energy audit report - Amazon S3

102 Pages·2011·1.14 MB·English

L G
OCAL OVERNMENT
E A P :
NERGY UDIT ROGRAM
E A R
NERGY UDIT EPORT

P F : F P E
REPARED OR ROG OND LEMENTARY

S
CHOOL
305 FROG POND ROAD
LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ 08087
ATTN: MS. LYNN COATES
SCHOOL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR /
BOARD SECRETARY

P B : C E G
REPARED Y ONCORD NGINEERING ROUP

520 S. BURNT MILL ROAD
VOORHEES, NJ 08043
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
WWW.CEG-INC.NET

CEG C :
ONTACT KEVIN BLANKENBUEHLER
ME, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY SERVICES
EMAIL: [email protected]

R I :
EPORT SSUANCE FINAL, APRIL 15, 2011

P N :
ROJECT O 9C10065
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3 
II.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 10 
III.  METHOD OF ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 11 
IV.  HISTORIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST ............................................................... 13 
A. ENERGY USAGE / TARIFFS .................................................................................................. 13
B. ENERGY USE INDEX (EUI) .................................................................................................. 19
C. EPA ENERGY BENCHMARKING SYSTEM ............................................................................. 21
V.  FACILITY DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 22 
VI.  MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST ............................................................................................ 25 
VII.  ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 26 
VIII.  RENEWABLE/DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MEASURES ................................................ 45 
IX.  ENERGY PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGY .................................. 49 
X.  INSTALLATION FUNDING OPTIONS.......................................................................... 56 
XI.  ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 59 
Appendix A – ECM Cost & Savings Breakdown
Appendix B – New Jersey Smart Start® Program Incentives
Appendix C – Portfolio Manager “Statement of Energy Performance”
Appendix D – Major Equipment List
Appendix E – Investment Grade Lighting Audit
Appendix F – Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculations

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 1 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit

REPORT DISCLAIMER
The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for
use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as
responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or in part, without written authorization
from Concord Engineering Group, Inc., 520 S. Burnt Mill Road, Voorhees, NJ 08043.
This report may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received
this report in error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your anticipated
cooperation.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 2 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of the energy audit conducted for:
Little Egg Harbor School District
Frog Pond Elementary School
305 Frog Pond Road
Little Egg Harbor, NJ 08087

Municipal Contact Person: Lynn Coates
Facility Contact Person: Robert Clay

This audit is performed in connection with the New Jersey Clean Energy - Local Government
Energy Audit Program. The energy audit is conducted to promote the mission of the office of
Clean Energy, which is to use innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental
problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser
and more efficient use of energy.

The annual energy costs at this facility are as follows:

Electricity $ 220,606

Natural Gas $ 45,987

Total $ 266,593

The potential annual energy cost savings for each energy conservation measure (ECM) and
renewable energy measure (REM) are shown below in Table 1. Be aware that the ECM’s and
REM’s are not additive because of the interrelation of some of the measures. This audit is
consistent with an ASHRAE level 2 audit. The cost and savings for each measure is ± 20%. The
evaluations are based on engineering estimations and industry standard calculation methods.
More detailed analyses would require engineering simulation models, hard equipment
specifications, and contractor bid pricing.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 3 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
Table 1
Financial Summary Table

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECM's)
NET SIMPLE SIMPLE
ANNUAL
ECM NO. DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION PAYBACK LIFETIME
SAVINGSB
COSTA (Yrs) ROI
ECM #1 HVAC Schedule Adjustments $3,000 $4,002 0.7 1901.0%
ECM #2 CRT Monitor Replacement $18,200 $2,293 7.9 89.0%
Occupancy Controlled Power
ECM #3 $5,400 $630 8.6 75.0%
Strips
Demand Control Ventilation in
ECM #4 $3,000 $412 7.3 106.0%
Cafeteria
Solar Thermal Domestic Hot
ECM #5 $125,000 $3,357 37.2 -59.7%
Water
ECM #6 Lighting Upgrade $32,931 $5,468 6.0 149.1%
ECM #7 Lighting Controls $9,340 $4,498 2.1 622.3%
RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES (REM's)
NET SIMPLE SIMPLE
ANNUAL
ECM NO. DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION PAYBACK LIFETIME
SAVINGS
COST (Yrs) ROI
REM #1 332 kW PV System $2,077,188 $179,640 11.6 73.0%
REM #2 (3) 100 kW Wind Turbines $1,362,389 $80,724 16.9 18.5%
Notes: A. Cost takes into consideration applicable NJ Smart StartTM incentives.
B. Savings takes into consideration applicable maintenance savings.

The estimated demand and energy savings for each ECM and REM is shown below in Table 2.
The descriptions in this table correspond to the ECM’s and REM’s listed in Table 1.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 4 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
Table 2
Estimated Energy Savings Summary Table
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECM's)
ANNUAL UTILITY REDUCTION
ELECTRIC ELECTRIC
ECM NO. DESCRIPTION NATURAL GAS
DEMAND CONSUMPTION
(THERMS)
(KW) (KWH)
ECM #1 HVAC Schedule Adjustments 0.0 23679.0 567.0
ECM #2 CRT Monitor Replacement 0.0 16380.0 0.0
Occupancy Controlled Power
ECM #3 0.0 4500.0 0.0
Strips
Demand Control Ventilation in
ECM #4 0.0 33600.0 2920.0
Cafeteria
Solar Thermal Domestic Hot
ECM #5 0.0 0.0 2774.0
Water
ECM #6 Lighting Upgrade 19.6 39059.4 0.0
ECM #7 Lighting Controls 15.1 32127.2 0.0
RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES (REM's)
ANNUAL UTILITY REDUCTION
ELECTRIC ELECTRIC
ECM NO. DESCRIPTION NATURAL GAS
DEMAND CONSUMPTION
(THERMS)
(KW) (KWH)
REM #1 332 kW PV System 332.0 366622.0 0.0
REM #2 (3) 100 kW Wind Turbines 300.0 558822.0 0.0

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 5 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
The Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) identified within the report represents the potential
annual savings at the facility. It is recommended to consider all ECMs as part of the school
district’s initiative to save energy, reduce emissions, and lower operating costs. Concord
Engineering Group (CEG) recommends proceeding with the implementation of all ECM’s that
provide a calculated simple payback at or under ten (10) years. All of the ECM’s presented in
this report have been categorized into three groups defined as Short-term (or Fast) Paybacks
ranging from 0 to 5 years, Medium-term Paybacks ranging from 5 to 10 years, and Long-term
Paybacks of over 10 years to assist the District in prioritizing projects.
Short-term Payback Energy Conservation Measures:
The following Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) identified with a simple payback of 0 to 5
years are considered very cost effective and should be considered a high priority for the District.
It should be noted that in many cases ECM’s lying in this range can be performed utilizing
qualified “in house” staff that can further reduce the payback period.
• ECM #1: HVAC Schedule Adjustments

The use of a controls contractor in adjusting the setting for the HVAC system could have
significant savings. Currently the building is operating on a more aggressive controls scheme,
while setting back certain temperatures to a more conservative level could help the system run at
an optimal level. In addition to temperature adjustments, the school could look further into
changing the run times for occupied and unoccupied settings to see greater savings.
• ECM #7: Lighting Controls

Similar to lighting upgrades, lighting controls are very simple upgrades and can save
considerable energy. Lighting controls do not require replacement of the fixture and typically can
save more energy than lighting upgrades alone. Lighting controls will automatically turn off
lights when spaces and rooms are not occupied. Lighting controls provide the maximum savings
in spaces that have changing occupancy schedules throughout the day such as the classrooms
after school hours, labs, music rooms, media centers, etc. Lighting controls is highly
recommended in addition to the lighting upgrade ECMs. (It is important to note that ECMs are
calculated as stand-alone ECMs and therefore the total savings will be slightly less than the sum
of both individual ECMs (Lighting Upgrade and Lighting Controls). The discrepancy between
additive ECMs is within the tolerances for this level of analysis (+/- 20%).)
Medium-term Payback Energy Conservation Measures:
The following Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) identified with a simple payback of 5 to
10 years are considered cost effective and should be considered by the District. In many cases
these measures can provide significant savings, however the costs to implement are higher,
stretching the payback beyond five years.
• ECM #2: Replace CRT Monitors

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 6 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
Modern computer monitors are flat screen LCD panels that are far more efficient than older style
cathode ray-tube (CRT) monitors. Typical energy use of a flat screen monitor is approximately
1/3 of the energy used by a CRT monitor. A large portion of the computer monitors throughout
the facility are CRT style monitors. This represents a significant energy savings potential. It is
recommended to replace the existing CRT monitors with flat screen monitors to take advantage
of the energy savings as well as other ergonomic benefits of modern LCD monitors.
• ECM #3: Occupancy Controlled Power Strips

Plug loads within buildings are becoming a larger and larger portion of the total energy use all
types of facilities. Plug loads are most dominant in combination with computers and computer
equipment. The installation of occupancy controlled power strips would allow daily occurrences
such as a fully run computer system for the complete duration of the day to become reduced and
turned off while no one is operating the computer system. It is recommended the District review
implementation of this ECM especially in computer labs and offices where computer and
computer accessories are left on during long periods of unoccupied times.
• ECM #4: Demand Control Ventilation in Cafeteria

Active demand control ventilation allows the modulation of outside air in the system depending
on occupancy. The cafeteria is occupied intermittently throughout the day and are currently
being monitored by CO sensors in the return air ducts. Setting these already build in controls to
2
“Active” could allow the facility to see savings.
• ECM #6: Lighting Upgrade

Lighting retrofits throughout the facility is a straight forward conservation measure that is
prescriptive in nature and provides substantial savings for the investment. Lighting retrofits are a
good example of ECMs that can be implemented with qualified “in house” staff to reduce the
installation cost and further reduce paybacks. Throughout most of the school the measure
includes replacing existing 700 series T-8 fluorescent lamps with new higher efficiency T-8
lamps. This upgrade also includes installation of high bay T-5 fixtures to replace the existing
metal halide fixtures. In addition it is recommended to utilize CFL lamps in lieu of all existing
incandescent lamps throughout the school district. Overall lighting upgrades represent one of the
most easily implemented ECMs and are highly recommended.
Long-term Payback Energy Conservation Measures:
The following Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) identified with a simple payback of over
10 years. The ECMs that have much longer paybacks are considered capital improvement
ECMs. These typically have high installation costs that are more difficult to justify based solely
on the energy savings associated with the improvement. Despite the long paybacks, these ECMs
in many cases provide valuable and much needed infrastructure improvements for the facility.
These ECMs include boiler upgrades, HVAC equipment upgrades, etc. It should also be noted
that projects under a 15 year payback should be reviewed in the event the District wishes to
move forward with an Energy Savings Improvement Program where these projects could be
included that program.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 7 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
• ECM #5: Solar Thermal Domestic Hot Water
The domestic hot water load for the building is handled by two gas fired hot water heaters. Due
to the large amount of domestic load which the facility endures during the school year, any
outside source to reduce this load would greatly benefit the building. Solar thermal panels can
be installed to help further reduce the domestic load for the building.

Combined Project Approach:

Although only individual projects with a simple payback of 10 years and less are considered
financially self sustaining, it is important to consider how multiple projects can be combined
together. When ECMs are aggregated into a single project, the lower cost ECMs provide
valuable savings to offset the higher cost ECMs. Likewise when multiple facilities are
aggregated together into a single entity energy efficiency project, the same benefits are seen on a
larger scale.
The Energy Savings Improvement Program (ESIP) allows for financing of any combination of
energy efficiency projects across multiple facilities into one large project. The term of the
financing must be under 15 years and the savings provides the revenue for the financing cost.
The combination of ECMs provides Little Egg Harbor Township School District with the
opportunity to implement a large portion of the ECMs identified within Frog Pond Elementary
School. The program financing allows for the implementation with no upfront cost to the
District. Implementation of an ESIP provides significant benefits and should be strongly
considered by the District.

Renewable Energy Measures:

The Frog Pond School is an excellent candidate for the installation of additional photovoltaic
arrays. Given the school has high electric load the installation of solar electric generation could
significantly reduce the grid electricity purchased by the school. Parking lot solar canopies
should be considered in the front and side parking lots of the school; due to the limited available
roof space (Further detail is provided in Appendix F). Considering the long payback period for
the installation of a solar system utilizing self financing, bonding, or capital dollars it is
recommended the District consider alternative financing approaches, such as a Power Purchase
Agreement (or PPA). The PPA would require the District to put little to no upfront out of pocket
dollars in order to install and maintain the system, the only requirement of the district would be
to purchase the power generated at an agreed upon rate to be below their existing utility rate.
CEG recommends the Owner review all alternative funding options before deciding to not
implement this renewable energy measure.

In addition to the Solar Analysis, CEG also conducted a review of the applicability of wind
energy for the facility. With the current peak load of 480 kW, CEG recommends three 100
kilowatt Northwind 100 Turbine at a hub height of 37 meters (120 feet). Based on our estimates
the turbines could potentially produce 558,822 kilowatt-hours of electric annually. While the

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 8 of 60
Little Egg Harbor Twp. School District – Frog Pond Elementary School Energy Audit
payback period is beyond fifteen years CEG recommends the Owner review all funding options
before deciding to not implement this renewable energy measure.

In addition to the ECMs and REMs, there are maintenance and operational measures that can
provide significant energy savings and provide immediate benefit. The ECMs listed above
represent investments that can be made to the facility which are justified by the savings seen
overtime. However, the maintenance items and small operational improvements below are
typically achievable with on site staff or maintenance contractors and in turn have the potential
to provide substantial operational savings compared to the costs associated. The following are
recommendations which should be considered a priority in achieving an energy efficient
building:

1. Chemically clean the condenser and evaporator coils periodically to optimize efficiency.
Poorly maintained heat transfer surfaces can reduce efficiency 5-10%.
2. Maintain all weather stripping on entrance doors.
3. Clean all light fixtures to maximize light output.
4. Provide more frequent air filter changes to decrease overall system power usage and maintain
better IAQ.
5. Educate staff and students on awareness of wasteful energy practices such as leaving lights
on unnecessarily, leaving on of non-essential computer and/or equipment at the end of the
day, leaving of outside doors/windows open as a means to control room temperature, etc.

Overall, the Frog Pond Elementary School appears to be operating at a moderate efficiency level
compared to other schools in the region. With the implementation of the above recommended
measures the Little Egg Harbor School District will realize further energy savings at the Frog
Pond Elementary School.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10065
April 15, 2011– FINAL Page 9 of 60