for facilities condition assessment - saint louis zoo · saint louis zoo . request for...

Saint Louis Zoo

Request for Qualifications for

FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT

RESPONSES TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MUST BE DELIVERED TO

Patrick Williamson Director of Purchasing & Distribution Phone: 314-646-4631 [email protected]

NO LATER THAN:

Wednesday, August 11, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Facilities Assessment

July 1, 2016

Table of Contents

Updating of Facilities Condition Assessment

Part I – Request for Proposal Page

A. Purpose… ................................................................................................... 3 B. Proposal Schedule… .................................................................................. 4 C. RFQ Contacts… ......................................................................................... 4 D. Proposal Evaluation… ................................................................................ 4 E. Proposal Evaluation Criteria… .................................................................... 5 F. Proposal Submittal and Specifics… ............................................................ 5 G. Facility Access… ......................................................................................... 6 H. Disclosure of Proposal Submittals .............................................................. 6

Part II – Facilities Condition Assessment Requirements A. Overview ...................................................................................................... 7 B. Perform Condition Assessment ................................................................... 7 C. Items Included in Assessment. ................................................................... 7 D. Items Not Included in Assessment… .......................................................... 8 E. Update the Facilities Assessment Database ............................................... 8 F. Identify Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 9 G. Establish Useful Life Criteria… .................................................................... 9 H. Develop Scoring System… .......................................................................... 9 I. Establish Categories .................................................................................... 9 J. Establish Priorities… ................................................................................... 10 K. Derive Cost Estimates… ............................................................................. 10 L. Develop Schedules… ................................................................................. 10 M. Structure Replacements ............................................................................. 10 N. Cost Saving Opportunities… ....................................................................... 10 O. Assess Code Compliance ........................................................................... 11 P. Assess Maintenance Practices…................................................................ 11 Q. Materials Made Available by the Zoo .......................................................... 11

Part III - Work Products A. Database .................................................................................................... 11 B. Reports… .................................................................................................... 12 C. Format of Manuals ...................................................................................... 12 D. Software and Data Ownership .................................................................... 13

Attachments

A. Facilities Included in Assessments B. Saint Louis Zoo MBE/WBE Policy C. 2012 Energy Master Plan D. Zoo Maintenance Map


July 1, 2016

REQUEST for PROPOSAL Saint Louis Zoo

FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT Part I - Request for Proposal

The term “firm” shall from hereon be referred to as consultant. A. Purpose

The Saint Louis Zoo is seeking proposals from qualified firms to conduct a detailed facilities condition assessment. When completed, information obtained in the assessment will be utilized to create reports, schedules and other data allowing the Zoo to plan for the maintenance, repair and/or capital replacement, implementation of energy audit recommendations to improve utility efficiencies, and renewal of facilities. It will also guide the Zoo in making appropriate financial decisions for the implementation of identified projects. Database information will also be used to supplement current electronic systems such as preventive maintenance, space and equipment inventories and project scheduling as they relate to facilities upkeep and planning.

The project team will consist of designated Zoo personnel and those from the selected firm.

The term “firm” includes single or multidiscipline architect/engineering firms, joint ventures and/or other team combinations that can demonstrate the appropriate expertise and resources required to accomplish the purpose, including experience working with zoological facilities. Professionals performing the inspections must be registered architects and/or engineers in Missouri. When appropriate, persons with specific expertise in zoological parks or specialized building systems or construction may be used to supplement the local professionals. Firm should include expertise in sustainable development and building efficiency systems to provide accurate assessment regarding facility enhancements recommended in energy audits performed by third party in 2012.

Facilities, in general, include buildings, building components, systems (MEP etc.), and system components. In brief, the purpose of this project is to:

• inspect and document the condition of the facilities • identify and document deficiencies therein • update the facilities assessment database • provide useful life information and determine where each

structure/system/major component falls within its life cycle • Incorporate impacts of implementing recommendations to improve facility

efficiencies (referencing Exhibit D: 2012 Energy Campus Master Plan)


July 1, 2016

• develop scoring systems for current conditions and identified deficiencies, i.e., a facility condition index (FCI)

• develop a category system grouping deficiencies • establish a priority matrix for corrective actions • prepare cost estimates for corrective actions • develop schedules for corrective actions, renewals and replacements • recommend whether major structures should be replaced with new • identify opportunities for cost savings, increasing system efficiencies and

performance, and cost avoidance • identify areas where code compliance actions may be needed • assess current maintenance practices and recommend revisions Specific

requirements for the above are defined in Part II - Project Requirements.

B. Proposal Schedule

• RFQ available to firms July 14, 2016 • Mandatory Pre-RFQ Meeting July 28, 2016 2:00 p.m. • Zoo site visits July 28 and 29, 2016 • Qualifications due August 11, 2016 2:00 p.m. • Firm interviews August 18, 2015 • Contract Award August 30, 2016 • Assessment to begin September 12, 2016 • Final report due December 14, 2016 • Closeout December 30, 2016

C. Contacts

Technical/Facilities Ken Smith

Director of Facilities Management Phone: 314-646-4674 Email: [email protected]

Format/Submittals Patrick Williamson Director of Purchasing & Distribution Phone: 314-646-4631

email: [email protected]

Please limit any questions during the proposal preparation phase to these individuals. D. Proposal Evaluation

Qualification statements will be evaluated by the Facilities and Grounds Committee using a quality based point system to score and rank the submittals. After evaluations are tabulated, three (3) firms will be short listed and invited to the Zoo for a presentation interview. At the conclusion of the presentation interviews, the firms will be evaluated using a similar point system.

mailto:[email protected]


July 1, 2016

E. Proposal Evaluation Criteria

1. Firm/team experience in preparing similar facility reports

20% 2. Project team to be assigned to this project 10% 3. Project approach and management plan 10% 4. Proposed project schedule with benchmark dates 10% 5. Statement of why your firm should be selected to perform this project (maximum 1 page)

10%

6. Proposed assessment tool samples 5% 7. References 10% 8. Two sample assessments performed by your firm 10% 9. MBE/WBA/DBE Participation 15%

F. Proposal Submittal and Specifics Proposals shall be submitted in pdf format on electronic media.

Item 1 – Firm Experience. Provide the names of at least three (3) previous assessments that your firm has performed and describe scope of the study (bullet statements format). For each one (1), include the extent of your role and, if a joint venture, the names and roles of the other firms. If different from Item 8, include current contact person, telephone number and email address. You may provide any other pertinent information you feel necessary.

Item 2 – Team. Include the names of all proposed firm team members, their proposed role(s) and the team leader/point of contact for this project. Include a resume for each.

Item 3 – Project Approach. Explain how your firm would approach this project from data gathering through final report and how you will manage the multi-campus project. Include your expectations of the roles that Zoo personnel will play in the project.

Item 4 – Bar Chart Schedule. Self-explanatory.

Item 5 – Why Should Your Firm Be Selected. This is an opportunity to “sell” your firm to the Zoo in one (1) page. Item 6 – Proposed Assessment Tool Samples. Include a sample of your proposed methods/forms to be used for assessing building conditions and deficiencies. Provide sample rating scales for buildings, individual components and component systems; ranking methods for determining corrective and attention action priorities and the source and method of cost estimating data. Provide a template of a proposed database.

Item 7 – References. Include the names of three (3) persons (clients) who can personally attest to your work on similar facility assessments. If different than Item 1, include the name and title of the person, their role in the work, their organization and current address,


July 1, 2016

telephone number and email address. Item 8 – Sample Studies. If you are proposing a joint venture for the Zoo assessment, one (1) of your sample(s) should be the joint venture. Otherwise, submit a sample where your firm was the prime consultant.

Item 9 - MBE/WBE PARTICIPATION: The Zoo encourages the participation of minority and women-owned businesses in all of its contracts and is committed to providing maximum opportunities for qualified minority and/or women-owned business enterprises. Please see the policy statement attached. G. Facility Access

Since the Zoo will be open during the proposal and execution phases of this project, disruption to operations must be kept to a minimum. The Zoo will strive to allow visits to behind the scenes areas but due to animal management operations, some facilities will not be available for tours during this timeframe. In order to permit firms to access the facilities prior to the submittal of the RFQ, staff will be available to conduct group tours of the twenty (20) zones, plus the expansion site. Dates are as follows: July 28, 3:30 – 5:00: Zones 1 through 5 plus the expansion site July 29, 9:00 – 10:00: Zones 6 through 10 July 29, 10:30 – Noon: Zones 11 through 15 July 29, 1:30 – 3:00: Zones 16 through 20

Staff will not be available to provide access to Zoo facilities at times other than those listed. Many of the Zoo facilities are open to the public and firms may walk the sites, but there will be no access to non-public spaces outside of the designated dates and times listed above.

H. Disclosure of Proposal Submittals

Proposals will be kept confidential until a contract is awarded to the successful firm. At that time all proposals and contents thereof become public documents and are available upon request to the public, except for those documents marked by the firm as “confidential” or “proprietary.” The latter two (2) classifications apply only to the firms‟ financial records and trade secrets.


July 1, 2016

Part II – Facilities Condition Assessment Requirements A. Overview. There are several goals that Zoo has set related to facilities, planning and capital budgeting. To assist in understanding the Zoo’s goals, the current Strategic Plan will be provided at a later date. Facilities issues moving forward include developing a system of forecasting capital projects related to the upkeep, appearance and replacement/renewal of plant assets in a predictable, scheduled manner.

Planning issues involve placing large cost preventive maintenance items, deficiencies identified in building assessments, renewal or replacement of facilities nearing the end of their useful lives, lessening of deferred maintenance and other continuing or predicted interval projects into a long range financial planning process.

Applicable portions of the capital, as well as some operating, budgets will be identified from the cost estimates and schedules drawn from the above information. This will enable administration to not only allocate monies to the items needing attention, but will allow costs to be more predictably allocated over budget cycles.

Using all of the information available, the Zoo and consultant will create a database permitting continual upgrades and flexibility in use.

B. Perform Condition Assessment. Consultant will assess (inspect) the buildings, building components, systems and systems components as described below. A condition score is to be assigned to each inspected system or component providing sufficient detail to permit subsequent judgments and decisions to be made. Data may be collected using a written inspection form format or by keying data directly into an electronic device. Nondestructive inspection methods shall be used except in those instances where the consultant recommends otherwise and the Zoo approves in advance. Digital photographs are to be used to support the inspections and taken in sufficient quantity to adequately illustrate the inspectors‟ evaluation.

MP2, the Zoo’s CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System) shall be utilized to record asset data. Consultant shall enter all data from the assessments into the database no less than once weekly.

The existing database will be augmented primarily from consultant input with information and records provided by the Zoo, primarily from MP2, our CMMS and DataSphere, used to capture O & M data for capital projects. Decisions on systems, component conditions and structure of the database will rely extensively on consultant’s expertise and recommendations.

C. Items Included in Assessments. It is anticipated that more attention will be paid to the larger, costlier components as well as those that, upon failure, will prove harmful to persons, animals or property or disrupt Zoo operations for extended periods. It is not necessary to inspect/test every component of every system unless potential individual failures create the same outcome as the larger components.


July 1, 2016

Four (4) groups have been referenced above. They are buildings, building components, systems and systems components. A building includes the entire structure and any extension attached to it. It does not include improved exterior areas adjacent to it. Building components are those individual parts that when put together, make a building. Included on the exterior are roof systems, gutters, windows, doors, envelope and foundations and structural members. Interior items are ceilings, walls, floors, doors, structural members and appearance items. Systems are those items that provide utilities and services to the building and its occupants. Included are mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and alarms, vertical transportation and specialty items such as ADA and codes. System components are those individual items that make up a system such as boilers, chillers, generators, electrical distribution panels, fire pumps, etc.

Exterior site components include roads, walks and railings, paved areas, site lighting, landscaped areas, drainage systems (visible only), fencing and exhibits.

The Zoo and consultant shall agree on items to be included.

D. Items Not Included in Assessment. The following are not intended to be part of the

assessments: 1. HVAC controls (Assessment to be provided by Siemens) 2. Telecommunications, computer network and AV equipment (Provided through a

separate assessment) 3. Movable equipment or nonphysical plant items 4. Shop equipment 5. Underground sewer lines

Unless specifically identified as critical to an assessment of an included item, the following are not included. If it is determined that any of the following are required, they will be done as a change order to the consultant’s contract or contracted out by the Zoo.

6. Vibration, sound or chemical (oil) analyses 7. Testing for asbestos, mold, lead paint, VOC‟s or IAQ sampling 8. Air balancing 9. Destructive tests 10. Sewer line video taping 11. Infrared or thermo scans

E. Update the Facilities Assessment Database. All data derived from the building condition assessments are to be retrievable and processed by the MP2 database. Equipment to be bar-code tagged. Inputs, including but not limited to, are the asset and components thereof, conditions and corrective actions, barcode tag numbers, a condition rating score, a priority score, typical useful life, cost estimates, a hierarchy for action and other information that may be determined. The Zoo and consultant will mutually determine how the database is to be configured and what is to be contained therein.


July 1, 2016

F. Identify Deficiencies. Using information obtained in the inspections, consultant shall identify all deficiencies requiring attention, the causes of each deficiency and the corrective action(s) required. Zoo Facilities Management Department may have additional information available to supplement the inspection data such as roof maintenance reports, fire system and elevator inspection reports.

Deficiencies and corrective actions can be addressed individually or grouped per zone, and if practical, groupings can be combined as multizone or Zoowide. Each corrective action shall be designated as a maintenance or capital item and be assigned a unique identifier within the database to enable tracking.

In this category, database-generated reports shall classify, rank, identify corrective actions for and describe consequences and liabilities of actions deferred or not taken for each deficiency.

G. Establish Useful Life Criteria. Consultant shall provide useful life expectancies for components of the four (4) prime groups using generally accepted national guidelines. The consultant shall then apply the manufacturers’ or industry standard maintenance recommendations to the life cycle. Next the consultant, using descriptions and dates from Zoo records of the repairs and replacements made to the structures and components over the years, shall determine where each item falls in its life cycle. Finally, the consultant shall identify what remaining and projected maintenance, reconstruction or replacements are required and place each building, building components, system and system components appropriately in the life cycle continuum.

All life cycle calculations must consider depreciation.

H. Develop Scoring Systems. In order to compare assets on a relative basis, consultant shall develop a method to assign scores to buildings, building components, system and system components, specialty items and site items. Deficiencies are also to have a scoring method. Methods should have a wide range such as one (1) to fifty (50) or one hundred (100) so there is sufficient latitude beyond a five- (5) or ten- (10) point method. As an example, a chiller that is five (5) years old with a good service program requiring only routine maintenance may be scored as an eighty-five (85). When the system that the chiller is part of is scored, it is scored as a sixty (60) because its three (3) air handlers are twenty (20) years old and have become maintenance intensive. This method, a Facility Condition Index (FCI), will allow individual items and systems to be compared to each other with a higher degree of consistency than present methods.

The Zoo and consultant shall agree on method to be used.

I. Establish Categories. The consultant will place all assessed items and identified deficiencies into categories for corrective actions by TYPE of item or system. The proposed categories should be of a descriptive nature and can be reflective of the nature of the items. For example, windows can fall into a building envelope category; a heat pump would be


July 1, 2016

heating systems; a water cooler that is nonreachable by persons using a wheelchair would be an ADA item, etc. The categories can follow items listed in the four (4) groups identified in Part II, Item B (above).

The Zoo and consultant shall agree on categories to be used. J. Establish Priorities. The consultant shall categorize components by order of urgency based on potential damage to persons and structures, liability and/or risk prevention, etc. Each category shall carry a numerical priority factor multiplier that when used with the individual assessment scores will yield a figure that places each component or system in a priority position in the action plan. An urgency table should be developed that places a specific time frame for action on the component or system’s score.

K. Derive Cost Estimates. Consultant shall develop estimates for any item in this assessment that involves a cost. Include “soft” costs such as design fees, testing and contingencies. Estimates shall be based on the latest edition of R.S. Means cost estimating guides or other readily available nationally recognized cost estimating system using 2016 as the base year. The system shall have the capability to automate the annual update of construction costs based on revisions to published construction costs.

L. Develop Schedules. Using the life cycle continuum information and the time frames developed in the assessment and deficiency corrective actions portion of the study, the consultant shall prepare recommended schedules for undertaking the identified work. Schedules shall divide time frames into quarter year increments. Separate schedules can be built for the different categories of actions, i.e., emergencies, scheduled maintenance, renewal and replacement projects. These schedules will drive Zoo financial planning, budget building and planning work that may interfere with normal Zoo operations.

M. Structure Replacements. The Zoo has several major structures that do not function well and do not allow the most advanced animal care options. These buildings were constructed under past codes for energy efficiency and seismic requirements, and are costly to operate and maintain. Using the information gathered during the assessments, combined with the consultant’s evaluation of structure efficiency and depreciation, the consultant is to recommend whether these structures should continue to be used or razed for the construction of new buildings.

Consultant shall, for any structure(s) recommended to be replaced, include a justification for the replacement and a sketch of the footprint of the existing structure with a superimposed footprint of the proposed structure. This analysis will be coordinated with the Zoo facilities master plan. A table should indicate gross square feet of new structure(s), number and types of rooms. A cost estimate for the proposed construction should include costs of demolition and disposal, site work, fees, contingencies and related project costs for each structure. Include a NPV analysis for each replacement. All costs are to be in dollar/square foot ($/SF) format.

N. Efficiency and Cost Saving Opportunities. During the assessment the consultant shall identify opportunities for increasing system efficiencies, performance, cost savings and


July 1, 2016

avoided costs. Include energy consumption and conservation projects and projects where consolidation of fragmented systems such as HVAC zoning can reduce costs or increase operating efficiencies. A return on investment analysis should be performed for each identified project. Additionally, the feasibility of attaining certification for LEED Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance shall be addressed in the report.

O. Assess Code Compliance. During the assessment, areas will be discovered where codes have changed since the areas were put into service and the Zoo is “grandfathered”. The consultant shall identify these areas and detail required actions if the spaces are left as is or addressed through corrective action.

P. Assess Maintenance Practices. As the consultant performs the assessments, he will become familiar with the various maintenance methods and practices in use. Should the consultant find areas of possible improvements he should recommend methods for the improvements. Consultant shall provide a written description of the recommended action and proposed result of implementation. This action does not require an in-depth thorough analysis of routine maintenance practices.

Q. Materials Made Available by the Zoo. The Zoo will make the following information available to the short listed consultants on an as-needed basis.

1. Building drawings and renovation project drawings. Floor plans are available

electronically. 2. Recent master plans 3. Recent and older studies 4. Preventive maintenance system access and records 5. Energy management system access and records 6. Utility bill information 7. Fixed asset inventory records 8. Roofing inspection data 9. Shop drawing and project file materials 10. Product warranty information 11. Facilities management database 12. 2012 Campus Energy Master Plan Part III - Work Products

Using data gathered from Part II, consultant shall provide several work products that will form the foundation of a facilities condition management tool.

Progress meetings will be held at least once weekly during the term of the project. Consultant shall provide a written status report at each of these meetings.

Specific format of final work products will be determined by Zoo and consultant. The work product requirements are:


July 1, 2016

A. Database. (see Part II, Item E above)

B. Reports. Consultant shall design several report formats to draw from the data obtained in the assessments. The initial reports will be presented in a series of manuals that provides readers with an accurate view of 2016 facility conditions, deficiencies, corrections required, priorities of actions, when the actions are to be scheduled over a specified period of years and the costs involved. Tentative initial specific reports and how they are to be sorted are:

1. Current conditions (by zone – by building – by site) 2. Identified deficiencies (by zone – by building – by site) 3. Corrective actions required (by zone – by building – by site) 4. List of deficiencies and corrective actions required (by zone – by building – by

site) 5. List of deficiencies and corrective actions required (by category – by zone

– by building – by site) 6. List of deficiencies and corrective actions required (by priority - (by zone

– by building – by site) 7. Schedule of actions required on quarterly basis through 2027; corrective,

routine maintenance, repair, replacement and renewal (by zone) 8. List and schedule for structures to be replaced – zoowide (by zone) 9. List of opportunities - Zoowide (by zone – by building – by site) 10. Schedule of costs based on schedule in Item 7 above (by zone) 11. Other - Any work products recommended by consultant or Zoo or derived

during the performance of the contact (by zone – by building – by site) Above references to “site” are for roads, walks, outdoor exhibits, exterior lighting, etc.

C. Format of Manuals. Provide manuals in a searchable, electronic format, capable of being printed and bound in three- (3) ring binders with sections divided by tabbed, labeled sheets. Manual front and spine are to be labeled. The suggested report hierarchy shall be as follows. However, the Zoo may accept a format recommended by the consultant prior to the start of work.

1. Project Overview – This manual should include an executive summary of the

project goals and a listing of the included manuals. In tabbed sections describe the condition ranking and priority systems, cost estimating sources and other criteria of evaluation used in Parts II and III. Another section should identify and credit source documents/data used in the project and where they may be found, if not in the manual. One (1) section should reference software and how various products are to be accessed.

2. Zoowide (if required) – This manual will address items identified during the assessments that are applicable on a Zoowide basis. It should include an executive summary of the Zoowide findings.

3. By Zone - Each zone shall have a master binder containing a table of contents and executive summary for the zone. The manual shall follow the format of Part II and present findings of the assessment and recommendations by zone using


July 1, 2016

the following format: a. By building (as a unit) b. By building components (exterior and interior) c. By systems (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection/alarm/life

safety systems, etc.) d. By systems components (boilers, chillers, generators, electrical panels,

etc.) e. By building other (ADA, environmental, etc.) f. By site (roads, parking lots, sewer systems, walks, lighting,

landscape and vegetation) g. By site other (signage, ADA, outdoor athletic facilities, etc.)

4. Each building manual shall contain:

a. Small site plan with the building highlighted b. A brief listing of the building’s major use(s) c. Departments and/or programs housed therein d. Date of construction and date(s) of major renovations or additions e. Gross square footage and number of floors f. A brief description of the building and its components, i.e., site;

envelope; structural; interior components; MEP and other systems, etc.

g. Adequate photographs to amplify written data Consultant shall recommend how manuals are to be labeled if information for one (1) report format requires multiple manuals.

D. Software and Data Ownership. Familiarity with MP2 and other CMMS Software. The Zoo presently uses the MP2 software but is in the process of switching to a cloud based, internet accessible option. Specify the hardware requirements to support the software to include bandwidth requirements if the product is delivered for web accessibility.

Word processing files shall be Word, spreadsheets to be Excel and database to be Access unless approved in advance by the Zoo. CADD drawings should be saved in AutoCAD format and capable of being saved as .tif and Visio, .vsd files.

At the closeout of the project, the Zoo will own the database and all information used to develop it. The consultant shall not deny the Zoo access to the database via password, hidden file denial or other method that prevents complete use and control of the database by the Zoo.

Data is to be provided to CCAC on CDRW disk or USB jump drives.

Attachment A: Facilities Included In Assessment Attachment B: MBE/WBE Participation Attachment C: 2012 Campus Energy Master Plan 2012

Attachment D: Zoo Maintenance Map

SAINT LOUIS ZOOBUILDING AREA INFORMATION

(eff. 7/11/16)

BLDG # BUILDINGReal Property

Value

Personal Property

Value Description Year BuiltYear Major Renovation

# of Floors SQ FT Acreage Function

00 Grounds $273,182 Brick wall on premises, Forest Park 93.00 Zoological Park00 South Campus South Campus Grounds 1979 13.50 Zoological Park01 Zoo Administration Building $1,974,847 $265,225 Built 1970; renovated 1990; Frame/Masonry 1970 1990 3 13,932 Offices02 Bird Garden $759,556 Animal housing / public displays04 Bear Pits $3,253,433 Built 1922; Concrete 1922 Animal housing05 Small Mammal Pits $225,102 $2,015 Built 1950; Concrete 1950 Animal housing 07 Jungle of the Apes $16,621,625 $50,039 Built 1986; Concrete; Metal Roof 1986 1 18,500 Animal housing/public displays08 Build-A-Bear / Gorilla Villa $113,933 Wood Frame; Shingle Roof 1 1,400 Gift shop

09 Bird House $6,329,636 $110,305Built 1930; Renovated 1979; 1 story; EPDM Roof; Masonry & Tile 1930 1979 3 35,900 Animal housing / public displays

09 Pea Peabody Hall $1,591,350 Renovated 2010; Masonry & Pre-Engineered Metal 1930 1 5,000 Exhibit Hall

10 1904 Flight Cage $3,164,818 $2,015Built 1904; Under Construction 2004; 1 story steel; Steel Masonry Frame/Shingle Roof 1904 2004 Animal housing / public displays

11 Kudu Barn $297,493 $2,015 Built 1935; 1 story; Gunite 1935 1 3,000 Animal housing 11A Eland Barn $139,252 Built 1935; 1 story; Gunite 1935 1 800 Animal housing12 Antelope House $1,620,387 $3,885 Built 1935; 1 story; Gunite 1935 1 9,300 Animal housing / public displays13 Goat Barn $162,443 $2,015 Built 1935; 1 story; Gunite 1935 1 1,225 Animal housing13A Rocky Mountain Sheep (Takin Barn) $594,986 $573,524 Built 1979; Gunite & Cement Block 1979 1 1,600 Animal housing13B Deer Barn $126,593 $2,015 Built 1935; Gunite & Cement Block 1935 1 1,200 Animal housing14 Camel Barn $645,623 $3,872 Built 1979; Gunite & Cement Block 1979 1 2,600 Animal housing14A Cow Barn $167,102 1 Story Gunnite Boulder Building 1 3,000 Animal housing14B Sable Barn $167,102 1 Story Gunnite Boulder Building 1 3,000 Animal housing 14C Zebra Barn $129,125 1 Story Cement Block Building With Frame Roof 1 1,000 Animal housing 15 Big Cat Country $4,114,264 $5,886 Built 1976; 1 story; Concrete 1976 1 8,125 Animal housing / public displays16 Sea Lion Arena $2,531,855 $3,872 Built 1953; 1 story; Wood Frame Roof 1953 1 10,700 Animal Show16 A Sea Lion Arena Bldg. Built 1953; 1 story; Masonry/Concrete; Built Up Roof 1953 2 6,720 Animal Housing

17 Primate House $6,266,340 $48,492Built 1925; Renovated 1977; 2 stories; Masonry; EPDM/Tile Roof 1925 1977 2 32,400

Animal housing / public displays/ bathrooms

18 Chain of Lakes Animal housing / public displays

20 Herpetarium $5,823,266 $29,125Built 1927; Renovated 1978; 2 stories; Masonry; EPDM/Tile Roof 1927 1978 2 34,200 Animal housing / public displays

20A Hellbender Exhibit $79,568 Built 2011; 1 story; Frame 2011 1 400 Animal Housing24 Cheetah Barn $95,583 Built 1972; Cement Block; Roll Roof 1972 1 660 Animal housing25 Rock House Restrooms $78,487 Built 1950; 1 story masonry; Shingle Roof 1950 1 480 Bathrooms

27 Facilities Management Office $670,941 $171,653Built 1955; 1 story; Masonry; Built Up Roof, Renovated 1994 1955 1994 1 3,102 Offices

27 A Greenhouse $135,454 $42,533 Built 1989; Lexan Steel Frame 1989 1 2,304 Storage (plants)

28 Maintenance Facility Shops $2,652,250 $175,062Built 1955; 1 Story; Masonry; Built Up Roof, Renovated 2010; 2 story Pre-Engineered Metal Building 1955 2010 1 21,000 Shops / storage/ Offices/IT Data Center

Maintenance Facility Storage Shed Metal Storage Shed 1 6,400 Equipment $ Material Storage

29 Children's Zoo $5,552,357 $69,716Built 1967; Renovated 1997; Concrete Cement; Steel Roof 1967 1997 Animal housing / public displays

30 Distribution Center $827,249 $56,391 Built 1977; Cement Block; Built Up Roof 1977 1 12,000 Storage 30 A Distribution Trailer $12,659 700 Offices

31 Safari Shop $3,152,159Built ;Renovated 1995; Cement Block Masonry; EPDM Roof 1995 1 5,600

Safari Shop; Ranger Base; Cash Room & Guest Services

32 Baer Plaza $3,098,455 $38,732 Built 1995; Masonry Arches 1995 Public Area33 Perkins Plaza Public Area

34 The Living World $17,044,445 $11,061,477Built 1989; 2 stories; Masonry; Metal Roof. Renovation of Phase 1,2 &3 totals $5,222,196. (2010-2013) 1989 2010 2 50,000

Offices / gift shops / exhibits / public displays / bathrooms

35 $308,886 Built 1986; Masonry/Stone Construction; EPDM Roof 1986 1 1,400 Bathrooms

36 Veterinary Hospital $5,100,421

Built 1993; 1 Story Masonry Construction; Shingle Roof. 2013 renovation costs were $3,700,050. HVAC improvements and new roof 1993 2013 1 19,000 Animal Care / Animal Housing

37 Vierheller Station (50) $3,963,618 $29,125Built 1963; Renovated 2003; 1 Story; Frame/Concrete; EPDM Roof 1963 2003 6,460

Built 1963; Renovated 2003; Engines, cars, & track

38 Children's Zoo Railroad Station $164,571 $28,970 Built 1964; 1 story frame; Renovated 2003; Masonry 1964 1 851 Trains / Public Ticketing39 South Railroad Station $164,571 Built 1983; Masonry; Stone; Metal Roof 1983 1 1,035 Trains / Public Ticketing40 Big Cat Country Station $284,834 Built 2001; Masonry; Stone; Metal Roof 2001 Trains / Public Ticketing41 Railroad Tunnel 1 Trains42 Railroad Tunnel 2 Trains43 Lakeside Café $4,390,236 $200,004 Built 1993; 1 story masonry building; 1993 1 12,000 Concession / bathrooms44 East Concession $311,418 $99,108 Built 1976; 1 story Masonry Building, 1976 1 3,740 Concession / bathrooms47 Ice Cream Oasis $369,651 $86,444 Built 1987; 1 Story Cement Block/Stone; Metal Roof 1987 1 1,800 Concession 49 East Redwood $31,648 $68,162 Wood Frame 1 200 Concession50 Herpetarium Redwood $31,648 Wood Frame 1 200 Concession55 Gift Shop Carts $114,890 $8,985 Built 1986; Frame construction; 1986 Gifts

57 South Gate Portable $875,163Concession; Various Gift Shops; Stock & Supplies

58 South Parking Lot & Bridge Entrance $1,591,350Pedestrial Bridge over Wells Dr. S.. S Entrance re-designed, Parking Booths Parking Lot Ticket Booths, Zoo Entrance

60 Elephant Holding $6,076,451 Built 2000; 1 story Frame/Masonry; 2000 1 12,785 Animal Housing 61 Mongoose $168,368 Built 2000; 1 Story Concrete; 2000 1 176 Animal Housing62 Hyena $693,728 Built 2000; 1 Story Masonry; 2000 1 620 Animal Housing

63 River Camp $5,552,357 $282,068 Built 2001; 1 Story Masonry, 2001 2 18,030Restrooms, Banquet facilities, meeting rooms, refreshment stand

64 Insectarium $5,552,357 $282,068 Built 2001; 1 Story Masonry, 2001 1 11,324Animal Housing / public display / Bathrooms / Gift Shop

65 Exhibit Barn $129,125 Built 2000; Metal construction; 2000 1 2,400 Shop / storage66 Warthog $260,781 Built 2001; Masonry Block; Frame Roof 2001 1 1,080 Animal Housing 67 Bee Eater $111,402 Built 2001; Concrete Bunker; 2001 1 300 Animal Housing 68 Hippo Life Support Bldg. $2,810,359 Built 2001; Concrete Block with Metal Deck; 2001 1 3,800 Mechanical Equipment Housing69 Hippo/Rhino $939,318 Built 2001; Concrete Block; Frame Roof 2001 1 5,640 Animal Housing 70 Bush Dog/Capybara $468,393 Built 2001; Concrete Block; Frame Roof; 2001 1 1,220 Animal Housing 71 Rivers Edge Pump Building $1,126,675 Built 2001; Masonry N/C, 2001 1 432 Mechanical Equipment Housing72 African School House $72,158 Built 2001; Frame with Tin Roof; 2001 1 391 Public Display73 Asian Ranger Base $72,158 Built 2001; Frame 2001 1 391 Public Display74 Ozark Cabin $72,158 Built 2001; Frame; Tin Roof 2001 1 288 Public Display75 Hippo Viewing Structure $1,114,016 Built 2001; Steel Beam; Fiberglass/Thatched Roof 2001 1 842 Animal Housing / public display76 Hippo Hide Away (Food Service) $164,571 $62,682 Built 2001; Frame; Thatched Roof; 2001 1 400 Concession77 Hippo Dots Food Stand $51,650 Built 2001; Frame;Thatched Roof 2001 1 196 Concession

SAINT LOUIS ZOOBUILDING AREA INFORMATION

(eff. 7/11/16)

BLDG # BUILDINGReal Property

Value

Personal Property

Value Description Year BuiltYear Major Renovation

# of Floors SQ FT Acreage Function

78 Penguin Puffin $10,811,019 Built 2003; Cement Block/Masonry; 2003 2 10,535 Animal Housing / public display / gift shop

79 Vierheller Food Service Building (40) $506,371 Built 2003; Frame; Shingle Roof 2003 1 858 Concession80 Vierheller RR Office (51) $379,778 Built 2003; Frame; Shingle Roof 2003 1 1,100 Office81 Vierheller Ticket Booth (55) $248,122 Built 2003; Stone; Metal Roof 2003 1 900 Public Ticketing & Trains82 Orangutan Viewing Shelter (65) $124,061 Built 2004; Frame 2004 1 505 Public Display83 Orangutan Viewing Shelter (61) $124,061 Built 2004; Frame 2004 1 505 Public Display

84 Orangutan/Chimp Viewing Shelter (66) $500,041 Built 2004; Frame 2004 2 781 Public Display85 Chimp Viewing Shelter (67) $500,041 Built 2004; Frame 2004 2 1,392 Public Display86 Dining Deck (45) $75,956 Built 2003; Frame 2003 1 Public Dining87 Carousel $1,772,298 Built 2003; Steel; Metal Roof 2003 1 Public Ride

88 Victorian Pavilion Lakeside Crossing $368,717 Built 2005 2005 1 1,056 Concession89 Light Speed Photo Booth North $43,017 Built 2004 2004 1 200 Retail90 Tent $61,453 7,200 Rental/Events91 Fragile Forest Gift Shop $98,324 $35,798 Built 2005 2005 1 400 Gifts 92 Jungle of the Apes Gift Shop $73,743 $19,092 Built 2005 2005 1 180 Gifts 93 Simulator Structure $159,135 Frame support structure for ride Public Ride94 Aninals Always Sculpture $1,125,509 Built 2006; Metal sculpture 2006 Sculpture/Public viewing95 Southend Snacks $39,393 Kettle Corn Food Serv. Building 1 750 Concession

96 Animal Nutrician Center $3,572,590 Animal Nutrician Center 2 16,500Animal Food Storage / Prep / Lab / Research / Education

97 Caribbean Cove $1,326,125 Built 2009, Pavilion with pool & gift shop 2009 1 Animal exhibit (Stingray)99 Food Service Bldg @ Caribbean Cove $159,135 $26,523 Built 2009, Frame, Contrete/wood dining deck 2009 1 300 Concession/Dining100 Security Trailer (Was HR Training) $53,045 $10,609 Purchased 2009, double-wide office trailer 2009 1 1,000 Converted to Security Video Monitoring

101 Sea Lion Sound $12,744,592 $150,000 Built in 2011, opened 6/12 2011 2Animal housing / public displays/shows and arena

102

(Off Zoo Grounds) South Campus (former FP Hospital). Located @ 6228 Berthold Ave., St. Louis, Mo. 63110 $7,000,000 Built 1979, Fire resistive 1979 7 140,000 Parking garage (currently vacant)

103 Andean, Sun Bear & Painted Dog $7,049,099 Built 2013. 2013 1 4,645 Animal housing & exhibit

104 Polar Bear Point $16,190,000 Built 2015 2015 2 7,453 Animal housing & exhibit

105 Carousel Restroom $1,010,000 Built 2015 2015 1 1,173 Restroom

106 First Aid Station SEE ABOVE Built 2015 2015 Guest Services

107 Bear Market Place Built 2015 2015 Retail

108 Grizzly Ridge Built 2017 Animal housing / public displays

Total Real Property $198,872,310Total Personal Property $14,984,662

Total Real & Personal Property $213,856,972

OTHER COVERED ITEMS:

Business Income Limit (50% Coinsurance) $12,332,621EDP Hardware and Media $500,000Animals (Sub-Limit) $4,000,000Trains $1,625,000Contractors' Equipment Form Limit $1,000,000Plants & Shrubs (Sub-Limit) $500,000($250,000 excess of $250,000)Off Premises Power Interr. $1,000,000

MINORITY & WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION ON

SAINT LOUIS ZOO CONTRACTS

Revised 9/17/2013

2

MINORITY AND WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION ON SAINT LOUIS ZOO CONTRACTS

SECTION ONE: DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this policy, the following terms have the meanings indicated below:

1. Minority Business Enterprise (MBE): a sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation owned,

operated and controlled by minority group members who have at least 51% ownership. The

minority group member(s) must have day to day operational and managerial control and an

interest in capital and earnings commensurate with his or her percentage of ownership.

2. Minority Group Member(s): persons legally residing in the United States who are African

American, Asian-American, Native-American or Hispanic-American.

3. Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE): a sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation owned,

operated and controlled by a woman or women who have at least 51% ownership. The woman

or women must have day to day operational and managerial control and an interest in capital

and earnings commensurate with her or their percentage of ownership.

4. Certification: The process by which the Saint Louis Zoo determines a person, firm or legal entity

to be a bona fide Minority or Women’s Enterprise.

5. Contracting Agency: Any Agency or Department making a contract on behalf of the Saint Louis

Zoo.

SECTION TWO: POLICY

1. It is the policy of the Saint Louis Zoo, a political subdivision of the State of Missouri, that

minority and women-owned businesses, as defined in the following document, shall have the

maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts or sub-contracts financed

by Zoo funds, in whole or in part. The Zoo or its assigned Contracting Agencies shall take all

necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that said business have the maximum opportunity to

compete for and perform under all Zoo contracts. The Zoo or its Contracting Agencies shall not

discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of

contracts.

3

2. The method that the Saint Louis Zoo shall employ to implement this policy is the establishment

of a goal of at least 25% Minority Business Enterprise participation and at least 5% Women’s

Business Enterprise participation in contracts and purchases wherein Zoo funds are expended.

This goal shall be pursued by the programs described below.

SECTION THREE: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

1. The Vice President of Internal Relations for the Saint Louis Zoo shall be charged with the overall

responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the Zoo’s Minority and Women’s

Business Enterprise participation policy. The Purchasing Department shall be charged with

establishing procedures & implementation for all Contacting Agencies for the purpose of

monitoring the Zoo’s overall performance with respect to Minority and Women’s Business

Enterprise participation. The duties and responsibilities of the Purchasing Department shall

include:

A. Developing and distributing a directory of certified MBE’s and WBE’s.

B. Reviewing on a regular basis, the progress of each Contracting Agency toward achieving the

goals for the utilization of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises and making an

annual report in the first quarter of each year to the Commission, reporting that progress

which has been made, together with recommendations as to such further remedial action

that should be taken, if any.

C. Monitoring Contracting Agencies throughout the duration of contracts to ensure that all

efforts are made to comply with the requirements of this policy.

D. Certifying that the requirements of this policy have been satisfied before contracts are

signed or countersigned.

E. The advertisement for bids, if any, shall appear in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch and the

Saint Louis American and/or City Journal Newspapers no later than 21 days before bids are

due on specific contracting opportunities, except where the contracts are awarded on an

emergency basis.

F. All contract solicitations shall include the MBE/WBE policy and any other materials

required.

4

2. It shall be the responsibility of each bidder and proposer to adhere to procedures and provisions

set forth in this policy.

A. Each bidder and proposer must complete an MBE and WBE Utilization Form and identify

therein its commitment, if any, to utilize MBE’s and WBE’s. Any failure to complete and

sign the MBE and WBE Utilization Form will result in the bid or proposal being declared

nonresponsive. In the response to an invitation to bid or request for proposal, the bidder

or proposer shall include the names of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises to

whom it intends to award subcontracts, if any, the dollar value of the subcontracts and the

scope of work to be performed.

B. It is the bidder’s or proposer’s responsibilities to ensure that all M/WBE’s projected for use

have been certified by the Saint Louis Airport Authority prior to bid opening.

C. Whenever additional contract supplements, extra work orders or change orders are made

that individually, or in aggregate, increase the total dollar value of the original contract, the

contractor shall make every effort to maintain the level of MBE and WBE participation as

established in the original contracts.

D. The awardees of a contract must submit a copy of executed agreements with the MBE’s

and WBE’s being utilized.

E. The prime contract bidder should break its subcontracts down into discrete items or

packages that at least some of the M/WBE’s in the relevant area may find economically

feasible to perform.

F. The prime contract bidder should not deny a subcontract to an otherwise qualified and

competitive M/WBE’s solely because the latter cannot perform an entire package of related

items, but the bidder may deny a request to repackage the work where doing so would

jeopardize scheduling or increase that bidder’s cost of performing the original package by

more than 5%.

G. The Zoo shall use at least part of any pre-bid meeting to encourage prime contractors and

M/WBE’s to work together, providing an opportunity for all firms to identify themselves

and for all M/WBE’s to identify the type(s) of work that they perform. The Zoo should also

emphasize that it expects all firms to perform a commercially useful function.

5

H. The Contracting Agency shall make monthly reports to the Zoo concerning the agency’s

progress in achieving the goals established in this policy.

3. Bonding and Insurance

A. The prime contract bidder should be encouraged not to deny a subcontract to an otherwise

qualified and competitive, and if necessary, certified M/WBE solely because the latter

cannot provide a performance or payment bond for the work, unless the bidder’s bonding

is contingent upon bonding for all subcontractors.

4. Written Policy

A. Independent and apart from its interest in any one project, the prime contract bidder

should have a written policy stating that it affirmatively supports subcontracting to

M/WBE’s, and that bringing such firms into the mainstream of the construction industry is a

priority for that firm. This policy shall be made available to the Zoo upon request.

5. Liaison with MBE/WBE’s

A. Independent and apart from its interest in any one project, the prime contract bidder

should assign a senior official the responsibility of serving as a liaison between the firm and

the M/WBE’s in the relevant area.

6. Scope Letter

A. At least five business days before the date on which bids are due, the M/WBE’s should also

give the prime contract bidder a scope letter that defines the items that the M/WBE would

like to perform.

SECTION FOUR: ZOO CONTRACTS

1. This section shall be applicable to all contracts let for Zoo contracts or improvements.

2. If a prime contractor’s bid does not indicate intent to utilize a minimum of 25% MBE

participation and 5% WBE participation, the contractor shall request a waiver from the

Contracting Agency who then must submit such request to the Zoo Purchasing Department.

3. The Zoo’s Purchasing Department will grant a waiver from meeting the 25% MBE and 5% WBE

goals, or some portion of them, when documentation submitted by the bidder substantiates

6

that all available resources have been exhausted in locating and soliciting bids or proposals from

minority and women contractors, suppliers and service providers.

4. MBE and WBE participation shall be counted in accordance with the following provisions:

A. A Contracting Agency may count MBE or WBE participation only expenditures to MBE’s and

WBE’s that perform commercially useful functions in the execution of a contract. An MBE

or WBE is considered to perform a commercially useful function when it is responsible for

executing a distinct element of the work and carrying out its responsibilities by actually

performing, managing and supervising the work involved. To determine whether a MBE or

WBE is performing a commercially useful function, the Zoo will evaluate the amount of

work subcontracted, industry practices and other relevant factors.

B. A Contracting Agency may count as a MBE or WBE participation the total dollar value of a

contract with a MBE or WBE prime contractor less any amount that is subcontracted to

non- MBE’s/WBE’s (including any persons or firms that are identified as MBE and/or WBE

but are not so certified by the Saint Louis Airport Authority).

C. The total dollar value of a contract with an enterprise owned and controlled by minority

women may be counted as either minority or women’s business participation, but not both.

The Contracting Agency must choose which category of participation to which the dollar

value is applied.

D. A Contracting Agency may count as MBE or WBE participation a portion of the total dollar

value of a contract with a joint venture equal to the percentage of MBE or WBE

participation in the joint venture. The joint venture must be certified by the Saint Louis Zoo

and the MBE and WBE participation in the joint venture must be responsible for a clearly

defined portion of the work to be performed, equal to a share in the ownership, control,

management, responsibility, risks and profits of the joint venture.

E. A Contracting Agency may count toward a bidder’s MBE and WBE goals expenditures for

material and supplies obtained from MBE/WBE suppliers and manufacturers, provided that

the MBE/WBE assumes the actual and contractual responsibility for the provision of

materials and supplies.

7

i. A Contracting Agency may count a bidder’s entire expenditure to a MBE/WBE

manufacturer. Manufacturer is defined as an individual or entity that produces goods

from raw materials or substantially alters them before resale.

ii. The bidder may count twenty percent (20%) of its expenditures to MBE/WBE suppliers

that are not manufactures.

F. A Contracting Agency may count as MBE and WBE participation the entire expenditure to

an MBE or WBE supplier, when the supplier:

i. Assumes the actual and contractual responsibility for furnishing the supplies and

materials; and

ii. Is recognized as a distributor by the industry involved in the contracted supplies and

materials; and

iii. Owns or leases a warehouse, yard, building or whatever other facilities are viewed as

customary or necessary by the industry; and

iv. Distributes, delivers and services products with their own staff and/or equipment.

G. A Contracting Agency may count as MBE and WBE participation only those firms that have

been certified as MBE’s and WBE’s by the Saint Louis Airport Authority prior to bid opening.

If a firm listed by a bidder in its bid documents has not been so certified as MBE or WBE,

the amount of participation it represents will be deducted from the total MBE or WBE

participation proposed by the bidder.

H. Joint ventures or mentor-protégé relationships between prime contractors and

subcontractors with local MBE and WBE firms are encouraged.

I. Representatives of the Contracting Agency and/or Zoo or its designee shall make periodic

visits to the project site to verify minority and women’s business enterprise participation

and staffing.

SECTION FIVE: SERVICE CONTRACTS

1. It shall be the goal of each Contracting Agency where anticipated service contracts, including

professional service contracts, for any year exceed the sum of $50,000 in the aggregate that

25% of the aggregate value of contracts awarded each fiscal year be let with MBE’s and that 5%

of the aggregate value of contracts awarded each fiscal year be let with WBE’s.

8

2. All requests for services, including professional services, shall require proposers to make every

good faith effort to utilize minority business enterprises and women’s business enterprises as

subcontractors and suppliers whenever possible. Proposers shall be required to submit their

projected utilization of minority and women’s business enterprises, if any, along with a

description of the efforts made to utilize such businesses.

3. Each Contracting Agency shall make a report to the Director of Purchasing of the M/WBE

participation in each professional service contract that it makes.

4. Joint ventures or mentor-protégé relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors

with local M/WBE firms are encouraged.

5. Participation of M/WBE firms located within the ZMD Tax District is preferred.

SECTION SIX: SUPPLY CONTRACTS

1. The goal of the Zoo is that 25% of the value of all contacts let and purchases made by the Zoo

shall be let or made with MBE’s and that 5% of the value of all contracts let and purchases made

by the Zoo shall be made with WBE’s.

2. All contracts let by the Zoo for the purchase or lease of materials, equipment, supplies,

commodities or services, the estimated cost of which exceeds $5000, shall be subject to this

goal.

3. Joint ventures or mentor-protégé relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors

with local M/WBE firms are encouraged.

4. Participation of M/WBE firms located within the ZMD Tax District is preferred.

At contract completion, the Contracting Agency shall obtain final documentation of MBE and WBE

participation. The Contracting Agency must have complete and acceptable documentation as

determined by the Zoo of amounts paid to all project MBE and WBE subcontractors on file before the

final payment is made to the prime contractor.

9

DATED: __________________ SAINT LOUIS ZOO: __________________________________

TITLE: ___________________________________________

CONTRACTOR: _____________________________________

COMPANY: ___

10

SAINT LOUIS ZOO

MBE/WBE UTILIZATION STATEMENT

Policy

It is the policy of the Saint Louis Zoo, a sub district of the City and County of Saint Louis, that minority

and women-owned businesses, as defined in the following document, shall have the maximum

opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts or sub-contracts financed by Zoo funds, in

whole or part. The Zoo or its assigned Contracting Agencies shall take all necessary and reasonable

steps to ensure that said business have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform under all

Zoo contracts. The Zoo or its Contracting Agencies shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color,

national origin or sex in the award and performance of contracts.

Obligation

The contractor agrees to ensure that minority and/or women-owned businesses have the maximum

opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts or subcontracts financed in whole or in part

with City funds. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that said

businesses have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform under this contract. The

contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and

performance of contracts.

Project and Bid Identification

Complete the following information concerning the Project and Bid:

PROJECT NAME: ________________________________________________ LETTING NUMBER AND DATE: _____________________________________ TOTAL BID: ____________________________________________________

11

CONTRACT MBE/WBE GOAL: 25% MBE and 5% WBE Participation________ DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PROPOSED MBE: $____________________________ DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PROPOSED WBE: $____________________________ Assurance

I, acting in my capacity as an officer of the undersigned bidder or bidders if a joint venture, hereby

assure the Saint Louis Zoo that on this project my company will: (check one)

Meet or exceed contract award goals and will provide participation as follows:

_________ Minority Business Participation __________ Percent

__________ Women-Owned Business Participation __________ Percent

Fail to meet contract award goals but will demonstrate that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals and that my company will provide participation as follows:

_________ Minority Business Participation __________ Percent

__________ Women-Owned Business Participation __________ Percent ____________________________________________ NAME OF COMPANY ____________________________________________ BY __________________________________________ DATE: _____________________________ TITLE

THE WILLFUL FALSIFICATION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS MAY SUBJECT THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR TO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

ST. LOUIS ZOO 2012 CAMPUS ENERGY MASTER PLAN UPDATE

FINAL REPORT JUNE 29, 2012

SUBMITTED BY:

ST. LOUIS ZOO

2012 CAMPUS ENERGY MASTER PLAN UPDATE

June 29, 2012 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Item: Page:

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 1.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1

2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 BACKGROUND 2

3 CAMPUS UTILITY USE AND COST ....................................................................................................... 4

3.1 UTILITY COST BREAKDOWN 4 3.2 ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE 4 3.3 NATURAL GAS ENERGY USE 8 3.4 WATER AND SEWER USE 12

4 ENERGY USE AND CARBON FOOTPRINT ........................................................................................ 14

4.1 CAMPUS ENERGY USE 14 4.2 CAMPUS CARBON FOOTPRINT 16

5 BENCHMARKING ................................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 COMPARISON WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 18

6 CAMPUS ENERGY REDUCTION PROGRESS ................................................................................... 19

6.1 CAMPUS PERFORMANCE 19 6.2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EFFORTS 20

7 CAMPUS ENERGY REDUCTION STRATEGIES ................................................................................. 22

7.1 APPROACH 22 7.2 WATER AND WASTE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 24

8 FACILITY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 26

8.1 THE LIVING WORLD 26 8.2 LAKESIDE CAFÉ 26 8.3 PENGUIN & PUFFIN EXHIBIT 27 8.4 ADMIN BUILDING 27 8.5 SOUTH ENTRY 27 8.6 JUNGLE OF THE APES 28 8.7 HERPETARIUM 28 8.8 ANIMAL NUTRITION CENTER 28 8.9 PRIMATE HOUSE 29 8.10 RIVER CAMP 29 8.11 CHILDRENS ZOO 30 8.12 ANTELOPE BARN 30 8.13 BIRDHOUSE 30

9 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 31

9.1 RAW DATA 31 9.2 2006 ENERGY MASTER PLAN REPORT 36

ST. LOUIS ZOO



1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Energy Master Plan Update was performed for the St. Louis Zoo. The purpose of this update was to provide an assessment of the current campus energy performance and provide an update to the current Energy Master Plan, which was created in 2006.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Campus energy performance from 2003 to 2011 was analyzed and the following is a summary of findings:

The Zoo spends about $1.42 Million dollars per year on energy with an Energy Cost Index (ECI) of $3.25 per sqft. In comparison, the Cincinnati Zoo has ECI of $2.65 per sqft.

The Zoo consumes about 101,940 MBTU of energy per year with a total Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 225 kBTU per sqft per year. In comparison, the Cincinnati Zoo has a EUI of 174 kBTU per sqft per year.

Electrical energy use represents about 52% of the total energy used and 71% of the total cost for the campus. Natural gas energy use represents about 48% of the total energy used and 29% of the total cost for the campus.

Water and sewer use represents about 45% of the total utility costs for the campus. The Zoo uses water at an average rate of 1.16 million gallons of water per day or 424 million gallons per year.

The total greenhouse gas emissions resulting from utility use on campus is about 15,700 metric tons of greenhouse gas (CO2 equivalent).

The energy use and cost for the campus was increasing steadily until about 2008, when the energy reductions from multiple energy saving measures began to offset growth and stabilize energy use. By implementing energy conservation measures when they did, the Zoo has avoided $950,000 of cost and a 15% increase in energy use from 2008 and 2011.

A significant portion of energy used on campus is the result of process loads related to general operations.

1.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a summary of recommendations to reduce energy use and utility costs on campus.

The Zoo should set strategic energy and water reduction goals for the campus. This report recommends a 25% energy reduction goal over the next 10 years and a 30% water reduction goal over the next 15 years, based on 2011 baseline consumption rates.

The Zoo should continue to implement the recommendations proposed in the original energy master plan. This includes upgrades in heating and cooling systems, lighting replacements, energy recovery, and equipment scheduling management.

The Zoo should strategically target the top energy consumers on campus to gain the maximum energy savings. These efforts should be performed as separate energy focused projects.

The Zoo should review and implement campus wide lighting control and day lighting upgrades for both interior and exterior lighting systems to eliminate the run time of lights on campus.

The Zoo should review the operation and efficiency of refrigeration systems on campus.

The Zoo should provide commissioning of processes relating to animal care and support systems.

The Zoo should create a Utility Management Plan for the campus in order to create incentives for end users to conserve energy and water resources on campus.

The Zoo should sub-meter water systems on campus so the largest consumers can be identified and action can be taken to reduce overall water use.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



2 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Energy Master Plan Update is to continue the development of strategies for the Saint Louis Zoo that can be used to reduce the energy consumption and carbon foot print of the campus. This document serves as an update to the 2006 Energy Master Plan and a review of the Zoo energy performance through 2011. A copy of the 2006 Energy Master Plan is included in the Appendix for reference.

2.1 BACKGROUND

In recent history, the St. Louis Zoo has endured a continuous growth in energy costs at a rate of around 15% per year. A combination of factors contributed to this growth including expansion of campus exhibits and buildings, increased energy costs, aging facilities, and lack of general energy consumption awareness in general operations.

In 2006, the first campus energy master plan was developed for the Zoo. This master plan effort brought a renewed since of focus to the Zoo and started a paradigm of change on Campus.

Primary strategies recommended to reduce campus energy use included the following:

• Upgrade Lighting Systems - Replace and upgrade outdated lighting fixtures.

• Manage Equipment Schedules – Scheduling equipment to turn off when not used.

• Add Energy Recovery – Airside energy recovery for ventilation systems.

• Change Cooling Strategy – Replace air cooled systems with water cooled systems.

• Change Heating Strategy – Replace conventional boilers with condensing boilers.

By 2008, this trend of energy consumption growth leveled out and energy costs and usage on campus began to stabilize. At the same time the Zoo has increased the number of exhibits and increased the campus footprint by roughly 10%.

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$2,200,000

Pre-2003 2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cam

pus

Ener

gy C

osts

(Dol

lars

)

Time (Year)

Campus Energy Cost Trends

Figure 1

ST. LOUIS ZOO



80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

Pre-2003 2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cam

pus

Ener

gy U

se (k

BTU

)

Time (Year)

Campus Energy Use Trends

Figure 2

As seen in this document, making process towards campus wide energy reduction is a significant challenge but one that can be accomplished with continued effort and focus, with the goal of creating a downward trend towards energy reduction.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



3 CAMPUS UTILITY USE AND COST Campus utilities were analyzed from the period of 2003 to 2011. The previous energy master plan covered a period up to 2003.

3.1 UTILITY COST BREAKDOWN

The following figures represent a breakdown in costs for utilities based on 2011 figures. Water and Sewer use resulted in the highest utility costs on the campus, followed by electric and then natural gas.

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Natural Gas Electric Water/ Sewer

Cos

ts ($

)

Billing Year

Utility Costs

Natural Gas16%

Electric39%

Water/ Sewer45%

Utility Cost Breakdown

Figure 3

3.2 ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE

The following section shows the campus electrical use for the periods of 2003 to 2011. Energy associated with electric use is presented in units of Megawatt hours (MWh).

3.2.1 HISTORICAL ELECTRICAL USE

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

Use

(M

Wh)

Billing Year

Historic Electric Use

Figure 4

In general, electrical use increased for the campus steadily up to 2008 at which time it stabilized. Between 2003 and 2008 electrical use increased by nearly 20%. This increase appears to be related to the expansion of the Zoo facilities by approximately 25,000 sqft and the addition of the Penguin & Puffin Coast exhibit.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



3.2.2 HISTORICAL ELECTRICAL COST

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Cos

t ($)

Billing Year

Historic Electrical Cost

Figure 5

Electrical rates took a significant jump from 2003 to 2006 due to increased electrical demand on campus. A combination of increased electrical use and multiple Ameren UE rate increases occurred during this period. Ameren raised rates by 7.8% in March 2009, 10% in May 2010, and 9.6% in July 2011. In February 2012, Ameren filed for an additional increase of roughly 14.6%, which at this time has not been approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. The calculated average yearly electrical rate is shown in the figure below.

$0.040

$0.045

$0.050

$0.055

$0.060

$0.065

$0.070

Cos

t ($/

klW

h)

Billing Year

Average Electrical Rate

Figure 6

3.2.3 ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE PROFILE

Most of the electrical use at the Zoo can be considered process driven loads. These loads or patterns remain steady all year around regardless of outdoor conditions or attendance rates (which is related to outdoor air temp). These loads reflect the energy used on a daily basis for lighting, general power, or anything that consumes power on a regular basis.

Weather dependant loads are small in comparison. These loads reflect summer electrical use associated with air conditioning, cooling systems, or increases in operations.

The following figure shows how electrical energy is currently used on campus with respect to outdoor air temperatures. The equation shown on the bottom right represents the electrical energy profile during the cooling season and the one on the left represents the heating season. These equations can be used to predict and compare electrical use based on various outdoor air conditions.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



y = 814.97x - 10288R² = 0.9738

y = 10.508x + 37726R² = 0.01

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Use

(kW

H /

Day

)

Outdoor Air Temperature ( F)

Daily Electrical Profile

PROCESS LOADS:DAILY OPERATIONS, GENERAL POWER,

LIGHTING, ANIMAL CARE

WEATHER DEPENDANT LOADS:COOLING SYSTEMS

Figure 7

Some notable metrics can be derived from this analysis:

• Process loads at the Zoo represent 89% of the yearly electrical use and cost.

• The average daily electrical use for process loads is about 38,000 kWh per day.

• The average daily electrical cost for process loads is about $2,470 per day.

• Weather dependent loads at the Zoo represent 11% of the yearly electrical use and cost.

• The temperature balance point of the campus for electrical use is around 58°F. This is the temperature at which weather dependent electrical use begins to occur. This is also the point that Degree Days are calculated from.

Some conclusions based on the analysis:

• The electrical profile of this campus shifted upward since 2003 (refer to 2006 Energy Master Plan electrical profile). This means the daily electrical use (kWh/day) has increased.

• The electrical profile on the campus has remained steady since 2008, implying some change in operations that slowed the growth of campus electrical consumption.

• The majority of campus electrical use is the result of process loads. This implies that implementing energy conservation strategies should target process loads to reduce electric use on campus. Examples of process loads on campus include:

♦ lighting systems;

♦ general power;

♦ refrigeration systems

♦ aquarium systems;

♦ process chillers.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



3.2.4 ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE BY METER

The following figure shows how electrical energy is being used by meter. The legend on the right side of the figure is organized by largest users to smallest users from top to bottom.

Penguin Puffin, 18.2%

TLW, 10.6%

ANC, 6.8%

Herpetarium, 6.5%

South Entry, 6.3%

Hospital, 5.9%

Primate, 5.6%

Lakeside Café, 4.7%

JOTA, 4.3%

River Camp, 3.9%

Elephant, 3.8%

Birdhouse, 3.4%

Children's Zoo, 2.8%Hippo LSS, 2.7%

Ice Cream Oasis, 2.3%

Red Rocks, 2.2%

The Wilds, 2.1%

Facilities , 2.1%

Administration, 1.5%

Distribution, 1.4%

Insectarium, 1.1%River Camp

Kitchen, 1.0%

Bear Pits, 0.4%

Big Cat, 0.3%

East Stand, 0.2%

Electrical Use - By Meter Penguin Puffin

TLW

ANC

Herpetarium

South Entry

Hospital

Primate

Lakeside Café

JOTA

River Camp

Elephant

Birdhouse

Children's Zoo

Hippo LSS

Ice Cream Oasis

Red Rocks

The Wilds

Facilities

Administration

Distribution

Insectarium

River Camp Kitchen

Bear Pits

Big Cat

East Stand

Figure 8

The top 10 electrical users on campus use 77.2% of all electricity on campus. The top 10 users are as follows:

• Penguin Puffin Exhibit

• The Living World

• Animal Nutrition Center

• Herpetarium

• South Entry Area (Gift-shop, Fountains, Parking Lot Lighting)

• Hospital

• Primate House

• Lakeside Café

• Jungle of the Apes

• River Camp

ST. LOUIS ZOO



3.2.5 ELECTRICAL ENERGY USE BY SYSTEMS

The following figure is an estimate of how electricity is likely being used on campus. This estimate is provided for information purposes only.

Lighting10% General Power

9%

Refrigeration8%

Kitchens10%

Ventilation12%

Process Power

42%

HVAC Systems

8%

Water Heating1%

Electrical Use Breakdown

Figure 9

3.3 NATURAL GAS ENERGY USE

The following section shows the campus natural gas use for the periods of 2003 to 2011. Energy associated with natural gas use is presented in units of therms.

3.3.1 HISTORICAL NATURAL GAS USE

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Use

(Th

erm

s)

Billing Year

Annual Gas Use

Figure 10

Most of natural gas at the Zoo is used for space heating purposes and follows the same pattern as weather. The following figure shows the heating degree days for the same period, which has an identical path.

ST. LOUIS ZOO



3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

Hea

ting

Deg

ree

Day

s

Billing Year

Annual HDD (72 Deg Base)

Figure 11

3.3.2 HISTORICAL NATURAL GAS COST

Natural gas prices historically have always been somewhat volatile. Campus gas costs increased from 2003 to 2008 even when consumption was down. As predicted in the first energy master plan, prices increased until 2009 where the market course corrected and stabilized at a lower rate. Prices are expected to stay relatively stable over the next few years.

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

Cos

t ($)

Billing Year

Annual Gas Cost

Figure 12

3.3.3 NATURAL GAS ENERGY USAGE PROFILES

The following figure shows how natural gas energy is currently used on campus with respect to outdoor air temperatures. The equation shown on the bottom right represents the natural gas energy profile during the cooling season and the one on the left represents the heating season. These equations can be used to predict and compare natural gas use based on various outdoor air conditions.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 10

y = -11.658x + 1234.5R² = 0.3288

y = -50.201x + 3902.8R² = 0.9167

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Use

(The

rms

/ Day

)


Daily Natural Gas Profile

WEATHER DEPENDANT LOADS:SPACE HEATING SYSTEMS

PROCESS LOADS:WATER HEATING

Figure 13


• Process loads at the Zoo represent 31% of the yearly electrical use and cost.

• The average daily natural gas use for process loads is about 400 therms per day.

• The average daily natural gas cost for process loads is about $377 per day, as of 2011.

• Weather dependent loads at the Zoo represent 69% of the annual natural gas use and cost.

• The temperature balance point of the campus for electrical use is about 72°F. This is the temperature at which weather dependent natural gas use begins to occur. This is also the point that is used for Degree Day calculations. This point is relatively high, typical balance point for heating is between 55°F & 65°F. This implies some process or automated controls are in place that enables heating around this temperature – likely a system sensitive to outdoor air conditions such as a gas heated pond or similar outdoor pool.

Some conclusions based on the analysis:

• The majority of campus natural gas use is the result of weather dependant loads related to space heating, ventilation systems, or heating of exterior water pools exposed to ambient conditions. This implies that energy conservation strategies should target these loads to reduce natural gas use on campus.

3.3.4 NATURAL GAS ENERGY USE BY METER

The figure below shows how natural gas energy is being used by meter. The legend on the right side of the figure is organized by the largest users to smallest users from top to bottom.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 11

JOTA, 13.3%

TLW, 10.3%

Herpetarium, 7.9%

Birdhouse, 7.8%

Hospital, 7.5%

River Camp, 7.2%

Hippo LSS, 6.9%

Elephant, 6.2% Primate,

6.0% East Stand, 4.4%

Lakeside Café, 4.4%

Antelope Barn, 2.8%

ANC, 2.3%Facilities , 2.2%

Camel Barn, 1.6%

Big Cat, 1.5%

Distribution, 1.4%

Hippo Barn, 1.4%

Sea Lion, 1.1%

ABC Barn, 0.9%East Stand, 0.6%

Warthog Barn, 0.5%

Kudu Barn, 0.5%Penguin Puffin, 0.3%

Ranger Base, 0.3%

Kudu Barn, 0.2%

Safari Gift Shop, 0.2%

Bee Eater Barn, 0.1%Children's Zoo, 0.1%

Natural GasUse - By MeterJOTA

TLW

Herpetarium

Birdhouse

Hospital

River Camp

Hippo LSS

Elephant

Primate

East Stand

Lakeside Café

Antelope Barn

ANC

Facilities

Camel Barn

Big Cat

Distribution

Hippo Barn

Sea Lion

ABC Barn

East Stand

Warthog Barn

Kudu Barn

Penguin Puffin

Ranger Base

Kudu Barn

Safari Gift Shop

Bee Eater Barn

Children's Zoo

Figure 14

The top 10 natural gas users on campus use 77.5% of all natural gas on campus. The top 10 users are as follows:

• Jungle of the Apes (Recently Upgraded Mechanical Systems)


• Herpetarium

• Birdhouse

• Hospital (Under Renovation)

• River Camp

• Hippo LSS

• Elephant

• Primate House

• East Stand

3.3.5 NATURAL GAS ENERGY USE BY SYSTEMS

The following figure is an estimate of how natural gas is likely being used on campus. This estimate is provided for information purposes only.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 12

Space Heating

47%

Ventilation18%

Water Heating24%

Cooking11%

Natural Gas Use Breakdown

Figure 15

3.4 WATER AND SEWER USE

The following section shows the campus water and sewer use history. Water use prior to this period was unavailable for analysis. Sewer use is not directly presented here because it is not metered and for the purposes of billing it is estimated based on water use. Water and sewer use is presented in units of millions of gallons.

3.4.1 HISTORICAL WATER USE

The following figure shows the historical water use from 2006 to 2011. In general, water use for the campus varies from year to year. There was a significant drop in use for 2008 for reasons that are currently unknown. Most of the water use on campus appears to be for animal care, cleaning, lawn maintenance, and pool/lake filling and evaporation. Monthly analysis (not shown here) suggests that 60% of the yearly water use occurs between October and April, and 40% between May and September.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Wat

er U

se(M

Gal

lons

)

Billing Year

Historic Water Use

Figure 16

3.4.2 HISTORICAL WATER AND SEWER COST

The following figure shows the historical water and sewer cost from 2006 to 2011. Water and sewers costs have risen slowly since 2006 at about 2.5% per year. Sewer use is calculated as a function of water use using a predetermined “evaporation factor” which is currently about 0.672 or 32.8% evaporation rate. This means it is assumed by the utility that 32.8% of the water used is the result of evaporation and is not going into the sewer system.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 13

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cos

t ($)

Billing Year

Historic Water/Sewer Cost

Figure 17

3.4.3 WATER USAGE PROFILES

The water profile at the Zoo is difficult to quantify at this time. Currently water data is only recorded on a quarterly basis making the development of monthly use trends difficult. The following figure shows how water use is used on campus with respect to outdoor air temperatures. There appears to be some relationship to weather temperature but the precision of the data makes this analysis somewhat limited. It does indicate the average daily usage of the campus.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Use

(kG

al/ D

ay)


Daily Water Profile - Weather

Figure 18


• The average daily water use at the Zoo is about 1.0 million gallons per day during the winter and 1.5 million gallons per day during the summer, or an average of 1.16 million gallons per year.

Some preliminary conclusions based on the analysis:

• There is an average base water usage of about 1.0 million gallons per day which represents daily process loads.

• Switching to a monthly metering analysis would allow for a more accurate analysis.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 14

4 ENERGY USE AND CARBON FOOTPRINT Energy use for the campus was analyzed from the period of 2003 to 2011.

4.1 CAMPUS ENERGY USE

Energy use is analyzed and presented in this report for the campus as a whole. Energy is presented in common units of one-million British thermal units (MBTU).

4.1.1 HISTORICAL ENERGY USE

The following figure shows the historical energy use since 2003. In general, energy use for the campus has risen steadily but leveled out in 2008. The primary driver for energy use on campus is electricity.

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

Use

(M

BTU

)

Billing Year

Historic Energy Use

Natural Gas48%Electric

52%

Energy Use Breakdown

Figure 19

4.1.2 HISTORICAL ENERGY COST

The following figure shows the historical energy cost since 2003. There was a 21% increase in energy cost between 2006 and 2009 followed by a 10% decrease from 2010 and 2011.

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

$1,200

$1,300

$1,400

$1,500

$1,600

Cos

t (x1

000)

Billing Year

Historic Energy Cost

Natural Gas29%

Electric71%

Energy Cost Breakdown

Figure 20

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 15

4.1.3 HISTORICAL ENERGY METRICS

There are two primary metrics used to benchmark this campus: Energy Use Intensity (EUI) and Energy Cost Index (ECI). The EUI represents the total energy per sqft per year measured in kBTU. The ECI represents the total cost per sqft per year. These benchmarks are used as references to compare facility energy performance on a whole with respect to the size of the campus.

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250EU

I (k

BTU

/Sqf

t/Yea

r)

Billing Year

Historic Energy Use Intensity

Figure 21

As of 2011, the EUI of the Zoo is approximately 225 kBTU per sqft per year.

If all things were equal energy use would increase proportionally to an increase in campus size and the EUI would remain the same during this period. From 2003 to 2007 however, the EUI increased implying that energy use was increasing at a rate faster than growth. By 2008, two years after the first energy master plan was developed, impact from energy saving retrofits began to have an impact and the campus energy growth trend appears to have stopped.

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

ECI

($/S

qft/Y

ear)

Billing Year

Historic Energy Cost Intensity

Figure 22

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 16

4.1.1 ENERGY USE BY SYSTEMS

The following figure is an estimate to show how energy is being used on campus. This estimate was performed by reviewing the utility profile on each building and review of equipment and operations and is provided for information purposes only.

Lighting5%

General Power5%

Refrigeration4%

Kitchens5%

Ventilation15%Process

Power

22%HVAC Systems

4%

Space Heating

22%

Water Heating12%

Cooking6%

Energy Use Breakdown

Figure 23

4.2 CAMPUS CARBON FOOTPRINT

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from utility usage is presented and analyzed in this report. GHG emissions are calculated based on total energy use and are presented in units of Metric Tons of CO2

Equivalent (MtCO2e).

GHG emissions for electricity are considered to be indirectly created and are calculated using conversion figures based on the location of the campus and geographical location that electricity is generated from. Coal is the dominant fuel for electricity generation in Missouri and typically supplies more than four-fifths of the electricity market.

GHG emissions for natural gas are created directly on campus through the use of fuel burning devices.

GHG emission from Water and Sewer are considered to be created indirectly by power consumed by water process and sewer treatment plants. Water and sewer is not typically considered in a GHG analysis but it is important to show that these utilities do have a negative impact on the environment in this area.

Conversions rates are derived from the latest Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

4.2.1 HISTORICAL CARBON FOOTPRINT

The following figure shows relative campus carbon foot print for a period of 2003 to 2011. The greenhouse gas emissions for the campus are dependent on the total energy use and the utility sources which provide the energy source. Electrical use is the primary driver for carbon foot print, followed by natural gas, and then

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 17

indirectly water/sewer use. The footprint of the campus rose significantly between 2003 and 2007 and has remained relatively steady ever since. This is primarily a reflection in electrical use trends on campus.

12000

12500

13000

13500

14000

14500

15000

15500

16000

16500

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

(MTo

nsC

O2e

)

Billing Year

Historic GHG Emissions

Natural Gas16%

Electric83%

Water/ Sewer

1%

GHG Breakdown

Figure 24

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 18

5 BENCHMARKING Benchmarking a campus such as the Zoo can be a challenge due the varying types of facilities and exhibits present, most of which are unique. The Cincinnati Zoo was kind enough to share the energy and water use of their facility for benchmarking purposes. Cincinnati has a similar climate to St. Louis and is a good point of comparison.

5.1 COMPARISON WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

The following figure shows the comparison of energy and water usage and costs between the St. Louis Zoo and Cincinnati Zoo.

Bencharking St. Louis Zoo Cincinnati Zoo % Diff NotesSqft of Facilities 453,000 340,000 25%

# of Buildings 100 73 27%

Annual Attendence 3,020,000 1,300,000 57%

Yearly Electric Use (kWh) 15,600,000 9,000,000 42% Does not include solar array

Yearly Electric Cost $1,040,000 $650,000 38%

Average Cost/kWh $0.067 $0.072 -8%

Yearly Gas Use (Therms) 469,000 275,000 41%

Yearly Gas Cost $430,000 $250,000 42%

Average Cost/Therm $0.917 $0.909 1%

Yearly Water Use (Gallons) 424,000,000 102,500,000 76% Includes Irrigation

Yearly Water Cost $1,190,000 $500,000 58%

Average Cost/kGal $2.807 $4.878 -74%

Energy Use (kBTU) 101,487,300 59,005,500 42%

EUI (kBTU/sqft/year) 224 174 23%

Energy Cost $1,470,000 $900,000 39% Does not include water/sewer

ECI ($/sqft/year) $3.25 $2.65 18%

Figure 25


• The Zoo consumes 23% more energy per year on a square foot basis than the Cincinnati Zoo.

• The Zoo spends 39% more energy per year on a square foot basis than the Cincinnati Zoo.

• The Zoo uses 42% more electric, 41% more gas, and 76% more water than the Cincinnati Zoo and is 25% larger in size overall.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 19

6 CAMPUS ENERGY REDUCTION PROGRESS Since the creation of the first energy master plan in 2006 a significant number of energy conservation measures have been performed to reduce campus energy use. This includes lighting retrofits, equipment replacements, and changes in operations. The results of these efforts are difficult to quantify in direct savings since the Zoo continuously expands facilities and exhibits. These efforts did however slow the steady increase in energy use and cost that had been occurring since before 2003.

6.1 CAMPUS PERFORMANCE

The following figures emphasize how the energy use and cost trend has progressed since 2003 and a potential outcome if the Zoo had not began the process of reducing energy consumption on campus. The results of these efforts did not become apparent until 2008.

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$2,200,000

Pre-2003 2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cam

pus

Ener

gy C

osts

(Dol

lars

)

Time (Year)

Campus Energy Cost Trends

Figure 26

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

Pre-2003 2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cam

pus

Ener

gy U

se (k

BTU

)

Time (Year)

Campus Energy Use Trends

Figure 27

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 20

This previous figures show that if the trend of energy consumption continued to increase that the Zoo would have spent an additional $950,000 in energy costs from the period of 2009 to 2011. This relates to an avoided energy use increase of around 15%. This is a notable accomplishment for the Zoo.

6.2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EFFORTS

The following is a list of primary strategies that were previously recommended to reduce campus energy use. Several walkthroughs were performed on campus to gain an understanding on what has been accomplished since the original Energy Master Plan was created. This overview should be considered qualitative in nature.

6.2.1 UPGRADING LIGHTING SYSTEMS

Overall, this is where the Zoo has made the most progress. In about 80% of the facilities surveyed, lighting systems have been upgraded. Most of the T12 light fixtures have been replaced with T5 or T8s both in public and non-public spaces. Almost every incandescent light bulb on campus has been replaced with compact fluorescent. There are also a significant amount of LED lighting systems that have been installed, mostly in public areas. In general, it appears that most public areas have upgraded lighting but a number of non-public or animal support and display areas still have outdated lighting systems. Based on conversations with Zoo personnel, it is understood that fixtures not replaced currently are being slated for upgrade at time of replacement. In 2006, this effort was estimated to save roughly 6% of the campus electrical use.

6.2.2 MANAGEMENT OF EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES

The Zoo has made progress with equipment scheduling but more work needs to be completed. Most HVAC equipment appears to be under control of the BMS (Siemens). A significant recommendation proposed under the previous master plan was to implement a large scale fan scheduling campaign across the campus (excluding systems required to run 24/7). It appears some systems under BMS control have been scheduled but others have not and some still remain on manual controls. The effort for scheduling fans alone was estimated to save roughly 7.5% of the campus electrical use.

6.2.3 ENERGY RECOVERY

During our visits to the Zoo we observed some use of use of energy recovery. Examples of this are found on the air system at the Animal Nutrition Center and the Bird Nursery. Many of the animal support facilities on campus operate with 100% outdoor and exhaust systems, which are primary candidates for this effort. The most effective airside recovery solution would utilize enthalpy wheel technology, which would allow recovery of both sensible and latent heat. There might be some cases where animal facilities might experience increased maintenance due to hair and other contaminant clogging on enthalpy wheels or general cross contamination concerns in medical operations – in these cases consideration should be given to heat pipe technology or glycol run-around loops, which will provide sensible heat recovery without the maintenance of wheel cleaning and cross contamination concerns. In 2006, this effort was estimated to save roughly 2% of the campus electrical use and 4% of the campus gas use.

There are also a number of facilities such as the Herpetarium, which require heating and cooling year round that could benefit from heat recovery system that can utilize rejected heat year around for space heating or domestic water heater.

6.2.4 CHANGE COOLING STRATEGY - WATER COOLED SYSTEMS

During our visits to the Zoo we did not observe any significant use of water cooled equipment. Almost every air conditioner or process cooler we observed on campus was air cooled with the exception of the Bird House. We did observe a number of recently replaced air cooled systems, for example, The Living World has newer air cooled packaged rooftop equipment. Water cooled equipment is a more efficient solution and should be utilized whenever possible. We would advise that a life cycle cost analysis be performed on any future installations or replacements that take into consideration the maintenance costs associated with each system. In 2006, this effort was estimated to save roughly 6% of the campus electrical use.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 21

6.2.5 CHANGE HEATING STRATEGY – HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS

The Zoo has made good progress with this effort. Systems utilizing condensing boilers were observed in the Antelope Barn, Bird House, and Jungle of the Apes (JOTA). Review of gas data associated with these buildings shows that JOTA and the Birdhouse are not performing as expected and need to be investigated. Instantaneous condensing water heaters were also observed in the Living World Building. In 2006, this effort was estimated to save roughly 20% of the campus natural gas use. It is estimated that around 30% of the boilers and water heaters on campus have been upgraded to date.

6.2.6 AERATION OF LAKES

In 2010, the Zoo installed aeration systems on the lake to reduce campus water use. Before this system was installed, the lake water quality was maintained by dumping significant amounts fresh water into the lake and draining the water out of the lake into the sewer. It is estimated that this saves around 8 Million gallons of water per year or about $22,000 per year in water/sewer costs.

6.2.7 PENGUIN PUFFIN EXHIBIT

Another previous recommendation was to utilize a thermal storage strategy (ice storage) for the Penguin & Puffin Coast Exhibit. This would save energy by shifting electrical use required for cooling to evening hours where demand charges are lower and allow the facility to operate on thermal storage during the day. Our initial review of this concept shows this will have a small impact to the overall energy cost of the campus and the costs needed to retrofit the facility would be better spent on other opportunities. The Zoo did recently perform a significant retro-commissioning effort on this facility – the results have yet to be quantified but are expected to provide a significant operation and maintenance savings for Zoo.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 22

7 CAMPUS ENERGY REDUCTION STRATEGIES For the Zoo to ultimately achieve the maximum possible energy savings, priority should first be given to the highest areas of energy consumption on campus and target ways to reduce energy consumption in those areas. Most of the daily energy use is driven by process loads related to general operations. This will require a strategy moving forward that puts higher emphasis on targeting modifications in existing operations instead of specifically targeting equipment replacements to gain efficiencies.

7.1 APPROACH

7.1.1 STRATEGIC GOALS

As part of this energy master plan the Zoo should developed strategic goals to reduce campus energy use and cost. The following proposed goals are aggressive and will require significant effort from all departments within the organization. The following is a list of these goals:

• Reduce campus energy consumption and carbon emissions by 25% over the next 10 years based on 2011 baseline consumption. This would take the Zoo from an Energy Use Intensity of 225 kBTU per sqft per year to 169 kBTU per sqft per year.

• Reduce water consumption by 30% over the next 15 years based on 2011 baseline consumption. This would take the Zoo water use from 936 gallons/sqft/year to 655 gallons/sqft/year. This equates to daily reduction of 348,000 gallons per day from a current average of 1.16 million gallons per day in usage.

7.1.2 STRATEGIC TARGETING OF ENERGY CONSUMING BUILDINGS AND EXHIBITS

The Zoo is a significant campus with many energy consuming operations. While campus assessments can be beneficial they often don’t have the scope of depth needed to root out true energy savings. We believe the most effective way to reduce energy at the Zoo is to target the largest energy consumers and implement specific projects at each building to save energy. The top energy consumers at the Zoo are primarily the following facilities and exhibits:

• Penguin Puffin Exhibit


• Animal Nutrition Center

• Herpetarium

• Animal Hospital (Currently under Renovation)

• Primate House

• Lakeside Café

• Jungle of the Apes (Recent HVAC System Upgrades)

• River Camp

• South Entry (Gift Shop, Fountains)

Each of these facilities has their own unique opportunities, some of which are apparent from the campus assessment. A targeted energy audit / retro-commissioning project of each facility would be more effective at finding and targeting specific opportunities. A typical energy audit costs between $0.10 and $0.30 per sqft and can typically find savings in the range of 20 to 30% energy reduction, 5% of which are usually low or no cost solutions. We strongly recommend this approach as the next step for the Zoo to reduce energy consumption

7.1.3 LIGHTING CONTROLS

.

Although lighting energy has been reduced through replacements of fixtures and reduction of installed lamp wattages, there is still a significant amount of lighting energy used on campus. The greatest savings will result from reducing the time lighting systems are operating. A review of campus facilities showed significant need for lighting controls both indoors and outdoors. It is conservatively estimated that over 5% of the campus

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 23

electrical use could be eliminated by just implementing automatic lighting controls. The following is a summary of general recommendations to support this effort:

• Replace existing manual toggle controls with occupancy sensors, either wall mounted or ceiling mounted as applicable. In general “vacancy sensors” or “manual on, automatic off” type occupancy sensors should be utilized where possible. This forces the occupant to still “interact” with the light switch but turns off the lighting if left on. For areas used for egress or exiting purposes such as hallways, automatic on – automatic off type sensors should be utilized.

• Review the lighting control requirements of each exhibit space and develop a plan to replace/and or modify lighting controls so that individual exhibit spaces can be controlled. Lack of individual lighting controls in animal exhibits areas was a consistent finding – The Primate House is one example where this effort could be beneficial.

• Review all exterior lighting systems and controls on campus. Repair, replace, or add time clocks and/or photocell controls to exterior lighting circuits. In areas that provide egress path lighting, consider using occupancy sensors (auto on/auto off) in lieu of time clock controls that automatically turn lights on and off as needed. A couple of night time visits to the Zoo revealed a large number of lights on during periods when the Zoo was closed to the public, a review of existing operations may reveal opportunities to turn off a large portion of the lights observed.

• Retrofit facilities to utilize day-lighting. Many of the exhibits had a significant amount of skylights present. The Primate house is an excellent example of this, most exhibit spaces had ample lighting levels but interior lights were still being used. The Lakeside Café was another facility that could benefit from day-lighting.

7.1.4 CAMPUS REVIEW OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

There are a significant number of refrigerated coolers and freezers at the ZOO. Refrigeration energy is often overlooked on large campus; vendors and refrigeration companies typically engineer and provide these systems and often time energy consumption is not a strong consideration. These are a few typical energy saving opportunities with regard to refrigeration energy use:

• Set-points of freezers and coolers – The most efficient solution here to set the temperatures at the warmest temperature possible to maintain freshness of food and other consumables. Refrigeration temperatures should reviewed for all machines based on the needs of the stored items.

• Anti-Sweat Devices – Freezers and low temperature coolers typically have anti-sweat heaters present around the door jambs. These are basically electrical strip heaters that operate 24/7 to prevent condensate on the door. These devices only need to operate when humidity levels are high. Anti sweat heater controls can be added to freezer doors for about $500 per door in most cases. A typical anti-sweat heater on a small walk-in freezer operates at 1.5 KW, 8760 hours per year or 13,140 kWhs. With controls, about 50% of the operation can be eliminated saving 6,600 kWh per door or based on 2011 costs, about $450 per year per door.

• Refrigeration Equipment Efficiency – This equipment is often overlooked with regard to operating efficiency. Before replacing or buying new equipment be sure to review equipment options and efficiency before replacement. Items that should be reviewed when upgrading or replacing refrigeration equipment might include:

o Advanced Refrigeration Control Options (Floating Head Pressure, Ambient Subcooling), Increased Insulation, Evaporator Fan Controls, and ECM Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, high efficiency lighting, and opportunities for heat recovery.

• There are a significant number of Glass Door Reach-In Refrigerators all around campus at various snack shops and other outdoor locations. Most of these refrigerators are sitting outside exposed to ambient conditions and efficiency of these devices is in question. The Zoo should verify with the vendors that these refrigerators are indeed intended for outdoor use. Under normal interior ambient conditions, a refrigerator like this could consume as much as 4000 kWh or up to $300 per year. The impact of this is unknown but may be significant given the quantity of these devices on campus.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 24

7.1.5 COMMISSIONING OF ANIMAL CARE PROCESSES

The Zoo is a very diverse institution and each animal care and support facility is unique. Process loads relating directly and indirectly to animal care and support are one of the largest consumers of energy and water use on campus. During our visit we observed numerous systems and operations that utilized air cooled process chillers, aquarium pumps, filtration systems, and other specialty equipment. There were a number of areas where the building care taker was managing multiple temperature environments in the same room or area. In some cases mechanical cooling was being provided to a space while heat lamps were being utilized in the same space for special care of a different species. In other cases pumps appeared to be oversized for the specific application or two more pumps were operating when only one might be required for that application. Understanding there are enormous complexities of care required for these situations and that animal care is the top priority, we only recommend that energy consumption and efficiency of operations be reviewed on an annual basis, as part of a targeted energy assessment project, or when the opportunity presents itself to replace equipment or reconfigure systems.

7.1.6 CAMPUS UTILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN – CREATE STAKE-HOLDERS

A campus wide energy reduction program will never reach its full potential without participation from all stake-holders. Currently, the main consumers of energy on campus (end users) have little or no direct responsibility for their energy consumption. There are no feedback or incentive mechanisms in place to reduce energy use from an end users point of view.

The overall goal is to move the campus towards energy management versus energy monitoring. A campus utility management plan is recommended as one approach to tackle this issue. Such a plan should allow each end user or groups of user’s management of their own energy use by giving them budgetary control (responsibility).

The Zoo should create a plan that works best within the organizational structure that currently exists but could be similar to the following suggested approach:

• Divide the Zoo into “Utility Zones” that would include certain facilities or areas of the zoo. Since each part of the Zoo has unique operations, group like facilities together or treat each facility individually.

• Each zone would have their own budget allocation for water, electric, and gas as part of their yearly operating budget.

• Utility usage and operating profiles would be reviewed annually to establish budgets. This review would also provide an opportunity for the end user to address operational benefits and shortcomings.

• End users could be rewarded for reducing energy by incentive programs within the organization.

• The Zoo could demonstrate energy savings for each facility to the public near the entrance of each building.

7.2 WATER AND WASTE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

Water and sewer use for the campus is significant. Depending on the time of year, water use ranges between 1.0 and 1.5 million (1.16 million average) gallons per day and represents 48% of the yearly utility costs at the Zoo. Currently water is only metered on a campus level and there is no accurate way to access end user consumption rates.

7.2.1 CAMPUS WATER METERING STRATEGY

In order to better identify areas for water savings, a sub-metering system should be implemented on campus. This plan would seek to install meters at every facility and sub-system, where practical, with the goal of separating process use and seasonal use. Similar to the electrical sub-meters, they could be interconnected to the Siemens BAS system on campus. Alternatively, there are wireless solutions available that can transmit meter data to a central remote data storage location. Sensus is one manufacturer that provides a wireless solution.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 25

7.2.2 UTILIZE PRESSURE WASHING

A significant amount of water is used on a daily basis for cleaning animal areas. A typical hose puts out between 6 to 10 GPM (gallons per minute) of water. A 10 minute cleaning session would result in as much as 100 gallons of water used. Power washers have the potential to reduce water consumption for cleaning by 50% or more. The typical pressure washer uses between 2 to 5 GPM. Water on campus (including sewer) costs about $0.28 for every 100 gallons consumed. The cost of electricity for a 1.5KW power washer operating for 10 minutes is about $0.02. Therefore, the cost savings for using a power washer could be $0.12 per session using this example.

7.2.3 ELIMINATE PUMP AND DUMP DEVICES

There are a few air conditioning devices on campus that use domestic water for cooling. Domestic water is pumped through the air conditioner, which absorbs waste heat, and is then dumped into the sewer. One such air conditioner was observed at the Primate House. These units use a significant amount of water, anywhere between 1 to 3 GPM of water per ton. To reduce water use these units should be replaced whenever possible using a unit with a separate outdoor condensing unit.

7.2.4 UPGRADE PLUMBING FIXTURES TO LOW FLOW

Currently many of the plumbing fixtures on campus have been converted to low flow but there are still fixtures requiring a retrofit. This is especially true in the non-public areas. Also it is understand that a number of restroom projects are scheduled in the near future. In general, it’s recommended that all remaining fixtures be replaced or converted to low flow. The following targets are recommended for consideration:

• Water Closets – Convert 1.6/3.2 GPF to 1.2 GPF

• Lavatories – Install 0.5 GPM flow restrictors (aerators)

• Urinals – Convert 1.0 GPF to Pint (0.125 GFP) or waterless if possible.

If the Zoo receives 3 million visitors a year, and each toilet is flushed one time per visitor, this equates to 4.8 million gallons per year for flushing at 1.6 GPF, reducing that to 1.2 GPF would save 1.2 gallons of water per year.

7.2.5 UPGRADED CONTROLS ON EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Currently most of the irrigation systems on campus are controlled with timers. These timers turn on irrigation regardless of weather and humidity conditions. The campus should investigate using ‘smart irrigation controls” instead of automatic timers to make sure watering is performed only when it’s needed. These types of controls are typically weather based and be can programmed to serve a specific climate or plant species. Rainbird is a company that offers many of these solutions.

7.2.6 ALTERNATIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Once water use has been quantified, the Zoo should consider alternative irrigation systems to eliminate the use of domestic water system for irrigation. One option would be through the use of rainwater harvesting by capturing and storing rainwater runoff from roofs and other sub-surfaces on campus and using those for irrigation. These systems can be very simple or complex, it is suggested that this be tested on a single facility on campus to see if this can be managed on a larger scale. Another project would be to utilize a deep well system to extract and pump water from an aquifer below the ground. This strategy is often used on large college campuses as a cost effective alternative to providing irrigation. It is understood that the Zoo has researched this option in the past. A re-review of this option may show to be beneficial to current operations.

7.2.1 LEAK DETECTION

Water use on this campus is significant. It is not uncommon for water system of this size and complexity to have a number of leaks present. The Zoo should consider hiring a company to provide a leak assessment on the existing domestic water infrastructure. There are a number of companies in the St. Louis area that can provide this assessment.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 26

8 FACILITY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS The following strategies are based on observations seen during various site visits on campus. Suggestions presented below are provided for consideration only and further investigation is needed at each facility to determine the appropriate action and potential results from these efforts.

8.1 THE LIVING WORLD

8.1.1 CO2 SENSORS FOR COMMON AREAS

Almost every person that attends the Zoo passes through this building at some point during a visit. Ventilation systems are likely sized to handle the peak occupancy load. The Zoo should consider installing CO2 sensors in the large common area to control the amount of outdoor air that is used for this space.

8.1.2 LIGHTING CONTROLS – OCC SENSORS FOR CORRIDORS AND OFFICES, RESTAURANT TIME CLOCK

There are a number of opportunities in this building for lighting controls. There are multiple offices that utilize manual controls. The restaurant located on the upper level does not appear to have any automatic lighting controls for nighttime shut-down, only manual switches. The Zoo should consider installing occupancy sensors on all offices and egress corridors and install a time-clock system for the restaurant seating areas to avoid lights being left on at night.

8.1.3 REVIEW OF FREEZER COOLER TEMPERATURES, ANTI-SWEAT CONTROLS

There are a number of freezers and refrigerated coolers in this facility. The operating temperatures of these coolers should be reviewed to determine if they are operating at appropriate set-points. The freezers should be examined to determine if anti-sweat controls can be utilized.

8.1.4 HVAC SCHEDULING

There are number of rooms in this facility that are not used on a regular basis. Rooms that are not regularly used should be put into un-occupied mode during periods of no use. Additionally, at night when the ZOO is closed, all systems should be put into night setback mode (fan cycling and temperature setback) and all outdoor air dampers should be closed.

8.2 LAKESIDE CAFÉ


There are a number of freezers and refrigerated coolers in this facility. The operating temperatures of these coolers should be reviewed to determine if they are operating at appropriate set-points. The freezers should be examined to determine if anti-sweat controls can be utilized.

1.1.1 CO2 SENSORS FOR COMMON AREAS

A review of the air-balance of this facility should be performed to determine if CO2 sensors could be utilized to reduce outdoor air to the public seating areas. Caution must be exercised with regard to any dependence the seating area has with regard to kitchen make-up requirements.

8.2.2 UPGRADE REMAINING LIGHTING SYSTEMS

This facility still has a significant amount of T12 lighting fixtures present in the kitchen/back of house areas. These fixtures should be replaced with more efficient T-5 or T-8 fixtures when possible.

8.2.3 DAY-LIGHTING

The amount of windows and natural light observed in the seating area presents an opportunity for a day-lighting strategy. The Zoo should consider installing lighting controls that reduce interior lighting use based on

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 27

space lighting levels and/or educate the building occupants on when and how they can manual operate lights to utilize day-lighting for the building.

8.2.4 SUB-METER STINGRAY

It is understood that the Stingray exhibit electrical service is fed from this facility. Since the operation of this facility is not under direct control of Zoo personnel, it is recommended that this electrical feed be sub metered. This will allow for a more accurate energy assessment of the restaurant facility.

8.3 PENGUIN & PUFFIN EXHIBIT

8.3.1 EGRESS STAIRWAY LIGHTING

During our visit to this facility access was fairly limited but we observed an opportunity to reduce lighting energy in stairwells. The existing stairwell light fixtures are outdated and ready for replacement. Replacement fixtures should include integral occupancy sensors that can reduce lighting levels when exits are not being used.

8.4 ADMIN BUILDING

8.4.1 FAN CONTROLS

Most of the HVAC systems utilized in this building are controlled by programmable thermostats. We observed a number of thermostats that had the fan setting set to “on” instead of “auto”. This means the fans run continuously as opposed just when heating or cooling is needed. Since these systems did not appear to have any ventilation air, the approach of cycling the fan on is acceptable and will save fan energy.

8.4.2 REPLACE URINALS WITH LOW FLOW

This facility is still utilizing standard or high flow plumbing fixture and prevents an opportunity for replacement.

8.4.3 LIGHTING CONTROLS

There are a number of opportunities in this building for lighting controls. There are multiple offices that utilize manual controls that could be easily replaced with occupancy sensors.

8.5 SOUTH ENTRY

8.5.1 POOL PUMPS/FOG SYSTEM

We observed some potential energy saving opportunities involving the pumping systems for the fountains near the South Entry. There are multiple pumps installed, two of which were running continuously (one of which is assumed to be standby and perhaps should not be running. The pumps did not appear to have any functioning time based controls installed. Both pumps operate at around 8.5 BHP. The Zoo should review the operation of these pumps and configuration of this system to determine if one pump can be disabled during normal operation and if these pumps can be scheduled off during after-hours operation. If two pumps are running continuously for 12 months out of the year they would consume roughly 112,000 kWh or costs about $8,000 per year to run. Any reduction in run time would result in a proportional savings and increase pump life. This effort would also save on water use.

Additionally there was a fog system present that appeared to be operating without time-clock controls. The amount of energy this system uses is unknown but its operation should be reviewed

8.5.2 SOUTH GIFT SHOP

This facility presents a significant opportunity to reduce lighting and HVAC energy. During our visit we counted roughly 175 – 65 Watt incandescent light fixtures plus numerous T-12 light fixtures on the perimeter, equating to roughly 4.00 watts/sqft and a cooling load of around 3.5 tons. Lighting levels are significantly above what is necessary for a retail gift shop, which is typically between 1.5 and 2.0 watts/sqft. By reducing the lighting

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 28

density by 50%, the facility could easily reduce electrical energy relating to lighting and HVAC by 75,000 kWh per year or about $5,000 per year savings.

8.6 JUNGLE OF THE APES

8.6.1 INTERIOR LIGHTING UPGRADES AND CONTROLS

This facility is still using T-12 lighting technology and is a prime candidate for upgrades. During our visits to this area, there were times during the day where animals were outside but the interior lights remained on. The Zoo should consider installing controls that allow the lighting in each cage to be controlled individually so that lights can be shut off in areas not used.

8.6.2 OPTIMIZE EQUIPMENT CONTROLS

This facility has a significant amount of HVAC equipment in operation including chillers, boilers, and humidifiers in service. Review of the utility bills against weather for the last 6 years indicates erratic changes or lack of patterns in operation from year to year and month to month. This may be an indicator that HVAC control systems are not functioning properly or that things are being operated manually. Further discussions with the Zoo indicate that this facility recently had HVAC system upgrades. We recommend a full review of HVAC operations with the end users to determine if equipment is not operating as expected or if any corrections should be made to operations.

8.7 HERPETARIUM

8.7.1 PROCESS COOLING EFFICIENCIES AND HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM

This facility is one of the more energy intensive buildings on campus. There are a significant amount of process coolers, pumps, filtration system, and other devices consuming electricity 24 hours a day. There are numerous air cooled process chillers operating at any given time that reject heat into the building. There appears to be enough heat in the process to support the hot water demands of the facility. This building has a cooling load year around and is a prime candidate for a water source heat pump system. Water to water heat pumps could be utilized instead of the air-cooled chillers to provide process cooling and the excess heat could be reclaimed for domestic or space heating use. The Zoo should investigate the option of providing a central process cooling system utilizing water source heat pumps. It is estimated that such a system could reduce electrical use by 15% (140,000 kWh/year) and eliminate 35% (12,000 therms) of the yearly gas use or roughly $21,000 per year.

8.7.2 SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEM FOR ALLIGATOR POOL HEATING

It is understood that the exterior alligator pools are currently heated using central water heaters and that the water in these pools are provided with continuous fresh water (water drains to sewer at all times). Without water data for this building the actual heat loss is unknown but it assumed to be significant for this process. The Zoo should consider investigating the use of solar thermal hot water heating system for this system once the actual gas use associated with this process is known.

8.8 ANIMAL NUTRITION CENTER

8.8.1 CONVERT OCCUPANCY SENSORS TO BE VACANCY SENSOR OPERATION

There were a number of occupancy sensors installed in this building set to automatic on. Each time an occupant enters a room the lights come on and stay on until a pre-programmed timer shuts them off, whether they need the light or not. In some cases photocell technology was used to limit this operation but not everywhere. We recommend reprogramming all occupancy sensors to operate as “vacancy sensors – manual on, automatic off”. Areas used for egress should be left as auto on – auto off. This insures the occupancy sensor energy is being used to save energy versus providing convenient automation of lights turning on.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 29


This facility has the largest freezers and refrigerated coolers on campus that make this very efficient facility one of the most energy intensive buildings on campus. The operating temperatures of these coolers should be reviewed to determine if they are operating at appropriate set-points. The freezers should be examined to determine if anti-sweat controls can be utilized.

8.8.3 SETBACK CONTROLS, BUILDING LIGHTING OCCUPIED AT TIMES

There are number of rooms in this facility that are not used on a regular basis. Rooms that are not regular used should be put into un-occupied mode during periods of no use. Additionally, at night when the ZOO is closed, all systems should be put into night setback mode (fan cycling and temperature setback) and all outdoor air dampers should be closed.

8.9 PRIMATE HOUSE

8.9.1 CONVERT OCCUPANCY SENSORS TO BE VACANCY SENSORS

There were a number of occupancy sensors installed in this building set to automatic on. Each time an occupant enters a room the lights come on and stay on until a pre-programmed timer shuts them off, whether they need the light or not. We recommend reprogramming all occupancy sensors to operate as “vacancy sensors – manual on, automatic off”. Areas used for egress should be left as auto on – auto off. This insures the occupancy sensor energy is being used to save energy versus providing convenient automation of lights turning on.

8.9.2 ELIMINATE PUMP AND DUMP SERVER AC UNIT

This building has a server room located in the basement that uses a once through domestic water cooled air- conditioning unit. This unit appears to be approximately 5 tons, is operating at about 1.08 KW/Ton, and consumes roughly 47300 kWh per year at a cost of around $4,000. Additionally this unit is consuming an estimated 10 GPM of water continuously, this would equate to 7200 gallon per day; 5,256,000 gallons per year of water, or $14,720 in water/sewer costs. This unit could be eliminated and replaced with an air cooled unit with a remote condenser, saving all costs of water with only a small increase in electrical use and cost, roughly 3% annually.

8.9.3 ADD RADIATOR CONTROLS

The non-public areas behind the exhibits are heated using a central boiler and local radiators. Currently many of the radiator controls are either missing all together or are not functioning. This could lead to overheating in the winter and result in unnecessary natural gas use. It is recommended that these controls be replaced with local thermostat controls or zone the radiators individually or in groups using controls valve and integrate into the BMS.

8.9.4 SUB-METER SEAL LION EXHIBIT

It is understood that the Sea Lion exhibit electrical service is fed from this facility. Since both of these facilities operate under different profiles it is recommended that this electrical feed be sub metered. This will allow for a more accurate energy assessment of both facilities in the future.

8.10 RIVER CAMP


There are a number of freezers and refrigerated coolers in this facility. The operating temperatures of these coolers should be reviewed to determine if they are operating at efficient temperature set-points. The freezers should be examined to determine if anti-sweat controls can be utilized.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 30

8.10.2 FIX/ADD CONTROLS FOR NEARBY WATER FALL PUMPS

We observed some potential energy saving opportunities involving the pumping systems for the water fountains near this facility. There are two pumps installed and both are running continuously (one of which is assumed to be standby and perhaps should not be running. The pumps did not appear to have any functioning time based controls installed. Both pumps operate at around 5.5 BHP. The Zoo should review the operation of these pumps and configuration of the system and determine if one pump can be disabled during normal operation and if any of these pumps can be scheduled off during after-hours operation. If two pumps are running continuously for 12 months out of the year they would consume roughly 73,000 kWh or costs about $5,000 per year to run. This effort would save on water use. Any reduction in run time would result in a proportional savings and increase pump life. This effort would save on water use.

8.10.3 CONVERT BASEMENT CAV REHEAT SYSTEM TO VAV

This building is equipped with a constant volume zone reheat system. Each zone in the system has a reheat coil to provide individual temperature control. These systems are extremely inefficient as a result of high fan energy required to operate this system and a constant need to use energy for simultaneous cooling and re-heating. This Zoo should consider converting this system to variable volume by installing VAV boxes at all terminal units and variable speed drives at the central air handler.

8.10.4 SET-BACK BANQUET ROOMS

During our visit to the facility, all of the banquet rooms where un-occupied and the spaces were being kept at a constant temperature of around 72ºF in summer. In general, these rooms should be setback when not in use. It is unknown if the rooms where scheduled for occupancy that day or not. The Zoo should review the occupancy control for these rooms and seek to eliminate any unnecessary heating and cooling of these rooms during un-occupied conditions.

8.11 CHILDRENS ZOO

8.11.1 ADD OCCUPANCY SENSORS

Although this building is fairly active on a regular basis, we observed a number of areas where lights where on in spaces not occupied. This presents an opportunity to use occupancy sensors. The Zoo should consider adding these controls to spaces in the building when possible.

8.12 ANTELOPE BARN

8.12.1 ADD HEATING PUMP CONTROLS

During our visit it was observed that the heating pumps where operating although the heating system was not on. It’s appears the controls are not functioning and the pumps manually forced on. The Zoo should fix the controls on this pump and integrate the pump operation with the boiler using the boilers aux output relays.

8.13 BIRDHOUSE

8.13.1 REPLACE DISPLAY LIGHTING

This facility still has a significant amount of T12 lighting fixtures present in the display areas. These fixtures should be replaced with more efficient T-5 or T-8 or LED fixtures when possible.

8.13.2 ADD VFD TO COOLING TOWER

This facility uses a water source heat pump for cooling and heating. The cooling tower used to support this system using a single speed fan for temperature control. The size of the fan was unavailable during the survey however retrofitting the fan with a variable frequency drive will reduced yearly fan energy associated with cooling energy.

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 31

9 APPENDICES

9.1 RAW DATA

Year Cost Use Energy Carbon Cost/ Use/ Cost/(kWh) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) kWh SQFT SQFT

Pre-2003 $675,167 12869087 43909325 10743 $0.052 31 $1.652006 $805,764 15888715 54212296 13263 $0.051 35 $1.852007 $833,675 16294070 55595367 13602 $0.051 36 $1.84

2008 $843,259 16215354 55326788 13536 $0.052 36 $1.86

2009 $868,141 15745651 53724161 13144 $0.055 35 $1.92

2010 $991,208 16286429 55569296 13595 $0.061 36 $2.19

2011 $1,042,416 15577660 53150976 13004 $0.067 34 $2.30

Year Cost Energy Energy Carbon HDD Use/ Cost/(Therms) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) SQFT SQFT

Pre-2003 $306,945.00 476976 49080830 2611 6709 1.053 0.75$ 2006 $483,543.00 405860 41762994 2222 6348 0.896 1.18$ 2007 $504,918.00 428698 44113004 2347 6348 0.946 1.11$

2008 $616,322.30 586396 60340190 3210 7284 1.295 1.36$

2009 $603,530.37 492584 50686842 2697 7252 1.088 1.33$

2010 $410,528.00 453561 46671437 2483 6873 1.001 0.91$

2011 $429,748.00 468998 48259915 2567 7252 1.035 0.95$

Metric Cost Water Energy Carbon Use/ Cost/(GAL) (Indirect) (tons CO2e) SQFT SQFT

Pre-2003 0 -$ 2006 $1,110,991.41 465883345 582354 142 0.00238 1029 2.55$ 2007 $1,299,705.01 545502205 681878 167 0.00238 1204 2.87$

2008 $782,918.93 314424419 393031 96 0.00249 694 1.73$

2009 $1,197,220.78 457324366 571655 51 0.00262 1010 2.64$

2010 $1,357,593.86 500421534 625527 153 0.00271 1105 3.00$

2011 $1,192,326.69 423625653 529532 130 0.00281 935 2.63$

Electricity Data

Water & Sewer Data

Natural Gas Data

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 32

Base

58Month Begin End Days Cost Use Cost/Use Energy Carbon OAT CDD HDD

Period ($) (kWh) ($/kWh) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) (F)

1 12/28/05 01/27/06 30 $44,805.52 1,161,209 $0.039 3962045 969 39 0 596

2 01/27/06 02/27/06 31 $47,844.63 1,226,714 $0.039 4185548 1024 35 0 751

3 02/27/06 03/28/06 29 $46,000.48 1,135,968 $0.040 3875923 948 44 9 428

4 03/28/06 04/26/06 29 $50,795.12 1,219,906 $0.042 4162319 1018 60 154 98

5 04/26/06 05/25/06 29 $88,295.41 1,221,454 $0.072 4167601 1020 62 166 31

6 05/25/06 06/26/06 32 $108,915.65 1,666,610 $0.065 5686473 1391 76 579 0

7 06/27/06 07/26/06 29 $107,958.79 1,615,768 $0.067 5513000 1349 80 668 0

8 07/26/06 08/24/06 29 $107,580.93 1,615,735 $0.067 5512888 1349 81 700 0

9 08/24/06 09/25/06 32 $56,861.78 1,403,717 $0.041 4789482 1172 70 391 8

10 09/25/06 10/24/06 29 $49,051.74 1,132,428 $0.043 3863844 945 57 105 148

11 10/24/06 11/24/06 31 $46,897.00 1,166,801 $0.040 3981125 974 45 5 432

12 11/24/06 12/27/06 33 $50,756.72 1,322,405 $0.038 4512046 1104 39 4 653

Totals 363 $805,763.77 15,888,715 $0.049 54,212,296 13,263 57 2779 31441 12/27/06 01/26/07 30 $46,780.00 1,179,629 $0.040 4024894 985 35 0 717

2 01/26/07 02/26/07 31 $50,304.00 1,269,874 $0.040 4332810 1060 26 0 1034

3 02/26/07 03/27/07 29 $48,784.00 1,159,793 $0.042 3957214 968 49 65 343

4 03/27/07 04/26/07 30 $49,691.00 1,181,095 $0.042 4029896 986 53 93 255

5 04/26/07 05/25/07 29 $90,155.00 1,306,865 $0.069 4459023 1091 69 329 2

6 05/25/07 06/26/07 32 $109,954.00 1,657,267 $0.066 5654595 1383 77 617 0

7 06/26/07 07/26/07 30 $108,792.00 1,587,770 $0.069 5417471 1325 78 629 0

8 07/26/07 08/24/07 29 $111,975.00 1,659,478 $0.067 5662139 1385 84 789 0

9 08/24/07 09/25/07 32 $63,053.00 1,558,771 $0.040 5318527 1301 75 571 1

10 09/25/07 10/24/07 29 $53,234.00 1,238,719 $0.043 4226509 1034 67 287 19

11 10/24/07 11/26/07 33 $51,351.00 1,264,598 $0.041 4314808 1056 48 12 358

12 11/26/07 12/27/07 31 $49,602.00 1,230,211 $0.040 4197480 1027 34 0 757

Totals 365 $833,675.00 16,294,070 $0.050 55,595,367 13,602 58 3393 34861 12/27/07 01/29/08 33 $51,594.00 1,302,749 $0.040 4444980 1087 32 7 877

2 01/29/08 02/27/08 29 $46,994.00 1,134,288 $0.041 3870191 947 31 0 820

3 02/27/08 03/28/08 30 $47,835.00 1,165,805 $0.041 3977727 973 40 0 547

4 03/28/08 04/28/08 31 $52,988.00 1,238,242 $0.043 4224882 1034 52 50 232

5 04/28/08 05/28/08 30 $88,175.00 1,257,290 $0.070 4289873 1050 61 134 48

6 05/28/08 06/26/08 29 $110,535.00 1,578,569 $0.070 5386077 1318 74 467 0

7 06/26/08 07/28/08 32 $119,547.00 1,782,240 $0.067 6081003 1488 76 582 0

8 07/28/08 08/26/08 29 $110,634.00 1,554,701 $0.071 5304640 1298 74 491 0

9 08/26/08 09/25/08 30 $58,921.00 1,409,494 $0.042 4809194 1177 69 338 0

10 09/25/08 10/24/08 29 $51,838.00 1,191,377 $0.044 4064978 995 59 105 74

11 10/24/08 11/25/08 32 $50,048.00 1,220,352 $0.041 4163841 1019 44 11 458

12 11/25/08 12/29/08 34 $54,150.00 1,380,247 $0.039 4709403 1152 33 1 888

Totals 368 $843,259.00 16,215,354 $0.051 55,326,788 13,536 54 2185 3944

Weather20

06Utility Period

Year

GHGElectricity20

0720

08

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 33

Base


Period ($) (kWh) ($/kWh) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) (F)

1 12/29/08 01/28/09 30 $48,741.00 1,201,966 $0.041 4101108 1003 28 0 934

2 01/28/09 02/26/09 29 $46,840.00 1,143,103 $0.041 3900267 954 35 0 689

3 02/26/09 03/27/09 29 $52,575.00 1,143,852 $0.046 3902823 955 47 19 362

4 03/27/08 04/28/08 32 $58,430.00 1,285,692 $0.045 4386781 1073 52 50 235

5 04/28/09 05/28/09 30 $99,963.00 1,322,206 $0.076 4511367 1104 64 198 13

6 06/04/09 06/26/09 22 $110,425.00 1,435,685 $0.077 4898557 1198 75 387 0

7 06/26/09 07/28/09 32 $116,173.00 1,606,815 $0.072 5482453 1341 74 525 0

8 07/28/09 08/26/09 29 $112,219.00 1,500,809 $0.075 5120760 1253 74 465 0

9 08/26/09 09/25/09 30 $61,172.00 1,369,736 $0.045 4673539 1143 69 350 0

10 09/25/09 10/26/09 31 $54,618.00 1,239,242 $0.044 4228294 1034 53 31 195

11 10/26/09 11/25/09 30 $51,296.00 1,157,794 $0.044 3950393 966 50 5 249

12 11/25/09 12/29/09 34 $55,689.00 1,338,751 $0.042 4567818 1118 33 0 873

Totals 358 $868,141.00 15,745,651 $0.054 53,724,161 13,144 54 2030 35491 12/29/09 01/28/10 30 $52,094.00 1,196,580 $0.044 4082731 999 27 0 969

2 01/28/10 02/26/10 29 $50,914.00 1,153,992 $0.044 3937421 963 28 0 900

3 02/26/10 03/29/10 31 $54,850.00 1,236,670 $0.044 4219518 1032 43 0 489

4 03/29/10 04/27/10 29 $56,334.00 1,209,329 $0.047 4126231 1010 60 111 64

5 04/27/10 05/28/10 31 $107,984.00 1,370,540 $0.079 4676282 1144 65 236 25

6 05/28/10 06/28/10 31 $132,602.00 1,740,934 $0.076 5940067 1453 76 585 0

7 06/28/10 07/27/10 29 $133,605.00 1,637,516 $0.082 5587205 1367 77 583 0

8 07/27/10 08/25/10 29 $132,986.00 1,600,651 $0.083 5461421 1336 79 644 0

9 08/25/10 09/24/10 30 $75,168.00 1,407,540 $0.053 4802526 1175 73 457 0

10 09/24/10 10/25/10 31 $67,740.02 1,264,296 $0.054 4313778 1055 61 139 33

11 10/25/10 11/24/10 30 $59,460.00 1,128,583 $0.053 3850725 942 50 29 265

12 11/24/10 12/28/10 34 $67,471.00 1,339,798 $0.050 4571391 1118 30 0 973

Totals 364 $991,208.02 16,286,429 $0.059 55,569,296 13,595 56 2784 37191 12/28/10 01/27/11 30 $62,298.00 1,178,381 $0.053 4020636 984 28 0 918

2 01/27/11 02/25/11 29 $58,184.00 1,084,092 $0.054 3698922 905 32 2 793

3 02/25/11 03/28/11 31 $63,011.00 1,132,561 $0.056 3864298 945 44 23 456

4 03/28/11 04/27/11 30 $66,276.00 1,186,697 $0.056 4049010 991 56 84 146

5 04/27/11 05/26/11 29 $107,989.00 1,198,114 $0.090 4087965 1000 62 184 66

6 05/26/11 06/27/11 32 $135,895.00 1,612,313 $0.084 5501212 1346 75 553 1

7 06/27/11 07/27/11 30 $143,308.00 1,688,928 $0.085 5762622 1410 80 679 0

8 07/27/11 08/25/11 29 $140,580.00 1,536,552 $0.091 5242715 1283 79 620 0

9 08/25/11 09/26/11 32 $74,844.67 1,398,737 $0.054 4772491 1168 68 346 13

10 09/26/11 10/25/11 29 $62,784.00 1,122,223 $0.056 3829025 937 60 129 66

11 10/25/11 11/25/11 31 $62,584.00 1,176,564 $0.053 4014436 982 50 26 268

12 11/25/11 12/28/11 33 $64,662.00 1,262,498 $0.051 4307643 1054 37 0 710

Totals 365 $1,042,415.67 15,577,660 $0.065 53,150,976 13,004 56 2647 3436

Weather20

11Utility Period

Year

GHGElectricity20

0920

10

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 34

Base


Period ($) (Therms) ($Therm) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) (F)

1 01/09/06 02/07/06 29 $70,703.00 58,488 $1.209 6018436 320 38 0 1023

2 02/07/06 03/09/06 30 $79,292.00 66,028 $1.201 6794312 361 37 0 1085

3 03/09/06 04/07/06 29 $56,806.00 47,092 $1.206 4845767 258 48 0 735

4 04/07/06 05/09/06 32 $31,282.00 26,982 $1.159 2776407 148 62 0 320

5 05/09/06 06/08/06 30 $22,891.00 20,565 $1.113 2116128 113 69 43 149

6 06/08/06 07/10/06 32 $17,037.00 15,485 $1.100 1593355 85 78 199 8

7 07/10/06 08/08/06 29 $8,876.00 7,276 $1.220 748731 40 82 295 0

8 08/08/06 09/06/06 29 $9,697.00 8,059 $1.203 829271 44 77 170 24

9 09/06/06 10/05/06 29 $11,826.00 13,747 $0.860 1414566 75 67 26 182

10 10/05/06 11/03/06 29 $46,218.00 38,161 $1.211 3926715 209 50 0 663

11 11/03/06 12/06/06 33 $67,526.00 53,847 $1.254 5540805 295 41 0 1043

12 12/06/06 01/09/07 34 $61,389.00 50,131 $1.225 5158500 274 40 0 1116

Totals 365 $483,543.00 405,860 $1.163 41,762,994 2,222 57 732 63481 01/08/07 02/06/07 29 $94,269.00 79,229 $1.190 8152674 434 28 0 1330

2 02/07/07 03/09/07 30 $81,003.00 67,935 $1.192 6990542 372 31 0 1271

3 03/09/07 04/10/07 32 $48,917.00 40,542 $1.207 4171813 222 53 0 618

4 04/10/07 05/09/07 29 $29,504.00 33,314 $0.886 3427990 182 60 0 363

5 05/09/07 06/08/07 30 $16,374.00 14,130 $1.159 1453956 77 72 62 56

6 06/08/07 07/10/07 32 $13,209.00 10,978 $1.203 1129646 60 78 216 4

7 07/10/07 08/08/07 29 $10,306.00 8,460 $1.218 870544 46 81 279 0

8 08/08/07 09/06/07 29 $8,370.00 6,922 $1.209 712274 38 81 276 0

9 09/06/07 10/05/07 29 $10,568.00 8,929 $1.184 918815 49 73 78 59

10 10/05/07 11/05/07 31 $34,448.00 24,301 $1.418 2500593 133 59 18 423

11 11/05/07 12/06/07 31 $63,106.00 50,866 $1.241 5234101 278 43 0 912

12 12/06/07 01/09/08 34 $94,844.00 83,091 $1.141 8550054 455 35 0 1311

Totals 365 $504,918.00 428,698 $1.187 44,113,004 2,347 58 929 63481 01/09/08 02/07/08 29 $88,099.00 76,461 $1.152 7867796 419 31 0 1233

2 02/07/08 03/10/08 32 $149,242.00 189,439 $0.788 19493314 1037 30 0 1371

3 03/10/08 04/08/08 29 $61,247.10 49,995 $1.225 5144455 274 47 0 764

4 04/08/08 05/07/08 29 $34,106.00 34,667 $0.984 3567214 190 56 0 488

5 05/07/08 06/06/08 30 $21,564.00 22,359 $0.964 2300710 122 66 29 220

6 06/06/08 07/08/08 32 $16,205.00 12,097 $1.340 1244730 66 74 84 24

7 07/08/08 08/06/08 29 $11,400.18 10,394 $1.097 1069563 57 78 172 1

8 08/06/08 09/05/08 30 $14,185.02 9,675 $1.466 995527 53 73 51 31

9 09/05/08 10/06/08 31 $18,861.00 19,509 $0.967 2007507 107 64 8 251

10 10/06/08 11/03/08 28 $39,483.00 24,189 $1.632 2488997 132 56 0 476

11 11/03/08 12/04/08 31 $70,286.00 54,180 $1.297 5575163 297 40 0 1025

12 12/04/08 01/07/09 34 $91,644.00 83,433 $1.098 8585215 457 32 0 1400

Totals 364 $616,322.30 586,396 $1.168 60,340,190 3,210 54 343 7284

Year

2006

2007

2008

Utility Period Natural Gas GHG Weather

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 35

Base


Period ($) (Therms) ($Therm) (kBTU) (tons CO2e) (F)

1 01/06/09 02/04/09 29 $91,536.00 91,702 $0.998 9436115 502 25 0 1399

2 02/04/09 03/08/09 32 $103,154.00 98,949 $1.042 10181862 542 39 0 1078

3 03/08/09 04/07/09 30 $74,226.00 43,302 $1.714 4455786 237 48 0 740

4 04/07/09 05/06/09 29 $45,289.00 36,640 $1.236 3770256 201 56 0 476

5 04/21/09 05/20/09 29 $33,822.00 18,764 $1.803 1930774 103 63 0 281

6 06/07/09 07/07/09 30 $25,799.00 8,760 $2.945 901383 48 76 119 7

7 07/07/09 08/05/09 29 $15,636.00 12,073 $1.295 1242322 66 73 65 33

8 08/05/10 09/06/10 32 $15,726.00 12,826 $1.226 1319775 70 77 176 26

9 09/06/09 10/05/09 29 $18,212.00 15,177 $1.200 1561734 83 66 2 180

10 10/05/09 11/02/09 28 $56,519.00 29,755 $1.899 3061759 163 50 0 636

11 11/02/10 12/05/10 33 $47,493.32 41,518 $1.144 4272223 227 44 0 941

12 12/05/09 01/06/10 32 $76,118.05 83,118 $0.916 8552852 455 28 0 1455

Totals 362 $603,530.37 492,584 $1.452 50,686,842 2,697 54 361 72521 01/06/10 02/04/10 29 $67,782.00 72,621 $0.933 7472701 398 28 0 1305

2 02/04/10 03/08/10 32 $69,353.00 74,153 $0.935 7630364 406 31 0 1350

3 03/08/10 04/07/10 30 $45,635.00 44,969 $1.015 4627310 246 51 0 647

4 04/07/10 05/06/10 29 $21,997.00 30,183 $0.729 3105820 165 61 0 342

5 04/21/10 05/20/10 29 $25,003.00 35,223 $0.710 3624447 193 62 0 314

6 06/07/10 07/07/10 30 $10,504.00 10,777 $0.975 1108933 59 77 150 10

7 07/07/10 08/05/10 29 $6,842.00 6,644 $1.030 683678 36 80 226 0

8 08/05/10 09/06/10 32 $9,800.00 10,790 $0.908 1110260 59 77 176 26

9 09/06/10 10/05/10 29 $11,434.00 11,097 $1.030 1141912 61 68 39 172

10 10/05/10 11/02/10 28 $23,055.00 23,047 $1.000 2371495 126 59 0 366

11 11/02/10 12/05/10 33 $42,451.00 45,641 $0.930 4696469 250 44 0 941

12 12/05/10 01/06/11 32 $76,672.00 88,416 $0.867 9098048 484 30 0 1400

Totals 362 $410,528.00 453,561 $0.922 46,671,437 2,483 56 591 68731 01/06/11 02/06/11 31 $93,611.00 106,844 $0.876 10994258 585 25 0 1499

2 02/02/11 03/06/11 32 $60,334.00 65,526 $0.921 6742584 359 35 0 1233

3 03/08/11 04/06/11 29 $42,542.00 42,987 $0.990 4423342 235 47 0 742

4 04/06/11 05/08/11 32 $24,062.00 26,324 $0.914 2708740 144 59 1 434

5 05/08/11 06/07/11 30 $16,058.00 18,508 $0.868 1904422 101 70 69 146

6 06/07/11 07/07/11 30 $12,284.00 12,284 $1.000 1264065 67 76 123 7

7 07/07/11 08/07/11 31 $9,987.00 9,984 $1.000 1027395 55 82 305 0

8 07/21/11 08/21/11 31 $11,797.00 12,101 $0.975 1245152 66 79 240 1

9 09/06/11 10/05/11 29 $17,718.00 19,266 $0.920 1982420 105 62 9 298

10 10/05/11 11/02/11 28 $28,961.00 26,729 $1.084 2750373 146 58 0 414

11 11/02/11 12/05/11 33 $48,168.00 53,544 $0.900 5509626 293 46 0 868

12 12/05/11 01/18/12 44 $64,226.00 74,903 $0.857 7707539 410 36 0 1611

Totals 380 $429,748.00 468,998 $0.942 48,259,915 2,567 56 748 7252

2011

Year

2009

2010

Utility Period Natural Gas GHG Weather

ST. LOUIS ZOO


June 29, 2012 Page 36

Quarter Begin End Days Water Cost Water Use Cost/Use Sewer Cost Sewer Use Energy Carbon

Period ($) (Gal) ($) (Gal) (kBTU) (tons CO2e)

1 10/20/05 01/18/06 90 $53,604.00 58,954,726 $0.000909 $87,951.02 39617575.9 73693 18

2 01/18/06 05/02/06 104 $115,941.00 130,126,938 $0.000891 $194,128.57 87445302.3 162659 40

3 05/02/06 07/19/06 78 $132,367.00 148,879,553 $0.000889 $222,104.47 100047059.6 186099 46

4 07/19/06 10/20/06 93 $114,056.00 127,922,128 $0.000892 $190,839.35 85963670.0 159903 39

Totals 365 $415,968.00 465,883,345 $0.000895 $695,023.41 313,073,608 582,354 1421 10/19/06 01/18/07 91 $99,032.00 110,770,044 $0.000894 $165,251.18 74437469.6 138463 34

2 01/18/07 04/24/07 96 $93,005.00 103,889,462 $0.000895 $154,986.45 69813718.5 129862 32

3 04/24/07 07/19/07 86 $127,192.00 142,920,571 $0.000890 $213,214.62 96042623.7 178651 44

4 07/19/07 10/22/07 95 $166,674.00 187,922,128 $0.000887 $280,349.75 126283670.0 234903 57

Totals 368 $485,903.00 545,502,205 $0.000892 $813,802.01 366,577,482 681,878 1671 10/16/07 01/18/08 94 $86,784.00 96,785,960 $0.000897 $144,389.17 65040165.1 120982 30

2 01/18/08 04/24/08 97 $53,428.00 55,729,874 $0.000959 $83,140.06 37450475.3 69662 17

3 04/24/08 08/05/08 103 $79,196.00 73,663,673 $0.001075 $109,894.41 49501988.3 92080 23

4 08/05/08 10/30/08 86 $94,440.00 88,244,912 $0.001070 $131,647.29 59300580.9 110306 27

Totals 380 $313,848.00 314,424,419 $0.001000 $469,070.93 211,293,210 393,031 961 10/20/08 02/05/09 108 $81,646.00 76,013,880 $0.001074 $113,400.55 51081327.4 95017 23

2 02/05/09 04/15/09 69 $97,061.00 90,796,966 $0.001069 $135,454.55 61015561.2 113496 28

3 04/15/09 08/05/09 112 $64,975.00 57,700,191 $0.001126 $86,079.45 38774528.4 72125

4 08/05/09 10/30/09 86 $271,284.00 232,813,329 $0.001165 $347,320.24 156450557.1 291017

Totals 375 $514,966.00 457,324,366 $0.001109 $682,254.78 307,321,974 571,655 511 10/21/09 02/08/10 110 $179,353.00 153,145,761 $0.001171 $228,468.97 102913951.4 191432 47

2 02/08/10 04/22/10 73 $98,350.00 82,948,816 $0.001186 $123,746.36 55741604.4 103686 25

3 04/22/10 07/26/10 95 $154,415.00 128,220,534 $0.001204 $191,284.52 86164198.8 160276 39

4 07/26/10 11/17/10 114 $178,927.00 136,106,423 $0.001315 $203,049.01 91463516.3 170133 42

Totals 392 $611,045.00 500,421,534 $0.001219 $746,548.86 336,283,271 625,527 1531 10/18/10 02/16/11 121 $123,670.00 93,369,606 $0.001325 $139,292.51 62744375.2 116712 29

2 02/16/11 04/29/11 72 $108,842.00 81,901,496 $0.001329 $122,183.93 55037805.3 102377 25

3 04/29/11 08/12/11 105 $150,906.00 114,434,003 $0.001319 $170,717.22 76899650.0 143043 35

4 08/12/11 10/16/11 65 $176,927.00 133,920,548 $0.001321 $199,788.03 89994608.3 167401 41

Totals 363 $560,345.00 423,625,653 $0.001323 $631,981.69 284,676,439 529,532 130

Utility Period Water & Sewer GHG

2011

Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

9.2 2006 ENERGY MASTER PLAN REPORT

(Attached)

Energy Master Plan

April 2006

Energy Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 300354

Saint Louis, MO 63130 314-644-2629

Saint Louis ZOO Energy Master Plan

Energy Master Plan ..................................................................................................... 5

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 6

Funding Alternative ...................................................................................................... 7

Scope .......................................................................................................................... 7

Background ................................................................................................................. 9

Energy Investment Criteria .......................................................................................... 9

Utility Rates Future .................................................................................................... 11

Electric Rates ......................................................................................................... 11

Gas Rates .............................................................................................................. 13

Site Audit ................................................................................................................... 14

Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 15

Change Lighting Systems ...................................................................................... 15

Fan Systems .......................................................................................................... 17

Motor Efficiency ...................................................................................................... 17

Energy Recovery on Exhaust ................................................................................. 17

Boiler/DHW Replacements .................................................................................... 19

Cooling Equipment Changes ................................................................................. 21

Penguin Puffin Exhibit ............................................................................................ 23

Saint Louis ZOO Energy Master Plan

2006

Energy Master Plan The purpose of this Energy Master Plan is to develop strategies for the Saint Louis ZOO (ZOO) that can be implemented as Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning equipment reaches life cycle and is replaced. It is understood that this is a working document that will evolve over time and that implementation over the next decade is a reasonable time frame.

The conclusions and recommendations have been developed from an inspection of the existing physical plant, from the historic use of natural gas and electricity at the ZOO and from loads analyses for the existing buildings. The primary strategies outlined in this study revolve around:

1. Changing to fluorescent lighting technologies wherever possible; 2. Turning equipment off when it is not needed; 3. Recovering energy from exhaust air to precondition replacement outdoor air; 4. Changing from air-cooled to water-cooled refrigeration equipment; and, 5. Replacing conventional boilers with condensing boilers.

Recommendations suggested that implement these strategies are presented in Table 1 below. It is recommended that the ZOO review and question these recommendations and the strategies suggested. It is vitally important that these strategies and recommendations be weighed and roundly discussed and revised, if necessary, so that the final product becomes integrated into the ZOO facilities plan and maintenance procedures. Otherwise this may become another study that simply sits on a shelf.

The primary value of this plan is to set a series of readily achievable, cost effective goals that advance the ethic of the ZOO in reducing energy usage and the pollution that is associated with that energy use. The key is measurement. Energy Solutions, Inc. (ESI) has developed techniques for analyzing the energy usage at the ZOO and has generated baselines of energy use for each utility meter at the ZOO. These baselines can be used in the future to accurately assess the progress of the ZOO in realizing its goal of being more energy efficient. Furthermore these data can be used as a means of communicating this ethic and its benefits to its members and visitors in exhibits.

It should be noted that the measures suggested are quite cost effective and only ask the ZOO to put capital to work in a fashion that will improve equipment life cycles (reducing the frequency of replacing worn out equipment), reduce energy consumption and reduce maintenance. These benefits result in continuing savings for the ZOO.

ESI has worked in conjunction with the staff at the ZOO to develop this study and trusts that it accurately reflects the goals and direction given to ESI by the ZOO team. We look forward to working with the ZOO over the ensuing years to bring this plan to fruition.

Saint Louis ZOO Energy Audit

Page 6

Summary The values of the recommended energy efficiency options discussed in the body of the report for the ZOO are listed in Table 1, Energy Conservation Measures.

Energy Conservation Measure

Annual Savings Cost4

Payback (years) kWH Therms $

Incandescent Changes1 560,000 $33,500 $13,750 0.4

Fluorescent Changes 230,000 $13,800 $136,500 9.8

Fan Setback2 954,000 $30,800 $50,000 1.6

Motor Efficiency 95,600 $5,300 $36,600 6.9

Energy Recovery 145,000 17,000 $35,100 $170,000-340,000 4.8-9.6

Boiler/DHW Changes 93,200 $93,200 $96,000-120,000 1.3

Air to Water Cooling3 660,000 $116,300 $1,250,000-1,500,000 10.7-12.9

Penguin Ice Storage (200 kW) $14,500 $140,000-175,000 9.7-12.1

Total 2,644,600 110,200 $342,500 $1,892,850-2,371,850 5.5-6.9 1 Does not count $73,000 in annual labor savings. 2 Costs are merely an allowance for possible controls upgrades 3 Includes life cycle cost savings of $62,500 with energy savings of $53,800 4 Midpoint of range used in total

TABLE 1 Energy Conservation Measures

Additional ECMs that are expected to be cost effective, but are difficult to quantify or cost out at this point, include, but are not limited to:

1. Shutdown of outdoor radiant heaters at Lake Side Café when not occupied. 2. Recalibration of all terminal reheat system devices. 3. Install Occupancy Sensors to reduce lighting when spaces are unoccupied. 4. Recover compressor energy for domestic hot water and reheat loads. 5. Reduce/Eliminate winter outdoor water heating for exhibits.

Efforts have been made to minimize duplication in savings accounted for above. There is still some overlap. For instance, energy recovery, which should be done first, will reduce the amount saved under boilers and chillers, but the capital costs should also be reduced proportionately. Therefore, the absolute numbers may go down, but the overall cost effectiveness should remain roughly the same. The savings above place the potential at an annual reduction in natural gas consumption of 23% and electrical consumption of 20%. These are not unreasonable targets and similar numbers have been secured for comparable facilities that also realized paybacks in the same range as that afforded by these efforts. These changes, if implemented as a package, are expected to require a capital outlay of close to $2,100,000 and would result in an average payback of 6.2 years.

Note that these economic analyses have used current rates for electricity and $1/therm for natural gas. Rates have been higher of late. If rates remain high these paybacks


Page 7

will be quicker. One of the major values in Energy Master Plan process is the proactive way the ZOO can work to buffer itself from future price hikes. The more energy is saved, the more sustainable future budgets become.

In addition to the energy and operating cost savings, there are environmental benefits that make such efforts doubly important. The following table shows the expected reductions in related pollutants if the above savings are achieved. This level of reduction represents a significant improvement to local air quality attainment. Data on such reductions would be a valuable input to educational exhibits that point out the value of energy efficiency in promoting a healthier ecosystem.

Electricity Natural Gas Saved Energy 2,600,000 kWh 110,200 Therms

Pollutants Reduction CO2 (tons) 2,317.9 645.1 VOCs (lbs) 93.6 594.0 NOx (tons) 7.90 0.83 N2O (lbs) * 24.2 CO (tons) 0.39 1.30 SO2 (tons) 15.5 0.033 PM10 (lbs) 260 205 Mercury (lbs) 0.2 * Cadmium (lbs) * * Lead (lbs) 0.3 * Mercury compounds (tons) 47.8 * Cadmium compounds (tons) 1.8 * Lead compounds (tons) 67.6 *

TABLE 2 Reduced Emissions for St. Louis ZOO

Funding Alternative

The ZOO has expressed interest in funding these efforts internally. However, it should be noted that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which provided grant money to assist with this energy audit, also has low interest loan funds that would provide up to 11.7 times of the demonstrated annual energy savings in a loan. This means that the ZOO could be eligible for up to $4,000,000 in State Energy Loans. The loan rates start at 3.0% for payback periods of 6 years or less and increase by 0.1% for each additional year to payback, maxing out at 4.0% for loans with terms of 16 years (the maximum term).

The sooner these items are implemented, the sooner the savings in energy, operating costs and pollution are realized. Moving forward with the State Energy Loan Program is likely to accomplish this in a quicker time frame. As an added incentive, the loan can be retired early without penalty, so the ZOO can raise the funds needed concurrently with the efforts being implemented and retire the loan once the principal has been secured.


Page 8

Scope Energy Solutions, Inc. (ESI) has audited the energy use of the major buildings throughout the St. Louis Zoo complex (ZOO). The ZOO consists of 65 buildings of various sizes with a total square footage of 409,780 (Appendix A). The audit examines the 32 most substantial spaces, with a total square footage of 350,957 (Appendix A). The scope of the audit was to determine what energy efficiency measures the ZOO could implement to save energy and reduce energy costs and fashion the findings into an Energy Master Plan that can be used to guide the replacement and upgrading of mechanical heating, cooling and ventilation equipment and the upgrading of lighting and motors across the campus.

ESI has worked with the staff at the ZOO (collectively the Team) to establish baselines of energy consumption levels that can be used as metrics for evaluating the efficacy of future efforts to improve energy efficiency. The Team has also developed inventories of lights and HVAC equipment throughout ZOO buildings that will serve as guides to ZOO personnel or contractors charged to upgrade this equipment during future renovations.

For the areas identified below, there can be significant reductions in energy usage and cost with relatively small investments:

1. Upgrade controls and lighting systems; 2. Implement tighter control on equipment usage, 3. Implement night setback schedules, and; 4. Install energy efficient motors.

Additionally, ESI has identified areas in which significant savings can be realized with more substantial investments. These opportunities surround ZOO HVAC systems:

1. Exhaust air energy recovery 2. Change from air cooled to water cooled condensing systems and move towards

centralized cooling plants 3. Replace boilers that have reached life cycle with more efficient models, and

lower hot water loop set points. 4. Consider peak demand control with ice banks for shifting cooling demand to off

peak times. The section on recommendations deals with specifics on each of the above mentioned options.


Page 9

Background

Annual utility bills were analyzed from 2001-2004. The ZOO has one electric meter for all buildings. There are multiple gas accounts serving single buildings and multiple buildings. Campus wide, the annual energy usage and costs have been:

Square Feet Gas Therms Gas $ Elec kWh Elec $ Total $ $/SF

409,780 476,976 $306,945 12,869,087 $675,167 $982,112 $2.40

TABLE 3 Energy Usage and Costs

The historic ZOO energy expenses are expected to rise and become an increasingly important budget concern for the organization. The 2005 winter, for example, is experiencing relatively high costs of natural gas compared to an already high historic baseline.

Of the dollars spent on energy, 31% have been for natural gas and 69% for electricity. Natural gas prices spiked in the winter of 2000, dropped, and have risen again. The spike in this winter should also eventually drop, but not all of the way back to 2003-2004 levels. Investments in improved energy efficiency in the ZOO will work to buffer future price shocks associated with the costs of energy.

As a result of one early recommendation, the ZOO has contracted with Siemens to submeter electrical usage so that data can be developed for buildings or groups of buildings, not just the campus as a whole. With better data there can be better management.

Energy Investment Criteria Investments in energy efficiency are a diminishing function. The more you save the more expensive the next round of savings becomes and the less there is to save. This is illustrated in the following chart.

As more insulation, for instance, is purchased, the cost of Investment rises linearly. However, the Savings curve flattens out fairly quickly and the Net Savings curve peaks and turns. The peak on the Net Savings curve (Investment – Operating Costs) is a point of diminishing returns where the last dollar invested only gets $0.99 back in the time frame allowed; however, the savings are still positive with respect to the starting point. This is the minimum point that anyone or any organization should invest to. It still makes economic sense, based on the volatility of fuel costs to invest up to a point where the Net Savings curve crosses $0.00 net savings. This means that the organization is in no worse shape than if nothing had been done, but that the maximum economically reasonable energy reductions and environmental benefits have been secured.


Page 10

It is recommended that the ZOO position itself on the curve between these points. This can be effectively accomplished by establishing pay back criteria appropriate to the life cycle of the equipment/materials being replaced.

Economics of Energy Efficiency

($20)

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Increasing Efficiency Measures

Operating Invest Savings Net Savings

Point of $0 Net Savings (Maximum Investment)

Point of Incremental Diminishing Returns

(Minimum Investment)

Figure 1 Economics of Energy Efficiency

For instance, for improvements to the building envelope like insulation and glazing it is recommended that the premium costs over and above “normal” practice be recovered in a period of 15 - 20 years or less through savings in energy costs, maintenance costs and life cycle replacement costs. The following table summarizes recommendations for paybacks for various building systems for both new construction and remodeling efforts.

TABLE 4 Recommended Investment Criteria

The time frame for HVAC equipment is predicated primarily on the life cycle for the equipment. The time frame for lighting is based on the fact that there are rapid advances in lighting technology, so it is advisable at this time to not over invest in present lighting technology so that opportunities for retooling with better equipment after seven years may make economic sense. For institutions, these time frames and

Building System

Payback (years)

ROI

Envelope 15-20 5-6%

HVAC < 10 10%

Lighting < 7 14%


Page 11

effective ROIs typically show better economic yields than are available with endowment funds that may be used to secure these gains. This makes the investment in physical plant improvements a prudent move which should be able to replenish the use of any such funds in a reasonable time frame.

Utility Rates Future One of the primary reasons for pursuing improvements in energy efficiency is to work to avoid the shock of future rate increases. Figure 1 shows the rate of electric utility cost increases over the last 30 years compared to the Consumer Price Index for Urban consumers. The following is a discussion of probable near term utility rates.

Annual Energy Costs State of Missouri

$0.00$2.00$4.00$6.00$8.00

$10.00$12.00$14.00$16.00$18.00$20.00

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year

Cost

($/M

MBT

U) Elec

Gasoline

Nat Gas

CPI

EIA State Energy Data 2001

31 Year Multiple

4.2

2.86

4.03

13.8

Bureau of Labor Stat ist ics: CPI for all Urban Consumers, Current Series

Figure 2 Historic Energy Costs in Missouri

Electric Rates Like the overall rates for the State, the average cost per kilowatt from Ameren UE has been relatively constant for the last decade. Presently there is a rate moratorium for Ameren UE until 2006. There was a forced decline in rates over the last few years under an agreement with the Public Service Commission (PSC). The maximum reductions are presently in effect. Ameren is has developed a PSC mandated cost of service survey. This will lead to a rate increase filing by Ameren in January 2006. This is likely to be offset by a PSC recommendation for a rate reduction. It is likely that new rates will be negotiated and in effect by October 2006.

As part of the give and take in rate making, I would expect that there will be significant demand side concessions that Ameren will have to make along with subscribing to scheduled percentages of renewable power as part of their power mix. The conservation programs that will develop from demand side programs will have a modest


Page 12

downward pressure on the power production equation that will marginally offset growth in load from new construction. I see this as having a small, but perceptible impact on demand/load that will probably not be anticipated by Ameren. This, coupled with renewable fuels will work to limit load growth due to demographic changes in the region.

Since 1988, absolute rates for the cost of electricity in Missouri have held constant or declined. The absolute cost for electricity dropped 7% over the last 15 years (this is a 26% relative drop when inflation is considered). In my estimation, rates increases will probably be set at a phased in increment of 10% per year for a period of 3-4 years. This will bring Ameren back to an inflation adjusted rate (plus a little) since the rates began their decline in 1988.

There is a current law (SB179) that allows for Ameren to pass through increases in the costs of fuel. The PSC is working to include that in new rate making that could take effect in late 2006. Natural gas costs for gas turbine peaking plants is expected to cause increases in summer rates in particular. Cost recovery for the cost of upgrades for cleaner emissions will also be allowed, but these costs are expected to come home to roost in the 2009+ time frame [this delay in onset is due to rate making timelines along with the design and construction timelines] and there should be reductions in natural gas prices by that time. These allowed adjustments are expected to keep electric rates rising above overall inflation adjusted costs of fuel. Once historic rate reductions have been effectively reversed, and based on the fact that the external costs of coal and nuclear are not clearly embodied in the costs of electricity, its is expected that increases in inflation will be the primary drivers in causing electric rates to rise for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, to be conservative, I would recommend budgeting electricity expenditures for increases as follows:

Year Annual Rate

Cumlative Elec Rate Inflation Net Elec

Rate

2005 0% 100% 100%

2006 5% 105% 104% 102%

2007 10% 116% 107% 108%

2008 10% 127% 111% 116%

2009 10% 140% 115% 125%

2010 5% 147% 119% 128%

TABLE 5 Electric Energy Inflation Rate

This topic should be revisited in about three years to see what has actually transpired.


Page 13

Gas Rates Gas costs have see-sawed over the last few years, but are now up again and expected to stay there for a while. The other factor involved in the cost of heating besides the rates is the weather. The year 2000 was within 0.5% of long term averages for heating related weather; therefore the usage in the year 2000 would be a good basis to represent the average usage, provided that the new construction since then is added to that ZOO baseline.

Annual Costs per Therm Laclede Gas Company

$0.00$0.10$0.20$0.30$0.40$0.50$0.60$0.70$0.80$0.90$1.00$1.10

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Cos

t ($/

Ther

m)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

CPI

Mul

tiple

Residential

Comm/Ind

Interruptible

MO Avg

CPI

In 1990 the method for determining data for interruptible and transportation changed. Data from Laclede Gas Annual Reports

Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI for all Urban Consumers, Current SeriesEIA State Energy Data 2000

3 Decade Multiple

3.9

7.1

9.18

10.5

Figure 3 Historic Costs of Natural Gas

Gas rates have been volatile, to say the least. This is expected to continue for the next several years. Discussions with folks at Laclede and projections from federal and private markets are all over the map. Recent Henry Hub prices are showing drops in the spot market but weekly increases in the futures market for the near term.

Producers’ profits are up significantly over recent years, LNG facilities are being built abroad for shipping to the USA and terminals are being permitted in the USA to receive such imports. These data lead ESI to believe that there will be softness in the price of natural gas in the not too distant future. The market response to price increases – will cause a drop in demand over the next several years. More of this will occur as prices stay high. These higher prices have encouraged higher supply delivery infrastructure investments (noted above). These should come on line about the time that reductions in demand due to high prices today come on line. This, coupled with high profits will lead to drops in market prices within 3 years.

One of the major pressures on gas prices right now is the expansion of gas turbines for electric peaking plants. This keeps prices for gas high in the summer, which used to be


Page 14

a low cost time for gas purchases for storage. With relaxation of regulations on emissions from coal power plants, there will be a shift back to lower cost coal producing plants, as much as is reasonably possible, for summer peaking, before emissions regulations tighten back up. I see this as effecting softer gas prices in the future.

All of the above would lead me to believe that the price of natural gas will stay volatile for the next 2-3 years and then there will be structural adjustments in the market that cause significant reductions in cost in the 3-5 year time frame.

With weather volatility of ± 15%, it is recommend that the budgeting process take the last current year adjusted to normal weather (to reflect the reductions in consumption that are gained each year) and increase the dollars for this new base year 5% and then budget for an added 15% to cover possible weather extremes.

Example

Normal HDD = 4758. Say 2005 has 4570 HDD (96% of normal) and spends $252,300 for natural gas. Then:

1. Adjust these dollars to normal: 252300/.96 = $262,800 2. Add 5% for rate growth: 262,800 *1.05 = $276,000 3. Add 15% for extreme weather potential 276,000 *1.15 = $317,400

This model should be revisited in three years to see where things really are.

Site Audit ESI trained ZOO staff managers in the proper methodology for collecting data. The ZOO managers then supervised ZOO staff as they conducted a survey of the main buildings on campus in the fall of 2003. These survey data were checked by ESI, and are summarized in Appendicies A, D & E. The following data were collected:

A review of building drawings;

A room-by-room counting of lighting fixtures and lamp used in the fixtures;

An examination of heating and cooling equipment;

In depth discussions with ZOO maintenance personnel; and,

Heat Loss and Heat Gain calculations

With the utility bill analyses and information from the site audits, ESI recommends the following programs.


Page 15

Recommendations

Change Lighting Systems ZOO staff surveyed the light fixtures serving the various buildings at the ZOO. The survey identified the following categories and quantities of lighting equipment:

Category # Fixtures # Lamps Installed kW Incandescent 2746 2746 259.5 Fluorescent (T12) 3558 4528 (T12) 171.6 Other (not T8s) 653 653 49.3

TABLE 6 Lighting Systems Table

INCANDESCENTS

All of the incandescent lamps can be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps. Since the typical incandescent lamp has a life of 1000 hours and a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) has a life of 10,000+ hours, an effort to replace incandescent lamps will significantly reduce maintenance costs in the very near future. [It should be noted that very few lamps in the survey were identified as “burned-out”. This indicates that the ZOO expends a considerable effort to make sure that lamps are replaced as soon as they burn out. ] CFL lamps are readily available at less than $5/lamp. This places the probable maximum cost of this measure at $13,750.

The most recent lighting survey undertaken by ZOO Staff (Fall 2003) indicates an average incandescent wattage of 94.5 watts. If the incandescent lamps are replaced with compact fluorescent lamps, the wattage reduction will be ~75%. Assuming approximately 3600 hours of annual operation and a maximum peak coincidence of 80%, eliminating the incandescent lamps will result in annual savings of $33,500, based on the ZOO’s historic cost of electricity. In addition, it will save the cost of personnel time to replace each lamp (~$10/lamp). Instead of replacing each lamp 3 times a year ($30/year/lamp), each lamp will now be replaced once every 3 years ($3.33/year/lamp) for annual labor savings of $73,000.

FLUORESCENTS

There are 171.6 kW of installed fluorescent T12 lamps and fixtures. However, it has been observed that there in many places the footcandle levels are significantly higher than recommendations of the Illuminating Engineers Society of North America. This is due to the fact that lighting designers fix the calculations based on the end of life lumen output of lamps (formerly up to 30+% less than initial lumen output). This means that for approximately 85-90% of the life of the lamp (lamp life is typically 20,000+ hours), more light (and energy) than is needed is being put out by the lamps. A simple retrofit to Electronic Ballasts and T8 lamps would increase the output even more while dropping the energy usage ~20%. With the higher output associated with T8 lamps and electronic ballasts, it is reasonable to expect to be able to retrofit existing T12 fixtures on roughly a 2/3 basis, depending on the number of lamps in a fixture, which will result in additional savings.


Page 16

There are new dimmable ballast technologies available that provide for lumen (or footcandle) maintenance. The ballast is tuned to put out only the level of light needed. As a lamp’s output declines, the ballast provides more power to excite the phosphors. As a result, the ballast is only drawing the full power used by normal ballasts for the last 10-15% of the hours of lamp life. In addition, by reducing the watt loading on the lamp tube walls in the earlier part of a lamp’s life, lamp life will be extended. This ballast is equipped with a room light level sensor so that it will further dim the lamps if daylight is available.

Testing by ESI has indicated that his tuning capacity (there are 8 steps available), to make sure that only the energy needed for the lighting level desired is used, will result in an additional 25-30% savings over the standard T8/Electronic Ballast retrofit (depending on the amount of excess illumination).

This Energy Conservation Measure (ECM), changing T12 fluorescent fixtures to T8 with the lumen maintenance ballast, will save approximately 80 kW. Using the same coincident peak discussion as with the incandescents above, this will result in a billed reduction of 64.4 kW and 19,400 kWh per month. The annual savings from this measure is estimated at $13,800 and the installed cost for this measure is estimated at $135,000 with a 9.8 year payback – without including the value of any daylighting savings that may occur (~ 20-30% more savings depending on location of fixtures). If the install is accomplished wit ZOO personnel, the cost may be significantly less.

OTHER LAMPS

There are a number of Mercury Vapor/Multi Vapor, Halogen and Sodium Vapor Lamps. These occur with a relatively low frequency and are often in special use spaces or out of doors. The ZOO has decided not to pursue replacement of these lights at this time.


Page 17

Fan Systems OPERATING HOURS

ZOO mechanical staff has identified 87 fans to date with a measured load of 239 kW. The majority of the fans operate 8760 hours per year. The necessary operating hours to satisfy the ZOO schedule of operations is 3485 hours per year with an additional estimated 715 hours of operation for fan cycling necessary for nighttime winter heating - to maintain setback and provide for optimum warm-up in the mornings. For most fans, this is a total of 4200 hours estimated for annual operations at the ZOO, or a 52% savings in hours of operations. Not only will turning these fans off when they are not needed save money, it will also extend the life of the equipment by a factor of two. [Note: Some of the fans in exhibit and critical use areas do need to run 8760 hours per year (24 x 7) to meet programmatic and health needs. These fans will not be set back.]

Setting fans to operate only when they are needed is expected to reduce ZOO energy usage by 954,000 kWH and $30,800 a year. The primary cost for this effort has already been absorbed through the installation and upgrading of the Building Management System (BMS). An allowance of $50,000 should be made in the event some of the fans are not yet under BMS control. The ZOO will need to invest personnel time in this effort to make the necessary schedule changes to the BMS.

Motor Efficiency Most of the motors are of the older vintage, before premium motor efficiency was an option. It is assumed that most of the efficiencies are in the 85% range. Replacement motors are available in the 90-95% efficiency range, depending on size. There is a connected load for motors over 2 HP of 228 kW [51 motors]. Replacing these motors with premium efficiency motors (the highest available efficiency), would result in a 10% reduction in motor demand (22.8 kW) and save 95,600 kWH per year. This effort will save $5,300 per year and should be phased in as motors fail at little to no additional cost. The ZOO could proactively change motors as staff time permits. The estimated cost for this effort is $36,600, of which approximately $10,200 has been estimated for ZOO staff labor. This accelerated effort has a payback of 5.0 year on material cost alone and 7.0years on the total of material and labor.

Energy Recovery on Exhaust Four major ZOO buildings (Living World, Veterinary Hospital, Jungle of the Apes and the Lakeside Café) have sustained exhaust from the building of 33,000+ CFM. Other confinement facilities have high rates of continuous exhaust. Each CFM of exhaust requires the HVAC system to condition a replacement CFM of outdoor air to meet the design requirements for people and animal comfort in the space.

If the air is cooled and dehumidified (an inherent part of the cooling) for the summer and heated and humidified for the winter, then recent historic costs for conditioning this air is $2.80/cfm (2005 3M rate and ~$1/therm at 75% efficiency) if it runs continuously (8,760 hours/year). The table below shows the value of each step in conditioning outdoor air.


Page 18

TABLE 7 Cost of Conditioning Outdoor Air

The minimum value would be based only on sensible heating energy recovery. This would most likely serve animal facilities that are not cooled or humidified. This would save $0.70/cfm and would be able to improve humidity levels, even if this had not been a design goal in the past.

Turning exhaust off when it is not needed will make substantial reductions in these operating costs. For those hours the exhaust systems operate, Energy Recovery Ventilation systems (ERVs) have the ability to exchange energy between the exiting exhaust and the incoming make-up air. The savings will be roughly proportional to the percentage of hours of operation.

The following table shows the potential of implementing energy recovery ventilation systems on the four largest loads at the ZOO:

Exhaust

CFM Daily Op

Hours

Annual Costs (2004)

Projected Savings

Living World 1,860 10 $ 2,325 $1,100 VET 13,980 24 $ 41,940 $20,100 Lakeside Cafe 13,900 10 $ 17,375 $8,300 JOTA 3,906 24 $ 11,718 $5,600 33,646 $ 73,358 $ 35,100

TABLE 8 Exhaust Energy Recovery Projections

The estimated cost for installing equipment that would do this exchange range from $5 - $10/cfm depending on size and difficulty of the retrofit. For the above effort this becomes $170,000 to $340,000 and would reduce consumption of energy by 17,000 therms/year and 145,000 kWH. This would place the payback for this effort in the 4.8 – 9.6 year range. This same approach should be taken with respect to other exhaust systems at the ZOO but, it is recommended that these facilities proceed with implementation as soon as possible. This is especially true for the Living World, where it is know that cooling systems are in need of life cycle replacement.

HEATING BTU/CFM $/1000 CFM/yr Specific Heat Added 1,258 72% $ 1,066 72% Winter Humidification 495 28% $.....420 28%

TOTAL HEATING 1,752 100% $ 1,486 100%

COOLING Specific Heat Removed (1,332) 49% $.....651 49% Summer Dehumidification (1,409) 51% $ 688 51%

TOTAL COOLING (2,741) 100% $ 1,339 100%


Page 19

It is important that this be accomplished prior to, or in conjunction with, the replacement of the heating and/or cooling plants. The installation of this equipment would allow the replacement equipment to be downsized, reducing the capital cost of the replacement equipment. Generally speaking, the cost of the energy recovery equipment is offset in the reduced costs of the smaller heating and cooling equipment that is required after energy recovery efforts are implemented. This is a life-cycle economic credit that can be used to further accelerate the payback of the energy recovery equipment.

Boiler/DHW Replacements Data on gas consumption were regressed against weather for the billing periods from early 2001 to the end of 2003. Examples of this process are illustrated below for the four largest gas consumers at the ZOO.

Living World Gas Usage

y = -8.1655x + 628.24 y = -2.6498x + 283.74

050

100150200250300350400450500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Avg Daily Temperature (F)

Ther

ms/

Day

Ape House Gas Usagey = -6.6012x + 462.88 y = -2.3288x + 191.34

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Ther

ms/

Day

Reptile House Gas Usage

y = -6.051x + 482.3 y = -4.989x + 427.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Ther

ms/

Day

River Camp Gas Usage

y = -2.7751x + 313.38 y = -2.2833x + 310.57

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Ther

ms/

Day

Figure 4 Natural Gas Usage Charts

The charts show that the use of gas correlates well to outdoor air temperature.The data are able to be expressed as an equation for the winter periods and the summer periods [See Appendix B]. These equations can be summed for all of the meters on campus to produce a single equation for the ZOO as a whole. The equations for winter and


Page 20

summer usage are at the top of the chart below. For comparison purposes, the sum of the four largest using meters (above) is shown on the same chart. In rough terms, these four buildings represent half of the gas usage for the ZOO.

Zoo Campus Gas Usagey = -51.674x + 4010.1 y = -24.999x + 2503.1

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Temperature

Ther

ms/

Day Whole Campus

Top 4 Users

Figure 5 Campus Natural Gas Usage and Equations

Using hourly weather data for an “normal” year in Saint Louis and the equations above, it has been determined that the annual gas consumption for the ZOO is 487,000 Therms for a “normal” year. This is comprised of 342,000 therms (70% of total) for winter usage and 145,000 therms for non-winter usage (hourly outdoor air temperature >55°F). A summer minimum usage of roughly 380 therms per day was established from the equations of use based on a day with an 85°F average temperature, with 70% of this estimated as the gas cooking load. [Using the peak summer gas load makes sure the impact of reheat gas usage is minimized in setting the baseload]. This sets the baseline domestic hot water (DHW) and cooking load of the ZOO at 138,700 therms per year. It is estimated that 70% of this usage (97,100 therms) is for cooking. This leaves a boiler heating, reheat load and domestic hot water load of 389,900 therms/year: all of which would benefit from the higher efficiency boiler strategy outlined below.

The ZOO has facilities with boilers and domestic hot water heaters that are nearing lifecycle. As part of the normal cycle of equipment replacement, ESI recommends that the ZOO replace existing boilers and hot water heaters with more efficient condensing hot water boilers/heaters. It is assumed that the present use of natural gas operates with the existing boilers and water heaters at a seasonal efficiency of 70% (probably high). Newer boiler technology operates in the 92+% efficiency range. This represents a gas energy usage savings of ~ 25% and would reduce the gas consumption for heating and hot water by 93,200 therms/year. At the rate of roughly $1/therm, the potential for gas operating savings is $93,200 annually (rates this year have been 20-


Page 21

30% higher than this). At life cycle, the premium cost of replacing the existing boilers with more efficient, condensing boilers is approximately $6,000/MMBTU. The annual usage for DHW and Heating appears to be in the 16 – 20 MMBTUH range for an over all premium to upgrade the boilers and hot water heaters of $96,000 to 120,000. This places the payback for life cycle upgrades at approximately 1 to 1.3 years.

If a 10 payback is allowed, which is appropriate for this kind of equipment, then the ZOO could cost effectively budget $1,135,000 for boiler replacement. It may be appropriate, with this level of cost effectiveness, to accelerate life cycle replacement of many of the boilers – especially if it is expected that the long term cost of natural gas will stay high (which would reduce the payback time line significantly).

It is recommended that the ZOO develop a roof top burner, boiler and hot water heater replacement schedule that will systematically upgrade the existing equipment at life cycle or before.

Cooling Equipment Changes Most of the cooling at the ZOO is achieved using air cooled condensing equipment. This locks the ZOO into an inherently inefficient heat rejection mode. The following chart compares various types of 100 ton compressor systems using air cooled and water cooled systems.

Part Load Chiller Comparisons

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

% Part Load

kW/T

on

100 Ton Scroll Air

100 Ton Screw Air

100 Ton Scroll Water

100 Ton Screw Water

100 TurboCor Water

Figure 6 Performance of Chiller Technologies


Page 22

Scroll and screw compressors are readily available and comparing air cooled and water cooled versions of these compressors indicates that water cooled devices are roughly 40% more energy conserving than the air cooled and that the scrolls are somewhat more efficient than the screws in an air cooled mode and the screws are a somewhat more efficient in the water cooled mode. However, there is a new small centrifugal compressor out that is ~20% more efficient than the water cooled scroll or screw (it uses only half the energy of the air cooled versions). It goes by the trade name TurboCor and is manufactured by Danfoss. It is slightly more expensive, but the premium paid is generally recovered in less than 3 years.

The nature of the air cooled equipment is that it has relatively short life. These units typically need replacing every 12-15 years. Many existing units at the ZOO presently are at life cycle and are ready for replacement. It is strongly recommended that the ZOO move forward with replacing air cooled systems with water cooled ones. This will add a little to the cost of maintenance for cooling tower water treatment, but the ZOO has the personnel necessary for this small amount of additional service work. It will more than pay for itself in the energy savings. In addition, the life cycle of water cooled compressors is substantially longer than that for air cooled equipment. The new chillers should serve the ZOO for 25-30 years before needing replacement.

Zoo Electric Usage: Nov, 2000 - Jan, 2003

y = 530.59x + 724.09

y = -79.034x + 32984

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


kWH

/Day

Base Load Electrical Use

CoolingElectrical Use

Figure 8 ZOO Electrical Use Profile


Page 23

By analyzing the electric utility data for three years prior to the start up of the Penguin Puffin Exhibit it was determined that the amount of energy consumed for cooling in a typical year at the ZOO is 1,850,00 kWH, which is 29% of the total summer electrical usage and 14.4% of the annual usage. The profile changes significantly after the start up of the Penguin Puffin Exhibit, but since that is a new facility, it will be a while before the equipment warrants replacement, therefore the focus is on the equipment and loads prior to this time frame.

The number of effective cooling load hours producing this demand is 2100 FLH. It is estimated that the existing equipment operates in the neighborhood of 1.2 kW/ton. At this rate, the ZOO has an estimated peak campus cooling load of 740 tons. If the existing air cooled equipment is replaced with the best available water cooled equipment [TurboCor], the annual savings generated are expected to be 660,000 kWH with a reduction of 440 kW. At the present Ameren 4M rate this converts to $53,800 per year.

The newer technology costs more compared to the conventional air cooled roof top options. The life cycle replacement cost of the estimated 740 tons of cooling that need replacing soon is expected to cost approximately $750,000. It is estimated that reworking the existing air cooled systems as water cooled systems may add another $250,000-500,000 to the costs and that the premium for the better technology is approximately $250,000. In effect, the change will cost $1,250,000 to $1,500,000. These added costs, in similar projects, have been justified on the basis of reduced life cycle system cost savings. Central chiller plants will last 25 – 30 years whereas roof top equipment generally needs systems replaced every 12 – 15 years. Besides the annual energy savings, there is an annualized life cycle cost savings of $62,500 per year. This brings the effective annual savings to $116,300 per year for a payback of 10.7 to 12.9 years. At the life cycle for the central plant, [the third life cycle for the roof top equipment] the cost of replacing central plant equipment is typically significantly less than replacing the roof tops again.

An added benefit of the central plant approach, besides the fact that it saves energy and is less environmentally destructive, the choices of available refrigerants allows for selecting refrigerants which are safe for the ozone layer.

Penguin Puffin Exhibit There was a substantial change in operating energy usage for the Penguin Puffin Exhibit in March of 2004 (upper curve in chart below). The system was apparently recommissioned and it began using substantially more energy [~2500 – 4000 more kWH/day]. It is recommended that the systems be reexamined to determine if efficiencies may be available in the present operating profile.

In addition, due to the extra runtime hours dedicated to cooling, this exhibit may be a candidate for thermal storage. Ice can be generated at night with the existing chillers and used the next day to meet the cooling loads. If the impact of this cooling load can be successfully moved to off peak hours, then the ZOO can reduce the peak demand approximately 200kW each month (based on submetering data for the Penguin Puffin Exhibit on the ZOO building management


Page 24

Penguin House Daily kWH Electric Usage

y = 47.3x + 3704.7

y = 84.534x + 4085.6

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Temp

3/5/04-11/24/04

9/24/03-3/4/04

Figure 9 Electrical Use: Penguin Puffin Exhibit

system. Because of the lower operating temperatures of this exhibit, it is expected that cooling will be required for 10 months of the year. Shifting 200 kW to off peak usage requires the installation of approximately 1400-1750 ton-hours of cooling and will cost $140,000 – 175,000. Moving this load off peak for 9 months of the year is expected to save approximately $14,5000/year and result in a payback of 9.7 – 12.1 years. The costs and savings are roughly linear for such an effort. Therefore, this effort can be managed in stages so that this concept can be tested prior to making a full commitment to the system. It should be noted that this measure is not expected to reduce energy consumption very much at all. There may be some reduction by operating the equipment when ambient temperatures are lower, but this is likely to be offset by the chiller having to work harder to produce temperatures low enough to make ice. It will, however, reduce costs and assist the operations of the electrical grid by reducing ZOO demand during the hottest hours of the day.

The experience afforded by this effort will provide data that will allow the ZOO to determine if other cooling loads on campus are candidates for demand load shifting through ice storage.

for facilities condition assessment - saint louis zoo · saint louis zoo . request for...

Documents