ADDENDUM 1 _ 25012 On Call Facility Energy Au.pdf

ADDENDUM I

DATE: June 27, 2024

TO: ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

FROM: Samantha Murray, Senior Buyer

RE: ADDENDUM I, RFP #25012 On-Call Facility Energy Auditing Services

Pursuant to RFP 25012 the following information is provided:

Updated Pricing Worksheet attached at the end of addendum.

QUESTION 1: Can you provide an energy audit along with any indicator as to whether you were happy with it or found it deficient?

ANSWER 1: The only location that had an energy audit in the past was Transit Multi-Modal, this audit is attached. The audit met the requirements requested at that time.

QUESTION 2: Will multiple departments be able to use this contract?

ANSWER 2: Contracts resulting from this RFP may be utilized by any ACCGov department or division at the sole discretion of ACCGov.

OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

Questions and Answers are hereby added to and become a part of RFP# 25012 On-Call Facility Energy Auditing Services. This Addendum modifies and forms a part of the Quote Documents.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Any inquiries concerning this Bid should be made to Samantha Murray, Senior Buyer, (706) 400- 6048, or email accbids@accgov.com.

The Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any technicalities or irregularities, and to award the proposal based on the highest and best interest of the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County.

mailto:accbids@accgov.com

COMPANY NAME

Firm Employee Job Title

Hourly Rate July 1, 2024 -

June 30 - 2025

Hourly Rate July 1, 2025 -

June 30 - 2026

Hourly Rate July 1, 2026 -

June 30 - 2027

Hourly Rate July 1, 2027 -

June 30 - 2028

Hourly Rate July 1, 2028 -

June 30 - 2029 Ex. Energy Analyst $34.25 $35.62 $37.04 $38.53 $40.07

% Markup for Sub-Contracted Services

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP # 25012

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E1:PROJECT PRICING BY ROLE

MANDATORY SUBMITTAL

Project Role Individual in that Role Hours

Required Hourly Rate Hourly Total

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Project Sub-Contractors (if any) Service Provided Base Cost Markup Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

Labor Total

Sub-Contractor Total

Facility Total

E2. Proposal Price for the Sandy Creek Nature Center ENSAT Building

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

RFP # 25012

Required Hourly Rate Hourly Total

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Project Sub-Contractors (if any) Service Provided Base Cost Markup Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00Facility Total

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP #25012

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E3. Proposal Price for the Facilities/Landscape Management Building

Labor Total

Sub-Contractor Total

Required Hourly Rate Hourly Total

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Project Sub-Contractors (if any) Service Provided Base Cost Markup Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00Facility Total

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP #25012

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E4. Proposal Price for the Health Department

Labor Total

Required Hourly Rate Hourly Total

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Project Sub-Contractors (if any) Service Provided Base Cost Markup Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00Facility Total

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP #25012

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E5. Proposal Price for the Library

Labor Total

Required Hourly Rate Hourly Total

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Project Sub-Contractors (if any) Service Provided Base Cost Markup Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00Facility Total

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP #25012

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E6. Multi-Modal Transportation Center

Labor Total

Furthermore, if awarded the project, the Offeror does hereby agree to enter into an on-call contract with Athens-Clarke County using the project pricing and methodology as outlined in Section V-E-1: Project Pricing by Role.

Authorized Representative/Title (print or type )

Authorized Representative (Signature )

Date

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Sandy Creek Nature Center - ENSAT Building Facilities & Landscape Management Building

Health Department Library

Multi-Modal Transportation Center Total Project Price

THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY

RFP #25012

In compliance with the RFP, the Offeror hereby agrees to conduct ASHRAE Level 2 Facility Energy Audits for the following prices, if awarded the project.

Facility Amount Bid

ON CALL FACILITY ENERGY AUDITING SERVICES

E7:PROPOSAL PRICING SUMMARY

ASHRAE Level 2 Energy Audit

Prepared For: Athens-Clarke County

Project: Energy Surveys of Municipal Buildings: Multi- Modal Center

Report Version Date: March 10, 2020

Prepared by:

2KB Energy Services

President: George Buchanan

1372 Peachtree St.

Atlanta, GA 30309

Phone: 404-398-4430

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Facility Summary

Utility Analysis

Utility Allocation

Monthly Usage Analysis

Efficiency Measures

EM-1: Adjust Temperature Setpoints

EM-2: Replace Interior CFLs with Plug and Play LED Lamps

EM-3: Replace Linear Fluorescent Lamps with Type B LED Tube Lamps and Bypass Existing Ballasts

EM-4: Upgrade Exterior Lighting to LED Lamps

EM-5: Install Variable Frequency Drive for Packaged Unit Supply Fan

EM-6: Replace Distribution Transformers with New High Efficiency Transformers

Appendix A: Other Measures Considered

Appendix B: Incentives and Financing

Appendix C: Inventory of Major Energy-Using Equipment

Appendix D: Abbreviations and Acronyms

Appendix E: Terms and Definitions

Appendix F: Air Handling System Types

Level 2 Energy Audit | Athens-Clarke County: Multi-Modal Center

3 | P a g e

Executive Summary

This report serves as the final product of an energy audit and assessment of the subject facility completed within the framework of the Level 2 audit in Procedures for Commercial Building Energy

Audits by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The purpose of conducting an energy audit is to assess the energy consuming equipment and systems of a facility, then identify and analyze the modifications that will improve efficiency or occupant comfort, or both.

This report fulfills that purpose by presenting the information in specific sections that lead to the details of individual energy and water conservation measures. The Facility Summary is provided as a qualitative assessment of the subject facility and a description of existing conditions. The Utility Analysis section provides a quantitative assessment of the baseline or existing building conditions. The final recommendations are included in the Efficiency Measures section of the report.

These efficiency measures are the main focus of this report and should serve as a list of action items.

Each identified measure will contain a summary of the cost-benefit analysis, details on existing conditions related to the recommendation, a description of the recommendation itself, and potentially other factors to consider.

Figure ES-1 illustrates the current, proposed, and total savings in energy usage and cost if the efficiency measures (EMs) identified in this report are implemented.

4 | P a g e

Figure ES-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Annual Energy Usage and Cost

Table ES-1 summarizes the cost, savings, and financial payback for each of the individual measures evaluated as part of this analysis. Included is a Cost Confidence Factor that indicates the certainty with which measure implementation costs were estimated. This factor varies based upon the rigor of the assessment, the availability of existing system information, the scope of each measure, and other extenuating circumstances. The incentives are estimated based on the programs described in Appendix

B: Incentives and Financing. Details on the measures are included in the Efficiency Measures section of this report.

5 | P a g e

Table ES-1 Summarized Savings for Identified Measures

Measures Type1 Total

Savings ($/yr)

Project Cost

Simple Payback (years)

Confidence Factor

Est.

Incentive

SPB with Incentive

(years)

1 Adjust Temperature Setpoints HVAC $1,253 $40 0.0 90% $0 0.0

Replace Interior CFLs with Plug and Play

LED Lamps L $204 $680 3.3 90% $136 2.7

Replace Linear Fluorescent Lamps with

Type B LED Tube Lamps and Bypass Existing Ballasts

L $423 $1,590 3.8 90% $138 3.4

4 Upgrade Exterior Lighting to LED Lamps L $209 $378 1.8 90% $0 1.8

Install Variable Frequency Drive for

Packaged Unit Supply Fan

HVAC $198 $7,900 40.0 90% $500 37.4

Replace Distribution Transformers with

New High Efficiency Transformers O $649 $20,335 31.3 80% $0 31.3

Total: $2,936 $30,922 10.5 88% $774 10.3

The measures above are those for which a confident recommendation could be made based on the analysis scope of a Level 2 audit. Low cost or non-efficiency related operational and maintenance (O&M) measures, as well as some capital measures that were considered but determined not to be good recommendations or require further investigation, are included Appendix C: Other Measures Considered.

6 | P a g e

Audit Team

2KB Energy Services uses an integrated, teamwork-based approach to provide each customer with a final product that fits their particular needs. This is done by involving the building owners and stakeholders in each phase of the audit process. The primary team identified for this project consists of the members summarized in Table ES-2.

Table ES-2 Project Team and Contact Info

Name Organization Position / Role Contact Info

Andrew Saunders Athens-Clarke County Director of Office of

Sustainability 706.613.3838

Beth Smith Athens-Clarke County Facilities

Administrator 706.613.3570

George Buchanan 2KB Energy Services Project Manager 770.927.8357

Eloise Yount 2KB Energy Services Primary Onsite

Contact/Auditor 770.750.5022

Clayde Barkley 2KB Energy Services Engineer / Auditor 805.548.0285

Christian Orsi 2KB Energy Services Engineer / Auditor 720.222.3088

Approach

The first phase of the audit process consists of a utility summary and analysis on the latest 12 to 24 months of utility bills for the site. This analysis generated a baseline for the energy usage and utility costs, which was used in calculating potential energy savings.

The second phase was to perform an on-site inspection to collect all the relevant data on the existing building conditions. This on-site assessment included reviewing building and equipment data, interviewing site personnel, observing energy related equipment operation, and conducting some limited site measurements.

Finally, the third and final phase is conducted. The available information is analyzed to quantify cost-effective, energy efficiency opportunities. The required investment, energy cost savings, and economic payback is calculated for each measure and presented in this report. The financial payback was evaluated using the methods summarized in Table ES-3.

Table ES-3 Methods and Values Used to Determine Payback

Payback Calculation Methods

Simple Payback: (Project Cost) / (Est. Annual Savings)

Assumptions

A general facility overview from facility staff along with utility meter data, square footage, facility layout drawings, building construction, observation, and general equipment information provided the

7 | P a g e information needed to complete this report. Where data was not available, assumptions were developed based on experience with similar buildings and systems.

Implementation costs are intended for budgetary purposes and include a variety of assumptions regarding scope, perceived level of effort, contract mechanism, etc. Costs include estimates from the latest available version of the RSMeans data by Reed Construction Data Inc., past experience, and/or vendor quotes. Prior to pursuing energy efficiency projects, the scope and quantities of material to be procured should be verified as well as any assumptions included in the analysis.

Savings estimates depend on a variety of assumptions. Most notably, calculations for climate-related measures are based on Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) data provided by the National Solar

Radiation Data Base. “Because they represent typical rather than extreme conditions, they are not suited for designing systems to meet the worst-case conditions occurring at a location” (Brief Summary of the TMY2s) but they are useful for determining the typical energy consumption of a system. Actual savings from year to year will vary as weather patterns vary. Additionally, all savings estimates are generally extrapolated from a snapshot in time and assume that the facility continues to be operated and used in the same manner for all future years. For example, future schedule changes or building renovation projects are not accounted for unless otherwise stated.

8 | P a g e

Facility Summary

Table FS-1 provides a brief overview of the building in the scope of work.

Table FS-1 Overview of Facility

Multi-Modal Center- 775 E Broad Street

Size: 10,500 ft2

Occupancy Schedule: M-F: 6:00 .a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Sat-Sun: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Description of Building Use: The building serves a bus depot. There are approximately 80 employees, and the daily passengers through the station varies from approximately 1800 to 2500 per day. Typical spaces include administrative offices, a large lobby with an information center, and a small break room for the operators.

Baseline Energy Use: 1,031 MMBtu/yr total energy use (based on 2018 meter data), 97.6 MBtu/ft2/yr

Baseline Water Use: 424 kGal/yr total water use (based on FY2018 meter data), 40.2 Gal/ft2/yr

Envelope: The walls of the building are filled in concrete masonry units (CMUs) with a brick veneer exterior. The roof is rolled out asphalt. The windows and large turnstile entrances are double pane glass. The foundation is slab on grade.

Airside HVAC: The building is conditioned by a mixture of HVAC systems. The lobby/first floor is primarily conditioned by a rooftop packaged unit (RTU), with a 10 hp supply fan, 27.5 tons of cooling, and three stages of 35 kW electric resistance heating.

The supply fan is constant volume, and the unit has an outdoor air damper with an outdoor air damper controller. The unit cannot provide full economizing (according to the available drawings, it is capable of a maximum of 16% outdoor air).

The lobby also has electric resistance baseboard heaters around the windows for auxiliary heating in the wintertime. The stairwells and entrances also have electric resistance heaters, each rated at 1.5 kW.

The administrative areas are conditioned by one split system heat pump, with a 2 hp supply fan, 7.8 tons of cooling, and 300

MBh of heat pump heating. The heat pump also has 25 kW of supplemental electric resistance heating.

The RTU, the heat pump, and the exhaust fans of the building are controlled via a Johnson Control Metasys energy management system (EMS) that is accessible from the computer in the 1st floor information center. There were no advanced controls observed in the EMS (i.e. supply air temperature reset, outdoor air damper control, etc.). The EMS appears to essentially be a scheduling software.

9 | P a g e

Multi-Modal Center- 775 E Broad Street

Lighting: The interior of the building is lit with a variety of fixtures. The administrative offices are light by 23W CFLs and 2-foot linear fluorescent lamps with 17W T8 lamps, the restrooms are lit by 4-foot 16.5W Type B LED tube lamps, and the lobby is lit by LED pendant fixtures, estimated at 50W. The interior lighting is controlled via a mixture of occupancy sensors and manual switches, except for the lobby lights that are controlled via a timeclock set to operate from 4:00 a.m. to 12:15 a.m.

The exterior of the building is primarily lit by LED fixtures, including 16W LED sconces and parking lot LED fixtures estimated at

50W. Some of the sconces were observed to still have 60W CFLs, but they will shortly be switched to the 16W LED lamps, according to staff interview. The landscaped area in the front is lit by 32W CFL uplights. The pole lights are controlled via a timeclock set to operate from 8:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The rest of the exterior lights are controlled via photocell.

Other Energy Using Equipment: There are two Energy Star rated vending machines in the lobby. The administrative areas have typical office plug load: computers, monitors, printers, etc.

Plumbing/Domestic Water: Domestic water fixtures found in the building consist of bathroom sinks with 0.5 gpm aerators, 1.0 gpf urinals, and 1.6 gpf toilets. DHW is provided by one 40 gallon electric tank water heater.

Irrigation: The irrigation system consists of a multiple irrigation zones controlled by a single central timer. The run time information could not be gathered during the site visit since the control box was locked.

Renewable Energy: There is a building tied 16 kW solar PV system above the bus parking area. The information on the solar

PV system is available through a computer in an electrical room on the first floor.

10 | P a g e

Utility Analysis

This section summarizes the results of the utility analysis that was conducted to establish a basic understanding of energy consumption in the building prior to performing detailed evaluations of the individual efficiency measures. The preliminary utility analysis included allocating each utility into end-use categories and a monthly utility consumption analysis. The results of each of these analyses are summarized in this section.

A summary of utility usage and costs for a typical twelve month period (January 2018 to December 2018) is shown in Figure UA-1.

Figure UA-1 Annual Utility Profile

11 | P a g e

Utility Allocation

As a first step in quantifying energy savings, the annual utility usage is broken down into component end-uses. The end product of this procedure is called the utility allocation. Calculated savings for the various savings measures are then based on the utility allocation to ensure savings estimates remain grounded in the known.

The process involves identifying, quantifying, and analyzing building loads: lighting, plug loads

(computers and office equipment), data centers, refrigeration, and HVAC. These allocations are based on known facts, estimates, and engineering assumptions. The utility allocations are calibrated to match annual metered energy and water usage when available. For electricity, “other” is a category that includes plug loads, computer equipment, and other small miscellaneous loads.

In some cases, annual energy and water data for a building may be unavailable and the allocations are developed using engineering estimates. Table UA-1 summarizes the individual allocations for each utility used by the facility.

Table UA-1 Utility Allocations for Multi-Modal Center

Electricity Annual Total: 298,520 kWh

Natural Gas Annual Total: 120 therm

Water/sewer Annual Total: 424 kGal

12 | P a g e

Monthly Usage Analysis

All of the utility data provided was analyzed to determine trends over time, outliers, and relationships between consumption and outside air temperature. This analysis provides insight into consumption patterns for each utility and helps to determine anomalies in monthly utility usage. This analysis led to the following insights into the building:

• Electric consumption correlates to both heating and cooling, with a stronger correlation to heating in the winter months.

• The only natural gas consumption for the building is for the emergency generator.

• Water consumption increases in the summer months due to irrigation.

• Utility cost data for water, sewer, and irrigation has been estimated using the current Athens Clarke

Country rates for the purposes of this analysis.

Table UA-2 summarizes the monthly consumption and cost for each utility. Figure UA-2 through Figure

UA-4 shows year-over-year consumption for each utility respectively (electricity, natural gas, and water).

13 | P a g e

Table UA-2 Monthly Consumption and Cost for Each Utility

14 | P a g e

Figure UA-2 Year-Over-Year Electricity Consumption

Figure UA-3

Year-Over-Year Natural Gas Consumption

Figure UA-4

Year-Over-Year Water Consumption

15 | P a g e

Efficiency Measures

This section provides details on recommended energy and water efficiency measures. At the start of each measure is a summary table that indicates measure savings by utility, estimated implementation cost, and payback. Note that for applicable measures, demand (kW) savings are shown in the summary table; however, there is no cost savings associated with demand savings since the sites do not directly pay for demand usage.

Following the table, written descriptions are provided for other key elements of each measure including:

• Existing Conditions

• Measure Description

• Calculation Methodology

• Impact on O&M Procedures and Costs

• Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

• Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

• Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

The following appendices provide supplemental information:

Appendix B: Incentives and Financing Options

Appendix C: Inventory of Major Energy-Using Equipment

16 | P a g e

EM-1: Adjust Temperature Setpoints

Existing Conditions

The HVAC equipment of the building are controlled by an EMS accessible through a local computer.

Currently, the existing occupied heating and cooling setpoints force the HVAC equipment to run more hours than necessary:

• The heating and cooling setpoints of RTU-1 are identical; since there are no unoccupied set points visible in the EMS it is assumed the unit shuts down according to the schedule and does not cycle back on to meet unoccupied setpoints.

• The occupied heating and cooling setpoints of HP-1 are too close together, and the unoccupied heating and cooling setpoints are nearly identical to the occupied setpoints.

Table EM 1-1 summarizes the occupancy HVAC systems/setpoints of the building associated with this measure.

Table EM 1-1 Summary of Setpoints for HVAC Equipment of Multi-Modal Center

Unit ID Areas

Served Heating Setpoint

(°F) Cooling Setpoint

(°F) HVAC Sched.

Zone Thermostats on EMS?

RTU-1

First floor lobby Occupied: 72

Unoccupied: n/a Occupied: 72

Unoccupied: n/a M-F: 5:30 a.m. to 10:15 p.m.

Sat-Sun: 6:30 a.m. to 10:15 p.m.

Yes

HP-1

Second floor administrati on area

Occupied: 68 Unoccupied: 67

Occupied: 72 Unoccupied: 71

M-F: 5:30 a.m. to 10:15 p.m.

Sat-Sun: 6:30 a.m. to 10:15 p.m.

Yes

Measure Description

The occupied setpoints of RTU-1 and HP-1 should be modified, and the unoccupied setpoints of HP-1 should be modified as summarized in Table EM 1-2. Changing the occupied heating and setpoints will create a deadband, and when the zone temperatures are within that deadband the heating and cooling of the units will be able to turn off and only the fans will run. Changing the unoccupied setpoints of HP-

1 will allow the unit to run much less often at night.

Type

$1,253 Gross Project Cost: $40

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $0

Water Savings: $0 $40

$0

Electricity $1,253 12,972 kWh/yr 44.3 $1,253

Demand $0 0.0 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 0.0 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 0.0 years

Total $1,253 44.3

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Adjust Temperature Setpoints HVAC Energy Savings:

17 | P a g e

Table EM 1-2 Summary of Proposed Heating and Cooling Setpoints

Unit Areas Served Heating

Setpoint (°F)

Cooling Setpoint

(°F)

RTU-1 First floor lobby

Occupied: 68 Unoccupied:

n/a

Occupied: 74 Unoccupied: n/a

HP-1

Second floor administration area

Occupied: 68 Unoccupied: 60

Occupied: 74 Unoccupied: 85

Calculation Methodology

Equipment nameplate data and information from discussions with site personnel were gathered and analyzed. A spreadsheet bin temperature simulation model was created to simulate the energy usage of the HVAC systems serving the building. The bin models were calibrated against metered and allocated energy usage. A 3% savings in cooling and heating energy per degree of increase in setpoint was used in the energy savings calculation. The percent savings are based on Industry Data 2004, LBNL.

The cost estimate for implementing the measure is summarized in Table EM 1-3.

Table EM 1-3 Summary of Measure Cost

Item Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

Change setpoints at EMS $0.00 $40.00 $40 1 $40

Project Subtotal: $40

Design/Engineering Fees: 0% $0

Project Mgmt./General Contractor Fees: 0% $0

Total: $40

Impact on O&M Procedures and Costs

There may be a slight increase in O&M activities, as the zone temperature setpoints should be checked periodically at the operator workstation. Changes to the setpoints should be made as needed.

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

This measure will have no effect on occupant health or safety. Occupant comfort will increase, as the staff that work on the second floor indicated that the area was always too cold for comfort.

Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

The strategy should prolong belt, filter, motor, bearing, and compressor life by decreasing daily operational requirements.

18 | P a g e

Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

Spot power measurements of the supply fans of RTU-1 and HP-1 will need to be taken. OAT, MAT, RAT, SAT, fan amperage, and zone temperature for RTU-1 and HP-1 will need to be logged over a two-week period in intervals of 15 minutes both before and after the retrofit. The logged data will need to be processed:

• Use the spot power measurement to correlate the logged amperage to kW

• Removing scheduled off hours

• Removing erroneous readings (aka “noise”)

The logged data will be used to create bin-temperature simulations of the baseline and proposed cases;

the difference in the bin-temperature simulations will be the energy savings.

19 | P a g e

EM-2: Replace Interior CFLs with Plug and Play LED Lamps

Select areas of the building are lit by CFLs, which are not as efficient as LEDs available today. The CFLs use more energy, have shorter life spans, and contain mercury (hazardous disposal) compared to LEDs.

The CFLs addressed in this measure are controlled by a mixture of occupancy sensors and manual switches. One of the recessed cans with a CFL is shown in Figure EM 2-1.

Figure EM 2-1 Recessed Can CFL

Type

$197 Gross Project Cost: $680

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $136

Water Savings: $0 $544

$7

Electricity $197 2,037 kWh/yr 7.0 $204

Demand $0 0.5 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 3.3 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 2.7 years

Total $197 7.0

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Replace Interior CFLs with Plug and Play LED

Lamps L

20 | P a g e

Measure Description

The existing 23W CFLs should be replaced with plug and play 9.5W LED lamps, as summarized in Table

EM 2-1.

Table EM 2-1 Summary of LED Lamp Upgrade

LED have other benefits in addition to energy savings. LED lamps produce higher quality light than the existing CFLs and do not flicker during startup or during degradation like the existing lamps. Further, LED lamps do not contain mercury (no hazardous waste disposal requirements) and they only generate half as much heat when compared to the existing lamps, which reduces cooling costs year round.

Calculation Methodology

The energy savings were calculated using fixture counts, fixture watts, and an estimated number of annual burn hours. The proposed fixture wattage is based on vendor cut sheets, and it is assumed the proposed lamps burn the same annual hours as the existing lamps.

The cost estimate for implementing the measure is summarized in Table EM 2-2.

Table EM 2-2 Budgetary Cost Estimate Breakdown

Item Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

9.5W LED 2-

pin

$15 $5 $20 34 $680

Project Subtotal: $680

Design/Engineering Fees: 0% $0

Project Mgmt./General Contractor Fees: 0% $0

Total: $680

21 | P a g e

Impact on O&M Procedures and Costs

This measure will result in reduced O&M procedures and costs. While the LED replacement lamps are more expensive than CFLs, LED lamps last much longer than CFLs. Additionally, LED lamps do not contain mercury, unlike CFLs, so there will be no hazardous waste disposal costs.

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

The mercury hazards associated with fluorescent lamps will be eliminated.

Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

The recommended LED lamps have an expected life of 50,000 burn hours, as compared to 16,000 burn hours of CFLs.

Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

Fixture wattage could be measured for a representative sample of each fixture type both before and after the retrofit. Run hours for each area type can be measured using data loggers. Not every area needs to be measured, only representative areas per areas type. For those applications with occupancy sensors, run hours should be measured post installation as well.

For each fixture type:

• Savings due to lamp replacement = # Fixtures x (Pre kW - Post kW) x Pre Run Hours.

22 | P a g e

EM-3: Replace Linear Fluorescent Lamps with Type B LED Tube Lamps and Bypass

Existing Ballasts

While some of the existing 4-foot linear fluorescent lamps have been upgraded to LED tube lamps, there are still a handful of 4-foot linear fluorescent lamps left in the building. Additionally, there are 2-foot linear fluorescent lamps. Linear fluorescent lamps use more energy than LED lamps; fluorescent fixtures also require ballasts. One of the 2-foot fixtures is shown in Figure EM 3-1.

Figure EM 3-1 Left: 2-Foot Linear Fluorescent Fixture Right: Close-up of T8 Lamp

All existing linear fluorescent lamps being used should be upgraded to LED technology.

LED offers many benefits in addition to the obvious energy efficiency. These include:

• Low life cycle costs due to extended lifespan and slow lumen degradation

• No mercury disposal issues

• Impressive warranties, typically 5 to 10 years

• Consistent quality of light

• Excellent dimming ability

• No UV light and little infrared

• Instant-on at full brightness

• Excellent low temperature operation

Type

$299 Gross Project Cost: $1,590

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $138

Water Savings: $0 $1,452

$124

Electricity $299 3,094 kWh/yr 10.6 $423

Demand $0 0.6 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 3.8 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 3.4 years

Total $299 10.6

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Replace Linear Fluorescent Lamps with Type B LED

Tube Lamps and Bypass Existing Ballasts L

23 | P a g e

• High Color Rendering Index (CRI)

• Frequent switching does not affect bulb life

An easy and economical way to convert linear fluorescent fixtures to LED is to use T8 LED tube lamps.

There are four different approaches to this conversion, and they are summarized along with their advantages and disadvantages in Table EM 3-1. Since past upgrades used Type B lamps, this is the approach specified here.

Table EM 3-1 LED Tube Lamp Summary Table

LED Tube Type Description Advantages Disadvantages

Type A

“Plug and Play”

Works with existing ballast

1. Easy to install

2. Typically the least total cost as labor price is small.

3. Some can be dimmable with dimming ballast

1. Ballast still in place which allows for an additional failure point

2. Ballast compatibility issues

3. Ballast can add to total wattage

Type B

“Ballast Bypass”

Ballast must be removed, and line voltage wired to lampholder(s)

1. Eliminates ballast

2. Reduces points of failure. No ballasts remain which can fail.

3. Lowest material cost.

1. Rewiring required and ballast must be removed

2. May not work with emergency power systems

3. Line voltage on lamp holders could be a safety concern

4. Single side power only works with non-shunted lamp holders

Type A + B

“Hybrid” or “Magic Tube”

Can work with or without ballast

1. Works with or without ballast

2. Can work with any type of lamp holder

3. You can install as a plug and play and then remove ballast when it starts to fail

4. Some can be dimmable with dimming ballast

1. Slightly higher tube cost

2. Could have same disadvantages as Type

A or Type B depending on how it is used

Type C

External Driven LED Tube

Requires external LED driver

1. Allows for dimming and programmability

2. External driver allows for better heat dissipation which could extend the lifespan

3. Some can be dimmable with dimming ballast

1. Tube may be designed for a proprietary driver. This could cause issues if the replacements are no longer available after failure.

2. Highest cost option

3. Requires wiring and removal of old equipment

This measure recommends replacing all existing T8 linear fluorescent lamps with Type B T8 LED lamps and bypassing the existing ballasts (the second option above). The proposed lamps should be selected so that they maintain or improve upon the existing lighting levels in each space. This removes the failure point of the ballasts and makes for a consistent installation (if ballasts are different, the LED light output could be inconsistent). Installation instructions for the replacement LED tube lamps should be followed carefully to realize maximum savings and to ensure the proper operation and full life of the LED tube lamps. Details regarding the suggested lamp are summarized in Table EM 3-2.

24 | P a g e

Table EM 3-2 Summary of Recommended Lamp Replacements

Lamp Type GA Rebates Suggested Model Picture

4-foot 17W Type B LED T8 tube lamp

$3/Lamps Philips 471763

The “temperature” or brightness of the lights is measured in Kelvin, as shown in Figure EM 3-2. The higher temperatures represent “bluer” light and lower temperature represent “redder” light. 5,000k simulates daylight (bluish-white) and is used for work that requires more detail, such as technical areas.

4,000k is a little more yellow and is the preferred lighting for corridors and office space. 3,500k is a warmer light, and should be used in areas where a relaxed environment is preferred, such as waiting rooms.

Figure EM 3-2 Kelvin Temperature Scale

Calculation Methodology

The energy savings were calculated using fixture counts, fixture watts, and an estimated number of annual burn hours. The proposed fixture wattage is based on vendor cut sheets, and it is assumed the proposed lamps burn the same annual hours as the existing lamps. The energy savings for the LED lamp replacement is summarized in Table 3-3.

25 | P a g e

Table EM 3-3 Summary of Energy Savings for Installing LED Lamps

The cost estimate for implementing the measure is summarized in Table EM 3-4.

Table EM 3-4 Budgetary Cost Estimate Breakdown

Item GA Rebate

Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

4ft 17W LED Lamp

N/A $6.25 $5.00 $11 16 $180

2ft LED T8 $3/Lamp $18.00 $5.00 $23 30 $690

Ballast Bypass N/A $0.00 $40.00 $40 18 $720

$1,590

0% $0

0% $0

$1,590

This measure will result in reduced O&M procedures and costs. While the LED replacement lamps are more expensive than T8 lamps, LED lamps last much longer than fluorescent lamps and have a very low failure rate. Also, there will no longer be ballasts to replace. Fluorescent lamps can have a significant

26 | P a g e recycle cost, due to the mercury. However, as the LED lamps contain printed circuit board (PCBs) they should be recycled at the end of their life.

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

The mercury hazards associated with fluorescent lamps will be eliminated.

Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

The recommended LED lamps have an expected life of 50,000 burn hours, as compared to 24,000 burn hours of typical linear fluorescent lamps. LED lifespan is based on 70% output, so it is very likely the lamp will be used far longer than 5 years. 10 year warranted bulbs are available at a slightly higher cost.

Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

Fixture wattage could be measured for a representative sample of each fixture type both before and after the retrofit. Run hours for each area type can be measured using data loggers. Not every area needs to be measured, only representative areas per areas type. For those applications with occupancy sensors, run hours should be measured post installation as well.

27 | P a g e

EM-4: Upgrade Exterior Lighting to LED Lamps

While the majority of the exterior lights in the bus depot area have been converted to LED, there are four 60W CFLs left in that area. The landscaping in front also has CFL fixtures. The CFLs use more energy, have shorter life spans, and contain mercury (hazardous disposal) compared to LEDs. Examples of the

CFLs are shown in Figure EM 4-1.

Figure EM 4-1 Left: Landscaping CFL Right: Bus Depot CFL

The existing CFLs should be replaced with plug and play LED lamps, as summarized in Table EM 4-1.

Type

$205 Gross Project Cost: $378

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $0

Water Savings: $0 $378

$4

Electricity $205 2,120 kWh/yr 7.2 $209

Demand $0 0.5 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 1.8 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 1.8 years

Total $205 7.2

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Upgrade Exterior Lighting to LED Lamps L

28 | P a g e

Table EM 4-1 Summary of LED Lamp Upgrade

LED have other benefits in addition to energy savings. LED lamps produce higher quality light than the existing CFLs and do not flicker during startup or during degradation like the existing lamps. Further, LED lamps do not contain mercury (no hazardous waste disposal requirements) and they only generate half as much heat when compared to the existing lamps, which reduces cooling costs year round.

Calculation Methodology

The energy savings were calculated using fixture counts, fixture watts, and an estimated number of annual burn hours. The proposed fixture wattage is based on vendor cut sheets, and it is assumed the proposed lamps burn the same annual hours as the existing lamps.

The cost estimate for implementing the measure is summarized in Table EM 4-2.

Table EM 4-2 Budgetary Cost Estimate Breakdown

Item Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

10W LED spiral $12.00 $5.00 $17 14 $238

16W LED Corncob $30.00 $5.00 $35 4 $140

Project Subtotal: $378

Design/Engineering Fees: 0% $0

Project Mgmt./General Contractor Fees: 0% $0

Total: $378

Impact on O&M Procedures and Costs

This measure will result in reduced O&M procedures and costs. While the LED replacement lamps are more expensive than CFLs, LED lamps last much longer than CFLs. Additionally, LED lamps do not contain mercury, unlike CFLs, so there will be no hazardous waste disposal costs.

29 | P a g e

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

The mercury hazards associated with fluorescent lamps will be eliminated.

Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

The recommended LED lamps have an expected life of 50,000 burn hours, as compared to 16,000 burn hours of CFLs.

Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

Fixture wattage could be measured for a representative sample of each fixture type both before and after the retrofit. Run hours for each area type can be measured using data loggers.

30 | P a g e

EM-5: Install Variable Frequency Drive for Packaged Unit Supply Fan

The lobby of the building is served by a constant volume packaged unit that is summarized in Table EM

5-1. Since the system is constant volume, the existing supply fan runs at 100% speed when the packaged unit is operational, regardless of heating and cooling requirements of the lobby. Running the fan at 100% speed wastes a significant amount of energy.

Table EM 5-1 Packaged Unit Summary

Unit ID Make Model #

Supply Fan (hp)

Fan Speed Modulation

Heating Capacity

Heating Source

Heating Efficiency

Cooling Capacity

Cooling Efficiency

RTU-1 TRANE TED330A4R1B6DH1 10.00

Constant volume

35 kW Electric resistance 99% 27.5 ton 10 SEER

Measure Description

The proposed measure is to add a VFD to the supply fan of the packaged unit and convert the constant volume system to a pressure independent variable air volume (VAV) system. The upgrade includes:

1. Replace the existing motor with a new premium-efficiency, inverter duty motor.

2. Install a VFD to the new supply fan motor.

3. Connect the VFD to the existing EMS.

4. Program the VFD to modulate the speed of the supply fan based on zone temperature.

5. The supply fan minimum speed setting should be optimized in the field during system balancing and commissioning to be as low as possible while avoiding stalling of fans. The proposed minimum speed is approximately 35% of the maximum flow of the supply fan design flow rate.

This measure will save energy without causing any thermal comfort issues.

Calculation Methodology

Mechanical schedules, equipment nameplate data, and information from discussions with the onsite engineer was gathered and analyzed. Mechanical schedule data was used to determine heating and cooling efficiencies, supply fan hp and unit capacities.

Type

$198 Gross Project Cost: $7,900

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $500

Water Savings: $0 $7,400

$0

Electricity $198 2,046 kWh/yr 7.0 $198

Demand $0 0.0 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 40.0 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 37.4 years

Total $198 7.0

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Install Variable Frequency Drive for Packaged Unit

Supply Fan

HVAC

31 | P a g e

Bin simulation models were created to simulate the energy usage of HVAC systems for the building. The energy savings were calculated by comparing the existing (baseline) motor using the fan curve relative to actual load to a motor that is able to modulate (post-retrofit) using a VFD relative to actual load.

Project costs for this measure, including the major line item costs and estimated totals from RSMeans, are summarized in Table EM 5-2.

Table EM 5-2 Summary of Measure Cost

Item GA Rebate

Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

Variable frequency drives, enclosed, 460 volt, 10 HP motor size, NEMA 1

$500 ($50/HP) $3,305 $582 $3,887 1 $3,887

Motors, drip proof, premium efficiency, 1.15 service factor, 1,800 RPM, 230/460 V, 60 Hz, 10 HP

N/A $1,599 $97 $1,696 1 $1,696

Misc.

programming/controls

N/A $500 $500 $1,000 1 $1,000

$6,583

10% $658

10% $658

$7,900

As the VFD is added to modulate the speed of the supply fan, initial testing will have to be performed to find the minimum speed that still maintains zone temperature. Once this setpoint is in place and the fan and VFD are properly commissioned, trend logs demonstrating the performance of the fans relative to zone temperature, percent VFD speed, and outdoor air temperature should be documented. This will allow future operation of the fan to be compared with their original settings and assist with any required troubleshooting. There should be no significant impact to O&M practices as a result of this measure.

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

If this measure is implemented properly, there should be no impact on occupant health, comfort, or safety. To properly maintain occupant comfort, the minimum VFD speed and the modulation rate should be adjusted to maintain the zone temperature setpoint and ensure proper minimum airflow. During installation, momentary comfort issues may arise, which are typical of any HVAC and controls upgrades in existing facilities. Issues such as these can be minimized or eliminated by proper phasing and scheduling of the upgrade activities.

32 | P a g e

Proposed Equipment Life and Impact on Existing Equipment

VFDs can last up to 100,000 hours, which translates to over twenty years at current run times. Some

VFDs have been known to contribute to power quality issues. Higher-end VFDs include features to reduce or cancel out power quality issues. Overall, this measure should prolong belt, filter, motor, and bearing life by reducing the hours of operation and speed during periods of low loading.

Proposed Measurement and Verification Strategy

Spot power measurements of the supply fans of RTU-1 will need to be taken. OAT, MAT, RAT, SAT, fan amperage, and zone temperature for RTU-1 will need to be logged over a two-week period in intervals of 15 minutes both before and after the retrofit. The logged data will need to be processed:

• Use the spot power measurement to correlate the logged amperage to kW

• Removing scheduled off hours

• Removing erroneous readings (aka “noise”)

The logged data will be used to create bin-temperature simulations of the baseline and proposed cases; the difference in the bin-temperature simulations will be the energy savings.

33 | P a g e

EM-6: Replace Distribution Transformers with New High Efficiency Transformers

Multi-Modal Center has two low-voltage distribution transformers, varying in capacity from 30 kVA up to 75 kVA. The transformers reduce voltage from 480 volts (which is delivered by the base) to lower voltages (208Y/120V) which are used by lighting, plug loads, computers, and other equipment.

Transformers are comprised of two major components: a steel core, and windings made of aluminum or copper, as shown in Figure EM 6-1.

Figure EM 6-1 Dry Type Transformer Components

Because transformers are in operation 24-hours/day, 365-days/year, they produce energy losses around the clock. Core losses, also known as no load losses, are constant. The core remains energized at all times, regardless of any load. Coil losses, also known as load losses, vary with the load placed upon them. Figure EM 6-2 below is a representation of the two areas of loss.

Type

$649 Gross Project Cost: $20,335

Demand Savings: $0 Incentive: $0

Water Savings: $0 $20,335

$0

Electricity $649 6,717 kWh/yr 22.9 $649

Demand $0 0.0 kW/yr n/a Payback Calculations

Natural Gas $0 0 Therm/yr 0.0 31.3 years

Water/sewer $0 0 kGal/yr n/a 31.3 years

Total $649 22.9

Total Savings:

Simple Payback:

SPB w/ Incentive:

Utility Cost

Avoidance

Use

Avoidance

Equivalent

(MMBtu)

Net Project Cost:

O&M Savings:

Measure Summary of Project Financials

Replace Distribution Transformers with New High

Efficiency Transformers O

34 | P a g e

Figure EM 6-2 Example of Losses from a Typical 75 kVA Transformer

Starting in 2007, the Department of Energy started to regulate the efficiencies of low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers, starting with the TP-1 rating. In 2016, the Department of Energy required a higher level of efficiency for all distribution transformers installed. From 2016 to present, all new transformers must meet DOE16 standards, which requires an approximately 50% reduction in electric losses over the standard type of transformer. The DOE16 rating supersedes the TP-1 rating.

It is recommended the transformers be replaced with a DOE16 type transformers, which can achieve up to 80% energy savings compared to the existing transformers that were installed at the construction of the building.

A 45 kVA DOE16 transformer is 98.4% efficient, which means that only 1.6% of all electricity purchased from the utility is lost through transformer inefficiencies. The recommended model is the Powersmiths

E-Saver-OPAL-R, which actually goes beyond DOE16 efficiency ensuring lower operating losses than standard off-the-shelf transformers. The recommended transformer is shown in Figure EM 6-3.

35 | P a g e

Figure EM 6-3 Powersmiths E-Saver OPAL-R

Powersmiths E-Saver OPAL-R transformers are designed and manufactured to fit within the existing footprint and provide a terminal configuration that allows for the reuse of existing conduit and wires in the majority of transformer replacements. This custom design and manufacturing allows for faster installation and lower installation costs, as they are optimized for retrofit situations.

The replacement transformer will be of a like-size unless a different size transformer is deemed more appropriate for the current electrical load. Electrical load testing could be performed on each transformer to determine the optimal transformer size and ensure the average load is within the optimized operating range of the new transformers, but is not included in the cost of this measure.

36 | P a g e

Calculation Methodology

The calculations for this measure were based upon the nameplate efficiencies of the existing and proposed transformers and the estimated load factors of each transformer. Table EM 6-1 identifies existing and proposed efficiencies and load factors used to calculate no-load and load losses.

Table EM 6-1 Summary of Assumptions

Existing Proposed Savings

Rated Output (kVA) Quantity

On Peak % Loaded

Off Peak % Loaded

On Peak Operating Days/Year

On Peak hrs/ day

Power Factor

On Peak Efficiency

Off Peak Efficiency

Rated kVA

On Peak Efficiency

Off Peak Efficiency

Transformer Losses kWh

30 1 60.0% 15.0% 365 8.0 0.8 95.1% 88.2% 30 96.1% 94.5%

2,029

75 1 60.0% 15.0% 365 8.0 0.8 95.7% 90.8% 75 97.1% 96.0%

4,688

Total 2

6,717

37 | P a g e

The cost estimate for implementing the measure is summarized in Table EM 6-2.

Table EM 6-2 Budgetary Cost Estimate Breakdown

Item Material ($/Item)

Labor ($/Item)

Unit Price ($/Item) Qty. Cost

30 kVa transformer, exceeds DOE 16 Standards

$4,500 $540 $5,040 1 $5,040

75 kVA transformer, exceeds DOE 16 Standards

$11,250 $656 $11,906 1 $11,906

Project Subtotal: $16,946

Design/Engineering Fees: 10% $1,695

Project Mgmt./General Contractor Fees: 10% $1,695

Total: $20,335

Impact on O&M Procedures and Costs

There should be no negative impact on O&M following the installation of the new transformers. The replacement of the old outdated transformers will reduce the chance of high out of pocket expenses due to catastrophic transformer failure.

Impact on Occupant Health, Comfort, and Safety

There should be no impact on occupant comfort, health or safety. High efficient transformers can have lower mechanical and stray eddy current losses, which will result in lower vibrations and noise.

During the installation of the transformers, downstream power will be cut off.