Joint Region Marianas Energy AnalysisMilitary Consumption, Conservation & Renewable Energy on GuamJason ChristensenMaster of Urban Planning Capstone Project University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 2012

Joint Region Marianas Energy AnalysisMilitary Consumption, Conservation & Renewable Energy on Guam

Prepared for Commander, Joint Region Marianas

Jason ChristensenMaster of Urban Planning Capstone ProjectUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 2012

i.

Joint Region Marianas Energy Analysis

Table of Contents

Executive Summary v.

Introduction 1-1

1.1 Guam Overview 1-1

1.1.1 Location & Geography 1-1 1.1.2 Climate 1-1 1.1.3 Population 1-21.2 Local Government & Utilities Provider 1-2 1.2.1 Government of Guam 1-2 1.2.2 Guam Power Authority 1-31.3 Joint Region Marianas 1-4 1.3.1 U.S. Navy 1-4 1.3.2 U.S. Air Force 1-4

1.3.3 History 1-4

2 Current Energy Consumption Patterns 2-1

2.1 Federal & Department of Defense Energy Initiatives 2-12.2 Joint Region Marianas Energy Consumption 2-2 2.2.1 Joint Region Marianas Energy Footprint 2-3 2.2.2 Joint Region Marianas Historic Consumption 2-3 2.2.3 Normalized Consumption Rates 2-52.3 Joint Region Marianas Demolition Program 2-72.4 Commander, Navy Installations Command Baseline Reset 2-7

3 Facility Type Analysis 3-1

3.1 Detailed Facility Analysis 3-13.2 Contributions to Net Change in Energy Consumption 3-43.3 Changes in Annual Consumption - ESPC Facilities 3-4

4 Energy Conservation 4-1

4.1 Benchmark Development 4-1

4.1.1 CNIC Benchmark Development 4-1 4.1.2 Energy Star Benchmark Calculations 4-14.2 Potential Energy Savings 4-1 4.2.1 Variations from Benchmark 4-2

ii.

4.2.2 Energy Savings 4-3

4.3 JRM Energy Awareness Program 4-9

5 Renewables 5-1

5.1 Future Partnerships with GPA 5-15.2 Solar Energy Production 5-25.3 Wind Turbine Energy Production 5-35.4 Wind Turbine and Solar PV Siting 5-4 5.4.1 NBG 5-4 5.4.2 NAVMAG 5-5 5.4.3 NCTS 5-5 5.4.4 AAFB 5-6 5.4.5 Northwest Field at AAFB 5-65.5 Other Alternative Sources of Energy 5-65.6 Funding Vehicles 5-9

6 Conclusion 6-1

6.1 Summary 6-16.2 Recommendations 6-1

Works Cited 7-1

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 1.1 GPA Power Generation Resources 1-3Table 2.1 Joint Region Marianas Annual Energy Consumption 2-2Table 2.2 Average Annual Temperature (as Recorded at Won Pat International Airport, Guam) 2-2Table 3.1 Annual Changes in Energy Use Intensity (By Facility Type) 3-2Table 3.2 Annual Changes in Energy Consumption (By Facility Type) 3-2Table 3.3 Contribution to Net Change in Energy Consumption by Facility Type 3-4Table 3.4 Changes in Annual Energy Consumption by Facility Type (ESPC Buildings Only) 3-5Table 4.1 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Top 36 Facilities with Most Potential Savings) 4-9Table 5.1 GPA Future Renewable Resources 5-1Table 5.2 JRM Total Solar Requirements 5-2Table 5.3 JRM Potential Solar Capacity and Cost Savings 5-3Table 5.4 JRM Potential Solar Production Compared to that of Other Operating Locations 5-3

iii.

Table 5.5 JRM Total Wind Requirements 5-4Table 5.6 JRM Potential Wind Capacity and Cost Savings 5-4Table 6.1 JRM Proposed Energy Consumption Reductions 6-1

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Guam and Surrounding Countries 1-2Figure 1.2 Military Installations on Guam 1-5Figure 2.1 JRM Average Annual Energy Consumption 2-2Figure 2.2 JRM FY11 Energy Footprint 2-3Figure 2.3 JRM Annual Energy Consumption Comparison (FY04 - Present) 2-4Figure 2.4 NBG Housing Annual Energy Consumption Comparison (FY04 - Present) 2-4Figure 2.5 JRM Normalized Energy Consumption 2-5Figure 2.6 Joint Region Marianas Annual Demolition - Navy Only (FY03 - FY12) 2-6Figure 2.7 JRM EUI Normalized to Demolition 2-6Figure 2.8 JRM Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset 2-8Figure 2.9 AAFB Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset 2-8Figure 3.1 Annual JRM Consumption by Facility Type 3-3Figure 4.1 JRM Benchmark Energy Consumption by Facility Type 4-2Figure 4.2 Heat Map - NBG Core 4-4Figure 4.3 Heat Map - NBG Lower Harbor 4-5Figure 4.4 Heat Map - NCTS 4-6Figure 4.5 Heat Map - AAFB 4-7Figure 4.6 JRM Potential Energy Savings in Energy Consumption by Facility Type 4-8Figure 5.1 Guam Monthly Sun Position Polar Plot 5-3Figure 5.2 NBG - Renewables Proposed Siting 5-5Figure 5.3 NAVMAG - Renewables Proposed Siting 5-6Figure 5.4 NCTS - Renewables Proposed Siting 5-7Figure 5.5 AAFB - Renewables Proposed Siting 5-8Figure 5.6 Northwest Field at AAFB - Renewables Proposed Siting 5-8

Appendix A

Figure A.1 AAFB Annual Energy Consumption Comparison (FY04-Present) A-1Figure A.2 JRM (Naval Mission) Annual Energy Consumption Comparison (FY04 - Present) A-1Figure A.3 NBG Annual Energy Consumption Comparison (FY04-Present) A-1Figure A.4 JRM Annual EUI A-2

List of Appendices

iv.

Table of Contents

Appendix A Figure A.5 AAFB Annual EUI A-2Figure A.6 JRM (Naval Mission) Annual EUI A-2Figure A.7 NBG Housing Annual EUI A-3Figure A.8 NBG Housing Annual EUI A-3Figure A.9 AAFB Normalized Energy Consumption A-4Figure A.10 JRM (Naval Mission) Normalized Energy Consumption A-4Figure A.11 NBG Housing Normalized Energy Consumption A-4Figure A.12 NBG Normalized Energy Consumption A-5Figure A.13 JRM (Naval Mission) EUI Normalized to Demo A-6Figure A.14 NBG Housing EUI Normalized to Demo A-6Figure A.15 NBG EUI Normalized to Demo A-6Figure A.16 JRM (Naval Mision) Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset A-7Figure A.17 NBG Housing Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset A-7Figure A.18 NBG Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset A-7

Appendix B

Figure B.1 FY02 - FY12 Demolition Contracts B-1

Appendix C

Table C.1 CNIC & Energy Star Benchmarks C-1

Appendix D

Figure D.1 - D.11 Heat Maps D-1

Appendix E

Tables E.1 - E.19 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings E-1Appendix F Table F.1 Solar Array Sites F-1Table F.2 Solar Array Calculations - NBG F-2Table F.3 Solar Array Calculations - NCTS F-4Table F.4 Solar Array Calculations - AAFB F-5Table F.5 Present Value Savings Calculations - Solar F-6Table F.6 Turbine Calculations F-7Table F.7 Present Value Savings Calculations - Turbines F-8Table F.8 Wind Turbine Shading Distance Calculations F-9Table F.9 Wind Power Calculations F-11Table F.10 Bio Fuel and Waste Calculations F-12

v.

Executive Summary The Department of the Navy (DON) has taken great strides to decrease its facili-ties’ energy consumption in order to meet Federal and Department of Defense (DOD) energy conservation initiatives. In response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 the U.S. Navy has made it a priority to decrease its consumption of oil and fossil-fuel generated energy. Among other initiatives, the Navy is currently working towards a goal to reduce shore-based energy consumption by 50 percent, to generate half of shore-based energy requirements by alternative sources, and to achieve net zero status for half of all its installations by 2020.1 These strategic goals, ultimately, enable the Navy, Department of Defense, and the U.S. to move towards en-ergy independence and to operate in a more sustainable manner. In an effort to meet DON Goals, the Joint Region Marianas (JRM) has imple-mented an energy conservation program that has included an energy awareness campaign, energy conservation retrofits on less efficient facilities, and the introduction of minor amounts of renewable energy applications. Despite these efforts, however, the region has seen only modest improvements in energy use intensity. Additionally, region-wide gross floor area has increased by almost 15 per-cent from FY03 and the region-wide energy consumption has increased by approximately eight percent within the same time period. This report provides a high-level analysis of JRM energy consumption over a

1 U.S. Department of the Navy, “A Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century,” 6-10.

ten year period, a detailed analysis of con-sumption trends by facility type, and identi-fies specific buildings that currently consume excess energy; resulting in a potential energy savings to the region of approximately 85 million KWh. Additionally, this report analyzes potential partnership opportunities with Guam Power Authority (GPA) as well as other strategies to increase the generation of renewables both on-base and off-base in or-der to meet DON strategic energy reduction goals. The analysis is broken down into four primary sections: current energy consumption patterns, detailed facility type analysis, energy conservation and savings potential, and renewable strategies. Key points from each section are presented below:

JRM Energy Consumption Patterns• In Fiscal Year 2011(FY11) JRM pur-

chased 358 million KWh from GPA at an average total unit cost of $.20 per KWh2 (note that costs have increased in 2012 to $.25 per KWh and that NAVFAC often uses $.27 per KWh for estimations) thus spending $72 million on energy alone. Consumption figures for FY12 were very similar.

• Of 358 million KWh in FY11, approxi-mately 83 percent of this powers JRM shore-based operations (facilities), 8.6 percent is consumed by ships in port, and 7.8 percent is lost to resistance (line losses).

2 NAVFAC Marianas, Power Purchase Forecast FY11.

vi.

• From FY03 to FY12 has had a net de-crease of only 6.84 percent in energy use intensity (EUI) as measured in MBTU/KSF and a net increase in consumption of almost eight percent. This can partially be attributed to an increase in region-wide gross floor area (GFA) of almost 13 percent, however, energy consump-tion levels normalized to GFA show that energy consumption would be increasing even if GFA remained constant.

• From the end of FY09 to the first quar-ter of FY11 the region’s EUI decreased by 15 percent. During this time many buildings were receiving energy conserva-tion retrofits through an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC); as part of this contract the region also gained its first 250 KW solar array. While it appears that the region may have never seen the energy savings estimated up front from the contract (See 3.3) there does ap-pear to be a correlation between these energy savings retrofits and a decrease in EUI. One possible explanation is that an increased energy awareness due to these retrofits as well as this solar array prompted short term behavioral changes that resulted in a decrease in energy consumption.

• In FY11 Navy Base Guam housing, through the demolition of older housing stock, decreased its total GFA by 663 thousand square feet (all mothballed homes with little energy consump-tion). During this same time its energy consumption decreased by almost 8.5 percent; however, its EUI increased by almost 25 percent. This point highlights how a radical reduction in square footage (especially of under-utilized buildings) can drastically change the EUI. In this case the demolition of this one neighbor-hood increased the region-wide EUI by four percent.

Detailed Facility Type Analysis• Specific facility types such as offices,

warehouses, power generation facili-ties, unaccompanied personnel housing,

and communications facilities may have contributed disproportionately to the increase in regional energy consumption over the last three years. In this analy-sis (representing over 70 percent of all energy consumed by facilities) offices increased energy consumption by 6.8 million KWh per year, power generation facilities by 7.8 million KWh per year, unaccompanied personnel housing by 4.7 million KWh per year, and warehouses by 2.5 million KWh per year. Navy hous-ing, has actually reduced its energy con-sumption by 5.7 million KWh per year.

• Facilities receiving ESPC retrofits were also analyzed separately. These facilities (approximately half of all ESPC facilities) reduced annual energy consumption by 1.58 million KWh; however within two years energy consumption had begun to increase so that 50% of all energy con-sumption reductions were lost. Growth in energy consumption among the same buildings that had undergone energy consumption retrofits suggests that either changes in technology (smart phone char-gers, MP3 players, increasing reliance on computers, and larger server systems - all manifested in an increased plug load)or behavioral-based changes such as changing missions and increases in OP-TEMPO may be responsible for these increases in annual energy consumption.

Energy Conservation and Savings Potential

• Through a benchmark analysis con-ducted at the facility level, a potential energy savings of 84.6 million KWh (representing an annual savings $22.9 million) was identified from 341 facilities within the region. Over 71 percent of this potential energy savings may be obtained through 36 facilities identified later in the report. A reduction of 84.6 million would reduce the JRM EUI by 28 percent to 45 MBTU/KSF.

• Currently many of JRM planned energy conservation projects are for facilities below benchmark consumption levels.

vii.

While it is very possible to reduce EUIs of these facilities, reductions in EUI will not have as large an impact on the region-wide EUI as will the facilities identified above.

Renewable Strategies• GPA recently signed a contract with

Guam Quantum Power, LLC (GQP) to purchase 36 thousand MW of solar generated electricity per year at a rate of $.196 per KWh (with annual cost increases) and is currently negotiating an agreement with Pacific Green Resource, LLC (PGR) for the purchase renewable energy from a 5.65 MW solar array and 9.6 MW wind farm. This starting rate for the purchase of renewable power is less than for what JRM purchases fossil-fuel derived power from GPA.

• While partnerships with GPA will be beneficial towards meeting DON energy conservation goals JRM will not meet these goals solely through the purchase of renewables from GPA. JRM must embark upon a campaign to increase renewable energy generation on its own installations as well. Within this report it is recommended that smaller-scale ap-plications such as 50 KW roof-mounted PV arrays be financed bundled with other facility energy conservation retrofits through ESPC and RMe special projects.

Larger-scale applications such as wind farms should be financed through power purchase agreements between JRM and independent contractors willing to finance these projects.

• It is also recommended that JRM begin several long term partnerships with GPA to determine the feasibility of other alter-native energy generation methods such as bio-fuel, waste to energy plants, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), or even a small unit reactor (all of which GPA is already analyzing). While such initiatives will probably not bear fruit for five to ten years they provide a future capacity for growth without a reliance on fossil fuels.

• Ultimately, this report demonstrates that through a combination of energy conser-vation methods and retrofits combined with an investment in renewable applica-tions, the region could potentially reduce its purchase of fossil fuel-generated electricity by 60 percent. JRM, through a combination of agreements with GPA and energy contractors and on-base gen-eration, would also replace approximately 106 million KWh of fossil- fuel generated energy with renewables. Such actions not only put the joint Navy-Air Force region well on its way to energy security but also have a large impact on the islands energy security and that of the nation.

1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction1.1 Guam Overview1.1.1 Location & Geography

1.1.2 Climate With a mean annual temperature of 82°F, Guam has a tropical climate.4 Humidity is relatively high for most of the year with the exception of the months of November through March. The island experiences very little change in temperature throughout the year; in fact, the monthly mean in January is 80°F and in June it is 82°F. Nighttime temperatures generally range in the mid 70’s.5 Overall, the is-land experiences two different seasons: the dry season (December to May) where the tempera-tures and humidity levels are slightly lower, and a rainy season (June to November where the temperatures and humidity levels are higher. While the total amount of annual rainfall can and often does vary drastically, the island usu-ally receives over 80 inches of rain per year. Trade winds (Easterlies) of approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour are common any time of year and can offer welcome relief during the hot humid months of July through September. Guam’s rainy season also corresponds to typhoon season throughout the tropical western Pacific. While typhoon season is

4 “Ecosystem Essays on Guam.”

5 Ibid.

Guam is located at the convergence of the Pacific Ocean and the Philippine Sea and is the southernmost of the Marianas Islands. Positioned with the coordinates of 13°N and 144°E,1 the island is approximately 1,568 miles south of Tokyo, Japan, 3,808 miles southwest of Honolulu, Hawaii, 2,103 miles north of Cairnes, Australia, and 1,594 miles east of Manila, Philippines (See Figure 1.1 Guam and Surrounding Countries). At just over 30 miles long and 8 miles at its widest point, Guam has a total land mass of 210 square miles and just under 78 miles of coastline.2 The northern half of the island is a flat limestone plateau reaching elevations just under 600 feet high; whereas the southern half of the island is composed of low mountains of volcanic origin. The highest of these moun-tains, is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1,332 feet.3 Guam is virtually surrounded by a system of coral reefs and shelves that, in many locations, form drop-offs of considerable depth.1 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, 2-1.2 “World Factbook.”

3 Ibid.

1-2

generally considered to be June through November, typhoons may form during any month of the year. In fact, chances are greater that a typhoon will hit Guam than any other U.S. state or territory and the island is prone to being hit with some of the largest and most deadly typhoons in the world.6 From 1992 to 2002 the eyes (the strongest winds are generally located near the eye wall which sur-rounds the eye) of six typhoons have passed directly over the Island and numerous other typhoons have passed nearby.7 Due to the location of Guam in “Typhoon Alley” the island is always within a condition of readi-ness (COR) Four; this means that “destruc-tive winds” could hit the island within any 72 hour period.8 Typhoons such as Ponsgona have caused excessive damage to the island’s infrastructure.

1.1.3 Population

In 2000 the population of Guam was 154,8059 and in 2010 the estimated

6 “Typhoon Vulnerability Study for Guam.”

7 “Super Typhoon Pongsona – Service Assessment.” 8 “Naval Base Guam Typhoon Preparedness.” 9 U.S. Census Bureau, “Total population, 2000 Guam Sum-

population was 159,914; 93 percent of that population lived in urbanized areas.10 The largest centers of population, Dededo, Yigo, and Tamuning, are all located in the northern half of the island. In 2000 approximately 37 percent of all inhabitants of Guam were con-sidered Chamorro, 26 percent were Filipino, 11 percent were Pacific Islander, almost 7 percent were Caucasian, and 16 percent were other or mixed.11

1.2 Local Government & Utilities Providers

1.2.1 Government of Guam

Guam is a U.S. Territory and the government of Guam (GOVGUAM) is structured after a state government; as such, it is broken down into an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. As with a state govern-ment, the territorial governor, who is elected to serve a four-year term, heads the executive branch.12 The governor serves with a lieu-

mary File (P001).” 10 “World Factbook.” 11 Ibid. 12 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan,

Figure 1.1 Guam and Surrounding CountriesMap created by Jason ChristensenDecember 1, 2012Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data

1-3

tenant governor who is elected on the same ticket. The legislative branch consists of a fifteen member legislature, all of whom are elected to serve two-year terms.13 Each village throughout the island also has an elected mayor and council. While Guam does not have any congressional representative it does have one congressional delegate who does serve on many congressional committees.

1.2.2. Guam Power Authority Guam Power Authority (GPA), Guam’s full service electricity provider, provides power to approximately 46,000 customers, Joint Region Marianas (JRM), the joint Navy-Air Force region, being the largest customer.14 Currently GPA operates 29 substations and over 663 115 kV, 34.8 kV and 13.8 kV transmission and distribution lines throughout Guam. The total genera-tion capacity of GPA is 552 MW (including generation units that are down for repairs) though 181 MW of electricity comes through agreements between GPA and independent power producers. In 2009 GPA produced a total of 1,854 GWh of electricity15 and produces a daily average of approximately 5,000 MWh.16 GPA power plant mix is 33 percent steam turbine, 30 percent slow-speed diesel, 26 percent combustion turbine, and

2-3. 13 Ibid. 14 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess-

ment Report,” 7. 15 Ibid. 16 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan,

2-8.

10 percent fast-track diesels,17 Table 1.1 shows a summary of GPA’s power generation resources. Since 2001 GPA has been gradu-ally changing its fuel usage from a combina-tion of 17 percent diesel #2 distillate and 83 percent residual fuel oil (RFO #6) to almost complete RFO #6 consumption in 2010.18 While Guam’s electrical transmission lines were designed to handle a greater capacity than they currently handle19 tropical storms and brown tree snakes have caused severe transmission problems; additionally, a lack of recapitalization has brought about brownouts and load shifting. Within the last few years GPA has developed several plans in order to modern-ize, increase its power generation portfolio, and decrease prices. In 2009 GPA applied for and received a $33.2 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant to implement a smart grid.20 Since this, GPA has made continued progress towards the implementation of an island-wide smart grid and has recently awarded a contract to pro-vide the support, software, and installation of 50,000 advanced metering infrastructure de-vices throughout the island.21 Additionally, in June of 2012 GPA signed a power purchase agreement contract with Quantum Guam 17 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess-

ment Report,” 7. 18 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan,

7-8. 19 Ibid, 2-6. 20 Joaquin Flores, “Smart Grid Petition.” 21 “Guam Power Authority selects Apex CoVantage for instal-

lation of smart grid metering system.”

Table 1.1 GPA Power Generation Resources

Unit TechnologyThird Party Operating

Agreements Fuel Capacity (MW)Service

DateCabras 1 Boiler & Steam Turbine RFO No. 6 66 1974Cabras 2 Steam Turbine RFO No. 6 66 1975Cabras 3 Slow Speed Reciprocating RFO No. 6 40 1996Cabras 4 Slow Speed Reciprocating RFO No. 6 40 1996Piti 7 Combustion Turbine TEMES Diesel No. 2 40 1997Piti 8 Slow Speed Reciprocating MEC RFO No. 6 44 1999Piti 9 Slow Speed Reciprocating MEC RFO No. 6 44 1999Tanguisson 1 Boiler & Steam Turbine Pruvient RFO No. 6 26.5 1976Tanguisson 2 Boiler & Steam Turbine Pruvient RFO No. 6 26.5 1976Tenjo 1-6 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 4.4ea/26.4total 1994Dededo 1 Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 23 1992Dededo 2 Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 23 1994Dededo 1-4 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 2.5ea/10 total 1972Macheche Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 21 1993Marbo Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 16 1993Yigo Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 21 1993Talofofo 1 & 2 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 5ea/10 total 1994Pulantat 1 & 2 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 4.4ea/8.8 total 1993Table taken from LNG Study (Table 6-1 Summary of GPA Generation Resources) (conducted for Guam Power Authority), by R.W. Beck, Novemver 2012

1-4

Power, LLC to construct a 25MW solar array in southern Guam. GPA estimates that it will be able to purchase approximately 40 million KWh annually.22 GPA continues to negoti-ate with another contractor, PGR, for the development of a 10 MW wind farm. Finally, in order to cut costs and reduce reliance on oil, GPA is conducting an in-depth analysis of the requirements and costs in order to convert RFO-fueled generation units to lique-fied natural gas (LNG)-fueled units. A recent study determined that due to increasingly cheaper LNG rates, GPA could decrease the cost of electricity to its customers by convert-ing several of its generators to LNG.23 GPA continues to run scenarios and conduct in-depth analysis in order to determine how to move forward.

1.3 Joint Region Marianas The Joint Region Marianas sets forth policies, provides oversight, plans, and programs for base operating support (BOS) services, such as utilities, facilities sustain-ment, grounds maintenance, moral recreation and welfare, housing, and other community support services for the U.S. Navy and Air Force commands on the island. Navy and Air Force land holdings on the island total over 35 thousand acres or just over 25 percent of the entire island.24 Navy land holdings are broken into six major sites throughout the island totaling 17,370 acres25 and Air Force land holdings are broken into three major sites throughout the northern half of Guam totaling 17,864 acres (See Figure 1.2, Military Installations on Guam). Both the Navy and Air Force maintain command of all opera-tional requirements and missions via separate chains of command.

1.3.1 U.S. Navy U.S. Naval Base Guam (NBG) has a primary mission of providing logistical sup-port to units acting throughout the Pacific. The base is home to three Los Angeles-class attack submarines, a submarine tender,

22 Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, “Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement,” Appendix A.

23 R.W. Beck, “LNG Study,”14-1. 24 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan,

1-1. 25 Ibid, 1-1-2.

one expeditionary helicopter squadron, an explosive ordinance unit, a military sealift command, a maritime expeditionary security squadron, naval hospital and a communica-tions station. Approximately 13,200 service members and their families live and work on NBG.26

1.3.2 U.S. Air Force Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), via the 36th Wing, provides beddown, operational, and logistical support to for-ward deployed units from around the world. Among other units, the base is home to a mobility support squadron, a maintenance squadron, munitions squadron, an air support flight from Australia, and a combat commu-nications squadron. The base is also home to a nearly continuous presence of B-52, F-16, and Global Hawk forward deployed detach-ments. Approximately 3,200 service members and their families (not considering forward deployed service members) live and work on AAFB.27

1.3.3 History

The U.S. took possession of Guam from Spain by way of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898 and the following year the U.S. government officially designated the entire island as U.S. Naval Station, Guam. More than forty years later in 1941 the island fell under the control of the Japanese and remained so until July 21, 1944 near the end of World War II.28 After World War II, for a period of eight years, the island remained under a military government, where the com-manding officer also served as the governor of Guam and other Micronesian islands.29 Over the next half century the U.S. military presence on Guam has increased and de-creased in relation to world events such as the Korean and Vietnam War. In 2005 Congress released its latest Base Realignment and Clo-sure (BRAC) mandate. In an effort to capital-ize on efficiencies and cut back costs the latest round of BRACs also included the concept of joint basing; NBG and AAFB were included

26 “Naval Base Guam.” 27 “Installation Overview – Andersen Air Force Base,

Guam.” 28 “Naval Base Guam History.” 29 Ibid.

1-5

on this list. As such, the oversight, funding, and programing of all BOS services on Guam would be the responsibility of the Navy. On October 1, 2009 JRM, the joint Navy-Air Force Command, was officially at full opera-

tional capability. Since its inception, the joint region has continually made one of its highest priorities to foster and maintain a strategic partnership with the GOVGUAM.

Figure 1.2 Military Installa-tions on GuamMap created by Jason ChristensenDecember 1, 2012Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data

2-1

Chapter 2 Current Energy Consumption Patterns

ating all energy on-base by 2020.2 As a matter of standardization the DON has tracked its energy consumption or energy use intensity (EUI) through million BTUs per thousand square feet (MBTU/KSF)3. While the DON, in December of 2011, was about 11 percent below its 2003 baseline and on track to meet EISA energy reduction goals,4 JRM was only seven percent below its 2003 baseline and had actually seen an increase in its energy consumption (per square foot) since 2011.5 In order to meet EISA and DON goals JRM has implemented its own joint regional energy management program includ-ing energy awareness campaigns, facility energy retrofits, and the implementation of renewable energies. The region has changed out high pressure sodium lamps for 110W

2 U.S. Department of the Navy, “A Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century,” 6-10.3 DON tracks EUI at a regional scale through the units MBTU/KSF, however individual regions and installations track energy consumption at a sub- regional scale using the units of KWh/sf or KWh. For the purposes of this report the same system shall be used.4 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” 2.5 Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October.”

2.1 Federal and Department of Defense Energy Initiatives The Department of Defense (DOD) has continually decreased its facilities’ energy consumption over the past three decades ac-cording to federal mandates. However, both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 have mandated that federal agencies drastically reduce energy consump-tion. Additionally, due to EISA requirements the U.S. Navy, among other DOD and fed-eral agencies, must reduce energy consump-tion by 30 percent, based on a 2003 baseline (measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot of all facilities), by the end of 2015.1 Building upon this, the Department of the Navy (DON) published its own energy vision in 2010, stating that all ashore installa-tions reduce energy consumption by 50 per-cent, that half of all energy requirements will be supplied by alternative sources and that half of its installations will be net zero, gener-1 One Hundred and Tenth Congress, “Energy Independence and Security Act.”

2-2

induction lamps along major thoroughfares, installed solar powered parking lights in some of the larger parking lots and playgrounds, painted roofs white in several housing areas, installed solar thermal water heating in many of the unaccompanied personnel housing, and oversaw an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) to install efficient lighting and heating, ventilation and optimize air con-ditioning (HVAC) control systems in various facilities throughout NBG. Additionally, the region currently has installed one 250 KW ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) array, two 50 KW roof mounted solar PV arrays on barracks 1 and 2, a 32 KW ground mounted solar PV array next to barracks 24, three separate 3 KW building integrated photovoltaic arrays on building 203, and one 52 KW BIPV array on building 631. Several attempts by the joint regional staff to increase renewables on the island ended in no prog-ress. For example, in December of 2011 the joint region hosted a design charrette in order to determine the feasibility and finalize the scope of work for the installation of a small wind farm. The design charrette focused on two sites, near Shoreline Drive on NBG and a peak on the Naval Magazine (NAVMAG).6 After extensive research it was also deter-mined that only one turbine would meet all design criteria on Guam: the 1MW Vergnet GEV HP. Ultimately the members of the design charrette determined that the high infrastructure costs associated with the project did not allow for a high enough savings to investment ratio (SIR) and the project was shelved.7 Additionally, the region has begun to program for a substantial number of energy

6 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” 5.7 Ibid.

restoration/modernization (RMe) projects. These projects are all centrally funded based on the highest energy return on investment (eROI). Despite these efforts, JRM EUI has not decreased according to its goal of a three percent annual reduction.8

2.2 Joint Region Marianas Energy Consumption From Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) to the end of FY12 JRM EUI9 has not consistently decreased according to projected glide paths for energy reduction. In FY04 the regional EUI plummeted 8.3 percent only to begin increasing in FY05; By FY09 regional EUI had increased almost 13 percent from its low-est point and 4.6 percent from what it was in the baseline year. Since FY09 there has been a net decrease of approximately 11 percent, however, in the last two years the EUI has be-8 Commander, Joint Region Marianas, “JTREG Marianas Instruction 4100,” Enclosure 1 p. 1.9 JRM is not responsible for reporting U.S. Naval Hospital Guam energy consumption, as such, this report does not in-clude Naval Hospital consumption in total regional consump-tion values.

Table 2.1. Joint Region Marianas Annual Energy ConsumptionFY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Energy Consumption (MBTU) 907,259.8 840,741.6 874,126.9 922,369.3 935,941.8 956,679.0 999,292.3 887,550.5 939,601.4 951,487.6Gross Floor Area (KSF) 13,710.0 13,847.0 13,747.0 13,633.0 13,604.0 14,138.0 14,391.0 14,679.0 15,610.0 15,439.7Energy Use Intensity (MBTU/KSF) 66.2 60.7 63.6 67.7 68.8 67.7 69.4 60.5 60.2 61.6 52.3Energy Use Intensity (KWh/sf) 19.4 17.8 18.6 19.8 20.2 19.8 20.4 17.7 17.6 18.1 15.32825Source Data: Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October,” (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012

Table 1.1. Average Annual Temperatures (as recorded at Won Pat International Airport, Guam)2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average Annual Temperature °C 27.3 27.4 NA 27.4 27.4 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6Average Average Temperature °F 81.14 81.32 NA 81.32 81.32 81.68 81.68 81.68 81.68Source Data: Climate Guam International Airport from 1973 to 2012, Tu.Tiempo.net. Accessed November 29, 2012

Table 2.2. Average Annual Temperatures (as recorded at Won Pat International Airport, Guam)2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average Annual Temperature °C 27.3 27.4 NA 27.4 27.4 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6Average Average Temperature °F 81.14 81.32 NA 81.32 81.32 81.68 81.68 81.68 81.68Source Data: Climate Guam International Airport from 1973 to 2012, Tu.Tiempo.net. Accessed November 29, 2012

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Deg

ree

Day

s

Ener

gy C

onsu

mpt

ion

(MBT

U)

JRM Annual Energy Consumption

Annual Consumption CDD

Figure 2.1 Source: National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed November 15, 2012

2-3

gun to slowly increase once again, See Table 2.1, Joint Region Marianas Annual Energy Consumption. While average annual temper-atures have increased slightly since 2003 (See Table 2.2, Average Annual Temperatures (as recorded at Won Pat International Airport, Guam) Figure 2.1 JRM Annual Energy Con-sumption shows that there does not appear to be a strong correlation between average temperature increase and annual energy con-sumption increase.

2.2.1 Joint Region Marianas Energy Footprint In 2011 the JRM purchased a total of 358 million KWh of electricity from GPA; of that, regional facilities consumed approxi-mately 298 million KWh and visiting and lo-cal ships consumed 31 million KWh10 while in port; the region also loses approximately 28 million KWh per year to line losses.11 Breaking down all energy consumption by DOD facility classes almost half of the total facilities energy consumption is due to hous-ing and community facilities (See Figure 2.2 JRM FY11 Energy Footprint) – the amount of energy that is consumed by housing and community facilities has huge implications that will be discussed later in this report. The next largest slice of the facilities energy con-sumption is by operational and training facili-ties. Other facility classes account for an even smaller portion of the entire facilities con-sumption pie. There also is approximately 53 million KWh of consumption in 2011 that is labeled as “miscellaneous facilities.” In order

10 DON does not include energy consumption by ships while in port in FY03 baseline consumption or current progress towards FY15 and 20 goals.11 Katherine Manglona, e-mail message to Desiree Masterson.

to bill various tenant commands throughout the region according to their energy consump-tion Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas tracks energy consump-tion by building number; however not every building number shown on this print-out cor-responds with a building number in the JRM printouts from Naval Facilities Asset Data Store (NFADS), the Navy database for all real property. The 53 million KWh of consump-tion consists of various buildings that could not be identified on NFADS and, therefore, could not be designated as a specific facility type.

2.2.2 Joint Region Marianas Historic Consumption

Figure 2.3 shows the percent change and relationship of JRM EUI, energy con-sumption, and gross floor area (GFA)12 from FY04 to the end of FY12. As stated earlier, the baseline is the FY03 EUI, which was 66.2 MBTU/KSF for JRM (note that the baseline varies for each installation). Addi-tional graphs showing percent change in JRM energy consumption, EUI, and GFA as well as graphs that show the change of EUI (in MBTU/KSF) can be found in Appendix A of this report. In order to be able to report on a quarterly basis and reduce the fluctuation due to seasonal variations in energy consumption the Navy has opted to report yearly EUIs on a quarterly basis. In other words the EUI for each quarter is actually the EUI for the last twelve months ending in that quarter. Two of the most apparent trends in almost every graph is the drop in both EUI 12 Gross floor area is defined as the sum the region-wide or installation-wide square footage for all buildings.

Facilities 83%

Ships 9%

Line Loss 8%

Joint Region Marianas FY11 Energy Consumption - Total

Operational and Training

13%

Maintenance and Production

6%

Supply 4%

Hospital/Medical 4%

Administrative 5%

Housing and Community

44%

Utilities and Ground Improvements

6%

Contractor Laydown 0%

Misc Facilities 18%

Joint Region Marianas FY11 Energy Consumption - Facilities Figure 2.2JRM FY11 Energy Footprint Source: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012.

2-4

and energy consumption during FY04 and an equally drastic reduction of EUI and energy consumption starting near the end of FY09 and through FY10. While it is not clear what happened in FY04 to produce such a precipi-tous drop in consumption, it should be noted that NBG’s first energy savings performance contract (ESPC) was awarded in the spring of FY09 and that the energy efficient lighting and Heating Ventilation and Air Condition-ing (HVAC) controls were installed from February to October of 2010.13 Many of these retrofits (especially efficient lighting) would have impacted energy consumption of each facility immediately. This could ac-count for the 11 percent decline in both EUI and energy consumption throughout JRM. However, this same drop in EUI and energy consumption occurred at the same time at Andersen Air Force Base even though the ESPC only covered buildings on NBG. As such, it is possible that a correlation exists between the effects of the ESPC and the decrease in consumption but it might not be a causal relationship. Possible explanations for this will be discussed later in this report (See section 3.3).13 Johnson Controls, “Energy Savings Performance Contract for U.S. Western Region,” 1.

Figure 2.4 NBG Housing Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons, provides several insights as to how total GFA affects the EUI region-wide. Since FY03 NBG housing has reduced its total GFA by 898,000 square feet or by almost 30 percent. During the same time period the total NBG housing energy consumption has had a net decrease of only 3.74 percent. Despite this subtle decrease the NBG housing EUI has had a net increase of 40 percent from 31.3 to 43.9 MBTU/KSF from FY03 to present. Even more startling, NBG housing saw an increase in its EUI of almost 25 percent from the third quarter of FY11 to the end of FY12. Dur-

-30.00%

-25.00%

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Perc

ent C

hang

e fr

om B

asel

ine

JRM Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present)

Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Perc

ent C

hang

e fr

om B

asel

ine

NBG Housing Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present)

Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area

Figures 2.3 & 2.4 (Top to Bottom) Demonstrate the Relationships between JRM Energy Consump-tion, EUI, and GFA.Source for Figures 2.3 & 2.4: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012

2-5

ing this same time period the NBG housing energy consumption has decreased by 8.48 percent. The drastic decrease in GFA at this time is the obvious reason for this huge spike in EUI. The net decrease in GFA by approxi-mately 663 thousand square feet was most likely due to a military construction (MIL-CON) project to demolish old housing stock and replace it with modern housing in Apra View, a neighborhood just outside of NBG. Though DOD policies require new construc-tion projects to be 30 percent more efficient than current ASHRAE standards14 NBG housing had, in the past, maintained a huge stock of mothballed homes that consumed little to no electricity. As such, the replace-ment of an older un-used housing stock in neighborhoods such as Apra View with neigh-borhoods in which service members and their families would live has drastically increased the NBG housing EUI; ultimately affecting the entire joint region. The decrease in GFA (despite a decrease in NBG housing energy consumption), due to this one neighborhood, resulted in a four percent increase in the JRM EUI during this period of time.

14 Chris Tindal, “Department of Navy Energy Program,” 2010, 30.

2.2.3 Joint Region Marianas Normalized Consumption Rates

Figure 2.5 shows JRM energy con-sumption compared with energy consump-tion normalized to the GFA from FY03 to the end of FY12. This provides a theoretical glimpse of how energy consumption would appear had the joint region and various installations not increased in GFA at all since 2003. In reality, the joint region has had a net increase in its GFA by approximately 1.73 million square feet in the last ten years; in FY12 alone, this growth in GFA increased an-nual consumption by 119,627 million BTUs or approximately 12.5 percent.15 In almost ev-ery case, with the exception of NBG housing, the normalized energy consumption would have been lower than it was in the baseline year. However, for the last two years even the normalized energy consumption is trending upward indicating that the joint region facili-ties are using more energy per square foot de-spite the gains made in FY09 and FY10. The normalized consumption graphs highlight the impact an increasing GFA can have on energy

15 Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October.”

700,000

750,000

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy C

onsu

mti

on (M

BTU

)

JRM Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present)

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

Figure 2.5demonstrates how consump-tion would ap-pear had GFA remained con-stant from FY03 to presentSource: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

2-6

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Ann

ual D

ecre

ase

in G

roos

Flo

or A

rea

(SF)

Joint Region Marianas Annual Demolition - Navy Only (FY03 - FY12)

Navy Base Guam Navy Base Guam Housing

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity

(MBT

U/K

SF)

JRM EUI Normalized to Demolition

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

Figure 2.6 (Up-per) Shows Extent of JRM Demolition Pro-gram from FY02 to Present.Figure 2.7 (Bot-tom) Demon-strates how JRM EUI Would Ap-pear had Demo not OccurredSource: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari-anas FSM Product Manager, May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

2-7

consumption. While increases in GFA may be required due to changing missions and will almost always occur with a growing popula-tion the joint region must do all it can to limit GFA increases to what is absolutely necessary (See Appendix A for additional JRM and

installation normalized consumption graphs).

2.3 Joint Region Marianas Demolition Program As stated earlier, the joint region’s demolition program, depending on the condi-tion and current use of facilities, can have a major impact on the regional and installation EUI. From FY03 to the end of FY12 the Navy has reduced its real property inventory through demolition by 1.9 million square feet16 (note that despite this reduction the net increase in GFA was 1.73 million square feet) (See Figure 2.6, Joint Region Marianas Annual Demolition – Navy Only). From FY05 through FY07, in an effort to reduce the Navy’s real property inventory on Guam, NAVFAC Marianas undertook an aggres-sive campaign to demolish as many unused and decrepit facilities throughout the region as possible. One could argue that many of these facilities, especially family housing, were under-utilized before demolition. Figure 2.17compares historical EUIs with what the regional and installation EUIs could have been if demolition did not occur (note that this assumes that no facility demolished was using any energy at all). These figures (addi-tional figures found in Appendix A) demon-strate an extreme scenario and the real EUI would have been somewhere in between its current state and this calculated state as many of these demolished facilities were consum-ing some energy. It is extremely improbable that this data could be used to re-establish the FY03 baseline as the data on the energy consumption of these demolished facilities is no longer available. However, it does provide insight as to one possible reason for why the regional EUI has not decreased in the man-ner desired by the joint region.

16 NAVFAC Marians, “Demo Task Order Log Sheet.”

2.4 Commander, Navy Instal-lations Command Baseline Reset On August 10, 2012 Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) sent out a data call allowing all regions to request an EUI baseline reset. The intent of this was to allow regions to modify the baseline if there were known errors in the reporting of FY03 data or other reasonable explana-tions for resetting the baseline. Such an event occurred during FY03 in Guam. On Decem-ber 8, 2002 Typhoon Pongsona hit Guam causing significant damage island-wide. The super-typhoon had such an enormous impact that Guam Power Authority (GPA) was un-able to provide electrical services anywhere on-island for a period of 23 days. As De-cember of 2002 is part of the first quarter of FY03 the loss of power for this period of time affected the baseline consumption. The Joint Region Marianas energy consumption has been compared to this artificially low baseline from then because until August of 2012 it had been against Navy policy to modify the base-line data. As stated in the Five Year Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, “This leaves Navy activities on Guam with the ardent task of reducing energy to be lower than what is was when the power was out for about six percent of the year.” The average energy consumption for a 23-day period in Decem-ber between FY09 through FY11 would equal 11.2 million KWh or 6.42 percent of the average annual energy consumption for Navy Facilities on Guam in FY03. Figures 2.8 – 2.9 demonstrate how a 6.42 percent increase in the baseline affects region-wide progress and AAFB progress towards end of FY15 goals. While the EUIs for both NBG and AAFB are very close to their targets for FY12 NBG housing and JRM are still far from where they should be (See Appendix for additional fig-ures of other installations). The baseline reset does not provide JRM with an excuse for not reducing its energy consumption but it does, if approved, place the joint region in a posi-tion in which it can more reasonably reach its energy reduction goals.

2-8

55.0

57.0

59.0

61.0

63.0

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0FY

04 Q

1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity

(MBT

U/K

SF)

JRM Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity

(MBT

U/K

SF)

AAFB Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath

Top to Bottom, Figures 2.8 - 2.9Demonstrate Pro-posed Baseline Reset for Navy Installations on Guam (Top: JRM, Bottom: AAFB)Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC Pacific

3-1

Chapter 3 Facility Type Analysis

energy consumption.2 In this analysis and for the benchmark analysis (discussed in Chapter 4.) all buildings under analysis were divided, based on building category codes, into spe-cific facility types as defined by CNIC.3 There were several limitations with this analysis that need to be noted. JRM is currently programming for AMI meters throughout the region. However, in the meantime the region is operating off of standard meters; as such, all data collected is done in person by reading the actual meter. To complicate matters even more, most me-ters monitor the energy consumption of more than one facility. Thus, the annual energy consumption data for each facility that NAV-FAC currently maintains is a combination of

2 Buildings were not included for two reasons: (1) The facility number was not listed on the NSIPS print out, therefor it was not possible to identify a GFA or determine facility type. (2) The building was listed by other identifier (other than facility number) on NAVFAC annual consumption spreadsheet, therefore it was not possible to identify a facility type or link with NSIPS data.3 Deloitte, “Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heatmaps Version 2.0.” Note that facility types combine vari-ous facilities that act similarly with respect to energy consump-tion, insulation, and usage.

3.1 Detailed Facility Analysis A detailed analysis of consumption patterns and trends by facility type was con-ducted in order to gain additional insight into region-wide energy consumption patterns, identify specific facility types that demonstrate a pattern of increasing consumption, and to determine which facility types will make the biggest contribution to a net region-wide de-crease in energy use after energy retrofits or changes in usage.1 The detailed analysis was conducted over a period of three years (FY10 through FY12) on approximately 600 Navy and Air Force facilities throughout the joint region; these facilities account for approxi-mately 75 percent of the JRM annual facility

1 Note that the increases and decreases in energy consumption of these specific facilities will not neces-sarily correspond to the increases and decreases in JRM energy consumption. Regional energy consumption is complicated by the addition of new facilities, the de-molition of other facilities, mission changes etc… This analysis is meant to identify potential trends in energy use by facility type, trends and information gleaned from this analysis may have the potential to provide insight into Regional energy consumption

3-2

actual energy consumption for meters that are tied to one building and a prorated energy consumption based on square footage for me-ters that are tied to blocks of buildings. For example, in even the newest neighborhoods such as Apra View and North Tipalau, the energy consumption of the entire neighbor-hood is tied to one meter. Thus it is possible to analyze the average EUI per house within each neighborhood but it is not possible to analyze the energy consumption of a specific house. Per the Utilities Energy Management Product Line Coordinator, Navy facilities are tied to approximately 400 meters whereas Air Force facilities are only tied to approximately 40 meters. This fact must be taken in con-sideration when reviewing the data presented in this chapter and the next. Additionally, due to time constraints it was not possible to gather historical population numbers by

command. The ethnography or usage trends are invaluable when analyzing the energy consumption of a facility, or installation. For example, energy consumption should de-crease as units deploy and then increase as they return and knowing the annual popula-tion of service men and women living in base housing is key in deciphering increases or decreases in housing EUIs. Despite these limitations the detailed facility analysis does provide several important insights. Tables 3.1. and 3.2 show changes in EUI and energy consumption (respectively) over the last three years. It is important to analyze both tables together as the two tables provide a much clearer picture than one or the other does. For example, A minor increase in EUI for a facility type with a large total GFA still results in a large increase in total energy consumption, and vice versa.

Table 3.1 Annual Changes in Energy Use IntensityFY10

Facility Type Annual EUI Annual EUI Percent Change in

EUI Annual EUI Percent Change in

EUI Clubs and Dining Facilities 38.0 31.7 -16.64% 32.1 1.31%Communications Facilities 93.0 86.3 -7.16% 95.9 11.05%Community Facilities 21.9 26.7 22.04% 28.6 6.99%Family Housing 12.6 12.0 -4.86% 11.0 -8.77%Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities 28.8 19.8 -31.11% 23.7 19.67%Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower 88.9 80.7 -9.17% 77.7 -3.73%Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations Facilities 19.0 19.6 3.45% 19.7 0.25%Maintenance Facilities 15.6 18.1 15.83% 17.9 -1.03%Medical Facilities 33.4 29.6 -11.61% 29.7 0.59%Office 19.4 21.1 8.61% 25.5 21.11%Power/Heat Generation 263.4 282.8 7.36% 494.0 3.01%Primary & Secondary Schools 9.2 12.7 38.95% 13.1 3.01%Public Safety & Base Services 39.1 42.9 9.78% 42.0 -1.98%Stand-alone Retail 28.5 31.6 11.01% 17.7 -44.10%Supermarket 37.4 28.2 -24.52% 30.5 7.99%Training Facilities 22.1 19.0 -14.03% 21.1 10.70%Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 12.9 10.3 -19.63% 12.9 24.55%Utility Infrastructure 81.7 77.1 -5.62% 83.7 8.56%Warehouse 11.0 11.7 6.26% 12.2 4.36%Water, Sewage and Waste Facilities 191.7 153.6 -19.86% 139.4 -9.24%Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012.

Facility Type 2010 2011 2012Clubs and Dining Facilities 0.00% -16.64% 1.31%Communications Facilities 0.00% -7.16% 11.05%Community Facilities 0.00% 22.04% 6.99%Family Housing 0.00% -4.86% -8.77%Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities 0.00% -31.11% 19.67%Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower 0.00% -9.17% -3.73%Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations Facilities 0.00% 3.45% 0.25%Maintenance Facilities 0.00% 15.83% -1.03%Medical Facilities 0.00% -11.61% 0.59%Office 0.00% 8.61% 21.11%Power/Heat Generation 0.00% 7.36% 3.01%Primary & Secondary Schools 0.00% 38.95% 3.01%Public Safety & Base Services 0.00% 9.78% -1.98%Stand-alone Retail 0.00% 11.01% -44.10%Supermarket 0.00% -24.52% 7.99%Training Facilities 0.00% -14.03% 10.70%Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 0.00% -19.63% 24.55%Utility Infrastructure 0.00% -5.62% 8.56%Warehouse 0.00% 6.26% 4.36%Water, Sewage and Waste Facilities 0.00% -19.86% -9.24%

Change In Energy Use Intensity (Based on 2010)

FY11 FY12

Table 3.2 Annual Changes in Energy ConsumptionFY10

Facility Type

Annual Energy Consumption

(KWh)

Annual Energy Consumption

(KWh) Percent Change in

Consumption

Annual Energy Consumption

(KWh) Percent Change in

ConsumptionClubs and Dining Facilities 6,089,100 6,058,500 -0.50% 5,890,300 -2.78%Communications Facilities 23,884,200 22,854,400 -4.31% 25,380,000 11.05%Community Facilities 7,122,700 11,094,400 55.76% 9,789,600 -11.76%Family Housing 64,699,700 62,440,300 -3.49% 58,940,500 -5.61%Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities 468,300 322,600 -31.11% 448,400 39.00%Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower 500,000 439,600 -12.08% 423,200 -3.73%Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations Facilities 9,106,300 9,427,100 3.52% 9,451,100 0.25%Maintenance Facilities 13,594,200 15,743,200 15.81% 15,583,300 -1.02%Medical Facilities 12,452,600 11,114,600 -10.74% 11,179,700 0.59%Office 17,675,200 20,089,000 13.66% 23,977,800 19.36%Power/Heat Generation 8,978,400 9,639,600 7.36% 16,836,600 74.66%Primary & Secondary Schools 4,421,100 6,143,100 38.95% 6,328,200 3.01%Public Safety & Base Services 3,521,900 4,014,700 13.99% 3,935,200 -1.98%Stand-alone Retail 10,676,900 13,240,900 24.01% 7,402,200 -44.10%Supermarket 7,445,300 5,620,000 -24.52% 6,068,900 7.99%Training Facilities 2,357,600 2,026,800 -14.03% 2,243,600 10.70%Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 7,599,400 9,836,200 29.43% 12,250,900 24.55%Utility Infrastructure 1,641,500 1,549,300 -5.62% 1,681,900 8.56%Warehouse 21,811,400 23,274,500 6.71% 24,298,800 4.40%Water, Sewage and Waste Facilities 7,314,500 6,341,600 -13.30% 5,798,600 -8.56%Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012.

FY11 FY12

3-3

Through this analysis it becomes apparent that four different facility types have made significant increases in energy consumption. Over the last three years of-fice facility types have increased their total consumption of electricity by 6.3 million KWh per year. Unaccompanied personnel housing (barracks) have also increased their energy consumption by 4.7 million KWh per year despite the fact that the EUI decreased from FY10 to FY11 and then increased again in FY12. As such, an region-wide increase in barracks (new and converted) may be partially responsible for the net increase in energy consumption for that specific facility type, however, the increase in consumption (KWh) and EUI in FY12 indicates that these barracks are increasing their energy consump-tion. Also, ideally, with newer, more energy efficient barracks being added to the regional inventory one would want to see the EUI slowly dropping as more efficient buildings were added to the mix – this is not happen-ing. Finally, a relatively minor increase in EUI for warehouses analyzed over the last three years equated a 2.5 million KWh per year increase in energy consumption due to the relatively large stock of warehouses through-

out the region (warehouses analyzed had a region-wide combined GFA of 1.8 million square feet). The largest increase in an-nual energy consumption came from power generation facility types; in fact, from FY11 to FY12 this facility type increased its net energy consumption by 74.66 percent. This equates to a 7.8 million KWh per year increase in consumption. While several facility types dem-onstrated a continued increase in energy consumption only three facility types dem-onstrated a continued decrease in energy consumption: water, sewage, and waste facili-ties, gates, guardposts, and watchtowers, and family housing. A relatively large drop in EUI resulted only in minor annual energy sav-ings (67 thousand KWh per year) for gates, guardposts, and watch towers; this makes sense as most some gate houses are barely large enough to accommodate more than one person. As such, despite relatively high EUIs they don’t consume a lot of energy. On the other hand, with a total GFA of over 5.37 million square feet (almost one third of the JRM GFA), a continued decrease in housing EUI has resulted in an annual energy savings of 5.7 million KWh per year (See Figure 3.1.

0.0

10,000,000.0

20,000,000.0

30,000,000.0

40,000,000.0

50,000,000.0

60,000,000.0

70,000,000.0

Ann

ual E

nerg

y Co

nsum

ptio

n (K

Wh)

Annual JRM Energy Consumption by Facility Type FY10 - FY12

FY10 Annual Consumption FY11 Annual Consumption FY12 Annual Consumption

Figure 3.1 Demonstrates

how energy consumption by facility type has

changed over the last three years.Source: NAVFAC Marianas annual utilities reports for

FY10 -FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC

Marianas NSIPS printouts, provided on May 25, 2012.

3-4

Annual JRM Energy Consumption by Facility Type FY10 – FY12).

3.2 Contributions to Net Change in Energy Consump-tionThe facility type contribution analysis identi-fies which facility types make the greatest contribution to the total annual change in energy consumption.4 In other words this analysis provides additional insight into which facility types are potentially contributing the most to the total change in regional energy consumption. Again, one must note that the changes in energy consumption of the facili-ties in this analysis will not necessarily corre-spond to a total regional increase or decrease in energy consumption as they only represent 75 percent of all facilities energy consump-tion. Table 3.3, Contribution to Net Change by Facility Type (FY10 - FY12), shows that the facilities in this analysis (the same facilities analyzed in the detailed analysis of consump-tion patterns and trends by facility type) increased their net energy consumption from FY10 to FY11 and then again from FY11 to FY12. From this table it is apparent that office and power generation facilities have made the largest total contribution to the net increase in annual energy consumption; barracks and warehouses also make relatively 4 Contribution percentage is of the gross change in energy con-sumption – note that the gross increase in energy consumption is greater than the net increase as some facility types will see a decrease in their annual consumption for the same period. The same is true for a gross decrease in energy consumption.

large contributions. Communications facili-ties also contributed significantly to the net increase in annual energy consumption from FY11 to FY12. Single family housing has contributed significantly to the gross decrease in annual energy consumption among facili-ties within this analysis; however, the facility type that contributed the most towards the gross decrease in annual energy consump-tion was stand-alone retail facilities, which had a decrease that equaled approximately 50 percent of the total gross decrease from FY11 to FY12. Despite these large decreases in annual energy consumption they were not large enough to counter the increasing energy consumption of many facility types in order to turn the net increase into a net decrease.

3.3 Changes in Annual Consump-tion – ESPC Facilities

This analysis, like the analysis in section 3.2, looks at the change in energy consumption by facility type; however the analysis was conducted solely for buildings which benefited from ESPC retrofits. In all, 36 facilities, or approximately 52 percent of all ESPC buildings were analyzed over the course of four years (FY09 through FY12). This analysis provides several insights on the benefits and lasting results of energy retrofits. Specifically, did the ESPC result in a decrease in annual consumption? And what happened to consumption patterns after energy conser-vation retrofits were installed? Through Table 3.4, Changes in An-

Table 3.3 Contribution to Net Change in Energy Consumption by Facility Type (FY10 - FY12)

Facility Type

Change in Consumption

(KWh)Contribution Percentage

Change in Consumption

(KWh)Contribution Percentage

Clubs and Dining Facilities -30,600 -0.33% -168,200 -1.44%Communications Facilities -1,029,800 -10.96% 2,525,600 13.49%Community Facilities 3,971,700 22.07% -1,304,800 -11.21%Family Housing -2,259,400 -24.04% -3,499,800 -30.06%Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities -145,700 -1.55% 125,800 0.67%Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower -60,400 -0.64% -16,400 -0.14%Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations Facilities 320,800 1.78% 24,000 0.13%Maintenance Facilities 2,149,000 11.94% -159,900 -1.37%Medical Facilities -1,338,000 -14.24% 65,100 0.35%Office 2,413,800 13.41% 3,888,800 20.78%Power/Heat Generation 661,200 3.67% 7,197,000 38.45%Primary & Secondary Schools 1,722,000 9.57% 185,100 0.99%Public Safety & Base Services 492,800 2.74% -79,500 -0.68%Stand-alone Retail 2,564,000 14.25% -5,838,700 -50.15%Supermarket -1,825,300 -19.42% 448,900 2.40%Training Facilities -330,800 -3.52% 216,800 1.16%Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 2,236,800 12.43% 2,414,700 12.90%Utility Infrastructure -92,200 -0.98% 132,600 0.71%Warehouse 1,463,100 8.13% 1,024,300 5.47%Water, Sewage and Waste Facilities -972,900 -10.35% -543,000 -4.66%Total 9,910,100 6,638,400Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY10 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012.

2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012

3-5

nual Consumption by Facility Type (ESPC Buildings Only), it is apparent that the ESPC did reduce the affected buildings’ annual energy consumption during and immediately after the retrofits were installed. However, from FY11 to FY12 there was a net increase in energy use within the same buildings that had received energy savings retrofits in FY10 and the beginning of FY11. These results are not as surprising as they seem at first. In fact, a study in 1992 looking at the annual energy savings of houses after energy conservation retrofits found that the average annual savings of homes within three of the five different conservation programs had begun to drop after two years.5 The growth in annual energy consumption among the same buildings that underwent ESPC retrofits suggests that chang-ing usage trends or potential changes in tech-nology (manifesting itself in increased plug loads) may be contributing to the increasing energy consumption trends throughout JRM. Evolving usage trends may have occurred due to changing missions, and increases in OPTEMPO. Plug loads may have increased due to increasingly powerful computers, larger server systems, aging computers, smart phone and MP3 chargers, as well as other electronic devices. Finally, the increase in energy consumption throughout these build-ings might be partially due to a loss of [tenant] command-wide focus on energy conservation measures. Whatever the underlying reason, these increases in energy use make it appar-5 Pamela Brandis and Hossein Haeri, “The Persistence of Energy Savings over Time: Two and Three Years after Partici-pation in a Retrofit Program,” 72.

ent that while one-time energy conservation retrofits initially reduce energy consump-tion and EUI, JRM will not achieve its goals without a sustained, long term, and focused energy conservation program. The relatively minor reduction (1.58 million KWh for 36 facilities) in annual energy consumption after the ESPC retrofits also suggests that other factors might have influenced the dramatic decrease of regional energy consumption and EUI from 2010 to 2011. If the 36 facilities covered in this analysis equaled 52 percent of the facilities that did benefit from energy savings retrofits6 then a rough approximation of the total an-nual energy savings would be approximately 3 million KWh per year (3.4 million KWh per year including the 250 KW solar array installed as part of the ESPC) or about half of the 6.4 million KWh in savings estimated by Johnson Controls.7 This is just over one per-cent of the total annual energy consumption for all of the facilities within the entire region and could not possibly be the only cause for an 11 percent decrease in the JRM EUI. Thus, it is possible that the knowledge of the ESPC retrofits, as well as the construction of the joint region’s first solar array, raised the regional consciousness enough to increase individual, command, and regional energy conservation efforts for a short duration.

6 Johnson Controls, “Energy Savings Performance Contract for U.S. Western Region,” ECM 3.1 3-4, and ECM 5.1 2-4.7 Ibid,2.

Table 3.4 Changes in Annual Consumption by Facility Type (ESPC Buildings Only)

Facility Type

Change in Consumption

(KWh)Contribution Percentage

Change in Consumption

(KWh)Contribution Percentage

Change in Consumption

(KWh)Contribution Percentage

Community Facilities -297,400 -30.29% -70,100 -8.43% -81,300 -54.42%Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations Facilities -231,800 -23.61% -347,800 -41.82% 110,900 13.01%Maintenance Facilities 127,500 85.06% -49,500 -5.95% -68,100 -45.58%Office -127,300 -12.97% -16,500 -1.98% 332,000 38.95%Public Safety & Base Services -15,400 -1.57% 84,200 100.00% 16,700 1.96%Training Facilities 22,400 14.94% -107,400 -12.91% 23,200 2.72%Unaccompanied Personnel Housing -5,100 -0.52% -27,900 -3.35% 329,700 38.68%Warehouse -304,800 -31.05% -212,400 -25.54% 39,900 4.68%Total -831,900 -747,400 703,000Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012, & Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

FY10 - FY11 FY11 - FY12FY09 - FY10

4-1

Chapter 4 Energy Conservation4.1 Benchmark Develop-ment4.1.1 CNIC Benchmark Development In November of 2011, as part of its Navy Shore Energy Strategy Goals 2.0, CNIC released a listing of 25 facility types and cor-responding EUI benchmarks.1 The listings of new facility types and corresponding bench-marks were produced to account for distinct military facilities. Before CNIC had used a much smaller and less inclusive list based on Energy Plus benchmarks; this list of facility types included basic facility types seen outside of the DOD, such as family housing, transient & visitor housing, unaccompanied personnel housing, medical facilities, office facilities, warehouses, and other community support facilities.2 In order to develop benchmarks for 25 distinct facility types CNIC consultant, Deloitte, plotted the distribution of facility en-ergy consumption by facility type and within each climate zone. The benchmark was

1 Deloitte, “Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heatmaps Version 2.0.” Slide 1. 2 Ibid, 517.

calculated based on the average performance of individual facility types within respective climate zones.3 A listing of all CNIC and En-ergy Star Benchmarks, which show computed benchmarks for Guam (Climate Zone 1A4) and were used for all potential energy savings calculations, can be found in Appendix C.

4.1.2 Energy Star Benchmark Calculations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star Target Finder website was also used to gather a second set of benchmarks. Target Finder allows the user to input specific information such as zip code, average square footage, and how facilities are heated/cooled, before it provides an estimat-ed EUI benchmark. However, Target Finder does not provide benchmarks on many industrial, utilities, or DOD-specific facilities such as maintenance and communications facilities, or water treatment plants. As such, Energy Star benchmarks are only provided for specific facilities. Energy Star benchmarks

3 Ibid, 507. 4 ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA, “Standard 90.1-2007 Normative Appendix B – Building Envelope Climate Criteria.”

4-2

can also be viewed in Appendix C.

4.2.1 Variations from Bench-mark Facilities were separated according to facility types, ranked according to EUI, and compared to benchmark EUIs. Figure 4.1, JRM Benchmark Energy Consumption by Facility Type, compares the total 2012 energy consumption by facility type to the calculated energy consumption per facility type based on benchmark EUIs. While most facility types demonstrate an aggregate consumption above the consumption based on bench-marks, several facility types, including com-munications facilities, community facilities, offices, power/heat generation facilities, and warehouses have aggregate consumptions well above those based on benchmark EUIs. When compared with yearly consumption data in Chapter 3 it is recommended that the joint region focus on several facility types:

1. Offices – aggregate energy consump-tion has risen continually over the last three years. Current aggregate annual consumption is 9 million KWh over the aggregate con-sumption based on a benchmark EUI.

2. Warehouses – have a total GFA of almost two million square feet throughout the region; while aggregate warehouse annual energy consumption has not risen as fast as offices, its total annual energy consumption is 17.7 million KWh over the estimated con-sumption level based on a benchmark EUI. Note that the CNIC benchmark EUI for warehouses does not change for refrigerated warehouses (which use significantly more en-ergy). As such, the difference between actual aggregate consumption and consumption based on benchmark would not be quite so large. However, Energy Star does provide a benchmark EUI for refrigerated warehouses – the difference between actual aggregate consumption and consumption based on Energy Star benchmark is still approximately 14 million KWh.

3. Communications facilities – though communications facilities, as a whole, have increased and decreased depending on the year, the aggregate annual energy consump-tion is over 15 million KWh over the estimat-ed consumption based on a benchmark EUI.

4. Power/Heat Generation facilities –

0.0

10,000,000.0

20,000,000.0

30,000,000.0

40,000,000.0

50,000,000.0

60,000,000.0

70,000,000.0

2012

Ann

ual E

nerg

y Co

nsum

ptio

n (K

Wh)

JRM Benchmark Energy Consumption by Facility Type

2012 Energy Consumption Consumption based on CNIC Benchmarks Consumption based on Energy Star Benchmarks

Figure 4.1 Compares facility

type consump-tion to bench-

mark consump-tions

Source: NAVFAC Marianas annual utilities reports for

FY10 -FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC

Marianas NSIPS printouts, provided on May 25, 2012.

Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heat-

maps Version 2.0, Deloitte, and Energy Star - Target

Finder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

4-3

aggregate energy consumption has increased dramatically over the last three years – in fact Power/Heat generation facilities might be one of the biggest net contributors to increases in JRM energy consumption between FY11 and FY12. However, with an estimated baseline consumption of just over one million KWh and a 2012 aggregate consumption of 16.8 million KWh it is also possible that the CNIC benchmark was calculated using too wide of a range of different facilities resulting in a benchmark EUI that is not accurate. If this is the case the gap between expected and actual may be unduly large.

5. Family housing – Despite the fact that the annual energy consumption has de-creased for the last three years family housing still shows a gap between expected (based on a benchmark EUI) and actual of almost five million KWh per year. Additionally, it is recommended that the joint region continue to study the annual energy consumption of community, opera-tions, and maintenance facilities. Heat maps, showing the variation of 2012 energy consumption from CNIC bench-mark EUIs of individual buildings, have been created for both Navy and Air Force instal-lations throughout the region. Several heat maps are shown below. Other heat maps not shown below can be found in Appendix D.

• Figure 4.2 shows the core of NBG in-cluding community support areas, unac-companied personnel housing, and fam-ily housing areas. Most facilities within the core community support area were constructed 40 years ago in the 1970s and all of these facilities are consuming higher than normal amounts of energy.

• NBG around the lower harbor houses a majority of the waterfront operations facilities, some retail, and Camp Coving-ton, a permanent hub for deploying Navy Sea Bees. Figure 4.3 shows that buildings 3201XR and 780XR, located on X-Ray Wharf, are consuming above average amounts of energy as well. However, the variation shown is probably not quite as large as depicted; CNIC only used one benchmark EUI for both standard

warehouses and refrigerated warehouses. Additionally, building 258, the Navy Ex-change, shows a very high EUI compared to the benchmark. The Navy Exchange is both a warehouse and retail store and has a category code classifying it as a warehouse. As such, this building should not show such a large variation between its actual 2012 EUI and the benchmark EUI.

• The NCTS heat map (Figure 4.4) shows that, while somewhat dispersed, there are three known facilities consuming enormous amounts of energy. These buildings, 112, 285, and 454, combined consume 5.5 million KWh over bench-mark consumption for communications buildings of their respective size. Due to the sensitive nature of the operations of these facilities it is possible that the annual consumption levels are necessary but building audits are recommended, nonetheless.

• Figure 4.5 shows AAFB core operations. Many of the buildings along the flight line, including (but not limited to) build-ing 17002 air terminal, 17016 air mainte-nance hangar, and 18110 Global Hawk maintenance hangar, have above average consumption levels. Building 17016, with the highest annual energy consump-tion on AAFB, consumed 2.2 million KWh over its benchmark consumption. This building was constructed to house B-2 bombers when forward deployed to AAFB and was designed with a large air conditioning system that will cool down the high bay maintenance area very quickly due to requirements of the B-2. The B-2s are no longer deployed to AAFB; despite this it is very possible that the abnormally large annual energy con-sumption of this facility is due to usage patterns as airmen still cool that hangar down while maintaining other aircraft that don’t have the same operational require-ments.

4.2.2 Energy Savings

Differences between actual annual consumptions and consumption levels based

4-4

Figure 4.2 Heat Map - Naval

Base Guam Com-

munity Support Areas

4-5

Figure 4.3 Heat Map - Naval Base Guam Lower Apra Harbor

4-6

Figure 4.4 Heat Map - Naval Telecommunica-

tions Station

4-7

Figure 4.5Heat Map - An-dersen Air Force Base Core Opera-tions Area

4-8

on benchmark EUIs show that there is a large amount of potential energy savings through-out the region. To calculate the total potential savings the FY09, FY10, FY11, and FY12 annual EUI for each building5 throughout the region was averaged in order to minimize discrepancies caused by reporting errors, etc… The potential JRM energy savings (in KWh) is, essentially, the sum of the differ-ences between the average annual building consumptions and the benchmark annual building consumptions. If the EUI of every facility throughout the JRM was reduced to the benchmark EUI for each facility type the region would save 84.6 million KWh or al-most 30 percent of its total annual consump-tion (see Figure 4.6, JRM Potential Savings in Energy Consumption by Facility Type). Table 4.1, JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings, shows every building with a poten-tial energy savings over 500 thousand KWh per year. These 36 facilities alone consist of 71 percent of the total potential region-wide savings. The other 29 percent of the savings is spread among 305 other facilities with con-sumptions higher than benchmark consump-5 Energy Savings analysis covered same facilities as other previous analysis – consisting of 75 percent of total region-wide facilities energy consumption.

tion levels. Tables showing potential savings broken down into facility types can be found in Appendix E. A spreadsheet titled JRM Poten-tial Facility Energy Savings Worksheet was provided to the JRM Assistant Regional Engineer and Regional Energy Manager. This spreadsheet contains every building with an estimated energy savings ranked in order from highest to lowest potential savings. Additionally it shows all facilities that benefit-ted from ESPC retrofits and that will benefit from future energy retrofits for FY12, FY13, and FY14. This allows the regional energy manager to focus on the facilities that are not currently programmed for future projects and that will provide the largest energy savings. As can be seen in Appendix E, JRM has many projects planned for facilities with energy consumptions below respective baseline con-sumptions. The region will still see an energy savings from these projects, however, the energy savings from a facility with a below-benchmark EUI will not affect the regional energy savings to the degree of a facility with an above-benchmark EUI. The potential energy savings as shown on Table 4.1, Appendix E, and within

0.0

2,000,000.0

4,000,000.0

6,000,000.0

8,000,000.0

10,000,000.0

12,000,000.0

14,000,000.0

16,000,000.0

18,000,000.0

20,000,000.0

Ann

ual E

nerg

y Co

nsum

ptio

n (K

Wh)

JRM Potential Savings in Energy Consumption by Facility Type

Potential Savings (Based on CNIC Benchmarks) Potential Savings (Based on Energy Star Benchmarks)

Figure 4.6 Compares Poten-

tial Energy Sav-ings by Based on CNIC and Energy

Star BenchmarksSource: NAVFAC Marianas annual utilities reports for

FY10 -FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC

Marianas NSIPS printouts, provided on May 25, 2012.

Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heat-

maps Version 2.0, Deloitte, and Energy Star - Target

Finder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

4-9

the JRM Facility Energy Savings Worksheet documents a potential energy savings. As stated within this report, there are several limitations that affect the precision of this data. The primary points being the metering system throughout the region and the fact that the CNIC benchmarks are broken down into only 25 facility types – despite the fact that there are hundreds of different types of facili-ties and that every facility, due to construction methods, age, floor plan, ethnography, time of most recent renovation, and other factors, operates differently. As such, the indicated fa-cilities and respective potential energy savings should be treated, not as an end state, but as a more informed place to start. The only way to really understand what is occurring within a specific facility is to conduct an energy audit. Additionally, studies have shown that energy conservation retrofits must be based on the features of each individual building and that combinations of energy conservation retrofits can potentially conserve “the same energy;” as such, they might not have desired impact.6 CNIC has recently stated that installations should receive energy audits for 25 percent of its facilities each year.7 If audits are not occur-ring it is highly recommended that the joint region initiate a facility energy audit program 6 S. Chidiac, et. al, “Effectiveness of Single and Multiple En-ergy Retrofit Measures on the Energy Consumption of Office

Buildings,” 5037. 7 Glen Hubbard, “Energy Update.”

as soon as possible.

4.3 JRM Energy Conserva-tion Awareness Program While much of the estimated energy savings above will come through energy conservation retrofits some percentage of the savings will be achieved through no-cost, behavior-based, energy conservation mea-sures such as changing personal habits, and overall usage trends of JRM facilities. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy, as part of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), conducted two pilot programs, one at Fort Lewis, Washington and one at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) in Yuma, Arizona, in order to show that behavior-based programs can and do reduce energy consumption. Both programs targeted military housing, and both programs yielded significant energy savings. The program in Fort Lewis resulted in a ten percent annual reduction in base housing energy use and the program in MCAS resulted in a 13 percent reduction in energy consumption during the summer months.8 However, behavior-based reductions in energy consumption will not be achieved without a sustained regional energy awareness program. A regional energy aware-8 U.S. Department of Energy, “Creating an Energy Awareness Program – A Handbook for Federal Energy Managers,”2.

Table 4.1. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Top 36 Facilities with most potential savings)*

Nomenclature/Facilty Type Location Facility NameFacility

No

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI (KWh/Sf)

Potential Annual Energy

Savings (KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperatu

re Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningCold Storage Naval Base COLD STORAGE BUILDING 780XR 8,005,675.0 69.9 7,535,903.6 9 9 12 12Communications Barrigada TRANSMITTER BUILDING 52 5,830,450.0 198.7 4,531,947.4 13Heating & Cooling Plants Naval Base CHILLED WATER PLANT 21 3,469,400.0 1,807.0 3,408,063.5 12Potable and WWT Plant Naval Magazine FENA PUMP STA-14,400 KG 1282 3,419,550.0 1,163.1 3,382,498.4Warehouse Naval Base NEX MAIN STORE/NEX WHSE 258 4,217,900.0 17.1 3,205,337.3 12 12 12 13Family Housing Naval Base LOCKWOOD HOUSING 232 8,306,950.0 22.6 3,033,045.0Electrical Generator NCTS CIS EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 309 2,860,775.0 458.5 2,661,431.5Hangar Andersen MAINTENANCE HANGAR 17016 3,066,066.7 60.3 2,232,139.4 12 12 12 12Communications NCTS TERMINAL EQUIPMENT BLDG 112 3,959,750.0 95.7 2,128,012.0 13Administrative Andersen BUILDING 21000 21000 4,753,633.3 32.7 1,942,907.7 12 12Communications NCTS OCEAN SUVEILLANCE BLDG 454 2,963,150.0 110.7 1,778,428.4Heating & Cooling Plants Andersen AIR CONDITIONING PLANT 25014 1,762,800.0 643.6 1,675,299.7 12Communications NCTS SATELLITE COMM GROUND STA. 285 2,071,750.0 220.9 1,656,632.8 13Communications NCTS COMM/RECEIVER/NASA 150 3,107,175.0 47.6 1,656,566.0 13Potable and WWT Plant Naval Magazine FENA WTR TREATM PLT-11000 KG 580 1,682,025.0 135.7 1,525,778.2 13 12 12 13Family Housing Naval Base Bay View Housing 22 2,883,875.0 29.6 1,484,589.0Administrative Andersen 36 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23020 1,752,666.7 104.4 1,427,947.4 12Warehouse Barrigada GOLF STARTER BUILDING 93 1,414,800.0 2,829.6 1,412,748.4 14Heating & Cooling Plants Andersen AIR COND VALVE HOUSE 21003 1,418,400.0 2,110.7 1,396,932.2Community Andersen YOUTH CENTER 1605 1,399,966.7 155.3 1,262,590.3 12Retail Andersen BASE EXCHANGE 24016 6,237,400.0 32.0 1,160,226.5 12 12 12 12, 13Fitness Center Naval Base CHARLES KING GYM 1980 1,297,125.0 54.8 936,630.3 13Warehouse Naval Hospital MEDICAL STORAGE/NEX 6 959,750.0 60.4 894,595.8Restaurant/Dining Andersen BURGER KING 27030 1,039,000.0 162.7 840,607.3Space Surveillance Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 36 1,020,233.3 68.0 791,628.4Religious Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL II 1623 882,433.3 79.5 748,979.1 12 12Hangar Andersen GLOBAL HAWK HANGAR 18110 1,943,000.0 26.2 727,150.1 12 12Communications Andersen COMMUNICATIONS FACILILTY 20011 1,545,066.7 83.4 725,055.2Religious Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL I 22024 764,633.3 80.3 650,237.1Restaurant/Dining Naval Base MCDONALDS MAIN BASE 282 811,950.0 140.2 631,979.9 12 12Commercial - Bowling Naval Base OROTE POINT BOWLING LANES 600 866,250.0 55.5 628,500.9 12 12 12 14Water Distribution Andersen WATER SUPPLY BUILDING 1600 614,900.0 1,708.1 610,363.1Potable and WWT Plant Naval Base BIOTOWER CONTROL BLDG 1806 636,500.0 300.0 609,757.3Religious Andersen CHAPEL II CLASSROOMS 1624 673,466.7 79.5 571,615.6 14Ground Operations Naval Base EOD OPERATIONS FACILITY 2112 949,600.0 33.3 515,067.8 9 9Communications NCTS MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER 199 1,131,750.0 80.2 506,861.4Total 89,719,816.7 60,888,053.8* Table lists all JRM facilities with potential annual savings of over 500,000 KWhSource Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

4-10

with respect to the energy consumption of others around them.

2. Monthly Report Card: Kirk Camer-on, in Green with Envy, discusses the power of peer pressure to help individuals make smart energy consumption choices.11 Similar to a mock billing approach, NAVFAC Mari-anas could send out a monthly report card to regional tenant commands showing monthly and annual consumption as well as monthly and annual consumption compared to other commands (i.e. “your command/buildings has used 45 percent more electricity per square feet than other commands). Such a report card could be broken down according to facility type so as to compare like buildings (it should be noted that even without AMI NAVFAC Marians UEM Product Line can estimate energy use by building – thus, such a program need not wait until advanced meters are installed).

3. Recognition or Incentive Programs: Studies have shown that one-time awards are not effective as they mark the end of a special initiative. However, small continuing incen-tives or continuing recognition can effect real changes in energy consumption.12 Monthly publications could list commands that con-tinually reduce energy consumption or the regional commander could provide quarterly plaques for the command with the highest reduction in energy consumption.

As noted earlier in this report, facility EUIs appear to increase even after energy conservation retrofits. This could be a prod-uct of changing technologies or changing be-haviors. As such, one of the most important factors in a good energy awareness program is a sustained effort. Once the momentum is built, a good energy awareness program can potentially change behavior-based patterns in

11 Cameron, Kirk,“Green with Envy,” 96.12 U.S. Department of Energy, “Creating an Energy Aware-ness Program – A Handbook for Federal Energy Manag-ers,”10.

ness program should build up a sustained culture of conservationism by tapping into the psychological factors that motivate change on both the individual and collective plains. A good regional energy awareness program will slowly change the culture of the region/mili-tary community on Guam and many studies have noted the importance of the community in shaping specific values and behaviors of individuals.9 Thus, by changing the regional culture, energy awareness programs change the behaviors of individuals. Potential tactics to raise awareness and change behaviors include:

1. Mock Billing: the uniformed services have been, arguably, hesitant to charge service members for their utilities due to worries about retention and quality of life, despite DOD backing of similar initiatives.10 Only in recent years with the advent of public-private ventures (PPV) in housing have these initia-tives become more common. PPV initiatives only occur stateside, as such, the possibility of service men and women in Guam being charged for their utilities is still a long way off. However, upon installation of advanced metering it is recommended that NBG Hous-ing send a monthly mock bill to residents; the bill should not only show monthly energy consumption but it should equate this energy consumption with the real cost to the region. Such an approach could also work for Navy and Air Force tenant commands. If Navy housing does not receive advanced metering systems an alternate approach is still possible. Through this approach as repairmen respond to service calls at individual homes they would check the thermostats and leave a re-port highlighting the current thermostat rating as compared to the average thermostat rating throughout Navy housing. As with mock bill-ing, such an approach begins to get individu-als to think about their energy consumption

9 A. Owen, et. al., “Identity and Environmentalism: The influ-ence of Community Characteristics,”466.10 Andrea McKakin, et al., “Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing,” 37.

5-1

Chapter 5 Renewables5.1 Future GPA Partnerships On June 27, 2012 GPA signed a 25-year contract with Guam Quantum Power, LLC (GQP) to purchase approximately 36,452 MW of electricity per year at $.196 per KWh (and increasing every year) start-ing in June 2014 in an effort to diversify its energy generation portfolio.1 This power pur-chase agreement (PPA) finances a 20 MW solar array that will be located to the west of Highway 4 in Dan Dan.2 Additionally, GPA is currently negotiating a PPA contract with Pacific Green Resource, LLC (PGR) for an additional 5.65 MW solar array and a wind farm consisting of 34 (ea) 275 KW Vergnet GEV MP turbines (See Table 5.1. GPA Future Renewable Resources).3 The PGR site will tentatively be located just to the north of the GQP site. GPA has a goal to produce or purchase five percent of all of its power from renewables by 2015.4 Once these two contracts are in place, renewables will provide approximately six percent of GPA’s max capacity.51 Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, “Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement.”2 Guam Power Authority, “Renewable Siting.”3 Jennifer Sablan, e-mail message to Jason Christensen.4 John Cruz, in meeting with JRM Representatives, held on May 23, 2012.5 Based on a total generation capacity of 552 MW as stated in Chapter 1.

JRM has maintained a strategic relationship with GPA. As stated earlier, the JRM is GPA’s largest customer, purchasing approximately 20 percent of all electricity produced by GPA.6 Over the years, GPA and JRM officials have worked closely to define future energy requirements and to mitigate the second order effects of these requirements on the local population. It is recommended that as JRM continues to pursue renewable alternatives it work in close coordination with GPA to align requirements and goals and maximize efficiencies. Unof-ficial discussions with respect to purchasing renewable power from GPA have already commenced and by purchasing renewable

6 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess-ment Report,” 12.

Table 5.1 GPA Future Renewable Resources

Capacity (KW)Annual Energy Production (KWh)

QGP (Solar) 20,000 36,452,000PGR (Solar) 5,650 10,476,230PGR (Wind)* 9,350 11,491,412Total 35,000 58,419,642*Vergnet GEV HP 1MW Capacity Factor for MB used in calculationSoure Data: Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement - Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, June 27, 2012, and email from Jennifer Sablan dated November 28, 2012

Photo source: Solar World, “U.S. Navy Base In Guam goes Solar,” accessed December 12, 2012. http://www.solarworld-usa.com/solar-for-business-and-government/project-gallery/government-military-solar-projects/apra-harbor-naval-base.aspx

5-2

power through GPA, JRM not only comes closer to meeting goals set by DON but it supports GPA in its attempt to diversify its power generation portfolio and thereby reduce the dependency of the island on fossil fuels. The exact quantity of energy purchased will be dependent on a number of factors, in-cluding the cost of the renewable energy and the demand by other customers on the island. However, for the sake of future calculations within this report it is assumed that JRM will purchase 55 percent of all renewables sold by GPA. It should be noted that the Navy does not purchase or sell Renewable Energy Cred-its (RECs),7 however this type of a purchase of renewable energy would not be considered a REC.8 While the purchase of renewable energy from GPA will move JRM closer to meeting DON energy goals, the cost of elec-tricity from renewable sources will most likely be higher than what JRM currently pays ($.27 per KWh). NAVFAC has historically met resistance when costs for renewables were higher than the cost of energy provided by the local utility.9 Such concerns do not take into account the unique situation JRM is in on Guam and the second and third order effects to GPA if JRM were to drastically reduce its annual power purchase as it began to generate all of its own renewable energy. Additionally, purchasing renewables from GPA remains a viable option as it does further the primary federal goal to “move the United States [and, therefore, Guam] towards greater energy independence and security,10”

5.2. Solar Energy Production On a clear day the power from the sun is approximately 1 KW per 1 square meter or 10.7 square feet at the equator, this power lessens the further north or south one

7 Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Draft Shore Energy Execution Plan,” E-3.8 RECs are somewhat like trading in carbon emissions. Typi-cally, a third party purchases a credit at a higher price than the normal cost per KWh and then sells to conscientious companies or individuals. The producer of the renewable can then sell actual electricity to the local utility provider at the local price per KWh. Technically, RECs can be sold to individuals or companies hundreds of miles from where the actual renewable was produced – source: “Renewable Energy Credits Explained.” 9 Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Draft Shore Energy Execution Plan E-3.10 One Hundred and Tenth Congress, “Energy Independence

and Security Act.”

travels.11 Due to its location near the equa-tor, Guam is in a prime location to benefit from solar power – whether through solar thermal water heating or solar PV. The great-est drawback for solar thermal and PV is the amount of land it requires, however, in recent years efficiencies have improved for some solar PV systems to 40 percent and decreas-ing manufacturing costs continue to lower the price of solar technologies.12 Assuming that all potential energy savings can be achieved (as described in Chapter 4), the reduced JRM annual energy consumption would be 212 million KWh. If the joint region were to produce enough energy to meet all its energy requirements by solar power it would require a solar PV array that would be 463 acres or almost three-fourths of a mile (See Table 5.2 JRM Total Solar Requirements).13 Despite the large Navy and Air Force Land holdings, the mountainous topography at NAVMAG, Naval Communications Reserved Areas at NCTS, and built up areas that do break up the total land holdings would make it difficult to site such a large PV array within DOD lands or even outside of DOD lands. An analysis was conducted to site as many solar PV arrays within DOD lands as possible; following recent trends throughout NBG both building rooftops and open tracts of land were considered possibilities. Most of the Navy and Air Force rooftops are flat – which are ideal for the installation of solar panels. The National Renewable Energies Laboratory (NREL) solar power calcula-tor, PV Watts was used for all calculations. Additionally, factors such as array azimuth, tilt, and type of panel (standard or BIPV) were considered for all calculations. In all, 82 buildings and 12 tracts of land, the largest of which would have a capacity of 1.9 MW, were identified as potential locations for solar

11 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, 38. 12 Donald Fournier, “Renewable Energy.”13 Taking into account the need to position solar arrays at a 13.5 angle (latitude of Guam) and space arrays so that there is no shading.

Annual JRM consumption (KWh) 297,000,000 Table 5.2 JRM Total Solar Requirements

Potential Savings (KWh) 85,000,000JRM Power Requirement (After Building Conservation Retrofits) (KWh)

Required Capacity

(KW)Required

Area (Acres)Remainder (KWh) 212,000,000 212,000,000 114,335.0 463.3

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data

Total Solar Requirement (sf) 20,182,956 Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website.

Total Solar Requirement (Acres) 463Total Solar Requirement (square miles) 0.72Total Capacity (KW) 114,335Total Cost 1,372,020,278

5-3

PV arrays (See listing of all potential buildings in Appendix F). The combined annual sav-ings of arrays in all identified locations would be 17 percent of the joint region facilities energy consumption (after potential savings due to conservation retrofits) and would pro-duce a 20-year present value savings of $194 million (See Table 5.3, JRM Potential Solar Capacity and Cost Savings). In order to gain insight on to the energy return on investment (eROI) potential in Guam, the total solar energy production was calculated, based on the same configuration and number of arrays, for other Navy and Marine Corps installation areas such as San Diego, Twenty-Nine Palms, Naval Station Great Lakes, and Norfolk (See Table 5.4 JRM Potential Solar Energy Pro-duction Compared to that of other Operating Locations). This analysis demonstrates the viability of solar power compared to what it would be in locations such as Bremerton, WA and North Chicago, IL. However, this analysis also demonstrates that solar power is more viable in locations throughout the southwest; the solar arrays would produce almost 12 percent more electricity in Twenty-Nine Palms, CA than in Guam. Surprisingly, even locations further north such as Norfolk only produce nine percent less solar electric-ity than Guam. These results were a little star-tling given Guam’s proximity to the equator. This might be due to cloud cover, however, according to Figure 5.1, Guam Monthly Sun Position Polar Plot, the sun will rise at an azimuth between 65° and 80° east-northeast and will set at an azimuth between 280° and 295° west-northwest from May to August of each year. As such, solar panels, positioned at an azimuth of 180° and at a tilt of 13.5° (as

recommended in Guam14 ), are actually po-sitioned so that they face away from the sun during the summer months in the Northern Hemisphere tropics and during the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere tropics. In the tropics a two axis tracking solar array will increase total annual energy production; however, total cost and required area for solar arrays would increase dramatically. Despite this, solar power remains an extremely viable form of power generation for JRM.

5.3 Wind Turbine Energy Production

Wind turbine technology, like that of solar PV, has made major improvements within the last few years. As such, total wind power capacity has increased by 728 percent from 1997 to 2007 throughout the United States.15 Total power produced is highly dependent on the cube of the wind speed, this means that a slight change in the speed of the wind can have a great effect in the power generated. Trade winds blowing to the east-northeast at an average of 7.23 meters per second or 16 miles per hour at an average

14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Lecture on Solar Mechanics.”15 Donald Fournier, “Renewable Energy.”

Table 5.3. JRM Potential Solar Capacity and Cost Savings*

BasePotential Solar Capacity (KW)

Total Energy Production (KWh)

20-yr Estimated Cost Savings (PV)

NBG 10,267 19,138,504 $100,337,787NCTS 1,784 3,307,931 $17,342,551AAFB 7,106 14,713,561 $77,139,060Total 19,157 37,159,996 $194,819,398* Based on the current price of $.27 per KWh and a projected cost increase of 3% per year

Source Data: Personal Interview with NAVFAC Marianas UEM, Jack Brown, on May 23, 2012

Table 5.4 JRM Potential Solar Energy Production Compared with other Operating Locations

Guam San Diego, CATwenty-Nine

Palms, CA Bremerton, WANorth Chicago,

IL Jacksonville, FL Norfolk, VANBG 10,267 19,138,504 20,661,549 21,917,007 13,185,342 16,964,733 18,086,626 17,479,238NCTS 1,784 3,307,931 3,780,312 3,965,103 2,359,384 3,111,789 3,242,971 3,207,022AAFB 7,106 14,713,561 15,454,024 16,402,415 9,811,713 12,742,905 13,563,897 13,125,783Total 19,157 37,159,996 39,895,886 42,284,524 25,356,440 32,819,426 34,893,494 33,812,043Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website.

Total Area 4,381,898

Total Annual Energy Savings (Kwh)

Total Capacity

(kW)Base

Figure 5.6 Tracks the Monthly Move-ment of the Sun Across the Guam Sky Source: Sun Position Calcu-lator, PV Education Organi-zation, accessed November 15, 2012.

5-4

elevation of 692 feet above sea-level16 allow for a total island-wide capacity of 1,814 MW or 15,898,366 MWh per year (See Appendix F for all renewable calculations). Obviously this potential isn’t currently possible due to land-use, topographical, and financing con-straints. If the joint region were to produce enough energy to meet all its energy require-ments by wind power it would require the installation of 173 Vergnet GEV HP 1 MW turbines. Wind turbines should not be spaced closer than five times the turbine diameter (which is 203 feet for the Vergnet GEV HP 1 MW turbine17 or 1,015 ft apart18). Based on these spacing requirements, the total area required for 173 turbines is 4,754 acres or seven square miles (See Table 5.5, JRM Total Wind Requirements). As with solar PV ar-rays, many other factors, such as existing land uses, island topography, and a requirement to limit noise to 55dba noise setback (approxi-mately 750 feet radius for the Vergnet GEV HP19) make it much more difficult to find the available space to site 173 turbines within DOD lands. An analysis was conducted to site as many turbines on DOD lands as possible. Areas with an average wind speed of over 6 m/s20 were required for any potential wind turbine sites. Capacity factors, which account for all inefficiencies and losses, vary accord-ing to wind conditions and each respective turbine. As such, for this report capacity factors were taken from the EMCE Consult-ing Engineers Design Charrette report for this specific turbine in site 7 (NBG) and site 5 (NAVMAG). The capacity factor for site 5 (the higher of the two) was only used for the energy calculations (Seen in Appendix F) for turbines sited in the Northwest Field. Ad-

16 3TIER, “Fullview Wind – Initial Project Assessment (analy-sis of wind resources on Guam),” 1.17 Vergnet, “GEV HP 1MW – Wind with a vision (product manual).”18 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot

Air, 265. 19 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” Section 2, Presentations p. 21.20 According to wind resource maps of Guam as found in 3TIER, “Fullview Wind – Initial Project Assessment (analysis of wind resources on Guam),” 5.

ditional analysis on the capacity factors for all locations sited would be required to develop better estimates of total annual energy genera-tion. In all, 23 potential locations were identi-fied, four on NBG, one on NAVMAG, 11 on AAFB, and 7 on Northwest Field at AAFB. The combined annual savings of turbines in all identified locations would be almost 17 percent of the joint region facilities energy consumption (after potential savings due to conservation retrofits) and would produce a 20-year present value savings of $195 million (See Table 5.5 JRM Potential Wind Capacity and Cost Savings).

5.4 Wind Turbine and Solar PV Siting Various factors were considered in order to site both Solar PV arrays and wind turbines throughout DOD lands. In order to avoid additional costs due to infrastructure upgrades, turbines and solar PV arrays were sited near major overhead or underground transmission lines and near roads. Though Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) arcs do not necessarily impede construc-tion of uninhabited facilities,21 they were not considered for the purposes of this study due to the limited information available on exact requirements. Additionally, densely forested lands, limestone forests, and ecologi-cal preserve areas were avoided as potential sites for renewables. For all locations, addi-tional analysis is required to determine if the infrastructure is sufficient enough to support the additional load (maps can be viewed as Figures 5.2. through 5.6 for each section below).

5.4.1 NBG Potential sites for solar arrays are clustered around the Navy Exchange and Commissary. The other two potential sites

21 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” 9.

Annual JRM Consumption - Facilities (KWh) 297,500,000 Table 5.5 JRM Total Wind Requirements

Potential Savings (KWh) 85,000,000

JRM Power Requirement (After Building Conservation Retrofits) (KWh)

Required Capacity (KW)

Required Area (Acres)

Remainder (KWh) 212,500,000 212,500,000 173,000 4,754Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data

Total number of turbines 172.90 Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website.

173

Open area required for one turbine (ft) 3,236,452Open area required for one turbine (Acres) 74Total Area (Acres) 12,854Total Max Area (sm) 20

Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (ft) 207,075,225Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (acres) 4,754Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (sm) 7

Table 5.6 JRM Potential Wind Capacity and Cost Savings*

BasePotential Wind Capacity (KW)

Total Energy Production (KWh)

20-yr Estimated Cost Savings (PV)

NBG 4,000 4,916,112 $25,773,791NCTS 1,000 1,229,028 $6,443,448AAFB 18,000 31,216,260 $163,658,062Total 23,000 37,361,400 $195,875,301* Based on the current price of $.27 per KWh and a projected cost increase of 3% per year

Source Data: Personal Interview with NAVFAC Marianas UEM, Jack Brown, on May 23, 2012

5-5

are located along Sumay Drive (note that this site was chosen despite its vegetative cover due to the centrality of this site) and near the Charles King Gym. Shoreline Drive is considered the only potential site for wind turbines within NBG. However, the EMCE Consulting Engineers Design Charrette report sited the turbines closer than is typically rec-ommended.22 Turbines spaced less than five times their diameter usually lose significant power.23 In this report the turbines are spaced no closer than 1,015 feet apart; thus on NBG one turbine is placed in the open field nearby the existing 250 KW solar array. Note that the position of the sun throughout the year as well as the reach of shadows at different times of the day were calculated to ensure that the shadows of wind turbines did not cross over potential or existing solar arrays (See Appen-dix F for tables).

22 Ibid.23 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, 265.

5.4.2 NAVMAG Due to the topography of NAVMAG (sloping gently down from Highway 5 and mainly behind higher mountains) only one potential site across Highway 5 from the Fena Water Treatment Plant is recommended. Ad-ditional analysis will be required to determine the feasibility of locating a turbine in this loca-tion as the 55dba threshold actually crosses over Navy property lines – though it does not impact the nearby residential units.

5.4.3 NCTS As DON instructions and policies with respect to siting of turbines adjacent communications systems could not be obtained, no wind turbines are proposed on NCTS nor any other DOD telecommunica-tions site on Guam. Two proposed locations for solar PV arrays are recommended; the larger, a 1.2 MW array, would potentially be located on the site of old navy housing (cur-rently vacant). All sites are located away from the naval communications reserved areas and

Figure 5.2 NBG - Proposed Siting for Renew-ablesMap Created by Jason ChristensenDate: November 23, 2012Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base Guam Master Plan

5-6

are located close to the main cluster.

5.4.4 AAFB In addition to other restraints, loca-tions within the airfield clear zone were avoid-ed. Proposed sites for solar PV arrays are scattered throughout the community support area of AAFB with the exception of one array located along Arc Light Blvd near the flight line and the other located along Andersen Air Force Blvd near the POL tanks. Potential sites for turbines are located along smaller roads near the land fill between ESQD arcs around the runway and around the munitions sites. Additionally, two proposed turbine sites are located on the western limit of the base near the cliff-line – note that the turbines were sited so that the 55dba threshold does not affect wildlife within Pati Point Preserve.

5.4.5 Northwest Field at AAFB The proposed locations of seven turbines are placed along the road leading to the northern tip overlooking Ritidian Point. Though Northwest Field is somewhat isolated

a primary overhead line runs along the length of this road. Additionally, this area experi-ences some of the highest wind velocities on the northern half of the island.

5.5 Other Alternative Sourc-es of Energy The potential exists for the use of other potential sources of alternative ener-gies on Guam, however, many of these ideas would require much more analysis to de-termine the true feasibility. Currently GPA is investigating the use of a biomass plant. Current estimates point at a construction cost of approximately $78.6 million; operat-ing and biofuel costs would be in addition to this.24 GPA analysis with respect to biofuel types has, so far, centered on wood pellets that would be shipped to Guam.25 It should be noted that the cost (and energy consump-

24 Guam Power Authority, “New Resources: Capital Costs & Operating Characteristics,” 23.

25 Ibid, 21.

Figure 5.3NAVMAG -

Proposed Siting for Renewables

Map Created by Jason Christensen

Date: November 23, 2012Source: NAVFAC Marianas

JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base

Guam Master Plan

5-7

Figure 5.4NCTS - Proposed Siting for RenewablesMap Created by Jason ChristensenDate: November 23, 2012Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base Guam Master Plan

5-8

Figures 5.5 & 5.6 (Top to Bottom) AAFB and Northwest Field at AAFB - Proposed Siting for RenewablesMap Created by Jason ChristensenDate: November 23, 2012

5-9

tion) associated with shipping in wood pellets would be very high. A much more sustainable option would be to grow biofuel on the island itself; however in an island of only 210 square miles one is limited in total production of biofuels. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 5% of Guam land uses can be zoned for the production of biofuels; this yields a total capacity of 6.8 MW and an annual power production of 39.9 million KWh. Some biofuels such as sugarcane yield much more power per square foot. As such, assuming the five percent all Guam land uses was devoted to sugarcane production the biofuel plant could have a total capacity of 42.9 MW and an annual power production of 252 million KWh.26 In reality, due to existing land uses, island topography, and operating costs such as shipping fertilizers, it is probably not fea-sible to assume that biofuels can be produced in any great quantity on Guam. Another potential option is a waste-to-energy plant, such a plant would reduce future pressures on landfills on Guam. Assuming each person on Guam produces approximately 2.2lbs of trash a day a waste-to-energy plant could have a total capacity of 13 MW and an annual energy production of 30.6 million KWh.27 As costs are currently not known additional analysis would be required to determine the true feasibility of such a plant. Both JRM and GPA have conducted studies on the feasibility of other alternative energy applications such as ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and small unit reactors (SMR). However, licensing pro-cess durations (SMU) or costs and potential destruction of reef habitat (OTEC) reduce the feasibility of these alternative applications. Despite these cons, both applications deserve additional analysis to determine the true feasi-bility. While all of these alternative applica-tions demonstrate potential as viable options for producing alternative energies on Guam, the joint region will almost certainly deter-mine that it is not feasible to develop these technologies alone. Joint ventures or partner-ships with GPA will optimize cost savings and increase efficiencies. For example, assuming it ran only on trash generated on bases, a 26 Calculations and energy yields from David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, 43 - 44.27 Ibid, 287.

waste-to-energy plant would only have a 1.3 MW capacity and would only have an annual generation of 12.3 million KWh. Though the plant would be smaller the SIR would almost certainly decrease to below acceptable levels. Joint partnerships with GPA are also more socially sustainable as the JRM contin-ues to support and sustain one of the most important agencies and a major employer on Guam.

5.6 Funding Vehicles Several different funding vehicles are available that allow for the construction or installation of renewable energies within the region. While this list is by no means exhaus-tive it includes ESPCs, the Energy Conserva-tion Investment Program (ECIP), PPAs, and RMe special projects. ESPCs, finance energy conservation retrofits and renewable energy through the monthly savings offset due to reduced energy consumption over a period of years. The ECIP and RMe special projects are centrally funded with the intent that each dollar invested up front will yield a savings of between one to two times that in cost savings due to decreased energy consumption.28 As such, CNIC programs for increasingly smaller annual energy costs per each project that is approved. In all three programs listed above, JRM is the final owner of the new energy infrastructure. Through PPAs, a private entity or contractor constructs and, ultimately, owns all new energy infrastructure and then sells the energy to the region at a predetermined price.29 If necessary the private entity is granted an easement in order to conduct op-erations and maintenance. Though PPAs and ESPCs can finance renewable energy infra-structure, DON still must continue to pro-gram for future funds whereas with the ECIP and RMe programs those funds can now be channeled to other Navy requirements. According to the EMCE Consult-ing Engineers Design Charrette report, the proposed project to install a 4 MW wind farm would have been an ECIP. While it was originally considered financially feasible, additional analysis led to a determination that unplanned infrastructure costs, higher construction costs due to high United Facili-ties Criteria (UFC) standards, and NAVFAC 28 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” 2.29 Chandra Shah, “Power Purchase Agreements,” 2.

5-10

Supervision, Inspection, & Overhead (SIOH) (7.2 percent increase) resulted in a savings to investment ratio (SIR) that was below the re-quired threshold.30 In a PPA the private en-tity owns and maintains all infrastructure, can most likely construct according to local codes instead of the UFC; additionally, as the agree-ment will be to purchase energy (per KWh) SIOH is not applied to the total contract price. As stated earlier in this chapter, GPA recently signed a PPA with GQP to purchase power for $.196 per KWh (for the first year); this is a lower cost than which the Navy cur-rently purchases power from GPA ($.27 per KWh). A PPA involving the installation of the 23 wind turbines would pose minimal risk

30 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm.”

to the Navy and still meets federal and DON renewable energy requirements.31 It is also recommended that all 12 ground-mounted solar PV arrays be financed through PPAs for the same reasons as wind turbines. However, all roof mounted and BIPV arrays could be financed through an ESPC or RMe. It is pos-sible that the energy Return on Investment (eROI) will not be high enough to finance the solar projects alone as RMe special projects, as such, these projects could be packaged by building (or several buildings) including various energy conservation retrofits along with the solar arrays. Finally, the same type of packaging to increase the SIR could be ap-plied to an ESPC.

31 Chandra Shah, “Power Purchase Agreements,” 2.

6-1

Chapter 6 Conclusion6.1 Summary Due to both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 JRM and other Navy regions have been under increasing pressure to reduce annual EUIs below the baseline year of FY03. Despite a region-wide energy awareness campaign and the use of funding vehicles such as ESPC and RMe for the im-plementation of energy conservation retrofits and renewable energy infrastructure, the joint region has only experienced a net decrease of eight percent in energy consumption and 6.8 percent in EUI. Though Typhoon Pongsona skewed the FY03 energy consumption and, therefore, increased the difficulty of achieving FY16 energy reduction goals, and though the Navy demolition program, as a second order effect of removing mothballed facilities, may have increased the JRM EUI, JRM normal-ized annual energy consumption has only decreased by 5.5 percent since FY03 and, in fact, has increased by almost 8 percent in the last two years.

Analysis at the facility type level shows that while the region, as a whole, has an increasing EUI, specific facility types such as offices, power and heat generation facili-ties, communications facilities, unaccom-panied personnel housing, and warehouses may be contributing disproportionately to the total regional increase in EUI. Additionally, analysis at the facility type level has indicated that facilities that had undergone energy con-servation retrofits may be increasing in energy consumption again.

Through a benchmark analysis this report has identified over 300 facilities that are perform-ing below the benchmark and has identified a potential energy savings of approximately 85 million KWh per year. Additionally, a combined approach of pursuing renewable options within DOD lands (by both PPA and ESPC/RMe) as well as partnerships with GPA could potentially reduce consumption of fossil fuel-generated energies by 106 million KWh per year (See Table 6.1, JRM Pro-

Table 6.1 JRM Proposed Energy Consumption Reductions*

Annual Energy Consumption (KWh)

Percent Decrease (from original) EUI (KWh/sf)** EUI (MBTU/KSF)** 15841000

Power Purchased 358,000,000Line Loss 29,500,000Ships 31,000,000Facilities 297,500,000 18.78 64.08Potential Conservation based Savings 85,000,000Modified Consumption - Facilities (after conservation retrofits) 212,500,000 28.57% 13.41 45.77JRM Solar Power Production 17,600,000PPA (Solar Power) 19,500,000Purchase from GPA (Renewable Mix) 32,130,803PPA (Wind Turbine) 37,400,000Fossil Fuel-Based Consumption - Facilities (after renewables) 105,869,197 64.41% 6.68 22.80Ships 31,000,000Projected Line Loss 9,580,844Projected Power Purchase (after conservation retrofits & renewables) 146,450,041 59.09%* Calculations take into account all JRM facilities including Naval Hospital** Assumption that GFA neither increases or decreases

6-2

posed Energy Consumption Reductions) re-ducing JRM reliance on fossil fuel-generated electricity to only 146 million KWh per year. These actions move the region much closer to meeting DON goals to reduce the total EUI 50 percent and meet DON goals to pro-duce half of all facility energy requirements through renewable energies; while it would be difficult to accomplish such feats by 2020 it is by no means impossible. Additionally, JRM can begin pursuing a partnership with GPA for the implementation of a longer-term re-newable application such as the construction of a bio-fuel, waste-to-energy plant or even OTEC. While these options will take time to pursue they also diversify the energy produc-tion portfolio on Guam and allow for energy consumption growth which will occur due to changing missions, and more importantly changing technologies that inevitably require more energy.

6.2 Recommendations • While certain trends may be iden-tified through an analysis such as the one within this report, each facility is unique; its energy consumption is affected by chang-ing behavioral patterns and missions, aging mechanical systems, workforce population increases or decreases, temperatures, as well as varying structural components, fenestra-tion, and insulation. The only sure way to understand the “why” behind the numbers is to conduct a building energy audit. CNIC is requiring that 25 percent of facilities receive an energy audit each year. If possible, addi-tional funds should be set aside each year for building energy audits.

• The JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings Worksheet identifies over 300 Navy and Air Force facilities that are currently performing below baseline standards. The total potential energy savings for these facili-ties (based on proper energy conservation retrofits) is approximately 85 million KWh or $22.9 million annually. These buildings represent the highest potential reduction in region-wide energy savings. As such, energy audits should focus on these facilities, and in particular the top 36 energy consuming facilities (below benchmark standards) shown in Table 4.1, JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings.

• Additional emphasis should be placed on maintaining (or reducing) the current regional GFA in accordance with space requirements listed in NAVFAC P-80 (Facility Planning for Navy and Marine Corps Installations). Current moves by commands from building to building suggest that as new facilities have been constructed the daisy chain of commands shifting from one building to another does not always result in empty buildings that are then demolished. Ultimately, this results in a GFA well over requirements for current population. Addi-tionally, many buildings are maintained in the event that they may one day support potential future missions. Though EUI (in terms of MBTU/KSF) may not necessarily increase or decrease as GFA increases, energy consump-tion (MBTU) does increase, while this allows JRM to meet all specific DON goals it does not meet the intent of these goals.

• An enduring region-wide energy conservation awareness program must be in place in order to change cultural norms with respect to energy conservation. A sizeable savings is possible simply through behavioral changes. Such a region-wide energy conserva-tion awareness program should encourage energy conservation through awards and incentives programs, pressure or competi-tion amongst neighbors or tenant commands, and positive feedback upon meeting specific attainment goals.

• JRM must maintain a strong regional network of energy managers consisting of a regional energy manager, installations energy managers, and collateral duty facility energy managers. The regional energy manager should have extensive knowledge of processes and programs within various NAVFAC busi-ness and product lines such as Asset Manage-ment (AM) Business Line, Public Works (PW) Business Line (and in particular the Utilities & Energy Management (UEM) Prod-uct Line, as well as Capital Improvements (CI) Business Line. Additionally, the regional energy Manager must be comfortable work-ing with the Regional Public Affairs Officer (PAO) as well as with Regional leadership. Communication is essential between the re-gional energy manager and installation energy managers as well as between installation and facilities energy managers.

6-3

• As the EUI of individual facilities can and does vary over time (even after energy conservation retrofits) it is imperative that facility energy managers monitor chang-ing behavior and usage patterns within their respective facilities. Installation energy manag-ers should monitor progress and provide feedback to facility managers.

• JRM can neither expect to make attainment on DON renewable energy goals alone nor can it expect to do so by purchas-ing all renewables from GPA. The region must have a comprehensive long term and short term plan for renewables. In the short term JRM can coordinate with GPA for the purchase of GPA renewable energies as well as finance renewables such as rooftop solar PV and BIPV arrays through vehicles such as ESPCs and RMe special projects. In order to increase SIR or eROI, renewables should be bundled with lower cost energy conservation retrofits. Larger renewable projects that may not meet required SIR or eROI values should be financed through PPA. In the long term, JRM can partner with GPA to study, finance, and construct other higher-cost, alternative applications such as biofuel plants, waste-to-energy plants, SMR, or even OTEC plants.

• JRM officials should continue to improve relationships and find additional partnering opportunities with GPA. As JRM is GPA’s largest customer (purchasing 20% of all electricity produced) additional analysis must be conducted with respect to how JRM energy conservation reductions and pursuits of alternative energy generation will, ultimate-ly, affect the long-term solvency of GPA. JRM plans to meet DON energy goals such as a 50 percent reduction in energy consumption as well as a conversion of 50 percent of all energy production to renewable applications

should be coordinated with GPA.

• The GPA smart grid will provide JRM with new opportunities to reduce energy costs even further. Additional analysis should be conducted into the possibility of chang-ing the JRM-GPA contract from a fixed rate to that of a real-time or a time of use (TOU) rate. If the region can shift demand in accor-dance to fluctuations between peak and low demand it may be able to reduce electrical costs.

• Currently, NAVFACs Navy-wide monitoring programs such as Defense, Util-ity, and Energy Reporting System (DUERs), NFADS, and the Centralized and Integrated Reporting for the Comprehensive Utilities In-formation Tracking System (CIRCUITS) are not integrated. As such, the Energy manager must contact the AM Business Line Coordi-nator for current regional square footages as well as the UEM Product Line Coordinator for current consumption levels in order to perform calculations on legacy spreadsheets to find current region and base-wide EUIs. These numbers are then sent to the Naval Fa-cilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) to be inputted into DUERs. If all programs were integrated a good deal of guess work and potential errors would be reduced, resulting in more transparent and accurate data.

Through these recommendations as well as additional information gathered through future studies, building energy audits, and technical reports, JRM will continue to move towards a path of lower energy con-sumption reducing its dependency on fossil fuels, enabling a more socially and environ-mentally sustainable manner of operation, and making a valuable contribution towards U.S. national security.

7-1

Works CitedA. Owen, J. Videras, & S. Wu, “Identity and Environmentalism: The influence of Community

Characteristics,” Review of Social Economy, 68(4), 2010,465 - 486.

Andrea McKakin, Regina Lundgren, & Elizabeth Malone, “Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program, March 2000.

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA, “Standard 90.1-2007 Normative Appendix B – Building Envelope Climate Criteria, accessed November 27, 2012. www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/.../20081111_CZTables.pdf.

Apex CoVantage, “Guam Power Authority selects Apex CoVantage for installation of smart grid metering system,”WDRB, October 2012, accessed on November 27, 2012. http://www.wdrb.com/story/19711355/guam-power-authority-selects-apex-covantage-for-installation-of-smart-grid-metering-system.

Cameron, Kirk. 2010. “Green with Envy,” Computer, 43(11), 95 - 96.

Central Intelligence Agency, “World Factbook,” accessed November 26, 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html.

Chandra Shah, “Power Purchase Agreements,” National Renewable Energies Lab, February 2011.

Chris Tindal, “Department of Navy Energy Program,” 2010.

Commander, Joint Region Marianas, “JTREG Marianas Instruction 4100.1 - Region Energy Management Program,” January 5, 2011.

Commander, Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October,” (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012.

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Draft Shore Energy Execution Plan,” 30, April 2012.

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas, “Demo Task Order Log Sheet,” (Spreadsheet developed by FMFS staff for Jason Christensen May 29, 2012).

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. “Five Year Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam.” (Pearl Harbor, HI, 2008), p. 3.

David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air (UIT Cambridge Ltd, 2009).

Deloitte, “Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heatmaps Version 2.0,” Created for CNIC HQ Energy Program, November 2011.

Donald Fournier, “Renewable Energy,” (presented to the UP466 Energy and the built envi-ronment class) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, February 17, 2012.

“Energy Star - Target Finder,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed on November 1, 2012. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.bus_target_finder

7-2

Works CitedEMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” (Report documenting Design

Charrette held at Joint Region Marianas HQ from November 28 to December 2, 2011), December 2011, 2.

Glen Hubbard, “Energy Update,” (presented at the CNIC Stakeholder Conference on Febru-ary 24, 2011).

Guam Power Authority, “New Resources: Capital Costs & Operating Characteristics,” October 26, 2012. Provided by John Cruz, GPA Manager of Strategic Planning and Operations Research Division to Jason Christensen via e-mail on November 14, 2012.

Guam Power Authority, “Renewable Siting,” PDF map showing sites for proposed contracts with GQP and PGR, provided by e-mail from Jennifer Sablan on July 30, 2012.

Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, “Renewable Energy Purchase Agree-ment,” June 27, 2012.

Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base Guam Master Plan, 2009.

Ian Baring-Gould, Misty Conrad, Scott Haase, Eliza Hotchkiss, & Peter McNutt, “Guam Ini-tial Technical Assessment Report,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Techni-cal Report NREL/TP-7A40-50580, 2011.

“Installation Overview – Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.” About.com-U.S. Military, ac-cessed on November 27, 2012. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcebaseprofiles/ss/Andersen_4.htm.

Jennifer Sablan, e-mail message to Jason Christensen, November 28, 2012.

Joaquin Flores, “Smart Grid Petition, letter to Guam Public Utilities Commission,” November 8,2011.

John Cruz, GPA Manager of Strategic Planning and Operations Research Division, in meeting with JRM Representatives, held on May 23, 2012.

Johnson Controls, “Energy Savings Performance Contract for U.S. Western Region – Final Proposal for Naval Base Guam,” Submitted to U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program, April 14, 2009.

Katherine Manglona, e-mail message to Desiree Masterson, November 19, 2012.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Lecture on Solar Mechanics,” (presented to the 2.626 Fundamentals of Photovoltaics class), Fall 2008. Accessed November 20, 2012. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-626-fundamentals-of-photovoltaics-fall-2008/lecture-notes/lecture1.pdf.

“National Climatic Data Center,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ac-cessed November 15, 2012. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/#t=secondTabLink

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Information System, “Eco-system Essays on Guam,” accessed November 26, 2012, http://coris.noaa.gov/about/eco_essays/guam/climate.html.

7-3

Works Cited“Naval Base Guam,” Naval Base Guam, accessed on November 27, 2012. http://www.cnic.

navy.mil/Guam/AboutUs/index.htm.

“Naval Base Guam History,” Naval Base Guam, accessed on November 27, 2012. http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Guam/AboutUs/index.htm.

“Naval Base Guam Typhoon Preparedness,” Naval Base Guam, accessed November 26, 2012. http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Guam/OperationsAndManagement/EmergencyMan-agement/index.htm.

One Hundred and Tenth Congress, “Energy Independence and Security Act,” January 4, 2007, accessed on November 27, 2012. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf.

Pamela Brandis and Hossein Haeri, “The Persistence of Energy Savings over Time: Two and Three Years after Participation in a Retrofit Program,” Policy Studies Journal, 20(1), 1992, 68 – 75.

R.W. Beck, “LNG Study,” conducted for Guam Power Authority, November 2011, 14-1.

“Renewable Energy Credits Explained,” Triple Pundit, accessed on December 5, 2012. http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/10/renewable-energy-credits-explained/.

S. Chidiac, E. Catania, E. Morofsky, & S. Foo, “Effectiveness of Single and Multiple Energy Retrofit Measures on the Energy Consumption of Office Buildings,” Energy, 36(8), 2011, 5037 – 5052.

“Sun Position Calculator,” PV Education Org, accessed November 15, 2012. http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/sun-position-calculator.

University of Guam, Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific, “Typhoon Vulnerability Study for Guam,” accessed November 26, 2012. http://www.weriguam.org/reports/item/typhoon-vulnerability-study-for-guam.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Total population, 2000 Guam Summary File (P001),” American Fact Finder, accessed on November 25, 2012. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

U.S. Department of Commerce & National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Super Typhoon Pongsona – Service Assessment,” April 2003, accessed on November 25, 2012. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/assessments/pdfs/Pongsona.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, “Creating an Energy Awareness Program – A Handbook for Federal Energy Managers.”

U.S. Department of the Navy, “A Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century,” October 2010.

Vergnet, “GEV HP 1MW – Wind with a vision (product manual),”accessed on November 24, 2012. http://www.vergnet.com/gev-hp.php.

3TIER, “Fullview Wind – Initial Project Assessment (analysis of wind resources on Guam),” October 29, 2010.

A-A

Appendices

A-1

Appendix A. JRM Comparison Charts

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Perc

ent C

hang

e fro

m B

asel

ine

AFB Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present)

Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area

-30.00%

-25.00%

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Perc

ent C

hang

e fro

m B

asel

ine

JRM (Naval Mission) Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present)

Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area

-30.00%

-25.00%

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Perc

ent C

hang

e fro

m B

asel

ine

NBG Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present)

Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area

Figure A.1 Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012

Figure A.2 Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012

Figure A.3Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012

A-2

Appendix A. JRM Energy Consumption

55.0

57.0

59.0

61.0

63.0

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

JRM Annual EUI (FY04 - Present)

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

AAFB Annual EUI (FY04 - Present)

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

55.0

57.0

59.0

61.0

63.0

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

JRM (Naval Mission) Annual EUI (FY04 - Present)

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

Figure A.5 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012

Figure A.4 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012

Figure A.6 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012

A-3

Appendix A. JRM Energy Consumption

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

Naval Housing Annual EUI (FY04 - Present)

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

Naval Base Guam Annual EUI (FY04 - Present)

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

Figure A.7Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012

Figure A.8Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012

A-4

Appendix A. JRM Normalized Consumption

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy C

onsu

mtio

n (M

BTU)

AAFB Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present)

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy C

onsu

mtio

n (M

BTU)

NBG Housing Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present)

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy C

onsu

mtio

n (M

BTU)

JRM (Naval Mission) Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present)

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

Figure A.9Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

Figure A.10Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

Figure A.11Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

A-5

Appendix A. Normalized Consumption

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy C

onsu

mtio

n (M

BTU)

NBG Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present)

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

Figure A.12Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

A-6

Appendix A. JRM EUI Normalized to Demolition

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

NBG EUI Normalized to Demolition

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

NBG Housing EUI Normalized to Demolition

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

JRM (Navy Mission) EUI Normalized to Demolition

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

Figure A.13Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari-anas FSM Product Manager, May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

Figure A.14Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari-anas FSM Product Manager, May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

Figure A.15Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari-anas FSM Product Manager, May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

A-7

Appendix A. JRM Baseline Reset

55.0

57.0

59.0

61.0

63.0

65.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

JRM (Navy Mission) Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

NBG Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glide Path

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

FY04

Q1

FY04

Q3

FY05

Q1

FY05

Q3

FY06

Q1

FY06

Q3

FY07

Q1

FY07

Q3

FY08

Q1

FY08

Q3

FY09

Q1

FY09

Q3

FY10

Q1

FY10

Q3

FY11

Q1

FY11

Q3

FY12

Q1

FY12

Q3

FY13

Q1

FY13

Q3

FY14

Q1

FY14

Q3

FY15

Q1

FY15

Q3

Ener

gy U

se In

tens

ity (M

BTU/

KSF)

NBG Housing Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glide Path

Figure A. 16Demonstrate Pro-

posed Baseline Reset for Navy

Installations on Guam (Top: JRM,

Bottom: AAFB)Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year

Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC

Pacific Figure A. 17

Demonstrate Pro-posed Baseline Reset for Navy

Installations on Guam (Top: JRM,

Bottom: AAFB)Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year

Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC

Pacific

Figure A. 18Demonstrate Pro-

posed Baseline Reset for Navy

Installations on Guam (Top: JRM,

Bottom: AAFB)Source: New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump-tion tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year

Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC

Pacific

B-1

Appendix B. JRM Demo Task Orders FY02 - FY12

TO ACRN DOC. NO. DESCRIPTION CUSTOMERCONTRACT

SPEC. AWD DATE CCD SF AWD AMT.0001 AA O/A 44958 Demo 64 Housing Unit Dyer NCTS Housing Manglona 9/29/2002 2/5/2004 71,820 $1,171,577.530002 AA O/A 44957 Demo 68 Hsng Unit South Tipalao NCS Housing Manglona 9/29/2002 10/7/2004 61,536 $1,218,484.120003 AA N6175502RC2MS04 Demo of Various Bldgs ComNavMar Manglona 9/29/2002 10/7/2004 16,452 $154,889.140004 AA N6175502RC2M145 Demo of Chain Link Fences ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 7/10/2003 $164,519.100005 AA N6239502RC20083 Demo of Concrete Slabs ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 8/11/2004 $83,506.370006 AA N6239502RC20083 Demo of Concrete Slabs ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 11/28/2003 $83,506.370007 Asbestos Testing/N Tip/S Fin Housing Mantanona 8/272003 11/28/2003 $69,434.770008 Demo 130 Housing units at South Fin Housing Mantanona 9/26/2003 2/28/2005 171,611 $2,645,857.380009 AA Demo 138 Housing Units NCTS Housing Mantanona 9/29/2002 2/23/2005 89,999 $2,550,258.410010 Demo 36 Housing Units North Tipalao Housing Mantanona 9/8/2003 9/7/2004 38,530 $496,310.550011 Demo Softball Field at Naval Hosp NAVHOSP Serneo 9/8/2003 6/25/2004 $30,500.360012 Demo Various facilities at SRF CNM Serneo 9/18/2003 11/30/2005 302,139 $1,106,929.160013 Demo 6 housing units Radio Barrigada CNM Mantanona 9/25/2003 9/7/2004 7,785 $81,352.00

0014 Asbestos testing 101housing units South Finegayan and 18 units NCTS Housing Mantanona 8/17/2004 8/30/2004 $16,701.84

0015 Asbestos testing 106housing units South Finegayan Banyan Circle Housing Mantanona 8/18/2004 8/31/2004 $14,877.27

0016Demo of 101 Housing Units at Poinciana Cir, Pandanus Place & Oleander Lane, South Finegayan NCTS Housing Mantanona 10/18/2004 7/25/2005 249,093 $1,937,358.39

0017 Demo 18 housing units, Bingham, Bryant, Hooper at NCTS Housing Mantanona 9/25/2004 2/5/2005 18,720 $326,095.500018 AA DEMO 14 ea Facilities at NCTS CNM Diaz 2/11/2005 11/28/2006 236,169 $2,123,296.930019 AA DEMO 6 Facilities at NCTS CNM Diaz 3/3/2005 10/19/2005 17,568 $298,193.130020 AA Demo of FH05 Housing office Family Housing Camacho 8/4/2005 4/14/2006 8,865 $29,956.800021 AA Demo of 106 units at NCTS ComNavMar Camacho 8/1/2005 9/24/2007 115,518 $2,532,246.280022 AA Asbestos Testing CNM Camacho 9/12/2005 $51,251.040023 AA WR#30534- DEMO CNM and Main Base CNM Camacho 9/15/2005 10/24/2005 3,709 $28,067.680024 AA WR30201-DEMO Main Base & Shipyard CNM Camacho 9/22/2005 7/11/2008 58,829 $1,672,375.210025 AA NCTS Cleanup CNM Camacho 9/25/2005 $57,925.080026 Asbestos Removal & Disp, Bldg 526 CNM Mantanona 5/17/20060027 AA Demo former PWC compound CNM Mantanona 6/302006 6/30/2008 99,487 $3,474,585.340028 AA N6112806RCRC118BXB Demo Various Facilities Ordnance Annex CNM Mantanona 6/29/2006 5/3/2010 110,322 $460,570.950029 AA Demo NEX Garage Facilities 6/30/2006 4/3/2008 50,000 $1,099,417.660030 Demo Bldg-219 metal container orote power CNM 8/19/2006 4/302007 400 $12,699.120031 Remove asbestos DODEA B-3014 CNM0032 AA CNM Main Base and Polaris Point CNM Mantanona 6/5/2007 4/5/201 110,322 $636,162.000033 Demolition of Bldg 33 located at Coast Guard Victor Wharf CNM Blas 4/24/2008 2/28/2009 1,627 10,854.68$

0034Removal and Disposal of above grounds storage tanks various locations CNM Blas 5/29/2008 2/28/2009 72,396.54$

0035 Demolition of Var Fac on Main Base, Polaris Point and Radio Barrigada CNM Blas 7/17/2008 9/25/2009 6,696 733,449.00$

0036 Demolition of Various Facilities at Ordnance Annex, Naval magazine CNM Blas 9/29/2008 1/21/2010 39,688 $492,599.360037 Demolition of 58 Housing Units at North Tipalao CNM Blas 1/13/2009 7/24/2010 70,970 $1,384,289.840038 Demolition of Bldgs at FAA, NCS CNM Blas 6/12/2009 4/15/2012 21,248 $694,446.09

0039Demolition of various facilities at Main Base, NCTS FINEGAYAN, BARRIGADA, TENJO VISTA AND CAMP COVINGTON. CNM Blas 6/28/2009 11/16/2010 9,078 $1,099,307.54

0040

Demolition of various facilities at NAVAL BASE GUAM, NCTS, RADIO BARRIGADA, NAVAL MAGAZINE, NAVAL HOSPITAL, POLARIS POINT, UNITED SEAMEN'S SERVICE, AND NIMITZ HILL. Requires Archeological Monitoring Plan CNM Blas 8/5/2012 7/31/2012 31,941 $2,302,423.37

041

Demolition of Various structures signs and sign posts, utility poles, post barriers, pipe posts, guard rails, fire post pedestals, concrete deadman weights, and miscellaneous structures through out Naval Base Guam Munitions Site, Requires Archeological Monitoring Plan CNM Blas 1/30/2012 7/29/2012 - $69,330.63

Totals 2,020,122.00 $31,488,002.53

C-1

Appendix C. Benchmarks

Table C.1. CNIC And Energy Star Benchmarks

Facility Types

CNIC Benchmark

(MBTU/KSF)

CNIC Benchmark

(KWh/sf)

Energy Star Benchmark

(MBTU/KSF)

Energy Star Benchmark

(KWh/sf) NotesClubs & Dining Facilities 106 31.1 207/ 418 60.7/ 122.5 Energy Star breaks down facility types into Dining Halls and Restaurants (respectively)Communications Facilities 151 44.3Community Facilities 52 15.2 39/ 42/ 46 11.4/ 12.3/ 13.5 Energy Star breaks down facility types into Recreation, Public Assembly, & Entertainment (respectively)Data Center 187 54.8Family Housing 49 14.4Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities 98 28.7Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower 372 109.0Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations 52 15.2Maintenance Facilities 56 16.4Medical Facilities 232 68.0 88/ 129 26.8/ 37.8 Energy Star breaks down facility types into Medical Office & HospitalOffices 66 19.3 67 19.6Parking & Open Structures 18 5.3Power/Heat Generation 109 31.9Primary & Secondary Schools 72 21.1 45/ 20/ 23 13.2/ 5.9/ 6.7 Energy Star breaks down facility types into High School, Middle School, & ElementaryProduction Facilities 76 22.3Public Safety & Base Services 41 12.0RDT&E Facilities 56 16.4Stand-alone Retail 89 26.1 59/ 89 17.3/ 26.1 Energy Star breaks down facility types into retail and bank/credit union (respectively)Supermarket 179 52.5 205 60.1Training Facilities 41 12.0Transient & Visitor Housing 49 14.4Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 49 14.4 64 18.8Utility Infrastructure 176 51.6Warehouse 14 4.1 16/ 100 4.7/ 29.3 Energy Star breaks down facility types into warehouse and refrigerated warehouseWater, Sewage, and Waste Facilities 43 12.6Source: Deloitte, New Benchmark Values per Building Type and Climate Zone, "Navy Shore Energy Strategy - CJRM Goals and Heatmaps Version 2.0," Page 510, November 2011 & Energy Star Target Finder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed on November 2, 2012.

D-1

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.1 Heat Map - Naval Base Guam Polaris Pt.

D-2

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.2 Heat Map - Apra View

and Apra Heights

D-3

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.3 Heat Map - Nimitz Hill

D-4

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.4 Heat

Map - Naval Hos-pital

D-5

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.5 South Finnegayan Housing

D-6

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.6 An-dersen Air Force Base - Housing 1

D-7

Appendix D. Heat MapsFigure D.7 An-dersen Air Force Base - Housing 2

E-1

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.1. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Clubs & Dining Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningAndersen BURGER KING 27,030 6,386 1,039,000.0 162.7 840,607.3Naval Base ALL HANDS CLUB-TYPHOONZ 75 24,708 1,035,375.0 41.9 267,775.9 13, 14Naval Base MCDONALDS MAIN BASE 282 5,793 811,950.0 140.2 631,979.9 12 12Andersen ANDERSEN SCHOOL CAFETERIA 1,603 14,682 740,733.3 50.5 310,428.5Andersen TOP OF THE ROCK CLUB 26,006 28,416 686,800.0 24.2 12 12Nimitz Hill TOP OF THE MAR 295NZ 14,181 666,350.0 47.0 225,791.4 13 12 12 12 12 13Andersen MAGELLAN DINING HALL 25,010 17,585 396,400.0 22.5 12Naval Base CLIPPER LANDING RESTAURANT 1,985 7,628 186,725.0 24.5 12 12Nimitz Hill CONF CENTER/OPEN MESS 293NZ 3,345 110,275.0 33.0 6,356.5 13Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON GALLEY 586 9,893 104,000.0 10.5 12 12 13Naval Magazin SILVER DOLPHIN 408NM 3,805 99,325.0 26.1 12 12 13Andersen PALM TREE GOLF CLUBHOUSE 1,091 24,207 65,066.7 2.7 12 12Naval Base THE POINT CLUB 4429PP 3,420 62,050.0 18.1 12 12Andersen OFFICERS WIVES CLUB 25,023 3,778 44,200.0 11.7Andersen BAMBOO WILLIES 9,509 2,271 28,366.7 12.5Naval Base CLUB-BEEHIVE 521 6,074 23,200.0 3.8 12 12 13Naval Base MOVIE VIDEO/1ST CLASS LOUNGE 520 4,601 17,700.0 3.8Naval Base CPO/LOUNGE CLUB 503 2,732 10,500.0 3.8 12 12 13NCTS CONSOLID OFF/ENL MESS OPEN 170 7,716 100.0 0.0Total 6,128,116.7 2,282,939.5Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.1. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Clubs & Dining Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningAndersen BURGER KING 27,030 6,386 1,039,000.0 162.7 840,607.3Naval Base ALL HANDS CLUB-TYPHOONZ 75 24,708 1,035,375.0 41.9 267,775.9 13, 14Naval Base MCDONALDS MAIN BASE 282 5,793 811,950.0 140.2 631,979.9 12 12Andersen ANDERSEN SCHOOL CAFETERIA 1,603 14,682 740,733.3 50.5 310,428.5Andersen TOP OF THE ROCK CLUB 26,006 28,416 686,800.0 24.2 12 12Nimitz Hill TOP OF THE MAR 295NZ 14,181 666,350.0 47.0 225,791.4 13 12 12 12 12 13Andersen MAGELLAN DINING HALL 25,010 17,585 396,400.0 22.5 12Naval Base CLIPPER LANDING RESTAURANT 1,985 7,628 186,725.0 24.5 12 12Nimitz Hill CONF CENTER/OPEN MESS 293NZ 3,345 110,275.0 33.0 6,356.5 13Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON GALLEY 586 9,893 104,000.0 10.5 12 12 13Naval Magazin SILVER DOLPHIN 408NM 3,805 99,325.0 26.1 12 12 13Andersen PALM TREE GOLF CLUBHOUSE 1,091 24,207 65,066.7 2.7 12 12Naval Base THE POINT CLUB 4429PP 3,420 62,050.0 18.1 12 12Andersen OFFICERS WIVES CLUB 25,023 3,778 44,200.0 11.7Andersen BAMBOO WILLIES 9,509 2,271 28,366.7 12.5Naval Base CLUB-BEEHIVE 521 6,074 23,200.0 3.8 12 12 13Naval Base MOVIE VIDEO/1ST CLASS LOUNGE 520 4,601 17,700.0 3.8Naval Base CPO/LOUNGE CLUB 503 2,732 10,500.0 3.8 12 12 13NCTS CONSOLID OFF/ENL MESS OPEN 170 7,716 100.0 0.0Total 6,128,116.7 2,282,939.5Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-2

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings TablesTable E.3. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Community Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningAndersen YOUTH CENTER 1605 9,014 1,399,966.7 155.3 1,262,590.3 12Naval Base CHARLES KING GYM 1980 23,654 1,297,125.0 54.8 936,630.3 13Andersen BOWLING CENTER 25005 64,566 911,966.7 14.1 12 12Naval Base OROTE POINT BOWLING LANES 600 15,600 866,250.0 55.5 628,500.9 12 12 12 14Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER 1625 28,176 834,400.0 29.6 404,988.5 12 14Naval Base LITTLE RED SCHOOL HOUSE 1983B 2,520 498,525.0 197.8 460,119.4 9 9 13Naval Base HOBBY SHOP / YOUTH CENTER 1982A 9,670 353,350.0 36.5 205,976.0 9 12 13Andersen YOUTH CENTER 1622 15,051 316,533.3 21.0 87,151.2 12 12Naval Hospital CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 10 9,596 254,375.0 26.5 108,128.8 12 12 12Naval Base CB FITNESS CENTER 523 12,672 248,200.0 19.6 55,074.6 12Andersen OUTDOOR RECREATION CENTER 25018 15,617 233,333.3 14.9Andersen FITNESS CENTER 25045 57,129 214,133.3 3.7 12 12 12 12Naval Base SITE III OUTDOOR GEAR ISSUE 4446PP 240 198,225.0 825.9 194,567.3Naval Base T. STELL NEWMAN MUSEUM 1657B 7,648 182,400.0 23.8 65,842.0 12 12 FY12Andersen ARTS AND CRAFTS CENTER 25006 7,094 139,400.0 19.7 31,285.1 12Naval Base NEW FITNESS CENTER 1980A 72,900 120,400.0 1.7Naval Base CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER - D 1983D 4,513 115,050.0 25.5 46,270.4 9 9 13Naval Base ESO & POST OFFICE 4 13,013 110,600.0 8.5 9 9Naval Hospital MWR FITNESS CENTER 70 4,800 110,200.0 23.0 37,046.4NCTS YOUTH CENTER A845FG 4,692 76,425.0 16.3 4,917.4 12 12Andersen FITNESS FACILITY 2649 2,111 64,833.3 30.7 32,661.0Naval Base MWR RENTAL CTR (REC-N-CREW) 1986 3,300 25,700.0 7.8Nimitz Hill INDOOR BASKETBALL 207NZ 11,869 13,250.0 1.1Andersen ISLANDERS SPORTSMEN CLUB 20024 400 2,433.3 6.1Andersen SKEET RANGE TOWER 20025 128 1,050.0 8.2Total 8,588,125.0 4,561,749.5Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.4. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Family Housing)

Location Neighborhood Number of HousesTotal Area

(sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management

Control System

Calibration &

Maintenance

Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar

Water Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperat

ure Setbacks

Retro-commissi

oningNaval Base Bay View Housing 22 97,436 2,883,875.0 29.6 1,484,589.0Naval Base Lockwood Housing 232 367,236 8,306,950.0 22.6 3,033,045.0Nimitz Hill Nimitz Hill Housing 40 84,236 1,429,475.0 17.0 219,755.2Andersen Transient Quarters 79 138,222 2,292,166.7 16.6 307,149.7Nimitz Hill Flag Circle 7 18,872 310,875.0 16.5 39,852.7Naval Base North Tipalau Housing 102 262,285 3,967,625.0 15.1 200,929.5Andersen Enlisted Housing 529 1,575,376 22,020,933.3 14.0Apra Heights Apra Heights Housing 29 235,644 3,242,550.0 13.8Naval Hospital Naval Hospital Housing 25 57,612 783,725.0 13.6Andersen Officer Housing 223 540,010 6,308,466.7 11.7Andersen Temporary Lodging 54 95,338 1,041,166.7 10.9Apra Heights Apra View Housing 87 253,576 2,707,650.0 10.7NCTS Finegayan Housing 31 102,984 980,075.0 9.5Naval Base Harbor View Housing 100 426,995 2,868,275.0 6.7Naval Base South Tipalau Housing 80 180,139 867,200.0 4.8NCTS South Finegayan Housing 183 940,679 4,459,650.0 4.7Total 64,470,658.3 5,285,321.0Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.5. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningAndersen FUEL PUMPING STATION BLDG 14507 2,656 131,166.7 49.4 54,880.6Andersen A/C FUEL PUMP BLDG 2590 3,750 78,733.3 21.0Andersen A/C FUEL PUMP BLDG 2595 3,750 78,733.3 21.0Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26206 1,500 72,733.3 48.5 29,650.1Andersen SHED/SHELTER PUMP STA/ANC EQ 14512 438 31,400.0 71.7 18,819.7Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26196 420 18,366.7 43.7 6,303.4Sasa Valley BOOSTER PUMP HOUSE 1708SV 2,626 2,200.0 0.8Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26200 3,750 1,233.3 0.3Sasa Valley TRANSFER PUMP HOUSE 1712SV 1,166 0.0 0.0Total 414,566.7 109,653.8Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-3

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings TablesTable E.6. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Gate, Guardpost, Watch Tower)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningNCTS PASS/DECAL SEC BLDG - NCTS 292 392 94,500.0 241.1 51,761.4 13Naval Base MAIN GATE/SENTRY HSE (FRONT) 108 224 79,900.0 356.7 55,478.0 13Naval Base PASS & I.D. BLDG - MAIN BASE 1658 1,101 61,500.0 55.9 12 12 12Naval Base GATE/SENTRY (BACK GATE) 131 49 48,575.0 991.3 43,232.7Naval Base SENTRY HSE - SITE 3 (INSIDE) 4437PP 77 46,900.0 609.1 38,504.9Naval Hospital GATE/SENTRY HOUSE 16 264 31,950.0 121.0 3,166.9Naval Base GUARD/SENTRY HSE-XRAY CMPD 270XR 80 21,825.0 272.8 13,102.8 13Naval Base GUARD HSE - POLARIS OUTER 3183PP 144 12,550.0 87.2Andersen VISITOR CENTER 2403 1,125 12,433.3 11.1Nimitz Hill GUARD/SENTRY HSE-FLAG CIRCLE 209NH 144 11,900.0 82.6Andersen MAIN GATE SENTRY BLDG 2404 938 10,233.3 10.9Naval Base GUARD SHACK-SIERRA WHARF 2122 72 7,850.0 109.0 0.1Apra Heights OLD APRA HSG GATE SENTRY 4180AH 144 7,633.3 39.8Naval Base SENTRY BOOTH - AMMO WHARF 5544 63 6,733.3 106.9Naval Base GUARD / SENTRY - SRF 2076SY 72 6,200.0 86.1Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 1882 100 4,166.7 41.7Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 9052 144 1,466.7 10.2Andersen GUARD SHACK 908 100 1,133.3 11.3Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 51000 144 1,050.0 7.3Naval Base GATE/SENTRY - XRAY OUTER 1660XR 156 775.0 5.0Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 12 56 500.0 8.9Andersen GUARD SHACK 9006 36 100.0 2.8Naval Base GUARD HOUSE - DDGM SUPPLY 2121 49 0.0 0.0Andersen GUARD SHACK 2505 35 0.0 0.0Total 469,875.0 205,246.8Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.7. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Land, Air, Waterfront, & Coastal Operations Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingNaval Base NAVY SEALS OPS BLDG 3000 53,940 1,273,550.0 23.6 451,486.7 9 9 13Andersen PASSENGER TERMINAL 17002 49,340 1,066,533.3 21.6 314,575.5 12 12 12 12,13Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 36 15,000 1,020,233.3 68.0 791,628.4Naval Base EOD OPERATIONS FACILITY 2112 28,512 949,600.0 33.3 515,067.8 9 9Naval Base WATERFRONT OPS BLDG 3169 145,689 572,850.0 3.9 12,13Andersen TRANSIENT OPERATIONS BLDG 2510 6,400 523,933.3 81.9 426,395.2Naval Base NSWU-1 SMALL BOAT FACILITY 3002 17,048 394,900.0 23.2 135,082.9 9Andersen 36 MUNS ORDNANCE OPS BLDG 9002 5,140 361,533.3 70.3 283,198.0Andersen LOX FACILITY 26224 7,382 311,566.7 42.2 199,062.6Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 91 3,847 270,666.7 70.4 212,037.1Andersen FUEL OPERATIONS BLDG 26203 2,900 203,966.7 70.3 159,769.7Andersen 36 MUNS ORDNANCE OPS BLDG 9000 2,772 195,000.0 70.3 152,753.8Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 42 2,826 192,233.3 68.0 149,164.2Naval Base TRANSIT SHED 3192PP 18,665 189,725.0 10.2 12 12Sasa Valley POL OPNS BLDG - LOWER SASA 1700SV 3,468 180,375.0 52.0 127,521.5Andersen LINE DELIVERY BUILDING 9016 2,460 173,000.0 70.3 135,508.8Andersen EOD BUILDING 2600 16,040 158,166.7 9.9 12 12Andersen ELECTRIC SHOP 20010 9,848 154,066.7 15.6Andersen FUELS CONTROL BLDG 19021 3,700 124,800.0 33.7 68,410.8Barrigada PWC SHOP 56 5,490 111,325.0 20.3 21,219.5Andersen HOUSING MAINTENANCE 1782 6,350 98,066.7 15.4Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT 1 GYM K21 4,399 92,900.0 21.1 25,857.8Andersen AIR CARGO TERMINAL 18013 13,290 78,666.7 5.9Andersen LINE OPERATIONS BLDG 2517 1,540 77,066.7 50.0 53,596.6Naval Base MAINT SHOP STORE (BOS KTR) 1793 8,181 76,300.0 9.3Naval Base CG OPS BLDG 3268 6,900 71,100.0 10.3 12 12Andersen LIQUID FUELS MAINT SHOP 26215 2,151 59,333.3 27.6 24,029.7Naval Base BASE ARMORY 71 2,720 57,150.0 21.0 15,696.3Naval Base ARMORY 560 3,000 53,550.0 17.9 7,829.0Naval Base USDA TRAP SHOP 634F 3,248 45,050.0 13.9 9 14Andersen PEST MANAGEMENT SHOP 2799 3,300 41,666.7 12.6Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 40 600 40,833.3 68.1 31,689.1Naval Base SELF-HELP SHOP 546 4,018 40,050.0 10.0Andersen LINE OPERATIONS BLDG 2820 1,617 38,866.7 24.0 14,223.1Andersen COURIER SERVICE BLDG 17003 1,539 31,800.0 20.7 8,345.1Andersen MISSILE ACCESS TUNNEL 37 420 28,600.0 68.1 22,199.1Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 38 800 28,600.0 35.8 16,407.7Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 9106 1,008 26,766.7 26.6 10,222.7Naval Base EOD ARMORY BUILDING 2105 1,360 22,075.0 16.2 1,348.2 9 14Andersen TOOL STORAGE BLDG 26222 426 12,566.7 29.5 5,574.9Andersen LOX CART STORAGE SHED 18025 800 10,633.3 13.3Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 20 144 9,833.3 68.3 7,638.7Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT I STRG K23 4,399 6,200.0 1.4Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT I STRG K22 4,399 5,150.0 1.2Andersen CE MAINTENANCE STORAGE 14531 351 4,800.0 13.7Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 18022 308 3,900.0 12.7Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 9009 144 3,800.0 26.4 1,436.6Andersen AIR CARGO TERMINAL 17004 2,314 1,533.3 0.7Total 9,494,883.3 4,388,977.1Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-4

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings TablesTable E.8 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Maintenance Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingAndersen MAINTENANCE HANGAR 17016 50,810 3,066,066.7 60.3 2,232,139.4 12 12 12 12Andersen GLOBAL HAWK HANGAR 18110 74,080 1,943,000.0 26.2 727,150.1 12 12Andersen CE / MOTOR POOL BLDG 18001 140,460 1,620,933.3 11.5 12 12 12 14Andersen HSC-25 MAINT HANGER FACILITY 2641 70,869 938,933.3 13.2 12 12 12Andersen AIRCRAFT HANGAR 18021 26,192 775,766.7 29.6 345,886.2Barrigada GSE MAINTENANCE SHOP 18004 37,036 723,500.0 19.5 115,640.7 12 12Andersen TRANS EQUIP MNT SHOP 372 69,396 712,550.0 10.3 9 12 13Naval Base AIRCRAFT MAINT SHOPS 18006 58,490 644,633.3 11.0 12 14Andersen AIRCRAFT HANGAR 18020 17,969 532,000.0 29.6 237,080.9Naval Base MISSILE MAINTENANCE BLDG 51109 16,375 365,733.3 22.3 96,976.0Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18008 7,607 302,366.7 39.7 177,515.6Naval Base EMERGENT RPR SHOP-POLARIS 4430PP 11,014 294,200.0 26.7 113,430.9Naval Base BOMB ASSEMBLY BLDG 9105 8,296 285,300.0 34.4 149,140.6Andersen FUEL TRUCK MAINT SHOP 26229 4,600 252,600.0 54.9 177,101.8Andersen CORROSION CONTROL HANGAR 18017 43,670 250,366.7 5.7 12 12Andersen FUEL TRUCK PREV MAINT SHOP 26230 2,320 188,633.3 81.3 150,556.0Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18007 614 186,166.7 303.2 176,089.3Andersen HEAVY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 18035 4,320 168,500.0 39.0 97,597.3Naval Base AIMD BUILDING 2642 13,944 132,300.0 9.5 12Naval Base AUTO HOBBY SHOP 26051 24,757 122,733.3 5.0 12Andersen MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE SHOP 9001 3,520 121,066.7 34.4 63,294.1Andersen BOMB ASSEMBLY BLDG 9008 3,275 112,633.3 34.4 58,881.9Andersen OPERATIONAL VEHICLE GARAGE 18044 28,380 107,366.7 3.8Barrigada MISSLE MAINT/TEST FACILITY 870NM 8,400 98,250.0 11.7Naval Base CONV MAINT BUILDUP 9100 2,484 85,333.3 34.4 44,564.3Andersen MISSILE TEST FACILITY 1008NM 4,500 80,075.0 17.8 6,218.0Andersen GOLF CART BATTERY CHARGING 96 3,000 59,125.0 19.7 9,887.0Andersen CORROSION SHOP 18018 5,632 54,966.7 9.8Andersen EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG 9122 676 54,933.3 81.3 43,838.4Andersen CORROSION CONTROL PAINT SHOP 21008 14,760 53,833.3 3.6Andersen MISSILE TEST FACILITY 1010NM 4,900 51,875.0 10.6Andersen NAVSPECWAR UNIT 1 VEH STORAG 3008 4,960 50,050.0 10.1 13Andersen GROUNDS FACILITY 20021 6,450 47,866.7 7.4Andersen MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE FAC 1009NM 4,500 47,050.0 10.5Andersen MSC ELECTRONICS MAINT SHOP 6011 1,920 40,925.0 21.3 9,412.7Andersen INSPECTION FACILITY 9010 2,460 40,100.0 16.3Andersen CE MAINTENANCE BAY 14532 1,008 39,333.3 39.0 22,789.4Andersen MISSILE/SPARE STORAGE 1011NM 4,872 36,750.0 7.5Andersen MHE BATTERY LOCKER 779XR 7,864 31,200.0 4.0Andersen SPECIAL WEAPONS SHOP 51150 1,482 24,433.3 16.5 109.8Andersen PARTS STORAGE 561 1,200 22,875.0 19.1 3,179.8 14Naval Base SEABEE QUARRY RPR SHOP 599 1,650 20,850.0 12.6Andersen MISSILE MAINTENANCE BLDG 51108 1,364 20,533.3 15.1Naval Base HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE BLDG 14535 1,430 20,200.0 14.1Naval Magazin MHE MAINT SHOP 364 9,860 19,900.0 2.0 9Andersen NEX MAINTENANCE SHOP K20 4,399 19,400.0 4.4Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18009 378 15,000.0 39.7 8,796.0Andersen GROUNDS EQUIPMENT STORAGE 18024 1,968 13,400.0 6.8Naval Magazin GOLF CART MAINT SHOP 94 4,608 9,400.0 2.0 12 12Andersen MHE PARKING BLDG 19019 4,200 9,233.3 2.2Naval Magazin MAINTENANCE HANGAR 18027 20,408 9,000.0 0.4Naval Magazin GROUNDS EQUIP STORAGE 20026 1,200 8,900.0 7.4Andersen ENGINE TEST CELL 2551 675 6,600.0 9.8Andersen VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP 18040 6,808 2,800.0 0.4Andersen MILITARY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 18042 6,426 2,366.7 0.4Naval Magazin NDI SHOP 17006 4,095 1,200.0 0.3Andersen NICAD STORAGE 2648 165 1,100.0 6.7Total 14,946,208.3 5,067,275.9Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.9 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Medical Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingNaval Hosptial NH HOSPITAL - GUAM 1 306,775 9,656,925.0 31.5Andersen MEDICAL / DENTAL CLINIC 26012 42,094 1,326,400.0 31.5Naval Base PRIMARY CARE CLINIC 6 13,239 364,500.0 27.5 12 13Andersen PRIMARY CARE CLINIC 26009 9,642 269,533.3 28.0Naval Base DENTAL CLINIC/MEDICAL STRG 555 1,710 21,300.0 12.5Naval Base SEABEE MEDICAL FACILITY 528 1,920 21,050.0 11.0Andersen MACERATOR BLDG 26004 659 10,766.7 16.3Total 11,670,475.0 0.0Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-5

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.10 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Office Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh) Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingAndersen BUILDING 21000 21000 145,306 4,753,633.3 32.7 1,942,907.7 12 12Andersen 36 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23020 16,787 1,752,666.7 104.4 1,427,947.4 12Naval Base NBG ADMIN HQTRS 3190 36,622 1,024,275.0 28.0 315,877.6 9 9 13Andersen 36 MAINTENANCE GROUP HQ 17000 32,170 981,833.3 30.5 359,553.1 12 12 12 13Andersen WING HEADQUARTERS 23003 18,870 753,933.3 40.0 388,921.6 12 12 12 13Apra Heights ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 4175AH 97,305 708,350.0 7.3Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 200NZ 44,222 609,500.0 13.8Andersen 734 AMS HQ BLDG 19028 18,240 607,400.0 33.3 254,574.7 12 12Andersen 36 MSG HQ BLDG 23028 22,072 568,066.7 25.7 141,117.1 12 13Apra Heights SANTA RITA OFFICE COMPLEX 4177AH 16,092 546,125.0 33.9 234,849.5 12Naval Base ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B103 32,153 515,250.0 16.0Andersen DET 5 OFFICE BLDG 30 6,561 446,200.0 68.0 319,287.3 12Andersen 36 OPERATIONS SUPPORT HQ 25024 9,632 444,533.3 46.1 258,208.1 12 12Naval Base COMSUBRON 15 HQTRS 3110 9,844 340,875.0 34.6 150,457.6 13 12 12 12Naval Base BATTALION HDQTRS 556A 9,447 292,150.0 30.9 109,412.0 13 12 12 13Andersen 736 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23022 14,708 286,733.3 19.5 2,229.2Naval Base NAVFACMAR SOUTH ADMIN BLDG 101A 12,618 260,900.0 20.7 16,823.8 12Naval Base OPERATIONAL STRGE / COMM CTR 6009 19,720 252,050.0 12.8 9NCTS ADMIN BLDG - MARFORPAC 228 20,333 246,075.0 12.1Naval Base ADMIN - NFM PWO/UEM/EV/FS 105 13,038 237,850.0 18.2Naval Hospital DODEA ADMIN OFFICE 100 6,628 232,050.0 35.0 103,841.3Naval Base NAVFACMAR HQ ADMIN BLDG B100 13,268 219,475.0 16.5Andersen MOBILITY RESPONSE HQ 23010 8,836 218,866.7 24.8 47,947.6Naval Base FISC ADMIN 3191 9,055 212,475.0 23.5 37,319.7 12 12 12Naval Base VISITOR CONTROL CTR/HSG OFC 1657A 9,679 210,350.0 21.7 23,124.3 13 12 12 12 12 13Naval Base ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B104 12,732 204,075.0 16.0 12 12Naval Base BATTALION HDQTRS 556B 4,402 202,950.0 46.1 117,799.9 12 12 13Andersen MILITARY WORKING DOG KENNEL 2415 3,177 187,133.3 58.9 125,679.1Barrigada ADMIN/OFFICE SPACE 57 9,000 180,200.0 20.0 6,108.6 12 12 12 13Naval Base ADMIN BLDG 1A 13,368 176,900.0 13.2 9 9 13Andersen 36 CRG HEADQUARTERS BLDG 25002 17,766 167,100.0 9.4Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 205NZ 12,656 158,066.7 12.5Andersen GARBAGE BLDG 2408 5,724 154,133.3 26.9 43,411.2Andersen DET 5 OFFICE BLDG 72 425 152,400.0 358.6 144,179.0Naval Base MSFSC SSU GU ADMIN OFFICE 6060 5,760 152,150.0 26.4 40,731.5 12 12 12 12Naval Base NCIS/BANK BLDG 2 12,943 148,150.0 11.4 9 9 12Naval Base ADMIN OFC-CONFORMING STORAGE 1790A 1,680 141,400.0 84.2 108,902.9 13, 14Naval Base MWR OFFICE SB1 34,437 135,933.3 3.9 9 9Naval Base FAMILY SERVICE CENTER B106 5,131 133,400.0 26.0 34,148.5 12 12 12 12 14Naval Base BEQ E1/E4_BQ ADMIN_JGPO ADMI 18 13,023 130,850.0 10.0 9 9Naval Base SECURITY ADMIN/TRAINING BLDG 6003-B 6,319 115,750.0 18.3Andersen HENRY E "RED" ERVIN BLDG 23008 18,724 108,100.0 5.8 13Naval Base PSD 5 13,064 105,325.0 8.1 9 9Naval Base BEQ/N9 ADMIN OFFICE 17 13,008 97,500.0 7.5 9NCTS ROICC OFFICE 155 6,750 95,150.0 14.1 12 12 14Naval Base BRIGADE ADMIN OFFICE 519 4,039 86,850.0 21.5 8,721.6 12 12 13Andersen PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE 21001 22,261 74,666.7 3.4NCTS DISA BLDG 369A 2,180 73,275.0 33.6 31,106.2Apra Heights STA RITA OFFICE COMPLEX 4179AH 8,410 72,225.0 8.6Naval Base ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE-VACANT 13 4,902 70,400.0 14.4Andersen FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE 1723 2,935 63,566.7 21.7 6,793.5Barrigada ARMY READINESS GROUP 50 3,472 62,750.0 18.1 14Naval Base ADMIN OFFICE K-2 7,392 62,425.0 8.4 12 12Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 203NZ 7,061 55,075.0 7.8 12 12Naval Base ADMIN OFFICE K-1 7,392 50,250.0 6.8 12 12 14Barrigada ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BLDG 59 18,247 49,400.0 2.7NCTS ADMIN MARFORPAC/NEX OUTLET 207 4,040 43,666.7 10.8 12 12 12NCTS ADMIN BLDG - MARFORPAC 208 4,975 41,050.0 8.3 12 12NCTS CIS ADMIN OFFICE 450 2,475 40,825.0 16.5 13Naval Base MSC MEDICAL ADMIN OFFICE 6010 1,920 37,875.0 19.7 735.5Naval Base NAVFAC MAR HQ ADMIN BLDG 102 2,632 33,450.0 12.7Naval Base CIO ADMIN OFFICE 3014 2,640 32,900.0 12.5 14Naval Base SANITARY LANDFILL OFFICE 354 484 26,550.0 54.9 17,187.7 14Naval Base CIO/J6 IT COMPUTER STORAGE 267 1,013 23,633.3 23.3 4,038.4Andersen IRP FIELD OFFICE 2552 600 20,166.7 33.6 8,560.6Andersen ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE NON-AI 100 8,232 17,300.0 2.1NCTS BEQ, E1/E4 134 13,801 10,000.0 0.7 14Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 202NZ 912 7,966.7 8.7Total 20,724,550.0 6,832,503.9Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-6

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.11 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Power & Heat Generation)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningNaval Base CHILLED WATER PLANT 21 1,920 3,469,400.0 1,807.0 3,408,063.5 12NCTS CIS EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 309 6,240 2,860,775.0 458.5 2,661,431.5Andersen AIR CONDITIONING PLANT 25014 2,739 1,762,800.0 643.6 1,675,299.7 12Andersen AIR COND VALVE HOUSE 21003 672 1,418,400.0 2,110.7 1,396,932.2Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 10 4,680 431,466.7 92.2 281,959.0Naval Base GENERATOR BLDG FOR BLDG 6003 6003-A 255 268,625.0 1,053.4 260,478.8Andersen POWER PLANT 73 2,160 199,033.3 92.1 130,029.8Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2655 144 147,333.3 1,023.1 142,733.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1879 260 94,033.3 361.7 85,727.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1627 240 86,833.3 361.8 79,166.3Naval Base STEAM PLANT BLDG POLARIS PT 4451PP 1,224 77,825.0 63.6 38,723.0Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25 832 76,666.7 92.1 50,087.5Naval Hospital NAVHOSP STEAM PLT BLDG 2A 2,697 68,500.0 25.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 23007 192 47,033.3 245.0 40,899.7Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21014 472 41,200.0 87.3 26,121.5Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26201 396 37,900.0 95.7 25,249.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22019 781 35,766.7 45.8 10,816.8Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25020 308 33,766.7 109.6 23,927.3Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22022 600 30,166.7 50.3 10,999.0Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26205 300 28,733.3 95.8 19,149.5Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1294 361 27,000.0 74.8 15,467.5Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 24101 504 23,466.7 46.6 7,365.8Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21020 500 22,666.7 45.3 6,693.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2589 440 20,033.3 45.5 5,977.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2594 440 20,033.3 45.5 5,977.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2401 192 18,333.3 95.5 12,199.7Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 14524 180 17,266.7 95.9 11,516.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19025 378 17,200.0 45.5 5,124.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 9003 169 16,200.0 95.9 10,801.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22029 352 16,166.7 45.9 4,921.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1786 144 15,866.7 110.2 11,266.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26011 308 15,466.7 50.2 5,627.3Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2662 320 14,633.3 45.7 4,410.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 683 285 13,100.0 46.0 3,995.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18028 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18031 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18037 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18043 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19007 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26202 88 8,400.0 95.5 5,588.7Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25022 160 8,033.3 50.2 2,922.0Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1092 140 7,033.3 50.2 2,560.9Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18041 140 6,366.7 45.5 1,894.2Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19029 140 6,366.7 45.5 1,894.2Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21002 100 4,966.7 49.7 1,772.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21009 100 4,966.7 49.7 1,772.1Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2544 330 4,766.7 14.4Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1781 144 0.0 0.0Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1785 100 0.0 0.0NCTS CDAA CHILL WATER PLT 335 1,548 0.0 0.0Total 11,579,925.0 10,514,541.1Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.12 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Public Safety & Base Services)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingAndersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL II 1623 11,106 882,433.3 79.5 748,979.1 12 12Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL I 22024 9,520 764,633.3 80.3 650,237.1Andersen CHAPEL II CLASSROOMS 1624 8,476 673,466.7 79.5 571,615.6 14Naval Base CHAPEL CENTER 1984 20,499 359,825.0 17.6 113,500.6 9 9 13Andersen MILITARY WORKING DOG KENNEL 2414 2,811 256,100.0 91.1 222,321.9Andersen FIRE STATION 2659 4,470 140,233.3 31.4 86,520.0Naval Hospital CHAPEL 61 6,468 108,525.0 16.8 30,802.8 12 12 12 12Naval Base FIRE STATION NO. 1 1575 5,360 93,200.0 17.4 28,792.0 9 14Andersen ANDERSEN PET LODGE 20016 2,907 93,133.3 32.0 58,201.6Nimitz Hill FIRE STATION - NIMITZ HILL 100NZ 2,952 92,300.0 31.3 56,827.5 14Naval Base MWD KENNEL 26 1,680 61,900.0 36.8 41,712.4Naval Base SEABEE CHAPEL & LIBRARY 501 3,459 48,300.0 14.0 6,735.2 12 12 13Andersen LATRINE 108 1,000 43,066.7 43.1 31,050.3Naval Base DOG KENNEL (U.S.D.A.) 641 1,296 42,750.0 33.0 27,176.7 14Andersen FIRE STATION 1722 3,113 40,700.0 13.1 3,292.9Naval Base MUSTERING / GUARD MOUNT AREA 6003-C 3,965 25,266.7 6.4Andersen WORKING DOG KENNEL 2798 1,230 22,100.0 18.0 7,319.8Andersen SERENA BEACH LATRINE 9604 338 12,600.0 37.3 8,538.5Andersen FIRE STATION 19030 924 8,300.0 9.0Andersen GOLF COURSE SHELTER 28114 324 7,833.3 24.2 3,940.0Andersen BUS SHELTER 81956 214 7,766.7 36.3 5,195.2Andersen BUS SHELTER 81957 214 7,766.7 36.3 5,195.2Andersen GOLF COURSE SHELTER 28128 324 5,300.0 16.4 1,406.7Andersen BUS SHELTER 81041 214 5,166.7 24.1 2,595.2Andersen BUS SHELTER 81043 214 5,166.7 24.1 2,595.2Andersen LATRINE 18026 264 4,766.7 18.1 1,594.3Andersen BUS SHELTER 81040 88 2,166.7 24.6 1,109.2Andersen BUS SHELTER 81042 88 2,166.7 24.6 1,109.2Andersen PUBLIC TOILET 24003 104 2,100.0 20.2 850.3Andersen WORKING DOG KENNEL 2797 2,100 0.0 0.0Total 3,819,033.3 2,719,214.3Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-7

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.13 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Stand Alone Retail)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh) Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double Pane

Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingAndersen BASE EXCHANGE 24016 194,644 6,237,400.0 32.0 1,160,226.5 12 12 12 12, 13Naval Base NEX HOME & GARDEN CENTER 700 32,456 749,525.0 23.1 13 12 12 13Naval Base FURNITURE MART 256 43,923 694,700.0 15.8 12 12 12 12 13Andersen AAFES GAS STATION 26101 23,360 578,166.7 24.8Andersen OLD BASE EXCHANGE 22026 44,062 440,366.7 10.0 12 12 12Naval Base LAUNDROMAT 1988 4,500 398,925.0 88.7 281,545.2Barrigada AFGC CLUB HOUSE 91 10,937 372,650.0 34.1 87,364.8 13 12 12 12Andersen OLD CLOTHING SALES STORE 25001 12,443 349,866.7 28.1 25,298.4Naval Base CREDIT UNION 1657C 7,137 223,825.0 31.4 37,660.6 12 12 12 13Naval Base AUTOPORT GAS STA / MINI-MART 7012 5,050 222,800.0 44.1 91,073.7 12 12 12 12NCTS GAS STA / AUTO PARTS STORE 303 1,070 88,875.0 83.1 60,964.7 13Naval Base EXCH SVC & AUTO REPAIR STA 257 35,919 46,866.7 1.3 12 12 12Andersen CAR SALES BLDG 25040 480 34,833.3 72.6 22,312.8Naval Base NEW CAR SALES 260 420 20,225.0 48.2 9,269.5Andersen AIRMENS ATTIC 22005 2,080 13,733.3 6.6Andersen BANK OF GUAM ATM 22030 336 12,300.0 36.6 3,535.6Naval Base ATM BUILDING 1661 170 8,025.0 47.2 3,590.7Total 10,493,083.3 1,782,842.5Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.14 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Supermarket Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingNaval Base COMMISSARY STORE 275 58,663 3,163,600.0 53.9 86,027.6 12Andersen COMMISSARY 22021 122,100 2,854,733.3 23.4Apra Heights APRA HTS MINI-MART 4176AH 11,443 277,350.0 24.2Andersen MINI-MARKET 26104 7,025 87,733.3 12.5Total 6,383,416.7 86,027.6Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.15 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Training Facilities)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingAndersen 254 RED HORSE HEADQUARTERS 21018 10,567 509,933.3 48.3 382,955.9 12Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21012 22,772 344,100.0 15.1 70,462.3 12Naval Base CSS-15 TRAINING BLDG 3115 4,400 315,425.0 71.7 262,552.8 14Naval Base ADMIN/EDUC SERV BLDG 1 12,863 220,000.0 17.1 65,432.9 9 9 13Andersen AIRMEN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 21006 7,273 179,400.0 24.7 92,004.6Andersen TRAINING BUILDING 21015 9,444 138,666.7 14.7 25,183.7Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 21016 4,992 123,766.7 24.8 63,780.7 12Apra Heights NBG SAFETY TRAINING BLDG 4178AH 9,089 120,800.0 13.3 11,582.8Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON SERVICE BLDG 526 8,747 86,950.0 9.9 12 12Andersen 44 AERIAL PORT SQUADRON HQ 17005 11,431 61,000.0 5.3Naval Base ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BLDG 6012 1,920 55,625.0 29.0 32,553.5Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21013 2,684 26,000.0 9.7Andersen FLIGHT SIMULATOR CLASSROOM 18014 298 5,633.3 18.9 2,052.4Total 2,187,300.0 1,008,561.6Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-8

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings TablesTable E.16 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Unaccompanied Personnel Housing)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh) Replace Water HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ning

Retro-commissi

oningAndersen TINIAN HALL 25011 47,989 943,033.3 19.7 253,859.5 Housing and Community 12Naval Base BACHELOR ENLISTED QTR 24 99,400 858,050.0 8.6 Housing and CommunityAndersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27003 25,920 857,966.7 33.1 485,727.5 Housing and Community 12 12 12Naval Base BACHELOR ENLISTED QTR 23 25,390 637,550.0 25.1 272,922.2 Housing and Community 9 9 13Andersen PALAU HALL 25016 47,989 569,900.0 11.9 Housing and Community 12 12Andersen 254 RED HORSE HEADQUARTERS 21018 10,567 509,933.3 48.3 382,955.9 Operational and Training 12Naval Base BEQ-TRANS E1/E4 579 28,215 471,750.0 16.7 66,552.2 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13Naval Base NAVY GATEWAY INN & SUITES 2000 29,145 470,825.0 16.2 52,271.4 Housing and Community 9 12Naval Base BEQ 22 29,125 425,025.0 14.6 6,758.6 Housing and Community 9 9 13Naval Base BEQ TRANSIENT, E1/E4 20 12,768 422,675.0 33.1 239,312.7 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base BEQ-TRASNS E5/E6 580 22,971 384,200.0 16.7 54,311.7 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13Andersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27005 25,920 381,700.0 14.7 9,460.8 Housing and Community 12 12 12Andersen TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY 1656 12,663 345,033.3 27.2 163,179.0 Housing and CommunityAndersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21012 22,772 344,100.0 15.1 70,462.3 Operational and Training 12Naval Base BEQ "C" 581 20,320 339,800.0 16.7 47,982.9 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13Naval Base BEQ 582 20,320 339,800.0 16.7 47,982.9 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13Naval Base CSS-15 TRAINING BLDG 3115 4,400 315,425.0 71.7 262,552.8 Operational and Training 14Nimitz Hill BOQ/MESS/NIMITZ HILL 179NZ 12,824 297,125.0 23.2 112,958.5 Housing and CommunityNaval Base BUILDING E 583 23,521 274,900.0 11.7 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12Andersen KOSRAE HALL 25009 47,989 271,900.0 5.7 Housing and Community 12 12Naval Hospital BEQ E1/E4 12 23,361 254,000.0 10.9 Housing and Community 12 12Andersen DORMITORY 25003 60,188 236,333.3 3.9 Housing and Community 12 12Naval Base ADMIN/EDUC SERV BLDG 1 12,863 220,000.0 17.1 65,432.9 Operational and Training 9 9 13Naval Base E M BARRACKS 13 12,943 216,850.0 16.8 30,974.6 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base BUILDING F 584 28,111 211,000.0 7.5 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12Naval Base BEQ E1/E4 15A 12,863 200,000.0 15.5 15,273.4 Housing and Community 9Andersen BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS 27001 24,321 192,066.7 7.9 Housing and Community 12 12 12Naval Base BOQ 585 12,759 179,500.0 14.1 Housing and Community 12 9 12 12 12 13Andersen AIRMEN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 21006 7,273 179,400.0 24.7 92,004.6 Operational and TrainingAndersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27000 23,214 161,933.3 7.0 Housing and Community 12 12 12Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 14 13,280 146,050.0 11.0 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 15 12,943 143,225.0 11.1 Housing and Community 9 9Andersen TRAINING BUILDING 21015 9,444 138,666.7 14.7 25,183.7 Operational and TrainingNaval Base ENLISTED BARRACKS 8 13,013 133,950.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base BEQ - PERMANENT E1 - E4 3 12,943 133,200.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 13Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 16 12,943 133,200.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 9 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base E.M. BARRACKS E1-E6 11 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 12 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E4 7 12,823 131,950.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 10 12,768 131,450.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 21016 4,992 123,766.7 24.8 63,780.7 Operational and Training 12Apra Heights NBG SAFETY TRAINING BLDG 4178AH 9,089 120,800.0 13.3 11,582.8 Operational and TrainingNaval Base CAMP COVINGTON SERVICE BLDG 526 8,747 86,950.0 9.9 Operational and Training 12 12Andersen 44 AERIAL PORT SQUADRON HQ 17005 11,431 61,000.0 5.3 Operational and TrainingNaval Base ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BLDG 6012 1,920 55,625.0 29.0 32,553.5 Operational and TrainingAndersen SAIPAN HALL 25007 47,989 43,000.0 0.9 Housing and Community 12Naval Base BEQ E1/E4 PERMANENT PARTY 19 12,753 42,150.0 3.3 Housing and Community 9 9Andersen TRANSIENT QTRS 28097 1,869 36,733.3 19.7 9,892.5 Housing and Community 12Nimitz Hill BOQ/NIMITZ HILL 1000NZ 999 29,100.0 29.1 14,753.3 Housing and CommunityAndersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21013 2,684 26,000.0 9.7 Operational and TrainingAndersen HAFA ADAI HOUSE 1051 2,279 25,066.7 11.0 Housing and CommunityAndersen SANTA ROSA HOUSE 1053 2,279 25,066.7 11.0 Housing and CommunityAndersen FLIGHT SIMULATOR CLASSROOM 18014 298 5,633.3 18.9 2,052.4 Operational and TrainingAndersen ROTA HALL 25017 47,989 2,200.0 0.0 Housing and Community 12 12NCTS BACHELOR OFF QTRS W/O MESS 230 11,280 0.0 0.0 Housing and Community 12 12Total 13,683,758.3 2,892,735.3Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

Table E.17 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Utility Infrastructure)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningNaval Base POWER DISPATCHER BLDG 4918 10,684 614,300.0 57.5 63,191.0 12Sasa Valley ELEC DIST BLDG-UPPER SASA 1714SV 209 340,125.0 1,627.4 329,344.2Andersen ELECTRIC VAULT 18010 3,894 337,466.7 86.7 136,603.8Naval Base SWITCHING / SUBSTA BLDG 6013 880 79,800.0 90.7 34,407.3Andersen ANDERSEN SWGR/SUBSTA SHLTR 6008 861 58,900.0 68.4 14,487.3Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51154 1,000 45,766.7 45.8Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 2619 720 33,033.3 45.9Andersen ANDERSEN SWGR/SUBSTA SHLTR 6009 588 26,900.0 45.7Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 18016 550 25,133.3 45.7Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51107 180 8,200.0 45.6Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 17995 140 6,366.7 45.5Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51242 96 4,433.3 46.2Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51244 96 4,433.3 46.2Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51248 96 4,433.3 46.2Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 18012 98 4,433.3 45.2Total 1,593,725.0 578,033.6Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-9

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.18 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Warehouses)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh) Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commissio

ningNaval Base COLD STORAGE BUILDING 780XR 114,490 8,005,675.0 69.9 7,535,903.6 9 9 12 12Naval Base NEX MAIN STORE/NEX WHSE 258 246,776 4,217,900.0 17.1 3,205,337.3 12 12 12 13Barrigada GOLF STARTER BUILDING 93 500 1,414,800.0 2,829.6 1,412,748.4 14Naval Hospital MEDICAL STORAGE/NEX 6 15,879 959,750.0 60.4 894,595.8Naval Base WAREHOUSE #9 - DDGM 2118 121,604 829,675.0 6.8 330,713.7 9Naval Base GEN WHSE 5 3201XR 112,530 778,450.0 6.9 316,720.8 9Andersen BASE SUPPLY BUILDING 18002 151,327 751,733.3 5.0 130,813.6 12 12 12 14Andersen WRM STORAGE 910 53,790 672,600.0 12.5 451,890.7Naval Base WAREHOUSE #8 - DDGM 2117 40,542 406,625.0 10.0 240,274.5 9Naval Base WAREHOUSE #2 - DDGM/SERVMART 2116 107,028 366,550.0 3.4 9Andersen WRM STORAGE BLDG 18046 113,325 337,766.7 3.0Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE-BULK 6 3202XR 86,760 337,025.0 3.9 9 9 12Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 9034 5,155 314,266.7 61.0 293,114.8Naval Base OPERATIONAL STRG/WHSE (APRA) 642 75,200 291,225.0 3.9 14Andersen ARMAMENT SHOP - WRM STORAGE 51104 40,848 250,766.7 6.1 83,160.6Andersen INERT STORAGE 9040 9,436 228,200.0 24.2 189,482.5Naval Base WAREHOUSE 558 55,690 210,650.0 3.8 12Andersen INERT STORAGE 9041 8,206 198,433.3 24.2 164,762.8Naval Base DISPOSAL WHSE 631 24,960 194,200.0 7.8 91,785.0 12 12 12Naval Base WAREHOUSE / STORAGE 4921 22,275 190,300.0 8.5 98,902.0Andersen MEDICAL STORAGE FACILITY 26001 13,383 186,933.3 14.0 132,020.7Andersen SELF HELP STORE 22007 17,434 183,033.3 10.5 111,498.7Andersen EXCHANGE WAREHOUSE 22002 31,449 181,933.3 5.8 52,892.9Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE 365 60,170 167,325.0 2.8 9Naval Base WAREHOUSE/OPS STRGE 3179 97,200 148,775.0 1.5 9Barrigada OPER STRG/ WHSE (BARRIGADA) 100 66,288 143,225.0 2.2 12 13Andersen FORWARD STAGING BLDG 19020 6,960 122,800.0 17.6 94,242.0 12Naval Base DEHUMIDIFIED WAREHOUSE 4436PP 10,258 120,075.0 11.7 77,984.7NCTS STORAGE BLDG 212 4,040 99,750.0 24.7 83,173.2 9 13Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE #4 3180 97,200 96,875.0 1.0 9Naval Base CONFORMING STORAGE FACILITY 1790 30,774 87,650.0 2.8 12 12 12Andersen WRM STORAGE BLDG 18030 2,583 64,333.3 24.9 53,734.9 12Naval Base BQ STORAGE 72 16,281 54,425.0 3.3 12Andersen OPERATIONAL STORAGE 18019 4,264 49,633.3 11.6 32,137.4Naval Base MWR STORAGE FACILITY SP1 3,240 49,400.0 15.2 36,105.7Andersen INERT STORAGE 51110 4,080 49,000.0 12.0 32,259.1Andersen GOLF COURSE STORAGE BLDG 1097 5,267 47,766.7 9.1 26,155.3Andersen COMMUNICATIONS CENTER 18011 7,438 44,633.3 6.0 14,114.0 14Andersen CE GROUNDS STORAGE 20023 5,400 40,033.3 7.4 17,876.2Andersen INERT STORAGE 51112 3,320 39,966.7 12.0 26,344.2Andersen INERT STORAGE 51114 3,320 39,966.7 12.0 26,344.2Naval Base SELF-HELP / AFGE 542 4,054 37,225.0 9.2 20,590.8 14Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 20018 4,000 35,600.0 8.9 19,187.3Andersen CIVIL ENGINEER COVERED STOR 20014 4,284 35,333.3 8.2 17,755.4Andersen GOLF CART STORAGE BLDG 1088 3,627 32,833.3 9.1 17,951.2Naval Base MISC OPS STORAGE 3119 5,572 30,500.0 5.5 7,637.2Naval Base SELF-HELP STORAGE 548 3,000 27,950.0 9.3 15,640.5 14Naval Base LAUNDRY/OPERATION STRG 559 4,612 23,366.7 7.6 4,442.9 12 12Andersen TOOL ROOM 9104 378 23,100.0 61.1 21,549.0Andersen MWR STORAGE BLDG 14529 8,040 21,666.7 2.7Andersen WAREHOUSE 20012 2,400 21,633.3 9.0 11,785.7Naval Base STORAGE/SHOP 1657F 3,564 18,000.0 5.1 3,376.3Andersen HAZWASTE COLLECTION BLDG 19017 2,300 16,500.0 7.2 7,062.7Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 39 600 15,500.0 25.8 13,038.1Andersen HAZWASTE STORAGE 14527 972 15,233.3 15.7 11,245.1Andersen DISASTER PREP BLDG 14000 480 15,033.3 31.3 13,063.8Sasa Valley POL LAB/STRGE/WASH ROOM 1706SV 640 14,450.0 22.6 11,824.0Naval Base MSC STORAGE K27 3,360 14,075.0 4.2 288.4Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 18005 1,290 12,533.3 9.7 7,240.3

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

E-10

Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Naval Base LAUNDRY/STORAGE - SUMAY 5408 2,108 11,725.0 5.6 3,075.5Andersen LINEN EXCHANGE BLDG 21005 12,788 11,500.0 0.9Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1638 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1639 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1640 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1641 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 9103 800 9,900.0 12.4 6,617.5Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1637 200 9,466.7 47.3 8,646.0Naval Base OPS STORAGE 4423PP 4,000 9,300.0 2.3Andersen NAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE 2667 425 6,366.7 15.0 4,622.8Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE BLDG 51175 196 5,666.7 28.9 4,862.4Nimitz Hill READY STORE ISSUE/NIMITZ 296NZ 800 5,450.0 6.8 2,167.5Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 23016 342 5,166.7 15.1 3,763.4Naval Base CSF (CONTRACTOR SHED) 1790B 1,268 4,850.0 3.8Andersen FLAMMABLE STORAGE 2557 500 4,833.3 9.7 2,781.8Andersen COLD STORAGE BLDG 26015 704 4,700.0 6.7 1,811.4Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 9101 72 4,400.0 61.1 4,104.6Naval Base TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE / CNM K18 4,399 4,233.3 1.0Andersen FUELS STORAGE BLDG 26204 180 2,333.3 13.0 1,594.8Andersen FLAMMABLE STORAGE BLDG 15 154 1,733.3 11.3 1,101.4Andersen BASE OPS STORAGE BLDG 2506 88 1,133.3 12.9 772.3Naval Base NEX GENERAL STORAGE 255 2,400 1,075.0 0.4Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 10079 113 1,033.3 9.1 569.7Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25025 192 900.0 4.7 112.2Andersen BARRACKS STORAGE BLDG 25026 192 900.0 4.7 112.2Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27002 192 900.0 4.7 112.2Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27004 192 900.0 4.7 112.2Andersen BACHELOR HOUSING STORAGE 25012 1,024 833.3 0.8Naval Base MSFSC SSU LONG TERM STORAGE K19 4,399 525.0 0.1Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25019 400 200.0 0.5Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25029 360 100.0 0.1Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25027 192 0.0 0.0Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25028 120 0.0 0.0Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27013 192 0.0 0.0Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27014 192 0.0 0.0Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27016 192 0.0 0.0Naval Base 90-DAY HAZWASTE STORAGE 4424PP 4,380 0.0 0.0Total 23,540,383.3 16,549,368.6Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.19 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Water, Sewage, & Wast Facililties)

Location Facility NameFacility

No Area (sf)

Average Annual Energy

Consumption (KWh)

Average EUI

Potential Annual

Electricity Reduction

(KWh)

Replace Water

HeatersReplace Lighting

Install Energy

Management Control

System

Calibration &

Maintenance Checks

Repair/Upgrade HVAC

Install Solar Water

Heaters

Install Double

Pane Windows

Install Temperature Setbacks

Retro-commission

ingNaval Magazin FENA PUMP STA-14,400 KG 1282 2,940 3,419,550.0 1,163.1 3,382,498.4Naval Magazin FENA WTR TREATM PLT-11000 KG 580 12,398 1,682,025.0 135.7 1,525,778.2 13 12 12 13Naval Base BIOTOWER CONTROL BLDG 1806 2,122 636,500.0 300.0 609,757.3Andersen WATER SUPPLY BUILDING 1600 360 614,900.0 1,708.1 610,363.1Andersen SEWAGE PUMP HOUSE GENERATOR 2647 7,380 233,166.7 31.6 140,159.6Naval Magazin CHEMICAL LABORATORY BUILDING 585 5,625 214,800.0 38.2 143,910.5 12 12Naval Base CLARIFIER PUMP HOUSE 1795 1,302 115,300.0 88.6 98,891.4 12Naval Base SWGE PUMP STA NO. 16-800 GM 1722 220 25,700.0 116.8 22,927.4Barrigada WATER PUMP STA 170 GM 90 182 17,275.0 94.9 14,981.3Andersen WTR SUPPLY BLDG 685 700 14,133.3 20.2 5,311.5Andersen PUMPHOUSE BLDG 9060 3,554 11,133.3 3.1Nimitz Hill SWGE PUMPING STA NO. 4-800GM 1033 120 6,525.0 54.4 5,012.7Andersen WATER PUMP STATION BLDG 19009 925 4,800.0 5.2Naval Base SWGE PUMP STATION #10-800 GM 1055 120 3,900.0 32.5 2,387.7Naval Base PUMP HOUSE 2120 483 3,800.0 7.9Andersen SEWAGE LIFT STATION BLDG 18003 324 3,600.0 11.1Andersen TARAGUE WELL 4 PUMPHOUSE 9600 1,050 3,266.7 3.1NCTS WATER PUMPING STA POT 200 GM 143 240 1,975.0 8.2Andersen WATER PUMP STATION BLDG 1655 800 1,400.0 1.8Andersen WATER PUMPHOUSE 1499 270 1,200.0 4.4Andersen WATER PUMPHOUSE 8153 240 600.0 2.5Andersen PUMPHOUSE BLDG 10078 300 450.0 1.5Andersen PUMPHOUSE 9039 170 400.0 1.6Andersen PUMPHOUSE BUILDING 21004 176 100.0 0.6Total 7,016,500.0 6,561,979.3Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY09 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project

F-1

Appendix F Solar Array Siting

Solar PV Buildings and Sites

Building Number/LocationArray Capacity (KW) Building Number/Location

Array Capacity (KW) Building Number/Location

Array Capacity (KW)

1A 54 111 48 27002 373 54 122 36 27004 374 54 131 54 25019 995 54 132 54 25010 176 54 133 54 25011 377 54 134 54 25017 378 54 East of Building 492 256 25018 179 54 South of Empty Housing 1,230 21000 3710 54 24016 62211 54 22021 11712 54 18006 6513 54 18004 12914 54 18002 45415 54 18001 37815A 54 18046 40316 54 18044 9817 54 East of Base Exchange 1,37918 54 East of Building 25005 32219 54 Arc Light Blvd. 1,90020 54 Open Field By Terminal 92222 13 Southeast of Base Exchange 83023 1724 3175 1041983B 181983C 111983D 291983E 191983F 112000 2713169 4702116 3712118 4433190 1402117 1833191 523179 3473180 347365 174372 189700 119275 194258 676257 110256 125579 41580 40581 38582 38583 40584 47557A 87557B 49557C 363201XR 3764175AH b1 404175AH b2 794175AH b3 404175AH b4 374177AH 65Directly South of Gym 458Empty Parcel Near Marine Drive 1,663South of Navy Exchange 1,037North of Navy Exchange 219North of Commissary 341

Naval Base Guam NCTS Andersen Air Force Base

F-2

Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NBGBu

ildin

g/Lo

catio

nTy

pe

Arra

y Az

imut

hAr

ea (s

m)

Area

(sf)

Leng

th (m

)Le

ngth

(ft)

Wid

th (f

t)An

gle

Hypo

tenu

seAd

jace

ntOp

posit

eW

idth

# pa

nels

Tota

l len

gth

sGa

p#

Row

sTo

tal w

idth

s

Tota

l PV

Arra

y Ar

ea

(sf)

AC E

nerg

yDC

Rat

ing

(4Kw

=xs

f)To

tal A

nnua

l Ou

tput

(KW

h)1A

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

73

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

74

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

75

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

76

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

77

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

78

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

79

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

710

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

711

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

712

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

713

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

714

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

715

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

909

9,78

4.4

7123

2.9

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6922

4.25

33

37.5

7,26

5.7

5,21

9.0

377

100,

582.

715

ASt

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

16St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

17St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

18St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

19St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

20St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s90

99,

784.

471

232.

942

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2569

224.

253

337

.57,

265.

75,

219.

037

710

0,58

2.7

22St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s52

.82

173.

310

.83.

2550

162.

51,

755.

05,

219.

037

724

,295

.323

Stan

dard

PV

201

degr

ees

64.9

212.

910

.83.

2563

204.

752,

211.

35,

219.

037

730

,612

.124

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

120

393.

710

.83.

2511

938

6.75

4,17

6.9

5,24

5.0

377

58,1

11.0

75St

anda

rd P

V20

1 de

gree

s18

5319

,945

.580

.75

264.

975

.313

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2579

256.

753

564

.513

,864

.55,

219.

037

719

1,93

3.2

1983

BSt

anda

rd P

V18

0 de

gree

s30

83,

315.

337

121.

427

.313

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2535

113.

753

224

2,45

7.0

5,24

5.0

377

34,1

82.9

1983

CSt

anda

rd P

V18

0 de

gree

s23

42,

518.

89

29.5

85.3

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

722

.75

36

781,

474.

25,

245.

037

720

,509

.819

83D

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

456

4,90

8.3

5718

7.0

26.2

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

5517

8.75

32

243,

861.

05,

245.

037

753

,716

.019

83E

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

383

4,12

2.6

3912

8.0

32.2

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3712

0.25

32

242,

597.

45,

245.

037

736

,136

.219

83F

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

219

2,35

7.3

2272

.232

.713

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2520

653

224

1,40

4.0

5,24

5.0

377

19,5

33.1

2000

BIPV

thin

film

7199

77,4

89.3

115

377.

320

5.4

501,

733.

031

69BI

PV th

in fi

lm12

500

134,

548.

826

887

9.3

153.

087

1,18

5.2

2116

BIPV

thin

film

9882

106,

368.

916

754

7.9

194.

168

8,72

4.2

2118

BIPV

thin

film

1177

412

6,73

4.2

185

607.

020

8.8

820,

586.

731

90St

anda

rd P

V18

3 de

gree

s34

5737

,210

.855

180.

420

6.2

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

5317

2.25

310

132

18,6

03.0

5243

377

258,

714.

921

17St

anda

rd P

V20

6 de

gree

s39

2342

,226

.872

236.

217

8.8

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

7022

7.5

310

132

24,5

70.0

5208

377

339,

417.

931

91St

anda

rd P

V18

3 de

gree

s87

49,

407.

635

114.

881

.913

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2533

107.

253

678

6,94

9.8

5243

377

96,6

52.0

3179

BIPV

thin

film

9227

99,3

18.5

165

541.

318

3.5

643,

074.

131

80BI

PV th

in fi

lm92

2799

,318

.516

554

1.3

183.

564

3,07

4.1

365

BIPV

thin

film

4624

49,7

72.3

322,

268.

837

2BI

PV th

in fi

lm50

3054

,142

.435

0,56

4.9

700

BIPV

thin

film

3176

34,1

86.1

221,

350.

727

5BI

PV th

in fi

lm51

6455

,584

.835

9,90

4.0

258

BIPV

thin

film

1799

319

3,67

4.9

1,25

4,01

8.8

257

BIPV

thin

film

2925

31,4

84.4

203,

857.

325

6BI

PV th

in fi

lm33

3735

,919

.123

2,57

1.6

579

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

702

7,55

6.3

4113

4.5

56.2

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3912

6.75

34

515,

475.

65,

245.

037

776

,179

.158

0St

anda

rd P

V18

0 de

gree

s76

58,

234.

440

131.

262

.713

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2538

123.

53

451

5,33

5.2

5,24

5.0

377

74,2

25.8

581

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

720

7,75

0.0

3812

4.7

62.2

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3611

73

451

5,05

4.4

5,24

5.0

377

70,3

19.2

582

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

727

7,82

5.4

3812

4.7

62.8

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3611

73

451

5,05

4.4

5,24

5.0

377

70,3

19.2

583

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

765

8,23

4.4

4013

1.2

62.7

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3812

3.5

34

515,

335.

25,

245.

037

774

,225

.858

4St

anda

rd P

V18

0 de

gree

s98

410

,591

.753

173.

960

.913

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2545

146.

253

451

6,31

8.0

5,24

5.0

377

87,8

99.0

557A

Stan

dard

PV

217

degr

ees

1552

16,7

05.6

1859

.128

2.9

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

1652

321

280.

511

,793

.65,

180.

037

716

2,04

4.7

557B

Stan

dard

PV

217

degr

ees

892

9,60

1.4

4916

0.8

59.7

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

4715

2.75

34

516,

598.

85,

180.

037

790

,667

.955

7CSt

anda

rd P

V21

7 de

gree

s66

57,

158.

037

121.

459

.013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2535

113.

753

451

4,91

4.0

5,18

0.0

377

67,5

18.6

3201

XRBI

PV th

in fi

lm10

000

107,

639.

069

6,94

8.1

4175

AH b

1St

anda

rd P

V20

6 de

gree

s76

98,

277.

413

42.7

194.

113

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2511

35.7

53

1418

65,

405.

452

0837

774

,671

.941

75AH

b2

Stan

dard

PV

206

degr

ees

1025

11,0

33.0

7825

5.9

43.1

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

7624

73

451

10,6

70.4

5208

377

147,

404.

441

75AH

b3

Stan

dard

PV

206

degr

ees

769

8,27

7.4

1342

.719

4.1

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

1135

.75

314

186

5,40

5.4

5208

377

74,6

71.9

4175

AH b

4BI

PV th

in fi

lm99

510

,710

.169

,346

.341

77AH

BIPV

thin

film

1718

18,4

92.4

119,

735.

7S

of G

ym

Stan

dard

PV

180

degr

ees

7160

77,0

69.5

5819

0.3

405.

013

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2558

188.

53

3040

261

,074

.05,

245.

037

784

9,69

0.0

Fore

st S

of p

ort o

psSt

anda

rd P

V18

0 de

gree

s26

209

282,

111.

115

450

5.24

934

558.

3600

613

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2515

450

0.5

341

550.

522

1,62

1.4

5,24

5.0

377

3,08

3,30

0.4

Sout

h of

NEX

Stan

dard

PV

202

degr

ees

1623

217

4,71

9.6

110

360.

8923

948

4.13

2213

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2511

035

7.5

336

483

138,

996.

052

1737

71,

923,

453.

9No

rth

of N

EXSt

anda

rd P

V20

2 de

gree

s34

8437

,501

.476

249.

3438

315

0.40

046

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

7624

73

1114

5.5

29,3

43.6

5217

377

406,

062.

5No

rth

of C

omm

issar

ySt

anda

rd P

V20

2 de

gree

s54

8759

,061

.510

032

8.08

399

180.

0195

113

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2510

032

53

1317

2.5

45,6

30.0

5217

377

631,

436.

92,

298,

792.

3To

tal

19,1

38,5

03.8

1,06

3,40

8.7

803,

263.

50.

7553

6665

F-3

Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NBGB

uild

ing/Lo

catio

nT

ota

l P

ow

er

Arra

y C

ap

acity

(kW)

Arra

y Azm

uth

AC

En

ergy

To

tal A

nn

ua

l O

utp

ut

(KW

h)

AC

En

ergy

To

tal A

nn

ua

l O

utp

ut (K

Wh

)A

C E

ne

rgyT

ota

l An

nu

al

Ou

tpu

t (KW

h)

AC

En

ergy

To

tal A

nn

ua

l O

utp

ut (K

Wh

)A

C E

ne

rgyT

ota

l An

nu

al

Ou

tpu

t (KW

h)

AC

En

ergy

To

tal A

nn

ua

l O

utp

ut (K

Wh

)1

A1

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

31

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

41

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

51

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

61

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

71

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

81

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

91

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

10

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.51

11

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

12

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.51

31

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

14

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.51

51

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

15

A1

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

16

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.51

71

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

18

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.51

91

1.5

54

20

1 d

egre

es

60

12

11

5,8

65

.86

18

61

19

,21

9.2

37

25

71

,78

9.7

48

61

93

,68

3.2

50

50

97

,32

5.7

50

20

96

,74

7.5

20

11

.55

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

21

15

,86

5.8

61

86

11

9,2

19

.23

72

57

1,7

89

.74

86

19

3,6

83

.25

05

09

7,3

25

.75

02

09

6,7

47

.52

22

.81

32

01

de

gree

s6

01

22

7,9

86

.96

18

62

8,7

96

.93

72

51

7,3

40

.54

86

12

2,6

28

.85

05

02

3,5

08

.65

02

02

3,3

69

.02

33

.51

72

01

de

gree

s6

01

23

5,2

63

.56

18

63

6,2

84

.13

72

52

1,8

49

.14

86

12

8,5

12

.35

05

02

9,6

20

.95

02

02

9,4

44

.92

46

.63

11

80

de

gree

s5

99

46

6,4

09

.46

28

76

9,6

55

.63

74

14

1,4

47

.74

93

45

4,6

65

.35

14

25

6,9

69

.85

08

55

6,3

38

.37

52

1.9

10

42

01

de

gree

s6

01

22

21

,09

6.5

61

86

22

7,4

95

.53

72

51

36

,99

0.1

48

61

17

8,7

67

.55

05

01

85

,71

8.1

50

20

18

4,6

14

.81

98

3B

3.9

18

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

39

,06

4.3

62

87

40

,97

3.9

37

41

24

,38

1.0

49

34

32

,15

6.1

51

42

33

,51

1.7

50

85

33

,14

0.2

19

83

C2

.31

11

80

de

gree

s5

99

42

3,4

38

.66

28

72

4,5

84

.33

74

11

4,6

28

.64

93

41

9,2

93

.65

14

22

0,1

07

.05

08

51

9,8

84

.11

98

3D

6.1

29

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

61

,38

6.8

62

87

64

,38

7.6

37

41

38

,31

3.0

49

34

50

,53

1.0

51

42

52

,66

1.2

50

85

52

,07

7.4

19

83

E4

.11

91

80

de

gree

s5

99

44

1,2

96

.66

28

74

3,3

15

.33

74

12

5,7

74

.24

93

43

3,9

93

.65

14

23

5,4

26

.65

08

53

5,0

33

.91

98

3F

2.2

11

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

22

,32

2.5

62

87

23

,41

3.7

37

41

13

,93

2.0

49

34

18

,37

4.9

51

42

19

,14

9.5

50

85

18

,93

7.2

20

00

57

.32

71

49

4,3

00

.05

43

,52

0.3

32

8,8

41

.04

11

,56

0.3

46

1,8

59

.94

22

,94

3.9

31

69

99

.54

70

85

8,2

79

.09

43

,74

2.7

57

0,9

83

.87

14

,61

3.7

80

1,9

51

.57

34

,37

9.6

21

16

78

.63

71

67

8,5

21

.07

46

,08

5.2

45

1,3

96

.95

64

,94

5.0

63

3,9

90

.75

80

,57

1.2

21

18

93

.74

43

80

8,4

30

.28

88

,93

0.1

53

7,8

21

.06

73

,10

8.9

75

5,3

74

.16

91

,72

6.8

31

90

29

.51

40

18

3 d

egre

es

60

02

29

6,1

67

.76

26

93

09

,34

2.7

37

53

18

5,1

91

.14

93

22

43

,36

8.7

51

39

25

3,5

83

.15

08

82

51

,06

6.5

21

17

38

.71

83

20

6 d

egre

es

59

89

39

0,3

17

.66

13

94

00

,09

3.4

37

06

24

1,5

29

.04

80

83

13

,34

9.0

50

19

32

7,1

00

.34

97

23

24

,03

7.2

31

91

11

.05

21

83

de

gree

s6

00

21

10

,64

3.8

62

69

11

5,5

65

.83

75

36

9,1

84

.64

93

29

0,9

18

.95

13

99

4,7

34

.85

08

89

3,7

94

.63

17

97

3.4

34

76

33

,54

7.2

69

6,6

33

.14

21

,47

7.4

52

7,4

99

.35

91

,96

8.5

54

2,0

89

.73

18

07

3.4

34

76

33

,54

7.2

69

6,6

33

.14

21

,47

7.4

52

7,4

99

.35

91

,96

8.5

54

2,0

89

.73

65

36

.81

74

31

7,4

94

.63

49

,10

9.3

21

1,2

18

.32

64

,34

9.9

29

6,6

57

.92

71

,66

1.7

37

24

0.0

18

93

45

,37

1.5

37

9,7

62

.12

29

,76

3.9

28

7,5

60

.63

22

,70

5.3

29

5,5

14

.47

00

25

.31

19

21

8,0

71

.52

39

,78

6.1

14

5,0

75

.61

81

,56

9.1

20

3,7

59

.81

86

,59

1.2

27

54

1.1

19

43

54

,57

2.2

38

9,8

79

.02

35

,88

4.8

29

5,2

21

.23

31

,30

2.2

30

3,3

86

.92

58

14

3.2

67

61

,23

5,4

41

.11

,35

8,4

61

.08

21

,89

6.9

1,0

28

,64

3.6

1,1

54

,36

1.0

1,0

57

,09

5.4

25

72

3.3

11

02

00

,83

7.3

22

0,8

35

.81

33

,61

0.2

16

7,2

19

.61

87

,65

6.6

17

1,8

44

.82

56

26

.51

25

22

9,1

26

.22

51

,94

1.5

15

2,4

29

.81

90

,77

3.3

21

4,0

89

.01

96

,05

0.0

57

98

.74

11

80

de

gree

s5

99

48

7,0

57

.76

28

79

1,3

13

.33

74

15

4,3

34

.84

93

47

1,6

62

.15

14

27

4,6

83

.15

08

57

3,8

55

.25

80

8.5

40

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

84

,82

5.4

62

87

88

,97

1.9

37

41

52

,94

1.6

49

34

69

,82

4.6

51

42

72

,76

8.2

50

85

71

,96

1.5

58

18

.03

81

80

de

gree

s5

99

48

0,3

60

.96

28

78

4,2

89

.23

74

15

0,1

55

.24

93

46

6,1

49

.65

14

26

8,9

38

.35

08

56

8,1

74

.15

82

8.0

38

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

80

,36

0.9

62

87

84

,28

9.2

37

41

50

,15

5.2

49

34

66

,14

9.6

51

42

68

,93

8.3

50

85

68

,17

4.1

58

38

.54

01

80

de

gree

s5

99

48

4,8

25

.46

28

78

8,9

71

.93

74

15

2,9

41

.64

93

46

9,8

24

.65

14

27

2,7

68

.25

08

57

1,9

61

.55

84

10

.04

71

80

de

gree

s5

99

41

00

,45

1.2

62

87

10

5,3

61

.43

74

16

2,6

94

.04

93

48

2,6

87

.05

14

28

6,1

72

.85

08

58

5,2

17

.65

57

A1

8.5

87

21

7 d

egre

es

59

00

18

4,5

68

.35

99

21

87

,44

6.3

36

29

11

3,5

25

.14

68

01

46

,40

3.3

49

33

15

4,3

17

.84

85

31

51

,81

5.2

55

7B

10

.44

92

17

de

gree

s5

90

01

03

,27

0.3

59

92

10

4,8

80

.73

62

96

3,5

20

.04

68

08

1,9

16

.14

93

38

6,3

44

.54

85

38

4,9

44

.25

57

C7

.73

62

17

de

gree

s5

90

07

6,9

03

.45

99

27

8,1

02

.63

62

94

7,3

02

.14

68

06

1,0

01

.44

93

36

4,2

99

.14

85

36

3,2

56

.33

20

1X

R7

9.6

37

66

86

,62

3.2

75

4,9

94

.24

56

,78

7.0

57

1,6

91

.06

41

,56

1.2

58

7,5

03

.74

17

5A

H b

18

.54

02

06

de

gree

s5

98

98

5,8

69

.96

13

98

8,0

20

.63

70

65

3,1

36

.44

80

86

8,9

36

.85

01

97

1,9

62

.14

97

27

1,2

88

.24

17

5A

H b

21

6.8

79

20

6 d

egre

es

59

89

16

9,5

09

.46

13

91

73

,75

4.9

37

06

10

4,8

92

.64

80

81

36

,08

3.0

50

19

14

2,0

55

.04

97

21

40

,72

4.7

41

75

AH

b3

8.5

40

20

6 d

egre

es

59

89

85

,86

9.9

61

39

88

,02

0.6

37

06

53

,13

6.4

48

08

68

,93

6.8

50

19

71

,96

2.1

49

72

71

,28

8.2

41

75

AH

b4

7.9

37

68

,31

9.0

75

,12

1.9

45

,45

0.3

56

,88

3.3

63

,83

5.3

58

,45

6.6

41

77

AH

13

.76

51

17

,96

1.9

12

9,7

08

.07

8,4

76

.09

8,2

16

.51

10

,22

0.2

10

0,9

33

.1S o

f Gym

9

7.0

45

81

80

de

gree

s5

99

49

71

,02

8.0

62

87

1,0

18

,49

4.0

37

41

60

6,0

42

.04

93

47

99

,30

8.0

51

42

83

3,0

04

.05

08

58

23

,77

0.0

Fore

st S of p

ort o

ps

35

2.0

1,6

63

18

0 d

egre

es

59

94

3,5

23

,60

3.9

62

87

3,6

95

,84

5.5

37

41

2,1

99

,16

6.2

49

34

2,9

00

,47

7.4

51

42

3,0

22

,75

1.3

50

85

2,9

89

,24

3.6

Sou

th o

f NE

X2

19

.61

,03

72

02

de

gree

s6

00

82

,21

5,0

87

.46

17

72

,27

7,3

96

.03

72

21

,37

2,2

62

.94

85

21

,78

8,8

82

.24

85

21

,78

8,8

82

.25

01

11

,84

7,5

03

.9N

orth

of N

EX

46

.42

19

20

2 d

egre

es

60

08

46

7,6

29

.66

17

74

80

,78

3.6

37

22

28

9,6

99

.94

85

23

77

,65

2.9

48

52

37

7,6

52

.95

01

13

90

,02

8.6

No

rth o

f Co

mm

issary

72

.13

41

20

2 d

egre

es

60

08

72

7,1

75

.26

17

77

47

,63

0.0

37

22

45

0,4

90

.34

85

25

87

,25

9.3

48

52

58

7,2

59

.35

01

16

06

,50

3.8

2,1

84

.81

0,2

67

.5T

ota

l2

0,6

61

,54

9.1

21

,91

7,0

06

.61

3,1

85

,34

2.4

16

,96

4,7

32

.81

8,0

86

,62

6.1

17

,47

9,2

37

.9

No

rfolk

San

Die

go2

9 P

alm

sB

rem

erto

nN

orth

Ch

icago

Jackso

nville

F-4

Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NCTSBu

ildin

g/Lo

catio

nTy

pe

Arra

y Azim

uth

Area

(sm

)Ar

ea (s

f)Le

ngth

(m)

Leng

th (f

t)W

idth

(ft)

Angl

eHy

pote

nuse

Adja

cent

Oppo

site

Wid

th#

pane

lsTo

tal le

ngth

sGa

p#

Row

sTo

tal w

idth

s

Tota

l PV

Arra

y Ar

ea (s

f)AC

Ene

rgy

111

pt 1

Stan

dard

PV

180d

egre

es60

06,

458.

360

196.

932

.813

.510

.810

.52.

523.

2558

188.

53

224

4,07

1.6

5,24

5.0

111

pt 2

Stan

dard

PV

180d

egre

es34

73,

735.

19.

531

.211

9.8

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

722

.75

39

118.

52,

211.

35,

245.

012

2St

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

587

6,31

8.4

3611

8.1

53.5

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

3411

0.5

34

514,

773.

65,

245.

013

1St

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

896

9,64

4.5

7022

9.7

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6822

13

337

.57,

160.

45,

245.

013

2St

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

896

9,64

4.5

7022

9.7

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6822

13

337

.57,

160.

45,

245.

013

3St

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

896

9,64

4.5

7022

9.7

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6822

13

337

.57,

160.

45,

245.

013

4St

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

896

9,64

4.5

7022

9.7

42.0

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

6822

13

337

.57,

160.

45,

245.

0Ea

st o

f 492

Stan

dard

PV

180d

egre

es40

2243

,292

.481

265.

716

2.9

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

8126

3.25

312

159

34,1

17.2

5,24

5.0

Sout

h of

Em

pty H

ousin

gSt

anda

rd P

V18

0deg

rees

1947

920

9,67

0.0

172

564.

337

1.6

13.5

10.8

10.5

2.52

3.25

173

562.

253

2736

1.5

163,

952.

15,

245.

030

8,05

2.1

DC R

atin

g (4

Kw =

xsf)

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut (K

Wh)

Build

ing/

Loca

tion

Tota

l Po

wer

Arra

y Ca

pacit

y (k

W)

Arra

y Azm

uth

AC E

nerg

y

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)AC

Ene

rgy

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)AC

Ene

rgy

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)AC

Ene

rgy

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)AC

Ene

rgy

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)AC

Ene

rgy

Tota

l Ann

ual

Outp

ut

(KW

h)37

756

,646

.011

1 pt

16.

531

180d

egre

es59

9464

,735

.262

8767

,899

.637

4140

,402

.849

3453

,287

.251

4255

,533

.650

8554

,918

.037

730

,764

.611

1 pt

23.

517

180d

egre

es59

9435

,157

.962

8736

,876

.537

4121

,942

.949

3428

,940

.551

4230

,160

.550

8529

,826

.237

766

,412

.612

27.

636

180d

egre

es59

9475

,896

.462

8779

,606

.437

4147

,368

.849

3462

,474

.651

4265

,108

.450

8564

,386

.637

799

,618

.813

111

.454

180d

egre

es59

9411

3,84

4.7

6287

119,

409.

637

4171

,053

.249

3493

,712

.051

4297

,662

.550

8596

,579

.937

799

,618

.813

211

.454

180d

egre

es59

9411

3,84

4.7

6287

119,

409.

637

4171

,053

.249

3493

,712

.051

4297

,662

.550

8596

,579

.937

799

,618

.813

311

.454

180d

egre

es59

9411

3,84

4.7

6287

119,

409.

637

4171

,053

.249

3493

,712

.051

4297

,662

.550

8596

,579

.937

799

,618

.813

411

.454

180d

egre

es59

9411

3,84

4.7

6287

119,

409.

637

4171

,053

.249

3493

,712

.051

4297

,662

.550

8596

,579

.937

747

4,65

4.4

East

of 4

9254

.225

618

0deg

rees

5994

542,

436.

362

8756

8,95

1.8

3741

338,

547.

649

3444

6,51

0.0

5142

465,

333.

350

8546

0,17

5.0

377

2,28

0,97

8.2

Sout

h of

Em

pty H

ousin

g26

0.4

1,23

018

0deg

rees

5994

2,60

6,70

7.9

6287

2,73

4,12

9.6

3741

1,62

6,90

9.3

4934

2,14

5,72

8.5

5142

2,23

6,18

4.9

5085

2,21

1,39

6.4

Tota

l3,

307,

931.

137

7.6

1,78

4.0

3,78

0,31

2.5

3,96

5,10

2.5

2,35

9,38

4.2

3,11

1,78

8.7

3,24

2,97

0.7

3,20

7,02

1.8

Norfo

lkSa

n Di

ego

29 P

alm

sBr

emer

ton

North

Chi

cago

Jack

sonv

ille

F-5

Appendix F. Solar Calculations - AAFBBuilding/Location

Type Array Azim

uthArea (sm

)Area (sf)

Length (m)

Length (ft)W

idth (ft)Angle

Hypotenuse

AdjacentO

ppositeW

idth# panels

Total length sGap

# Rows

Total width s

Total PV Array Area (sf)

AC Energy27002

Standard PV205 degrees

7067,599.3

1239.4

193.013.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

1032.5

314

1864,914.0

5,210.027004

Standard PV205 degrees

7067,599.3

60196.9

38.613.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

1032.5

314

1864,914.0

5,210.025019

Standard PV220 degrees

194020,882.0

192629.9

33.213.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

191620.75

32

2413,408.2

5,172.025010

BIPV thin film458

4,929.925011

Standard PV211 degrees

7067,599.3

1239.4

193.013.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

1032.5

314

1864,914.0

5,196.025017

Standard PV205 degrees

7067,599.3

1239.4

193.013.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

1032.5

314

1864,914.0

5,210.025018

BIPV thin film458

4,929.921000

Standard PV196 degrees

663571,418.5

4921,614.2

44.213.5

10.810.5

2.523.25

1032.5

314

1864,914.0

5,228.024016

BIPV thin film16539

178,024.122021

310733,443.4

180061742

18,750.718004

344237,049.3

1800212073

129,952.618001

10044108,112.6

1804610723

115,421.318044

260828,072.3

East of BXStandard PV

180 degrees23692

255,018.3193

633.2402.7

13.510.8

10.52.52

3.25194

630.53

30402

204,282.05,245.0

East of 25005Standard PV

180 degrees5547

59,707.468

223.1267.6

13.510.8

10.52.52

3.2568

2213

20267

47,736.05,245.0

North of TanksStandard PV

180 degrees32805

353,109.7227

744.8474.1

13.510.8

10.52.52

3.25229

744.253

35469.5

281,326.55,245.0

Open Field By term

inalStandard PV

180 degrees15891

171,049.1107

351.0487.3

13.510.8

10.52.52

3.25108

3513

36483

136,468.85,245.0

South of Large FieldStandard PV

181 degrees14380

154,784.970

229.7674.0

13.510.8

10.52.52

3.2570

227.53

50672

122,850.05,245.0

1,775,053.2

DC Rating (4Kw

=xsf)Total Annual Output (KW

h)Building/Location

Total Pow

er

Array Capacity (kW

)Array Azm

uthAC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)AC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)AC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)AC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)AC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)AC Energy

Total Annual Output (KW

h)377

67,909.727002

7.837

205 degrees5994

78,128.76149

80,149.03711

48,371.04819

62,813.25025

65,498.34982

64,937.8377

67,909.727004

7.837

205 degrees5994

78,128.76149

80,149.03711

48,371.04819

62,813.25025

65,498.34982

64,937.8377

183,944.925019

21.099

220 degrees5969

212,290.65945

211,437.03599

128,000.34614

164,099.34906

174,484.44816

171,283.531,920.2

250103.6

1731,447.3

34,578.720,920.8

26,183.429,383.5

26,907.7377

67,727.225011

7.737

211 degrees5954

77,607.36081

79,262.73677

47,927.84751

61,926.84983

64,950.84921

64,142.7377

67,909.725017

7.837

205 degrees5994

78,128.76149

80,149.03711

48,371.04819

62,813.25025

65,498.34982

64,937.831,920.2

250183.6

1731,447.3

34,578.720,920.8

26,183.429,383.5

26,907.7377

68,144.321000

7.837

196 degrees6024

78,519.76221

81,087.53744

48,801.14897

63,829.95082

66,241.25055

65,889.31,152,682.5

24016131.6

6221,135,606.1

1,248,684.8755,480.1

945,519.71,061,078.0

971,672.4216,541.8

2202124.7

117213,333.8

234,576.7141,923.7

177,624.4199,333.1

182,537.4121,408.4

1800613.9

65119,609.8

131,520.079,572.3

99,588.6111,760.0

102,343.1239,889.6

1800427.4

129236,335.7

259,869.0157,226.1

196,776.0220,825.4

202,218.8841,425.5

1800296.1

454828,960.2

911,504.4551,479.0

690,202.5774,556.8

709,293.2700,014.7

1800179.9

378689,644.3

758,316.1458,796.9

574,206.4644,384.0

590,088.7747,337.5

1804685.3

403736,266.1

809,580.2489,812.7

613,024.2687,946.0

629,980.2181,764.1

1804420.7

98179,071.3

196,902.5119,130.1

149,097.0167,319.2

153,221.0377

2,557,859.9East of BX

292.01,379

180 degrees5994

3,247,921.26287

3,406,686.83741

2,027,106.04934

2,673,547.45142

2,786,254.85085

2,755,368.6377

597,713.0East of 25005

68.2322

180 degrees5994

758,964.46287

796,064.33741

473,688.04934

624,746.55142

651,083.65085

643,866.2377

3,522,551.0North of Tanks

402.11,900

180 degrees5994

4,472,867.56287

4,691,511.23741

2,791,624.54934

3,681,869.95142

3,837,084.55085

3,794,549.7377

1,708,755.9Open Field By term

inal195.1

922180 degrees

59942,169,745.3

62872,275,807.3

37411,354,190.4

49341,786,039.9

51421,861,333.1

50851,840,699.9

3771,538,231.9

South of Large Field175.6

830181 degrees

59941,953,217.2

62872,048,694.8

37411,219,050.0

49341,607,803.4

51421,675,582.8

50851,657,008.6

Total14,713,561.4

1,679.67,105.7

15,454,024.116,402,415.1

9,811,713.512,742,905.0

13,563,896.613,125,783.4

Total29,359,213.2

3,351.5

NorfolkSan Diego

29 Palms

Bremerton

North ChicagoJacksonville

Present Value Cost Savings for Solar Panels

YearFuture Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

Future Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

Future Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

1 $5,167,396 $5,016,889 $893,141 $867,128 $3,972,662 $3,856,9532 $5,322,418 $5,016,889 $919,936 $867,128 $4,091,841 $3,856,9533 $5,482,090 $5,016,889 $947,534 $867,128 $4,214,597 $3,856,9534 $5,646,553 $5,016,889 $975,960 $867,128 $4,341,035 $3,856,9535 $5,815,950 $5,016,889 $1,005,239 $867,128 $4,471,266 $3,856,9536 $5,990,428 $5,016,889 $1,035,396 $867,128 $4,605,404 $3,856,9537 $6,170,141 $5,016,889 $1,066,458 $867,128 $4,743,566 $3,856,9538 $6,355,245 $5,016,889 $1,098,451 $867,128 $4,885,873 $3,856,9539 $6,545,903 $5,016,889 $1,131,405 $867,128 $5,032,449 $3,856,953

10 $6,742,280 $5,016,889 $1,165,347 $867,128 $5,183,422 $3,856,95311 $6,944,548 $5,016,889 $1,200,307 $867,128 $5,338,925 $3,856,95312 $7,152,885 $5,016,889 $1,236,317 $867,128 $5,499,093 $3,856,95313 $7,367,471 $5,016,889 $1,273,406 $867,128 $5,664,066 $3,856,95314 $7,588,495 $5,016,889 $1,311,608 $867,128 $5,833,987 $3,856,95315 $7,816,150 $5,016,889 $1,350,956 $867,128 $6,009,007 $3,856,95316 $8,050,635 $5,016,889 $1,391,485 $867,128 $6,189,277 $3,856,95317 $8,292,154 $5,016,889 $1,433,230 $867,128 $6,374,956 $3,856,95318 $8,540,918 $5,016,889 $1,476,227 $867,128 $6,566,204 $3,856,95319 $8,797,146 $5,016,889 $1,520,513 $867,128 $6,763,190 $3,856,95320 $9,061,060 $5,016,889 $1,566,129 $867,128 $6,966,086 $3,856,953 Grand Total

Total $100,337,787 $17,342,551 $77,139,060 $194,819,398

Price per KWh 0.27Discount Rate 0.03Average Increase per year 0.03

MB NCTS AAFB

F-6

Appendix F. Present Value Cost Calculations - Solar

Present Value Cost Savings for Solar Panels

YearFuture Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

Future Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

Future Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

1 $5,167,396 $5,016,889 $893,141 $867,128 $3,972,662 $3,856,9532 $5,322,418 $5,016,889 $919,936 $867,128 $4,091,841 $3,856,9533 $5,482,090 $5,016,889 $947,534 $867,128 $4,214,597 $3,856,9534 $5,646,553 $5,016,889 $975,960 $867,128 $4,341,035 $3,856,9535 $5,815,950 $5,016,889 $1,005,239 $867,128 $4,471,266 $3,856,9536 $5,990,428 $5,016,889 $1,035,396 $867,128 $4,605,404 $3,856,9537 $6,170,141 $5,016,889 $1,066,458 $867,128 $4,743,566 $3,856,9538 $6,355,245 $5,016,889 $1,098,451 $867,128 $4,885,873 $3,856,9539 $6,545,903 $5,016,889 $1,131,405 $867,128 $5,032,449 $3,856,953

10 $6,742,280 $5,016,889 $1,165,347 $867,128 $5,183,422 $3,856,95311 $6,944,548 $5,016,889 $1,200,307 $867,128 $5,338,925 $3,856,95312 $7,152,885 $5,016,889 $1,236,317 $867,128 $5,499,093 $3,856,95313 $7,367,471 $5,016,889 $1,273,406 $867,128 $5,664,066 $3,856,95314 $7,588,495 $5,016,889 $1,311,608 $867,128 $5,833,987 $3,856,95315 $7,816,150 $5,016,889 $1,350,956 $867,128 $6,009,007 $3,856,95316 $8,050,635 $5,016,889 $1,391,485 $867,128 $6,189,277 $3,856,95317 $8,292,154 $5,016,889 $1,433,230 $867,128 $6,374,956 $3,856,95318 $8,540,918 $5,016,889 $1,476,227 $867,128 $6,566,204 $3,856,95319 $8,797,146 $5,016,889 $1,520,513 $867,128 $6,763,190 $3,856,95320 $9,061,060 $5,016,889 $1,566,129 $867,128 $6,966,086 $3,856,953 Grand Total

Total $100,337,787 $17,342,551 $77,139,060 $194,819,398

Price per KWh 0.27Discount Rate 0.03Average Increase per year 0.03

MB NCTS AAFB

F-7

Appendix F. Turbine Calculations

Main Base Turbine Capacity (KW)Net Capacity Factor

Annual Energy Production (KWh)

Turbine 1 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 2 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 3 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 4 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Total 4,916,112

NAVMAG Turbine Capacity (KW)Net Capacity Factor

Annual Energy Production (KWh)

Turbine 5 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Total 1,229,028

AAFB Turbine Capacity (KW)Net Capacity Factor

Annual Energy Production (KWh)

Turbine 6 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 7 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 8 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 9 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 10 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 11 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 12 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136Turbine 13 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 14 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 15 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 16 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 17 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 18 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 19 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 20 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 21 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 22 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Turbine 23 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028Total 31,216,260

Grand Total 37,361,400

F-8

Appendix F. Present Value Cost Calculations - Turbines

Present Value Cost Savings for Wind Turbines

YearFuture Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost

SavingsFuture Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost

SavingsFuture Value Cost Savings

Present Value Cost Savings

1 $1,327,350 $1,288,690 $331,838 $322,172 $8,428,390 $8,182,9032 $1,367,171 $1,288,690 $341,793 $322,172 $8,681,242 $8,182,9033 $1,408,186 $1,288,690 $352,046 $322,172 $8,941,679 $8,182,9034 $1,450,431 $1,288,690 $362,608 $322,172 $9,209,930 $8,182,9035 $1,493,944 $1,288,690 $373,486 $322,172 $9,486,227 $8,182,9036 $1,538,763 $1,288,690 $384,691 $322,172 $9,770,814 $8,182,9037 $1,584,926 $1,288,690 $396,231 $322,172 $10,063,939 $8,182,9038 $1,632,473 $1,288,690 $408,118 $322,172 $10,365,857 $8,182,9039 $1,681,448 $1,288,690 $420,362 $322,172 $10,676,833 $8,182,903

10 $1,731,891 $1,288,690 $432,973 $322,172 $10,997,138 $8,182,90311 $1,783,848 $1,288,690 $445,962 $322,172 $11,327,052 $8,182,90312 $1,837,363 $1,288,690 $459,341 $322,172 $11,666,863 $8,182,90313 $1,892,484 $1,288,690 $473,121 $322,172 $12,016,869 $8,182,90314 $1,949,259 $1,288,690 $487,315 $322,172 $12,377,375 $8,182,90315 $2,007,736 $1,288,690 $501,934 $322,172 $12,748,696 $8,182,90316 $2,067,968 $1,288,690 $516,992 $322,172 $13,131,157 $8,182,90317 $2,130,007 $1,288,690 $532,502 $322,172 $13,525,092 $8,182,90318 $2,193,908 $1,288,690 $548,477 $322,172 $13,930,845 $8,182,90319 $2,259,725 $1,288,690 $564,931 $322,172 $14,348,770 $8,182,90320 $2,327,517 $1,288,690 $581,879 $322,172 $14,779,233 $8,182,903 Grand Total

Total $25,773,791 $6,443,448 $163,658,062 $195,875,301

Price per KWh 0.27Discount Rate 0.03Average Increase per year 0.03

MB NAVMAG AAFB

F-9

Appendix F. Turbine Shading Calculations

Jan AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

Shadow Distance (m)

0700 3.07 86.93 1.51717 114.47 331.5 6175.735 1882.3640800 16.13 73.87 1.289237 118.98 331.5 1146.092 349.3291000 39.66 50.34 0.878573 135.45 331.5 399.8403 121.87131200 53.52 36.48 0.636677 170.8 331.5 245.1084 74.709051400 46.96 43.04 0.751168 213.38 331.5 309.548 94.350221600 25.99 64.01 1.117152 236.02 331.5 679.92 207.23961800 0.27 89.73 1.566038 246.28 331.5 69663.16 21233.33

Apr AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

0700 9.58 80.42 1.403552 88.05 331.5 1963.62 598.51130800 24.19 65.81 1.148567 91.43 331.5 737.8985 224.91151000 53.25 36.75 0.64139 100.9 331.5 247.533 75.448071200 79.19 10.81 0.188665 145.67 331.5 63.29506 19.292331400 64.73 25.27 0.441032 251.3 331.5 156.4818 47.695641600 36.03 53.97 0.941926 265.47 331.5 455.742 138.91011800 6.82 83.18 1.451722 272.57 331.5 2770.807 844.5418

June AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

0700 14.5 75.5 1.317685 70.24 331.5 1281.61 390.63470800 28.33 61.67 1.076313 71.76 331.5 614.8441 187.40451000 56.05 33.95 0.592522 69.72 331.5 223.1705 68.022371200 80.03 9.97 0.174004 24.32 331.5 58.27169 17.761211400 64.03 25.97 0.453249 293.92 331.5 161.4631 49.213941600 35.5 54.5 0.951176 287.95 331.5 464.7183 141.64611800 8.85 81.15 1.416293 290.72 331.5 2128.484 648.7619

Aug AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

0700 11.9 78.1 1.363062 74.1 331.5 1572.767 479.37930800 26.03 63.97 1.116454 76.2 331.5 678.7168 206.87291000 54.53 35.47 0.61905 77.29 331.5 236.1857 71.989411200 82.04 7.96 0.138924 51.08 331.5 46.35192 14.128071400 66.85 23.15 0.404032 285.25 331.5 141.7341 43.200561600 38.37 51.63 0.901087 282.7 331.5 418.6762 127.61251800 10.03 79.97 1.395699 286.24 331.5 1873.841 571.1467

F-10

Appendix F. Turbine Shading Calculations

Oct AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

0700 11.46 78.54 1.370741 97.11 331.5 1634.878 498.31070800 25.88 64.12 1.119072 101.3 331.5 683.2468 208.25361000 53.67 36.33 0.634059 116.19 331.5 243.7687 74.300711200 72.65 17.35 0.302806 172.6 331.5 103.5649 31.566591400 57.47 32.53 0.567739 239.85 331.5 211.4251 64.442371600 30.09 59.91 1.045596 257.24 331.5 572.0569 174.3631800 1.2 88.8 1.549807 265.4 331.5 15791.17 4813.149

Dec AltitudeAngle of incline

Angle of Incline (rad) Azimuth

Max Turbine Height (ft)

Shadow Distance (ft)

0700 6.39 83.61 1.459227 114.49 331.5 2958.901 901.87320800 19.43 70.57 1.231643 119.41 331.5 939.6656 286.41011000 42.61 47.39 0.827087 137.49 331.5 360.3596 109.83761200 54.81 35.19 0.614163 176.03 331.5 233.7519 71.247581400 45.71 44.29 0.772984 217.83 331.5 323.3696 98.563061600 23.57 66.43 1.159388 238.52 331.5 759.7869 231.5831800 0 90 1.57075 247.91 331.5 7155686 2181053

F-11

Appendix F. Wind Power Calculations

Wind Power Calculations (MacKay, 263 – 265):

Kinetic Energy of Air: 𝐸𝐸 = 12𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣2 = 1

2𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣2 = 1

2𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣3

Power of Wind: 𝑃𝑃 = 12𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣2

𝑡𝑡= 1

2𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣3 = 1

2�1.14 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

𝑚𝑚3�𝜌𝜌 �7.23𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠�3

𝑃𝑃 = 215.4 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2 ∙ 𝜌𝜌

Power Produced by Turbine: 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 = .5 ∙ 12𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣3 ∙ 𝜋𝜋

4 𝑑𝑑2

= .5(215.4 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2)(𝜋𝜋

4∙ 61.9𝑚𝑚2)

= 324𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

Total Wind Power Capacity on Guam:

Power per Unit Land Area = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿 𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊

=12𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣

3∙𝜋𝜋8𝐿𝐿2

5𝐿𝐿2

= �𝜋𝜋2� �1

2� 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣3

= (𝜋𝜋2

)(215.4 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2 )

= 3.38 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2 = .31 𝐾𝐾/𝑓𝑓𝜌𝜌2

Total Land Area on Guam = 210 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 5,854,460,000𝑓𝑓𝜌𝜌2

Therefore: 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 = (5,854,460,000𝑓𝑓𝜌𝜌2) �31 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡2�

𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 = 1,814,882 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

Total Energy Per Year:

𝐸𝐸 = 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝑇𝑇(𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)

𝐸𝐸 = (1,814,882 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾)(8,760 ℎ𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑

)

𝐸𝐸 = 15,898,366,000 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ = 15,898,366 𝑀𝑀𝐾𝐾ℎ

F-12

Appendix F. Bio Fuel & Waste - Energy Calculations

Bio Mass Calculations (Wood Chips) (MacKay, 43 – 44):

Power Density of Land Producing Wood Chips = . 25 𝑊𝑊/𝑚𝑚2

Assumption: 5% of Island available for producing biomass = (543,897,900𝑚𝑚2)(. 05) = 27,194,895𝑚𝑚2

Capacity of Wood Chips = 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 = �. 25 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2� (27,194,895𝑚𝑚2) = 6,798 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊

Assumption: Total System Efficiency = 67%

Energy Produced per Year = 𝐸𝐸 = (6,798 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊) � 8,760 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟

� (. 67) = 39,898,821 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ

Bio Mass Calculations (Sugarcane) (MacKay, 43 – 44):

Power Density of Land Producing Sugarcane = 1.58 𝑊𝑊/𝑚𝑚2

Assumption: 5% of Island available for producing biomass = (543,897,900𝑚𝑚2)(. 05) = 27,194,895𝑚𝑚2

Capacity of Wood Chips = 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 = �1.58 𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚2� (27,194,895𝑚𝑚2) = 42,967 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊

Assumption: Total System Efficiency = 67%

Energy Produced per Year = 𝐸𝐸 = (42,967 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊) � 8,760 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟

� (. 67) = 252,187,398 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ

Waste-to-Energy Calculations (MacKay, 285):

Calorific Value of waste = 2.5 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ/𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Assumption: Trash per person per day = 1𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Assumption: Thermal Efficiency of Plant = 21%

Total Island-wide Annual Energy Production = E =

(159,914 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝)(1 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘(𝑝𝑝𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦)

�365 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟

� �2.5 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

� (. 21) = 30,643,520 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ

Total Capacity = 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 = 30,643,520𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊ℎ

8,760 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑟𝑟

= 3,398 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊