local government energy audit program


This audit is performed in connection with the New Jersey Clean Energy ...... The Hall of Records cooling is achieved via two (2) water-cooled York centrifugal chillers. ... centrifugal water-cooled chiller, with variable speed drive. ..... Pricing in the chart above includes both utility distribution and energy ..... YT-A2-B1-B2-CH-D.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY AUDIT PROGRAM: ENERGY AUDIT REPORT PREPARED FOR:

MORRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS HALL OF RECORDS 10 COURT STREET MORRISTOWN, NJ 07963 ATTN: WILLIAM HUDZIK SENIOR ENGINEERING AIDE

PREPARED BY:

CONCORD ENGINEERING GROUP 520 S. BURNT MILL ROAD VOORHEES, NJ 08043 TELEPHONE: (856) 427-0200 FACSIMILE: (856) 427-6529 WWW.CEG-INC.NET

CEG CONTACT:

WILLIAM CONLEY, PE ENERGY ENGINEER EMAIL: [email protected]

REPORT ISSUANCE: FINAL, MAY 27, 2011

PROJECT NO:

9C10084

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3 

II. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 8 

III. 

METHOD OF ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 10 

IV. 

HISTORIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST ............................................................... 12 

A. ENERGY USAGE / TARIFFS .................................................................................................. 12 B. ENERGY USE INDEX (EUI) .................................................................................................. 17 C. EPA ENERGY BENCHMARKING SYSTEM ............................................................................. 19 V. 

FACILITY DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 20 

VI. 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST ............................................................................................ 22 

VII.  ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 23  VIII.  RENEWABLE/DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MEASURES ................................................ 39  IX. 

ENERGY PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGY .................................. 42 

X. 

INSTALLATION FUNDING OPTIONS.......................................................................... 48 

XI. 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 51 

XII.  ENERGY AUDIT ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................. 52  Appendix A – ECM Cost & Savings Breakdown Appendix B – New Jersey Smart Start® Program Incentives Appendix C – Portfolio Manager “Statement of Energy Performance” Appendix D – Major Equipment List Appendix E – Investment Grade Lighting Audit Appendix F – Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculations

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 1 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

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

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 2 of 52

Hall of Records I.

Energy Audit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the energy audit conducted for: Morris County Hall of Records 10 Court St. Morristown, NJ 07963 Municipal Contact Person: Facility Contact Person:

William Hudzik Christopher Walker

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

$ 385,503

Natural Gas

$ 62,935

Total

$ 448,438

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

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 3 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit Table 1 Financial Summary Table

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECM's) ECM NO. ECM #1 ECM #2

DESCRIPTION

NET INSTALLATION A

COST NEMA Premium Motor Replacement Demand Controlled Ventilation

ANNUAL SAVINGS

B

SIMPLE PAYBACK (Yrs)

SIMPLE LIFETIME ROI

$118,139

$11,619

10.2

145.9%

$116,000

$5,185

22.4

-33.0%

ECM #3

Chiller Replacement

$257,750

$17,734

14.5

58.2%

ECM #4

Variable Speed Chiller Upgrade

$320,000

$38,794

8.2

81.8%

ECM #5

General Lighting Upgrade

$12,258

$3,916

3.1

379.2%

ECM #6

Lighting Controls

$57,839

$10,834

5.3

181.0%

ANNUAL SAVINGS

SIMPLE PAYBACK (Yrs)

SIMPLE LIFETIME ROI

$34,288

15.5

61.8%

RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES (REM's) ECM NO.

DESCRIPTION

NET INSTALLATION COST

REM #1

58.9 kW Solar Array

$529,920

Notes:

A. Cost takes into consideration applicable NJ Smart StartTM incentives. B. Savings takes into consideration applicable maintenance savings.

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

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 4 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit Table 2 Estimated Energy Savings Summary Table

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECM's) ANNUAL UTILITY REDUCTION ECM NO.

DESCRIPTION

ECM #1

NEMA Premium Motor Replacement

7.2

70415.0

0.0

ECM #2

Demand Controlled Ventilation

19.2

26286.0

857.0

ECM #3

Chiller Replacement

80.0

108800.0

0.0

ECM #4

Variable Speed Chiller Upgrade

0.0

238000.0

0.0

ECM #5

General Lighting Upgrade

7.3

24022.0

0.0

ECM #6

Lighting Controls

30.1

66464.0

0.0

ELECTRIC DEMAND (KW)

ELECTRIC NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION (THERMS) (KWH)

RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES (REM's) ANNUAL UTILITY REDUCTION ECM NO.

DESCRIPTION

REM #1

58.9 kW Solar Array

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

ELECTRIC DEMAND (KW) 58.9

ELECTRIC NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION (THERMS) (KWH) 66193.0

0.0

9C10084 Page 5 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Concord Engineering Group (CEG) recommends proceeding with the implementation of all ECM’s that provide a calculated simple payback at or under ten (10) years. The following Energy Conservation Measures are recommended for the facility: •

ECM #1: Premium Efficient Motor Replacement



ECM #4: Variable Speed Chiller Upgrade



ECM #5: Lighting Upgrade



ECM #6: Lighting Controls

In addition to the ECMs, there are maintenance and operational measures that can provide significant energy savings and provide immediate benefit. The ECMs listed above represent investments that can be made to the facility which are justified by the savings seen overtime. However, the maintenance items and small operational improvements below are typically achievable with on site staff or maintenance contractors and in turn have the potential to provide substantial operational savings compared to the costs associated. The following are recommendations which should be considered a priority in achieving an energy efficient building: 1. Chemically clean the condenser and evaporator coils periodically to optimize efficiency. Poorly maintained heat transfer surfaces can reduce efficiency 5-10%. 2. Maintain all weather stripping on entrance doors. 3. Clean all light fixtures to maximize light output. 4. Provide more frequent air filter changes to decrease overall system power usage and maintain better IAQ. Renewable Energy Measures (REMs) were also reviewed for implementation at the Hall of Records. CEG utilized a roof mounted solar array to house a substantial PV system. The recommended 58.88 kW PV system will produce approximately 66,193 kWh of electricity annually and will reduce the County’s electrical consumption from the grid by 2.8%. The system’s calculated simple payback of 15.5 years is past the standard 10 year simple payback threshold; however, with alternative funding this payback could be lessened. CEG recommends the Owner review all funding options before deciding to not implement this renewable energy measure. In addition to the above recommendations, based on the review of the facility’s energy bills, the energy audit team recommends Retro-Commissioning of this facility to meet the following objectives: • • •

Bring existing HVAC equipment to its proper operational state including air and water distribution systems Reduce energy use and energy costs Improve indoor air quality

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 6 of 52

Hall of Records • • • •

Energy Audit

Verify the installation and performance of identified system upgrades Address overall building energy use and demand and identify areas of highest energy use and demand Identify the location of the most comfort problems or trouble spots in the building Review current O&M practices

Through the implementation of a Retro-Commissioning Plan, the County will be able to continue with their vision of reducing energy usage and operating efficient facilities. Overall, the Hall of Records appears to be operating at a high efficiency level compared to other facilities in the region. With the implementation of the above recommended measures the County will realize further energy savings at this facility.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 7 of 52

Hall of Records II.

Energy Audit

INTRODUCTION The comprehensive energy audit covers the 245,178 square foot Hall of Records Building, which includes the following spaces: a three level parking garage, County Clerk’s offices, County Prosecutor’s Office, County Engineering Offices, Probation Office, Sheriff’s Office, Board of Elections and various other County administrative offices. Electrical and natural gas utility information is collected and analyzed for one full year’s energy use of the building. The utility information allows for analysis of the building’s operational characteristics; calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimated savings potential, and baseline usage/cost to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. A computer spreadsheet is used to calculate benchmarks and to graph utility information (see the utility profiles below). The Energy Use Index (EUI) is established for the building. Energy Use Index (EUI) is expressed in British Thermal Units/square foot/year (BTU/ft2/yr), which is used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting the annual consumption of all energy sources to BTU’s and dividing by the area (gross square footage) of the building. Blueprints (where available) are utilized to verify the gross area of the facility. The EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A low EUI indicates less potential for energy savings, while a high EUI indicates poor building performance therefore a high potential for energy savings. Existing building architectural and engineering drawings (where available) are utilized for additional background information. The building envelope, lighting systems, HVAC equipment, and controls information gathered from building drawings allow for a more accurate and detailed review of the building. The information is compared to the energy usage profiles developed from utility data. Through the review of the architectural and engineering drawings a building profile can be defined that documents building age, type, usage, major energy consuming equipment or systems, etc. The preliminary audit information is gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is spent and opportunities exist within a facility. The entire site is surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each facility operates: • • • •

Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) Lighting systems and controls Facility-specific equipment

The building site visit is performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit includes detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 8 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

provided by the building manager are collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 9 of 52

Hall of Records III.

Energy Audit

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Post site visit work includes evaluation of the information gathered, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on HVAC, lighting and building envelope improvements. Data collected is processed using energy engineering calculations to anticipate energy usage for each of the proposed energy conservation measures (ECMs). The actual building’s energy usage is entered directly from the utility bills provided by the owner. The anticipated energy usage is compared to the historical data to determine energy savings for the proposed ECMs. It is pertinent to note, that the savings noted in this report are not additive. The savings for each recommendation is calculated as standalone energy conservation measures. Implementation of more than one ECM may in some cases affect the savings of each ECM. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual ECM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended ECMs. For example implementing reduced operating schedules for inefficient lighting will result in a greater relative savings. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple ECM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. ECMs are determined by identifying the building’s unique properties and deciphering the most beneficial energy saving measures available that meet the specific needs of the facility. The building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans are critical in the evaluation and final recommendations. Energy savings are calculated base on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information when new equipment is proposed. Cost savings are calculated based on the actual historical energy costs for the facility. Installation costs include labor and equipment costs to estimate the full up-front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. The NJ Smart Start Building® program incentives savings (where applicable) are included for the appropriate ECM’s and subtracted from the installed cost. Maintenance savings are calculated where applicable and added to the energy savings for each ECM. The life-time for each ECM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The costs and savings are applied and a simple payback, simple lifetime savings, and simple return on investment are calculated. See below for calculation methods:

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 10 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM Calculation Equations: ⎛ Net Cost Simple Payback = ⎜⎜ ⎝ Yearly Savings

⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠

Simple Lifetime Savings = (Yearly Savings × ECM Lifetime ) Simple Lifetime ROI =

( Simple Lifetime Savings − Net Cost ) Net Cost

Lifetime Maintenance Savings = (Yearly Maintenance Savings × ECM Lifetime ) N ⎛ Cash Flow of Period Internal Rate of Return = ∑ ⎜⎜ (1 + IRR )n n =0 ⎝ N ⎛ Cash Flow of Period Net Present Value = ∑ ⎜⎜ (1 + DR )n n =0 ⎝

⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠

⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠

Net Present Value calculations based on Interest Rate of 3%.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 11 of 52

Hall of Records IV.

Energy Audit

HISTORIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST A. Energy Usage / Tariffs The energy usage for the facility has been tabulated and plotted in graph form as depicted within this section. Each energy source has been identified and monthly consumption and cost noted per the information provided by the Owner. The electric usage profile represents the actual electrical usage for the facility. Jersey Central Power and Light (JCP&L) provides electricity to the facility under their General Service Secondary Three-Phase rate structure. A Third Part Supplier (TPS) has not been contracted. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt-hours (KWH) and maximum demand in kilowatts (KW). One KWH usage is equivalent to 1000 watts running for one hour. One KW of electric demand is equivalent to 1000 watts running at any given time. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Rates used in this report reflect the historical data received for the facility. The gas usage profile shows the actual natural gas energy usage for the facility. Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) provides natural gas to the facility under the Basic General Supply Service (GSGH) rate structure. A Third Part Supplier (TPS) has not been contracted. The gas utility measures consumption in cubic feet x 100 (CCF), and converts the quantity into Therms of energy. One Therm is equivalent to 100,000 BTUs of energy. The overall cost for utilities is calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the utility history provided, the average cost for utilities at this facility is as follows:

Description

Average

Electricity

16.3¢ / kWh

Natural Gas

$1.05/ Therm

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 12 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit Table 3 Electricity Billing Data

ELECTRIC USAGE SUMMARY Utility Provider: JCP&L Rate: General Service Secondary Time of Day 3-Phase Meter No: G28118806 Account # 10 00 06 4834 22 Third Party Utility Provider: N/A TPS Meter / Acct No: N/A CONSUMPTION DEMAND TOTAL BILL MONTH OF USE KWH 426.4 Mar-10 182,400 $28,794 Apr-10

150,400

427.6

$24,299

May-10

186,400

534.8

$30,400

Jun-10

186,000

540.4

$33,800

Jul-10

295,600

577.6

$44,711

Aug-10

264,400

578.0

$42,545

Sep-10

222,000

566.4

$37,259

Oct-10

178,000

574.8

$30,106

Nov-10

168,800

528.4

$28,009

Dec-10

174,000

500.8

$28,396

Jan-11

189,200

425.6

$29,701

Feb-11

170,400

450.8

$27,484

Totals

2,367,600 AVERAGE DEMAND AVERAGE RATE

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

578.0

Max

$385,503

511.0 KW average $0.163 $/kWh

9C10084 Page 13 of 52

500

250,000

ELECTRIC USAGE KWH

600

300,000

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL 100

50,000

DEMAND KW

200

100,000

0

300

150,000

0

400

200,000

Month

700

350,000

Hall of Records Electric Usage Profile March-10 through February-11

Hall of Records Energy Audit

Figure 1 Electricity Usage Profile

9C10084

Page 14 of 52

Demand (kW)

Usage (kWh)

Hall of Records

Energy Audit Table 4 Natural Gas Billing Data

NATURAL GAS USAGE SUMMARY Utility Provider: PSE&G Rate: BGSS Commodity Meter No: 3166051 ; 3010399 Point of Delivery ID: PG000010258033980574; PG000010258034780574 Third Party Utility Provider: N/A TPS Meter No: N/A MONTH OF USE

CONSUMPTION (THERMS)

TOTAL BILL

Mar-10

7,456.95

$8,736.44

Apr-10

3,623.25

$2,911.99

May-10

1,398.87

$1,292.78

Jun-10

136.04

$295.67

Jul-10

146.10

$316.42

Aug-10

122.93

$303.19

Sep-10

237.62

$382.76

Oct-10

1,661.18

$1,481.66

Nov-10

6,034.67

$6,667.65

Dec-10

12,457.85

$12,643.42

Jan-11

15,374.20

$15,799.07

Feb-11

11,137.67

$12,103.64

TOTALS

59,787.33

$62,934.69

AVERAGE RATE:

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

$1.05

$/THERM

9C10084 Page 15 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Gas Usage

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Month

Hall of Records Gas Usage Profile March-10 through February-11

Figure 2 Natural Gas Usage Profile

Usage (Therms)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 16 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

B. Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (BTU) and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUI for this facility is calculated as follows:

Building Site EUI =

( Electric Usage in kBtu + Gas Usage in kBtu ) Building Square Footage

Building Source EUI =

( Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio ) Building Square Footage

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 17 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Table 5 Facility Energy Use Index (EUI) Calculation ENERGY USE INTENSITY CALCULATION BUILDING USE

ENERGY TYPE

kWh 2,367,600.0

ELECTRIC NATURAL GAS

Therms 59,787.3

Gallons

SITE ENERGY kBtu 8,082,986

26,997,175

5,978,733

1.047

6,259,733

14,061,719

TOTAL

SOURCE ENERGY kBtu

SITESOURCE RATIO 3.340

33,256,908

*Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued Dec 2007.

BUILDING AREA BUILDING SITE EUI BUILDING SOURCE EUI

245,178

SQUARE FEET

57.35

kBtu/SF/YR

135.64

kBtu/SF/YR

Figure 3 below depicts a national EUI grading for the source use of Public Order and Safety Buildings. Figure 3 Source Energy Use Intensity Distributions: Public Order Buildings

SOURCE EUI = 135.64

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 18 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

C. EPA Energy Benchmarking System The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to promote energy management has created a system for benchmarking energy use amongst various end users. The benchmarking tool utilized for this analysis is entitled Portfolio Manager. The Portfolio Manager tool allows tracking and assessment of energy consumption via the template forms located on the ENERGY STAR website (www.energystar.gov). The importance of benchmarking for local government municipalities is becoming more important as utility costs continue to increase and emphasis is being placed on carbon reduction, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. Based on information gathered from the ENERGY STAR website, Government agencies spend more than $10 billion a year on energy to provide public services and meet constituent needs. Furthermore, energy use in commercial buildings and industrial facilities is responsible for more than 50 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. It is vital that local government municipalities assess facility energy usage, benchmark energy usage utilizing Portfolio Manager, set priorities and goals to lessen energy usage and move forward with priorities and goals. Morris County DPW had previously created a Portfolio Manager Account for all of their facilities. CEG utilized the current information contained in the online account for the purposes of this report. The login page for the account can be accessed at the following web address; the username and password are also listed below: http://www.energystar.gov/istar/pmpam/index.cfm?fuseaction=login.login

User Name: Password:

MorrisCounty CMORR001

The utility bills and other information gathered during the energy audit process are entered into the Portfolio Manager. The following is a summary of the results for the facility:

Table 6 ENERGY STAR Performance Rating ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE RATING ENERGY FACILITY PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION RATING Hall of Records

94

NATIONAL AVERAGE 50

Refer to Statement of Energy Performance Appendix for the detailed energy summary.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 19 of 52

Hall of Records V.

Energy Audit

FACILITY DESCRIPTION The 245,148 SF Hall of Records building is a five story facility comprised of a three level, subsurface parking garage, County Clerk’s offices, County Prosecutor’s Office, County Engineering Offices, Probation Office, and Sheriff’s Office, Board of Elections and various other County administrative offices. The building was originally constructed in 1967 and served as the county court house. In 1987, the building was renovated and three upper floors were added to the building. According to the building drawings, the exterior walls are a 4” brick on 8” concrete blocks filled with granular insulation. The interior walls are ½” gypsum wall board on 1” metal furring strips. Typical windows throughout the facility are a double pane ¼” clear glass with a combination of wooden and aluminum frames. Blinds are utilized through the facility per occupant comfort. The blinds are valuable because they help to reduce heat loss in the winter and reduce solar heat in the summer. The roof is a flat roof with EPDM roofing with 2” insulation on a 4-1/2” concrete deck. The typical hours of operation are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. HVAC Systems The five office levels are conditioned by seven (7) central station Variable Air Volume (VAV) cooling only rooftop units manufactured by York. Each unit is equipped with a supply fan and return/exhaust fan each controlled by a Danfoss VFD. This system includes terminal VAV boxes for zone level temperature control. Zones with exterior wall or roof exposure are equipped with hot water re-heat coils. Local thermostats control the VAV box’s airflow and re-heat coil to regulate space temperature. The third floor through fifth floor atrium is heated and cooling by a rooftop constant volume unit also made by York. The chilled water coils in all of the rooftop units are a 35% glycol solution. Conditioned air is distributed through the building through insulated ductwork to ceiling and sidewall diffusers. All of the rooftop units are the original units that were installed as part of the 1987 building expansion and renovation project. These units are in fair condition. There is an energy recovery rooftop unit that provides tempered outside air to the first and second floor perimeter spaces that are heated by fan coil units. Exhaust air is captured from the public restrooms located on these levels in order to add heat, or remove heat, from the outside air stream, depending on the season. This unit is also equipped with a hot water heating coil and chilled water cooling coil. Chilled water is provided by two 550 GPM water cooled centrifugal chillers manufactured by York. These chillers are set up to operate in parallel in a lead/lag arrangement. Chilled water is circulated to the rooftop units via two, 25 HP constant speed chilled water pumps, rated for 550 GPM each at 100 feet of head. These chillers were installed during the building renovation and expansion project in 1987 and are in fair condition. Condenser water is treated by a roof mounted, EVAPCO cooling tower. This cooling tower has two (2) 30 HP and two (2) 7-1/2 HP condenser fan motors. Heating hot water is provided by six (6) condensing, Aerco LowNOx boilers located in the lower level mechanical room. These boilers were installed approximately 3 years ago and are in excellent condition. Heating hot water is circulated through six (6) constant speed base mounted Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 20 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

pumps with premium efficient motors. These pumps appear to have been installed when the boilers were installed and are in good condition. The prosecutor’s office and penthouse level server rooms are conditioned by a cooling only ductless split systems made by Sanyo. The computer room unit runs 24/7 to cool the servers. These units are in good condition. Exhaust System The garage level is served by two exhaust fans located in the penthouse. These exhaust fans are interlocked with the H&V units located on each garage level. Air is exhausted from the toilet rooms through the roof exhausters. The toilet room exhaust fans are operated based on the facility occupancy schedule. HVAC System Controls The building HVAC systems are controlled by a central station ATC system, with control interface in the building maintenance office. Temperature set-points and system operation status for the building heating and cooling systems are controlled from this interface. Local temperature control is provided via space mounted thermostats which control the VAV boxes and unit ventilators Domestic Hot Water Domestic hot water for the restrooms and break rooms throughout the facility is generated by a 100 gallon A.O. Smith Cyclone, high efficiency hot water heater. Lighting Typical lighting throughout building is fluorescent tube lay-in fixtures with T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Storage rooms and closets lit with a mixture of incandescent lamps and compact fluorescent lamps. The parking garage is lit with surface mounted, metal halide fixtures.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 21 of 52

Hall of Records VI.

Energy Audit

MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST The equipment list contains major energy consuming equipment that through implementation of energy conservation measures could yield substantial energy savings. The list shows the major equipment in the facility and all pertinent information utilized in energy savings calculations. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment in some cases if a manufactures date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. The ASHRAE service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life is also shown in the Appendix. Refer to the Major Equipment List Appendix for this facility.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 22 of 52

Hall of Records VII.

Energy Audit

ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

ECM #1: Install NEMA Premium® Efficiency Motors Description: The improved efficiency of the NEMA Premium® efficient motors is primarily due to better designs with use of better materials to reduce losses. Surprisingly, the electricity used to power a motor represents 95 % of its total lifetime operating cost. Because many motors operate continuously 24 hours a day, even small increases in efficiency can yield substantial energy and dollar savings. The electric motors driving the primary chilled water pumps in the main boiler room are candidates for replacing with premium efficiency motors. These standard efficiency motors run considerable amount of time over a year. This energy conservation measure replaces existing electric motors over 5 HP or more with NEMA Premium® efficiency motors. NEMA Premium® is the most efficient motor designation in the marketplace today.

IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY EQMT ID CHWP-1 CHWP-2 CWP-1 CWP-2 EF-1 EF-2 AC-1 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4 AC-5 AC-6 AC-7 AC-8 AC-1 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4 AC-5 AC-6 AC-7 AC-8

NEMA MOTOR HOURS OF EXISTING FUNCTION PREMIUM HP OPERATION EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY Chilled Water Pump 25 1,800 86.0% 93.6% Chilled Water Pump 25 1,800 86.0% 93.6% Condenser Water Pump 20 1,800 86.0% 93.0% Condenser Water Pump 20 1,800 86.0% 93.0% Exhaust Fan 20 4,380 88.0% 93.0% Exhaust Fan 20 4,380 88.0% 93.0% Supply Fan 20 4,380 86.5% 93.0% Supply Fan 15 4,380 86.5% 92.4% Supply Fan 10 4,380 86.5% 92.4% Supply Fan 25 4,380 86.5% 93.6% Supply Fan 30 4,380 86.5% 94.1% Supply Fan 25 4,380 86.5% 93.6% Supply Fan 25 4,380 86.5% 93.6% Supply Fan 15 4,380 86.5% 90.2% Return Fan 10 4,380 86.5% 91.7% Return Fan 7.5 4,380 86.5% 91.7% Return Fan 5 4,380 86.5% 89.5% Return Fan 15 4,380 86.5% 90.2% Return Fan 20 4,380 86.5% 89.5% Return Fan 15 4,380 86.5% 90.2% Return Fan 15 4,380 86.5% 90.2% Return Fan 5 4,380 86.5% 89.5%

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 23 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Energy Savings Calculations: Electric usage, kWh where, HP LF

HP

LF

0.746 Hours of Operation Motor Efficiency

Motor Nameplate Horsepower Rating

Load Factor

Motor Efficiency

Motor Nameplate Efficiency

Electric Usage Savings, kWh = Electric Usage Existing − Electric Usage Proposed

Electric Usage Savings, kWh Electric cost savings

Electric UsageE

Electric Usage Savings

Electric UsageP $ Electric Rate kWh

The calculations were carried out and the results are tabulated in the table below:

PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTOR CALCULATIONS NEMA POWER ENERGY EQMT MOTOR LOAD EXISTING COST PREMIUM SAVINGS SAVINGS ID HP FACTOR EFFICIENCY SAVINGS EFFICIENCY kW kWH CHWP-1 25 90% 86.0% 93.6% 1.58 2,868 $473 CHWP-2 25 90% 86.0% 93.6% 1.58 2,868 $473 CWP-1 20 90% 86.0% 93.0% 1.18 2,127 $351 CWP-2 20 90% 86.0% 93.0% 1.18 2,127 $351 EF-1 20 90% 88.0% 93.0% 0.82 3,613 $596 EF-2 20 90% 88.0% 93.0% 0.82 3,613 $596 AC-1 20 90% 86.5% 93.0% 1.08 4,778 $788 AC-2 15 90% 86.5% 92.4% 0.74 3,274 $540 AC-3 10 90% 86.5% 92.4% 0.50 2,182 $360 AC-4 25 90% 86.5% 93.6% 1.47 6,482 $1,069 AC-5 30 90% 86.5% 94.1% 1.88 8,281 $1,366 AC-6 25 90% 86.5% 93.6% 1.47 6,482 $1,069 AC-7 25 90% 86.5% 93.6% 1.47 6,482 $1,069 AC-8 15 90% 86.5% 90.2% 0.48 2,103 $347 AC-1 10 90% 86.5% 91.7% 0.44 1,938 $320 AC-2 7.5 90% 86.5% 91.7% 0.33 1,454 $240 AC-3 5 90% 86.5% 89.5% 0.13 573 $95 AC-4 15 90% 86.5% 90.2% 0.48 2,103 $347 AC-5 20 90% 86.5% 89.5% 0.52 2,291 $378 AC-6 15 90% 86.5% 90.2% 0.48 2,103 $347 AC-7 15 90% 86.5% 90.2% 0.48 2,103 $347 AC-8 5 90% 86.5% 89.5% 0.13 573 $95 TOTAL 19.2 70,415.5 11,618.6

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 24 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Equipment Cost and Incentives Below is a summary of SmartStart Building® incentives for premium efficiency motors:

INCENTIVES HORSE POWER 5 7.5 10 15 20 25

NJ SMART START INCENTIVE $54 $81 $90 $104 $113 $117

The following table outlines the summary of motor replacement costs and incentives:

MOTOR REPLACEMENT SUMMARY MOTOR SMART EQMT INSTALLED TOTAL SIMPLE POWER START NET COST ID COST SAVINGS PAYBACK HP INCENTIVE CHWP-1 25 $5,930 $117 $5,813 $473 12.3 CHWP-2 25 $5,930 $117 $5,813 $473 12.3 CWP-1 20 $4,635 $113 $4,522 $351 12.9 CWP-2 20 $4,635 $113 $4,522 $351 12.9 EF-1 20 $4,635 $113 $4,522 $596 7.6 EF-2 20 $4,635 $113 $4,522 $596 7.6 AC-1 20 $4,635 $113 $4,522 $788 5.7 AC-2 15 $3,652 $104 $3,548 $540 6.6 AC-3 10 $2,560 $90 $2,470 $360 6.9 AC-4 25 $5,930 $117 $5,813 $1,069 5.4 AC-5 30 $7,074 $135 $6,939 $1,366 5.1 AC-6 25 $5,930 $117 $5,813 $1,069 5.4 AC-7 25 $5,930 $117 $5,813 $1,069 5.4 AC-8 15 $8,594 $104 $8,490 $347 24.5 AC-1 10 $3,590 $100 $3,490 $320 10.9 AC-2 7.5 $3,001 $90 $2,911 $240 12.1 AC-3 5 $4,436 $54 $4,382 $95 46.4 AC-4 15 $8,594 $104 $8,490 $347 24.5 AC-5 20 $4,436 $54 $4,382 $378 11.6 AC-6 15 $8,594 $104 $8,490 $347 24.5 AC-7 15 $8,594 $104 $8,490 $347 24.5 AC-8 5 $4,436 $54 $4,382 $95 46.4 TOTAL Totals: $120,386 $2,247 $118,139 $11,619 10.2

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 25 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Energy Savings Summary:

ECM #1 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($): NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($): Net Installation Cost ($): Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$120,386 $2,247 $118,139 $0

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$11,619

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$11,619

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr): Simple Payback Simple Lifetime ROI Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

25 10.2 145.9% $0 $290,464 9% $84,176.70

9C10084 Page 26 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM #2: Demand Controlled Ventilation Description: Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV) is a means to provide active, zone level control of ventilation for spaces within a facility. The basic premise behind DCV is monitoring indoor CO2 levels versus outdoor CO2 levels in order to provide proper ventilation to the spaces within the facility as well as saving costly dollars treating unconditioned ventilation air. Carbon dioxide ventilation control or demand controlled ventilation (DCV) allows for the measurement and control of outside air ventilation levels to a target cfm/person ventilation rate in the space (i.e., 15 cfm/person) based on the number of people in the space. It is a direct measure of ventilation effectiveness and is a method whereby buildings can regain active and automatic zone level ventilation control, without having to open windows. The fixed ventilation approach depends on a set-it-and-forget-it methodology that is completely unresponsive to changes in the way spaces are utilized/occupied or how equipment is maintained. A DCV system utilizes various control algorithms to maintain a base ventilation rate. The system monitors space CO2 levels and the algorithm automatically adjusts the outdoor and return air dampers to provide the quantity of outdoor air to maintain the required CO2 level in the space. System designs are normally designed for maximum occupancy and the ventilation rates are designed for this (maximum) occupancy. In areas where occupancy swings are prevalent there is ample opportunity to reduce outdoor air quantity to satisfy the needs of the actual number of occupants present. By installing the DCV controls, energy savings are realized by the reduced quantities of outdoor air that do not require heating and cooling energy from the steam and chilled water plants. Eight (8) rooftop units serving the first floor through the fifth floor are standard air conditioning units with constant minimum outside air setup. When these units are on unoccupied mode, the outside air dampers shut. The outside air volume is typically based on the maximum occupancy of the space conditioned. Currently these units are automatically set up for minimum outside air flow to be 30% of supply air flow. When a given space is not fully occupied the outside air quantity delivered to the space is greater than the amount actually needed for adequate ventilation, which results in waste of heating or air conditioning energy. This ECM includes the installation integrated demand control ventilation systems with CO2 sensors, for the units mentioned above. This system allows the air handling unit to respond to changes in occupancy and therefore reduce the amount of outside air that has to be conditioned. Outside air accounts for a large portion of the energy consumption in the HVAC system, especially in high occupancy spaces. The U.S. Department of Energy sponsored a study to analyze energy savings achieved through various types of building system controls. The referenced savings is based on the “Advanced Sensors and Controls for Building Applications: Market Assessment and Potential R&D Pathways,” document posted for public use April 2005. The study has found that commercial buildings have the potential to achieve significant energy savings through the use of building controls. The average energy savings are as follows based on the report: •

Demand Control Ventilation

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

- 10% - 15%.

9C10084 Page 27 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Energy savings achieved through “Demand Control Ventilation” average 10%-15%. Savings resulting from the implementation of this ECM for energy management controls are estimated to be 15% of the total HVAC energy cost for this system. The components included to install for a demand control ventilation system include damper actuators (if not exist), CO2 sensors, wiring, Energy Management System equipment expansion and programming. Each occupied zone would require minimum one CO2 sensor installed to monitor occupancy levels.

INPUTS DCV-1 DCV-2 DCV-3 DCV-4 DCV-5 DCV-6

IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY Cooling Min # of CO2 HVAC Capaity, Service SENSORS Unit Tons 1st and 2nd 2 AC-1 53.8 Floors 1st and 2nd 2 AC-2 47.0 Floors 1st and 2nd 2 AC-3 29.1 Floors 3rd Floor 3rd, 4th & 5th Floors 4th and 5th Floors

Heating Capacity, MBH N/A N/A N/A

1

AC-4

60.0

N/A

3

AC-5

69.8

N/A

2

AC-6

61.8

N/A

DCV-7

3rd Floor

1

AC-7

62.8

N/A

DCV-8

3rd, 4th & 5th Floors Atrium

1

AC-8

37.1

521.6

421

522

Total

Energy Savings Calculations:

⎛ Btu ⎞ ⎟⎟ × Annual Full Load Cooling Hrs. Cooling(Tons ) × 12,000 ⎜⎜ Ton hr ⎠ ⎝ Cooling EnergyUsage = Wh ⎞ ⎛ Btu ⎞ ⎛ 1000 ⎜ ⎟ × EER ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ kWh ⎠ ⎝ Wh ⎠

EnergySavings = Cooling Energy(kwh)×15% ⎛ $ ⎞ Cooling Cost = Energy Usage(kWh ) × Ave Electric Cost ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ kWh ⎠

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 28 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

⎛ Hr. ⎞ ⎛ Btu ⎞ ⎟ × (0.60) Heating Capacity ⎜ ⎟ × HDD(Day °F) × 24⎜⎜ Day ⎟⎠ ⎝ Hr. ⎠ ⎝ Heating Energy (Therms) = ⎛ Btu ⎞ 65(°F) × Fuel Heat Value⎜ ⎟ × Heating Efficiency (% ) ⎝ Therms ⎠ ⎛ $ ⎞ Heating Cost = Heating Energy (Therms ) × Ave Fuel Cost ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ Therms ⎠ EnergySavings = Heating Energy (Therms)×15% Results of the energy savings calculations are summarized in the table below:

DEMAND CONTROLLED VENTILATION ECM INPUTS DCV-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 8 RTUs Equipment 421 Total Cooling Capacity, Tons 0.520 IPLV (Chiller) 800 Annual Full Load Cooling Hours 522 Total Heating Capacity, MBh 93% Heating Efficiency (Boilers) 4599 Heating Degree Days (65°F) 15.0% Energy Savings $0.163 Elec Cost ($/kWh) $1.05 Natural Gas Cost ($/Therm) ENERGY SAVINGS ECM RESULTS DCV-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 175,240 Cooling Energy Cnsmption, kWh 5,714 Heating Energy (Therms) 26,286 Cooling Energy Savings kWh 857 Heating Energy Savings (Therms) $4,285 Electric Energy Cost Savings ($) $900 Total Gas Cost Savings ($) $5,185 Total Cost Savings ($) COMMENTS:

HDD estimated based on Newark,NJ.

Cost and Incentives: Estimated installed cost for demand controlled ventilation for the rooftop heating and air conditioning units serving first through fifth floors is $116,000. Estimated cost includes CO2 sensors, control wiring, electrical wiring, control system equipment expansion and programming.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 29 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

There are currently no Smart Start ® incentives available for a Demand Control Ventilation System.

Energy Savings Summary:

ECM #2 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($): NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($): Net Installation Cost ($): Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$116,000 $0 $116,000 $0

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$5,185

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$5,185

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr): Simple Payback Simple Lifetime ROI Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

15 22.4 -33.0% $0 $77,775 -5% ($54,101.81)

9C10084 Page 30 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM #3: High-Efficiency Chiller Replacement Description: The Hall of Records cooling is achieved via two (2) water-cooled York centrifugal chillers. The chillers are approximately 22 years old and are in fair condition. The efficiency of a chiller is rated on the energy used per ton of refrigeration i.e., kilowatts per ton. Older chillers are less energy efficient than newer chillers. Chillers installed prior to 1990 are generally operating at 0.80 to 0.95 kW/ton. Newer chillers commonly have an efficiency of 0.45 to 0.65 kW/ton. Due to the age and condition of the existing chillers, the efficiency is estimated to be 0.80 kW/ton at full load capacity. CEG recommends replacing one of the two (2) units with a Trane model CVHE high-efficiency centrifugal water-cooled chiller, with variable speed drive. The ECM would require extensive demolition work to remove one of the two (2) existing chillers through the penthouse doors and off the roof. Energy Savings Calculations: Existing Chiller #1 Existing Efficiency Current Capacity of Chiller

IPLV = 0.900 kW/Ton 250 Tons

Proposed System New Water-Cooled Centrifugal Chiller with Variable Speed Compressor New Chiller Efficiency Capacity

IPLV = 0.48 kW/Ton 250 Tons

Energy Savings Calculations: From the NJ Clean Energy Program – Protocols to Measure Resource Savings (12/09): Energy Savings = Tons x EFLH x (IPLVb – IPLVq) Tons = Rated equipment cooling capacity = 250 tons EFLH = Equivalent Full Load Hours = 1,360 Hours IPLVb = IPLV of baseline equipment, kW/ton IPLVq = IPLV of qualifying equipment, kW/ton Energy Savings = 250 Tons x 1,360 Hours x (0.800 – 0.48) kW/Tons = 108,800 kWh Energy Cost Savings = 123,080 kWh x $0.163/kWh = $17,734

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 31 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Cost of Installation: Installed cost of a new 250-ton centrifugal chiller with demolition, rigging, controls, electrical, etc. = $265,000. Energy Savings Summary: ECM #3 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($): NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($): Net Installation Cost ($): Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$265,000 $7,250 $257,750 $0

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$17,734

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$17,734

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr): Simple Payback Simple Lifetime ROI Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

23 14.5 58.2% $0 $407,882 4% $33,860.95

9C10084 Page 32 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM #4: Variable-Speed Chiller Upgrade Description: The existing chilled water plant consists of two (2) 250-ton centrifugal chillers, two 25-hp constant-speed chilled water pumps, a 500-ton cooling tower and two 20-hp constant-speed condenser pumps. The average annual efficiency for the total chilled water plant is estimated to be approximately 1.05 kW per ton. The kilowatts per ton take into account the energy use of the chillers, condenser pumps, chilled water pumps, and cooling tower fans. This ECM would retrofit the three-way valves on the RTU-6 and RTU-7 chilled water coils with two-way valves, retrofit the chillers, chilled water pumps, condenser water pumps and cooling tower fans with VFDs, and install demand-based control sequences into the existing BMS. Simple direct control algorithms will coordinate the operation of the chillers, pumps and tower fans on demand for cooling, which is determined by cooling-coil-valve position. The chilled water temperature and tower leaving water temperature is allowed to float within preset limits to allow all components of the chilled water system to operate at their highest efficiency at all times. Energy Savings Calculations: Measurement and verification data confirms that the energy efficiency of a chiller plant is improved most effectively by utilizing variable speed and optimizing the efficiency of the entire system in response to the requirements of the load served by the plant. Based on numerous chilled water plant designs and retrofits, we have found that total chilled water plant efficiencies of 0.6 to 0.7 kW per ton are attainable. Using this value, we have the following energy savings: Energy Savings = Tons x EFLH x (IPLVb – IPLVq) Tons = Rated Chiller Plant Cooling Capacity EFLH = Equivalent Full Load Hours (1,360 hours – per NJ Clean Energy Protocols page 66) IPLVb = 1.05 kW per ton IPLVq = 0.7 kW per ton Energy Cost Savings = 500 Tons x 1,360 Hours (1.05 – 0.7) kW per ton = 238,000 kWh x $0.163/kWh = $38,794 The estimated cost of the two-way valves, VFDs on the various pumps, electrical, and programming of the existing BMS is $320,000.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 33 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Energy Savings Summary:

ECM #4 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($): NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($): Net Installation Cost ($): Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$320,000 $0 $320,000 $0

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$38,794

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$38,794

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr):

15

Simple Payback

8.2

Simple Lifetime ROI Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

81.8% $0 $581,910 9% $143,120.25

9C10084 Page 34 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM #5: Lighting Upgrade - General Description: General The lighting in the Hall of Records is primarily made up of fluorescent fixtures with T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Some areas have fluorescent fixtures with T-12 lamps and magnetic ballasts here are a few areas of the building that utilize incandescent lighting and compact fluorescent fixtures. This ECM includes replacement of the existing fixtures containing T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts with fixtures containing T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. The new energy efficient, T8 fixtures will provide adequate lighting and will save the owner on electrical costs due to the better performance of the lamp and ballasts. This ECM will also provide maintenance savings through the reduced number of lamps replaced per year. The expected lamp life of a T8 lamp is approximately 30,000 burn-hours, in comparison to the existing T12 lamps which is approximately 20,000 burn-hours. In addition, the existing T8 fixtures will be re-lamped with lower wattage T8 lamps. This ECM will also provide maintenance savings through the reduced number of lamps replaced per year. This ECM also includes replacement of all incandescent lamps to compact fluorescent lamps. The energy usage of an incandescent compared to a compact fluorescent approximately 3 to 4 times greater. In addition to the energy savings, compact fluorescent fixtures burn-hours are 8 to 15 times longer than incandescent fixtures ranging from 6,000 to 15,000 burn-hours compared to incandescent fixtures ranging from 750 to 1000 burn-hours.

Energy Savings Calculations: The Investment Grade Lighting Audit Appendix – ECM#1 outlines the proposed retrofits, costs, savings, and payback periods. NJ Smart Start® Program Incentives are calculated as follows: From the Smart Start Incentive Appendix, the following incentives are warranted: Retrofit fluorescent T12 lamps and magnetic ballast with T-5 or T-8 lamps w/electronic ballast (1-4 lamp retrofitted) = $10 per fixture. Smart Start ® Incentive = (# of 1 − 4 lamp fixtures retrofitte d × $ 10 ) Smart Start® Incentive = (43 × $10) = $430

Replacement and Maintenance Savings are calculated as follows: Savings = (reduction in lamps replaced per year ) × ( repacment $ per lamp + Labor $ per lamp )

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 35 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Savings = (75 lamps per year ) × ($2.00 + $5.00 ) = $525

Energy Savings Summary: ECM #5 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($): NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($): Net Installation Cost ($): Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$12,688 $430 $12,258 $525

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$3,916

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$4,441

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr):

15

Simple Payback

2.8

Simple Lifetime ROI

443.4%

Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings

$7,875

Simple Lifetime Savings

$66,615

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

36% $40,758.37

9C10084 Page 36 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

ECM #6: Lighting Controls Upgrade – Occupancy Sensors Description: Some of the lights in the building are left on unnecessarily. In many cases the lights are left on because of the inconvenience to manually switch lights off when a room is left or on when a room is first occupied. This is common in rooms that are occupied for only short periods and only a few times per day. In some instances lights are left on due to the misconception that it is better to keep the lights on rather than to continuously switch lights on and off. Although increased switching reduces lamp life, the energy savings outweigh the lamp replacement costs. The payback timeframe for when to turn the lights off is approximately two minutes. If the lights are expected to be off for at least a two minute interval, then it pays to shut them off. Lighting controls come in many forms. Sometimes an additional switch is adequate to provide reduced lighting levels when full light output is not needed. Occupancy sensors detect motion and will switch the lights on when the room is occupied. Occupancy sensors can either be mounted in place of a current wall switch, or on the ceiling to cover large areas. The U.S. Department of Energy sponsored a study to analyze energy savings achieved through various types of building system controls. The referenced savings is based on the “Advanced Sensors and Controls for Building Applications: Market Assessment and Potential R&D Pathways,” document posted for public use April 2005. The study has found that commercial buildings have the potential to achieve significant energy savings through the use of building controls. The average energy savings are as follows based on the report: •

Occupancy Sensors for Lighting Control

20% - 28% energy savings.

Savings resulting from the implementation of this ECM for energy management controls are estimated to be 20% of the total light energy controlled by occupancy sensors and daylight sensors (The majority of the savings is expected to be after business hours when rooms are left with lights on) This ECM includes installation of ceiling or switch mount sensors for individual offices, classrooms, large bathrooms, and libraries. Sensors shall be manufactured by Sensorswitch, Watt Stopper or equivalent. The Investment Grade Lighting Audit Appendix of this report includes the summary of lighting controls implemented in this ECM and outlines the proposed controls, costs, savings, and payback periods. The calculations adjust the lighting power usage by the applicable percent savings for each area that includes lighting controls. Energy Savings Calculations:

Energy Savings = (% Savings × Controlled Light Energy (kWh/Yr )) ⎛ $ ⎞ Savings. = Energy Savings (kWh ) × Ave Elec Cost⎜ ⎟ ⎝ kWh ⎠ Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 37 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

Cost and Incentives: Installation cost per dual-technology sensors (Basis: Sensor switch or equivalent) are as follows: Dual Technology Occupancy Sensor - Remote Mount Dual Technology Occupancy Sensor - Switch Mount Dual Technology Occupancy Sensor with 2 Pole Powerpack Remote mount

$250 per installation $150 per installation $300 per installation

Cost includes material and labor. From the NJ Smart Start® Program Incentives Appendix, the installation of a lighting control device warrants the following incentive: Occupancy Sensor Wall or Switch Mounted (existing facility only) = $20 per sensor Occupancy Sensor Remote Mounted = $35 Smart Start ® Incentive = (# of wall mount × $ 20 ) Smart Start ® Incentive = (374 wall mount × $ 20 ) = $7480 Smart Start ® Incentive = (# of remote mount × $ 35) Smart Start ® Incentive = (40 remote mount × $ 35) = $1400

Energy Savings Summary: ECM #6 - ENERGY SAVINGS SUMMARY Installation Cost ($):

$66,719

NJ Smart Start Equipment Incentive ($):

$8,880

Net Installation Cost ($):

$57,839

Maintenance Savings ($/Yr):

$0

Energy Savings ($/Yr):

$10,834

Total Yearly Savings ($/Yr):

$10,834

Estimated ECM Lifetime (Yr):

15

Simple Payback

5.3

Simple Lifetime ROI Simple Lifetime Maintenance Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Net Present Value (NPV)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

181.0% 0 $162,510 17% $71,496.59

9C10084 Page 38 of 52

Hall of Records VIII.

Energy Audit

RENEWABLE/DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MEASURES Globally, renewable energy has become a priority affecting international and domestic energy policy. The State of New Jersey has taken a proactive approach, and has recently adopted in its Energy Master Plan a goal of 30% renewable energy by 2020. To help reach this goal New Jersey created the Office of Clean Energy under the direction of the Board of Public Utilities and instituted a Renewable Energy Incentive Program to provide additional funding to private and public entities for installing qualified renewable technologies. A renewable energy source can greatly reduce a building’s operating expenses while producing clean environmentally friendly energy. CEG has assessed the feasibility of installing renewable energy measures (REM) for the municipality utilizing renewable technologies and concluded that there is potential for solar energy generation. The solar photovoltaic system calculation summary will be concluded as REM#1 within this report. Solar Generation Solar energy produces clean energy and reduces a building’s carbon footprint. This is accomplished via photovoltaic panels which are mounted on all south and southwestern facades of the building. Flat roof, as well as sloped areas can be utilized; flat areas will have the panels turned to an optimum solar absorbing angle. (A structural survey of the roof would be necessary before the installation of PV panels is considered). The state of NJ has instituted a program in which one Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) is given to the Owner for every 1000 kWh of generation. SREC’s can be sold anytime on the market at their current market value. The value of the credit varies upon the current need of the power companies. The average value per credit is around $350, this value was used in our financial calculations. This equates to $0.35 per kWh generated. CEG has reviewed the existing roof area of the building being audited for the purposes of determining a potential for a roof mounted photovoltaic system. A roof area of 4,465 S.F. can be utilized for a PV system. A depiction of the area utilized is shown in Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix. Using this square footage it was determined that a system size of 58.88 kilowatts could be installed. A system of this size has an estimated kilowatt hour production of 66,193 KWh annually, reducing the overall utility bill by approximately 2.8% percent. A detailed financial analysis can be found in the Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix. This analysis illustrates the payback of the system over a 25 year period. The eventual degradation of the solar panels and the price of accumulated SREC’s are factored into the payback. The proposed photovoltaic array layout is designed based on the specifications for the Sun Power SPR-230 panel. This panel has a “DC” rated full load output of 230 watts, and has a total panel conversion efficiency of 18%. Although panels rated at higher wattages are available through Sun Power and other various manufacturers, in general most manufacturers who produce commercially available solar panels produce a similar panel in the 200 to 250 watt range. This provides more manufacturer options to the public entity if they wish to pursue the proposed solar recommendation without losing significant system capacity.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 39 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

The array system capacity was sized on available roof space on the existing facility. Estimated solar array generation was then calculated based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatts Version 1.0 Calculator. In order to calculate the array generation an appropriate location with solar data on file must be selected. In addition the system DC rated kilowatt (kW) capacity must be inputted, a DC to AC de-rate factor, panel tilt angle, and array azimuth angle. The DC to AC de-rate factor is based on the panel nameplate DC rating, inverter and transformer efficiencies (95%), mismatch factor (98%), diodes and connections (100%), dc and ac wiring(98%, 99%), soiling, (95%), system availability (95%), shading (if applicable), and age(new/100%). The overall DC to AC de-rate factor has been calculated at an overall rating of 81%. The PVWatts Calculator program then calculates estimated system generation based on average monthly solar irradiance and user provided inputs. The monthly energy generation and offset electric costs from the PVWatts calculator is shown in the Renewable/Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix. The proposed solar array is qualified by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Net Metering Guidelines as a Class I Renewable Energy Source. These guidelines allow onsite customer generation using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind with a capacity of 2 megawatts (MW) or less. This limits a customer system design capacity to being a net user and not a net generator of electricity on an annual basis. Although these guidelines state that if a customer does net generate (produce more electricity than they use), the customer will be credited those kilowatt-hours generated to be carried over for future usage on a month to month basis. Then, on an annual basis if the customer is a net generator the customer will then be compensated by the utility the average annual PJM Grid LMP price per kilowatt-hour for the over generation. Due to the aforementioned legislation, the customer is at limited risk if they generate more than they use at times throughout the year. With the inefficiency of today’s energy storage systems, such as batteries, the added cost of storage systems is not warranted and was not considered in the proposed design. Direct purchase involves the County paying for 100% of the total project cost upfront via one of the methods noted in the Installation Funding Options section below. Calculations include a utility inflation rate as well as the degradation of the solar panels over time. Based on our calculations the following is the payback period: Table 7 Financial Summary – Photovoltaic System FINANCIAL SUMMARY - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM SIMPLE SIMPLE INTERNAL RATE PAYMENT TYPE PAYBACK ROI OF RETURN Direct Purchase 15.5 Years 6.5% 4.8% *The solar energy measure is shown for reference in the executive summary Renewable Energy Measure (REM) table

Given the large amount of capital required by the County to invest in a solar system through a Direct Purchase CEG does not recommend the County pursue this route. It would be more Concord Engineering Group, Inc. May 27, 2011– FINAL

9C10084 Page 40 of 52

Hall of Records

Energy Audit

advantageous for the County to solicit Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Providers who will own, operate, and maintain the system for a period of 15 years. During this time the PPA Provider would sell all of the electric generated by Solar Arrays to the County at a reduced rate compared to their existing electric rate. Wind Generation In addition to the Solar Analysis, CEG also conducted a review of the applicability of wind energy for the facility. Wind energy production is another option available through the Renewable Energy Incentive Program. Wind turbines of various types can be utilized to produce clean energy on a per building basis. Cash incentives are available per kWh of electric usage. Based on CEG’s review of the applicability of wind energy for the facility, it was determined that the average wind speed of 4000 MBH

(Calculated through Custom Measure Path)

Gas Furnaces

$300 - $400 per unit, AFUE ≥ 92%

Variable Frequency Drives Variable Air Volume Chilled-Water Pumps Compressors

$65 - $155 per hp $60 per hp $5,250 to $12,500 per drive

Natural Gas Water Heating Gas Water Heaters ≤ 50 gallons

$50 per unit

Gas-Fired Water Heaters > 50 gallons

$1.00 - $2.00 per MBH

Gas-Fired Booster Water Heaters

$17 - $35 per MBH

Gas Fired Tankless Water Heaters

$300 per unit

Prescriptive Lighting Retro fit of T12 to T-5 or T-8 Lamps w/Electronic Ballast in Existing Facilities

$10 per fixture (1-4 lamps)

Replacement of T12 with new T-5 or T8 Lamps w/Electronic Ballast in Existing Facilities

$25 per fixture (1-2 lamps) $30 per fixture (3-4 lamps)

Replacement of incandescent with screw-in PAR 38 or PAR 30 (CFL) bulb

$7 per bulb

T-8 reduced Wattage (28w/25w 4’, 1-4 lamps) Lamp & ballast replacement

$10 per fixture

Hard-Wired Compact Fluorescent

$25 - $30 per fixture

Metal Halide w/Pulse Start LED Exit Signs

$25 per fixture $10 - $20 per fixture

T-5 and T-8 High Bay Fixtures

$16 - $284 per fixture

HID ≥ 100w Retrofit with induction lamp, power coupler and generator (must be 30% less watts/fixture than HID system)

$50 per fixture

HID ≥ 100w Replacement with new HID ≥ 100w

$70 per fixture

LED Refrigerator/Freezer case lighting replacement of fluorescent in medium and low temperature display case

$42 per 5 foot $65 per 6 foot

Appendix B Page 3 of 3

Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors Wall Mounted Remote Mounted Daylight Dimmers Occupancy Controlled hi-low Fluorescent Controls

$20 per control $35 per control $25 per fixture $25 per fixture controlled

Lighting Controls – HID or Fluorescent Hi-Bay Controls Occupancy hi-low Daylight Dimming Daylight Dimming - office

$75 per fixture controlled $75 per fixture controlled $50 per fixture controlled

Premium Motors Three-Phase Motors

$45 - $700 per motor

Fractional HP Motors Electronic Communicated Motors (replacing shaded pole motors in refrigerator/freezer cases)

$40 per electronic communicated motor

Other Equipment Incentives Performance Lighting

$1.00 per watt per SF below program incentive threshold, currently 5% more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.12004 for New Construction and Complete Renovation

Custom Electric and Gas Equipment Incentives

not prescriptive

Custom Measures

Multi Measures Bonus

$0.16 KWh and $1.60/Therm of 1st year savings, or a buy down to a 1 year payback on estimated savings. Minimum required savings of 75,000 KWh or 1,500 Therms and a IRR of at least 10%. 15%

20%1R

67$7(0(172)(1(5*)LUVW(QHUJ\[email protected]   1DWLRQDO$YHUDJH&RPSDULVRQ  1DWLRQDO$YHUDJH6LWH(8,  1DWLRQDO$YHUDJH6RXUFH(8,  'LIIHUHQFHIURP1DWLRQDO$YHUDJH6RXUFH(8,  %XLOGLQJ7\SH 2IILFH   0HHWV,QGXVWU\6WDQGDUGVIRU,QGRRU(QYLURQPHQWDO &RQGLWLRQV 9HQWLODWLRQIRU$FFHSWDEOH,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\ 1$ $FFHSWDEOH7KHUPDO(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQGLWLRQV 1$ $GHTXDWH,OOXPLQDWLRQ 1$

           6WDPSRI&HUWLI\LQJ3URIHVVLRQDO %DVHGRQWKHFRQGLWLRQVREVHUYHGDWWKH WLPHRIP\YLVLWWRWKLVEXLOGLQJ,FHUWLI\WKDW WKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGZLWKLQWKLV VWDWHPHQWLVDFFXUDWH

&HUWLI\LQJ3URIHVVLRQDO 1$

1RWHV $SSOLFDWLRQIRUWKH(1(5*
Recommend Documents
Apr 2, 2010 - 1) The variable Cn in the formulas for Internal Rate of Return and Net ...... F100. Conf. Room. 1880. 4. 2. 1x4 2 Lamp, 32w T8,. Elect. Ballast ...

Jul 8, 2011 - Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C10085. July 8th, 2011 – FINAL. Page 1 of 42. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .

1 Highland Avenue. Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750. Executive Director: Michael A. Gianforte, P.E.. Authority Engineer: Dennis Galvin, P.E.. This audit is performed in connection with the New Jersey Clean Energy - Local Government. Energy Audit Program. The

Apr 6, 2011 - Appendix E – Investment Grade Lighting Audit ..... This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building ...... at-a-glance summary of a property's physical and operating characteristics, as well as.

Jul 26, 2012 - Document 4 – Bayside Rowing Club Energy Report .... The comprehensive energy audit covers the following buildings in ...... Potential issuers of municipal bonds include cities, counties, redevelopment agencies, school.

Jul 15, 2010 - PROPANE. 0.0. 0. 1.010. 0. TOTAL. 7,863,682. 16,398,264. BUILDING AREA. 90,000 SQUARE FEET. BUILDING SITE EUI. 87.37. kBtu/SF/YR. BUILDING SOURCE EUI. 182.20 .... The unit ventilators and roof top units provide heating and cooling to t

ONE OLD BRIDGE PLAZA. OLD BRIDGE, NJ ... Old Bridge Township. Executive Energy Report. Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 9C12048. November 6, 2012– FINAL. Page 1 of 33. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. EXECUTIVE ...... Overall, after review of the utility consu

Authority Engineer: Dennis Galvin, P.E. .... Pump Station. A roof mounted solar array was utilized to house a substantial PV system. The recommended 11.73 kW PV system will produce approximately 13,555 kWh of electricity ... The comprehensive energy

Aug 9, 2011 - Joe Culligan, Facilities Supervisor .... if the Authority proceeds with “in house” installation they review ... Pleasantville Towers has an estimated solar system potential of 51.7 ...... through Sun Power and other various manufact

Apr 2, 2010 - from Concord Engineering Group, Inc., 520 S. Burnt Mill Road, ..... Corporation is believed to be the third party supplier because they were the ...