McKinleyville Community Services District main office (Photo Courtesy of Tim Kukuk.)

The Redwood Coast Energy Authority(RCEA) worked in partnership with Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E) to implement the Energy Watch 2006-2008 program. The program was designed to help a wide range of Humboldt County PG&E customers increase their energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions through reduction of power usage. One aspect of the program involved the RCEA working with local businesses to facilitate energy savings and reduce long term energy costs by replacing existing lighting fixtures with newer, more efficient alternatives. Through this program, the RCEA was able to provide the Mckinleyville Community Services District with assistance in designing a lighting retrofit project to fit their specific needs. The RCEA plan included locating an electrical contractor, providing a specific retrofit plan for the business, and helping the business take advantage of rebates offered through the Energy Watch 2006-2008 program.

McKinleyville Community Services District[edit | edit source]

The McKinleyville Community Services District (MCSD) is a municipality that serves the census-designated area of McKinleyville. Since McKinleyville is not officially a city, it does not have a city government to provide basic public services, so the MCSD fills this position. The MCSD is headed by a publicly elected.

Board of Directors and provides a sewer/wastewater treatment service, a drinking water service, and maintains public recreation areas like parks. Collected sewage is treated at a facility just north of Hiller Road.[1] Public drinking water is purchased wholesale from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District and is piped from the storage tank on Essex Hill to McKinleyville.[2] The MCSD Parks and Recreation Department maintains and oversees parks like Hiller Park and Pierson Park, sponsors sports programs like basketball, and manages facilities like the McKinleyville Activity Center (MAC).[3]

MCSD Wasterwater Treatment Facility (Photo Courtesy of McKinleyville Community Services District.)

General MCSD Plan[edit | edit source]

The retrofit plan for the MCSD included lighting changes at multiple locations. The Pierson Park restrooms received upgrades in the form of photocell installations for their outdoor nighttime fixtures and installations of motion sensing fluorescent fixtures indoors. Photocells save energy by triggering outdoor lights according to ambient conditions, rather than a timer. This means that outdoor lights will only come on when it is dark or, in other words, for the shortest effective time.

The Azalea Hall and Senior Center received upgrades in the form of photocell installations for their outdoor nighttime fixtures and a range hood upgrade. The sheriff's station was fitted with photocell installations for their outdoor nighttime fixtures and replacement of an existing halogen fixture with a motion sensing fluorescent fixture.

The Mckinleyville Activity Center received building-wide upgrades to more energy efficient florescent lighting fixtures with motion sensing capabilities to insure that they are only on when needed. The Activity Center is the largest single facility operated by the MCSD from an energy usage standpoint and as such, provided the greatest opportunity to increase efficiency.

Replacement light fixtures in the gymnasium of the MAC. (Photo Courtesy of Tim Kukuk.)

McKinleyville Activity Center[edit | edit source]

The McKinleyville Activity Center (MAC), is located at 1705 Gwin Road in Mckinleyville. It is a 10,000 square foot sports facility for community use. Programs held here include various adult and young adult community basketball leagues, a weekly skating event, dances, after school children's programs, and a daytime community playgroup for kids five and under. The effectiveness of the retrofits to this particular facility will be the subject of this report, though they are only a part of the total project.

As mentioned above, retrofits were also performed in other facilities, this report will simplify the calculations by comparing the energy saving estimates and true output from the data at the MAC only. The MAC consists of a gymnasium, a lobby with a concession area, and a skate room. Through the Energy Watch 2006-2008 program, the RCEA conducted a site survey and developed a specific plan to increase efficiency in the MAC by removing the existing Metal Halide 175 watt M1-1L and 400 watt M2-2L globes and replacing these with 192 watt (total) T8 4' LOW BAY-5000 ºK / wire guard and lift fluorescent fixtures, which require less electrical energy per unit and use motion sensors to further regulate energy use. A total of 21 fixtures were removed and 17 fixtures replaced in the MAC resulting in a 48% total wattage rating reduction from 6,745 watts before the retrofits to 3,264 watts after completion.

The McKinleyville Activity Center on 1704 Gwin Rd.(Photo Courtesy of Tim Kukuk.)

Retrofit Effectiveness[edit | edit source]

The retrofits to the McKinleyville Activity Center successfully reduced power usage by 48%. On a yearly basis, this reduction saves the MCSD $1,712 on MAC energy bills. The energy not needed by the MAC as a result of the retrofits also corresponds to an offset of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) produced as a by-product of electricity generation. This is important because CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. The yearly total of CO2 offset by the MAC retrofits is 5,366 pounds per year, which is approximately equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by driving a passenger car 6,200 miles or from San Francisco to New York City and back.[4][5]

Figure 1 shows the effects of the October 2007 retrofit completion as a sustained drop in energy usage. The normal fluctuations in energy demand throughout the year still continue, but each corresponding month shows a lower relative level of energy usage. The ratio between the energy used before and after the retrofits is also visible in Figure 2. The red bars represent monthly energy usage before the retrofits and the blue sets of bars represent the years following the installation. For each month, it is apparent that the red, pre-retrofit bars are higher than the blue, post-retrofit bars.

Aside from facilitating the retrofit project, RCEA also provided predictions to the MCSD on what savings could be expected from the installations. These estimates were, as shown in Table 1, about 20% greater than the actual savings of dollars, energy, and CO2. This shows that though there were discrepancies in the predictions, (as should be expected in all predictions in any field) the estimates were still able to provide a basic guideline.

(Table 1.) Comparison of various savings estimates made by the RCEA to the actual savings resulting from the McKinleyville Activity Center retrofits.
RCEA Savings Estimates And Results (Table 1)
Type of Savings RCEA Estimate Actual Result Percent Difference
Energy Savings (kWs/yr.) 12,670 10,240
Carbon Dioxide Savings (lbs./yr.) 6,589 5,366
Dollar Savings ($/yr.) $2,117.99 $1,711.72
Payback (yr.) 3.17 3.71

The payback values are the amount of years it will take for the energy savings to equal the cost of the retrofits. Table 1 gives the time for the total cost of the retrofits to be offset by total dollar savings on electricity as approximately three years. With the rebates secured for this project, however, the actual payback time from the perspective of the MCSD will be 2.6 years from the completion of the project, which corresponds to May of 2010 after the rebate of $1,963 is subtracted from the total implementation cost.

Client Response[edit | edit source]

KidZone, a daytime playgroup for children five and under in the McKinleyville community. (Photo Courtesy of Tim Kukuk.)

The General Manager of the McKinleyville Community Services District and the Parks and Recreation Department Director have mixed reviews regarding the formulation, implementation, and results of the MAC plan. When asked if retrofits like these would have been performed without the input of RCEA, it was stated that the projects taken on by the MCSD had already been in consideration before contact with RCEA and that the plan implementation fell perfectly in time with a schedule that had already been loosely set. As a municipal institution with some duties directly related to environmental impact, the objective of the retrofit program coincided with the MCSD's mission of utilizing new technology to minimize power usage.[6]

Areas of Satisfaction[edit | edit source]

Upon review of the MAC plan the client expressed satisfaction with the opportunity to move forward with the MCSD's commitment to being environmentally conscious and energy efficient through various pathways, RCEA being one of these. The MCSD was also pleased to have the opportunity to receive rebates offered in conjunction with the Energy Watch 2006-2008 program. In addition the client expressed satisfaction with the energy savings overall, specifically noting the motion sensing capabilities of the newly installed fixtures at the MAC and the efficiency resulting from the fixtures turning on or off according to activity.

Areas of concern[edit | edit source]

Site inspection and interviews at the MAC also revealed some areas of concern. First is the need for increased brightness or luminance in the gymnasium area. This recommendation is based on shadows cast in some locations and general dim appearance overall that the client believes is noticeably inferior to the original lighting system. Second is the concern over the durability of the new fixtures. The client stated that the grill for one of the retrofitted fixtures was, at one point, loose and visibly hanging, requiring MCSD staff to inspect and re-secure all of the fixtures. Another issue was raised regarding the installation of some of the fixtures in the MAC gymnasium. Confusion over placement during installation resulted in 4 of the 12 fixtures being located in close proximity to an overhead heating duct that travels the length of the gym. The client believes that the overall luminance is negatively impacted by the duct blocking a portion of the output from these four fixtures.[7]

Future Projects[edit | edit source]

Overall, the benefits of the retrofit plan developed by the Redwood Coast Energy Authority outweigh the concerns, as evidenced by the MCSD's desire to move forward on similar projects at their other locations. The MCSD expressed interest in performing lighting retrofits regarding interior fixtures at the Azalea Hall and Senior Center, and additional lighting retrofits at both Pierson Park and the Sheriff's station. When asked if the MCSD would consider going through RCEA again for these projects, the client responded that if the return of this review showed that the RCEA estimates were accurate, they would be willing to work in conjunction with RCEA in the future.

Azalea Hall, another building that the MCSD would like to retrofit similarly to the MAC. (Photo Courtesy of Tim Kukuk.)

References[edit | edit source]

  1. McKinleyville Community Services District. Sewer Department. Accessed Online October 26, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20091214070857/http://mckinleyvillecsd.com:80/sewer.html
  2. McKinleyville Community Services District. Water Department. Accessed Online October 26, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20091214070902/http://mckinleyvillecsd.com:80/water.html
  3. McKinleyville Community Services District. Parks Department. Accessed Online October 26, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20091214070754/http://mckinleyvillecsd.com:80/mcsdparks.html
  4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, 2009. Accessed Online November 17, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20111119115830/http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm
  5. Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Accessed Online November 16, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20171218195534/https://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
  6. N. Shopay, personal communication, October 23, 2009.
  7. J. Sehon, personal communication, October 23, 2009.

Additional Information[edit | edit source]

Discussion[View | Edit]

Brandon StorerQ: Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.
A: This web page, I feel, targets those people that are involved in retrofits with RCEA, and want to view the reviews of others that have already retrofitted.

Brandon StorerQ: Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
A: The web page is very neatly laid out and easy to navigate.

Brandon StorerQ: Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.
A: The page could use more level two headings and less level one headings to help separate some of the information that would be better understood if in its own paragraph.

Brandon StorerQ: Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.
A: The topic sentences on most of the paragraphs are clear and to the point, although others need to stick to the topic at hand. Supporting sentences are strong and plentiful.

Brandon StorerQ: Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)
A: Writing is somewhat objective, needs removal of some adverbs. Other than that the writing is fact based.

Brandon StorerQ: Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?
A: The figures and photographs are clear and help with understanding the information. One improvement could be to put up a picture of the RCEA building to show viewers that a building that they can visit actually exists.

Brandon StorerQ: Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.
A: One reference to a figure is used, but figure numbers is lacking. Needs to have more references to figures and use figure numbering.

Brandon StorerQ: If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.
A: There is no clear way of telling what the company saved and how much less carbon dioxide the company is emitting.

Brandon StorerQ: Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
A: What were the differences in the carbon dioxide readings before and after the retrofit?

Brandon StorerQ: Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?
A: There are enough links provided and references of links is provided. Note that no more links should be added unless absolutely essential.

Brandon StorerQ: Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?
A: The document is too long. The length causes the viewer to lose interest. Some background on the facility could be taken out.

Brandon StorerQ: Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?
A: The page has a "ENGR 115: In Progress" banner and correct categories to both ENGR 115 and RCEA.

Brandon Storer List the strengths of document
• Good layout, easy to navigate
• Lots of information, related links

Brandon Storer List areas for improvement
• Length(shorten page), more level 2 headings
• Less information, figure references, figure numbering

Brandon Storer Overall comments
• Good organization, easy navigation, and lots of related links

• Number your images and refer to them so help clarify some of your topics

• Remove some information, read throughout the entire page and remove some unneeded info

• This page is very helpful in giving information on before and after the retrofit



Chad Herrick Review

Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

Students and people looking to do an energy retrofit on a business.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

Yes the information is easy to navigate. I would state and describe all of the buildings that MCSD has then in the focus on the retrofits instead of flopping back and forth on topics.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

The headings are all used effectively.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

Yes there is a clear topic sentence for the paragraphs.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

For the most part the writing is objective. Sentences such as “Site inspection and interviews at the MAC also revealed some areas of concern,” the word some could be removed. The sentence with ????????? needs to be removed or the actual number needs to be calculated

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

The photos and figures are easily understood.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

The figures are cited and have captions.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

The page has very useful graphs and tables showing the energy use decline, but the sentence “The Parks and Recreation Department Director has mixed reviews regarding the formulation, implementation, and results of the MAC plan. Actual energy savings for the MAC were recorded at ?????? …,” is very confusing and misleading.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

No

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

The authors did provide links to related sites, maybe there could be more links to sites which explain the difference between the new and old lights.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

The document is the right length.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

Yes


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

The page is very detail oriented and contains useful photos and graphs.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)


The page could use more organization, you might try making headers for each of the buildings and explain their retrofits or future. Make a clear summary about energy savings.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall this is an excellent page. Chad Herrick

Shane Mallory

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. The target audience is anyone interested in improving the district. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is presented well and clear. Easy to navigate. I would decrease the size of the intial picture on top. 3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Headings are used well. Like the order of headings. 4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. Topic sentences are presented with each paragraph. Supporting sentences are strong. 5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) Other than some ad-verbs, writing is not objective. 6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? The picture at the top is way oversized and distracting. 7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. A bit of a lack of figure numbers. Some figures and examples would be nice. 8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. There is no clear presentation of the bottom line. Incorporate a graph or diargram of the money and carbon dioxide. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topics that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? More specifics about the amount of emissions. 10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? There are links to two good sites. The sites are just basic however and more sites that are related would be a nice addition. 11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? The document has a good length. 12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Yes the page has the banner and categories on the bottom.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Good organization.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) More information on the retrofits of the place. More information about money savings.


15. Overall comments: Keep up the good work.

[Shane Mallory]



User:Julien Coppieters Peer Review

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

The site generally seems to cater to an audience that is in the know. There are many things that are somewhat assumed the audience is aware of. Perfectly acceptable for those who would most likely be interested in this page, however, I think some things could be changed/added for a more general comfort with the information.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The information is neatly arranged and available to be found for those who would look. However, it could save the reader some time if specific answers and analyses were highlighted somehow. So they could be found right away.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

Headings are well thought out. Some paragraphs I think would welcome sub headings to better sort the information for the reader.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

Topic sentences are clear. The only thing I would change is the addition of more sub headings so the information doesn’t have to remain as broad.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

The writing is excellent.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

I think the large top photograph needs some text, just explaining, putting it in context. It would be nice if the table included something explaining what the numbers actually are. For those who want quick answers. The two graphs could use labeled axes.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

There could be more referencing of the figures and the data found in them in the actual text.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

The page lacks this direct information.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

My only questions would relate to the actual comparisons of CO2 emissions, power and money before and after the retrofit.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

Good links, references well summarized.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

Good length.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

Yes.

13. List the strengths of document.

The page is very well written and contains a lot of solid and useful information.

14. List areas for improvement.

The overall text could use more organization, the use of more sub headings perhaps. Label graphs and table for better direct-view understanding. Needs analysis of CO2, power and money savings.

15. Overall comments

Overall this is a very well done page, with only a few minor details to think about changing/adding.

User:Julien Coppieters

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.