87 Exhibit J.2_ConceptDevelopmentEnergyAnalysisNarrative.pdf

EXHIBIT J.2

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 2 of 18

Contents

Energy Analysis Summary

Methodology Baselines & Energy Use Targets Proposed Design Criteria Design Alternatives Energy Analysis Results Discussion Energy Cost Summary Conclusion Appendix: Energy Model Input Summary

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 3 of 18

Energy Analysis Summary

This narrative summarizes the results of the energy analysis performed by Thornton Tomasetti (TT) on the Houlton Land Port of Entry (LPOE). Located in Houlton, Maine, the Houlton LPOE is a complex of 4 buildings, which are 24-hour, 7-day, 365-day-per-year mission-critical facilities, processing commercial and non-commercial vehicles entering and exiting the United States from the Woodstock Border Crossing in Belleville, New Brunswick, Canada. The energy analysis has been performed on three buildings: the CBP Commercial Inspection Building, FDA/GSA/APHIS Building, and the Main Port Building. The NII Building is under custody of U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and has thus been excluded from the energy analysis.

The purpose of the energy analysis is to establish the energy performance of each Houlton LPOE building and several design alternatives, which will be used to perform full life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) studies in the subsequent project phase. The results of the energy analysis show that the calculated energy use intensity, or EUI (the yearly site building energy normalized by the building area) of the CBP, FDA and Main Port Building are 103.9, 103 and 82.6 kBtu/sf-yr., with annual utility costs of $17,647, $19,828 and $67,835, respectively, at 2022 EIA Maine rates of $0.174/kWh electricity and $1.66/therm natural gas. Results for the energy analysis performed on the design alternatives are outlined later in the report.

In addition, the energy analysis determines whether each building in the project is complying with its energy use target per federal energy performance requirements, based on a 30% reduction from ASHRAE baselines.

Currently, only the Main Port Building is complying with its energy use target of 95.2 kBtu/sf-yr. due to its improvements in HVAC as well as envelope – whereas the CBP and FDA buildings are only scoped for envelope improvements. This is discussed in detail in the Energy Use Target section of the report.

Methodology

As mentioned in the section above, energy analysis has been performed on the three existing Houlton LPOE buildings: CBP, FDA and Main Port Building of Houlton, LPOE, as shown in the image of the energy model geometry below.

The first step in the energy analysis is to establish the energy targets for each building. In this case, GSA guidance establishes the following as the targets: 30% energy savings from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.

Then, the design options are studied to understand their relative performance to the baselines and GSA energy targets. The current design results provide an understanding of the areas that have the most potential: the largest energy end-uses provide an opportunity for the greatest energy reductions. Therefore, additional design alternatives are established for envelope and HVAC improvements. Finally, next steps include reviewing results with the design team and GSA, and an LCCA to understand the cost implications of the improvements.

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 4 of 18

Baselines & Energy Use Targets

To comply with federal energy efficiency performance requirements, the Houlton LPOE project must achieve its energy use targets. Per the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal buildings Table 2.0 Optimize Energy Performance, several options determine the energy use target for modernization projects. The option applicable to the project is based on the date for which design for construction begins. Ultimately, option 5 is applicable to the project as design for construction for Houlton LPOE began after April 7, 2023: “All Federal agencies shall design new Federal buildings that are commercial and multi-family high-rise residential buildings, for which design for construction began on or after April 7, 2023, to:

Option 5 states that: “Follow the Federal energy performance requirements established under 10 CFR Parts 433 and 435 by designing to exceed ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 by at least 30 percent, where life cycle cost-effective.” Per 10 CFR Part 433, the version of ASHRAE 90.1 used to determine the energy use target is dependent on the date that design for the project began: “All Federal agencies shall design new Federal buildings that are commercial and multi-family high-rise residential buildings, for which design for construction began on or after April 7, 2023, to:

(i) Meet ASHRAE 90.1–2019, (incorporated by reference, see § 433.3); and

(ii) If LCC effective, achieve energy consumption levels, calculated consistent with paragraph (b) of this section, that are at least 30 percent below the levels of the ASHRAE Baseline Building 2019.”

Therefore, the energy use target for each Houlton LPOE building shall be 30% lower than the energy use of an equivalent ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G baseline building. As a result, energy models were developed to determine the energy use for each baseline, and from the results, the energy use target was then determined for each building: 30% energy lower than the baselines.

The following table shows the energy use intensity (EUI) of each baseline building and targets. EUI is the yearly energy use of a building normalized by its gross area, measured in kBtu/sf-yr. Shown side-by-side with each baseline case (BC) building is the target (baseline with a 30% energy reduction) – highlighting the energy use target that each building must achieve to comply with federal energy efficiency performance requirements. For the CBP, FDA, and Main Port buildings, this results in an EUI of 75, 75.6, and 95.2 kBtu/sf-yr., respectively.

BC - CBP 107

BC - FDA 108

BC - Main 136 BC - CBP Energy Target 75.0 BC - FDA - Energy Target 75.6 BC - Main - Energy Target 95.2

107 108

75.0 75.6 95.2

EU

I ( kB tu

/s f-y r)

Energy Use Intensity Target https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/section-433.3 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/section-433.100#p-433.100(b)

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 5 of 18

Proposed Design Criteria

Houlton, Maine is in Aroostook County, which falls under Climate Zone 7 from ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019, the second coldest climate zone (after climate zone 8). As a result, the building energy profile is dominated by heating rather than cooling. It is thus imperative that the building envelope is designed to meet IECC 2015 (Maine state energy code) minimum levels of performance, as summarized in the table below. This level of performance is the basis of design for the proposed cases: Envelope Option 1 for all three buildings.

Proposed – Envelope Option 1 ASHRAE Climate Zone 7 Envelope IECC 2015 Envelope Above-Grade Exterior Walls U-value 0.071 (Mass-Wall) Roof U-value 0.028 (Insulation Entirely Above Deck) Exposed Floors U-Value 0.055 (Mass-Floor) Glazing Ratio ~38% Fixed Fenestration U-0.29/SHGC-0.45 Opaque Doors U-0.61 Infiltration (cfm/sf @ 75 Pa) 0.40

The following charts show energy end-use breakdowns: the various components contributing towards the building peak cooling and heating loads, excluding ventilation-driven loads. The largest energy end-uses provide an opportunity for the greatest energy reductions. Therefore, additional design alternatives are established for envelope and HVAC improvements.

As seen from the charts, solar load into the building from glazing has the largest share of the peak cooling load. Thus, a lower SHGC coefficient, obtainable through application of a low-e coating to the glazing assembly, was studied in envelope option 2. Analogously, wall conduction has the largest share of the peak heating load, and thus increased wall insulation was studied in envelope option 3. Results for the 3 proposed case envelope options are shown in the following section of the report.

Wall Conduction 12%

Roof Conduction 9%

Window Conducti

Window Glass Solar 33%

Door Conduction 5%

Occupant Heat Gain to Space

13%

Lighting Heat Gain To Space

13%

Equipment Heat Gain To Space

13%

Infiltration 1%

Building Peak Cooling Load

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 6 of 18

In addition, there are several opaque doors located on the exterior of each building. As glazing and opaque doors have significantly higher heat transfer coefficients (U-values) than other façade components (exterior walls, roofs, etc.), they contribute to a combined 33% of the total building heating load. Therefore, the glazing and door assemblies, after wall insulation, present the second largest opportunity to reduce heat loss through the envelope and thus improve the energy performance of the building. Energy conservation measures (ECMs) improving the performance of these assemblies will be studied in further energy analyses as the design progresses.

Design Alternatives

The scope of renovation for the CBP and FDA buildings is limited to the building envelope only. The energy analysis has thus been used to compare the energy performances of the different proposed envelope options considered in the design using an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 – 2019 Appendix G level performance building as the baseline, per GSA modeling requirements for the project. For all building components that are considered existing to remain (lighting, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc.), the proposed case energy model has been developed using baseline HVAC systems and their respective levels of performance from ASHRAE 90.1. In other words, in the CBP and FDA building energy models, only the building envelope is varied between the baseline and proposed cases.

On the other hand, the Main Port Building is planned to undergo a major renovation, which includes replacement of all major building systems: envelope, lighting, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc. Therefore, the energy models for this building compare the proposed case, developed using as-designed systems and their respective levels of performance, to the ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019 Appendix G baseline case. Furthermore, as HVAC upgrades are included in the scope of the major renovation planned for the building, two additional HVAC alternatives are also studied in the energy analysis, as discussed later in this report.

The following table summarizes the options studied in the energy analysis. The design options outlined below and studied in the energy analysis were coordinated with the design team, along with all other inputs/assumptions in the energy model.

Wall Conduction, 34%

Roof Conduction, 13%

Window Conduction, 22%

Door Conduction, 11%

Underground Surface Conduction, 7%

Infiltration, 12%

Building Peak Heating Load

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 7 of 18

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Bi d O pt . 2

FD

A

CI

B Bl dg s.

Building Enclosure

Lower Architectural Pre-Cast Panel

RainScreen w/ UHPC Cladding

Architectural Pre-Cast Panel

Energy Model Inputs

IECC 2015 (ME Energy Code)

Improved SHGC (Glazing)

Improved U-Value (Increased insulation)

Lighting, HVAC, & Water Heating

Existing System (NIC)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Ba se

B id

M ai n

Po rt

B ld g.

Building Enclosure

Lower Architectural Pre-Cast Panel

RainScreen w/ UHPC Cladding

Architectural Pre-Cast Panel

Upper RainScreen w/ Timber Cladding

RainScreen w/ Terracotta Cladding

RainScreen w/ Terracotta Cladding

Energy Model Inputs IECC 2015 (ME Energy

Code)

Improved SHGC (Glazing)

Improved U-Value

(Increased insulation) Lighting System

Centralized Low- Voltage Centralized Low-Voltage

Centralized Low- Voltage

HVAC Air-Source Heat Pump VRF Ground Source Heat Pump (Geothermal)

Water Heating Heat Pump Hot Water Heat Pump Hot Water Heat Pump Hot Water

Energy Analysis Results Discussion

For each building to achieve its energy use target, it will need to exceed the baseline performance in several energy end uses. The following charts show the energy use breakdown for each building, highlighting the percent of total energy contributed by each end use. As seen from the following figures, each building has approximately the same energy distribution, which is expected, as each building is similar in design elements and functionality.

Currently, only the Main Port Building is meeting its energy use target. This is expected, as it is the only building receiving upgrades to systems other than the building envelope, which is the case for the CBP and FDA buildings. Therefore, energy savings from increased efficiencies in interior lighting, space cooling, space heating, and domestic hot water heating, result in the Main Building meeting its energy use target. As the CBP and FDA buildings scopes are limited to envelope upgrades only, to comply with their energy use targets, significant improvements in envelope performance beyond those studied in Envelope Options 2 (lower SHGC) and 3 (increased wall insulation) will be required to meet the energy targets. However, it is unlikely that these improvements will be cost effective, which will be demonstrated in the life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) performed in the next design phase. This will be discussed further between the design team and GSA.

The following pages show the results for the CBP and FDA buildings. The energy performance between the baseline and proposed cases are marginally different, as most of the building components (HVAC systems, lighting, equipment, etc.) are the same, thereby “normalizing” the energy performances of each case. In addition, the energy model determined an increase in energy from Envelope Option 2 – lower SHGC. This is because the project is in a heating-dominated climate zone, and thus lower solar heat gain has a negligible

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 8 of 18 effect on cooling, while increasing heating due to a reduction in positive solar heat gain. The energy analysis also determined a modest effect from increased exterior wall insulation in Envelope Option 3, as IECC 2015 level insulation (for climate zone 7) is already very stringent and improving beyond this level of performance yields diminishing returns. The cost effectiveness of increased insulation will thus be confirmed in the LCCA.

107 104 104 102

BC - CBP

PC - CBP -

Envelope Option

PC - CBP -

Envelope Option

PC - CBP -

Envelope Option

DHW 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Heating 47.3 45.6 46.1 43.9 Cooling 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.3 Int. Lights 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Ext. Lights 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Fans 20.4 19.3 19.0 18.8 Pumps 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equipment 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Process/Elevator 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 107 104 104 102

EU

I ( kB

TU

/s f-y r)

CBP Building

Target: 75

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 9 of 18

103 104 101

BC - FDA

PC - FDA -

Envelope Option

PC - FDA -

Envelope Option

PC - FDA -

Envelope Option

DHW 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Heating 49.3 46.8 49.2 45.7 Cooling 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 Int. Lights 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Ext. Lights 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Fans 17.6 15.6 14.3 15.2 Pumps 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equipment 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Process/Elevator 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 108 103 104 101

EU

I ( kB

TU

/s f-y

r) FDA Building

Target: 75.6

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 10 of 18

As both envelope and HVAC improvements are being considered for the Main Port Building, to isolate the impact of the envelope upgrades only, the first step in the analysis is to use one consistent HVAC option:

Option 1 – ASHP Chiller. Reviewing the envelope impacts only, Envelope Option 2 does yield increased energy performance, as the increase in heating energy (due to a reduction in positive solar heat gain from a lower SHGC glazing assembly) is mitigated by the high efficiency of the ASHP chiller. The heating efficiency of the ASHP chiller is a COP of 3.2, meaning that for every unit increase in heating load, the increase in associated energy is only a fraction of that: 1/3.2. Therefore, the heating energy is kept constant in Envelope Option 2 (from Option 1), whereas cooling and fan energy is reduced.

83 79 82

BC - Main PC - Main -

Envelope Option

PC - Main - Envelope Option

PC - Main - Envelope Option

DHW 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7

Heating 65.7 21.2 21.3 20.7 Cooling 3.0 9.2 7.4 9.1 Int. Lights 18.0 16.6 16.6 16.6 Ext. Lights 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Fans 25.7 7.7 6.5 7.6 Pumps 0.0 5.1 4.1 5.0 Equipment 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Process/Elevator 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Total 136 83 79 82

EU

I ( kB

TU

/s f-y r)

Main Port Building - Envelope Options (using HVAC Option 1: ASHP Chiller)

Target: 95.2

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 11 of 18

Subsequently, several HVAC options for the Main Port Building have been studied in the energy analysis. Again, to isolate the impact of HVAC upgrades only, Envelope Option 1 was used as a base in all. A description of the HVAC options is provided as follows:

The basis of design, or “default” is Option 1 – ASHP Chiller. In this design, an air-source heat pump chiller is used to generate chilled water (CHW) for cooling, and hot water (HW) for heating. CHW and HW are piped to air-handling units (AHUs) to supply conditioned air to the building, and to dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) to supply ventilated air to the building. The DOAS is equipped with energy recovery ventilation (ERV), which recovers heat from relief/exhaust air to preheat incoming ventilation air in the heating season. In the cooling season, the ERV performs the reverse function of transferring heat from incoming ventilation air to relief/exhaust air leaving the building.

The first alternative is Option 2 – Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF). In this design, air-cooled condensing units are utilized to reject heat from refrigerant to ambient air during cooling operation, while performing the reverse function during heating operation, where the unit absorbs heat into the refrigerant, which in turn is used to heat the building. Separate fan-coil units (FCUs) are utilized to supply conditioned air to each thermal zone, whereas a VRF DOAS is used to provide ventilation air, also equipped with ERV as in Option 1 above.

The last alternative is Option 3 – Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP). This option is similar to Option 1

– ASHP Chiller, with the difference being that a ground loop is utilized to absorb/reject heat, rather than ambient air. The benefit of this design is that the ground loop can pull heat from a relatively constant-temperature source, maximizing its efficiency, compared to the air-source heat pump configuration whose efficiency significantly decreases during colder ambient conditions.

Results for these HVAC options are shown in the chart on the following page. All options result in significant heating energy savings from the baseline, due to utilization of some form of heat pump technology, which moves heat efficiently rather than generating it as in the baseline system – a fossil fuel furnace which burns natural gas to produce heat. In addition, all options utilize variable volume or variable speed fans, which compared to the constant volume fans in the baseline, significantly reduce fan energy usage as the power draw of the fans is reduced during part-load conditions.

HVAC Options 2 and 3 achieve higher levels of cooling efficiency compared to HVAC Option 1, as their designs include individual FCUs service each zone, optimizing cooling energy. In HVAC Option 1, a central AHU cools each level of the building, thereby requiring the cooling coil to meet the demand of the warmest zone served – thereby “overcooling” it and driving the need for reheating.

HVAC Option 3 achieves the highest level of heating efficiency, as expected due to the reasons described above. However, the associated energy savings are negated by the increased energy from pumping of water through the ground loop, which does not exist in the other two HVAC options. Furthermore, the heating efficiency typically associated with a GSHP is not seen, as the heating and cooling loads of the building are imbalanced, meaning that the heat available for extraction from the ground loop is limited by the heat rejected during cooling. The cooling and heating loads need to be balanced for proper function of a GSHP system. As the Houlton LPOE project is dominated by heating (being in Climate Zone 7), with relatively low cooling, the GSHP is not able to fully maximize heating efficiency, thereby reducing its improvement as compared to the other options.

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 12 of 18

83 77

BC - Main PC - Main - HVAC Option 1

PC - Main - HVAC Option 2

PC - Main - HVAC Option 3

DHW 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7

Heating 65.7 21.2 22.5 19.1 Cooling 3.0 9.2 6.8 6.9 Int. Lights 18.0 16.6 16.6 16.6 Ext. Lights 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Fans 25.7 7.7 8.5 8.2 Pumps 0.0 5.1 0.0 10.2 Equipment 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Process/Elevator 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

EU

I ( kB tu

/s f-y

r) Main Port Building - HVAC Options

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 13 of 18

Energy Cost Summary

The following table summarizes the energy cost of the baseline case, proposed case, and each additional design option.

Design Option Annual Utility Costs

BC - CBP $18,125

PC - CBP - Envelope Option 1 $17,647 PC - CBP - Envelope Option 2 $17,645 PC - CBP - Envelope Option 3 $17,387

BC - FDA $20,739

PC - FDA - Envelope Option 1 $19,828 PC - FDA - Envelope Option 2 $19,693 PC - FDA - Envelope Option 3 $19,616

BC - Main $75,270 PC - Main - Envelope Option 1 (with HVAC Option 1)

$67,835

PC - Main - Envelope Option 2 (with HVAC Option 1)

$64,791

PC - Main - Envelope Option 3 (with HVAC Option 1)

$67,324

PC - Main - HVAC Option 2 (with Envelope Option 1)

$63,495

PC - Main - HVAC Option 3 (with Envelope Option 1)

$68,906

Conclusion

In summary, energy analysis has been performed on the CBP, FDA, and Main Port buildings of the Houlton, LPOE project. The intent of the energy analysis was to evaluate the performance of the proposed designs, along with several building envelope and HVAC system options/alternatives. This was performed by comparing the proposed designs with ASHRAE 90.1 Standard 2019 – Appendix G baseline buildings. Through the operational energy cost data calculated by the energy model, a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) will be performed in the next design phase to determine which design options are deemed cost effective and should thus be explored further.

In addition, the baseline building was used to determine the energy use target of each building, per GSA energy performance requirements. Ultimately, as designed, only the Main Port building meets its GSA energy target. As the CBP and FDA buildings’ scope of work is limited to only envelope upgrades, the prospects of energy efficiency improvements are greatly diminished, and these buildings currently do not meet their respective targets because of this limitation. It is expected that further envelope improvements are needed, beyond what has been studied in this analysis, to achieve their targets. However, a LCCA will be necessary to confirm that these improvements are cost effective and should thus be pursued in the design. This will be coordinated further between the design team and GSA.

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 14 of 18

Appendix: Energy Model Input Summary

GSA Baseline Proposed General Software eQuest 3.65 Climate Zone 7 7 Envelope Envelope Assemblies ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019

Appendix G Envelope IECC 2015 Envelope

Above-Grade Exterior Walls U-value 0.064 (Metal-Framed) 0.071 (Mass-Wall) Roof U-value 0.063 0.028 (Insulation Entirely

Above Deck) Exposed Floors U-Value 0.038 0.055 (Mass-Floor) Glazing Ratio ~38% ~38% Fixed Fenestration U-0.57/SHGC-0.39 U-0.29/SHGC-0.45 Opaque Doors U-0.7 U-0.61 Infiltration (cfm/sf @ 75 Pa) 0.40 0.40

HVAC

HVAC System ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019 Appendix G HVAC Efficiencies

IECC 2015 Efficiencies

Space Temperature Setpoints (Main) Heating: 72°F Same as Baseline Cooling: 75°F Same as Baseline

Space Temperature Setpoints (MEP Rooms)

Heating: 65°F Same as Baseline Cooling: 85°F Same as Baseline

HVAC System 1 System 3 – PSZ-AC: Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioner

Air-cooled modular heat pump chiller with backup HW boilers

Areas Served All levels All levels Cooling Source DX-Cooling – 13 EER Chiller – 10.1 EER Heating Source Fossil-fuel furnace (80% Et) ASHP – 3.2 COP; Boiler – 1.0 COP Supply Air Terminal Units N/A – Constant Volume No VAV Boxes – Single-Zone AHUs Ventilation System System 3 – PSZ-AC: Packaged

Rooftop Air Conditioner

DOAS

Ventilation System Cooling Source DX-Cooling CHW from heat pump chiller Ventilation System Heating Source Fossil-fuel furnace (80% Et) HW from heat pump chiller Supply Fan Power AHU – 0.835 W/cfm Same as Baseline Relief/Exhaust Fan Power AHU – 0.835 W/cfm Same as Baseline HVAC System 2 n/a

Split-System Air Conditioner Areas Served MEP Rooms Cooling Source Direct Expansion (DX) – 13.0

SEER

Heating Source 1 None Supply Air Terminal Units Fan-Coil Units Ventilation System None Supply Fan Power 0.3 W/cfm

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 15 of 18

Domestic Hot Water Heating

Domestic Hot Water Heating System ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019 Appendix G HVAC Efficiencies

IECC 2015 Efficiencies

Heating System Electric resistance storage water heater

Heat Pump storage water heater

System Efficiency 100% Thermal Efficiency COP - 2.0 Domestic Hot Water Load (GPM) CBP – 0.040 FDA – 0.050

Main Port – 0.150 Same as Baseline

Internal Loads Occupancy Density (#People/1000SF)

ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016 ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016

Conference 50 Same as Baseline Corridor 0 Computer Room 4 Dining Area 70 Electrical/Mechanical 0 Food Preparation 20 Laboratory 25 Loading Dock 0 Lobby (Elevator) 10 Lobby (Other) 10 Lounge/Breakroom 25 Office (Enclosed) 5 Office (Open) 5 Parking Area 0 Restroom 0 Sales area 15 Stairwell 0 Storage 0 Lighting Power Density (W/SF) ASHRAE 90.1 – 2019

Appendix G – LPD

IECC 2015 – LPD

Conference 1.30 1.23 Corridor 0.38 0.66 Computer Room 1.39 1.71 Dining Area 0.59 0.65 Electrical/Mechanical 1.05 0.95 Food Preparation 0.84 1.21 Laboratory 1.26 1.81 Loading Dock 0.53 0.47 Lobby (Elevator) 0.60 0.64 Lobby (Other) 0.98 0.9 Lounge/Breakroom 1.20 0.73 Office (Enclosed) 0.77 1.11 Office (Open) 0.94 0.98 Parking Area 0.17 0.19

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 16 of 18

Restroom 0.50 0.98 Sales area 1.45 1.59 Stairwell 0.15 0.69 Storage 0.44 0.63 Lighting Control System Occupancy Sensors Same as Baseline Equipment Power Density (W/SF) ASHRAE Handbook ASHRAE Handbook Office 0.75 Same as Baseline Ventilation Ventilation Airflow Rates (cfm/person)

ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016 ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016

Conference 5 1.23 Corridor 0 0.66 Computer Room 5 1.71 Dining Area 7.5 0.65 Electrical/Mechanical 0 0.95 Food Preparation 7.5 1.21 Laboratory 10 1.81 Loading Dock 0 0.47 Lobby (Elevator) 5 0.64 Lobby (Other) 5 0.9 Lounge/Breakroom 5 0.73 Office (Enclosed) 5 1.11 Office (Open) 5 0.98 Parking Area 0 0.19 Restroom 0 0.98 Sales area 7.5 1.59 Stairwell 0 0.69 Storage 0 0.63 Ventilation Airflow Rates (cfm/SF) ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016 ASHRAE 62.1 – 2016 Conference 0.12 Same as Baseline Corridor 0.06 Computer Room 0.06 Dining Area 0.18 Electrical/Mechanical 0 Food Preparation 0.12 Laboratory 0.18 Loading Dock 0 Lobby (Elevator) 0.06 Lobby (Other) 0.06 Lounge/Breakroom 0.06 Office (Enclosed) 0.06 Office (Open) 0.06 Parking Area 0.75 (exhaust) Restroom 50 cfm/toilet (exhaust)

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 17 of 18

Sales area 0.12 Stairwell 0 Storage 0 Other Exterior Lighting Loads ASHRAE 90.1 - 2019

Appendix G Lighting

IECC 2015

Lighting Zone 1 - Rural Areas 1 - Rural Areas Building Facades 5 W/SF Same as Baseline Total Estimated Lighting Load (kW) 6.5 Same as Baseline Process Loads ASHRAE Handbook ASHRAE Handbook Elevator Motor Size 11.2 kW (PNNL) Same as Baseline Utility Rates 2022 EIA - Maine 2022 EIA – Maine Electricity $0.174/kWh $0.174/kWh Natural Gas $1.66/Therm $1.66/Therm

Envelope Options

Proposed Proposed – Envelope Option 2

Proposed – Envelope Option 3

Envelope IECC 2015 Envelope IECC 2015 Envelope with adjusted fixed SHGC

IECC 2015 Envelope with adjusted wall insulation

Above-Grade Exterior Walls U-value

0.071 (Mass-Wall) 0.064 (Mass-Wall with R-

19.6 insulation)

Roof U-value 0.028 (Insulation Entirely Above Deck) Exposed Floors U-Value

0.055 (Mass-Floor)

WWR ~38%

Fixed Fenestration U-0.29/SHGC-0.45 U-0.29/SHGC-0.30

(low-e coating)

U-0.29/SHGC-0.45

Opaque Doors U-0.61 Infiltration (cfm/sf @ 75 Pa)

0.40

HVAC Options

Proposed Proposed – HVAC Option 2 Proposed – HVAC Option 3 HVAC IECC 2015 Efficiencies:

ASHP

IECC 2015 Efficiencies:

VRF

IECC 2015 Efficiencies:

GSHP

Space Temperature Setpoints (Main)

Heating: 72°F Cooling: 75°F

Space Temperature Setpoints (MEP Rooms)

Heating: 65°F Cooling: 85°F

HVAC System 1 Air-cooled modular heat pump chiller with backup HW boilers

Variable refrigerant flow Ground source heat pump

Areas Served All levels Cooling Source Chiller – 10.1 EER VRF – 10.4 EER GSHP – 10.6 EER Heating Source ASHP – 3.2 COP;

Boiler – 1.0 COP VRF – 3.2 COP; Electric Resistance – 1.0 COP

GSHP – 3.7 COP;

Boiler – 1.0 COP

Houlton, ME Land Port of Entry Design Narrative | Contract Number 47PB00-23-F-0129 | Page 18 of 18

Supply Air Terminal Units

Supply Diffusers 4-pipe Fan-Coil Units 4-pipe Fan-Coil Units

Ventilation System DOAS

Ventilation System Cooling Source

CHW from heat pump chiller

VRF – 10.4 EER GSHP – 10.6 EER

Ventilation System Heating Source

HW from heat pump chiller

VRF – 3.2 COP; Electric Resistance – 1.0 COP

GSHP – 3.7 COP;

Boiler – 1.0 COP

Supply Fan Power 0.835 W/CFM 0.3 W/cfm 0.3 W/cfm Relief/Exhaust Fan Power

0.835 W/CFM

HVAC System 2 Split-System Air Conditioner Areas Served MEP Rooms Cooling Source Direct Expansion (DX) 13.0 SEER Heating Source 1 None Supply Air Terminal Units

Fan-Coil Units

Ventilation System None Supply Fan Power 0.3 W/cfm

Disclaimer: The results from the energy analysis must be used for comparative evaluations of energy optimization measures with the assumptions indicated in this report. The results should not be construed as an absolute prediction of future building energy use as usage schedules, weather patterns, and system functions may change during operation.