Oregon State University CH2M Hill Alumni Center, ASHRAE ...

Oregon State University CH2M Hill Alumni Center, ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report v.3

Presented by Glumac

Prepared For: Energy Trust of Oregon

Business Energy Solutions – Existing Buildings Program 621 SW Morrison St. Suite 500

Portland, OR 97205

On Behalf Of: Larrie Easterly

OSU Facilities Services 130 Oak Creek Building

Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2001

Prepared By: GLUMAC

320 S.W. Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204

July 29, 2011

Job Number: 02.11.00283

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS STUDY

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page ii

Disclaimer

The results of the energy analysis presented in this report shall not be construed to have absolute, predictive accuracy, representing the actual energy use of the building or its individual systems. All reasonable efforts have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the energy model inputs, including verifying that actual details correspond to the building as it is currently designed. The primary benefit of energy modeling is for comparison of alternative design options to determine their relative energy savings potential.

There are a number of factors that will cause the actual energy use of the building to diverge from the projected energy use of the model. Among these are: differences in building design relative to the building modeled; abnormal weather conditions; variations in schedules for equipment, systems, and occupancy; inconsistencies in the application of controls and operations strategies compared to those used in the model; the level of direct loads; and changes in connected loads and electricity and gas rates. In addition, the model results do not necessarily take into account all the energy uses of a facility or building site that would show up as loads on the utility meters.

Nevertheless, refinements of the energy model to reconcile all these differences, when these adjustments are made by a capable energy engineer, can yield model results that are consistent with actual energy use.

Glumac Contributors:

Norbert Reman

Energy Analyst

Mitch Dec

Energy Department Manager

H:\Jobs\OSU.Energy Audit CH2M Hill Alumni.02.11.00283\Reports\OSU Alumni Center - Energy Audit Report v3.docx

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page iii

CONTACT INFORMATION & DATES OSU Staff: Larrie Easterly University Engineering Manager Facilities Services 130 Oak Creek Building Corvallis, Oregon 97331

(541) 230-0802 [email protected] Doug Cox Director of Facilities

Oregon State Alumni Association 204 CH2M HILL Alumni Center Corvallis, OR 97331 (541) 737-7852 [email protected] Brandon Trelstad Sustainability Coordinator Sustainability Office Facilities Services 128 Oak Creek Building Corvallis, OR 97331 (541) 737-3307 [email protected] Greg Smith Sustainability Program Assistant Sustainability Office Facilities Services 128 Oak Creek Building Corvallis, OR 97331 (541) 602-2747 [email protected] GLUMAC Engineers:

The energy analysis described in this report was based on site surveys performed on May 3rd, 2011 and several Building Management System output files provided by OSU Staff.

Mitch Dec Energy Department Manager 320 S.W. Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204

(503) 227-5280 [email protected] Norbert Reman Energy Analyst 320 S.W. Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204

(503) 345-6364 [email protected]

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page iv

ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON DISCLAIMER

In no event will Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc. or (company) be liable for (i) the failure of the customer to achieve the estimated energy savings or any other estimated benefits included herein, or (ii) for any damages to customer's site, including but not limited to any incidental or consequential damages of any kind, in connection with this report or the installation of any identified energy efficiency measures.

NEXT STEPS FOR THE PARTICIPIANT

Make an implementation decision: Please evaluate the information contained in this report and the proposed incentive offer listed in the Form 110C – Project Detail and Incentive Estimates produced by Lockheed Martin upon successful review of this report. Have your contractors bid for the measure you want to implement and send us the quote of the final bid. LM will review the compliance of the scope of work in the bid to the energy efficiency measures identified in the report. Upon satisfactory review of the bid, you will receive a Form 120C – Incentive Offer and Agreement form which is a committed incentive offer. Please sign this form prior to any purchase orders or making other financial commitments pertaining to the project. On Completion of the project: Notify Lockheed Martin of the completion of the project installation. Lockheed Martin may make a site visit for post-install inspection and will process the payment of incentive after the approval. Apply for Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC) if appropriate. In addition to Energy Trust incentives, you may be eligible for Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC). Business Energy Tax Credits application forms are also available online at http://www.energy.state.us.or, or contact:

Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St NE Salem OR 97301 Phone: (503) 378-4040 or (800) 221-8035 Fax: (503) 373-7806

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page v

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER & ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000140. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

“BUY-AMERICAN” & DAVIS-BACON REQUIREMENTS

On April 23, 2009 the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued detailed interim guidance to agencies in implementing ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) provisions related to two major topics: (1) domestic sourcing (“Buy American”) requirements that apply to certain iron, steel, and manufactured goods; and (2) the wage rate requirements that apply to certain projects pursuant to the federal Davis-Bacon Act. See below for details. BUY AMERICAN: Recipient agrees that under Section 1605 of ARRA, neither Recipient nor its subcontractors will use ARRA funds for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. Recipient understands that this requirement may be waived only by the applicable federal agency in limited situations as set out in Section 1605 of ARRA. Application of this requirement will be consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.

PREVAILING WAGES: Under Section 1606 of ARRA, Recipient shall comply and shall require its subcontractors to fully comply with this section in that, notwithstanding any other provision of law and in a manner consistent with the other provisions of ARRA, all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors on projects funded in whole or in part with funds available under ARRA must be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a similar character in the locality, as determined by the United States Secretary of Labor under subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40 of the United States Code. The United States Secretary of Labor's determination, regarding the prevailing wages applicable in the State of Oregon, are located at: http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/or.html.

http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/or.html

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Energy Trust of Oregon Disclaimer ............................................................................................................ iv

Next steps for the participiant ..................................................................................................................... iv

Oregon Department of Energy Disclaimer & Acknowledgment ................................................................... v

“Buy-American” & Davis-Bacon Requirements ........................................................................................... v

1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Baseline energy consumption ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs) .............................................................................. 1

1.3 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Building Description and Operation ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Building Schedules & Occupancy .................................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 Ballrooms .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.2 Private Offices, Open Offices and Conference Rooms ......................................................... 3

2.2 Building floor plan & SYSTEMS REVIEW ..................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 HVAC .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Domestic Hot Water .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2.3 Lighting and Controls ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2.4 Plug Loads ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Existing energy use summary ....................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 End Use Energy Comparison ............................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Monthly Utility Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 7

3 Proposed Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................................................. 9 3.1 EEM 1: VAV AHU, Supply Air Reset ............................................................................................. 9

3.1.1 Existing System .................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.3 Statement of Results ............................................................................................................ 9

3.2 EEM 2: VAV AHUs, CO2 Sensor Control ......................................................................................10

3.2.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................10

3.2.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................10

3.2.3 Statement of Results ...........................................................................................................11

3.3 EEM 3: VAV AHU, Terminal Unit Occupancy Sensors ................................................................11

3.3.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................11

3.3.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................11


3.4 EEM 4: VAV AHU, Night-time Thermostat Setback ......................................................................12

3.4.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................12

3.4.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................12


3.5 EEM 5: VAV AHU, Fix Existing Economizers ...............................................................................13

3.5.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................13

3.5.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................13


July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page vii

3.6 EEM 6: VAV & CV AHU, New Rooftop Air Handlers ....................................................................14

3.6.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................14

3.6.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................14


3.7 EEM 7: Interior Lighting Occupancy Sensor control .....................................................................14

3.7.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................14

3.7.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................15


3.8 EEM 8: Exterior Lighting Photocell Control ...................................................................................15

3.8.1 Existing System ...................................................................................................................15

3.8.2 Proposed System ................................................................................................................15


3.9 Non-energy improvements ...........................................................................................................15

3.9.1 Air Balancing ........................................................................................................................15

3.9.2 Acoustics .............................................................................................................................15

3.9.3 Duct Leakage .......................................................................................................................15

3.9.4 Low-flow Plumbing Fixtures .................................................................................................16

4 Economic Analysis ...............................................................................................................................17 4.1 Utilities ..........................................................................................................................................17

4.1.1 Electricity .............................................................................................................................17

4.1.2 Natural Gas ..........................................................................................................................17

4.2 EEM Cost analysis .......................................................................................................................17

Appendix A – Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................18 Appendix B – Occupancy Schedules, Individual Room Controls, & Savings .................................................. 1 Appendix C - Lighting SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................. 3 Appendix D – Lighting & HVAC Controls, Existing and Proposed................................................................... 4 Appendix E - Utility Bill Data ........................................................................................................................... 5 Appendix F – Baseline Calibration .................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix G – Energy End Use Graphs .........................................................................................................10 Appendix H- EEM Analysis Spreadsheet .......................................................................................................11

Figure 1 – Alumni Center Floor Plan w/ Ballrooms (1st Level) ......................................................................... 4

Figure 2 – Alumni Center Floor Plan (2nd

Level) ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 – Alumni Center Monthly Electricity Usage ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 – Alumni Center Monthly Natural Gas Usage ................................................................................... 8

Table 1 - OSU Alumni Center Proposed EEM Summary ................................................................................ 2 Table 2 – Energy End Use Summary .............................................................................................................. 6

July 29, 2011 OSU Alumni Center – Level II Energy Audit Report v.3 Page 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following Energy Feasibility Study has been prepared for the Energy Trust of Oregon’s Existing Building’s Program in reference to Oregon State University’s Alumni Center. The CH2M Hill Alumni Center Building, part of the Oregon State University campus, is located at 204 CH2M Hill Alumni Center in Corvallis, Oregon. The property is operated by Oregon State’s Alumni Association and maintained by the campus wide Facilities Services department. The study was completed to determine potential Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) in order to assist the Alumni Center in reducing the building’s energy usage. The objective of the study is:

Conduct systems review and establish baseline energy consumption for the facility to assist building management in understanding its energy usage characteristics.

Develop a list of EEMs to improve building energy performance

Conduct a financial evaluation for each EEM including potential savings and payback

Estimate building operation impacts and combined energy savings for each measure

1.1 BASELINE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

The Oregon State Alumni Center is a multi-purpose office building with a large foyer area, private ballrooms, kitchen, and several conference rooms, all available for private event leasing. This two-story building includes the aforementioned rooms on the first level, and open and private offices on the second. The facility is conditioned by two (2) 50-Ton AHUs, two (2) 8.5-Ton AHUs, and one (1) 12-ton AHU, all using direct expansion cooling and gas furnace heating. The two larger 50-ton units condition approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of building while the remaining units condition the 15,000 sq. ft. of available ballroom space. The total electrical consumption for the site, averaged over the last five years, was 1,001,536 kWh/year at a cost of $59,711/year. The building’s natural gas consumption, also averaged over the last five years of metered data, totaled 18,288 therms/year at an average cost of $19,218/year. The calculated Energy Use Index (EUI) is approximately 116.62 kBtus per s.f.-yr based on the utility bill data and gross leasable area. The Energy Cost Index (ECI) is approximately $1.75 per square foot per year, or a total annual cost of $78,930 for all utilities. There are two meters at the site, one for building electric load and one for building thermal loads (gas space heating and water heating). The occupied hours for the office area follows a typical office schedule and averages approximately 2,860 hours per year, while the ballrooms, foyer, and conference rooms follow an event schedule which yields 1,760 occupied hours per year for each room. The building HVAC operation hours follow a 24/7/365 schedule based on BMS trend log reports.

1.2 PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMS)

A number of EEMs were analyzed for the OSU Alumni Center Building which focused on updating and/or improving HVAC and lighting controls systems, but also included some capital investment for equipment upgrades. Eight total EEMs were analyzed in detail:

1. VAV AHUs, Supply Air Reset – Optimize the supply air temperature seasonally, or for the varying outside temperatures, by means of cold deck reset. The current design contains a constricted “necked-down” section in the return air ducting forcing facilities personal to bring in more outside air than normal, requiring additional heating. With a varying, increased discharge temperature, energy savings are seen from a reduction in reheat penalty.

2. VAV AHUs, CO2 Sensors – Implement demand controlled ventilation in the offices, conference rooms, and general meeting areas, to allow outside air to be set at a minimum flow during non-occupied hours.

3. VAV AHUs, Terminal Unit Occupancy Sensor – Using a dual contact lighting sensor, the second contact can be used to turn the Terminal Units to their minimum position when unoccupied, reducing fan and reheat energy.


4. VAV AHUs, Nighttime Thermostat Setback – During non-office and non-event hours, setback cooling and heating set points for savings vs. current situation of 24/7 cooling and heating of entire building.

5. VAV AHUs, Fix Existing Economizers – Similar to Supply Air Reset measure, however this measure strictly looks at optimizing the use of the for free cooling.

6. VAV & CV AHUs, New Rooftop Air Handlers – All five (5) York AHUs are nearing the end of their useful life, therefore consideration of like-for-like replacements is analyzed.

7. Interior Lighting Occupancy Sensors – Larger areas such as the ballrooms and kitchen can benefit from lighting occupancy controls because the areas are on an event demand basis. During site visits, most lights were on without any occupants.

8. Exterior Lighting Photocell Control – Outside lighting is currently on during all hours of the day. Install photocells to shut of lights during the daytime hrs.

1.3 RESULTS

This report presents the energy savings resulting from analysis of the energy cost savings between the proposed improvements and how the building is currently being operated. The results of this study are approximate and not intended to be absolute predications of building use or anticipated performance. Together the eight EEMs are expected to save 362,184 kWh/year, a 36.2% reduction of electricity use over the average use, and 13,876 therms/year, a 75.9% reduction over the average natural gas use. These reductions are estimated to result in an annual cost savings of $36,170, a 45.83% reduction over the averaged baseline cost. The overall installed cost for the five measures is estimated at $290,000-$417,000 resulting in a payback of 7.9-11.3 years. Table 1 below outlines projected savings and payback of each measure.

Table 1 - OSU Alumni Center Proposed EEM Summary

This estimate does not include incentives or rebates from any 3rd

party sources, however the project will be enrolled with the Energy Trust of Oregon for incentive funding. Vendor pricing will be added for the cost analysis as required for ETO’s approval. Potential incentives would be $60,000 - $90,000 for implementing with the measures.

$0.0596/kWh electricity rate and $1.051/therm gas rate were used for the cost savings calculations. These rates were derived from an average of five total years of utility data collection.


2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION The Oregon State University CH2M Hill Alumni Center, built in 1997, is a general two-story office building with a large, centrally located ballroom area on the first level which accounts for 1/3 of the building area. The entire building is available for event leasing, but primarily the large ballroom and conference rooms are used for events throughout the year. A large kitchen is adjacent to the ballroom which is available for catering and general use during the large events. The second floor of the building consists primarily of private and open offices, with a large leasable boardroom and two smaller conference rooms also available for lease. The above ground parking lot is located to the north and west sides of the building, with the main entrance on the west façade. The total gross building area is approximately 45,000 s.f., which is all considered conditioned space. The EEMS proposed in this study analyze the ballroom and office systems separately with only a couple of measures applying to the whole building.

2.1 BUILDING SCHEDULES & OCCUPANCY

The Alumni Center office areas are scheduled for occupancy from 8:00AM - 5:00PM Monday - Friday, however event leasing spaces are available for use during all days of the week (see Appendix A – Floor Plan for a layout of all available spaces for event leasing). Events such as wedding receptions, class reunions, and private conferences all take place in the Alumni Center. To provide a more realistic analysis of the building’s behavior, an additional hour was added prior to opening and one after closing of the building to account for early arrivals in the offices as well as housekeeping maintenance afterhours. Therefore an operation schedule of 7:00AM - 6:00PM Monday – Friday was used which yields a total of 2,860 annual office hours.

During the weekends, all office areas are assumed to be closed with the ballroom and conference areas open from 7:00AM – 11:00PM Monday – Friday, 12PM – 1 AM Saturday and Sunday, or on an as scheduled basis.

2.1.1 Ballrooms

The Ballroom scheduled event hours vary greatly throughout the year. From schedules provided by OSU Alumni Services, it was determined that the ballroom, which is scheduled as either a single room or three separate, nearly equally sized rooms (Ballrooms A, B, and C), were occupied for 1,760 hours over 150 events per ballroom, with a diversified occupancy of 133 people per event per room, or 400 total for the entire ballroom space. The ballroom has a maximum capacity of 700 occupants.

2.1.2 Private Offices, Open Offices and Conference Rooms

For an office space, according to widely accepted Title 24 standards (Table N2-3), there are a typical 10 people per 1000 s.f. of space. Considering only the 10,250 s.f. of office space in the building, 100 people were assumed to be occupying the office areas Monday – Friday.

A full occupancy schedule with assumptions is available in Appendix B – Occupancy Schedules, Individual Room Controls, and Savings.

2.2 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN & SYSTEMS REVIEW

2.2.1 HVAC

The Alumni Center is air conditioned by five roof top package Air Handling Units (AHUs). The break out of the systems and their corresponding zones can be found in Figure 1 – Alumni Center Floor Plan w/ Ballrooms (1st Level) and Figure 2 – Alumni Center Floor Plan (2nd Level) below.

The ballroom, which can be separated into three individual ballrooms on a need basis via movable partition walls, is conditioned by two (2) York 8.5 Ton, Constant Volume AHUs with DX cooling, gas furnace heating, and airside economizers, and one (1) York 12.5 Ton, Constant


Volume AHU also with DX cooling, gas furnace heating, and airside economizer. The (2) 8.5 Ton units are designated as ACU-NB & ACU-SB and each supply a 2,030 s.f. ballroom space. The 12.5 Ton unit is called out ACU-EB in the drawings and conditions 3,000 s.f. of ballroom space.

The remainder of the building is conditioned by two (2) York Variable Air Volume AHUs, each with 50 Tons capacity. The VAV AHUs have DX cooling, gas furnace heating, and airside economizing capability. Currently, the Outside Air (OSA) louver is fixed open to provide increased OSA 24/7/365 due to issues with Return Air (RA) ducts being able to maintain pressure/flow. The units supply conditioned air to the private offices, conference rooms, open office areas, bathrooms, kitchen, and foyer. The units are designated ACU-NM for the north zones & ACU-SM for the south zones.

Figure 1 – Alumni Center Floor Plan w/ Ballrooms (1st

Level)


Figure 2 – Alumni Center Floor Plan (2nd

Level)

Figures 1 and 2, above, indicated the different zones supplied by the York AHUs. The north zone is designated in the blue lines, south zone in green lines, and the ballrooms on the first level in orange. Miscellaneous exhaust fans and dedicated mini, split heat pump units are located on the roof. This equipment was not evaluated for improvements due to their negligible impact to building operating efficiency.

Building comfort is controlled by manual thermostat setpoints. The building is equipped with a Building Management System (BMS) which can be set up to trend log several critical outputs to be used for analysis. Using the BMS data, it was determined that every zone in the Alumni Center is being conditioned to its setpoint value, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even during unoccupied hours, without programmed setbacks.

2.2.2 Domestic Hot Water

Domestic hot water is supplied by a Lochinvar water heater with a max output of 1,058 kBtu/hr and thermal efficiency rating of 85%. The storage tank has a 200 gallon capacity. Assuming 450 total ballrooms events (150 events per ballroom), with 133 meals per ballroom event, at 5 gallons/meal, the total volume of water which needs to be heated is 299,250 gallons annually. Assuming a delta T of 85°F and 5% additional load for bathroom lavatories use, a gas heating energy use of 225,000 kBtu/yr or an EUI of 5 kBtu/s.f.-yr was estimated for the entire building.

2.2.3 Lighting and Controls

The Alumni Center is fitted with lighting sensors that turn lighting on and off based on occupancy and ambient light levels. Varying types of sensors are used in the open office, private office, and conference rooms. The three types are ceiling mounted passive infrared sensors with isolated relay for use with HVAC controls, dual technology (PIR and ultrasonic) ceiling/wall sensors, and passive infrared wall switch sensors which read both ambient light levels and occupancy. A comprehensive list of controls can be found in Appendix B – Occupancy Schedules, Individual


Room Controls, and Savings & Appendix D – Lighting and HVAC Controls, Existing and Proposed, indicating the various rooms and their corresponding sensors.

In determining total annual building lighting load, a lighting power density of 1.5 W/s.f. was assumed with a diversified load duration of 3,000 hours/year. Calculating out the total load, the estimated lighting energy use is 691,132 kBtu/year or an EUI of 15.4 kBtu/s.f.-yr.

A comprehensive lighting schedule for can be found in Appendix C – Lighting Schedule.

2.2.4 Plug Loads

Plug loads for a building of this type were assumed to be approximately 1.5 W/s.f. in the offices and 0.5 W/s.f. in the remainder of the building, again according to Title 24, Table N2-3. Assuming a diversified plug load schedule of 4,600 annual hours (2,860 office hours, and 1,740 event and nighttime part load hours) at 32.8 kW, the Alumni Center had EUI plug energy use of 11.4 kBtu/s.f.-yr. From the site walk through, it is noted that the kitchen equipment used for events remain in standby mode during non-event hours and much of the buildings plugs are unused.

2.3 EXISTING ENERGY USE SUMMARY

2.3.1 End Use Energy Comparison

The total electrical consumption for the site, averaged over the last five years, was 1,001,536 kWh/year at a cost of $59,711/year. The building’s natural gas consumption, also averaged over the last five years of metered data, totaled 18,288 therms/year at an average cost of $19,218/year (see Appendix E for utility bill data). The calculated EUI is approximately 116.62 kBtus/s.f.-yr based on the utility bill data and gross leasable area. When calibrating the BMS data by means of spreadsheet calculations, the Alumni Center EUI was calculated to be approximately 122 kBtu/s.f.-yr, which is within 5% of the actual building metered usage data of 116 kBtus/s.f.-yr. See Appendix F – Baseline Calibration for the analysis methods used in determining current gas heat, electric heat, cooling, and fan energy usages.

When comparing the findings of PGE end usage data for a general office building to the Alumni Center, the EUI of the Alumni Center was 30% higher than a typical office space. Some of the higher usage is likely due to additional operational hours of the Alumni Center’s ballroom and conference areas, as well as the inefficiencies of the equipment and operational procedures. See Table 2 – Energy End Use Summary below for EUI comparison results.

With a closer analysis of the results, natural gas heating is approximately three times that of a typical building with an electric reheat VAV system. Reasons for this anomaly are discussed in detail in the proposed measures, but in summary the extra usage is caused from running the VAV AHU’s on economizer mode even during cold weather hours. Other important findings observe that fan energy usage is approximately three times greater than a typical building and cooling energy is twice as large due to 24 hour conditioning of the building. Lighting energy is lower than the PGE average because of existing occupancy sensors and efficient lamps.

Table 2 – Energy End Use Summary


For graphical representation of Alumni Center end use comparison, please see Appendix G – Energy End Use Graphs.

2.3.2 Monthly Utility Data Analysis

In Figures 3 – Alumni Center Monthly Electricity Usage & Figure 4 – Alumni Center Monthly Natural Gas Usage below, five years of electricity and gas usage data was plotted month by month over one year. On the electrical usage graph, a constant baseline energy use of approximately 80,000 kWh is observed. Beginning in July and going through October, an increase of up to 8,000 kWh can be seen which is accounting for mechanical cooling in those warmer months. From November through February, nearly a 20,000 kWh energy use increase above baseline takes place due to electric reheat penalty in the VAV systems. For the remainder of the year, March through June, energy use remains at the baseline level because of the mild conditions, with a slight rise in kWh beginning in June for mechanical cooling as expected for the beginning of the summer months. For natural gas usage, a constant annual energy usage of 300 therms/month was analyzed. This constant load is considered to be the domestic hot water heater (gas fired Lochinvar model) which remains on throughout the year. A spike in gas use of 2000 therms above baseline is observed in December, accounting for the gas furnace at the AHUs. From December to June, a steady decline in gas usage takes place as expected as the year enters the warmer months. Finally, gas usage over the last two years is well above the average in the months of December – March. These spikes in energy consumption are likely associated with colder than standard winters which have swept through the NW.

Figure 3 – Alumni Center Monthly Electricity Usage


Figure 4 – Alumni Center Monthly Natural Gas Usage


3 PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES

3.1 EEM 1: VAV AHU, SUPPLY AIR RESET

3.1.1 Existing System

The two 50 ton VAV, single duct air handlers which supply conditioned air to all of the Alumni

Center rooms, minus the Ballroom, have a cold deck supply air discharge temperature of 55°F.

This system does not contain a supply air temperature reset control and is set at a constant setpoint to satisfy the maximum cooling load of all the zones. When in cooling mode, this system

is set up to always cool the air to 55°F, then to reheat it once it arrives at the perimeter zones

calling for warmer air. When in heating mode, supply temperature varies with outside air temperatures. To match the gas furnace energy use as indicated by the utility bill averages,

supply air discharge setpoints were set to 70°F during the coldest hours and are turned down to

65°F and 60°F as the outside air temperature approaches economizing hours. With a VAV system, during heating mode, the total supply airflow is reduced to 40% of its maximum capacity, with the economizer allowing 75% OSA flow into the building. At these low OSA temperatures, the economizer position is much higher than the standard minimum airflow required to meet ventilation standards and is driving up gas energy usage, which will be discussed in detail in the next EEM.

3.1.2 Proposed System

To minimize simultaneous heating and cooling which occurs with a single-duct VAV system,

resetting the supply air temperature between 55°F to 65°F based on the temperature required in the warmest zone is proposed. Energy savings can be achieved from reduced cooling energy with a small trade off of increased fan energy which is negligible. The new setpoint temperature will be the highest supply temperature that can still satisfy the cooling demand in the warmest

zone, or in this case 65°F.

A proportional temperature reset is proposed for this system which will linearly modulate cold deck supply temperature with the warmest zone load requirement. Savings from this measure are achieved by allowing the compressor to unload with the warmer supply temperatures instead to

always hitting 55°F supply temperature.

3.1.3 Statement of Results

For this analysis, the compressors were set to turn on at 66°F, which is the upper threshold of mixed air temperature the AHU can see before mechanical cooling is required. The system was modeled to be operating at 100% OSA at this temperature, which can be seen in spreadsheet analysis table found in Appendix H – EEM Analysis Spreadsheet. Starting at the lowest OSA

temperatures in cooling mode, from 66-69°F, supply air temperature was set to be 65°F. From this point, as OSA and MAT temperatures increase, a 100% proportional decrease in supply temperature is maintained as required by the increased load on the system. Proportional

decrease in supply temperature continues until the original design supply temperature of 55°F is reached, which will satisfy the peak cooling load of the AHU system. Savings come solely from the reduced compressor load in this analysis as is represented in the highlighted “Cooling Energy” column found in Appendix H – EEM 1. The total annual cooling energy savings equated to 25,390 kWh per AHU, or 50,779 for the whole building (2 VAV AHUs). Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $3,026, or an annual cost savings reduction of 3.82%. Providing controls upgrades of up to $15,000 per AHU are required for this measure, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, investment payback comes in at 6.5-10 years.


3.2 EEM 2: VAV AHUS, CO2 SENSOR CONTROL


The existing controls on both the VAV and CV AHUs do not contain demand ventilation control. Currently, the AHUs heating and cooling loads are being controlled manually from the individual zone thermostats with outside air setpoints designed to satisfy full ventilation requirements as per ASHRAE 60.2. Both systems are equipped with economizers that are designed to allow more outside air into the space during temperature ranges in which mixing outside air will reduce mixed air temperatures, reducing compressor loads and providing free cooling during the colder hours of the day. For this measure, energy saving opportunities lie in the fact that bringing in less outside air during both cold and hot hours of the day as controlled by occupancy reduces gas furnace heating and mechanical cooling loads.

For the VAV AHUs, when looking at damper operation in low flow modes via BMS trending data, the economizer is allowing 4-5 times more outside air than required by code. This operation

causes mixed air temperatures to be lowered down to the 40-45°F range, requiring both the gas

furnace and electric reheat terminal strips at the perimeters to turn on. For example, when it is

45°F outside, 75% outside air is being introduced to the supply. This finding indicates that there is an operational error in the AHU system and from discussions with OSU facilities staff, it was determined that economizer operation is overridden due to supply air static pressure issues.

According to the OSU facilities staff, the Alumni Center has experienced major air balancing issues in the past. The cause was determined to be a restriction in the return air ductwork. During construction, the contractor experienced a clash between the building framing and the duct location. To combat this issue, the return air duct was transitioned to a reduced size. The reduction has therefore caused significant issue in operating the VAV AHUs. OSU facilities staff stated that the AHUs had trouble keeping the discharge static pressure at a level high enough to satisfy all of the system’s zones. During initial testing and balancing of the building, the issue was so problematic that the heating units in the AHUs were shutting off due to excessively high temperatures from lack of airflow.


CO2 control decides how much outside air is needed for each zone based on actual occupancy, as opposed to bringing in the design OSA volume which is based on maximum occupancy, allowing for tighter control of mechanical cooling and gas heating.

Initially for this measure, both the CV Ballroom AHUs and the VAV AHUs were considered for demand controlled ventilation. Upon looking at the occupancy characteristics of the ballrooms, it was determined that demand control was a penalty due to high number of event attendees in the given space. With CO2 sensors, outside air requirements would increase above the design setpoint for when the ballroom is fully occupied and would require additional gas heating and DX cooling in the colder and warmer hours compared to the existing, diversified design setpoint. In this case, only the VAV AHUs were considered for demand control ventilation upgrades. For the VAV systems, it is proposed to install CO2 sensors in the return-air ducting as opposed to individual offices since high-occupant-density and high-diversity situations do not exist in the spaces supplied by the building’s VAV units. As per ASHRAE 62.1, demand controlled ventilation typically modulates from 20-50% outside air, so for simplicity of analysis, an average value of 35% OSA was used in the spreadsheet analysis. In order for this measure to perform as stated, the wall constriction must be fixed to allow full operation capabilities of the economizer damper. Further details in combating the return ducting constriction will be discussed EEM 5 – AHU VAVs, Fixing Existing Economizer.



In this analysis, for outside air temperatures ranging from 42-55°F, the economizer was modeled to perform as indicated in the baseline, at 75% flow, much greater than required by code for this building type. In this range of temperatures, it is be assumed that demand controlled ventilation does not take priority over the economizer and is controlled by mix air temperature setpoints. The savings from a properly utilized economizer are instead accounted for in EEM 5 – VAV AHUs, Fix

Existing Economizer. At the coldest outside temperatures, 25-41°F, as seen during nighttime hours, the building is unoccupied and therefore reduced down to the minimum OSA flow of 35%.

For the warmest temperatures, 76-97°F, occupancy is also assumed to be low due to mild daytime temperatures felt by the temperate Corvallis climate. Savings come from reduced outside air introduced into the building during cold and warm hours of the day as is shown in the highlighted “Economizer Position” column found in Appendix H – EEM 2. The total annual electical energy savings equated to 4,156 kWh per AHU, or 8,312 for the whole building and a total of 5,996 therm savings from the gas furnace. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh and $1.051/therm as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $6,797, or an annual cost savings reduction of 8.61%. Providing controls upgrades of up to $5,000 per AHU are required for this measure, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, investment payback comes in at 1.5 years.

3.3 EEM 3: VAV AHU, TERMINAL UNIT OCCUPANCY SENSORS


The existing method of control for the VAV terminal units in the offices and open office areas are basic thermostat units. With occupant sensors coming of age and now being readily available, implementing terminal unit occupancy sensors is a great, inexpensive approach to additional energy savings from the VAV unit. By controlling individual zones based on occupancy rather than thermostat setpoints, the terminal units are allowed to reduce to minimum airflow when during no occupancy, saving supply fan and zone reheat energy, as well gas furnace heating.


In this measure, occupancy sensors for the proposed zones are required to tie back to the terminal unit feeding that zone. The Alumni Center is already equipped with some dual contact occupancy sensors as can be seen in Appendix A & D. It is proposed to rewire the existing occupancy sensors to utilize the HVAC controls and add new sensors to the remaining zones which can also benefit from the reduced airflow energy savings. See Appendix D – Lighting and HVAC Controls, Exisitng and Proposed, for the zone locations being discussed in this measure. For terminal units feeding multiple zones, the control logic will take the occupancy inputs for all the rooms tied to a common zone, and only reduce flow by 10% when all rooms are considered unoccupied. For terminal units feeding single zones, a single occupancy sensor will satisfy the logic to control the terminal unit.


As accepted by ASHRAE 90.1, occupancy based controls yield a 10% reduction in HVAC runtime hours. For this measure, this simplified approach was used to remain conservative in the energy savings findings. It is noted that terminal unit flow reduction was not considered for the unoccupied non-office hours of the Alumni Center and was instead bundled into the recommended 10% reduction as stated by AHSRAE. In addition, another diversity factor to consider for these systems is that VAV AHUs supply the conference rooms which can be leased out anytime during the year. Tighter control is needed of these rooms, so overlooking the potential non-occupied savings in balanced out in the findings.


Savings come from reducing the overall VAV supply flow for all hours of the year which reduces fan, reheat, and gas heating loads, as can be seen in column “VAV Airflow” column found in Appendix H – EEM 3. The total annual electrical energy savings equated to 24,386 kWh per AHU, or 48,773 for the whole building and a total of 834 therm savings from the gas furnace. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh and $1.051/therm as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $3,783, or an annual cost savings reduction of 4.79%. Providing control upgrades for only the zones needing HVAC occupancy sensors is estimated to cost up to $10,000 per AHU, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, the investment payback would be 5.3 years.

3.4 EEM 4: VAV AHU, NIGHT-TIME THERMOSTAT SETBACK


As analyzed from provided BMS data collected over various weeks in June of 2011, all of the spaces in Alumni Center are conditioned on a 24/7/365 schedule. These spaces are designed to meet zone thermostat setpoints as indicated in the following table:

Table 3 – BMS Data Room Temperature Readings, 24/7/365

From the BMS findings, it is assumed that the entire Alumni Center operates without any thermostat setback.


Occupancy based thermostat setback saves energy by reducing central fan airflow and minimizing zone reheat. It was initially proposed to OSU staff to run the Ballroom on a setback of

about 3-5°F from midnight to 4 AM. The only heat loss through the Ballroom is through the roof with R-20 construction. Considering heat loss through the roof only, it would take 8 hours for the

ballroom to drop below 65°F, therefore a setback temperature of 68°F would allow the units stay off during these hours and energy to be saved. Considering OSU’s concern on losing control of the Ballroom, which is their most critical space, thermostat setback for the Ballroom was not considered in this measure. This measure proposed replacement of all the Alumni Center thermostats with Honeywell 8000 series to provide tighter control of the spaces. Thermostat setback for unoccupied, nighttime hours will only be considered for the VAV units. It is assumed that VAV units will not be operating during these hours.



In this measure, nighttime hours were considered to be from midnight to 8AM. From weather BIN data for the Corvallis area, the number of hours for which temperatures landed in this window of time was subtracted from the total hours in those temperature ranges. This range of OSA

temperatures was from 30-64°F, with a total of 2,776 hours. The reduction in hours for this range

of temperatures can be seen in the “No. of Hours” column in Appendix H – EEM 4. Savings come from setting back the VAV thermostats to a setpoint which would allow the AHU to be turned off during unoccupied, nighttime hours. The total annual electrical energy savings equated to 67,723 kWh per AHU, or 135,447 for the whole building and a total of 2,398 therm savings from the gas furnace. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh and $1.051/therm as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $10,593, or an annual cost savings reduction of 13.42%. Providing new thermostats for the zones needing HVAC set back control is estimated to cost up to $15,000 per AHU, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, the investment payback would be up to 3 years.

3.5 EEM 5: VAV AHU, FIX EXISTING ECONOMIZERS


The economizers in the Ballroom AHUs operate as designed. The focus of this measure is to analyze the energy savings from fixing the improperly functioning VAV AHU economizers, which as mentioned previously, is due to a constriction in the return air duct work. Currently, the OSA dampers are set at a minimum position of 75% OSA during non-economizing hours, and 100%

during economizing hours of 55-75°F. The minimum OSA position at the VAV AHUs can be

reduced substantially to avoid introducing as much very cold and warm air into the space.

The existing VAV AHUs are equipped with relief fans instead of return air fans. This type of system does not allow for individual control of the return air flow and cannot help combat the static pressure issues. Operating the system with this much OSA in a climate such as Corvallis greatly increases gas usage but with reduced electric reheat loads. From a standpoint that gas is cheaper then electricity this set is a good approach, however too much OSA in this case is actually a penalty.


According to ASHRAE 62.1, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, the VAV units supply a minimum outside air flow 8.5% CFM/s.f, which was determined from ventilation equation: 0.6 CFM/s.f.+ 5 CFM/person. Starting at a minimum OSA of 8.5% during cold hour and ramping up linearly until economizing hours, great savings in gas heating and electric reheat can be achieved from reduced mixed air temperatures. During warmer hours, the economizer reduces and stays fixed at 8.5% since any amount of OSA will raise the mixed air temperatures.

In order for this measure to be implemented, the Alumni Center must either fix the return air ducting constriction or replace the relief fan system with a return fan. A return fan system is beneficial because a VFD is used to control the fan speed as opposed to a relief fan system. With this added control, the return fan can be ramped up and the dampers can be opened or closed to overcome the static pressure issues caused by the ducting restrictions.


In this measure, OSA air damper position was set up to operate at an optimal minimal level as indicated by AHSREAE. Reducing the amount of cold and hot OSA introduced into the space, allows for a tighter control of mixed temperatures and reducing both cooling and heating loads.


The total annual electrical energy savings from fixing the economizer operation equated to 2,886 kWh per AHU, or 5,772 kWh for the whole building and a total of 4,648 therm savings from the gas furnace. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh and $1.051/therm as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $5,229, or an annual cost savings reduction of 6.63%. Due to the unknown location of the return air duct restriction issue a minimum installation cost of $20,000 was proposed to account for new ducting and equipment rentals. The following measure will include the cost of the relief fan replacement by proposing the replacement of the entire AHU. Without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, the investment payback would be up to 3.8 years.

3.6 EEM 6: VAV & CV AHU, NEW ROOFTOP AIR HANDLERS


The Alumni Center construction was completed in 1997, which means that all of the rooftop AHUs are approaching the 15

th year of operation and the end of their useful life. Replacement will be

necessary within the next five to ten years.


For this measure, it is proposed to replace all AHUs with York like for like AHUs. New units have increased cooling efficiency ratios and reduced fan power, reducing electrical energy consumption. For competitive pricing, units from Trane, Carrier, and Hunt Air should be considered. It is important to note that replacing the AHUs will account for several of the previously proposed measure’s savings. Excluding the rooms which need new HVAC control occupancy sensors, a new AHU replacement will come with a supply air reset controls, return fan with separate VFD, and CO2 control. For this analysis, using a rolling baseline, savings are only shown for improved cooling efficiency ratio and reduced fan power.


Savings come from reduced fan power and increased cooling compressor performance. The total annual electrical energy savings equated to 80,746 kWh for replacing all five AHUs. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $4,812, or an annual cost savings reduction of 6.10%. In the spreadsheets provided in Appendix H, both fan HP and cooling efficiency ratio were updated for the VAVs, and only the cooling efficiency for the CVs. This is due to the fact that Constant Volume fans are sized very precisely because the fan supply speed is constant. A 0.7 W/CFM was assumed for the new fan sizing on the VAVs, and new cooling efficiency rations were provided by Johnson Air for York like of like replacements. Providing new AHUs for the building is estimated to cost up to $300,000. Considering only the savings from improved fan and compressor performance, a payback of 40-60 years is calculated. However, as stated previously, implementing new AHUs will improve much more than fan and compressor performance, so payback in reality will be much more reasonable.

3.7 EEM 7: INTERIOR LIGHTING OCCUPANCY SENSOR CONTROL


The Alumni Center is currently fitted with lighting vacancy sensors in several office areas throughout the building. A list of existing single and dual input sensors can be found in Appendix A & D. This measure proposes to include lighting occupancy sensors in the Ballroom and a small number of office areas which were not fitted with sensors as the rest of the building.



From several site visits, it was noted that the Ballroom space lights remained on during all Alumni Center operating hours. Considering that the Ballroom is used on a planned event basis, there is a great opportunity for energy savings. Providing occupancy sensors in the spaces indicated in Appendix D are recommended.


Savings from reduced interior lighting hours are shown Appendix A under “Savings Lighting Hours” and “Annual Savings (kWh)” columns. The total annual electrical savings equated to 19,755 kWh for the recommend spaces. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $1,177, or an annual cost savings reduction of 1.49%. Providing controls upgrades of up to $5,000 are required for this measure, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, investment payback comes in at 2.5-4.7 years.

3.8 EEM 8: EXTERIOR LIGHTING PHOTOCELL CONTROL


From several site visits, it was observed that the perimeter outdoor lights were on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The outdoor lighting load for the Alumni Center is 3,150 kW as indicated in Appendix A.


For this measure, it is proposed to implement photocell control lighting sensors in all lit outdoor areas. This measure assumes an average day lit hours of 4,000 hours a year.


Savings from reduced exterior lighting hours are shown Appendix A under “Savings Lighting Hours” and “Annual Savings (kWh)” columns. The total annual electrical savings equated to 12,600 kWh for the recommend spaces. Using actual electrical energy costs of $0.0596/kWh as provided by OSU, this measure would result in an estimated annual energy savings of $751, or an annual cost savings reduction of 0.95%. Providing photocell controls upgrades of up to $2,000 are required for this measure, and without consideration of incentive funding from the ETO, investment payback equates to 2.7 years.

3.9 NON-ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS

3.9.1 Air Balancing

After new AHUs with return fans are provided, rebalance the HVAC ducting system to eliminate pressure issues. With a properly sized return fan to overcome the static pressure issues experience by the Alumni Center and individual control of the return fan motor, balancing the buildings air supply will be much quicker than previously experienced.

3.9.2 Acoustics

Sound traps are recommended to reduce noise in the ballroom as mentioned by OSU facilities staff. It is advised that the new replacement AHUs be equipped with vibration isolation and also to avoid mounting of the fan motors directly to the AHU floor without isolation springs.

3.9.3 Duct Leakage

During the site visits, various leakages were discovered throughout the duct work, due to both gaps in the sheet metals and missing air plug used by air balancer technicians. It is


recommended to rework the sheet metal in areas where the ducting is split and to simply replace the balancing plugs where they are missing.

3.9.4 Low-flow Plumbing Fixtures

All bathroom fixtures are recommended for replacement with low flow fixtures which are readily available today. Replace the 1.6 GPF water closets with dual flush water closets. Replace the 1.0 GPF urinals with 0.125 GPF urinals. Lastly, replace the 1.0 GPM+ lavatory sink aerators with 0.5 GPM aerators.


4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The energy analysis included a close look at the buildings HVAC operations over a full year calibrated against BIN weather data for the Corvallis, OR area. Lighting savings were based on occupancy schedules provided by OSU staff. The economics in this discussion consider the rate at which the customer pays for the energy as taken from 5 years of utility bills. Implementation cost estimates account for locally procured goods as indicated by “Buy American” Requirements. Below are described utility costs for commercial sector buildings like the Alumni Center.

4.1 UTILITIES

4.1.1 Electricity

Portland General Electric (PGE) provides the Oregon State University campus with electricity in a central location. It is then distributed within the campus to each of the buildings, where it can be submetered. Because OSU has a unique rate structure set up with PGE, the state average electricity rate as published by the Energy Information Administration is shown here. As of February 2011, the commercial sector rate for California is $0.0834 per kWh consumed. The actual average utility rate according to OSU’s electricity bills was $0.0596.

4.1.2 Natural Gas

NW Natural Gas provides Oregon State University natural gas services which are metered separately for each building. Since gas prices fluctuate seasonally, the average rate published by the Energy Information Administration from May 2010 to April 2011 for the commercial sector was is $10.01 per thousand cubic feet, equivalent to $0.101 per therm. The actual average utility rate per OSU’s gas bill was $1.051, which is similar to the EIA’s publish rate.

4.2 EEM COST ANALYSIS

First cost estimates of each HVAC and lighting control option were provided by Glumac’s construction management services department. The Energy Trust of Oregon offers an incentive $0.29 per kWh of energy saved, which yields potential incentives from $60,000 - $90,000 for implementing the measures. A closer look at the costs, incentives, and payback periods will be included in the ETO energy savings submittal.


APPENDIX A – FLOOR PLAN

Ground Level – Floor Plan

2nd Level – Floor Plan


APPENDIX B – OCCUPANCY SCHEDULES, INDIVIDUAL ROOM

CONTROLS, & SAVINGS

Continued on next page…


APPENDIX C - LIGHTING SCHEDULE The table below shows the Alumni Center’s lighting schedule which was compiled from the lighting floor plan design documents.


APPENDIX D – LIGHTING & HVAC

CONTROLS, EXISTING AND PROPOSED


APPENDIX E - UTILITY BILL DATA

Electricity Utility Bills – 5 Full years and part of 2011

Continued on next page with Natural Gas Utility Bills…


Natural Gas Utility Bills – 5 Full years and part of 2011


APPENDIX F – BASELINE CALIBRATION


APPENDIX G – ENERGY END USE GRAPHS


APPENDIX H- EEM ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET

Oregon State University CH2M Hill Alumni Center, ASHRAE ...

Documents

Transcript of Oregon State University CH2M Hill Alumni Center, ASHRAE ...