Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-1993 - VII-B 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Energy Conservation Report DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: County Engineer ext. 2300 Energy Report Tables showing energy TELEPHONE NUMBERS: consumption in County buildings Hillsborough - 732-8181 (under separate cover) Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To present information and recommendations requested by the BOCC in regard to energy use and efficiency in County buildings BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners has expressed a desire to investigate energy use and efficiency of County buildings. It has directed staff to a) compile energy use data for these buildings; b) determine the relative energy efficiency of these buildings; and c) to develop strategies to improve energy efficiency where cost effective. The BOCC has provided funds in the Capital Improvements Program to undertake energy efficiency improvement projects with the highest rate of return (in terms of energy savings dollars) on the funds invested. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive and review the report. 2 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners John Link, County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer DATE: October 14, 1993 SUBJECT: Energy Use in County and public school buildings; energy improvement strategies for County buildings As per the request of the BOCC, herein is provided a summary of energy use data for County. The data are presented in several formats. The OC Public Works department, from the records of utility companies and fuel suppliers, has compiled and tabulated monthly and annual electrical and heating fuel consumption data for County buildings for the years 1988 through 1992 . These data were re-tabulated by County staff into three tables containing: 1) a summary of the annual electrical energy consumption for each building, the use per square foot of building and the percent of change per year; 2) a summary of the annual heating fuel energy consumption (converted to British Thermal Units-BTU's) for each building, the BTU consumption per square foot of building and the percent of change from the preceding year; and 3) a summary of the total annual energy consumption (in BTU' s) for each building, the BTU consumption per square foot of building (building energy ratio-BER) and the percent of change from the preceding year. Application of Data in Determining Energy Efficiency The energy consumption data provided are useful in determining the relative energy use of buildings when compared to one another. The data are also useful in terms of comparing the energy consumption of the buildings to general energy consumption guidelines and averages. The effects of factors which often impact energy consumption, including the relationship of building volume to area and building age, which has implications on the energy efficiency of heating and lighting equipment and the building envelope, can often be detected by evaluation of the data. The data are less useful in determining the overall energy efficiency of various buildings. Factors which may affect energy consumption but not energy efficiency are not apparent from review of the data. AREA CODE (919) 732-8181 • 968-4501 • 688-7331 • 227-2031 • FAX (919) 644-3004 Ext. 2300 BOCC 3 Page 2 October 14, 1993 These factors include variables in hours of operation (example: Jail) , operating conditions (example: Motor Pool) , building use (example: comparison of Court St. Annex to Old Court House) , operation of high wattage electronic equipment (example EMS and Government Services Annex) . The analysis of available electrical consumption data is particularly problematic in that existing practices for metering electric consumption do not provide a means (through data evaluation) of pinpointing causes or areas of inefficient energy consumption. There is currently no way to utilize available data to differentiate among consumptive uses for lighting, air conditioning, air handling (blowers, fans) or operation of miscellaneous electric equipment. Electrical energy consumption analysis The electrical consumption table generally shows a trend of increasing electrical consumption through 1990 and decreasing consumption thereafter. A portion of that decrease is attributable to a comprehensive Public Works Department energy savings program, completed in 1990, in which energy efficient florescent tubes and ballasts were used to replace existing, less efficient florescent and incandescent lighting. Throughout the period covered by the data, it is generally apparent that the Moody, Whitted, Government Services Annex and Sheriff ' s buildings consume the most electricity on a per square foot basis. The Moody building is an all electric building (includes electric heat) while the Annex contains electronic gear and an air conditioning sub-system associated with the mainframe computer. The monthly use records for the Annex also indicate a very high seasonal consumption of electrical energy for general air conditioning. In all probability, this air conditioning demand probably has resulted from a combination of the building' s poor insulating characteristics and the use of the building' s attic as office space through August, 1992. The buildings with the lowest per square foot consumption of electricity are the Northside, Northern, Gym and Public Works Administration buildings. Public Works is one of the newer buildings and could be expected to be more energy efficient. Less than half of the Gym building is air conditioned, therefore electrical consumption at the Gym can be expected to be far less than other buildings which are completely air conditioned. Evaluation of the monthly electrical consumption data shows that peak monthly electrical consumption in most buildings is generally three to four times more than the lowest monthly consumption. As the peak consumption occurs in summer, a 4 BOCC Page 3 October 14, 1993 majority of peak consumption can be attributed to air conditioning. Four buildings fall noticeably outside the normal pattern. Whitted' s summer use is only twenty percent higher than winter, a reasonable outcome in that its heating- A/C system operates by mixing heated and cooled air on a year round basis. During the summer, the Collins building typically consumes twenty times more electricity than it does in winter. This consumption pattern may result from the use of a very inefficient air conditioning system. The Motor Pool ' s monthly electrical consumption does not show significant seasonal variation because it is essentially without air-conditioning. The Moody building uses significantly more power in the winter than in summer. Locally, given heating and A/C units of similar efficiency such as a heat pump unit, heating generally consumes less power than air conditioning. Moody' s electrical consumption pattern may indicate significant inefficiencies in its heating system. Those buildings with the greatest total monthly and annual electrical consumption, Whitted, Jail, New Courthouse and Planning, are also among the County' s larger buildings. Heating Energy consumption analysis - County buildings Data for heating energy consumption are much more straight forward that electrical energy consumption data. Although some heating fuel energy is generally consumed year round for water heating, as much as ninety percent of total heating fuel energy consumption is for space heating. The heating energy consumption data for County Buildings show a general decline in consumption for 1989-90. The exceptions to this pattern are the Animal Control, Gym, Public Works Administration and Whitted buildings. Each of these buildings except Whitted show increases because 1990 consumption rates are compared to partial year consumption data for 1989. The cause of the Whitted building' s fifty-five percent rise is unknown. The data show a general increase in heating energy consumption in the years 1991-92. Those buildings demonstrating the largest per square foot demand for energy include the Whitted, Collins, Motor Pool and Government Services Annex buildings. The Motor Pool is basically a poorly insulated metal shell building which operates with its large garage-type doors open throughout much of the year, factors contributing to significant heat loss and resulting heat demand. The Collins building appears to have an inefficient heating system. The Whitted building has high ceilings and thus a higher than normal volume when compared to other buildings on a per square foot basis. Its larger volume of air to be heated (or cooled) , and its heating/air- 5 BOCC Page 4 October 14 , 1993 conditioning system which mixes heated and cooled air year- round contribute to its higher than average heating load. The Government Services Annex appears to have significant problems with the efficiency of its heating system due to heat loss through its walls, windows and roof. Although buildings typically consume only five to ten percent of their peak monthly heating energy during summer months, both the Whitted building and Jail use nearly as much heating fuel in the summer as in winter. The Whitted building' s heat-A/C mixing system is primarily responsible for its summer fuel consumption. It is possible that the Jail ' s off-season heating fuel consumption is related to atypical levels (for County buildings) of food preparation and water heating. Total energy consumption analysis - County buildings Total energy consumption data are merely the combination of electrical and heating fuel consumption data. Therefore, analysis of total energy consumption data is affected by the same problems that affect analysis of electrical consumption data. The total energy consumption per foot (Building Energy Ratio-BER) data do allow County staff having responsibilities dealing with energy use to target certain buildings for additional investigation. The Animal Control, Collins, Government Services Annex, Jail, Moody, Motor Pool, New Courthouse, Sheriff ' s and Whitted buildings all have very high rates of per square foot energy consumption. With the exception of the Jail, which may be exempted because of its operating anomalies, all of these buildings can be considered candidates for more exhaustive investigation. Recommendations 1. Concentrate efforts in energy conservation on improving lighting efficiency Generally, lighting consumes approximately fifty percent of all electrical energy consumed in buildings not electrically heated. As much as fifty percent of all lighting energy is wasted through the use of inefficient lighting equipment and over-lighting spaces. The greatest savings in lighting costs can be achieved by converting from incandescent lighting to florescent lighting. The vast majority of the general building lighting in Orange County is currently provided by a relatively efficient florescent light fixtures (34-watt bulbs and "energy saving" ballasts) designated as T-12 lighting as a result of a re-lamping project completed by the Public Works Department in 1990 . One of the County' s 6 BOCC Page 5 October 14, 1993 typical light fixtures contains two forty-eight inch long florescent tubes and consumes seventy-five watts per hour to produce 5300 lumens. Assuming each of these light fixtures operates approximately eleven hours per day for five days a week and fifty weeks a year, each fixture consumes 206 kilowatt hours per year at a cost of $15.50 per year (assuming cost of electricity at $0.075 per kilowatt hour) . The newest energy efficient florescent lighting technology of similar configuration is designated as T-8 lighting and uses two forty-eight inch long 32-watt tubes with electronic ballasts and consumes 58 watts per hour to produce 5800 lumens. One T-8 fixture has a yearly power consumption of 160 kilowatts and an operating cost of $11.96 at $0.075 per kilowatt hour. To determine the value and cost of a typical re-lamping project it is necessary to evaluate a sample re-lamping project in comparison to maintaining the status quo over a five year period. There are a number of factors that must be clarified in order to provide a comprehensible evaluation: 1) the County' s labor cost of replacing the tubes and ballast in a single fixture is approximately $20.00 including time to actually replace the material, get the material, travel, set-up, etc. ; 2) labor costs per fixture can be reduced by as much as fifty to seventy-five percent by replacing a number of fixtures simultaneously (eliminating travel time, etc. ; 3) when estimating the value of a significant number of ballasts and tubes that will be replaced but have not yet failed, one can reasonable assume that the average fixture has approximately one-half of its useful life remaining; 4) the rate life of both T-12 lamps and T-8 lamps is 20,000 hours or about seven years at the number of hours per year operated in County buildings - actual life is approximately three years; 5) the life span of an "energy saving" ballast is approximately five years while the life span of an electronic ballast is approximately ten years; 6) at the end of a five year period, every "energy saving" ballast in a sample group will have been replaced once, yet still have not more remaining life at the end of the period than an electronic ballast; 7 ) the labor cost of replacing a ballast and lamps is essentially the same as replacing ballast alone. BOCC 7 Page 6 October 14, 1993 Example Project: replacement of existing T-12 florescent tubes and ballasts with T-8 florescent tubes and - electronic ballasts in one hundred two-lamp fixtures Five year total operating cost for 100 two-tube fixtures utilizing T-12 lamps and "energy savings" ballasts Electricity consumption costs 5 years x 50 weeks x 5 days x 11 hrs/day = 13, 750 hours 100 fixtures x 2 lamps x 75 watts/hr = 15,000 watts 15, 000 watts x 13, 750 hrs. /1000 watts/kilowatt = 206,250 kilowatt hours (kwh) 206,250 kwh x $0.075 per kwh = $15,468. 75 Typical maintenance/replacement costs "Energy saving" ballast replacement labor cost 100 ballasts x 1 hr @ $20.00/ hr. = $2000.00 "Energy saving" ballast replacement material cost 100 ballasts @ $13.00 ea. = $13,000.00 Total 5-year operating costs T-12 lamp 5-year operating cost total = $30,468. 75 Five year total operating cost for 100 two-tube fixtures utilizing T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts Installation cost Materials costs: 200 T-8 tubes @ $2 .00 ea. = $ 400. 00 100 electronic ballasts @ $18.50 ea. = 1850. 00 material total = $ 2250. 00 Labor cost: 50 hours @ $20.00/hr. ( salary & benefits) = $ 1000. 00 Lost value of exiting materials: 200 tubes @ $1.00 ea. x 50 % remain. life = $ 100 .00 100 ballasts @ $13.00 ea. x 50% rem. life = $ 650 .00 lost materials value total = $ 750.00 installation cost total = $ 4000. 00 BOCC 8 Page 7 October 14, 1993 Electrical consumption costs 5 years x 50 weeks x 5 days x 11 hrs/day = 13, 750 hours 100 fixtures x 2 lamps x 58 watts/hr = 11,600 watts 11,600 watts x 13,750 hrs. / 1000 watts = 159,500 kilowatt hours (kwh) 159,500 kwh x $0.075 per kwh = $11,962 .50 Typical maintenance/replacement costs Electronic ballast replacement labor cost = $ 0.00 Electronic ballast replacement material cost = $ 0.00 replacement cost total = $ 0.00 Total 5-year operating costs T-8 lamp 5-year operating cost total = $15, 962.50 Re-lamping project summary Over a five year period, this project will save approximately $15,000 in direct energy and maintenance costs. Other costs savings may be realized in lowering peak electrical demand charges and lower heating loads. An important consideration is that it only takes ninety T-8 fixtures to produce the same amount of lighting as one hundred T-12 fixtures. It may be possible to achieve additional saving by removing or not using some fixtures in the project area. 2 . Implement a program to investigate the lighting requirements of every County building One of the more intriguing energy savings initiatives seen today is the EPA' s "Greenlights" program. The program offers technical assistance to business, local governments universities and others who control a great of lighted building space. The technical assistance is in the form of lighting surveys which determine the proper amount of light and the best and most energy efficient lighting equipment technology for use in and around buildings. The goal of the Greenlights program is to reduce the pollution that results from the generation of wasted or inefficiently used electricity. The downside to this program is that the EPA requires each program participant to agree to install the recommended lighting technology in ninety percent of its lighted spaces over a five year period. This requirement applies only to those spaces where energy savings would provide a prime rate plus six percent rate of return on the BOCC Page 8 October 14, 1993 investment in lighting equipment. Experts calculate that the cost of the typical re-lamping project is approximately $2 .00 per square foot. Orange County owns or leases nearly 300, 000 square feet of building space which, under the Greenlights requirements, could mean an investment of approximately $540,000 over a five year period. An alternative does exist which could provide significant energy savings benefits with less cost in the short term. The County can use expertise available from its staff and request that UNC provide some assistance in the form of staff training from Roger Hayes, UNC' s Energy Manager. Mr. Hayes has a great deal of experience in both overall energy management with and energy efficient lighting design. He also is expert at operation of computer programs which could be utilized to determine proper lighting design for existing County buildings. With his assistance County staff could implement a program to determine the most cost- and energy efficient lighting design for every County building and begin to prioritize individual lighting efficiency improvement projects which could be accomplished with existing CIP funding. 3. Investigate technology for energy savings other than lighting fixtures There are a number of other areas of energy savings technology that do not involve replacing general office lighting fixtures. Examples of other technology include very low wattage and low maintenance exit sign lighting, electronic combination timer/thermostatic control for heating and air conditioning systems, and lighting control occupancy sensors for offices, restrooms, storage areas, etc. While some of this technology is expensive, it can often pay for itself over a short time period. A perfect example of this is the timer/thermostatic control system utilized in the Government Services building. This building, with its large number of windows and large volume upstairs lobby area achieved the lowest heating fuel consumption rate of any County building with the exception of the Planning building which has very few windows. 4. Develop and implement County energy policy It is estimated that setting a thermostat back three degrees will provide a thirteen percent heating energy savings over one heating season in building located in the North Carolina piedmont area. However, the County does not have a policy mandating heating or cooling thermostatic settings. Heating and cooling settings are generally determined by the comfort level of the majority of those occupying a particular 10 BOCC Page 9 October 14, 1993 heating/air conditioning zone or building. There are some buildings where mandated thermostat settings would not work well. These are generally buildings with a) an inefficient insulating envelope generally having very cool or warm exterior areas and centrally located thermostats or b) an inefficient air distribution system with temperatures varying proportionately with distance from the central blower unit. Buildings with these or similar problems would have to have a temperature setting designed to accommodate a wide range of interior temperature levels. A policy should also be developed to regulate the use of individual space heaters. Each 1500 watt electric space heater can consume up to 252 kilowatt hours per month at a cost of nearly $20. 00. 5. Investigate replacement or modification of central heating and cooling systems. Determination of the efficiency of operation of central heating and cooling systems is beyond the current capability of County staff. It is probable that this process would have to be undertaken by a paid consultant. The replacement of a system could be very expensive, in some cases ranging to the tens of thousands of dollars. The 1976 Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) Act set space heating and cooling performance guidelines with the mean consumption for office buildings at 64,000 BTU' s per square foot per year. There are five County owned buildings with average heat consumption rates that exceed the specified 64,000 BTU consumption rate for heating and cooling combined. There may be other buildings that, when cooling energy consumption is added to that for known heating energy consumption, which also exceed the specified combined rate. The County' s electrical metering system does not allow staff to make an accurate estimate of air conditioning electrical demand. 6. Specific projects There are a number of buildings which would serve as a top priority for investment of County capital funds meant for energy improvements. In general, some funds should be expended to provide individual electric meters for each building' s lighting system. The meters will allow staff to be better able to pinpoint sources of excessive electrical consumption. A specific lighting project that appears to be worthwhile is the re-lamping of the gymnasium portion of the Gym building. This area is currently lit with very high power and very expensive incandescent light bulbs. Replacement of these lights with metal halide lights and fixtures is expected to result in energy and bulb 11 BOCC Page 10 October 14 , 1993 replacement savings that will provide payback of an estimated $10,000 replacement cost in less than five years. In terms of re-lamping existing fixtures with T-8 florescent tubes and ballasts, almost any building or portion of a building with general office use, equivalent operating hours and not involving reduction in fixtures will provide equal savings. gy O AVOID COSTL Y VAL VE LEAKAGE Case study D 1 You can't find the cost of a valve on a price list SIZE OF LEAK AIR STEAM WATER Number of Total Cost Number of Total Cost Number of Total Cost Diameter Cubic Feet Waste /Month lbs. wasted Waste /Month gallons wasted Waste /Month Inches /Month $0.029 /Month $10.356 /Month $4.650 at 75 PSIG 100 at 160 PSIG 1000 at 60 PSIG 1000 1/2" 13,468,000 $3,940 1,219,280 $12,627 1,524,100 $7,087 3/8" 7,558,500 $2,211 684,290 $7,086 855,360 $3,977 114" 3,366,990 $985 304,820 $3,157 381,020 $1,772 1/8" 0 824,570 $241 1 74,650 1 $773 93,310 1 $434 1/16" • 213,000 $62 19,280 1 $200 24,110 $112 1/32" 52,910 $15 4,790 $50 5,990 $28 based on $.08 kwh Notes: total loss /cfm month 3,366,990 1/4" leak from above table cfm 3.4 source Johnson Control Manual, A2000; 37j4 min /hr 60 source Johnson Control Manual, A2000; 37j4 cf /hr. /hp 204 3.4.60 hp required /month 16,505 hp required /hour 22.61 total kwh required 12,313 hp 1 kw 0.746 hrs /month 730 Cost /kwh 0.08 Average cost, includes demand charges ; total cost for loss $985.01 Cost /100 cfm @.08 kwh 0.029254902 Energy Investments that Beat the DOW t�,ja CASE STUDY /ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORS ( From 86.5% efficiency to >91.7%) Electric Motor COST ANALYSIS COST COMPARISONS @80% load (111)) Annual (Walls711p) Efficiency Load Ibhpl vn, r •;:v ,' r +++' ,i! %+r;hv,rs= F.!v H,s Cost Annual Cost Horsepower Hrs__O_n KW Factor (Ifs KW KWH KWH kwli_costikwh Standard Motor 20.00 8,/r;n.r)O 0. M6 ti(; h0^:, tr.80 1.1. 10 120,878 $0.08 :,:3.G/0.?:3 EE Motor ?0.00 .8,7f>0.O() 0.7.1 r; 5)1. 10 0.£30 13.02 111,02:3 X0.08 S ), 121 .85 Difference .i.71)", 0.7 ? G,£355 O 55.18.:37 PAYBACK COMPARISONS lncurrr�cl F',�yl7ar.k Inlc!rrt�l Fatr, cost HAS Year, of Return Scenario 1 !Replace Motor Now $710.00 ; 5.1 , 7 1.- 77� • note: without labor cost $E)1 r).00 >118.a/ 1.l>(3 (;O^;> note: with motor and labor cost Scenario 2 /Replace Motor at Burnout $397.00 $5,18.;37 0.7? 13113°,c- note.: Motor Cost Difference (=$710.00-$313.00 for rewind) note: Cost Difference; labor incurred with burnout Scenario 3 /Purchase @Installation $185.00 $548.37 0.34 296% note: Motor Cost Difference = $185.00 (=5710.00-5525.00 initial purchase) note: No Additional labor. I 'EE Motor Cost = $710 Standard Motor Cost = $525.00 ) Energy Investmants that Beat the DOW CASE STUDY /PIGGYBACK MOTORS { From 120,8718 I<WH's to 130,594, app 50% Reduction) !! 4- Electric Motor Pump COST ANALYSIS COST COMPARISONS (Iq)l Annual (Watts/hp) Efficiency Load (bhp) =ahr,•111'0-4 ,; kO—atl hot— = Kw' nrs Cost Annual Cost Horsep�w'r hlrs IOn Kvv Factor WH =kwh ' costlkwh ;(M)(Mrd 0()eration 20.00 8, 1(3 0.0,,0 0. /d 6, 0.80 13.80 120,878 $0.08 $,9,( 70.?3 Standard Motor 20.00 2,000.00 i?. I I� -;1't.E,0`/o 0.80 13.80 27,598 $0.08 $2,207.32 Piggy Back Motor 1.50 6.7(30.00 rJ, ;=Ji; S:i 1. 10`14) 0.30 4.88 32,996 $0.08 $2,6:39.72 Difference $4,822. 10 PAYBACK COMPARISONS InclIrred Payhd-(k Inlen l Rate Cost NAS years of Return mplementation Cost for Piggyback Operation $3,500.00 $4,822.70 0. 13 138', Jote: New HP = Design HP '((New Flow !Design Flow)cubed) = 20"(0.710.1'0.7) = 6.86 Jote: A 30 Reduction in Flow Results in a 67 Reduction in Horsepower rEnerc)y. Energy Investments that Beat the DOw L Fluorescent T-1 2 Lamps CD 40 Watt ) 6300 Lumens Standard Ballast 90 Watts 40 Watt ) 70 LumNVatt 34 Watt ) 5300 Lumens Standard Ballast 80 Watts ( ) 34 Watt ) 66 Lum/Watt 34 Watt ) 5300 Lumens Energy Say � ) Ballast 75 Watts 34 Watt ) 71 Lum/Watt ( ) 34 Watt ) 5300 Lumens Electronic Ballast 61 Watts (9 34 Watt ) 87 Lum/Watt Fluorescent T-8 Lamps 32 Watt ) 5800lumens Electronic Ballast 58 Watts (9 32 Watt ) 100 Lum/Watt Fluorescent T-10 Lamps () 40 Watt )7400 Lumens Electronic Ballast 71 Watts ' (9 40 Watt )lo4Lumlwatt ENERGY ISSUES FOR THE NINETIES 1 ENERGY SHORTAGES: No utility company in the United States has announced plans for a major new power plant in the past five years. Increasing demand without increasing supply will ultimately dictate new strategies for conservation. 2 RISING ENERGY COST Energy rates continue an upward spiral and are a function of volatile middle east oil, natural gas and other non renewable resource supplies. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ENERGY USAGE Positive environmental impact is becoming a corporate image requirement of this decade. Energy optimization offers a tremendous potential for environmental benefits at low initial cost with high rates of return on investment. 4 LEGISLATIVE DEMANDS The National Energy Policy Act is now law and we must plan for changes required. Attached are handouts depicting the lamp compliance summary by Phillips and Osram /Sylvania. See attachments C and D. 5 INCREASED AWARENESS OF LIGHTING COSTS Controlling lighting cost by focussing on lamp cost and labor was not a bad strategy in days gone by. However, as a result of improvements in product performance, along with increases in electrical cost, total lighting cost today is 88% electrical. Lamp and labor cost account for the remaining 12%. °> See attachment E. t Efficacy - Lumens /Watt Incandescent - Standard Fluorescent ....,-�.-..s------------------- ----------�-_--- -=---.n....=,....,..... Maintained Lumens Watt Comparison aris 0 n of Various LLi ht Sources at 70 of Life(Lamp and Ba llas t Included) E S Fluorescent Fluorescent T 8 F n t 0 Mercury Vapor r Metal H e alide H P Sodium L P Sodium = 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ENERGY STRATEGIES (LIGHTING Present System(s) Proposed System(s) Some Application Types Incandescent High Pressure Sodium Warehouses,Factories,Gymnasiums,Exterior Lighting Metal Halide Factories, Gymnasiums,Exterior Lighting Fluorescent Offices,Classrooms,Dormitories,Homes,Warehouses PLIFluorescent Corridors,Recessed Lights,Globes,Overhangs. Halogen Accent Lighting,Bookstores,Art Museums,Dimming Light Emitting Diode Exit Light Applications Mercury Vapor High Pressure Sodium Warehouses,Gymnasiums,Exterior Lighting Metal Halide Factories, Gymnasiums,Exterior Lighting Fluorescent Standard LampslBallast Electronic Ballast/ES Lamp Offices,Classrooms,Dormitories,Homes,Warehouses Standard Ballast/ES Lamps Electronic Ballast/ES Lamp Offices,Classrooms,Dormitories,Homes,Warehouses ('Use TB wI Electronic Ballast) I!; it 047INCMH.XLS $y Qt► Carmichael Gymnasium(s) /Lighting Retrofit 'l, i from Incandescent to Metal Halide Case Study Removed 141,Incandescent luminaires totalling 106 KW and replaced with 60, Metal Halide luminaires totaling ,nr 27.6 KW. Electrical demand was reduced by 78 KW with an estimated annual saving of$15,755. All work was lcal 0' performed by physical plant personnel including both design and installation. Energy Profile Original System/Incandescent New System/Metal Halide Cost per KWH $0.08 Cost per KWH $0.08 Daily Hours/Operation 8 Daily Hours/operation 8 Days per Year/Operation 300 Days per Year/Operation 300 Annual Hours/Operation 2,400 Annual Hours/Operation 2400 Number of Luminaires 141 Number of Luminaires 60 Lamp Wattage 750 Lamp Wattage Each • 400 Ballast Wattage 0 Ballast Wattage Each 60 Total KWD 105.8 Total KWD 27.6 Annual KWH 253,800 Annual KWH 66,240 Annual Energy Cost $21,319 Annual Energy Cost $5,564 Net Annual Savings $15,755 Implementation Cost $30,000 Estimate Number,0145-0. Payback/Years 1.90 Internal Rate of Return 53% Ili Energy Investments that Beat the DOW Approximate Completed Lighting Retrofit, 6/7/91 Lighting Retrofit of Carmichael Playing W . . ,,, ....�....■��v.�C�� Equates per Year. This . : Saving of . 5.....�.� iiiii!!Jriiiiiiiiii!■��� iiiO/�/iiii®iiiiiii� ■ iii�l�Giiiiiiiiiiiii■ was$30,000. Payback= 1.9 Years. IRR ' 025KWD02.XLC 250 Added Keyed Switches Began Changeout from Inc.to M.H. = KWD f> 200 =<Job Com leted 617191 =f' r ,'<"j =- ..: '�: ::..�r'irt='r' f 150 Reduced from FY91 78 Kilowatts of Demand ::.::.::::;:::r:r,:.:�_:;::::_.:.:;.. :.::::: :::::::.::.::;:.�.:::::::::•;:::.:<:::>;:>:•;:-;::-;::.;:::::-::�:-;:::>:::::::>-.�::.;.;-•::;.;�.;:.:<.:::.::::.;;::.::.,.::::.�:::_.::.::::.;::.::.:;:<. ..100 to FY 9 Z. Approximate Annual Savings from .. = 7500. <���r�> `'>'_�??`> >'<>�:�> '��hA`<'=<<<�������'<`<' '`�<�<�>�<>=< <'�<<<<�=�� ��= €�� "?��<��`�<.> �> Demand Charges 78 8 . . .......... 9 (( 1 I a 12 r S s 30 000 Payback >r::>r>: >::ti; >>>r».>< ='>>;»>=»::::::= ;r::>:=>:::';;>:: >> :<:?::>:<:<._ :<_::> :<::=>_:>»>> > `::r<. :?::><>`.> >;r;>;>_:::«?:::-::<.:::<:::<.-<::::>'«......:ry':«:: Cost to Implement was S P `''''''' P Y from Reduced Demand Charges es Onl Y-4 Years. IRR - 25%. # :' % ?3:'r3�� r -; 50 1991 1992 1 93 ::r.... :,. ::r.:: ;:.::::::..:r..:.::: ::::::r... m '7 LO N Ir m m O N •-- N CrJ cf LA CO Page 1 166SUM01.XLS General Storeroom Lighting Retrofit gel; 3/1b from Incandescent to High Pressure Sodium 49° Case Study Removed 408,Incandescent luminaires totalling 81.6 KW and replaced with 228, High Pressure Sodium luminaires totalling 29.6 KW. Electrical demand was reduced by 52.0 0r with an estimated annual saving of$12,221. All work was �' performed by physical plant personnel including both 44.Cal design and installation. Energy Profile Original System!Incandescent New System/High Pressure Sodium Cost per KWH $0.08 Cost per KWH $0.08 Daily Hours/Operation 10 Daily Hours/Operation 10 Days per Year/Operation 280 Days per Year/Operation 280 Annual Hours/Operation 2,800 Annual Hours/Operation 2,800 Number of Luminaires 408 Number of Luminaires 228 Equivalent Lamp Wattage 200 Lamp Wattage Each 100 Equivalent Ballast Wattage 0 Ballast Wattage Each 30 Total KWD 81.6 Total KWD 29.64 Annual KWH 228,480 Annual KWH 82,992 Annual Energy Cost $19,192 Annual Energy Cost $6,971 Net Annual Savings $12,221 Implementation Cost $51,500 Payback/Years 4.21 Internal Rate of Return 24% Energy Investments that Beat the DOW General Storeroom 700,000 — s��,o00 Lighting Retrofit: From Incandescent to High 600,000 Pressure Sodium. 111,000 Kilowatt Hours _-- Reduced from FY90 to FY93. This Equates to an Annual Saving of$10,000. Cost to Implement 500,000 was$51,500 Payback was 4.2 Years and Internal Rate of Return was 24%. -- 566,000 _ 400,000 * --- — 300,000 -- FY90 ' -- FY91 200,000 —'— FY92 FY93 100,000 ` - - - - FY94 Kilowatts 0 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Energy Investments that Beat the DOW General Storeroom KWD 250 FY90 FY93 200 �, aaa fineaaeem e 150 Lighting Load Reduction 100 45 Kilowatts of Demand Reduced from FY90 to FY93. Air Conditioning Load Approximate Annual Savings from Demand Charges= ((45*8)*12)or$4300. Cost to Implement was$30,000. Base Load/includes Lighting 1135KW Payback from Reduced Demand Charges Only >7 Years. 50 IRR = 15%. 0 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Energy Investments that Beat the DOW 468MV2MH.XLS Fetzer Gymnasium(s) (Lighting Retrofit A O from Mercury Vapor to Metal Halide 4 Case Study Removed 128,Mercury Vapor luminaires totalling 58.8 KW and replaced with 64, Metal Halide luminaires totaling 29.440 KW. Electrical demand was reduced by 29.4 KW with an estimated annual saving of$13,018. All work was VS1V performed by physical plant personnel including both 1081 + design and installation. Energy Profile Original System!Mercury Vapor New System!Metal Halide Cost per KWH $0.08 Cost per KWH $0.08 Daily Hours/Operation 16 Daily Hours/Operation 16 Days per Year/Operation 329 Days per Year/Operation 329 Annual Hours/Operation 5,264 Annual Hours/Operation 5264 Number of Luminaires 128 Number of Luminaires 64 Lamp Wattage 400 Lamp Wattage Each 400 Ballast Wattage 60 Ballast Wattage Each 60 Total KWD 58.9 Total KWD 29.44 Annual KWH 309,944 Annual KWH 154,972 Annual Energy Cost $26,035 Annual Energy Cost $13,018 Net Annual Savings $13,018 Implementation Cost $16,746 Estimate Number,446-0. Payback/Years 1.29 Internal Rate of Return 78% Energy Investments that Beat the DOW Fetzer Gymnasium(s) FETZER GYMNASIUM 2,500,000 2,227,392 Note:Lighting Retrofit:From Mercury Vapor to Metal Halide. 221,884 Kilowatt Hours Reduced from FY92 to FY93.This Equates to an Annual Saving of$19,243.Cost to Implement was$19,749. Payback was.87 Years r , and Internal Rate of Return was 115%. r r 2,000,000 r r r r r r �rr r > 1,500,000 r r r r r r 1,000,000 �" r '° r FY90 " FY91 500,000 FY92 r Kilowatt Hours(Cumulative FY93 0 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Energy Investments that Beat the DOW Fetzer Gymnasium(s) Start Job Completed 450 December 20, 1991 400 350 300 250 200 Actual KWD Reduction = 41 150 FY92 100 41 Kilowatts of Demand Reduced from FY92 to FY93. FY93 Approximate Annual Savings from Demand Charges= ((41*8)*12) — FY94 or$3,936. Cost to Implement was$16,746. Payback from ,— 50 Reduced Demand Charges Only> 5Years. IRR=20%. 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Energy Management Investments that Beat the DOW "637 °4111' DAVIE HALL BLDG # 013 Case Study 36% Reduction in Annual Kilowatt Demand from 122 to 78 Davie Hall, located on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is currently illuminated by fluorescent fixtures with T-12 lamps and standard core and coil ballasts, and some incandescent fixtures. The current lighting system requires 468,593 kilowatt hours per year and costs $44,294 to operate. The Energy Office presented a proposal to save energy while maintaining or improving upon current lighting levels. The proposal includes replacing all existing 4X4 fixtures with standard core and coil ballasts and up to eight 34 watt T-12 lamps, with 2X4 fixtures with four 32 watt T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts. All other existing fixtures with T-12 lamps and standard ballasts will be retrofitted to have T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts. These changes increase lumens per watt from 66 to 100 in those fixtures. In addition, incandescent fixtures will be replaced with fluorescent fixtures. The proposal also includes the installation of motion detectors in all offices, classrooms, lounges, and meeting rooms, resulting in a one-third reduction in annual kilowatt hours in those rooms. The new lighting system reduces overall watts per square foot by 35%, from 1.7 to 1.1, while increasing lumens per watt from 62 to 95. Annual kilowatt demand reduces by 36%, from 122 to 78. This system costs $80,912 to implement with a payback of 4.1 years. Original System New System Cost per KWH $.084 $.084 Annual Maintenance Cost $4,932 $4,192 Annual Energy Cost $39,362 $23,347 Annual Operating Cost $44,294 $27,540 Total KWD 122 78 Annual KWH 468,593 277,946 COST ANALYSIS Implementation Cost $80,912 Net Operating Savings $16,754 Cooling Savings $3,203 Total Annual Savings $19,957 Payback 4.11 Internal Rate of Return 24% Prepared by Lynne G. Yellin 08/19/92 XI TLI CASE STUDY /EXIT LIGHTS wg (From 40 Watt Incandescent to 5.5 Watt LED) COST ANALYSIS COST COMPARISONS Annual (Watts11000) Cost Energy Maintenance Cost 18 changes Total Watts Hrs KWH KWH Cost/Yr Labor$5 Maerial$2.00 Annual Cost Exit Light(1) 40.00 8,760.00 350.40 0.08 $28.03 $40.00 $16.00 $84.03 Exit Light(2) 5.50 8,760.00 48.18 0.08 $3.85 $0.00 $0.00 $3.85 Difference 34.50 0.00 302.22 0.00 $24.18 $40.00 $16.00 $80.18 PAYBACK COMPARISONS Payback Internal Rate Cost NAS Years of Return LED Exit Light w/o Battery Backup $65.00 $24.18 2.69 37% note:with energy savings only $80.18 0.81 123% note:with energy and maintenance savings. LED Exit Light with Battery Backup $105.00 $24.18 4.34 23% note:with energy savings only $80.18 _ 1.31 76% note:with energy and maintenance savings. ' f ( Energy Investments that Beat the DOW is Philips Lighting National Energy Policy Act Fluorescent Lamps 2 Foot U-Bent Lamp Compliance* 4 Foot Lamp Compliance* Standard Standard >35W >35W 100 100 tt l yo Excl uded I Excluded I •o.%I U.T4L 90 N•GWX ( ULTRA s� C 70 _:.69 !»:`'`> «::`t'`<e'_'`<"<:`--::::"mss`'.....! 69 R ....— R so I Wan 50 it?3"'> ''?'? ??>?' i:i 50 40 .............. 00 25 50 68 75 100 00 25 50 75 100 LPW LPW •All 2 toot U-Bent T8lEcono watt lamps s 35W comply •AU 4 foot T&Econo-watt lamps s 35W, except WWX and 0,comply 8 Foot Slimline 8 Foot High Output Lamp Compliance* Lamp Compliance* Standard Standard >65W > 100W 100 l 100 90 4--Excluded N I r 4—Excluded N ! �•owX I *c") 82 C C 70 sp.e saK R ci`i'iz::is::i??Etz:i<zE:zi>::::i: :r::i:::i;..... 60 iii":6::"M:Rfaiirgaiginfliggrini I 5°tniniggelininglitairgii:gintiiiligali 40 ao 00 20 40 60 80 100 00 20 40 60 80 100 LPW LPW •AN 8 foot Slimline T8IEcono-watt lamps s 85W comply •M afoot High Output Econ.o-watt lamps 5100W, except 0,comply Complies iz Does not comply c . cp • .."31► PHILIPS �i`r eti41er C NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY ACT LAMP COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Incandescent PAR & R Comply Do not Comply 50ER30 (as of 3/1/93) 75ER30 50R30 100PAR 120ER40 55PAR 100R30 and 100R40 100BR25 75-65PAR/EP 150-120PAR/EP 50PAR30/H 65R30/SFL 150PAR 75PAR30/H 75PAR 150R40 45PAR38/H 75R30 and 75R40 200R40 60PAR38/H 75PAR38/H 90PAR38/H Fluorescent 8-Foot High Output Types Comply Excluded (Comply) Do Not Comply F96T12/CW/H0/EW F96T12/CWX/HO (as of 3/1/93) F96T12/LW/H0/EW F96T12/N/HO F96T12/CW/HO F96T12/WW/H0/EW F96T12/C50/HO F96T12/WW/HO F96T12/SPEC30/HO and EW F96T12/30U/HO and EW F96T12/D/HO and EW F96T12/SPEC35/HO and EW F96T12/35U/HO and EW F96T12/SPEC41/HO and EW F96T12/41U/HO and EW F96T12/50U/HO Fluorescent 8-Foot Slimline Types Comply Excluded (Comply) Do not Comply F96T12/CW/EW F96T12/CWX and EW (as of 3/1/93) F96TI2/LW/EW F96T12/N F96T12/CW F96T12/WW/EW F96T12/C50 and EW F96T12/WW F96T12/SPEC 30 and EW F96T12/30U and EW F96T12/D and EW F96T12/SPEC 35 and EW F96T12/35U and EW F96T12/SPEC 41 and EW F96T12/41U and EW F96T12/50U and -EW Fluorescent 2-Foot U-Bent Types Comply Excluded (Comply) Do not Comply FB4OCW/6/EW-II FB4OCWX/6 (as of 3/1/93) FB4OLW/6/EW-II FB40/30U/6 FB4OCW/6 FB40WW/6/EW-II FB40/35U/6 FB40WW/6 FB40/SPEC 30/6 FB40/41U/6 FB40D/6 FB4O/SPEC 35/6 FB31T8/TL830/6 FB40WWX/6 FB40/SPEC 41/6 FB31T8/TL835/6 FB31T8/TL730/6 FB31T8/TL841/6 FB31T8/TL735/6 FB31T8/TL741/6 Fluorescent 4-Foot Types Comply Excluded (Comply) Do not Comply F4OCW/RS/EW-II F4OCWX and EW (as of 3/1/93) F4OLW/RS/EW-II F4ON F4OCW F40WW/RS/EW-II F40050 F40WW F40 SPEC 30 and EW F40075 F40D and EW F40 SPEC 30 and EW F40/30U and EW F4OWWX and EW F40 SPEC 41 and EW F40/35U and EW F4OT10/CW/99 F4OAX30 F40/41U and EW F40T10/LW-2/99 F40AX35 F40/50U and EW F40T10/WW/99 F40AX41 F32T8/TL830 1 F4OAX5O F32T8/TL835 :;M v::€:$w. v>v: .. fi>::»::>` <s<=:<:><:: r ..."e itdR.?f{?4kC=.+�4C�..,..Slnv..�-,.:. `S F,Y.�:•.:iti:i:::ii:::::>:�<{:.: F32T8/TL730 F32T8/TL841 "' ' <w.A:«= F32T8/TL735 F32T8/FL741 5 PHILIPS 1 LIGHTG PROVISIONS ik6ote IN _The new energy law will mandate labelling and/or minimum energy efficiency and/or labelling =' requirements for certain lamps and lighting fixtures. Specific lamb categories included in the new law are 1) Fluorescent Lamps: a) 4-foot bi-pin straight lamps and 2-foot U-shaped rated at 28 watts or more. b) •4-foot, slimline 96 inches in length, instant start, single-pin of 52 watts or more. c) 8-foot, high-output lamps, 96 inches in length, rapid-start, 800 m.a. types. Lamp Nominal Lamp Minimum Ave. Lamp Effective Type: Wattage: CRI Efficacy (LPW): After (Mos.) 4-ft. medium.bipin > 35W 69 75.0 36 < 35W 45 75.0 36 2-ft. U-Shaped > 35W 69 68.0 36 < 35W 45 64.0 36 8-ft. Slirnline > 65W 69 80.0 18 < 65W 45 80.0 18 8-ft. HO >100W 69 80.0 18 <100W 45 80.0 18 2) Incandescent Lamps a) Non-reflector types with wattage of over 30 watts, medium screw base, with voltage rating of 115-130 volts. b) Incandescent reflector types including R and PAR types with medium screw base, with wattage of 40-205 watts, voltage rating of 115-130 volts, and diameter greater than 2-3/4 inches. Note: Standards exclude miniature, decorative, traffic signal, marine, mine, stage-studio, railway, colored lamps, and other special application types. d) INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS STANDARDS Nominal Lamp Wattage Minimum Average Lamp Effective Range(Watts) Efficacy(LPW) After.(Mos.) • 41-50 10.5 36 51-66 11.0 36 67-85 12.5 36 86-115 14.0 36 116-155 14.5 36 156-205 15.0 36 Of specific interest to our customers are the lamp types that will be impacted. 2 Fluorescent Types No full wattage fluorescent F40, F96 or F96/HO type would pass unless it has a CRI of 69 or higher Ind meets the minimum LPW requirement. Examples of types that would n pass are: F4OCW FB4OCW F96T12/CW F40WW FB40WW F96T 12/CW/HO F4OW FB4OLW F96T 12JWW/HO F4OLW F96T12/W/HO F40WWX Popular fluorescent types that would pass are: • F4OCW/SS F40D41 F032T8 (All) F40WW/SS F40D830 F096T8 (All) F4OCWX (Exempt) F96T12/CW/SS F40 INTERIOR DES. F96T12JWW/SS F40D30 F96T 12/CWX(Exempt) F96T12 INTERIOR DES. A more complete list of types that pass, fail, or are exempt is attached. Note: Lamps with CR1 of 32 or higher are now exempt from the LPW provisions of the standard. This would include Natural White, Design 50 and Cool White Deluxe. Incandescent Types No incandescent R and PAR type will meet the LPW requirements. This will include all R30, R40, PAR38 including SuperSaver® types. Types now exempt include ER and BR types. Also exempt are lamps with diameter less than 2.75 inches, i.e. PAR20, R20s and colored lamps. Popular incandescent reflector lamps that will not pass include: 75PAR38 150PAR38 150/120PAR38/SS 75/65PAR38/SS 75R30 150R40 Popular incandescent reflector lamps that will pass include: 45PAR38/CAP 90PAR38/CAP 75PAR38/CAP 50PAR30/CAP 75PAR30/CAP A more complete list of types that pass or fail is attached. 3 Standard A-Line Incandescent Lamps A-Line incandescent lamps no longer must meet an LPW efficiency standard. These lamps must, however, comply with the provision calling for lamp efficiency labeling. Specific labeling requirements will be established by the Federal Trade Commission. Implications forJ.,ightina Manufacturers The passage of the House bill will require that manufacturen no longer manufacture lamps that do not meet the new efficiency standards. The restriction includes all products manufactured under the Sylvania name and all products private branded. Products that will be eliminated will include all F40 workshop types, both Sylvania and private brands. Our Capsylite® line will become the new standard for reflector lamp types. This will offer our customers new opportunities to increase energy efficiency. The legislation should create new opportunities to market SuperSaver fluorescents and reduce the impact of some imports that are generally only available in full wattage types. Again this will increase energy savings and reduce environmental emissions. Implementation of the legislation after enactment will be as follows: Fluorescent F40 types 36 Months Nov. 1995 Fluorescent F96 types 18 Months May 1994 Incandescent Reflector 36 Months Nov. 1995 Other sections of the new law that will help include provisions that will mandate utility least-cost planning. This provision will mean significantly more utilities may offer rebate and incentive programs to customers. Further, a provision will eliminate the income tax consequences now applicable to utility rebates. Another provision of the new law requires that all public utility commissions allow electric utilities to earn a return on conservation and demand-side management (DSM) programs. Again, the result of this will be more rebate and incentive programs. Summary The joint House/Senate energy bill is now law and we must plan for changes required. Since this legislation mandates lamp energy efficiency we as leaders in the technology are in an excellent position to favorably impact energy conservation in this country. The elimination of many lamp types will further allow us to concentrate on production of energy efficient types and to develop new products which will meet the new requirements of energy efficiency and environmental responsiveness. 4 4 u1 9 -BIPIN B • V • ; *d : ,ar Sylvania Lams Description Watts Intent F4OCW 40 FAIL F40WW 40 FAIL F4OCWX 40 EXEMPT F40WWX 40 FAIL F40D30 40 PASS F40D35 40 PASS F40D41 40 PASS F40D830 40 PASS F40D835 40 PASS F40D841 40 PASS F4OW 40 FAIL F4OD 40 FAIL F4OCW/SS 34 PASS F40WW/SS 34 PASS F4OCWX/SS 34 EXEMPT F40WWX/SS 34 FAIL F40D30/SS 34 PASS F40D35/SS 34 PASS F40D41/SS 34 PASS F40D830/SS 34 PASS F40D835/SS 34 PASS F40D841/SS 34 PASS F4OW/SS 34 PASS F40D/SS 34 FAIL F4OLW/SS 34 PASS F4OCW/SSP 32 PASS F40WW/SSP 32 PASS F40D30/SSP 32 PASS F40D35/SSP 32 PASS F40D41/SSP 32 PASS F40D830/SSP 32 PASS F40D835/SSP 32 PASS F40D841/SSP 32 PASS F032/31K 32 PASS F032/35K 32 PASS F032/41K 32 PASS II 5 2 FT. "U" SHAPED MEDIUM Bt-PIN 8 FT. STRAIGHT SLIMLINE FLUORESCENT LAMPS SINGLE-PIN FLUORESCENT LAMPS Sylvania iithinia LamD Description Watts Intent Lamp Description Watts Intent FB40/CW/6 40 FAIL F96T12/CW 75 FALL FB40/WW/6 40 FAIL F96T12/WW 75 FAIL FB40/CWX/6 40 EXEMPT F96T12JCWX 75 EXEMPT FB40/WWX/6 40 FAIL F96T 12/WWX 75 FAIL FB40/D30/6 40 PASS F96T12/D35 75 PASS FB40/D35/6 40 PASS F96T12/D830 75 PASS FB40/D41/6 40 PASS F96T12/W 75 FAIL FB40/D830/6 40 PASS F96T12JD 75 FAIL FB40/W/6 40 FAIL F096T8 59 PASS FB40/CW/6/SS 34 PASS F96T12/CW/SS 60 PASS FB40/WW/6/SS 34 PASS F96T12/WW/SS 60 PASS FB40/W/6/SS 34 PASS F96T12JWWX/SS 60 FAIL FB40/LW/6/SS 34 PASS F96T12/D30/SS 60 PASS F96T12/D35/SS 60 PASS FB031/31K 31 PASS F96T12/D41/SS 60 PASS FB031/35K 31 PASS F96T12/830/SS 60 PASS FB031/41K 31 PASS F96T12/835/SS 60 PASS F96T12/841/SS 60 PASS F96T12/W/SS 60 PASS F96T 12JD/SS 60 FAIL F96T12JLW/SS 60 PASS 8 FT. STRAIGHT HIGH OUTPUT RDC BASE FLUORESCENT LAMPS S Lamp Description YAM 1111211 F96T12/CW/HO 110 FAIL F96T12/WW/HO 110 FAIL. F96T 12/CWX/HO 110 EST . F96T12/D830/HO 110 PASS F96T12/W/HO 110 FAIL F96T12/D/HO 110 FAIL F96T121CW/HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12/WW/HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12/CWX/HO/SS 95 EXEMPT F96T12/D30/HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12D35/HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12D411HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12/D830/HO/SS 95 PASS F96T12/W/HO/SS 95 FAIL F96T 12/LW/HO/SS 95 PASS 6 1 INCANDESCENT REFLI=CTQR_LAMPS 1PLR_& A TYPES) Sylvania Lamp Descriition Voltg Watts Intent 45PAR38/CAP/FL 120 45 PASS 45PAR38/CAP/FL 130 45 PASS f 45PAR38/CAP/SP 120 45 PASS I 45PAR38/CAP/SP 130 45 PASS . 45PAR38/CAP/NSP 120 45 PASS 45PAR38/CAP/NSP 130 45 PASS 45PAR38/CAP/WFL 130 45 PASS 50PAR20/CAP/NFL 120 50 EXEMPT 50P AR20/C AP/NFL 130 50 EXEMPT 50PAR20/CAP/NSP 120 50 EXEMPT 50P AR20/C AP/NSP 130 50 EXEMPT • 50PAR30/CAP/FL 120 50 PASS 50P AR30/C AP/FL 130 50 PASS 50PAR30/CAP/NFL 120 50 PASS 50P AR30/C AP/NFL 130 50 PASS 50PAR30/CAP/NSP 120 50 PASS 50PAR30/CAP/NSP 130 50 PASS 50R20 120 50 EXEMPT 50R20 125 - 130 50 EXEMPT 55PAR/FUSS 120 - 130 55 FAIL 55PAR/SP/SS 120 - 130 55 FAIL 75/65PAR/FUSS 120 . 65 FAIL 75/65PAR/FUSS 130 65 FAIL 75/65PAR/SP/SS 120 65 FAIL 75/65PAR/SP/SS 130 65 FAIL 75PAR30/CAP/NFL 120 75 PASS 75PAR/30/CAP/NSP 120 75 PASS 75PAR30/CAP/FL 120 • 75 PASS 75PAR/SP 120 75 FAIL 75PAR/SP 130 75 FAIL 75PAR/FL 120 75 FAIL. 75PAR/FL 130 75 FAIL r 75100/SP 120 75 FAIL 75R30/SP 125 - 130 75 FAIL 75R30/FL 120 75 FAIL 75R30/FL 125 - 130 75 FAIL 75R/FL 120 75 FAIL 75R/FL 125 - 130 75 FAIL 100/80PAR/FL/SS 120 80 FAIL 100/80PAR/FTJSS 130 80 FAIL • 100/80PAR/SP/SS 120 80 FAIL 100/80PAR/SP/SS 130 80 FAIL 7 . . INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS(PAAR_I R TYPES) Sylvania Lam Description Volts Waits 90PAR38/CAP/FL 120 90 PASS 90P AR38/C AP/FL 130 90 PASS 90PAR38/CAP/NFL 130 90 PASS 90PAR38/CAP/SP 120 90 PASS 9OPAR38/CAP/SP 130 90 PASS 90PAR38/CAP/NSP 120 90 PASS 90PAR38/CAP/NSP 130 90 PASS 100PAR/FL 125 - 130 100 FAIL 100PARJSP 125 - 130 100 FAIL 100R/FL 120 100 FAIL IOOR/FL 125 - 130 100 FAIL • 100R/SP 120 100 FAIL 150/120PARJFUSS I20 120 FAIL 150/I20PARJFL/SS 130 120 FAIL 150/12OPAR/SP/SS 120 120 FAIL 150/120PARJSP/SS 130 120 FAIL 150/120R/SP/SS 120 120 FAIL 150/120R/SP/SS 125 - 130 120 FAIL 150/120R/FIJS S 120 120 FAIL 150/120R/FIJSS 125 - 130 120 FAIL 150PAR/SP 120 150 FAIL 150PAR/SP 125 - 130 150 FAIL 150PAR/FL 120 150 FAIL 150PAR/FL 125 - 130 150 FAIL 150PAR38/CAP/FL 120 150 PASS 150PAR38/CAP/FL 130 150 PASS 150PAR38/CAP/SP 120 150 PASS 150PAR38/CAP/SP 130 150 PASS 150PAR38/CAP/NSP 120 150 PASS 150PAR38/CAP/NSP 130 150 PASS 150R/SP 120 150 FAIL 150R/SP 125 - 130 150 FAIL, 150R/FL 120 150 FAIL 150R/FL 125 - 130 150 FAIL 200R/FL 120 200 FAIL 200R/FL 125 - 130 200 FAIL 200R/2SP 120 200 FAIL 200R/2FL 120 200 FAIL 8 ;� r; /44In*e.✓f 6.--/ LCOST1 2.XLS Lighting Costs Over 10 Years Each fixture has four T12 lamps and 2 ballasts Figures Comments Area /gsf 100,000 One fixture covers 100 square feet Number /fixtures 1,000 Lamp Life 20,000 5 Years @ 4,000 Hrs. /Yr. Ballast Life 40,000 10 Years @ 4,000 Hrs. /Yr. Lamp Cost /ea. $1.50 Ballast Cost lea. $12.00 Energy Cost /KWH $0.080 Kilowatt Demand 160 1000 fixtures @160 watts each Total Kilowatt Hours 6,400,000 10 Years @4000 hrs/yr * Kilowatt Demand Total Energy Cost $512,000 Kilowatt Hrs. * Cost/kwh (Avg $60,800 Yr) Total Ballast Cost $44,000 Total Ballast Cost (1 change per 10 years) Total Lamp Cost $11,000 Total Lamp Cost (Over 10 Years) Total Cost $567,000 Energy Cost Percentage 90.30% Ballast Cost Percentage 7.76% Lamp Cost Percentage 1.94% $44,000 $11,000 = ,""" �► ® Total Energy Cost r Hill Total Ballast Cost 0 Total Lamp Cost . $512,000 III Page 1 /114e,A rMA.i r E' LCOST8.XLS Lighting Costs Over 10 Years Each fixture has four T8 lamps and 2 ballasts Figures Comments Area /gsf 100,000 One fixture covers 100 square feet Number /fixtures 1,000 Lamp Life 20,000 5 Years.@ 4,000 Hrs. /Yr. Ballast Life 40,000 10 Years @ 4,000 Hrs. /Yr. Lamp Cost lea. $2.25 Ballast Cost /ea. $20.00 Energy Cost /KWH $0.080 Kilowatt Demand 120 1000 fixtures @120 watts each Total Kilowatt Hours 4,800,000 10 Years @4000 hrs/yr * Kilowatt Demand Total Energy Cost $384,000 Kilowatt Hrs. * Cost/kwh (Avg $60,800 Yr) Total Ballast Cost $60,000 Total Ballast Cost (1 change per 10 years) Total Lamp Cost $14,000 Total Lamp Cost (Over 10 Years) Total Cost $458,000 Energy Cost Percentage 83.84% Ballast Cost Percentage 13.10% Lamp Cost Percentage 3.06% $14,000 $60,000 ll�1IIIIIIII11:11 iIiil Total Energy Cost I 11111 Total Ballast Cost "L""` _ - fl Total Lamp Cost ...:,.: t :..... $384,000 Page 1 . EPA0LEVA.XLS i Greenlights Program Highlights k q# g 1 Survey all Existing Facilities,noting existing types of lighting and evaluating varying options for retrofit.Greenlights will furnish software and training for your analyst. f All facilities shall be surveyed within 5 years of signing agreement. MOIL. 2 Survey Cost, 2 to 3 Cents per Square foot. Building Sq Ft. Cost ISq.Ft. Survey Cost Example: A 120,000 $0.025 $3,000 B 85,000 $0.025 $2,125 C 10,000 $0.025 $250 D 45,000 $0.025 $1,125 E 20,000 $0.025 $500 Totals 280,000 $0.025 $7,000 3 Implementation Cost, 1 to 2 Dollars per Square foot. I Building Sq Ft. Cost/Sq.Ft. Implementation Cost Example: A 120,000 $1.50 $180,000 B 85,000 $1.50 $127,500 C 10,000 $1.50 $15,000 D 45,000 $1.50 $67,500 E 20,000 $1.50 $30,000 Totals 280,000 $1.50 $420,000 4 Implementation Requirements: 90% of all area that has a ROl > = (prime + 6%)shall be implemented. Building Sq Ft. Implementation Cost Net Annual Saving Payback ROI Example: A 120,000 $180,000 $45,000 4 25% B 85,000 $127,500 $31,875 4 25% C 10,000 $15,000 $3,750 4 25% D 45,000 $67,500 $16,875 4 25% E 20,000 $30,000 $7,500 4 25% Totals 280,000 $420,000 $105,000 4 25% Factor 90% Funds Required $378,000.00 5 Funds Needed per Year Survey Cost $7,000.00 Implementation Cost $378,000.00 Total Cost $385,000.00 Average Cast/Year $77,000.00 note:5 year period FY92-93 Utilities Cost, $36,900,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $1,800,000 $11,800,000 ■ Electricity ■ Steam $21,800,000 ® Water 1 Sewer ■ Gas University of North Carolina @ Chapel Hill, N.C. FY92-93 Utilities Cost, $36,900,00 $7.100,000 ■ Health Affairs s s $11 200.000 ■ Academic Affairs ■ UNC Hospital Aux. Enterprises $6.WO,DW $12.000,000 University of North Carolina @ Chapel Hill, N.C.