Master Plan Appendix B

City of Chandler — Regular Meeting (2021-04-22)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 107448 characters

ASHRAE LEVEL II ENERGY
AUDIT REPORT
Appendix B

Chandler Municipal Airport
Chandler, Arizona

ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
Provided by

June 2020

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 2

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6

Project Information .................................................................................................................. 7

Baseline Utility Summary ........................................................................................................ 7
Baseline Model Calibration ..................................................................................................... 8

Analysis Reports ..................................................................................................................... 10
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. Ω

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
2
Executive Summary
As part of the updated Master Plan for Chandler Municipal Airport, Quest Energy Group performed a
comprehensive energy audit of selected buildings at the airport to assist in identifying and prioritizing
potential energy conservation measures (ECMs).
This audit meets or exceeds the Level II requirements established by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which requires a historical analysis of all
building utility consumption, efficiency improvement recommendations, and a detailed financial
analysis recommendation. Above and beyond the requirements for an ASHRAE Level II Audit, Quest
Energy Group developed a full scale energy simulation model using eQUEST software with International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) compliant baseline calibration in order to
validate energy savings estimates.
Key Audit Findings
The Chandler Municipal Airport spent about $59,000 on electricity from January 2019 to December 2019.
The results of the audit yielded the following findings listed below and are summarized in the following
table and figure. Additionally, individual energy conservation opportunities are detailed within
each individual building/area report following this Executive Summary.
•
Incorporating all ECMs over a ten year timeline could reduce total energy costs by almost 38%.
Incorporating a PV system to offset all energy usage onsite, would result in a payback of 13 years
and make the Chandler Municipal Airport a Net-Zero Energy facility.
•
Upgrading to LED fixtures and proper lighting controls results in an overall energy reduction of
almost 6% with an overall simple payback close to 5.3 years.
•
Small control upgrades to HVAC equipment in the Administration Building and ATCT would provide
quick paybacks and reduce energy costs by 2.5%.
•
Upgrading to a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) system in the Administration building should be
considered at the end of life of the current equipment. A VRF system could reduce total airport
energy costs by up to 5%.
•
LED upgrades to the airport landing lighting fixtures requires a significantly high first cost and
results in an unfavorable economic return.
•
Installing a solar PV system for individual buildings results in an average payback of about 16
years. This is mainly due to the Salt River Project (SRP) utility buyback rate of only $0.02-$0.03 per
kWh instead of the full retail rate of $0.09 kWh (on average).
Figure 1 – Annual Financial Results Summary Table for Aggregated Measures (All Meters)
ECM
Measure Description
Estimated
Initial Costs
Utility Cost
Savings
Potential
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
ECM1
LED Lighting Upgrades
$13,400
$2,753
$2,280
4.0
ECM2
High Performance Lighting Controls
$7,250
$430
$1,450
13.5
ECM3
LED Exterior Lighting Upgrades
$51,040
$2,475
$1,500
20.0
ECM4
HVAC Controls Upgrades
$2,150
$1,351
$600
1.1
ECM5
HVAC Equipment Upgrades
$46,500
$2,953
$2,250
15.0
ECM6
Landing Lights LED Replacement
$110,000
$4,420
$4,000
24.0
ECM7
Instantaneous Hot Water Heaters
$2,425
$128
$99
18.2
ECM8
Receptacle Load Upgrades
$500
$336
$177
1.0
ECM9
Individual Solar PV Installations
$126,540
$7,873
$0
16.1

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Figure 2 – Annual Results Breakdown for Aggregated Measures (All Meters)

Solar PV Discussion
The project team has indicated the area highlighted the image below as a potential location for a solar
PV system. Based on the site visit, the following items need to be confirmed to determine whether the
site could house a solar PV system:

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for glare and other flight impact issues.
• No underground piping or sewer systems that would require access
• Proper spacing between solar PV system and existing structures/roads/construction.

Figure 3: Potential Solar PV Location

Additionally, two major financial considerations need to be considered for the installation of a solar PV
system:
1. In similar circumstances, other businesses have elected to form a power-purchase agreement
(PPA) with a third-party developer. This would theoretically enable the airport to lease the land to a
developer (solar services provider), who would build, own, and maintain the solar equipment. The
solar services provider could then sell the produced energy back to the airport at a set rate. The
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Electricity
Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
(%)
B0
Baseline Utility Usage
534,943
$58,928
0.0%
ECM1
LED Lighting Upgrades
513,653
$56,175
4.7%
ECM2
High Performance Lighting Controls
509,672
$55,744
5.4%
ECM3
LED Exterior Lighting Upgrades
482,814
$53,269
9.6%
ECM4
HVAC Controls Upgrades
470,672
$51,919
11.9%
ECM5
HVAC Equipment Upgrades
446,062
$48,965
16.9%
ECM6
Landing Lights LED Replacement
405,142
$44,545
24.4%
ECM7
Instantaneous Hot Water Heaters
403,999
$44,417
24.6%
ECM8
Receptacle Load Upgrades
401,201
$44,081
25.2%
ECM9
Individual Solar PV Installations
313,751
$36,208
38.6%

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

advantage of this approach is that the solar services provider could take advantage of any tax
credits not available to City of Chandler, thus lowering the net cost of the project, while potentially
avoiding or mitigating some of the barriers mentioned below.
a. Taxpayer/ public approval of funding
b. Utility connectivity issues and/or production arrangements
c. Other airport operational constraints
2. SRP only offers about a $0.02-$0.03 per kWh credit for excess generation on an hourly basis. This
means that if the PV system generates more energy than the property/building consumes, the
project will only be credited $0.02-$0.03 per kWh instead of the retail rate of about $0.09 per kWh.
Therefore, it is important to consider the installation of batteries for this project to store excess
energy generation so that it can be used on site. SRP currently does not offer battery storage
incentives to commercial customers, only to residential customers.
There are many potential options for installing solar PV at the Chandler Municipal airport. The following
PV systems were evaluated with and without battery storage assuming that the airport enters into a
power purchase agreement (PPA) with a third party developer and will not own their own system.
1. PV System to Offset All Airport Energy Usage
2. PV System to Offset Administration Building Energy Usage
3. PV System to Offset ATCT Energy Usage
The following table shows the financial results of the solar PV analysis including the following key
metrics:
1. Internal Rate of Return - calculates the discount rate that results in the net present value of all cash
flows for the project to equal zero over a 20 year period. This value can be used to compare
investments and their profitability.
2. Straight Line Payback – the time required to earn back the amount invested in the project.
3. 20-year Cash Flow – the net amount of cash generated by the project over the 20-year period.
It should be noted that an hourly/daily analysis is needed to determine more specifically the first cost
for battery storage and total excess generation from the PV system. Currently, conservative factors are
being used, and further investigation into hourly loads could reduce the first cost and payback for the
systems.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

System Type
PV System
Size
First
Cost
Straight Line
Payback (years)
Internal Rate
of Return (IRR)
20-year
Cash Flow
Offset all Airport Energy Usage
325 kW
$450,875
13.33
6.5%
$262,885
Offset Admin. Bldg Energy Usage
18 kW
$33,300
18.01
1.2%
$4,570
Offset ATCT Energy Usage
35 kW
$51,800
14.95
3.3%
$21,836
System Type
PV System
Size
First
Cost
Straight Line
Payback (years)
Internal Rate
of Return (IRR)
20-year
Cash Flow
Offset all Airport Energy Usage
325 kW
$605,875
15.06
8.0%
$350,760
Offset Admin. Bldg Energy Usage
18 kW
$44,400
18.17
1.4%
$7,429
Offset ATCT Energy Usage
35 kW
$82,140
19.15
0.7%
$6,805
PV System Options without Battery Storage
PV System Options with Battery Storage

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Methodology
The primary focus of the site audit performed was to survey the existing envelope, lighting, domestic
hot water (DHW) and HVAC equipment in the buildings and provide a summary of condition, age and
life of the units, and overall performance level. This audit is composed of a site visit conducted by John
Daniels on May 19th, 2020 as well as conversations with site personnel.

Based on the information collected from the site audit, a detailed energy simulation model was
developed using eQUEST (DOE2.2) software to analyze the baseline energy usage for the
Administration Building at the airport. The collected information was also used to develop engineering
grade spreadsheets of the remaining buildings and energy consuming equipment in scope: Air Traffic
Control Tower, Maintenance Building, Hangars, Exterior Lighting, and Landing Lights. The methodology
and assumptions in the energy modeling process are detailed below. A graphical depiction of the model
is shown in each building report.

• A detailed energy model of the Administration Building was constructed based on drawings
provided by airport personnel and field observations during the audit. Site inspections included
verifying wall and roof constructions, glass types, lighting equipment, HVAC, DHW, and other
major energy using equipment.
• Equipment operation schedules were based on operational, occupancy, and usage data and
supplemented through interviews with the operations and maintenance staff and field
observations.
• Lighting fixtures and schedules were input into the models based on field data and electrical
drawings.
• HVAC and DHW equipment were added to the model according to drawings and field
observations, and each zone was assigned to the appropriate HVAC system. Equipment
efficiencies were based on nameplate data and/or mechanical plans. Operation schedules and
controls were input according to maintenance staff interviews.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Project Information

Project Name & Location
Chandler Municipal Airport
Chandler, AZ 85286

Airport Contact
David Sorensen
Operations Supervisor
Chandler, AZ 85286
Phone: (480) 782-3543
Email: David.Sorensen@chandleraz.gov
Chris Andres
Airport Administrator
Chandler, AZ 85286
Phone: (480) 782-3543
Email: Chris.Andres@chandleraz.gov

Energy Auditor and Modeling Consultant
Quest Energy Group, LLC
Michael Ising
1620 W. Fountainhead Pkwy, Suite 303
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: 480-467-2480
Email: m.ising@questenergy.com

Quest Energy Group, LLC
John Daniels
1620 W. Fountainhead Pkwy, Suite 303
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: 480-467-2480
Email: john@questenergy.com

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Baseline Utility Summary
Electricity bills from January 2019 to December 2019 were collected and analyzed for all utility meters
in the scope. A summary of all utility meter annual electricity cost is provided below.

As shown below, the municipal airport spends about $58,969 per year on electricity at a unit cost of
about $0.11 per kWh. The areas that account for the majority of electricity usage are the landing lights
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), and the Administration Building.

Figure 4: Electricity Usage and Cost by Utility Meter

Figure 5 – Total Electricity Usage from Jan to Dec 2019
Electricity Usage
Unit Cost
Total Cost
kWh/year
$/kWh
$/year
117-280-004
Runway Lights
264,960
$0.11
28,622
$
49.5%
858-480-004
ATCT
72,073
$0.09
6,664
$
13.5%
036-390-004
Administration Bldg
69,560
$0.119
8,280
$
13.0%
223-360-001
Exterior Lighting
45,200
$0.10
4,632
$
8.4%
956-201-006
Unknown
35,004
$0.11
3,749
$
6.5%
814-680-005
T-Hangars
27,596
$0.11
2,926
$
5.2%
013-722-007
Maintenance Bldg
7,030
$0.15
1,052
$
1.3%
402-980-004
Fuel Building
5,174
$0.17
900
$
1.0%
863-754-006
Abandoned Bldg
4,000
$0.24
960
$
0.7%
148-375-004
Unknown
2,969
$0.23
671
$
0.6%
085-304-007
Unknown
1,377
$0.37
513
$
0.3%
534,943
$0.11
58,969
$
Location
Total
Utility Meter
% of Total
Usage

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Baseline Model Calibration
Calibration Process
After a detailed baseline model is constructed for each utility meter, it is important to adjust and
validate the accuracy of the model results by comparing it with the real‐life building behavior. This
process, known as calibration, is outlined in the paragraph and figure below.

Calibration of an energy model is initiated by running the model simulation using the actual weather
data from the site over a one‐year performance period. The simulated energy and power outputs are
then compared to the historical utility data for the same period, and the model inputs are refined to
make the simulated behavior match the actual data as closely as possible. Model input adjustments are
typically made based on sub-metered data, trend data, and operational details provided by the building
staff. This iterative process is repeated until the accuracy of the model is within reasonable tolerances
(+/- 5% MBE as recommended by IPMVP).

Figure 6 – Calibration Process Flowchart

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Baseline Energy Use Analysis & Calibration
The building modeled and calibrated through eQUEST was the Administration Building. All other
buildings/utility metered were calibrated utilizing engineering grade excel sheets. The figure below
illustrates the simulated eQUEST electrical energy usage predicted throughout the one-year period (Jan
2019 – Dec 2019) as compared to the actual historical utility data. The black line represents actual
building/utility data provided by each electrical meter. Most models were calibrated to within IPMVP
guidelines for calibration (MBE <±5%, Cv(RSME) <15%).

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Analysis Reports

Administration Building

Air Traffic Control Tower

Maintenance Building

T-Hangars A to I

Exterior and Canopy Lights

Runway and Taxiway Lights

Solar PV Analysis

Airport Administration Building

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
12

Building Description
The airport administration building is comprised of private office, meeting/conference, lobby, and amenity
areas. The total square footage of the building is about 5,000 SF. A 3D eQUEST rendering of the building is
shown in the figure below.

Operational Schedules
The airport administration building is expected to be occupied from 7AM to 5PM Monday through
Friday. Based on conversation with facility personnel, when the airport gets busier, the occupancy
schedule changes to 6AM to 9PM Monday through Friday.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
13

Energy Conservation Measures
The following section describes in detail individual energy conservation measures resulting
from the site visit. Estimated energy savings, implementation cost, and simple payback are
calculated for each conservation measure.

AA1: Replace Linear and Compact Fluorescent Lamps with LEDs

Existing Condition
The airport administration building utilizes a mixture of 2-lamp, 4ft. T8
fluorescent fixtures and recessed incandescent 60W lamps throughout.
Each fixture has the opportunity to be upgraded to LED lamps/fixtures that
draw significantly less power while also providing similar/better lighting
levels.

Recommended Action
Replace all fluorescent lamps with LED lamps. Use a 12W GE
LED12ET8/g/4/840 linear LED lamp or similar to replace linear
fluorescent lamps. Replace all 60W incandescent lamps with LED 9W
lamp. It is important that the LED lamp is checked for ballast
compatibility. Utilize new fixtures only when deemed aesthetically or
electrically necessary. The recommended fixture specifications can be
found in the Appendix.

LED lamps output similar lighting levels as CFLs at a reduced power draw;
thus, minimizing lighting energy usage without compromising
performance. Additionally, LED lamps have a longer lifespan minimizing
maintenance and replacement costs. As a bonus, LED lamps contain no
mercury, helping to streamline its recycling process.

It is also recommended that maintenance staff consider painting the walls to a brighter color
(such as white) and replacing the old ceiling tiles with new, whiter ceiling tiles. Brighter colors
have a higher reflectivity than darker colors meaning the brighter surfaces would reflect more
light to the room. Less output from the lighting fixtures would be needed to provide the same
lighting levels in the space. Thus, fewer fixtures would need to be installed, and it would require
less energy to illuminate the space.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all fluorescent and incandescent lamps with LED lamps would result in electrical
savings of about 7,292 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $875 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $300 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified interior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $600 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Utilizing this information and cost data for
the recommended lamps, the implementation cost would be about $3,000, and the simple
payback would be 2.7 years, including the incentive.
Figure 1: Fluorescent Lighting
Fixtures in the Hallways
Figure 2: Dark Walls and
Ceiling in Pilot’s Lounge

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
14
AA2: Install High Performance Lighting Controls
Existing Condition
Currently, only the bathrooms and conference rooms in the
administration building utility occupancy sensors. Based on conversation
with airport personnel and observations during the site visit, the building
has highly variable occupancy and it was noticed that lights were left on
in spaces that were unoccupied.
Additionally, spaces such as the conference rooms and offices utilize
significant amounts of natural light. There is opportunity to utilize
daylight harvesting controls to dim lighting fixtures when sufficient
natural light enters the space.
Recommended Action
It is recommended to expand the installation of occupancy sensors to the whole building and
install daylighting controls in perimeter spaces with large quantity of windows. The occupancy
sensors should turn off lighting fixtures within 20 minutes of people leaving the room.
Daylighting controls should automatically dim perimeter lighting fixtures near windows to
maintain a constant lighting level of 30 fc (typical for office spaces).
There are numerous lighting control companies that offer occupancy and daylighting control
solutions such as Lutron, Lithonia, Leviton, etc. This installation is best implemented at the
same time as upgrading lighting fixtures to LED fixtures since many lighting companies will
offer LED upgrades and lighting control upgrades as a packaged deal.
Energy and Cost Savings
Installing high performance lighting controls including occupancy and daylighting sensors
would result in electrical savings of about 1,682 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be
about $202 per year.
SRP offers a lighting rebate of $0.40 per watt controlled. It is therefore estimated that this
recommendation could receive up to $750 in incentive rebates.
Based on RSMeans and manufacturing data, each occupancy and daylight sensor would cost
about $250 to purchase and install. Utilizing this information, the implementation cost would
be about $3,750, and the simple payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive. It is
thus recommended that this ECM be coupled with ECM AA1. Combining the two ECMs, the
simple payback would be closer to 5.0 years.
Figure 3: Occupancy
Sensor in the Restroom

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
15

AA3: Replace Indirect Lighting and Optimize Natural Light in Corridors and Lobby

Existing Condition
The corridors and main lobby of the administration building have
significant amounts of linear fluorescent fixtures that provide
indirect lighting to illuminate the higher walls and ceiling.
Additionally, there are windows located near the ceiling, as shown
on the right, that provide natural lighting to illuminate the ceiling
and upper walls. Small amounts of the indirect lighting actually
reach the work plane making it an inefficient form of providing
light to the space. Replacing the indirect lighting with direct
lighting would provide a more efficient operation and the natural
lighting would still illuminate the ceiling and high walls.

Recommended Action
It is recommended to remove the indirect linear fluorescent lamps with direct linear LED
fixtures. This can be accomplished by simply repositioning the lighting covers to direct the light
towards the ground instead of the ceiling. Alternatively, linear fixtures could be installed and
suspended from the ceiling (below the level of the windows) to direct light to the work plane.
Either scenario would minimize the lighting output and energy usage to illuminate the space
while also maintaining an illuminated ceiling.

This recommendation should be considered with ECM AA1 and AA2. Installing daylighting
controls would maximize the usage of natural lighting from the windows and minimize the
energy output of the lighting fixtures.

Energy and Cost Savings
Removing indirect lighting and optimizing natural lighting would would result in electrical
savings of about 375 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $45 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $300 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified interior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $30 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that this recommendation would be included in ECM AA1 LED upgrades. Based
on RSMeans data, installing new ceiling hung fixtures would cost about $140 each. Each
fixture would take about one hour to install at a labor rate of $125 per hour. Utilizing this
information and cost data, the implementation cost would be about $800, and the simple
payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive. Coupling this recommendation with
ECM AA1 and AA2, the total simple payback would be closer to 5.5 years.

Figure 4: Indirect Lighting and
Natural Lighting in the Lobby

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
16

AA4: Install New Thermostats with Optimized Temperature Controls

Existing Condition
During the site visit, it was noticed that only two thermostats exist;
however, there are four HVAC units serving the administration
building. It is unclear how the two thermostats are controlling the
four HVAC units. Additionally, it was noticed that the existing
thermostats are very old and do not have the ability for scheduling or
automatic controls, as shown on the right. Given that the building is
not occupied 24/7, installing thermostats with scheduling and
automatic controls would reduce heating, cooling, and fan energy by
the HVAC units.

The cooling setpoints shown on the thermostats are around 71-72
°F. These cooling setpoint temperatures are very low and typical
offices in Phoenix, Arizona maintain occupied cooling setpoint
temperature around 74 °F.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the existing thermostats be replaced with four, new thermostats so
that each HVAC unit is served by its own thermostat. Each thermostat should have scheduling
capability and controls that allow for automatic temperature setbacks overnight and during
unoccupied times. Examples of companies that produce these thermostats would include
Honeywell, Google, or Samsung. These thermostats can be found at Home Depot or Lowes.

Onsite personnel indicated that the office areas are occupied from 7AM to 5PM Monday
through Sunday. Thus, it is recommended that the staff program the thermostats to be 70 °F
for heating and 74 °F for cooling during occupied hours. Schedules should be implemented so
that the setback temperatures are 82 °F for cooling and 60 °F for heating from 6PM to 6AM
Monday through Friday and all day on Saturday and Sunday. These schedules can be adjusted
during busier times of the year.

Energy and Cost Savings
Installing four new thermostats and programming setback schedules would result in electrical
energy savings of about 8,270 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $992 per year.

SRP offers a smart thermostat rebate of $150 per thermostat. Thus, the total rebate would be
$600.

Based on cost data from sources like Home Depot and Lowes, smart thermostats cost about
$250 each. Each thermostat would take about one hour to install at a labor rate of $125 per
hour. Utilizing this information and cost data, the implementation cost would be about $1,500,
and the simple payback would be 0.9 years, including the incentive.

Figure 5: Thermostats in
Administration Building

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
17
AA5: Replacing Existing Heat Pump Units with Ductless VRF System
Existing Condition
The administration building currently utilizes four, 7.5-ton RHEEM heat
pump units that were installed around 2012. The published efficiency of
the units is 11 EER for cooling and 3.3 COP for heating. Given the age of
the equipment, it is expected that the efficiency of the units is closer to
10.5 EER and 3.0 COP, respectively.
The Air Traffic Control Tower building has upgraded their HVAC system
to VRF units. There is opportunity in the administration building to upgrade
the current equipment to a high efficiency VRF system.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the existing HVAC system be replaced with a VRF
system similar to the Air Traffic Control Tower. These systems utilize the
inverter control technology to modulate the compressor and fans to meet part load conditions
and eliminate the inefficiencies of cycling compressors. VRF systems have cooling and heating
efficiencies up to 28 IEER and 4.2 COP and utilizing ductless VRF units could reduce fan energy
usage by nearly 50%. Additionally, a VRF system is a zonal system so each room would have
its own control over temperature setpoints and thermal comfort. This system type would allow
for optimized HVAC controls to be able to implement temperature setbacks based on
occupancy or time of day for each room in the building.
Energy and Cost Savings
Installing a VRF system to replace the existing heat pump units would result in electrical energy
savings of about 24,610 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $2,953 per year.
SRP offers a $75 per ton rebate for installing multi-split variable refrigerant flow systems.
Based on the current equipment tonnage, the rebate is estimated at $2,250.
Based on RSMeans cost data, each evaporator unit would cost about $2,650 and each
condensing unit would cost about $20,000, for a total implementation cost of $46,500. The
simple payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive.
Figure 6: One of four
Condenser Units serving
the Admin Building

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
18

AA6: Insulate Domestic Hot Water Pipes

Existing Condition
The administration building currently utilizes an electric
domestic hot water (DHW) storage tank to provide hot water to
restrooms and the pantry sink. During the site visit, it was
noticed that all DHW pipes were uninsulated, as shown on the
right. Uninsulated pipes result in significant heat loss in the
distribution of hot water to the restrooms and pantry area.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that 1”-1.5” insulation be installed on the
DHW pipes to reduce distribution heat loss. Insulating DHW
pipes not only reduces the energy consumed by the water
heater, but also reduces the wait time for occupants wanting hot water at the pantry or
restrooms.

Energy and Cost Savings
Installing DHW piping insulation would result in electrical energy savings of about 173 kWh per
year. Total cost savings would be about $21 per year.

Based on typical cost data, it estimated the material cost to insulate DHW pipes would cost
about $50. It is assumed that installing insulation would take about 30 minutes a labor rate of
$25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Using this cost data, total implementation cost
would be about $75, and the simple payback would be 3.6 years, including the incentive.

Figure 7: Uninsulated copper DHW
pipes

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
19
AA7: Install Instantaneous, Tankless Electric Water Heaters
Existing Condition
The administration building currently utilizes a 30 gallon electric
domestic hot water (DHW) storage tank to provide hot water to
restrooms and the pantry sink, as shown on the right. While electric
water heaters are about 97% efficient, there is significant distribution
losses from the storage tank and uninsulated piping. Given that the
only end uses for DHW are restrooms, shower, and a pantry sink,
the 30 gallons storage tank seems unnecessary, and there is
opportunity to pursue instantaneous, tankless electric water heaters.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that instantaneous, tankless electric water
heaters be installed 1) at the pantry sink and 2) in each restroom.
Instantaneous water heaters eliminate tank storage heat losses and distribution piping heat
losses.
Energy and Cost Savings
Installing instantaneous electric water heaters would result in electrical savings of about 663
kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $76 per year.
SRP offers custom rebates of $0.10 per kWh saved, up to 60% of the implementation cost. This
recommendation would qualify for a rebate of about $66.
Based RSMeans costs and cost from retail stores, the material cost for three instantaneous
hot water heaters rated at 1.27 gpm would be about $170 each. Estimated installation cost
would be about $300 per unit. Thus, the total implementation cost would be about $1,410, and
the simple payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive.
Figure 8: 30 gal DHW
Storage Tank

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
20

AA8: Install Receptacle Load Controls to Turn Off Equipment

Existing Condition
The administration building utilizes a wide range of appliances such
as printers/scanners, TVs, compact refrigerators, and more. Given
that the building has variable occupancy, there are times when this
equipment will remain on even when no one is present or utilizing the
equipment. Based on previous project experience, as much as 50%
of miscellaneous equipment can be left on overnight for a typical
office space. Installing controls to automatically turn off TVs,
computers, coffee makers, etc. could significantly reduce wasted
energy usage.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that receptacle load controls be implemented for
all office, pantry, copy room, and conference areas to turn off equipment overnight and during
unoccupancy. Many lighting manufacturers have incorporated receptacle load controls into
their lighting controls, and thus, this recommendation should be considered alongside ECMs
AA1 and AA2.

Receptacle load controls can come in a variety of forms. New outlets can be installed that are
separately circuited to include one outlet for equipment that can be turned off and another
outlet that remains on. Another form of receptacle control is the use of power strips or wireless
remote control plug-ins. The power strips and plug ins can be controlled directly from a lighting
control system or simply from an App on your phone. These controls are typical for home
retrofits but apply to small office spaces such as the administration building. The following link
to The Home Depot website shows examples of these controls:
https://www.homedepot.com/b/Electrical-Wiring-Devices-Light-Controls-Plug-
Adapters/Remote-Control/N-5yc1vZcjvpZ1z0r7we.

Energy and Cost Savings
Installing receptacle load controls to turn off equipment during unoccupancy would result in
electrical savings of about 1,771 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $213 per
year.

SRP offers custom rebates of $0.10 per kWh saved, up to 60% of the implementation cost. This
recommendation would qualify for a rebate of about $177.

Based on RSMeans data and retail store cost data, purchasing simple plug-in and power strip
controls would cost about $500. Installing the equipment and programming could be
completed in-house since it only requires the use of a smart phone. If so, the implementation
cost would be about $500, and the simple payback would be 1.5 years.

Figure 9: Administration
Pantry Area

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
21

AA9: Implement Policy to Purchase Energy Star Equipment

Existing Condition
The administration building utilizes a wide range of appliances such as printers/scanners, TVs,
compact refrigerators, and more. Based on site observations, a number of these equipment
were not Energy Star certified. These pieces of equipment are typically left on overnight or
utilize significant amounts of power when not in use. Upgrading to Energy Star equipment
would minimize usage during operation and non-operation.

Many corporations have begun instituting policies that require the purchase of Energy Star
equipment. There is opportunity to implement similar practices across the airport buildings to
minimize energy usage due to miscellaneous equipment.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the airport implement a policy to purchase Energy Star equipment
when purchasing new equipment or replacing existing equipment. All Energy Star rated
equipment from office, pantry, and AV equipment can be found on the following website:
https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/. Many of the products found on this site can be
purchased from local retail stores such as Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, etc.

Energy and Cost Savings
Implementing a policy to purchase Energy Star equipment would result in electrical savings of
about 1,027 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $123 per year.

Based on the Energy Star website, the cost between standard and Energy Star equipment is
negligible, and thus, there is no implementation cost and the simple payback is immediate.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
22

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
The following table details the eQUEST outputs, energy savings, and cost savings for each
ECM option evaluated. Key findings from the energy analysis include:
• Implementing all recommendations could reduce the total building energy usage by
nearly 60% and reduce energy costs by more than 50%.
• Installing LED lighting and high performance controls can reduce electrical energy costs
by 13% with a 5.5 year payback.
• Installing proper temperature controls and setpoints can reduce energy costs by about
11% with a very short payback.
• Replacing HVAC equipment should only be considered at the end of life. However,
upgrading to a VRF system with optimized zone controls can reduce energy costs by
nearly 33%.
• Utilizing instantaneous hot water heaters can reduce hot water energy usage by nearly
30%.
• Installing Energy Star equipment and providing optimized controls of plug loads can
reduce energy cost by 4% with minimal implementation cost.

Figure 10: Energy and Cost Summary for Each ECM

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data and RSMeans data.

Electric
Ambient
Misc
DHW
Heating
Cooling
Vent
Total
Total
Lighting
Equip
Electric
Electric
Electric
Fans
HVAC
Electric
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
0
Calibrated Model
12,750

13,015

2,495

2,921

33,717

9,381

46,019

74,319

AA1
0+Replace Fluorescents with LED Fixtures
6,375

13,015

2,496

3,502

32,316

9,281

45,099

67,027

AA2
L1+Install High Performance Lighting Controls
4,912

13,015

2,496

3,632

31,994

9,254

44,880

65,345

AA3
L2+Optimize Natural Lighting and Remove Uplighting
4,585

13,015

2,496

3,660

31,922

9,250

44,832

64,970

AA4
L3+Install New Thermostats with Temperature Setbacks
4,585

13,015

2,492

1,627

27,663

7,289

36,579

56,700

AA5
M1+Replace Heat Pumps with VRF System
4,585

13,015

2,492

1,032

8,023

2,916

11,971

32,090

AA6
M2+Insulate Domestic Hot Water Pipes
4,585

13,015

2,325

1,035

8,016

2,915

11,966

31,917

AA7
P1+Install Instantaneous Electric Water Heaters
4,585

13,015

1,693

1,035

8,016

2,915

11,966

31,284

AA8
P2+Install Receptacle Load Controls
4,585

11,346

1,693

1,064

7,904

2,894

11,862

29,513

AA9
R1+Install Energy Star Equipment
4,585

10,372

1,693

1,082

7,841

2,886

11,809

28,486

Savings relative to Previous Measure
AA1
0+Replace Fluorescents with LED Fixtures
6,375

(1)

(581)

1,401

100

920

7,292

AA2
L1+Install High Performance Lighting Controls
1,463

(130)

322

219

1,682

AA3
L2+Optimize Natural Lighting and Remove Uplighting
327

(28)

375

AA4
L3+Install New Thermostats with Temperature Setbacks
-

2,033

4,259

1,961

8,253

8,270

AA5
M1+Replace Heat Pumps with VRF System
-

595

19,640

4,373

24,608

24,610

AA6
M2+Insulate Domestic Hot Water Pipes
-

167

(3)

173

AA7
P1+Install Instantaneous Electric Water Heaters
-

632

633

AA8
P2+Install Receptacle Load Controls
-

1,669

(29)

112

104

1,771

AA9
R1+Install Energy Star Equipment
-

974

(18)

1,027

Total Savings
Totals:
8,165

2,643

802

1,839

25,876

6,495

34,210

45,833

Percent of Baseline:
64.0%
20.3%
32.1%
63.0%
76.7%
69.2%
74.3%
61.7%
Chandler Aiport Administration Building
HVAC
Run
#

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
23

Figure 11 – Economic Results Summary
ECM
Measure Description
First Cost
Utility Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentive
Simple
Payback
AA1
0+Replace Fluorescents with LED Fixtures
$3,000
$875
$600
2.7
AA2
L1+Install High Performance Lighting Controls
$3,750
$202
$750
14.9
AA3
L2+Optimize Natural Lighting and Remove Uplighting
$800
$45
$30
17.1
AA4
L3+Install New Thermostats with Temperature Setbacks
$1,500
$992
$600
0.9
AA5
M1+Replace Heat Pumps with VRF System
$46,500
$2,953
$2,250
15.0
AA6
M2+Insulate Domestic Hot Water Pipes
$75
$21
$0
3.6
AA7
P1+Install Instahot Water Heaters
$1,410
$76
$66
17.7
AA8
P2+Install Receptacle Load Controls
$500
$213
$177
1.5
AA9
R1+Install Energy Star Equipment
$0
$123
$0
Immediate

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
24

Air Traffic Control Tower

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
25

AT1: Replace Linear and Compact Fluorescent Lamps with LEDs

Existing Condition
The air traffic control building utilizes a mixture of 2-lamp 4ft. T8
fluorescent fixtures and recessed incandescent 60W lamps throughout.
Each fixture has the opportunity to be upgraded to LED lamps/fixtures that
draw significantly less power while also providing similar/better lighting
levels.

Recommended Action
Replace all fluorescent lamps with LED lamps. Use a 12W GE
LED12ET8/g/4/840 linear LED lamp or similar to replace linear fluorescent
lamps. Replace all 60W incandescent lamps with 9W LED lamp. It is
important that the LED lamp is checked for ballast compatibility. Utilize new
fixtures only when deemed aesthetically or electrically necessary. The
recommended fixture specifications can be found in the Appendix.

LED lamps output similar lighting levels as CFLs at a reduced power draw; thus, minimizing
lighting energy usage without compromising performance. Additionally, LED lamps have a longer
lifespan minimizing maintenance and replacement costs. As a bonus, LED lamps contain no
mercury, helping to streamline its recycling process.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all fluorescent and incandescent lamps with LED lamps would result in electrical
savings of about 4,912 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $454 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $300 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified interior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $600 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Utilizing this information and cost data for
the recommended lamps, the implementation cost would be about $2,500, and the simple
payback would be 4.2 years, including the incentive.

Figure 1: Fluorescent
Lighting Fixtures in the
ATCT

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
26

AT2: Install High Performance Lighting Controls

Existing Condition
Currently, the air traffic control tower building does not utilize any
occupancy sensors. Based on conversation with airport personnel and
observations during the site visit, the building has highly variable
occupancy on multiple floors and it was noticed that lights were left on
in spaces that were unoccupied.

Recommended Action
It is recommended to install occupancy sensors throughout the
building. The occupancy sensors should turn off lighting fixtures within
20 minutes of people leaving the room.

There are numerous lighting control companies that offer occupancy and daylighting control
solutions such as Lutron, Lithonia, Leviton, etc. This installation is best implemented at the
same time as upgrading lighting fixtures to LED fixtures since many lighting companies will
offer LED upgrades and lighting control upgrades as a package.

Energy and Cost Savings
Installing high performance lighting controls including occupancy and daylighting sensors
would result in electrical savings of about 1,403 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be
about $130 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $0.40 per watt controlled. It is therefore estimated that this
recommendation could receive up to $450 in incentive rebates.

Based on RSMeans and manufacturing data, each occupancy and daylight sensor would cost
about $250 to purchase and install. Utilizing this information, the implementation cost would
be about $2,250, and the simple payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive. It is
thus recommended that this ECM be coupled with ECM AA1. Combining the two ECMs, the
simple payback would be closer to 6.7 years.

Figure 2: Lighting Fixture
in Electrical Room

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
27

AT3: Replace the HPS Beacon Light with LED Fixture

Existing Condition
The current beacon light draws about 2000W and is
controlled by a photocell to operate from dusk till
dawn. Similar to the other landing lights, there is
opportunity to replace the beacon fixture with a more
efficient LED fixture.

Recommended Action
Replace the 2000W beacon fixture with a 795W RBMI
Rotating Beacon light, or similar. Based on FAA
regulations, the whole fixture would need to be
replaced, not just the lamps. Additionally, staff
personnel should consider if the voltage between the new LED fixtures and old incandescent
fixtures would change.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing the existing beacon fixture with a new, higher efficient light would result in electricity
savings of about 4,380 kWh per year and cost savings of about $405 per year.

SRP offers custom rebates of $0.10 per kWh. This recommendation could qualify for $438 in
rebates.

Based on previous projects and manufacturing data, the expected cost for the beacon light
would be about $10,000. The simple payback would be over 10 years, including incentives.

Figure 3: Beacon Light at top of ATCT

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
28

AT4: Program Thermostats with Optimized Temperature Setbacks

Existing Condition
During the site visit, each room in the ATCT utilizes the
smart thermostat as shown on the right. However, it
was noticed that the thermostats have not been
programmed or scheduled. Additionally, the
thermostats were locked from editing and were not
able to be programmed during the visit. Given that the
building is not occupied 24/7 and has variable
occupancy, programming the thermostats for
temperature setback modes would reduce heating,
cooling, and fan energy by the HVAC units.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the existing thermostats be programmed with optimized schedules for
temperature setbacks. Schedules should be implemented so that the setback temperatures
are 82 °F for cooling and 60 °F for heating from 9PM to 6AM everyday of the week. These
schedules can be adjusted during busier times of the year.

Energy and Cost Savings
Installing four new thermostats and programming setback schedules would result in electrical
energy savings of about 2,880 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $266 per year.

It is estimated that an LG electrician would need about 30 minutes per thermostat to
reprogram at a labor rate of $125 per hour. If so, the implementation cost would be about
$500, and the simple payback would be 1.9 years, including the incentive.

Figure 4: Existing Smart Thermostats in ATCT

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
29
AT5: Adjust Thermostat Setpoints to 74° F for Cooling in IT Rooms
Existing Condition
During the site visit, it was noticed that the IT rooms
had cooling temperature setpoints between 68-70 °F,
as shown in the image on the right. While IT rooms
need to be conditioned to relatively cool temperatures,
IT equipment can operate at temperatures up to 78 °F
without malfunction or reduced speed. Setpoints of 68
°F are not needed and should be adjusted closer to 74
°F.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that temperature setpoints in the
IT rooms be adjusted from 68-70 °F to 74 °F. Increasing the temperature in the space to 74 °F
does not hinder the function of the IT equipment and reduces cooling energy consumption
considerably.
Energy and Cost Savings
Adjusting temperature setpoints in the IT rooms would result in electrical energy savings of
about 561 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $52 per year.
Adjusting setpoints requires no implementation cost, and thus, the simple payback is
immediate.
Figure 5: Thermostat in IT Room

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
30

AT6: Remove Old AC Units and Insulate Walls

Existing Condition
There exist a number of old, AC units in the air traffic control tower as the
one shown on the right. Given that all spaces now utilize newer VRF
units, the old AC units can be removed so that the spot that once held the
AC unit can be covered and insulated.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that all old AC units be removed, and the wall be filled
with at a minimum R-13 Batt insulation between 4in wood studs.
Reducing the infiltration and heat transfer through the envelope reduces
the cooling load on the VRF unit and results in significant energy savings.

Energy and Cost Savings
Insulating the wall to minimize infiltration and heat transfer would result in in electrical energy
savings of about 432 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $40 per year.

Based on typical construction cost and RSMeans data, the cost to install R-13 batt insulation
between 4in wood studs is about $5 per SF. It is estimated that a total of 15 SF would be
needed to fully cover and insulate the holes in the wall. If so, the implementation cost would be
about $150, and the simple payback would be about 3.8 years.

Figure 6: Window Unit
in ATCT

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
31
AT7: Install Instantaneous, Tankless Electric Water Heaters
Existing Condition
The air traffic control tower building currently utilizes a 6 gallon electric
domestic hot water (DHW) storage tank to provide hot water to
restrooms, as shown on the right. While electric water heaters are
about 97% efficient, there is significant distribution losses from the
storage tank and uninsulated piping. Given that the only end uses for
DHW are restrooms and breakroom, the 6 gallon storage tank seems
unnecessary, and there is opportunity to pursue instantaneous,
tankless electric water heaters.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that instantaneous, tankless electric water heaters
be installed in each restroom. Instantaneous water heaters eliminate
tank storage heat losses and distribution piping heat losses.
Energy and Cost Savings
Installing instantaneous electric water heaters would result in electrical savings of about 337
kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $31 per year.
SRP offers custom rebates of $0.10 per kWh saved, up to 60% of the implementation cost. This
recommendation would qualify for a rebate of about $33.
Based RSMeans costs and cost from retail stores, the material cost for two instantaneous hot
water heaters rated at 1.27 gpm would be about $170 each. Estimated installation cost would
be about $300 per unit. Thus, the total implementation cost would be about $940, and the
simple payback would be over 10 years, including the incentive.
Figure 7: 6 Gallon DHW
Storage Tank

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
32

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
Energy results for each of the ECMs described above are shown in the table below. Key
findings from the energy analysis include:
• Implementing all recommendations could reduce the ATCT energy usage by nearly 21%
• Installing LED lighting and high performance controls can reduce electrical energy costs
by 15%.
• Installing proper temperature controls and setpoints can reduce energy costs by about
5% with a very short payback.
• Utilizing instantaneous hot water heaters can reduce hot water energy usage by nearly
30% and overall energy usage by about 0.5%.

Figure 8: Energy and Cost Summary for Each ECM

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data and RSMeans data.

Figure 9 – Economic Results Summary
Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
B0
Baseline Usage
72,073
$6,664
0.0%
$0
0.0%
AT1
Replace Fluorescent Lamps with LEDs
67,161
$6,210
6.8%
$454
6.8%
AT2
Install High Performance Lighting Controls
65,758
$6,080
8.8%
$130
1.9%
AT3
Replace HPS Beacon Light with LED Fixture
61,378
$5,675
14.8%
$405
6.1%
AT4
Program Thermostats with Optimized Temperature Setbacks
58,498
$5,409
18.8%
$266
4.0%
AT5
Adjust Thermostat Setpoints to 74 °F in IT Rooms
57,937
$5,357
19.6%
$52
0.8%
AT6
Remove Old AC Units and Insulate Walls
57,505
$5,317
20.2%
$40
0.6%
AT7
Install Instantaneous, Tankless Electric Water Heaters
57,168
$5,286
20.7%
$31
0.5%
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Utility Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
Incremental
AT1
Replace Fluorescent Lamps with LEDs
$2,500
$454
$600
4.2
AT2
Install High Performance Lighting Controls
$2,500
$130
$450
15.8
AT3
Replace HPS Beacon Light with LED Fixture
$10,000
$405
$438
23.6
AT4
Program Thermostats with Optimized Temperature Setbacks
$500
$266
$0
1.9
AT5
Adjust Thermostat Setpoints to 74 °F in IT Rooms
$0
$52
$0
Immediate
AT6
Remove Old AC Units and Insulate Walls
$150
$40
$0
3.8
AT7
Install Instantaneous, Tankless Electric Water Heaters
$940
$31
$33
29.1
First Cost
Utility
Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
(years)
ECM
Measure Description

Maintenance Building

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
34

Energy Conservation Measures
The following section describes in detail individual energy conservation measures resulting
from the site visit and analysis for interior and exterior lighting. Estimated energy savings,
implementation cost, and simple payback are calculated for each conservation measure.

M1: Replace All Linear Fluorescent Fixtures with LED Fixtures

Existing Condition
The airport maintenance facility utilizes a 4-lamp, 4-ft. T8 linear
fluorescent fixtures. Each fixture has the opportunity to be
upgraded to LED fixtures that draw significantly less power while
also providing same/better lighting levels.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that each T8 lamp should be replaced with a
12W GE LED12ET8/g/4/840 linear LED lamp or similar. Utilize new
fixtures only when deemed aesthetically or electrically necessary.
The recommended fixture specifications can be found in the Appendix.

LED lamps output similar lighting levels as fluorescent fixtures at a reduced power draw; thus,
minimizing lighting energy usage without compromising performance. Additionally, LED lamps
have a longer lifespan minimizing maintenance costs. As a bonus, LED lamps contain no mercury,
helping to streamline the recycling process.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all linear fluorescent fixtures with LED fixtures would result in electrical energy
savings of about 2,868 kWh per year and cost savings of about $316 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $300 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified interior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $150 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Utilizing this information and cost data for
the recommended lamps, the implementation cost would be about $1,100, and the simple
payback would be 3.0 years, including the incentive.

Figure 1: Interior Linear
Fluorescent Fixtures

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
35
M2: Install High Performance Lighting Controls
Existing Condition
Based on the site visit, the maintenance building currently
does not utilize occupancy sensors to control lighting
fixtures. Given that this building has low occupancy and high
variability during the day, installing occupancy sensors can
significantly reduce energy usage and run time for the lighting
fixtures.
Additionally, the maintenance building utilizes significant
amounts of skylights. There is opportunity to utilize daylight
harvesting controls to dim lighting fixtures when sufficient
natural light enters the space.
Recommended Action
It is recommended to install a couple of occupancy and daylighting sensors in the
maintenance building to control lighting fixtures. The occupancy sensors should turn off
lighting fixtures within 20 minutes of people leaving the space. Daylighting controls should
automatically dim lighting fixtures near windows to maintain a constant lighting level of 40 fc
(typical for warehouse/manufacturing spaces).
There are numerous lighting control companies that occupancy and daylighting control
solutions such as Lutron, Lithonia, Leviton, etc. This installation is best implemented at the
same time as upgrading lighting fixtures to LED fixtures since many lighting companies will
offer LED upgrades and lighting control upgrades as a package.
Energy and Cost Savings
Installing high performance lighting controls including occupancy and daylighting sensors
would result in electrical savings of about 896 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about
$99 per year.
SRP offers a lighting rebate of $0.40 per watt controlled. It is therefore estimated that this
recommendation could receive up to $250 in incentive rebates.
Based on RSMeans and manufacturing data, each occupancy and daylight sensor would cost
about $250 to purchase and install. Utilizing this information, the implementation cost would
be about $1,000, and the simple payback would be 7.6 years, including the incentive. It is thus
recommended that this ECM be coupled with ECM AA1. Combining the two ECMs, the simple
payback would be closer to 4.1 years.
Figure 2: Linear Fluorescent Fixtures
in the Maintenance Building

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
36

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
Energy results for each ECM described above are shown in the table below. Overall, replacing
all lighting fixtures with high efficient LEDs and installing lighting controls could reduce total
energy consumption for the Maintenance Building by 39%.

Figure 3: Energy Results Summary

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data, conversations with facility personnel, and
RSMeans data.

Figure 4 – Economic Results Summary

Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
B0
Baseline Usage
7,030
$1,052
0%
$0
0%
M1
Replace All Linear Fluorescents w/ LEDs
4,162
$736
30%
$316
30%
M2
Install High Performance Lighting Controls
3,265
$638
39%
$99
9%
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Utility Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
Incremental
M1
Replace All Linear Fluorescents w/ LEDs
$1,100
$316
$150
3.0
M2
Install High Performance Lighting Controls
$1,000
$99
$250
7.6
First Cost
Utility
Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
(years)
ECM
Measure Description

T-Hangars A Through I

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
38

H1: Replace All Linear Fluorescent Fixtures with LED Fixtures

Existing Condition
The hangars utilize a mixture of linear fluorescent
fixtures. Each fixture has the opportunity to be
upgraded to LED fixtures that draw significantly less
power while also providing same/better lighting levels.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that each T12 fixture in the hangars
be replaced with a Series SKD 8ft. 80W LED fixture or
similar. Each T8 fixture should be replaced with a 12W
GE LED12ET8/g/4/840 linear LED lamp or similar.
Utilize new fixtures only when deemed aesthetically or
electrically necessary. The recommended fixture specifications can be found in the Appendix.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all linear fluorescent fixtures in the hangars with LED fixtures would result in
electrical energy savings of about 5,842 kWh per year and cost savings of about $643 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $300 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified interior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $900 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Utilizing this information and cost data for
the recommended lamps, the implementation cost would be about $6,000, and the simple
payback would be 7.9 years, including the incentive.

Figure 1: Exterior T-Hangars

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
39

H2: Replace All Exterior Lighting with LED Fixtures

Existing Condition
Based on the site visit, the hangars utilize 60-100W incandescent and
halide exterior fixtures that are controlled by a photocell. Each exterior
fixture has the opportunity to be upgraded to LED fixtures that draw
significantly less power while also providing the same/better lighting
levels.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that each exterior fixture be replaced with a 50W
LED Flat Corn Light or similar. It is important that the LED lamp is
checked for ballast compatibility. Utilize new fixtures only when
deemed aesthetically or electrically necessary. The recommended
fixture specifications can be found in the Appendix.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all exterior fixtures serving the hangars with LED fixtures would result in electrical
energy savings of about 2,652 kWh per year and cost savings of about $292 per year.

SRP offers an exterior lighting rebate of $200 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $400 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour (which assumes internal staff). Utilizing this information and cost data for
the recommended lamps, the implementation cost would be about $2,300, and the simple
payback would be 6.5 years, including the incentive.

Figure 2: Exterior Halide
Fixture

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
40

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
Energy results for each ECM described above are shown in the table below. Overall, replacing
all lighting fixtures with high efficient LEDs could reduce total energy consumption for the
Hangars by 32%.

Figure 3: Energy Results Summary

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data, conversations with facility personnel, and
RSMeans data.

Figure 4 – Economic Results Summary

Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
B0
Baseline Usage
27,596
$2,926
0%
$0
0%
H1
Replace All Linear Fluorescents w/ LEDs
21,753
$2,283
22%
$643
22%
H2
Replace All Exterior Lighting w/ LEDs
19,101
$1,991
32%
$292
10%
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Utility Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
Incremental
H1
Replace All Linear Fluorescents w/ LEDs
$6,000
$643
$900
7.9
H2
Replace All Exterior Lighting w/ LEDs
$2,300
$292
$400
6.5
First Cost
Utility
Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
(years)
ECM
Measure Description

Parking Lot and Canopy Lighting

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
42

Energy Conservation Measures
The following section describes in detail individual energy conservation measures resulting
from the site visit and analysis. Estimated energy savings, implementation cost, and simple
payback are calculated for each conservation measure.

E1: Replace All 100W HPS Exterior Pole Fixtures with 50W LED Fixtures

Existing Condition
The parking lot for the airport administration building utilizes
12, 100W HPS exterior pole lights. Additionally, it is expected
that all streetlights utilize inefficient halogen or HPS fixtures.
The fixtures are controlled by photocells to turn on at dusk
and turn off at dawn. The 100W pole lamps draw a
significant amount of power, and there is opportunity to
replace the current fixtures with 50W LED fixtures.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that all exterior pole fixtures be replaced
with a 50W LED fixture or similar. It is assumed that the
existing pole structure is in good shape and the LED fixture could be fastened to the existing pole.

LED lamps output similar lighting levels as CFLs at a reduced power draw; thus, minimizing
lighting energy usage without compromising performance. Additionally, LED lamps have a longer
lifespan minimizing maintenance costs. As a bonus, LED lamps contain no mercury, helping to
streamline the recycling process.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing the exterior pole fixtures with high efficiency LED fixtures would result in electricity
savings of about 20,189 kWh per year and cost savings of about $2,019 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $200 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified exterior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $1,000 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about one hour to replace the lamps at a labor rate
of $125 per hour. Utilizing this information and cost data for the recommended lamps, the
implementation cost would be about $48,500 and the simple payback would be over 10 years,
including the incentive.

Figure 1: Exterior HPS Fixtures in
Parking Lot

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
43

E2: Replace Incandescent Lamps with LED in Canopy Parking Area

Existing Condition
The canopy parking area currently utilizes about eight
incandescent lamps to illuminate the area overnight. There is
opportunity to replace these lamps with low wattage LED lamps.

Recommended Action
Replace all 60W incandescent lamps with LED 9W lamp. It is
important that the LED lamp is checked for ballast compatibility.
Utilize new fixtures only when deemed aesthetically or
electrically necessary. The recommended fixture specifications
can be found in the Appendix.

LED lamps output similar lighting levels as CFLs at a reduced power draw; thus, minimizing
lighting energy usage without compromising performance. Additionally, LED lamps have a longer
lifespan minimizing maintenance and replacement costs. As a bonus, LED lamps contain no
mercury, helping to streamline its recycling process.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing all fluorescent and incandescent lamps with LED lamps would result in electrical
savings of about 1,647 kWh per year. Total cost savings would be about $165 per year.

SRP offers a lighting rebate of $200 per kW of reduced installed demand for qualified exterior
LEDs. It is estimated that this recommendation could receive up to $100 in incentive rebates.

It is assumed that each fixture would take about 30 minutes to replace the lamps at a labor
rate of $25 per hour. Utilizing this information and cost data for the recommended lamps, the
implementation cost would be about $240 and the simple payback would be 0.8 years,
including the incentive.

Figure 2: Existing Canopy Lighting
Fixtures

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
44

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
Energy results for each ECM described above are shown in the table below. Overall, replacing
all lighting fixtures with high efficient LEDs could reduce total energy consumption for exterior
lighting by 48%.

Figure 3: Energy Results Summary

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data, conversations with facility personnel, and
RSMeans data.

Figure 4 – Economic Results Summary

Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
B0
Baseline Usage
45,200
$4,632
0%
$0
0%
E1
Replace Exterior Street and Parking Lot Pole Lights w/ LEDs
25,011
$2,613
44%
$2,019
44%
E2
Replace Canopy Incandescents with LED Lamps
23,364
$2,448
47%
$165
4%
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Utility Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
Incremental
E1
Replace Exterior Street and Parking Lot Pole Lights w/ LEDs
$48,500
$2,019
$1,000
23.5
E2
Replace Canopy Incandescents with LED Lamps
$240
$165
$100
0.8
First Cost
Utility
Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
(years)
ECM
Measure Description

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Runway and Taxiway Lights

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Energy Conservation Measures
The following section describes in detail individual energy conservation measures resulting
from the site visit and analysis for the runway lighting. Estimated energy savings,
implementation cost, and simple payback are calculated for each conservation measure.

L1: Consider Replace Runway Fixtures with LED Fixtures

Existing Condition
The runway and taxiways currently utilize 30W halogen lamp to illuminate the paths. There is
opportunity to replace the 30W halogen fixtures with LED fixtures that draw significantly less
power while also provide the same/better lighting levels.

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the 30W halogen fixtures be replaced with the Navigate Series 861-L
20W LED fixtures, or similar. Based on FAA regulations, the whole fixture would need to be
replaced, not just the lamp. Additionally, staff personnel should consider if the voltage between
the new LED fixtures and old halogen fixtures would change. If so, it is possible the
transformers would need to be replaced as well.

Energy and Cost Savings
Replacing the incandescent runway fixtures with LED fixtures would result in electricity savings
of about 40,490 kWh per year and cost savings of about $4,420 per year.

SRP offers custom rebates of $0.10 per kWh. This recommendation could qualify for $4,000 in
rebates.

Based on previous projects and manufacturing data, the expected cost for each runway fixture
would be about $200. It is expected that there are over 500 fixtures installed. If so, the total
implementation cost would be about $100,000. The simple payback would be over 10 years.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Analysis Results
Economic Results Summary
Energy results for each of the ECMs described above are shown in the table below. Overall,
installing LED lighting for the landing lights could reduce costs by about 15%

Figure 1: Energy Results Summary

Economic results are summarized in the table below. Estimated implementation costs for each
measure were based on manufacturing data, conversations with facility personnel, and
RSMeans data. Overall, replacing landing lights is not economically favorable and should only
be considered when fixtures have to be replaced.

Figure 2 – Economic Results Summary
Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
B0
Baseline Usage
264,960
$28,622
0%
$0
0%
L1
Replace Runway Lights with LED Fixtures
224,040
$24,202
15%
$4,420
15%
ECM
Measure Description
Electricity
Usage
(kWh/year)
Utility Cost
($/year)
Percent
Savings
Incremental
L1
Replace Runway Lights with LED Fixtures
$100,000
$4,420
$4,000
21.7
First Cost
Utility
Cost
Savings
SRP
Incentives
Simple
Payback
(years)
ECM
Measure Description

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Solar PV Potential

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020
49
Background
The climate at Chandler Municipal Airport provides an ideal location for solar energy production. The
project team has indicated the area highlighted in the image below as a potential location for a solar
PV system. Based on the site visit, the following items need to be confirmed to determine whether the
site could house a solar PV system:
•
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for glare and other flight impact issues.
•
No underground piping or sewer systems that would require access
•
Proper spacing between solar PV system and existing structures/roads/construction.
Figure 1: Potential Solar PV Location
Financial Cost Considerations
From a utility cost standpoint, SRP only offers about a $0.02-$0.03 per kWh credit for excess generation
on an hourly basis. This means that if the PV system generates more energy than the property/building
consumes, the project will only be credited $0.02-$0.03 per kWh instead to the retail rate of about $0.09
per kWh. Therefore, it is important to consider the installation of batteries for this project to store
excess energy generation so that it can be used on site. SRP currently does not offer battery storage
incentives to commercial customers, only to residential customers.
Additionally, in similar circumstances, other businesses have elected to form a power-purchase
agreement (PPA) with a third-party developer. This would theoretically enable the airport to lease the
land to a developer (solar services provider), who would build, own, and maintain the solar equipment.
The solar services provider could then sell the produced energy back to the airport at a set rate. The
advantage of this approach is that the solar services provider could take advantage of any tax credits
not available to the City of Chandler, thus lowering the net cost of the project, while potentially avoiding
or mitigating some of the barriers mentioned below.
•
Taxpayer/public approval of funding
•
Utility connectivity issues and/or production arrangements
•
Other airport operational constraints

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

Potential Solar PV Installations and Financial Costs
There are many potential options for installing solar PV at the Chandler Municipal Airport. The following
sections summarize the potential solar PV installations and financial costs with the following
considerations:
1. PV systems serving specific buildings
2. PV system to serve all buildings in scope
3. Inclusion of Battery Storage
All options outlined below assume that airport will enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with a
third party developer and will not own their own system. This allows the project to take advantage of
the 26% federal tax credit.

PV System to Offset Energy Usage of All Buildings
Based on the potential location for a solar PV installation, there is sufficient area to generate 100% of
the airport’s energy needs, plus much more, potentially. However, a solar PV system can only be
attached to one meter. Given that the airport has 10+ meters, coordination with SRP would be required
to install a master meter and/or consolidate the multiple meters on site.

From the utility analysis, the municipal airport consumes about 534,943 kWh per year of electrical
energy. A fixed tilt, ground mount PV system would produce approximately 1,650 kWh/kW of installed
capacity per year. Therefore, to offset the total energy consumption for the municipal airport, a 325 kW
solar PV array would need to be installed. The following map highlights the potential location and actual
size of the 325 kW ground mount solar PV array.

Figure 2: Potential Location and Size for 325 kW Solar PV Array

As mentioned previously, the buyback rate for excess energy generation is only a third of the retail rate,
and thus, the potential for a battery storage system should be evaluated. The following table shows the
financial inputs for the 325 kW ground mount solar PV system with and without a battery storage
system. It is estimated that the cost of batteries is roughly $500 per kWh in addition to the cost of the
PV system itself.

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

The following table summarizes the financial results for both system options. As noted, both options
result in a simple payback of over 13 years. The financial results are slightly more favorable to a solar
PV system without batteries; however, the battery system results in a greater cash flow after 20 years.

The following graphs show the 20 year cash flow for the solar PV system with and without battery
storage incorporating first cost, federal tax credit, solar depreciation, and cost savings.

w/ Battery w/out Battery
Solar PV First Cost
$1.75
$1.75
/Watt
Battery Storage First Cost
$500
N/A
/kWh
Federal Tax Incentive
26%
26%
-
Energy Escalation Rate
2.8%
2.8%
-
Solar PV Equipment Lifetime
20
10
years
Battery Equipment Lifetime
10
N/A
years
Solar Utility Rate
$0.09
$0.09
$/kWh
Buyback Rate
N/A
$0.03
$/kWh
Solar PV Cost Inputs
w/ Battery w/out Battery
20-year NPV
$21,459
$30,319
-
Straight Line Payback
15.06
13.33
years
Year-1 ROI
8.0%
6.5%
-
IRR
4.4%
4.7%
-
Financial Results

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

PV System to Offset Administration Building Energy Use
If all ECMs for the administration building were to be implemented, the airport administration building
would consume about 28,486 kWh per year of electrical energy. Therefore, to offset the total energy
consumption for the building, an 18 kW solar PV array would need to be installed. At this size, it is
possible to install a carport solar PV installation on the adjacent parking lot. The following map
highlights the potential location and actual size of the 18 kW carport solar PV array.

Figure 3: Potential Location and Size of 18 kW PV System

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

The following table shows the financial inputs for the 18 kW carport solar PV system with and without a
battery storage system.

The following table summarizes the financial results for both system options. As noticed, both options
result in a simple payback of about 18 years. The financial results are slightly more favorable to a solar
PV system without batteries; however, the battery system results in a greater cash flow after 20 years.

PV System to Offset Air Traffic Control Tower Energy Use
If all ECMs for the air traffic control tower (ATCT) were to be implemented, the ATCT would consume
about 57,168 kWh per year of electrical energy. Therefore, to offset the total energy consumption for
the building, a 35 kW solar PV array would need to be installed. The following map highlights the
potential location and actual size of the 35 kW solar PV array.

Figure 4: Potential Location and Size of 35 kW PV System
w/ Battery w/out Battery
Solar PV First Cost
$3.00
$3.00
/Watt
Battery Storage First Cost
$500
N/A
/kWh
Federal Tax Incentive
26%
26%
-
Energy Escalation Rate
2.8%
2.8%
-
Solar PV Equipment Lifetime
20
10
years
Battery Equipment Lifetime
10
N/A
years
Solar Utility Rate
$0.09
$0.09
$/kWh
Buyback Rate
N/A
$0.03
$/kWh
Solar PV Cost Inputs
w/ Battery w/out Battery
20-year NPV
-$10,435
-$8,311
-
Straight Line Payback
18.17
18.01
years
Year-1 ROI
6.0%
4.5%
-
IRR
1.4%
1.2%
-
20-year Cash Flow
$7,429
$4,570
-
Financial Results

Chandler Municipal Airport
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
June 2020

The following table shows the financial inputs for the 35 kW carport solar PV system with and without a
battery storage system.

The following table summarizes the financial results for both system options. As noticed, the system
without battery storage results in a 15 year payback while the battery storage option is around a 19 year
payback. This is mainly due to having to size the battery storage system larger to fully cover the large
overnight loads from the IT rooms.

w/ Battery
w/out Battery
Solar PV First Cost
$2.00
$2.00
/Watt
Battery Storage First Cost
$500
N/A
/kWh
Federal Tax Incentive
26%
26%
-
Energy Escalation Rate
2.8%
2.8%
-
Solar PV Equipment Lifetime
20
20
years
Battery Equipment Lifetime
10
N/A
years
Solar Utility Rate
$0.09
$0.09
$/kWh
Buyback Rate
N/A
$0.03
$/kWh
Solar PV Cost Inputs
w/ Battery
w/out Battery
20-year NPV
-$24,091
-$3,210
-
Straight Line Payback
19.15
14.95
years
Year-1 ROI
6.3%
5.7%
-
IRR
0.7%
3.3%
-
20-year Cash Flow
$6,805
$21,836
-
Financial Results

Grand Canyon Lodges
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
March 2016

Appendix 1:
Equipment Specifications

Chandler Municipal Airport
Chandler, Arizona

Application illustration only, subject lamps not used in photo.
GE
Lighting
To learn more about saving money and energy,
go to: gelighting.com/ThinkLED
When you Think LED lighting, Think GE.
Information provided is subject to change without notice. Please verify all details with GE. All values are design or
typical values when measured under laboratory conditions, and GE makes no warranty or guarantee, expressed
or implied, that such performance will be obtained under end-use conditions.
Refit Solutions from GE
Convert your existing linear fluorescent fixture to LED lighting without needing a comprehensive reinstall.
LED tubes are ideal for those seeking high energy savings with minimal installation time. Each LED tube is
operated by an internal GE Lightech™ driver. GE integrated LED tubes run on electronic T8 instant-start or
programmed start ballasts.
FEATURES
• 2’, 3‘ & 4’ tubes
• 950 – 3,050 lumens
• >100 total system lumens per watt (LPW)
• Available in 3000K, 3500K, 4000K,
and 5000K color temperatures
• 50,000-hour rated life
• Dimmable
• DLC listed (2ft. and 4ft.)
• UL and cUL listed
– in compliance with UL 1598 certification
• Open or Enclosed Fixtures
• 5 year limited warranty
BENEFITS
• Fast and easy LED upgrade
• Low energy LFL replacement
• 66% longer life than LFL
(50,000 vs. 30,000 hours)
• Better quality of light
- no UV
- instant on
• Shatter resistant
- prevents breakage and downtime
• Easy disposal, non-hazardous waste
Integrated LED Tubes - 2, 3 and 4 foot - Improved Lumens

GE DLC
Listed Code
Description
Bulb
Shape
Base
Low
BF Watts
Normal
BF Watts
High
BF Watts
Case
Qty
Length
(In)
Low
BF Intital
Lumens
Normal
BF Initial
Lumens
High
BF Initial
Lumens
Color
Temp
(°K)
CRI
Rated Life
(L70)
DLC
Listed
2ft LED Tube
31557
LED9ET8/2/830
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
8
9
13
25
24”
950
1100
1600
3000
80
50,000
Yes
26635
LED9ET8/2/835
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
8
9
13
25
24”
950
1100
1600
3500
80
50,000
Yes
26648
LED9ET8/2/840
T8
Med Bi-Pin (G13)
8
9
13
25
24”
950
1100
1600
4000
80
50,000
Yes
26676
LED9ET8/2/850
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
8
9
13
25
24”
950
1100
1600
5000
80
50,000
Yes
3ft LED Tube
31554
LED12ET8/3/830
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
16
25
36”
1150
1350
1800
3000
80
50,000
-
26544
LED12ET8/3/835
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
16
25
36”
1200
1400
1900
3500
80
50,000
-
26625
LED12ET8/3/840
T8
Med Bi-Pin (G13)
10
12
16
25
36”
1200
1400
1900
4000
80
50,000
-
26627
LED12ET8/3/850
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
16
25
36”
1250
1500
2000
5000
80
50,000
-
4ft LED Tube
61218
LED12ET8/4/830
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
15
25
48”
1350
1550
2050
3000
80
50,000
Yes
61223
LED12ET8/4/835
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
15
25
48”
1400
1600
2150
3500
80
50,000
Yes
61271
LED12ET8/4/840
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
15
25
48”
1400
1600
2150
4000
80
50,000
Yes
61327
LED12ET8/4/850
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
15
25
48”
1500
1700
2250
5000
80
50,000
Yes
61329
LED12ET8/4/865
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
10
12
15
25
48”
1400
1600
2150
6500
80
50,000
Yes
62339
LED15ET8/4/830
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
13
15
21
25
48”
1650
1850
2450
3000
80
50,000
Yes
62401
LED15ET8/4/835
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
13
15
21
25
48”
1750
1950
2600
3500
80
50,000
Yes
62402
LED15ET8/4/840
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
13
15
21
25
48”
1750
1950
2600
4000
80
50,000
Yes
62409
LED15ET8/4/850
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
13
15
21
25
48”
1800
2050
2700
5000
80
50,000
Yes
62410
LED15ET8/4/865
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
13
15
21
25
48”
1750
1950
2600
6500
80
50,000
Yes
31550
LED18ET8/4/830
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
15
18
23
25
48”
1950
2150
2850
3000
80
50,000
Yes
93133
LED18ET8/4/835
T8
Med Bi-Pin (G13)
15
18
23
25
48”
2050
2250
3000
3500
80
50,000
Yes
93135
LED18ET8/4/840
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
15
18
23
25
48”
2050
2250
3000
4000
80
50,000
Yes
93140
LED18ET8/4/850
T8
Med Bi-Pin(G13)
15
18
23
25
48”
2100
2350
3100
5000
80
50,000
Yes
www.gelighting.com
GE and the GE Monogram are trademarks of the General Electric Company. All other trademarks are the property
of their respective owners. Information provided is subject to change without notice. All values are design or typical
values when measured under laboratory conditions. GE Lighting and GE Lighting Solutions, LLC are businesses of
the General Electric Company. © 2016 GE.
LEDL029 (Rev 5/27/16)
Product Specifications
Integrated Refit LED Tubes
Cumulative Energy Costs - Cumulative Costs
Savings calculations are based on energy costs using
$0.11 per kWh and 16 hours of daily operation.
Years
$500
$450
$400
$350
$300
$200
$150
$100
$250
$50
$0 0
1
2
3
4
5
F34T12 CW (4-Lamp)
F32T8 SP (4-Lamp)
LED Integrated Tube
System Watts - Refit LED Tubes
Ballast Factor
LED18ET8/4/xxx
Rated Lumens
LED Approx.
System Watts
per tube
F32T8 Approx.
System Watts
per lamp
L (232MAX-G-L)
2050
17
25
N (232MAX-G-N)
2250
20
28
H (232MAX-G-N
3000
27
37
Lumen and wattage numbers above are approximations that can be used for estimates only.
LED System Watts - Add 10%-12% to LED Tube wattage for driver losses.
Check ballast compatibility at www.gelighting.com/LEDTUBES-ballast-compatibility

Save 66% compared to standard T8 (4-lamp)
light fixtures over a five-year period.

Provides 4400 lumens at 36W vs. 6600 lumens
at 148W in a 4 lamp T12 system.
Savings Breakdown
Product is compliant with material restriction requirements of RoHS

- 22.5” or 46” or 92"L x 2”W x 2.6”D
- 22.5” or 46” or 92"L x 3”W x 3”D
MOUNTING
Surface mount or Pendant mount.
Horizontal or Vertical.
MATERIALS & FEATURES
TYPICAL OPTIONS AND ACCESSORIES
Whips, hanging kits, and cord sets. See options
page at the end of the T02Strip section, or
contact factory for more details.
• Fully assembled housing is formed and welded, 22 gauge steel, chemically
treated to resist corrosion and enhance paint adhesion
• Available in brushed nickel. Consult for other finishes
• Available with smooth frosted lens
• Clean body - No knock-outs on sides or ends
• Knock-outs on back accept standard electrical fittings (by others) Consult
factory for other locations
• Dimming ballast options available
(consult factory for availability and stystem compatibility)
*Includes canopy for cable only and a canopy for cable & power chord.
FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS
INTENDED USE
Full body micro silhouette makes a bold statement with a minimal design in
brushed nickel powder coated finish (consult factory for other finishes). Scaled to
the LED module the matte white diffuser surrounds the LEDs for soft lighting.
Brushed nickel fixture can be surface mounted on wall or ceiling or pendant
mounted with specially engineering cable mounting kit.
SIZE L x W x D in inches
ORDERING INFORMATION
8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P)
cord & plug
E12W1200L
Series
Wattage and Lumen
Width
24L 22.5"
Color Temperture
DMV
Example: SKDFR24LE12W1200LDMV40KWH
CS
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip
8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P)
cord & plug
H18W1750L
Series
Wattage and Lumen
Width
24L 24"
Color Temperture
DMV
40K
Options
CS
2FT - HIGH OUTPUT
24L
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
Options
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip
Lens
Lens
SKD
FR
Intertek
E12W1200L
12 System Watts,
1200 Delivered Lumens
H18W1750L
18 System Watts,
1750 Delivered Lumens
SKD
FR
24L
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
2FT - STANDARD
SKD-HC301WH - 5'cable kit w/white canopy*
SKD-HC301BN - - 5'cable kit w/brushed nickel*
SKD-HC501BN - 4’ Cable Mounting Kit*
*Includes canopy for cable only and a canopy for cable & power chord.
ACCESSORIES
SKD-HC301WH - 5'cable kit w/white canopy*
SKD-HC301BN - - 5'cable kit w/brushed nickel*
SKD-HC501BN - 4’ Cable Mounting Kit*
Series SKD
2"W Low Profile LED Surface Mount
SKD
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
2" Width Body
SKD
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
2" Width Body
FR Frosted Smooth
FR Frosted Smooth
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze
40K
WH
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze
WH
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire

Series SKD
3"W Low Profile LED Surface Mount
Example: SKDWBMW48LE48W4800LDMV40KBN
Series
E48W4800L
Color Temperture
Wattage and Lumen
DMV
40K
Options
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip

8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P) cord & plug
CS
4FT - STANDARD
Size
48L 46"
Lens
MW White Lens
E48W4800L
48 System Watts,
4800 Delivered Lumens
E57W5400L
57 System Watts,
5400 Delivered Lumens
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze
BN
Series
Color Temperture
Wattage and Lumen
DMV
4FT - HIGH OUTPUT
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
Options
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip
CS
48L
Size
R72W7000L
72 System Watts,
7000 Delivered Lumens
R72W7000L
Lens
MW White Lens
SKDWB
MW
48L 46"
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze

8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P) cord & plug
40K
BN
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
E32W3450L
32 System Watts,
3450 Delivered Lumens
Series
E114W10800L
Color Temperture
DMV
40K
Options
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip

8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P) cord & plug
CS
Size
96L
92"
Lens
MW White Lens
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze
BN
Wattage and Lumen
H80W8000L
80 System Watts,
E114W10800L 114 System Watts,
8000 Delivered Lumens
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
SKDWB
MW
48L
8FT - STANDARD
SKDWB
MW
96L
Series
Color Temperture
DMV
8FT - HIGH OUTPUT
30K
35K
40K
50K
3000K
3500K
4000K
5000K
Options
WP 6 ft. 3 wire 18 gauge whip
CS
96L
Size
R144W14000L
Lens
MW White Lens
SKDWB
MW
96L 92"
Finish
WH
White
BN
Brushed Nickel
BK
Black
BZ
Bronze

8ft. 3/18 3 prong (5-15P) cord & plug
40K
BN
Wattage and Lumen
R144W14000L 144 System Watts,
14000 Delivered Lumens
Intertek
SKDWB
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
3" Width Body
SKDWB
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
3" Width Body
SKDWB
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
3" Width Body
SKDWB
Low Profile LED
Surface Mount
3" Width Body
FR Frosted Lens
FR Frosted Lens
FR Frosted Lens
FR Frosted Lens
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire
Driver
DMV
0-10V Dimming
*Field installed-Dimming Wire
DMVFID 0-10V Dimming
* Factory installed-Dimming Wire
10800 Delivered Lumens

Series SKD
Low Profile LED Surface Mount
DIMENSIONS
All dimensions are inches.
Specifications subject to change without notice.
Intertek

9W LED Lamp Replacement

Exterior LED Parking and Street Light Fixture

Smart Thermostats

Instantaneous DHW Heaters

Controlled Power Cords and Plug-in Devices

Grand Canyon Lodges
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
March 2016

Appendix 2:
Landing Lights Specifications

Chandler Municipal Airport
Chandler, Arizona

G - 5
OBSTRUCTION & BEACONS
Product speciﬁ cations may be subject to change,
and speciﬁ cations listed here are not binding.
Conﬁ rm current speciﬁ cations at time of order.
ADB Airﬁ eld Solutions
Leuvensesteenweg 585
B-1930 Zaventem
Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 722.17.11
www.adb-air.com
ADB Airﬁ eld Solutions, LLC
977 Gahanna Parkway
Columbus, OH 43230
USA
Telephone: +1 614.861.1304

+1 800.545.4157
© ADB Airﬁ eld Solutions
All rights reserved
2004 Rev. J I Call for beacon manual
RBMI
Airport Rotating Beacon
MEDIUM INTENSITY
Compliance with Standards
FAA:
L-801 AC 150/5345-12 (Current Edition)
ICAO:
Annex 14, para. 5.3.3
Uses
L-801 beacons are designed primarily for night operation as identi-
ﬁ cation and location markers for airports.
Features
• Patented belt-drive system eliminates the lubrication required
by conventional gear-drive beacons. (U.S. Patent No. 5,339,224)
• Patented liquid-ﬁ lled lamp connector eliminates the slip rings
and brushes found on conventional beacons (U.S. Patent No.
5,816,678)
• Two 13,000 lumen, 150-watt pulse-start metal-halide lamps
• 12,000 hour typical lamp life (3 years)
• One clear lens and one aviation green lens
• No maintenance except lamp replacement
• All moving parts are permanently lubricated
• Impedance-protected motor eliminates burn outs
• 12 rpm rotation, 24 ﬂ ashes per minute
• Lamps preset at 5° above horizontal, adjustable
• Weatherproof steel cabinet with powder-coated international
orange ﬁ nish
• Optional photocell and/or tell-tale relay
• Mountable on a Hali-Brite Tipdown Pole. See catalog sheet 2035
for photo and details.
• Electrical Power – The beacon operates on 120 VAC, 60 Hz or
220-240 VAC, 50/60 Hz
• Power Consumption–Class I: 395W; Class II: 795W
• Made in the USA and ETL certiﬁ ed by Hali-Brite, Inc., Crosby, MN
Operating Conditions
Temperature:
Class I: -22 °F to +131 °F (-30 °C to +55 °C)

Class II: -67 °F to +131 °F (-55 °C to +55 °C)
Wind:
Velocities up to 100 mph (161 kph)
Spare Components
Description
Part No.
Ballast Assembly 50 Hz
0200-0024
Ballast Assembly 60 Hz
0200-0023
Belt
0600-0003
Fuse, motor, 0.5 A
2300-0002
Fuse, lamp, 6.25 A
2300-0010
Lamp, 150 W pulse-start metal-halide
3400-0125
Lens, amber
2800-0025
Lens, clear
2800-0006
Lens, green
2800-0043
Lens clip
1500-0011
Optional Accessories
Description
Part No.
Tell-Tale Relay, 120 VAC
L801/802 T/T HBM 120
Tell-Tale Relay, 220/240 VAC
L801/802 T/T HBM 240
Tell-Tale Relay, 220/240 VAC, 50 Hz
L801/802 T/T 240/50
Tower Mounting Kit
4200-0000
Packaging
Cube Shipping Volume:
48 x 25 x 25 in (122 x 63.5 x 63.5 cm)
Weight:
110 lb (49.9 kg) - shipping

75 lb (34 kg) - unpackaged
Ordering Code 44A4837- 1 0
Type
0 = Airport
Style
1 = Standard Base, Belt-Driven
Power
0 = 120 VAC, 60 Hz, without heater, Class I
1 = 220-240 VAC, 50 Hz, without heater, Class I
2 = 120 VAC, 60 Hz, with heater, Class II
3 = 220-240 VAC, 50 Hz, with heater, Class II
4 = 220-240 VAC, 60 Hz, without heater, Class I
5 = 220-240 VAC, 60 Hz, with heater, Class II
Notes
• 220-240 VAC must be single wire with neutral.
• Add tell-tale relay for monitoring (see options below).

Grand Canyon Lodges
ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit Report
March 2016

Appendix 3:
HVAC Equipment Specifications

Chandler Municipal Airport
Chandler, Arizona

Total comfort solution for heating, cooling, ventilation
and controls.

Redesigned and optimized for low total Life Cycle Cost (LCC).

Available in large capacity single modules up to 14 tons
and systems up to 34 tons allowing for a more flexible
system design.

Year-round comfort and energy efficiency delivered
by combining VRV and VRT technologies.

High energy efficiency with IEER values up to 27.3.

Integrated inverter technology delivers high efficiency during part
load conditions and provides precise individual zone control.

Design flexibility with long piping lengths up to 3,280 ft. total,
and up to 100 ft. vertical separation between indoor units.

Corrosion resistant 1000 hr. salt-spray tested Daikin PE blue fin
heat exchanger.

Reduced commissioning time with VRV configuration software and
Graphical User Interface (GUI), as compared to VRV III.

VRV IV takes advantage of Daikin's unique zone and
centralized controls that are optimized for the specific needs
of North America.

Outstanding 10-year limited parts warranty* as standard.
VRV IV
Air-Cooled Heat Pump
RXYQ_TATJU / RXYQ_TAYDU
NEW!
Commercial.
Renovation.
New construction.
Daikin’s VRV IV systems integrate advanced technology to provide comfort
control with high energy efficiency and reliability. VRV IV provides heating and
cooling solutions for multi-family residential to large commercial applications.
Daikin VRV IV is the first variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system assembled in
North America.
Main features and benefits:
Additional information
Before purchasing this appliance, read important information about
its estimated annual energy consumption, yearly operating cost, or
energy efficiency rating that is available from your retailer.
replacement
compressor
replacement
compressor
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DAIKIN VRV.
*Complete warranty details available from your local distributor,
manufacturer’s representative, www.daikincomfort.com
or www.daikinac.com.

Technical Data for VRV IV Heat Pump Outdoor Units
6 Ton
8 Ton
10 Ton
12 Ton
14 Ton
Model
208-230V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ72TATJU
RXYQ96TATJU
RXYQ120TATJU
RXYQ144TATJU
RXYQ168TATJU
460V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ72TAYDU
RXYQ96TAYDU
RXYQ120TAYDU
RXYQ144TAYDU
RXYQ168TAYDU
Performance
Rated Cooling Capacity
Btu/h
69,000
92,000
114,000
138,000
160,000
Rated Heating Capacity
Btu/h
73,000
103,000
129,000
154,000
176,000
Operation Range - Cooling
°F DB
10*-122
10*-122
10*-122
10*-122
10*-122
Operation Range - Heating
°F WB
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
Sound Pressure
dB(A)
58
61
61
64
65
IEER (Ducted / Non-Ducted)
20.7 / 25.9
22.5 / 27.3
22 / 25.4
22.6 / 24.8
19.8 / 22.6
Airflow
cfm
5,544
5,827
6,286
8,228
8,228
Refrigerant Piping
Vertical Pipe Length Above
ft.
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Below
ft.
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Between IDU
ft.
100
100
100
100
100
Actual Pipe Length
ft.
540
540
540
540
540
Equivalent Pipe Length
ft.
620
620
620
620
620
Total Pipe Length
ft.
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
Unit
Weight (RXYQ_TAT / RXYQ_TAY)
lbs.
435 / 451
525 / 553
528 / 556
695 / 709
Dimensions (H x W x D)
in.
66-11/16 x 36-11/16 x 30-3/16
66-11/16 x 48-7/8 x 30-3/16
16 Ton
18 Ton
20 Ton
22 Ton
24 Ton
Model
208-230V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ192TATJU
RXYQ216TATJU
RXYQ240TATJU
RXYQ264TATJU
RXYQ288TATJU
460V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ192TAYDU
RXYQ216TAYDU
RXYQ240TAYDU
RXYQ264TAYDU
RXYQ288TAYDU
Combination
1 x RXYQ120T
1 x RXYQ120T
2 x RXYQ120T
1 x RXYQ144T
2 x RXYQ144T
1 x RXYQ72T
1 x RXYQ96T
1 x RXYQ120T
Performance
Rated Cooling Capacity
Btu/h
184,000
206,000
228,000
250,000
274,000
Rated Heating Capacity
Btu/h
206,000
230,000
256,000
282,000
308,000
Operation Range - Cooling
°F DB
23-122
23-122
23-122
23-122
23-122
Operation Range - Heating
°F WB
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
Sound Pressure
dB(A)
63
64
64
66
67
IEER (Ducted/Non-Ducted)
21.2 / 22.2
21.1 / 20.5
20.9 / 20.8
19.6 / 20.3
19.6 / 20.1
Airflow
cfm
5,544 + 6,286
5,827 + 6,286
6,286 + 6,286
6,286 + 8,228
8,228 + 8,228
Refrigerant Piping
Vertical Pipe Length Above
ft.
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Below
ft.
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Between IDU
ft.
100
100
100
100
100
Actual Pipe Length
ft.
540
540
540
540
540
Equivalent Pipe Length
ft.
620
620
620
620
620
Total Pipe Length
ft.
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
Unit
Weight (RXYQ_TAT / RXYQ_TAY)
lbs.
435 + 528 / 451 + 556
525 + 528 / 553 + 556
528 + 528 / 556 + 556
528 + 695 / 556 + 709
695 + 695 / 709 + 709
Dimensions (H x W x D)
in.
(66-11/16 x 48-7/8 x 30-3/16) +
(66-11/16 x 36-11/16 x 30-3/16)
(66-11/16 x 48-7/8 x 30-3/16) x 2
26 Ton
28 Ton
30 Ton
32 Ton
34 Ton
Model
208-230V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ312TATJU
RXYQ336TATJU
RXYQ360TATJU
RXYQ384TATJU
RXYQ408TATJU
460V/3Ph/60Hz
RXYQ312TAYDU
RXYQ336TAYDU
RXYQ360TAYDU
RXYQ384TAYDU
RXYQ408TAYDU
Combination
1 x RXYQ168T
2 x RXYQ168T
3 x RXYQ120T
1 x RXYQ168T
1 x RXYQ168T
1 x RXYQ144T
1 x RXYQ120T
1 x RXYQ144T
1 x RXYQ96T
1 x RXYQ96T
Performance
Rated Cooling Capacity
Btu/h
296,000
312,000
334,000
352,000
372,000
Rated Heating Capacity
Btu/h
334,000
344,000
372,000
400,000
435,000
Operation Range - Cooling
°F DB
23-122
23-122
23-122
23-122
23-122
Operation Range - Heating
°F WB
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
-4 - 60
Sound Pressure
dB(A)
68
68
66
68
68
IEER (Ducted/Non-Ducted)
18.8 / 19.9
18.5 / 20.6
18.5 / 19.4
18.5 / 21.1
19.0 / 21.1
Airflow
cfm
8,228 + 8,228
8,228 + 8,228
6,286 + 6,286 + 6,286
5,827 + 6,286 + 8,228
6,286 + 6,286 + 8,228
Refrigerant Piping
Vertical Pipe Length Above
ft.
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
164 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Below
ft.
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
130 (295/w/outdoor setting)
130 (295 w/outdoor setting)
Vertical Pipe Length Between IDU
ft.
100
100
100
100
100
Actual Pipe Length
ft.
540
540
540
540
540
Equivalent Pipe Length
ft.
620
620
620
620
620
Total Pipe Length
ft.
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
3,280
Unit
Weight (RXYQ_TAT / RXYQ_TAY)
lbs.
695 + 695 / 709 +709
695 + 695 / 709 +709
528 + 528 + 528 / 525 +528 + 695
525 + 528 + 695 / 553 + 556 + 709
525 + 695 + 695 / 553 + 709 + 709
Dimensions (H x W x D)
in.
(66-11/16 x 48-7/8 x 30-3/16) x 2
(66-11/16 x 48-7/8 x 30-3/16) x 3
For all equipment installation and application limitations please refer to the specific Engineering Data Books. * Application rules apply.
PF-VRV4 ACHP 01-17
VRV IV Operations
2017
VRV IV VRT Advantages
The graphs below are intended only to depict how new Daikin VRV IV efficiency is increased by using VRT.
Ambient Temperature
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
68oF
77oF
86oF
95oF
LOAD
Cooling
Requirement
Design Condition
50
Variable Rt*
45
40
35
30
Fixed Rt*
25
20
15
68oF
77oF
86oF
95oF
EFFICIENCY
Ambient Temperature
*Data based on RXYQ96 outdoor unit only with 100% connection ratio.
Up to 28%
Improved Seasonal
Cooling Efficiency
vs. VRV III
Lower capacity
is required to cool
and heat a building
during mid-season.
A VRV system adapts to
the required changes in
capacity by varying the
refrigerant volume. This results
in an increase in efficiency at
part load operation.
The efficiency of the
VRV IV system is further
increased by adjusting the
refrigerant temperature
depending on space load
and weather conditions.