Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
2
Presentations and Comments
The workshop participants heard a series of presentations on energy
conservation efforts within the military services and in private sector companies
representing the aircraft, chemical, automobile, and armaments industries (see the
workshop agenda, Appendix B). Abstracts of these presentations are provided in
Appendix D. A brief summary of the main points of the presentations and the ensuing
discussion is given next, in chronological order of presentation.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012
Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy
Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, presented
the primary motivation for reducing energy consumption—to support the Air Force
mission. He discussed the Air Force’s three fold strategy: (1) reduce demand, (2)
increase supply, and (3) change the culture, and noted progress toward the goals shown
in Figure 1 3 in Chapter 1. A key need is to install meters to provide data on electricity
use with finer precision so that they can determine what specific processes and
equipment are using the energy and where the major opportunities are. Each facility’s
energy use is unique and dynamic as workloads change. Furthermore, Geiss noted,
culture change takes time. Personnel need to be encouraged to be innovative and must
receive appropriate training to be able participate effectively in efforts aimed at
reducing energy consumption. Without more data on energy use, “You don’t know what
you don’t know.” The question was raised as to whether there is any evidence that
installation of smart meters actually results in energy savings. The biggest gains may
require automated energy management control systems—that is, going beyond just
providing data for energy analysis.
12
OCR for page 13
Joseph Sikes, Director of Facilities Energy Privatization, Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment
Joseph Sikes, Director of Facilities Energy Privatization, Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, emphasized the main
objective of Department of Defense (DoD) energy projects—to do the mission better.
Recent initiatives have included expanding the use of renewables, installing microgrids,
and technology development. At the end of the year, all of the military services will
report data on energy use. This information will be put into an online database to
increase visibility. An annual energy management report is expected to be released in
March 2013, in which all bases will be listed by energy-intensity and energy-reduction
targets. Sikes noted that facilities use 20 to 25 percent of DoD energy. The energy-
intensity metric (British thermal units per square foot) is far from ideal, but “one we are
stuck with.” Unless it is adjusted for changes in external factors, it can give the wrong
answer. For instance, when soldiers return from deployments overseas, energy use on
U.S. bases goes up, even if the buildings have become more efficient. In that case,
British thermal units per person would be a better metric. Also, consolidation of data
centers or demolition of unneeded buildings, which can be desirable from an efficiency
point of view, reduces the overall square footage and therefore increases the energy-
intensity metric. Most of the direct spending on energy within DoD is on expanding
renewable-energy projects. In principle, renewables provide a distributed source of
energy at a base, and so a base is more secure in a crisis if it is set up so that it can be
switched from the grid to a local microgrid on the base. Unfortunately, we are not there
yet, and the renewable projects do not pay back the investment unless the bases are on
islands (e.g., Kwajalein, Shemya, Diego Garcia) or are otherwise difficult to supply (e.g.,
Djibouti).
Sikes related that considerable gains in reducing energy use can be made just by
gridding the generators on a base so that energy output can be tuned to the electricity
demand. The Navy has done considerable work on optimal gridding of shipboard
generators. Another opportunity involves peak shaving and demand-side management,
in which bases can save a lot of money by working with local utilities. He also noted that
there is a memorandum of understanding among major federal agencies (including the
Department of Energy [DOE], the DoD, and the Department of Homeland Security) to
promote emergency-management cooperation with local authorities, and that military
bases are working more closely with government and private entities outside the base.
If closer cooperation could be established between the DoD, local energy utilities, and
federal regulators of local utilities, then some of these costs could be reduced at many
installations. The local utilities are not depending on the fees from the bases, but they
have to keep a higher capacity level by law because the solar capacity is not counted.
13
OCR for page 14
One participant noted that the metric for renewable energy—the quantity
procured or produced divided by total energy—does not actually address either energy
reduction or energy security. It is important to review this metric so that it does not
cause unintended consequences. Another observer noted that although the acquisition
of new military systems and equipment provides a unique opportunity to consider life-
cycle energy efficiency, there is currently no directive to the acquisition community to
enable serious investment in energy reduction. Stated differently, this not just as an
investment in energy reduction, but as part of the life cycle cost of purchasing and
operating the equipment, rather than just the capital cost for it. More efficient
equipment is often more costly upfront, but less expensive when considering the full
lifecycle costs. Energy considerations need to be threaded throughout the business
analysis in acquisition decisions, and they need to be codified in guidance that carries
weight.
Paul Bollinger, Director, Boeing Energy
According to the presentation by Paul Bollinger, Director, Boeing Energy, Boeing
takes a life-cycle approach to reducing its environmental footprint—including that
related to energy consumption, greenhouse gases, water consumption, hazardous
waste, and solid waste. It has an integrated management system for measuring and
reporting on progress, with a roll-up that can focus on sites, regions, or enterprise-wide
results. “It comes down to culture,” he said. More than 6,000 employee-involvement
teams meet once per week. Boeing received the 2012 Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Star Partner of the Year award. Its chief executive officer is publicly committed
to conserving energy, and its energy consumption has decreased since the base year
2007 despite increased production of aircraft.
The discussion after the presentation explored Boeing’s motivations for reducing
energy. Boeing’s 787 aircraft is sold in part for its fuel efficiency. By extension,
customers are also looking at the production efficiency. Commercial airlines focus on
energy efficiency, which is tracked for each pilot and aircraft tail number. Significant
savings have been achieved simply by adjusting the center of mass of the aircraft for
optimum efficiency. Bollinger noted that the military does not have the same financial
motivation as that of a commercial enterprise. He observed that support for energy
conservation comes and goes in the various military services and that officers need to
be held accountable for making progress on the energy front. Big fuel savings are
possible when equipment is replaced—for example, when the Joint Surveillance Target
Attack Radar System program transitioned to the more efficient Boeing 737 aircraft.
14
OCR for page 15
Col Douglas Wise, Chief, Civil Engineering Operations and Readiness Division, HQ
AFMC/A70
Five of the top 10 energy consuming installations in the Air Force are within
AFMC, including the three air logistics complexes (ALCs): Oklahoma City ALC, Oklahoma
(#1), Ogden ALC, Utah (#3), and Warner Robins (ALC), Georgia (#7). Col Douglas Wise,
Chief, Civil Engineering Operations and Readiness Division, Headquarters Air Force
Materiel Command (AFMC), estimated that for AFMC to reach its energy reduction
goals in FY 2015 would require investing the entire operations and maintenance (O&M)
budget of the Air Force. Installations are not able to keep the money that they save with
from energy reduction investments, and so they have less incentive to make these
investments. An ongoing point of friction is that of relating energy savings to the
mission—for example, how does a 1 percent energy saving affect the mission?
FY 2010 saw the first standardized reporting of energy intensity, in the form of
standard spreadsheets that could be shared with all installations. Water use is not
currently metered, but the goal is to do so in the 2015 2016 time frame. Several
potential sources of money, or “colors of money,” are available to fund energy projects.
These include O&M (“3400” funds); research, development, testing, and evaluation
(“3600” funds); and capital investment funds. These funding sources are not fungible—
that is, one cannot use 3400 funds for projects at test facilities. In FY 2009, focus funds
(approximately $200 million per year) were set aside in the O&M budget for energy
related projects, and the Major Commands (MAJCOMs) were asked to submit project
proposals with estimated returns on investment. In addition, Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs), which fall under Executive Order,1 and Utility Energy
Service Contracts (UESCs), in which third party companies come in and do projects to
improve a facility for a fixed fee, are options available to the Air Force. In that case, the
company owns and maintains the infrastructure and captures any long term profits. Col
Wise estimated that the private sector (e.g., Wal Mart) invests about 3 to 4 percent of
its budget in renewing its infrastructure, whereas the DoD/Air Force invests about 1
percent.2
1
For additional information, see Presidential Memorandum Implementation of Energy Savings
Projects and Performance Based Contracting for energy savings. December 2, 2011. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the press office/2011/12/02/presidential memorandum implementation
energy savings projects and perfo. Last accessed on December 27, 2012.
2
The Air Force has historically invested at 2 percent (or less) of plant replacement value on operations
and maintenance (O&M) and recapitalization. O&M is the day to day maintenance of a facility while
recapitalization is the replacement of building subsystems, to include roofs, HVAC, control systems,
paving, fire protection apparatus, among other items. Recapitalization may vary as a facility ages; that is,
you will likely spend more on recapitalization as subsystems fail. There are differing opinions on a good
rule of thumb for O&M and recapitalization. One estimate cites 4 percent (2 percent for O&M and 2
percent for recapitalization). For additional information, see For additional information, see
http://www.tradelineinc.com/reports/E81F7036 BECE 11D4 95B9005004022792. Other estimates
recommend 29 percent for O&M and 4 percent for recapitalization. For additional information, see
http://www.tradelineinc.com/reports/59A81BA1 DB23 11D4 95BA005004022792/0/0/. Either way, the
15
OCR for page 16
Civil engineering (CE) personnel manage the installation of meters and other
building related projects, but logistics personnel have responsibility for the industrial
processes that go on inside the buildings. The ALCs lack a funding source for
conservation programs. The CE side can help, but it cannot drive the process. The CE
and sustainment communities need to work together. The AFMC is undergoing a
management change in which 12 sustainment centers are being reorganized into 5, with
each center overseeing multiple installations. This reorganization provides an
opportunity to increase the visibility of process energy efficiency. The ensuing discussion
raised several points. One participant noted that it is sometimes difficult to cleanly
define “process energy.” In paint hangars, for example, the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system serves the dual purpose of maintaining a comfortable
temperature as well as providing heat for the painting process. This can cause problems
when investment is required and funding sources have definite colors. Fifteen years ago,
pollution prevention was integrated into the depots. The personnel already exist and
could be repurposed to focus on energy reduction—it is not a personnel issue. Indeed,
pollution prevention money has been used for energy projects at Tinker AFB.
Col Stephen Wood, Vice Commander, 72nd Air Base Wing, Tinker Air Force Base
Col Stephen Wood, Vice Commander of the 72nd Air Base Wing, Tinker AFB,
discussed efforts to reduce process energy at the Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC),
one of the reorganized sustainment centers in AFMC, based at Tinker AFB. He noted
that the mandated energy meters have been purchased and that installation at the
building level should be completed by the spring of 2013. Submetering, or metering of
individual processes inside buildings, at the industrial process level has not yet been
accomplished, but it will be needed in order to provide data to process owners. Lt Gen
Bruce Litchfield, commander of the AFSC, has set a goal of 5 percent reduction in energy
consumption per year, which goes beyond the federal goals. AFSC has identified the
major inefficiencies in its industrial processes, and is initiating partnerships with local
government, industry, and academia to address them. Challenges include low utility
rates across the complexes and changing processes that place limits on the required
investment payback times for energy reduction investments. The discussion following
this presentation focused on opportunities to work with local utilities to reduce
electricity costs. Utilities have an incentive to reduce peak loads through demand side
management programs and interruptible power deals that lead to lower rates to
customers.
Air Force is below recognized standards. Also, the figures cited by Col Wise include only real property
assets, not equipment items, such as dipping tanks, spray booth equipment, among other items. SOURCE:
Col Douglas Wise, Chief, CE Operations and Readiness Division, HQ AFMC/A70. Personal communication
to Carter Ford on December 19, 2012.
16
OCR for page 17
Kirk Rutland, Technical Director, Test Sustainment Division, Arnold Engineering and
Development Complex
Kirk Rutland, Technical Director of the Test Sustainment Division, Arnold
Engineering and Development Complex, explained how Arnold creates flight test
conditions on the ground; the controlled conditions provide better test data, and
ground testing is more cost effective and efficient than air testing. A huge amount of
energy is required to “create the conditions.” The test workload constitutes
approximately 93 percent of the power demand, which is 18 megawatts (MW) on
average, but can surge to a peak of 400 MW, equivalent to about one third of the power
average demand of Nashville, Tennessee. Customers are generally the acquisition
community, who need the test data to help them make decisions. Much of the
infrastructure at Arnold is from the 1940s and 1950s, but it still works, and even though
it is not the most efficient, its replacement is a low priority. Fighting obsolescence of
infrastructure is a much bigger concern than energy efficiency, although there are
opportunities for efficiency improvements when infrastructure is replaced.
The metric of performance at Arnold is “more data in less time,” not energy
efficiency, Rutland explained. If a test campaign can be shortened by several days, much
more money is saved than could be saved by energy efficiency. Process energy use is
not metered. Some energy use at Arnold is excluded from the Air Force energy bill, so
the question is asked—what is the incentive? Energy efficiency investment costs cannot
be passed on to the customer, so the question is, where to go for money for reducing
process energy use? During the discussion, the question was raised as to whether the
ideal efficiency of test processes at Arnold is known. The answer was that no studies
have been done. Energy use per test data point has not been tracked. A related point is
that responsibility for managing energy use at Arnold tends to be placed on civil
engineering personnel, who do not have the expertise to address processes in which the
bulk of energy is used.
Cameron Stanley, Support Contractor, Advanced Power Technology Office, Air Force
Research Laboratory
Cameron Stanley, Support Contractor, Advanced Power Technology Office
(APTO), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), indicated that APTO is supporting energy
related projects in five bucket areas: hydrogen, renewable energy integration, waste to
energy, advanced energy technologies, and energy storage. There are three crosscutting
focus areas: operational energy, process energy, and energy security. Congress recently
added $40 million to APTO’s budget to implement new cutting edge technologies.
Stanley stated that technology solutions (e.g., energy storage) must be tailored to
specific environments and/or applications. To be successful, AFRL needs better
requirements for Air Force energy related projects and also good technology transition
partners. The metrics also need to be appropriate. For instance, investments in the
17
OCR for page 18
cyber area often lead to smaller, faster processing, and this investment is desirable;
however, the processors also tend to have a higher energy intensity. A point raised in
the discussion is the importance of getting young, energetic students involved in these
energy technology projects, whether at the Air Force Academy or through the Air Force
Institute of Technology (AFIT) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Concluding Discussion
The November 5 session ended with a discussion of the presentations and
discussions that the workshop participants had heard. Participants noted that the Air
Force had demonstrated progress on energy issues, at least at the MAJCOM level,
although less so at higher levels. The Air Force Council has responsibility for achieving
efficiency targets and subpanels of the Council are concerned with energy, but some
workshop participants argued that a continuing effort will be needed to ensure that the
gains are sustainable. Wal-Mart has the slogan “Save Energy, Live Better”; the Air Force
needs a slogan such as “Save Energy, Fight Better.” Partnering among the Air Force,
government, and industry was viewed by many workshop participants as an important
way forward. An example of a potential source of useful information for the Air Force is
the Construction Industry Institute (CII) at the University of Texas that brings together
key private companies and government agencies. Funding issues are key to progress in
this area. Many participants stated that proper incentives for improving energy
efficiency are needed. Trade-offs between reducing energy use and meeting readiness
objectives need to be explored. The proper approach is one of balance, and identifying
when both efficiency and conservation strategies could impact the mission versus just
require a change in culture (as conservation frequently does). It was also noted that
having the right sensors and meters to measure energy use is important in order to
effect change. Proper metrics are also needed. For example, energy intensity measured
in British thermal unit per square foot, while a good metric for office space and living
quarters, is not a very good metric for process energy use. It was argued that the Air
Force has been focused on the low-hanging fruit in facility energy use, whereas
technology improvements are needed but not funded. How can a process that has twice
the throughput at half the cost be implemented?
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012
Robert Gemmer, Technology Manager, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Robert Gemmer, Technology Manager from the Advanced Manufacturing Office
(AMO) in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), was invited to
give an unscheduled presentation on AMO’s outreach to industry in its effort to improve
the energy efficiency of industrial processes. There are now industrial assessment
18
OCR for page 19
centers3 at 26 land grant universities aimed at educating students and identifying ways
to assess and improve industrial processes such as the following: (1) process heating
(which accounts for one third of all industrial energy use), (2) boilers and steam
delivery, (3) compressed air, (4) air movement systems, and (5) motors. AMO has
developed a suite of software tools4 for identifying where the energy savings
opportunities are. A group of 200 qualified specialists trained in the use of these tools is
available for outreach. A small subset of these specialists, the “energy experts,” is able
to teach the use of the tools and are available to work with clients.5 Former Secretary of
Energy Samuel Bodman instituted a program in which 200 industrial facilities were
checked for opportunities to reduce energy use in steam and process heating. The
program identified $500 million in potential savings, of which 40 percent ($200 million)
has been realized. A list of participants is available. DOE has also calculated the
theoretical energy required to process materials, and has estimated the practical energy
minimum for the same processes.6 During the discussion of this presentation, several
workshop participants from industry praised the Industrial Assessment Centers of AMO,
noting that they had used these centers as training opportunities for their own
employees.
Thomas Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy
The Navy does not promote an energy/environmental agenda per se—like the
Air Force, it is explicitly concerned with energy security and combat capability. Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy Thomas Hicks gave a high level overview of
the Navy’s energy related programs, including goals for alternative energy (e.g., waste
to energy, biofuels) and renewables, power purchase agreements, and culture change.
Incentives are given to commanders to be more efficient, and awareness of energy use
has made facilities more efficient. The latter effort led to a 10 percent reduction in
energy used in housing. The Navy has made a conscious effort to bring energy guidance
as a factor into the acquisition process; Hicks cited an energy efficient landing ship as an
example. Much of the ensuing discussion focused on skepticism regarding the cost
effectiveness of investments in renewables and other energy projects. It was pointed
out that it is necessary to take advantage of renewable energy credits and tax incentives
to make the investments attractive for third party power purchase agreements, and
“take or pay” guarantees have to be provided so that if a base is closed or another
3
Additional information on Industrial Assessment Centers can be found at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/iacs.html. Accessed November 20, 2012.
4
Additional information on energy assessment tools can be found at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/software_ssat.html. Accessed November
20, 2012.
5
Additional information can be found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_
deployment/assessment_process.html. Accessed November 20, 2012.
6
Additional information on DOE’s Clean Energy Application Centers can be found at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/footprints.html. Accessed November 20, 2012.
19
OCR for page 20
energy source is chosen, the third party will be compensated for its investment. Part of
the problem is that energy security and mission capability are not monetized. Platforms
may use more energy but provide more capability; the Joint Strike Fighter is an example.
It is important to have energy metrics but, although they should be a factor, they should
not be the only factor.
Sandrine Schultz, Energy Program Manager, Commander,
Navy Installations Command
Sandrine Schultz, Energy Program Manager for the Navy Installations Command
presented a developing heads up “dashboard” tool that displays data on energy
intensity from building level meters overlaid on a geospatial map of the facility to
promote awareness of energy use and to show improvements for both field personnel
and managers (see Figure 2 1). The display is very intuitive, with problem buildings
shown in red and satisfactory buildings in green. The data can be rolled up at various
levels, from individual units in facilities to entire facilities. The module is updated on a
monthly basis (for example, to account for buildups in places such as Guam), and data
Consumption alone does not indicate if the
building is performing poorly. The information
must be compared against standards.
CIRCUITS
+
iNFADS
=
Energy Intensity
Consumption + Category Code + Climate Region = Largest Consumer within Building Type
Benchmark (based on CBECS and ASHRAE)
Top Consumers by Type
on the Installation
FIGURE 2 1 Example of the energy intensity dashboard display being developed by the
U.S. Navy. Metering data on the intensity of energy use is overlaid on geospatial facility
maps, with colors indicating building performance. NOTE: CBECS, Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey; ASHRAE, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air Conditioning Engineers. SOURCE: Sandrine Schultz, Energy Program Manager,
Commander, Navy Installations Command, presentation to the workshop, November 5,
2012, Washington, D.C.
20
OCR for page 21
errors are corrected immediately. The energy dashboard tool is to be made available
throughout the Navy on November 17, 2012. The general response of the participants
to this presentation was very favorable, and the suggestion was made that the Air Force
may wish to adopt a tool like this as a way to monitor and promote its own energy
reduction efforts.
John Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Army Materiel Command
The Army’s goals and programs for energy use reduction, development of
renewables, and water conservation are similar to those of the Navy and the Air Force
as discussed above, according to John Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Army
Materiel Command (AMC). There is a full time civilian energy manager (GS 12 to GS 14)
at 95 percent of Army installations. Savings identified by these managers have yielded a
return on investment (ROI) in their salaries by a factor of five. There are weekly
installation briefings on energy with high commander visibility. Capital investment
program projects require the metering of electricity and are not approved if they are not
expected to result in energy savings. The Army also uses the energy intensity metric, but
normalizes it by direct labor hours to account for changes in personnel levels.
Budgets available for funding energy related projects in AMC are predicted to
shrink in coming years. The AMC has identified its most energy intensive processes
through energy audits. It relies heavily on ESPCs with third parties to address these.
Equipment used directly on the production line is paid for by Army core funding, and the
infrastructure is financed by third parties. About $360 million is estimated to be needed
to enable AMC to meet its energy intensity reduction goals—about two to three times
its annual energy expenditure. Therefore, private sector financing through various
mechanisms is viewed as critical for success. Several participants viewed with favor the
normalization of the energy intensity metric by direct labor hours, noting that further
adjustments were needed to account for changes in facility square footage through
consolidation, demolitions, or base closures. The question was raised as to whether
funds that might materialize from the return of Army facilities in Germany to the
German government could be made available to fund energy projects. The answer was
that those funds would remain in Germany for use in future construction projects there.
Timothy Unruh, Program Manager, Federal Energy Management Program, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) provides the services, tools,
and expertise to federal agencies to help them achieve their energy use, greenhouse
gas, and water consumption reduction goals as mandated by legislation and Executive
Orders. Timothy Unruh, Program Manager for FEMP, in DOE’s EERE, noted that the Air
Force is ahead of the rest of the federal government in meeting its goals for energy and
21
OCR for page 22
water consumption reduction. FEMP is also working with the military academies to give
energy related awards to students, in categories defined by the academies.
A December 2, 2011, Presidential Memorandum7 stated that “The Federal
Government will enter into a minimum of $2 billion in performance based contracts in
Federal building energy efficiency within 24 months.” FEMP coordinates these contracts,
39 of which have been awarded, with a total value of $427 million. An example is an
$80.7 million ESPC signed in August 2012 at Tinker AFB that is expected to reduce
energy intensity by 30 percent and save $6.4 million per year. The project decentralizes
steam heating so that steam will no longer be sent long distances. These third party
projects typically take about 2 years to develop, then another 2 years to show results. It
is not known how the $2 billion goal, which does not require any appropriation, matches
the actual need. One comment following this presentation was that there needs to be
an understanding of what it is that one wants to meter and of what meters or sensors
are most appropriate to the task. A process expert should select the right meter for a
particular process. In some cases, a 15 minute meter may be useless and a 30 second
meter may be right. A second comment suggested an alternative metric for evaluating
project success: dollars invested per British thermal unit saved. A dollar invested should
yield a 6,000 8,000 Btu reduction.
Al Hildreth, Company Energy Manager, General Motors North America
General Motors (GM) has an annual energy budget of approximately $1 billion
and a robust business process to manage it, according to Al Hildreth, Company Energy
Manager for General Motors North America. Goals have been set by top management
to reduce energy, greenhouse gases, and water use, and GM participates in the Energy
Star program. All plants are ISO 50001 certified. GM uses the metric megawatt hours
(MWh) per vehicle to measure its energy intensity; in North America it currently
requires 2.59 MWh to produce a vehicle, equivalent to the electricity used by one
household in a year. GM uses a proprietary energy management dashboard display to
track energy intensity that half of its plants currently feed into.
GM estimates that 60 percent of its energy consumption is due to processes and
has conducted audits to identify opportunities for reduction. The largest electricity user
is the paint shop. Hildreth discussed a series of steps that were taken to improve energy
efficiency in painting operations, the most significant of which was increasing the
fraction of recirculated air to outside air. Annual energy savings from taking these steps
amounted to nearly $3 million. Most participants were favorably impressed by GM’s
program and its energy intensity metric, and thought that the Air Force’s efforts to
7
For additional information, see “Presidential Memorandum Implementation of Energy Savings
Projects and Performance Based Contracting for energy savings.” December 2, 2011. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the press office/2011/12/02/presidential memorandum implementation
energy savings projects and perfo. Last accessed on December 27, 2012.
22
OCR for page 23
reduce industrial process energy would benefit from a closer collaboration with
companies such as GM.
James B. Porter, Jr., Independent Consultant
As indicated by James B. Porter, Jr., retired vice president for engineering and
operations at DuPont, DuPont consumes 129 trillion Btu of energy per year, compared
with the Air Force’s 65 trillion Btu. DuPont’s business goal is “sustainable growth” that
entails increasing shareholder and societal value while decreasing the footprint of
operations. In 1999, DuPont announced the goal of holding energy use at or below the
1990 baseline, with additional goals for greenhouse gases and renewable energy use. In
fact, DuPont has achieved a 6 percent reduction in energy consumption since 1990,
despite the 40 percent increase in production. The commitment of senior leadership to
sustainable growth is the key to DuPont’s success; this commitment percolates down
through the enterprise. A single site manager at each plant is responsible for all aspects
of operations, including meeting energy savings targets. Energy use data are aggregated
at the site level. The metric is energy dollars spent last year divided by energy dollars
spent this year. It is important to keep the value proposition in front of managers and
stockholders, Porter noted. DuPont estimates that it has gotten a 60 percent internal
rate of return from its investment in energy projects.
DuPont has many subject matter experts in energy related issues. They are
deployed by means of a leveraged model to maximize effectiveness and efficiency. Peer
to peer forums of energy champions have been key enablers. Technology is also being
used to promote energy savings, with a website that disseminates best practices,
downloadable energy engineering assessment tools, and virtual workshops that enable
energy training without the necessity of travel. Peer recognition for meeting energy
goals is important, perhaps more so than recognition by management. The DuPont
culture is that all energy management projects are good business projects. The notion
of “sustainable energy management” seemed to resonate with the Air Force
participants in the workshop, as well as the emphasis on the commitment of top
leadership. In response to a question, Porter noted that the energy efficiency culture
promoted by DuPont has also spilled over into the energy choices that their employees
make in their personal lives.
Roger Weir, Energy Manager, ATK Aerospace Systems
As noted by Roger Weir, Energy Manager for ATK Aerospace Systems, ATK is the
world’s top producer of solid rocket propulsion systems and military ammunition. Its
operations are widely dispersed, with some 24 offices and operating locations in 23
states. Starting in 2009, each location was required to develop an energy plan, but
communication among sites and sharing of best practices have proved challenging.
23
OCR for page 24
Annual energy spending is $70 million, and 7.3 trillion Btu are consumed. No funds are
specifically allocated for energy projects, which must compete for funding with other
projects. ATK has a dashboard display system for tracking water, air, gas, electricity, and
steam (WAGES) consumption on a monthly basis and comparing it to budget targets,
primarily for primary process building owners. Annual pay increases are tied to cost
reduction in these areas. Weir cited several projects involving improvements to
processes that had significant energy savings, although the motivation for undertaking
them was to increase throughput:
Replacing an electric furnace with a natural gas furnace.
Replacing a gas fired continuous line anneal furnace with a cellular electric
furnace,
Replacing an old anneal furnace with a new one that has improved insulation,
Modernizing steam boiler controls, and
Installing remote maintenance of an HVAC system with an automatic trouble
notification system.
ATK believes that the future sustainable grid will involve much more distributed
electricity generation, with energy storage technologies becoming more prevalent. Weir
described a 3 year joint project between DOE and ATK to explore several of these
technologies and to gather data on their performance.
Kenneth Walters, Chief, Measurement and Analysis Division, Air Force Civil Engineer
Center–Energy, Air Force Materiel Command
Kenneth Walters, Chief of the Measurement and Analysis Division of the AFMC’s
Air Force Civil Engineer Center—Energy, was invited to give an overview of progress in
the metering of electricity use in Air Force facilities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
mandates that federal agencies put meters on all facilities where it is cost effective. To
judge cost effectiveness, the Air Force uses an algorithm based on the estimated
amount of electricity used in a building and the cost of the electricity, and it assumes
that at least 2 percent of electricity costs would be saved just from the awareness that
an installed meter would provide. Fully burdened, the cost of installing a meter is about
$10,000. If savings are calculated to be a few thousand dollars per year, this is judged to
be cost effective. Some 74 percent of the mandated electricity meters have been
installed at Air Force facilities, at a cost of $100 million. The remainder are expected to
be installed in the next few months. Military construction specifications require meters
on all new buildings.
The Air Force has already contracted out the development of an advanced
meter reading system (AMRS) that will provide a dashboard display of electricity use
enterprise wide, similar to the system described above being developed by the Navy. It
is expected to be deployed over the next 2 years. Submetering of specific processes has
24
OCR for page 25
not yet been addressed, but it is not precluded. One problem is that the meters are of
different types and they talk to different proprietary systems, so in some cases it is
necessary to pull data from alternative sources.
Col Steven Wood, Vice Commander, 72nd Air Base Wing, Tinker Air Force Base
Col Steven Wood was asked to comment on relevant activity at Tinker AFB,
which is a joint Air Force and Navy base with good cooperation between the two. The
Navy pays for its electricity based on its usage. From the perspective of the Air Force,,
electricity use at Tinker AFB is reported as the fenceline electricity minus amounts
attributed to other customers and tenants. In 2009, Tinker AFB took over an old GM
plant that was only lightly used, and so the energy intensity metric dropped (due to the
increase in the denominator square footage). Tinker AFB has purchased meters to
monitor electricity, gas, and water usage, although they are not all installed. Current
energy projects do not yet address industrial process energy, but Tinker AFB is ramping
up a team to focus on process energy, as are Hill AFB, Utah, and Robins AFB, Georgia.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
Col Gregory Ottoman, Chief, Environment and Energy Division, Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support
Col Gregory Ottoman, Chief of the Environment and Energy Division, Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support, noted that the
progress of the Air Force in reducing facility energy intensity (16.8 percent since 2003)
leads the other services. The Air Force has three reasons to invest in energy projects: (1)
It must try to meet congressional and presidential mandates; (2) the savings in utility
costs are considerable, with about $2 dollars saved for every dollar invested; and (3)
reducing energy use contributes to national security (although there is no price tag on
this benefit). It all boils down to funding, Ottoman said, and finding the dollars to invest
will get harder in the future. Restoration and maintenance (R&M) funds for retrofitting
facilities that are currently being set aside for energy projects will no longer be set aside
in FY 2016, and so energy projects will have to compete with all other projects. These
funds can’t be used for improving industrial processes or for laboratories. There are no
excess dollars in the infrastructure budget; about $1 billion is available, but the backlog
is around $33 billion.
Leadership needs to decide to dedicate funding to energy projects. There is an
oversight and resourcing council chaired by Terry Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, that has energy as part of its purview.
The focus of federal mandates and EOs on the relatively small fraction of Air Force
energy consumed in facilities rather than the much larger fraction used in aviation
appears to be skewed, but this is changing. One stated goal was to reduce aviation fuel
25
OCR for page 26
use by 10 percent from 2006, but this goal has not been met due to the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. There are expected to be new initiatives on reducing fuel use in aviation in
this Program Objective Memorandum (POM) cycle.
Ottoman argued that the metrics for measuring energy intensity may be
appropriate for office buildings but are not appropriate for addressing industrial process
energy. Also, base utility bills are in the “must pay” category. Commanders and
managers know that they will get the money necessary to pay them—which reduces the
incentive for reducing consumption. The Air Force believes that it is in relatively good
shape in meeting its goals for reducing water consumption and expanding renewable
energy. However, there is a recognition that decisions regarding energy and
environmental projects continue to be made on an ad hoc basis, which leads to
suboptimization. For example, the Air Force has leased land at Nellis Air Force Base on
which a contractor has built a photovoltaic (PV) electricity system, ostensibly to meet
renewable energy and energy security goals for the base. However, the PV electricity is
not connected to the base, but instead goes directly to the grid, and there does not
appear to be funding available or the right incentives to make the connection to the
base. Technology tends to be applied where it can be applied, as opposed to where it
should be applied. Ottoman stated that there needs to be a macro model that could
lead to a more holistic approach to energy and environmental decision making
throughout the Air Force.
Much of the discussion following this presentation revolved around the issue of
fragmented decision making and suboptimization. One participant commented that
DuPont’s energy initiatives also started as scattered and ad hoc efforts, and only
coalesced into a coherent program over time. The Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Energy has only been in existence for about 2 years, with a
small staff and minimal contractor support. The biggest concern may be the lack of
visibility of energy issues at headquarters outside of the civil engineering community.
There are no “blue suit” logisticians; leadership is needed to address process energy.
Several participants asserted that energy use must be translated into cost in order to
influence the acquisition community.
Several workshop participants also commented on issues related to metering.
Metering will provide quicker and more accurate data on energy consumption to
managers. The Empire State Building in New York City was renovated several years ago
and meters were installed. Businesses located in the building competed to reduce their
electricity consumption. The lesson was that energy use should not be viewed as an
isolated island—there is a whole community involved. Other comments related to
funding for submetering, which will be needed in order to tackle industrial process
energy. Submetering would have to be funded by maintenance accounts rather than
civil engineering accounts. However, meters would not have to remain indefinitely at a
single site. It should be possible to save money by moving meters around from site to
site in order to verify the value of investments as part of a research and development
process.
26
