BPT - RxCx MSRB III Cover letter & supporting docs

April 24, 2015 BPT Project 15013

Building Performance Team Inc | 1631 Acacia Drive NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 1

Mr. William Erwin University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 734 763-4157 [email protected] SUBJECT: RFQ F-040115-01-WE - Retro-commissioning of Medical Science Research Building III

Dear Mr. Erwin,

The University of Michigan is taking a thoughtful and holistic approach to managing both the facility and its operating expenses. That puts you at the forefront of facility owners, and the Building Performance Team (BPT) would be delighted to help you move forward to “triple bottom line” success.

The Building Performance Team believes, and physics confirms, that the energy use of equipment and systems within a facility is part of an eco-system; each component affects every other component. Therefore, an all-inclusive analysis of energy usage needs to include the consideration of the entire eco-system. Our ReCx approach includes:

1. Retro-commissioning (ReCx) is conducted with a combination of: • site measurement and verification of operation • detailed trend data analysis using tools such as PG&E/LBNL’s Universal Translator • and the latest version of DOE’s EnergyPlus energy simulation software

2. After preparing the energy model, we will calibrate it to the actual consumption as recorded by your electricity and condensate meters using IPMVP Option D methodology and comprehensive actual weather data for your site’s zip code and billing period.

3. In addition to the energy calibration, BPT will account for the University of Michigan major energy-impacting changes already planned, including installation of an electric chiller in MSRB II that will provide chilled water to the MSRB III building. This will dramatically affect all succeeding energy conservation efforts and their return on investment; as such, we will model that change prior to evaluating the impact of new Energy Conservation Measures. We believe that including this will give the university the best understanding of what is occurring in MSRB III.

Once you have our calibrated and holistic energy model, you will be equipped to make investments and, more importantly, you will have a foundation upon which to measure long-term success. The BPT energy model can be easily updated with new ECMs and ongoing actual weather to measure and verify whether the ECMs are having the expected benefit.

No one is better positioned to serve you than BPT. Our President, Jim Dirkes, has been awarded certification as a Building Energy Modeling Professional by ASHRAE, joining an exclusive group of certified BEMPs worldwide. He is also a recognized ASHRAE instructor for the ASHRAE/IBPSA Building Energy Modeling workshop. BPT has been internationally recognized for our insights into energy usage. Mr. Dirkes will also be serving on the Steering Committee for the upcoming 2015 ASHARE Energy Modeling Conference in Atlanta. In addition to our recent work, Mr. Dirkes is familiar with Medical Science Research Building III, as he was part of the team that originally commissioned it back in the early 1990s.

mailto:[email protected]

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/

http://www.evo-world.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272&Itemid=379&lang=en

http://report.ashrae.org/Certification/list?type=BEMP

https://www.ashrae.org/education--certification/instructor-led-courses/ashrae-instructors/james-v--dirkes-ii

William Erwin – U of M

April 24, 2015 Proposal #15013


In accord with your request, BPT is pleased to submit this proposal for providing invaluable insights, improvements, and planning information for your facility. We know that our deep experience in building systems will produce data-driven, high-confidence, actionable strategies. Implementing our plans for optimal energy efficiency will not only support the mission of the Office of Campus Sustainability, it will also continue the proud Michigan tradition of being Leaders and Best.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and we look forward to serving you further on in this project. Sincerely,

Matthew L Abid Business Development Leader [email protected] cc: File Enclosures: Complete proposal





TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Building Performance Team (BPT) BPT is vitally interested in handling orders in a prompt, efficient, and businesslike manner to afford satisfaction to both the Customer and BPT. In order to further this objective, BPT has established these terms and conditions of sale. No addition to, deletion from, or modification of any of the provisions of these Terms and Conditions shall be binding upon BPT unless made in writing and signed by an officer of BPT. Except for the written contract between BPT and the Customer (the “Contract”), these Terms and Conditions are the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between BPT and the Customer. There are no agreements or verbal understandings outside of the Contract and these Terms and Conditions. No terms or conditions contained in any communication from Customer, whether those communications occurred prior to or after the date of the Contract, shall apply to the dealings between BPT and Customer. Further, BPT’s failure to object to any terms and conditions contained in any communication from Customer shall not be a waiver or result in an amendment to the Contract or these Terms and Conditions. A waiver by BPT of any default by the Customer or of any of these Terms and Conditions shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other default or of any other of these Terms and Conditions, but shall apply solely to the instance to which the waiver is directed.

PAYMENT TERMS Full payment of each invoice issued by BPT is due upon delivery of the invoice to Customer. All payments shall be made in U.S. Dollars. Amounts due but not fully paid within 30 days of the invoice date will accrue interest at a rate equal to 2% above the prime rate published by the Wall Street Journal or at the highest rate permitted by law, if lower. BPT will be entitled to suspend performance of its duties under the Contract if any invoices are overdue. BPT reserves the right to require payment in advance of the providing of services under the Contract if it deems such advance payments to be desirable in its sole discretion. Customer will reimburse BPT for all expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in the collection of any overdue balances or in enforcing BPT’s rights under the Contract or these Terms and Conditions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Contract and these Terms and Conditions shall be governed, construed, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the domestic laws of the State of Michigan, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of Michigan or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Michigan. Any and all actions concerning any dispute arising under the Contract or these Terms and Conditions shall be filed and maintained in a court of Kent County, Michigan or the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan, and in no other court. The parties specifically consent and submit to the jurisdiction and venue of such state or federal court.

COMPLETION DATES APPROXIMATE Completion dates are approximate only. BPT shall not be liable for any loss or expense (consequential or otherwise) incurred by Customer if BPT fails to meet the specified completion schedule for any reason.

CHANGES AND DELAYS If the Customer makes changes which result in delays or interruptions in the progress of work, or if information to be furnished by the Customer is lacking or delayed, then the Customer will reimburse BPT for expenses incurred and allow sufficient additional time for BPT to complete the work.

SITUATIONS OUTSIDE BPT’S CONTROL BPT will not be liable to Customer for any delay or failure to perform that arises out from causes beyond BPT’s reasonable control and not due to BPT’s own fault or negligence. BPT shall not be responsible for any failure to perform due to unforeseen circumstances or to causes beyond its control. Without limitation, BPT is not liable for delay, damage, or loss due to causes relating to acts of God, public enemy, actions by any domestic or foreign governmental authority (whether valid or invalid), riots, wars, sabotage, acts of terrorism, labor problems (including lockouts, strikes, and slowdowns), explosions, transportation, accident, fire, strike, civil or military authority, insurrection, or other causes beyond BPT’s control, or any other losses due to late delivery or failure of any BPT work.




TERMINATION Either the Customer or BPT may terminate the Contract upon written notice to the other party; provided that if the Customer terminates the Contract it shall pay a termination charge determined solely by BPT, which shall include payment for work performed prior to the termination date, according to BPT’s established prices, and all costs incurred and committed for, both direct and indirect.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In no event shall BPT be liable to Customer, or to any other entity or person, for any indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive, or exemplary damages of whatsoever nature (including but not limited to loss of business, lost profits, damage to goodwill or reputation, and/or degradation in value of brands, trademarks, trade names, service names, or service marks), whether arising out of breach of contract, warranty, tort (including without limitation negligence, failure to warn, or strict liability), contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or otherwise. In the event that Customer or any other party claiming through Customer brings a claim against BPT whether for breach of contract, tort (including negligence), or any other basis, BPT’s liability hereunder shall not exceed an amount equal to 25% of the fees timely paid by the Customer to BPT pursuant to the terms of the Contract. Customer acknowledges and agrees that all designs and specifications used in Customer’s project are its own, or those of parties other than BPT, and that BPT is not responsible for defects in such designs or specifications. Customer further acknowledges and agrees that BPT has not guaranteed or assured LEED or other certification for Customer’s projects.

OVERTIME It is contemplated that all labor and services by BPT are to be performed during regular working hours on regular business days. If for any reason the Customer requests BPT to furnish any such labor or services outside of BPT’s regular working hours, overtime and other expenses occasioned thereby shall be paid by the Customer.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION All information provided to the Customer as part of this Contract, including energy analysis input files, spreadsheets, and calculation methodology are the property to BPT and the Customer agrees to keep all such proprietary information confidential and to refrain from making such information public and from sharing such information with BPT’s competitors. Customer hereby acknowledges that a violation by it of the terms of this paragraph would result in irreparable harm to BPT and that damages would be an inadequate remedy. Customer, therefore, agrees that, in addition to all other remedies available at law, BPT shall be entitled to equitable relief, including without limitation the right to obtain an injunction to prevent a breach or contemplate a breach of the terms of this paragraph, without any requirement that BPT post a bond as a condition of such relief.

INDEMNIFICATION Customer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless BPT, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all liabilities, damages, losses, costs, and expenses, including but not limited to actual attorney’s fees, arising out of or in connection with

i. any of the services provided by BPT pursuant to the Contract, ii. the enforcement of any of BPT’s rights in the event of a breach of the Contract or these Terms and Conditions

by the Customer, and iii. any other loss to BPT related to Customer’s project of which BPT’s services are a part.

BUILDING PERFORMANCE TEAM, INC. 1631 Acacia Drive NW

Grand Rapids MI 49504 (616) 450 8653




In accord with your request, BPT is pleased to submit this proposal for providing invaluable insights, improvements, and planning information for your facility. We know that our deep experience in building systems will produce data-driven, high-confidence, actionable strategies. Implementing our plans for optimal energy efficiency will not only support the mission of the Office of Campus Sustainability, it will also continue the proud Michigan tradition of being Leaders and Best.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and we look forward to serving you further on in this project. Sincerely,

Matthew L Abid Business Development Leader [email protected] cc: File Enclosures: Complete proposal





TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Building Performance Team (BPT) BPT is vitally interested in handling orders in a prompt, efficient, and businesslike manner to afford satisfaction to both the Customer and BPT. In order to further this objective, BPT has established these terms and conditions of sale. No addition to, deletion from, or modification of any of the provisions of these Terms and Conditions shall be binding upon BPT unless made in writing and signed by an officer of BPT. Except for the written contract between BPT and the Customer (the “Contract”), these Terms and Conditions are the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between BPT and the Customer. There are no agreements or verbal understandings outside of the Contract and these Terms and Conditions. No terms or conditions contained in any communication from Customer, whether those communications occurred prior to or after the date of the Contract, shall apply to the dealings between BPT and Customer. Further, BPT’s failure to object to any terms and conditions contained in any communication from Customer shall not be a waiver or result in an amendment to the Contract or these Terms and Conditions. A waiver by BPT of any default by the Customer or of any of these Terms and Conditions shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other default or of any other of these Terms and Conditions, but shall apply solely to the instance to which the waiver is directed.

PAYMENT TERMS Full payment of each invoice issued by BPT is due upon delivery of the invoice to Customer. All payments shall be made in U.S. Dollars. Amounts due but not fully paid within 30 days of the invoice date will accrue interest at a rate equal to 2% above the prime rate published by the Wall Street Journal or at the highest rate permitted by law, if lower. BPT will be entitled to suspend performance of its duties under the Contract if any invoices are overdue. BPT reserves the right to require payment in advance of the providing of services under the Contract if it deems such advance payments to be desirable in its sole discretion. Customer will reimburse BPT for all expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in the collection of any overdue balances or in enforcing BPT’s rights under the Contract or these Terms and Conditions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Contract and these Terms and Conditions shall be governed, construed, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the domestic laws of the State of Michigan, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of Michigan or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Michigan. Any and all actions concerning any dispute arising under the Contract or these Terms and Conditions shall be filed and maintained in a court of Kent County, Michigan or the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan, and in no other court. The parties specifically consent and submit to the jurisdiction and venue of such state or federal court.

COMPLETION DATES APPROXIMATE Completion dates are approximate only. BPT shall not be liable for any loss or expense (consequential or otherwise) incurred by Customer if BPT fails to meet the specified completion schedule for any reason.

CHANGES AND DELAYS If the Customer makes changes which result in delays or interruptions in the progress of work, or if information to be furnished by the Customer is lacking or delayed, then the Customer will reimburse BPT for expenses incurred and allow sufficient additional time for BPT to complete the work.

SITUATIONS OUTSIDE BPT’S CONTROL BPT will not be liable to Customer for any delay or failure to perform that arises out from causes beyond BPT’s reasonable control and not due to BPT’s own fault or negligence. BPT shall not be responsible for any failure to perform due to unforeseen circumstances or to causes beyond its control. Without limitation, BPT is not liable for delay, damage, or loss due to causes relating to acts of God, public enemy, actions by any domestic or foreign governmental authority (whether valid or invalid), riots, wars, sabotage, acts of terrorism, labor problems (including lockouts, strikes, and slowdowns), explosions, transportation, accident, fire, strike, civil or military authority, insurrection, or other causes beyond BPT’s control, or any other losses due to late delivery or failure of any BPT work.




TERMINATION Either the Customer or BPT may terminate the Contract upon written notice to the other party; provided that if the Customer terminates the Contract it shall pay a termination charge determined solely by BPT, which shall include payment for work performed prior to the termination date, according to BPT’s established prices, and all costs incurred and committed for, both direct and indirect.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In no event shall BPT be liable to Customer, or to any other entity or person, for any indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive, or exemplary damages of whatsoever nature (including but not limited to loss of business, lost profits, damage to goodwill or reputation, and/or degradation in value of brands, trademarks, trade names, service names, or service marks), whether arising out of breach of contract, warranty, tort (including without limitation negligence, failure to warn, or strict liability), contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or otherwise. In the event that Customer or any other party claiming through Customer brings a claim against BPT whether for breach of contract, tort (including negligence), or any other basis, BPT’s liability hereunder shall not exceed an amount equal to 25% of the fees timely paid by the Customer to BPT pursuant to the terms of the Contract. Customer acknowledges and agrees that all designs and specifications used in Customer’s project are its own, or those of parties other than BPT, and that BPT is not responsible for defects in such designs or specifications. Customer further acknowledges and agrees that BPT has not guaranteed or assured LEED or other certification for Customer’s projects.

OVERTIME It is contemplated that all labor and services by BPT are to be performed during regular working hours on regular business days. If for any reason the Customer requests BPT to furnish any such labor or services outside of BPT’s regular working hours, overtime and other expenses occasioned thereby shall be paid by the Customer.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION All information provided to the Customer as part of this Contract, including energy analysis input files, spreadsheets, and calculation methodology are the property to BPT and the Customer agrees to keep all such proprietary information confidential and to refrain from making such information public and from sharing such information with BPT’s competitors. Customer hereby acknowledges that a violation by it of the terms of this paragraph would result in irreparable harm to BPT and that damages would be an inadequate remedy. Customer, therefore, agrees that, in addition to all other remedies available at law, BPT shall be entitled to equitable relief, including without limitation the right to obtain an injunction to prevent a breach or contemplate a breach of the terms of this paragraph, without any requirement that BPT post a bond as a condition of such relief.

INDEMNIFICATION Customer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless BPT, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all liabilities, damages, losses, costs, and expenses, including but not limited to actual attorney’s fees, arising out of or in connection with

i. any of the services provided by BPT pursuant to the Contract, ii. the enforcement of any of BPT’s rights in the event of a breach of the Contract or these Terms and Conditions

by the Customer, and iii. any other loss to BPT related to Customer’s project of which BPT’s services are a part.

BUILDING PERFORMANCE TEAM, INC. 1631 Acacia Drive NW

Grand Rapids MI 49504 (616) 450 8653


Building Performance Team Experience The Building Performance Team (BPT) provides “building performance”-related services, which include almost any aspect of a building which affects the longevity, the cost of owning and operation, or the people and processes that are performed within. Our activities are focused on providing greater understanding for the building owner / manager. We have done this via calibrated performance analyses and commissioning services since 2007. Below is a sampling of our past projects.

• Major Furniture Manufacturer (2015, MI): The owner of this 220,000 sq. ft. facility was concerned about the performance of its aging building, including the impact of the manufacturing equipment. BPT is currently providing energy modeling and retro-commissioning services for this company.

• Bonduelle (2015; Strathroy, ONT): This 50,000 sq. ft. frozen food and processing facility was purchased and then converted to its present purpose . The owner was convinced that the aging refrigeration equipment could be improved significantly but wanted to verify the savings and document them for their utility incentive program. BPT was contacted in part because of the specialized nature of modeling a refrigerated facility. BPT is currently providing energy modeling and retro-commissioning services for this company.

• IBEW local 58 (2014, Detroit, MI): This 30,000 sq. ft. office and assembly facility. The initial scope of the project was to measure every piece of equipment, but it quickly became evident that the equipment was in complete disrepair and in need of replacement. This solution was best for our client in their goal to reach net zero, saving time and money, while still gaining greater understanding of their energy profile. While investigating the facility, BPT found opportunities that would cut electricity consumption by a third, and reduce natural gas consumption by 90%. This would have an impact on savings by as much as $25,000 annually on HVAC alone.

• St. Joseph Intermediate School District (2014, Centreville, MI) The school district decided to renovate the Administration building (23,000 sq.ft.) and the Pathfinder Center (24,000 sq. ft.). The renovations included a new ground-source heat pump HVAC system for both facilities. The facilities include swimming, gymnasium, classroom and office uses. It is seeking LEED Silver certification.

• Spartan Stores YMCA (2013, Grand Rapids, MI): This 100,000 sq. ft. community center includes swimming, gymnasium, weight training and educational uses. It is seeking LEED Silver certification. BPT performed the retro-commissioning of the facility, including identifying issues with heating coils, boilers and heat recovery systems. Savings were roughly $15,000/year.


• Holiday Inn Express (2012, Grand Rapids, MI): This 80,000 sq. ft. hotel property was concerned about the performance of its aging building and equipment. BPT’s retro-commissioning activity reconciled actual and calculated energy use to within 5% annually and an R-squared correlation greater than 88%, while proposing improvements that would reduce their energy use by over 16% and increase reliability.

• Felt Estate (2010, Holland, MI): The 15,000 sq. ft. Felt Estate was awarded LEED-EB Gold certification and is the former summer home of Dorland Felt, inventor of an early mechanical calculator. The facility was exceptionally advanced for its time (1920s), using cork wall insulation, a fire sprinkler system and wave-powered water pumps. After a complete restoration, it now uses a VRF HVAC system augmented by a separate gas / DX system for the Ballroom. BPT helped to identify the impact of its 60 year old steam boiler on rental income and operating expense – and set the stage for a major upgrade to a high-performance VRF HVAC system.

• Rosherville Office Renovation (2010, Johannesburg, South Africa): A major renovation was planned for this 3 story, 250,000 square foot, former lab and office building. The developer wanted to make the HVAC system selection with reliable information about projected energy use. BPT teamed with a Johannesburg company to prepare energy assessments of four different HVAC system types that guided decision-making for the new HVAC system.

• Ferris State University Rock Café (2009; Big Rapids, MI): This project involved a complete renovation of the campus central kitchen and a major dining hall on a very compressed schedule. Commissioning services were provided for over a dozen kitchen exhaust / makeup air units, plus steam – water heat exchangers and central VAV air handlers.

• Campau Square Plaza (2009; Grand Rapids, MI): This ~25 year old, 12 story, LEED EB Gold, Class A office building utilizes VAV air distribution provided by 13 air handlers with self-contained DX cooling, hot water heating and waterside economizer. BPT provided an extensive review of current operations and energy systems. We found to our delight that the building deserved an outstanding Energy Star rating of 87 with its fairly low cost, simple HVAC system due solely to the long-term efforts of its very dedicated building manager.

1631 Acacia Dr NW Grand Rapids, MI

49504 616 450 8653

FACILITY ENERGY ASSESSMENT

a a

October, 2014

1358 Abbott Detroit, MI 48226


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3

Facility Description ............................................................................................................. 5

Utility Summary ................................................................................................................. 5

Benchmarking .................................................................................................................... 8

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview ..................................................................... 9

Detailed ECM Information ..................................................................................................11

Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology ...........................................................................14


Executive Summary Overview The Building Performance Team performed an energy assessment at 1358 Abbott, Detroit, MI in order to assess the potential for cost-effective Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs), with special focus on the impact of building infiltration and insulation. Currently the 30,168 square foot office building consumes an average of 330,000 kWh of electricity and roughly 21,000 Therms of natural gas per year for a total annual energy expenditure of about $52,000 per year. The facility has an annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 106 kBtu/square foot. Regarding Energy Measurements In the initial onset of this project, we fully planned on measuring energy loads in the building. During the course of our walkthrough and investigation, through talking with individuals onsite and evaluating current equipment, it was determined that existing systems were candidates for complete replacement. Rather than focusing our efforts toward making improvements to a system that would be difficult to make more efficient (especially the system currently serving the office area), we felt it was in our client’s best interest to focus on giving them a clear understanding of the benfits they would gain from a new, state of the art heating and cooling system. We feel that what is presented in this report will reflect this. If IBEW believes that they can learn from a more detailed evaluation of the old and inefficient system in order to make improvements to it, we will do so. Infiltration After studying the effects of infiltration on IBEW local union No. 58 building, it was determined that infiltration has little effect on the overall energy consumption of the building. To determine how infiltration would impact the building, a model was constructed and calibrated to match the actual energy consumption of the building, by implementing a year’s worth of energy bills and using actual weather data for that period. Once the model was calibrated, infiltration rates were adjusted and predicted energy consumption in electricity and natural gas were recorded. The percentage difference (drift) from the calibrated model consumption is represented in the tables below with its corresponding infiltration rate. The calibrated model reflected that current infiltration rates were around .5 air changes per hour, hence 0% drift. Results showed that there was very little drift, if any, meaning infiltration had very little impact on overall energy consumption.


Infiltration Rate vs. Predicted Energy Consumption

Infiltration Rate (Air changes per

hour)

Drift From Calibrated Gas Consumption

Drift From Calibrated Electric Consumption

.1 -2% -1%

.3 -1% -1%

.5 0% 0%

.7 2% 0% 1 4% 0%

Insulation Much like the infiltration study, once the model was calibrated, insulation values were improved as an ECM to determine effectiveness and savings potential. Insulation with an R-value of 11 was added to the roof, which currently stands at R-10, for a total of R-21. For the walls, which currently have no insulation, an R-value of 28 was added to all exterior walls of the building. This resulted in savings as reflected in the ECMs of this report. Energy Savings Opportunities Out of the thousands of ECMs that might be considered, we chose 4 as candidates for implementation because they represent a “big picture” view of practical improvements which could be implemented to improve operation. If all ECMs are implemented, the facility can expect to reduce electricity consumption by 32% and natural gas consumption by 87%. This would produce an annual operational savings on the order of 106,086 kWh and 18,168 Therms for a combined $24,730 of utility and O&M expenditure reduction. The following table depicts expected savings figures for this facility: Description Savings Total Annual Savings $24,730

Annual Electricity Savings 106,086 kWh

Annual Natural Gas Savings 18,168 Therms

Total CO2e Reduction 225 tons

Total Energy Reduction 68.1%


Facility Description Building Description IBEW Local 58 is a 1 story building, located at 1358 Abbott Detroit, MI. Originally constructed in 1962, with alterations to various parts of the office area in 2001, the building now comprises roughly 30,000 square feet. The walls are masonry facade on steel frame construction, with a built up roof. The building is a multi-use facility incorporating office spaces and public assembly spaces. Heating and cooling are taken care of by an assortment of chillers, rooftop units, and a multi-zone unit. All are fairly aged, and are due for replacement. Lighting is comprised of an assortment of T-12 and T-8 fixtures, along with some miscellaneous CFL lighting.

Utility Summary Utility Information Utility Meter # Rate Notes

Electric 8827757 15 $0.1115/kWh This does not include static monthly charges.

Natural Gas 8900230 15 $0.71294/ccf This does not include static monthly charges. Reported Utility Data (Aug 2013 - Aug 2014) Utility Usage $/unit Total Cost Electricity 337,200 kWh $0.11 $37,598

Natural Gas 26,108 Therms $0.71 $18,089 Monthly Energy Expenditure The following chart depicts monthly energy expenditure at the facility for the time period Aug 2013 to Aug 2014. The stacked profile indicates how each utility impacts the monthly energy bill, while the annual profile sheds light on any seasonal variations. A flat annual profile may indicate potential opportunities for reduction in non-seasonal loads, while a highly seasonal profile can indicate areas for improvement with the heating and cooling systems.



Total Annual Energy Use by System This pie chart shows the end-use breakdown of total energy use by system. The largest three consumers of energy are heating, miscellaneous, and lighting which represent approximately 90% of total annual energy consumption.

Current Annual Energy Use by System Total Consumption = 3,200 MMBtu


Benchmarking ENERGY STAR Currently, this facility is not eligible to receive an ENERGY STAR rating. In place of ENERGY STAR, the graphic below represents the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of the facility in the modeled baseline and post-retrofit conditions. EUI is a benchmark calculated by converting all the site energy consumption of the facility to kBtu and then dividing by square feet. Relative performance to peer buildings in the national building stock is indicated by position in the red-green gradient shown below. Criteria for the relative performance is based on methodology established by ASHRAE Standard 100. The current EUI for the IBEW 58 building is 106 kBtu/square foot, as shown in the graphic below. If all the energy conservation measures outlined in this report are implemented, the expected EUI is 34 kBtu/square foot.


Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview Identified Energy Conservation Measures The following table highlights ECM opportunities identified during the Audit.

ECM #

Recommended Energy Conservation Measure

Electricity Savings (kWh)

Natural Gas Savings (Therms)

Total Yearly Savings ($)

1

Reduce plug loads through controls and increased awareness targeting printers, copiers, fax machines, coffee makers, etc.

7,419 -20 $812

2 Add insulation to roof and exterior walls 6,039 10,409 $8,066

3 Major lighting & HVAC upgrades 91,868 5,786 $14,352

4 Replace Windows 760 1,992 $1,500 Sum Total: 106,086 18,168 $24,730


Total Annual Energy Spend by System After the above ECMs are implemented, the IBEW 58 will realize significant cost benefits due to decreased energy consumption and operations and maintenance expenditure. The three end-uses with the largest energy reduction potential from these ECMs are heating, cooling, and lighting.

Equivalent Carbon Footprint Reduction Implementing the proposed energy conservation measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 449,925 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to removing 40 cars from the road or reforesting 43 acres of trees.


Detailed ECM Information ECM Calculations/Methodology The building asset data collected during the ASHRAE energy audit was used to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building. Inferences were made about the unknown building characteristics using data from tens of thousands of prior audits. The energy model was calibrated to actual energy use utilizing local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. The calibrated 8,760 hourly energy model was then run against an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost-effective package of ECMs for this particular building. Thousands of measures were considered for this building and all interactive effects between the building systems were explicitly modeled and considered when the optimal packages of ECMs were created. Custom energy conservation measures were considered and included where relevant based on knowledge of the building gained from the energy audit. A summary of these findings follows. ECM-1

Reduce plug loads through controls and increased awareness targeting printers, copiers, fax machines, coffee makers, etc. Description Savings

Total Annual Savings $812


Annual Natural Gas Savings -20 Therms


Total Energy Reduction <1%


ECM-2

Add insulation to roof and exterior walls: Add insulation to roof with an R-value of 21 (roughly 4 inches of insulation). Add insulation to exterior walls with an r-value of 28 (roughly 5.5 inches of insulation). Description Savings Total Annual Savings $8,066




Total Energy Reduction 33% ECM-3

Major lighting & HVAC upgrades: Remove and replace all HVAC, lights, and reduce infiltration. Boiler efficiency increased to 95% condensing boilers. Chiller COP increased to 4.0 simulating high efficiency chiller system. All zone heating equipment changed to VAV, along with demand ventilation controls (CO2 sensors). Lighting load reduced to simulate LED retrofitting. Infiltration reduced to .1 air changes per hour to simulate better building construction and pressure control. Description Savings Total Annual Savings $14,352




Total Energy Reduction 28%


ECM-4

Replace Windows: Replace windows with triple pane, super low-e, gas filled windows with thermal breaks to reduce thermal transmission and building energy loss. Description Savings

Total Annual Savings $1,500

Annual Electricity Savings 760 kWh





Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology Approach The general approach is to collect building asset data inputs to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building, calibrate that model to actual energy use, and then utilize the calibrated model to estimate energy consumption and identify cost-effective energy conservation measures using localized weather data. Inputs & Inferences Retroficiency's AEA is designed to work with as little or as much information about the building as is available. Utilizing minimal inputs and data from tens of thousands of prior audits, the system builds accurate "inferences" about the energy subsystems of the building. These inferences can always be adjusted and modified based upon the user's knowledge of the building, or as more information becomes available. These inferences are used to run an 8,760 hourly energy model and allow for an iterative yet efficient process of refinement and tuning to rapidly align the energy model with actual energy consumption patterns. Tuning The tuning process compares modeled energy consumption with actual utility bills, and allows the user to make changes to inputs and inferences to better align modeled consumption with historical consumption - providing a transparent view of the accuracy of the modeled output. During the tuning process, the model utilizes local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. AEA's sophisticated analysis tools help guide the user to the right answer in a streamlined manner allowing an accurate energy model of the building to be built in a fraction of the time it takes today with traditional methods. Results AEA combines the tuned 8,760 hourly energy model with an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost-effective package of ECMs for a given building. Thousands of measures are automatically considered on each building in minutes, and all interactive effects between the building systems are explicitly modeled and considered when creating the optimal packages of ECMs. In addition to the automatically generated ECM packages, the user can view and select from additional ECM recommendations and/or create custom ECMs to further refine the ECM portfolio. Retroficiency's AEA software allows the user to view recommended ECM packages that correspond to their business objectives. The user is able to view the projected impact of implementing the selected ECM package on various metrics including Energy Intensity, Energy Cost, CO2 emissions, etc.


Energy Model Correlation to Actual Bills The following graphs represent the correlation between monthly billed utility data and modeled energy consumption. A graph for each utility used in the facility is represented below. The "Actual" trend line represents the actual amount of energy consumed in units per month based on the utility bills provided. The "Predicted" trend line represents the energy consumption predicted by the model.

Actual Electricity vs. Predicted

Actual Natural Gas vs. Predicted



Energy Model Correlation to Actual Bills: After ECM implementations The following graphs represent the correlation between monthly billed utility data and modeled energy consumption after implementation of suggested ECM’s. A graph for each utility used in the facility is represented below.




1631 Acacia Dr NW Grand Rapids, MI

49504 616 450 8653


a a

December, 2012

(updated 2/18/13)

302 Pearl Grand Rapids, MI 49504


Table Of Contents

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................21

Introduction .....................................................................................................................22

Facility Description ............................................................................................................23

Utility Summary ................................................................................................................26

Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................28

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview ....................................................................29

“Time-of-replacement” (ToR) Measures ...........................................................................29

Low Cost / No Cost Measures .........................................................................................29

Capital Measures ...........................................................................................................30

Detailed ECM Information ..................................................................................................32

Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology ...........................................................................42

Appendix 2: Building Floor Plan(s) ......................................................................................45

Appendix 3: Inventory of Major HVAC Equipment ................................................................46

Appendix 4: Energy Use History .........................................................................................47


Executive Summary Overview The Building Performance Team performed an energy assessment at 302 Pearl Grand Rapids, MI in order to assess the potential for cost effective Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs). Currently the 88,240 square foot hotel building consumes 1,424,732 kWh of electricity, 1,219 MMBtu of central hot water, 71,285 therms of natural gas, and 38,076 ton hours of central chilled water per year for a total annual energy expenditure of $181,442 per year. The facility has an annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 136 kBtu/square foot and an Energy Star Score of 53. Energy Savings Opportunities Out of the hundreds of ECMs considered, 14 rose to the surface as candidates for implementation. If all ECMs are implemented, the facility can expect to reduce electricity consumption by 24%, central hot water consumption by 14%, and natural gas consumption by 16%. This would produce an annual operational savings on the order of 345,210 kWh, 167 MMBtu, 11,707 therms, and -379 ton hours for a combined $46,392 of utility and O&M expenditure reduction. The full implementation cost of these projects is estimated at $829,342, yielding a simple payback of 17.9 years. The following table depicts expected savings figures for this facility: Note that the Installed Cost for each ECM does not include and utility rebates or other incentives. These should be investigated carefully for ECMs which are attractive to you. Description Cost / Savings / Payback

Installed Cost $829,342


Estimated Utility Incentives $0

Payback Period 17.9 Years


Annual Central Hot Water Savings 167 MMBtu

Annual Natural Gas Savings 11,707 therms

Annual Central Chilled Water Savings 379 ton hours




Introduction Energy auditors from the Building Performance Team conducted an ASHRAE Level "1+" energy audit during December 2012 at the Holiday Inn Downtown facility located in Grand Rapids, MI. The auditor was James V Dirkes II, PE, who was accompanied onsite by Mr. Craig Bilski, Chief Engineer. The audited building systems included envelope, lighting, cooling, heating, domestic hot water, swimming pool and restaurant operation. We compared the model's predictions against actual energy use and corrected the model until they matched very closely. Corrections were based on varying the values of uncertain information within acceptable ranges and occasionally re-measuring when we thought that it was appropriate. The final results show that our predictions match your energy bills within 5% for the entire year and have an R2 correlation of 88%! This means that we can both be confident that we truly understand the building and that our savings estimates will be realistic. The scope of this audit adheres to the guidelines developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for a Level 2 audit with the exception that most costs have not yet been formally estimated. As described in ASHRAE's Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits, a Level 2 "Energy Survey and Analysis" will identify and provide the savings and cost analyses of all practical energy efficiency measures that meet the owner's/operator's constraints and economic criteria, along with the proposed changes to Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures. A Level 2 audit includes a more detailed survey than a Level 1. Utility analysis is performed based on historical energy bills which may cover consumption data as well as peak demand. It may also provide a listing of potential capital-intensive improvements that require more thorough data collection and engineering analysis. Cost and savings analysis is performed for each measure recommended for implementation. This level of analysis should provide adequate information for the owner/operator to act upon recommendations for most buildings and for most measures. This audit can best be considered as a "big picture" guide for ways to update and improve the Holiday Inn's overall performance. Several Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) that were considered as independent of each other (e.g., Heating and Domestic Hot Water boiler replacement) will benefit from consideration of implementing both at the same time. Others, such as window replacement, have a poor energy-only ROI, but may involve "soft" benefits such as improved appearance or guest comfort. As you move forward with improvements to this property, plan to refine the results and recommendations for many of the ECMs by expanding the scope of this audit to a full Level II or III audit. This will minimize many of the design and cost uncertainties and also leverage your benefits by combining synergistic ECMs.


Facility Description Location Holiday Inn Downtown Grand Rapids, 302 Pearl, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Building Description Holiday Inn Downtown is 8 stories, with 25 guest rooms per floor, a pool, restaurant, laundry and meeting rooms and is located at 302 Pearl Grand Rapids, MI. Originally constructed in 1987, the building now comprises about 87,000 square feet. The walls are masonry facade on masonry frame construction, with a built up roof. The building is a single-use facility incorporating hotel spaces. Occupancy and Schedule Occupancy of the hotel averages around 70%, with supporting spaces such as the pool and restaurant open about 100 hours each week. The schedule is constant throughout the year, however occupancy generally dips somewhat in the winter months and during the weekends. Renovations and Additions This facility expanded the restaurant (now Pearl Street Grill) in 2003 and has conducted several renovations since its original construction. The renovations have been primarily for the restaurant and conference spaces. Building Envelope The walls are primarily an exterior insulation ("Dryvit") facade on masonry frame construction, with built-up roofing. Windows are aluminum frames with double pane glazing and are operable. (Operation is restricted.) Lighting System Other than the restaurant, lighting in the facility is either T8 fluorescent or CFL, a result of extensive retrofit in the last few years. Common area rest rooms use occupancy sensors. Cooling System Guest Rooms have PTACS with a TelkoNet Building Management System. The remainder of the building uses chilled water from 2 air-cooled condensing units that feed shell & tube heat exchangers. The heat exchangers have water pumped through them to various chilled water coils. Heating System


Guest Rooms have PTACS with electric heating coils and a TelkoNet Building Management System. Most of the first floor except the Pool and Restaurant have fan coils fed by boiler (and chiller). The Restaurant has a separate RTU (gas-fired & DX cooling) and electric baseboard. The Kitchen also has a natural gas, direct-fired Makeup air unit (heating only) for cooking hood exhaust. The pool has a a natural gas, direct-fired space heater and separate heaters for the pool and the spa water. Domestic Hot Water System Domestic hot water is generated by 2 boilers at 140F and stored in two storage tanks one at 110F, the other at 140F. 110F water is distributed to guest and other bathrooms, 140F water is used by the Laundry. The Kitchen uses an electric booster heater to provide 140F for dishwashing. Ventilation System Guest room Outdoor Air is delivered via the PTACS. The 1st floor, except for the pool and Kitchen hood, receives outdoor air from a heating-only dedicated outdoor air fan coil (DOAS) which uses hot water from the boiler. Kitchen makeup air is from a heating-only MUA (direct-fired). Pool OA is from a heating-only MUA (direct-fired). Electrical Distribution Electrical loads are met with a 208V / 3Ph / 60Hz distribution system that includes 120V / 1Ph / 60Hz lighting. Special Loads Cooking areas are comprised of a "front of house" kitchen which prepares most restaurant meals and a "back of house" kitchen which is less used and provides primarily conference / meeting room food preparation. Each of these spaces contain normal cooking and cooler / freezer equipment for this size facility. Current Concerns Comfort problems now exist in the Administrative offices and Lobby. The offices have experienced several minor modifications over the years, but their basic layout is the same as the original building. It is very likely that re-balancing the airflows will improve the comfort, but it may also be helpful to provide a separate damper and thermostat for the interior offices. The Lobby has automatic doors which, with frequent opening in cold weather, cause the Lobby to become cold. This problem has probably been present from the beginning, but can be improved by a check and re-balancing if needed as well as consideration for providing additional outdoor air to make the Lobby a "positive pressure zone" which will resist infiltration.


Finally, kitchen / cooking smells regularly spread to the Lobby and other common areas on the first floor. This is not desirable and is probably caused by improper makeup air / exhaust air balance at the cooking equipment hood. We recommend re-balancing the makeup air and hood exhaust fan, including a smoke test to confirm proper capture of cooking smoke and vapors.


Utility Summary Utility Information Reported Utility Data (Sep 2011 - Sep 2012) Utility Usage $/unit Total Cost

Electricity 1,382,005 kWh $0.08 $116,680

Natural Gas 59,689 therms $0.80 $47,521

Electricity Demand 3,293 kW $10.22 $33,662 Monthly Energy Expenditure The following chart depicts monthly energy expenditure at the facility for the time period Sep 2011 to Sep 2012. The stacked profile indicates how each utility impacts the monthly energy bill, while the annual profile sheds light on any seasonal variations. A flat annual profile may indicate potential opportunities for reduction in non-seasonal loads, while a highly seasonal profile can indicate areas for improvement with the heating and cooling systems.


Total Annual Energy Use by System This pie chart shows the end-use breakdown of total energy use by system. The largest three consumers of energy are misc, heating, and lighting which represent approximately 78% of total annual energy consumption.



Benchmarking Energy Star The Building Performance Team used the ENERGY STAR Performance Rating as the methodology to benchmark Holiday Inn Downtown Grand Rapids building against other similar peer buildings. The national energy performance rating is a type of external benchmark that helps energy managers assess how efficiently their buildings use energy relative to similar buildings nationwide. The rating systems' 1-100 scale allows interested parties to quickly understand how a building is performing; a rating of 50 indicates average energy performance while a rating of 75 or better indicates efficient performance. Organizations can evaluate energy performance among their portfolio of buildings while also comparing performance with other similar buildings nationwide. Additionally, building owners and managers can use the performance ratings to help identify buildings that offer the best opportunity for improvement and to track and measure performance over time. To qualify for ENERGY STAR certification, a building must have a rating of 75 or greater. The current Energy Star score for the Holiday Inn Downtown Grand Rapids building is 53, as shown in the graphic below. If all the energy conservation measures outlined in this report are implemented, the expected score is 80.


Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview “Time-of-replacement” (ToR) Measures These measures constitute a special category of savings measures. They are not economical as stand-alone measures, but will be important and beneficial to consider as you plan replacement of certain equipment. They will also need coordination with ongoing plans to upgrade and improve the facility. The cost for these measures is intended to reflect the cost difference between replacement of the equipment with a) the same equipment or b) premium efficiency equipment. It does not reflect any costs associated with, for example, replacing equipment earlier than absolutely necessary. An example of this is that, while it might be reasonable to operate your boilers for several more years, you may elect to replace them now to capture increased efficiency for those years. This effectively moves a known and needed replacement project to an earlier year and trades the present worth of that earlier expense against the present worth of the additional savings. The “time-of-replacement” ECMs are included in the “Low Cost / No Cost” ECM table when the (standard efficiency) new equipment is inherently more efficient than what it replaces. When there is a premium efficiency option that bears some additional cost compared to standard efficiency equipment, it is shown in the “Capital Measures” table. “Time of Replacement” measure for this audit are:

• “Upgrade chiller condensing unit…”. (Low Cost / No Cost table) • “Upgrade HEATING boiler…” (Capital Measures table) • “Upgrade DOMESTIC HOT WATER boiler…” (Capital Measures table)

Low Cost / No Cost Measures This section describes low cost/no cost recommendations for general building management, operations and maintenance, energy awareness, and small-scale equipment procurement. For the purposes of this study, measures with a cost less than $300 have been included in this category. Recommended Energy Conservation Measure


Fuel Savings (therms)


Estimated Cost ($)

Rebate ($)

Simple Payback (years)

Turn Kitchen Hood & MUA OFF at night 11,574 1,362 $1,618 $0 0.0


Upgrade chiller condensing unit efficiency at time of replacement (ToR)

11,427 0 $1,037 $100 0.1

Sum Total: 23,001 1,362 $2,655 $100 0.04 Capital Measures In addition to low cost measures, capital measures were identified to improve the energy efficiency of the facility. These measures typically affect major building systems and require a more substantial capital outlay than low-cost measures. The following ECMs highlight opportunities identified at this facility. Recommended Energy Conservation Measure


Fuel Savings (therms)


Estimated Cost ($)

Rebate ($)


Replace Spa jet pump motor with 90.2% efficient 3.0 hp motor

2,158 -12 $180 $1,030 5.7

Reduce Pool space temperature during unoccupied periods

0 2,809 $1,938 $1,000 0.5

Install occupancy sensors for hallway lighting

11,959 0 $1,018 $8,000 7.9

Replace older washing machine with more efficient machine

5,620 0 $2,050 $21,000 10.2

Reduce Spa temperature during unoccupied periods.

0 865 $597 $1,000 1.7

Upgrade HEATING boiler efficiency at replacement (ToR)

0 1,691 $1,167 $4,500 3.9

Replace PTACs with Heat Pumps 127,057 0 $14,195 $175,000 12.3

Upgrade DOMESTIC HOT WATER boiler efficiency at replacement (ToR)

0 2,030 $1,401 $17,000 12.1

Demand Controlled Ventilation for first floor. -2,275 2,945 $1,820 $6,000 3.3


Demand controlled ventilation - Guest Rooms

98,711 0 $9,682 $240,000 24.8

Replace Guest Room windows with high performance alternative

81,388 0 $9,393 $350,000 37.3

Reflective Dark Tint Low-E Interior Window Film for First Floor

3,211 15 $296 $4,712 15.9

Sum Total: 327,829 10,343 $43,737 $829,242 18.96 Total Annual Energy Spend by System After the above ECMs are implemented, the Holiday Inn Downtown Grand Rapids will realize significant cost benefits due to decreased energy consumption and operations and maintenance expenditure. The three end-uses with the largest energy reduction potential from these ECMs are heating, cooling, and miscellaneous.

Equivalent Carbon Footprint Reduction Implementing the proposed energy conservation measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.76 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to removing 67 cars from the road or reforesting 73 acres of trees.


Detailed ECM Information ECM Calculations/Methodology The building asset data collected during the ASHRAE Level 2 energy audit was used to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building. Inferences were made about the unknown building characteristics using data from tens of thousands of prior audits. The energy model was calibrated to actual energy use utilizing local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. The calibrated 8,760 hourly energy model was then run against an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost effective package of ECMs for this particular building. Thousands of measures were considered for this building and all interactive effects between the building systems were explicitly modeled and considered when the optimal packages of ECMs were created. Custom energy conservation measures were considered and included where relevant based on knowledge of the building gained from the energy audit. A summary of these findings follows.


ECM-1

Turn Kitchen Hood & MUA OFF at night Turn Kitchen Hood & MUA OFF at night. It is also possible to add a hood temperature sensor to cycle these or vary their speed during the day during low use periods. Description Cost / Savings / Payback

Installed Cost $0

Utility Incentive Assumptions $0


Payback Period <0.1 Years





Replace Spa jet pump motor with 90.2% efficient 3.0 hp motor The existing 3-hp motor will consume 20,223 kWh per year. Converting to an efficient 3-hp motor will reduce the electricity consumption to 18,476 kWh per year. Description Cost / Savings / Payback






Annual Natural Gas Savings -12 therms




ECM-3

Reduce Pool space temperature during unoccupied periods Reduce Pool space temperature during unoccupied periods. Because the pool is heated with 100% outdoor air, this will reduce the makeup air heating requirement in addition to reducing envelope losses. This must be tested to make sure fogging in the pool area does not occur. Description Cost / Savings / Payback









Install occupancy sensors for hallway lighting Install occupancy sensors for hallway lighting. Long periods during the day and most of the night do not need a fully illuminated hallway. The cost must be verified after research into the current circuiting and discussion regarding the acceptability of this option for guest perceptions of safety and comfort. Description Cost / Savings / Payback






Annual Natural Gas Savings 0 therms




ECM-5

Replace older washing machine with more efficient machine Replace older washing machine with more efficient machine. The old machine uses almost three times the power of the two newer machines and may be due for replacement due to its age. Water consumption may also result. (Pricing from Jerry Pearson – A&B Equipment, the Milnor rep; 269 599 2367) Description Cost / Savings / Payback








Total Energy Reduction <1% ECM-6

Reduce Spa temperature during unoccupied periods. Reduce Spa temperature during unoccupied periods. A simple programmable control can reduce the spa temperature each night, with no impact on the guests. This will result in less heating energy and less water use (due to less evaporation) Description Cost / Savings / Payback










ECM-7

Upgrade HEATING boiler efficiency at replacement Upgrade heating boiler efficiency at replacement to 90% or better. This boiler is at or near its useful life. When replaced, the new boiler should be a condensing type with 90+% efficiency. Cost is roughly estimated as the difference between a standard and high efficiency replacement boiler. For reference, the complete cost of a new boiler is approximately $38,000. If all of the boilers are replaced at the same time with a combination space / domestic water heating system, the total price will be approximately $87,000. Description Cost / Savings / Payback









Replace PTACs with Heat Pumps Replace PTACs with Heat Pumps. This measure assumes that a reliable Heat Pump can be substituted for the existing PTACs without significant need of architectural or electrical modifications. This will dramatically improve heating efficiency and can be done gradually as PTACS fail. The cost includes only the differential between a PTAC and a Heat ump of similar capacity and assumes that no special wiring or other modifications are required.


Description Cost / Savings / Payback









Upgrade DOMESTIC HOT WATER boiler efficiency at replacement Upgrade domestic hot water boiler efficiency at replacement to 90% or better. These boilers are at or near their useful life. When replaced, the new boiler(s) should be condensing type with 90+% efficiency. Because the kitchen and laundry require 140F water, it may be appropriate to provide their hot water from the HEATING boiler via a heat exchanger. Cost is roughly estimated as the difference between a standard and high efficiency replacement boiler. Note: This measure is highly interactive with replacement of the HEATING boiler; both should be considered to take maximum advantage of savings opportunities. This is particularly true because the high efficiency DOMESTIC water boiler carries a big premium, whereas the HEATING boiler does not. This means that combining the systems becomes much more economical than replacing them separately. For reference, the complete cost of a new boiler is approximately $64,000. . If all of the boilers are replaced at the same time with a combination space / domestic water heating system, the total price will be approximately $87,000. Description Cost / Savings / Payback










ECM-10

Demand Controlled Ventilation for first floor. Add demand controlled ventilation for first floor. Ventilation should be controlled with a combination of scheduling and CO2 sensors so that enough outdoor air is used to maintain high air quality, but not more. Currently the same ventilation is provided 24 / 7 / 365; we have assumed that the overall rate can be reduced to about 30% over a typical 24 hour period. Cost assumes that: a) a control damper will be added for each of the Meeting Rooms b) CO2 sensors will be installed in each Meeting Room and two other locations on the first floor c) The fan coil now providing outdoor air for the first floor will be equipped with a variable speed drive and controls which allow modulation based on CO2 level. Cost for this measure needs further verification. Description Cost / Savings / Payback





Annual Electricity Savings -2,275 kWh





ECM-11

Demand controlled ventilation - Guest Rooms Demand controlled ventilation will vary the amount of outside air delivered to guest rooms based on input from CO2 sensors or another measure of occupancy, such as the hotel property management system (PMS). Implementation in the Guest rooms has great savings potential, but is difficult to accomplish because the original design did not envision this possibility. A new Dedicated Outdoor Air system (DOAS) is needed, which will provide outdoor air in proportion to occupancy. The cost for this measure is highly uncertain, and is affected by: a) Integration with the TelkoNet occupied signal and (ideally) the PMS b) Finding an acceptable location for the DOAS and its ductwork. The cost must be validated after confirmation of the design approach and is probably best understood as an adjunct to major renovations. Description Cost / Savings / Payback









Replace Guest Room windows with high performance alternative Replace Guest Room windows with high performance alternative. New windows with better thermal and solar performance will also reduce infiltration, which is assumed and contributes to the savings.











Reflective Dark Tint Low-E Interior Window Film for First Floor A retrofit window film installation delivers a cost-effective solution to improving building fenestration performance. Installing Window Film Depots 3M Amber 35 Low-E Window Film will substantially reduce solar heat gain permitted under current conditions. The installed window film will reflect up to 75% of the suns heat-producing solar energy and 99% of UV rays to keep occupants comfortable while reducing energy consumption of the buildings HVAC systems. This product will also improve the conductive thermal performance of the existing windows up to 25%; a benefit that will yield energy savings in the summer and winter months. This system is ideal for applications where exterior building aesthetics will benefit from a reflective window coating system and visible transmittance of the existing windows is not critical. Description Cost / Savings / Payback










ECM-14

Upgrade chiller condensing unit efficiency at time of replacement Upgrade chiller condensing unit efficiency at time of replacement. This is nominally no cost because we have assumed that you are replacing it anyway. The EER of the existing unit is about 9.9, whereas standard EER for new equipment is significantly higher, about 13. Description Cost / Savings / Payback

Installed Cost $100







Total Energy Reduction <1% ECMs Considered but Not Recommended We did not exclude any ECMs from consideration


Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology Approach The general approach is to collect building asset data inputs to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building, calibrate that model to actual energy use, and then utilize the calibrated model to estimate energy consumption and identify cost-effective energy conservation measures using localized weather data. Inputs & Inferences Retroficiency's AEA is designed to work with as little or as much information about the building as is available. Utilizing minimal inputs and data from tens of thousands of prior audits, the system builds accurate "inferences" about the energy subsystems of the building. These inferences can always be adjusted and modified based upon the user's knowledge of the building, or as more information becomes available. These inferences are used to run an 8,760 hourly energy model and allow for an iterative yet efficient process of refinement and tuning to rapidly align the energy model with actual energy consumption patterns. Tuning The tuning process compares modeled energy consumption with actual utility bills, and allows the user to make changes to inputs and inferences to better align modeled consumption with historical consumption – providing a transparent view of the accuracy of the modeled output. During the tuning process, the model utilizes local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. AEA's sophisticated analysis tools help guide the user to the right answer in a streamlined manner allowing an accurate energy model of the building to be built in a fraction of the time it takes today with traditional methods. Results AEA combines the tuned 8760 hourly energy model with an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost effective package of ECMs for a given building. Thousands of measures are automatically considered on each building in minutes, and all interactive effects between the building systems are explicitly modeled and considered when creating the optimal packages of ECMs. In addition to the automatically generated ECM packages, the user can view and select from additional ECM recommendations and/or create custom ECMs to further refine the ECM portfolio. Retroficiency's AEA software allows the user to view recommended ECM packages that correspond to their business objectives. The user is able to view the projected impact of implementing the selected ECM package on various metrics including Energy Intensity, Energy Cost, CO2 emissions etc.







Appendix 2: Building Floor Plan(s)

Appendix 3: Inventory of Major HVAC Equipment

Inventory of Major HVAC EquipmentDesignation Location Serves Model / Type Capacity Operating

Hours / YrRemarks

Boiler #1, 2 Boiler room Domestic Water heating

RayPak H3-1458A

~1,500MBH in / 1,200MBH

out

8,760

Boiler #3 Boiler room Heating HydroTherm MR600B

600MBH in / 470MBH out

4,000

Boiler #4 Pool Equip Rm Spa Raypack P-R206A-EN-C

200MBH in / ~160MBH out

8,760

Boiler #5 Pool Equip Rm Pool Hayward H3001

300MBH in / ~240MBH out

8,760

ACCU1 West side of Bldg all ChW needs

Carrier 38AKS024

~240MBH 12 months

ACCU2 West side of Bldg all ChW needs

Carrier 38AKS028

~280MBH ~6 months

FC9 Above corridor Mtg Rm A na ~700 cfm, 20MBH clg, 10MBH htg

12 months

FC10 Above corridor Mtg Rm B na ~700 cfm, 27MBH clg, 10MBH htg

12 months

FC11 Above corridor Mtg Rm C na ~700 cfm, 20MBH clg, 10MBH htg

12 months

FC12 Above corridor Mtg Rm C na ~700 cfm, 27MBH clg, 10MBH htg

12 months

AHU5 Roof Restaurant 12 monthsAHU6 Above corridor Bar 12 monthsAHU7 Roof Fitness Trane +

MicroMetl~2300cfm;

100MBH htg out

12 months

FC1 Above ceiling - Men's Rm

Office / Admin

na ~800 cfm, 35MBH clg, 20MBH htg

12 months

FC2 Above ceiling Lobby na ~3,000 cfm, 35MBH clg, 0MBH htg

12 months

FC7 Above ceiling Laundry Corridor

na ~2,200 cfm, 71MBH clg, 30MBH htg

12 months

DOAS Laundry Room Various na ~1500 cfm 8,760

MUA1 Pool Hastings ~3,000 cfm, 0MBH clg,

260MBH htg

8,760

EF8 Pool Equip Rm Pool Brundage ~3,300 cfm, .75HP

8,760

MUA2 Restaurant Roof Restaurant Greenheck ~3,000 cfm, 0MBH clg,

260MBH htg

8,760

Pool Circ pump Pool Equip Rm Pool Taco 1.5HP 8,760Spa Circ pump Pool Equip Rm Spa Taco .75HP 8,760Spa Jet pump Pool Equip Rm Spa Taco 3HP ~1,000Dom. CW Booster Pool Equip Rm All SyncroFlo 100gpm

@54psi; 15HP8,760

Fire Pump na 30HP 3ChW Pump1 Mechanic Rm non-guest

areasna 160gpm @ ??

Ft.; 1.5HP12 months

ChW Pump2 Mechanic Rm non-guest areas

na nameplate not readable

~6 months

Under repair

Tested how often?

Heating only

Electric Duct heaterDOAS in Laundry Room?

Electric Duct heaterDOAS in Laundry Room?

DOAS in Laundry Room




DOAS in Laundry Room?RTU + ERV

DOAS in Laundry Room?

Larger, installed ~2009

Installed ~ 1987

Installed ~ 1987

Installed ~ 2005

Installed ~ 1987

smaller, installed ~1995 (EER = ~9.9)


Appendix 4: Energy Use History


a A

March, 2014

1391 Judson Rd Norton Shores, MI 49456


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4

Facility Description ............................................................................................................. 5

Utility Summary ................................................................................................................. 6

Benchmarking ................................................................................................................... 10

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview .................................................................... 11

Detailed ECM Information .................................................................................................. 14

Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology ........................................................................... 21

Appendix 2: Building Floor Plan(s) ...................................................................................... 24

Appendix 3: Lighting ECM Return on Investment Calculations ............................................... 25


Executive Summary Overview The Building Performance Team performed an energy assessment at 1391 Judson Rd Norton Shores, MI in order to assess the potential for cost effective Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs). Currently the 112,600 square foot warehouse building consumes 481,649 kWh of electricity and 38,117 Therms of natural gas per year for a total annual energy expenditure of $76,881 per year. The facility has an annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 48 kBtu/square foot and an ENERGY STAR Score of 77. Energy Savings Opportunities Out of the thousands of ECMs considered, 12 rose to the surface as candidates for implementation. If all ECMs are implemented, the facility can expect to reduce electricity consumption by 29% and natural gas consumption by 31%. This would produce an annual operational savings on the order of 137,484 kWh and 11,904 Therms for a combined $24,359 of utility and O&M expenditure reduction. The full implementation cost of these projects is estimated at $150,949, yielding a simple payback of 6.2 years. The following table depicts expected savings figures for this facility: Description Cost / Savings / Payback



Estimated Utility Incentives $0







Introduction Energy professionals from The Building Performance Team conducted an ASHRAE Level 2 energy audit in March of 2014 at the Nichols Supply located in Norton Shores, MI. The auditors included James Dirkes and Mitchell Gleason who were accompanied onsite by Jim Rees. At the time of several visits, weather conditions were gnerally observed to be cloudy with an outdoor air temperature of 10 - 25F. The audited building systems included lighting, cooling, heating, domestic hot water and snow melt equipment. The scope of this audit adheres to the guidelines developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for a Level 2 audit. As described in ASHRAE's Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits, a Level 2 "Energy Survey and Analysis" will identify and provide the savings and cost analyses of all practical energy efficiency measures that meet the owner's/operator's constraints and economic criteria, along with the proposed changes to Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures. A Level 2 audit includes a more detailed survey than a Level 1. Utility analysis is performed based on historical energy bills which may cover consumption data as well as peak demand. It may also provide a listing of potential capital-intensive improvements that require more thorough data collection and engineering analysis. Cost and savings analysis is performed for each measure recommended for implementation. This level of analysis should provide adequate information for the owner/operator to act upon recommendations for most buildings and for most measures. As part of this assessment, we measured and verified: * programmable thermostat settings and schedules * outdoor air flow in the warehouse * warehouse temperature stratification * warehouse lighting power for several circuits * battery charger power * office critical power panel power These measurements enabled a significantly better understanding of energy usage and the resulting high correlation between actual and predicted energy use. Some of the energy conservation measures evaluated, especially the lighting retrofits, have non-annual maintenance schedules and also differing schedules for each alternative. For these measures, we prepared a comprehensive life cycle comparison to assure a realistic evaluation.


Facility Description Location Nichols Supply w/ Data Center, 1391 Judson Rd, Norton Shores, MI 49456 Building Description Nichols' purchased a vacant freight terminal warehouse in 2004 and converted a portion to corporate offices and re-purposed the warehouse for their products and operation. It is principally a pre-engineered structure that is well maintained. Occupancy and Schedule The Warehouse is occupied from 6am till 2am Monday-Friday and 5pm till 2am on Sundays. It is not occupied on Saturdays. The occupied heating setpoint for the warehouse is 55F and for the office is 74F. Unoccupied setpoints are 55F for the warehouse (no setback) and 68 for the office. Renovations and Additions See the Building Description. Building Envelope See the Building Description. Lighting System Lighting throughout the facility has been extensively modified from the original. The Warehouse now uses 6 lamp, 25W T8 fixtures which stay on continuously during occupied hours. The office uses a combination of 2 lamp suspended and 3 lamp recessed fixtures, all of which use 25W T8 lamps. The offices also have task lighting. The open office suspended fixtures generally stay on during occupied periods. THe private office lighting has switches and occupancy sensors, which keep the lights off a large percentage of the time. Cooling System The warehouse has no cooling system. The offices rely on 6 residential furnaces with SEER 14 DX cooling. The Data room has a separate mini-split AC system. Heating System The warehouse has two indirect-fired "air turnover" systems. The offices rely on 6 residential furnaces with 90+ % efficiency natural gas heating. The Data room has a separate mini-split AC system.


Domestic Hot Water System Electric water heaters (approx. 20 gallon) provide domestic hot water for the facility. These have additional insulation around their tanks. Ventilation System Warehouse ventilation is provided by outdoor air ducts that terminate at the base of each air turnover unit. The office furnaces also have outdoor air duct which terminates at the furnace return air inlet.

Utility Summary Utility Information Reported Utility Data (Dec 2011 - Dec 2013) Utility Usage $/unit Total Cost Electricity 1,023,599 kWh $0.08 $84,441

Natural Gas 51,228 Therms $0.76 $39,000 Multi-Year Energy Analysis of Electricity and Fuel Trends The following graphs illustrate the total monthly consumption of the facility for each year. This year over year consumption can help facility personnel identify trends in consumption, particularly seasonal, which can depict areas for improvement. The following charts are normalized for weather based on 30 year averages to remove any weather related variations.


Electricity Use Previous Years

Natural Gas Use Previous Years


Monthly Energy Expenditure The following chart depicts monthly energy expenditure at the facility for the time period Dec 2011 to Dec 2013. The stacked profile indicates how each utility impacts the monthly energy bill, while the annual profile sheds light on any seasonal variations. A flat annual profile may indicate potential opportunities for reduction in non-seasonal loads, while a highly seasonal profile can indicate areas for improvement with the heating and cooling systems.


Total Annual Energy Use by System This pie chart shows the end-use breakdown of total energy use by system. The largest three consumers of energy are heating, lighting, and miscellaneous which represent approximately 93% of total annual energy consumption.



Benchmarking ENERGY STAR The Building Performance Team used the ENERGY STAR Performance Rating as the methodology to benchmark Nichols Supply w/ Data Center building against other similar peer buildings. The national energy performance rating is a type of external benchmark that helps energy managers assess how efficiently their buildings use energy relative to similar buildings nationwide. The rating systems' 1-100 scale allows interested parties to quickly understand how a building is performing; a rating of 50 indicates average energy performance while a rating of 75 or better indicates efficient performance. Organizations can evaluate energy performance among their portfolio of buildings while also comparing performance with other similar buildings nationwide. Additionally, building owners and managers can use the performance ratings to help identify buildings that offer the best opportunity for improvement and to track and measure performance over time. To qualify for ENERGY STAR certification, a building must have a rating of 75 or greater. The current ENERGY STAR score for the Nichols Supply w/ Data Center building is 77, as shown in the graphic below. If all the energy conservation measures outlined in this report are implemented, the expected score is 91.


Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Overview Identified Energy Conservation Measures The following table highlights ECM opportunities identified during the Audit.

ECM #

Recommended Energy

Conservation Measure


Natural Gas

Savings (Therms)

Total Yearly

Savings ($)

Estimated Cost ($)

Rebate ($)


1

Warehouse: Upgrade to new 0.35-watt electroluminescent exit sign retrofit kits

5,186 -103 $1,766 $1,499 0.8

2

Change unoccupied thermostat settings for the offices to ~15F higher in summer and lower in winter. (currently they're about 6-8F different)

2,425 786 $794 $0 <0.1

3

Reduce the warehouse unoccupied heating setpoint to ~45F

2,423 3,486 $2,814 $500 0.2

4

Reduce plug loads through controls and increased awareness targeting printers, copiers, fax machines, coffee makers, etc.

3,186 -64 $216 $0 <0.1


5

Vary warehouse ventilation based on need (determined by a CO2 sensor), instead of a continuous amount of outdoor air.

-18 606 $454 $2,000 4.4

6 Remove 2 lamps from each rack area fixture

54,224 -1,088 $4,518 $700 0.2

7

Add motion sensor on each non-security, non-main aisle warehouse fixture.

69,520 -1,371 $5,881 $30,500 5.2

8

Remove approximately half of open office lamps. (Rely more on task lighting)

9,453 -119 $917 $750 0.8

9

Replace existing Warehouse INdirect-fired heating units with direct-fired heating with substantially higher efficiency.

-12,549 9,777 $6,089 $60,000 9.9

10

Vary office ventilation based on need (CO2 sensor), instead of a continuous amount of outdoor air.

-187 188 $128 $5,000 39.1

11

Replace multiple furnaces with a single rooftop VAV unit of higher cooling efficiency

6,027 -195 $457 $20,000 43.8

12

Replace the office condensing units with high efficiency units.

1,948 0 $325 $30,000 92.3

Sum Total: 141,637 11,903 $24,359 $150,949 6.20


Total Annual Energy Spend by System After the above ECMs are implemented, the Nichols Supply w/ Data Center will realize significant cost benefits due to decreased energy consumption and operations and maintenance expenditure. The three end-uses with the largest energy reduction potential from these ECMs are heating, cooling, and lighting.

Equivalent Carbon Footprint Reduction Implementing the proposed energy conservation measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.41 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to removing 37 cars from the road or reforesting 40 acres of trees.


Detailed ECM Information ECM Calculations/Methodology The building asset data collected during the ASHRAE Level 2 energy audit was used to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building. Inferences were made about the unknown building characteristics using data from tens of thousands of prior audits. The energy model was calibrated to actual energy use utilizing local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. The calibrated 8,760 hourly energy model was then run against an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost effective package of ECMs for this particular building. Thousands of measures were considered for this building and all interactive effects between the building systems were explicitly modeled and considered when the optimal packages of ECMs were created. Custom energy conservation measures were considered and included where relevant based on knowledge of the building gained from the energy audit. A summary of these findings follows. ECM-1

Warehouse: Upgrade to new 0.35-watt electroluminescent exit sign retrofit kits Proposed Condition:











ECM-2

Change unoccupied thermostat settings for the offices to ~15F higher in summer and lower in winter. (currently they're about 6-8F different) Proposed Condition:


Installed Cost $0





Annual Natural Gas Savings 786 Therms



Reduce the warehouse unoccupied heating setpoint to ~45F Proposed Condition:


Installed Cost $500









ECM-4

Reduce plug loads through controls and increased awareness targeting printers, copiers, fax machines, coffee makers, etc. Proposed Condition:


Installed Cost $0








Vary warehouse ventilation based on need (determined by a CO2 sensor), instead of a continuous amount of outdoor air. Proposed Condition:






Annual Electricity Savings -18 kWh





ECM-6

Remove 2 lamps from each rack area fixture Proposed Condition:


Installed Cost $700





Annual Natural Gas Savings -1,088 Therms



Add motion sensor on each non-security, non-,ain aisle warehouse fixture. Proposed Condition:







Annual Natural Gas Savings -1,371 Therms




ECM-8

Remove approximately half of open office lamps. (Rely more on task lighting) Proposed Condition:


Installed Cost $750








Replace existing Warehouse INdirect-fired heating units with direct-fired heating with substantially higher efficiency. Proposed Condition:






Annual Electricity Savings -12,549 kWh





ECM-10

Vary office ventilation based on need (determined by a CO2 sensor), instead of a continuous amount of outdoor air. Proposed Condition:






Annual Electricity Savings -187 kWh


Total CO2e Reduction 1 ton


Replace multiple furnaces with a single rooftop VAV unit of higher cooling efficiency Proposed Condition:











ECM-12

Replace the office condensing units with high efficiency units. Proposed Condition:








Total CO2e Reduction 1 ton

Total Energy Reduction <1% ECMs Considered but Not Recommended The following list of energy conservation measures were considered but were deemed impractical. These measures were not included due to various reasons including lack of data, engineering analysis time constraints or preliminary unfavorable economics.

• The existing 30-watt incandescent exit signs will consume 5,256 kWh per year. Converting to 0.2-watt electroluminescent exit signs reduces the electricity consumption to 35 kWh per year.


Appendix 1: Energy Analysis Methodology Approach The general approach is to collect building asset data inputs to develop an 8,760 hourly energy model of the building, calibrate that model to actual energy use, and then utilize the calibrated model to estimate energy consumption and identify cost-effective energy conservation measures using localized weather data. Inputs & Inferences Retroficiency's AEA is designed to work with as little or as much information about the building as is available. Utilizing minimal inputs and data from tens of thousands of prior audits, the system builds accurate "inferences" about the energy subsystems of the building. These inferences can always be adjusted and modified based upon the user's knowledge of the building, or as more information becomes available. These inferences are used to run an 8,760 hourly energy model and allow for an iterative yet efficient process of refinement and tuning to rapidly align the energy model with actual energy consumption patterns. Tuning The tuning process compares modeled energy consumption with actual utility bills, and allows the user to make changes to inputs and inferences to better align modeled consumption with historical consumption - providing a transparent view of the accuracy of the modeled output. During the tuning process, the model utilizes local weather data from the same time period as the actual utility bills. AEA's sophisticated analysis tools help guide the user to the right answer in a streamlined manner allowing an accurate energy model of the building to be built in a fraction of the time it takes today with traditional methods. Results AEA combines the tuned 8760 hourly energy model with an extensive Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) database with localized costs and optimization algorithms to determine the most life cycle cost effective package of ECMs for a given building. Thousands of measures are automatically considered on each building in minutes, and all interactive effects between the building systems are explicitly modeled and considered when creating the optimal packages of ECMs. In addition to the automatically generated ECM packages, the user can view and select from additional ECM recommendations and/or create custom ECMs to further refine the ECM portfolio. Retroficiency's AEA software allows the user to view recommended ECM packages that correspond to their business objectives. The user is able to view the projected impact of implementing the selected ECM package on various metrics including Energy Intensity, Energy Cost, CO2 emissions etc.







Appendix 2: Building Floor Plan(s)


Appendix 3: Lighting ECM Return on Investment Calculations

Opportunities for Cost-Effective Capital Improvements

#Internal

RoRModified

RoR1 11.6% 10.4%2 16.0% 11.4%3 -1.4% 6.2%4 -7.1% 4.2%5 0.0% 0.0%6 0.0% 0.0%7 0.0% 0.0%8 0.0% 0.0%9 0.0% 0.0%

10 0.0% 0.0%$351,903 $18,770

48%33%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Std. Motion Sensors on exist. fixtures + PRS ballasts $35,210 $6,630 See report 4.6 Years

Discounted Cash Flow ROI

Kanepi Sensors on exist. fixtures + PRS ballasts $45,843 $6,630 See report 6.2 YearsDescription

Estimated Cost

Estimated Energy Savings

Estimated Savings (kBTU / ft2/ yr.)

Simple Payback

107%130%

New LED fixtures w/ motion sensors $149,900 $2,800 See report ForeverNew LED fixtures (Midwest) $120,950 $2,710 See report Forever

0 $0 $0 00 $0 $0 0

0 $0 $0 00 $0 $0 0

0 $0 $0 00 $0 $0 0

0.00


Kanepi Sensors on exist. fixtures + PRS ballastsCost Information Energy Discussion and Impact Evaluation

Current System Proposed Measure Assumptions

Equip. Cost (less applicable rebate) $0 $26,743 ● Data per site visits and elsewhere in this reportInstallation Cost $0 $19,100 ● Load data from calibrated energy model

Annual Oper'n & Maint. Cost ● Cost savings taken from calibrated energy model and Owner utility ratesAnnual Electrical Energy Cost $0 ($7,815) ● Ballasts will NOT be replaced for security and main aisle lighting (Rated lamp life = 24000 hours, ballasts = 40000 starts

Annual Fuel Energy Cost $0 $1,185 ● Rated lamp life for remaining fixtures is assumed = 50000 hours and rated ballast life = 100000 starts.Utility Incentives / Tax Credits $4,500 Additional Discussion

Expected Depreciation Cost of Tax The main description of this ECM is elsewhere in this report.Life (yrs.) Period (yrs.) Capital Rate 1 O&M Elect. Fuel

15 5 10% 50% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Accuracies are estimated to be ±5% for cost and ±10% for energy savings Current 960 2.2 10,848$ 320 87.7 10,240$ 0 15 -$ Simple Payback: (Max.= 7.3 yrs. / Min.= 5.4 yrs.) Proposed 960 7.0 10,848$ 320 8.8 10,240$ 180 15 8,280$

6.2

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Notes:

0 $41,343 0 0 0 0 ($41,343) ($41,343)1 $0 $6,630 $0 ($5,349) $1,281 $5,989 $5,445 20 fixtures (10%) are assumed to stay on 24/7/365 for security lighting.

2 $0 $6,630 $0 ($5,349) $1,281 $5,989 $4,950 18 fixtures along the West end of the warehouse are assumed to stay on during each occupied shift due to high traffic. (4 of

3 $0 $6,630 $11,512 ($5,349) $12,793 $11,745 $8,824 these are also security lighting)

4 $0 $6,630 $0 ($5,349) $1,281 $5,989 $4,091 157 remaining fixtures are assumed to operate on 15 minute cycles for a total of ~40% of the time during the 1st shift and 70%

5 $0 $6,630 $11,977 ($5,349) $13,258 $11,978 $7,437 during the 2nd shift.

6 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,871 All materials and labor are based on 213 fixtures - which appears to be more than needed.

7 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,701 We know little or nothing about the ballasts, motion sensors or lamps included in the various proposals and have assumed a

8 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,546 lot! This needs clarification!

9 $0 $6,630 $727 $0 $7,357 $3,678 $1,56010 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,27811 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,16212 $0 $6,630 $13,758 $0 $20,388 $10,194 $3,24813 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $96014 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $87315 $0 $6,630 ($11,144) $0 ($4,514) ($2,257) ($540) Impact Evaluation16 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mtce. Non-energy Health, Building Staff, 17 $0 $0 $0 $0 O&M Comfort Oper'ns Training18 $0 $0 $0 $0 Safety19 $0 $0 $0 $0 Low None None None Low20 $0 $0 $0 $0

Totals: $99,450 $26,830 ($26,743) $99,537 $76,511 $44,407 (1) For non-profit corporations such as most schools, hospitals, churches, etc. input a tax rate of 0%.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 11.6% (2) Net Taxable Income = Energy Savings - Maintenance - Depreciation

Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) 10.4%Discounted Cash Flow Return on Investment (ROI) 107%

See below

Inflation Rates

6.2 Years

Remarks

# lamps # ballasts # Occ. Sensors

PeriodCash

OutlayEnergy Savings

O&M Savings

Deprec-iation

Net Taxable Income 2

Net Cash Flow

Net Pres. Value

Lamp life (yrs)

Lamp replacement

Ballast life (yrs)

Ballast replacement

Sensor life (yrs)

Sensor replacement


Std. Motion Sensors on exist. fixtures + PRS ballastsCost Information Energy Discussion and Impact Evaluation



Annual Oper'n & Maint. Cost ● Cost savings taken from calibrated energy model and Owner utility ratesAnnual Electrical Energy Cost $0 ($7,815) ● Ballasts will NOT be replaced for security and main aisle lighting (Rated lamp life = 24000 hours, ballasts = 40000 starts)

Annual Fuel Energy Cost $0 $1,185 ● Rated life for remaining fixtures is assumed = 50000 hours and rated ballast life = 100000 starts.Utility Incentives / Tax Credits $4,500 Additional Discussion


15 5 10% 50% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Accuracies are estimated to be ±5% for cost and ±10% for energy savings Current 960 2.2 10,848$ 320 87.7 10,240$ 0 15 -$ Simple Payback: (Max.= 5.4 yrs. / Min.= 4 yrs.) Proposed 960 7.0 10,848$ 320 8.8 10,240$ 180 15 8,280$

4.6


Notes:

0 $30,710 0 0 0 0 ($30,710) ($30,710)1 $0 $6,630 $0 ($3,042) $3,588 $4,836 $4,396 20 fixtures (10%) are assumed to stay on 24/7/365 for security lighting.

2 $0 $6,630 $0 ($3,042) $3,588 $4,836 $3,997 18 fixtures along the West end of the warehouse are assumed to stay on during each occupied shift due to high traffic. (4 of

3 $0 $6,630 $11,512 ($3,042) $15,100 $10,592 $7,958 these are also security lighting)

4 $0 $6,630 $0 ($3,042) $3,588 $4,836 $3,303 157 remaining fixtures are assumed to operate on 15 minute cycles for a total of ~40% of the time during the 1st shift and

5 $0 $6,630 $11,977 ($3,042) $15,565 $10,825 $6,721 70% during the 2nd shift.

6 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,871 All materials and labor are based on 213 fixtures - which appears to be more than needed.

7 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,701 We know little or nothing about the ballasts, motion sensors or lamps included in the various proposals and have assumed

8 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,546 a lot! This needs clarification!

9 $0 $6,630 $727 $0 $7,357 $3,678 $1,56010 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,27811 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $1,16212 $0 $6,630 $13,758 $0 $20,388 $10,194 $3,24813 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $96014 $0 $6,630 $0 $0 $6,630 $3,315 $87315 $0 $6,630 ($11,144) $0 ($4,514) ($2,257) ($540) Impact Evaluation16 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mtce. Non-energy Health, Building Staff, 17 $0 $0 $0 $0 O&M Comfort Oper'ns Training18 $0 $0 $0 $0 Safety19 $0 $0 $0 $0 Low None None None Low20 $0 $0 $0 $0

Totals: $99,450 $26,830 ($15,210) $111,070 $70,745 $40,035 (1) For non-profit corporations such as most schools, hospitals, churches, etc. input a tax rate of 0%.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 16.0% (2) Net Taxable Income = Energy Savings - Maintenance - Depreciation


Remarks

4.6 Years

PeriodCash


O&M Savings

Deprec-iation


Net Cash Flow

Net Pres. Value

# lampsLamp life

(yrs)Lamp

replacement # ballastsBallast life

(yrs)Ballast

replacement # Occ. Sensors

See below

Inflation Rates

Sensor life (yrs)

Sensor replacement


New LED fixtures w/ motion sensorsCost Information Energy Discussion and Impact Evaluation



Annual Oper'n & Maint. Cost ● Cost savings taken from calibrated energy model and Owner utility ratesAnnual Electrical Energy Cost $0 ($2,500) ● Fixtures WILL be replaced for security and main aisle lighting (Rated lamp life = 80000 hours)

Annual Fuel Energy Cost $0 ($300) ● Rated life for remaining fixtures is assumed = 80000 hours.Utility Incentives / Tax Credits $7,000 Additional Discussion


20 10 10% 50% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Accuracies are estimated to be ±5% for cost and ±10% for energy savings Current 160 14.0 1,808$ 0 na -$ 0 15 -$ Simple Payback: Proposed 160 14.0 1,808$ 0 na -$ 160 15 7,360$

51.0


Notes:

0 $142,900 0 0 0 0 ######## ($142,900)1 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $6,723 20 fixtures (10%) are assumed to stay on 24/7/365 for security lighting.

2 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $6,112 18 fixtures along the West end of the warehouse are assumed to stay on during each occupied shift due to high traffic. (4 of these are also

3 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $5,556 security lighting)

4 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $5,051 157 remaining fixtures are assumed to operate on 15 minute cycles for a total of ~40% of the time during the 1st shift and 70% during the 2nd

5 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $4,592 shift. Based on Kleyn Electric.

6 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $4,174 All materials and labor are based on 213 fixtures - which appears to be more than needed.

7 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $3,795 We know little or nothing about the ballasts, motion sensors or lamps included in the various proposals and have assumed a lot! This needs

8 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $3,450 clarification!

9 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $3,13610 $0 $2,800 $0 ($11,990) ($9,190) $7,395 $2,85111 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $49112 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $44613 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $40614 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $36915 $0 $2,800 ($9,906) $0 ($7,106) ($3,553) ($851) Impact Evaluation16 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $305 Mtce. Non-energy Health, Building Staff, 17 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $277 O&M Comfort Oper'ns Training18 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $252 Safety19 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $229 Low None None None None20 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 $1,400 $208

Totals: $56,000 ($9,906) ($119,900) ($73,806) $82,997 $47,570 (1) For non-profit corporations such as most schools, hospitals, churches, etc. input a tax rate of 0%.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) -7.1% (2) Net Taxable Income = Energy Savings - Maintenance - Depreciation


# lampsLamp life

(yrs)Lamp

replacement # ballastsBallast life

(yrs)Ballast

replacement # Occ. Sensors

See below

Inflation Rates

Forever

PeriodCash


O&M Savings

Deprec-iation


Net Cash Flow

Net Pres. Value

Remarks

Sensor life (yrs)

Sensor replacement

Documents

BPT - RxCx MSRB III Cover letter & supporting docs