© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.1

A Mitigation Plan for GHG Emissionsat Army Installations

2010 NDIA E2S2 SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION - #9821

Aniket Sawant, PhD | O’Brien & Gere

June 17, 2010 | Denver, CO

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Background

Impacts of Climate Change per 2010 QDR

Operating environment, roles, and missions

› An “accelerant of instability or conflict”

Impact on facilities and military capabilities

› Over 30 installations at risk from rising sea levels – 2008 NIC report

Regulations applicable to DOD facilities

USEPA Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule

Executive Order 13514

› 34% reduction in non-combat GHG emissions against 2008 baseline

U.S. Army facilities account for 36% of total DOD facility energy

2

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. Army Base – Fort Eustis

Located in Newport News, VA

Principal Mission:

Train Army personnel in the maintenance and operation of land-based transportation equipment, ocean-going vessels, and helicopters

Transportation Focus:

7th Sustainment Brigade

8th Transportation Brigade

Army Aviation Logistics School

15,526 people; 8,248 acres; 824 buildings; 368 vehicles

3

Richmond66 mi

Wash. DC170 mi

Raleigh226 mi

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – WRI Protocol

Covers the Kyoto Protocol gases from direct & indirect sources

Emissions divided into categories called “scopes:

Scope 1 – direct emissions

Scope 2 – indirect emissions

Scope 3 – other indirect emissions

4

Mobile and Stationary Emissions (MTCO2E)

Fuel Usage: Gallons

(liquid fuels), CF (NG)

Emission Factors:

WRI10,11

Purchased Electricity Emissions (MTCO2E)

Usage: kWh

Emission Factors: EPA eGRID, Subregion-specific12

Solid Waste

Emissions (MTCO2E)

Tonnage: Landfill & WTE

Emission Factors:

EPA Landfill & WTE13

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Fort Eustis GHG Inventory – WRI Protocol

5

Stationary Sources

39%

Mobile Sources6.1%

Fugitive Sources0%*

Purchased Electricity

53%

Solid Waste1.7%

FY2008Total = 118,640 MTCO2E

*Comprised of HCFC-22; HCFCs are outside the scope of reporting of the WRI GHG Protocol

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Existing Mitigation Initiatives

Recycling – 9,920 MTCO2E avoided

Waste-to-Energy (WTE)

~50% of non-recycled waste sent to WTE plant instead of landfill; 2,229 MTCO2E avoided

Electricity Usage

Introduction of “Peak Energy Days Mass Notification” Program

› Post-wide emails of higher-cost energy days and conservation tips; 12% reduction in peak kWh consumption for Aug 2009 vs. Aug 2008

Renewable Fuel Capabilities

Eventual replacement of vehicle fleet with flex-fuel capable models; use of biofuels in generators

6

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Mitigation Strategies

Benefits of a mitigation strategy:

Comprehensive, measurable, tangible reductions

Aid in implementation – which sectors to target

Identification of areas of improvement

Questions

WHAT to mitigate?

HOW to implement?

7

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

WHAT to mitigate – Stabilization Wedges

8

Overall quantitative strategy

1. Business-as-usual forecast

2. Desired trajectory forecast

3. Subdividing the difference

Use of measures called “wedges”

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(M

TC

O2

E)

2010Year

2020

Category Example

Demand-side Conservation

Supply-side Renewables

Offsets/RECs Carbon credits

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

HOW to implement – Energy Pyramid

Qualitative representation of strategies for energy conservation and efficiency

Maximum impact is achieved when strategies are implemented from bottom to top of the pyramid

9

Prof. Dennis Buffington, Penn State Univ. (2010)

Idea

l ord

er o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

Strategy Key Factor

1 Conservation Behavior

2 Efficiency Equipment

3 Demand Load Shifting

4 Renewables Technology

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Behavior Change

Survey Development & Distribution

Evaluate stakeholder response to general behavior change methods (beyond Fort Eustis)

Request suggestions for additional measures specific to Fort Eustis

10

Survey Response Analysis

Aggregation of survey responses

Analysis of trends

Respondent comments to be integrated with best practices from other facilities

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Behavior Change

11

Question / Behavior Change

Fraction

Already

Implemented

Willingness

to Implement

Remaining

Fraction

Avoidance - Units Annual Estimate Annual MTCO2e Avoided

Q1. Accept a broader range of indoor temperatures (68-74 ºF,

instead of 70-72 ºF) 80% 71.9% HVAC/Fuel - MMBTU 8,000 422

Q4. Power down computers during periods of non-use, or set them

to ''sleep'' mode instead of using screen-savers 40% 86.1% Electricity - kWh 8,344,250 4,781

Electricity - kWh 3,900,000 2,235

HVAC/Fuel - MMBTU 12,000 634

NA 59.4%Q10. Participate in an energy-saving competition for a reward

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(M

TC

O2

E)

2010Year

2020

Behavior

Behavior

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Plug Loads and Information Technology (IT)

Plug Load / IT Evaluation

Plug load: counts and power draws

IT: counts of physical servers, desktops, laptops, networking, peripherals

Energy Use Evaluation & Analysis

Plug load: Energy reduction, cost, incentives

IT: hours of operation, power management, substitutions e.g., virtualization

12

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Lighting Assessment

Lighting Inventory Development

Sampling of lighting fixtures by type

Development of run-time profiles

Energy Use Evaluation & Analysis

Power reduction analysis – higher efficiency fixtures; lighting controls

Consideration of available finance and tax incentives

13

Existing

Annual Energy

Usage (kWh)

Retrofit

Annual

Energy Usage

(kWh)

Savings

Annual

Energy

(kWh)

Existing

Annual

Energy Cost

($)

Retrofit

Annual

Energy Cost

($)

Savings Annual

Energy (Cost $)

1,082,688 724,362 358,326 $ 101,772.67 $ 68,090.03 $ 33,682.64

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Boiler & Chiller Assessment

Boiler & Chiller Inventory Development

Capacity, function, and energy consumption of each individual plant

› Functions – e.g., heating, cooling, chilled water, power generation

Qualitative listing of energy conservation measures

› Already implemented

› Potential to implement

Energy Use Evaluation & Analysis

Usage

Costs

Emissions

14

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Boiler & Chiller Assessment – Opportunity Matrix

Opportunity matrix provides a visual representation of existing and potential energy conservation measures

15

Potential Energy

Conservation

Measures C

on

den

ser

Wat

er R

eset

Ch

illed

Wat

er R

eset

Pro

per

Pu

mp

Siz

ing

Wat

er-s

ide

Eco

no

miz

er

Ch

iller

Rep

lace

men

t

Var

iab

le S

pee

d C

oo

ling

Tow

er

Fan

s

Var

iab

le F

low

Pu

mp

ing

Building A Chilled Water Plant F F F F F A F

Building B Central Plant F F F F F F F

Building C Central Chilled Water

Plant F F F F F A F

Building D Chilled Water Plant F F F F F F F

Other Locations NA NA NA NA NA NA F

Cooling Plants

Potential Energy

Conservation

Measures

Bo

iler

Rep

lace

men

t

Bo

iler

Stac

k Ec

on

om

izer

s

Blo

w-d

ow

n H

eat

Rec

ove

ry

CH

P

Emer

gen

cy G

ener

atio

n a

nd

Pea

k

Shav

ing

Nat

ura

l Gas

Rat

e Sw

itch

Main Facility Central Steam Plant A F F F NA A

Building DCentral Plant F F F F F A

Secondary Facility Central Steam

Plant F F F F F A

Other Locations NA NA NA F F F

Central Heating Plants

Measures that have already been

adopted are indicated with an " A".

Measures that could be adopted in

the future are indicated with a " F".

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Progress towards Desired Trajectory

In addition to the above, additional efforts may be required to stay on desired emission reduction trajectory

Intensify current measures – more widespread implementation

Explore additional measures

16

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(M

TC

O2

E)

2010Year

2020

Behavior Change

Behavior

EquipmentEquipment

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Additional Measures

Measure PyramidCategory

Comments Relevance to Fort Eustis and other installations

PeakShaving

Energy Demand

•Utilities avoid peaking plants•Consumers avoid rate increases

•Potential to time-shift routine base operations to lower peak rates

Solar/ Wind Renewable Energy

•Better use of existing land/building resources•Falling costs and incentives have increased attractiveness

•Potential for use in vacant areas of base, on roofs, in parking lots, etc.

Biofuels Renewable Energy

•“Drop-in” replacement for existing fossil fuels•Less capital-intensive than solar/wind

•Lower change to existing extensive transportation infrastructure compared with e.g., electric powertrains

17

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

Summary & Conclusions

Mitigation planning for Army installations involves:

Forecasting business-as-usual emissions trajectory

Developing trajectory towards emission target

Using stabilization wedges to move from the business-as-usual trajectory to the target trajectory

Using the energy pyramid to identify the order of implementation of wedges

Relevant and immediate stabilization wedges include:

Conservation through behavior change

Efficiency through equipment upgrades

Additional measures will include:

Energy demand/load-shifting

Renewables – new and “drop-in” sources of energy

18

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.1919

Aniket Sawant, PhD

aniket.sawant@obg.com | (484) 804-7237