Office of the Assistant Secretary of DefenseforEnergy, Installations, and Environment

Department of Defense
Annual Energy Management andResilience Report (AEMRR)
Fiscal Year 2017

July 2018
COST ESTIMATEThe estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $303,000 in
Fiscal Years 2017‒2018. This includes $235,000 in expenses and $68,000 in DoD labor. Costestimate generated on June 8, 2018 / RefID: 4-DFD4FDC

(This page is intentionally left blank)iTable of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.

Installation Energy Program Management ........................................................................ 4
The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy (ODASD(IE)) Installation
Energy Program ...................................................................................................................... 4
Army Installation Energy Program ......................................................................................... 4
Department of the Navy (DON) Installation Energy Program ............................................... 5
Air Force Installation Energy Program .................................................................................. 6
Defense Agencies Installation Energy Program ..................................................................... 8

3.

Enhancing Energy Resilience ............................................................................................... 94.

DoD’s Progress To Achieve Federal and DoD Goals ....................................................... 11
Installation Energy Demand Overview ................................................................................. 11
Energy Intensity ..................................................................................................................... 11
Army ..................................................................................................................... 14
DON ...................................................................................................................... 15
Air Force ............................................................................................................... 16
Defense Agencies.................................................................................................. 16
Potable Water Consumption and Intensity ............................................................................ 18
Army ..................................................................................................................... 19
DON ...................................................................................................................... 20
Air Force ............................................................................................................... 21
Defense Agencies.................................................................................................. 22
Industrial, Landscaping, and Agricultural (ILA) Water Consumption ................................. 22
Non-Tactical Fleet Vehicle Petroleum Consumption ............................................................ 23
Army ..................................................................................................................... 24
DON ...................................................................................................................... 24
Air Force ............................................................................................................... 25
Defense Agencies.................................................................................................. 26

5. Increasing DoD Distributed (On-site) and Renewable Energy Resources ....................... 27
DoD Renewable Energy Performance .................................................................................. 27
Army ..................................................................................................................... 29
DON ...................................................................................................................... 30
Air Force ............................................................................................................... 31
Defense Agencies.................................................................................................. 32ii

6. Reporting Utility Outages on Military Installations ............................................................ 33
7. Additional Reporting Requirements .................................................................................... 34
Appendix A - List of Energy Acronyms ..................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B - Compliance Matrix............................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C - Energy Performance Master Plan......................................................................... C-1
Appendix D - DoD Energy Performance Summary ................................................................... D-1
Appendix E - Section 315, P.L. 114-328 (S 2943), the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) for FY 2017...................................................................................................................E-1
Appendix F - Senate Report 115-125, to accompany S 1519, the NDAA for FY 2018.............. F-1
Appendix G - House Report 115-200, to accompany HR 2810, the NDAA for FY 2018 ......... G-1
Appendix H - House Report 115-219, to accompany HR 3219, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill for FY 2018................................................................................................. H-1
Appendix I - Senate Reports 114-237 & 115-188, Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, andRelated Agencies Appropriations Bills, FYs 2017 and 2018 ....................................................... I-1
Appendix J - Energy Intensity by Installation ............................................................................. J-1
Appendix K - References ............................................................................................................ K-1

iii

1. Introduction
The chief priority of the Department of Defense (DoD) energy policy is to ensure the mission
readiness of the armed forces by pursuing energy security and energy resilience. In today’s
technology-dependent environment, energy is inextricably combined with the Department’s
missions, from the directly employed weapons systems to the installations and systems that support
missions around the globe. In this environment, energy resilience, which enables the capabilities
of weapons platforms, facilities, and equipment, is a critical investment that must be part of the
Department’s research, acquisition, operations, and sustainment conversations.
An important opportunity exists for the Department to improve its energy resilience on its fixedinstallations, as the Department’s 500 installations worldwide, comprising nearly 300,000
buildings, account for nearly 30 percent of DoD’s total energy use 1. Aligning installation energy
requirements, agnostic of specific technologies or practices, directly to mission assurance
requirements is the Department’s key opportunity to improve energy resilience. Energy resilience,in accordance with section 101(e) of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), is “the ability to avoid,
prepare for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions
in order to ensure energy availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance andreadiness, including task critical assets and other mission essential operations related to readiness,and to execute or rapidly reestablish mission essential requirements.” Increasing efficiencies,
lowering costs, and enhancing backup power options bolsters energy resilience when implemented
as part of a comprehensive strategy rather than as disparate efforts to meet specific goals for thesake of the goals themselves. The Department will ensure energy resilience and reliability forcritical missions while treating installation energy as a force multiplier in support of military
readiness.
Accurate measurement of installation energy augments these principles allowing DoD to monitor
and maintain an aggressive pace toward its larger energy objectives. To that end, this Annual
Energy Management and Resilience Report (AEMRR) details the Department’s Fiscal Year (FY)2017 performance toward achieving greater energy resilience by leveraging objectives in energy
efficiency, demand reduction, and energy supply expansion on fixed installations.

1

Installation energy includes energy needed to power fixed installations and enduring locations as well as non-tactical vehicles(NTVs), whereas operational energy is the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons
platforms for military operations and training—including energy used by tactical power systems and generators at non-enduringlocations.

1Figure 1-1:FY 2017 DoD Progress Toward Installation Energy and Water Goals

DoD reports on its annual installation energy performance in the FY 2017 AEMRR. 2 Table 1-1
summarizes the Department’s progress toward its FY 2017 energy goals 3; Appendix D presents
the Department’s energy-related performance metrics in greater detail. As shown, although DoD
fell short of its FY 2017 goal for renewable energy, it exceeded its energy use intensity (EUI)
reduction goal and continued to exceed its goals for potable water intensity and petroleum
consumption reduction 4.
The FY 2017 AEMRR is compiled based upon the following mandates (Appendix B):•

Section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) of 1978 (section
8258 of title 42, U.S.C.) which requires Federal agencies to describe their energy
management activities;•

Section 2925 of title 10, U.S.C., which requires DoD to submit to Congress an AEMRR
describing its installation energy activities;•

Section 2911(d) of title 10, U.S.C., which requires DoD to establish energy performancegoals for transportation systems, support systems, utilities, and infrastructure and facilities.

2

This report includes the installation energy activities of the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, and the following Defense
Agencies: Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA); Defense Finance andAccounting Service (DFAS); Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Logistics Agency (DLA); Missile Defense Agency(MDA); National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); National Security Agency(NSA); and Washington Headquarters Services (WHS).
3
Executive Order (E.O.) 13693 was revoked and replaced on May 17, 2018; however, since the E.O. was in effect during FY 2017,
this report will reflect DoD’s performance against the E.O.’s stated requirements.
4
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), U.S.C. and E.O. E.O. 13693
extended and modified the EPAct 2005 renewable energy goal. E.O. 13693 also extended and modified the energy intensity goal
to re-baseline to 2015 from 2003.

2

This report also responds to the following reporting requirements:•

Section 315 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328) (Appendix E)
o Efforts to reduce the high energy costs on military installations•

Senate Report 115-125, to accompany S. 1519, the NDAA for FY 2018 (Appendix F)
o Energy Savings Performance Contracts Assessmento Energy Assurance on Military Installations•

House Report 115-200, to accompany H.R. 2810, the NDAA for FY 2018 (Appendix G)
o Energy Resilience of Overseas Military Installations•

House Report 115-219, to accompany H.R. 3219, Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill for FY 2018 (Appendix H)
o Energy Security of Overseas Military Installations•

Senate Report 114-237 and House Report 115-188, Water Report (Appendix I)

The remainder of this report discusses DoD efforts related to managing its installation energy
program, reducing energy demand, increasing distributed (on-site) and renewable energy, andenhancing energy resilience.

3

2. Installation Energy Program Management
The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installation Energy(ODASD(IE)), Installation Energy Program
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installation Energy(ODASD(IE)) is responsible for issuing energy policy and guidance to
DoD Components; coordinating DoD energy strategies; overseeing
energy programs (e.g., energy resilience, energy efficiency, anddistributed and renewable energy); and engaging with the MilitaryServices, Defense Agencies, and other stakeholders. Additionally,ODASD(IE) coordinates all congressional reports related to installationenergy. The following sections briefly describe the DoD Components’installation energy programs.

Figure 2-1: Secretary of
Defense Installation Energy
ProgramUnder Secretary of Defense(Acquisitions & Sustainment)

Assistant Secretary of Defense(Energy, Installations &Environment)

Army Installation Energy Program
The Army’s energy, water, and sustainability programs fall under thepurview of the Under Secretary of the Army as the Army’s Senior
Sustainability Official (SSO). The Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Energy, and Environment (ASA(IE&E)) is the designatedofficial with primary responsibility to support the Under Secretary of
the Army in the role of SSO. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Energy and Sustainability (DASA(E&S)) is the Army’s
designated Senior Energy Executive and Senior Sustainability
Executive.
Figure 2-1: US Army Energy Program Structure4

Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense(Installation Energy)

Policies & Strategies
Oversight & Implementation
Budget Review

Energyandwatersecurity implementation
progress occurs at alllevels of command acrossthe Army.
Using
guidance provided by the
Office of the AssistantChief of Staff for
Installation Management(OACSIM), landholding
Army
Commands
monitor their progressagainst strategic energy
securityandsustainability goals andtake necessary actions toimproveperformance.
OACSIM
reports

progress at the Command level to the Senior Energy and Sustainability Council (SESC). The
Army periodically reevaluates metrics to foster a culture of continual process improvement.
Leveraging the Army’s Energy Security and Sustainability (ES2) Strategy, the SESC fosters more
adaptable and resilient installations that are prepared for a future defined by complexity,
uncertainty, adversity, and rapid change. The ES2 has served as a foundational driver for moredetailed policy articulating the Army’s evolving natural resource security stance. In FY 2017, theArmy Directive 2017-07 (Installation Energy and Water Security Policy) coupled with the Energy
and Water Goal Attainment Responsibility Policy for Installations formalized a host of legacy
energy and water management requirements, specifying their application to the Army. These two
Army policy documents provide energy and water management strategies that result in energy andwater resilience and ensure the Army’s mission readiness in a rapidly changing world.
To further the alignment of energy and water performance to mission performance, the Army isintegrating energy and water security into total Army readiness. Improving access to reliable andsecure energy and water resources supports strategic resource management goals. Over the lastyear, the Army has built more comprehensive requirements and detailed metrics to assess
installation energy and water security. Requirements for reporting installation status haveincreased emphasis on the direct impact of energy and sustainability programs and performance tomission readiness. In FY 2018, the Army Strategic Readiness Assessment (ASRA) will reportprogress and status in installation readiness posture to senior leadership.

Department of the Navy (DON) Installation Energy Program
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment (ASN(EI&E)) is
the designated senior DON official for energy who is responsible for formulating Department‐
wide policies, procedures, advocacy andstrategic plans, as well as overseeing all DON
Figure 2-2: Department of the Navy Installation Energyfunctions and programs related to energy.
Program
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navyfor Installations and Facilities (DASN (I&F))
is the principal advisor to ASN(EI&E).
Within the Secretariat, the Director for
Installation Energy facilitates the DON
Installation Energy Policy Board, whichbrings together the senior Navy and Marine
Corps officials for energy strategy and policy
decisions.
The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations(CNO) Shore Installation Management
Division (OPNAV N46) is responsible fordeveloping policy and programming
resources for the Navy’s Facility Energy Program. OPNAV N46 also ensures compliance with5

DON shore energy goals. The Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) is responsible
for current and future shore energy requirements across warfare enterprises. Within the Facilities
and Environmental Department (CNIC N4) CNIC N44 is responsible for developing andintegrating shore energy requirements across the Shore Enterprise.
For the Marine Corps, the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics (DC I&L) is
responsible for establishing energy and water management policy for Marine Corps installationsin accordance with the Commandant’s direction. The Assistant Deputy Commandant for
Installations and Logistics (Facilities) serves as the single point of contact responsible for program
management and resourcing. The Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command(MCICOM) oversees program planning and execution with direct support provided by the
Director, Facilities (MCICOM GF). The Energy and Facility Operations Section (MCICOM GF‐
1) serves as the Marine Corps Installations Energy Program Manager.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) provides technical and businessexpertise for facilities, utilities, energy, and other infrastructure support services to the Navy andMarine Corps. The Assistant Commander for Public Works at NAVFAC Headquarters serves as
the NAVFAC Energy Officer and oversees the development of relevant energy guidance,
standards, processes and internal policy forc NAVFAC.

Air Force Installation Energy Program
Each component of the Air Force Energy Team plays an important role in striving to meet theservice-wide energy priorities to: (1) improve resilience, (2) optimize demand, and (3) assure
supply. These priorities support the Air Force vision to “enhance mission assurance throughenergy assurance,” which moves the Air Force toward the “sweet spot” of facility energy that isresilient, cost-effective, and cleaner.
The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Energy (SAF/IE) is
the Air Force’s Senior Energy Official and provides guidance, direction, and oversight for all
matters pertaining to the formulation, review, and execution of plans, policies, programs, andbudgets, as well as Air Force positions regarding federal and state legislation and regulations
related to energy and water use. Headquarters Air Force provides:•

Information to support governance and oversight of energy management activities;•

Procedures and objectives to address and manage Air Force facility energy and water
consumption, throughput, and requirements, in alignment with policies and strategic
direction;•

Policies, guidance, procedures, and practices to enhance Air Force energy assurance withthe goal of energy resilience and develop a state of energy security to meet mission
essential requirements.

6

Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) and its primary subordinate unit,
Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) develop and execute facility energy programs, plans,
and policies in support of the Air Force strategic energy priorities and goals and are responsible
for the integration of major command mission requirements with Air Force strategic energy
priorities and goals. Specifically, AFIMSC:•

Assesses energy use and risks to identify investment opportunities and efficiency measures
to enhance capability and mission success.

•Provides guidance on energy project development, utility recommendations andrequirements validation, capabilities oversight and resource advocacy, and oversight andguidance on budgeting and execution funding.

•

Promotes policies, procedures, and practices to enhance Air Force energy security andresilience; and develops standardized processes for the facility energy program.

The Air Force Office of Energy Assurance (OEA) develops, implements, and oversees theintegrated facility energy portfolio, including privately financed, large-scale clean energy projects
that will provide uninterrupted access to the electricity necessary for mission success.
At the tactical level, installations, supported by Installation Energy Managers (IEMs), develop andexecute the installation energy and water plans to support or supplement Air Force energy
goals/strategies and measure and evaluate their base energy usage and costs, promote total energy
awareness, and nominate successful people and units for energy awards.

7

Defense Agencies Installation Energy Program
The Defense Agencies continue to enhance their Installation Energy Management Programs andeach agency has a designated Senior Energy Official to administer their respective programs(Table 2).
Table 1: Defense Agencies Senior Energy Officials

Senior Energy Official

DoD Component
Defense Contact Management Agency (DCMA)
Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Missle Defense Agency (MDA)
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
National Security Agency (NSA)
Washington Headquarters Services (WHS)

Energy Program Manager
Energy Program Manager
Director, Support Services
Chief, Engineering and Logistics Officer
Installation Management Director
Environmental Executive
Director, Management Services and Operations
Director, Installation Operations Office
Chief of Facilities and Infrastructure Services
Pentagon Sustainability Program Manager

The Intelligence Community (IC), in particular, has adopted a community-wide approach tomaximizing energy opportunities. Within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence there
is an IC Energy Management Working Group composed of representatives from the intelligenceagencies with the subject matter expertise and authority to speak for their agency on energy
matters.

8

3. Enhancing Energy Resilience
The specific definition of energy resilience provided in section 101(e) of title 10, U.S.C., guides
energy policy across the Department. It is
important to note that energy resilience is not
Per section 101(e)(6) of title 10, U.S.C., the “term ‘energy
the same as either energy reliability or energy
resilience’ means the ability to avoid, prepare for, minimize,security. Reliability is a measure both of an
adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy
electric system’s ability to supply the
disruptions in order to ensure energy availability and reliability
sufficient to provide for mission assurance and readiness,aggregate demand (adequacy) and the system’s
including task critical assets and other mission essential
ability to withstand disruptions (operating
operations related to readiness, and to execute or rapidly
reestablish mission essential requirements.”
reliability). 5 Energy security, defined bysection 101(e)(7) of title 10 U.S.C., “means
having assured access to reliable supplies ofenergy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential
requirements.” Resilience, as defined for DoD, includes both these abilities, as well as two
additional, critical parameters: (1) resilience includes the additional capability to adapt to theenvironment caused by disruptions; and (2) resilience is targeted at one aspect of the enterprise,
mission assurance and readiness.
DoD relies on commercial power to conduct missions from its installations. Commercial power
supplies can be threatened by a variety of events ranging from natural hazards to physical attacks
on infrastructure and cyber-attacks on networks. DoD recognizes that such events could result in
power outages affecting critical DoD missions involving power projection, defense of thehomeland, or operations conducted at installations in the United States directly supporting
warfighting missions overseas. Therefore, installation commanders must understand and address
the vulnerabilities and risk of power disruptions that can impact mission assurance 6.
Energy resilience can be achieved in a variety of ways, including redundant power supplies(generators); integrated or distributed fossil, alternative, or renewable energy technologies;
microgrid applications including storage; diversified or alternate fuel supplies; upgrading,replacing, operating, maintaining, or testing current energy generation systems, infrastructure, andequipment; as well as mission alternative such as reconstitution or mission-to-mission redundancy.
DoD is agnostic toward any specific technologies and practices that are employed to achieve
resilience. Ultimately, energy resilience is a binary measure; either missions have the energy thatis required, when and where it is needed, or they do not. What follows from this foundation is an
iterative planning and implementation cycle in which mission owners conduct the risk analysis
and specify the requirements, infrastructure stakeholders solve for the specified requirements, andthe process repeats itself as needed to meet changing mission parameters.

5

NERC. 2013. “Reliability Terminology.” http://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Documents/Terms%20AUG13.pdf
DoD publishes the status of its energy resilience program at the following:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/IE/FEP_Energy_Resilience.html.

69

As part of its energy resilience strategy, DoD adapted policies and guidance related to energy
infrastructure. In addition to updating DoD Directive (DoDD) 4180.01, “DoD Energy Policy,”and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4170.11, “Installation Energy Management” in FY 2016, in FY 2017
DoD published the “Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, and Training (OM&T) Strategy
and Implementation Guidance.” The OM&T Guidance outlines a comprehensive strategy,
including a development and implementation plan that replaces or improves emergency power
generation readiness, reduces system maintenance, and improves fuel flexibility to ensure thesupportability of all Department emergency power generation systems in operation. Further, DoD
has incorporated resilience in its annual update of the primary federal investment program specificto energy infrastructure, the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP).
On May 30, 2018, DoD released a memorandum to update the OASD(EI&E) memorandum,“Installation Energy Plans (IEPs),” dated March 31, 2016. This update clarifies and provides
further direction to installations with regard to energy resilience and cybersecurity. Chief among
the updates are requirements that: (1) by the end of FY 2019 all installations identified by the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance as priority
installations will complete IEPs; (2) by the end of FY 2020, all installations that constitute 75
percent of each Component’s consumption will complete updated IEPs; and (3) by the end of FY
2021, IEPs will be completed for all installations not included in the previous categories. These
IEPs provide Components with the opportunity to present their installation-specific long-range
plans for energy resilience.
Amendments to sectuin 2925 if title 10, U.S.C., included in the FY 2018 NDAA address how DoD
will report to Congress on efforts aimed at increasing energy resilience across the Department. In
future AEMRRs, the Department will report on installation energy requirements and criticalenergy requirements, as well as energy resilience and emergency backup systems serving criticalenergy requirements. Per section 2925(a)(4) of title 10, U.S.C., the reporting will cover, at aminimum:(A) Energy resilience and emergency backup systems power requirements;(B) Critical missions, facility, or facilities serviced;(C) System service life;(D) Capital, operations, maintenance, and testing costs; and(E) Other information the Secretary determines necessary.
ODASD(IE) is actively working with the Services and Defense Agencies to identify andimplement best practices to gather and report against these new requirements.

10

4. DoD’s Progress To Achieve Federal & DoD Goals
Installation Energy Demand Overview
This section describes the scope of the Department’s installation energy demand in terms of costand consumption. DoD is the largest single energy-consuming entity in the United States, bothwithin the Federal Government and as compared to any single private-sector entity. DoD
operational and installation energy consumption represents approximately 80 percent of total
Federal energy consumption, more than sixteen times the total energy consumption of the next
closest Federal agency (the United States Postal Service). 7
In FY 2017, DoD spent approximately $3.48 billion on installation energy, which included $3.3
billion to power, heat, and cool buildings; and $0.18 billion to supply fuel to the fleet of NTVs 8.
The Department also spent $274 million for water in FY 2017, raising the overall cost of energy
and water to $3.72 billion. DoD consumed 207,907 billion British thermal units (BBtus) ofinstallation energy; 199,143 BBtus in buildings (stationary combustion) and 8,764 BBtus in NTV
fleet (mobile combustion). DoD consumed 89,705 million gallons (MGal) of water; 82,499 MGalin potable water; and 7,205 MGal in industrial, landscaping, and agricultural (ILA) and nonpotable freshwater. The Army was the largest consumer of installation energy (36 percent),
followed by the Air Force (30 percent), and DoN (29 percent). Electricity and natural gas
accounted for 80.5 percent of DoD installation energy consumption. The remaining portion of
installation energy consumption included fuel oil, coal, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (Figure4-1) 9. DoD’s installation energy consumption mix mirrors that of the U.S. commercial sector,
where natural gas and electricity dominate the supply mix.
Energy Intensity
DoD measures energy intensity in Btus per gross square foot (GSF) of facility space. 10 Section
543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) mandates a 3.0 percent annual
reduction in energy intensity relative to a baseline year (FY 2003) or a 30 percent overall reduction
from the baseline by FY 2015. E.O. 13693 11 extended the goal to 2.5 percent annual reductions
through 2025, with the baseline reestablished to 2015. The EISA of 2007 further distinguishes
two categories of buildings: those subject to the energy intensity reduction goal and those that can

7

FEMP, Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and Sustainability Performance [online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26, 2018,
accessed May 18, 2018), available fromhttp://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Report/TotalSiteDeliveredEnergyUseInAllEndUseSectorsByFederalAgencyBillionBtu.aspx
8
Total DoD consumption and costs for energy in FY 2017 were not available for inclusion in this report.
9EIA, 2018 Energy Consumption by Sector, Table 2.1 [online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26, 2018 accessed April 27, 2018),
available from http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
10
Energy intensity does not include energy consumption from NTVs.
11
Since revoked by EO 13834.

11

Figure 4-1: FY 2017 Installation Energy (Goal Subject) Consumption by Military Service

be excluded. 12Thissection discusses energy
intensity for DoD goalsubject buildings. In FY
2017, DoD consumed
approximately
190,076
BBtus of energy in its
goal-subject buildings and9,067 BBtus in its goalexcluded buildings. Total
consumption decreases to
189,474 BBtus when thevalue is adjusted to reflect
for renewable energy
credits (RECs). Figure 4-1
illustrates recent historical
trends in installationenergy consumption by
DoD Components acrossgoal-subject buildings.

DoD energy intensity has decreased since FY 2003, but in FY 2016 DoD and the Military Services’progress was recalibrated to an FY 2015 baseline to comply with the new E.O. 13693 guidance.
In FY 2017 DoD reduced its energy intensity by 6.4 percent from the FY 2015 baseline, exceeding
the goal of 2.5 percent.

12

The criteria evaluated for excluding facilities include impracticability due to energy intensiveness or national security function,completed energy management reports, compliance with all energy efficiency requirements, or implementation of all cost-effectiveenergy projects in the buildings. This energy intensity section discusses only goal-subject buildings. Source: U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Guidelines Establishing Criteria
for Excluding Buildings [online source] Washington, D.C. 2006, accessed January 2, 2015, available fromhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exclusion_criteria.pdf.

12

DoD has reported its energy
intensity progress to the
Department of Energy (DOE)
since FY 1975. 13 Since thistime, DoD has reduced its
energy intensity from 182,153
BBtus/ft2 in FY 1975 to 91,714
BBtus/ft2 in FY 2017 (adjusted
for on-site renewables andsourceenergycredits),
representing
anenergyintensity reduction of nearly 50
percent. Figure 4-2 illustrates
historical trends in DoD
reductions of energy intensity
since FY 1975.
These
reductions are not the result of any single change in technology or practice, but rather reflect acontinuous effort to implement solutions across the spectrum of opportunities, from low- and nocost energy efficiency and conservation measures to larger scale projects to replace and/or upgrade
inefficient energy generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructures both on DoD
installations and the in the broader commercial energy sector. 14
Figure 4-2: DoD Energy Intensity Progress Since FY 1975

13
EIA, 2018 Energy Consumption by Sector, Table 2.7 [online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26, 2018 accessed April 27, 2018),
available from http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
14
Appendix E provides an installation-by-installation breakdown on energy intensity.

13

Army
In FY 2017, the Army reduced its EUI by 9.6 percent from its FY 2015 baseline. The Army’s
perspective on facility and installation energy efficiency has evolved from viewing energy
efficiency as a means for lowering costs to one that understands that effective and holistic energy
management contributes to resilience. Increased energy efficiency is the first step for Army
installations to reduce reliance on commercial energy supplies and improve overall energy
security. To this end, the Army took specific steps during FY 2017 to build out legacy energy
efficiency programs to prioritize energy security/resilience.
In FY 2017, the Army awarded 12 ESPC task orders and modifications with an investment valueof $257.4 million, and nine UESC projects worth $31.9 million, for a total of $289.3 million. This
represents the second highest year of ESPC/UESC investment ever for the Army. These projects
will save 1,132 billion BTUs annually and avoid costs of more than $17.2 million per year which
will be used to repay the investments over the life of the contracts. The combined total of all Army
ESPC and UESC investments over the life of the program exceeds $2.85 billion. More than 12
additional projects are currently under development. The Army anticipates awarding on average$150 million worth of ESPC/UESC projects each year for the foreseeable future.
Another important action was the update of the Army’s ERCIP guidance. The Army collaborated
closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) ERCIP Working Group to increase
focus of the ERCIP on projects that contribute to energy resilience. The Army’s annual ERCIP
guidance requires each candidate project to describe how it would contribute to energy resilienceand mission assurance (e.g., electricity outage mitigation, energy resource profile diversification,
and water resource availability).
The Army continues to leverage its utilities privatization (UP) to achieve significant energy
efficiency and modernization upgrades to utility infrastructure. UP represents a cost-effective
strategy for addressing deferred maintenance backlogs. The reduced risk and liability associatedwith transferring infrastructure assets to local utilities, which are often better positioned to initiate
corrective actions, represents an energy and water resilience benefit to the Army. As of October
2017, 145 Army utility systems had been privatized across the enterprise.
The Army encourages installations to participate in demand response (DR) programs with theirelectric and/or water utility providers or through the DLA agreement with curtailment service
providers. By shifting energy and/or water use to off-peak hours, DR enables utility customers to
reduce utility costs or receive incentives. The Army is assessing market opportunities, developing
strategies, and conducting site-specific assessments to determine where DR can reduce andmanage utility costs. The Army established a DR database in FY 2017 to track participation andutility savings. In FY 2017, there were 16 Army installations participating in the DR programwith financial benefits of $4.2 million credited toward the utility bills of the participating sites.
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems also play a role in the Army’s efforts to increase
resilience. CHP systems, commonly referred to as cogeneration, recycle thermal energy fromelectricity generation for heating, cooling, and/or industrial processes. CHP systems typicallyoperate on a near-continuous basis and are more reliable than backup generators, which may notalways perform or have the required fuel to operate during prolonged power outages. CHP units

14

range from large industrial systems to distributed components having capacities less than 100 kW.
The Maine Army National Guard (ARNG) recently deployed such a novel “micro” CHP design
by installing a 75 kW unit in an aviation support facility in Bangor, Maine. This project enhances
energy security by significantly reducing energy demand and generating onsite electricity and heat
for the Maine ARNG’s largest facility. This year Army has renewed its efforts to deploy new CHP
systems by establishing a CHP integrated process team that engages Army stakeholders in acollaborative process to ensure CHP is considered as a key piece of the Army’s ES2 Strategy.
Army FY 2017 initiated a new strategy to guide future deployment of CHP. This document was
signed by the Secretary of the Army in December 2017. The Army awarded approximately 2 MWof new CHP in FY 2017.
The aforementioned energy program priorities have enabled the Army to better measure andmanage its energy consumption. With an overall EUI of 77.8 thousand BTU per square foot per
year, the Army has a lower EUI than most other Federal Agencies and is the lowest among thefour Services. The Army will continue to identify and implement the most cost-effective EUI
reduction measures while still maintaining mission readiness.

DON
In FY 2017, the DON reduced its EUI by 6.2 percent compared to its FY 2015 baseline. The Navy
reduced its EUI by 5.0 percent, while the Marine Corps reduced its EUI relative to the FY 2015baseline by 9.8 percent. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps expect progress to continue towardbuilding greater energy resilience at installations utilizing federal and non-federal financing during
FY 2018.
By early FY 2017, the Navy and Marine Corps had awarded $654 million in projects designed toleverage energy savings potential to increase installation energy resilience. These investments are
expected to help DON continue to reduce its energy use by 165 BBtus each year for the next 20
years. The following are examples of energy resilience projects in FY 2017:•

The $92 million Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) at MCRD Parris Island
includes eight energy conservation measures that result in a total energy use reduction of
35 percent and total water use reduction of 25 percent. It also includes a new central plantwith microgrid and island mode capability and a total of nine MWs of on-site electricalgeneration, which will improve the energy reliability and resilience of the installation as
well.

•

The $150 million steam decentralization project at Camp Lejeune that replaced five
outdated steam utility systems with 641 small high-efficiency natural gas hot water
condensing boilers. This project used multiple funding streams (Energy Investment
Program [EIP] - $73.8 million, ERCIP - $11.7 million, MILCON - $26 million, UESC $38 million) and accounted for the operation of 548 buildings at the base through the lifeof the project. The project eliminated 50 miles of steam and condensate piping, improving
the efficiency of the system by more than 50 percent, reducing vulnerabilities, and limiting15

maintenance. Additionally, the switch to hot water condensing boilers eliminated the needfor steam make-up water systems, saving the base approximately 87 million gallons ofwater per year. In total, the base is expected to save approximately $15.3 million in annual
savings with a payback period of less than 10 years.

Air Force
In FY 2017, the Air Force reduced its EUI by 4.6 percent compared to its FY 2015 baseline. The
Air Force did not meet the EUI reduction goal of 5.0 percent, due primarily to environmental
impacts at certain installations. Total reportable energy consumption for the Air Force diddecrease by 0.2 percent in FY 2017 resulting in savings of $17 million, down from $939 million
in FY 2016.
The Air Force continues to use Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FRSM) and
ERCIP funds, along with various third-party financing opportunities such as ESPCS, and UESCs.
Funds were primarily used to convert to high efficiency lighting and replace inefficient heating,ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems with more efficient systems. Several
installations indicated that improving the facility related control systems (FRCS) significantly
improved energy conservation. Various awareness programs continue to educate and motivate
personnel across installations to contribute to energy reductions.
Review of information received from installations where consumption increased indicated more
extreme weather conditions and intensive construction activities. For example, the F-35 beddown,or the Beneficial Occupancy for KC-47 buildings contributed to a nine percent energy
consumption increase at McConnell Air Force Base (AFB), KS. Several installations also notedthat the lack of energy management personnel and reduced resource efficiency manager (REM)
support hinders energy program effectiveness. With regard to weather conditions, several Air
Force locations were affected by natural disasters: Offutt AFB, NE was without electricity for 2½
days due to tornado damage in June 2017; Hurricanes Matthew (October 2016), Irma (September2017) and Maria (September 2017) affected Patrick AFB, FL, Cape Canaveral, FL and Seymour
Johnson AFB, SC, with total electrical outage time of six days. Additionally, the Air National
Guard was also significantly impacted at its locations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands due tohurricanes Irma and Maria.

Defense Agencies
In FY 2017, the Defense Agencies continued to pursue opportunities to reduce EUI. Somehighlights of successes are included below:•

FY 2017 was a successful year for DLA with total energy consumption reduced by 1.01
percent and EUI decreased by 3.01 percent, exceeding the 2.5 percent per year goal set by
E.O. 13693. All four DLA host sites reduced EUI in FY 2017.

16

•

WHS decreased EUI at the Pentagon and Mark Center by 8.6 percent from the FY 2015baseline. Electricity is the main driver of EUI for the Pentagon, accounting for roughly
two-thirds of total energy use. The Pentagon’s energy usage continues to decrease because
of investments in energy conservation. One of the primary drivers has been therecommissioning and ongoing commissioning projects, which restore, maintain, andincrease mechanical system energy efficiency; reduce maintenance burdens; and improvetenant satisfaction. Recommissioning and commissioning activities include optimizing
computer room air-conditioning (CRAC) unit set points, repairing or replacing fans,correcting damper air leaks, fixing leaking cooling and heating valves, and more.
Additionally, in accordance with new AHSRAE 62.1 guidelines, WHS has optimized
outside air set points for several air handling units, with a plan to complete optimizationon the remaining units in FY 2018. WHS building maintenance staff are also using fault
detection and diagnostics to prioritize and correct energy issues that would go unnoticed
under normal tenant feedback channels.

17

Potable Water Consumption and Intensity
E.O. 13693 required that Federal agencies achieve a potable water intensity reduction goal of 36
percent by FY 2025 relative to the FY 2007
baseline. DoD potable water consumption has
Potable Water includes water purchased from autility (water) provider and all fresh water (e.g.,decreased consistently relative to the FY 2007
well and streams) treated and added to thebaseline. In FY 2017, DoD facilities consumed
domestic (for human consumption) system.
82,500 MGal of potable water, with the Military
Departments accounting for over 98 percent of
total DoD potable water consumption. DoD FY
2017 water intensity of 43.6 gallons per square foot (Gal/SF) is a 26.9 percent reduction from the
FY 2007 baseline and exceeds the 20 percent FY 2017 target reduction by nearly seven percent.
Figure 4-3: DoD Potable Water Consumption FY 2008- FY 2017

18

Army
Similar to energy management, the Army maintains a focus on water security and resilience.
Guided by both the recently published Army Directive 2017-07 (Installation Energy and Water
Security Policy) and the Energy and Water Goal Attainment Responsibility Policy for Installations,
the Army exceeded potable water intensity and ILA water reduction goals in FY 2017. The FY
2017 potable water intensity of 39.2 Gal/SF is a 32.0 percent reduction from the Army’s FY 2007
baseline, which is 12.0 percent ahead of the FY 2017 target of 20 percent.
The first “line of defense” of the Army’s focus on water security is to reduce water demand andincrease efficiency. By reducing water use, Army installations have lower critical water loads thatin turn create a more resilient installation. Examples of exemplary programs include water
conservation achieved at the Presidio of Monterey. The installation implemented native
landscaping and installed a stormwater reuse system to irrigate the installation’s athletic field.
These projects reduced irrigation water use by 70 percent. Sierra Army Depot implemented lowcost water conservation measures that included lawn irrigation restriction, reduction of operation
hours at wash rack facilities, and installation of high-efficiency showerheads in on-post apartments
and barracks, resulting in a 25 percent water reduction. Fort McCoy implemented water
conservation measures such as irrigation efficiency projects and synchronization of fire flow
testing with annual distribution system flushing that reduced the amount of water lost throughthese required system testing activities.
The Army’s UP program improves the reliability of Army water systems, which minimizes
potential disruption to operations. The Army has privatized 41 water systems to date.
Army installations are implementing infrastructure projects to help increase water security. For
example, Fort Irwin completed construction of a new highly efficient water treatment plant thathas a 99 percent water recovery rate, substantially reducing waste in the treatment process. Both
Fort Irwin and Fort McCoy upgraded aging potable water lines to increase the reliability of theirdistribution systems, which are critical to installations’ water resilience. The Fort Irwin
Department of Public Works (DPW) staff also collaborated with their privatized housing
contractor to initiate mock billing of housing, which reduced water consumption by 26 percent in
the housing area.
In terms of ILA water performance the Army established an FY 2013 baseline because data quality
was higher than had been available during earlier fiscal years. The Army expects to continue
exceeding ILA water reduction goals in future FYs due to recent reporting modifications androbust training efforts.
The Army is developing alternative sources for water, such as rainwater harvesting and reclaimed
wastewater, to improve resilience by reducing dependency on groundwater and potable watersupplied through municipalities. The new water treatment plant at Fort Irwin, described above,enabled construction of a new recycled water line for irrigation through the UP contract. This
capital investment was credited with reducing potable water consumption by 11.9 MGal annually.

19

The Army Reserve developed an alternative water strategy to prioritize implementation ofalternative water to increase water resilience at Army Reserve facilities. As part of this strategy,
the Army Reserve evaluated regions of the US that are best suited for rainwater harvesting andimplemented two pilot projects at Army Reserve Centers in Savannah, GA and Grand Prairie, TX.
The projects supply rainwater for the facilities’ vehicle wash systems. In addition, Fort Buchananreceived funding from the Installation Technology Transition Program to implement a solarpowered potable rainwater harvesting system in FY 2017. The system will demonstrate how aself-contained potable water system can provide a reliable source of water to an Army facility.

DON
In FY 2017, DON’s potable water intensity was 23.5 percent below the FY 2007 baseline. Thishigh level of performance is driven by the Marine Corps, with a reduction of more than 39.6
percent from its FY 2007 baseline.
The Navy’s potable water intensity was 18.1 percent above its FY 2007 baseline 15. Water intensity
performance for the Navy is expected to improve as ESPC and UESCs with water conservation
measures that were awarded under the PPCC complete construction. For example, a UESC underconstruction in FY 2017 is expected to save more than 42 million gallons annually once it iscomplete in FY 2018.
Water conservation efforts were largely incorporated into larger ESPC and UESC project scopes
in FY 2017, such as in the case of the UESC at NCBC Gulfport. Consistent with the holistic andstrategic perspective of the Installation Energy Security Framework, the DON worked throughout
the fiscal year to examine the relationship between water and energy in the southwestern UnitedStates in executing installation mission requirements and the contributions water resiliency has tothe overall energy security posture of an installation. This analysis of factors that impact, andthereby can improve, the integrated management of water and associated energy resources at selectinstallations, gives the DON a greater understanding of water resilient operations. In FY 2017, the
DON identified a portfolio of potential opportunities and associated project funding mechanismsthat could be pursued in accordance with the Department’s overall energy security strategy in the
coming years.

15

DON Defense Utility Energy Reporting System (DUERS) reports DON’s FY17 potable water intensity decrease at 18.35%
below the FY 2007 baseline. For the sake of consistency in reporting across the Department, the report has retained the FEMPreported value in the main text of the report.

20

Air Force
Overall the Air Force continued to reduce potable water intensity relative to the FY 2007 baseline,
reducing intensity by 24.1 percent in FY 2017, although intensity was 0.48 percent higher than FY
2016. Specifically, water intensity increased from 42.1 Gal/SF in FY 2016 to 42.3 Gal/SF in FY
2017 and water consumption increased from 22,000 MGal in FY 2016 to 22,200 MGal in FY 2017.
Overall, however, consumption was reduced from 34,000 MGal in 2007 to 22,000 MGal in 2017.
Installation inputs indicate standard practices continue to support water conservation efforts. The
primary factors include: (1) leak detection and infrastructure repair, (2) fixture replacement andupgrade, (3) moving toward xeriscaping, and (4) using non-potable sources whenever possible. By
focusing on the above areas, along with other water conservation initiatives, the Air Force willcontinue to meet water conservation goals.
The Air Force will continue to emphasize water conservation awareness through Energy Action
Month and various other educational and public awareness avenues.
The following examples are indicative of water conservation efforts around the Air Force:•

Kadena AB, Japan, reduced consumption 35 percent (690 MGal) by repairing significant
water leaks early in the FY.

•

Hill AFB, UT, upgraded the water system and steam condensate return systems.

•

Eglin AFB, FL, reduced water consumption 32 percent (106 MGal). The energy
management team and the 796 CEO flight work closely with ASUS (Utilities Privatization
contractor) to support, identify, validate and implement common sense strategies tomitigate leaks and formalize processes to maximize avoided water/wastewater related
energy costs through innovative load avoidance and reduction techniques.

•

Nellis AFB, NV, reduced water consumption 10 percent (54 MGal). Nellis AFB is locatedin the Mojave Desert and receives only 3.5 inches of rain per year on average; water
conservation is critical. Past projects to replace water thirsty grass with efficient desert
landscaping have led to significant water usage intensity reductions.

•

Although Peterson AFB, CO, experienced a 25 percent increase in water consumption in
FY 2017 due to low precipitation, a 10-acre turf grass reduction project was begun in FY
2017 and is expected to save 14 MGal per year.

•

Travis AFB, CA, is implementing a Smartscape policy after California eased drought
restrictions and the installation had a measurable increase in consumption. This policy will
re-evaluate irrigation priorities and replace current landscaping with more drought tolerant
species.

•

Wright Patterson AFB, OH, indicates an upcoming Energy Savings Performance Contract
is expected to reduce water consumption by approximately 4.8 MGal per year.

21Defense Agencies
In FY 2017, Defense Agencies consumed 53 percent less potable water than the FY 2007 baseline
and the Agencies continue to pursue additional opportunities to reduce potable water intensity.
•

In FY 2017, NSA initiated the purchase of reclaimed water, primarily as make-up waterfor cooling towers, resulting in an approximately 58 percent decrease in potable water use
from FY 2016.

•

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) continued to leverage a comprehensive water
conservation program that includes optimized use of industrialized chilled water at all of
its facilities, resulting in a 37 percent decrease in water use intensity. In FY 2018, DIA
will continue to pursue permits to allow on-site groundwater for non-potable use in its
cooling towers, further decreasing DIA’s potable water consumption.

Industrial, Landscaping, and Agricultural (ILA) Water Consumption
In FY 2009, E.O. 13514 established a new water reduction goal. The goal requires Federal
agencies to reduce ILA water consumption by two
ILA Water includes naturally occurring water (e.g.,
percent annually, or 20 percent by FY 2020,
lake, well, river water that is not treated [fresh]) used
relative to an FY 2010 baseline. This was extended
in an ILA application. ILA also includes any nonthrough 2025 in E.O. 13693. In FY 2015, DoD
potable water purchased from a third party.
establishedsupplemental
guidanceforComponents to establish a baseline, and measureand estimate ILA water use that sets Components’ baseline year to FY 2016 as opposed to EO
13693’s baseline year of 2010. In FY 2017, DoD reduced ILA water consumption by 39 percent
relative to the FY 2010 federal baseline.

22Non-Tactical Fleet Vehicle Petroleum Consumption
E.O. 13693 requires Federal agencies to reduce per-mile greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 30
percent by FY 2025 from a FY 2014 baseline. This requirement, along with alternative fuelprogress, is reported in the DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). Fleet vehicle
fuel consumption in FY 2017 accounted forabout 4.3 percent of DoD installation energy
Figure 4-5: FY 2017 Fleet Vehicle Petroleum Consumption
consumption and 5.2 percent of DoD installationenergy cost. The energy mix consisted of 67
percent gasoline, 30 percent diesel, and theremaining three percent was alternative fuels.
The Military Departments accounted for slightly
more than 98 percent of the Department’s fleet
vehicle petroleum consumption (Figure 4-5).
In FY 2017, DoD fleet vehicles consumed 70.1
million gallons of gasoline equivalent (GGE),
which includes gasoline and diesel. The mix ofpetroleum fuel types has remained relatively
stable over the past seven years, and the use ofalternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) has steadily
increased. In FY 2016, 10.4 percent of the total
fleet vehicle consumption was from alternative
fuels, an increase over the 2005 baseline of 2.2
percent. Alternative fuels include biodiesel,compressed natural gas (CNG), 85 percent
ethanol fuel (E85), and hydrogen.
DoD
continues to pursue replacement of fleet vehicles
with more efficient models, AFVs, and hybridelectric vehicles to decrease petroleum
consumption. Overall, DoD fleet vehicles
consumed 68.3 percent of the fuel, which is nearly 17 percent less than the EISA-established 80
percent reduction target for FY 2017 (Figure 4-6).

23

Figure 4-6: FY 2017 Fleet Vehicle Consumption Relative to FY 2005 Baseline

Army
In FY 2017, the Army furthered its energy security by exceeding the cumulative fossil fuelreduction goal of 24 percent with an approximate 40 percent reduction. This also exceeds the
mandated FY 2020 cumulative goal of 30 percent. The Army continues to follow the E.O. 13693
to guide its fossil fuel consumption reduction efforts. The Army’s non-tactical vehicle (NTV) fleet
decreased by 923 NTVs in FY 2017, which increased the Army’s overall reduction of NTVs to14,355 vehicles since FY 2011. The Army is optimizing its NTV fleet annually through the
Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM)/Vehicle Utilization Review Board (VURB) process.
Every NTV not meeting utilization goals must be validated and approved by the Senior
Commander for retention. The strategy to meet and exceed the GHG goals is to replace passenger
vehicles meeting age or mileage criteria with hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or zero emission vehicles.
Buses and larger trucks are being replaced with compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum gas
vehicles. This strategy facilitates fossil fuel reduction and lowers greenhouse gas emissions in themost economical and mission-effective manner. The Army continues to leverage assistance fromthe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct installation site surveys for properly locating
electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Site surveys are considering current requirements and an
estimate of future requirements through FY 2030.

DON
The DON continued to improve NTV fleet operations in replacing internal combustion engine(ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles (EVs) and implementing alternate transportation methods. In
FY 2017, the USMC launched a Mobility Transformation Strategy (MTS) to develop mobility
solutions that: advance the incorporation of analytics into NTV fleet operations to improve safety
and maintenance; partner with industry leaders to identify and implement cost savings strategies;
improve accessibility and convenience; and right-size the NTV fleet in to increase efficiency and24resilience in fleet operations. The MTS identified a variety of elements that will be further
researched, including: on-demand mobility services (Car-sharing and Ride-hailing), consolidated
vehicle pools, electric and autonomous vehicles, telematics, public transportation, bike sharing andwalkability, and troop and cargo movement.
For the first reporting year since establishment of the NTV fleet-wide per-mile GHG emission
reduction goal, the DON exceeded the two percent target by achieving an overall 12.8 percent
reduction. Navy NTV fleet carbon dioxide equivalent/mile (CO2e/mile) decreased from 565.35
to 507.15 (10.3 percent) and Marine Corps NTV fleet CO2e/mile decreased from 483.4 to 388.7(19.6 percent). The DON continues to pursue effective use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs),
fuel-efficient technologies, and fleet optimization in order to meet the 30 percent NTV fleet-wide
per-mile GHG emission reduction goal by FY 2025.

Air Force
Although the Air Force has experienced a 9.3 percent increase in fuel consumption relative to the
FY 2005 baseline, the Air Force remains committed to reducing the use of petroleum products in
its NTV fleet as well as increasing the use of alternative fuels in order to meet E.O. 13693. The
Air Force’s enterprise-wide fleet managers, the 441 Vehicle Support Chain Operations Squadron(VSCOS), has implemented many programs that directly contribute to the success of this federal
mandate by way of procurement, plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) fleets, Vehicle Validations (VV)and the testing of new products intended to assist the USAF in meeting Federal and DoD
sustainable procurement directives, Federal Acquisition Regulations and Reduce dependence on
foreign petroleum.
The bio-based four cycle engine oil project is demonstrating bio-based engine oil in NTVs at eightsites (four USAF sites) with 68 vehicles in varying climate locations over four seasons. The test
is designed to evaluate the impact on overall maintenance performance, longevity, andenvironmental or “green” impact. This demonstration is underway with final report (andanticipating established National Stock Number) expected in early 2018.
The Air Force is also evaluating other technologies that can reduce energy consumption, likecommercial off the shelf kits that can reduce engine idling. Additionally, the Air Force isdeveloping a framework to improve agility, energy efficiency, safety, reliability, maintainability,
operator environmental conditions, and reduce hazardous greenhouse gas emissions bydemonstrating the feasibility of hybridizing low density, mission specific vehicles. The 25K
Halvorsen Loader, an operational, air-transportable and worldwide deployable vehicle, will be thefirst subject of this hybrid demonstration. The project just initiated and demonstration results are
expected in 2020.

25

Defense Agencies
In FY 2017, the Defense Agencies accounted for 3.2 percent of DoD fleet petroleum consumption
and continued to pursue opportunities to reduce petroleum consumption.
•

In FY 2017, DIA reported a 12.3 percent decrease in fuel use in the vehicles it leases fromthe Gernal Services Administration (GSA), exceeding the DoD requirement of nine
percent, and even improving on the previous FY’s 11.7 percent reduction. DIA’s fuel use
reduction was achieved by reducing the amount of driving done by the vehicles it operates,
along with replacing many of its larger sedans with more fuel efficient vehicles. In FY
2018, DIA plans to add additional GSA EVs when it opens a new parking garage at DIA
HQ equipped with EV charging stations. In addition, the DIA Vehicle Program Manager
will continue to request that GSA provide DIA with the most fuel efficient vehicles thatmeet mission requirements.

•

DLA continues to make positive efforts in consumption of vehicle petroleum use withDefense Supply Center Columbus further reducing its use by 9.41 percent for an overall
59 percent decrease against the FY 2007 baseline.

26

5. Increasing DoD Distributed (On-site) and Renewable Energy Resources
In addition to reducing facility energy demand, DoD is increasing the supply of distributed (onsite) and renewable energy on installations. DoD continues to invest in cost-effective renewableand distributed energy solutions that meet the Department’s strategy to prioritize energy resilienceand bolster mission assurance.

DoD Renewable Energy Performance
As DoD pursues renewable energy to advance its energy resilience, it also seeks to comply withlegal requirements to increase its renewable energy supply. The Department is subject to tworenewable energy goals: (1) Section 2911(g) of title 10, U.S.C., and (2) Section 203 of the Energy
Policy Act (EPAct) 2005 (Section 15852 of title 42, U.S.C.). The EPAct 2005 goal considers total
renewable electricity consumption as a percentage of total facility electricity consumption, withthe goal of 7.5 percent by 2013 and every fiscal year thereafter. E.O. 13693 continued andextended the EPAct goal to 25 percent by 2025 with the intermediate goal for FY 2017 set at 10
percent. In FY 2017, DoD did not achieve the EPAct or E.O. 13693 goals. Renewable electricity
consumption subject to these requirements was 5.9 percent of DoD total electricity consumption,
falling short of the 10 percent goal.
Section 2911(g) of title 10, U.S.C., established a goal for DoD to produce or procure not less than
15 percent by FY 2018 16 and 25 percent of the total quantity of facility energy it consumes within
Figure 5-1: EPAct of 2005 and E.O. 13693 Renewable Energy Goal Attainment

16This interim renewable energy goal was established as part of the Energy Performance Master Plan in the FY 2011 AEMR. See
Appendix C for details on DoD energy goals.

27its facilities by FY 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter from renewable energy sources. DoD
progress toward the section 2911(g) of title 10, U.S.C., renewable energy goal in FY 2017 was
8.74 percent (Figure 5-2).
The Department uses various authorities to increase the supply of distributed (on-site) andrenewable energy sources on its installations. DoD uses both appropriated funds andnon-Governmental(oftenreferred to as ‘third-party’)
Figure 5-2: 10 U.S.C. Section 2911(g) Renewable Energy Goal
financing to pursue renewableenergy projects. DoD partners
with private entities to enable
the development of large-scale
renewable (or other distributed)
energy projects and relies on
congressional appropriations tofund cost-effective, small-scale
distributed generation projects.
The main authorities utilized topursue third-party financing of
renewable energy projects are
Utility
Service
Contracts(USCs),
Power
Purchase
Agreements(PPAs),
andoutgrants (Table 5-1). Sections
2922(a) and 2667 of title 10,
U.S.C. are not limited torenewable energy sources andcan also be used for nonrenewable energy sources suchas natural gas and other fueltypes. Section 2410(q) of title
10, U.S.C. is limited torenewable energy sources.

28

Table 5-1: Non-Federal Funding Mechanisms

Army
Renewable energy production and utilization is essential to meeting the Army energy resilience
goals. Assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficientenergy to meet operational needs is a chief goal of Directive 2017-07, and the “Assured Access”
category within the revised ISR-MC metrics now includes questions to determine the percent of
onsite generation from renewable energy sources. Onsite renewable energy provides a means todiversify supply at installations and reduce reliance on commercial energy grids in cases where
the energy can be used on the installation. Securing reliable energy supplies to support the Army’s
mission is a primary goal of the Army’s renewable energy strategy.
In FY 2017, the Army increased its renewable energy capacity for a third year in a row. The Armyadded 176.1 MW of renewable electricity capacity in FY 2017 through 33 new projects for a totalof 428.6 MW, a 69.7 percent increase from FY1 2016. The total percentage of renewable electricenergy eligible toward the EPAct 2005 goal increased from 5.8 percent in FY 2016 to 8.4 percent.
The renewable energy production credited toward the NDAA 2010 goal increased by 3.6 percent

29

from FY 2016 to FY 2017. The Clean Energy goal is not comparable year over year, as it was a
new metric in FY 2016 and the calculation methodology for FY 2017 changed.
The Army continues to employ a comprehensive approach to renewable energy, focusing on
supporting installation mission requirements. The Army’s cost-effective investments include
small-scale projects on rooftops and parking areas, larger projects funded through ERCIP or
financed through ESPCs and UESCs, as well as utility-scale projects leveraging private financing
through available Federal and DoD authorities. In FY 2017, the Army added 14.8 MW ofrenewable electricity capacity through a variety of programs that leverage private or third-party
financing, such as Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), ESPC/UESC, or GSA area-wide utility
contracts. The Army’s Office of Energy Initiatives (OEI) facilitates utility-scale projects byleveraging private equity. In FY 2017, the OEI added 142.0 MW of renewable electricity capacitywith efforts focused on the development of generation projects that include energy storage andcontrols to allow the power to support the installation requirements in the event of a grid outage.
Examples of this are agreements with local utilities, such as the 10 MW and 7 MW projects at Fort
Rucker and Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Other efforts were forged with independent
renewable energy providers, such as the new 50 MW of off-site wind generation combined with a
15 MW onsite solar facility at Fort Hood, TX.
The Army also leveraged third party financing to install 15.3 MW of renewable electricity
generation through the Residential Communities Initiative. Finally, 2.1 MW of renewable electric
generation was brought online through ERCIP and MILCON funded projects.

DON
In FY 2017, Navy did not achieve the E.O. 13693 renewable electricity annual target of 10 percent,consuming only 2.1 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources for the year. The Marine
Corps progress toward meeting the E.O. 13693 target was 10.5 percent. The Navy’s performance
regarding the renewable electricity goal is a function of the strategic decision to allow other parties
to monetize the value of RECs associated with its financed energy projects. Because REC
ownership is a requirement to claim credit towards the E.O. 13693 renewable electricity goal, theNavy is unlikely to show significant progress towards this particular goal despite intensive efforts
to facilitate renewable energy production and consumption on, and for, its installations.
Finally, the DON continued to make exceptional progress against the DoD renewable goal
established in section 2911(g) of title 10, U.S.C. In FY 2017, the Navy produced or procured
16.17 percent of renewable energy relative to electricity consumed. This marks the fourthconsecutive year the Navy has achieved the interim FY targets toward the 25 percent by FY 2025
2911(g) goal. The Marine Corps produced or procured 12.26 percent of renewable energy relative
to electricity consumed.

30

Air ForceIn FY 2017, 6.7 percent of the electrical energy used by the Air Force was produced fromrenewable sources. This represents a decrease of 17,759 MWh from the 6.8 percent in FY 2016,
and is below the FY 2017 EPAct 2005 /E.O. 13693 goal of 10 percent. In addition, the Air Force
performance toward the section 2911(g) of 10, U.S.C. goal (producing or procuring at least 25
percent of facility energy from renewable energy sources by the year 2025) was 8.4 percent for
both electric and non-electric energy used in FY 2017.
Renewable performance in FY 2017 was negatively impacted primarily due to the termination ofa contract at Hill AFB, UT, to purchase steam from an energy recovery facility with municipal
solid waste. Additionally, Robins AFB, GA, terminated green energy purchases from the local
utility and the Landfill Gas generation plant at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, AK, produced
less than expected.
Major operational renewable energy projects in FY 2017 included:•

14.2 MW and 19 MW arrays using a Power Purchased Agreement at Nellis AFB, NV.

•

16.4 MW Power Purchased Agreement array at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ, using an
indefinite term Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 41 contract mechanism.

•

Six MW Power Purchased Agreement array at US Air Force Academy, CO.

•

Three MW Power Purchased Agreement array at Edwards AFB, CA.

•

3.4 MW wind project at Cape Cod AFS, MA.

•

One MW solar photovoltaic project at Buckley AFB, CO.

•

2.3 MW landfill gas generation plant at Hill AFB, UT, and 7 MW landfill gas generation
plant at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson-Richardson, AK.

•

10 MW solar photovoltaic array at Luke AFB, AZ.

•

20 MW solar photovoltaic array at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, CA.

Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) projects within the Air Force have a 11,277 ton total operating
capacity which is equivalent to approximately 6,100 MWh resilient renewable energy. GroundSource Heat Pump projects were executed using various funding sources including Energy Savings
Performance Contract, Utility Energy Service Contract and the Energy Resilience andConservation Investment Program.

31

Defense Agencies
The Defense Agencies continue to implement renewable energy projects on their facilities. In
many cases, Defense Agencies operate in individual buildings rather than campuses or
installations, limiting their ability to implement renewable energy projects. However, Defense
Agencies continue to consider cost-effective, small-scale, and distributed renewable energy
generation. DLA renewable energy projects continue in spite of limited geographic locations andlow cost of utilities often resulting in a lack of economic feasibility for most renewable energy
options. Examples where progress was made include DLA Aviation Operations Center inRichmond, VA, and the new DLA Distribution Operations Center building at Susquehanna, PA.
The Aviation Operations Center HVAC was designed to use of ground source heat pumps and theDistribution Operations Center has 130 kW solar panel system on the roof. In addition,
construction of solar walls at both Susquehanna, PA, and San Joaquin, CA, have been completed.

32

6. Reporting Utility Outages on Military Installations
Section 2925(a)(2) of title 10, U.S.C., requires the reporting of utility outages at military
installations and in FY 2017 DoD Components reported approximately 1,205 utility outages thatlasted eight hours or longer, an increase from the 507 events reported in FY 2016. Electricaldisruptions account for the majority of these utility outages (72 percent). The increase in thenumber of reported events is primarily a result of higher incidence of reporting and is not indicativeof a substantial increase in actual outage events lasting longer than eight hours.
Of the 1,205 reported outage events lasting longer than eight hours, the Services provided financial
impacts for 274 of the events. The combined length of outages for these 274 events was 2,179.34
days; the estimated financial impact of these outages was $27,615,061 ($12,671 per outage day).
In the utility and master planning communities, cost in dollars per kilowatt hour is the standard
measurement used to distinguish the financial impacts of electric outages. DoD does not have themodeling capability in place to readily evaluate the outage data in accordance with this industry
best practice. In FY 2018, DoD will continue to refine its outage data collection techniques andfuture Annual Energy Management Reports will reference the impact of outages accordingly.
As in previous years’ reporting, in FY 2017, the mitigation efforts associated with DoD utility
outages included upgrading infrastructure, increasing servicing efforts with the local utility, andpursuit of emergency or redundant power supplies such as backup generators. These utility
outages were caused by acts of nature, equipment failure, or planned maintenance. In FY 2017,
equipment failure (e.g., reliability or mechanical issues) accounted for 43 percent of the reported
utility outages, 35 percent were caused by planned maintenance, and 15 percent outages werecaused by acts of nature (e.g., weather, storms). The remaining seven percent were considered“other” since they did not fall under these categories (for example, vehicle accidents causing power
outages or operator error).
Figure 6-1: FY 2017 Utility Outages by Cause

33

7. Additional Reporting Requirements
•
•
•
•
•

Section 315, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub.
L. 114-328) (Appendix E)
o Efforts to reduce the high energy costs on military installations
Senate Report 115-125, to accompany S. 1519, the NDAA for FY 2018 (Appendix F)
o Energy Savings Performance Contracts Assessmento Energy Assurance on Military Installations
House Report 115-200, to accompany H.R. 2810, the NDAA for FY 2018 (Appendix G)
o Energy Resilience of Overseas Military Installations
House Report 115-219, to accompany H.R. 3219, Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill for FY 2018 (Appendix H)
o Energy Security of Overseas Military Installations
Senate Report 114-237 & House Report 115-188, Water Report (Appendix I)

34

Appendix A - List of Energy Acronyms
Acronym
AEMRR
AFB
AFCEC
AFIMSCAFV
ANGBDefinition
Annual Energy Management and Resilience Report
Air Force Base
Air Force Civil Engineer Center
Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center
Alternative Fuel Vehicle
Air National Guard BaseARNG
ASA(EI&E)
ASN(EI&E)
ASRA
BBtu
Btu

Army National Guard
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment
Army Strategic Readiness Assessment
Billion British Thermal Unit
British Thermal Unit

CNG
CNIC
CNO
CO2e
CONUS
DASA(E&S)
DASN(Energy)

Compressed Natural Gas
Commander, Navy Installations Command
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Carbon Dioxide EquivalentContiguous United States
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy

DC I&L
DCMA
DeCA
DFAS
DIA
DLA

Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency

DoD
DoDI
DOE
DON
DUSD (I&E)
E85

Department of Defense
Department of Defense Instruction
Department of Energy
Department of the Navy
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)
85 percent ethanol fuel

EIA
EISA
EO
EPAct
ES2
ERCIP

Energy Information Administration
Energy Independence and Security Act
Executive Order
Energy Policy Act
Energy Security and Sustainability
Energy Resilience Conservation Investment ProgramA-1

Acronym
ESPC
EUI
EV
FRCS
FY
GGE

Definition
Energy Savings Performance Contract
Energy Use Intensity
Electric Vehicle
Facility-Related Control Systems
Fiscal Year
Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent

GHG
GSA
GSF
GSHP
HQ
HVAC

Greenhouse Gas
General Services Administration
Gross Square Foot
Ground Source Heat Pump
Headquarters
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IC
ILA
KW
LPG
MCAGCCMCICOM

Intelligence Community
Industrial, Landscaping, and Agriculture
Kilowatt, 1 thousand Watts
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
Marine Corps Installations Command

MCICOM GF
MCICOM GF-1
MDA
MGal
MILCON
MIT-LL

Marine Corps Installations Command, Director Facilities
Marine Corps Installations Command, Energy and Facilities Operations Section
Missile Defense Agency
Million Gallons
Military Construction
Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Lincoln Laboratory

MSW
MW
MWh
NAS
NAVFAC
NDAA

Municipal Solid Waste
Megawatt, 1 million Watts
Megawatt-Hour, 1 million Watt-hours
Naval Air Station
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
National Defense Authorization Act

NECPA
NGA
NRO
NSA
NSA
NTV

National Energy Conservation Policy Act
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Naval Supply Activity
Non-Tactical Vehicle

O&M
OACSIM
OASD(EI&E)
ODASD(IE)

Operations and Maintenance
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installation Energy

A-2

Acronym
OPNAV-N46
PEV
PPA
PV
REC
SAF/IE

Definition
CNO Shore Installation Management Division
Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Power Purchase Agreement
Photovoltaic
Renewable Energy Credit
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy

SESC
SMR
SRM
SSPP
UESC
UFC

Senior Energy and Sustainability Council
Small Modular Reactor
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan
Utility Energy Services Contract
Unified Facilities Criteria

UP
U.S.
U.S.C
USC
VAM
WHS

Utilities Privatization
United States
United States Code
Utility Service Contract
Vehicle Allocation Methodology
Washington Headquarters Service

A-3

Appendix B - Compliance Matrix

Subsection /Paragraph(a)(a)(1)
10 USC § 2925

10 USC § 2911

Annual Report Related to Installations Energy Management.
Not later than 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, theSecretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees an installation energy report detailing the fulfillment
during that fiscal year of the energy performance goals for the
Department of Defense under section 2911 of this title. Eachreport shall contain the following:
A description of the progress made to achieve the goals of theEnergy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58), section 2911(g)of this title, section 553 of the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8259b), the Energy Independence andSecurity Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140), and the energy
performance goals for the Department of Defense during thepreceding fiscal year.

Page
Number4,510-31(a)(2)A description of the energy savings, return on investment, andenhancements to mission assurance realized by the fulfillment of
the goals described in paragraph (1).

3,4,5

8-31

(a)(3)

Details of all commercial utility outages caused by threats andthose caused by hazards at military installations that last eight
hours or longer, whether or not the outage was mitigated by
backup power, including non-commercial utility outages andDepartment of Defense-owned infrastructure, including the total
number and location of outages, the financial impact of theoutages, and measure taken to mitigate outages in the future at
the affected locations and across the Department of Defense.

631(a)(1)

Energy Performance Goals. The DoD shall submit to thecongressional defense committees the energy performance goals
for the Department of Defense regarding transportation systems,
support systems, utilities, and infrastructure and facilities.

Appendix CC-1(b)(1)

Energy Performance Master Plan. The DoD shall develop acomprehensive master plan for the achievement of the energy
performance goals of the Department of Defense, as set forth inlaws, executive orders, and Department of Defense policies.

Appendix C

C-1

Appendix C

C-1

Appendix EE-1(e)(2)
P.L. 114-328,
NDAA FY 2017
(S. 2943 Sec.
315)

Description

FY 2017
AEMRR
Chapter /Appendixp.

Interim Renewable Energy Goal. Requires the DoD to establish
an interim FY 2018 goal for the production or procurement offacility energy from renewable sources.
The Senate Armed Services Committee directed the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to report to Congress on efforts to achieve cost savings at
military installations with high levels of energy intensity.

B-1

Subsection /Paragraph

NDAA FY 2018
(Senate Report115-125)

p. 106NDAA FY 2018
(Senate Report115-125)

p. 107NDAA FY 2018
(House Report115-200)

p. 92

FY 2018 HACD, House
Report 115-219

p. 60

Description
In order to assess the current statutory authorities and theirappropriateness and flexibility to support energy resilience on
military installations, the Secreatary of Defense is directed toreport to the defense committees within 180 days of enactment of
this Act the following: (1) authorities used in award of energy
resilience projects during fiscal years 2015-2017 and (2)challenges experienced during fiscal years 2015-2017 in theexecution of energy resilience projects due to limitations inexisting statutory authorities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide anassessment to the congressional defense committees no later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The assessment
shall include but not limited to: (1) recommendations on the useof energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) for savings
achieved through training improvements; (2) identification ofpotential savings that could be achieved through improvements
to training; (3) pros and cons of using those savings as part of along term ESPC; (4) any new authorities that would be needed if
a decision was made to use savings as part of additional ESPC;and (5) any other recommendations deemed appropriate.
The “committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
breifing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018, on potential vulnerabilities to energy supply disruptions atoverseas locations that host permenant and rotational U.S. Armed
Forces and on mitigation efforts aimed at protecting mission
resiliency. The briefing must, at a minimum, assess theoperational risk of energy supply disruptions, identify mitigation
measures to sustain mission-critical operations, and assess thefeasibility and cost and schedule impactes including diversified
energy solutions for future overseas military construction
projects.”
The House Armed Services Committee directed the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 9, 2018 on the potential
vulnerabilities of energy supply disruptions at overseas locations
hosting permanent and rotational United States armed forces,
inculding medical centers on military installations, and efforts
the Department is currently taking to mitigate the risk ofpotential energy supply disruptions at overseas military
installations, including considerations the Department is taking to
mitigate such risks when reviewing energy supply options atsuch installations.

B-2

FY 2017
AEMRR
Chapter /Appendix

Page
NumberAppendix F

F-1

Appendix F

F-1

Appendix G

G-1

Appendix H

H-1

Subsection /Paragraph

S.2806(Senate Report114-237)

p. 9

H.R. 2998(House Report115-188)

p. 23

Description
To assess the current status of water demand and potential water
conservation opportunities across U.S. military installations, theSecretary of Defense is directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 180 days ofenactment of this act the following: (1) the current water usage
on military installations; (2) the vulnerability of each military
installation to water scarcity; and, (3) the water conservation
potential according to (a) reduced water use and (b) cost savings
if current water conservation technologies and efficient design
were implemented at military installations.
To assess the current status of water demand and potential water
conservation opportunities across U.S. military installations, theSecretary of Defense is directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 180 days ofenactment of this act the following: (1) the current water usage
on military installations; (2) the vulnerability of each military
installation to water scarcity; and, (3) the water conservation
potential according to (a) reduced water use and (b) cost savings
if current water conservation technologies and efficient design
were implemented at military installations.

B-3

FY 2017
AEMRR
Chapter /Appendix

Page
NumberAppendix I

I-1

Appendix I

I-1

Appendix C - Energy Performance Master Plan
DoD Energy Performance Master Plan
Introduction
Installation energy is the energy necessary to support the
The Energy Performance Master Planfunctions of over 500 fixed installations on nearly 29 million(hereafter referred to as Master Plan)
acres of land within the United States and internationally.
aligns investments to installation energy
This energy is distinct from operational energy, which
objectives,
enablesconsistentconsists largely of mobility fuel that is used by operational
aircraft, ships, and tanks, as well as generators at forward
Department-wide decision-making, andoperating bases.
establishes metrics to evaluate DoD’s
progress against installation energy
performance goals. The Master Plan was established and reported in the FY 2011 AEMR. The
goals outlined in the Master Plan align with the Department’s facility energy strategy designed toreduce energy costs and improve the energy resilience of fixed installations. The key elements of
the installation energy strategy are (Figure C-1):•••

Figure C-1: Installation Energy Approach

Maximize Efficient Energy Use
Expand Supply for Mission Assurance
Enhance Energy Resilience

In FY 2011, the then Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations andEnvironment (ODUSD(I&E)) developed its
energy performance goals and its first Master
Plan with input from DoD Components. The
Office of the Assistance Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment (OASD(S)) is in the process of
updating the Master Plan to meet the emerging
energy requirements and to address energy
security challenges specified in the Secretary of
Defense’s National Defense Strategy (NDS)
released in February 2018. The energy
performance goals will be updated and reported annually, while the Master Plan will be updated
periodically in the AEMRR. However, DoD Components are required to submit their facilityenergy investment projections for the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) as part of their
Master Plan submittal. The DoD Components’ submissions to the President Budget, investment
profile, energy benefit analyses, and narratives will be the basis for any periodic updates of the
Master Plan within the AEMRR.

C-1

Energy Performance Goals
The DoD energy goals in Tables C-1 and C-2 were set forth by title 10, U.S.C., section 2911(e)and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The energy efficiency goals
established by E.O. 13693 (and reported in the previous report) were rescinded by E.O. 13834.
The Department remains committed to maximizing the efficient use of energy to free up resources
for higher priorities. However, as the DoD deploys new weapon systems and technology toincrease military readiness and lethality as directed in the NDS, a rise in energy demand could
occur and subsequently reduce energy efficiency results. With respect to renewable energy, theDoD strives to optimize the use of on-site distributed energy resources from all sources of energy
generation to directly improve mission assurance. The type of source is determined by local
availability, market conditions, a business case, or mission requirements. As such, the Department
is committed to optimizing the effective and efficient use of generating sources. As of the writingof this report, there are no discreet statutory goals related to energy resilience. Such goals havebeen requested, and once established, DoD will add these metrics into the Energy Performance
Master Plan.
Table C-1: DoD Energy Performance Goals
Goal

Description

Uniform Measure

Optimize Use ofRenewable
EnergyIncrease deployment of
on-base renewableenergy to improveenergy resilience.

Electric and nonelectric renewableenergy production
and procurement.

Decrease
Petroleum
Consumption

Decrease petroleum
consumption in fleet
vehicles.

Fleet vehicle
petroleum
consumption.1

Method of
Measurement
Electric and nonelectric renewableenergy produced or
procured compared toelectricity
consumption.
Fleet vehicle
petroleum
consumption
reduction.

MetricBillion Btu (BBtu)

Gallons of gasoline
Equivalent (GGE)

1Petroleum includes gasoline, diesel, and the diesel portion of biodiesel (B20).

Table C-2: Energy Performance Targets
TargetRenewable
Energy1

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY19

FY20

FY25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+15%

-

-

+25%

-26%

-28%

-30%

-

Petroleum
-12%
-14%
-16%
-18%
-20%
-22%
-24%
Consumption2
1FY18 interim target required by 10 USC 2911(e)2Required by EISA 2007, reduction targets are compared to 2005 baseline.

DoD will update this Master Plan periodically to address new information, changes in energy
performance goals, and to identify the investments necessary to achieve those goals. DoD’s
commitment to the energy performance goals also includes compliance with energy statutes,
regulations, and EOs. Accordingly, the energy performance goals continue to advance the DoD
facility energy mission, vision, and strategy.

C-2

Appendix D - DoD Energy Performance Summary
Goal Performance
Energy Management
Requirements
Reduction in energy intensity infacilities subject to E.O. 13693
goal based on FY15 baseline
Reduction in energy intensity infacilities for agencies qualified touse alternative energy intensity
goal based on FY2003 baseline

Baseline in
Btu/GSF

FY 2017 Btu/GSF

Percent Change
Baseline - FY 2017

FY 2017 Goal
Target vs. Baseline

98,021

91,714

-6.4%

-5.0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Renewable Electric Energy Requirement
Eligible renewable electricity
percentage of total electricity use

use

as

a

Clean Energy Requirement
Eligible renewable electricity plus alternative
energy as a percentage of total facility energy
use

Renewable
Electricity Use
(MWH)

Total
Electricity Use(MWH)Percentage ofFacility ElectricUse

FY 2017 Goal
Target

1,789,494.5

30,136,791.2

5.9%

10.0%

Clean Energy
Use (MMBTUs)

Total Facility
Energy Use(MMBTUs)

Percentage ofFacility Energy
Use

FY 2017 Goal
Target31,356,565.5

198,541,433.1

15.8%

10.0%

Baseline

FY 2017

Baseline to FY
2017

FY 2017 Goal
Target59.6

43.6-26.9%

18.0%

11,810.300.00

7,205,551.4-39.0%

12.0%

Water Reduction Goals
Reduction in potable water consumption
intensity (2007 gal per gsf Baseline)
ILA/Non-Potable Freshwater (2010 thou. Gal
Baseline)

Metering Goals
Standard Meters in FY 2016
Advanced Meters in FY 2016
Total Meters in FY 2016

Cumulative # of
Buildings

Cumulative %of Appropriate

10,57025,84936,419

20.3%
49.6%
69.9%

Cumulative # of
Buildings
Metered
4,410
5,057
9,467

Cumulative %of Appropriate
Buildings
24.5%
28.1%
52.6%

Federal Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Percent of new building designs started since beginning in FY 2007 that are 30
percent more energy efficient than relevant code, where life-cycle cost effective(including 8/2012 standards)

D-1

Cumulative # of
Buildings

Cumulative %of Appropriate

726
605
1,331

22.9%
19.1%
42.0%

Percent of New
Building Designs

ComplianceTarget66%

100%

Investments in Energy and Water Management
Sources of Investment

Investment Value (Thou. $)Anticipated Annual Savings(MMBTUs)$237,549.6

450,109.4$727,815.3

7,174,829.0$70,665.5

135,429.0$1,036,030.4

7,760,367.4

Direct obligations for facility energy efficiency
improvements
Investment value of ESPC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year
Investment value of UESC Task/Delivery Orders
awarded in fiscal year
TOTAL

Percent
31.2%
24.1%

Total Investment as a percentage of total facility energy cost
Financed (ESPC/UESC) investment as a percentage of total facility energy costs
NECPA/EISA Energy Goal Subject Building
Energy TypeBBTUs
Cost (thou.)

NECPA/EISA Energy Goal Excluded Buildings
Energy TypeBBTUs
Cost (thou. $)Electricity

93,509.7$ 2,265,600.9

Electricity

7,686.4$ 192,978.3

Fuel Oil

13,467.7$ 235,632.4

Fuel Oil

179.0$ 1,938.5

601.4$ 2,562.7

0.0

$ 0.0

Natural Gas

62,924.1$ 393,729.2

Natural Gas

LPG

886.7

$ 11,400.1

LPG

Coal

9,081.6$ 41,533.0

Coal

0.0

$ 0.0

Steam

4,357.5$ 105,693.0

Steam

134.7

$ 3,519.4$ 8,099.9

Other

0.0

$ 0.0

28.6

$ 0.0

0.0

$0.0

437.1

$ 0.0

0.0

$0.0

Other
Renewable
Electric, On-site
Renewable
Electric Off-Site
Renewable, Other,
On-SiteRenewable, OffSite Green Energy
Purchases

628.1
2706.1$ 10,012.0

784.3$ 13,902.0

408.5$ 914.2

719.8$ 15,261.0

Renewable
Electric, On-site
Renewable
Electric Off-Site
Renewable, Other,
On-SiteRenewable, OffSite Green Energy
Purchases

TOTAL

189,474.2
Goal Subject Buildings GSF$ 3,101,777.7
1,884,158.1

TOTAL

9,067.1
Goal Subject Buildings GSF$ 200,998.9
9,187.0

BTU/GSF

100,562

BTU/GSF

986,955.9

Source Energy Savings Credit (BBTU)-13,103.5

Source Energy Savings Credit (BBTU)-742.7

BTU/GSF w/RE Source BTU Credit

91,714

BTU/GSF w/RE Source BTU Credit

906,114.0

D-2

Appendix E - Section 315, P.L. 114-328 (S 2943), the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) for FY 2017
Efforts to reduce the high energy costs on military installations

SUMMARY
10 U.S.C. §2911(a) states that the energy policy of the United States “…shall ensure the readinessof the armed forces for their military missions by pursuing energy security and energy resilience.”
The two definitions of critical importance to the Department of Defense (DoD) energy policy are
outlined in 10 U.S.C. §101(e). First, “…the term ‘energy resilience’ means the ability to avoid,
prepare for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions
in order to ensure energy availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance andreadiness, including task critical assets and other mission essential operations related to readiness,and to execute or rapidly reestablish mission essential requirements.” Second, “…the “term‘energy security’ means having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability toprotect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.”
Outside of DoD, resilience is often defined as the opposite of efficiency; efficiency creates ideal
operation within a very narrow scope of conditions, while resilience expands the capability of asystem to operate across a variety of conditions, absorb disruptions and adapt to a changing
environment. The DoD installation energy enterprise, however, does not exist in an abstract
thought experiment; it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that that must provide power to DoD
missions operating out of more than 400 installations around the globe. In this environment,
reducing consumption and increasing efficiencies actually contributes to the resilience of system
so long as the tactics are employed with consideration toward resilience. DoD is able to balancethese simultaneous requirements by leveraging strategies that target specific energy efficiency andconsumption reduction measures that support, rather than detract from, the pursuit of energy
resilience and energy security.
The remainder of this Summary outlines the Department’s efforts to reduce energy consumption
and costs on installations across the enterprise. Following that, Sections (A)-(F) address the
specific concerns raised by Congress in Section 315, P.L. 114-328 (S 2943), the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2017.
Department of Defense (DoD) Energy Costs and Consumption, 1975-2017
Since 1975, on the aggregate, the Department has reduced its energy consumption, increased theefficiency of its energy infrastructure, and decreased the costs of providing power to Department’s
Military Components and the Defense Agencies. These efforts continue today with the express
purpose of creating an environment where the rising costs of energy and the increasing demandrequired to meet critical mission requirements do not create a ‘must-pay’ burden that has a negative
impact on DoD installations’ ability to enable mission readiness.
In 1975, the federal government’s energy consumption was 1,565,000 Billion Btus (BBtu); DoD
accounted for 1,360,200 BBtus (or 86.9 percent) of the total. The total cost of energy consumption
for DoD was $11.59 billion, or 83 percent of the federal government’s $13.96 billion total
E-1

consumption bill. By FY 2016, DoD reduced its consumption to 709,200 BBtus, a 47.9 percent
reduction in consumption, although its costs rose to $12.56 billion, a 8.4 percent increase.
In 1975, DoD installations accounted for 32.3 percent (439,200 BBtus) of DoD’s total
consumption and 36.5 percent of the total cost ($4.23 billion). By FY 2016, DoD installations
reduced consumption to 198,031 BBtus, a 54.9 percent reduction, and costs to $3.5 billion, a 17.3
percent reduction. However, due to the rising costs of energy, DoD’s cost per BBtu has risen from$0.96/BBtu to $1.77/BBtu, representing a 83.4 percent increase in per BBtu cost. Figure E-2 17
below depicts the contrast of decreasing consumption as compared to the increasing cost per BBtu
for DoD installations, as well as DoD as a whole.
Figure E-1: DoD Consumption and $/MMBtu, 1975-2016

Table E-3 shows the Department’s decrease in energy consumption per square foot (Energy
Intensity); the figure depicts a drop in intensity from 182,153 BBtus/ft 2 in FY 1975 to 97,714
BBtus/ft2 in FY 2017, a 49.7 percent reduction (which parallel’s DoD’s nearly 55 percent reduction
in consumption during the same period).

17

Department of Energy (DOE), Federal Facility Reporting and Data, Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and Sustainability
Performance, Table A-7: Energy Cost Metrics for Federal Facilities By Agency; found at:
http://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Report/Report.aspx (accessed on 18 June 2018).

E-2

Figure E-2: DoD Installation Energy Intensity (1975-2017)

In FY 2017, the Department spent $3.3 billion on installation (stationary combustion) energy and$178 million on fuels to power its non-tactical vehicle (NTV) fleet for a total of $3.48 billion; theDepartment consumed a total 207,306 BBtus (198,541 BBtu for buildings and 8,764 BBtu in
NTVs). Although FY 2017 saw a 0.3 percent increase from FY 2016, overall, FY 2017consumption was reflective of a trend of reduction, 54.8 percent less than 1975 consumption levels
and the second lowest consumption total during the same period. Beginning in FY 2007, in
accordance with the metrics put forth in EISA 2007, the Department has calculated estimatedenergy and costs savings in comparison to the FY 2005 baselines. Incorporating FY 2017 values,
the Department calculates a $5.11 billion savings in installation energy and more than $563 million
in savings for NTVs against FY 2005 baselines ($5.67 billion total since FY 2005).
Figure E-3: DoD Cost AvoidanceE-3

Tools, Techniques, & Procedures to Reduce Cost and Consumption
DoD leverages a variety of strategies that have differing impacts toward reductions, ranging fromlonger-term sustained, cumulative impacts such as replacing aging equipment with new, more
efficient equipment and behavior change campaigns to more aggressive tactics with immediate
impacts such as leveraging different, more efficient power generation technologies and sources atmore energy intensive installations. For instance, the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007 (EISA 2007) outlined a variety of statutory requirements to incorporate more efficienttechnologies and more diverse power sources. In large part due to these requirements, since thepassage of EISA 2007, DoD has reduced consumption by 7.6 percent or more than 15,600 BBtu,
relative to FY 2005 baselines. The Department leverages three primary, broad tools to accomplish
reductions in costs and consumption while still meeting the 10 U.S.C. §2911 energy policy
requirement to support mission assurance and readiness: Policy, MILCON Investment, and NonFederal Investment.
PolicyPolicy, regardless of whether it is developed within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),at the Service-level, or on individual installations, is the most flexible, responsive tool available toshape how the Department uses energy. At the Department-level, DoD has multiple, current policy
and guidance documents that address energy use.
DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4170.11, updated on March 16, 2016, “Installation Energy Management”,
provides the Department with guidance to reduce energy consumption and further invest in energy
reduction measures to leverage our finite energy resources in a manner that make good businesssense, but still supports readiness, efforts to realign the Department’s focus on near-peer
adversaries, and protection of the homeland. Specifically DoDI 4170.11 sets forth instructions onenergy use awareness campaigns; energy and water project development, execution and financing;energy resilience, in accordance FY 2016 changes to Title 10 definitions; efficiency measures; andutilities privatization (UP).
In 2016, OASD(EI&E) also released an Installation Energy Plan memorandum that set forth
guidance for installations to implement more structured processes for developing and tracking theirrespective energy plans. This memorandum was updated on May 30, 2018 to includes an expanded
requirement to include all DoD installations; clarifies energy resilience requirements; clarifies
cybersecurity requirements; and outlines an implementation framework for installations tocomplete their IEP based on the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Defense Continuity andMission Assurance (DASD(DC&MA)) priority installations.
On March 17, 2017, the Department released guidance that specifically targets how installations
maintain their energy infrastructure to ensure systems are operating effectively and supporting
resilience. “Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, & Testing (OM&T) Strategy and
Implementation Guidance” was developed to assist installation commanders, mission owners,
operations and maintenance staff, utility managers, energy managers, and other installation support
personnel on DoD installations and at facilities to collaborate and ensure appropriate OM&T. The
safety and reliability of an installation’s power system largely depends on its OM&T strategy andeffective OM&T programs can save between 5 and 20 percent on utility bills without the need forsignificant capital investment, while simultaneously costing approximately 20 times less thanE-4

retrofits. 18 More important, an effective OM&T program quantifies and mitigates risks in the
power systems that could negatively impact mission readiness.
In addition to energy specific guidance, the Department also leverages a variety of other policies
and guidance documents to inform operations that contribute to reducing the costs, particularly atthose installations with higher energy requirements and/or in areas with higher utility costs. The
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), developed internally by relevant stakeholders such as the Army
Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Civil Engineering
Center, provide planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization
criteria that apply to DoD-owned and operated infrastructure (as well as infrastructure operating
on DoD installations). Similar to the OM&T guidance referenced earlier, the UFC set forth
practices that, in addition to providing for safety and security, encourage efficiencies that
ultimately reduce the costs shouldered by installations to develop, operate, and maintain energy
infrastructure, whether those operations are handled by the installation or a third-party stakeholder(e.g., local utility in a UP contract).
Installations also leverage applicable cyber security and mission assurance-related policy andguidance, such as DoD Directive (DoDD) 3020.40, Mission Assurance, DoDI 3020.45, Mission
Assurance Construct, and OASD(EI&E) memorandum “Managing Cyber Risks to FacilityRelated Control Systems” (dated March 31, 2016) to address the readiness and security of energy
infrastructure at their respective installations. While cyber security and mission assurance policy
may not, at first, seem to have practical application toward reducing the costs of operating andmaintaining energy infrastructure, the unavoidable truth is that disruptions, whether caused bymaintenance deficiencies or intentional attack by adversaries, are rarely characterized by low-cost
impacts. A short duration disruption at a single installation can easily result in several thousandsof dollars costs to repair faulty equipment or remove vegetation and larger disruptions that impact
entire states and regions can result in multi-billion dollar impacts. The blackout that affected theNortheast and Southern Canada in 2003 cut power to more than 50,000,000 customers, caused aloss of 70,000 MW, cost between $4-10 billion, and is believed to have contributed to 11 deaths.
MILCON Investment
While the Department can use Congressional-appropriated Military Construction (MILCON)
funds in multiple ways to develop and construct infrastructure that has a positive impact on theenergy costs borne by fixed installations, the most flexible and frequently-used method employed
by DoD is the “Energy Resiliency and Conservation Investment Program” (ERCIP). ERCIP has
traditionally been used by installations to fund small projects that are forecast to provide
substantial payback in reduced energy costs. ERCIP has grown from a $35 million program started
in FY 2008 to address only energy conservation programs to a $150 million program that is now
primarily intended to fund energy projects that can improve energy resilience, availability,
reliability, and economic performance. The Department gives priority to projects to fund basedon the criteria listed below. To be labeled as a priority, a project must:

18
Sullivan G, R Pugh, AP Melendez, and WD Hunt. 2010. Operations & Maintenance Best Practices – A Guide to Achieving
Operational Efficiency (Release 3). PNNL-19634, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.

E-5a) Contribute to mission assurance at the specified installation or joint base and enhanceenergy resilience of mission critical functions;b) Implement a documented energy plan for a given installation, region, department, orComponent;c) Integrate multiple energy/water savings, monitoring, renewable energy, or energy
resilience/security technologies to realize synergistic benefits;d) Implement a technology validated in a demonstration program (such as theEnvironmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) or other similar
test bed programs) or an innovative technology that represents potentially significant
improvement over existing technology; ande) Dramatically reduce energy and water consumed at an individual installation or joint
base.
The FY 2017 Report to Congress on the ERCIP program lists 40 projects across DoD that were
funded in FY 2017. The average cost of a project was $3.7 million and the average project has a
7.7 year projected payback. Within ERCIP the average project savings-to-investment ratio (totalsavings over the lifetime of a project divided by upfront cost of investment) is 2.4; in other words,
the average ERCIP project funded in FY 2017 is anticipated to generate nearly two and half times
its initial investment in cost savings.
Non-Federal Investment
The Department increasingly relies on third-party financing mechanisms such as Utility Energy
Service Contracts (UESCs) and Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs); Table E-1summarizes the definitions of ESPCs and UESCs.

Table E-1: ESPC and UESC Definitions

These financing vehicles allow DoD to implement energy efficiency, renewable, and distributed
energy projects, as well as energy resilience projects without up-front appropriated funds. The
E-6

Federal Government repays the private capital over time using cost savings generated by the
implemented projects. Since FY 2012, DoD has submitted more than $4.4 billion in nongovernmental third-party financed ESPCs and UESCs, with $2.9 billion awarded through FY
2017. Nearly a quarter of that total was submitted for UESCs and ESPCs ($1,045,480,000) thatare on installations on the ODASD(DC&MA) priority installation list.
DoD energy policy also continues to drive down energy costs, improve efficiencies, and reducedemand through adhere to intensity, efficiency and supply requirements in statutes such as theEnvironmental Protection Act of 2005 (EPA 2005), Energy Independence and Security Act of2007 (EISA 2007), and National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA). DoD is able
to balance these simultaneous requirements by leveraging comprehensive strategies that target
specific energy efficiency and supply reduction measures which support, rather than detract from,the pursuit of energy resilience and energy security.

SECTION 315 (A) A comprehensive, installation-specific assessment of feasible and missionappropriate energy initiatives supporting energy production and consumption at military
installations with high levels of energy intensity.
DoD is focused on ensuring that military installations are prepared for and able to quickly recoverfrom energy disruptions that impact mission assurance and readiness. This goal drives the
Department’s consolidated approach to improving and managing energy-related infrastructure
across the entire enterprise. The foundation upon which these efforts are based is missions
determine requirements; solutions for the energy infrastructure risks are specific to the missions
themselves.
DoD has issued multiple guidance/policy documents since FY 2016 to guide this planning
methodology, specifically:••••

DoDI 4170.11 (dated March 16, 2016)
Installation Energy Plans (IEPs) Guidance Memo (dated March 31, 2016)
Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance, and Testing (OM&T) Strategy and
Implementation Guidance (dated March 17, 2017)
Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program Guidance (revised and publishedannually)

In addition to these previously published items, ODASD(IE) will also publish a specific Energy
Resilience Guidance in FY 2018 and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) will publish
revised data collection requirements for power systems involved in mission assurance assessments.
DoD anticipates that there two additional items will create better visibility for both mission owners
and installations.
From the enterprise-level, these guidance documents address comprehensive methodologies forpursuing feasible and mission-appropriate energy initiatives that support efficient and costeffective energy production and consumption at military installations with high levels of energy
E-7intensity. The Military Departments are then able to leverage these policies to pursue tailoredefforts specific to their requirements at the Service, regional, and installation levels.
To measure implementation, ODASD(IE) has initiated a series of on-site, installation-specificassessments that review the current status of infrastructure. The lessons learned in these sitespecific assessments will be used to identify practices that apply across the entire enterprise,facilitate improvements, and decrease the burden of conducting assessments at all of DoD’s morethan 400 installations.
The list below outlines the methodology that was used to determine the initial assessment
locations:1. First, the top 20 percent of installations from each Service, based on intensity, were
designated.
2. Next, installations not in the U.S. were withdrawn from consideration due to the limited
control DoD has to influence infrastructure investment decisions at foreign locations.
3. Then all installations with annual energy costs below $2 million were removed fromconsideration.
4. Last, the list was consolidated with a list of installations that were previously identified byeither the Services or OSD as priority installations.
Table E-1 demonstrates the values that resulted from each stage of the methodology; Table E-2
lists the final list of installations that resulted from consolidation with the critical installations theServices identified for assessment.

All Installations
Top 20%Consumption
Installations in
CONUS
In CONUS,
>$2M+

USA
156

USAF
184

USN
70

USMC
28

TOTAL

29

37

14

6

85

17

22

4

4

45

4

21

2

2

21

425

Table E-2: Determination of Initial Assessment Locations(w/out Services’ Critical Installation Input)

Installation

State

Fort Greely
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam
Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay
Fort Stewart
Vandenberg AFB

AlaskaHawaiiGeorgia
Georgia
California

Table E-3: Final Installation Assessment Locations

In addition, ODASD(IE) is leveraging information from critical mission energy resilience site
assessments conducted by ODASE(IE), the Navy, and the Air Force. The primary lesson evident
from these assessments is that stakeholders lack a fundamental awareness about what energy
E-8resilience entails, and discussions between critical mission operators and the installation energy
staff occur infrequently. The importance of addressing this misunderstanding cannot be overstated
and will be addressed first before generating more specific recommendations to pursue on a large
scale. The lack of understanding starts with the absence of the communication of mission powerand energy requirements from the mission owners to the installation staff and is also welldemonstrated by the prevalence of inadequate electrical system metering and inconsistencies inoperations, maintenance, and testing practices. Until these deficiencies are addressed, any
investments in other solutions will likely be ineffective or even actively detrimental to resilienceat an installation.
The following sections provide more specific details regarding the insights gathered to date.
A.1

RESILIENCY AWARENESS

Energy directly enables missions and routine operations for all DoD operations, but is typicallyoverlooked. Power outages can result in critical mission failures or delays through direct power
loss (e.g. sensors, computing, communications), indirect power loss (e.g. maintenance, repairs,
support staff), or impacts to critical personnel (e.g. lighting, closure of child daycare centers, foodrefrigeration failures, lack of water and wastewater treatment). As a result, most domestic
installations and missions could be disabled via a physical or cyber-attack to the utility or baseelectrical generation or distribution systems.
A.1.1 Identification of Critical Loads
A complete list of load sizes and locations is essential to accurately size backup generation assets
for critical loads, prioritize repairs during an outage, and identify unexpectedly large loads. Whileknowledge varied across mission and sites, mission owners on the installations visited rarely had
this information. This challenge was compounded by a disparity in data available from installedadvanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters, as few were correctly installed with data available
to mission owners and relevant installation personnel. As a result, backup generation assets arevastly oversized and often connected to non-critical loads, wasting valuable and limited
maintenance and testing budgets and personnel time. If comprehensive data were available, better
understanding of critical loads and the technologies that could address mission requirements would
enable more cost-effective decisions and increase resources available for critical missions. The
challenge is greater at Joint bases, as this communication is more challenging across Service
boundaries.
A.1.2 Incomplete Electrical Documentation
In addition to challenges identifying loads, most mission owners were unfamiliar with electricalinfrastructure, and most installations lacked complete, accurate, and regularly updated electricalsystem documentation. As single line diagrams show all electrical sources and the distribution
network, and standard operating procedures identify hazards for specific equipment, thisjeopardizes personnel safety and risks serious damage to the electrical system. Mission operationis also at risk, as unknown fuel storage quantities and refueling priorities could result in critical
backup generators unexpectedly running out of fuel during a power outage. In addition, poor
E-9

documentation frequently results in deferred maintenance resulting from miscommunications
within installation personnel or between the installation and the utility provider. Updates to thisdocumentation must be done immediately to avoid serious delays to critical missions, andhazardous working conditions that could lead to serious injury or death.

A.2

RESILIENCY MAINTENANCE AND TESTING FOR POWER OUTAGES

Identifying and documenting loads, generation assets, and infrastructure must be completed inorder to properly assess an installation’s current resilience capabilities. Installations must thenmaintain assets and routinely and rigorously test their entire backup power systems under relevant
conditions to ensure that everything will function as expected during a power outage. At most sites
visited however, maintenance personnel were short-staffed and insufficiently funded (partly due
to budgets based on outdated and incomplete documentation). The majority of backup generation
units were oversized requiring additional maintenance and repair, and the large number of
unnecessary generators serving non-critical loads often resulted in widespread deferment of testing
and maintenance. In some cases, the lack of generator prioritization resulted in non-criticalgenerators receiving maintenance, while critical generators were neglected for months or years.
When generators are tested, it is extremely rare for the testing to accurately assess readiness andis often counterproductive. While this varies between the Services, a common testing procedurefound during assessments consisted of starting the generators without load and then idling themfor 10-30 minutes before shut down. These tests do not provide any information into the ability ofthe system to automatically black start the generators, the status of the transfer switches, or thecapacity to distribute power to loads. Furthermore, this type of testing results in wet stacking 19,
increasing the risk that generators will fail during outage events.
At sites that require black start generator testing, it was not uncommon to find the requirement
ignored by mission owners due to short-sighted assumptions about risk to mission with a fullsystem test. When mission owners/back up power system operators choose to forgo systemassessments during normal grid operations, failures and deficiencies in the systems will likely not
be detected until a real, unplanned disruption occurs. Until this mindset is changed, these missions
will be unprepared for power disruptions that can easily degrade and/or eliminate criticalcapabilities.

19

Wet stacking refers to a condition in diesel engines when unburned fuel passes into and collects in the exhaust system. This canresult in fouled injectors and a buildup of carbon on exhaust values, turbo chargers, and exhaust, leading to a loss in engine
performance. While the impacts are often negligible over the short term, over the long term the deposits can scar and erode criticalengine surfaces, leading to severe degradation of load capacity.

E-10

SECTION 315 (B) An assessment of current sources of energy in areas with high energy costs
and potential future sources that are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and mission
appropriate for military installations.
As discussed in Section 315(A), missions determine requirements and the solutions for the energy
infrastructure risks are specific to the missions supported by the infrastructure. In this construct,
the Department, from the enterprise to the installation level, continually evaluates what
technologies are available and applicable to address the scope of missions that are assigned to DoD
operational forces.
A wide variety of energy technologies have the potential to provide resilient backup or prime
energy generation. These range from small backup generation units to microgrids, large scale solar
photovoltaic arrays, energy storage systems, and co-generation plants. However, implementing
solutions that actually meet mission requirements is not as simple as choosing the latest efficienttechnology. Unfortunately, in the present environment, the typical energy posture often favors thenewest, largest technologies available and fails to recognize the necessity of both properly sizing
assets to requirements and accounting for maintenance and testing. In addition, as complexity
increases and technologies are less established, repairs become more specialized, expensive, andtime intensive. Installation personnel and local contracting companies must have the requisiteknowledge and parts to repair any power system deployed to support critical missions, especiallyfor remote installations.
In FY 2018 DoD will release a comprehensive resilience strategy that includes modelingcapabilities that the Services can leverage to determine the best fit for their mission specificrequirements. The modeling capability, called the Energy Resilience Assessment (ERA) Tool,
uses industry-standard analytical methodologies to assess potential energy infrastructurearchitectures at installations. The output of the assessment provides decision makers with specificrecommendations for each installation ranked by cost and impact on resilience.
The following sections provide a brief overview of the various solutions that are either already
implemented or are under consideration at installations across DoD.
B.1

Backup Generators

Diesel generators dominate backup power needs across all installations and can provide a reliable
power source if sufficiently maintained and fueled. Uninterruptable power supplies are also
commonly used to bridge the generator startup time for critical loads that cannot experience brief
power outages. Many installations would both increase resiliency and save costs by removing
generators connected to non-critical loads, clustering critical loads to consolidate generation whenoversized units have been installed, and performing adequate testing as described above.
B.2

Microgrids

Once the fundamental resilience baseline previously described is implemented, other energy
technologies enabled by a microgrid can be considered to further increase resilience (and in somecases, reduce expenses). Microgrids allow multiple power sources to be connected through the
E-11power distribution system, while allowing the installation to isolate, or island, its power system.
Depending on the microgrid architecture, they can also maintain power with outages at one ormore power sources, assuming functional capacity is still sufficient, or loads are appropriately
prioritized. They can also save fuel by only running the generation assets required to meet thecurrent or expected loads, though this functionality requires an understanding of installations loads
and some advanced planning for large load swings. There are a few examples of long-establishedand successful microgrids at DoD installations (NBGTS Finegayan, Guam; the Marine Corps Air
and Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms, CA), however cooperation with local
utilities, customized engineering to match operation requirements, and large capital investments
are required.
B.3

Distributed Power Generation and Energy Storage

Installations in locations with significant solar or wind resources can consider adding renewableenergy sources that should operate in an islandable mode when the main utility grid has failed toreduce fuel consumption. Well located solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays or wind farms in
combination with an islandable inverter can produce significant power without requiring a fuelsupply chain. As solar and wind power is intermittent, however, significant penetration ofrenewable power typically requires large energy storage systems. While energy storage canincrease grid reliability and smooth power fluctuations, round trip efficiency will increase totalenergy used on site and add capital and maintenance expenses. However, much of the existing
deployed solar PV is installed without islanding capability, preventing use as a backup generation
asset.
B.4

Prime Power Generation and Natural Gas

Prime power co-generation plants can provide much or all of an installations’ electricity
requirements. These plants may be cost effective where natural gas prices are low and grid power
prices are high, but will incur a significant capital expense and require a designated staff to operate
and maintain them. When an integrated natural gas pipeline is available, multi-fueled backup
generators should also be considered. This will not only minimize the on-base main fuel storage
requirement, but also enable the installation to continue operations in the event of an extended
outage that has disrupted the external liquid fuel supply chain.
B.5

Developing Technologies

Other new energy technologies (e.g. fuel cells, flywheels, advanced microgrids, etc.) may have asignificant future impact for energy resilience. While DoD funding should continue to be allocatedfor research and development, these systems must be thoroughly tested at designated testbeds
before wide scale integration. Premature rollout is extremely expensive and resource intensive andis likely to fail quickly, increasing the possibility of residual damage to the installation and power
distribution system.
Recently small and very small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs and vSMRs, respectively) havereceived substantial attention from both industry and government stakeholders. This technology
is still very early in development and DoD will continue to monitor its progress. Like with manyE-12other new technologies, external partners can provide significant resources and expertise to the
Department from development to deployment.

SECTION 315 (C) A comprehensive implementation strategy to include required investment
for feasible energy efficiency options determined to be the most beneficial and cost effective,
where appropriate, and consistent with Department of Defense priorities.
10 U.S.C. §2911(d) requires that DoD develop and implement “a comprehensive master plan for
the achievement of the energy performance goals of the [DoD], as set forth in laws, executive
orders, and [DoD] policies.” Each year the Department publishes that master plan in the
appendices of its Annual Energy Management Report (AEMRR). The actions set forth in thatmaster plan are bolstered by additional policies and guidance published by ODASD(E) and otherrelevant policy offices in OSD. In keeping with the necessity to pursue an energy secure andenergy resilient enterprise, DoD has published a variety of policies and guidance that provide
additional instruction to the Services about implementing strategies in installation energy. These
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

DoDI 4170.11 (dated 11 March, 2016)
IEP Guidance (dated 31 March, 2016)
Annual ERCIP Guidance (FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019)
OM&T Guidance (dated 17 March, 2017)
Utilities Privatization Guidance (TBD)
Energy Resilience Guidance (TBD)

The policies and guidance documents provide the Services with detailed instructions on bestpractices to implement the broader strategies of master planning in alignment with efforts todevelop energy resilience on the Department’s installations. The intent of these additional policies
and guidance is three-part:
1. First, create the framework for installations to build resilience into their installation energy
planning (FY 2016-2018).
2. Second, create an environment where Service and OSD leadership can review the strategies
in a consistent basis and, when applicable, push best practices out to the installations (FY
2018-2020).
3. Third, lay the groundwork for the installation energy plans to provide more direct input inthe generation of comprehensive installation-wide master planning (FY 2020 onward).
Throughout the entire process of bringing resilience into DoD’s mindset toward energy,
ODASD(E) will also be conducting installation on-site assessments of energy infrastructure tobuild up a library of best practices and opportunities that can be applied across the enterprise.
While DoD may continue to update the existing master plan and related policies and guidance,
DoD does not have any plans to whole-scale revise the master planning guidance related to energy
infrastructure in a manner that provides specific solutions requirements for installations as a whole.
E-13

This aligns to DoD policy stating that resilience solutions are specific to the mission requirements
and that each installation (or regional command) must work directly with mission, capability, andasset owners to build out solutions that are tailored to the specific requirements of the relevant
mission(s).

SECTION 315 (D) An explanation of how military services are working collaboratively in orderto leverage lessons learned on potential energy efficiency solutions.
OSD typically provides overall guidance and direction, while allowing individual Services theflexibility to implement the requirements in a manner best tailored to individual missions andenvironments. The current structure within the Department facilitates broad communication andcooperation between the Services on energy infrastructure efficiency solutions.
At the Department-level, DoD has issued multiple policies and guidance that create a structure for
the Services to communicate and cooperate with a shared understanding of the Department’s intent
and vision. These references are listed throughout this document, but include, DoDI 4170.11, as
well as the Installation Energy Plan, annual ERCIP guidance, OM&T, and Energy Resilience
Guidance documents. In addition to creating a shared language amongst the Services, theDepartment also encourages cooperation between the Services by instituting Department-wide
Working Groups that bring together key stakeholders to disseminate information and elicit input
to on-going efforts. With regards to energy resilience and installation energy infrastructure, OSD
currently manages the following working groups: Energy Resilience, Cybersecurity, Utilities
Privatization, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Energy.
Lastly, DoD is a substantial stakeholder in DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
annual federal government-wide educational activities such as the Federal Utility Partnerships
Working Group (FUPWG) and Energy Exchange. These activities allow the Services to share bestpractices both within the Department and across the federal space (or, in the case of FUPWG,
industry).

SECTION 315 (E) An assessment of the extent to which activities administered under theFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP) could be used to assist with the implementation
strategy.
The Department has an energy focus that differs in many respects than other federal agencies dueto the zero-sum nature of linking mission success to energy resilience measurements. To a greater
extent than many other agencies, there is little room for error in the execution of DoD missions
and, as such, DoD’s view of and operations regarding energy occur within a more binary context
that is not relevant to other departments (as well as the energy industry as a whole).
The primary benefit to DoD achieved through cooperation with FEMP rests primarily in FEMP’s
capabilities to provide training on issues related to energy across the entire energy infrastructuredomain for the OSD and Service-level staff. This training occurs at annual conferences hosted by
E-14

FEMP (FUPWG and Energy Exchange), as well as via FEMP’s hosted online training courses for
ESPCs and UESCs. DoD will continue to leverage these training opportunities and resources
hosted by FEMP as the Department works to support mission assurance within in its energy
enterprise.

SECTION 315 (F) An assessment of state and local partnership opportunities that could
achieve efficiency and cost savings, and any legislative authorities required to carry out suchpartnerships or agreements.
At present DoD communicates and coordinates with States and local governments, as well as
utilities stakeholders, via two distinct channels. At the strategic level, the Department aligns its
communications and cooperation through the Mission Assurance (MA) community. DoD’s
coordinated communications route through DOE, who serves as the primary, although not the only,
conduit for communicating with other government organizations at the federal, state, and local
levels. Often DHS is also involved in DoD’s communications and partnerships via its Critical
Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) and the coordinating councils/sub-sector
councils nestled below it. These are the Energy Governing Coordinating Council and its Subsector
Councils, the Electric Sub-Sector Coordinating Council (ESCC) and the Oil and Natural Gas
Subsector Coordinating Council (ONGSCC). It is at the Subsector Coordinating Councils that
DoD communicates and coordinates with both state and industry executive level stakeholders.
At the regional and installation levels, coordination occurs in a much more dispersed fashion withinstallations and regional DoD stakeholders serving as the primary communicators. At theselevels, installation and regional command stakeholders coordinate directly with state and local
governments, as well as the utilities and similar-level energy industry representatives, concerning
issues pertaining to matters at that level.

E-15

Appendix F - Senate Report 115-125, to accompany S 1519, the NDAA for FY 2018
Energy Assurance on Military Installations, page 106
In order to assess the current statutory authorities and their appropriateness and flexibility
to support energy resilience on military installations, the Secretary of Defense is directed
to report to the defense committees within 180 days of enactment of this Act the following:(1) authorities used in award of energy resilience projects during fiscal years 2015-2017
and (2) challenges experienced during fiscal years 2015-2017 in the execution of energy
resilience projects due to limitations in existing statutory authorities.

The Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP), previously known as theEnergy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP), is the only current authority granted to theSecretary of Defense (OSD) for the specific purpose of awarding energy resilience projects.
This authority was originally established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1976 at therecommendation of the DoD Energy Task Group. The National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) of 1990 and 1991 formalized energy conservation construction projects under 10
U.S.C. 2865 Energy savings at military installations, paragraph (e), and the NDAA of 2007
created 10 U.S.C. 2914, energy conservation construction projects. The NDAA of 2017 added
language to specifically include energy resiliency and energy security as projects that can be
executed under 10 U.S.C. § 2914, Energy resiliency and conservation construction projects, inaddition to energy conservation projects. DoD revised the name of the program to align with the
new language. ERCIP is funded through the Military Construction (MILCON) appropriations
process and is centrally managed by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment, Energy (ODASD(E)).
ERCIP pays for energy resiliency, energy security, or energy conservation projects that are
mutually complimentary, to construct new high-efficiency energy systems, or improve andmodernize existing ones. The program is managed to maximize the energy benefit to DoD
installations by minimizing energy consumption and improving energy resilience of criticalenergy systems and infrastructure.
Departmental guidance and a rigorous review process direct funding to projects that save energy,
reduce DoD's energy costs, improve energy resilience and contribute to mission assurance. The
program has implemented energy and water efficiency projects that have assisted with meeting
legislated energy conservation targets while providing a significant return-on-investment of morethan $2 for every dollar invested (since 2001). The ERCIP has grown to $165M in FY 2018 andthe current emphasis on improving energy resilience, saving energy, reducing DoD's energy
costs, and contributing to mission assurance together with the competitive nature of theapplication process should ensure ERCIP project selection is consistent with DoD’s strategic
goals. Outside of the inherent challenges of balancing priorities within the necessary constraintsof the federal budget environment, a challenge shared by organizations across the federal

F-1

government, DoD has no specific lessons learned to communicate with Congress regarding the
ERCIP program.
At present DoD is reviewing the applicable statutes and authorities, recent academic andtechnical reports, and information from other federal agencies and the energy industry in order todetermine the most effective methods for measuring the current status of resilience in the
Department’s energy infrastructure. This effort includes an aggressive schedule of rigorous onsite assessments at multiple installations that host defense critical infrastructure and forces
conducting strategic missions. The outputs from this effort will inform a solid understanding of
the best courses of action available to the Department to continue increasing resilience and put
DoD in position to provide Congress with more detailed suggestions to add to or improveauthorities pertaining to energy resilience.

Energy Savings Performance Contracts Assessment, page 107
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an assessment to thecongressional defense committees no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of thisAct. The assessment shall include but not limited to: (1) recommendations on the use ofenergy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) for savings achieved through training
improvements; (2) identification of potential savings that could be achieved throughimprovements to training; (3) pros and cons of using those savings as part of a long term
ESPC; (4) any new authorities that would be needed if a decision was made to use savings
as part of additional ESPC; and (5) any other recommendations deemed appropriate.

As the Department understands this reporting requirement, the requirement's primary assumption
is that improvements to training for energy service performance contracts (ESPC) will result in
behavior change that contributes to an increase in energy savings. Those savings would then beleveraged and used in additional ESPCs. While it may indeed be possible to generate additionalsavings from training improvements, the Department does not believe that it can commit to and/or
predict good behavior with sufficient enough guarantees to be an effective tool in negotiating
future contracts with energy savings companies (ESCOs). DoD believes that the financial risk is
too high to implement these training improvements based on assumptions about future savings andtherefore will not commit limited resources to an assessment that would draw from efforts focusedon energy resilience and mission assurance.

F-2

Appendix G - House Report 115-200, to accompany HR 2810, the NDAA for FY 2018
Energy Resilience of Overseas Military Installations, page 92
The “committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2018, on potential vulnerabilities to energy
supply disruptions at overseas locations that host permanent and rotational U.S. Armed
Forces and on mitigation efforts aimed at protecting mission resiliency. The briefing must,at a minimum, assess the operational risk of energy supply disruptions, identify mitigation
measures to sustain mission-critical operations, and assess the feasibility and cost andschedule impactes including diversified energy solutions for future overseas military
construction projects.”

As defined in 10 U.S.C §101(e)(6), energy resilience directly supports mission assurance andreadiness. Energy resilience at DoD installations, whether home or abroad, results from aniterative evaluation, planning and implementation cycle in which mission owners conduct the risk
analysis and specify the requirement(s), infrastructure stakeholders solve for the specified
requirements, and the process repeats itself as needed to meet changing mission parameters. In
this construct, the solutions are unique to the specific mission and its risks as defined by the mission
owners.
Energy resilience is achieved in a variety of ways, including redundant power supplies(generators); integrated or distributed fossil, alternative, or renewable energy technologies;
microgrid applications including storage; diversified or alternate fuel supplies; upgrading,replacing, operating, maintaining, or testing current energy generation systems, infrastructure, andequipment; as well as mission alternative such as reconstitution or mission-to-mission redundancy.
DoD is agnostic toward any specific technologies and practices that are employed to achieve
resilience. Ultimately, energy resilience is a binary measure; either missions have the energy thatis required, when and where it is needed, or they don’t.
As part of its energy resilience strategy, DoD pursued changes to policies and guidance related toenergy infrastructure. In addition to the updates to Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI)
4170.11, “Installation Energy Management” in FY 2016, the Department updated Department of
Defense Directive (DoDD) 4180.01, DoD Energy Policy and published the “Energy Resilience:
Operations, Maintenance, & Training (OM&T) Strategy and Implementation Guidance” in FY
2017. The latter guidance outlines a comprehensive strategy to replace or improve emergency
power generation readiness, reduce system maintenance, and improve fuel flexibility to ensure thesustainability of all Department emergency power generation systems in operation. Further, DoD
has incorporated resilience in its annual update of the primary federal investment program specificto energy infrastructure, the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP).
On May 30, 2018, DoD released a memo to update the March 31, 2016 OASD(EI&E)
memorandum “Installation Energy Plans (IEPs)”. This update clarifies and provides further
direction to installations with regards to energy resilience and cybersecurity. Chief among the
G-1

updates are requirements that: (1) by the end of FY 2019 all installations identified Deputy
Assistance Secretary of Defense for Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance as priority
installations will complete IEPs; (2) by the end of FY 2020, all installations that constitute 75% ofeach Component’s consumption will complete updated IEPs; and (3) by the end of FY 2021, IEPs
will be completed for all installations not included in the previous categories. These IEPs provide
Components with the opportunity to present their installation-specific long-range plans for energy
resilience.
DoD relies on commercial power to conduct missions from its installations. Commercial power
supplies can be threatened by a variety of events ranging from natural hazards to physical attacks
on infrastructure and cyber-attacks on networks. DoD recognizes that such events could result in
power outages affecting critical DoD missions involving power projection, defense of thehomeland, and/or operations conducted at installations that are directly supporting warfighting
missions overseas. Therefore, installation commanders must understand and address thevulnerabilities and risk of power disruptions that can impact mission assurance 20.
Overseas locations that host permanent and rotational U.S. Armed Forces can face heightened risks
associated the supply of energy. These risks are primarily centered on the fact that U.S. Armed
Forces generally have even less control than their counterparts in CONUS over the energy supply
infrastructure outside the perimeter of their respective locations and, in general, are more
proximate to threats and risks. The energy infrastructure outside installations is developed, built
and maintained by host nation governments and commercial stakeholders. The agreements
regarding how U.S. Armed Forces receive energy supplies and the respective costs are developedin negotiations between the Department of State (DoS) and the respective host nations. DoD,
along with other applicable U.S. Government stakeholders, can only advise DoS on existing risks
and suggested changes to mitigate these risks in future negotiations.
However, inside the perimeter of U.S. Armed Forces’ installation overseas, DoD has greater
opportunities to assess and implement solutions for risks to its supply of energy. From a broader
mission assurance perspective, in accordance with DoD Directives (DoDDs) 5111.1 and 3020.40,
DoD has established and maintains robust mission assurance activities that continuously identify,
assess, manage, and monitor the risks to DoD’s strategic missions. These activities are managed
by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) in conjunction with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and they leverage direct input from stakeholders across the
Department, ranging from Military Services Secretaries to Combatant Commands to offices
throughout OSD. From an installation energy perspective, ODASD(E), the Services, andinstallation stakeholders leverage the iterative process outlined previously to obtain input from
USD(P) and CJCS via the formal Joint Mission Assurance Assessment (JMAA) process and to
craft solutions accordingly.

20

DoD publishes the status of its energy resilience program at the following:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/IE/FEP_Energy_Resilience.html.

G-2

The result of this close cooperation between OSD, Service, and installation mission assurance,
installation energy, and tenant organizations is a global installation enterprise that is taking allnecessary steps to ensure that every installation has available, quality, reliable power in the eventof a disruption to the commercial grid or supply of energy. The installation enterprise currently
meets mission assurance requirements for redundant power supplies (generators) and DoD is
continuing to strengthen its posture through the implementation of additional redundant anddiversified power supply projects, as well as heightened attention to OM&T. Table G-1 below
outlines a variety of ERCIP projects that were selected and funded in FYs 2017 and 2018 for
OCONUS installations to solve for energy supply and demand risks identified by the mission
assurance community.
FY

Service

FY 2018

Army

FY 2017Army

FY 2018

Air Force

FY 2017

Air Force

FY 2017

Air Force

FY 2017

Air Force

FY 2018

Navy

FY 2018

Navy

FY 2018

Navy

FY 2018

Navy

FY 2018

Navy

FY 2017Navy

FY 2017Navy

FY 2017Navy

FY 2017Navy

FY 2017

DLA

Location
Soto Cano
Air Base
American
Samoa
Osan AirBase
Yokota Air
Base
Kadena Air
Base
Misawa Air
Base
CFA
Yokosuka /Japan
NSA Naples
NSA
Andersen
NAVBASEGuam
NAVBASEGuam
NSF Diego
GarciaNAVBASEGuam
NAVSTA
Guantanamo
Bay
NAVBASE
Guam
Rota

Country

Description

Cost($000)

SIR

Anticipated
Payback(years)Honduras

2.0 MW PV Solar Panels$12,000

3.2

6.0

AmericanSamoa

Install 325KW PV System$2,1001.5

12.6$13,700

2.3

7.2$1,7253.2

4.2$4,007

2.6

4.6

Korea
Japan
Japan

Installation-wide Natural
Gas Conversion
Install EMCS In Multiple
Facilities
Installation-wide Upgrade
Exterior Lighting

Japan

Boiler Replacement$5,315

1.9

8.3

Japan

CFA Yokosuka Smart
Grid$8,530

2.1

9.2

Italy

C4i Chiller Replacement$2,700

2.4

6.6

Guam

885KW Solar BIPV

$5,8801.5

11.4$2,1605.8

3.8$6,920

2.9

9.2

Guam
Guam

Energy EfficientLights/HVAC/DHW
R22 HVAC & LED
Lighting

Diego
Garcia3 MW Solar PV Array$17,010

1

19.1

Guam

Solar Assisted HVAC and
R-22 HVAC Replacement$1,240

7.6

2.1

Cuba

Electrical Power Plant
Controls Upgrade$6,0802.4

7$8,540

1.6

10.4$3,710

2.2

8.6

Guam
Spain

1.6 MW Solar Array &Wasterwater Treatment
1 MW Solar Array

Table G-1: OCONUS ERCIP Projects Selected and Funded in FYs 2017 and 2018

G-3

Appendix H - House Report 115-219, to accompany HR 3219, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill for FY 2018
Energy Security of Overseas Military Installations, page 60
The House Armed Services Committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a reportto the congressional defense committees not later than January 9, 2018 on the potential
vulnerabilities of energy supply disruptions at overseas locations hosting permanent androtational United States armed forces, including medical centers on military installations,and efforts the Department is currently taking to mitigate the risk of potential energy supply
disruptions at overseas military installations, including considerations the Department istaking to mitigate such risks when reviewing energy supply options at such installations.

The Department’s response for House Report 115-200, to accompany HR 2810, the NDAA for
FY 2018 (Appendix G, FY 2017 AEMRR) satisfies this Congressional reporting requirement.

H-1

Appendix I - Senate Reports 114-237 & 115-188, Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills, FYs 2017 & 2018
INTRODUCTION
The Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress and to the Congressional Defense Committees on Water Conservation on
Military Installations, in accordance with the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and related
agencies appropriation Bill, 2017 Senate Report 114-237 and the Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs and related agencies appropriation Bill, 2018 House of Representatives Report 115-188.
Water Conservation on Military Installations.—The Committee recognizes that the Departmentof Defense has the opportunity to play a key role in advancing our Nation’s water security byimplementing water conservation, reuse, and recharge practices on military installations. Thisshould include efforts to incorporate water conservation technologies into new infrastructure
design, as well as to update existing infrastructure to make it more water efficient. The
Committee also recognizes that many technologies that in-crease water efficiency do not result
in competitive returns on in-vestment. Therefore, the Department of Defense is encouraged to
implement water conservation projects that are not solely contingent on cost savings
performance, but also take into account reduced water use. To assess the current status of water
demand and potential water conservation opportunities across U.S. military installations, theSecretary of Defense is directed to report to the congressional defense committees not later than
180 days of enactment of this Act the following: (1) the current water usage on military
installations; (2) the vulnerability of each military installation to water scarcity; and, (3) thewater conservation potential according to (a) reduced water use and (b) cost savings if current
water conservation technologies and efficient design were implemented at military installations.
THE CURRENT WATER USAGE ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
The current water usage on military installations is calculated by using water bills, which
represent strictly potable water. Potable water includes water purchased from a utility and all
fresh water (e.g., well and streams) treated and added to the domestic system for humanconsumption. During FY 2017, DoD consumed over 81 billion gallons of potable water at a costof approximately, $262 million.
Figure 1 provides a breakout of total water consumption and costs by Military Service,respectively.

I-1

FY 2017 DOD POTABLE WATER
Consumption
Costs ($Thou)(Thou Gal)
ARMY

$86,923

31,230,400

NAVY$82,991

21,306,413

USMC$21,6136,530,498

AIR FORCE$70,503

22,175,162

TOTAL$262,030

81,242,473

Figure I-1. DoD Water Costs and Consumption

THE VULNERABILITY OF MILITARY INSTALLATION TO WATER SCARCITY
In the context of mission readiness across DoD installations and for purposes of this report, DoD
defines scarcity as a condition of drought prone areas. Figure 2 is a map of DoD military
installations overlaid on top of drought areas identified by the U.S. Drought Monitor 21 as of April
2018.

Figure I-2. DoD Military Installation Overlay on Drought Area

21

The U.S. Drought Monitor website is hosted and maintained by the drought center. U.S. Drought Monitor is jointly produced by
the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the United States Department of Agriculture, andthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Map courtesy of NDMC-UNL.

I-2

Figure 3 provides a description of the different categories of draught conditions.
Category Description Implication
None
Abnormally
Dry

Gray
Yellow

0

Beige

1

Moderate
Dry

Orange2

Red

3

SevereDrought
ExtremeDrought
Exceptional
Drought

Maroon 4

Going into drought: short-term dryness slowing planting, growth ofcrops/pastures. Coming out of drought: some lingering water
deficits/pastures or crops not fully recovered
Some damage to crops, pastures. Streams, reservoirs, or wells low,some water shortages developing or imminent/ Voluntary water-use
restrictions requested
Crop or pasture losses likely/Water shortages common. Water
restrictions imposed
Major crop/pasture losses. Widespread water shortages or
restrictions
Exceptional and widespread crop/pasture losses. Shortages of waterin reservoirs, streams, and wells creating water emergencies

Figure I-3. Drought Range Categories

There are 21 DoD Installations that fall into either the “Severe” and “Extreme” categories,
Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Category 2 Installations – Severe Drought
SERVICESTATE
INSTALLATION
USA
Georgia
Fort Stewart
USA
KansasFort Riley
USA
New Mexico
White Sands
USN
California
NAVBASE Ventura
USN
California
NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach
USMC
Arizona
MCAS Yuma AZ
USMC
South Carolina
MCAS Beaufort SC
USAF
Arizona
Davis Monthan AFB
USAF
California
Los Angeles AFB
USAF
California
Vandenberg AFB
USAF
Georgia
Moody AFB
USAF
Kansas
McConnell AFB
USAF
New Mexico
Cannon AFB
USAF
New Mexico
Holloman AFB
USAF
New Mexico
Kirtland AFB
USAF
Texas
Laughlin AFB
Figure I-4. DoD Installations in Severe Drought Areas

I-3

Category 3 Installations –Extreme Drought
SERVICESTATE
INSTALLATION
USA
Fort Huachuca
Arizona
USN
California
NAF El Centro CA
USAF
Arizona
Luke AFB
USAF
Oklahoma
Altus AFB
USAF
Oklahoma
Vance AFB
Figure I-5. DoD Installations in Extreme Drought Areas

WATER CONSERVATION POTENTIAL ON DOD INSTALLATIONSDoD has steadily reduced its potable water consumption at its installations in excess of theEnergy Independence and Security Act of 2007 goal (Figure 7). During FY 2017, DoD reduced
its potable water intensity by 26.9% from the 2007 baseline against a goal of 20%. DoD has hadgreat success in achieving water efficiencies through routine maintenance and upgrades of water
infrastructure, water efficiency projects, water utilities privatization (UP), and third-party
financed projects such as Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy
Services Contracts (UESC), which have included water savings investments.
10%0%

Air Force

-10%

Army

-20%

DON

-30%
-40%

DoD
FY
2007

FY
2008

FY
2009

FY
2010

FY
2011

FY
2012

FY
2013

FY
2014

FY
2015

FY
2016

FY
2017

EISA 2007

Figure I-6. DoD Potable Water Intensity Reductions against the 2007 Intensity Baseline

DoD has strived for better water management across installations through several policies. First,
the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Buildings
requires compliance with industry standard water efficiency practices in new construction andmajor renovation, where cost-effective. Second, DoD issued an Industrial, Landscaping andAgriculture (ILA) Water Use policy in 2015, and a separate Landscape Architecture water use
policy in 2016, to guide the minimal use of water in these applications. Third, DoD is in theprocess of updating DoD Instruction (DODI) 4170.11 Installation Energy Management, theoverarching policy guidance document for the Department on installation energy, to explicitly
require water management and resilience planning and practices.
The Department will continue to undertake the following approaches to achieve water
efficiencies:• Install water meters at main distribution lines, central heat and chiller plants, and otherlarge uses such as barracks, pools, hospitals, and gyms.
• Increase focus on leak detection and repair
I-4

•
•

Support water efficiency projects in existing buildings, such as chiller system
improvements, high efficiency cooling towers, low-flow fixtures, and plumbing retrofits.
Increase use of rainwater harvesting systems, drought-tolerant landscaping and waterefficient irrigation.

Funding for these activities will come from four fund sources: Sustainment, Restoration, andModernization (SRM) funds, the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program(ERCIP), Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), and/or Utility Energy Service
Contracts (UESC).
While there may be water conservation potential on all DoD installations, there is not always an
acceptable business case to invest in all water projects. However, regular maintenance is themost advantageous way towards becoming more resilient. Replacing aging infrastructure
reduces consumption and cost, and also controls water loss, a key issue across DoD installations.
WAY FORWARD
Though DoD cannot prepare for every risk and situation, the Department is beginning to include
the implications of the changing water landscape in resilience and mission framework.
Long-term planning and investment are essential to water infrastructure across DoD installations
and have the capacity to mitigate recurring impacts of drought. Estimating the water
conservation potential of DoD installations is challenging due to the diversity of building types
and purposes, the deficit of building-level water meters, and installations’ capacity to performthe comprehensive water audits that would identify potential water savings. Furthermore, water
is a relatively inexpensive commodity, and even some of the most promising water projects canbe cost-prohibitive, resulting in low return on investment (ROI). Nevertheless, DoD installations
will identify and pursue water conservation projects where cost-effective, and continue to savewater through routine operations and maintenance practices such as leak detection andinfrastructure upgrades.

I-5

Appendix J - Energy Intensity by Installation

Component

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

Installation Name

63RD REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND
81ST REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND
88TH REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND
99TH REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND
9TH MISSION SUPPORTCOMMANDARMY

ABERDEEN PG

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

ADELPHI LABORATORY CTR
ALABAMA ARNG
ALASKA ARNG
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOTARIZONA ARNG
ARKANSAS ARNG
BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOTCALIFORNIA ARNG
CAMP ZAMA JAPANCARLISLE BARRACKSCOLORADO ARNG
CONNECTICUT ARNG
CORPUS CHRISTI AD

City

MOFFETT FIELDFORT JACKSONFORT MCCOYJOINT BASE MDLHONOLULU
ABERDEEN PROVGRND
HYATTSVILLE
MONTGOMERYFORT RICHARDSON
ANNISTON
PHOENIX
CAMP ROBINSONRICHMONDSACRAMENTOSAGAMIHARACARLISLE
ENGLEWOOD
HARTFORDCORPUS CHRISTI
J-1

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityCA

5910.42224.9938066.00

SC

5999.37230.6738449.70

WI

9622.69

609.4463333.67

NJ

7337.05341.4346535.08

HI

173.646.90

39715.21

MD

14694.50

2640.46179690.46

MD
AL
AK
AL
AZ
AR
KY
CA
JPN
PA
CO
CT
TX

1176.103573.34312.57
9613.051608.094423.564165.025353.6510174.82
1159.32
612.121677.33
2762.00

188.09220.94180.74623.2075.19
205.38116.83176.90655.40140.63
67.58
82.94
319.31

159926.57
61830.74
578249.96
64828.1446756.1446428.41
28051.01
33042.87
64413.95
121302.79
110406.50
49449.93115607.89

Component

Installation Name

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

DC ARNG (MOB)
DELAWARE ARNG
DEVENS RFTA
DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDFLORIDA ARNG
FORT A P HILLFORT BELVOIRFORT BENNING
FORT BLISSFORT BRAGG
FORT BUCHANANFORT CAMPBELLFORT CARSONFORT DETRICKFORT DRUMFORT GEORGE MEADE
FORT GORDONFORT GREELYFORT HAMILTONFORT HOOD
FORT HUACHUCA

ARMYFORT HUNTER LIGGETT

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

FORT IRWIN
FORT JACKSONFORT KNOXCity

WASHINGTON, DC
WILMINGTON
DEVENSDUGWAYSAINT AUGUSTINEBOWLING GREEN
FORT BELVOIRFORT BENNING
EL PASO
FORT BRAGG
CATANOFORT CAMPBELLCOLORADO SPGSFORT DETRICKFORT DRUMFORT MEADE
AUGUSTADELTA JUNCTION
NEW YORK CITYKILLEEN
FORT HUACHUCAFORT HUNTER
LIGGETTFORT IRWIN
COLUMBIAFORT KNOX

J-2

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

DC
DE
MA
UT
FL
VA
VA
GA
TX
NC
PR
KY
CO
MD
NY
MD
GA
AK
NY
TX
AZ

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
595.94671.561311.192260.252933.92
1521.8113155.85
20811.62
22721.03
34171.58
1902.4217053.78
14717.123564.84
12114.39
10168.87
10240.73
1098.58
772.0823348.20
5702.28

85.32
24.87
107.71
246.9673.87
70.24
1057.63
1360.281254.32
3203.84106.951422.66
1292.95
1072.48660.71644.59774.71269.02
67.31
1839.65427.00143173.33
37031.47
82145.35
109261.27
25178.25
46153.73
80392.22
65361.75
55205.37
93757.34
56216.38
83421.76
87853.47
300848.35
54539.4563388.58
75650.15
244883.1787180.93
78791.99
74882.30

CA1487.8740.10

26947.93

CASC
KY

4304.08
10318.12
11789.46

515.51
799.67930.34

119771.56
77501.90
78913.19

State /CountryComponent

Installation Name

ARMY

FORT LEAVENWORTH

ARMY

FORT LEE

ARMY

FORT LEONARD WOOD

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

FORT MCCOYFORT POLKFORT RILEY
FORT RUCKER
FORT SILL
FORT STEWART

ARMYFORT WAINWRIGHT

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

GEORGIA ARNG
GUAM ARNG (MOB)
HAWAII ARNG
HAWTHORNE AAP (GOCO)
HOLSTON AAP (GOCO)IDAHO ARNG
ILLINOIS ARNG
INDIANA ARNGIOWA AAP (GOCO)IOWA ARNG
JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORDJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSONHALLKANSAS ARNG

ARMY
ARMY

City

FORT
LEAVENWORTHFORT LEE
FORT LEONARDWOOD
SPARTA
FORT POLKFORT RILEY
FORT RUCKER
FORT SILL
FORT STEWARTFORTWAINWRIGHTATLANTABARRIGADAHONOLULU
HAWTHORNEKINGSPORT
BOISE
CAMP LINCOLNINDIANOPOLIS
MIDDLETOWNJOHNSTONTACOMA
FORT MYERTOPEKA
J-3

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityKS4774.93361.4675700.11

VA

10110.53

785.7277712.71

MO12318.97

1390.73112893.34

WI
LA
KS
AL
OK
GA

6929.027810.1411779.83
5942.34
12199.38
15190.88

341.35688.37999.84488.741062.861243.7749264.11
88137.52
84877.21
82247.52
87124.00
81875.93

AK6791.11

1869.99275357.87

GA
GU
HI
NV
TN
ID
IL
IN
IA
IA
WA

2070.12254.871240.739644.24
1959.53798.932897.634585.883943.49
3167.68
26495.65

109.5510.33
24.28
150.642460.97112.61145.96324.57699.72150.502013.57

52920.48
40510.07
19566.67
15619.79
1255897.20
140955.19
50371.22
70776.10
177437.96
47510.1175996.37

VA

3731.11362.1397055.59

KS

1513.30103.7268540.96

Component

Installation Name

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

KENTUCKY ARNG
KWAJALEIN ATOLLLAKE CITY AAP (GOCO)
LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT
LIMA JSMC

ARMYLOUISIANA ARNG

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

MAINE ARNGMARYLAND ARNGMASSACHUSETTS ARNGMCALESTER AAP
MICHIGAN ARNGMILAN AAP (GOCO)MILITARY OCEAN TMLCONCORD
MINNESOTA ARNGMISSISSIPPI ARNGMISSOURI ARNG
MONTANA ARNG
MOT SUNNY POINT
NEBRASKA ARNG
NEVADA ARNG
NEW HAMPSHIRE ARNG
NEW JERSEY ARNGNEW MEXICO ARNG
NEW YORK ARNGNORTH CAROLINA ARNG

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

FRANKFORT
MAJURO ATOLLINDEPENDENCECHAMBERSBURG
LIMA
JOHNSON
BARRACKSCAMP KEYESBALTIMOREMILFORDMCALESTERLANSINGMILANCONCORD

KY
MHL
MO
PA
OH

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
1704.55
3396.142864.055328.06
1619.37LA

3353.87

146.3843644.46

ME
MD
MA
OK
MI
TN

1302.32
1191.29
1979.4310357.14
3787.95
3264.63

47.70
88.25
164.35447.76316.8118.81

36629.36
74078.79
83030.10
43231.61
83634.98
5762.36CA

279.3411.32

40513.21

CAMP RIPLEYJACKSON
JEFFERSON CITY
HELENA
SOUTHPORTLINCOLNCARSON CITY
CONCORD
LAWRENCEVILLESANTA FELATHAMRALEIGH

MN
MS
MO
MT
NC
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC

4431.98
5860.57
1875.471375.28345.531688.44568.32793.521220.22810.032736.071475.56245.44210.79131.87
80.16
14.33
88.31
30.74
29.77
171.9757.95
170.85147.6655379.82
35967.68
70313.08
58286.4641480.72
52302.61
54083.78
37514.05
140935.77
71542.90
62442.12
100067.49

City

J-4

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

61.61
864.73951.76382.84436.1236143.90
254620.89
332312.1771854.27
269316.13

Component

Installation Name

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

NORTH DAKOTA ARNG
OHIO ARNG
OKLAHOMA ARNG
OREGON ARNG
PARKS CSTCPENNSYLVANIA ARNG
PICATINNY ARSENALPINE BLUFF ARSENALPRESIDIO OF MONTEREYPUEBLO CHEMICAL DEPOTPUERTO RICO ARNG (MOB)RADFORD AAP (GOCO)
RED RIVER DEPOTREDSTONE ARSENALRHODE ISLAND ARNG
ROCK ISLAND ARSENALSCRANTON AAP

ARMYSIERRA ARMY DEPOT

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

SOLDIER SYSTEMS CTR, NATICKSOUTH CAROLINA ARNG
SOUTH DAKOTA ARNG
TENNESSEE ARNGTEXAS ARNG
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOTTOOELE ARMY DEPOT
USAG ANSBACHCity

BISMARKCOLUMBUS
OKLAHOMA CITYSALEM
DUBLINANNVILLE
DOVER
WHITE HALLMONTEREY
PUEBLOSAN JUAN
RADFORDTEXARKANA
HUNTSVILLE
CRANSTONROCK ISLANDSCRANTONHERLONG SIERRA
ORD-D
NATICK
COLUMBIARAPID CITY
NASHVILLECAMP MABRYUNKNOWNTOOELEANSBACH
J-5

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

ND
OH
OK
OR
CA
PA
NJ
AR
CA
CO
PR
VA
TX
AL
RI
IL
PA

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
1829.47
3432.10
1984.882300.51
1209.455065.98
3318.29
3433.892732.55
4240.041741.072495.477067.2813116.22
1267.30
6526.35
682.98121.85155.97111.48114.6343.98
320.35521.31
255.56174.7432.22
37.18
2874.06
704.441512.5859.74
425.85409.7866601.2745444.5456163.1749829.29
36364.34
63235.76
157101.20
74421.78
63948.23
7598.27
21352.93
1151708.25
99676.01
115321.09
47135.58
65250.72
599987.41

CA5350.91146.0827300.41

MA
SC
SD
TN
TX
PA
UT
DEU

1000.821380.841255.562445.933462.744432.143875.107071.01

104.46104.6957.51
116.36144.44507.2876.72
297.38104371.68
75812.3645802.61
47570.77
41713.25
114455.55
19798.95
42056.65

State /CountryComponent

Installation Name

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

USAG BAVARIA
USAG BENELUXUSAG DAEGUARMYUSAG DETROIT ARSENAL

ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY
ARMY

USAG HAWAII
USAG HUMPHREYS
USAG MIAMI
USAG RED CLOUD
USAG RHEINLAND-PFALZ
USAG STUTTGARTUSAG VICENZA
USAG WIESBADEN
USAG YONGSANUTAH ARNG
VERMONT ARNG
VIRGIN ISLANDS ARNG (MOB)
VIRGINIA ARNGWASHINGTON ARNG
WATERVLIET ARSENAL
WEST POINT MIL RESERVATIONWEST VIRGINIA ARNG
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGEWISCONSIN ARNG
WYOMING ARNG
YUMA PROVING GROUNDCity

GRAFENWOHRBRUSSELSTAEGUHARRISONTOWNSHIPWAHIAWA
CAMP HUMPHREYSMIAMIUIJONG BU
KAISERLAUTERNSTUTTGARTVICENZAWIESBADENSEOULDRAPER
COLCHESTERCHRISTIANSTEDFORT PICKETTCAMP MURRAY
WATERVLIETWEST POINT
CHARLESTON
WHITE SANDSMADISONCHYENNE
YUMA

J-6

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

DEU
BEL
KOR

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
23915.66
5405.146568.29

1548.89145.74417.3864764.73
26963.02
63544.66

MI

1926.18

249.60129581.12

HI
KOR
FL
KOR
DEU
DEU
ITA
DEU
KOR
UT
VT
VI
VA
WA
NY
NY
WV
NM
WI
WY
AZ

14689.87
12639.15
781.869888.1324536.47
8654.948230.319942.138309.83
1963.971204.61
319.603893.87
904.832203.287956.56
2081.104688.09
2470.30
838.341899.30

815.05950.7288.16
977.151282.20613.19584.16641.93863.00128.9456.82
12.49
179.3347.59
299.25935.70160.67280.84179.4775.89
140.3655483.83
75220.27
112757.46
98820.27
52256.86
70848.1270976.10
64566.77
103853.41
65652.74
47166.33
39083.11
46054.13
52595.29
135822.09
117601.40
77202.35
59905.26
72651.80
90522.73
73899.99

State /CountryComponent

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityIL

332.0019.8959900.60

MD348.0024.1969520.11

MI

563.1742.25

75023.26

OKGU

2591.00
52.00

290.402.64112080.66
50693.28

TN

2798.00

1518.47542696.93

NJ

495.0039.4279626.26

ITA

4231.00

289.6668460.88

ME

511.9048.9995692.52

LA5163.27425.8482475.45

MA

480.0036.27

75566.67

BEALE AFBBIRMINGHAM

CA

3156.14343.61108870.19

AL

364.8226.62

72952.99

UNKNOWNUNKNOWN

ID

566.0029.25

51669.61

CT

400.5533.05

82504.47

COCO

1709.00
588.00161.1456.72

94287.30
96465.99

Installation NameCity

SPRINGFIELD

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCEABRAHAM LINCOLN CAPITALAIRPORT
AIR NATIONAL GUARDREADINESS CENTER (ANGRC)
ALPENA COUNTY REGIONALAIRPORT
ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE

AIR FORCEARNOLD AIR STATION

AIR FORCEATLANTIC CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTAIR FORCEAVIANO AIR BASE

AIR FORCEBANGOR INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)

AIR FORCEBARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCEBARNES MUNICIPAL AIRPORTANG
BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
BOISE AIR TERMINAL (ANG)
BRADLEY INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASEBUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE

ANDREWS AFBALPENA
ALTUS
AGANA
ARNOLD A F
STATION
EGG HARBORTOWNSHIP
ROVEREDO INPIANOUNKNOWNBARKSDALE AF
BASE
WESTFIELDAURORA
AURORA
J-7

Component

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Installation Name

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

BURLINGTON INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
CAMP BLANDING MILITARYRESERVATION (ANG)
CAMP MURRAY ANG STATIONCAMP PENDLETON MILITARYRESERVATION(ANG)
CAMP PERRY ANG STATIONCANNON AIR FORCE BASECARSWELL AIR RESERVESTATIONCHANNEL ISLANDS ANGSTATIONCHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTAIRPORT (ANG)
CHEYENNE REGIONAL AIRPORTCOLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE
DANE COUNTY REGIONALAIRPORT-TRUAX FIELDDAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCEBASE
DES MOINES INTERNATIONALAIRPORT ANG
DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE
DULUTH INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)

SOUTH
BURLINGTON

VT

479.3022.6947333.61

STARKE

FL

123.604.1033147.25

TACOMA

WA

229.8413.29

57831.28

VIRGINIA BEACH

VA

123.88

4.05

32667.66

PORT CLINTONCANNON AFBUNKNOWN

OH
NM

119.393265.29

4.53
365.5137935.45
111938.60

TX

360.0012.9435955.56

CA

345.1017.08

49498.70

SC8679.05715.2582411.31

NC

620.0026.3242448.39

CHEYENNE
COLUMBUS

WY
MS

432.001579.2740.99
132.6794872.69
84007.38

MADISON

WI

474.7033.9371474.62

AZ

4787.00

345.9372263.84

IA417.42

33.07

79224.76

GADE

1050.30
3855.1090.92
415.8886567.65
107878.65

MN

482.9555.84

115619.55

PORT HUENEME
UNKNOWNCHARLOTTETUCSONUNKNOWN
MARIETTAUNKNOWN
DULUTH

J-8

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

Installation Name

City

State /Country

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCEDYESS AIR FORCE BASE
EARECKSON AIR STATIONEDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
ELLINGTON FIELDELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE
EWVRA SHEPHERD FIELD ANG
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
FORBES FIELD ANG
FORT SMITH MUNICIPALAIRPORT ANG
FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONALAIRPORTFRANCIS E WARREN AIR FORCEBASE
FRANCIS S GABRESKI AIRPORT(ANG)FRESNO YOSEMITE
INTERNATIONALFT INDIANTOWN GAP ANG
STATIONGENERAL MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL APT (ANG)

ABILENE
ADAK STATIONLANCASTERVALPARAISOUNKNOWNUNKNOWN
HOUSTON
ELLSWORTH AFBMARTINSBURG
AIRWAY HEIGHTS
AIRWAY HEIGHTSTOPEKA

TX
AK
CA
FL
AK
AK
TX
SD
WV
WA
WA
KS

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
3438.892915.857250.00
10822.00
3924.91298.51493.004044.00
652.004011.40362.11484.01

FORT SMITH

AR

418.1421.99

52591.93

FORT WAYNE

IN

426.0036.05

84629.11

CHEYENNE

WY3315.65

335.29101123.16

WESTHAMPTON
BEACH

NY

360.0035.23

97869.44

FRESNOCA

453.8423.38

51524.43

ANNVILLE

PA

348.3019.1955099.05

MILWAUKEE

WI

382.7929.4576934.33

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

J-9

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

276.32675.07760.021167.742146.7725.94
42.22
417.5264.47
412.3626.88
35.88

80349.98
231517.48
104830.90
107904.64
546958.74
86882.38
85636.92
103243.82
98886.50
102796.31
74235.37
74138.81

Component

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Installation Name

GENERAL WAYNE A. DOWNINGPEORIA INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE
GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE
GREAT FALLS IAP ANGGRISSOM AIR RESERVE BASE
GULFPORT-BILOXI REGIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE
HARRISBURG IAP
HECTOR INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE
HILL AIR FORCE BASE
HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE
BASE
HULMAN REGIONAL AIRPORTHURLBURT FIELDINCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANAJACKSON INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
JACKSONVILLE IAP ANG
JEFFERSON BARRACKS ANGSTATIONJOE FOSS FIELD ANG

CityState /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

PEORIA

IL

447.9033.5974987.72

UNKNOWNGRAND FORKS AFBGREAT FALLSUNKNOWN

TX
ND
MT
IN

2615.102728.90428.001049.00

217.97306.0437.00
87.49

83351.72
112147.75
86457.94
83404.19

GULFPORTMS

634.0728.35

44716.17

BEDFORDMIDDLETOWN

MA
PA

3534.75
330.00463.7823.04

131205.04
69821.21

FARGO

ND

492.1935.4972096.87

HICKAM AFBUNKNOWNUNKNOWN

HI
UT
NM

851.8213491.73
5443.5834.56
2307.18500.8440566.18
171006.65
92006.18

HOMESTEAD

FL

1112.00

59.52

53526.08

TERRE HAUTE
EGLIN AFBUNKNOWN

IN
FL
TUR

393.474855.224878.6841.52
513.90299.46105527.20
105844.8961380.90

FLOWOOD

MS

547.0046.4684943.33

JACKSONVILLE

FL

442.2025.9858756.22

UNKNOWN

MO

219.9413.53

61504.54

UNKNOWNSD

441.7139.4289236.88

J-10

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Installation NameJOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVALAIR FACILITY WASHINGTONJOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVALAIR FACILITY WASHINGTONJOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FTRICHARDSONJOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FTRICHARDSONJOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO(JBSA)AIR FORCE

KADENA AIR BASE

AIR FORCE

KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE
KELLY FIELD ANNEX(LACKLAND AFB)KEY FIELD AIR NATIONALGUARDKIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASEKIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE
KLAMATH FALLS AIRPORTKINGSLEY FIELDKUNSAN AIR BASE
LAJES FIELDLAMBERT ST LOUIS IAP ANG
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE
LINCOLN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT(ANG)

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

ANDREWS AFB

MD

5360.49551.39102861.45

ANDREWS AFB

MD

490.0061.96126442.86

ELMENDORF AFB

AK11748.47

1681.38

143114.93

ELMENDORF AFB

AK

556.0052.6394654.68

SAN ANTONIO

TX

36077.63

3367.6493344.34

JPN

23864.49

1194.76

50064.51

MS

6445.66

631.2997939.67

LACKLAND AFB

TX

388.0032.9684945.88

MERIDIANMS

408.8123.96

58613.60

ALBUQUERQUEALBUQUERQUE

NM
NM

6991.00
314.40809.8518.34

115842.23
58326.42

KLAMATH FALLS

OR

493.0038.01

77093.31

KUNSANLAJESFIELD
ST. LOUISLANGLEY AFBUNKNOWN

KOR
PRT
MO
VA
TX

4036.59
1768.27293.8512219.00
1927.11340.8238.34
9.68
1232.62121.9384431.91
21684.53
32956.04
100877.49
63271.95

UNKNOWN

NE

356.0430.9786974.60

KADENA AIR BASE
OKINAWABILOXI

J-11

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

Installation Name

City

State /Country

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE
LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASELOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE
LOUISVILLE INTERNATIONALAIRPORT - STANDIFORD FIELD
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTLUKE AIR FORCE BASE
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASEMANSFIELD LAHM AIRPORTANGMARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
MARTIN STATE AIRPORT ANG
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE
MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE
MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE
MCENTIRE JOINT NATIONALGUARD BASE
MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORTMCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASEMCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE
MEMPHIS INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL IAP-AIR
RESERVE STNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN
EL SEGUNDO

AR
AR
CA

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
3506.00
315.001109.00

LOUISVILLEKY

CAROLINA

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

482.3927.21
90.58

137589.56
86365.08
81673.58

416.8122.91

54970.55

PR475.0027.2257298.95

GLENDALEUNKNOWN
MALMSTROM AFB

AZ
FL
MT

4001.765131.03
3338.00

313.70536.53672.1278389.20
104565.94
201355.00

MANSFIELD

OH

353.0031.05

87963.17

UNKNOWNUNKNOWNMIDDLE RIVER
MONTGOMERYWICHITAWICHITA

CA
CA
MD
AL
KS
KS

1994.00
307.75442.006043.672414.73529.20115.4318.48
20.31
609.37272.1373.20

57886.66
60058.29
45941.18
100827.44112693.76
138322.00

UNKNOWN

SC

454.0030.4367022.03

LOUISVILLEMCGUIRE AFBMCGUIRE AFB

TN
NJ
NJ

833.8612645.10
435.6078.97
1177.3339.40

94707.74
93105.6390454.55

MEMPHIS

TN

626.0065.29104290.73

MINNEAPOLIS

MN

710.3463.58

89503.49

J-12

Component

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Installation Name

MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL IAP-AIR
RESERVE STNMINOT AIR FORCE BASEMISAWA AIR BASE
MOFFETT FLD ANG
MONTGOMERY REGIONALAIRPORT (ANG) BASE
MOODY AIR FORCE BASE
MORON AIR BASE
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCEBASE
NASHVILLE INTERNATIONALAIRPORTNELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
NEW CASTLE COUNTY AIRPORTNEW ORLEANS NAS ANGNIAGARA FALLS IAP-AIR
RESERVE STATIONNIAGARA FALLS IAP-AIR
RESERVE STATIONNORTH HIGHLANDS ANGSTATION
OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE
OSAN AIR BASE
OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARDBASE (ANGB)PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

MINNEAPOLIS

MN

467.4735.50

75938.08

MINOT AFBMISAWA AFBMOUNTAIN VIEW

ND
JPN
CA

4405.00
7925.74
441.20615.641214.89
12.62

139760.27
153284.53
28592.48

MONTGOMERY

AL

504.6032.95

65291.32

MOODY AF BASE
MORAN ABGA
ESP

3199.52
732.44210.0230.3565640.16
41434.11

UNKNOWN

ID

3354.30

308.3891935.83

NASHVILLE

TN

261.9420.53

78392.60

LAS VEGAS
UNKNOWNBELLE CHASSE

NV
DE
LA

9825.71338.60507.00893.3029.66
35.68

90914.9687593.0370380.67

NIAGARA FALLS

NY

700.0076.87109817.14

NIAGARA FALLS

NY

185.5212.08

65109.94

CA

133.005.07

38150.38

NE
KOR6447.00
7948.00

720.88606.74111815.73
76338.70

MA755.1263.87

84578.72

FL

7062.00

754.96106903.99

NORTH
HIGHLANDS
OFFUTT A.F.B.
OSAN AFBOTIS ANGB,MASHPEE
PATRICK AFB
J-13

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

PEASE INTERNATIONAL
TRADEPORT

PORTSMOUTH

NH

547.0745.8383767.61

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE

COLORADOSPRINGSCO

6821.64

1692.08

248045.67

MOON

PA

569.0045.3879760.98

CORAOPOLIS

PA

449.8054.61

121407.02

PORTLANDOR

789.8061.89

78366.68

Component

Installation Name

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

PITTSBURGH IAP-AIR RESERVESTNPITTSBURGH INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)
PORTLAND INTERNATIONALAIRPORT

AIR FORCEQUONSET STATE AIRPORT ANG

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCERAF ALCONBURYRAF CROUGHTONRAF FAIRFORDRAF LAKENHEATH
RAF MILDENHALLRAMSTEIN AIR BASE
RENO TAHOE INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
RICKENBACKER INTERNATIONAIRPORT (ANG)
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASEROSECRANS MEMORIAL
AIRPORTSALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ANG

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

NORTH
KINGSTOWNALCONBURYUNKNOWNFAIRFORD
LAKENHEATHMILDENHALLRAMSTEIN

RI

399.0034.8487320.80

GBR
GBR
UK
GBR
GBR
DEU

1561.221096.931048.00
7248.82
2986.17
15836.51

149.4363.74
35.39
564.92279.871071.98

95710.65
58108.49
33771.95
77932.69
93722.76
67690.41

RENO

NV

403.2825.60

63475.30

UNKNOWN

OH

508.5041.90

82403.15

ROBINS AF BASE
ROBINS AF BASE

GA
GA13248.00
723.601909.80
57.70

144157.68
79741.57

ST. JOSEPH

MO

399.1722.36

56014.01

SALT LAKE CITY

UT

501.2739.69

79187.50

J-14

Component

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

Installation NameSAVANNAH/HILTON HEADINTERNATIONAL APSCHENECTADY COUNTYAIRPORT ANG

AIR FORCESCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCESCOTT AIR FORCE BASE
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASESELFRIDGE ANG BASE
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCEBASESHAW AIR FORCE BASE
SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASESIOUX GATEWAY AP/COL. BUD
DAY FIELD(ANG)
SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONALAIRPORTSPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE
SPRINGFIELD BECKLEYMUNICIPAL AIRPORTSTEWART INTERNATIONALAIRPORTSYRACUSE HANCOCK FIELD
ANG
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT ANG
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

GARDEN CITY

GA

901.1842.1046711.98

SCOTIA

NY

422.0037.8789727.49

CO

2263.00

441.19194958.46

IL
IL
MI

4659.97353.82
1627.00

581.2828.65
165.14124739.00
80959.24
101501.54

NC

3206.03287.0089517.25

SCTX

3319.34
7300.66

284.50627.6885709.84
85975.69

SIOUX CITY

IA476.6135.4674392.06

PHOENIX

AZ

276.0015.7957199.28

SPANGDAHLEM AB

DEU

7504.82353.4347093.59

SPRINGFIELD

OH

503.5535.9371352.97

UNKNOWN

NY

868.0092.33106366.36

SYRACUSE

NY

499.0046.8993973.95

OKLAHOMA CITY
SWANTON
FAIRFIELD

OK
OH
CA

18715.00
379.006503.152387.5225.56
487.82127572.54
67427.44
75012.62

COLORADOSPRINGS
BELLEVILLE
BELLEVILLE
MOUNT CLEMENSSEYMOURJOHNSON AFBSHAW AF BASE
WICHITA FALLS

J-15

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

Installation Name

AIR FORCETUCSON INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
TULSA INTERNATIONALAIRPORTTYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE

AIR FORCE

USAF ACADEMYAIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

VANCE AIR FORCE BASE
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE
VOLK FIELDW K KELLOGG AIRPORTWESTOVER AIR RESERVE BASE
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE
WILL ROGERS WORLD AIRPORTWILLOW GROVE AIR RESERVESTATION
WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCEBASE
YEAGER AIRPORT ANG
YOKOTA AIR BASE
YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN
REGIONAL AIRPORT ARSCAMP LEMONNIER DJBOUTICBC GULFPORT MS
CFA CHINHAE KOR
CFA OKINAWA JA
CFA SASEBO JA
CFA YOKOSUKA JA

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

TUCSONAZ

647.0046.88

72451.31

TULSA

OK

383.7835.9193558.57

UNKNOWN
AIR FORCE
ACADEMYENID
LOMPOC
CAMP DOUGLAS
BATTLE CREEKUNKNOWNKNOB NOSTER
OKLAHOMA CITY

FL

4148.88329.0879318.03

CO7016.64790.02112592.62

OK
CA
WI
MI
MA
MO
OK

1467.935092.00
668.00406.001651.203773.48360.64120.29486.9944.26
43.02
161.65509.6627.07

81947.37
95638.8566263.47
105955.67
97898.50
135063.51
75057.40

HORSHAM

PA

505.1236.73

72711.87

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

WRIGHTPATTERSON AFBUNKNOWNYOKOTA AFB

OH

16482.00

2875.94

174489.93

WV
JPN

436.939098.7241.10
1184.4894056.04
130180.40

VIENNAOH

741.5070.4294962.91

DJI
MS
KOR
JPN
JPN
JPN

1751.00
4632.00
419.00841.004482.00
13129.00

913.94130.3327.48
52.72
279.732777.75521952.60
28136.4465575.18
62684.90
62410.75
211573.39

GULFPORT

J-16

Installation Name

City

NAVY
NAVY

FRC EAST CHERRY POINT NC
JB PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM HI

NC
HI

NAVY

JBAB WASHINGTON DC

CHERRY POINT
PEARL HARBOR
JOINT BASEANACOSTIA
BOLLING

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
2036.00
19604.00

DC3490.00

412.90118309.17

VIRGINIA BEACH

VA

5647.00

635.40112519.04

OAK HARBORMILTON

JPN
CA
JPN
TX
NV
FL
TX
LA
FL
TX
CA
MS
VA
MD
FL
ITA
WA
FL

4204.00
1194.00
907.002726.00
2188.00
8166.00
3325.00
2283.00
2939.00
1126.00
3575.00
1602.00
7749.00
8340.00
11410.00
3014.00
3706.00
1227.00

512.43
69.13
82.25
199.04204.63895.30239.18165.25286.82103.76261.43147.16596.11916.20928.58209.16429.7284.35

121890.82
57895.3190680.26
73014.31
93523.31
109637.77
71932.93
72383.27
97590.00
92147.4273126.71
91860.17
76927.73
109856.59
81383.35
69394.82
115952.24
68747.35

SAN DIEGO

CA

13917.00

1242.50

89279.37

Component

NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY

JEB LITTLE CREEK-FORT STORYVA
NAF ATSUGI JA
NAF EL CENTRO CA
NAF MISAWA JA
NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TX
NAS FALLON NV
NAS JACKSONVILLE FL
NAS JRB FORT WORTH TX
NAS JRB NEW ORLEANS LA
NAS KEY WEST FL
NAS KINGSVILLE TX
NAS LEMOORE CA
NAS MERIDIAN MS
NAS OCEANA VA
NAS PATUXENT RIVER MD
NAS PENSACOLA FL
NAS SIGONELLA IT
NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND WA
NAS WHITING FIELD MILTON FL
NAVBASE CORONADO SANDIEGO CAEL CENTROCORPUS CHRISTIFALLONJACKSONVILLE
FORT WORTHNEW ORLEANS
KEY WESTKINGSVILLELEMOOREMERIDIANVIRGINIA BEACHPATUXENT RIVERPENSACOLA

J-17

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

741.251057.47

364073.67
53941.59

Component

NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY

Installation Name

NAVBASE GUAM
NAVBASE KITSAP BREMERTONWA
NAVBASE POINT LOMA CA
NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA
NAVBASE VENTURA CTY PT
MUGU CANAVMAG INDIAN ISLAND WA
NAVSTA EVERETT WA
NAVSTA GREAT LAKES IL
NAVSTA GUANTANAMO BAY CU
NAVSTA MAYPORT FL
NAVSTA NEWPORT RI
NAVSTA NORFOLK VA
NAVSTA ROTA SP
NAWS CHINA LAKE CA
NSA ANDERSEN GUAMNSA ANNAPOLIS MD
NSA BAHRAINNSA BETHESDA MDNSA CRANE IN
NSA HAMPTON ROADS VA
NSA MECHANICSBURG PA
NSA MID SOUTH MILLINGTONTNNSA MONTEREY CANSA NAPLES IT

GU

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
10091.00

BREMERTON

WA

15223.00

2213.24

145387.64

SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGO

CA
CA

6317.00
9203.00

403.27980.6863838.06
106560.69

POINT MUGU

CA9223.00

329.9635775.67

PORT HADLOCKEVERETTGREAT LAKESBETHESDACRANENORFOLKMECHANICSBURG

WA
WA
IL
CUB
FL
RI
VA
ESP
CA
GU
MD
BHR
MD
IN
VA
PA

376.001839.00
9528.00
6506.00
2901.00
6003.00
15232.00
4339.00
4651.00
6977.00
6078.00
2775.00
5638.00
4233.00
6104.00
11375.00

17.14
139.521023.36
1221.62210.75594.491854.36
194.75529.84330.38639.06251.091162.56775.04887.92669.3045582.45
75868.95
107405.12
187768.83
72645.64
99032.82
121741.01
44883.15
113918.73
47352.30
105142.48
90483.60
206201.14
183094.26
145465.27
58839.38

MILLINGTON

TN

2757.00

209.6076026.12

MONTEREY
NAPLESCA
ITA

1825.00
5629.00

140.58383.3477027.40
68100.02

City

JACKSONVILLENEWPORTNORFOLKCHINA LAKE
ANNAPOLIS

J-18

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

607.0460156.18

Component

Installation NameNAVY

NSA ORLANDO FL

NAVY

NSA PANAMA CITY FL

NAVY

NSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY

NAVY

NSA SOUDA BAY GR
NSA SOUTH POTOMACDAHLGREN VA

NAVY
NAVY

NSA WASHINGTON DC

NAVY
NAVY

NSF BEAUFORT SC
NSF DIEGO GARCIANSS NORFOLK NAVALSHIPYARD VA
NSY BOS PORTSMOUTH NH
PMRF BARKING SANDS HISINGAPORE AREA
COORDINATORSUBASE KINGS BAY GASUBASE NEW LONDON CT
WPNSTA EARLE COLTS NECK NJWPNSTA SEAL BEACH CAWPNSTA YORKTOWN VA

NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
NAVY
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS

FL

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
308.00FL

1483.00

120.8181465.95

NY

40.00

3.18

79475.00

GRC

508.0030.4259885.83

VA

6297.00

1444.65229418.61

DC

9776.00

1819.55

186123.87

SC
IOT

431.002325.00

68.19
942.31

158208.82
405294.19

NORFOLK

VA

7474.00

353.3647279.10

PORTSMOUTH
KEKAHA

NH
HI

4455.00
595.001086.2567.12243827.38
112813.45

SGP

632.0030.72

48599.68

GA
CT
NJ
CA
VA

5334.00
3225.00
1240.00
2033.00
6072.00

690.03724.98144.41
78.98
186.07129364.45
224799.69
116459.68
38848.01
30643.45

JPN

644.0066.15102720.50

CA

6800.00

1157.35

170198.53

City

ORLANDO
PANAMA CITYBEACHSARATOGASPRINGSDAHLGRENWASHINGTONNAVY YARD
BEAUFORTKINGS BAYGROTON
COLTS NECK
SEAL BEACHYORKTOWN

CATC CAMP FUJI JACG MCAGCC TWENTYNINEPALMS CATWENTYNINE
PALMS
J-19

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

23.99

77889.61

Component

MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

JPN

15974.00

968.0460600.79

CAMP LEJEUNE

NC

26971.00

2600.2496408.70

CAMP PENDLETON

CA

20220.00

890.8044055.29

CG MCCDC QUANTICO VA

QUANTICO

VA

7695.00

846.45109999.35

CG MCLB ALBANY GA

ALBANYGA

6995.00

222.9831876.77

FIRST MCD GARDEN CITY LI NY

LONG ISLAND

NY

174.0052.35300844.83

MARBKS WASHINGTON DC

WASHINGTON

DC

526.0046.2887988.59

PARRIS ISLAND

SC

4036.00

447.75110939.30

SAN DIEGO

CA

2703.00

216.7980202.00

NEW ORLEANS

LA

1891.00

119.8363367.00

BEAUFORTSC

2862.00

153.4153603.77

CAMP PENDLETON

CA

984.0044.8545579.27

CHERRY POINT

NC

6572.00

711.36108241.02

JPN

1947.00

122.8063072.42

Installation NameCityCG MCB CAMP BUTLER JACG MCB CAMP LEJEUNE NC
CG MCB CAMP PENDLETON CAMARCORCRUITDEP PARRISISLAND SC
MARCORCRUITDEP SAN DIEGOCAMARFORRES NEW ORLEANS LAMCAS BEAUFORT SC
MCAS CAMP PENDLETON CA
MCAS CHERRY PT NC
MCAS FUTENMA JA

J-20

Component

MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
MARINE
CORPS
DCMA
DCMA
DECA
DECA

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

JPN

7275.00

751.70103326.19

SAN DIEGO

CA

6154.00

299.7748710.76

YUMA

AZ

3132.00

192.3661417.62

KOR

292.0027.87

95431.51

KANEOHE BAY

HI

6342.00

286.4345164.30

MCLB BARSTOW CABARSTOW

CA

4648.00

256.4955182.87

MCMWTC BRIDGEPORT CA

BRIDGEPORT

CA

318.0037.88

119132.08

MCSF BLOUNT ISLAND FL

JACKSONVILLE

FL

978.0028.9429587.93

CAMP LEJEUNE

NC

950.00136.79143989.47

CAMP PENDLETON

CA

926.00124.25134182.51

JPN

716.00155.95217808.66

BRATENAHLCARSON

OH
CA

77.67
85.00

9.02
8.77

116111.09
103176.47

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

54.02

7.38

136579.04

CORAOPOLIS

PA

43.09

7.19

166879.42

Installation NameCity

MCAS IWAKUNI JA
MCAS MIRAMAR CAMCAS YUMA AZ
MCB CAMP MUJUKMCB HAWAII KANEOHE BAY HI

NAVAL HOSPITAL CAMPLEJEUNE NC
NAVAL HOSPITAL CAMPPENDLETON CA
NAVAL HOSPITAL OKINAWA JA
DCMA (1)
DCMA (2)88TH REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND
99TH REGIONAL SUPPORTCOMMAND

J-21

Component

Installation Name

City

DECA
DECA

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE

DECA

ARNOLD AIR STATIONDECAAVIANO AIR BASE
BANGOR INTERNATIONALAIRPORT (ANG)

ABERDEEN
UNKNOWN
ARNOLD A F
STATION
UNKNOWNUNKNOWNDECADECABARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
BEALE AIR FORCE BASEBUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE
CAMP CASEY
CAMP HENRYCAMP HENRYCAMP HENRYCAMP HUMPHREYS
CAMP RED CLOUD
CAMP RED CLOUD
CAMP ZAMACAMP ZAMACAMP ZAMACAMP ZAMACANNON AIR FORCE BASECARLISLE BARRACKSCBC GULFPORT MS

BARKSDALE AF
BASE
BEALE AFBBEALE AFBBEALE AFB
AURORATONG DU CHON
TAEGU
TAEGU
TAEGU
UNKNOWNUIJONG BUUIJONG BUSAGAMIHARASAGAMIHARASAGAMIHARASAGAMIHARACANNON AFBCARLISLEGULFPORT
J-22

MD
OK

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
62.24
57.78

TN

23.19

4.25

183150.81

ITA

64.44

7.13

110593.86

ME

29.00

5.05

174034.48

LA

103.8511.10

106879.42

CA
CA
CA
CO
KOR
KOR
KOR
KOR
KOR
KOR
KOR
JPN
JPN
JPN
JPN
NM
PA
MS

88.00
37.27
75.28
77.43
17.20
37.79
16.03
8.10
19.19
10.85
10.40
186.02
67.11
12.90
1.84
58.28
59.87
30.89

13.41
7.68
6.57
9.15
3.20
5.05
2.06
1.11
4.24
0.76
0.59
8.03
5.89
1.68
0.58
6.27
6.07
8.26

152375.00
206037.03
87323.83
118181.11
185951.85
133636.77
128229.13
136492.66
221023.5670046.0856239.18
43150.81
87706.75
130030.24
317218.90
107563.23
101301.13
267203.99

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

7.77
8.15

124871.47
141062.03

Component

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation Name

City

State /Country

CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE
CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE
COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE
COMBAT SUPPORT TRAINING
CENTER AND CAMP PARKS
COMFLEACT SASEBO JA
COMFLEACT SASEBO JA
COMFLEACT YOKOSUKA JA
COMFLEACT YOKOSUKA JA
CSO NAS MOFFETT FIELD CADAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE
BASE
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE
DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDDYESS AIR FORCE BASEEDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
FLEET ACTIVITIES CHINHAE KS
FORT BELVOIRFORT BENNING
FORT BENNING
FORT BLISSFORT BRAGGUNKNOWNUNKNOWN
COLUMBUS

SC
SC
MS

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
86.35
63.73
48.95

DUBLINCA

SASEBOSASEBOYOKOSUKAYOKOSUKA
MOFFETT FIELD

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

11.46
10.65
4.42

132663.93
167100.76
90314.80

7.80

1.57

201153.85

JPN
JPN
JPN
JPN
CA

24.00
19.77
96.26
85.96
51.94

3.27
2.05
16.62
15.91
3.34

136041.67
103620.92
172652.38
185097.72
64252.16

TUCSONAZ

114.9014.08

122502.09

UNKNOWNDUGWAYABILENE
LANCASTERVALPARAISOVALPARAISOUNKNOWN
ELLSWORTH AFBAIRWAY HEIGHTS
CHINHAEFORT BELVOIRCOLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
EL PASO
FORT BRAGG

DE
UT
TX
CA
FL
FL
AK
SD
WA
KOR
VA
GA
GA
TX
NC

78.38
18.11
79.54
60.39
106.84
63.31
41.89
72.48
84.78
11.30
141.84117.81
2.90
122.60
95.33

5.65
2.58
6.86
6.70
15.35
12.07
7.00
8.93
11.95
2.16
19.18
14.60
0.36
13.21
16.53

72062.88
142241.8686267.80
110864.56
143621.95
190727.43
167056.58
123190.91
140953.05
191238.94
135220.88
123919.87
124654.70
107756.93
173400.89

J-23

Component

Installation Name

DECA
DECA
DECA

FORT BRAGG
FORT BUCHANANFORT CAMPBELLDECAFORT CARSON

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

FORT DETRICKFORT DETRICKFORT DRUMFORT GEORGE G MEADE
FORT GORDONFORT GREELYFORT HAMILTONFORT HOOD
FORT HOOD
FORT HUACHUCAFORT JACKSONFORT KNOXDECAFORT LEAVENWORTH

DECA
DECA

FORT LEE
FORT LEE

DECA

FORT LEONARD WOOD

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

FORT MCCOYFORT POLKFORT RILEY
FORT RUCKER

City

FORT BRAGGGUAYNABOFORT CAMPBELLCOLORADOSPRINGS
FREDERICKFREDERICKEVANS MILLSFORT MEADE
AUGUSTADELTA JUNCTION
NEW YORK CITYKILLEENKILLEEN
SIERRA VISTACOLUMBIAMIDDLETOWNFORTLEAVENWORTHFORT LEE
FORT LEE
FORT LEONARDWOOD
SPARTA
FORT POLKFORT RILEY
FORT RUCKER
J-24

NC
PR
KY

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
118.2695.07
121.87CO

121.9615.47

126840.71

MD
MD
NY
MD
GA
AK
NY
TX
TX
AZ
SC
KY

39.28
57.97
82.80
118.00
92.22
24.68
50.34
127.78105.6677.56
130.00121.84

6.41
6.37
12.88
15.61
12.20
5.30
9.16
20.78
9.28
9.65
10.71
11.79

163089.69
109917.03
155507.25
132271.19
132286.61
214812.41
181922.92
162620.52
87829.72
124442.38
82407.69
96764.66

KS

74.26

11.20

150783.07

VA
VA

242.18
80.77

27.54
10.58

113703.27
131031.24

MO

70.99

11.24

158369.26

WI
LA
KS
AL

15.93
82.43
112.68
83.55

3.76
10.87
15.72
8.71

236295.13
131916.39
139536.74
104246.46

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

15.21
12.17
14.87

128580.01
128017.67
121992.65

Component

Installation Name

DECA
DECA
DECA

FORT SILL
FORT STEWARTFORT STEWARTDECAFORT WAINWRIGHT

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

FRANCIS E WARREN AIR FORCEBASE
GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE
GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE
HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE
HILL AIR FORCE BASE
HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE
INCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANAINCIRLIK AIR BASE ADANAJBAB ANACOSTIA BOLLINGJBPHH PEARL HARBOR HICKAM HAWAIIJBPHH PEARL HARBOR HICKAM HAWAIIDECA

JBSA - FORT SAM HOUSTON

DECA
DECA

JBSA - LACKLANDJBSA - RANDOLPHJNTEXPBASE LITTLE CREEK FS
VAJOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVALAIR FACILITY WASHINGTON

DECA
DECA

FORT SILL
HINESVILLEHINESVILLE
FORTWAINWRIGHT

OK
GA
GA

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
101.57
94.51
57.70

AK

104.4921.74

208090.49

CHEYENNE

WY

77.43

6.69

86392.17

UNKNOWNGRAND FORKS AFBBEDFORDUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNWASHINGTON, DC

TX
ND
MA
UT
NM
TUR
TUR
DC

57.15
41.25
73.50
86.90
68.66
67.20
14.79
71.82

7.26
3.79
10.45
12.48
3.47
6.00
1.50
11.72

127077.72
91982.45
142221.56
143656.14
50507.55
89228.85
101494.35
163111.58

PEARL HARBOR

HI

115.41

12.62

109368.50

PEARL HARBOR

HI

98.47

9.81

99638.45

TX

104.4415.48

148254.53

TX
TX

116.75
96.78

14.25
15.31

122074.90
158164.48

NORFOLK

VA

100.12

11.91

118988.40

ANDREWS AFB

MD

113.4116.12142147.96

City

FORT SAM
HOUSTON
UNKNOWNUNKNOWN

J-25

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

13.66
11.29
7.24

134498.38
119422.72
125459.27

Component

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation NameJOINT BASE ELMENDORF-FTRICHARDSONJOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORDJOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORDJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON
HALL
KADENA AIR BASE
KEESLER AIR FORCE BASEKIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASEKUNSAN AIR BASE
LAJES FIELDLANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE
LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASELOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE
MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
MARINE CORPS BASE
QUANTICO VA
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE
MCAGCC TWENTYNINE PALMSCAMCAGCC TWENTYNINE PALMS
CA

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

ELMENDORF AFB

AK105.0017.50

166695.24

TACOMATACOMA

WA
WA

147.73105.00

15.88
11.95

107488.09
113771.43

ARLINGTON

VA

74.14

8.19

110459.16

OKINAWABILOXIALBUQUERQUEKUNSANUNKNOWNLANGLEY AFBLANGLEY AFBUNKNOWNUNKNOWN
EL SEGUNDOGLENDALEUNKNOWN
MALMSTROM AFBUNKNOWN

JPN
MS
NM
KOR
POR
VA
VA
TX
AR
CA
AZ
FL
MT
CA

86.93
97.88
107.67
16.17
57.95
103.19102.6474.86
100.0774.77
102.08170.81
68.20
116.56

16.25
16.11
10.45
4.03
4.29
14.86
11.28
4.71
8.50
8.74
11.33
12.87
7.90
10.52

186888.15
164636.89
97092.97
249041.67
74015.91
144042.25
109897.60
62879.89
84974.77
116893.36
111026.21
75372.50
115865.10
90209.50

QUANTICO

VA

121.2714.82

122243.66

MONTGOMERYMONTGOMERY

AL
AL

87.00
42.10

13.05
5.75

149988.51
136595.80

TOPAZ

CA

56.75

9.88

174014.94

TOPAZ

CA

13.35

2.00

149704.19

J-26

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation Name

City

State /Country

MCAS CHERRY POINT NC
MCAS IWAKUNI JA
MCAS MIRAMARMCAS YUMA AZ
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE NCMCB CAMP LEJEUNE NCMCB CAMP PENDLETON CAMCB CAMP PENDLETON CAMCB CAMP S D BUTLER
OKINAWA JA
MCB CAMP S D BUTLER
OKINAWA JA
MCB CAMP S D BUTLER
OKINAWA JA
MCB CAMP S D BUTLER
OKINAWA JA
MCB HAWAII KANEOHEMCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASEMCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASEMCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE
MCLB ALBANY GA
MCLB BARSTOW CAMCRD BEAUFORT PI SCMCSPTACT KANSAS CITY MO
MINOT AIR FORCE BASEMISAWA AIR BASE
MOODY AIR FORCE BASE

CHERRY POINT
IWAKUNISAN DIEGOYUMACAMP LEJEUNECAMP LEJEUNECAMP PENDLETON
CAMP PENDLETON

NC
JPN
CA
AZ
NC
NC
CA
CA

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
59.25
53.88
90.81
33.77
75.60
46.12
113.35
20.23

ZUKERANJPNZUKERAN

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

6.66
8.46
11.67
4.62
8.40
6.27
13.84
2.97

112397.48
157045.81
128501.89
136679.99111075.84
136039.38
122077.53
146648.87

290.5811.6640136.41

JPN

58.93

7.84

132966.81

ZUKERAN

JPN

31.25

5.38

172080.52

ZUKERAN

JPN

31.49

5.23

166079.09

KANEOHEWICHITAMCGUIRE AFBMCGUIRE AFBALBANYBARSTOWPARRIS ISLANDBELTONMINOT AFBMISAWA AFB
MOODY AF BASE

HI
KS
NJ
NJ
GA
CA
SC
MO
ND
JPN
GA

76.90
55.88
103.00
18.41
36.67
22.02
44.22
23.52
56.42
82.46
64.26

12.74
7.07
14.01
1.36
5.80
3.11
3.64
2.96
7.89
9.52
8.87

165695.71
126547.85
135980.58
73597.31
158121.52
141351.74
82383.54
125786.43
139806.10
115472.77
138013.13

J-27

Component

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation NameMOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCEBASE
NAF ATSUGI JA
NAF EL CENTRO CA
NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TX
NAS FALLON NV
NAS JACKSONVILLE FL
NAS JRB FT WORTH TX
NAS JRB NEW ORLEANS LA
NAS KEY WEST FL
NAS KINGSVILLE TX
NAS LEMOORE CA
NAS MERIDIAN MS
NAS OCEANA VA
NAS PENSACOLA FL
NAS SIGONELLA IT
NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND WA
NAS WHITING FLD MILTON FL
NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER
AND FORT IRWINNAVAL AIR STATION PAX RIVER
NAVAL BASE KITSAPBREMERTON WA
NAVAL BASE KITSAPBREMERTON WA
NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKESILNAVAL STATION NEWPORT RI

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

UNKNOWN

ID

53.53

6.31

117870.15

ATSUGIEL CENTROCORPUS CHRISTIFALLONJACKSONVILLE
FORT WORTHBELLE CHASSESTOCK ISLANDKINGSVILLELEMOORE NAS
MERIDIANVIRGINIA BEACHPENSACOLA
SIGONELLA SICILYOAK HARBORMILTON

JPN
CA
TX
NV
FL
TX
LA
FL
TX
CA
MS
VA
FL
ITA
WA
FL

32.06
12.92
46.21
40.40
113.53
92.82
46.60
21.30
14.72
44.15
31.59
109.91
73.78
68.03
66.16
21.98

4.65
2.35
7.36
3.42
17.63
16.59
6.48
2.78
2.23
5.78
5.48
16.10
11.29
10.30
10.07
3.85

145152.23
182198.14
159203.55
84529.70
155275.84
178771.13
139141.63
130704.23
151766.30
130976.38
173498.78
146479.49
153008.95
151347.22
152267.23
175175.18

FORT IRWIN

CA

56.50

7.97

141115.04

PATUXENT RIVER

MD

55.86

7.51

134389.55

BREMERTON

WA

61.21

9.26

151322.56

BREMERTON

WA

47.52

6.66

140235.69

GREAT LAKES

IL

59.90

8.78

146560.93

NEWPORT

RI

45.95

6.76

147044.74

J-28

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation Name

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY
CRANE
NAVBASE CORONADO
NAVBASE CORONADO
NAVBASE GUAM
NAVBASE GUAM
NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA
NAVBASE VENTURA CTY PT
MUGU CANAVSTA EVERETT WA
NAVSTA MAYPORT FL
NAVSTA NORFOLK VA
NAVSTA ROTA SP
NAVSUBASE NEW LONDON CT
NAVSUBASE NEW LONDON CT
NAVSUPPACT ANNAPOLIS
NAVSUPPACT MIDSOUTH
MEMPHIS TN
NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT
NAVSUPPACT NORFOLK NSY
NAWS CHINA LAKENELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
NSA ANDERSENNSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY
NSA SOUTH POTOMACNSY PORTSMOUTH
OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

CRANE

IN

8.13

1.07

131873.54

SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGO
AGANA
AGANA
SAN DIEGO

CA
CA
GU
GU
CA

78.27
46.27
187.2456.92
127.62

13.95
7.29
24.20
11.39
16.49

178190.88
157613.75
129267.25
200077.30
129179.37

POINT MUGU

CA

64.73

7.41

114460.06

EVERETTJACKSONVILLENORFOLKROTA
GROTONGROTON
ANNAPOLIS

WA
FL
VA
ESP
CT
CT
MD

60.37
71.04
78.63
50.00
56.85
28.16
47.92

7.95
9.50
10.96
7.11
9.65
3.13
6.78

131711.03
133660.86139430.78
142140.00
169753.90111257.10
141560.42

MILLINGTON

TN

61.26

10.56

172439.69

NAPLES
PORTSMOUTH
CHINA LAKELAS VEGAS
ANDERSEN AB
SARATOGA SPGSDAHLGRENKITTERY
OFFUTT A.F.B.

ITA
VA
CA
NV
GU
NY
VA
ME
NE

85.20
61.91
24.17
129.89122.10
21.98
15.40
28.25
119.59

13.50
9.13
3.17
9.13
10.65
3.29
2.44
5.88
18.80

158448.84
147493.05
131098.7070253.37
87215.40
149765.71
158516.79
207942.52
157172.96

J-29

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
IntensityComponent

Installation Name

DECA
DECA
DECA

OSAN AIR BASE
OSAN AIR BASE
PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE

DECAPETERSON AIR FORCE BASE

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

PICATINNY ARSENALPRESIDIO OF MONTEREYRAF ALCONBURYRAF CROUGHTON
RAF LAKENHEATH
RAF MENWITH HILLRAF MILDENHALLRAMSTEIN AIR BASE
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE
REDSTONE ARSENALROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
ROCK ISLAND ARSENALSCHOFIELD BARRACKSSCOTT AIR FORCE BASESELFRIDGE ANG BASE
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCEBASESHAW AIR FORCE BASE
SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE

DECA
DECA
DECA

City

OSAN AFBOSAN AFBPATRICK AFB
COLORADOSPRINGS
DOVER
MONTEREYUNKNOWNUNKNOWN
LAKENHEATHUNKNOWNMILDENHALLRAMSTEINRAMSTEINRAMSTEINRAMSTEINRAMSTEIN
HUNTSVILLEROBINS AF BASE
ROCK ISLAND
WAHIAWABELLEVILLE
MOUNT CLEMENSSEYMOURJOHNSON AFBSHAW AF BASE
WICHITA FALLS
J-30

KOR
KOR
FL

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
48.60
60.36
102.63CO

102.33

12.77

124777.67

NJ
CA
GBR
GBR
GBR
GBR
GBR
DEU
DEU
DEU
DEU
DEU
AL
GA
IL
HI
IL
MI

22.00
111.31
77.14
19.50
111.7934.37
13.80
177.61
95.05
58.56
40.51
37.29
80.90
70.23
33.26
91.93
113.65
75.77

4.02
12.68
10.98
3.14
18.42
4.79
2.24
24.34
12.72
10.25
7.45
2.10
11.35
10.13
2.73
11.13
17.65
7.38

182590.91
113886.07
142386.77
160736.26
164785.23
139204.05
162536.23
137038.75
133775.92
175023.05
183927.91
56185.80
140284.30
144234.1982140.71
121076.96
155289.83
97344.67

NC

65.66

8.93

136001.58

SC
TX

60.57
80.67

9.21
8.55

152038.96
105950.17

State /Country

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

5.26
5.02
9.31

108182.6283080.70
90697.38

Component

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation Name

City

State /Country

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASESUBASE KINGS BAY GA
TINKER AIR FORCE BASETOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOTTRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE
US ARMY GARRISON ANSBACH
US ARMY GARRISONBAUMHOLDERUS ARMY GARRISON BENELUXUS ARMY GARRISONGRAFENWOEHRUS ARMY GARRISONGRAFENWOEHRUS ARMY GARRISONGRAFENWOEHRUS ARMY GARRISONHEIDELBERG
US ARMY GARRISONHOHENFELSUS ARMY GARRISON LIVORNOUS ARMY GARRISON SCHINNENUS ARMY GARRISONSTUTTGARTUS ARMY GARRISONSTUTTGARTUS ARMY GARRISONSTUTTGARTUNKNOWNKINGS BAY
OKLAHOMA CITYTOBYHANNAFAIRFIELDUNKNOWNANSBACH

DEU
GA
OK
PA
CA
FL
DEU

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)
54.02
52.56
87.03
22.03
96.50
76.37
57.51

BAUMHOLDER

DEU

BRUSSELS

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

8.83
7.99
10.92
2.85
13.72
8.25
8.19

163491.62
151952.20
125478.30
129556.49
142145.08
108006.18
142367.81

31.87

6.04

189537.77

BEL

46.47

8.55

183976.07

GRAFENWOHR

DEU

55.22

11.07

200412.89

GRAFENWOHR

DEU

51.85

6.45

124349.13

GRAFENWOHR

DEU

13.65

0.99

72768.58

HEIDELBERG

DEU

789.3020.8526409.44

HOHENFELS

DEU

38.20

5.36

140261.78

LIVORNOSCHINNEN

ITA
NLD

26.46
24.01

3.97
5.27

150022.68
219454.28

STUTTGART

DEU

64.32

6.50

101114.69

STUTTGART

DEU

40.97

2.85

69494.96

STUTTGART

DEU

5.29

2.14

404122.54

J-31

Component

DECA
DECA
DECA

Installation NameUS ARMY GARRISONSTUTTGARTUS ARMY GARRISON VICENZAUS ARMY GARRISONWIESBADEN

DECA

USAF ACADEMY

DECA
DECA

VANCE AIR FORCE BASE
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE
WEST POINT MILITARYRESERVATION
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE
WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCEBASE
YOKOTA AIR BASE
YONGSAN GARRISONYONGSAN GARRISONYONGSAN GARRISONYUMA PROVING GROUNDDFAS LIMESTONEDFAS ROME
DLOC WAREHOUSEJOINT BASE ANACOSTIABOLLINGROWE BLDG AND ULC
1/RIVANNA STATION

DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DECA
DFAS
DFAS
DIA
DIA
DIA

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

STUTTGART

DEU

18.18

1.63

89804.22

VICENZA

ITA

54.59

8.77

160590.63

WIESBADEN

DEU

61.88

10.56

170701.36

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

AIR FORCE
ACADEMYENID
LOMPOC

CO

66.69

9.06

135895.40

OK
CA

34.30
83.29

5.23
6.18

152464.80
74141.22

WEST POINT

NY

73.22

11.61

158492.78

LAS CRUCESKNOB NOSTER
WRIGHTPATTERSON AFBYOKOTA AFB
SEOUL
SEOUL
SEOUL
YUMA
LIMESTONE
ROME
LANDOVER

NM
MO

32.00
60.73

4.26
7.92

133031.25
130392.54

OH

123.0314.17

115177.97

JPN
KOR
KOR
KOR
AZ
ME
NY
MD

81.44
94.48
88.64
7.05
22.73
141000.00
332000.00
267.00

19.60
15.01
2.97
1.33
2.57
10.45
140.1512.78

240723.00
158857.34
33472.10
187889.96
113178.50
74.12
422.1547857.68

WASHINGTON

DC

1325.00

219.72165827.17

CHARLOTTESVILLE

VA

184.0032.14

174668.48

J-32

Component

Installation Name

NRO
NRO
NRO
NRO
NRO
NRO
NSA
WHS

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOTSAN JOAQUIN
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOTSUSQUEHANNA
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER
COLUMBUS
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER
RICHMONDBUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE
FORT BELVOIRNRO HEADQUARTERS
PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGEFORT GEORGE G MEADEMARK CENTERWHS

WASHINGTON HQS SERVICE

DLA
DLA
DLA
DLA

City

State /Country

Goal
Subject
SquareFootage(000 SqFt)

TRACY

CA

5279.36103.4019586.28

NEW
CUMBERLAND

PA

7709.00

313.7540698.53

COLUMBUS

OH

3841.00

283.2973752.96

RICHMOND

VA

4579.00

232.6750812.84

AURORAFT BELVOIRCHANTILLYPATRICK AFB
LOMPOCLAS CRUCESFORT MEADE
ALEXANDRIAPENTAGON,
ARLINGTON

CO
VA
VA
FL
CA
NM
MD
VA

1254980.00
1453656.00
1520079.00
759704.00
434748.00
234964.00
13967.70
1876.11372.57425.42173.57
70.40
37.12
80.49
2670.40
109.61296.87292.65114.1992.67
85.37
342.55191183.00
58423.48

VA

6967.111053.12151156.46

J-33

Goal
Subject
BBTU

Goal
Subject
Intensity

Appendix K - References
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review, Table 1.11 U.S. Government
Energy Consumption by Agency, Fiscal Years 1975-2011 [online source] (Washington, D.C.
September 27, 2012, accessed May 15, 2018), available from:http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0111.
Energy Information Administration, 2017 Monthly Commercial Sector Energy Use, Table 2.1a[online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26 24, 2018 accessed April 27, 2018), available fromhttp://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
Energy Information Administration, 2017 Monthly Commercial Sector Energy Use, Table 2.1c
[online source] (Washington, D.C. April 26 24, 2018 accessed April 27, 2018), available fromhttp://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Overview [online source] (Washington, D.C.
2011, accessed May 15, 2018), available from:http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use_gdp.html&si
d=US.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census Regions and Division of the United States, [online source](Washington, D.C., 2014, accessed March 24 2017), available from:https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy
Management Program, Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and Sustainability Performance[online source] (Washington, D.C.,2017, accessed May 15, 2018 available from:http://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Report/TotalSiteDeliveredEnergyConsumptionPerGrossSq
uareFootByFederalAgenciesByYear.aspx.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy
Management Program, Guidelines Establishing Criteria for Excluding Buildings [online source](Washington, D.C., 2006, accessed March 9, 2016), available from:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exclusion_criteria.pdf.

K-1