NAVFAC SOUTHEAST Navy Energy Program and Initiatives LCDR J. Doug Herrin, P.E., C.E.M. October 4,...

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST

Navy Energy Program and Initiatives

LCDR J. Doug Herrin, P.E., C.E.M.

October 4, 2012

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast

Fort Worth

Corpus Christi

Kingsville

Barksdale

Meridian

New Orleans

GulfportKeesler

Pensacola

Whiting Field

Panama City

Albany

Orlando

Key West

NAVFAC SE AOR

Shaw

Charleston

Beaufort

Kings Bay

Mayport

Jacksonville

Cape Canaveral

Guantanamo Bay

Haiti

Blount Island

2


NAVFAC SE Business VolumeWorkload - Operations FY12 FY13

Capital Improvements (projected)

• Work-In-Place (WIP) $ 783 M $ 819 M

• Design (DIP=$643M FY 12, DIP = $578M FY 13) $51.4 M $46.2 M

Contingency Engineering $ 6.00 M $10.0 M

Public Works

• Facilities-In-Place (FIP) $ 278.0 M $ 279.0 M

• Facilities Sustainment & FSC Support $ 47.3 M $ 53.0 M

• Utilities $ 273.7M $ 263.0 M

• BSVE $ 30.8 M $ 28.0 M

Environmental

• Environmental Services (In-House) $ 2.8 M $ 2.8 M

• Quality(excludes salary $’s) $ 12.0 M $ 10.0 M

• ERN $ 26.0 M $ 25.1 M

• BRAC $ 9.0 M $ 9.0 M

Asset Management – Planning/Real Estate-In-Place $ 77.3 M $ 68.5 M

TOTALS: $ 1.591 B $ 1.614 B

3


Navy Energy Priorities

Security• “Protection from vulnerabilities related to the commercial electric grid,

which is susceptible to physical and cyber attack, natural disaster, and malfunction” – Naval Energy: A Strategic Approach (2009)

• Navy increases shore energy security by decreasing energy consumption, increasing energy efficiency, increasing use of alternatives, and increasing the reliability of its energy supply to critical assets

Independence• “achieved when naval forces rely on energy resources that are not subject

to intentional or accidental supply disruptions” – Naval Energy: A Strategic Approach (2009)

• Fuel itself, transportation, and each terminus on its route should remain secure from genesis to use

• Provide secure, reliable, and affordable energy to our Navy and Marine Corps

• Mitigate dependence on, and vulnerability to the commercial grid and become more energy efficient in the process

4


Department of the Navy’s Energy Profile

• DOD is the single largest energy consumer in the nation

• DOD accounts for 80% of the Federal Government’s energy consumption

• Department of the Navy

• 102 installations worldwide

• 90, 045 buildings totaling more than 663M square feet

• Consumes 28% of DoD’s operational and shore energy

• FY11 installation energy

• Consumed 8,850 GWh of electrical power

• Produced or procured approximately 1,770 GWh of renewable energy on or near its installations – 20% of demand

5


Geothermal Energy

A 270-megawatt renewable energy geothermal power plant at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake provides on average 1.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity to the California power grid annually, enough power for 180,000 homes. The China Lake plant was built using a public-private venture business model.

http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/shore/renewable/geothermal/

6

http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/shore/renewable/geothermal/


Efficiency and Demand Reduction

• DON is a leader in Federal use of financed energy contracts

• Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)

• Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs)

• Since 2008, Navy has implemented 70 ESPCs and 275 UESCs

• DON has implemented $1.4B of life-cycle efficiency improvements

• Reduced energy intensity (power per square foot – MBtu/KSF) by -16.9% relative to 2003 Navy baseline toward goal of -18% at end of FY11

• Projects should match or beat life-cycle costs for brown power within the regional market

Strategy includes concentrating on reducing energy consumption through the award of energy efficiency projects while simultaneously pursuing financed renewable energy projects

7


Navy Shore Energy Strategy

Energy EfficiencyRenewable Energy

& Sustainability

ENERGY SECURITY &

COMPLIANCE

NavyEnergy Culture

Energy Efficiency First (OPNAV)

Transform Navy From Culture of Consumption to Culture of ConservationThrough Transparency and Accountability

The Right Technology at the Right Time - Watch - Partner - Lead

Energy Security: - Redundancy - Resiliency - Reliability

“Compliance” is unique to the Shore

8


Energy Pyramid

Pyramid

Penn State University

9


• Technologyo Controls

o Magnetically levitated centrifugal compressors

o LED lighting, induction lighting

o Insulation, solar hot water

o More efficient chillers, glazing, plumbing fixtures

o Metering and smart grid

• Cost/Benefito Building lifecycle > 67 years

o Maintenance cost on specialty items particularly important

o Limited ability to source select

o Economic difference within region: Key West, GTMO

Technology

10


Design Standards

• Primary Standards o Unified Facilities Criteria

o International Building Code 2009

o Anti –Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP), UFC 40010-01

o USGBC LEED Gold

o ASHRE 90.1-2010

o Whole Building Design Guide

• Individual base requirements: IAP, Force Protection,

Airfield criteria, etc

• Source selection for Design Build often evaluates

design approach for best value: TOC and mission viability

• Competing priorities – Energy, ATFP, Environmental, Cost require thoughtful design

11


SE Industry Energy Partnership

– Energy partnership forum is held to introduce new technology and solutions that we can integrate into facilities maintenance and construction projects

– By partnering with industry, we leverage their expertise to meet our energy reduction and security goals

– New technologies should be submitted to NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (805) 982-3764

12


CNRSE Installation Awards

SECNAV Annual Energy Awards

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Panama City No Award Gold Gold Gold Gold PLATINUMJacksonville No Award Blue Blue Gold Large Shore GOLDKings Bay Gold Gold Small Shore

WinnerPlatinum Platinum GOLD

Fort Worth Blue Blue No Award Blue Gold GOLDGulfport No Award No Award No Award Blue Gold GOLDGTMO No Award No Award No Award Blue Gold GOLDPensacola No Award Gold Gold Blue Gold GOLDKingsville No Award No Award Blue Gold Gold GOLDMayport No Award Blue Blue Blue Blue GOLDOrlando Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue GOLDCorpus Christi No Award No Award No Award Blue Gold BLUEKey West No Award Blue No Award Gold Gold BLUEMeridian No Award No Award No Award Gold Gold BLUENew Orleans No Award Blue No Award Blue Blue BLUEWhiting Field Gold Blue Blue Blue Blue BLUE

13


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201570

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

NRSE Energy Reduction Progress

Baseline

Goal

Intensity Progress

Inte

nsi

ty (

MB

tu/K

SF

)

Energy Reduction Progress

2003 Baseline

Where we need your help

Our challenge

14


Energy Funding

Average Base goes from

~$3M/ YR to

~$11M/ YR in

Direct Energy

Investment

Tota

l FY

Inve

stm

ent (

$M)

PB 12 FY 12Energy Program

~ $781M

FY12 FY110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

23 203235

35

6060

73

34

193

356

80

FY 11 and 12 Energy Funding

OMNeMILCON3rd Party FinancingLEED w/MILCONMMRP EffeMMRP ECIPGeothermal


~ $238M

15


PB13 FY13 – Total Energy Funding

OMN ~ $ 396M

3rd Party Financing ~ $120M

LEED w MILCON~ $60M

ECIP~ $23M

Geotherm. ~ $9M

eMMRP ~ $41M


~ $650M

Average Base = $9.3M/ YR in Direct Energy Investment 16


Energy Project Types and Funding(current and projected)

RMe – CNIC’s Energy Special Projects Program

FY12 $220M (26 projects @ $12M = 6%) FY13 $325M (56 projects @ $56M = 18%) FY14 $210M projected (51 projects @ $24M = 12%) FY15 $215M projected (Projects due to CNIC on 18 Nov 2012) FY16 $225M projected

ECIP – Energy Conservation Investment Program FY12 $23M ($15M) FY13 $43M ($2M) FY14 To be announced FY15 Projects submitted to CNIC on 15 Aug 2012

UESC/ESPC Annual financed payments of $11M from UT Budget Three projects in FY12 ($11M) Navy goal of $300M in FY12/13

eROI Tool

17


Energy Contracts FY12

Contract Type Scope Location of WorkContract Capacity/Duration

TypeProjected IFB/RFP

Projected Award Date

eSRM:Energy Conservation

Retro-Commissioning CBC Gulfport $0.5M

Small Bus.

FY12, Q1

FY12, Q2

Controls CBC GulfportNAS Pensacola NAVO StennisNS Mayport

$4.2M FY12, Q1

Lighting Upgrades NAS Corpus Christi NAS Pensacola

$2.1M FY12, Q1

HVAC Upgrades NAS Corpus ChristiNAS PensacolaNAS Key West NAS Kingsville NAS Whiting FieldNS MayportNAS Meridian

$3.8M FY12, Q1

Misc. Energy Conservation NS MayportNAS Corpus ChristiNAS KingsvilleNAS PensacolaNAS Meridian

$1.7M FY12, Q1

ECIP Solar LED Street Lights NS GTMO $1.8M MACC FY12, Q4

Building Energy Audits Various Locations $3.0M SCAN FY12, Q1

TOTAL $17.1M

18


Energy Contracts FY13 (projected)

Contract Type Scope Location of WorkContract Capacity/Duration

TypeProjected IFB/RFP

Projected Award Date

Energy Conservation (RMe, ECIP)

Retro-Commissioning NAS PensacolaNAS JacksonvilleNAS MeridianNAS Corpus ChristiNAS Kingsville NAVSTA GTMO NAS Key West NSA Panama City

$6.8M/ 1YR

Small Bus. (Does not

include GTMO

projects)

FY13, Q1

FY13, Q1/Q2

Controls (DDC) NAS MeridianNAS JacksonvilleNAS JRB New Orleans

$2.2M/1 YR

FY13, Q1

Lighting Upgrades (Building, Street, Airfield)

NAS PensacolaNAS Jacksonville NAVSTA GTMO NAS Key West

$25.1M/1 YR

FY13, Q1

HVAC Upgrades NAS JacksonvilleCBC GulfportNAS PensacolaNAS Key West NS MayportNAS Meridian NSA Panama CityNSA Orlando

$18.2M/1 YR

FY13, Q1

Solar Thermal NSA Panama CitySUBASE Kings Bay

$2.7M/1 YR

FY13, Q1

Misc. Energy Conservation (Bldg envelope, Water, Boiler)

NS MayportNAS Pensacola

$3.0M/1 YR

FY13, Q1

TOTAL $58M

19


eROI Tool Overview

What is eROI? eROI is ratio of PV of total benefits over PV of total cost. Provides a consistent,

quantifiable approach to prioritize energy projects that create value, using criteria that includes “hard” benefits, such as cost savings, as well as “soft” benefits, such as meeting stakeholder expectations.

eROI = (Present Value of Benefit) (Present Value of Cost)

Why is eROI useful?

Using a weighted criteria approach, eROI tool enables Navy to rank and compare hundreds of energy projects submitted by installations, then invest in projects that deliver best ROI. Navy-wide optimized portfolio of energy projects and investments, created by this tool, positions Navy to achieve its energy consumption goal with efficient use of resources.

20


1 Gigawatt Initiative

• State of the Union (24JAN12 ): Navy Will Purchase “Enough Capacity to Power a Quarter of a Million Homes a Year”

– 250K Homes = 1 GW of Power (~Honolulu, Orlando, Jackson, MS)

– Coso Geothermal Plant ~270MW capacity

• 180MW current output of Coso Geothermal Plant provides power for approximately 120K homes (average load of 1.5KW per home)

• Draft 1 GW Task Force Charter

– Assigns membership, roles/responsibilities to Secretariat, Navy & Marine Corps Echelon I & II commands

– Focus primarily on larger projects using third party financing

– Finalize the “Strategy” in 2012

21


• SECNAV Goal: 50% net-zero installations by FY20– SECNAV Instruction 4101.3 of 3 Feb 12 defines a Netzero Installation as:

“A DON Installation which, over the course of a fiscal year, matches or exceeds the electrical energy it consumes ashore with electrical energy generated from alternative or renewable energy sources. The alternative fuel generated electrical energy may be: 1) generated on the installation; or 2) generated off the installation but purchased for and consumed on the installation.”

• Determine which installations have the best opportunity to achieve net zero in the most cost effective way

• Determine what alternative energy projects to pursue at each installation based on NPV and ROI methodologies

Net Zero Installations

22


Net Zero Study

• Sites and Data provided by NAVFAC ESC

– NAF El Centro, CA

– NAS Fallon, NV

– NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

– NB Guam

– NAS Key West, FL

– NSB New London, CT

– JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI

– Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI

– NS Rota, Spain

– NB San Diego, CA

NREL providing primary support to NZEI planning and assessment.

Funding: DOE provided initial start up for NREL REO analysis for many

Navy and Marine Corps Installations. CNIC provided additional funds to complete the NREL REO

analysis for all installations as well as to conduct site visits to 35-40 installations to validate the REO data and other related work

USMC also using NREL to conduct site visits to validate the REO data and other related work

Objective: develop cost effective strategy to achieve SECNAV goal of 50% of installations to be NZEI by 2020

Approach High level pre-screen of all bases for renewable energy

opportunities Select most cost effective sites for more in depth analysis (site

visits) Outcome: develop budget estimates for implementation for next

POM cycle Current Status: Navy/Marines-NREL Interagency Agreement

approved in last month and now moving out23


• Evaluated for the following renewables:– Wind– Solar (PV (photovoltaic), thermal and hot water)– Biomass gasification boiler– Solar ventilation preheating– Day lighting

• Technologies not evaluated: – Waste-to–energy (to be added for future screenings)– Geothermal (to be added for installations that have potential)– Landfill gas (to be added to future screenings)

Technologies Evaluated

24


NREL’s REO Screening Tool

• NREL’s REO tool is an early planning tool used to evaluate renewable energy options, estimate costs, and recommend a mix of technologies that meets the site’s energy goals

• REO aggregates energy systems data such as electric and thermal energy use, utility rates, incentives, and RE resource data

• REO results allow agencies to quickly and efficiently prioritize RE opportunities

• Costs, incentives, and other assumptions can change quickly

• REO is often used as part of the iterative project development process

• REO helps to inform project development and prioritize resources, but the results do not represent the final exact answer

• More detailed analysis is required prior to making project investment decisions

25


Results are NOT Conclusive

• This is the beginning of a multi-phased planning and analytical process involving the following stages

1) Preliminary screening (resource identification)

2) Exploration (resource verification)

3) Viability analysis (technology readiness levels)

4) Feasibility analysis (economic conditions)

5) Suitability analysis (siting and permitting –

operational/environmental/land use compatibility)

• This REO analysis addresses portions of the first four phases above• Site visits and follow-on efforts required to complete the first four phases

• Suitability analysis (phase 5) will be completed for viable sites after phases 1-4

• Projects will be developed for viable sites after phase 5

Results for 1st 10 sites will change significantly during preliminary site

assessments

26


DoN Smart Power Partnership Initiative (SPPI)

• Group DoN installations into regional smart grids (at DoN FCAs)– Regional (DoN) real time visibility/monitoring of external supply, internal

generation, utility systems, energy use (bldgs/systems)– Aggregate load and generation; participate in/establish incentive programs (i.e.

Demand Response); move renewable power through the market (virtual wheeling) from point of generation to point of use

– Define essential smart/micro grid capabilities and develop an ROI plus energy security based methodology to prioritize investments

• “Power Partnerships” with internal and external stakeholders– Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Regional Transmission

Organizations (RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs), Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), Energy Service Providers (ESPs), Direct Access Cooperatives (Western, Southwestern, Southeastern, Bonneville Power), Local Utility, etc.

– Indentify and prioritize critical power requirements– Identify and prioritize deferrable/discretionary loads– Develop Pre-Planned Responses, Load Shedding Plans and Plans for Continuity

of Critical Power

27


Navy Smart Energy Background

There have been a number of innovations recently towards a concept known as “Navy Smart Energy.”

• Norfolk Naval Station UEM OT-IC Project Study• Smart Energy Project Development Studies (26 sites): SW, ML and MW• Smart Power Partnership Initiative (SPPI)

• Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) • NDW Energy Vision and Smart Energy CONOPS• NDW Smart Grid • NW Energy and Utility Operations Center and Integrated ICS• A number of centralized Industrial Control Systems (ICS)

SW Area Wide Energy Management System (central DDC and SCADA) Dahlgren and Little Creek central DDC Kings Bay SCADA

And a number of studies/proposals are underway that further the concept.

These innovations and continued progress on the concept have led to interest in the possible benefits of a corporate wide approach.

Operation Centers

28


Smart Energy Defined

The objectives are savings and energy reduction through specific actions.• Integrated System of Industrial Controls: DDC, SCADA, AMI• Active Facility Management (ICS:DDC)• ICS:SCADA (improved reliability, energy security)• Identification of Energy Efficiency Opportunities (analytics leading to project

development)• Actionable Stakeholder Metrics (tenant awareness)• Enhanced Demand Response (cost Reduction, grid support, SPPI)• Predictive Maintenance opportunities

Objective/Results

Actions

Analysis / Diagnosis

Data/Status

Results What overall objectives does Navy want to accomplish?

Actions What key actions will help accomplish this?

Analysis What key information does Navy need to support the actions?

Data What critical raw data is needed to develop the analysis?

Ap

pro

ach

The Smart Energy is a data-driven process targeted to specific objectives.

29


Energy: The Key Element

We can create a more sustainable, cleaner and safer world by making wiser energy choices. – Robert Alan

RenewableEnergy

Non-renewableEnergy

CommodityProduction &Distribution

Customers

Monitoring

Monitoring is the key to knowing where and how commodity usage may be reduced.

All commodity usage consumes energy.

EMS/DDC

SCADA

AMI

repo

rtin

g &

pol

icy

cont

rol &

sen

sing

behavior change

OperationsCenters

Corporate

30


Navy Smart Energy Integrating Across the Enterprise

via NMCI

Program Drivers • SECNAV Energy

Mandates• Legislative

Requirements• (e.g. EPACT 2005)• Budget Constraints• Executive Orders• Navy / USMC Mission

AMI

CIRCUITS

Defense Information

System Agency

Operation Centers

Data Consumer

Navy / USMC Facilities(HVAC & Lighting)

Control

Sensors Control

Sensors

Time of Use

PowerQuality

UtilityUsage

DDC & SCADA

Historical Data

Meta Data

Building Managers

Discovery

DoDD 8320.02 NetCentric

Data Strategy

Data Acquisition &Integration

Meter Data Management

(MDM)

viaPSNET

Navy / USMC InstallationEnergy Managers

DDCSCADA

Smart Power Partnership

PowerIndustry

(e.g. Utility Supplier & Regulators)

DoN Corporate

Navy / USMC Utilities(Microgrid)

Navy /USMCRegion

$$

DoNSmartPowerCluster

DoN Benefits• Energy Security• Behavior Change• Real-Time Energy

Management• Customer Visibility into Usage• Utility Cost Saving• Energy Awareness• Demand Response• Load Balancing• Improved Efficiency• Integration of Renewables• Accurate Billing• Loss Identification• Meets Regulatory

Requirements• Enterprise Benchmarking• Improved Customer

Satisfaction• Predictive Maintenance• Reduced Metering Overhead• Fault Prediction• Production & Distr. Control• Enhanced Safety

DoN Target Cluster Areas

Navy / USMC Installation

Authors: Chet Braun & Eric LynchLast Update: 10/19/201131


• DDC, SCADA and AMI devices treated equivalently

• Data point aggregation allows for reorganization

• Operator screens may display any information in any format, independent of vendor software

SCADA & DDC Control

Integrated System of Industrial Controls

Commodity Production, Distribution and Consumption

Collection of ICS DevicesAMIMeters

32


Questions?

33

NAVFAC SOUTHEAST Navy Energy Program and Initiatives LCDR J. Doug Herrin, P.E., C.E.M. October 4,...

Documents

Transcript of NAVFAC SOUTHEAST Navy Energy Program and Initiatives LCDR J. Doug Herrin, P.E., C.E.M. October 4,...