$1,400 11.3 $100 10 - 0.5

$700 11.6 $100 0 - 0.2$2,400 1.5 $1,600 90 3,600 4.5

$900 0.4 $2,000 0 18,900 0.4$1,900 4.6 $400 0 3,800 0.1

$100 0.1 $700 0 6,900 0.2$7,400 1.5 $4,900 100 33,200 5.9

Computer & Plug Load Savings

Domestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation

Total

Description

Switch Mode Vehicle Chargers

Annual Savings

Potable Water Use ReductionBuilding Envelope Sealing

Occupant Engagement

• Domestic Hot Water Storage: The office building DHW exposed hot water piping should be

insulated. The DHW in the Wash Bay building should be insulated and the piping insulated as well. When the demand is low, both of these DHW tanks can be scheduled for setback operation. The Wash Bay DHW heater can likely be controlled to be off when not needed as there is no benefit from having it in standby as it will recover its service temperature when called for.

• Domestic Water System: Install low flow devices on all kitchen sinks, showers, lavatories and urinals is recommended.



• Building Envelop Sealing. Ensuring that buildings envelop penetrations are sealed and water tight will reduce loss of heated air in winter. Replacing door seals and window caulking on a regular basis will improve the overall performance of the heating system and reduce drafts in the occupied spaces.

• Computer and Monitor Energy Star: Upgrade computers and monitors with Energy Star approved models

• Plug Load: Major plug load consist appliances of shop tools, audio equipment, compressors, welding, etc. Where possible install energy efficient power bars with motion sensors to reduce plug load.

• Battery Charging: Ensure the service vehicle auxiliary battery chargers are switch mode chargers rather than linear type. The Switch Mode chargers are more efficient and generate less heat.

• Occupant Engagement: Energy efficiency strategies will be far more effective if building occupants are included in the process in a series of communications to encourage energy awareness behaviour. We highly recommend an occupant engagement strategy be put in place in order to educate building occupants on the ideas and options for energy conservation in this facility, such as closing window blinds when leaving a room as well as turning out the lights. Research highlights that occupant engagement enables positive outcomes and culture change that encourages energy efficient behaviour.


There is an opportunity to reduce the light levels in the truck bays and to use multi-level switching increase the illumination when needed for specific tasks.

A variety of options exist to replace obsolete 8 foot T12 existing lamps or lighting fixtures with more efficient technologies. New LED and advanced fluorescent lighting technologies offer both reduction in wattage for a given light output and increased lifetime. A summary of the analysis for the recommended lighting measures is presented in Table 31. Detailed descriptions for each project are presented below.

Table 31: Public Works Low Cost Lighting Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$600 8.2 $70 0 700 0.0

$11,200 2.4 $4,600 0 43,100 0.9$400 1.4 $250 0 2,300 0.1

$12,200 2.5 $4,920 0 46,100 1.0Washroom OSDelamping and RelampingLED Exit Lights

Total

DescriptionAnnual Savings

10.5.1.4 Low Cost Lighting De-lamping and Re-lamping

There is significant potential to reduce lighting energy and demand by initiating de-lamping over the entire building. T8 fixtures (2 lamp), which are common throughout the building, offer potential for de-lamping in areas where the current lighting is in excess of those required for the space. In addition, re-lamping should be conducted with lower wattage extended life 25 W T8 lamps with ultra low mercury content. De-lamping would simply involve removing one of the lamps and labeling the fixture with a sticker to ensure it wasn’t replaced by maintenance staff in the future.

10.5.1.4.1.1 LED Lamps

Upgrade all incandescent exit lights to LED. New LED and advanced fluorescent lighting technologies offer both reduction in wattage for a given light output and increased lifetime. All incandescent and CFL re-lamping purchasing should be upgraded to LED.



10.5.1.4.1.2 Exterior Lighting

Replace exterior lighting with lower wattage, longer life induction lighting. Replace or re-commission the exterior light controls to shut off exterior lights during the day.

10.5.1.4.1.3 Occupancy Motion Control

We recommend the installation of occupancy sensors for all lighting.



Table 32: Public Works Major Capital Measures Summary

Cost Payback $ GJ kWh GHG$22,500 3.7 $6,000 340 13,500 17.2

$500 0.8 $600 0 5,700 0.1$500 1.2 $400 0 3,700 0.1

$8,600 4.8 $1,800 0 16,600 0.4$1,000 3.3 $300 0 2,800 0.1

$33,100 3.6 9,100 340 42,300 18Total

Description

Winter Vehicle Block Heater ControlEnergy Star AppliancesT12 RetrofitLighting Control Measures

Annual Savings

Condensing Unit Heater(s)

10.6.1 Condensing furnace and Unit Heater upgrade

Heating is the largest end use of energy in the building. The existing furnaces and Unit Heaters are in fair condition and at the end of their useful service life. In order to improve the efficiency of the system the furnaces and Unit Heaters could be upgraded to a high efficiency condensing models.


Vehicle block heaters can be a significant electrical load in winter. To reduce this load we recommend the installation of cycle timers on the block heater receptacles.

10.6.3 Energy Star Appliances

Energy Star approved appliances can reduce electricity usage by 20 – 30% when compared to conventional appliances. Replace all future dishwashers, microwave ovens, washers, dryers and refrigerators with energy efficient Energy Star approved appliances.

10.6.4 T12 Retrofit



The following lighting controls measures should be considered for the Public Works:



• Security System Interlock. Inter-locking the lighting system to the security system for each building that has one would provide an effective means of ensuring all lighting is off when the building is un-occupied.

• Motion Sensor. Control Adding interior motion sensors to turn off lights in areas are not being used.

• Exterior Lighting. Adding or re-commissioning the exterior lighting control photo cell to turn off yard lights and wall packs when there is sufficient daylight available.


Table 33 presents a financial analysis of the energy and water conservation measures presented above.

Table 33: Public Works Financial Analysis Annual Life

Description Cost Payback Savings Expectancy NPV IRRBAS System $5,000 10

OAT Lockout/Weather Predictor $1,900 1.4 $1,300 10 $8,000 72%Eliminate Heat/Cool Conflict $1,800 0.5 $4,000 10 $28,700 229%Optimal Start/Advanced Morning Warmup $2,200 1.4 $1,600 10 $10,000 76%Security System Interconnection $1,000 0.3 $3,200 10 $23,400 329%Truck Bay Door Lockout $2,400 0.8 $2,800 10 $18,900 121%Domestic Hot Water Tank Setback $1,700 7.0 $200 5 ($800) (14%)

($200)Building Systems

Domestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation $1,400 11.3 $100 20 6%Potable Water Use Reduction $700 11.6 $100 10 $100 9%Building Envelope Sealing $2,400 1.5 $1,600 10 $9,800 70%Computer & Plug Load Savings $900 0.4 $2,000 4 $6,100 227%Switch Mode Vehicle Chargers $1,900 4.6 $400 10 $1,100 19%Occupant Engagement $100 0.1 $700 2 $1,200 705%

Low Cost LightingLED Exit Lights $600 8.2 $70 20 $300 12%Delamping and Relamping $11,200 2.4 $4,600 10 $23,800 43%Washroom OS $400 1.4 $250 10 $1,500 65%

Major CapitalCondensing Unit Heater(s) $22,500 3.7 $6,000 14 $35,800 28%Winter Vehicle Block Heater Control $500 0.8 $600 10 $4,100 125%Energy Star Appliances $500 1.2 $400 10 $2,500 84%T12 Retrofit $8,600 4.8 $1,800 10 $5,100 19%Lighting Control Measures $1,000 3.3 $300 10 $1,300 30%

Total Recommendations $68,700 2.1 $32,020 11.4 $14,100 11% Our financial analysis is based an annual fuel cost escalation rate of 2.1%, and a conservative discount rate of 7.5%. In the event municipal borrowing costs are lower than assumed here, project economics will improve. Please note that a weighted average life expectancy has been used to analyze the ‘Total’ NPV of these projects.

In particular, the low cost projects involving controls optimization, and lighting re-lamping and de-lamping have very attractive Net Present Value, and are highly recommended.

ashrae level 1 energy study for - civicweb e… · ashrae level 1 energy study for: community...

Documents