Joint Region Marianas Energy Analysis

Home , Joint Region Marianas, Ordnance Annex, Radio Barrigada

Joint Region Marianas Energy Analysis Military Consumption, Conservation & Renewable Energy on Guam Jason Christensen Master of Urban Planning Capstone Project University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign December 2012

Joint Region Marianas Energy Analysis Military Consumption, Conservation & Renewable Energy on Guam Prepared for Commander, Joint Region Marianas

Jason Christensen Master of Urban Planning Capstone Project University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign December 2012 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 1-2 1.2 Local Government & Utilities Provider 1-2 1.2.1 Government of Guam 1-2 1.2.2 Guam Power Authority 1-3 1.3 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 2-1 2.2 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 2-5 2.3 Joint Region Marianas Demolition Program 2-7 2.4 Commander, Navy Installations Command Baseline Reset 2-7 3 Facility Type Analysis 3-1 3.1 Detailed Facility Analysis 3-1 3.2 Contributions to Net Change in Energy Consumption 3-4 3.3 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 4-1 4.2 Potential Energy Savings 4-1 4.2.1 Variations from Benchmark 4-2 i. Table of Contents

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 5-1 5.2 Solar Energy Production 5-2 5.3 Wind Turbine Energy Production 5-3 5.4 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 5-6 5.5 Other Alternative Sources of Energy 5-6 5.6 Funding Vehicles 5-9 6 Conclusion 6-1 6.1 Summary 6-1 6.2 Recommendations 6-1 Works Cited 7-1

List of Tables

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

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

List of Figures

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

List of Appendices

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

Appendix A Figure A.5 AAFB Annual EUI A-2 Figure A.6 JRM (Naval Mission) Annual EUI A-2 Figure A.7 NBG Housing Annual EUI A-3

Figure A.8 NBG Housing Annual EUI A-3 Figure A.9 AAFB Normalized Energy Consumption A-4 Figure A.10 JRM (Naval Mission) Normalized Energy Consumption A-4 Figure A.11 NBG Housing Normalized Energy Consumption A-4 Figure A.12 NBG Normalized Energy Consumption A-5 Figure A.13 JRM (Naval Mission) EUI Normalized to Demo A-6 Figure A.14 NBG Housing EUI Normalized to Demo A-6 Figure A.15 NBG EUI Normalized to Demo A-6 Figure A.16 JRM (Naval Mision) Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset A-7 Figure A.17 NBG Housing Energy Use Intensity and Proposed Baseline Reset A-7 Figure 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-1 Appendix F Table F.1 Solar Array Sites F-1 Table F.2 Solar Array Calculations - NBG F-2 Table F.3 Solar Array Calculations - NCTS F-4 Table F.4 Solar Array Calculations - AAFB F-5 Table F.5 Present Value Savings Calculations - Solar F-6 Table F.6 Turbine Calculations F-7 Table F.7 Present Value Savings Calculations - Turbines F-8 Table F.8 Wind Turbine Shading Distance Calculations F-9 Table F.9 Wind Power Calculations F-11 Table F.10 Bio Fuel and Waste Calculations F-12

iv. Executive Summary The Department of the Navy (DON) ten year period, a detailed analysis of con- has taken great strides to decrease its facili- sumption trends by facility type, and identi- ties’ energy consumption in order to meet fies specific buildings that currently consume Federal and Department of Defense (DOD) excess energy; resulting in a potential energy energy conservation initiatives. In response savings to the region of approximately 85 to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the million KWh. Additionally, this report Energy Independence and Security Act of analyzes potential partnership opportunities 2007 the U.S. Navy has made it a priority to with Guam Power Authority (GPA) as well as decrease its consumption of oil and fossil-fuel other strategies to increase the generation of generated energy. Among other initiatives, renewables both on-base and off-base in or- the Navy is currently working towards a goal der to meet DON strategic energy reduction to reduce shore-based energy consumption goals. The analysis is broken down into four by 50 percent, to generate half of shore-based primary sections: current energy consumption energy requirements by alternative sources, patterns, detailed facility type analysis, energy and to achieve net zero status for half of all its conservation and savings potential, and installations by 2020.1 These strategic goals, renewable strategies. Key points from each ultimately, enable the Navy, Department of section are presented below: Defense, and the U.S. to move towards energy independence and to operate in a more JRM Energy Consumption sustainable manner. In an effort to meet DON Goals, Patterns the Joint Region Marianas (JRM) has imple- • In Fiscal Year 2011(FY11) JRM pur- mented an energy conservation program that chased 358 million KWh from GPA has included an energy awareness campaign, at an average total unit cost of $.20 per energy conservation retrofits on less efficient KWh2 (note that costs have increased facilities, and the introduction of minor in 2012 to $.25 per KWh and that amounts of renewable energy applications. NAVFAC often uses $.27 per KWh for Despite these efforts, however, the region has estimations) thus spending $72 million seen only modest improvements in energy on energy alone. Consumption figures for use intensity. Additionally, region-wide gross FY12 were very similar. floor area has increased by almost 15 percent from FY03 and the region-wide energy • Of 358 million KWh in FY11, approxi- consumption has increased by approximately mately 83 percent of this powers JRM eight percent within the same time period. shore-based operations (facilities), 8.6 This report provides a high-level percent is consumed by ships in port, analysis of JRM energy consumption over a and 7.8 percent is lost to resistance (line

1 U.S. Department of the Navy, “A Navy Energy Vision for the losses). 21st Century,” 6-10. 2 NAVFAC Marianas, Power Purchase Forecast FY11. v. • From FY03 to FY12 has had a net de- and communications facilities may have crease of only 6.84 percent in energy use contributed disproportionately to the intensity (EUI) as measured in MBTU/ increase in regional energy consumption KSF and a net increase in consumption over the last three years. In this analy- of almost eight percent. This can partially sis (representing over 70 percent of all be attributed to an increase in region- energy consumed by facilities) offices wide gross floor area (GFA) of almost increased energy consumption by 6.8 13 percent, however, energy consump- million KWh per year, power generation tion levels normalized to GFA show that facilities by 7.8 million KWh per year, energy consumption would be increasing unaccompanied personnel housing by 4.7 even if GFA remained constant. million KWh per year, and warehouses by 2.5 million KWh per year. Navy hous- • From the end of FY09 to the first quar- ing, has actually reduced its energy con- ter of FY11 the region’s EUI decreased sumption by 5.7 million KWh per year. by 15 percent. During this time many buildings were receiving energy conserva- • Facilities receiving ESPC retrofits were tion retrofits through an Energy Savings also analyzed separately. These facilities Performance Contract (ESPC); as part of (approximately half of all ESPC facilities) this contract the region also gained its first reduced annual energy consumption by 250 KW solar array. While it appears 1.58 million KWh; however within two that the region may have never seen the years energy consumption had begun to energy savings estimated up front from increase so that 50% of all energy con- the contract (See 3.3) there does ap- sumption reductions were lost. Growth pear to be a correlation between these in energy consumption among the same energy savings retrofits and a decrease buildings that had undergone energy in EUI. One possible explanation is that consumption retrofits suggests that either an increased energy awareness due to changes in technology (smart phone char- these retrofits as well as this solar array gers, MP3 players, increasing reliance on prompted short term behavioral changes computers, and larger server systems - all that resulted in a decrease in energy manifested in an increased plug load) consumption. or behavioral-based changes such as changing missions and increases in OP- • In FY11 Navy Base Guam housing, TEMPO may be responsible for these through the demolition of older housing increases in annual energy consumption. stock, decreased its total GFA by 663 thousand square feet (all mothballed Energy Conservation and homes with little energy consumption). During this same time its energy Savings Potential consumption decreased by almost 8.5 percent; however, its EUI increased by • Through a benchmark analysis con- almost 25 percent. This point highlights ducted at the facility level, a potential how a radical reduction in square footage energy savings of 84.6 million KWh (especially of under-utilized buildings) (representing an annual savings $22.9 can drastically change the EUI. In this million) was identified from 341 facilities case the demolition of this one neighbor- within the region. Over 71 percent of this hood increased the region-wide EUI by potential energy savings may be obtained four percent. through 36 facilities identified later in the report. A reduction of 84.6 million would Detailed Facility Type reduce the JRM EUI by 28 percent to 45 Analysis MBTU/KSF. • Specific facility types such as offices, • Currently many of JRM planned energy warehouses, power generation facili- conservation projects are for facilities ties, unaccompanied personnel housing, below benchmark consumption levels. vi. While it is very possible to reduce EUIs Larger-scale applications such as wind of these facilities, reductions in EUI will farms should be financed through power not have as large an impact on the region- purchase agreements between JRM wide EUI as will the facilities identified and independent contractors willing to above. finance these projects. Renewable Strategies • It is also recommended that JRM begin several long term partnerships with GPA • GPA recently signed a contract with to determine the feasibility of other alter- Guam Quantum Power, LLC (GQP) native energy generation methods such to purchase 36 thousand MW of solar as bio-fuel, waste to energy plants, ocean generated electricity per year at a rate thermal energy conversion (OTEC), or of $.196 per KWh (with annual cost even a small unit reactor (all of which increases) and is currently negotiating an GPA is already analyzing). While such agreement with Pacific Green Resource, initiatives will probably not bear fruit for LLC (PGR) for the purchase renewable five to ten years they provide a future energy from a 5.65 MW solar array and capacity for growth without a reliance on 9.6 MW wind farm. This starting rate for fossil fuels. the purchase of renewable power is less than for what JRM purchases fossil-fuel • Ultimately, this report demonstrates that derived power from GPA. through a combination of energy conservation methods and retrofits combined • While partnerships with GPA will be with an investment in renewable applica- beneficial towards meeting DON energy tions, the region could potentially reduce conservation goals JRM will not meet its purchase of fossil fuel-generated these goals solely through the purchase electricity by 60 percent. JRM, through of renewables from GPA. JRM must a combination of agreements with GPA embark upon a campaign to increase and energy contractors and on-base gen- renewable energy generation on its own eration, would also replace approximately installations as well. Within this report 106 million KWh of fossil- fuel generated it is recommended that smaller-scale ap- energy with renewables. Such actions not plications such as 50 KW roof-mounted only put the joint Navy-Air Force region PV arrays be financed bundled with well on its way to energy security but also other facility energy conservation retrofits have a large impact on the islands energy through ESPC and RMe special projects. security and that of the nation.

vii. Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Guam Overview 1.1.2 Climate With a mean annual temperature of 1.1.1 Location & Geography 82°F, Guam has a tropical climate.4 Humidity Guam is located at the convergence of the is relatively high for most of the year with the Pacific Ocean and the Philippine Sea and is exception of the months of November through the southernmost of the Marianas Islands. March. The island experiences very little Positioned with the coordinates of 13°N and change in temperature throughout the year; 144°E,1 the island is approximately 1,568 miles in fact, the monthly mean in January is 80°F south of Tokyo, Japan, 3,808 miles southwest and in June it is 82°F. Nighttime temperatures of Honolulu, Hawaii, 2,103 miles north of generally range in the mid 70’s.5 Overall, the is- Cairnes, Australia, and 1,594 miles east of land experiences two different seasons: the dry Manila, Philippines (See Figure 1.1 Guam and season (December to May) where the tempera- Surrounding Countries). tures and humidity levels are slightly lower, and At just over 30 miles long and 8 miles a rainy season (June to November where the at its widest point, Guam has a total land mass temperatures and humidity levels are higher. of 210 square miles and just under 78 miles of While the total amount of annual rainfall can coastline.2 The northern half of the island is a and often does vary drastically, the island usu- flat limestone plateau reaching elevations just ally receives over 80 inches of rain per year. under 600 feet high; whereas the southern half Trade winds (Easterlies) of approximately 10 of the island is composed of low mountains to 15 miles per hour are common any time of of volcanic origin. The highest of these moun- year and can offer welcome relief during the tains, is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of hot humid months of July through September. 1,332 feet.3 Guam is virtually surrounded by a Guam’s rainy season also corresponds system of coral reefs and shelves that, in many to typhoon season throughout the tropical locations, form drop-offs of considerable depth. western Pacific. While typhoon season is 1 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, 2-1. 2 “World Factbook.” 4 “Ecosystem Essays on Guam.” 3 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 1-1 Figure 1.1 Guam generally considered to be June through population was 159,914; 93 percent of that 10 and Surrounding November, typhoons may form during any population lived in urbanized areas. The Countries month of the year. In fact, chances are greater largest centers of population, Dededo, Yigo, Map created by Jason that a typhoon will hit Guam than any other and Tamuning, are all located in the northern Christensen U.S. state or territory and the island is prone half of the island. In 2000 approximately 37 December 1, 2012 to being hit with some of the largest and most percent of all inhabitants of Guam were con- Source: NAVFAC Marianas 6 JRM GIS Data deadly typhoons in the world. From 1992 sidered Chamorro, 26 percent were Filipino, to 2002 the eyes (the strongest winds are 11 percent were Pacific Islander, almost 7 generally located near the eye wall which sur- percent were Caucasian, and 16 percent were rounds the eye) of six typhoons have passed other or mixed.11 directly over the Island and numerous other typhoons have passed nearby.7 Due to the 1.2 Local Government & location of Guam in “Typhoon Alley” the Utilities Providers island is always within a condition of readiness (COR) Four; this means that “destruc- 1.2.1 Government of Guam tive winds” could hit the island within any 72 hour period.8 Typhoons such as Ponsgona Guam is a U.S. Territory and the have caused excessive damage to the island’s government of Guam (GOVGUAM) is infrastructure. structured after a state government; as such, it is broken down into an executive, legislative, 1.1.3 Population and judicial branch. As with a state government, the territorial governor, who is elected In 2000 the population of Guam to serve a four-year term, heads the executive was 154,8059 and in 2010 the estimated branch.12 The governor serves with a lieu-

6 “Typhoon Vulnerability Study for Guam.” mary File (P001).” 7 “Super Typhoon Pongsona – Service Assessment.” 10 “World Factbook.” 8 “Naval Base Guam Typhoon Preparedness.” 11 Ibid. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, “Total population, 2000 Guam Sum- 12 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, 1-2 Table 1.1 GPA Power Generation Resources Third Party Operating Service Unit Technology Agreements Fuel Capacity (MW) Date Cabras 1 Boiler & Steam Turbine RFO No. 6 66 1974 Cabras 2 Steam Turbine RFO No. 6 66 1975 Cabras 3 Slow Speed Reciprocating RFO No. 6 40 1996 Cabras 4 Slow Speed Reciprocating RFO No. 6 40 1996 Piti 7 Combustion Turbine TEMES Diesel No. 2 40 1997 Piti 8 Slow Speed Reciprocating MEC RFO No. 6 44 1999 Piti 9 Slow Speed Reciprocating MEC RFO No. 6 44 1999 Tanguisson 1 Boiler & Steam Turbine Pruvient RFO No. 6 26.5 1976 Tanguisson 2 Boiler & Steam Turbine Pruvient RFO No. 6 26.5 1976 Tenjo 1-6 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 4.4ea/26.4total 1994 Dededo 1 Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 23 1992 Dededo 2 Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 23 1994 Dededo 1-4 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 2.5ea/10 total 1972 Macheche Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 21 1993 Marbo Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 16 1993 Yigo Combustion Turbine Diesel No. 2 21 1993 Talofofo 1 & 2 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 5ea/10 total 1994 Pulantat 1 & 2 Medium Speed Reciprocating Diesel No. 2 4.4ea/8.8 total 1993 Table taken from LNG Study (Table 6-1 Summary of GPA Generation Resources) (conducted for Guam Power Authority), by R.W. Beck, Novemver 2012 tenant governor who is elected on the same 10 percent fast-track diesels,17 Table 1.1 ticket. The legislative branch consists of a shows a summary of GPA’s power generation fifteen member legislature, all of whom are resources. Since 2001 GPA has been gradu- elected to serve two-year terms.13 Each village ally changing its fuel usage from a combina- throughout the island also has an elected tion of 17 percent diesel #2 distillate and 83 mayor and council. While Guam does not percent residual fuel oil (RFO #6) to almost have any congressional representative it does complete RFO #6 consumption in 2010.18 have one congressional delegate who does While Guam’s electrical transmission lines serve on many congressional committees. were designed to handle a greater capacity than they currently handle19 tropical storms 1.2.2. Guam Power Authority and brown tree snakes have caused severe Guam Power Authority (GPA), transmission problems; additionally, a lack of Guam’s full service electricity provider, recapitalization has brought about brownouts provides power to approximately 46,000 and load shifting. customers, Joint Region Marianas (JRM), Within the last few years GPA has the joint Navy-Air Force region, being the developed several plans in order to modern- largest customer.14 Currently GPA operates ize, increase its power generation portfolio, 29 substations and over 663 115 kV, 34.8 kV and decrease prices. In 2009 GPA applied and 13.8 kV transmission and distribution for and received a $33.2 million American lines throughout Guam. The total genera- Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant to tion capacity of GPA is 552 MW (including implement a smart grid.20 Since this, GPA generation units that are down for repairs) has made continued progress towards the though 181 MW of electricity comes through implementation of an island-wide smart grid agreements between GPA and independent and has recently awarded a contract to pro- power producers. In 2009 GPA produced vide the support, software, and installation of a total of 1,854 GWh of electricity15 and 50,000 advanced metering infrastructure de- produces a daily average of approximately vices throughout the island.21 Additionally, in 5,000 MWh.16 GPA power plant mix is 33 June of 2012 GPA signed a power purchase percent steam turbine, 30 percent slow-speed agreement contract with Quantum Guam diesel, 26 percent combustion turbine, and 17 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess- 2-3. ment Report,” 7. 13 Ibid. 18 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, 14 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess- 7-8. ment Report,” 7. 19 Ibid, 2-6. 15 Ibid. 20 Joaquin Flores, “Smart Grid Petition.” 16 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, 21 “Guam Power Authority selects Apex CoVantage for instal- 2-8. lation of smart grid metering system.” 1-3 Power, LLC to construct a 25MW solar array one expeditionary helicopter squadron, an in southern Guam. GPA estimates that it will explosive ordinance unit, a military sealift be able to purchase approximately 40 million command, a maritime expeditionary security KWh annually.22 GPA continues to negoti- squadron, naval hospital and a communica- ate with another contractor, PGR, for the tions station. Approximately 13,200 service development of a 10 MW wind farm. Finally, members and their families live and work on in order to cut costs and reduce reliance on NBG.26 oil, GPA is conducting an in-depth analysis of the requirements and costs in order to 1.3.2 U.S. Air Force convert RFO-fueled generation units to lique- Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), fied natural gas (LNG)-fueled units. A recent via the 36th Wing, provides beddown, study determined that due to increasingly operational, and logistical support to for- cheaper LNG rates, GPA could decrease the ward deployed units from around the world. cost of electricity to its customers by convert- Among other units, the base is home to a ing several of its generators to LNG.23 GPA mobility support squadron, a maintenance continues to run scenarios and conduct in- squadron, munitions squadron, an air support depth analysis in order to determine how to flight from Australia, and a combat commu- move forward. nications squadron. The base is also home to a nearly continuous presence of B-52, F-16, 1.3 Joint Region Marianas and Global Hawk forward deployed detach- The Joint Region Marianas sets ments. Approximately 3,200 service members forth policies, provides oversight, plans, and and their families (not considering forward programs for base operating support (BOS) deployed service members) live and work on 27 services, such as utilities, facilities sustain- AAFB. ment, grounds maintenance, moral recreation 1.3.3 History and welfare, housing, and other community support services for the U.S. Navy and Air The U.S. took possession of Guam Force commands on the island. Navy and Air from Spain by way of the Treaty of Paris on Force land holdings on the island total over December 10, 1898 and the following year 35 thousand acres or just over 25 percent of the U.S. government officially designated the the entire island.24 Navy land holdings are entire island as U.S. Naval Station, Guam. broken into six major sites throughout the More than forty years later in 1941 the island island totaling 17,370 acres25 and Air Force fell under the control of the Japanese and land holdings are broken into three major remained so until July 21, 1944 near the end sites throughout the northern half of Guam of World War II.28 After World War II, for totaling 17,864 acres (See Figure 1.2, Military a period of eight years, the island remained Installations on Guam). Both the Navy and under a military government, where the com- Air Force maintain command of all opera- manding officer also served as the governor tional requirements and missions via separate of Guam and other Micronesian islands.29 chains of command. Over the next half century the U.S. military presence on Guam has increased and de- 1.3.1 U.S. Navy creased in relation to world events such as the U.S. Naval Base Guam (NBG) has Korean and Vietnam War. In 2005 Congress a primary mission of providing logistical sup- released its latest Base Realignment and Clo- port to units acting throughout the Pacific. sure (BRAC) mandate. In an effort to capital- The base is home to three Los Angeles-class ize on efficiencies and cut back costs the latest attack submarines, a submarine tender, round of BRACs also included the concept of joint basing; NBG and AAFB were included 22 Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, “Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement,” Appendix A. 26 “Naval Base Guam.” 27 “Installation Overview – Andersen Air Force Base, 23 R.W. Beck, “LNG Study,”14-1. 24 Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, NBG Master Plan, Gu am .” 1-1. 28 “Naval Base Guam History.” 25 Ibid, 1-1-2. 29 Ibid. 1-4 Figure 1.2 Military Installa- tions on Guam Map created by Jason Christensen December 1, 2012 Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data

on this list. As such, the oversight, funding, tional capability. Since its inception, the joint and programing of all BOS services on Guam region has continually made one of its highest would be the responsibility of the Navy. On priorities to foster and maintain a strategic October 1, 2009 JRM, the joint Navy-Air partnership with the GOVGUAM. Force Command, was officially at full opera-

1-5 Chapter 2 Current Energy Consumption Patterns 2.1 Federal and Department ating all energy on-base by 2020.2 As a matter of standardization the DON has tracked its of Defense Energy Initiatives energy consumption or energy use intensity (EUI) through million BTUs per thousand The Department of Defense (DOD) 3 has continually decreased its facilities’ energy square feet (MBTU/KSF) . While the DON, consumption over the past three decades ac- in December of 2011, was about 11 percent below its 2003 baseline and on track to meet cording to federal mandates. However, both 4 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) and EISA energy reduction goals, JRM was only the Energy Independence and Security Act seven percent below its 2003 baseline and had actually seen an increase in its energy (EISA) of 2007 have mandated that federal 5 agencies drastically reduce energy consump- consumption (per square foot) since 2011. tion. Additionally, due to EISA requirements In order to meet EISA and DON the U.S. Navy, among other DOD and fed- goals JRM has implemented its own joint eral agencies, must reduce energy consump- regional energy management program includ- tion by 30 percent, based on a 2003 baseline ing energy awareness campaigns, facility (measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) energy retrofits, and the implementation of per square foot of all facilities), by the end of renewable energies. The region has changed 2015.1 Building upon this, the Department out high pressure sodium lamps for 110W of the Navy (DON) published its own energy 2 U.S. Department of the Navy, “A Navy Energy Vision for the vision in 2010, stating that all ashore installa- 21st Century,” 6-10. 3 DON tracks EUI at a regional scale through the units tions reduce energy consumption by 50 per- MBTU/KSF, however individual regions and installations track cent, that half of all energy requirements will energy consumption at a sub- regional scale using the units of be supplied by alternative sources and that KWh/sf or KWh. For the purposes of this report the same system shall be used. half of its installations will be net zero, gener- 4 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” 1 One Hundred and Tenth Congress, “Energy Independence 2. and Security Act.” 5 Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October.” 2-1 Table 2.1. Joint Region Marianas Annual Energy Consumption FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Energy Consumption (MBTU) 907,259.8 840,741.6 874,126.9 922,369.3 935,941.8 956,679.0 999,292.3 887,550.5 939,601.4 951,487.6 Gross 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 15,439.7 Energy Use Intensity (MBTU/KSF) 66.2 60.7 63.6 67.7 68.8 67.7 69.4 60.5 60.2 61.6 52.3 Energy Use Intensity (KWh/sf) 19.4 17.8 18.6 19.8 20.2 19.8 20.4 17.7 17.6 18.1 15.32825 Source Data: Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October,” (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 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 27.6 Average Average Temperature °F 81.14 81.32 NA 81.32 81.32 81.68 81.68 81.68 81.68 Source Data: Climate Guam International Airport from 1973 to 2012, Tu.Tiempo.net. Accessed November 29, 2012 Table 1.1. Average Annual Temperatures (as recorded at Won Pat International Airport, Guam) induction lamps along major2003 thoroughfares,2004 2005 2006 2007 JRM2008 Annual Energy2009 Consumption2010 2011 1,200,000 installedAverage Annual solar Temperature powered °C parking27.3 lights27.4 in someNA 27.4 27.4 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 8,000 Average Average Temperature °F 81.14 81.32 NA 81.32 81.32 81.68 81.68 81.68 81.68 7,000 ofSource the Data: Climatelarger Guam Internationalparking Airport fromlots 1973 andto 2012, Tu.Tiempo.net.playgrounds, Accessed November 29, 2012 1,000,000 painted roofs white in several housing areas, 6,000

800,000 installed solar thermal water heating in many 5,000

of the unaccompanied personnel housing, 600,000 4,000 and oversaw an Energy Savings Performance Degree Days 3,000 Contract (ESPC) to install efficient lighting Energy (MBTU) Consumption 400,000 and heating, ventilation and optimize air con- 2,000 200,000 ditioning (HVAC) control systems in various 1,000

0 0 facilities throughout NBG. Additionally, the FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 region currently has installed one 250 KW Annual Consumption CDD ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) Figure 2.1 Source: National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and array, two 50 KW roof mounted solar PV Atmospheric Administration, accessed November 15, 2012 arrays on barracks 1 and 2, a 32 KW ground mounted solar PV array next to barracks restoration/modernization (RMe) projects. 24, three separate 3 KW building integrated These projects are all centrally funded based photovoltaic arrays on building 203, and one on the highest energy return on investment 52 KW BIPV array on building 631. Several (eROI). Despite these efforts, JRM EUI has attempts by the joint regional staff to increase not decreased according to its goal of a three renewables on the island ended in no prog- percent annual reduction.8 ress. For example, in December of 2011 the joint region hosted a design charrette in order 2.2 Joint Region Marianas to determine the feasibility and finalize the scope of work for the installation of a small Energy Consumption wind farm. The design charrette focused on From Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) to the two sites, near Shoreline Drive on NBG and end of FY12 JRM EUI9 has not consistently a peak on the Naval Magazine (NAVMAG).6 decreased according to projected glide paths After extensive research it was also deter- for energy reduction. In FY04 the regional mined that only one turbine would meet all EUI plummeted 8.3 percent only to begin design criteria on Guam: the 1MW Vergnet increasing in FY05; By FY09 regional EUI GEV HP. Ultimately the members of the had increased almost 13 percent from its low- design charrette determined that the high est point and 4.6 percent from what it was in infrastructure costs associated with the project the baseline year. Since FY09 there has been did not allow for a high enough savings to a net decrease of approximately 11 percent, investment ratio (SIR) and the project was however, in the last two years the EUI has be- 7 shelved. Additionally, the region has begun 8 Commander, Joint Region Marianas, “JTREG Marianas to program for a substantial number of energy Instruction 4100,” Enclosure 1 p. 1. 9 JRM is not responsible for reporting U.S. Naval Hospital 6 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm,” Guam energy consumption, as such, this report does not in- 5. clude Naval Hospital consumption in total regional consump- 7 Ibid. tion values. 2-2 Joint Region Marianas FY11 Energy Consumption - Total Joint Region Marianas FY11 Energy Consumption - Facilities Figure 2.2 Line Loss 8% Operational and JRM FY11 Energy Misc Facilities Training Ships 18% 13% 9% Maintenance and Footprint Production Source: NAVFAC Marianas 6% Contractor Laydown 0% Annual Utilities Reports Supply for FY09 - FY12, provided 4% Utilities and Ground on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Improvements 6% Hospital/Medical Marianas NSIPS Print Out, 4% provided on May 25, 2012.

Administrative 5%

Housing and Facilities Community 83% 44%

gun to slowly increase once again, See Table to bill various tenant commands throughout 2.1, Joint Region Marianas Annual Energy the region according to their energy consump- Consumption. While average annual temper- tion Naval Facilities Engineering Command atures have increased slightly since 2003 (See (NAVFAC) Marianas tracks energy consump- Table 2.2, Average Annual Temperatures (as tion by building number; however not every recorded at Won Pat International Airport, building number shown on this print-out cor- Guam) Figure 2.1 JRM Annual Energy Con- responds with a building number in the JRM sumption shows that there does not appear printouts from Naval Facilities Asset Data to be a strong correlation between average Store (NFADS), the Navy database for all real temperature increase and annual energy con- property. The 53 million KWh of consump- sumption increase. tion consists of various buildings that could 2.2.1 Joint Region Marianas not be identified on NFADS and, therefore, could not be designated as a specific facility Energy Footprint type. In 2011 the JRM purchased a total of 358 million KWh of electricity from GPA; 2.2.2 Joint Region Marianas of that, regional facilities consumed approxi- Historic Consumption mately 298 million KWh and visiting and local ships consumed 31 million KWh10 while Figure 2.3 shows the percent change in port; the region also loses approximately and relationship of JRM EUI, energy con- 28 million KWh per year to line losses.11 sumption, and gross floor area (GFA)12 from Breaking down all energy consumption by FY04 to the end of FY12. As stated earlier, DOD facility classes almost half of the total the baseline is the FY03 EUI, which was facilities energy consumption is due to hous- 66.2 MBTU/KSF for JRM (note that the ing and community facilities (See Figure 2.2 baseline varies for each installation). Addi- JRM FY11 Energy Footprint) – the amount tional graphs showing percent change in JRM of energy that is consumed by housing and energy consumption, EUI, and GFA as well community facilities has huge implications as graphs that show the change of EUI (in that will be discussed later in this report. The MBTU/KSF) can be found in Appendix A of next largest slice of the facilities energy con- this report. In order to be able to report on a sumption is by operational and training facili- quarterly basis and reduce the fluctuation due ties. Other facility classes account for an even to seasonal variations in energy consumption smaller portion of the entire facilities con- the Navy has opted to report yearly EUIs on sumption pie. There also is approximately 53 a quarterly basis. In other words the EUI for million KWh of consumption in 2011 that is each quarter is actually the EUI for the last labeled as “miscellaneous facilities.” In order twelve months ending in that quarter. Two of the most apparent trends in 10 DON does not include energy consumption by ships while in port in FY03 baseline consumption or current progress almost every graph is the drop in both EUI towards FY15 and 20 goals. 12 Gross floor area is defined as the sum the region-wide or 11 Katherine Manglona, e-mail message to Desiree Masterson. installation-wide square footage for all buildings. 2-3 Figures 2.3 & 2.4 JRM Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present) 20.00% (Top to Bottom) Demonstrate the 15.00% Relationships

10.00% between JRM Energy Consump- 5.00% tion, EUI, and

0.00% GFA. Source for Figures 2.3 & 2.4: New OAB Charts -5.00% October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and -10.00% NBG energy managers, October 2012

Percent Change Percent from Baseline -15.00%

-20.00%

-25.00%

-30.00% FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

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

and energy consumption during FY04 and an NBG Housing Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present) equally drastic reduction of EUI and energy 50.00% consumption starting near the end of FY09 40.00% 30.00% and through FY10. While it is not clear what 20.00% happened in FY04 to produce such a precipi- 10.00% tous drop in consumption, it should be noted 0.00% that NBG’s first energy savings performance -10.00% contract (ESPC) was awarded in the spring Change Percent from Baseline -20.00% of FY09 and that the energy efficient lighting -30.00% and Heating Ventilation and Air Condition- -40.00% ing (HVAC) controls were installed from FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15 February to October of 2010.13 Many of Energy Intensity (MBTU/KSF) Baseline Glide Path Energy Consumption (MBTU) Gross Floor Area these retrofits (especially efficient lighting) would have impacted energy consumption Figure 2.4 NBG Housing Annual of each facility immediately. This could ac- Energy Consumption Comparisons, provides count for the 11 percent decline in both EUI several insights as to how total GFA affects and energy consumption throughout JRM. the EUI region-wide. Since FY03 NBG However, this same drop in EUI and energy housing has reduced its total GFA by 898,000 consumption occurred at the same time at square feet or by almost 30 percent. During Andersen Air Force Base even though the the same time period the total NBG housing ESPC only covered buildings on NBG. As energy consumption has had a net decrease such, it is possible that a correlation exists of only 3.74 percent. Despite this subtle between the effects of the ESPC and the decrease the NBG housing EUI has had a decrease in consumption but it might not be a net increase of 40 percent from 31.3 to 43.9 causal relationship. Possible explanations for MBTU/KSF from FY03 to present. Even this will be discussed later in this report (See more startling, NBG housing saw an increase section 3.3). in its EUI of almost 25 percent from the third 13 Johnson Controls, “Energy Savings Performance Contract quarter of FY11 to the end of FY12. Dur- for U.S. Western Region,” 1. 2-4 Figure 2.5 JRM Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present) demonstrates 1,100,000 how consumption would ap- 1,050,000 pear had GFA remained con- 1,000,000 stant from FY03 to present 950,000 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 900,000 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 850,000 2012. Energy (MBTU) Energy Consumtion

800,000

750,000

700,000 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

ing this same time period the NBG housing 2.2.3 Joint Region Marianas energy consumption has decreased by 8.48 percent. The drastic decrease in GFA at this Normalized Consumption Rates time is the obvious reason for this huge spike in EUI. The net decrease in GFA by approxi- Figure 2.5 shows JRM energy con- mately 663 thousand square feet was most sumption compared with energy consump- likely due to a military construction (MIL- tion normalized to the GFA from FY03 to CON) project to demolish old housing stock the end of FY12. This provides a theoretical and replace it with modern housing in Apra glimpse of how energy consumption would View, a neighborhood just outside of NBG. appear had the joint region and various Though DOD policies require new construc- installations not increased in GFA at all since tion projects to be 30 percent more efficient 2003. In reality, the joint region has had a net than current ASHRAE standards14 NBG increase in its GFA by approximately 1.73 housing had, in the past, maintained a huge million square feet in the last ten years; in stock of mothballed homes that consumed FY12 alone, this growth in GFA increased an- little to no electricity. As such, the replace- nual consumption by 119,627 million BTUs ment of an older un-used housing stock in or approximately 12.5 percent.15 In almost ev- neighborhoods such as Apra View with neigh- ery case, with the exception of NBG housing, borhoods in which service members and their the normalized energy consumption would families would live has drastically increased have been lower than it was in the baseline the NBG housing EUI; ultimately affecting year. However, for the last two years even the the entire joint region. The decrease in GFA normalized energy consumption is trending (despite a decrease in NBG housing energy upward indicating that the joint region facili- consumption), due to this one neighborhood, ties are using more energy per square foot de- resulted in a four percent increase in the JRM spite the gains made in FY09 and FY10. The EUI during this period of time. normalized consumption graphs highlight the impact an increasing GFA can have on energy 14 Chris Tindal, “Department of Navy Energy Program,” 2010, 30. 15 Joint Region Marianas, “New OAB Charts October.” 2-5 Figure 2.6 (Up- Joint Region Marianas Annual Demolition - Navy Only (FY03 - FY12) 900000 per) Shows Extent of JRM

800000 Demolition Pro- gram from FY02 700000

to Present. Figure 2.7 (Bot- 600000 tom) Demon- strates how JRM 500000 EUI Would Ap- pear had Demo 400000 not Occurred Source: Demo Task Order 300000 Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari- anas FSM Product Manager,

Annual Decrease in Groos Floor Area (SF) May 2012, provided on May 200000 30, 2012. New OAB Charts October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 100000 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 0 2012. FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Navy Base Guam Navy Base Guam Housing

JRM EUI Normalized to Demolition 75.0

70.0

65.0

60.0

55.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

50.0

45.0 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

2-6 consumption. While increases in GFA may 2.4 Commander, Navy Instal- be required due to changing missions and will almost always occur with a growing popula- lations Command Baseline tion the joint region must do all it can to limit Reset GFA increases to what is absolutely necessary (See Appendix A for additional JRM and On August 10, 2012 Commander, installation normalized consumption graphs). Navy Installations Command (CNIC) sent out a data call allowing all regions to request an EUI baseline reset. The intent of this 2.3 Joint Region Marianas was to allow regions to modify the baseline Demolition Program if there were known errors in the reporting As stated earlier, the joint region’s of FY03 data or other reasonable explana- demolition program, depending on the conditions for resetting the baseline. Such an event tion and current use of facilities, can have a occurred during FY03 in Guam. On Decem- major impact on the regional and installation ber 8, 2002 Typhoon Pongsona hit Guam EUI. From FY03 to the end of FY12 the causing significant damage island-wide. The Navy has reduced its real property inventory super-typhoon had such an enormous impact through demolition by 1.9 million square that Guam Power Authority (GPA) was un- feet16 (note that despite this reduction the able to provide electrical services anywhere net increase in GFA was 1.73 million square on-island for a period of 23 days. As De- feet) (See Figure 2.6, Joint Region Marianas cember of 2002 is part of the first quarter of Annual Demolition – Navy Only). From FY03 the loss of power for this period of time FY05 through FY07, in an effort to reduce affected the baseline consumption. The Joint the Navy’s real property inventory on Guam, Region Marianas energy consumption has NAVFAC Marianas undertook an aggres- been compared to this artificially low baseline sive campaign to demolish as many unused from then because until August of 2012 it had and decrepit facilities throughout the region been against Navy policy to modify the base- as possible. One could argue that many of line data. As stated in the Five Year Energy these facilities, especially family housing, Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, “This leaves were under-utilized before demolition. Figure Navy activities on Guam with the ardent task 2.17compares historical EUIs with what the of reducing energy to be lower than what is regional and installation EUIs could have was when the power was out for about six been if demolition did not occur (note that percent of the year.” The average energy this assumes that no facility demolished was consumption for a 23-day period in Decem- using any energy at all). These figures (addi- ber between FY09 through FY11 would equal tional figures found in Appendix A) demon- 11.2 million KWh or 6.42 percent of the strate an extreme scenario and the real EUI average annual energy consumption for Navy would have been somewhere in between its Facilities on Guam in FY03. Figures 2.8 – 2.9 current state and this calculated state as many demonstrate how a 6.42 percent increase in of these demolished facilities were consum- the baseline affects region-wide progress and ing some energy. It is extremely improbable AAFB progress towards end of FY15 goals. that this data could be used to re-establish While the EUIs for both NBG and AAFB the FY03 baseline as the data on the energy are very close to their targets for FY12 NBG consumption of these demolished facilities is housing and JRM are still far from where they no longer available. However, it does provide should be (See Appendix for additional fig- insight as to one possible reason for why the ures of other installations). The baseline reset regional EUI has not decreased in the man- does not provide JRM with an excuse for not ner desired by the joint region. reducing its energy consumption but it does, if approved, place the joint region in a position in which it can more reasonably reach its 16 NAVFAC Marians, “Demo Task Order Log Sheet.” energy reduction goals.

2-7 Top to Bottom, JRM Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset 75.0 Figures 2.8 - 2.9 Demonstrate Pro- 73.0 posed Baseline

71.0 Reset for Navy Installations on

69.0 Guam (Top: JRM,

67.0 Bottom: AAFB) Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump- 65.0 tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, 63.0 October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year 61.0

Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF) Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC 59.0 Pacific

57.0

55.0 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath

AAFB Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset 85.0

80.0

75.0

70.0

65.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

60.0

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath

2-8 Chapter 3 Facility Type Analysis 3.1 Detailed Facility Analysis energy consumption.2 In this analysis and for the benchmark analysis (discussed in Chapter A detailed analysis of consumption 4.) all buildings under analysis were divided, patterns and trends by facility type was con- based on building category codes, into spe- ducted in order to gain additional insight into cific facility types as defined by CNIC.3 region-wide energy consumption patterns, There were several limitations with identify specific facility types that demonstrate this analysis that need to be noted. JRM a pattern of increasing consumption, and to is currently programming for AMI meters determine which facility types will make the throughout the region. However, in the biggest contribution to a net region-wide de- meantime the region is operating off of crease in energy use after energy retrofits or standard meters; as such, all data collected is changes in usage.1 The detailed analysis was done in person by reading the actual meter. conducted over a period of three years (FY10 To complicate matters even more, most me- through FY12) on approximately 600 Navy ters monitor the energy consumption of more and Air Force facilities throughout the joint than one facility. Thus, the annual energy region; these facilities account for approxi- consumption data for each facility that NAV- mately 75 percent of the JRM annual facility FAC currently maintains is a combination of

1 Note that the increases and decreases in energy 2 Buildings were not included for two reasons: (1) The facility consumption of these specific facilities will not neces- number was not listed on the NSIPS print out, therefor it was sarily correspond to the increases and decreases in JRM not possible to identify a GFA or determine facility type. (2) energy consumption. Regional energy consumption is The building was listed by other identifier (other than facility complicated by the addition of new facilities, the de- number) on NAVFAC annual consumption spreadsheet, molition of other facilities, mission changes etc… This therefore it was not possible to identify a facility type or link with NSIPS data. analysis is meant to identify potential trends in energy 3 Deloitte, “Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and use by facility type, trends and information gleaned Heatmaps Version 2.0.” Note that facility types combine vari- from this analysis may have the potential to provide ous facilities that act similarly with respect to energy consump- insight into Regional energy consumption tion, insulation, and usage. 3-1 Table 3.1 Annual Changes in Energy Use Intensity FY10 FY11 FY12

Percent Change in Percent Change in Facility Type Annual EUI Annual EUI EUI Annual EUI 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.

Table 3.2 Annual Changes in Energy Consumption FY10 FY11 FY12 Change In Energy Use Intensity (Based on 2010) Annual Energy Annual Energy Annual Energy Facility Type 2010 2011 2012 Clubs and Dining Facilities Consumption0.00% Consumption-16.64% Percent Change in Consumption1.31% Percent Change in FacilityCommunications Type Facilities 0.00%(KWh) -7.16%(KWh) Consumption 11.05%(KWh) Consumption ClubsCommunity and Dining Facilities Facilities 6,089,1000.00% 6,058,50022.04% -0.50% 5,890,3006.99% -2.78% CommunicationsFamily Housing Facilities 23,884,2000.00% 22,854,400-4.86% -4.31% 25,380,000-8.77% 11.05% CommunityFuel & Liquid Facilities Dispensing & Storage Facilities 7,122,7000.00% 11,094,400-31.11% 55.76% 9,789,60019.67% -11.76% FamilyGate/Guardpost/Watch Housing Tower 64,699,7000.00% 62,440,300-9.17% -3.49% 58,940,500-3.73% -5.61% FuelLand, & Waterfront Liquid Dispensing and Coastal & Storage Operations Facilities Facilities 468,3000.00% 322,6003.45% -31.11% 448,4000.25% 39.00% Gate/Guardpost/WatchMaintenance Facilities Tower 500,0000.00% 15.83%439,600 -12.08% 423,200-1.03% -3.73% Land,Medical Waterfront Facilities and Coastal Operations Facilities 9,106,3000.00% 9,427,100-11.61% 3.52% 9,451,1000.59% 0.25% MaintenanceOffice Facilities 13,594,2000.00% 15,743,2008.61% 15.81% 15,583,30021.11% -1.02% MedicalPower/Heat Facilities Generation 12,452,6000.00% 11,114,6007.36% -10.74% 11,179,7003.01% 0.59% OfficePrimary & Secondary Schools 17,675,2000.00% 20,089,00038.95% 13.66% 23,977,8003.01% 19.36% Power/HeatPublic Safety Generation & Base Services 8,978,4000.00% 9,639,6009.78% 7.36% 16,836,600-1.98% 74.66% PrimaryStand-alone & Secondary Retail Schools 4,421,1000.00% 6,143,10011.01% 38.95% 6,328,200-44.10% 3.01% PublicSupermarket Safety & Base Services 3,521,9000.00% 4,014,700-24.52% 13.99% 3,935,2007.99% -1.98% Stand-aloneTraining Facilities Retail 10,676,9000.00% 13,240,900-14.03% 24.01% 7,402,20010.70% -44.10% SupermarketUnaccompanied Personnel Housing 7,445,3000.00% 5,620,000-19.63% -24.52% 6,068,90024.55% 7.99% TrainingUtility Infrastructure Facilities 2,357,6000.00% 2,026,800-5.62% -14.03% 2,243,6008.56% 10.70% UnaccompaniedWarehouse Personnel Housing 7,599,4000.00% 9,836,2006.26% 29.43% 12,250,9004.36% 24.55% UtilityWater, Infrastructure Sewage and Waste Facilities 1,641,5000.00% 1,549,300-19.86% -5.62% 1,681,900-9.24% 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. actual energy consumption for meters that are command. The ethnography or usage trends tied to one building and a prorated energy are invaluable when analyzing the energy consumption based on square footage for me- consumption of a facility, or installation. For ters that are tied to blocks of buildings. For example, energy consumption should de- example, in even the newest neighborhoods crease as units deploy and then increase as such as Apra View and North Tipalau, the they return and knowing the annual popula- energy consumption of the entire neighbor- tion of service men and women living in base hood is tied to one meter. Thus it is possible housing is key in deciphering increases or to analyze the average EUI per house within decreases in housing EUIs. Despite these each neighborhood but it is not possible to limitations the detailed facility analysis does analyze the energy consumption of a specific provide several important insights. house. Per the Utilities Energy Management Tables 3.1. and 3.2 show changes in Product Line Coordinator, Navy facilities are EUI and energy consumption (respectively) tied to approximately 400 meters whereas Air over the last three years. It is important to Force facilities are only tied to approximately analyze both tables together as the two tables 40 meters. This fact must be taken in con- provide a much clearer picture than one sideration when reviewing the data presented or the other does. For example, A minor in this chapter and the next. Additionally, increase in EUI for a facility type with a large due to time constraints it was not possible total GFA still results in a large increase in to gather historical population numbers by total energy consumption, and vice versa.

3-2 Figure 3.1 Annual JRM Energy Consumption by Facility Type FY10 - FY12 Demonstrates 70,000,000.0 how energy consumption by 60,000,000.0 facility type has 50,000,000.0 changed over the last three years. 40,000,000.0 Source: NAVFAC Marianas annual utilities reports for 30,000,000.0 FY10 -FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS printouts, 20,000,000.0 provided on May 25, 2012. 10,000,000.0 (KWh) Consumption Energy Annual

0.0

FY10 Annual Consumption FY11 Annual Consumption FY12 Annual Consumption

Through this analysis it becomes out the region (warehouses analyzed had a apparent that four different facility types region-wide combined GFA of 1.8 million have made significant increases in energy square feet). The largest increase in an- consumption. Over the last three years of- nual energy consumption came from power fice facility types have increased their total generation facility types; in fact, from FY11 to consumption of electricity by 6.3 million FY12 this facility type increased its net energy KWh per year. Unaccompanied personnel consumption by 74.66 percent. This equates housing (barracks) have also increased their to a 7.8 million KWh per year increase in energy consumption by 4.7 million KWh per consumption. year despite the fact that the EUI decreased While several facility types dem- from FY10 to FY11 and then increased again onstrated a continued increase in energy in FY12. As such, an region-wide increase consumption only three facility types dem- in barracks (new and converted) may be onstrated a continued decrease in energy partially responsible for the net increase in consumption: water, sewage, and waste facili- energy consumption for that specific facility ties, gates, guardposts, and watchtowers, and type, however, the increase in consumption family housing. A relatively large drop in EUI (KWh) and EUI in FY12 indicates that these resulted only in minor annual energy sav- barracks are increasing their energy consump- ings (67 thousand KWh per year) for gates, tion. Also, ideally, with newer, more energy guardposts, and watch towers; this makes efficient barracks being added to the regional sense as most some gate houses are barely inventory one would want to see the EUI large enough to accommodate more than one slowly dropping as more efficient buildings person. As such, despite relatively high EUIs were added to the mix – this is not happen- they don’t consume a lot of energy. On the ing. Finally, a relatively minor increase in EUI other hand, with a total GFA of over 5.37 for warehouses analyzed over the last three million square feet (almost one third of the years equated a 2.5 million KWh per year JRM GFA), a continued decrease in housing increase in energy consumption due to the EUI has resulted in an annual energy savings relatively large stock of warehouses through- of 5.7 million KWh per year (See Figure 3.1. 3-3 Table 3.3 Contribution to Net Change in Energy Consumption by Facility Type (FY10 - FY12) 2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012 Change in Change in Consumption Contribution Consumption Contribution Facility Type (KWh) Percentage (KWh) 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 6,638,400 Source Data: NAVFAC Marianas Annual Utilities Reports for FY10 - FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC Marianas NSIPS Print Out, provided on May 25, 2012.

Annual JRM Energy Consumption by Facility large contributions. Communications facili- Type FY10 – FY12). ties also contributed significantly to the net increase in annual energy consumption from 3.2 Contributions to Net FY11 to FY12. Single family housing has contributed significantly to the gross decrease Change in Energy Consump- in annual energy consumption among facili- tion ties within this analysis; however, the facility type that contributed the most towards the The facility type contribution analysis identi- gross decrease in annual energy consump- fies which facility types make the greatest tion was stand-alone retail facilities, which contribution to the total annual change in had a decrease that equaled approximately energy consumption.4 In other words this 50 percent of the total gross decrease from analysis provides additional insight into which FY11 to FY12. Despite these large decreases facility types are potentially contributing the in annual energy consumption they were not most to the total change in regional energy large enough to counter the increasing energy consumption. Again, one must note that the consumption of many facility types in order changes in energy consumption of the facili- to turn the net increase into a net decrease. ties in this analysis will not necessarily correspond to a total regional increase or decrease 3.3 Changes in Annual Consump- in energy consumption as they only represent tion – ESPC Facilities 75 percent of all facilities energy consumption. Table 3.3, Contribution to Net Change This analysis, like the analysis in by Facility Type (FY10 - FY12), shows that section 3.2, looks at the change in energy the facilities in this analysis (the same facilities consumption by facility type; however the analyzed in the detailed analysis of consump- analysis was conducted solely for buildings tion patterns and trends by facility type) which benefited from ESPC retrofits. In all, increased their net energy consumption from 36 facilities, or approximately 52 percent of FY10 to FY11 and then again from FY11 all ESPC buildings were analyzed over the to FY12. From this table it is apparent that course of four years (FY09 through FY12). office and power generation facilities have This analysis provides several insights on the made the largest total contribution to the benefits and lasting results of energy retrofits. net increase in annual energy consumption; Specifically, did the ESPC result in a decrease barracks and warehouses also make relatively in annual consumption? And what happened 4 Contribution percentage is of the gross change in energy con- to consumption patterns after energy conser- sumption – note that the gross increase in energy consumption is greater than the net increase as some facility types will see vation retrofits were installed? a decrease in their annual consumption for the same period. Through Table 3.4, Changes in An- The same is true for a gross decrease in energy consumption. 3-4 Table 3.4 Changes in Annual Consumption by Facility Type (ESPC Buildings Only) FY09 - FY10 FY10 - FY11 FY11 - FY12 Change in Change in Change in Consumption Contribution Consumption Contribution Consumption Contribution Facility Type (KWh) Percentage (KWh) Percentage (KWh) 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 -747,400 703,000 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, & Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

nual Consumption by Facility Type (ESPC ent that while one-time energy conservation Buildings Only), it is apparent that the ESPC retrofits initially reduce energy consump- did reduce the affected buildings’ annual tion and EUI, JRM will not achieve its goals energy consumption during and immediately without a sustained, long term, and focused after the retrofits were installed. However, energy conservation program. from FY11 to FY12 there was a net increase The relatively minor reduction (1.58 in energy use within the same buildings that million KWh for 36 facilities) in annual had received energy savings retrofits in FY10 energy consumption after the ESPC retrofits and the beginning of FY11. These results are also suggests that other factors might have not as surprising as they seem at first. In fact, influenced the dramatic decrease of regional a study in 1992 looking at the annual energy energy consumption and EUI from 2010 savings of houses after energy conservation to 2011. If the 36 facilities covered in this retrofits found that the average annual savings analysis equaled 52 percent of the facilities of homes within three of the five different that did benefit from energy savings retrofits6 conservation programs had begun to drop then a rough approximation of the total an- after two years.5 The growth in annual energy nual energy savings would be approximately consumption among the same buildings that 3 million KWh per year (3.4 million KWh underwent ESPC retrofits suggests that chang- per year including the 250 KW solar array ing usage trends or potential changes in tech- installed as part of the ESPC) or about half of nology (manifesting itself in increased plug the 6.4 million KWh in savings estimated by loads) may be contributing to the increasing Johnson Controls.7 This is just over one per- energy consumption trends throughout JRM. cent of the total annual energy consumption Evolving usage trends may have occurred for all of the facilities within the entire region due to changing missions, and increases in and could not possibly be the only cause OPTEMPO. Plug loads may have increased for an 11 percent decrease in the JRM EUI. due to increasingly powerful computers, Thus, it is possible that the knowledge of the larger server systems, aging computers, smart ESPC retrofits, as well as the construction of phone and MP3 chargers, as well as other the joint region’s first solar array, raised the electronic devices. Finally, the increase in regional consciousness enough to increase energy consumption throughout these build- individual, command, and regional energy ings might be partially due to a loss of [tenant] conservation efforts for a short duration. 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 6 Johnson Controls, “Energy Savings Performance Contract Energy Savings over Time: Two and Three Years after Partici- for U.S. Western Region,” ECM 3.1 3-4, and ECM 5.1 2-4. pation in a Retrofit Program,” 72. 7 Ibid,2.

3-5 Chapter 4 Energy Conservation 4.1 Benchmark Develop- calculated based on the average performance of individual facility types within respective ment climate zones.3 A listing of all CNIC and En- 4.1.1 CNIC Benchmark ergy Star Benchmarks, which show computed benchmarks for Guam (Climate Zone 1A4) Development and were used for all potential energy savings In November of 2011, as part of its calculations, can be found in Appendix C. Navy Shore Energy Strategy Goals 2.0, CNIC released a listing of 25 facility types and cor- 4.1.2 Energy Star Benchmark 1 responding EUI benchmarks. The listings of Calculations new facility types and corresponding benchmarks were produced to account for distinct The U.S. Environmental Protection military facilities. Before CNIC had used a Agency (EPA) Energy Star Target Finder much smaller and less inclusive list based on website was also used to gather a second set Energy Plus benchmarks; this list of facility of benchmarks. Target Finder allows the user types included basic facility types seen outside to input specific information such as zip code, of the DOD, such as family housing, transient average square footage, and how facilities are & visitor housing, unaccompanied personnel heated/cooled, before it provides an estimat- housing, medical facilities, office facilities, ed EUI benchmark. However, Target Finder warehouses, and other community support does not provide benchmarks on many facilities.2 In order to develop benchmarks industrial, utilities, or DOD-specific facilities for 25 distinct facility types CNIC consultant, such as maintenance and communications Deloitte, plotted the distribution of facility en- facilities, or water treatment plants. As such, ergy consumption by facility type and within Energy Star benchmarks are only provided each climate zone. The benchmark was for specific facilities. Energy Star benchmarks

1 Deloitte, “Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and 3 Ibid, 507. Heatmaps Version 2.0.” Slide 1. 4 ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA, “Standard 90.1-2007 Normative 2 Ibid, 517. Appendix B – Building Envelope Climate Criteria.” 4-1 Figure 4.1 JRM Benchmark Energy Consumption by Facility Type Compares facility 70,000,000.0 type consumption to bench- 60,000,000.0 mark consump- 50,000,000.0 tions Source: NAVFAC Marianas 40,000,000.0 annual utilities reports for FY10 -FY12, provided on May 24, 2012. NAVFAC 30,000,000.0 Marianas NSIPS printouts, provided on May 25, 2012. 20,000,000.0 Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heat- maps Version 2.0, Deloitte, 10,000,000.0

and Energy Star - Target 2012 Consumption Annual Energy (KWh) Finder, U.S. Environmental 0.0 Protection Agency.

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

can also be viewed in Appendix C. 2. Warehouses – have a total GFA of almost two million square feet throughout 4.2.1 Variations from Bench- the region; while aggregate warehouse annual mark energy consumption has not risen as fast as

Facilities were separated according to offices, its total annual energy consumption is facility types, ranked according to EUI, and 17.7 million KWh over the estimated con- compared to benchmark EUIs. Figure 4.1, sumption level based on a benchmark EUI. JRM Benchmark Energy Consumption by Note that the CNIC benchmark EUI for Facility Type, compares the total 2012 energy warehouses does not change for refrigerated consumption by facility type to the calculated warehouses (which use significantly more en- energy consumption per facility type based ergy). As such, the difference between actual on benchmark EUIs. While most facility aggregate consumption and consumption types demonstrate an aggregate consumption based on benchmark would not be quite so above the consumption based on bench- large. However, Energy Star does provide a marks, several facility types, including com- benchmark EUI for refrigerated warehouses munications facilities, community facilities, – the difference between actual aggregate offices, power/heat generation facilities, and consumption and consumption based on warehouses have aggregate consumptions Energy Star benchmark is still approximately well above those based on benchmark EUIs. 14 million KWh. When compared with yearly consumption data in Chapter 3 it is recommended that the 3. Communications facilities – though joint region focus on several facility types: communications facilities, as a whole, have increased and decreased depending on the 1. Offices – aggregate energy consump- year, the aggregate annual energy consumption has risen continually over the last three tion is over 15 million KWh over the estimat- years. Current aggregate annual consumption ed consumption based on a benchmark EUI. is 9 million KWh over the aggregate consumption based on a benchmark EUI. 4. Power/Heat Generation facilities – 4-2 aggregate energy consumption has increased warehouses and refrigerated warehouses. dramatically over the last three years – in fact Additionally, building 258, the Navy Ex- Power/Heat generation facilities might be one change, shows a very high EUI compared of the biggest net contributors to increases in to the benchmark. The Navy Exchange JRM energy consumption between FY11 and is both a warehouse and retail store and FY12. However, with an estimated baseline has a category code classifying it as a consumption of just over one million KWh warehouse. As such, this building should and a 2012 aggregate consumption of 16.8 not show such a large variation between million KWh it is also possible that the CNIC its actual 2012 EUI and the benchmark benchmark was calculated using too wide EUI. of a range of different facilities resulting in a • The NCTS heat map (Figure 4.4) shows benchmark EUI that is not accurate. If this is that, while somewhat dispersed, there the case the gap between expected and actual are three known facilities consuming may be unduly large. enormous amounts of energy. These buildings, 112, 285, and 454, combined 5. Family housing – Despite the fact consume 5.5 million KWh over bench- that the annual energy consumption has de- mark consumption for communications creased for the last three years family housing buildings of their respective size. Due still shows a gap between expected (based on to the sensitive nature of the operations a benchmark EUI) and actual of almost five of these facilities it is possible that the million KWh per year. annual consumption levels are necessary

but building audits are recommended, Additionally, it is recommended that nonetheless. the joint region continue to study the annual energy consumption of community, opera- • Figure 4.5 shows AAFB core operations. tions, and maintenance facilities. Many of the buildings along the flight Heat maps, showing the variation of line, including (but not limited to) build- 2012 energy consumption from CNIC bench- ing 17002 air terminal, 17016 air mainte- mark EUIs of individual buildings, have been nance hangar, and 18110 Global Hawk created for both Navy and Air Force instal- maintenance hangar, have above average lations throughout the region. Several heat consumption levels. Building 17016, maps are shown below. Other heat maps not with the highest annual energy consump- shown below can be found in Appendix D. tion on AAFB, consumed 2.2 million KWh over its benchmark consumption. • Figure 4.2 shows the core of NBG in- This building was constructed to house cluding community support areas, unac- B-2 bombers when forward deployed companied personnel housing, and fam- to AAFB and was designed with a large ily housing areas. Most facilities within air conditioning system that will cool the core community support area were down the high bay maintenance area constructed 40 years ago in the 1970s and very quickly due to requirements of the all of these facilities are consuming higher B-2. The B-2s are no longer deployed to than normal amounts of energy. AAFB; despite this it is very possible that • NBG around the lower harbor houses the abnormally large annual energy con- a majority of the waterfront operations sumption of this facility is due to usage facilities, some retail, and Camp Coving- patterns as airmen still cool that hangar ton, a permanent hub for deploying Navy down while maintaining other aircraft that Sea Bees. Figure 4.3 shows that buildings don’t have the same operational require- 3201XR and 780XR, located on X-Ray ments. Wharf, are consuming above average amounts of energy as well. However, the 4.2.2 Energy Savings variation shown is probably not quite as large as depicted; CNIC only used Differences between actual annual one benchmark EUI for both standard consumptions and consumption levels based 4-3 Figure 4.2 Heat Map - Naval Base Guam Com- munity Support Areas

4-4 Figure 4.3 Heat Map - Naval Base Guam Lower Apra Harbor

4-5 Figure 4.4 Heat Map - Naval Telecommunica- tions Station

4-6 Figure 4.5 Heat Map - An- dersen Air Force Base Core Opera- tions Area

4-7 Figure 4.6 JRM Potential Savings in Energy Consumption by Facility Type Compares Poten- 20,000,000.0 tial Energy Sav- 18,000,000.0 ings by Based on 16,000,000.0 CNIC and Energy 14,000,000.0 Star Benchmarks Source: NAVFAC Marianas 12,000,000.0 annual utilities reports for FY10 -FY12, provided on 10,000,000.0 May 24, 2012. NAVFAC 8,000,000.0 Marianas NSIPS printouts, provided on May 25, 2012. 6,000,000.0 Navy Shore Energy Strategy – CJRM Goals and Heat- 4,000,000.0

maps Version 2.0, Deloitte, (KWh) Consumption Energy Annual 2,000,000.0 and Energy Star - Target Finder, U.S. Environmental 0.0 Protection Agency.

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

on benchmark EUIs show that there is a large tion levels. Tables showing potential savings amount of potential energy savings through- broken down into facility types can be found out the region. To calculate the total potential in Appendix E. savings the FY09, FY10, FY11, and FY12 A spreadsheet titled JRM Poten- annual EUI for each building5 throughout tial Facility Energy Savings Worksheet was the region was averaged in order to minimize provided to the JRM Assistant Regional discrepancies caused by reporting errors, Engineer and Regional Energy Manager. etc… The potential JRM energy savings (in This spreadsheet contains every building KWh) is, essentially, the sum of the differ- with an estimated energy savings ranked in ences between the average annual building order from highest to lowest potential savings. consumptions and the benchmark annual Additionally it shows all facilities that benefit- building consumptions. If the EUI of every ted from ESPC retrofits and that will benefit facility throughout the JRM was reduced to from future energy retrofits for FY12, FY13, the benchmark EUI for each facility type the and FY14. This allows the regional energy region would save 84.6 million KWh or al- manager to focus on the facilities that are not most 30 percent of its total annual consump- currently programmed for future projects and tion (see Figure 4.6, JRM Potential Savings that will provide the largest energy savings. As in Energy Consumption by Facility Type). can be seen in Appendix E, JRM has many Table 4.1, JRM Potential Facility Energy projects planned for facilities with energy Savings, shows every building with a poten- consumptions below respective baseline con- tial energy savings over 500 thousand KWh sumptions. The region will still see an energy per year. These 36 facilities alone consist of savings from these projects, however, the 71 percent of the total potential region-wide energy savings from a facility with a below- savings. The other 29 percent of the savings benchmark EUI will not affect the regional is spread among 305 other facilities with con- energy savings to the degree of a facility with sumptions higher than benchmark consump- an above-benchmark EUI. 5 Energy Savings analysis covered same facilities as other The potential energy savings as previous analysis – consisting of 75 percent of total region-wide facilities energy consumption. shown on Table 4.1, Appendix E, and within 4-8 Table 4.1. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Top 36 Facilities with most potential savings)* Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Install Install Energy Energy Replace Manageme & Solar Double Temperatu Retro- Facility Consumption Average EUI Savings Water Replace nt Control Maintenan Repair/Upg Water Pane re commissio Nomenclature/Facilty Type Location Facility Name No (KWh) (KWh/Sf) (KWh) Heaters Lighting System ce Checks rade HVAC Heaters Windows Setbacks ning Cold Storage Naval Base COLD STORAGE BUILDING 780XR 8,005,675.0 69.9 7,535,903.6 9 9 12 12 Communications Barrigada TRANSMITTER BUILDING 52 5,830,450.0 198.7 4,531,947.4 13 Heating & Cooling Plants Naval Base CHILLED WATER PLANT 21 3,469,400.0 1,807.0 3,408,063.5 12 Potable and WWT Plant Naval Magazine FENA PUMP STA-14,400 KG 1282 3,419,550.0 1,163.1 3,382,498.4 Warehouse Naval Base NEX MAIN STORE/NEX WHSE 258 4,217,900.0 17.1 3,205,337.3 12 12 12 13 Family Housing Naval Base LOCKWOOD HOUSING 232 8,306,950.0 22.6 3,033,045.0 Electrical Generator NCTS CIS EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 309 2,860,775.0 458.5 2,661,431.5 Hangar Andersen MAINTENANCE HANGAR 17016 3,066,066.7 60.3 2,232,139.4 12 12 12 12 Communications NCTS TERMINAL EQUIPMENT BLDG 112 3,959,750.0 95.7 2,128,012.0 13 Administrative Andersen BUILDING 21000 21000 4,753,633.3 32.7 1,942,907.7 12 12 Communications NCTS OCEAN SUVEILLANCE BLDG 454 2,963,150.0 110.7 1,778,428.4 Heating & Cooling Plants Andersen AIR CONDITIONING PLANT 25014 1,762,800.0 643.6 1,675,299.7 12 Communications NCTS SATELLITE COMM GROUND STA. 285 2,071,750.0 220.9 1,656,632.8 13 Communications NCTS COMM/RECEIVER/NASA 150 3,107,175.0 47.6 1,656,566.0 13 Potable 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 13 Family Housing Naval Base Bay View Housing 22 2,883,875.0 29.6 1,484,589.0 Administrative Andersen 36 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23020 1,752,666.7 104.4 1,427,947.4 12 Warehouse Barrigada GOLF STARTER BUILDING 93 1,414,800.0 2,829.6 1,412,748.4 14 Heating & Cooling Plants Andersen AIR COND VALVE HOUSE 21003 1,418,400.0 2,110.7 1,396,932.2 Community Andersen YOUTH CENTER 1605 1,399,966.7 155.3 1,262,590.3 12 Retail Andersen BASE EXCHANGE 24016 6,237,400.0 32.0 1,160,226.5 12 12 12 12, 13 Fitness Center Naval Base CHARLES KING GYM 1980 1,297,125.0 54.8 936,630.3 13 Warehouse Naval Hospital MEDICAL STORAGE/NEX 6 959,750.0 60.4 894,595.8 Restaurant/Dining Andersen BURGER KING 27030 1,039,000.0 162.7 840,607.3 Space Surveillance Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 36 1,020,233.3 68.0 791,628.4 Religious Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL II 1623 882,433.3 79.5 748,979.1 12 12 Hangar Andersen GLOBAL HAWK HANGAR 18110 1,943,000.0 26.2 727,150.1 12 12 Communications Andersen COMMUNICATIONS FACILILTY 20011 1,545,066.7 83.4 725,055.2 Religious Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL I 22024 764,633.3 80.3 650,237.1 Restaurant/Dining Naval Base MCDONALDS MAIN BASE 282 811,950.0 140.2 631,979.9 12 12 Commercial - Bowling Naval Base OROTE POINT BOWLING LANES 600 866,250.0 55.5 628,500.9 12 12 12 14 Water Distribution Andersen WATER SUPPLY BUILDING 1600 614,900.0 1,708.1 610,363.1 Potable and WWT Plant Naval Base BIOTOWER CONTROL BLDG 1806 636,500.0 300.0 609,757.3 Religious Andersen CHAPEL II CLASSROOMS 1624 673,466.7 79.5 571,615.6 14 Ground Operations Naval Base EOD OPERATIONS FACILITY 2112 949,600.0 33.3 515,067.8 9 9 Communications NCTS MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER 199 1,131,750.0 80.2 506,861.4 Total 89,719,816.7 60,888,053.8 * Table lists all JRM facilities with potential annual savings of over 500,000 KWh 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009 the JRM Facility Energy Savings Worksheet as soon as possible. documents a potential energy savings. As stated within this report, there are several limitations that affect the precision of this 4.3 JRM Energy Conserva- data. The primary points being the metering system throughout the region and the fact that tion Awareness Program the CNIC benchmarks are broken down into While much of the estimated energy only 25 facility types – despite the fact that savings above will come through energy there are hundreds of different types of facili- conservation retrofits some percentage of ties and that every facility, due to construction the savings will be achieved through no-cost, methods, age, floor plan, ethnography, time behavior-based, energy conservation mea- of most recent renovation, and other factors, sures such as changing personal habits, and operates differently. As such, the indicated fa- overall usage trends of JRM facilities. In fact, cilities and respective potential energy savings the U.S. Department of Energy, as part of should be treated, not as an end state, but as the Federal Energy Management Program a more informed place to start. The only way (FEMP), conducted two pilot programs, to really understand what is occurring within a one at Fort Lewis, Washington and one specific facility is to conduct an energy audit. at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Additionally, studies have shown that energy in Yuma, Arizona, in order to show that conservation retrofits must be based on the behavior-based programs can and do reduce features of each individual building and that energy consumption. Both programs targeted combinations of energy conservation retrofits military housing, and both programs yielded can potentially conserve “the same energy;” significant energy savings. The program in as such, they might not have desired impact.6 Fort Lewis resulted in a ten percent annual CNIC has recently stated that installations reduction in base housing energy use and the should receive energy audits for 25 percent of program in MCAS resulted in a 13 percent its facilities each year.7 If audits are not occur- reduction in energy consumption during the ring it is highly recommended that the joint summer months.8 However, behavior-based region initiate a facility energy audit program reductions in energy consumption will not be 6 S. Chidiac, et. al, “Effectiveness of Single and Multiple En- achieved without a sustained regional energy ergy Retrofit Measures on the Energy Consumption of Office awareness program. A regional energy aware- Buildings,” 5037. 8 U.S. Department of Energy, “Creating an Energy Awareness 7 Glen Hubbard, “Energy Update.” Program – A Handbook for Federal Energy Managers,”2. 4-9 ness program should build up a sustained with respect to the energy consumption of culture of conservationism by tapping into the others around them. psychological factors that motivate change on both the individual and collective plains. A 2. Monthly Report Card: Kirk Camer- good regional energy awareness program will on, in Green with Envy, discusses the power slowly change the culture of the region/mili- of peer pressure to help individuals make tary community on Guam and many studies smart energy consumption choices.11 Similar have noted the importance of the community to a mock billing approach, NAVFAC Mari- in shaping specific values and behaviors of anas could send out a monthly report card to individuals.9 Thus, by changing the regional regional tenant commands showing monthly culture, energy awareness programs change and annual consumption as well as monthly the behaviors of individuals. Potential tactics and annual consumption compared to other to raise awareness and change behaviors commands (i.e. “your command/buildings include: has used 45 percent more electricity per square feet than other commands). Such a 1. Mock Billing: the uniformed services report card could be broken down according have been, arguably, hesitant to charge service to facility type so as to compare like buildings members for their utilities due to worries (it should be noted that even without AMI about retention and quality of life, despite NAVFAC Marians UEM Product Line can DOD backing of similar initiatives.10 Only in estimate energy use by building – thus, such a recent years with the advent of public-private program need not wait until advanced meters ventures (PPV) in housing have these initia- are installed). tives become more common. PPV initiatives only occur stateside, as such, the possibility 3. Recognition or Incentive Programs: of service men and women in Guam being Studies have shown that one-time awards are charged for their utilities is still a long way not effective as they mark the end of a special off. However, upon installation of advanced initiative. However, small continuing incen- metering it is recommended that NBG Hous- tives or continuing recognition can effect real ing send a monthly mock bill to residents; changes in energy consumption.12 Monthly the bill should not only show monthly energy publications could list commands that con- consumption but it should equate this energy tinually reduce energy consumption or the consumption with the real cost to the region. regional commander could provide quarterly Such an approach could also work for Navy plaques for the command with the highest and Air Force tenant commands. If Navy reduction in energy consumption. housing does not receive advanced metering systems an alternate approach is still possible. As noted earlier in this report, facility Through this approach as repairmen respond EUIs appear to increase even after energy to service calls at individual homes they conservation retrofits. This could be a prod- would check the thermostats and leave a re- uct of changing technologies or changing be- port highlighting the current thermostat rating haviors. As such, one of the most important as compared to the average thermostat rating factors in a good energy awareness program throughout Navy housing. As with mock bill- is a sustained effort. Once the momentum is ing, such an approach begins to get individu- built, a good energy awareness program can als to think about their energy consumption potentially change behavior-based patterns in

9 A. Owen, et. al., “Identity and Environmentalism: The influ- 11 Cameron, Kirk,“Green with Envy,” 96. ence of Community Characteristics,”466. 12 U.S. Department of Energy, “Creating an Energy Aware- 10 Andrea McKakin, et al., “Promoting Behavior-Based ness Program – A Handbook for Federal Energy Manag- Energy Efficiency in Military Housing,” 37. ers,”10.

4-10 Chapter 5 Renewables Photo source: Solar World, 5.1 Future GPA Partnerships Table 5.1 GPA Future Renewable Resources “U.S. Navy Base In Guam On June 27, 2012 GPA signed a goes Solar,” accessed Annual Energy December 12, 2012. 25-year contract with Guam Quantum Power, http://www.solarworld-usa. LLC (GQP) to purchase approximately Capacity (KW) Production (KWh) com/solar-for-business-and- 36,452 MW of electricity per year at $.196 QGP (Solar) 20,000 36,452,000 government/project-gallery/ per KWh (and increasing every year) start- PGR (Solar) 5,650 10,476,230 government-military-solar- projects/apra-harbor-naval- ing in June 2014 in an effort to diversify its PGR (Wind)* 9,350 11,491,412 base.aspx 1 energy generation portfolio. This power pur- Total 35,000 58,419,642 chase agreement (PPA) finances a 20 MW *Vergnet GEV HP 1MW Capacity Factor for MB used in calculation solar array that will be located to the west of Soure Data: Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement - Guam Power Authority Highway 4 in Dan Dan.2 Additionally, GPA & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, June 27, 2012, and email from Jennifer Sablan is currently negotiating a PPA contract with dated November 28, 2012 Pacific Green Resource, LLC (PGR) for an JRM has maintained a strategic additional 5.65 MW solar array and a wind relationship with GPA. As stated earlier, the farm consisting of 34 (ea) 275 KW Vergnet JRM is GPA’s largest customer, purchasing GEV MP turbines (See Table 5.1. GPA approximately 20 percent of all electricity Future Renewable Resources).3 The PGR produced by GPA.6 Over the years, GPA site will tentatively be located just to the north and JRM officials have worked closely to of the GQP site. GPA has a goal to produce define future energy requirements and to or purchase five percent of all of its power mitigate the second order effects of these from renewables by 2015.4 Once these two requirements on the local population. It contracts are in place, renewables will provide is recommended that as JRM continues to approximately six percent of GPA’s max pursue renewable alternatives it work in close capacity.5 coordination with GPA to align requirements 1 Guam Power Authority & Quantum Guam Power, LLC, and goals and maximize efficiencies. Unof- “Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement.” ficial discussions with respect to purchasing 2 Guam Power Authority, “Renewable Siting.” renewable power from GPA have already 3 Jennifer Sablan, e-mail message to Jason Christensen. 4 John Cruz, in meeting with JRM Representatives, held on commenced and by purchasing renewable May 23, 2012. 5 Based on a total generation capacity of 552 MW as stated in 6 Ian Baring-Gould et. al., “Guam Initial Technical Assess- Chapter 1. ment Report,” 12. 5-1 power through GPA, JRM not only comes Annual JRM consumption (KWh) 297,000,000 Table 5.2 JRM Total Solar Requirements closer to meeting goals set by DON but it Required supports GPA in its attempt to diversify JRM Power Requirement (After Building Capacity Required Potential Savings (KWh) its power generation85,000,000 portfolio and thereby Conservation Retrofits) (KWh) (KW) Area (Acres) Remainder (KWh) reduce the dependency212,000,000 of the island on fossil 212,000,000 114,335.0 463.3 fuels. The exact quantity of energy purchased Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data Total Solar Requirement (sf)will be dependent on20,182,956 a number of factors, in- Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website. cluding the cost of the renewable energy and 11 Total Solar Requirement (Acres)the demand by other customers463 on the island. travels. Due to its location near the equa- Total Solar Requirement (squareHowever, miles) for the sake of0.72 future calculations tor, Guam is in a prime location to benefit Total Capacity (KW) within this report it is assumed114,335 that JRM will from solar power – whether through solar Total Cost purchase 55 percent1,372,020,278 of all renewables sold by thermal water heating or solar PV. The great- GPA. It should be noted that the Navy does est drawback for solar thermal and PV is the not purchase or sell Renewable Energy Cred- amount of land it requires, however, in recent its (RECs),7 however this type of a purchase years efficiencies have improved for some of renewable energy would not be considered solar PV systems to 40 percent and decreas- a REC.8 While the purchase of renewable ing manufacturing costs continue to lower the energy from GPA will move JRM closer to price of solar technologies.12 Assuming that meeting DON energy goals, the cost of elec- all potential energy savings can be achieved tricity from renewable sources will most likely (as described in Chapter 4), the reduced be higher than what JRM currently pays ($.27 JRM annual energy consumption would be per KWh). NAVFAC has historically met 212 million KWh. If the joint region were to resistance when costs for renewables were produce enough energy to meet all its energy higher than the cost of energy provided by the requirements by solar power it would require local utility.9 Such concerns do not take into a solar PV array that would be 463 acres or account the unique situation JRM is in on almost three-fourths of a mile (See Table 5.2 Guam and the second and third order effects JRM Total Solar Requirements).13 Despite to GPA if JRM were to drastically reduce its the large Navy and Air Force Land holdings, annual power purchase as it began to generate the mountainous topography at NAVMAG, all of its own renewable energy. Additionally, Naval Communications Reserved Areas at purchasing renewables from GPA remains a NCTS, and built up areas that do break up viable option as it does further the primary the total land holdings would make it difficult federal goal to “move the United States [and, to site such a large PV array within DOD therefore, Guam] towards greater energy lands or even outside of DOD lands. independence and security,10” An analysis was conducted to site as many solar PV arrays within DOD lands as 5.2. Solar Energy Production possible; following recent trends throughout NBG both building rooftops and open tracts On a clear day the power from the of land were considered possibilities. Most sun is approximately 1 KW per 1 square of the Navy and Air Force rooftops are flat meter or 10.7 square feet at the equator, this – which are ideal for the installation of solar power lessens the further north or south one panels. The National Renewable Energies Laboratory (NREL) solar power calcula-

7 Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Draft tor, PV Watts was used for all calculations. Shore Energy Execution Plan,” E-3. Additionally, factors such as array azimuth, 8 RECs are somewhat like trading in carbon emissions. Typi- tilt, and type of panel (standard or BIPV) cally, a third party purchases a credit at a higher price than the normal cost per KWh and then sells to conscientious were considered for all calculations. In all, companies or individuals. The producer of the renewable 82 buildings and 12 tracts of land, the largest can then sell actual electricity to the local utility provider at of which would have a capacity of 1.9 MW, the local price per KWh. Technically, RECs can be sold to individuals or companies hundreds of miles from where the were identified as potential locations for solar actual renewable was produced – source: “Renewable Energy 11 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Credits Explained.” Air, 38. 9 Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Draft 12 Donald Fournier, “Renewable Energy.” Shore Energy Execution Plan E-3. 13 Taking into account the need to position solar arrays at a 10 One Hundred and Tenth Congress, “Energy Independence 13.5 angle (latitude of Guam) and space arrays so that there is and Security Act.” no shading. 5-2 Table 5.3. JRM Potential Solar Capacity and Cost Savings* Figure 5.6 Tracks the Potential Solar Total Energy 20-yr Estimated Cost Base Capacity (KW) Production (KWh) Savings (PV) Monthly Move- NBG 10,267 19,138,504 $100,337,787 NCTS 1,784 3,307,931 $17,342,551 ment of the Sun AAFB 7,106 14,713,561 $77,139,060 Total 19,157 37,159,996 $194,819,398 Across the Guam * 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 Sky Source: Sun Position Calcu- PV arrays (See listing of all potential buildings lator, PV Education Organi- in Appendix F). The combined annual sav- zation, accessed November 15, 2012. 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 produce 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 recommended in Guam14 ), are actually po- (eROI) potential in Guam, the total solar sitioned so that they face away from the sun energy production was calculated, based on during the summer months in the Northern the same configuration and number of arrays, Hemisphere tropics and during the winter for other Navy and Marine Corps installation months in the Southern Hemisphere tropics. areas such as San Diego, Twenty-Nine Palms, In the tropics a two axis tracking solar array Naval Station Great Lakes, and Norfolk (See will increase total annual energy production; Table 5.4 JRM Potential Solar Energy Pro- however, total cost and required area for solar duction Compared to that of other Operating arrays would increase dramatically. Despite Locations). This analysis demonstrates the this, solar power remains an extremely viable viability of solar power compared to what it form of power generation for JRM. would be in locations such as Bremerton, WA and North Chicago, IL. However, this 5.3 Wind Turbine Energy analysis also demonstrates that solar power Production is more viable in locations throughout the southwest; the solar arrays would produce Wind turbine technology, like that almost 12 percent more electricity in Twenty- of solar PV, has made major improvements Nine Palms, CA than in Guam. Surprisingly, within the last few years. As such, total wind even locations further north such as Norfolk power capacity has increased by 728 percent only produce nine percent less solar electric- from 1997 to 2007 throughout the United ity than Guam. These results were a little star- States.15 Total power produced is highly tling given Guam’s proximity to the equator. dependent on the cube of the wind speed, This might be due to cloud cover, however, this means that a slight change in the speed according to Figure 5.1, Guam Monthly Sun of the wind can have a great effect in the Position Polar Plot, the sun will rise at an power generated. Trade winds blowing to the azimuth between 65° and 80° east-northeast east-northeast at an average of 7.23 meters and will set at an azimuth between 280° and per second or 16 miles per hour at an average 295° west-northwest from May to August of 14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Lecture on Solar each year. As such, solar panels, positioned Mechanics.” at an azimuth of 180° and at a tilt of 13.5° (as 15 Donald Fournier, “Renewable Energy.”

Table 5.4 JRM Potential Solar Energy Production Compared with other Operating Locations Total Annual Energy Savings (Kwh) Total Capacity Twenty-Nine North Chicago, Base (kW) Guam San Diego, CA Palms, CA Bremerton, WA IL Jacksonville, FL Norfolk, VA NBG 10,267 19,138,504 20,661,549 21,917,007 13,185,342 16,964,733 18,086,626 17,479,238 NCTS 1,784 3,307,931 3,780,312 3,965,103 2,359,384 3,111,789 3,242,971 3,207,022 AAFB 7,106 14,713,561 15,454,024 16,402,415 9,811,713 12,742,905 13,563,897 13,125,783 Total 19,157 37,159,996 39,895,886 42,284,524 25,356,440 32,819,426 34,893,494 33,812,043 Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website. 5-3

Total Area 4,381,898 Annual JRM Consumption - Facilities (KWh) 297,500,000 Table 5.5 JRM Total Wind Requirements Table 5.6 JRM Potential Wind Capacity and Cost Savings* JRM Power Requirement (After Building Conservation Retrofits) Required Required Area Potential Wind Total Energy 20-yr Estimated Potential Savings (KWh) 85,000,000 (KWh) Capacity (KW) (Acres) Base Capacity (KW) Production (KWh) Cost Savings (PV) Remainder (KWh) 212,500,000 212,500,000 173,000 4,754 NBG 4,000 4,916,112 $25,773,791 Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resource Data NCTS 1,000 1,229,028 $6,443,448 Total number of turbines 172.90 Center, A Performance Calculator for Grid-Connected PV System, PV Watts Website. AAFB 18,000 31,216,260 $163,658,062 Total 23,000 37,361,400 $195,875,301 173 16 elevation of 692 feet above sea-level allow * Based on the current price of $.27 per KWh and a projected cost increase of 3% per year for a total island-wide capacity of 1,814 MW Source Data: Personal Interview with NAVFAC Marianas UEM, Jack Brown, on May 23, 2012 Open area required for one turbine (ft) 3,236,452 or 15,898,366 MWh per year (See Appendix ditional analysis on the capacity factors for all Open area required for one turbine (Acres) 74 F for all renewable calculations). Obviously Total Area (Acres) 12,854 locations sited would be required to develop Total Max Area (sm) 20 this potential isn’t currently possible due to better estimates of total annual energy genera- land-use, topographical, and financing con- tion. In all, 23 potential locations were identi- Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (ft) 207,075,225 straints. If the joint region were to produce fied, four on NBG, one on NAVMAG, 11 on Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (acres) 4,754 Condensed Area (overlapping areas) (sm) 7 enough energy to meet all its energy require- AAFB, and 7 on Northwest Field at AAFB. ments by wind power it would require the The combined annual savings of turbines in installation of 173 Vergnet GEV HP 1 MW all identified locations would be almost 17 turbines. Wind turbines should not be spaced percent of the joint region facilities energy closer than five times the turbine diameter consumption (after potential savings due to (which is 203 feet for the Vergnet GEV HP conservation retrofits) and would produce a 1 MW turbine17 or 1,015 ft apart18). Based 20-year present value savings of $195 million on these spacing requirements, the total area (See Table 5.5 JRM Potential Wind Capacity required for 173 turbines is 4,754 acres or and Cost Savings). seven square miles (See Table 5.5, JRM Total Wind Requirements). As with solar PV arrays, many other factors, such as existing land 5.4 Wind Turbine and Solar uses, island topography, and a requirement to PV Siting limit noise to 55dba noise setback (approximately 750 feet radius for the Vergnet GEV Various factors were considered in HP19) make it much more difficult to find order to site both Solar PV arrays and wind the available space to site 173 turbines within turbines throughout DOD lands. In order to DOD lands. avoid additional costs due to infrastructure An analysis was conducted to site as upgrades, turbines and solar PV arrays were many turbines on DOD lands as possible. sited near major overhead or underground Areas with an average wind speed of over 6 transmission lines and near roads. Though m/s20 were required for any potential wind Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) turbine sites. Capacity factors, which account arcs do not necessarily impede construc- for all inefficiencies and losses, vary accord- tion of uninhabited facilities,21 they were not ing to wind conditions and each respective considered for the purposes of this study turbine. As such, for this report capacity due to the limited information available on factors were taken from the EMCE Consult- exact requirements. Additionally, densely ing Engineers Design Charrette report for forested lands, limestone forests, and ecologi- this specific turbine in site 7 (NBG) and site cal preserve areas were avoided as potential 5 (NAVMAG). The capacity factor for site 5 sites for renewables. For all locations, addi- (the higher of the two) was only used for the tional analysis is required to determine if the energy calculations (Seen in Appendix F) for infrastructure is sufficient enough to support turbines sited in the Northwest Field. Ad- the additional load (maps can be viewed as Figures 5.2. through 5.6 for each section 16 3TIER, “Fullview Wind – Initial Project Assessment (analysis of wind resources on Guam),” 1. below). 17 Vergnet, “GEV HP 1MW – Wind with a vision (product manual).” 5.4.1 NBG 18 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Potential sites for solar arrays are Air, 265. 19 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine clustered around the Navy Exchange and Farm,” Section 2, Presentations p. 21. Commissary. The other two potential sites 20 According to wind resource maps of Guam as found in 3TIER, “Fullview Wind – Initial Project Assessment (analysis 21 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine of wind resources on Guam),” 5. Farm,” 9. 5-4 are located along Sumay Drive (note that this 5.4.2 NAVMAG Figure 5.2 site was chosen despite its vegetative cover NBG - Proposed due to the centrality of this site) and near Due to the topography of NAVMAG the Charles King Gym. Shoreline Drive is (sloping gently down from Highway 5 and Siting for Renew- considered the only potential site for wind mainly behind higher mountains) only one ables potential site across Highway 5 from the Fena Map Created by Jason turbines within NBG. However, the EMCE Christensen Consulting Engineers Design Charrette report Water Treatment Plant is recommended. Ad- Date: November 23, 2012 sited the turbines closer than is typically rec- ditional analysis will be required to determine Source: NAVFAC Marianas ommended.22 Turbines spaced less than five the feasibility of locating a turbine in this loca- JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base times their diameter usually lose significant tion as the 55dba threshold actually crosses Guam Master Plan power.23 In this report the turbines are spaced over Navy property lines – though it does not no closer than 1,015 feet apart; thus on NBG impact the nearby residential units. 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 5.4.3 NCTS well as the reach of shadows at different times As DON instructions and policies of the day were calculated to ensure that the with respect to siting of turbines adjacent shadows of wind turbines did not cross over communications systems could not be potential or existing solar arrays (See Appen- obtained, no wind turbines are proposed on dix F for tables). 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- 22 Ibid. rently vacant). All sites are located away from 23 David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, 265. the naval communications reserved areas and 5-5 Figure 5.3 are located close to the main cluster. a primary overhead line runs along the length NAVMAG - of this road. Additionally, this area experi- 5.4.4 AAFB ences some of the highest wind velocities on Proposed Siting In addition to other restraints, loca- the northern half of the island. for Renewables tions within the airfield clear zone were avoid- Map Created by Jason Christensen ed. Proposed sites for solar PV arrays are Date: November 23, 2012 scattered throughout the community support 5.5 Other Alternative Sourc- Source: NAVFAC Marianas area of AAFB with the exception of one array JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor located along Arc Light Blvd near the flight es of Energy & Fee Planners, Naval Base Guam Master Plan line and the other located along Andersen The potential exists for the use of Air Force Blvd near the POL tanks. Potential other potential sources of alternative ener- sites for turbines are located along smaller gies on Guam, however, many of these ideas roads near the land fill between ESQD arcs would require much more analysis to de- around the runway and around the munitions termine the true feasibility. Currently GPA sites. Additionally, two proposed turbine sites is investigating the use of a biomass plant. are located on the western limit of the base Current estimates point at a construction near the cliff-line – note that the turbines cost of approximately $78.6 million; operat- were sited so that the 55dba threshold does ing and biofuel costs would be in addition to not affect wildlife within Pati Point Preserve. this.24 GPA analysis with respect to biofuel types has, so far, centered on wood pellets 5.4.5 Northwest Field at AAFB that would be shipped to Guam.25 It should The proposed locations of seven be noted that the cost (and energy consump-

turbines are placed along the road leading to 24 Guam Power Authority, “New Resources: Capital Costs & the northern tip overlooking Ritidian Point. Operating Characteristics,” 23. Though Northwest Field is somewhat isolated 25 Ibid, 21. 5-6 Figure 5.4 NCTS - Proposed Siting for Renewables Map Created by Jason Christensen Date: November 23, 2012 Source: NAVFAC Marianas JRM GIS Data, Helber Hastor & Fee Planners, Naval Base Guam Master Plan

5-7 Figures 5.5 & 5.6 (Top to Bottom) AAFB and Northwest Field at AAFB - Proposed Siting for Renewables Map Created by Jason Christensen Date: November 23, 2012 5-8 tion) associated with shipping in wood pellets waste-to-energy plant would only have a 1.3 would be very high. MW capacity and would only have an annual A much more sustainable option generation of 12.3 million KWh. Though would be to grow biofuel on the island itself; the plant would be smaller the SIR would however in an island of only 210 square miles almost certainly decrease to below acceptable one is limited in total production of biofuels. levels. Joint partnerships with GPA are also For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed more socially sustainable as the JRM contin- that 5% of Guam land uses can be zoned for ues to support and sustain one of the most the production of biofuels; this yields a total important agencies and a major employer on capacity of 6.8 MW and an annual power Guam. production of 39.9 million KWh. Some biofuels such as sugarcane yield much more power per square foot. As such, assuming the 5.6 Funding Vehicles five percent all Guam land uses was devoted Several different funding vehicles are to sugarcane production the biofuel plant available that allow for the construction or could have a total capacity of 42.9 MW and installation of renewable energies within the an annual power production of 252 million region. While this list is by no means exhaus- KWh.26 In reality, due to existing land uses, tive it includes ESPCs, the Energy Conserva- island topography, and operating costs such tion Investment Program (ECIP), PPAs, and as shipping fertilizers, it is probably not fea- RMe special projects. ESPCs, finance energy sible to assume that biofuels can be produced conservation retrofits and renewable energy in any great quantity on Guam. through the monthly savings offset due to Another potential option is a waste- reduced energy consumption over a period to-energy plant, such a plant would reduce of years. The ECIP and RMe special projects future pressures on landfills on Guam. are centrally funded with the intent that each Assuming each person on Guam produces dollar invested up front will yield a savings of approximately 2.2lbs of trash a day a waste- between one to two times that in cost savings to-energy plant could have a total capacity of due to decreased energy consumption.28 As 13 MW and an annual energy production of such, CNIC programs for increasingly smaller 30.6 million KWh.27 As costs are currently annual energy costs per each project that is not known additional analysis would be approved. In all three programs listed above, required to determine the true feasibility of JRM is the final owner of the new energy such a plant. infrastructure. Through PPAs, a private entity Both JRM and GPA have conducted or contractor constructs and, ultimately, owns studies on the feasibility of other alternative all new energy infrastructure and then sells energy applications such as ocean thermal the energy to the region at a predetermined energy conversion (OTEC) and small unit price.29 If necessary the private entity is reactors (SMR). However, licensing pro- granted an easement in order to conduct op- cess durations (SMU) or costs and potential erations and maintenance. Though PPAs and destruction of reef habitat (OTEC) reduce ESPCs can finance renewable energy infra- the feasibility of these alternative applications. structure, DON still must continue to pro- Despite these cons, both applications deserve gram for future funds whereas with the ECIP additional analysis to determine the true feasi- and RMe programs those funds can now be bility. channeled to other Navy requirements. While all of these alternative applica- According to the EMCE Consult- tions demonstrate potential as viable options ing Engineers Design Charrette report, the for producing alternative energies on Guam, proposed project to install a 4 MW wind the joint region will almost certainly deter- farm would have been an ECIP. While it mine that it is not feasible to develop these was originally considered financially feasible, technologies alone. Joint ventures or partner- additional analysis led to a determination ships with GPA will optimize cost savings and that unplanned infrastructure costs, higher increase efficiencies. For example, assuming construction costs due to high United Facili- it ran only on trash generated on bases, a ties Criteria (UFC) standards, and NAVFAC 26 Calculations and energy yields from David JC MacKay, 28 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, 43 - 44. Farm,” 2. 27 Ibid, 287. 29 Chandra Shah, “Power Purchase Agreements,” 2. 5-9 Supervision, Inspection, & Overhead (SIOH) to the Navy and still meets federal and DON (7.2 percent increase) resulted in a savings to renewable energy requirements.31 It is also investment ratio (SIR) that was below the re- recommended that all 12 ground-mounted quired threshold.30 In a PPA the private en- solar PV arrays be financed through PPAs for tity owns and maintains all infrastructure, can the same reasons as wind turbines. However, most likely construct according to local codes all roof mounted and BIPV arrays could be instead of the UFC; additionally, as the agree- financed through an ESPC or RMe. It is pos- ment will be to purchase energy (per KWh) sible that the energy Return on Investment SIOH is not applied to the total contract (eROI) will not be high enough to finance the price. As stated earlier in this chapter, GPA solar projects alone as RMe special projects, recently signed a PPA with GQP to purchase as such, these projects could be packaged power for $.196 per KWh (for the first year); by building (or several buildings) including this is a lower cost than which the Navy cur- various energy conservation retrofits along rently purchases power from GPA ($.27 per with the solar arrays. Finally, the same type KWh). A PPA involving the installation of of packaging to increase the SIR could be ap- the 23 wind turbines would pose minimal risk plied to an ESPC.

30 EMCE Consulting Engineers, “4 MW Wind Turbine Farm.” 31 Chandra Shah, “Power Purchase Agreements,” 2.

5-10 Chapter 6 Conclusion 6.1 Summary Analysis at the facility type level shows that while the region, as a whole, has Due to both the Energy Policy Act an increasing EUI, specific facility types such of 2005 and the Energy Independence and as offices, power and heat generation facili- Security Act of 2007 JRM and other Navy ties, communications facilities, unaccom- regions have been under increasing pressure panied personnel housing, and warehouses to reduce annual EUIs below the baseline may be contributing disproportionately to the year of FY03. Despite a region-wide energy total regional increase in EUI. Additionally, awareness campaign and the use of funding analysis at the facility type level has indicated vehicles such as ESPC and RMe for the im- that facilities that had undergone energy con- plementation of energy conservation retrofits servation retrofits may be increasing in energy and renewable energy infrastructure, the joint consumption again. region has only experienced a net decrease of eight percent in energy consumption and 6.8 percent in EUI. Though Typhoon Pongsona Through a benchmark analysis this report has skewed the FY03 energy consumption and, identified over 300 facilities that are perform- therefore, increased the difficulty of achieving ing below the benchmark and has identified FY16 energy reduction goals, and though the a potential energy savings of approximately Navy demolition program, as a second order 85 million KWh per year. Additionally, a effect of removing mothballed facilities, may combined approach of pursuing renewable have increased the JRM EUI, JRM normal- options within DOD lands (by both PPA and ized annual energy consumption has only ESPC/RMe) as well as partnerships with GPA decreased by 5.5 percent since FY03 and, in could potentially reduce consumption of fact, has increased by almost 8 percent in the fossil fuel-generated energies by 106 million last two years. KWh per year (See Table 6.1, JRM Pro-

Table 6.1 JRM Proposed Energy Consumption Reductions* Percent Decrease (from Annual Energy Consumption (KWh) original) EUI (KWh/sf)** EUI (MBTU/KSF)** 15841000 Power Purchased 358,000,000 Line Loss 29,500,000 Ships 31,000,000 Facilities 297,500,000 18.78 64.08 Potential Conservation based Savings 85,000,000 Modified Consumption - Facilities (after conservation retrofits) 212,500,000 28.57% 13.41 45.77 JRM Solar Power Production 17,600,000 PPA (Solar Power) 19,500,000 Purchase from GPA (Renewable Mix) 32,130,803 PPA (Wind Turbine) 37,400,000 Fossil Fuel-Based Consumption - Facilities (after renewables) 105,869,197 64.41% 6.68 22.80 Ships 31,000,000 Projected Line Loss 9,580,844 Projected 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 6-1 posed Energy Consumption Reductions) re- • Additional emphasis should be ducing JRM reliance on fossil fuel-generated placed on maintaining (or reducing) the electricity to only 146 million KWh per year. current regional GFA in accordance with These actions move the region much closer space requirements listed in NAVFAC P-80 to meeting DON goals to reduce the total (Facility Planning for Navy and Marine Corps EUI 50 percent and meet DON goals to pro- Installations). Current moves by commands duce half of all facility energy requirements from building to building suggest that as through renewable energies; while it would be new facilities have been constructed the difficult to accomplish such feats by 2020 it is daisy chain of commands shifting from one by no means impossible. Additionally, JRM building to another does not always result in can begin pursuing a partnership with GPA empty buildings that are then demolished. for the implementation of a longer-term re- Ultimately, this results in a GFA well over newable application such as the construction requirements for current population. Addi- of a bio-fuel, waste-to-energy plant or even tionally, many buildings are maintained in the OTEC. While these options will take time to event that they may one day support potential pursue they also diversify the energy produc- future missions. Though EUI (in terms of tion portfolio on Guam and allow for energy MBTU/KSF) may not necessarily increase or consumption growth which will occur due decrease as GFA increases, energy consump- to changing missions, and more importantly tion (MBTU) does increase, while this allows changing technologies that inevitably require JRM to meet all specific DON goals it does more energy. not meet the intent of these goals.

6.2 Recommendations • An enduring region-wide energy • While certain trends may be iden- conservation awareness program must be in tified through an analysis such as the one place in order to change cultural norms with within this report, each facility is unique; its respect to energy conservation. A sizeable energy consumption is affected by chang- savings is possible simply through behavioral ing behavioral patterns and missions, aging changes. Such a region-wide energy conserva- mechanical systems, workforce population tion awareness program should encourage increases or decreases, temperatures, as well energy conservation through awards and as varying structural components, fenestra- incentives programs, pressure or competi- tion, and insulation. The only sure way to tion amongst neighbors or tenant commands, understand the “why” behind the numbers is and positive feedback upon meeting specific to conduct a building energy audit. CNIC is attainment goals. requiring that 25 percent of facilities receive an energy audit each year. If possible, addi- • JRM must maintain a strong regional tional funds should be set aside each year for network of energy managers consisting of a building energy audits. regional energy manager, installations energy managers, and collateral duty facility energy • The JRM Potential Facility Energy managers. The regional energy manager Savings Worksheet identifies over 300 Navy should have extensive knowledge of processes and Air Force facilities that are currently and programs within various NAVFAC busi- performing below baseline standards. The ness and product lines such as Asset Manage- total potential energy savings for these facili- ment (AM) Business Line, Public Works ties (based on proper energy conservation (PW) Business Line (and in particular the retrofits) is approximately 85 million KWh Utilities & Energy Management (UEM) Prod- or $22.9 million annually. These buildings uct Line, as well as Capital Improvements represent the highest potential reduction in (CI) Business Line. Additionally, the regional region-wide energy savings. As such, energy energy Manager must be comfortable work- audits should focus on these facilities, and ing with the Regional Public Affairs Officer in particular the top 36 energy consuming (PAO) as well as with Regional leadership. facilities (below benchmark standards) shown Communication is essential between the re- in Table 4.1, JRM Potential Facility Energy gional energy manager and installation energy Savings. managers as well as between installation and facilities energy managers. 6-2 • As the EUI of individual facilities should be coordinated with GPA. can and does vary over time (even after energy conservation retrofits) it is imperative • The GPA smart grid will provide that facility energy managers monitor chang- JRM with new opportunities to reduce energy ing behavior and usage patterns within their costs even further. Additional analysis should respective facilities. Installation energy manag- be conducted into the possibility of chang- ers should monitor progress and provide ing the JRM-GPA contract from a fixed rate feedback to facility managers. to that of a real-time or a time of use (TOU) rate. If the region can shift demand in accor- • JRM can neither expect to make dance to fluctuations between peak and low attainment on DON renewable energy goals demand it may be able to reduce electrical alone nor can it expect to do so by purchas- costs. ing all renewables from GPA. The region must have a comprehensive long term and • Currently, NAVFACs Navy-wide short term plan for renewables. In the short monitoring programs such as Defense, Util- term JRM can coordinate with GPA for the ity, and Energy Reporting System (DUERs), purchase of GPA renewable energies as well NFADS, and the Centralized and Integrated as finance renewables such as rooftop solar Reporting for the Comprehensive Utilities In- PV and BIPV arrays through vehicles such as formation Tracking System (CIRCUITS) are ESPCs and RMe special projects. In order to not integrated. As such, the Energy manager increase SIR or eROI, renewables should be must contact the AM Business Line Coordi- bundled with lower cost energy conservation nator for current regional square footages as retrofits. Larger renewable projects that may well as the UEM Product Line Coordinator not meet required SIR or eROI values should for current consumption levels in order to be financed through PPA. In the long term, perform calculations on legacy spreadsheets JRM can partner with GPA to study, finance, to find current region and base-wide EUIs. and construct other higher-cost, alternative These numbers are then sent to the Naval Fa- applications such as biofuel plants, waste-to- cilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) energy plants, SMR, or even OTEC plants. to be inputted into DUERs. If all programs were integrated a good deal of guess work and • JRM officials should continue to potential errors would be reduced, resulting improve relationships and find additional in more transparent and accurate data. partnering opportunities with GPA. As JRM is GPA’s largest customer (purchasing 20% Through these recommendations of all electricity produced) additional analysis as well as additional information gathered must be conducted with respect to how JRM through future studies, building energy audits, energy conservation reductions and pursuits and technical reports, JRM will continue to of alternative energy generation will, ultimate- move towards a path of lower energy con- ly, affect the long-term solvency of GPA. JRM sumption reducing its dependency on fossil plans to meet DON energy goals such as a fuels, enabling a more socially and environ- 50 percent reduction in energy consumption mentally sustainable manner of operation, as well as a conversion of 50 percent of all and making a valuable contribution towards energy production to renewable applications U.S. national security.

6-3 Works Cited A. 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

7-1 Works Cited EMCE 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, accessed 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, accessed 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. 7-2 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. 7-3 Appendices

A-A Appendix A. JRM Comparison Charts

Figure A.1 AFB Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present) Source: New OAB Charts 40.00% October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 30.00% maintained by JRM and

NBG energy managers, 20.00% October 2012

10.00%

0.00% Percent Change Percent from Baseline -10.00%

-20.00%

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

Figure A.2 JRM (Naval Mission) Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Source: New OAB Charts Present) October, (Energy consump- 15.00% tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and 10.00%

NBG energy managers, 5.00% October 2012

0.00%

-5.00%

-10.00%

-15.00% Percent Change Percent from Baseline

-20.00%

-25.00%

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

NBG Annual Energy Consumption Comparisons (FY04 - Present) Figure A.3 20.00%

Source: New OAB Charts 15.00% October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 10.00% maintained by JRM and 5.00% NBG energy managers, October 2012 0.00%

-5.00%

-10.00%

Percent Change Percent from Baseline -15.00%

-20.00%

-25.00%

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

A-1 Appendix A. JRM Energy Consumption

JRM Annual EUI (FY04 - Present) Figure A.4 75.0 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump- 73.0 tion tracking spreadsheet

71.0 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

69.0 October 2012

67.0

65.0

63.0

61.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

59.0

57.0

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

AAFB Annual EUI (FY04 - Present) Figure A.5 85.0 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 80.0 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

October 2012 75.0

70.0

65.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

60.0

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

JRM (Naval Mission) Annual EUI (FY04 - Present) Figure A.6 75.0 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump- 73.0 tion tracking spreadsheet

71.0 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers,

69.0 October 2012

67.0

65.0

63.0

61.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

59.0

57.0

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

A-2 Appendix A. JRM Energy Consumption

Figure A.7 Naval Housing Annual EUI (FY04 - Present) Source: New OAB Charts 45.0 October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and 40.0 NBG energy managers, October 2012

35.0

30.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

25.0

20.0 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

Figure A.8 Naval Base Guam Annual EUI (FY04 - Present) Source: New OAB Charts 100.0 October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 95.0 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, 90.0

October 2012

85.0

80.0

75.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF) 70.0

65.0

60.0 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path

A-3 Appendix A. JRM Normalized Consumption

AAFB Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present) Figure A.9 500,000 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 450,000 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 400,000

2012 provided on May 25, 2012.

350,000

300,000 Energy (MBTU) Energy Consumtion 250,000

200,000

150,000 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

JRM (Naval Mission) Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present) Figure A.10 650,000 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet

600,000 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October

2012 provided on May 25, 2012. 550,000

500,000 Energy (MBTU) Energy Consumtion

450,000

400,000 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

NBG Housing Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present) Figure A.11 140,000 Source: New OAB Charts October, (Energy consump- 130,000 tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG 120,000 energy managers, October

2012 provided on May 25, 110,000 2012.

100,000

90,000

80,000 Energy (MBTU) Energy Consumtion

70,000

60,000

50,000 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

A-4 Appendix A. Normalized Consumption

Figure A.12 NBG Normalized Energy Consumption (FY04 - Present) Source: New OAB Charts 550,000 October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet

maintained by JRM and NBG 500,000 energy managers, October

2012 provided on May 25, 2012. 450,000

400,000 Energy (MBTU) Energy Consumtion

350,000

300,000 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

Consumption Baseline Consumption (Normalized to GFA)

A-5 Appendix A. JRM EUI Normalized to Demolition

JRM (Navy Mission) EUI Normalized to Demolition Figure A.13 75.0 Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari- anas FSM Product Manager, 70.0 May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consump- 65.0 tion tracking spreadsheet maintained by JRM and NBG 60.0 energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. 55.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

50.0

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

NBG Housing EUI Normalized to Demolition Figure A.14 45.0 Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari- anas FSM Product Manager,

40.0 May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts

October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 35.0 maintained by JRM and NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 30.0 2012. Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

25.0

NBG EUI Normalized to Demolition Figure A.15 100.0 Source: Demo Task Order Log Sheet by NAVFAC Mari- 95.0 anas FSM Product Manager,

90.0 May 2012, provided on May 30, 2012. New OAB Charts

85.0 October, (Energy consumption tracking spreadsheet 80.0 maintained by JRM and NBG 75.0 energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 70.0 2012.

65.0 Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

60.0

55.0

50.0 FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15

EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path EUI Normalized to Demo

A-6 Appendix A. JRM Baseline Reset

JRM (Navy Mission) Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Figure A. 16 Reset Demonstrate Pro- 75.0 posed Baseline 73.0 Reset for Navy 71.0

Installations on 69.0 Guam (Top: JRM, 67.0 Bottom: AAFB) 65.0 Source: New OAB Charts 63.0

October, (Energy consump- 61.0 tion tracking spreadsheet Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF) maintained by JRM and 59.0

NBG energy managers, 57.0 October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year 55.0 Energy Plan: Naval Activities

on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15 Pacific EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glidepath Figure A. 17 NBG Housing Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset Demonstrate Pro- 45.0 posed Baseline Reset for Navy 40.0

Installations on Guam (Top: JRM, 35.0 Bottom: AAFB) Source: New OAB Charts 30.0 October, (Energy consump-

tion tracking spreadsheet Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF)

maintained by JRM and 25.0 NBG energy managers, October 2012 provided on May 25, 2012. Five Year 20.0 Energy Plan: Naval Activities on Guam, 2008, NAVFAC FY04 Q1 FY04 Q3 FY04 Q1 FY05 Q3 FY05 Q1 FY06 Q3 FY06 Q1 FY07 Q3 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q3 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q3 FY09 Q1 FY10 Q3 FY10 Q1 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q1 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q1 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q1 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q1 FY15 Q3 FY15 Pacific EUI EUI Baseline EUI Glide Path Baseline Reset Modified Glide Path

Figure A. 18 NBG Annual Energy Use Intensity & Proposed Baseline Reset Demonstrate Pro- 100.0 posed Baseline 95.0

Reset for Navy 90.0

Installations on 85.0 Guam (Top: JRM, Bottom: AAFB) 80.0

Source: New OAB Charts 75.0 October, (Energy consump- Energy Use Intensity(MBTU/KSF) tion tracking spreadsheet 70.0 maintained by JRM and

NBG energy managers, 65.0 October 2012 provided on

May 25, 2012. Five Year 60.0 Energy Plan: Naval Activities

A-7 Appendix B. JRM Demo Task Orders FY02 - FY12

CONTRACT TO ACRN DOC. NO. DESCRIPTION CUSTOMER 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 $1,171,577.53 0002 AA O/A 44957 Demo 68 Hsng Unit South Tipalao NCS Housing Manglona 9/29/2002 10/7/2004 61,536 $1,218,484.12 0003 AA N6175502RC2MS04 Demo of Various Bldgs ComNavMar Manglona 9/29/2002 10/7/2004 16,452 $154,889.14 0004 AA N6175502RC2M145 Demo of Chain Link Fences ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 7/10/2003 $164,519.10 0005 AA N6239502RC20083 Demo of Concrete Slabs ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 8/11/2004 $83,506.37 0006 AA N6239502RC20083 Demo of Concrete Slabs ComNavMar Manglona 9/30/2002 11/28/2003 $83,506.37 0007 Asbestos Testing/N Tip/S Fin Housing Mantanona 8/272003 11/28/2003 $69,434.77 0008 Demo 130 Housing units at South Fin Housing Mantanona 9/26/2003 2/28/2005 171,611 $2,645,857.38 0009 AA Demo 138 Housing Units NCTS Housing Mantanona 9/29/2002 2/23/2005 89,999 $2,550,258.41 0010 Demo 36 Housing Units North Tipalao Housing Mantanona 9/8/2003 9/7/2004 38,530 $496,310.55 0011 Demo Softball Field at Naval Hosp NAVHOSP Serneo 9/8/2003 6/25/2004 $30,500.36 0012 Demo Various facilities at SRF CNM Serneo 9/18/2003 11/30/2005 302,139 $1,106,929.16 0013 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 Demo of 101 Housing Units at Poinciana Cir, Pandanus Place & 0016 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 $326,095.50 0018 AA DEMO 14 ea Facilities at NCTS CNM Diaz 2/11/2005 11/28/2006 236,169 $2,123,296.93 0019 AA DEMO 6 Facilities at NCTS CNM Diaz 3/3/2005 10/19/2005 17,568 $298,193.13 0020 AA Demo of FH05 Housing office Family Housing Camacho 8/4/2005 4/14/2006 8,865 $29,956.80 0021 AA Demo of 106 units at NCTS ComNavMar Camacho 8/1/2005 9/24/2007 115,518 $2,532,246.28 0022 AA Asbestos Testing CNM Camacho 9/12/2005 $51,251.04 0023 AA WR#30534- DEMO CNM and Main Base CNM Camacho 9/15/2005 10/24/2005 3,709 $28,067.68 0024 AA WR30201-DEMO Main Base & Shipyard CNM Camacho 9/22/2005 7/11/2008 58,829 $1,672,375.21 0025 AA NCTS Cleanup CNM Camacho 9/25/2005 $57,925.08 0026 Asbestos Removal & Disp, Bldg 526 CNM Mantanona 5/17/2006 0027 AA Demo former PWC compound CNM Mantanona 6/302006 6/30/2008 99,487 $3,474,585.34 0028 AA N6112806RCRC118BXB Demo Various Facilities Ordnance Annex CNM Mantanona 6/29/2006 5/3/2010 110,322 $460,570.95 0029 AA Demo NEX Garage Facilities 6/30/2006 4/3/2008 50,000 $1,099,417.66 0030 Demo Bldg-219 metal container orote power CNM 8/19/2006 4/302007 400 $12,699.12 0031 Remove asbestos DODEA B-3014 CNM 0032 AA CNM Main Base and Polaris Point CNM Mantanona 6/5/2007 4/5/201 110,322 $636,162.00 0033 Demolition of Bldg 33 located at Coast Guard Victor Wharf CNM Blas 4/24/2008 2/28/2009 1,627 $ 10,854.68 Removal and Disposal of above grounds storage tanks various 0034 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 $492,599.36 0037 Demolition of 58 Housing Units at North Tipalao CNM Blas 1/13/2009 7/24/2010 70,970 $1,384,289.84 0038 Demolition of Bldgs at FAA, NCS CNM Blas 6/12/2009 4/15/2012 21,248 $694,446.09

Demolition of various facilities at Main Base, NCTS FINEGAYAN, 0039 BARRIGADA, TENJO VISTA AND CAMP COVINGTON. CNM Blas 6/28/2009 11/16/2010 9,078 $1,099,307.54 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 0040 Archeological Monitoring Plan CNM Blas 8/5/2012 7/31/2012 31,941 $2,302,423.37

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 041 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

B-1 Appendix C. Benchmarks

Table C.1. CNIC And Energy Star Benchmarks CNIC CNIC Energy Star Energy Star Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Facility Types (MBTU/KSF) (KWh/sf) (MBTU/KSF) (KWh/sf) Notes Clubs & 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 44.3 Community 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 54.8 Family Housing 49 14.4 Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage Facilities 98 28.7 Gate/Guardpost/Watch Tower 372 109.0 Land, Waterfront and Coastal Operations 52 15.2 Maintenance Facilities 56 16.4 Medical Facilities 232 68.0 88/ 129 26.8/ 37.8 Energy Star breaks down facility types into Medical Office & Hospital Offices 66 19.3 67 19.6 Parking & Open Structures 18 5.3 Power/Heat Generation 109 31.9 Primary & 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, & Elementary Production Facilities 76 22.3 Public Safety & Base Services 41 12.0 RDT&E Facilities 56 16.4 Stand-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 60.1 Training Facilities 41 12.0 Transient & Visitor Housing 49 14.4 Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 49 14.4 64 18.8 Utility Infrastructure 176 51.6 Warehouse 14 4.1 16/ 100 4.7/ 29.3 Energy Star breaks down facility types into warehouse and refrigerated warehouse Water, Sewage, and Waste Facilities 43 12.6 Source: 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.

C-1 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.1 Heat Map - Naval Base Guam Polaris Pt.

D-1 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.2 Heat Map - Apra View and Apra Heights

D-2 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.3 Heat Map - Nimitz Hill

D-3 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.4 Heat Map - Naval Hos- pital

D-4 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.5 South Finnegayan Housing

D-5 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.6 An- dersen Air Force Base - Housing 1

D-6 Appendix D. Heat Maps Figure D.7 An- dersen Air Force Base - Housing 2

D-7 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.1. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Clubs & Dining Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Andersen BURGER KING 27,030 6,386 1,039,000.0 162.7 840,607.3 Naval Base ALL HANDS CLUB-TYPHOONZ 75 24,708 1,035,375.0 41.9 267,775.9 13, 14 Naval Base MCDONALDS MAIN BASE 282 5,793 811,950.0 140.2 631,979.9 12 12 Andersen ANDERSEN SCHOOL CAFETERIA 1,603 14,682 740,733.3 50.5 310,428.5 Andersen TOP OF THE ROCK CLUB 26,006 28,416 686,800.0 24.2 12 12 Nimitz Hill TOP OF THE MAR 295NZ 14,181 666,350.0 47.0 225,791.4 13 12 12 12 12 13 Andersen MAGELLAN DINING HALL 25,010 17,585 396,400.0 22.5 12 Naval Base CLIPPER LANDING RESTAURANT 1,985 7,628 186,725.0 24.5 12 12 Nimitz Hill CONF CENTER/OPEN MESS 293NZ 3,345 110,275.0 33.0 6,356.5 13 Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON GALLEY 586 9,893 104,000.0 10.5 12 12 13 Naval Magazin SILVER DOLPHIN 408NM 3,805 99,325.0 26.1 12 12 13 Andersen PALM TREE GOLF CLUBHOUSE 1,091 24,207 65,066.7 2.7 12 12 Naval Base THE POINT CLUB 4429PP 3,420 62,050.0 18.1 12 12 Andersen OFFICERS WIVES CLUB 25,023 3,778 44,200.0 11.7 Andersen BAMBOO WILLIES 9,509 2,271 28,366.7 12.5 Naval Base CLUB-BEEHIVE 521 6,074 23,200.0 3.8 12 12 13 Naval Base MOVIE VIDEO/1ST CLASS LOUNGE 520 4,601 17,700.0 3.8 Naval Base CPO/LOUNGE CLUB 503 2,732 10,500.0 3.8 12 12 13 NCTS CONSOLID OFF/ENL MESS OPEN 170 7,716 100.0 0.0 Total 6,128,116.7 2,282,939.5 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-1 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.3. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Community Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Manageme & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace nt Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Andersen YOUTH CENTER 1605 9,014 1,399,966.7 155.3 1,262,590.3 12 Naval Base CHARLES KING GYM 1980 23,654 1,297,125.0 54.8 936,630.3 13 Andersen BOWLING CENTER 25005 64,566 911,966.7 14.1 12 12 Naval Base OROTE POINT BOWLING LANES 600 15,600 866,250.0 55.5 628,500.9 12 12 12 14 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER 1625 28,176 834,400.0 29.6 404,988.5 12 14 Naval Base LITTLE RED SCHOOL HOUSE 1983B 2,520 498,525.0 197.8 460,119.4 9 9 13 Naval Base HOBBY SHOP / YOUTH CENTER 1982A 9,670 353,350.0 36.5 205,976.0 9 12 13 Andersen YOUTH CENTER 1622 15,051 316,533.3 21.0 87,151.2 12 12 Naval Hospital CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 10 9,596 254,375.0 26.5 108,128.8 12 12 12 Naval Base CB FITNESS CENTER 523 12,672 248,200.0 19.6 55,074.6 12 Andersen OUTDOOR RECREATION CENTER 25018 15,617 233,333.3 14.9 Andersen FITNESS CENTER 25045 57,129 214,133.3 3.7 12 12 12 12 Naval Base SITE III OUTDOOR GEAR ISSUE 4446PP 240 198,225.0 825.9 194,567.3 Naval Base T. STELL NEWMAN MUSEUM 1657B 7,648 182,400.0 23.8 65,842.0 12 12 FY12 Andersen ARTS AND CRAFTS CENTER 25006 7,094 139,400.0 19.7 31,285.1 12 Naval Base NEW FITNESS CENTER 1980A 72,900 120,400.0 1.7 Naval Base CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER - D 1983D 4,513 115,050.0 25.5 46,270.4 9 9 13 Naval Base ESO & POST OFFICE 4 13,013 110,600.0 8.5 9 9 Naval Hospital MWR FITNESS CENTER 70 4,800 110,200.0 23.0 37,046.4 NCTS YOUTH CENTER A845FG 4,692 76,425.0 16.3 4,917.4 12 12 Andersen FITNESS FACILITY 2649 2,111 64,833.3 30.7 32,661.0 Naval Base MWR RENTAL CTR (REC-N-CREW) 1986 3,300 25,700.0 7.8 Nimitz Hill INDOOR BASKETBALL 207NZ 11,869 13,250.0 1.1 Andersen ISLANDERS SPORTSMEN CLUB 20024 400 2,433.3 6.1 Andersen SKEET RANGE TOWER 20025 128 1,050.0 8.2 Total 8,588,125.0 4,561,749.5 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.4. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Family Housing) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Install Average Potential Energy Calibratio Annual Annual Managem n & Install Install Install Energy Electricity Replace ent Maintena Repair/U Solar Double Temperat Retro- Total Area Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace Control nce pgrade Water Pane ure commissi Location Neighborhood Number of Houses (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System Checks HVAC Heaters Windows Setbacks oning Naval Base Bay View Housing 22 97,436 2,883,875.0 29.6 1,484,589.0 Naval Base Lockwood Housing 232 367,236 8,306,950.0 22.6 3,033,045.0 Nimitz Hill Nimitz Hill Housing 40 84,236 1,429,475.0 17.0 219,755.2 Andersen Transient Quarters 79 138,222 2,292,166.7 16.6 307,149.7 Nimitz Hill Flag Circle 7 18,872 310,875.0 16.5 39,852.7 Naval Base North Tipalau Housing 102 262,285 3,967,625.0 15.1 200,929.5 Andersen Enlisted Housing 529 1,575,376 22,020,933.3 14.0 Apra Heights Apra Heights Housing 29 235,644 3,242,550.0 13.8 Naval Hospital Naval Hospital Housing 25 57,612 783,725.0 13.6 Andersen Officer Housing 223 540,010 6,308,466.7 11.7 Andersen Temporary Lodging 54 95,338 1,041,166.7 10.9 Apra Heights Apra View Housing 87 253,576 2,707,650.0 10.7 NCTS Finegayan Housing 31 102,984 980,075.0 9.5 Naval Base Harbor View Housing 100 426,995 2,868,275.0 6.7 Naval Base South Tipalau Housing 80 180,139 867,200.0 4.8 NCTS South Finegayan Housing 183 940,679 4,459,650.0 4.7 Total 64,470,658.3 5,285,321.0 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.5. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Fuel & Liquid Dispensing & Storage) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Manageme & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace nt Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Andersen FUEL PUMPING STATION BLDG 14507 2,656 131,166.7 49.4 54,880.6 Andersen A/C FUEL PUMP BLDG 2590 3,750 78,733.3 21.0 Andersen A/C FUEL PUMP BLDG 2595 3,750 78,733.3 21.0 Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26206 1,500 72,733.3 48.5 29,650.1 Andersen SHED/SHELTER PUMP STA/ANC EQ 14512 438 31,400.0 71.7 18,819.7 Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26196 420 18,366.7 43.7 6,303.4 Sasa Valley BOOSTER PUMP HOUSE 1708SV 2,626 2,200.0 0.8 Andersen PUMPING STATION BLDG 26200 3,750 1,233.3 0.3 Sasa Valley TRANSFER PUMP HOUSE 1712SV 1,166 0.0 0.0 Total 414,566.7 109,653.8 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-2 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables Table E.6. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Gate, Guardpost, Watch Tower) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Manageme & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace nt Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning NCTS PASS/DECAL SEC BLDG - NCTS 292 392 94,500.0 241.1 51,761.4 13 Naval Base MAIN GATE/SENTRY HSE (FRONT) 108 224 79,900.0 356.7 55,478.0 13 Naval Base PASS & I.D. BLDG - MAIN BASE 1658 1,101 61,500.0 55.9 12 12 12 Naval Base GATE/SENTRY (BACK GATE) 131 49 48,575.0 991.3 43,232.7 Naval Base SENTRY HSE - SITE 3 (INSIDE) 4437PP 77 46,900.0 609.1 38,504.9 Naval Hospital GATE/SENTRY HOUSE 16 264 31,950.0 121.0 3,166.9 Naval Base GUARD/SENTRY HSE-XRAY CMPD 270XR 80 21,825.0 272.8 13,102.8 13 Naval Base GUARD HSE - POLARIS OUTER 3183PP 144 12,550.0 87.2 Andersen VISITOR CENTER 2403 1,125 12,433.3 11.1 Nimitz Hill GUARD/SENTRY HSE-FLAG CIRCLE 209NH 144 11,900.0 82.6 Andersen MAIN GATE SENTRY BLDG 2404 938 10,233.3 10.9 Naval Base GUARD SHACK-SIERRA WHARF 2122 72 7,850.0 109.0 0.1 Apra Heights OLD APRA HSG GATE SENTRY 4180AH 144 7,633.3 39.8 Naval Base SENTRY BOOTH - AMMO WHARF 5544 63 6,733.3 106.9 Naval Base GUARD / SENTRY - SRF 2076SY 72 6,200.0 86.1 Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 1882 100 4,166.7 41.7 Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 9052 144 1,466.7 10.2 Andersen GUARD SHACK 908 100 1,133.3 11.3 Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 51000 144 1,050.0 7.3 Naval Base GATE/SENTRY - XRAY OUTER 1660XR 156 775.0 5.0 Andersen SENTRY HOUSE 12 56 500.0 8.9 Andersen GUARD SHACK 9006 36 100.0 2.8 Naval Base GUARD HOUSE - DDGM SUPPLY 2121 49 0.0 0.0 Andersen GUARD SHACK 2505 35 0.0 0.0 Total 469,875.0 205,246.8 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.7. JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Land, Air, Waterfront, & Coastal Operations Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Naval Base NAVY SEALS OPS BLDG 3000 53,940 1,273,550.0 23.6 451,486.7 9 9 13 Andersen PASSENGER TERMINAL 17002 49,340 1,066,533.3 21.6 314,575.5 12 12 12 12,13 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 36 15,000 1,020,233.3 68.0 791,628.4 Naval Base EOD OPERATIONS FACILITY 2112 28,512 949,600.0 33.3 515,067.8 9 9 Naval Base WATERFRONT OPS BLDG 3169 145,689 572,850.0 3.9 12,13 Andersen TRANSIENT OPERATIONS BLDG 2510 6,400 523,933.3 81.9 426,395.2 Naval Base NSWU-1 SMALL BOAT FACILITY 3002 17,048 394,900.0 23.2 135,082.9 9 Andersen 36 MUNS ORDNANCE OPS BLDG 9002 5,140 361,533.3 70.3 283,198.0 Andersen LOX FACILITY 26224 7,382 311,566.7 42.2 199,062.6 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 91 3,847 270,666.7 70.4 212,037.1 Andersen FUEL OPERATIONS BLDG 26203 2,900 203,966.7 70.3 159,769.7 Andersen 36 MUNS ORDNANCE OPS BLDG 9000 2,772 195,000.0 70.3 152,753.8 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 42 2,826 192,233.3 68.0 149,164.2 Naval Base TRANSIT SHED 3192PP 18,665 189,725.0 10.2 12 12 Sasa Valley POL OPNS BLDG - LOWER SASA 1700SV 3,468 180,375.0 52.0 127,521.5 Andersen LINE DELIVERY BUILDING 9016 2,460 173,000.0 70.3 135,508.8 Andersen EOD BUILDING 2600 16,040 158,166.7 9.9 12 12 Andersen ELECTRIC SHOP 20010 9,848 154,066.7 15.6 Andersen FUELS CONTROL BLDG 19021 3,700 124,800.0 33.7 68,410.8 Barrigada PWC SHOP 56 5,490 111,325.0 20.3 21,219.5 Andersen HOUSING MAINTENANCE 1782 6,350 98,066.7 15.4 Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT 1 GYM K21 4,399 92,900.0 21.1 25,857.8 Andersen AIR CARGO TERMINAL 18013 13,290 78,666.7 5.9 Andersen LINE OPERATIONS BLDG 2517 1,540 77,066.7 50.0 53,596.6 Naval Base MAINT SHOP STORE (BOS KTR) 1793 8,181 76,300.0 9.3 Naval Base CG OPS BLDG 3268 6,900 71,100.0 10.3 12 12 Andersen LIQUID FUELS MAINT SHOP 26215 2,151 59,333.3 27.6 24,029.7 Naval Base BASE ARMORY 71 2,720 57,150.0 21.0 15,696.3 Naval Base ARMORY 560 3,000 53,550.0 17.9 7,829.0 Naval Base USDA TRAP SHOP 634F 3,248 45,050.0 13.9 9 14 Andersen PEST MANAGEMENT SHOP 2799 3,300 41,666.7 12.6 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 40 600 40,833.3 68.1 31,689.1 Naval Base SELF-HELP SHOP 546 4,018 40,050.0 10.0 Andersen LINE OPERATIONS BLDG 2820 1,617 38,866.7 24.0 14,223.1 Andersen COURIER SERVICE BLDG 17003 1,539 31,800.0 20.7 8,345.1 Andersen MISSILE ACCESS TUNNEL 37 420 28,600.0 68.1 22,199.1 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 38 800 28,600.0 35.8 16,407.7 Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 9106 1,008 26,766.7 26.6 10,222.7 Naval Base EOD ARMORY BUILDING 2105 1,360 22,075.0 16.2 1,348.2 9 14 Andersen TOOL STORAGE BLDG 26222 426 12,566.7 29.5 5,574.9 Andersen LOX CART STORAGE SHED 18025 800 10,633.3 13.3 Andersen RADOME ANTENNA BUILDING 20 144 9,833.3 68.3 7,638.7 Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT I STRG K23 4,399 6,200.0 1.4 Naval Base NAVSPECWAR UNIT I STRG K22 4,399 5,150.0 1.2 Andersen CE MAINTENANCE STORAGE 14531 351 4,800.0 13.7 Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 18022 308 3,900.0 12.7 Andersen AIR COMPRESSOR BLDG 9009 144 3,800.0 26.4 1,436.6 Andersen AIR CARGO TERMINAL 17004 2,314 1,533.3 0.7 Total 9,494,883.3 4,388,977.1 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009 E-3 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.8 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Maintenance Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Andersen MAINTENANCE HANGAR 17016 50,810 3,066,066.7 60.3 2,232,139.4 12 12 12 12 Andersen GLOBAL HAWK HANGAR 18110 74,080 1,943,000.0 26.2 727,150.1 12 12 Andersen CE / MOTOR POOL BLDG 18001 140,460 1,620,933.3 11.5 12 12 12 14 Andersen HSC-25 MAINT HANGER FACILITY 2641 70,869 938,933.3 13.2 12 12 12 Andersen AIRCRAFT HANGAR 18021 26,192 775,766.7 29.6 345,886.2 Barrigada GSE MAINTENANCE SHOP 18004 37,036 723,500.0 19.5 115,640.7 12 12 Andersen TRANS EQUIP MNT SHOP 372 69,396 712,550.0 10.3 9 12 13 Naval Base AIRCRAFT MAINT SHOPS 18006 58,490 644,633.3 11.0 12 14 Andersen AIRCRAFT HANGAR 18020 17,969 532,000.0 29.6 237,080.9 Naval Base MISSILE MAINTENANCE BLDG 51109 16,375 365,733.3 22.3 96,976.0 Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18008 7,607 302,366.7 39.7 177,515.6 Naval Base EMERGENT RPR SHOP-POLARIS 4430PP 11,014 294,200.0 26.7 113,430.9 Naval Base BOMB ASSEMBLY BLDG 9105 8,296 285,300.0 34.4 149,140.6 Andersen FUEL TRUCK MAINT SHOP 26229 4,600 252,600.0 54.9 177,101.8 Andersen CORROSION CONTROL HANGAR 18017 43,670 250,366.7 5.7 12 12 Andersen FUEL TRUCK PREV MAINT SHOP 26230 2,320 188,633.3 81.3 150,556.0 Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18007 614 186,166.7 303.2 176,089.3 Andersen HEAVY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 18035 4,320 168,500.0 39.0 97,597.3 Naval Base AIMD BUILDING 2642 13,944 132,300.0 9.5 12 Naval Base AUTO HOBBY SHOP 26051 24,757 122,733.3 5.0 12 Andersen MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE SHOP 9001 3,520 121,066.7 34.4 63,294.1 Andersen BOMB ASSEMBLY BLDG 9008 3,275 112,633.3 34.4 58,881.9 Andersen OPERATIONAL VEHICLE GARAGE 18044 28,380 107,366.7 3.8 Barrigada MISSLE MAINT/TEST FACILITY 870NM 8,400 98,250.0 11.7 Naval Base CONV MAINT BUILDUP 9100 2,484 85,333.3 34.4 44,564.3 Andersen MISSILE TEST FACILITY 1008NM 4,500 80,075.0 17.8 6,218.0 Andersen GOLF CART BATTERY CHARGING 96 3,000 59,125.0 19.7 9,887.0 Andersen CORROSION SHOP 18018 5,632 54,966.7 9.8 Andersen EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG 9122 676 54,933.3 81.3 43,838.4 Andersen CORROSION CONTROL PAINT SHOP 21008 14,760 53,833.3 3.6 Andersen MISSILE TEST FACILITY 1010NM 4,900 51,875.0 10.6 Andersen NAVSPECWAR UNIT 1 VEH STORAG 3008 4,960 50,050.0 10.1 13 Andersen GROUNDS FACILITY 20021 6,450 47,866.7 7.4 Andersen MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE FAC 1009NM 4,500 47,050.0 10.5 Andersen MSC ELECTRONICS MAINT SHOP 6011 1,920 40,925.0 21.3 9,412.7 Andersen INSPECTION FACILITY 9010 2,460 40,100.0 16.3 Andersen CE MAINTENANCE BAY 14532 1,008 39,333.3 39.0 22,789.4 Andersen MISSILE/SPARE STORAGE 1011NM 4,872 36,750.0 7.5 Andersen MHE BATTERY LOCKER 779XR 7,864 31,200.0 4.0 Andersen SPECIAL WEAPONS SHOP 51150 1,482 24,433.3 16.5 109.8 Andersen PARTS STORAGE 561 1,200 22,875.0 19.1 3,179.8 14 Naval Base SEABEE QUARRY RPR SHOP 599 1,650 20,850.0 12.6 Andersen MISSILE MAINTENANCE BLDG 51108 1,364 20,533.3 15.1 Naval Base HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE BLDG 14535 1,430 20,200.0 14.1 Naval Magazin MHE MAINT SHOP 364 9,860 19,900.0 2.0 9 Andersen NEX MAINTENANCE SHOP K20 4,399 19,400.0 4.4 Andersen PARACHUTE SHOP 18009 378 15,000.0 39.7 8,796.0 Andersen GROUNDS EQUIPMENT STORAGE 18024 1,968 13,400.0 6.8 Naval Magazin GOLF CART MAINT SHOP 94 4,608 9,400.0 2.0 12 12 Andersen MHE PARKING BLDG 19019 4,200 9,233.3 2.2 Naval Magazin MAINTENANCE HANGAR 18027 20,408 9,000.0 0.4 Naval Magazin GROUNDS EQUIP STORAGE 20026 1,200 8,900.0 7.4 Andersen ENGINE TEST CELL 2551 675 6,600.0 9.8 Andersen VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP 18040 6,808 2,800.0 0.4 Andersen MILITARY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 18042 6,426 2,366.7 0.4 Naval Magazin NDI SHOP 17006 4,095 1,200.0 0.3 Andersen NICAD STORAGE 2648 165 1,100.0 6.7 Total 14,946,208.3 5,067,275.9 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.9 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Medical Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Naval Hosptial NH HOSPITAL - GUAM 1 306,775 9,656,925.0 31.5 Andersen MEDICAL / DENTAL CLINIC 26012 42,094 1,326,400.0 31.5 Naval Base PRIMARY CARE CLINIC 6 13,239 364,500.0 27.5 12 13 Andersen PRIMARY CARE CLINIC 26009 9,642 269,533.3 28.0 Naval Base DENTAL CLINIC/MEDICAL STRG 555 1,710 21,300.0 12.5 Naval Base SEABEE MEDICAL FACILITY 528 1,920 21,050.0 11.0 Andersen MACERATOR BLDG 26004 659 10,766.7 16.3 Total 11,670,475.0 0.0 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-4 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.10 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Office Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) Average EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Andersen BUILDING 21000 21000 145,306 4,753,633.3 32.7 1,942,907.7 12 12 Andersen 36 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23020 16,787 1,752,666.7 104.4 1,427,947.4 12 Naval Base NBG ADMIN HQTRS 3190 36,622 1,024,275.0 28.0 315,877.6 9 9 13 Andersen 36 MAINTENANCE GROUP HQ 17000 32,170 981,833.3 30.5 359,553.1 12 12 12 13 Andersen WING HEADQUARTERS 23003 18,870 753,933.3 40.0 388,921.6 12 12 12 13 Apra Heights ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 4175AH 97,305 708,350.0 7.3 Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 200NZ 44,222 609,500.0 13.8 Andersen 734 AMS HQ BLDG 19028 18,240 607,400.0 33.3 254,574.7 12 12 Andersen 36 MSG HQ BLDG 23028 22,072 568,066.7 25.7 141,117.1 12 13 Apra Heights SANTA RITA OFFICE COMPLEX 4177AH 16,092 546,125.0 33.9 234,849.5 12 Naval Base ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B103 32,153 515,250.0 16.0 Andersen DET 5 OFFICE BLDG 30 6,561 446,200.0 68.0 319,287.3 12 Andersen 36 OPERATIONS SUPPORT HQ 25024 9,632 444,533.3 46.1 258,208.1 12 12 Naval Base COMSUBRON 15 HQTRS 3110 9,844 340,875.0 34.6 150,457.6 13 12 12 12 Naval Base BATTALION HDQTRS 556A 9,447 292,150.0 30.9 109,412.0 13 12 12 13 Andersen 736 SECURITY FORCES HQ BLDG 23022 14,708 286,733.3 19.5 2,229.2 Naval Base NAVFACMAR SOUTH ADMIN BLDG 101A 12,618 260,900.0 20.7 16,823.8 12 Naval Base OPERATIONAL STRGE / COMM CTR 6009 19,720 252,050.0 12.8 9 NCTS ADMIN BLDG - MARFORPAC 228 20,333 246,075.0 12.1 Naval Base ADMIN - NFM PWO/UEM/EV/FS 105 13,038 237,850.0 18.2 Naval Hospital DODEA ADMIN OFFICE 100 6,628 232,050.0 35.0 103,841.3 Naval Base NAVFACMAR HQ ADMIN BLDG B100 13,268 219,475.0 16.5 Andersen MOBILITY RESPONSE HQ 23010 8,836 218,866.7 24.8 47,947.6 Naval Base FISC ADMIN 3191 9,055 212,475.0 23.5 37,319.7 12 12 12 Naval Base VISITOR CONTROL CTR/HSG OFC 1657A 9,679 210,350.0 21.7 23,124.3 13 12 12 12 12 13 Naval Base ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B104 12,732 204,075.0 16.0 12 12 Naval Base BATTALION HDQTRS 556B 4,402 202,950.0 46.1 117,799.9 12 12 13 Andersen MILITARY WORKING DOG KENNEL 2415 3,177 187,133.3 58.9 125,679.1 Barrigada ADMIN/OFFICE SPACE 57 9,000 180,200.0 20.0 6,108.6 12 12 12 13 Naval Base ADMIN BLDG 1A 13,368 176,900.0 13.2 9 9 13 Andersen 36 CRG HEADQUARTERS BLDG 25002 17,766 167,100.0 9.4 Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 205NZ 12,656 158,066.7 12.5 Andersen GARBAGE BLDG 2408 5,724 154,133.3 26.9 43,411.2 Andersen DET 5 OFFICE BLDG 72 425 152,400.0 358.6 144,179.0 Naval Base MSFSC SSU GU ADMIN OFFICE 6060 5,760 152,150.0 26.4 40,731.5 12 12 12 12 Naval Base NCIS/BANK BLDG 2 12,943 148,150.0 11.4 9 9 12 Naval Base ADMIN OFC-CONFORMING STORAGE 1790A 1,680 141,400.0 84.2 108,902.9 13, 14 Naval Base MWR OFFICE SB1 34,437 135,933.3 3.9 9 9 Naval Base FAMILY SERVICE CENTER B106 5,131 133,400.0 26.0 34,148.5 12 12 12 12 14 Naval Base BEQ E1/E4_BQ ADMIN_JGPO ADMI 18 13,023 130,850.0 10.0 9 9 Naval Base SECURITY ADMIN/TRAINING BLDG 6003-B 6,319 115,750.0 18.3 Andersen HENRY E "RED" ERVIN BLDG 23008 18,724 108,100.0 5.8 13 Naval Base PSD 5 13,064 105,325.0 8.1 9 9 Naval Base BEQ/N9 ADMIN OFFICE 17 13,008 97,500.0 7.5 9 NCTS ROICC OFFICE 155 6,750 95,150.0 14.1 12 12 14 Naval Base BRIGADE ADMIN OFFICE 519 4,039 86,850.0 21.5 8,721.6 12 12 13 Andersen PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE 21001 22,261 74,666.7 3.4 NCTS DISA BLDG 369A 2,180 73,275.0 33.6 31,106.2 Apra Heights STA RITA OFFICE COMPLEX 4179AH 8,410 72,225.0 8.6 Naval Base ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE-VACANT 13 4,902 70,400.0 14.4 Andersen FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE 1723 2,935 63,566.7 21.7 6,793.5 Barrigada ARMY READINESS GROUP 50 3,472 62,750.0 18.1 14 Naval Base ADMIN OFFICE K-2 7,392 62,425.0 8.4 12 12 Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 203NZ 7,061 55,075.0 7.8 12 12 Naval Base ADMIN OFFICE K-1 7,392 50,250.0 6.8 12 12 14 Barrigada ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BLDG 59 18,247 49,400.0 2.7 NCTS ADMIN MARFORPAC/NEX OUTLET 207 4,040 43,666.7 10.8 12 12 12 NCTS ADMIN BLDG - MARFORPAC 208 4,975 41,050.0 8.3 12 12 NCTS CIS ADMIN OFFICE 450 2,475 40,825.0 16.5 13 Naval Base MSC MEDICAL ADMIN OFFICE 6010 1,920 37,875.0 19.7 735.5 Naval Base NAVFAC MAR HQ ADMIN BLDG 102 2,632 33,450.0 12.7 Naval Base CIO ADMIN OFFICE 3014 2,640 32,900.0 12.5 14 Naval Base SANITARY LANDFILL OFFICE 354 484 26,550.0 54.9 17,187.7 14 Naval Base CIO/J6 IT COMPUTER STORAGE 267 1,013 23,633.3 23.3 4,038.4 Andersen IRP FIELD OFFICE 2552 600 20,166.7 33.6 8,560.6 Andersen ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE NON-AI 100 8,232 17,300.0 2.1 NCTS BEQ, E1/E4 134 13,801 10,000.0 0.7 14 Nimitz Hill ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG 202NZ 912 7,966.7 8.7 Total 20,724,550.0 6,832,503.9 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-5 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.11 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Power & Heat Generation) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Manageme & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumption Average Reduction Water Replace nt Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Naval Base CHILLED WATER PLANT 21 1,920 3,469,400.0 1,807.0 3,408,063.5 12 NCTS CIS EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 309 6,240 2,860,775.0 458.5 2,661,431.5 Andersen AIR CONDITIONING PLANT 25014 2,739 1,762,800.0 643.6 1,675,299.7 12 Andersen AIR COND VALVE HOUSE 21003 672 1,418,400.0 2,110.7 1,396,932.2 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 10 4,680 431,466.7 92.2 281,959.0 Naval Base GENERATOR BLDG FOR BLDG 6003 6003-A 255 268,625.0 1,053.4 260,478.8 Andersen POWER PLANT 73 2,160 199,033.3 92.1 130,029.8 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2655 144 147,333.3 1,023.1 142,733.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1879 260 94,033.3 361.7 85,727.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1627 240 86,833.3 361.8 79,166.3 Naval Base STEAM PLANT BLDG POLARIS PT 4451PP 1,224 77,825.0 63.6 38,723.0 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25 832 76,666.7 92.1 50,087.5 Naval Hospital NAVHOSP STEAM PLT BLDG 2A 2,697 68,500.0 25.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 23007 192 47,033.3 245.0 40,899.7 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21014 472 41,200.0 87.3 26,121.5 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26201 396 37,900.0 95.7 25,249.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22019 781 35,766.7 45.8 10,816.8 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25020 308 33,766.7 109.6 23,927.3 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22022 600 30,166.7 50.3 10,999.0 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26205 300 28,733.3 95.8 19,149.5 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1294 361 27,000.0 74.8 15,467.5 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 24101 504 23,466.7 46.6 7,365.8 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21020 500 22,666.7 45.3 6,693.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2589 440 20,033.3 45.5 5,977.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2594 440 20,033.3 45.5 5,977.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2401 192 18,333.3 95.5 12,199.7 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 14524 180 17,266.7 95.9 11,516.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19025 378 17,200.0 45.5 5,124.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 9003 169 16,200.0 95.9 10,801.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 22029 352 16,166.7 45.9 4,921.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1786 144 15,866.7 110.2 11,266.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26011 308 15,466.7 50.2 5,627.3 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2662 320 14,633.3 45.7 4,410.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 683 285 13,100.0 46.0 3,995.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18028 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18031 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18037 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18043 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19007 240 11,066.7 46.1 3,399.6 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 26202 88 8,400.0 95.5 5,588.7 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 25022 160 8,033.3 50.2 2,922.0 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1092 140 7,033.3 50.2 2,560.9 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 18041 140 6,366.7 45.5 1,894.2 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 19029 140 6,366.7 45.5 1,894.2 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21002 100 4,966.7 49.7 1,772.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 21009 100 4,966.7 49.7 1,772.1 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 2544 330 4,766.7 14.4 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1781 144 0.0 0.0 Andersen EMERGENCY GENERATOR BLDG 1785 100 0.0 0.0 NCTS CDAA CHILL WATER PLT 335 1,548 0.0 0.0 Total 11,579,925.0 10,514,541.1 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.12 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Public Safety & Base Services) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL II 1623 11,106 882,433.3 79.5 748,979.1 12 12 Andersen ANDERSEN BASE CHAPEL I 22024 9,520 764,633.3 80.3 650,237.1 Andersen CHAPEL II CLASSROOMS 1624 8,476 673,466.7 79.5 571,615.6 14 Naval Base CHAPEL CENTER 1984 20,499 359,825.0 17.6 113,500.6 9 9 13 Andersen MILITARY WORKING DOG KENNEL 2414 2,811 256,100.0 91.1 222,321.9 Andersen FIRE STATION 2659 4,470 140,233.3 31.4 86,520.0 Naval Hospital CHAPEL 61 6,468 108,525.0 16.8 30,802.8 12 12 12 12 Naval Base FIRE STATION NO. 1 1575 5,360 93,200.0 17.4 28,792.0 9 14 Andersen ANDERSEN PET LODGE 20016 2,907 93,133.3 32.0 58,201.6 Nimitz Hill FIRE STATION - NIMITZ HILL 100NZ 2,952 92,300.0 31.3 56,827.5 14 Naval Base MWD KENNEL 26 1,680 61,900.0 36.8 41,712.4 Naval Base SEABEE CHAPEL & LIBRARY 501 3,459 48,300.0 14.0 6,735.2 12 12 13 Andersen LATRINE 108 1,000 43,066.7 43.1 31,050.3 Naval Base DOG KENNEL (U.S.D.A.) 641 1,296 42,750.0 33.0 27,176.7 14 Andersen FIRE STATION 1722 3,113 40,700.0 13.1 3,292.9 Naval Base MUSTERING / GUARD MOUNT AREA 6003-C 3,965 25,266.7 6.4 Andersen WORKING DOG KENNEL 2798 1,230 22,100.0 18.0 7,319.8 Andersen SERENA BEACH LATRINE 9604 338 12,600.0 37.3 8,538.5 Andersen FIRE STATION 19030 924 8,300.0 9.0 Andersen GOLF COURSE SHELTER 28114 324 7,833.3 24.2 3,940.0 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81956 214 7,766.7 36.3 5,195.2 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81957 214 7,766.7 36.3 5,195.2 Andersen GOLF COURSE SHELTER 28128 324 5,300.0 16.4 1,406.7 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81041 214 5,166.7 24.1 2,595.2 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81043 214 5,166.7 24.1 2,595.2 Andersen LATRINE 18026 264 4,766.7 18.1 1,594.3 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81040 88 2,166.7 24.6 1,109.2 Andersen BUS SHELTER 81042 88 2,166.7 24.6 1,109.2 Andersen PUBLIC TOILET 24003 104 2,100.0 20.2 850.3 Andersen WORKING DOG KENNEL 2797 2,100 0.0 0.0 Total 3,819,033.3 2,719,214.3 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-6 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.13 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Stand Alone Retail) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Install Install Retro- Facility Consumption Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenance Repair/Upgr Water Double Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) (KWh) Average EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Andersen BASE EXCHANGE 24016 194,644 6,237,400.0 32.0 1,160,226.5 12 12 12 12, 13 Naval Base NEX HOME & GARDEN CENTER 700 32,456 749,525.0 23.1 13 12 12 13 Naval Base FURNITURE MART 256 43,923 694,700.0 15.8 12 12 12 12 13 Andersen AAFES GAS STATION 26101 23,360 578,166.7 24.8 Andersen OLD BASE EXCHANGE 22026 44,062 440,366.7 10.0 12 12 12 Naval Base LAUNDROMAT 1988 4,500 398,925.0 88.7 281,545.2 Barrigada AFGC CLUB HOUSE 91 10,937 372,650.0 34.1 87,364.8 13 12 12 12 Andersen OLD CLOTHING SALES STORE 25001 12,443 349,866.7 28.1 25,298.4 Naval Base CREDIT UNION 1657C 7,137 223,825.0 31.4 37,660.6 12 12 12 13 Naval Base AUTOPORT GAS STA / MINI-MART 7012 5,050 222,800.0 44.1 91,073.7 12 12 12 12 NCTS GAS STA / AUTO PARTS STORE 303 1,070 88,875.0 83.1 60,964.7 13 Naval Base EXCH SVC & AUTO REPAIR STA 257 35,919 46,866.7 1.3 12 12 12 Andersen CAR SALES BLDG 25040 480 34,833.3 72.6 22,312.8 Naval Base NEW CAR SALES 260 420 20,225.0 48.2 9,269.5 Andersen AIRMENS ATTIC 22005 2,080 13,733.3 6.6 Andersen BANK OF GUAM ATM 22030 336 12,300.0 36.6 3,535.6 Naval Base ATM BUILDING 1661 170 8,025.0 47.2 3,590.7 Total 10,493,083.3 1,782,842.5 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.14 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Supermarket Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Naval Base COMMISSARY STORE 275 58,663 3,163,600.0 53.9 86,027.6 12 Andersen COMMISSARY 22021 122,100 2,854,733.3 23.4 Apra Heights APRA HTS MINI-MART 4176AH 11,443 277,350.0 24.2 Andersen MINI-MARKET 26104 7,025 87,733.3 12.5 Total 6,383,416.7 86,027.6 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.15 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Training Facilities) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Andersen 254 RED HORSE HEADQUARTERS 21018 10,567 509,933.3 48.3 382,955.9 12 Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21012 22,772 344,100.0 15.1 70,462.3 12 Naval Base CSS-15 TRAINING BLDG 3115 4,400 315,425.0 71.7 262,552.8 14 Naval Base ADMIN/EDUC SERV BLDG 1 12,863 220,000.0 17.1 65,432.9 9 9 13 Andersen AIRMEN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 21006 7,273 179,400.0 24.7 92,004.6 Andersen TRAINING BUILDING 21015 9,444 138,666.7 14.7 25,183.7 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 21016 4,992 123,766.7 24.8 63,780.7 12 Apra Heights NBG SAFETY TRAINING BLDG 4178AH 9,089 120,800.0 13.3 11,582.8 Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON SERVICE BLDG 526 8,747 86,950.0 9.9 12 12 Andersen 44 AERIAL PORT SQUADRON HQ 17005 11,431 61,000.0 5.3 Naval Base ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BLDG 6012 1,920 55,625.0 29.0 32,553.5 Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21013 2,684 26,000.0 9.7 Andersen FLIGHT SIMULATOR CLASSROOM 18014 298 5,633.3 18.9 2,052.4 Total 2,187,300.0 1,008,561.6 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-7 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.16 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Unaccompanied Personnel Housing) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Retro- Facility Consumption Average Reduction Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio commissi Location Facility Name No Area (sf) (KWh) EUI (KWh) Replace Water Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning oning Andersen TINIAN HALL 25011 47,989 943,033.3 19.7 253,859.5 Housing and Community 12 Naval Base BACHELOR ENLISTED QTR 24 99,400 858,050.0 8.6 Housing and Community Andersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27003 25,920 857,966.7 33.1 485,727.5 Housing and Community 12 12 12 Naval Base BACHELOR ENLISTED QTR 23 25,390 637,550.0 25.1 272,922.2 Housing and Community 9 9 13 Andersen PALAU HALL 25016 47,989 569,900.0 11.9 Housing and Community 12 12 Andersen 254 RED HORSE HEADQUARTERS 21018 10,567 509,933.3 48.3 382,955.9 Operational and Training 12 Naval Base BEQ-TRANS E1/E4 579 28,215 471,750.0 16.7 66,552.2 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13 Naval Base NAVY GATEWAY INN & SUITES 2000 29,145 470,825.0 16.2 52,271.4 Housing and Community 9 12 Naval Base BEQ 22 29,125 425,025.0 14.6 6,758.6 Housing and Community 9 9 13 Naval Base BEQ TRANSIENT, E1/E4 20 12,768 422,675.0 33.1 239,312.7 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base BEQ-TRASNS E5/E6 580 22,971 384,200.0 16.7 54,311.7 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13 Andersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27005 25,920 381,700.0 14.7 9,460.8 Housing and Community 12 12 12 Andersen TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY 1656 12,663 345,033.3 27.2 163,179.0 Housing and Community Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21012 22,772 344,100.0 15.1 70,462.3 Operational and Training 12 Naval Base BEQ "C" 581 20,320 339,800.0 16.7 47,982.9 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13 Naval Base BEQ 582 20,320 339,800.0 16.7 47,982.9 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 13 Naval Base CSS-15 TRAINING BLDG 3115 4,400 315,425.0 71.7 262,552.8 Operational and Training 14 Nimitz Hill BOQ/MESS/NIMITZ HILL 179NZ 12,824 297,125.0 23.2 112,958.5 Housing and Community Naval Base BUILDING E 583 23,521 274,900.0 11.7 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 Andersen KOSRAE HALL 25009 47,989 271,900.0 5.7 Housing and Community 12 12 Naval Hospital BEQ E1/E4 12 23,361 254,000.0 10.9 Housing and Community 12 12 Andersen DORMITORY 25003 60,188 236,333.3 3.9 Housing and Community 12 12 Naval Base ADMIN/EDUC SERV BLDG 1 12,863 220,000.0 17.1 65,432.9 Operational and Training 9 9 13 Naval Base E M BARRACKS 13 12,943 216,850.0 16.8 30,974.6 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base BUILDING F 584 28,111 211,000.0 7.5 Housing and Community 13 9 12 12 Naval Base BEQ E1/E4 15A 12,863 200,000.0 15.5 15,273.4 Housing and Community 9 Andersen BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS 27001 24,321 192,066.7 7.9 Housing and Community 12 12 12 Naval Base BOQ 585 12,759 179,500.0 14.1 Housing and Community 12 9 12 12 12 13 Andersen AIRMEN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 21006 7,273 179,400.0 24.7 92,004.6 Operational and Training Andersen BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS 27000 23,214 161,933.3 7.0 Housing and Community 12 12 12 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 14 13,280 146,050.0 11.0 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 15 12,943 143,225.0 11.1 Housing and Community 9 9 Andersen TRAINING BUILDING 21015 9,444 138,666.7 14.7 25,183.7 Operational and Training Naval Base ENLISTED BARRACKS 8 13,013 133,950.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base BEQ - PERMANENT E1 - E4 3 12,943 133,200.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 13 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 16 12,943 133,200.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 9 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base E.M. BARRACKS E1-E6 11 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 12 12,863 132,400.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E4 7 12,823 131,950.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Naval Base EM BARRACKS E1-E6 10 12,768 131,450.0 10.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 21016 4,992 123,766.7 24.8 63,780.7 Operational and Training 12 Apra Heights NBG SAFETY TRAINING BLDG 4178AH 9,089 120,800.0 13.3 11,582.8 Operational and Training Naval Base CAMP COVINGTON SERVICE BLDG 526 8,747 86,950.0 9.9 Operational and Training 12 12 Andersen 44 AERIAL PORT SQUADRON HQ 17005 11,431 61,000.0 5.3 Operational and Training Naval Base ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BLDG 6012 1,920 55,625.0 29.0 32,553.5 Operational and Training Andersen SAIPAN HALL 25007 47,989 43,000.0 0.9 Housing and Community 12 Naval Base BEQ E1/E4 PERMANENT PARTY 19 12,753 42,150.0 3.3 Housing and Community 9 9 Andersen TRANSIENT QTRS 28097 1,869 36,733.3 19.7 9,892.5 Housing and Community 12 Nimitz Hill BOQ/NIMITZ HILL 1000NZ 999 29,100.0 29.1 14,753.3 Housing and Community Andersen MOBILITY GEAR STORAGE 21013 2,684 26,000.0 9.7 Operational and Training Andersen HAFA ADAI HOUSE 1051 2,279 25,066.7 11.0 Housing and Community Andersen SANTA ROSA HOUSE 1053 2,279 25,066.7 11.0 Housing and Community Andersen FLIGHT SIMULATOR CLASSROOM 18014 298 5,633.3 18.9 2,052.4 Operational and Training Andersen ROTA HALL 25017 47,989 2,200.0 0.0 Housing and Community 12 12 NCTS BACHELOR OFF QTRS W/O MESS 230 11,280 0.0 0.0 Housing and Community 12 12 Total 13,683,758.3 2,892,735.3 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

Table E.17 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Utility Infrastructure) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumpti Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) on (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Naval Base POWER DISPATCHER BLDG 4918 10,684 614,300.0 57.5 63,191.0 12 Sasa Valley ELEC DIST BLDG-UPPER SASA 1714SV 209 340,125.0 1,627.4 329,344.2 Andersen ELECTRIC VAULT 18010 3,894 337,466.7 86.7 136,603.8 Naval Base SWITCHING / SUBSTA BLDG 6013 880 79,800.0 90.7 34,407.3 Andersen ANDERSEN SWGR/SUBSTA SHLTR 6008 861 58,900.0 68.4 14,487.3 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51154 1,000 45,766.7 45.8 Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 2619 720 33,033.3 45.9 Andersen ANDERSEN SWGR/SUBSTA SHLTR 6009 588 26,900.0 45.7 Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 18016 550 25,133.3 45.7 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51107 180 8,200.0 45.6 Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 17995 140 6,366.7 45.5 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51242 96 4,433.3 46.2 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51244 96 4,433.3 46.2 Andersen ELECTRICAL BUILDING 51248 96 4,433.3 46.2 Andersen ELECTRICAL BLDG 18012 98 4,433.3 45.2 Total 1,593,725.0 578,033.6 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-8 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Table E.18 JRM Potential Facility Energy Savings (Warehouses) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Manageme & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Reduction Water Replace nt Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commissio Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) Average EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ning Naval Base COLD STORAGE BUILDING 780XR 114,490 8,005,675.0 69.9 7,535,903.6 9 9 12 12 Naval Base NEX MAIN STORE/NEX WHSE 258 246,776 4,217,900.0 17.1 3,205,337.3 12 12 12 13 Barrigada GOLF STARTER BUILDING 93 500 1,414,800.0 2,829.6 1,412,748.4 14 Naval Hospital MEDICAL STORAGE/NEX 6 15,879 959,750.0 60.4 894,595.8 Naval Base WAREHOUSE #9 - DDGM 2118 121,604 829,675.0 6.8 330,713.7 9 Naval Base GEN WHSE 5 3201XR 112,530 778,450.0 6.9 316,720.8 9 Andersen BASE SUPPLY BUILDING 18002 151,327 751,733.3 5.0 130,813.6 12 12 12 14 Andersen WRM STORAGE 910 53,790 672,600.0 12.5 451,890.7 Naval Base WAREHOUSE #8 - DDGM 2117 40,542 406,625.0 10.0 240,274.5 9 Naval Base WAREHOUSE #2 - DDGM/SERVMART 2116 107,028 366,550.0 3.4 9 Andersen WRM STORAGE BLDG 18046 113,325 337,766.7 3.0 Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE-BULK 6 3202XR 86,760 337,025.0 3.9 9 9 12 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 9034 5,155 314,266.7 61.0 293,114.8 Naval Base OPERATIONAL STRG/WHSE (APRA) 642 75,200 291,225.0 3.9 14 Andersen ARMAMENT SHOP - WRM STORAGE 51104 40,848 250,766.7 6.1 83,160.6 Andersen INERT STORAGE 9040 9,436 228,200.0 24.2 189,482.5 Naval Base WAREHOUSE 558 55,690 210,650.0 3.8 12 Andersen INERT STORAGE 9041 8,206 198,433.3 24.2 164,762.8 Naval Base DISPOSAL WHSE 631 24,960 194,200.0 7.8 91,785.0 12 12 12 Naval Base WAREHOUSE / STORAGE 4921 22,275 190,300.0 8.5 98,902.0 Andersen MEDICAL STORAGE FACILITY 26001 13,383 186,933.3 14.0 132,020.7 Andersen SELF HELP STORE 22007 17,434 183,033.3 10.5 111,498.7 Andersen EXCHANGE WAREHOUSE 22002 31,449 181,933.3 5.8 52,892.9 Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE 365 60,170 167,325.0 2.8 9 Naval Base WAREHOUSE/OPS STRGE 3179 97,200 148,775.0 1.5 9 Barrigada OPER STRG/ WHSE (BARRIGADA) 100 66,288 143,225.0 2.2 12 13 Andersen FORWARD STAGING BLDG 19020 6,960 122,800.0 17.6 94,242.0 12 Naval Base DEHUMIDIFIED WAREHOUSE 4436PP 10,258 120,075.0 11.7 77,984.7 NCTS STORAGE BLDG 212 4,040 99,750.0 24.7 83,173.2 9 13 Naval Base GENERAL WAREHOUSE #4 3180 97,200 96,875.0 1.0 9 Naval Base CONFORMING STORAGE FACILITY 1790 30,774 87,650.0 2.8 12 12 12 Andersen WRM STORAGE BLDG 18030 2,583 64,333.3 24.9 53,734.9 12 Naval Base BQ STORAGE 72 16,281 54,425.0 3.3 12 Andersen OPERATIONAL STORAGE 18019 4,264 49,633.3 11.6 32,137.4 Naval Base MWR STORAGE FACILITY SP1 3,240 49,400.0 15.2 36,105.7 Andersen INERT STORAGE 51110 4,080 49,000.0 12.0 32,259.1 Andersen GOLF COURSE STORAGE BLDG 1097 5,267 47,766.7 9.1 26,155.3 Andersen COMMUNICATIONS CENTER 18011 7,438 44,633.3 6.0 14,114.0 14 Andersen CE GROUNDS STORAGE 20023 5,400 40,033.3 7.4 17,876.2 Andersen INERT STORAGE 51112 3,320 39,966.7 12.0 26,344.2 Andersen INERT STORAGE 51114 3,320 39,966.7 12.0 26,344.2 Naval Base SELF-HELP / AFGE 542 4,054 37,225.0 9.2 20,590.8 14 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 20018 4,000 35,600.0 8.9 19,187.3 Andersen CIVIL ENGINEER COVERED STOR 20014 4,284 35,333.3 8.2 17,755.4 Andersen GOLF CART STORAGE BLDG 1088 3,627 32,833.3 9.1 17,951.2 Naval Base MISC OPS STORAGE 3119 5,572 30,500.0 5.5 7,637.2 Naval Base SELF-HELP STORAGE 548 3,000 27,950.0 9.3 15,640.5 14 Naval Base LAUNDRY/OPERATION STRG 559 4,612 23,366.7 7.6 4,442.9 12 12 Andersen TOOL ROOM 9104 378 23,100.0 61.1 21,549.0 Andersen MWR STORAGE BLDG 14529 8,040 21,666.7 2.7 Andersen WAREHOUSE 20012 2,400 21,633.3 9.0 11,785.7 Naval Base STORAGE/SHOP 1657F 3,564 18,000.0 5.1 3,376.3 Andersen HAZWASTE COLLECTION BLDG 19017 2,300 16,500.0 7.2 7,062.7 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 39 600 15,500.0 25.8 13,038.1 Andersen HAZWASTE STORAGE 14527 972 15,233.3 15.7 11,245.1 Andersen DISASTER PREP BLDG 14000 480 15,033.3 31.3 13,063.8 Sasa Valley POL LAB/STRGE/WASH ROOM 1706SV 640 14,450.0 22.6 11,824.0 Naval Base MSC STORAGE K27 3,360 14,075.0 4.2 288.4 Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 18005 1,290 12,533.3 9.7 7,240.3

E-9 Appendix E. Potential Energy Savings Tables

Naval Base LAUNDRY/STORAGE - SUMAY 5408 2,108 11,725.0 5.6 3,075.5 Andersen LINEN EXCHANGE BLDG 21005 12,788 11,500.0 0.9 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1638 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1639 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1640 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1641 240 11,400.0 47.5 10,415.2 Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 9103 800 9,900.0 12.4 6,617.5 Andersen CHILD CARE CENTER STORAGE 1637 200 9,466.7 47.3 8,646.0 Naval Base OPS STORAGE 4423PP 4,000 9,300.0 2.3 Andersen NAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE 2667 425 6,366.7 15.0 4,622.8 Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE BLDG 51175 196 5,666.7 28.9 4,862.4 Nimitz Hill READY STORE ISSUE/NIMITZ 296NZ 800 5,450.0 6.8 2,167.5 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 23016 342 5,166.7 15.1 3,763.4 Naval Base CSF (CONTRACTOR SHED) 1790B 1,268 4,850.0 3.8 Andersen FLAMMABLE STORAGE 2557 500 4,833.3 9.7 2,781.8 Andersen COLD STORAGE BLDG 26015 704 4,700.0 6.7 1,811.4 Andersen STORAGE BUILDING 9101 72 4,400.0 61.1 4,104.6 Naval Base TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE / CNM K18 4,399 4,233.3 1.0 Andersen FUELS STORAGE BLDG 26204 180 2,333.3 13.0 1,594.8 Andersen FLAMMABLE STORAGE BLDG 15 154 1,733.3 11.3 1,101.4 Andersen BASE OPS STORAGE BLDG 2506 88 1,133.3 12.9 772.3 Naval Base NEX GENERAL STORAGE 255 2,400 1,075.0 0.4 Andersen HAZMAT STORAGE 10079 113 1,033.3 9.1 569.7 Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25025 192 900.0 4.7 112.2 Andersen BARRACKS STORAGE BLDG 25026 192 900.0 4.7 112.2 Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27002 192 900.0 4.7 112.2 Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27004 192 900.0 4.7 112.2 Andersen BACHELOR HOUSING STORAGE 25012 1,024 833.3 0.8 Naval Base MSFSC SSU LONG TERM STORAGE K19 4,399 525.0 0.1 Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25019 400 200.0 0.5 Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25029 360 100.0 0.1 Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25027 192 0.0 0.0 Andersen BEQ STORAGE BLDG 25028 120 0.0 0.0 Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27013 192 0.0 0.0 Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27014 192 0.0 0.0 Andersen TLF STORAGE BLDG 27016 192 0.0 0.0 Naval Base 90-DAY HAZWASTE STORAGE 4424PP 4,380 0.0 0.0 Total 23,540,383.3 16,549,368.6 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. 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) Proposed or Completed Fiscal Year of Energy Conservation Project Average Potential Annual Annual Install Energy Calibration Install Energy Electricity Replace Managemen & Install Solar Double Install Retro- Facility Consumptio Average Reduction Water Replace t Control Maintenanc Repair/Upgr Water Pane Temperatur commission Location Facility Name No Area (sf) n (KWh) EUI (KWh) Heaters Lighting System e Checks ade HVAC Heaters Windows e Setbacks ing Naval Magazin FENA PUMP STA-14,400 KG 1282 2,940 3,419,550.0 1,163.1 3,382,498.4 Naval Magazin FENA WTR TREATM PLT-11000 KG 580 12,398 1,682,025.0 135.7 1,525,778.2 13 12 12 13 Naval Base BIOTOWER CONTROL BLDG 1806 2,122 636,500.0 300.0 609,757.3 Andersen WATER SUPPLY BUILDING 1600 360 614,900.0 1,708.1 610,363.1 Andersen SEWAGE PUMP HOUSE GENERATOR 2647 7,380 233,166.7 31.6 140,159.6 Naval Magazin CHEMICAL LABORATORY BUILDING 585 5,625 214,800.0 38.2 143,910.5 12 12 Naval Base CLARIFIER PUMP HOUSE 1795 1,302 115,300.0 88.6 98,891.4 12 Naval Base SWGE PUMP STA NO. 16-800 GM 1722 220 25,700.0 116.8 22,927.4 Barrigada WATER PUMP STA 170 GM 90 182 17,275.0 94.9 14,981.3 Andersen WTR SUPPLY BLDG 685 700 14,133.3 20.2 5,311.5 Andersen PUMPHOUSE BLDG 9060 3,554 11,133.3 3.1 Nimitz Hill SWGE PUMPING STA NO. 4-800GM 1033 120 6,525.0 54.4 5,012.7 Andersen WATER PUMP STATION BLDG 19009 925 4,800.0 5.2 Naval Base SWGE PUMP STATION #10-800 GM 1055 120 3,900.0 32.5 2,387.7 Naval Base PUMP HOUSE 2120 483 3,800.0 7.9 Andersen SEWAGE LIFT STATION BLDG 18003 324 3,600.0 11.1 Andersen TARAGUE WELL 4 PUMPHOUSE 9600 1,050 3,266.7 3.1 NCTS WATER PUMPING STA POT 200 GM 143 240 1,975.0 8.2 Andersen WATER PUMP STATION BLDG 1655 800 1,400.0 1.8 Andersen WATER PUMPHOUSE 1499 270 1,200.0 4.4 Andersen WATER PUMPHOUSE 8153 240 600.0 2.5 Andersen PUMPHOUSE BLDG 10078 300 450.0 1.5 Andersen PUMPHOUSE 9039 170 400.0 1.6 Andersen PUMPHOUSE BUILDING 21004 176 100.0 0.6 Total 7,016,500.0 6,561,979.3 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. JRM FY12, FY13, and FY14 DD Form 1391s, Johnson Controls ESPC proposal, April 2009

E-10 Appendix F Solar Array Siting

Solar PV Buildings and Sites Naval Base Guam NCTS Andersen Air Force Base Array Capacity Array Capacity Array Capacity Building Number/Location (KW) Building Number/Location (KW) Building Number/Location (KW) 1A 54 111 48 27002 37 3 54 122 36 27004 37 4 54 131 54 25019 99 5 54 132 54 25010 17 6 54 133 54 25011 37 7 54 134 54 25017 37 8 54 East of Building 492 256 25018 17 9 54 South of Empty Housing 1,230 21000 37 10 54 24016 622 11 54 22021 117 12 54 18006 65 13 54 18004 129 14 54 18002 454 15 54 18001 378 15A 54 18046 403 16 54 18044 98 17 54 East of Base Exchange 1,379 18 54 East of Building 25005 322 19 54 Arc Light Blvd. 1,900 20 54 Open Field By Terminal 922 22 13 Southeast of Base Exchange 830 23 17 24 31 75 104 1983B 18 1983C 11 1983D 29 1983E 19 1983F 11 2000 271 3169 470 2116 371 2118 443 3190 140 2117 183 3191 52 3179 347 3180 347 365 174 372 189 700 119 275 194 258 676 257 110 256 125 579 41 580 40 581 38 582 38 583 40 584 47 557A 87 557B 49 557C 36 3201XR 376 4175AH b1 40 4175AH b2 79 4175AH b3 40 4175AH b4 37 4177AH 65 Directly South of Gym 458 Empty Parcel Near Marine Drive 1,663 South of Navy Exchange 1,037 North of Navy Exchange 219 North of Commissary 341

F-1 Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NBG 90,667.9 87,899.0 34,182.9 19,533.1 74,225.8 36,136.2 74,225.8 70,319.2 74,671.9 69,346.3 30,612.1 76,179.1 24,295.3 58,111.0 53,716.0 74,671.9 70,319.2 67,518.6 96,652.0 20,509.8 258,714.9 162,044.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 820,586.7 871,185.2 688,724.2 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 501,733.0 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 191,933.2 849,690.0 147,404.4 119,735.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 696,948.1 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 643,074.1 643,074.1 322,268.8 350,564.9 221,350.7 359,904.0 203,857.3 232,571.6 406,062.5 100,582.7 100,582.7 100,582.7 631,436.9 339,417.9 1,254,018.8 1,923,453.9 3,083,300.4 19,138,503.8 Total Annual Annual Total (KWh) Output 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 Total DC Rating (4Kw =xsf) 5243 5208 5208 5208 5243 5217 5217 5217 5208 5,180.0 5,180.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,180.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,219.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 AC Energy 6,598.8 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 6,318.0 2,457.0 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 1,404.0 5,335.2 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 2,597.4 5,335.2 5,405.4 5,054.4 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 2,211.3 5,475.6 5,405.4 7,265.7 1,755.0 4,176.9 3,861.0 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 6,949.8 5,054.4 4,914.0 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 7,265.7 1,474.2 18,603.0 11,793.6 13,864.5 10,670.4 61,074.0 29,343.6 45,630.0 24,570.0 138,996.0 803,263.5 221,621.4 0.75536665 Total PV Array Area (sf) 51 51 24 24 51 24 51 51 51 51 24 78 51 51 78 132 186 402 186 483 132 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 64.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 280.5 145.5 172.5 550.5 Total width s width Total 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 6 4 4 3 3 3 6 10 21 14 30 14 11 13 36 10 41 # Rows 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gap 52 65 247 117 247 117 325 123.5 35.75 123.5 188.5 35.75 162.5 357.5 22.75 227.5 500.5 152.75 172.25 224.25 224.25 224.25 146.25 224.25 224.25 224.25 113.75 224.25 224.25 224.25 256.75 120.25 224.25 224.25 224.25 204.75 224.25 386.75 126.75 224.25 224.25 224.25 178.75 224.25 107.25 113.75 224.25 224.25 224.25 Total length s 7 47 16 53 69 69 69 45 69 69 69 35 20 38 11 69 69 69 38 58 79 37 11 76 69 69 69 63 36 69 50 39 69 69 69 55 76 69 33 36 35 69 69 69 70 119 100 110 154 # panels 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 Width 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Opposite 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 Adjacent 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Hypotenu se 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 Angle 59.7 85.3 42.0 42.0 42.0 60.9 42.0 42.0 42.0 27.3 32.7 62.7 42.0 42.0 42.0 62.7 75.3 32.2 43.1 42.0 42.0 42.0 62.8 42.0 56.2 42.0 42.0 42.0 26.2 42.0 81.9 62.2 59.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 282.9 208.8 206.2 153.0 194.1 205.4 194.1 405.0 194.1 183.5 183.5 178.8 484.1322 558.36006 150.40046 180.01951 Width (ft) 59.1 29.5 72.2 42.7 42.7 160.8 607.0 180.4 879.3 547.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 377.3 173.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 121.4 131.2 190.3 232.9 232.9 232.9 212.9 393.7 131.2 173.3 264.9 128.0 255.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 124.7 232.9 541.3 541.3 134.5 232.9 232.9 232.9 187.0 232.9 236.2 114.8 124.7 121.4 232.9 232.9 232.9 505.24934 249.34383 328.08399 360.89239 Length (ft) 9 49 71 55 18 71 71 71 53 71 71 71 37 22 40 13 58 71 71 71 40 39 13 78 71 71 71 38 71 41 71 71 71 57 76 72 35 38 37 71 71 71 185 268 167 115 154 120 165 165 100 110 64.9 52.82 80.75 Length (m) 9,601.4 9,784.4 2,518.8 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 3,315.3 2,357.3 8,234.4 8,277.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 8,234.4 4,122.6 8,277.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 7,825.4 9,784.4 7,556.3 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 4,908.3 9,407.6 7,750.0 7,158.0 9,784.4 9,784.4 9,784.4 42,226.8 37,210.8 16,705.6 77,489.3 10,591.7 10,710.1 18,492.4 77,069.5 19,945.5 11,033.0 99,318.5 99,318.5 49,772.3 54,142.4 34,186.1 55,584.8 31,484.4 35,919.1 59,061.5 37,501.4 126,734.2 134,548.8 106,368.9 282,111.1 107,639.0 193,674.9 174,719.6 2,298,792.3 1,063,408.7 Area (sf) 892 909 909 234 909 909 909 984 909 909 909 308 219 765 769 995 909 909 909 765 383 769 909 909 909 727 909 702 909 909 909 456 874 720 665 909 909 3923 3457 1552 9882 7199 1718 7160 1853 1025 9227 9227 4624 5030 3176 5164 2925 3337 5487 3484 11774 12500 26209 10000 17993 16232 Area (sm) 206 degrees 217 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 183 degrees 217 degrees 180 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 206 degrees 180 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 206 degrees 206 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 202 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 201 degrees 180 degrees 202 degrees 183 degrees 180 degrees 217 degrees 202 degrees Array Azimuth 201 degrees 201 degrees Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard BIPV thin film thin BIPV film thin BIPV Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard BIPV thin film thin BIPV film thin BIPV Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard BIPV thin film BIPV thin film PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard BIPV thin film Standard PV Standard BIPV thin film film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV film thin BIPV PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Standard PV Standard Type PV Standard 557C 2117 557B 8 14 19 3190 557A 1983C 2116 2118 7 13 18 2000 3169 584 6 12 17 1983B 1983F Forest S of port ops port of S Forest 583 4175AH b34175AH b44175AH 4177AH S of Gym 5 11 16 24 580 22 23 75 1983E 4175AH b14175AH b24175AH 4 10 15A 582 3201XR 20 3179 3180 365 372 700 275 258 257 256 579 North of Commissary of North 3 9 15 1983D North of NEX 3191 581 South of NEX of South Building/Location 1A F-2 Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NBG 579 256 580 257 258 275 Forest S of port ops 581 700 S of Gym of S 372 North ofCommissary South ofNEX 365 4175AH b3 4177AH 3180 3191 North of NEX of North 4175AH b4 1A Building/Location 3179 22 20 19 18 16 15A 15 14 13 12 11 3 582 2117 1983D 1983B 23 17 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 1983C 24 583 3190 1983E 75 4175AH b1 557C 557B 2118 4175AH b2 3201XR 584 2116 1983F 557A 3169 2000 Power Power Total 2,184.8 143.2 352.0 219.6 26.5 23.3 41.1 25.3 97.0 40.0 72.1 36.8 13.7 73.4 11.0 46.4 11.5 73.4 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 38.7 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 29.5 21.9 10.4 93.7 16.8 79.6 10.0 78.6 18.5 99.5 57.3 8.7 8.5 8.0 8.5 7.9 2.8 8.0 6.1 3.9 3.5 2.3 6.6 8.5 4.1 8.5 7.7 2.2 (kW) Capacity Array 10,267.5 1,663 1,037 125 110 676 194 119 458 189 341 174 347 219 347 183 140 104 443 376 371 470 271 41 40 38 65 40 52 11 37 54 13 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 38 29 18 17 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 31 40 19 40 36 49 47 11 79 87 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 Total 180 degrees 180 202 degrees 202 202 degrees 202 206 degrees 206 183 degrees 183 180 degrees 180 202 degrees 202 201 degrees 201 Array Azmuth 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 180 degrees 180 206 degrees 206 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 201 degrees 201 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 183 degrees 183 degrees 180 201 degrees 201 206 degrees 206 degrees 217 217 degrees 217 180 degrees 180 180 degrees 180 206 degrees 206 217 degrees 217 AC EnergyAC 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 6008 6008 5989 5994 6008 6012 6002 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 5994 5989 5994 5994 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 6012 5994 5994 6002 5994 6012 5989 5900 5900 5994 5994 5989 5900 San Diego San (KWh) Output Total Annual 20,661,549.1 1,235,441.1 3,523,603.9 2,215,087.4 229,126.2 200,837.3 354,572.2 218,071.5 971,028.0 345,371.5 727,175.2 317,494.6 117,961.9 633,547.2 467,629.6 115,865.8 633,547.2 110,643.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 390,317.6 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 115,865.8 296,167.7 221,096.5 103,270.3 808,430.2 686,623.2 100,451.2 678,521.0 169,509.4 184,568.3 858,279.0 494,300.0 87,057.7 84,825.4 80,360.9 85,869.9 23,438.6 68,319.0 27,986.9 80,360.9 61,386.8 39,064.3 35,263.5 66,409.4 84,825.4 41,296.6 85,869.9 76,903.4 22,322.5 AC EnergyAC 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6177 6177 6139 6287 6177 6186 6269 6139 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6287 6139 6287 6287 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6186 6287 6287 6269 6287 6186 6139 5992 5992 6287 6287 5992 29 Palms Output (KWh) Total Annual 21,917,006.6 1,358,461.0 3,695,845.5 1,018,494.0 2,277,396.0 251,941.5 220,835.8 389,879.0 239,786.1 379,762.1 747,630.0 349,109.3 129,708.0 696,633.1 480,783.6 119,219.2 696,633.1 115,565.8 173,754.9 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 400,093.4 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 119,219.2 309,342.7 227,495.5 104,880.7 888,930.1 754,994.2 105,361.4 746,085.2 187,446.3 943,742.7 543,520.3 91,313.3 88,971.9 84,289.2 88,020.6 24,584.3 75,121.9 28,796.9 84,289.2 64,387.6 40,973.9 36,284.1 69,655.6 88,971.9 43,315.3 88,020.6 78,102.6 23,413.7 AC EnergyAC 3741 3741 3741 3741 3722 3741 3722 3722 3706 3725 3753 3741 3706 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3706 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3725 3741 3741 3741 3725 3753 3725 3741 3629 3741 3741 3706 3629 3741 3629 3741 Bremerton Output (KWh) Total Annual 13,185,342.4 2,199,166.2 1,372,262.9 152,429.8 133,610.2 821,896.9 235,884.8 145,075.6 450,490.3 606,042.0 229,763.9 211,218.3 289,699.9 421,477.4 104,892.6 421,477.4 241,529.0 185,191.1 136,990.1 537,821.0 456,787.0 113,525.1 451,396.9 570,983.8 328,841.0 54,334.8 52,941.6 78,476.0 53,136.4 71,789.7 50,155.2 69,184.6 14,628.6 45,450.3 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 17,340.5 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 71,789.7 50,155.2 38,313.0 24,381.0 21,849.1 41,447.7 63,520.0 52,941.6 25,774.2 53,136.4 47,302.1 62,694.0 13,932.0 AC EnergyAC 4934 4934 4852 4934 4934 4852 4852 4808 4808 4861 4934 4932 4808 4934 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4861 4934 4932 4934 4861 4934 4861 4934 4680 4934 4934 4808 4680 4680 4934 4934 North Chicago Output (KWh) Total Annual 16,964,732.8 1,028,643.6 2,900,477.4 1,788,882.2 190,773.3 167,219.6 295,221.2 181,569.1 587,259.3 799,308.0 287,560.6 264,349.9 377,652.9 527,499.3 136,083.0 527,499.3 313,349.0 243,368.7 178,767.5 673,108.9 571,691.0 146,403.3 564,945.0 714,613.7 411,560.3 71,662.1 69,824.6 98,216.5 68,936.8 56,883.3 93,683.2 66,149.6 90,918.9 19,293.6 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 22,628.8 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 93,683.2 66,149.6 50,531.0 32,156.1 28,512.3 54,665.3 81,916.1 69,824.6 33,993.6 68,936.8 61,001.4 82,687.0 18,374.9 AC EnergyAC 5142 5142 4852 5142 5142 4852 4852 5019 5019 5019 5050 5050 5142 5139 5142 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5139 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5050 5142 5142 5142 5050 5142 4933 4933 5142 5142 5019 4933 5142 5142 Jacksonville Output (KWh) Total Annual 18,086,626.1 1,154,361.0 3,022,751.3 1,788,882.2 214,089.0 187,656.6 331,302.2 203,759.8 587,259.3 833,004.0 322,705.3 110,220.2 296,657.9 377,652.9 591,968.5 142,055.0 591,968.5 327,100.3 253,583.1 185,718.1 755,374.1 641,561.2 154,317.8 633,990.7 801,951.5 461,859.9 74,683.1 72,768.2 71,962.1 63,835.3 97,325.7 97,325.7 68,938.3 94,734.8 20,107.0 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 23,508.6 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 97,325.7 68,938.3 52,661.2 33,511.7 29,620.9 56,969.8 86,344.5 72,768.2 35,426.6 71,962.1 64,299.1 86,172.8 19,149.5 AC EnergyAC 5085 5085 5011 5085 5085 5011 5011 4972 4972 4972 5020 5020 5085 5088 5085 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5088 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5020 5085 5085 5085 5020 5085 4853 4853 5085 5085 4972 4853 5085 5085 Norfolk Output (KWh) Total Annual 17,479,237.9 1,057,095.4 2,989,243.6 1,847,503.9 196,050.0 171,844.8 303,386.9 186,591.2 606,503.8 823,770.0 295,514.4 100,933.1 271,661.7 390,028.6 542,089.7 140,724.7 542,089.7 324,037.2 251,066.5 184,614.8 691,726.8 587,503.7 151,815.2 580,571.2 734,379.6 422,943.9 73,855.2 71,961.5 58,456.6 71,288.2 96,747.5 96,747.5 68,174.1 93,794.6 19,884.1 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 23,369.0 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 96,747.5 68,174.1 52,077.4 33,140.2 29,444.9 56,338.3 84,944.2 71,961.5 35,033.9 71,288.2 63,256.3 85,217.6 18,937.2

F-3 Appendix F. Solar Calculations - NCTS 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 54,918.0 29,826.2 64,386.6 96,579.9 96,579.9 96,579.9 96,579.9 AC Energy 460,175.0 2,211,396.4 3,207,021.8 Total Annual Output (KWh) Norfolk 4,071.6 4,773.6 7,160.4 7,160.4 7,160.4 7,160.4 2,211.3 34,117.2 5085 5085 5085 5085 5085 5085 5085 5085 5085 163,952.1 Total PV Array (sf) Area 24 51 AC Energy 159 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 361.5 118.5 55,533.6 30,160.5 65,108.4 97,662.5 97,662.5 97,662.5 97,662.5 Total width s width Total 465,333.3 2,236,184.9 3,242,970.7 2 9 4 3 3 3 3 12 27 Total Annual Output (KWh) Jacksonville 5142 5142 5142 5142 5142 5142 5142 5142 5142 # Rows 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 AC Energy Gap 53,287.2 28,940.5 62,474.6 93,712.0 93,712.0 93,712.0 93,712.0 446,510.0 221 221 221 221 2,145,728.5 3,111,788.7 188.5 22.75 110.5 Total Annual Output (KWh) 263.25 562.25 North Chicago 4934 4934 4934 4934 4934 4934 4934 4934 4934 Total length s AC Energy 7 58 34 68 68 68 68 81 173 71,053.2 71,053.2 71,053.2 71,053.2 40,402.8 21,942.9 47,368.8 # panels 338,547.6 1,626,909.3 2,359,384.2 Total Annual Output (KWh) 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 Bremerton 3741 3741 3741 3741 3741 3741 3741 3741 3741 Width AC Energy 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Opposite 67,899.6 36,876.5 79,606.4 119,409.6 119,409.6 119,409.6 119,409.6 568,951.8 2,734,129.6 3,965,102.5 Total Annual Output (KWh) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 29 Palms 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 Adjacent AC Energy 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Hypotenu se 64,735.2 35,157.9 75,896.4 113,844.7 113,844.7 113,844.7 113,844.7 542,436.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 2,606,707.9 3,780,312.5 Total Annual Output (KWh) San Diego San Angle 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 32.8 53.5 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 371.6 119.8 162.9 AC Energy Width (ft) 31.2 564.3 196.9 118.1 229.7 229.7 229.7 229.7 265.7 Array Azmuth Array 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees Length (ft) 54 54 54 54 31 17 36 256 60 36 70 70 70 70 81 9.5 1,230 172 1,784.0 Array Capacity (kW) Length (m) 6.5 3.5 7.6 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 54.2 260.4 377.6 Total Power 6,458.3 3,735.1 6,318.4 9,644.5 9,644.5 9,644.5 9,644.5 43,292.4 209,670.0 308,052.1 Area (sf) Area 600 347 587 896 896 896 896 4022 19479 Area (sm) Area Building/Location South Empty of Housing 111 pt 1 111 pt 2 122 131 132 133 134 East of 492 Array Azimuth Array 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees 180degrees Type Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV 56,646.0 30,764.6 66,412.6 99,618.8 99,618.8 99,618.8 99,618.8 474,654.4 2,280,978.2 3,307,931.1 Total Annual Output (KWh) 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 Building/Location 111 pt 1 111 pt 2 122 131 132 133 134 East of 492 South Empty of Housing DC Rating DC Rating (4Kw =xsf) Total F-4 Appendix F. Solar Calculations - AAFB South Field Large of terminal By Field Open Tanks of North 25005 of East BX of East 18044 18046 18001 18002 18004 18006 22021 24016 21000 25018 25017 25011 25010 25019 27004 27002 Building/Location Total Total =xsf) (4Kw Rating DC

377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 Present Value Cost Savings for Solar Panels MB NCTS AAFB Output (KWh) Output Total Annual 14,713,561.4 29,359,213.2 1,152,682.5 1,538,231.9 1,708,755.9 3,522,551.0 2,557,859.9 181,764.1 747,337.5 700,014.7 841,425.5 239,889.6 121,408.4 216,541.8 597,713.0 183,944.9 31,920.2 31,920.2 68,144.3 67,909.7 67,727.2 67,909.7 67,909.7 Future Value Present Value Future Value Present Value Future Value Present Value

Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard thin film BIPV PV Standard thin film BIPV PV Standard PV Standard thin film BIPV PV Standard PV Standard PV Standard Type Year Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings 1 $5,167,396 $5,016,889 $893,141 $867,128 $3,972,662 $3,856,953 2 $5,322,418 $5,016,889 $919,936 $867,128 $4,091,841 $3,856,953 3 $5,482,090 $5,016,889 $947,534 $867,128 $4,214,597 $3,856,953 4 $5,646,553 $5,016,889 $975,960 $867,128 $4,341,035 $3,856,953 5 $5,815,950 $5,016,889 $1,005,239 $867,128 $4,471,266 $3,856,953 6 $5,990,428 $5,016,889 $1,035,396 $867,128 $4,605,404 $3,856,953 181 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 196 degrees 205 degrees 211 degrees 220 degrees 205 degrees 205 degrees Array Azimuth 7 $6,170,141 $5,016,889 $1,066,458 $867,128 $4,743,566 $3,856,953 24016 25018 25010 18044 18046 18001 18002 18004 18006 22021 South Field Large of terminal By Field Open Tanks of North 25005 of East BX of East 21000 25017 25011 25019 27004 27002 Building/Location 8 $6,355,245 $5,016,889 $1,098,451 $867,128 $4,885,873 $3,856,953 9 $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 $3,856,953

Area (sm) 11 $6,944,548 $5,016,889 $1,200,307 $867,128 $5,338,925 $3,856,953

14380 15891 32805 23692 10723 10044 12073 16539 12 $7,152,885 $5,016,889 $1,236,317 $867,128 $5,499,093 $3,856,953 2608 3442 1742 3107 5547 6635 1940 458 706 706 458 706 706 13 $7,367,471 $5,016,889 $1,273,406 $867,128 $5,664,066 $3,856,953 Area (sf) 1,775,053.2 14 $7,588,495 $5,016,889 $1,311,608 $867,128 $5,833,987 $3,856,953 154,784.9 171,049.1 353,109.7 255,018.3 115,421.3 108,112.6 129,952.6 178,024.1 28,072.3 37,049.3 18,750.7 33,443.4 59,707.4 71,418.5 20,882.0

4,929.9 7,599.3 7,599.3 4,929.9 7,599.3 7,599.3 15 $7,816,150 $5,016,889 $1,350,956 $867,128 $6,009,007 $3,856,953

Power Power Total 16 $8,050,635 $5,016,889 $1,391,485 $867,128 $6,189,277 $3,856,953 1,679.6 3,351.5 131.6 175.6 195.1 402.1 292.0

Length (m) Length 17 $8,292,154 $5,016,889 $1,433,230 $867,128 $6,374,956 $3,856,953 20.7 85.3 79.9 96.1 27.4 13.9 24.7 68.2 21.0 3.6 3.6 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 18 $8,540,918 $5,016,889 $1,476,227 $867,128 $6,566,204 $3,856,953 (kW) Capacity Array

107 227 193 492 192 19 $8,797,146 $5,016,889 $1,520,513 $867,128 $6,763,190 $3,856,953 7,105.7 70 68 12 12 60 12 1,900 1,379 622 403 378 454 129 117 830 922 322 Length (ft) Length 20 $9,061,060 $5,016,889 $1,566,129 $867,128 $6,966,086 $3,856,953 Grand Total 17 17 98 65 37 37 37 99 37 37 Total $100,337,787 $17,342,551 $77,139,060 $194,819,398 1,614.2 Array Azmuth 181 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 180 degrees 196 degrees 205 degrees 211 degrees 220 degrees 205 degrees 205 degrees 229.7 351.0 744.8 223.1 633.2 629.9 196.9 39.4 39.4 39.4 Price per KWh 0.27 Width (ft) Width Discount Rate 0.03 674.0 487.3 474.1 267.6 402.7 193.0 193.0 193.0 44.2 33.2 38.6

AC Energy AC Average Increase per year 0.03 Angle 5994 5994 5994 5994 5994 6024 5994 5954 5969 5994 5994 San Diego 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 Output (KWh) Output Total Annual 15,454,024.1 1,135,606.1 1,953,217.2 2,169,745.3 4,472,867.5 3,247,921.2 179,071.3 736,266.1 689,644.3 828,960.2 236,335.7 119,609.8 213,333.8 758,964.4 212,290.6 se Hypotenu 31,447.3 31,447.3 78,519.7 78,128.7 77,607.3 78,128.7 78,128.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 AC Energy AC Adjacent 6287 6287 6287 6287 6287 6221 6149 6081 5945 6149 6149 29 Palms 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 (KWh) Output Total Annual 16,402,415.1 1,248,684.8 2,048,694.8 2,275,807.3 4,691,511.2 3,406,686.8 Opposite 196,902.5 809,580.2 758,316.1 911,504.4 259,869.0 131,520.0 234,576.7 796,064.3 211,437.0 34,578.7 34,578.7 81,087.5 80,149.0 79,262.7 80,149.0 80,149.0 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 AC Energy AC Width 3741 3744 3711 3677 3599 3711 3711 3741 3741 3741 3741 Bremerton 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 (KWh) Output Total Annual 9,811,713.5 # panels # 1,219,050.0 1,354,190.4 2,791,624.5 2,027,106.0 755,480.1 119,130.1 489,812.7 458,796.9 551,479.0 157,226.1 141,923.7 473,688.0 128,000.3 20,920.8 20,920.8 79,572.3 48,801.1 48,371.0 47,927.8 48,371.0 48,371.0 108 229 194 191 70 68 10 10 10 10 10 AC Energy AC Total length s 4934 4897 4819 4751 4614 4819 4819 4934 4934 4934 4934 North Chicago North 744.25 620.75 227.5 630.5 Output (KWh) Output Total Annual 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 351 221 12,742,905.0 1,607,803.4 1,786,039.9 3,681,869.9 2,673,547.4 945,519.7 149,097.0 613,024.2 574,206.4 690,202.5 196,776.0 177,624.4 624,746.5 164,099.3 Gap 26,183.4 26,183.4 99,588.6 63,829.9 62,813.2 61,926.8 62,813.2 62,813.2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 AC Energy AC # Rows # 5142 5082 5025 4983 4906 5025 5025 5142 5142 5142 5142 Jacksonville 50 36 35 20 30 14 14 14 14 14 (KWh) Output Total Annual 2 13,563,896.6 1,061,078.0 1,675,582.8 1,861,333.1 3,837,084.5 2,786,254.8 Total width s 111,760.0 167,319.2 687,946.0 644,384.0 774,556.8 220,825.4 199,333.1 651,083.6 174,484.4 29,383.5 29,383.5 66,241.2 65,498.3 64,950.8 65,498.3 65,498.3 469.5 672 483 267 402 186 186 186 186 186 24 AC Energy AC Area (sf) Array Total PV 122,850.0 136,468.8 281,326.5 204,282.0 47,736.0 13,408.2 5085 5055 4982 4921 4816 4982 4982 5085 5085 5085 5085 4,914.0 4,914.0 4,914.0 4,914.0 4,914.0 Norfolk (KWh) Output Total Annual 13,125,783.4 1,657,008.6 1,840,699.9 3,794,549.7 2,755,368.6 971,672.4 102,343.1 153,221.0 629,980.2 590,088.7 709,293.2 202,218.8 182,537.4 643,866.2 171,283.5 AC Energy AC 26,907.7 26,907.7 65,889.3 64,937.8 64,142.7 64,937.8 64,937.8 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,245.0 5,228.0 5,210.0 5,196.0 5,172.0 5,210.0 5,210.0

F-5 Appendix F. Present Value Cost Calculations - Solar

Present Value Cost Savings for Solar Panels MB NCTS AAFB

Future Value Present Value Future Value Present Value Future Value Present Value Year Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings 1 $5,167,396 $5,016,889 $893,141 $867,128 $3,972,662 $3,856,953 2 $5,322,418 $5,016,889 $919,936 $867,128 $4,091,841 $3,856,953 3 $5,482,090 $5,016,889 $947,534 $867,128 $4,214,597 $3,856,953 4 $5,646,553 $5,016,889 $975,960 $867,128 $4,341,035 $3,856,953 5 $5,815,950 $5,016,889 $1,005,239 $867,128 $4,471,266 $3,856,953 6 $5,990,428 $5,016,889 $1,035,396 $867,128 $4,605,404 $3,856,953 7 $6,170,141 $5,016,889 $1,066,458 $867,128 $4,743,566 $3,856,953 8 $6,355,245 $5,016,889 $1,098,451 $867,128 $4,885,873 $3,856,953 9 $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 $3,856,953 11 $6,944,548 $5,016,889 $1,200,307 $867,128 $5,338,925 $3,856,953 12 $7,152,885 $5,016,889 $1,236,317 $867,128 $5,499,093 $3,856,953 13 $7,367,471 $5,016,889 $1,273,406 $867,128 $5,664,066 $3,856,953 14 $7,588,495 $5,016,889 $1,311,608 $867,128 $5,833,987 $3,856,953 15 $7,816,150 $5,016,889 $1,350,956 $867,128 $6,009,007 $3,856,953 16 $8,050,635 $5,016,889 $1,391,485 $867,128 $6,189,277 $3,856,953 17 $8,292,154 $5,016,889 $1,433,230 $867,128 $6,374,956 $3,856,953 18 $8,540,918 $5,016,889 $1,476,227 $867,128 $6,566,204 $3,856,953 19 $8,797,146 $5,016,889 $1,520,513 $867,128 $6,763,190 $3,856,953 20 $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 0.27 Discount Rate 0.03 Average Increase per year 0.03

F-6 Appendix F. Turbine Calculations

Net Capacity Annual Energy Main Base Turbine Capacity (KW) Factor Production (KWh) Turbine 1 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 2 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 3 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 4 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Total 4,916,112

Net Capacity Annual Energy NAVMAG Turbine Capacity (KW) Factor Production (KWh) Turbine 5 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Total 1,229,028

Net Capacity Annual Energy AAFB Turbine Capacity (KW) Factor Production (KWh) Turbine 6 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 7 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 8 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 9 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 10 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 11 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 12 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.2886 2,528,136 Turbine 13 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 14 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 15 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 16 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 17 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 18 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 19 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 20 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 21 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 22 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Turbine 23 Vergnet GEV HP 1000 0.1403 1,229,028 Total 31,216,260

Grand Total 37,361,400

F-7 Appendix F. Present Value Cost Calculations - Turbines

Present Value Cost Savings for Wind Turbines MB NAVMAG AAFB Present Present Future Value Value Cost Future Value Value Cost Future Value Present Value Year Cost Savings Savings Cost Savings Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings 1 $1,327,350 $1,288,690 $331,838 $322,172 $8,428,390 $8,182,903 2 $1,367,171 $1,288,690 $341,793 $322,172 $8,681,242 $8,182,903 3 $1,408,186 $1,288,690 $352,046 $322,172 $8,941,679 $8,182,903 4 $1,450,431 $1,288,690 $362,608 $322,172 $9,209,930 $8,182,903 5 $1,493,944 $1,288,690 $373,486 $322,172 $9,486,227 $8,182,903 6 $1,538,763 $1,288,690 $384,691 $322,172 $9,770,814 $8,182,903 7 $1,584,926 $1,288,690 $396,231 $322,172 $10,063,939 $8,182,903 8 $1,632,473 $1,288,690 $408,118 $322,172 $10,365,857 $8,182,903 9 $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 $8,182,903 11 $1,783,848 $1,288,690 $445,962 $322,172 $11,327,052 $8,182,903 12 $1,837,363 $1,288,690 $459,341 $322,172 $11,666,863 $8,182,903 13 $1,892,484 $1,288,690 $473,121 $322,172 $12,016,869 $8,182,903 14 $1,949,259 $1,288,690 $487,315 $322,172 $12,377,375 $8,182,903 15 $2,007,736 $1,288,690 $501,934 $322,172 $12,748,696 $8,182,903 16 $2,067,968 $1,288,690 $516,992 $322,172 $13,131,157 $8,182,903 17 $2,130,007 $1,288,690 $532,502 $322,172 $13,525,092 $8,182,903 18 $2,193,908 $1,288,690 $548,477 $322,172 $13,930,845 $8,182,903 19 $2,259,725 $1,288,690 $564,931 $322,172 $14,348,770 $8,182,903 20 $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 0.27 Discount Rate 0.03 Average Increase per year 0.03

F-8 Appendix F. Turbine Shading Calculations

Angle of Max Shadow Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance Distance Jan Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) (m) 0700 3.07 86.93 1.51717 114.47 331.5 6175.735 1882.364 0800 16.13 73.87 1.289237 118.98 331.5 1146.092 349.329 1000 39.66 50.34 0.878573 135.45 331.5 399.8403 121.8713 1200 53.52 36.48 0.636677 170.8 331.5 245.1084 74.70905 1400 46.96 43.04 0.751168 213.38 331.5 309.548 94.35022 1600 25.99 64.01 1.117152 236.02 331.5 679.92 207.2396 1800 0.27 89.73 1.566038 246.28 331.5 69663.16 21233.33

Angle of Max Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance Apr Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) 0700 9.58 80.42 1.403552 88.05 331.5 1963.62 598.5113 0800 24.19 65.81 1.148567 91.43 331.5 737.8985 224.9115 1000 53.25 36.75 0.64139 100.9 331.5 247.533 75.44807 1200 79.19 10.81 0.188665 145.67 331.5 63.29506 19.29233 1400 64.73 25.27 0.441032 251.3 331.5 156.4818 47.69564 1600 36.03 53.97 0.941926 265.47 331.5 455.742 138.9101 1800 6.82 83.18 1.451722 272.57 331.5 2770.807 844.5418

Angle of Max Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance June Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) 0700 14.5 75.5 1.317685 70.24 331.5 1281.61 390.6347 0800 28.33 61.67 1.076313 71.76 331.5 614.8441 187.4045 1000 56.05 33.95 0.592522 69.72 331.5 223.1705 68.02237 1200 80.03 9.97 0.174004 24.32 331.5 58.27169 17.76121 1400 64.03 25.97 0.453249 293.92 331.5 161.4631 49.21394 1600 35.5 54.5 0.951176 287.95 331.5 464.7183 141.6461 1800 8.85 81.15 1.416293 290.72 331.5 2128.484 648.7619

Angle of Max Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance Aug Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) 0700 11.9 78.1 1.363062 74.1 331.5 1572.767 479.3793 0800 26.03 63.97 1.116454 76.2 331.5 678.7168 206.8729 1000 54.53 35.47 0.61905 77.29 331.5 236.1857 71.98941 1200 82.04 7.96 0.138924 51.08 331.5 46.35192 14.12807 1400 66.85 23.15 0.404032 285.25 331.5 141.7341 43.20056 1600 38.37 51.63 0.901087 282.7 331.5 418.6762 127.6125 1800 10.03 79.97 1.395699 286.24 331.5 1873.841 571.1467

F-9 Appendix F. Turbine Shading Calculations

Angle of Max Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance Oct Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) 0700 11.46 78.54 1.370741 97.11 331.5 1634.878 498.3107 0800 25.88 64.12 1.119072 101.3 331.5 683.2468 208.2536 1000 53.67 36.33 0.634059 116.19 331.5 243.7687 74.30071 1200 72.65 17.35 0.302806 172.6 331.5 103.5649 31.56659 1400 57.47 32.53 0.567739 239.85 331.5 211.4251 64.44237 1600 30.09 59.91 1.045596 257.24 331.5 572.0569 174.363 1800 1.2 88.8 1.549807 265.4 331.5 15791.17 4813.149

Angle of Max Shadow Angle of Incline Turbine Distance Dec Altitude incline (rad) Azimuth Height (ft) (ft) 0700 6.39 83.61 1.459227 114.49 331.5 2958.901 901.8732 0800 19.43 70.57 1.231643 119.41 331.5 939.6656 286.4101 1000 42.61 47.39 0.827087 137.49 331.5 360.3596 109.8376 1200 54.81 35.19 0.614163 176.03 331.5 233.7519 71.24758 1400 45.71 44.29 0.772984 217.83 331.5 323.3696 98.56306 1600 23.57 66.43 1.159388 238.52 331.5 759.7869 231.583 1800 0 90 1.57075 247.91 331.5 7155686 2181053

F-10 Appendix F. Wind Power Calculations

Wind Power Calculations (MacKay, 263 – 265):

Kinetic Energy of Air: = = = 1 2 1 2 1 3 𝐸𝐸 2 𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 2 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 2 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣

Power of Wind: = 1 2 = = 1.14 7.23 𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 3 2 1 3 1 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑚𝑚 3 𝑃𝑃 𝑡𝑡 2 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 2 � 𝑚𝑚 � 𝐴𝐴 � 𝑠𝑠 � = 215.4 𝑊𝑊 2 𝑃𝑃 𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝐴𝐴 Power Produced by Turbine: = .5 1 3 𝜋𝜋 2 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 ∙ 2 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 ∙ 4 𝑑𝑑 = .5(215.4 )( 61.9 ) 𝑊𝑊 𝜋𝜋 2 2 = 324 𝑚𝑚 4 ∙ 𝑚𝑚

Total Wind Power Capacity on Guam: 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

= = Power per Unit Land Area 1 3 𝜋𝜋 2 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 2𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 ∙8𝑑𝑑 2 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 5𝑑𝑑 = 𝜋𝜋 1 3 �2� �2� 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 = ( )(215.4 ) 𝜋𝜋 𝑊𝑊 2 2 𝑚𝑚 = 3.38 = .31 / 𝑊𝑊 2 2 Total Land Area on Guam = 210 𝑚𝑚 𝑊𝑊 𝑓𝑓=𝑓𝑓 5,854,460,000 2 Therefore: = (5𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,854,460𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,000𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) 31 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 𝑊𝑊 2 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � = 1,814,882

Total Energy Per Year: 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

= ( )

𝑐𝑐 𝐸𝐸 = (𝑃𝑃1,∙814𝑇𝑇 𝑖𝑖,𝑖𝑖882ℎ𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 )(8,760 ) ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐸𝐸 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 15,898,366,000 = 15,898,366

𝐸𝐸 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ

F-11 Appendix F. Bio Fuel & Waste - Energy Calculations

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

Power Density of Land Producing Wood Chips = . 25 / 2 Assumption: 5% of Island available for producing biomass𝑊𝑊 𝑚𝑚 = (543,897,900 )(. 05) = 27,194,895 2 2 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 Capacity of Wood Chips = = . 25 (27,194,895 ) = 6,798 𝑊𝑊 2 2 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 � 𝑚𝑚 � 𝑚𝑚 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 Assumption: Total System Efficiency = 67%

Energy Produced per Year = = (6,798 ) 8,760 (. 67) = 39,898,821 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐸𝐸 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 � 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦� 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ Bio Mass Calculations (Sugarcane) (MacKay, 43 – 44):

Power Density of Land Producing Sugarcane = 1.58 / 2 Assumption: 5% of Island available for producing biomass𝑊𝑊 𝑚𝑚 = (543,897,900 )(. 05) = 27,194,895 2 2 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 Capacity of Wood Chips = = 1.58 (27,194,895 ) = 42,967 𝑊𝑊 2 2 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 � 𝑚𝑚 � 𝑚𝑚 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 Assumption: Total System Efficiency = 67%

Energy Produced per Year = = (42,967 ) 8,760 (. 67) = 252,187,398 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐸𝐸 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 � 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦� 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ Waste-to-Energy Calculations (MacKay, 285):

Calorific Value of waste = 2.5 /

Assumption: Trash per person𝐾𝐾 per𝑊𝑊ℎ day𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 1

Assumption: Thermal Efficiency of Plant = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘21%

Total Island-wide Annual Energy Production = E = (159,914 )(1 365 2.5 (. 21) = 30,643,520 ( ) 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , , � � � � 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ Total Capacity = = = 3,398 30 643, 520𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝑐𝑐 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑃𝑃 8 760𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾

F-12