Executive Summary

Keith Robertson, formerly Mechanical Services Manager, City of Prince Albert, (referred to in this document as 'The Corporation'), is recognized as the initiator of the idea, which resulted in the Corporation undertaking an energy performance contract. Robert Parker, energy specialist for the Corporation, who has now assumed Keith Robertson's position as Mechanical Services Manager, is credited with the successful completion of three energy management programs. Blair Hoffman, Director of Parks & Recreation, who had overall responsibility for the project says, "In the short term, these energy performance projects gave the city the opportunity to undertake some of the necessary upgrades, which otherwise we may not have been able to do. In the long term we expect substantial financial savings will be achieved after the payback period. This is important to the city as a business and to Prince Albert taxpayers." Since these financial projections were made prior to the recent forecast of significant gas and electrical power increases, Mr. Hoffman can likely expect that even greater savings will be achieved. Corporation staff responsible for maintenance of each facility participated actively in the projects, and assisted to identify many of the changes in facility operations and events which affected gas and electricity use throughout the program. By the end of the project there was an improved attitude toward energy efficiency among Corporation employees and energy conserving behavior appeared to be well established.

Once the idea of promoting energy saving was conceived, the Parks and Recreation Department initiated phase 1 of their energy plan by issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), to six Energy Saving Companies (ESCo's). This approach appeared to be ideally suited to the Corporation, providing them with the external professional skills, which would enable them to embark almost immediately on an energy savings program. The companies were asked to submit proposals for the performance of a comprehensive audit of fifteen civic facilities. Honeywell Ltd. (referred to in this document as 'Honeywell' or 'the ESCo' - Energy Service Company) was the successful bidder and was retained to perform preliminary energy audits on the identified projects. Under the agreement, the ESCo guaranteed that the energy and operating savings would pay for the upgrades. The performance contracting approach enables building owners and operators to finance building improvements out of future operating savings. The agreement also stated that the preliminary audits would be at no cost to the Corporation. The review was completed in January 1996. The report submitted to the Corporation by the ESCo indicated that in excess of $100,000 could be saved in energy and operating costs at eleven facilities if approximately $654,000 capital improvements were undertaken. In February of 1996, the ESCo was authorized to proceed to the concept report phase to detail exact measures to be completed at each of the fifteen civic facilities. The concept report was at a cost of $35,000 but if energy savings were insufficient to cover capital costs, the Corporation would not be required to pay the $35,000. If energy savings were sufficient, the City had the option of paying the $35,000 to the ESCo for the report and terminating the contract, or proceeding with the ESCo to the implementation stage. Under the latter option the $35,000 would be included in the Performance Contract and paid from guaranteed energy savings. In September of 1996, the Corporation accepted the concept report and gave approval for the ESCo to proceed with the contract.

In addition to the contract with the ESCo the Corporation retained the services of the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), to perform audits under Phase 2 of the energy program. This second phase included ten (10) Community Club facilities and four (4) major recreation and tourist facilities. The community clubs operated neighborhood-based facilities which included a variety of elements from indoor natural ice rinks, artificial ice curling rinks, hall and dressing rooms and warm-up areas, concessions, kitchens and day care areas. SRC estimated that the community clubs could achieve annual savings of $28, 276 with a capital investment of 133,055 plus GST. They also projected that with a capital investment of $99,800 plus GST, the Recreation, and Tourist facilities could achieve savings of $20,498. The payback period for these retrofits, when interim financing charges were included, was 6 years.

The SRC conducted energy audits using the new Building Energy Management (BEM) program. The BEM Program was established by SRC to assist Saskatchewan building operators reduce energy consumption and provide “in-service” training in energy conservation and its benefits.

The Corporation reviewed the BEM audit recommendations first with each community club executive committee to verify that their needs were fulfilled. After conducting this review, a contract to implement the upgrades recommended by SRC was entered into by the Corporation and the ESCo. While most of the BEM recommendations were accepted, an analysis by the Corporation resulted in some recommendations being excluded. For example, The Kinsman Arena/Water Park DHW preheat system retrofit recommendation, was rejected because the cost of implementation versus projected savings was deemed to be too optimistic.

The ESCo was retained to undertake the phase 2 capital improvements although in this contract they did not guarantee the annual savings projected by SRC as they had done in the first phase. The savings estimated by SRC were deemed to be the savings and results were not monitored in accordance with the Phase 1 protocol. Each facility included the energy retrofit costs in their operating budget with a structured payback plan payment schedule.

Introduction

History

The Corporation energy savings project was initiated in 1994 by one of its employees who saw the benefits to establishing a program, which would reduce the rapidly rising energy use costs of Corporation facilities. The Corporation energy budget, operating several large multi-purpose buildings, was large enough to justify the retention of the services of an Energy Performance Contracting company (ESCo). This approach permitted the Corporation to utilize external professional skills and embark almost immediately on an energy savings program. Energy savings could be re-invested in additional projects not included in the first phase of the program. The idea for undertaking an energy program was initiated by Keith Robertson, former Mechanical Services Manager, City of Prince Albert. Keith enlisted the support of Blair Hoffman, Director of Parks & Recreation, who was ultimately responsible for the overall project. They both enthusiastically supported the initiative and contributed to the selling of the concept to other Corporation managers. They formed a team comprised of managers and union employees responsible for developing criteria for the selection of an Energy Service Company (ESCo). The criteria included the identification of several facilities the successful ESCo was required to analyze to determine suitability for inclusion in the energy program. In October 1994, the teams' recommendations were presented to council and the energy management plan was approved. The energy program was to be funded internally and annual operational savings from each facility were to be transferred to repay the Corporation capital investment loan.

In early 1995 the search for an Energy Management Company was initiated with the issuance of "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ), to six companies. In November 1995 Honeywell Ltd. (referred to in this document as the ESCo - Energy Service Company), was retained to perform preliminary energy audits on the identified projects. Under the agreement, the ESCo guaranteed that the energy and operating savings would pay for the upgrades. The ESCo completed the preliminary energy audit on 15 civic buildings and received authorization in February of 1996 to proceed to the concept report phase and detail exact measures to be completed at each of the fifteen civic facilities.

In March of 1996 Robert Parker, energy specialist, was added to the team to provide the expertise and skills deemed critical for the continued success of the project. He was responsible for project implementation and to fulfill the liaison role between the city and Honeywell Ltd. Blair Hoffman, Director of Parks & Recreation, recognized his role in a speech stating that "Robert made the three phases of the energy management programs happen." Robert was subsequently appointed as Mechanical Services Manager, a position he holds today.

Corporation staff, responsible for maintenance of each facility, participated actively in the project and helped to identify many of the changes in facility operations and events, which affected gas and electricity use. By the end of the project there was also an improved attitude toward energy efficiency among Corporation employees and energy conserving behavior appeared to be well established.

Phase 1 & 2 audits identified measures that enhanced the indoor comfort, savings of energy, and the reduction of operating costs. Lighting was a major part of the retrofit. Each facility had new T8 long life lamps, reflectors and electronic ballast's installed, which use less energy and require less maintenance, produce less flicker and enhance visual clarity. In some of the facilities water saving devices were installed to reduce water use. HVAC systems had pressure and carbon dioxide sensors installed to optimize the air supply. Electric motors and pumps/fans were replaced where improved efficiency could be achieved and demonstrated. The installation of programmable and light sensitive thermostats enhanced control of the heating systems, and wherever possible, natural gas-driven humidifiers and heaters replaced electric systems to reduce operating costs.

In September 1996 the concept report for Phase 1 was completed by the ESCo and approved by the Corporation. Project costs included the total price for the design, construction, and installation of work shown in Table 1 for the period up to and including the commencement date. Project costs were inclusive of all applicable taxes and surcharges but excluded finance charges, monitoring, maintenance, and support services costs which were to be assumed by the city or negotiated separately with the ESCo. Capital improvements were to be completed at ten facilities at a cost of $654,206 as shown in Table 1. The Corporation was to obtain interim financing at 7.5% ($229,995). The ESCo guaranteed the annual projected energy savings of $94, 299. The payback period was 98 months, see Table 2.

Table 1: Phase 1 – Facility Upgrades – Honeywell

FACILITY	VISIBLE CHANGES	TIME FRAME	MECHANICAL & CONTROLS	TIME FRAME
JMC library	lighting upgrade and retrofit	Completed May 1/97	Mechanical systems inspection	1 week
Comuniplex Arena	Lobby/dressing rooms; lighting upgrade retrofit	May 1-23/97	Refrigeration controls, mechanical inspection and retrofit	3 weeks
Dave Steuart Arena	Lobby/dressing rooms; lighting upgrade retrofit	May 26-30/97	Mechanical systems inspection	1 week
Airport Terminal & Maintenance Building	Lobby/dressing rooms; lighting upgrade retrofit	June 2-13/97	Mechanical systems inspection	4 days
City Yards	Shop, stores & offices lighting upgrade/retrofit	June 16-27/97	Heating & ventilation systems inspection	2 weeks
Police Services	lighting upgrade & retrofit	June 30-July 18/ 97	Heating & ventilation systems inspection	5 weeks
City Hall	lighting upgrade & retrofit - Foyer & hallway ceilings. Replacement on 3 levels	May 12-Sept 12 1997	Mechanical HVAC inspections & retrofits	5 weeks
Art Centre	Lighting upgrade & retrofit	Sept. 15-19/97
Margo Fournier Centre	Lighting upgrade & retrofit	Sept 22-Oct 10 1997	Mechanical systems & controls. Inspection & Retrofits	3 weeks
Pollution Control	Lighting upgrade & retrofit	By site electrician	HVAC Mechanical systems inspection & retrofit	1 weeks

Table 2: Phase 1 Project Costs and Savings Summary – Honeywell

MEASURE	PROJECT COST*	ANNUAL SAVINGS	SIMPLE PAYBACK - YEARS
Lighting equipment	$258,674	$61,429	4.21
Lighting Labour	$166,158	N/A	N/A
Mechanical & Electrical Measures	$83,061	$18,103	4.59
Water Saving Measures	$2,682	$554	4.84
Other Measures	$43,384	$4,193	10.35
Mechanical Inspections	$32,207	$5,021	6.41
Lighting Replacements	N/A	$4,999	N/A
Training	Included	N/A	N/A
On-Site Project Management	$22,500	N/A	N/A
City of P.A. Project Manager	$10,540	N/A	N/A
Concept Report	$35,000	N/A	N/A
TOTAL	$654,206.00	$94,299.00	6.94 Years
*Honeywell totals included all applicable taxes and surcharges

Table 3: Phase 1 – Annual Energy Summary – Honeywell

Facility	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Airport Buildings	2,692	2,773	2,856	2,942	3,030	3,121	3,215	3,311	3,410	585
Arts Centre	1415	1457	1501	1546	1592	1640	1698	1740	1792	308
City Hall	25,240	25,997	26,777	27,580	28,408	29,260	30,138	31,042	31,973	5,489
City Yard Buildings	6,899	7,106	7,319	7,539	7,7765	7,998	8,238	8,485	8,739	1,500
Communi-plex	18,330	18,880	19,446	20,030	20,631	21,250	21,887	22,544	23,220	3,986
J.M Library	9,839	10,196	10,502	10,817	11,141	11,476	11,820	12,175	12,540	2,153
Margo Fournier	9,232	9,509	9,794	10,088	10,391	10,702	11,024	11,354	11,695	2,008
Police Station	18,035	18,576	19,133	19,707	20,298	20,907	21,535	22,181	22,846	3,922
P.A. Pollution	1,479	1,523	1,569	1,616	1,664	1,714	1,766	1,819	1,873	322
Dave G. Steuart Arena	1,078	1,110	1,143	1,178	1,213	1,249	1,287	1,325	1,365	234
Total All Facilities	$ 94,299	$ 97,127	$ 100,040	$ 103,043	$ 106,133	$ 109,317	$ 112,599	$ 115,976	$ 119,453	$ 20,507	$ 978,494

Monitored facilities 5; Term Length 98 months; Annual Guarantee $97,128; Energy $79,100; Operational $18,028; Escalation rate 3%.

The key benefits of the performance contract agreement included the following:

· Principal and interest payments required to retire the financing is funded entirely by the annual $94,299 in utility savings.

· The new equipment will have a longer life and provide better service than the equipment it replaces.

· Users of the facilities will appreciate the improved atmosphere.

· The training of in-house staff was to be funded by the annual savings.

· Financing for the Project Investment will be done internally by the City at an annual interest rate of 7.5%.

The City also retained Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), to conduct energy audits for several facilities excluded from the phase 1 audits conducted by Honeywell. SRC had introduced the Building Energy Management (BEM) program, established to assist Saskatchewan building operators reduce energy consumption. The BEM program, was developed under the joint sponsorship of the Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatchewan Energy & Mines, SaskPower and SaskEnergy. The BEM program objectives identify 1) ways to reduce the operating cost of buildings in Saskatchewan, at reasonable cost to building owners, and 2) to give those who are responsible for the buildings an opportunity to learn about the energy use in their buildings and options to reduce it. The subsidized BEM program was affordable and allowed the City to expand there initial energy management plans immediately after the phase I construction were completed. After the BEM findings were accepted by the Corporation, a contract to implement the upgrades recommended by SRC was entered into by the Corporation and the ESCo (Honeywell Ltd.). The ESCo was contracted to perform the Phase 2 capital improvements under the same terms as their Phase 1 agreement, without the annual savings guarantee. This was deemed to be a reasonable approach because, unlike in phase 1, The ESCo was relying on savings projections established by SRC. The performance contract for phase 2 is shown in Table 4 & 5.

Table 4 - Phase 2 - Performance Contract

ESTIMATE - HONEYWELL PHASE 2 PERFORMANCE CONTRACT - COMMUNITY CLUBS
FACILITY	LIGHTING	MECHANICAL	TOTAL	SRC ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS
East End	$ 8,418	$ 6,821	$ 15,239	$ 3,765
East End Rink	$ 13,185	$ 1,328	$ 14,513	$ 3,297
East Hill	$ 11,066	$ 199	$ 11,265	$ 1,849
Hazeldell	$ 6,029	$ 66	$ 6,095	$ 512
Midtown	$ 11,335	$ 598	$ 11,933	$ 2,692
Parkland	$ 23,367	$ 452	$ 23,819	$ 5,106
West Hill	$ 9,369	$ 332	$ 9,701	$ 1,207
Crescent Heights	$ 9,157	$ 398	$ 9,555	$ 2,421
Nordale Hall	$ 12,178	$ 332	$ 12.510	$ 2,040
Carlton Park	$ 17,887	$ 538	$ 18,425	$ 5,387
TOTAL	$121,991	$ 11,064	$133,055	$ 28,276

GST Excluded

Table 5 - Phase 2 - Performance Contract

ESTIMATE - HONEYWELL PHASE 2 PERFORMANCE CONTRACT - CITY FACILITIES
FACILITY	LIGHTING	MECHANICAL	TOTAL	SRC ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS
West Flat Building	$ 24,974	$ 611	$ 25,585	$ 6,155
Tourist Information	$ 7,851	$ 160	$ 8,011	$ 988
Kinsmen Arena & Water Park	$ 17,739	$ 6,775	$ 24,514	$ 4,252
P.A. Golf & Curling Club	$ 38,406	$ 3,347	$ 41,753	$ 9,103
Total	$ 88,970	$ 10,893	$ 99,863	$ 20,498

GST Excluded

Stakeholders

The roles and contributions of the Stakeholders in the Prince Albert Energy Management Project were as follows:

City of Prince Albert (The Corporation): City Council approved the energy management plan in October 1994 and endorsed the Energy Service Company selection process

Honeywell Ltd.: Honeywell (the ESCo), conducts Performance Contracting for institutional and commercial buildings on a global basis. Honeywell also market automation controls for homes, buildings, industrial, and the aviation sectors. They provide the financial, technological and project implementation support to conduct Performance Contracts similar to the Prince Albert project

Saskatchewan Research Council: Saskatchewan, Research Council through their Building Energy Management Program (BEM), provides a fee for service to Saskatchewan building

operators designed to identify opportunities to reduce energy consumption. The program provides a variety of services, which include Facility Assessment and Energy Benchmarking; Technical Audits; Evaluation and Reporting of Cost-Effective Options; Training to Building Operators.

Timing and Schedule

The construction of phase 1 was initiated March 1998 and scheduled work was completed without any major obstacles by October 1998. Phase 2 implementation was initiated in 1999 and completed in the same year.

The scheduling of work for both phases was set jointly by the Corporation and the ESCo to minimize disruption to staff, programs, and services. Facility retrofits were coordinated to conform to the varying uses of each facility, for example, the arenas were completed during the off season, and sub-contractors scheduled their retrofits over weekends or after business hours to minimize disruptions. These schedules were written into the tender and contract documents. The contractors usually completed one building at a time, however, they were required to be flexible, and on several occasions were required to move from one building to another to accommodate building programs or due to delays in equipment delivery.

Audit / Retrofit Plan

Protocols to identify measures with potential to reduce energy costs were as follows:

· Identify current operating conditions, equipment, hours of use, and utility expenditures.

· Verify conditions with on-site visual inspections and through interviews with staff

· Formulate potential energy saving measures.

· Obtain pricing, calculate savings, and visualize operational changes in each facility for each potential measure. *

· Discard measures that were impractical, uneconomical and negatively impact facility comfort conditions.

· Gather measures together, identify positive and negative synergistic effects, into an overall project.

· Revisit sites and re-analyze calculations to ensure measures are practical and work together.

· Produce concept report detailing the proposed measures, costs, and savings.

* The contractors were required to follow Corporation tender guidelines with one exception permitting Honeywell Ltd. to supply all lighting fixtures and components.

Phase 1: Energy Audits Performed by Honeywell

Honeywell carried out energy audits of Corporation facilities. The audit covered lighting, heating, and cooling equipment, control systems, and facility building shell improvements that would reduce energy use. The concept report submitted by Honeywell for phase 1, was approved by the Corporation to complete capital improvements on ten buildings:

1. City Hall

2. Margo Fournier Centre

3. Communiplex

4. Prince Albert Police Station

5. City Yards Compound

6. J.M. Cuelenaere Library

7. Pollution Control Centre

8. Airport Buildings

9. Arts Centre

10. Dave G. Steuart Arena

Phase 2: Community Club Energy Audits Performed by SRC

Saskatchewan Research Council was contracted by the Corporation to perform energy audits on ten community facilities.

1. East End

2. East End Rink

3. East Hill

4. Hazeldell

5. Midtown

6. Parkland

7. West Hill

8. Crescent Heights

9. Nordale Hall

10. Carlton Park

Also, under the same contract Saskatchewan Research Council performed energy audits on four Recreation and Tourist facilities.

Phase 3: City Recreation and Tourist Facilities

1. West Flat Building

2. Tourist Information

3. Kinsmen Arena & Water Park

4. P.A. Golf & Curling Club

Table 6 shows the project schedule for design and implementation of the energy management program.

Table 6: City of Prince Albert Management (The Corporation) Project Schedule

PHASE 1 HONEYWELL
1994	Energy management conceived by Keith Robertson, Mechanical Services Manager, Parks, & Recreation.
October 1994	Blair Hoffman, Director, Parks, & Recreation, presented plan to council
October 1994	Selection committee of management and union employees set up for ESCo selection.
October - December 1994	Facilities were assessed by the Corporation to determine which facilities should be included in the project. The facilities were identified by the selection committed as suggestions for inclusion in the 'Request For Qualifications' (RFQ).
October 1994	City Council approved energy management plan and energy management company (ESCo) selection process.
1995	RFQ issued to six Energy Management Companies (ESCo's
November 1995	Honeywell selected
January 1996	Honeywell completed preliminary energy audit on 15 civic buildings. Report submitted to The Corporation.
February 1996	Honeywell authorized to proceed to the concept report stage. Cost for reports $35,000.
March 1996	Robert Parker, Energy Specialist, The Corporation, assumed responsibility for energy management project implementation.
September 1996	Concept report completed by Honeywell. Approved by The Corporation. Capital improvements to be completed at ten (10), facilities at a cost of $654,206. The Corporation was to obtain interim financing at 7.5% ($229,995). Annual energy savings of $94,299 guaranteed by Honeywell. Payback period - 98 months.
March - October 1997	Phase 1 was broken into two segments (1) the construction period (March -October 1997) identified as construction period savings; and Year 1 which began December 1997 to November 1998, and each year thereafter between December to November.
PHASE 2 - SRC
October 1997	Phase 2 was initiated when the Corporation retained the services of Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) to perform energy audits under their Building Energy Management (BEM) program.
October 1997	Technical audits were completed and reports submitted to the Corporation by SRC for Community Clubs.
November 1997	The Corporation negotiated with Honeywell to have them implement the B.E.M. recommendations.
January 1998	Technical audits were completed by SRC on four Recreation and Tourist facilities. Reports submitted to the Corporation.
January 1998	City negotiated with Honeywell to have them implement the B.E.M. recommendations.

Retrofit Program

The energy management retrofit program, including operational improvements, retrofits, and equipment replacements were conducted in two phases. Each phase was fully implemented the following year after the energy audits were performed.

The Corporations' self-financing program required each facility to repay their loan based on a formula agreed between the Corporation and the facility. The financing program for the City Hall energy retrofit illustrates the Corporation financing strategy. City Hall was provided with a budget line for performing the $25,000 energy retrofit. The repayment schedule, which is typical for other facilities included in the retrofit program, was included on the annual operating statement. The City Hall repayment schedule, shown in Table (?), indicates that in year 1 the repayment to the Corporation was (?), advancing to year 8, when the loan payment is $32,000, and in year 9, a significant reduction to $5400. The loan will be fully paid to the Corporation in year 10.

Monitoring and Verification

The Corporation retained the services of the ESCo to monitor and verify energy savings of facilities included in Phase 1. The Corporation, however, decided to accept the estimates provided by SRC and categorized the estimates as "deemed" savings for phase 2 and no monitoring and verification tests were conducted. The reason for the Corporation's decision was twofold firstly, the Corporation did not need to verify the phase 2 estimates because energy savings were not guaranteed by SRC and secondly, monitoring and verification testing is a relatively expensive procedure. Testing at phase 1 facilities therefore was conducted only on projects where the data was needed for program evaluation or to verify contract achievement. Initially the monitoring and verification program was conducted at all Phase 1 facilities. As the program evolved and where information derived from testing indicated consumption patterns had stabilized, the monitoring and verification contract was terminated at those sites. The contract with the ESCo remained in force at the other locations.

Meter Tuning - Regression Analysis Results

The ESCo conducted monthly audits to identify the savings achieved after the energy retrofit program. Under the agreement the Corporation provided invoices for utility consumption for analysis and comparison to site testing conducted by the ESCo. Any anomalies were reviewed and causes identified. In one instance a utility bill showed that consumption had increased from $3,000 the month before to $27,000. The review confirmed it was an error in reading by the utility and the guaranteed energy savings were achieved for that month. The Metrix Meter Tuning program is used by the ESCO to tabulate basic meter information but is used primarily to show the direct results of the Linear Regression Analysis on the Base Year energy values to derive the Baseline Energy use. Each of the actual monthly utility bills is tabulated, with the corresponding heating and cooling degree-days. A checklist indicates whether the particular monthly value has been included in the regression analysis. The Multiplier and Offset columns indicate the factor applied to the baseline value used in the calculation of the monthly baseline energy use. Modifications to the Linear Regression formula are based on actual deviance in building energy use, that cannot be accounted for in the regression formula. The modifications to the linear regression formula are based on actual deviance in building energy use that cannot be accounted for in the regression formula. The modification capabilities of METRIX allow the energy analyst to more accurately tune the meter to represent actual building operation. The % deviation column indicates the difference between the actual utility data, and the baseline value calculated using the regression formula with multipliers and offsets. The meter-tuning contract also indicates the building balance point temperatures used in the tuning analysis. The equipment can be tuned to reflect base load changes, climate and weather anomalies, leap year adjustments, etc. The system requires installation of meters at test locations. The cost for each meter is approximately $750. At the outset ten (10) meters were installed at various sites for a cost of approximately $7500 per annum.

Energy Graphs

The energy graphs show the monthly-modeled energy use that result from the linear regression analysis. The graph indicates the actual, SimActual, Baseline and Target Energy use patterns. Actual energy use is taken directly from the utility bills. SimActual is the current energy use adjusted for billing period and weather, in order to compare directly with the Target. Target energy use is the Current use adjusted for current weather and billing period. Baseline and SimActual are the same in the tuning period. This will not change unless changes in building operation (modifications) occur after the Base Year tuning period.

Note: Meter tuning - linear Regression Results can be referred to in appendix "A". (will be added later)

Retrofit Program

Staff Education and Awareness

The underlying assumption of the educational component of the project was that an informed and aware staff would support the project and help to ensure its success. Learning occurred in formal and informal settings.

· Regular meetings with key personnel to review past project progress and to assess future strategies.

· Ongoing contact between the key personnel and other staff involved in maintenance issues regarding energy efficiency implementation and operational issues.

· Ongoing contact between the key personnel and all staff regarding changes related to the project being made in the workplace.

· Hands-on learning by key personnel and maintenance staff gained through the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

· Information about the project and other “Energy Tips” provided through existing staff communication vehicles.

· City staff responsible for maintenance of each facility participated actively in the project, and helped to identify many of the changes in facility operations and events which affected gas and electricity use throughout the four years of the program. These staff also undertook many of the retrofits. Interest in energy management and the program itself peaked at the end of year 2 when the significant savings first became recognized.

Methodology Used for Estimating Savings

Electricity savings were estimated by comparing monthly electricity consumption in kWhs and demand in KVA between the year in question and a base year, which was agreed to be 1995. The billing period was first corrected so that consumption and demand was by calendar month in each year. The savings in each month were then calculated by subtracting the adjusted consumption and demand from the base year values. Finally the dollar savings for each month was estimated using the current marginal[1] price paid for electricity and demand kVA.

Gas savings were estimated in the same way except that monthly gas consumption was also adjusted for the differences in degree-days between that month in the base year (1995) and the year in question.

If there was an increase or decrease in the way a facility was used during the project, then adjustments were made to the base year consumption of electricity and gas in all years following the change. Some facilities like the Arena vary their activities from year to year. If, for example, the Prince Albert Raiders make it to the Memorial Cup, or hockey schools or conferences are held in the communiplex during the off season, significant variations in consumption will occur from year to year. This kind of information must be tracked and provided to the ESCo so they can account for increased heating loads and adjust for the base year (1995) electricity and gas consumption.

In summary, therefore, the savings estimated were those that would have been achieved in an average (weather) year if the facilities were used as in the base year, but with current electricity and gas prices

Project Administration

The City of Prince Albert (the Corporation) managed the energy saving project. Two external energy savings companies were retained to perform energy audits, Honeywell Ltd., and Saskatchewan Research Council. In addition to performing energy audits, Honeywell Ltd. was contracted for implementing the energy saving measures.

Honeywell also conducted the monitoring and verification of energy savings program.

Recommendations for project replication

· The cost for disposal of PCB's contained in the old lighting ballasts was much higher than anticipated at the outset of the project. A total of 1800 Kg. was collected for disposal in phase 1 and 1400 Kg. collected in phase 2 & 3. The total costs for the services by a registered disposal contractor were $11,780.

· Mechanical inspections are crucial and must be included in retrofit contracts. The identification of deficiencies in heating and cooling systems during the retrofit stage can significantly reduce energy consumption.

· An employee with a basic knowledge of electrical and mechanical systems should coordinate the energy retrofit project. The employee should be available to troubleshoot for unexpected problems and supervise incoming shipments of equipment.

Incinerator:

Honeywell's first concept was to change the sewage plant fuel oil incinerator. It was projected to have a major payback with conversion to gas. City engineers, however, informed Mr. Parker that the incinerator was to be in use for only one more year. The idea was dropped because capital investment versus payback was not attractive.

Museum:

The retrofit recommendations were not pursued for this facility because special lighting is required to protect displays and artifacts. Also, the facility is open only for 3 months of the year.

Practicality versus Savings:

Because the storage rooms are used infrequently and only for quick visits, the energy recommendation to change to 13 w compact fluorescent at a cost of $26 - 10,000 hour life was rejected. Inconvenience to staff waiting for the fluorescent to activate and short time frame when visiting the room made the upgrade effectiveness unattractive.

Implications to retrofits:

To ensure the overall interests of the owners are managed effectively the importance of having a representative from the city and input from facility owners cannot be overstressed.

Code upgrade:

The owner must be aware of hidden costs to performing energy retrofits. In the case of the museum it was learned that if the city embarked on a delamping strategy the building would be required to upgrade to the current electrical code. The cost for undertaking this extra work may not be recovered.

Example:

Delamping retrofit $5,000 with $1000 annual savings would result in a payback of 5 years which would be acceptable. However the building is used only for 3months each year. A payback of 15 years is not financially viable. Adding the extra cost of $10,000 required that the building be upgraded to meet the current electrical code which made the option even less attractive.

Special lighting needs:

Lab workers were very concerned about plans to delamp. They required high lighting levels. They needed to be informed that fewer lamps would not necessarily reduce light levels.

City Hall ceiling replacement with delamping:

2117 f 40 - 4' fluorescent were replaced with 1503 energy lighting system. The "A" crating fixtures were left in place except for the aluminum and tin, which was removed and sold as scrap. As part of the capital energy retrofit a suspended ceiling was installed.

Don't underestimate the savings by collecting scrap materials:

1) Recovery of tin from 10 building realized 100 lbs.

2) Aluminum collected from old fixtures at City Hall realized $1100.

In-house energy managers

· In-house energy managers must create a climate where feedback is encouraged and action to resolve concerns is always taken.

· In-house energy managers must be directly involved to identify special needs and requirements which may not be obvious to outside energy consultants.

· In-house energy managers must be aware that change is difficult to accept and take steps to keep staff fully informed and minimize disruptions and difficulties staff may encounter.

Appendix A

[1] Marginal price is the price paid for each additional kWh, KVA over 50 KVA, or cubic metre, i.e. not including basic charge.

March - November 1998	The retrofit of Phase 2 began March 1998. The projected savings estimated by SRC were adopted by Honeywell but not guaranteed.
GENERAL
Start to end of project	Facility management and personnel were involved in the process and informed about the energy management program on an ongoing basis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS