# Office of the Secretary of Defense



# R EPORT 

# T O 

# C ONGRESS



# Ground-Source Heat Pumps

at Department of Defense Facilities

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Installations and Environment)

January 2007

# i 

# Executive Summary

Background

Section 2825 of the National Defense Author ization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public

Law 109-163) and the Joint Explanatory Statem ent to accompany H.R. 2863, Department

of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148) requested a report on the use

of ground-source heat pumps (GSHPs) at Depa rtment of Defense (DoD) facilities as

follows:

• A description of the types of DoD faci lities where GSHPs have been used;

• An assessment of the applicability and co st effectiveness of the use of GSHPs

at DoD facilities in different geograph ic regions of the continental United

States (CONUS);

• An assessment of the applicability of GSHP systems for new-construction and

retrofitting DoD facilities; and

• Recommendations for facilitating and en couraging the increased use of GSHP

systems at DoD facilities.



# Summary of Findings

A GSHP system transfers heat to and from th e earth or water by using specially designed

heat exchangers. The technology has been in use in the United States since the 1970s for

building heating and cooling. DoD has been installing GSHP systems on installations

since the late 1980s. Today more than 52,000 tons of GSHP syst ems are operating on

DoD installations. The most common a pplication of GSHP technology in the

Department has been in family housing units in the eastern half of the U.S. where GSHP

technology has proven the most cost effective. GSHP systems have been installed in

family housing, unaccompanied personnel housing, office buildings, and training

facilities to name a few.

Analysis of DoD data shows that GSHP project s have been the most cost effective in the

South, Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions. To date, neither DoD installations

nor the GSHP industry has widely used GSHP systems in other regions of CONUS.

Computer modeling using three representative DoD buildings indicates that vertical-bore

GSHP systems when hybridized 1 

# with conventional heati ng, ventilating and airconditioning (HVAC) equipment are cost effec tive in the Northeast, Southwest, Western

Mountain, Northwest, and West Coast regions of CONUS. However, within these

regions, modeling shows that vertical-bor e GSHP systems alone require many more

favorable site conditions to be cost effective. Further anal ysis, such as detailed modeling,

is needed to identify specific opportunities in these regions.

1 

# The term “hybridized” refers to installing a GS HP system coupled with traditional HVAC equipment

such as a cooling tower or a boiler.

# ii Requirements such as section 109 of the En ergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) require

incorporating sustainable desi gn practices into all federal new construction and retrofit

projects as long as they are life cycle cost effective. GSHP systems can be an energy

efficient alternative for federal facilities when designed and installed properly. Some

specific parameters that affect the cost effectiveness of using GSHP technology for

facilities under new constr uction or retrofit are:

• Climate and soil thermal properties;

• The GSHP technology type to be used;

• Size of system(s);

• Building characteristics;

• Local infrastructure supporting GSHP systems including experienced GSHP

professionals;

• Feasibility of using GSHP hybrid design; and

• The cost and efficiency of the new or existing conventional HVAC equipment

compared to a GSHP system.

To increase the usage of GSHP technology in DoD, this report recommends seven

strategies that DoD can undertake.

• Train Designers and Energy Managers . Lack of knowledgeable GSHP

designers was identified as a problem in past GSHP demonstration projects.

This continues to be a potential probl em impeding the greater use and the

higher success rate of GSHP systems.

• Design Assistance . Establish a center of expertise either within DoD or in

collaboration with one of the existing Department of Energy (DoE)

laboratories to provide consultation at all levels from discussion of basic

concepts to design reviews and tr oubleshooting of existing systems.

• Specifications . Conduct periodic reviews of DoD Unified Facilities Guide

Specifications covering GSHP systems for consistency, applicability, and

consideration of new technologies. This review could be the first tasking of

the center of expertise.

• Design Manual . The American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Airconditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) p ublished their HVAC design manual in

1997. In an evolving field, such as GSHP, an updated design manual is

critical.

• Soil Thermal Properties Database . Collect soil thermal properties data and

maintain a database of this information. Among the most important site

specific parameters in the design of GS HP are soil thermal properties. These

properties are often comple tely unknown and the diffi culty in obtaining them

is relatively high.

• Continue DoD Screening Feasibility Analyses . Screening results can identify

additional potential DoD installations where GSHP technology can be life

cycle cost effective, particularly in areas of the CONUS where GSHP

technology has yet to be proven or implemented.

# iii • Studies of Long Term Performance of Existing DoD GSHP Installations

. Although many GSHP projects have been constructed, aside from the GSHP

project at Fort Polk, detailed studies have not been performed for most of

these installations. Further assessment of installations with existing GSHP

technology is needed to evaluate long-term performance.

GSHP can be a cost effective alternative in ne w construction and retrofitting of facilities.

Lessons learned from various DoD installations with installed GSHP systems include:

• Correct GSHP system design and installa tion is paramount to ensuring system

performance and energy savings are achieved;

• Experienced designers and installers are critical to ensuring GSHP systems are

designed and inst alled correctly;

• Great care must be shown when pla nning GSHP system layout to ensure

ground heat exchanger bore fields do not interfere with each other, with

existing underground infrastructure (i.e . underground utilities), or future

changes in the mission of the base;

• Education of GSHP system operation for maintenance staff and building

tenants is critical to ensure that sy stems continue to operate properly; and

• Hybridizing GSHP systems can solve sy stem underperformance issues and, in

some instances, may be the most cost effective design option.

# iv 

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. . iv

List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction................................................................................................................. ..... 1

1.1 Background Information on Ground-Source Heat Pump Technology within the

Continental United States ............................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Ground-Source Heat Pump Types ..................................................................... 2

1.2 Current Status of GSHP Technology within CONUS .............................................. 5

1.2.1 Software Tools Currently Available for GSHP Screening ................................ 6

1.3 Methodology............................................................................................................. 6

2 Current Inventory of GSHPs at DoD Facili ties within the Contin ental United States .... 8

2.1 Development of Data Survey Sent to DoD Facilities ............................................... 8

2.2 Database Accuracy.................................................................................................... 8

2.3 DoD Current GSHP Inve ntory and Analysis............................................................ 9

3 An Assessment of Applicability and Cost E ffectiveness of GSHPs at DoD Facilities for

Different Climatic Regions of the CONUS ...................................................................... 15

3.1 Design Considerations that Affect A pplicability and Cost Effectiveness .............. 15

3.2 General DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment ..................................................... 16

3.3 Detailed DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment..................................................... 18

3.3.1 DoD Existing, Installed GSHP Regional Analysis.......................................... 18

3.3.2 Modeling Simulation Analysis ........................................................................ 23

3.3.2.1 The Modeled Buildings............................................................................. 23

3.3.2.2 The Climates Selected............................................................................... 24

3.3.2.3 The Simulation Modeling Program .......................................................... 24

3.3.2.4 The Heat Pumps Selected ......................................................................... 24

3.3.2.5 The Ground Heat Exchangers................................................................... 25

3.3.2.6 The Soil Parameters .................................................................................. 25

3.3.2.7 Hybrid GSHP systems .............................................................................. 26

3.3.2.8 Baseline System........................................................................................ 26

3.3.2.9 Results....................................................................................................... 27

3.3.2.10 Additional Cities Modeled for Building 137 .......................................... 29

3.3.2.11 Retrofit vs. New Construction ................................................................ 29

4 Applicability of GSHPs in New Construc tion and Retrofitting fo r DoD Facilities ...... 30

4.1 Federal and DoD Requirements for New Construction and Retrofit Projects........ 30

4.2 GSHP Applicability for New Cons truction and Retrofit Projects .......................... 31

4.2.1 Family Housing................................................................................................ 31

4.2.2 Administration and Office Buildings and Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

............................................................................................................................... .... 32

4.2.3 Shops, Hangars, and Warehouses .................................................................... 33

# v 4.3 Utilizing Hybrid System Design in Ne w Construction and Retrofit Projects ........ 33

4.4 Additional Resources Available for Considering GSHP Systems for New

Construction and Retrofit Projects................................................................................ 34

5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Facil itating an Increased use of GSHPs at DoD

Facilities..................................................................................................................... ....... 36

5.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 36

5.2 Recommendations for Facilitating and Encouraging the Increased Use of GroundSource Heat Pumps at DoD facilities............................................................................ 38

References..................................................................................................................... .... 40

APPENDIX A - DoD Ground Source Heat Pump Database for Continental United States

as Reported Summer 2006

APPENDIX A1 – US Army Operational Projects

APPENDIX A2 – US Army Planned Projects

APPENDIX A3 – US Air Force Operational Projects

APPENDIX A4 – US Air Force Planned Projects

APPENDIX A5 – US Navy / Marine Corps Operational Projects

APPENDIX A6 – US Navy / Mari ne Corps Planned Projects

APPENDIX B – State Regulations for Closed Loop GSHP Systems

APPENDIX C – List of Usef ul Websites Related to GSHP

APPENDIX D – DoD GSHP Lessons Learned

APPENDIX E – List of Acronyms



# List of Tables and Figures

TABLES

Table 1: Geothermal (Ground-Source) Heat Pumps as of 31 December 2004...............6

Table 2: DoD CONUS GSHPs Inst alled Pertinent Information............................... 12

Table 3(a): DoD CONUS GSHP Average and Range for Installed Project Technical

Data................................................................................................... 12

Table 3(b): DoD CONUS GSHP Average a nd Range for Installed Project Economic

Data................................................................................................... 12

Table 4(a): DoD GSHP Geographical Info rmation Broken into Different Climate

Zones.................................................................................................. 20

Table 4(b): DoD GSHP Geographical In formation and Cost Effectiveness

Estimates............................................................................................. 20

Table 5(a): Building 13 7 (classroom)............................................................ 28

Table 5(b): Building 1264 (administration) ..................................................... 28

Table 5(c): Building 1150 (barracks)............................................................. 28

Table 5(d): Simple Payback (years) for Build ing 137 of Vertical bore GSHP and Hybrid

GSHP Systems with Various Soil Type s in Three Additional Cities......................... 29

# vi FIGURES

Figure 1: Various types of GSHP Configurations................................................ 4

Figure 2: DoD Installations with GSHPs Current ly Installed or Planned to be Installed.. 11

Figure 3(a): DoD GSHP Projects Br oken Down by RPCS Class............................ 13

Figure 3(b): DoD GSHP Units Insta lled Broken Down by RPCS Class.................... 13

Figure 3(c): DoD Percent of each RPCS Class for GSHP Units Installed.................. 13

Figure 4: DoD GSHP Histor ical Tons Installed................................................ 14

Figure 5(a): Project Cost per Ton Installed Ca pacity (Commercial Proj ects, log scale)... 14

Figure 5(b): Residential Pr ojects, Log Scale.................................................... 14

Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DoD Ex isting GSHPs for each Climate Class....... 21

Figure 7(a): DoD GSHP Cost Effectiveness (kWh/TON)..................................... 22

Figure 7(b): DoD GSHP Av erage Project Payback............................................. 22

# 1 

# 1. Introduction

On January 6, 2006, the President signed into law the National De fense Authorization

Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 (P ublic Law 109-163). Section 2825 of the act

states:

SECTION 2825. REPORT ON USE OF GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPS AT

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES.

(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than July 1, 2006, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees

a report on the use of ground source heat pumps at Department of Defense

facilities (DoD).

(b) CONTENT.—The report required under subsection (a) shall

include—

(1) a description of the types of DoD facilities that use ground

source heat pumps;

(2) an assessment of the applicability and cost effectiveness of the use of

ground source heat pumps at DoD faciliti es in different geographic regions

of the United States;

(3) a description of the relative applicability of ground source heat

pumps for purposes of new cons truction at, and retrofitting of,

DoD facilities; and

(4) Recommendations for facilitating and encouraging the

increased use of ground source he at pumps at DoD facilities.

Further, this requirement is defined by th e Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany

H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropria tions Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148). To

satisfy the requirements, this report has been developed by the Naval Facilities

Engineering Service Center (NFESC) in co llaboration with the Army’s Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) a nd Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory (CRREL), the Air Force Civil E ngineer Support Agency (AFCESA), and the

Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).



# 1.1 Background Information on Gr ound-Source Heat Pump Technology

within the Continental United States

The basic physical law - that heat flows fr om a warmer medium to a colder one- cannot

be reversed without the additi on of energy. A heat pump is a device that enables heat to

be forced in the direction opposite to basic physical law. Because energy must be added

to accomplish reversal, the name heat pump is used to describe the device. A heat pump

functions by using a refrigerant cycle to transfer heat ener gy. In the heating mode of a

refrigerant cycle, a heat pump removes heat from a lower temperature medium, such as

the ground, water, or air, and s upplies that heat to a higher temperature sink, such as the

heated interior of a building. In the cooling mode of a refr igerant cycle, the process is

reversed and the heat is extracted from the c ooler inside air and re jected to the warmer

outdoor heat sink (e.g., ground, water, or air). For space conditioning of buildings, heat

pumps that remove heat from outdoor air in th e heating mode and rej ect it to outdoor air

# 2 in the cooling mode are common. These are normally called air- source or air-to-air heat

pumps. A common window-type ai r-conditioner functions similarl y to an air-to-air heat

pump, except it is not designed to reverse th e cycle to provide h eating. Ground-Source

Heat Pumps (GSHP) use the ground, ground water, or surface water as a heat source or

sink.

Several different terms have been used to describe GSHP systems, they include: GroundCoupled Heat Pumps, Geothermal Heat Pump s, Earth Source Heat Pumps, Geo-source

Heat Pumps, Geo-exchange systems, and Ea rth-Energy systems to name a few. All

systems that embody the ground-source concep ts have been grouped into a general

category of GSHPs for purposes of this repo rt. The GSHP industry uses a variety of

names to connect with their ta rgeted industrial market.



# 1.1.1 Ground-Source Heat Pump Types

There are three basic types of GSHPs: ground-coupled heat pumps (GCHPs), ground

water heat pumps (GWHPs), and surface wate r heat pumps (SWHPs). Figure 1 shows

the various types of systems currently being installed in the Continental United States

(CONUS).

GCHPs use buried closed-loop piping, which ex changes heat with the ground to “couple”

the heat pump systems with the ground. GCHP’s became widely used beginning in the

mid-1980s. The process of heat exchange is accomplished by circul ating a fluid, usually

water or a water based antifreeze solution, between the heat pumps and the ground heat

exchangers in a closed loop. The ground heat exchangers consist of either vertical

(Figure 1a) or horizonta l (Figure 1b) arrays of buried High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

pipe that form heat exchangers with the gr ound. Vertical heat exch angers are fabricated

by drilling boreholes into the ground and inse rting a "u-tube" into the borehole. The

holes are then backfilled, usually with a grouting material, which has the purpose of

improving thermal contact between the pipe and the ground and preventing surface runoff

from contaminating groundwater. In additi on to low land area requirements, vertical

ground coupling has several other advantages: st able deep soil temperatures with greater

potential for heat exchange, and adaptabi lity to most sites. Among vertical groundcoupling’s disadvantages are potentially hi gher cost, problems in some geological

formations, the challenge of properly classify ing a site’s geothermal resource, and the

need for an experienced driller and in staller specializing in GSHP technology.

Horizontal heat exchangers may be inst alled in trenches excavated by trenching

machines, backhoes, or excavators. Piping may be placed in the trenches either singly or

in multiple-pipe arrangements. The primary advantage of horizontal systems is lower

cost. Fewer requirements for special sk ills and equipment combined with lower

uncertainty of the subsurface si te conditions lead to lower design and installation costs.

The disadvantages of horizontal ground couplin g are its large land area requirements, its

limited potential for heat exchange with th e groundwater, and the wider temperature

swings of the soil at the typical burial depths.

# 3 An alternate method of installing a horizont al heat exchanger is the "slinky" method

(Figure 1c). When using the slinky method, a wide pit is excavated with a bulldozer,

excavator, backhoe, or loader. The coils of pl astic piping, rather than being uncoiled, are

spread out in a spiral pattern. Usually a fixture is used to obtain uniform coil spacing

before the coils are tied to one another to ma intain the appropriate spacing. The material

excavated is then carefully backfilled over the piping coils. It is al so possible to use the

slinky method with the coils placed vertical ly in trenches. Obtaining adequate

compaction of the backfill can be difficult fo r the vertical slinky c onfiguration. Slinky

systems have the same advantages as conve ntional horizontal systems but require less

land area and are adaptable to a wider ra nge of construction equipment. One

disadvantage to the slinky system is the addi tional time and cost associated with the

installation. Another disadvantage of a slinky system is that the lower volume of ground

involved in the heat transfer process, results in larger s easonal temperature swings and

hence lower equipment efficiencies.

GWHP systems are the oldest form of GS HPs and became popular in the mid-1970s.

These systems extract water from the ground, ex change heat with this water, and then

return the water to the ground (Figure 1d) or dispose of it at the surface (Figure 1e) where

permitted.

Another variation is the “standi ng column well” (Figure 1f). In general, systems of this

type require special geology, which has limite d them for the most part to the New

England area. During normal operation, water from the standing column well is

delivered to the heat pumps, and then returned to the same well in a closed loop. Heat is

transferred to and from the geological fo rmation surrounding the well through convection

and advection. When the temperature of the wa ter falls below a set point, a portion of the

flow is bled off and ejected to the sewer or a surface water body. Net extraction of water

from the well forces new water to flow in, thus allowing “thermal regeneration” of the

well.

GWHP systems have the lowest installed co st in most cases, especially in larger

applications. However, their use is limite d by the availability of ground water and local

area environmental regulations. For larger GW HP applications, heat exchangers isolate

heat pumps from ground water resulting in reduc ed water quality require ments. Isolating

heat pumps from ground water enables a system to be designed around a central heat

exchanger for whole building applications. Plate and frame type heat exchangers are

used, as they are not as difficult to clea n. Avoiding contact between the ground water

and the atmosphere (i.e. oxygen) is param ount to eliminating problems with GWHP

systems. Failure to use the best design pract ice of specifying an isolating heat exchanger

led to the premature failure of many early GWHP systems.

SWHP systems extract and discharge heat to surface water bodies. Heat transfer is

accomplished by circulating water through the heat pump to and from the water body

(Figure 1g). Another met hod transfers heat through “c oupling” HDPE pipes submerged

in the water body (Figure 1h). One other SW HP system, known commercially as the

“Slim Jim,” transfers heat though stainless st eel or titanium plate heat exchangers.

# 4(h) Surface water systemwith indirect coupling.(g) Surface water heat pump system.(e) Ground water heat pumpsystems with disposal at surface.(d) Ground water heat pump systemswith supply and re-injection wells.(a) Vertical ground-coupledsystemFigure 1: Various types of GSHP Configurations(c) Horizontal slinky groundcoupled system(b) Horizontal ground-coupled system(f) Standing Column WellFigures (a)-(h) provided by CRREL, except (f), (IGSHPA, 2000)(h) Surface water systemwith indirect coupling.(g) Surface water heat pump system.(e) Ground water heat pumpsystems with disposal at surface.(d) Ground water heat pump systemswith supply and re-injection wells.(a) Vertical ground-coupledsystemFigure 1: Various types of GSHP Configurations(c) Horizontal slinky groundcoupled system(b) Horizontal ground-coupled system(f) Standing Column WellFigures (a)-(h) provided by CRREL, except (f), (IGSHPA, 2000)(a) Vertical ground-coupledsystem(b) Horizontal groundcoupled system(c) Horizontal slinky ground-coupled system(d) Ground water heat pump systemswith supply and re-injection wells(e) Ground water heat pumpsystems with disposal at surface(f) Standing Column Well(g) Surface water heat pump system(h) Surfact water systemwith indirect coupling

# 5 For buildings in CONUS, cooling loads often exceed heating loads, even for cooler

climates in the Northern United States. Th e design challenge and the ideal GSHP design

strategy is to balance heating and cooling re quirements. The objective is to maintain a

stable heat level by balancing heat extracti on and rejection into the medium. In a ground

system, when either heat extraction or rej ection becomes imbalan ced the average ground

temperature will drift over years. Eventual ly the ground temperature will be outside a

useable temperature range for eith er heat rejection or heat ex traction. The result is that

the geothermal resource becomes “spoiled.” One solution is to add a conventional

cooling tower to the GSHP system, to ma ke a Hybrid GCHP system, to provide

supplemental heat rejection capacity. The addi tional heat rejection capacity enables the

heat rejection and heat extracti on to be kept in balance.

Another type of ground-source heat pump syst em is the direct e xpansion GCHP. The

direct expansion GCHP system circulates refrigerant direct ly to copper tubing buried in

the soil rather than using water or an antifre eze solution as an intermediate heat transfer

fluid. The direct expansion GCHP has the pot ential for higher efficiency than a GSHP

system using water or an antifreeze solution as an intermediate heat transfer fluid.

However, it lacks the prominent advantage of having the entire refrigerant contained in

the factory-fabricated unit like the GSHP. To date, applications of direct expansion

GCHP have been limited.

In general, determining the optimal GSHP system design will depend on a number of

factors including: geothermal (including gr ound/surface water) resource(s) available, land

availability, soil conditions, local regulations , and the type and status of the existing

HVAC system (for an existing building). As for all other HVAC systems, a GSHP

system designer weighs these factors and ot hers in matching the best HVAC system to

the application.



# 1.2 Current Status of GSHP Technology within CONUS

Table 1, reported in the World Geotherm al Congress 2005, shows the total number of

GSHP units installed and operating within C ONUS by the end of the calendar year 2004.

The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium ( GHPC) reports that by the end of 2005 there

were more than one-million GSHPs installed in the United States. The GHPC estimates

an increasing number of GSHPs installed at 20% per year. Still, this figure represents a

small percentage (less than 1%) of all HVAC units within the United States.

Two organizations focus on developing the GS HP industry in CONUS, the Geothermal

Heat Pump Consortium (GHPC) and the International Ground Source Heat Pump

Association (IGSHPA). A dditionally, there are academi c organizations supporting

GSHP technology. The Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) currently runs the GeoHeat Center (GHC) in Klamath Falls, OR. Th e University of Alabama runs the GeoCool

laboratory. The American Society of H eating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) is the principal deve loper of design guidance for the industry.

ASHRAE, through Technical Committee TC 6.8 (Geothermal Energy Utilization),

sponsors training programs as well as technical programs at their meetings that have

resulted in the vast majority of the referred technical contributions to the literature in the

GSHP field. On the Federal level, the Depa rtment of Energy’s (DoE) ORNL is the lead

# 6 laboratory for DOEs GSHP technology speci fic Super Energy Savings Performance

Contract (ESPC). The companies supporting GSHP design, installation, and maintenance

are rapidly evolving.



# 1.2.1 Software Tools Currently Available for GSHP Screening

GHPC hosts a website, www.geoexchange.org, whic h lists GSHP software. The website

identifies software used as aids in determin ing the potential feasibility of GSHP systems

using sites specific conditions.



# 1.3 Methodology

The methodology used to complete the GSHP analysis as required by Congress is based

on defining climatic regions of the country as outlined by the DoE’s climate classification

system 2 

# , which outlines CONUS into 15 zones 3 

# . Further, the methodology used to

analyze both current and potential GSHP inst allations at DoD facilities is based on data

collected on existing systems. The data on current systems provides a means to identify

potentially successful applications. The pr oject characteristics used to screen for

potentially successful GSHP applications incl ude identifying factors that contributed to

an existing GSHP system performing well a nd identifying the causes of underperforming

projects.

To determine the feasibility of using GSHP technology in regions of the country that do

not use the technology currently, computer modeling analysis was used to screen

potential at DoD facilities. For this tas k, DoD collaborated with ORNL. Using the

results of the computer modeling, the output wa s analyzed to determine the potential for

success of GSHPs applications. Section 3.3.2 discusses details of the analysis.

Chapter 4 includes the Federal requirements fo r new-construction and retrofit projects at

federal facilities from the EPAct 2005 and co rresponding DoD policy. Included in this

2 

# Additional information on the DOE’s climat e classification system can be found at

http://resourcecenter.pnl.gov/h tml/ResourceCenter/1420.html and

http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdf s/climate_paper_review_draft_rev.pdf

. 3 

# One zone representing the extreme regions of Alaska was excluded from this analysis. Table 1. Geothermal (Ground-Source) Heat Pumps as of 31 December 2004 (Lund, 2005).

Locality Ground or

Water temp.

( o 

# C) 1) 

# Typical Heat Pump

Rating or Capacity (kW) Number

of Units Type 2) 

# COP

3) 

# Heating

Equivalent Full

Load Hr/Year 4) 

# Thermal

Energy Used

(TJ/yr) Cooling

Energy

(TJ/yr)

States:

Northwest 13% V=44%

Midwest 45% H=36%

South 36% W=20%

West 8%

TOTAL 600,000 22,214 27,768

Notes:

1) Average ground temperature for ground coupled units or average well water or lake water temperature for water-source

heat pumps.

2) Type of installation: V=vertical ground coupled, H=horizontal ground coupled, W=water source (well or lake water).

3) COP = output thermal energy / input energy of compressor.

4) Equivalent full load operating hours per year. 1200 22,214 27,768 5-25 12.0 600,000 3.5



# Notes:

1. Average ground temperature for ground coupled units or average well water or lake water temperature for

water-source heat pumps.

2. Type of installation: V=vertical ground coupled, H=horiz ontal ground coupled, W=water source (well or lake

water).

3. COP = output thermal energy/input energy of compressor.

4. Equivalent full load operating hours per year. 1. 2. 3. 4.

# 7 chapter are specific issues rela ted to new construction and retrofit for three DoD facility

types. Also included is a di scussion on the feasibility of using GSHP technology to meet

these requirements.

Chapter 5 provides conclusions and recomme ndations and addresses ways that DoD can

further encourage GSHP us age at its facilities.

# 8 

# 2. Current Inventory of GSHPs at DoD Facilities within the

Continental United States

2.1 Development of Data Survey Sent to DoD Facilities

A data call was issued to relevant DoD in stallations on March 14, 2006. The data call

requested general, technical, and economic information on all GSHP projects that have

been implemented at DoD facilities. Appendix A provides the full results from the data

call.



# 2.2 Database Accuracy

Quality control methods were used to check th e accuracy of the coll ected data. Review

of the data identified out-of -range and implausible values. The appropriate point of

contact either confirmed or co rrected the suspect data. Th e database incorporates the

necessary corrections.

The ratio of the project investment cost per installed ton was calculated for projects that

reported both project investment and GSHP capacity. Figures 5a and 5b compare the

project investment cost with installed tons for commerc ial systems and residential

systems, respectively. The two graphs identify that costs increase linearly per installed

ton 4 

# . Linear regression analyses on both sets of data yield R 2 

# values close to unity, which

also support linear trends. Furthe rmore, these installation cost values are close to that of

similar systems installed in the private indus try. For 2006, regression an alyses of the data

shows a cost per ton of around $7,000 for commercial systems and around $4,600 for

residential systems.

Reported annual cost and energy savings were validated as well. Upper thresholds for

annual cost savings and ener gy savings were calculated by using ASHRAE Technical

Committee 6.8 Geothermal Energy Utilization re search that estimates GSHP full load

heating and cooling hours for various buildi ngs and climates and by assuming GSHP preretrofit equipment efficiencies. Reported values that exceeded the thresholds were

verified with the approp riate point of contact.

The reported annual cost savings are higher than the corresponding upper threshold for

84% of the projects that reported these valu es. Additionally, 58% of the reported annual

cost savings have percent di fferences greater than 50% of the threshold value. The

overall percent difference between the repor ted annual cost savings and the threshold

value is 84%. These results indicate that th e accuracy of the reported annual cost savings

values are unreliable and, therefore, thes e values were not used in the analyses.

Similarly, the reported annual energy savi ngs are higher than the corresponding upper

threshold for only 46% of the projects that re ported these values. Additionally, only 20%

of these values have a percent difference grea ter than 50% of the th reshold value. The

4 

# The cost data in Figures 5a and 5b was adjusted for inflation and location.

# 9 overall percent difference from the threshol d value is -31%. These reported annual

energy savings values are considered reas onable and were used in the analyses.



# 2.3 DoD Current GSHP Inventory and Analysis

Figure 2 shows the locations for GSHP systems in operation at DoD facilities, with

climate zones overlaid. The zones are define d by DoE Internationa l Energy Conservation

Code (IECC). GSHPs operating at DoD faciliti es primarily have been installed in the

Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-At lantic regions. A few GSHP systems have been installed

in the Northeast and Southwest, while none ha ve been installed along the west coast.

Two hundred sixty four DoD GSHP projects, both installed and pl anned, were reported

(Table 2). Approximately 21,000 GSHP units ha ve been installed to date, which equates

to approximately 52,000 tons of installed GS HP capacity. Total in stalled capacity is

likely to be higher considering that only 93% of reporting installations submitted this

figure. Table 2 displays in stalled DoD GSHP tons broken down into different building

classes using the DoD Real Prope rty Classification System (RPCS) 5 

# two-digit class. This

shows 79% of installed DoD GSHP capacity has been in Family Housing, 11% in

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (i.e. Barrack s / Bachelor Officer Quarters (BOQs) /

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQs)), 6% in Administrative / Offi ce Buildings, 2% in

Training Facilities, and the rest (~ 2%) in various ot her facilities.

The reported total annual energy savings fr om currently operational GSHP systems is

158,000 megawatt-hours. However, savings for so me GSHP projects remain unreported.

59% of all projects reported annual energy savi ngs and 55% reported annual cost savings.

The low reporting rates and inaccurate reporti ng of energy and cost savings are likely due

to the difficulty in determining actual energy and cost savings. Building energy use must

be measured before and after a GSHP is inst alled in order to accurately determine these

values. Unfortunately, energy consumption monitoring and processing can become cost

prohibitive and impracticable if not planned for prior to GSHP installation. Therefore, it

is speculated that the reported data resulted from estimations rather than from verified

measurements.

Fifty-three percent of DoD GSHP projects ar e installed by fully funded contracts (Table

2). Thirty-six percent of projects have been financed through Utility Energy Service

Contracts (UESC) and 11% through ESPC. Although making up only 47% of the total

number of projects, more GSHP capacity has been financed on UESC and ESPC

combined. Specifically, 42% of total GSHP capacity has been installed using UESC and

38% using ESPC.

Table 3 displays the average value and data range for part icular technical and economic

GSHP parameters requested in the data call. Investment cost and annual energy savings

data have been normalized by dividing thei r values with the co rresponding installed

GSHP capacity of the project. Cost effec tiveness of DoD GSHP projects is further

discussed in Chapter 3.

5 

# More information on the DoD RPCS system can be found at

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/irm/ProgramAnalysis_B udget/ToolAndMetrics/FPG/FPGQuickReference.htm

# 10 Figures 3 (a), (b), and (c) show DoD GSHP projects broken down in the different RPCS

facility classes by projects and installed GSHP capacity. As the fi gures indicate, 64% of

GSHP projects are installed and operated in family housing. The efforts being made to

privatize family housing may pose a challenge to continuing implementation of GSHP

technology within DoD.

Figure 4 shows the DoD rate of adoption of GSHP technology by tracking installed

GSHP capacity from 1988 to the present year. Figure 4 indicates that GSHP systems at

DoD facilities increased rapidly in the mid-90s and has continued to be installed with an

average yearly installation of about 5,500 tons between 1996 and 2006.

# 11Figure 2: DOD Installations withFigure 2: DOD Installations withGSHPsCurrently Installed or Planned to be InstalledCurrently Installed or Planned to be Installed(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggset. al.et. al., 2002), 2002)Fort IrwinBolling AFB, DCWNY, DCUS NOBSY, DCPaxRiver, MDChesapeake, VAVA Beach, VAOceana, VAMCB-Quantico, VAFort McNair, DCFort Dietrick, MDFort Meade, MDAPG, MDFort Eustis, VAFort Monroe, VAFort Meyer, VAFort Belvior, VAFort A.P. Hill, VAAlbany MCLBRock Island ArsenalFort RileyFort CampbellFort PolkDC/MD/VASelfridge AiNGFort BraggCamp LejeuneMCAS Cherry PointFort MonmouthFort DrumFort SillAWC CarlisleBarracksFort JacksonFort HoodFort BlissLittle Rock AFBLuke AFBUSAF AcademyPensacola NAS,NAS Whiting Field,& NA Corry StationHulburt&Eglin AFBTyndall AFBMacDill AFBOffutt AFBCannon AFBCharleston AFB& NWS CharlestonDyessAFBLaughlin AFBKings PointMerchant MarineAcademyBeaufort MCAS& Parris Island MCRDAir Force BaseNavy / Marine Corps BaseArmy BaseUSACEFort KnoxUSACEUSACELake CityAmmo PlantMcAlesterAmmo PlantUSACETooele Army DepotUSACENational GuardArmoriesNavy SupplyCorps SchoolHUMIDDRYMARINEFigure 2: DOD Installations withFigure 2: DOD Installations withGSHPsCurrently Installed or Planned to be InstalledCurrently Installed or Planned to be Installed(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggset. al.et. al., 2002), 2002)Fort IrwinBolling AFB, DCWNY, DCUS NOBSY, DCPaxRiver, MDChesapeake, VAVA Beach, VAOceana, VAMCB-Quantico, VAFort McNair, DCFort Dietrick, MDFort Meade, MDAPG, MDFort Eustis, VAFort Monroe, VAFort Meyer, VAFort Belvior, VAFort A.P. Hill, VAAlbany MCLBRock Island ArsenalFort RileyFort CampbellFort PolkDC/MD/VASelfridge AiNGFort BraggCamp LejeuneMCAS Cherry PointFort MonmouthFort DrumFort SillAWC CarlisleBarracksFort JacksonFort HoodFort BlissLittle Rock AFBLuke AFBUSAF AcademyPensacola NAS,NAS Whiting Field,& NA Corry StationHulburt&Eglin AFBTyndall AFBMacDill AFBOffutt AFBCannon AFBCharleston AFB& NWS CharlestonDyessAFBLaughlin AFBKings PointMerchant MarineAcademyBeaufort MCAS& Parris Island MCRDAir Force BaseNavy / Marine Corps BaseArmy BaseUSACEFort KnoxUSACEUSACELake CityAmmo PlantMcAlesterAmmo PlantUSACETooele Army DepotUSACENational GuardArmoriesNavy SupplyCorps SchoolHUMIDDRYMARINEAll of Alaska in Zone 7Except for the followingBoroughs in Zone 8:Bethel Northwest ArcticDellingham Southeast FairbanksFairbanks N. Star Wade HamptonNome Yukon-KoyukukNorth SlopeZone 1 includesHawaii, GuamPuerto Ricoand the Virgin IslandsTable 3(a). DOD CONUS GSHP Average and Range for Installed Project Technical DataARMY 12.2 (0.98 - 6,762)2002 (1988 - 2006) 13.0 (9.6 - 24) 3.4 (3 - 5)42 (0.001 - 2,320)1.53 (0.97 - 1.85) 329 (80 - 520) 57 (5 - 450) 409 (6 - 4,000) 3 (0 - 7)AIRFORCE 642 (7 - 1,871)2002 (1998 - 2005) 14 ( 14 - 14) 4.3 (4 - 4.5)0.04 (0.04 - 0.04)1.4 (1.4 - 1.4) 250 (250 - 250) 6 (6 - 6) n/a 1.3 (0 - 6.1)NAVY / MARINE CORPS 334 (1.1 - 3,000)2001 (1995 - 2004) 14.89 (12.1 - 18.9) 3.72 (3 - 5)102 (1.6 - 994)1.24 (0.90 - 2) 251 (176 - 500) 357 (3 - 1000) 80 (80 - 80) 1.36 (0.2 - 4)DOD WIDE139 (0.98 - 6,762) 2001 (1988 - 2006) 13.2 (9.6 - 24) 3.5 (3 - 5) 52 (0.001 - 2,320) 1.46 (0.90 - 2) 313 (80 -520) 96.5 (3 - 1,000) 404(6 - 4,000) 2.8 (0 - 7)Table 3(b). DOD CONUS GSHP Average and Range for Installed Project Economic DataARMY 0.06 (0.01 - 0.10)12.69 (9.00 - 17.81) 8,175 (712 - 20,265) 8,390 (6 - 34,898) 21.8 (14 - 50) 11.2 (5 - 86)AIRFORCE 0.06 (0.02 - 0.08)8.24 (6.81 - 14.95) 3,172 (2,539 - 4,244) N/A 20 (20 - 20) 11.8 (11.8 - 11.8)NAVY / MARINE CORPS 0.06 (0.04 - 0.09)5.48 (1.12 - 8.38) 6,286 (438 - 15,335) 1,409 (2 - 45,000) 20.6 (20 - 22) 11.39 (2 - 19.96)DOD WIDE0.06 (0.01 - 0.10) 11.78 (1.12 - 17.81) 7,718 (438 - 20,265) 2,444 (2 - 45,000) 21.6 (14 - 50) 11.3 (2 - 86)Average(Range) FrostDepth(ft)DOD BranchAverage (Range)BuildingArea(KSF)DOD BranchAverage (Range)Electric Utility Rate($/kWh)Average (Range) ThermalConductivity(BTU/hr-foot-oF)Average (Range)Bore Hole Depth(ft)Average (Range)Distance to WaterTable(ft)Average (Range)Distance toBedrock(ft)Average (Range)Calendar YearInstalledAverage (Range) CoolingEfficiency(EER)Average (Range) HeatingEfficiency(COP)Average (Range) LandArea Used for GSHP Loop(KSF)Average (Range)Reported Annual EnergySavings / Ton(kWh)Average (Range) ProjectEstimated Economic Life(yrs)Average (Range) ProjectPayback Period(yrs)Average (Range)Natural Gas Rate($/kcf)Average (Range) ProjectInvestment Cost / Ton($)Table 2. DOD CONUS GSHPs Installed Pertinent InformationTotal Reported GSHP's Operational1Total Reported Annual Savings3(#) / (installed Ton Capacity) 71 72 61 17 74 73 44 21 53 14 22 54 69 13 (kWh) App / OtherUESC ESPCARMY 1939,534 / 22,553 68.7% 12.6% 10.9% 3.3% 0.8% 1.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 77,748,424 58% 34% 8%AIRFORCE 273,934 / 9,091 86.8% 12.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not Sufficient Data to Report 50% 43% 7%NAVY / MARINE CORPS 447,679 / 20,406 88.0% 7.8% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80,546,656 32% 43% 24%TOTAL264 21,147 / 52,050 79.3% 10.8% 6.4% 1.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 158,345,080 53% 36% 11%Notes:Please note the above table is based on the data call conducted as part of this report (results located in appendix A). Note there are a number of data points not reported in the data call.1. Includes the sum of the reported installed and operating GSHPs as well as Installed GSHP Ton Capacity. Note a number of GSHP projects did not report values for these parameters. Therefore, actual GSHP installations are higher then the #'s in this table.DOD Overall % responded to the data call for GSHP installed units and installed tons was 90% and 93% respectively.3. Includes the sum of reported installed GSHP annual energy savings. Note A number of GSHP projects did not report values for these parameters. DOD Overall % responded to the data call for GSHP annual energy savings in kWh was 56%.4. Reported as the sum of the following categories reported in the data call: App / Other = Appropriated Funds and any other Federally Funded Options, UESC = Utility Energy Savings Contracts, ESPC = Energy Savings Performance Contracts (including Super ESPC's).2. The buildings in which GSHP have been installed for all of the projects reported in the datacall have been classified usingthe DOD Real-Property Classification System (RPCS) two-digit code level. The following two digits correspond to the building types: 71-Family Housing, 72-Unaccompanied Personnel Housing, 61-Administrative Buildings, 17-Training Facilities, 74-Indoor Morale Welfare, and RecreationFacilities, 73-Personnel Support and Services Facilities, 44-Covered Storage, 21-Maintenance Facilities, 53-Medical and MedicalSupport Facilities,14-Land Operational Facilities, 22-Production Facilities, 54-Dental Clinics, 69-Administrative Structures Other Than Buildings,13-Communications, Navigation Aids and Airfield Light.% Projects Per Finance Mechanism4Total # Of GSHPProjects ReportedDOD Branch% of GSHP installed Tons for Different RPCS Facility Class Buildings2



# 12

# 13 Figure 3(c): DOD % of Each RPCS Class for Currently Operating GSHP Tons Installed

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Family Housing

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

Administrative Buildings

Training Facilities

Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recration Facilities

Personnel Support and Services Facilities

Covered Storage

Maintenance Facilities

Medical and Medical Support Facilities

Land Operational Facilites

Production Facilities

Dental Clinics

Administrative Structures Other Than Buildings

Communications, Navigation Aids and Airfield Light 

# % of GSHP tons For Each RPCS Class Installed and Operating

Army Air Forrce Navy / Marine Corps Figure 3(b): DOD Currently Operating GSHP Installed Tons Capacity Broken Down by RPCS

(Logarithmic Scale)

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Family Housing

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

Administrative Buildings

Training Facilities

Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recration Fac ilities

Personnel Support and Services Fac ilities

Covered Storage

Maintenance Fac ilities

Medical and Medical Support Fac ilities

Land Operational Fac ilites

Production Fac ilities

Dental Clinics

Administrative Structures Other Than Buildings

Communications, Navigation Aids and Airfield LightDOD RPCS Class 

# GSHP Ton Capacity Installed and Operating 

# Figure 3(a): DOD GSHP Project Breakdown by RPCS Class

64

58

43

10

5

5

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Family Housing

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

Administrative Buildings

Training Facilities

Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recration Facilities

Personnel Support and Services Facilities

Covered Storage

Maintenance Facilities

Medical and Medical Support Facilities

Land Operational Facilites

Production Facilities

Dental Clinics

Administrative Structures Other Than Buildings

Communications, Navigation Aids and Airfield Light 

# # of DOD Projects

# 14 Figure 5(a): Project Cost Per Ton Installed Capacity

(Commercial Projects, Log Scale)

y = 6951.5x

R 2 

# = 0.8404

$1 $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $100,000,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 Figure 4: DOD GSHP Historical Tons Installed

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 700001988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009



# YearTons Installed / accumulated 

# P

l

a

n

n

i

n

g

/

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n



# Figure 5(b): Residential Projects, Log Scale

y = 4623x

R 2 

# = 0.895

$1 $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $100,000,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000



# Installed Tons Figure 4: GSHP Historical Tons Installed



# Figure 5(a): Project Cost (Dollars) vs. Installed Capacity (Tons)Project Cost (Dollars)Tons Installed



# Figure 5(b): Project Cost (Dollars) vs. Installed Capacity (Tons)

( Residential Pro j ects

, Lo g Scale )

Installed Capacity (Tons)

Installed Capacity (Tons)

# 15 

# 3. An Assessment of Applicabilit y and Cost Effectiveness of

GSHPs at DoD Facilities for Diff erent Climatic Regions of the

CONUS

3.1 Design Considerations that Affect Applicability and Cost Effectiveness

GSHPs can be technically feasible at most CONUS DoD installations. However, state

and local regulations, as shown in Appendix B, may restrict the use of an otherwise

feasible GSHP application. The restrictions are based on concerns such as ground water

contamination introduced from deep drilling bo re holes. ASHRAE reports that describe

related GSHP design issues are lis ted in the References section.

In determining project economic viability, life cycle cost analysis compares the capital

and operating costs of using conventional HVAC technology versus GSHP technology.

Capital cost for a conventional HVAC system is largely determined by its peak load

capacity, whereas the capital co st of a GSHP system is hi ghly dependent on other sitespecific requirements in addition to peak capac ity. One site requirement is to select the

type of heat transfer methodology. For ex ample, ground coupling can be a major portion

of the total GSHP system cost. An over-sized ground coupling will yield an

economically unattractive project. If the ground coupling is discove red to be under-sized

after construction is completed, it can be difficult to correct and will often lead to

increased operational costs and degr aded equipment performance.

HVAC load requirements, specific load dema nd of conditioned zones within the building,

and seasonal heating and cooling cycles must be determined to properly design a ground

loop. The ground loop needs to be sized to accommodate the load demand and the peak

heat transfer rate. For most CONUS locations (other than the most northern climates),

office buildings will require more heat rejection than extraction.

Design of GSHP systems require s consideration of load vari ations, peak load, building

type, building envelope cons truction, HVAC zone layout, a nd any non-space heating and

cooling requirements such as large domestic hot water lo ads and pool heating. GSHP

design calculations, such as heat transferinteraction between adjacent loops and longterm heat build-up potential, can be pe rformed using GSHP design software. Two

commonly used GSHP design software packag es are GchpCalc from Energy Information

Services Co. and GLHEPRO from IGSHPA. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

(UFGS)-15741 cites both as software to use for GSHP design.

Typically, GSHP design software requires information about the ground loop in addition

to building load data. Soil thermal propertie s, bore hole resistance, type of piping, bore

hole arrangement, and type of heat transfer fluid are required as well. Although default

values are provided for many of these paramete rs, the designer should ensure that values

chosen are representative of actual site conditions. 6 

# GSHP design software makes it

6 

# One method to ensure data accuracy is to make sample borings, which can be used to determine soil

formation type and aquifer location. Several commercia lly available sources for such testing are listed in

Appendix C.

# 16 possible to conveniently test th e sensitivity of a project to variances in design parameters

in assessing the degree of risk these uncertainties present.

Ground coupling capacity is sized according to the greater requirement for either heating

or cooling. When GSHP systems become co st prohibitive due to design adjustments

required to account for imbalanced loads, a hybrid GSHP system should be considered.

A hybrid system combines the ground coupli ng of any of the three basic GSHP types

with a supplemental heat rejecter, such as a cl osed circuit fluid cool er type-cooling tower,

or a supplemental heat source such as a boile r. The precise mix of ground loop size and

supplemental heat source or heat reject or is determined by a design analysis.

For medium and large commercial scale bu ildings, Ground Water Heat Pumps (GWHPs),

tend to have lower installation costs than Ground Coupled Heat Pumps (GCHPs).

Ground water availability and associated re gulatory issues must be considered.

Information on ground water resources suitable fo r preliminary analysis is available from

the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) ground water atlas, at:

http://capp.water.us gs.gov/gwa/gwa.html

.

Feasibility of GSHPs is highly dependent on the existence of a local GSHP commercial

infrastructure, such as, designers, installers, and suppliers. In regi ons that lack a local

infrastructure, acquiring a prope rly designed and installed GSHP system can be difficult,

which may lead to a poorly functioning or overpriced system. Using experienced GSHP

professionals from outside the local area is recommended over inexperienced local

providers, especially for comp lex or larger systems.



# 3.2 General DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment

Generalizations about the applicability of GS HPs on a regional basis are difficult to make

without numerous caveats. Each GSHP system requires detailed analysis. With a few

exceptions, geographic region is a minor factor in predicting the success of using GSHP

technology. However, GSHP project experi ences can provide some insight into

identifying successful regional applications. The general assessments provided in this

section are largely based on experi ences from the private sector.

Northeast: The Northeast has seen very limite d development of GSHP systems. For

residential scale applications such as fa mily housing, the economics are generally less

favorable than in other areas of the country mostly due to lower cooling requirements.

The economics are also hampered by the relati ve cost effectiveness of fossil fuels for

space heating as opposed to electric based GSHP technology. With high electricity rates,

the Northeast is at a comparative disadvantage for electric based technologies. However,

there has been some shift in the relative co st of electricity due to the rapid price

escalation of fossil fuels in the past few year s. Thus, residential applications may be

worthy of consideration.

In contrast, due primarily to cooling requirements, commerci al scale applications possess

more favorable economics. However, site-s pecific factors determine applicability.

Standing column well systems have the wide st application of any system type in

# 17 commercial scale applications in the North east. Vertical ground coupled systems are

often cost prohibitive due to high costs a ssociated with shallow bedrock drilling.

Horizontal ground coupled systems, when land area requirements can be met, are

generally hindered by unfavorable soil and topography conditions. As for surface water

systems, they are essentially unfeasible due to low water temperatures during the heating

season.

Mid-Atlantic States: In the Mid-Atlantic States, comme rcial scale applications have

been successful on a limited basis, but still more widespread than in the Northeast.

Residential systems have also been installed, but in smaller numbers then other areas.

Most applications in the region are vert ical ground coupled, while some commercial

applications are hybrid systems. Significant heating requirements and the lower cost of

fossil fuels have been significant impedi ments to GSHP adoption, but that may soon

change as fossil fuels prices increase.

Southeast: GSHPs have seen widespread developmen t in the Southeast. Installations

have been common in both residential and commercial applications. The majority of

installations are vertical gr ound coupled, but there have b een some surface water and

ground water systems installed as well. Commercial scale ground coupled hybrid

systems tend to be cost effective. GSHP s have found many successes in schools. GSHP

systems for schools with dispersed floor plan s may be more economical when configured

with individual units and ground coupling for each zone/room, rather than a single array

of heat exchangers that serves the entire building.

Midwest: Conditions in the Midwest are quite fa vorable for GSHP systems and resulted

in many installations made on both residentia l and commercial scales. Residential scale

systems are both vertical and horizontal gr ound coupled. Commercial scale systems are

often vertical ground coupled, but are found to be ground water based in some instances.

Some surface water systems have been a pplied specifically in commercial scale

applications where significant cooling loads ex ist. GSHPs have been found favorable in

schools.

Southwest: Development of GSHPs in the Southw est has lagged behind most of the

country. The absence of ground water in most areas not only precl udes the use of ground

water based systems but also leads to unfa vorable soil thermal properties for vertical

ground-coupled systems. However, hybrid GSHP s may be viable options in areas with

low soil thermal conductivity. The limited number of installed systems spans both

residential and commercial applications.

Northwest: The Northwest has a long history of using commercial scale ground water

based heat pump systems. Low electricity rates have allowed the technology to compete

very successfully even in the absence of significant cooling loads. Ground-coupled

systems are now increasing in popularity, but overall market pe netration is still relatively

low.

# 18 

# 3.3 Detailed DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment

Using data from existing DoD GSHP insta llations, computer m odels predicted the

feasibility of GSHP systems in different climate zones. 7 

# The feasibility of using GSHP

technology was analyzed for those climate z ones with GSHPs systems operating at DoD

installations. The analysis determined applic ability and cost effec tiveness of using GSHP

technology throughout a zone. For those z ones where GSHP technology has not been

used at DoD installations, computer base d models simulated GSHP performance to

predict the feasibility of using the technology throughout those zones.



# 3.3.1 DoD Existing, Installed GSHP Regional Analysis

The feasibility of using GSHP technology was evaluated for different regional zones of

CONUS. Table 4 identifies where GSHP systems have been installed throughout DoD

with climate zone 3A having the most installed systems. Estimates of total DoD building

square footage for each climate zone was calculated by adding all building 8 

# square

footage for each climate zone as reported in the DoD’s Base Structure Report for FY05.

The percentage of building area using GSHP technology was calculated for each zone to

determine the extent of its use. Climate z one 3A has an estimate d 5% of DoD building

square footage using GSHP systems while all other climate zones have less than 1% of

building area using systems. This low percen tage of GSHP use indi cates that there is a

great potential for DoD buildings to implement GSHP technology.

For purposes of this study, cost effectivene ss has been defined as the reported annual

energy savings (in kWh) of a pr oject divided by its total inst alled tons with an assumed

unity cost factor. A higher ra tio translates into a higher like lihood that the project will be

cost effective. Normalizing the cost factors prevents disc repancies that are introduced

from misreported and changing utility energy costs. In addition, normalizing the data

facilitates GSHP project developers to complete any required site-speci fic cost analysis to

account for actual local cost f actors. Although, as discussed previously, analysis of the

data quality indicated some of the annual repo rted cost savings to be inaccurate, the

reported annual energy savings values were determined to be accurate. Therefore, this

analysis only includes annual energy savings va lues in kWh. An important note is that

these cost effectiveness values do not take into consideration systems that have been

designed improperly. The cost effectiveness va lues can provide a basis for comparing the

cost effectiveness of applying GSHP technology in one climate zone to another. Another

value that can aid in understanding where GSHP systems have been most cost effective

for different climate zones is the project payback period.

7 

# DOE’s IECC climate classification syst em defines different climate zones.

8 

# Per the Base Structure Report, a bu ilding is classified as a roofed, fl oored, and walled enclosed structure

(of one or more levels) that is constructed over a plot of land and is suitable for any of a wide variety of

activities, such as living, offi ce and/or manufacturing spaces.

# 19 Insufficient DoD data 9 

# is available to draw conclusions regarding cost effectiveness on an

empirical basis for climate zones in the Dr y (B) category and Mari ne (C) category shown

in Figure 6. However, Figure 7 compares co st effectiveness for the humid zones of

CONUS as most DoD GSHP projects have been installed these clim ate zones 2A – 6A.

Figure 7 indicates that in the Humid (A) categor y, the most cost effective projects have

been installed in the 4A climate zone, follo wed by 3A, 2A, 5A, and 6A. The best average

project payback periods have been climate zone 3A, followed by 4A, 2A, 5A, and 6A.

One conclusion to draw is that GSHP systems have been most successful in the South,

Southeast, Midwest, and Mid- Atlantic regions of the count ry. Furthermore, from the

analyses conducted in this section, climate z ones 3A and 4A appear to be the most cost

effective climate zones, followed by 2A, 5A, and 6A.

9 

# Only 10 projects have been installed at DoD installations in the Dry (B) climate zones. Furthermore,

many of these projects have not reported complete da ta, making it difficult to compare them with climate

zones in the Humid (A) category. No GSHP systems ha ve been reported at DoD installations on the west

coast, climate zones 3C and 4C in the Marine (C) zones.Table 4(a): DOD GSHP Geographical Information Broken into different Climate ZonesClimateZone No.Number ofProjects ReportedTotal Building AreaGSHPs Service(KSF)Total Numberof GSHPunits InstalledTotal GSHPInstalledTonsAverageGSHP CoolingEfficiency(EER)Average GSHPHeatingEfficiency (COP)Total EstimatedLand Area Used forGSHP GroundLoops (KSF)AverageThermalConductivity(BTU / hr-footoF)Average BoreHole Depth ForVertical Loops (ft)Total ProjectInvestmentCost ($)Total AnnualEnergySavings(kWh)AverageProjectEstimatedEconomic Life(yrs)3A 60 17,18612,96228,55712.31 3.86 4,6691.06 233 92,278,94592,173,83820.14A 103 3,4444,15210,14313.25 3.24 3,0981.65 376 83,137,78663,205,06223.02A 26 3742,1268,27114.70 3.40 3061.24 253 9,431,7992,208,28720.93B 4 No Data 7912,71513.50 No Data 441,000No Data No Data 6,885,000No Data 20.05A 5 2761,0662,16820.83 4.00 171.30 430 9,591,351756,58321.76A 3 1044415514.80 3.53 171.05 267 238,0881,31020.04B 1 No Data No Data 40No Data No Data NoData No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data2B 1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NoData No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data5B 4 256No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2,509,345No Data No DataNotes:No Data - Indicates project(s) has been reported in the climate zone, but no data was reported for the specific category.Table 4(b): DOD GSHP Projects Geographical Information (cont'd) and Cost Effectiveness EstimatesClimateZone No.1Climate ZoneName / Type1Representative USCityDOD BldgsOwned2(KSF)DODReportedGSHPInstalled(KSF)DOD %BuildingsquareFootage usingGSHPAverage CostEffectiveness3(Annual Savings(kWh) / TonInstalled)Average ProjectPayback Period(yrs)1A Very Hot - Humid Miami, FL 78,7160 0.00% N/A N/A1B Very Hot - Dry -- 0 0.00% N/A N/A2A Hot - Humid Houston, TX 153,2523740.24% 1,304.6712.202B Hot - Dry Phoenix, AZ 22,9671 Project No Data No Data No Data3A Warm - Humid Memphis, TN 361,01317,1864.76% 4,941.338.603B Warm - Dry El Paso, TX 205,8394 Projects No Data No Data No Data3C Warm - Marine San Francisco, CA 70,0890 0.00% N/A N/A4A Mixed - Humid Baltimore, MD 377,6423,4440.91% 9,682.9012.004B Mixed - Dry Albuquerque, NM 14,3851 Project No Data No Data No Data4C Mixed - Marine Salem, OR 50,0390 0.00% N/A N/A5A Cool - Humid Chicago, IL 184,6072760.15% 511.0615.105B Cool - Dry Boise, ID 100,140250.02% No Data No Data6A Cold - Humid Burlington, VT 55,5271040.19% 16.2227.306B Cold - Dry Helena, MT 5,4880 0.00% N/A N/A7 Very Cold Duluth, MN 15,5430 0.00% N/A N/A8 Subartic Fairbanks, AK -0 0.00% N/A N/ANotes:No Data - Indicates project(s) has been reported in the climate zone, but no data was reported for the specific category.N/A - Indicates no GSHP projects reported in this climate zone, therefore, no calculation can be made.1. Climate Zone classification system as proposed by the DOE for use when analyzing energy efficiency strategies. More information located at: http://resourcecenter.pnl.gov/html/ResourceCenter/1420.html andhttp://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/climate_paper_review_draft_rev.pdf2. Data In this column calculated by using the DOD building information reported in the DOD Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year2005 Baseline and totaling the Building Square footage for each climate zone.3. Calculated for each climatezone by taking the average of all project's individual cost effectiveness (defined as the reported annual energy savings divided by tons installed GSHP system).



# 20

# 21HUMID (A)DRY (B)MARINE(C)Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD ExistingFigure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD ExistingGSHPsfor each Climate Classfor each Climate ClassClimate Zone 1A-Very Hot–HumidRepresentative City: Miami, FLTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 78,716DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 3A-Warm-HumidRepresentative City: Memphis, TNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 361,013DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 17,186Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 4,941Ave Project Payback: 8.6Climate Zone 4A-Mixed-HumidRepresentative City: Baltimore, MDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 377,642DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 3,444Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 9,683Ave Project Payback: 12.0Climate Zone 5A-Cool-HumidRepresentative City: Chicago, ILTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 184,607DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 276Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 511Ave Project Payback: 15.1Climate Zone 6A-Cold-HumidRepresentative City: Burlington, VTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 55,527DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 104Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 16Ave Project Payback: 27.3Climate Zone 7-Very ColdRepresentative City: Duluth, MNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 15,543DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 4B-Mixed – DryRepresentative City: Albuquerque, NMTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 14,385DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 4CMixed – MarineRepresentative City:Salem, ORTotal DODBuildings (KSF):50,039DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 5B-Cool – DryRepresentative City: Boise, IDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 100,140DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 25No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 6B-Cold – DryRepresentative City: Helena, MTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 5,488DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 2A-Hot – HumidRepresentative City: Houston, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 153,252DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 374Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 1,305Ave Project Payback: 12.2Climate Zone 2BHot – DryRepresentativeCity: Phoenix, AZTotal DODBuildings (KSF):22,967DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 1ProjectNo EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 3CWarm – MarineRepresentative City:San Francisco, CATotal DODBuildings (KSF):70,089DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 3B-Warm – DryRepresentative City: El Paso, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 205,839DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 4 ProjectsNo Effectiveness Data AvailableHUMID (A)DRY (B)MARINE(C)Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD ExistingFigure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD ExistingGSHPsfor each Climate Classfor each Climate ClassClimate Zone 1A-Very Hot–HumidRepresentative City: Miami, FLTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 78,716DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 3A-Warm-HumidRepresentative City: Memphis, TNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 361,013DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 17,186Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 4,941Ave Project Payback: 8.6Climate Zone 4A-Mixed-HumidRepresentative City: Baltimore, MDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 377,642DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 3,444Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 9,683Ave Project Payback: 12.0Climate Zone 5A-Cool-HumidRepresentative City: Chicago, ILTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 184,607DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 276Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 511Ave Project Payback: 15.1Climate Zone 6A-Cold-HumidRepresentative City: Burlington, VTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 55,527DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 104Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 16Ave Project Payback: 27.3Climate Zone 7-Very ColdRepresentative City: Duluth, MNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 15,543DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 4B-Mixed – DryRepresentative City: Albuquerque, NMTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 14,385DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 4CMixed – MarineRepresentative City:Salem, ORTotal DODBuildings (KSF):50,039DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 5B-Cool – DryRepresentative City: Boise, IDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 100,140DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 25No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 6B-Cold – DryRepresentative City: Helena, MTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 5,488DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data AvailableClimate Zone 2A-Hot – HumidRepresentative City: Houston, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 153,252DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 374Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 1,305Ave Project Payback: 12.2Climate Zone 2BHot – DryRepresentativeCity: Phoenix, AZTotal DODBuildings (KSF):22,967DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 1ProjectNo EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 3CWarm – MarineRepresentative City:San Francisco, CATotal DODBuildings (KSF):70,089DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No EffectivenessData AvailableClimate Zone 3B-Warm – DryRepresentative City: El Paso, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 205,839DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 4 ProjectsNo Effectiveness Data AvailableFigure 6: Geographical Summary of Existing GSHPs for each Climate Class

# 22 Figure 7(a): DoD GSHP Cost Effect iveness (kWh/TON) vs. Climate Zone

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

2A 3A 4A 5A 6ACost Effectiveness (Annual Savings (kWh) / Ton Installed)



# Climate Zone



# Figure 7(b): DoD GSHP Average Project Payback (years) vs. Climate Zone

- 5 10 15 20 25 30

2A 3A 4A 5A 6A

Climate ZoneAverage Project Payback(years)

# 23 

# 3.3.2 Modeling Simulation Analysis

In order to assess the applicability of GS HPs in climate zones where few GSHPs have

been installed at DoD installations, ORNL performed computer modeling of several

different GSHP applications. Three buildi ng types commonly found at DoD installations

were chosen for the study: a BOQ, an admini strative building, and a training facility. The

three were chosen to be repres entative of type and size that would be most eligible to use

GSHP technology.

For each building, as-built drawi ngs, site notes, and blueprin ts were used to develop a

detailed multi-zone building simulation mode l. Details about the wall construction,

window types, shading, occupancy patterns, in ternal generation, and lighting were taken

from the provided drawings or estimated base d upon the building type, size, function, and

location. The building zones we re identified from HVAC drawings, or by building floor

plans if the existing HVAC drawings proved inco mpatible with the goa ls of the project.



# 3.3.2.1 The Modeled Buildings

Building 137, located at Naval Air Station Ocean a, Virginia Beach, Virginia, consists of

office and classroom space along with aircra ft hangars. The hangar spaces are not

conditioned and were therefore not considered as part of th is study. The building is two

stories tall and the exterior construction is st eel siding over insulation and concrete block.

The roof is a built-up roof on steel decking. In terior walls are concrete block. Flooring is

vinyl and carpeted. The building has a to tal area of 42,000 square feet, of which 29,400

square feet is conditioned. The occupanc y schedule for the building is 0700 to 1700

hours during weekdays and unoccupied on week ends. The conditioned portion of the

building is subdivided into 21 zones.

Building 1150, located at Fort Polk, Louisian a, is a barracks-type building used as a

BOQ. The area of the buildi ng is 28,200 square feet. The living quarters are arranged in

pods of four bedrooms and a living space. There are six pods on each of the three floors.

In the newly renovated building, the indivi dual bedrooms and livi ng spaces are each

conditioned by individual heat pumps. To simplify the analysis, each pod was modeled

as a single zone. This simplification allowe d the building to be modeled with 18 zones.

The exterior walls are constructed with face brick covering lightweight concrete masonry

blocks and the interior walls are gypsum board covering the lightweight concrete

masonry blocks. The roof is insulated built -up roofing on a concrete deck. Because the

building includes living spaces, the occupancy is considered to be 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week. Fresh ventilation air and infiltration for this buildi ng are assumed to combine for

a constant rate of 0.5 air changes per hour.

Also located at Fort Polk, Louisiana, building 1264 is an administration building

consisting of offices and clerical spaces. The building is a single floor, 12,800 square

foot building and is occupied from 0700 to 1700 hours on weekdays. The exterior walls

are constructed of face brick on insulated conc rete masonry units, the interior walls of

gypsum board covering concrete masonry uni ts, and the roof is a built up roof on

# 24 insulated steel decking. Fresh ventilation air and infiltration for this building are assumed

to combine for a constant rate of 0.5 air changes per hour.



# 3.3.2.2 The Climates Selected

Eleven locations were chosen for the m odeling study: Boston, MA, Fresno, CA, Great

Falls, MT, Guam, Honolulu, HI, Minot, ND, Portland, ME, San Diego, CA, Santa Maria,

CA, Seattle, WA, and Tucson, AZ. These places were chosen for two reasons:

• 

# There is a significant presence of DoD installations

• 

# There have been few GSHP systems installed

In each location, a closed-loop, vertical bor e GSHP system was designed for each

building. A hybrid GSHP system -- which includ es either a secondary heat rejecter or a

boiler in addition to the ground heat excha nger array – was also designed for each

building in each location.



# 3.3.2.3 The Simulation Modeling Program

Transient Energy System Simulation Tool (T RNSYS) simulation package was used to

model and analyze GSHP applications for th e common building types and climate zones.

The TRNSYS program was designed for this type of analysis and has been used

successfully in several previous projects to study geothermal and hybrid geothermal heat

pump systems in federal faci lities. The TRNSYS program is modular in nature and

allows the user to connect components (pumps, ground heat exchangers, pipes,

controllers, etc.) together in the simulation tool in much th e same way real systems are

connected together via pipes and wires. Each of the major components of the HVAC

systems studied in this repor t (ground heat exchanger, wa ter-source heat pump, cooling

tower, and chillers) has also been valida ted against data in previous projects.

In all simulations, the buildings were controlled such that they maintained a heating setpoint of 70 o 

# F and a cooling set-point of 76 o 

# F with a 2 o 

# F dead band temperature

difference. The heating and cooling was allo wed to be on at any tim e of the year (not

scheduled as in typical two- pipe HVAC systems). Auxiliary heat was not utilized in

these buildings although it is likely that auxiliary devices would be used in extreme

heating locations such as Minot, ND.



# 3.3.2.4 The Heat Pumps Selected

The heat pumps used in this analysis we re Trane model Ground Source High Efficiency

Upflow Heat Pumps (GSU). In cooling m ode, this heat pump is rated at 19.5 energy

efficiency ratio (EER) with 68°F entering wate r temperature, 80.6°F entering air dry-bulb

temperature, and 66.2°F entering air wet-bulb te mperature. In heating mode, this heat

pump is rated at 3.8 COP with 32°F enteri ng water temperature and 68°F entering air

dry-bulb temperature. Manuf acturer’s catalog data was used as the basis for the

simulation models. The performance from a 2-ton heat pump was normalized such that

heat pumps of other sizes could quickly be simulated. Performance of the heat pump

model, as specified in the data sets, is affected by entering water temperature, water flow

# 25 rate, airflow rate, and entering air conditi ons. TRNSYS uses a multi-variable linear

interpolation scheme to estimate the off- design performance based on the normalized

catalog data points. The heat pumps were each assumed to operate at a liquid flow rate of

2.88 gallons per minute per ton and an airflow rate of 400 cubic feet per minute per ton.

The heat pumps were individually sized for each zone in each of the buildings such that

the temperature of the zone was maintained between set points at design entering water

conditions (30°F minimum ente ring fluid temperature for glycol-based heating, 40°F

minimum entering fluid temperature for water-based heating, and 95°F maximum

entering fluid temperature) during all hours of the year.

For the standard geothermal heat pump system a rather generic system was assumed, one

that is representative of many installed GSHP projects at federal facilities. There is only

one piping loop and the ground heat exchanger is not separated from the building loop by

a heat exchanger.



# 3.3.2.5 The Ground Heat Exchangers

The ground heat exchanger system is comprise d of a set of vertical, closed-loop borehole

ground heat exchangers, connected in parallel. The boreholes contain one u-tube pipe per

borehole. The u-tube piping is 1 ′′ Standard Dimension Rati o SDR-11 polyethylene pipe

with 3 inches between centers of the u-t ube legs. The boreholes are 4.5 inches in

diameter, spaced 20 feet apart and are drilled to a depth of 250 feet. The assumption is

that bores are grouted using a mixture with a thermal conductivity of 0.85 British

Thermal Units per hour-foot-degree-Fahrenhe it. For each building in each location,

sufficient bores were included to limit the ma ximum entering fluid temperature to 95°F in

cooling dominated systems, and to a mini mum of 30°F in heating dominated systems

(which use glycol in the l oop), over a 20-year design period.

The simulation uses the duct ground storage m odel (DST), developed by Lund University

in Sweden. The DST model has been tested extensively, and has been found to agree

well with monitored data from actua l ground heat exchanger installations.



# 3.3.2.6 The Soil Parameters

One of the most important factors in the desi gn of ground heat exchangers is soil thermal

conductivity. Soil conductivity depends on the composition of the soil formation, and

can vary considerably in a given area. In mo st projects, in situ tests are performed to

measure the soil conductivity at several locations on the si te. For this reason, three

different soil types were simulated in each lo cation: a heavy saturated soil with thermal

conductivity of 1.6 British Thermal Units per hour-foot-degree-Fahrenheit; a heavy damp

soil with thermal conductivity of 1.3 Br itish Thermal Units per hour-foot-degreeFahrenheit; and a damp light soil with thermal conductivity 1.0 British Thermal Units per

hour-foot-degree-Fahrenheit.

# 26 

# 3.3.2.7 Hybrid GSHP systems

For the hybrid systems, a closed-circuit cooli ng tower was chosen as the secondary heat

rejection device and a gas-fired boiler was c hosen for the secondary heat supply device.

The cooling tower is assumed to be located upstream of the ground heat exchanger in

cooling dominated locations a nd the boiler is assumed to be located downstream of the

ground heat exchanger in heating dominate d applications. For cooling dominated

locations, the boiler is valved-out of the si mulation and for heating dominated locations

the cooling tower is valved-out of the simulations.

In the hybrid systems, the ground heat exchan ger is designed to meet the peak cooling

load in heating dominant applications, and to meet the peak hea ting load in cooling

dominant applications. The fl uid is diverted to the ground heat exchanger whenever the

heat pumps are in net heating mode or wh enever the ground heat exchanger temperature

is less than the entering fluid temperature to the ground heat exchanger in cooling mode.

The cooling tower is controlled to act as a peaking device, coming on whenever the heat

pump leaving fluid temperature reaches some critical value. The tower fan and spray

pump are initiated at a leavi ng heat pump fluid temperatur e of 89°F with the tower fan

operating at half its rated speed. The to wer fan and spray pump remain on until the

leaving heat pump fluid temp erature falls below 86°F. If the heat pump leaving fluid

temperature reaches 94°F, the tower goes to full-speed fan operation until the heat pump

leaving fluid temperature falls below 91°F, at which time the fan speed is reduce to halfspeed operation.

In heating-dominated systems, a natural gas boil er is used to provide heat to the working

fluid during the heating season. The boiler is assumed to ha ve an overall efficiency of

82%. The boiler adds heat to the loop wh enever the loop temperature falls below a

specified set point. The boiler is assumed to be infinitely adjustable with no degradation

due to part-load effects, and maintains the mi nimum set point temperat ure at all times of

the year.



# 3.3.2.8 Baseline System

In order to estimate savings associated with a retrofit project, some assumptions must be

made about the baseline equipment. Experien ce has shown that most of the commercial

buildings receiving GSHP retrofits at DoD f acilities were formerly served by central

steam and hot water plants for heating, and either air- or water-cooled chillers for

cooling. Installing GSHPs permits the central plants and chillers to be decommissioned,

resulting in significant ener gy and maintenance savings. Given the popularity of this

retrofit, the baseline equipment in all build ings was assumed to be four-pipe systems

served by a central heat plant and on-site air-cooled chillers.

Representative values were used for the co st of heat pumps, boilers, pumps, and cooling

towers as well as drilling and installation of ground heat exchangers. The price of

utilities was taken from current defense util ities energy reporting system (DUERS) data

for military installations in each city. Av erage values of maintenance savings were

derived from records of retrofit projects. For the hybrid GSHP systems, maintenance

# 27 savings were reduced by 50% to account fo r the increased maintenance required for the

boiler or cooling tower.



# 3.3.2.9 Results

Table 5 presents the simple payback of the GSHP and hybrid GSHP systems for each of

the three buildings, in each c ity, and for each of the soil types. The simple payback is

calculated as the first cost of the GSHP system divi ded by the annual energy and

maintenance cost savings real ized by the GSHP retrofit.

For the most part, the results accord with expe rience. First, it is clear that many of the

cities selected are not ideal for vertical bore GSHPs, and it is for this reason that few

vertical bore GSHP systems have been in stalled in DoD facilities in these locations.

Fresno, San Diego, Santa Maria, and Seattl e have relatively light space conditioning

loads, and the shorter run times of the heat pumps reduce the annual savings, leading to

longer paybacks. Since Honolulu and Guam ha ve essentially no hea ting loads, a large

number of ground heat exchange rs are required to limit the fluid temperature to 95°F over

a 20-year period. This increases the system cost and the payback period. Minot has large

heating loads and rather light cooling loads, so a large number of ground heat exchangers

are required to keep the minimum fluid temp erature above 40°F over a 20-year period.

This results in high system costs and long payba cks. In addition, as expected, the higher

the thermal conductivity, the shorter the payb ack, because soil formations with high

thermal conductivity require fewer bores, which lowers the first cost.

What these results show most clearly is th at hybrid GSHP systems can be economically

feasible in locations where vertical bore GS HP systems are not. On the other hand, in

locations with more balanced heating and cooling loads, hybrid systems offer smaller

advantages and may have even longer paybacks.

Of course, these numbers are representative only, and are meant for comparison. The

costs and benefits of actual GSHP systems in all of these climates may be quite different

because of the particulars of the application, utility rates, soil parameters, local drilling

conditions, and the cost of labor in the local economy. It should also be recognized that

these results apply to vertical bore GSHP sy stems only. Depending on the availability of

resources, other GSHP system types — open loop and standing column wells, for

example — may be economical in locations wh ere vertical bore GSHP systems are not.

# 28 Table 5(a): Bldg 137 (classroom): Simple payback (years) of vertical bore GSHP

and hybrid GSHP systems in various cities, and with various soil types

Vertical bore GS HP Hybrid GSHP

Soil type Soil type

City Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light

Boston, MA 11 15 19 12 16 19

Fresno, CA 20 > 25 > 25 12 14 16

Great Falls, MT 13 20 > 25 10 11 13

Honolulu, HI > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25

Minot, ND 22 > 25 > 25 11 13 14

Portland, ME 6 9 13 5 7 8

San Diego, CA > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25

Santa Maria, CA > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25

Seattle, WA 17 23 > 25 19 23 21

Tucson, AZ > 25 > 25 > 25 12 14 16



# Table 5(b): Bldg 1264 (admin): Simple payb ack (years) of vertical bore GSHP and

hybrid GSHP systems in various cities, and with various soil types

Vertical bore GS HP Hybrid GSHP

Soil type Soil type

City Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light

Boston, MA 12 19 > 25 12 16 19

Fresno, CA 11 15 19 12 15 18

Great Falls, MT 13 22 > 25 6 7 8

Honolulu, HI > 25 > 25 > 25 17 17 17

Minot, ND 24 > 25 > 25 7 8 9

Portland, ME 7 11 16 4 4 5

San Diego, CA > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25

Santa Maria, CA 12 16 23 13 16 19

Seattle, WA 11 17 > 25 8 10 11

Tucson, AZ 12 18 > 25 8 10 12



# Table 5(c): Bldg 1150 (barracks): Simple p ayback (years) of v ertical bore GSHP

and hybrid GSHP systems in various cities, and with various soil types

Vertical bore GS HP Hybrid GSHP

Soil type Soil type

City Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light

Boston, MA 14 22 > 25 11 14 16

Fresno, CA 11 17 23 9 11 13

Great Falls, MT 16 25 > 25 5 6 6

Honolulu, HI > 25 > 25 > 25 24 24 24

Minot, ND > 25 > 25 > 25 6 7 7

Portland, ME 8 13 18 3 4 4

San Diego, CA > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25 > 25

Santa Maria, CA 14 22 > 25 14 17 20

Seattle, WA 11 17 > 25 8 10 11

Tucson, AZ 12 18 > 25 8 10 12

# 29 

# 3.3.2.10 Additional Cities Modeled for Building 137

Of the three buildings simulated, Building 137 appears economically feasible in the

fewest locations, for all three soil types. To show how the economics of GSHP systems

change in locations that have already proven to be economically feasible, this building

was simulated in three additional cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Louisville, Kentucky; and

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. A significant numbers of GSHP systems have been installed

at DoD facilities in the climate regions these cities represent.

The results are presented in Table 5(d). Vertical bore GSHP systems for Building 137

have much shorter paybacks in these three cities than in the eleven cities shown in Tables

5(a)-(c). The balanced annua l heating and cooling loads in these locations reduce the

required heat exchanger lengths, which lowers the installation cost of the system. Note

also that for this building in Baltimore and L ouisville, a hybrid GSHP system offers little

advantage over a conventional vertical bore GSHP system. Because of the balanced

loads, the reduction in drilling cost is less than the additional cost of the cooling tower or

boiler and the required maintenance.

Table 5(d): Simple payback (years) for Building 137 of vertical bore GSHP and

hybrid GSHP systems with various soil types in three additional cities.

Vertical bore GS HP Hybrid GSHP

Soil type Soil type

City Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light Heavy sat Damp heavy Damp light

Baltimore, MD 6 8 10 7 8 10

Louisville, KY 8 11 15 9 11 13

Oklahoma City, OK 9 12 16 7 8 10



# 3.3.2.11 Retrofit vs. New Construction

In Tables 5(a) – (d), the simple payback is calculated by dividing th e installation cost of

the GSHP or hybrid system by the annual ener gy and maintenance cost savings. In new

construction, or when the existing equipment is near the end of its useful life and the

choices are replacement with other conventi onal equipment or installing ground source

heat pumps, only the cost difference between the GSHP system and the conventional

equipment must be considered. While this diffe rence will always be less than the cost of

the GSHP system itself, energy and maintena nce cost savings will also be lower when

comparing GSHPs with new conventional equi pment. The results are highly dependent

on the conventional alternative considered.

# 30 

# 4. Applicability of GSHPs in New Construction and

Retrofitting for DoD Facilities

DoD owns and manages more than fifty percen t of all federal buildings in CONUS, with

283,547 buildings currently in operation. 10 

# This significant number of buildings

represents an excellent opportunity for DoD to assume an active leadership role in energy

conservation and reduction by incorporating sustainable design practices, including

GSHP technology, into existing buildings as well as any new construction.



# 4.1 Federal and DoD Requirements for New Construction and Retrofit

Projects

Section 109 of EPAct 2005 entitled “Federal Bu ilding Performance Standards” identifies

requirements for all new Federal buildings to be designed at a le vel 30% below ASHRAE

90.1-2004 energy efficiency standards or Intern ational Energy Code if life cycle cost

effective, and to apply sustainable design pr inciples in all new federal buildings. The

following delineates some of the actions taken by DoD that will affect new construction

and retrofit energy projects.

• The Air Force is revising the Air For ce Policy Directive on Energy Management

that implements requirements of Do D Instruction 4170.11 “Installation Energy

Management.”

• The Army issued the Army Energy Strate gy for Installations in July 2005. In

December 2005, the Office of the Assist ant Secretary of the Army (OASA)

mandated by memorandum the immediate im plementation of various no-cost,

low-cost energy conservation measures. The Army issued the Army Energy and

Water Campaign Plan for In stallations in August 2006.

• The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) issued by memorandum in August

2006 a new policy that includes all new and all replacement buildings to at least

meet LEED-silver rating 11 

# in addition to meeting th e requirements of EPAct 2005.

• DoD and several Federal agencies si gned a Memorandum of Understanding as

part of the Whole Building Design Guide 12 

# (WBDG) for new building design.

WBDG is a building design approach aimed at creating efficient, highperformance buildings through integrat ed design. One of the main design

objectives of the WBDG is to incorporat e a sustainable design to include the

optimization of energy use.

10 

# Reported in the DoD Base Structure Report for FY05, reference shown at end of report. The DOE’s

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website indi cates the Federal Government as a whole oversees

about 500,000 buildings: http://www.eere.en ergy.gov/femp/technologies/sustainable.cfm

11 

# The United States Green Building Council’s (USG BCs) Leadership in Energy and Efficiency Design

(LEED). More information on the USGBC and LEED levels can be found at http://www.leedbuilding.org/

. 12 

# The WBDG is available for review at www.wbdg.org.

# 31 

# 4.2 GSHP Applicability for New Co nstruction and Retrofit Projects

Recent research comparing GSHP systems with conventional systems indicates that well

designed GSHP systems can be life cycle co st competitive with traditional systems in

certain regions of the country. As shown in Appendix A, 138 out of the 264 existing

GSHP projects currently operating at DoD facilities have positive annual energy savings,

operations and maintenance savings, and ove rall reduced energy c onsumption. For the

remaining GSHP projects, data related to sa vings was not reported. Despite that data

verification methodologies indicate that some of the reported savings are inflated, none of

the projects evaluated for this study were re ported as having costs exceeding savings.

GSHP technology has been successful at a variety of DoD buildings, in both new

construction and retrofit scenarios, and in many different locations throughout CONUS.

Best design guidance for GSHP retrofits is to maximize the reuse of components of the

existing system, which can reduce initial cost. GSHP retrofitting can be a cost effective

alternative 13 

# when considering a replacement for an existing traditional HVAC system

that is operating near the end of the equi pment life cycle. A Hybrid GSHP system 14



# offers a unique opportunity for a retrofit project to be sized optimally. GSHP

technologies offer a viable life cycle co st effective option for achieving EPAct 2005

requirements while incorporating sustainable de sign principles. DoD can increase the use

of GSHP technology by ensuring DoD offices responsible for construction of new

facilities and heating an d cooling system retrofit projec ts take advantage of opportunities

to incorporate sustainable design.



# 4.2.1 Family Housing

Since GSHP technology is a viable heating and cooling option for existing and new

construction family housing, DoD has installed as much as 79% of its total installed

capacity at family housing. GSHP experts suggest that existing systems are often

relatively easy to retrofit, which is consistent with data showing that most DoD systems

have been retrofits. Although land area available for ground c oupling is a primary factor

in considering GSHP technology for new c onstruction of family housing, other sitespecific factors affect project ec onomics as discussed previously. 15 

# In addition to land

area, retrofit applications in family h ousing often must address issues such as:

• Capacity of the electrical system to accommodate increased load

• Access for pipes to be routed from th e ground-coupling to the building interior

and providing freeze protection to these pipes

• Difficulty related to using desuperheaters 16 

# for domestic hot water heating where

HVAC and domestic hot water hea ting equipment are not collocated

13 

# Cost effective in this context considers an evaluation based on the GSHP system having marginal cost

premium over a traditional system replacement in-kind.

14 

# Hybrid GSHP systems are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.

15 

# Section 3.1 identifies factors fo r consideration for GSHP systems.

16 

# A de-superheater is defined as an energy saving device in a heat pump that recycles heat from a building

to heat domestic hot water. This is mainly ach ieved during the cooling season when excess heat is

available, but can also be achieved in the heating season to heat some or all of th e heat needed for domestic

hot water.

# 32 • Difficulty related to installing new ductw ork as usually required in buildings

using electric baseboard heat, hydronic baseboard heat, or no existing HVAC

• Difficulty related to increasing existi ng ductwork size as usually required in

buildings equipped with forced ai r heating but no cooling system

DoD is awarding contracts, which provide ope rations, maintenance, and renovation of its

family housing, an effort known as housing pr ivatization. Although pr ivatized houses are

contractor maintained and operated, DoD ha s an interest in us ing energy efficient

facilities. A possible solution is for DoD to require the privatized housing contractors to

incorporate and implement the best available life cycle cost effectiv e technologies for all

renovation and new construction of DoD family housing.



# 4.2.2 Administration and Office Bu ildings and Unaccompanied Personnel

Housing

GHSP systems, when properly designed for co mmercial scale buildings, offer equal or

superior comfort compared to conventiona l HVAC systems with reduced operations and

maintenance costs. Commercial scale bu ildings include the following categories:

administrative, office, and unaccompanied pe rsonnel housing. DoD data shows that 17%

of the total installed GSHP capacity is us ed at commercial scale buildings. When

choosing a GSHP system over a conventional HVAC system, th e return-on-investment of

a commercial scale application is typically more favorable than that of a residential scale

application, given the same conditi ons. Further, the cost savings 17 

# from using a GSHP

system in-lieu of a more complex conventiona l HVAC system is often much greater than

the savings from a residential application. The reduction in operations and maintenance

costs contributes to the lower life cycle cost of a GSHP system and helps to offset its

higher initial expense.

There are no impediments to installing GS HP systems in new construction of DoD

commercial scale buildings as long as adequate land area is available. In general, the

economics will be more favorable than for family housing unit installations, but the

viability of a project is specific to th e site and the usage of the building.

For retrofit applications of commercial sc ale DoD buildings, available land area and

economic issues should be considere d. Other potential issues include:

• Adequate sizing of the electrical system where fossil fuel heating equipment is

being replaced;

• Potential modification of ventilation air sy stems due to the inability of the water

to air heat pump to heat large quantiti es of cold outdoor air to acceptable air

temperatures;

• Adequate sizing of ductwork where units th at have been equipped with fossil fuel

fired forced air heating but not air-conditioning since GSHP systems use lower

output temperatures requiri ng higher air flow rates to match the heating of fossil

fuel fired furnaces

17 

# Cost savings are from simplified operations and maintenance of a GSHP system.

# 33 • Use of water-to-water heat pumps for radian t floor heating systems. They may be

used, but they do not produce high enough temperatures for baseboard hot water

heating or fan coil units originally si zed for the typical 160-180 °F hot water

supply;

• Buildings currently supplied heating and/or cooling fr om a centralized plant may

experience many of the same issues as build ings with fossil fuel fired equipment.

However, the ability to distribute heati ng/cooling equipment into the conditioned

zones, which results in litt le or no requirement for mechanical room space, is an

advantage of GSHP retrofits that other decentralization options may not possess;

and

• The misconception that a single large GSHP system is more efficient than several

smaller ones. Considering that smaller GS HP units often have higher efficiencies

and that air distribution from a single source results in increased fan power

consumption and frictional losses, locati ng the heat pump units out in the zones

may be more favorable. However, this will often require a complete renovation

of the ductwork system even where it otherwise may have been adequate.



# 4.2.3 Shops, Hangars, and Warehouses

Shops, hangers, and warehouses are seldom goo d candidates for GSHP systems. These

industrial buildings rarely ha ve any air-conditioning equipmen t installed, which results in

an uneven heating and cooling lo ad profile. This results in the requirement for very large

and expensive GSHP systems for all but gr ound water heat pump systems assuming that

adequate water resources are available. Additionally, the typical means of heat delivery

in such buildings - fuel fired overhead infrared or unit air heaters, or steam or hot water

unit heaters - do not lend themselves to GSHP retrofits. These types of buildings often

require very fast recovery from heavy load s, such as the opening of large doors, and

providing such capacity using heat pump based systems is often prohibitively expensive.

The exception where GSHP systems may be feasib le is in industrial settings with radiant

slab heating. In this case, for either new or retrofit applications , water-to-water heat

pumps are worthy of closer evaluation. Radiant slab heating systems offer two

advantages over the other types of heating systems mentioned above that make them

suitable for use with GSHP: They operate at very low supply water temperatures of

typically about 100 °F or lower and the therma l mass of the slab provides for very quick

recovery when doors have been opened. In addition, radiant floor heating systems offer

ideal heat delivery for shops, hangers, and warehouses, providing superior comfort to

occupants while reducing thermal stratifica tion in the building and hence reduce heat

losses.



# 4.3 Utilizing Hybrid System Design in New Construction and Retrofit

Projects

Hybrid systems can be another option to consid er, especially for retr ofit projects where

an older existing system can be retrofitted and combined w ith a GSHP system. Hybrid

systems often involve coupling a ground heat ex changer with an auxi liary heat rejecter,

such as a cooling tower. A lternatively, the ground heat exch anger can be coupled with a

supplemental boiler. “A Capitol Cost Comparison of Commerc ial Ground-Source Heat

# 34 Pump Systems” by Rafferty indi cates that reductions in the capital cost of commercial

GSHP systems by 20-80% can be achieved by incorporating hybrid or groundwater

system designs. Additionally, the results fr om the computer modeling of DoD buildings

indicate that a number of systems that are not economically viable projects when

modeled with vertical-bore GSHP systems become economically viable when the

systems are hybridized. These results indi cate that hybrid GSHP systems may have

better applicability for DoD facilities in CONUS regions where non-hybrid GSHP

systems are not cost effective. DoD personne l are encouraged to consider hybrid GSHP

system in these regions for new-construction and especially for retrofit projects. The

Federal Energy Management Program (F EMP) report, “Assessment of Hybrid

Geothermal Heat Pump Systems,” is a re source for more information on hybrid GSHP

systems.



# 4.4 Additional Resources Available for Considering GSHP Systems for

New Construction and Retrofit Projects

DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) FEMP website provides

information on new construction and retrofitti ng opportunities for fede ral facilities from

• http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp /program/newconstruction.html

DoD personnel interested in evaluating GSHP potential for their f acility can use the

following document provided by FEMP:

• http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ femp/pdfs/ghp_screening_21oct03.pdf

Additional technical information on retrofit guidelines for retrofitting GSHP systems in

existing facilities is availabl e in “Guide to Geothermal Heat Pump Applications in

Federal Facilities” from ORNL. The inform ation includes retrofit guidelines for multiple

dwelling units such as barracks, officer/visitor quarters, military hospitals, schools, and

offices. This document is still in press. For a copy of this report, the reader is

encouraged to contact the author listed in the reference section.

Typically, projects with larg er capital costs and longer pa yback periods are combined

with shorter payback energy conservation measures through alternative financing

mechanisms like ESPCs or UESCs. The majo rity of GSHP systems within DoD have

been financed through either an ESPC or UE SC. DoD personnel interested in evaluating

GSHP technology potential thr ough alternative financing mech anisms are encouraged to

visit the following sites:

FEMP GSHP Technology-Specific Super ESPC:

www.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/espc/technologies.html

FEMP GSHP Resources:

www.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing /espc/ghpresources.html

FEMP GSHP Core Team:

www.ornl.gov/femp

For more information regarding UESC Contracting:

www.eren.doe.gov/femp/utility.html

# 35 Additionally, Appendix D.1.1 incl udes a section on financin g as related to lessons

learned from past DoD projects and incl udes a discussion on a lternative financing

methods.

The following DoD points of contact have b een provided for each service for further

inquiry of GSHP systems:

• Army: Mr. Don C. Juhasz, Chief Army Utilities and Energy Team, Office of the

Assistant Chief of Staff for Installa tion Management, (703) 601-0374, DSN: 329-

0374, email: don.juhasz@us.army.mil

• Air Force: Mr. Gera ld Doddington, AFCESA, Gerald.Doddington@tyndall.af.mil

• Navy / Marine Corps: Mr. Bryan Long, Na val Facilities Engineering Service

Center, Energy Engineering Bran ch OP22, (805) 982-5177, DSN: 551-5177,

email: Bryan.p.long@navy.mil ; or

• Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort , Attn. Mr. Neil Tisdale,

PO Box 55019, Beaufort, SC 29904-5019, email: belton.tisdale@usmc.mil

# 36 

# 5. Conclusions and Recommenda tions for Facilitating an

Increased use of GSHPs at DoD Facilities

This chapter summarizes the findings of th is report, including recommendations for

further GSHP implementation at DoD facilitie s. Appendix D includes information from

lessons learned associated w ith DoD GSHP past projects.



# 5.1 Conclusions

The most common application of GHSP in DoD has been in family housing units in the

eastern half of the United States where GSHP technology has been most cost effective.

GSHP can be a cost effective alternative in ne w construction and retrofitting of facilities.

However, several site-specific parameters must be considered. In order to increase the

usage of GSHP in DoD this report reco mmends some strategies DoD can undertake.

This report was conducted to fulfill the re quirements of Section 2825 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Y ear 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and the Joint

Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 2863 , Department of Defense Appropriations

Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148). As required, this report identifie s the most common

applications of GSHP in the Department; provi des an assessment of applicability and cost

effectiveness of the use of GSHP in various geographic re gions of the U.S.; provides a

description of the rela tive applicability of GSHP system s as related to new construction

or retrofitting of DoD faci lities; and provides recomme ndations to encourage the

increased use of GSHP in DoD.

Section 2825 (b)(1) required a description of the types of DoD facilities where GSHPs

have been used. A data call conducted to fu lfill the requirements of this report indicates

that GSHP systems have been installed in the following DoD buildings in percent

installed capacity: family housing (79%), unaccompanied personnel housing (11%),

administrative / office buildings (6%), traini ng facilities (2%), and various other building

types (2%).

Section 2825 (b)(2) of NDAA06 required an assessment of the applicability and cost

effectiveness of the use of GSHP systems at DoD facilities in different geographic

regions of CONUS. Chapter 3 discussed th e applicability and cost effectiveness by

climate zones of CONUS. The analyses of DoD data identified that the most cost

effective regions are in the South, Southeas t, Midwest, and Mid- Atlantic. To date,

neither the GSHP industry nor DoD facilities have widely used GSHP systems in the

other regions of the country. Computer m odeling conducted for thr ee representative DoD

buildings indicated that vertical- bore GSHP systems when hybridized 18 

# with

conventional HVAC equipment were cost effect ive in the Northeast, Southwest, Western

Mountain, Northwest, and West Coast regi ons of the CONUS. However, modeling

shows that vertical-bore GSHP systems alone ar e not cost effective, in general, within

these regions with the caveat that other specific site c onditions could yield favorable

18 

# The term “hybridized” refers to installing a GS HP system coupled with traditional HVAC equipment

such as a cooling tower or a boiler.

# 37 economics. Some anomalies that may influen ce favorable economics at sites within these

regions may be uniquely high utility charges or economic incentives such as rebates.

Further analysis, such as detailed modeling, is needed to identify specific opportunities in

those areas of the continental United States.

Section 2825 (b)(3) of NDAA06 required a desc ription of the relative applicability of

GSHP systems as related to new-construction a nd retrofitting of DoD facilities. Chapter

4 discussed this applicab ility. Chapter 4 discusse d the new federal and DoD

requirements as per EPAct 2005 and subsequent service policies for new-construction

and retrofit projects at Federa l facilities. These new require ments include a ggressive new

standards for incorporating sustainable design practices into all federal new construction

and retrofit projects as long as they are life cycle cost e ffective options. GSHP systems

are an option to be considered, as they can be energy efficient systems when designed

and installed properly, for federal faculties in achieving these new standards especially in

regions of the country where the technology ha s been proven to be cost effective: the

South, Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlan tic regions of CONUS. Chapter 4 also

discussed site-specific issues related to ne w construction and retrofit scenarios for major

DoD building categories. Some specific pa rameters that heavily affect the cost

effectiveness of using GSHP technology for f acilities under new construction or retrofit

are:

• Climate and soil thermal properties;

• The GSHP technology type to be used;

• Size of system(s);

• Building characteristics and infrastructure;

• Feasibility of using GSHP hybrid design; and

• The cost and efficiency of the new or existing conventional HVAC

equipment compared to a GSHP system

Decisions should be made with these site-specific parameters in mind on a life cycle cost

basis to ensure the most life cycle cost effective and energy efficient technology is

chosen.

Appendix D contains a summary of the va st number of lessons learned from DoD

GSHP projects. GSHP can be a cost eff ective alternative in new construction and

retrofitting of facilities. Lessons learned include:

• Correct GSHP system design and inst allation is paramount to ensuring

system performance and energy savings are achieved;

• Experienced designers and installers are critical to ensuring GSHP

systems are designed and installed properly;

• Great care must be shown when pla nning GSHP system layout to ensure

ground heat exchanger bore fields do not interfere with each other or

future changes in the mission of the base;

• Education of GSHP system operation for maintenance staff and building

tenants is critical to ensure that sy stems continue to operate properly; and

# 38 • Hybridizing GSHP systems can solve system underperformance issues

and, in some instances, may be the most cost effective design option.



# 5.2 Recommendations for Facilitating and Encouraging the Increased Use

of Ground-Source Heat Pumps at DoD facilities

1. Train select personnel who will act as the advocate for GSHP within each service

. Utilize training opportunities provided by IGSH PA or others to train select personnel

within each service. These personnel will educate others and advocate GSHP use in

cases, which are life cycle cost effective. Th e Department will encourage the Services to

initially choose personnel from the respective engineering centers and provide training as

part of the normal professional development process. Training may expand to facility

managers in regional areas where GSHP are considered viable.

2. Design assistance . DoE’s ORNL is considered a federal government center of

expertise for GSHP. Service advocates w ill be familiar with product and services

available through ORNL and will serve as a facilitator between the requirements

generators and ORNL to obtain any needed services. ORNL will work initially on a

reimbursable basis. DoD will work with DoE FEMP to provide specified general

services using DoE funding in the future.

3. Specifications . The Department will review DoD Unified Facilities Guide

Specifications covering GSHP systems will be reviewed for consistency, applicability,

etc. and updated as needed.

4. Design manual . DoD will encourage the industry and ASHRAE to update the GSHP

design manual. While the existing ASHRAE manual (ASHRAE, 1997) is still pertinent,

it is nearly 10 years old and in an evolvi ng field such as GSHP an updated design manual

is prudent. DoD will ask ORNL to assist as needed.

5. Soil thermal properties database . ORNL has begun an effort to collect a database of

soil thermal properties. DoD will work with ORNL to populate and publicly deploy this

database. The database coul d store data for future use at the collection location, for

extrapolation to similar locations, and for study purposes as.

6. Continue DoD screening feasibility analyses . Screening results from this report have

identified regions where GSHP technology can po tentially be life cycle cost effective.

These analyses will be continued for more site-specific DoD installations. DoD

advocates will continue this work in co llaboration with ORNL, using established

computer modeling capability.

# 39 7. Studies of long term performance of existing DoD GSHP installations . The Services

will be encouraged to budget for and execute long-term performance studies at select

existing GSHP installations. Although many GS HP projects have been constructed, aside

from a project at Fort Polk, no detailed studies have been conducted. GSHP system

degradation due to potential heat build-up will be a central theme of focus, since some of

the earlier DoD GSHP installations ar e nearing or past their design life.

# 40 

# References

ASHRAE, (1997), “Ground source heat pum ps—design of geothermal systems for

commercial and institutional buildings”, American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning E ngineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta, Ga.

ASHRAE. (2003). ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications , Chapter 32. American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, a nd Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),

Atlanta, Ga.

Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2005 Base line, Office of the Deputy under Secretary

Department of Defense (Insta llations and Environment).

Briggs, et. al ., (March 26, 2002), “Climate Classifica tion for Building Energy Codes and

Standards,” Technical Paper Final Revi ew Draft, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory.

Dienna J. P., (May 22 2006), “The Road to 30%----A Triple “E” Solution.”

Federal Energy Management Program, (July 2001), “How to Buy an Energy-Efficient

Ground-Source Heat Pump,

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/procu rement/eep_groundsource_heatpumps.cf

m or pdf version:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp /pdfs/groundsource_heatpumps.pdf

.

Federal Energy Management Program, (December 2001), “Assessment of Hybrid

Geothermal Heat Pump Systems,” Tec hnology Installation Review, Available on

the internet at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/hyhgp_tir.pdf

.

Garg, Suresh C. (1997), Ground-Coupled H eat Pumps Procurement Guidelines, Special

Publication SP-2026-E&U, Naval Facilitie s Engineering Service Center, 1100

23 rd 

# Avenue, Port Hueneme, CA, 93043.

Heinonen, E.W., Tapscott, R.E., Wildin, M.W., and Beall, A.N. (1997), Assessment of

Antifreeze Solutions for Ground-Source H eat Pump Systems, Report 908RP,

American Society of Heating, Refrig erating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE), Atlanta, GA.

International Ground Source Heat Pump As sociation (IGSHPA), (2000), Certified

GeoExchange Designer (C GD), Training Material.

Kavanaugh, S.P. (1997), Analysis and De velopment of a Design Method for Hybrid

Geothermal Heat Pumps, Final report, Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium,

Washington, DC “http://www.ghpc.org”

# 41 Lund J.W. et. al. , (April 24-29 2005), “The United Stat es of America Country Update,”

Proceedings World Geothermal Congress.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2000), “Geo thermal Heat Pumps in K-12 Schools,

Chapter 7 Total Life Cycle Costs”, OR NL/TM2000/80, available on the internet

at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/fem p/pdfs/ghpsinschools.pdf

.

Phetteplace, G., Ueda, H., and D. Carbee. (1992), Performance of Ground-Coupled Heat

Pumps in Military Family Housing Units, Solar Engineering , Editors: W. Stine, J.

Kreider, and K. Watanabe, Book N o. G0656A-1991, American Society of

Mechanical Engineers

Phetteplace, G. (1995), Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps for Family Housing Units, User

Guide, Facilities Engineering Appli cations Program, FEAP-UG-CRREL-95/01,

US Army Center for Public Works, Alexandria, VA.

Phetteplace G., Kapp Monaghan, S., and S. Garg. (1996), Performance of GroundCoupled Heat Pumps at the Patuxent River NAS – Lessons Learned and

Procurement Guidance, Site Specific Report SSR-2268-E&U, Naval Facilities

Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.

Phetteplace G. and S. Kavanaugh. (1998), Design Issues for Commercial-Scale GroundSource Heat Pump Systems, US Army Corps of Engi neers Heartland Technology

Transfer Conference, Electrical/Mechanical, June 1998, Kansas City MO.

Phetteplace, G. (1999), Heating and Cooli ng Buildings with Geothermal Heat Pump

Systems, DoD Commanders Conferen ce, 3-5 August 1999, Arlington, VA.

Phetteplace, G. (2002), Ground-source heat pumps. In: Renewable energy: trends and

prospects . (S.K. Majumdar, E.W. Miller, and A.I. Panah, Eds.). Pennsylvania

Academy of Science, Chapter 14, p. 231-244. ISBN 0-945809-17-4

Sanner, B., G. Phetteplace and G. Hellström , (October 1999), “Introduction to Computer

Models for Geothermal Heat Pumps” Paper presented at the International

Geothermal Days, 12-16 October 1999, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Shonder, J. and P. Hughes. (1997), El ectrical Energy and De mand Savings from a

Geothermal Heat Pump Energy Saving Pe rformance Contract at Fort Polk,

Louisiana, Proceeding of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), June 1997 meeting, Boston, MA, paper

BN-97-11-3..

Shonder J., et. al. , (In Press), “Guide to Geothermal Heat Pump Applications in Federal

Facilities,” To obtain a c opy, email at shonderja@ornl.gov

.

# 42 Spilker, Elliott H. (1998), Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Loop Design Using Thermal

Conductivity Testing and the Effect of Diffe rent Backfill Materials on Vertical

Bore Length, Proceeding of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Ja nuary 1998 meeting, San Francisco

CA, paper SF98-1-3.

Sullivan, W. (1997), Monitored Performance of Residential Geothermal Heat Pumps in

Central Texas and Southern Michig an, Sandia Report SAND97-2791, Sandia

National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.

Turpin J., (March 1, 2006), “A Clear view of the Future,” Engineered Systems Magazine,

http://www.esmagazine.com/CDA/Archives/fc4be5d1ab6a9010VgnVCM100000f

932a8c0

.

Rafferty K., (March 1994), “A Capital Cost Comparison of Comm ercial Ground-Source

Heat Pump Systems”, as reported in the March 1994 issue of the Quarterly

Bulletin (Vol. 15, No. 3), Geo-Heat Cent er, Oregon Institute of Technology.

Rafferty, K., (February 2001), “An Information Survival Kit for the Prospective

Geothermal Heat Pump Owner” Geo- Heat Center, Oregon Institute of

Technology www.geoheat.oit.edu

.

# APPENDIX A: DoD Ground Source Heat Pump Database for Continental United States

as Reported Summer 2006

APPENDIX A1 – US Army Operational Projects

APPENDIX A2 – US Army Planned Projects

APPENDIX A3 – US Air Force Operational Projects

APPENDIX A4 – US Air Force Planned Projects

APPENDIX A5 – US Navy/Marine Corps Operational Projects

APPENDIX A6 – US Navy/Mari ne Corps Planned ProjectsAPPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitArmy Fort Irwin Barstow CA No Data Family Housing 71 New FHU Mr. Frank Talampas, (760) 380-3429, francisco.talampas@irwin.army.mil 1997 No Data No DataArmy Fort McNair Washington DC 41,795 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 16-20,29,31Mark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804,mark.zangara@us.army.mil2001 No Data No DataArmyMobile District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Panama City Site OfficePanama City FL No Data Administrative 61 No DataTerrence D. Jangula, Panama City Site Manager, (850) 784-9780,terrence.d.jangula@sam.usace.army.mil1995 Operational No DataArmy National Guard Armory Estherville IA 31,205CoveredStorage44New construction 31,205Sq FtEarl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513,earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy National Guard Armory Warterloo IA 35,305CoveredStorage44Addition/Alteration 35,305Sq FtEarl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513,earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy National Guard Armory Ft Dodge IA 37,307CoveredStorage44Addition/Alteration 37,307Sq FtEarl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513,earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmySt. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 1 BldgCarlyle IL No Data Administrative 61 No Data (618) 594-2484 2000 Operational No DataArmySt. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 1 BldgCarlyle IL No Data Administrative 61 No Data (618) 594-2484 1993 Operational No DataArmy Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL 59,280 Family Housing 71 Retro Bldgs. 92-100 David Osborn, RIA DPW, (309) 782-2393, david.l.osborn@us.army.mil 2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Riley Manhattan KS 38,146UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Retro BOQRuss Goering, Fort Riley DPW, (785) 239-2371,russ.goering@riley.army.mil1995 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Riley Manhattan KS No Data No DataNoDataNo DataRuss Goering, Fort Riley DPW, (785) 239-2371,russ.goering@riley.army.mil1999 Operational New ConstructionArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 127,096 Administrative 61 # 1467Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 72,016 Administrative 61 # 1468Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605 Administrative 61 # 1476Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 1477Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 1478Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 3,707 Administrative 61 # 1489Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 2372Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,088TrainingFacilities17 # 5217Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,652UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 855Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,991UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 856Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,500UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 857Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 1474Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 1475Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataGeneral InformationA1-1APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassWater Util 200 600 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NoData No Data 3BV 7 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AH,O 16 16 No Data 16 No Data 192,000 Water Copper 300 No Data No Data SS Limestone 30 120 0 2AV,C 16 81 16.20 43 3.6 453,400 30% Glycol HDPE 1,200 No Data 300 Sand/Clay Limestone 35 No Data 4.5 6AV,C 11 26 12.00 15 3.0 134,100 30% Glycol HDPE 9,800 1.05 200 Sand Limestone 15 No Data 4.5 6AV,C 17 48 16.20 26 4.0 262,500 30% Glycol HDPE 6,400 No Data 300 Clay/Silt Limestone 6 No Data 4.5 6AV,C 4 18 15.40 35 3.77 50,000 Glycol Polyethylene 1 No Data 200 Silt/clay No Data 25 250 2 4AV,C 2 12 15.40 35 3.77 50,000 Glycol Polyethylene 1 No Data 200 Silt/clay No Data 25 250 2 4AV 40 120 14.50 3 No Data 34,70028%methanolPVC 10,000 No Data 250 Silt Dolomite 50 6 3 5AV 32 51 No Data 51 No Data 712,00025%propyleneglycolPE 8,000769,000 BTUH heatrejection in 60 holes 200'deep.200 Silty clayLimestone,shaleNone 10 3 4AV 88 245 No Data 245 No Data 2,472,700 No Data PE or PB 8,8003,698,000 BTUH heatrejection in 74 holes 250'deep + 102 holes 300'deep.275 Silty clayLimestone,shaleNone 10 3 4AH,C 69 195 13.00 195 3.1 2,690,000 Water HDPE 8,800 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 52 160 13.00 160 3.1 2,208,000 Water HDPE 7,200 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 15 46 13.00 46 3.1 634,800 Water HDPE 2,800 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 6 17 13.00 17 3.1 234,600 Water HDPE 1,120 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 6 17 13.00 17 3.1 234,600 Water HDPE 1,120 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 3 6 13.00 6 3.1 82,800 Water HDPE 500 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 3 15 13.00 15 3.1 207,000 Water HDPE 2,000 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 21 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AGHP Technical InformationA1-2APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 17.39$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 0.09600$ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.07123$ 10.52$ 0.08921$ A 61,100$ No Data 2,236$ 1,310 20 27.30.07553$ 9.60$ 0.06333$ A. 78,500$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08035$ 10.22$ 0.07194$ A 98,488$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.06000$ No Data 0.09000$ A 50,000$ 1,436$ 2,872$ 48,000 50 17.40.06000$ No Data 0.09000$ A 24,000$ 1,933$ 3,866$ 64,000 50 6.20.03100$ 12.10$ 0.03100$ Super ESPC TS 291,351$ 13,269$ 4,138$ 17,407 25 13.30.04000$ 11.10$ 0.05000$ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.04000$ 11.10$ 0.05000$ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 635,000$ 9,530$ 46,379$ 654,162 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 1,440,000$ 21,600$ 105,120$ 1,482,708 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 495,000$ 7,000$ 34,067$ 480,657 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 180,000$ 2,500$ 12,167$ 171,747 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 180,000$ 2,500$ 12,167$ 171,747 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 78,000$ 1,100$ 5,353$ 75,615 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 178,150$ 2,545$ 12,386$ 174,678 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 75,000$ 2,725$ 13,262$ 186,987 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 196,000$ 3,800$ 18,493$ 260,844 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 196,000$ 3,800$ 18,493$ 260,844 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 196,000$ 3,800$ 18,493$ 260,844 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ ECIP 825,000$ 11,800$ 57,427$ 810,082 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ ECIP 875,000$ 12,500$ 60,833$ 858,148 23 9.0GHP Economic InformationA1-3APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information27282930313233343536373839404142Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 1479Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 1480Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5916Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5919Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5920Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5921Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5922Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5936Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5937Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5938Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5939Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5941Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6010Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6011Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6015Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6017Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataA1-4APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information27282930313233343536373839404142H,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AA1-5APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information272829303132333435363738394041420.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ ECIP 875,000$ 12,500$ 60,833$ 858,148 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ ECIP 825,000$ 11,800$ 57,427$ 810,082 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 615,000$ 12,300$ 59,860$ 844,373 23 9.0A1-6APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information434445464748495051525354555657585960Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605TrainingFacilities17 # 2371Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631TrainingFacilities17 # 2373Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Administrative 61 # 2374Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218TrainingFacilities17 # 2375Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 35,760UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2376Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 35,760UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2377Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2378Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2379Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,647UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2380Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 2381Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,752 Administrative 61 # 2002Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 31,602Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 # 1174Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 22,363Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 # 4249Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 22,956Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 # 4250Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5915Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5917Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,796UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5940Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No DataUnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 5942Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataA1-7APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information434445464748495051525354555657585960H,C,Hy 27 62 13.00 62 3.1 856,000 Water HDPE 3,600 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 27 62 13.00 62 3.1 856,000 Water HDPE 3,600 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 11 38 13.00 38 3.1 530,000 Water HDPE 2,200 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 16 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 8,000 1.85 300 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 13 43 13.00 43 3.1 590,000 Water HDPE 3,750 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 13 38 13.00 38 3.1 530,000 Water HDPE 3,750 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AA1-8APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information4344454647484950515253545556575859600.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 495,600$ 7,080$ 34,456$ 485,932 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 875,000$ 12,500$ 60,833$ 858,148 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 822,500$ 11,750$ 57,183$ 806,565 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 822,500$ 11,750$ 57,183$ 806,565 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 750,750$ 10,725$ 52,195$ 736,225 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 750,750$ 10,725$ 52,195$ 736,225 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 822,500$ 11,750$ 57,183$ 806,565 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 822,500$ 11,750$ 57,183$ 806,565 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 875,000$ 12,500$ 60,833$ 858,148 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 495,600$ 7,080$ 34,456$ 485,932 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 2,925$ 14,235$ 200,762 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 632,000$ 9,480$ 46,136$ 650,645 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 339,000$ 6,600$ 32,120$ 453,107 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 339,000$ 6,600$ 32,120$ 453,107 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.0A1-9APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information61626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6012Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6018Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No DataUnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 6424Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 4,292PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73 # 5223Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 63,927PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73 # 7729Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 36,758 Administrative 61 # 5101Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 135,840TrainingFacilities17 # 1720Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 50,816TrainingFacilities17 # 1726Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358,gary.meredith@knox.army.mil2004 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 29,029Communications, NavigationAids and AirfieldLight13 Bldg. 1560David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1993 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Dental Clinics 54 Bldg. 1562David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1993 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1563David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1993 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1830David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1996 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 17,175TrainingFacilities17 Bldg. 1456David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1996 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 39,020UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 522David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1988 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 6,762,608 Family Housing 71 Retro FHUDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1996 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15009ADavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15009DDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15010ADavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15010DDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,434 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15008BDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,434 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15008CDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509ADavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509BDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509CDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509DDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataA1-10APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information61626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485V,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,H,C, Hy 16 86 13.00 86 3.1 1,033,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 1 5 13.00 5 3.1 69,000 Water HDPE 500 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 68 200 13.00 200 3.1 2,760,000 Water HDPE 28,000 1.85 300 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 25 75 13.00 75 3.1 1,035,000 Water HDPE 6,800 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,O,Hy 26 75 13.00 75 3.1 1,035,000 Water HDPE 600 1.85 1000 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 16 73 13.00 73 3.1 1,007,000 Water HDPE 6,500 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV, H,C no data 110 13.0 110.0 3.8 1,320,000 R-22 Polyethylene 22,792 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV, H,hybrid,Cno data 150 13.0 150.0 3.8 1,800,000 R-22 Polyethylene 31,080 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3Ahybrid,C no data 85 13.0 85.0 3.8 1,020,000 R-22 Polyethylene 17,612 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C no data 99 13.0 99.0 3.8 1,188,000 R-22 Polyethylene 20,512.8 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C no data 82 13.0 82.0 3.8 984,000 R-22 Polyethylene 16,990.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 70 105 12.0 105.0 3.5 1,260,000 R-22 Polyethylene 21,757 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 3,641 6,000 13.0 6,000.0 3.8 72,000,000 R-22 Polyethylene 1,131,695.6 No Data 225 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AA1-11APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384850.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 175,000$ 3,500$ 17,033$ 240,328 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ A 800,000$ 12,000$ 58,400$ 823,857 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 10,000$ 1,300$ 6,327$ 89,097 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 1,150,000$ 19,000$ 92,467$ 1,304,220 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 698,000$ 11,025$ 53,655$ 756,741 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 614,000$ 12,000$ 58,400$ 823,857 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 1,016,000$ 15,250$ 74,217$ 1,046,893 23 9.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 38,115$ 495,000 20 8.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 51,975$ 675,000 20 8.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 29,453$ 382,500 20 8.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 34,304$ 445,500 20 8.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 28,413$ 369,000 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 36,383$ 472,500 20 8.00.06500$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ ESPC-Army 20,000,000$ No Data 2,079,000$ 27,000,000 20 10.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 693$ 9,000 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 693$ 9,000 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 693$ 9,000 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 644$ 8,370 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 644$ 8,370 20 8.0A1-12APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information8687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510ADavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510BDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510CDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510DDavid Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877,david.l.hopper@us.army.mil1989 Operational No DataArmy Aberdeen Proving Grounds Aberdeen MD No Data Family Housing 71642 Units - Slab on Gradewith 17 year old Failing Airto Air Heat Pump'sBrandon Davis, Site Energy Manager, (410) 306-1151,brandon.davis16@us.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Meade Fort Meade MD 347,291 Family Housing 71FH Areas 2500, 4200,4300, & 4500Joseph Moyer, Site Energy Manager, (301) 677-9276,joseph.v.moyer@us.army.mil2000 Operational No DataArmy Selfridge Air National Guard Detroit MI No Data Family Housing 71Single & Duplex DwellingUnitsRon Wesley, (586) 307-4189, ronald.p.wesley@us.army.mil 1995 No Data No DataArmy Lake City Army Ammunition Plant Independence MO No Data Administrative 61GHPs part of a largerbldg. retrofit projectBrian Yeager, (816) 796-7347 (operating contractor engineering rep.) 2005 Operational No DataArmyKansas City District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineersStockton Lake,StocktonMO No Data Administrative 61Ten to 15 staff members,plus general publicThomas P. Long, Operations Project Manager, (417) 276-3196,Thomas.P.Long@nwk02.usace.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmySt. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 2 BldgsWappapello Lake MO No Data Administrative 61 No Data James Gracey, (573) 222-8562, James.W.Gracey@usace.army.mil 1995 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bay 6 -7.2KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2004 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bay 2, 2NDFloor - 7.2KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil1999 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 14,400 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bays 1&2, 1stFloor - 14.4 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2005 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bay 1, 2ndFloor - 7.2 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2002 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 28,800 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bays 3, 5 -28.8 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2001 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 3,000 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2539 - 3 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2004 Operational New ConstructionArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 3,300Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 Bldg. 700 - 3.3 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2005 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 14,400 Administrative 61Bldg. 2525, Bay 4 - 14.4KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2002 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 68,300UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72Bldgs. 1077, 1078, 2705,2715 - 68.3 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil1999 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 5,500UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 360, DVQ - 5.5KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2001 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 16,700TrainingFacilities17Bldgs. 1204/1205 - 167KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2005 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2719 - 7.2 KSFKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360,Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2005 Operational New ConstructionArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 19,878UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 635Andrew Bennett, Chief - OMD / All Projects, (580) 442-3608,andrew.f.bennett@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 22,883 Administrative 61 Bldg. 652Jerry Schmidt, Engineering / All Projects, (580) 442-4219,jerry.schmidt1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataA1-13APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information8687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109V,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3AV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Data 35 Unknown No Data 3A642Individual V,C642 1,242 12.401.5 - 1.8 -3.05.3 - 5.0 -4.816,300 -20,900 -35,000Water +MethanolPolyethyleneTotal FH Units -900,000No Data 140 Sandy Soil No Data No Data No Data 3 4AV,H 166 452 16.0 - 16.9 452 3.40 - 3.70 20,000 - 40,000Water HDPE 2,320,000 0.04 300 Earth No Data 450 520 3 4AH,C 3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data CH/CL Clays No Data No Data 100 3to 6 5AH, C 3 24 14.4 12 3.4 141,000EthyleneglycolPVC 13,000 No Data not applicable Silty clay loam Limestone 14 100 3 4AV,C 3 16ISO-A27-30/B25, 19KW16, threeunits, 104oz.Refrigerantper unitA20/W20/B023/16Kwheating132 BTUH at12 BTU perton. 16 Tontotal capacity 1–6 Ton, and 2– 5 Ton unitsEthyleneglycolPolyethylene 2,500 No Data200 feet per eachwellVarious clays LimestoneLess than 125feet25 3 4AV,C 2 1514.6,15.1,16.615 4.79-4.88 173,200 Methanol PE 19,000 No Data 225 Clays Limestone 300 N/A 2 4AV,C 9 45 14.00 38 3.2 401,000 Ethanol HDPE 3,600 1.03 398 X 20 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 8 26 12.00 22 3.3 202,000 Ethanol HDPE 943 1.03 375 X 8 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 31 57 16.00 52 4 610,000 Ethanol HDPE 6,800 1.03 405 X 27 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 10 29 13.50 23 3.4 253,000 Ethanol HDPE 950 1.03 375 X 8 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 24 100 11.00 72 3.4 840,600 Ethanol HDPE 5,600 1.03 400 X 27 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 7 8 14.00 7 3.9 70,700 Ethanol HDPE 400 1.03 300 X 4 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 7 11 13.50 10 3.8 93,100 Ethanol HDPE 400 1.03 420 X 4 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 14 45 13.50 35 3.4 329,200 Ethanol HDPE 2,800 1.03 400 X 14 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV, C, Hy 102 211 14.00 187 3.1 1,487,440 Ethanol HDPE 22,000 1.02 320 x 79 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 23 17 15.50 15 3.2 169,000 Ethanol HDPE 2,400 1.03 300 X 12 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 280 243 13.50 432 3.7 4,622,000 Water HDPE 58,600 1.03 305 X 264 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 6 18 12.70 16 3.2 132,630 Ethanol HDPE 800 1.03 400 X 6 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV-C 42 32 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,800 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 42 32 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,800 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AA1-14APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information86878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081090.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 738$ 9,585 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 644$ 8,370 20 8.00.05000$ 12.00$ 0.07800$ A No Data No Data 644$ 8,370 20 8.00.04550$ 13.77$ 0.10000$ Super ESPC TS 4,964,428$ 170,000$ 392,597$ 8,637,858 21 10.00.04890$ 14.82$ 0.06880$ ESPC 2,237,933$ 310,000$ 52,200$10,129 MBtu(electric and gas)18 18.00.07000$ No Data No Data Utility Co Paid No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.04200$ No Data 0.04200$ ARMS 300,000$ not determined not determined not determined 20 not determined0.05600$ No Data 0.05600$Congressional Addafter original facilitywas destroyed by atornado in May of2003Unknown - Canfind withadditional time forresearch -Approximately$50K2,688$ 5,000$ 85,000 - 90,000 No DataLess than 10yearsNo Data No Data 0.01090$ A No Data No DataUnknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 400,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 250,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 650,000$ 10,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 300,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 900,000$ 30,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 125,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 100,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 450,000$ 10,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07750$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ UESC 1,235,930$ 50,000$ 18,000$ 250,700 20 8.00.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 200,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ MCA 5,000,000$ 100,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 79,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 387,358$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 387,358$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataA1-15APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 22,465UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 850Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 851Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 852Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 853Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 854Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 9,330PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73 Bldg. 1005Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No DataNoDataNo DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.milN/A No Data No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No DataNoDataBldg. 1602-1603Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.milOpen Planning No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 25,715LandOperationalFacilities14 Bldg. 1607Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2006 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 9,287 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1803Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 34,452 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 300 AreaMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 8,256 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 1800 AreaMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 21,819 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 1900 AreaMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 117,882 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 2000 AreaMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil1998 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 2,048MaintenanceFacilities21 Bldg. 2285Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 5670Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 5671Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 5674Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 5675Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577,michael.baird1@us.army.mil2001 Operational No DataArmy McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 17,604ProductionFacilities22 Bldg. 164Kevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:9567455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil2005 Operational No DataArmyTulsa District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers - Navigation Project OfficeSallisaw OK No Data Administrative 61 Office complex Todd Carr, (918) 775-4474 ext. 739, Todd.Carr@SWT03.usace.army.mil 1992 Operational No DataArmy AWC Carlisle Barracks Carlisle PA 109,570 Family Housing 71 104 residencesGary Sweppenhiser, Carlisle Barracks DPW, (717) 245-3746,Gary.Sweppenhiser@us.army.mil2003 Complete New ConstructionA1-16APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131V-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 9 54 13.9 7 4.6 76,000 Water SDR-11 5,400 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3ANo Data No Data No Data 14.3 10 5.0 145,000 Water SDR-11 8,200 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data No Data 3AV-C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 4 80 13.3 20 3.1 334,500 Water SDR-11 28,512 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 10 30 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 4 12 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 10 30 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 37 111 11.0 3 3.9 42,500 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 300 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 2 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay Limestone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 17 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A Water SDR-11 N/A 0.97 N/A Silt/clay Limestone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay Limestone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay Limestone No Data No Data 7 3AVertical andHorizontal6 21 13.6 20 3.3 178,400 N/A HDPESDR11 7,500 N/A 300 ClayShale w/sandstone20 20 1.5 3AC 5 25 N/A N/A N/A N/AChevron G54Polybutylene 2,500 N/A 180 Sandy N/A 75 12 2 3AStandingcolumn well171 639 24.00 639.0 4.0 7,675,200 Water PVC Sch 80 4,200 1.3 520 Clay Limestone 28 18 2.3 5AA1-17APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131No Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 276,255$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 276,255$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 276,255$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 276,255$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 276,255$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP 2,329,600$ No Data 154,309$ 263,114 20 9.60.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ JOC 490,792$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 211,254$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ 8A Set-Aside $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ IDIQ 79,138$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ Demand-Side 298,780$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.06700$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ Demand-Side 298,780$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ Demand-Side 298,780$ No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.04700$ 9.13$ 0.07100$ A 200,000$ 500$ 11,500$ Eliminated steam 25 14.0No Data No Data No Data No Data 11,983$ No Data No Data No Data 25 10.00.06490$ 17.81$ 0.06990$ Super ESPC TS 2,500,000$ 51,187 152,632 443,506 20 16.0A1-18APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153Army AWC Carlisle Barracks Carlisle PA 107,613 Administrative 61 18 Bldgs, mixed useGary Sweppenhiser, Carlisle Barracks DPW, (717) 245-3746,Gary.Sweppenhiser@us.army.mil2003 Complete New ConstructionArmy Fort Jackson Fort Jackson SC 1,787,000 Family Housing 711295 units at FamilyHousing, 74 units atPalmato, 174 units atKennedy HallGeorges Dib, Fort Jackson DPW, (803) 751-3823,georges.dib@us.army.mil2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Bliss Fort Bliss TX No Data No DataNoDataMultiple Juan Morales, (915) 568-2823, moralesj@bliss.army.mil 2000 Operational No DataArmy Fort Bliss Fort Bliss TX No Data Family Housing 71 Multiple Juan Morales, (915) 568-2823, moralesj@bliss.army.mil 2000 Operational No DataArmy Fort Hood Fort Hood TX No Data Family Housing 71Bldgs. 83008-1 and 82006-1Bobby Lynn, (254) 287-8716, bobby.lynn@us.army.mil 1994 Operational No DataArmy Fort Hood Fort Hood TX 40,782 Administrative 61 Bldg. 4612 Kenneth.R.Allison, (254) 287-7194, kenneth.r.allison@us.army.mil 1999 Operational No DataArmy Tooele Army Depot Tooele UT 25,091PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73Fire Station (Bldg 8) -(Ammo handling (Bldg1254)Jay Weyland, (435) 833-3702, DSN:790-3702,weylandj@emh3.tooele.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Myer Arlington VA 31,698 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 19 - 22Mark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804,mark.zangara@us.army.mil2001 No Data No DataArmy Fort A.P. Hill Bowling Green VA No Data No DataNoDataNo Data Frederick Hwee, DPW/EPS, (804) 633-8426, frederick.hwee@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DataArmy Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 2,948LandOperationalFacilities14 Bldg. 3137Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023,randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil2001 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 5,728Medical andMedicalSupportFacilities53 Bldg. 610Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023,randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil2001 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 984AdministrativeStructuresOther ThanBuildings69 Bldg. 1472Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023,randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil2001 Operational RetrofitArmy Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2715Loop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 819-29261998 No Data No DataArmy Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2716Loop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 819-29261999 No Data No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 25,911 Administrative 61 Bldg. 100 Select Energy, R Rauf 2002 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 5,958 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 93Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 3,204 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 19Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 7,021 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 157Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 7,021 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 158Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA No Data Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 15ARob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmy Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA No Data Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 15BRob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366,robert.mcracken@us.army.mil2003 Operational No DataArmyHuntington District - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers - Beach Fork LakeLavalette WV 1,065MaintenanceFacilities21Gary Trautwein, Beach Fork Lake, (304) 525-4831,gary.p.trautwein@lrh01.usace.army.mil1996 Operational No DataA1-19APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153Standingcolumn well62 426 24.00 426 4.0 5,116,800 Water PVC Sch 80 2,800 1.3 520 Clay Limestone 28 18 2.3 5AVertical 1,543 3,801 10.45 3,801 3.3 30,000 Water HDPE 978,375 1.4 350 Sand/Clay Sandstone 75-100 75 1 3AV, H 6 360 13.50 360 80 8.6 MBTU Water HDP 435,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 3BV 585 1,755 85.00 1755 80 21 MBTU Water HDP 6,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 3BV 2 3 16.0-16.0 2.5 3.3-3.5 21,000 - 25,000Water1"Polyethelene800 1.2 250 Brown Clay Shale Appx 200 Appx 350 0 3AV 27 166.9 13.0-16.2 93.6 3.0-3.3 312,200 WaterPhillipsDriscopipe5300 ClimateGuard Pipe(BlackPolyethelene) 3/4"-4"45,544 1.2 300 Brown Clay Shale Appx 200 Appx 350 0 3AWater Util 2 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 5BV 4 75 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV,C 38 119 No Data No Data No Data No DataWater,glycolPolyethylene N/A No Data 172 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV 1 15 10.80 10 3.5 No Data Water SDR 11 6,000 No Data 290 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV 4 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR 11 6,000 No Data N/A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV 1 5 15.60 3 3.2 No Data Water SDR 11 1,200 No Data 210 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV No Data 305 No Data 305 No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 68,400 No Data 275 Sandy/Clay None 25 No Data 2 4AV No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 44,800 No Data 280 Sandy/Clay None 25 No Data 2 4AV,C 11 81 4.30 (SI) 43.6 3.4 No Data Glycol PVC 9000 No Data 280 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 5 No Data 5 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 450 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV,C 2 5 No Data 5 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 450 No Data 200 Loam None 5 4000 1 4AV, C 1 3 13.0 24 4.4 38.0Water-Glycolpolyethylene 360 No Data 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data 2 No DataA1-20APPENDIX A1ARMY - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information1321331341351361371381391401411421431441451461471481491501511521530.06490$ 17.81$ 0.06990$ Super ESPC TS 4,300,000$ 34,124 101,755 295,670 20 16.00.04230$ 12.03$ 0.04920$ Super ESPC R 10,763,588$ 222,475$ 470,325$ 1,761,937 22 15.50.05810$ 10.86$ 0.06860$ OMA 1,620,000$ Unknown Unknown Unknown 20 Unknown0.05810$ 10.86$ 0.06860$ MCA 5,265,000$ Unknown Unknown Unknown 20 Unknown0.06100$ 12.03$ 0.08000$ ANo Cost DemoUnits1,200$ 5,000$ 65,000 14 5.00.07000$ 12.03$ 0.08300$ A 354,603$ 6,488$ 55,627$ 695,342 19 5.00.03390$ 9.00$ 0.03880$ P2 Funding 160,345$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 13.59$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data ESPC-Army 931,000$ 146,000$ 57,000$ 479,000 18 5.00.04400$ 14.53$ 0.04800$ ESPC 38,430$ No Data 557$ 12,780 No Data 69.00.04400$ 14.53$ 0.04800$ ESPC 74,394$ No Data 1,438$ 23,393 No Data 52.00.04400$ 14.53$ 0.04800$ ESPC 17,010$ No Data 198$ 2,695 No Data 86.0No Data 9.76$ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 9.76$ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ ESPC-Army No Data 1,850$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 78,096$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 110,816$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 74,580$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 74,580$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 86,852$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No Data0.05500$ 14.74$ 0.05900$ A 86,852$ 350$Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering)No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data 8,684$ No Data No Data No Data 30-40 No Data No DataA1-21APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728A B C DE FG HFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)RPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationArmy Fort Irwin Barstow CA No Data Family Housing 71 New FHUArmy Fort McNair Washington DC 41,795 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 16-20,29,31Army Fort Campbell Fort Campbell KY No Data No DataNoDataBldg. 7112Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 13,752 Administrative 61 # 488Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,573 Administrative 61 # 1001Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,783 Administrative 61 # 1002Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 28,884Communications, NavigationAids and AirfieldLight13 # 1227Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 15,438 Administrative 61 # 1101Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data No DataNoData# 4249AArmy Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 18,912 Dental Clinics 54 # 2724Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 66,577 Administrative 61 # 1110Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 10,052PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73 # 469Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 55,934 Administrative 61 # 203Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data No DataNoData# 1327Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 16,692Medical andMedical SupportFacilities53 # 1003Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 29,800PersonnelSupport andServicesFacilities73 # 204Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,600 Administrative 61 # 614Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KYIndoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 # 1102Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 16,753UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 # 1117Army Selfridge Air National Guard Detroit MI No Data Family Housing 71Single & Duplex DwellingUnitsArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 726,986 Administrative 61Bldgs. 800, 1150, 1152,1200, 1201, 1202, 1206,1207, 1208, 1209, 1210,1212Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 2,500 Administrative 61 Bldg. 603 - 2.5 KSFArmy Fort Drum Fort Drum NY 86,900UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 MCA projectArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No DataNoDataNo DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 279,050UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 1602-1603Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 70,995UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 2025A2-1APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IJK LProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitMr. Frank Talampas, (760) 380-3429, francisco.talampas@irwin.army.mil 1997 No Data No DataMark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DataDewayne Smith, (270) 798-5652, neal.d.smith@us.army.mil2006UnderConstructionNo DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DataRon Wesley, (586) 307-4189, ronald.p.wesley@us.army.mil1995 No Data No DataKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil; Terry Matthews, Fort Monmouth DPW(732) 532-5662, Terry.Matthews@mail1.monmouth.army.mil2004 / 06Operational /UnderConstructionRetrofitKevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 2006UnderConstructionNew ConstructionClark/ Zandler LLC2006 50% complete New ConstructionMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil No Data No Data No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DataGeneral InformationA2-2APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHPHeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassWater Util 200 600 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NoData No Data 3BV 7 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AVertical 89 64 16.00 64 3.5 764,500 Water HDPE 32,000 1.68 290 Clay/Chert Ft Payne Chert 214 58 2 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,H,C,Hy 13 24 13.00 24 3.1 330,000 Water HDPE 8,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 No Data Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AV,C 8 89 13.00 89 3.1 1,228,000 Water HDPE 6,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy 30 97 13.00 97 3.1 1,339,000 Water HDPE 12,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 1 5 13.00 5 3.1 69,000 Water HDPE 200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone 70 35 2.5 4AH,C 3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data CH/CL Clays No Data No Data 100 3to 6 5AV,C 1670 2,777 15.50 2,777 3.1 24,993,000 Water HDPE 8 Acres 1.08 420 X 832 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 5 10 14.00 9 3.8 92,500 Ethanol HDPE 5,000 1.03 340 X 6 Sand and Clay None 50 None 3 4AV,C 5 160 11.00 160 3.0 900 23% glycol Polyethylene 12,600 1.3 250 Sand (moist) No Data No Data 200 5 6ANo Data No Data No Data 14.3 10 5.0 145,000 Water SDR-11 8,200 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data No Data 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AGHP Technical InformationA2-3APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 17.39$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.05620$ 12.57$ 0.05620$ UESC 509,450$ 15,440$ 9,767$ 531,241 22 20.20.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 275,040$ 4,125$ 20,075$ 283,118 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 171,000$ 2,575$ 12,532$ 176,729 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 901,660$ 13,525$ 65,822$ 928,488 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC No Data No Data 3,000$ No Data 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 308,667$ 4,630$ 22,533$ 317,702 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 378,000$ 5,675$ 27,618$ 389,508 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 1,331,667$ 19,975$ 97,212$ 1,371,336 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 201,000$ 3,015$ 14,673$ 206,917 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 1,119,000$ 16,780$ 81,663$ 1,151,817 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ A No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 596,000$ 8,940$ 43,508$ 613,716 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ Private Funds -$ -$ 750$ 43,083 23 0.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 252,000$ 3,780$ 18,396$ 259,379 23 9.00.03911$ 11.78$ 0.03911$ UESC 335,000$ 5,025$ 24,455$ 327,374 23 9.00.07000$ No Data No Data Utility Co Paid No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07175$ Super ESPC TS 21,500,000$ 841,296$ 271,764$ -8,655 30 22.00.08940$ 15.43$ 0.07180$ SRM 75,000$ 5,000$ No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07020$ 11.89$ 0.07020$ A (MCA) 734,079$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP 2,329,600$ No Data 154,309$ 263,114 20 9.6No Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP 995,800$ No Data 66,693$ 231,763 20 9.6GHP Economic InformationA2-4APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12A B C DE FG HFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)RPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformation29303132333435363738394041424344Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 27,491Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 Bldg. 3281Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 197,252 Administrative 61 Bldg. 4700Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 58,765Indoor Morale,Welfare, andRecreationFacilities74 Bldg. 5485Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 46,034UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldgs. 5600 AreaArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK 13,288UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72 Bldg. 5684Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No DataArmy Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No DataArmy McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 12,915LandOperationalFacilities14 Bldg. 228Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 1,686TrainingFacilities17Armed Forces ReserveCenterArmy McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK No DataProductionFacilities22 BCT BuildingArmy McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 21,438ProductionFacilities22 Bldg. 103Army Fort Myer Arlington VA 31,698 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 19 - 22Army Fort A.P. Hill Bowling Green VA No Data No DataNoDataNo DataArmy Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2715Army Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2716A2-5APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12IJK LProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitGeneral Information29303132333435363738394041424344Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006UnderConstruction -95%No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006UnderConstruction -95%No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006UnderConstruction -80%No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006-07UnderConstruction -42%No DataMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Design No DataKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DataKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2008 Planning No DataKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DataKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DataMark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DataFrederick Hwee, DPW/EPS, (804) 633-8426, frederick.hwee@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DataLoop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200 bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804)819-29261998 No Data No DataLoop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200 bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804)819-29261999 No Data No DataA2-6APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHPHeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassGHP Technical Information29303132333435363738394041424344V-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C-Hy 10 261 No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C-Hy No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 110 330 3.0 14 4.5 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C 200 600 3.0 14 4.5 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone No Data No Data 7 3AV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7 3AVertical No Data 11 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 3AVertical No Data 250 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 3AVertical No Data 5 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 3AVertical No Data 75 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 3AV 4 75 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV,C 38 119 No Data No Data No Data No DataWater,glycolPolyethylene No Data No Data 172 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV No Data 305 No Data 305 No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 68,400 No Data 275 Sandy/Clay None 25 No Data 2 4AV No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 44,800 No Data 280 Sandy/Clay None 25 No Data 2 4AA2-7APPENDIX A2ARMY - PLANNED PROJECTS12AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)GHP Economic Information29303132333435363738394041424344No Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP 710,410$ No Data 8,935$ 96,983 20 11.60.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No Data0.07000$ 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ ECIP 1,356,000$ No Data 33,555$ 345,154 20 11.7No Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 13.77$ 0.07540$ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data 9.13$ No Data ECIP 55,000$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 9.13$ No Data A 1,500,000$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 9.13$ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 9.13$ No Data ECIP 375,000$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 13.59$ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data ESPC-Army 931,000$ 146,000$ 57,000$ 479,000 18 5.0No Data 9.76$ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data 9.76$ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataA2-8APPENDIX A3AIR FORCE OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitAir Force Little Rock Air Force Base Little Rock AR 1,871,448Family Housing 71Retro FHU Larry Whitt, DSN 574-3087 1998 hsg priv RetrofitAir Force Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 7,018PersonnelSupport Facility73No DataCraig Jendrusch, PJM, Capstone Building Corp., 501.983.8040 2005No Data No DataAir Force Luke Air Force Base Glendale AZNo DataUnaccompanied72espc? Hybrid?No Data No Data No Data No DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataAdministrative 61Office Bldg 8486USAFA Energy Manager2003 OperationalNo DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataAdministrative 61South GateUSAFA Energy Manager2003 OperationalNo DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataIndoor MWR fac74Batters CagesUSAFA Energy Manager2005 OperationalNo DataAir Force Bolling AFB Washington DCNo DataFamily Housing 71Base Housing Kavanaugh's list 2000 OperationalNo DataAir Force Hurlburt Air BaseFt. Walton Beach FL No DataFamily Housing 71Retro FHUNo Data1999 Operational RetrofitAir Force Eglin Air Force Base Ft. Walton Beach FLNo DataFamily Housing 71One pilot project inhousing (106 Palm Cir.)James Mardis, 850-883-4810 2002 OperationalNo DataAir Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No Data No DataNoDataNo DataGilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 2003 Operational RetrofitAir Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No DataTraining Facilitie17No DataGilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 2003 Operational RetrofitAir Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No DataTraining Facilitie17No DataGilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 1999 OperationalNo DataAir Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No DataFamily Housing 71Base Housing Gilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 2000 Operational New ConstructionAir Force MacDill TampaFL48,000Unaccompanied72BQ Bill Gregg, 813-828-8681 2003No Data No DataAir Force Offutt AFB Offutt NENo DataUnaccompanied72commercialNo Data2002-5 OperationalNo DataAir Force Cannon Clovis NMNo DataAdministrative 61No Data No Data2005 OperationalNo DataAir Force Charleston Air Force Base Charleston SC No DataFamily Housing 71residential Chris Gain, 843-963-5019 2001 OperationalNo DataAir Force Dyess AFB AbileneTX No Data No DataNoDataNo DataKavanaugh's list 2000 OperationalNo DataGeneral InformationA3-1APPENDIX A3AIR FORCE OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassVertical 1535 3070 14 2 4.5 23000 Water HDPENo Data0.82, 1.65, 2.47No DatavariesNo Data No Data No Data1.16 3ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data3ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data2BH & V, C 3No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data3.16 5BH, C 1No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data3.16 5BCNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data3.16 5BVertical 318 795No Data2.5No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Datan/a 4AVertical 100 250No Data2.5 HDPENo Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVertical 1 3 14.5 SEER 3 4 40 WATER HDPE 40 1.4 250 Medium to fine saNone 6No Data0.25 2AVertical 10 40No Data4No Data No Data No DataHDPENo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVertical 1 20No Data20No Data No Data No DataHDPENo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVerticalNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVertical 160 540No Data3.4No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVertical 50 150No Data3No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2Avertical 790 983No Data1.2No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data6.08 5ANo Data No Data40No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data1.5 4BVertical 965 3200No Data3.3No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 3ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data0.58 3BGHP Technical InformationA3-2APPENDIX A3AIR FORCE OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)0.0416 7.41 0.0484 UESCNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data7.41 0.0484No Data43,277$No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data7.98No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0438 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 5291,057,000$No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0438 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 529682,000$No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0542 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 529610,000$No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0647 14.95 0.0767 ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0406 9.03 0.0573 UESC & ECIPNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0433 9.03 0.0607 UESC/PILOT 10000 70 780 TBD 20 11.80.027 8.53 0.0719 UESCNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.027 8.53 0.0719 UESCNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.032 8.53 0.0719 AFNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0382 8.53 0.0513 AFNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0651 9.02 0.0692No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0178 7.62 0.019 UESC 2500000No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0513 6.94 0.0513No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0454 7.41 0.0585 ESPC-Army 6500000No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0476 6.93 0.079 ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataGHP Economic InformationA3-3APPENDIX A4AIR FORCE - PLANNED PROJECTS1234567891011A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)RPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitAir Force Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 7,018Personnel Suppo73No DataCraig Jendrusch, PJM, Capstone Building Corp., 501.983.80402005No Data No DataAir Force Luke Air Force Base-added Glendale AZNo DataUnaccompanied 72espc? Hybrid?No Data No Data No Data No DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataAdministrative 61Stadium Blvd.USAFA Energy ManagerEst 2006 DesignNo DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataAdministrative 61Visitor CenterUSAFA Energy ManagerEst 06/07 DesignNo DataAir Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No DataAdministrative 61North GateUSAFA Energy ManagerEst 06/07 DesignNo DataAir Force MacDill TampaFL48,000Unaccompanied 72BQ Bill Gregg, 813-828-8681 2003No Data No DataAir Force Charleston Air Force Base Charleston SC No Data No DataNoDataNone Chris Gain, 843-963-5019 2005 under cntrNo DataAir Force Laughlin Air Force Base-added Del RioTX No DataUnaccompanied 72new constr Ben Graf, DSN 732-4917 2006 in constrNo DataAir Force Whiteman Knob Noster MO 205,908Maintenance;UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing21, 72 10 buildings Whiteman CE Energy Manager 2007constr to start Oct- Dec '06RetrofitGeneral InformationA4-1APPENDIX A4AIR FORCE - PLANNED PROJECTS1234567891011M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data3ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data2BNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data3.16 5BNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data3.16 5BNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data3.16 5BVertical 50 150No Data3No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 2AVertical 46 1055No Data22.9No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0 3AVertical 58No Data16.1 to 18.3,080 to 12,143.4 to 3.7 1,120 to 5,592 water HDPE 42000 1.17 350 limestoneNo Data No Data No Data0 2BH & V, C 13 200 16 54 to 10No Data No Datawater HDPENo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data3.83No DataGHP Technical InformationA4-2APPENDIX A4AIR FORCE - PLANNED PROJECTS1234567891011AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)No Data7.41 0.0484No Data43,277$No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data7.98No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data6.81 0.0542No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data6.81 0.0542No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data6.81 0.0542No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0651 9.02 0.0692No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0484 7.41 0.0484 ESPC-Army 6500000No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data$0.07 6.77 0.0703 MILCON 7300000No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.04 7.15 0.038 ESPC-DOE $2,135,834 $23,124 $41,942 35268 20 32.8GHP Economic InformationA4-3APPENDIX A5NAVY / MARINE CORPS - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)DODRPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitNavy Washington Naval Yard AnacostiaDCNo DataUnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72Bldg A-93 Doug Henderson, BFA (703-466-7400); David Ames, VA Energy Svcs, 804-1998 No Data No DataNavy US Naval Observatory WashingtonDC10,519AdministrativeB61Bldg 78 Pete Collat, Summer Consultants, Inc., 703-556-8820 2001 Operational No DataNavy US Naval Observatory WashingtonDCNo Data AdministrativeB61Bldg 1 Douglas Henderson, BFA (757-466-7400); 1998 Operational No DataNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FLNo Data Family Housing 71LHT Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout1996 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FLNo Data Family Housing 71Corry Housing Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout1997 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71Quarters 2 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2000 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71Quarters 4 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2000 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FLNo Data Family Housing 71Barrancas/Cabanis Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2001 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71Cabaniss / Barrancas Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2001 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71Barrancas Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2001 Operational RetrofitNavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71Cabaniss Crescent 2 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2002 Operational RetrofitNavy Naval Air Station Whiting Field MiltonFLNo Data Family Housing 71Whiting Pines Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout1999 Operational RetrofitNavy Naval Air Station Whiting Field Milton FL No Data Family Housing 71Whiting Pines Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2001 Operational RetrofitNavy NA Corry Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71No Data Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2002 Operational RetrofitNavy NA Corry Station PensacolaFLNo Data Family Housing 71No Data Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@sout2003 Operational RetrofitNavy Naval Supply Corps School Athens GA No Data Family Housing 71No Data Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@southernco.com 2002 Operational RetrofitNavy Patuxent River Naval Air Station Patuxent R. NASMD 27,247AdministrativeB61Bldg. 2189 Mel Green, NAVFAC PAXRIV, 301-757-4721, Melvin.green@navy.mil 1995 OperationalNavy Patuxent River Naval Air Station Patuxent R. NASMD 137,440AdministrativeB619 bldgs total Mel Green, NAVFAC PAXRIV, 301-757-4721, Melvin.green@navy.mil 2000 Operational RetrofitNavy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA470,000UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72No Data Robert P. Harvey, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-492-8533 2004 Operational No DataNavy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA164,000UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72MILCON Project # P712; 44Brian Cooper, USN Facilities Engineering, 757-322-4242 2001 Operational No DataNavy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA93,000UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72No Data Miles Lumbard, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-2844 2000 Operational No DataNavy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA8,000Medical andMedical SupportFacilities53No Data Miles Lumbard, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-2844 1999 Operational No DataNavy NWS Charleston Goose CreekSC 1,000,000UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing721,000,000 sq. ft No Data 2002 Operational No DataMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,100family housing7146 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,300family housing71139 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,500family housing7154 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,400family housing715 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,800family housing715 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines Albany MCLB Albany GA 2,500family housing711 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 2004 operational RetrofitMarines MCAS Cherry Point Havelock NC No Data family housing72No Data Joseph Jackson, (252) 466-4703, JacksonJG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil 2002 operational No DataMarines New River MCAS Jacksonville NC 145,854UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing72AS4211, AS42122@3storyJim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 1997 operational RetrofitMarines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 8,400Admin Building 61SH50 - Ammo Supply Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 2001 operational RetrofitMarines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 3,000,000Family Housing 712,049 Residences Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 2001 operational RetrofitMarines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 22,088Admin Building 61Marston Pavillion, PP730 Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5030 2001 operational RetrofitMarines Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort SC 1,482,000Family Housing 711,236residences,1482000 sq ft.BillEisele,SouthCarolinElectric andGas,(803)217-9220,beisele@scana.com 2001 operational RETROFITMarines Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station (I&II) Beaufort SC 424,451ties, Administrativ17, 21,22,53,38 Bldgs, mixed useDavidHayden,TraneGCCAccountExecutive,(361)883-5561,dhayden@trane.com 2003 operational RETROFITMarines Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island SC 27,170UnaccompaniedPersonnelHousing722 story Ronnie Myers, ronnie.myers@usmc.mil 2001 operationalNo DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data1997 No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data2000 No Data No DataGeneral InformationMarines Quantico Marine Corps Base Quantico VAA5-1APPENDIX A5NAVY / MARINE CORPS - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassV 29 36 No Data 36 No Data 320500 water PE 5625 No Data 280 No Data No Data 11.4 No Data 4 4AH, V 38 46 4.5 * 46 2.8 * 419500 water PE 9600 2 400 (all 24)0' of rock, 50' of clalots No Data 70' 2.5 4AH, V 47 75.7 No Data 75.7 No Data 904300 water PE 16000 2 40070-80 ft clay & rockNo Data No Data 80 2.5 4AV,O 250 625 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 200 500 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 1 9 No Data 9 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 1600 1.4 260 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 2 8.5 No Data 8.5 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 1600 1.4 260 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 152 320 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 30 126.5 No Data 126.5 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 12000 1.4 260 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 10 30 No Data 30 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 4000 1.4 270 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 36 135 No Data 135 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 14400 1.4 240 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 328 984 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 329 770 No Data 770 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 131600 1.4 225 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 200 600 No Data 600 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 80000 1.4 260 sand No Data No Data No Data No Data 2ANo Data No Data 2500 No Data No Data No Data Polyethelene 1.4 No Data No Data No Data No Data 2AV 55 148 No Data 148 No Data No Data21% methanoPolyethelene 22000 No Data 245 rock No Data No Data No Data No Data 3AV 18 114 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AV,H 137 399 18.9 399 4.3 4,367,000water Polyethelene 90400 No Data 225sand,gravel,clayNo Data No Data No Data 2.5 4Avertical 499 814 No Data No Data 4.376 No Data water/glyc HDPE 130,6801.007 500 Grey Clay none 10 N/A 1 4Avertical 273 330 13.4-16.1 330 3.2-3.4 3,670,000 Water HDPE 60,000 (15 ft OC) 1.007 200 Sand/Silt none 10 N/A 1 4Avertical 124 160 No Data No Data No Data No Data water/glyc HDPE parking lot 1.007 200 Sand/Silt none 10 N/A 1 4Avertical No Data 21 No Data No Data No Data No Data water/glyc HDPE No Data 1.007 200 Sand/Silt none 10 N/A 1 4ANo Data 8 27.5 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 3AT024-1VTC-FR46 92 16.2 2 3.5 18200H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9231Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AT030-1VTC-FL139 347.5 18.5 2.5 4.0 19000H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9305Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AT036-1VTC-FR54 162 17.0 3 3.5 24500H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9221Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AT042-1VTC-FL5 17.5 16.6 3.5 3.7 30000H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9268Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AT048-1VTC-FL5 20 15.8 4 3.5 36500H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9292Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AT060-1VTC-FL1 5 14 5 3.2 48000H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9305Sand, Sandy Fract Limestone 1000 unknown N/A2AClosed Vertica1128 2773 16 2773 20,866,000H2O HDPE 45,120 1.21250SandNo Data7No DataN/A 3AV-C 118 40 13.5 - 14.1 35 4.6 - 5.1 258,000 R-410A Polyethylene 38,400 1.12 239Baymeade, FineSandNone 3 N/A 0.20 3AV-C 10 20.5 13 - 14.1 1.0 - 7.5 3.0 - 3.3 100,450 Water Polyethylene 6,300 No Data 205Baymeade-UrbanNone 3 N/A 0.20 3AV-C 2,099 3,700 14.8 - 15.1 3,700 4.6 - 5.0 55,459M Water Polyethylene 389,100 1.12 - 1.54 176Goldsboro,BaymeadeNone 3.50 N/A 0.20 3AV-C 8 95 12.1 95 3.25 888,400PropyleneGlycolPolyethylene 42,000 1.54 200Baymeade-Urban,Muckalee LoamNone 3 N/A 0.20 3AV 1236 2484 16 2484 5 2649 water HDPE 993,600 1 180 sand, clay, shell limestoneSrface water10-12 ft, Ocala N/A N/A 3Avarious172WTA,34 WTW 1595 16 1595 5 1701 water HDPE 638,000 1 300 sand, clay, shell limestoneSrface water10-12 ft, Ocala N/A N/A 3AV, C, 70boreholes 64 50 12.2 50 4.2 12000 water HDPE 23,000No Data210 SandNo Data5No Data No Data3AV No Data 225 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4AGHP Technical InformationA5-2APPENDIX A5NAVY / MARINE CORPS - OPERATIONAL PROJECTS1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data 59 UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5No Data No Data 59 A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5No Data No Data No Data UESC 76271 No Data No Data No Data 20 No DataNo Data No Data No Data UESC 98468 No Data 1154 No Data 20 2No Data No Data 59 A 130000 No Data No Data No Data No Data 50.059 No Data No Data UESC 619170 No Data 19900 337240 20 10No Data No Data No Data UESC 129562 1250 4117 No Data 20 No Data0.06347 No Data No Data UESC 435938 7200 27108 56445 20 10No Data No Data 59 UESC 322000 No Data No Data No Data No Data 5No Data No Data No Data UESC 2180472 7500 20713 No Data 20 100.07826 No Data No Data UESC 2533916 0 122422 907347 20 No DataNo Data No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0354 No Data No Data UESC 787286 24429 29343 No Data 20 10No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data0.0692 No Data 0.092 Super ESPC TS 3,784,035$ 43,924$ 200,369$ 916999 20 15.033 + $5.20/kWNo Data.059 +$12.00/kW/MonthESPC $8,300,000 $500,000 $530,000 18,000,00013yr financedterm8.4yr simplepayback.035 + $5.20/kWNo Data.059 +$12.00/kW/MonthA $15,000,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data.035 + $5.20/kWNo Data.059 +$12.00/kW/MonthA $7,000,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data.035 + $5.20/kWNo Data.059 +$12.00/kW/MonthA No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data UESC 1,000,000.00$ No Data No Data No Data No Data 10$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 532,864$ 2,447$ 26,697$ 166,935 22 19.96$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 1,610,177$ 7,395$ 80,672$ 504,434 22 19.96$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 625,536$ 2,873$ 31,340$ 195,967 22 19.96$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 57,920$ 266$ 2,902$ 18,145 22 19.96$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 57,920$ 266$ 2,902$ 18,145 22 19.96$0.046$8.38$0.061 Super ESPC TS 11,584$ 53$ 580$ 3,629 22 19.96$0.033No Data$0.043 UESC 9,164,250$ 99,470$ 1,120,175$ 18,279,000 20 7.000.05411.118430.0537 A No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data0.05621.118430.0537 A No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data0.05621.118430.0537 UESC 16,117,326 - 1,457,625 20,939,000 20 7.370.05621.118430.0537 UESC 878,141 No DataNo Data No Data No Data No Data$0.05494/KWH$7.26/DekathermNo Data$0.063/KWH$15.7421/Dekatherm UESC $ 11,501,557 $ 453,600 $ 983,167 12,405,781 20 9.33$0.044/KWH$5.69/DekathermNo Data$0.05469/KWH$10.61/Dekatherm Super ESPC TS $ 8,741,219 $ 450,000 $ 259,302 7,778,589 20 15$0.040No Data$0.050 A $ 52,600 $ 36,164 $ 8,085 19,000 20 5.08No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataGHP Economic InformationA5-3APPENDIX A6NAVY / MARINE CORPS - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678A B C DE FG H I J K LFederalAgencyFacility Name City StateBuilding Area(Sq. Ft.)DOD RPCSFacility Class(2-digit Group)RPCS 2-digitCodeBuilding AdditionalInformationProject Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)CalenderYearInstalledProject StatusNewConstruction /RetrofitNavy Washington Naval Yard AnacostiaDC No Data No DataNoDataBldg A-93Doug Henderson, BFA (703-466-7400); David Ames, VA Energy Svcs,804-358-200x doesn't work tried all 10 digits1998No Data No DataNavy NA Corry Station PensacolaFL No Data No DataNoDataNo DataGladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCESPGMELTON@southernco.com2003No Data No DataNavy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VANo Data No DataNoDataNo DataLutz, Daniel E LTJG NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-26182006UnderContructionNo DataNavy Kings Point Merchant Marine Academy Kings PointNYNo Data No DataNoDataRetroGreg Tinkler, 281-450-3399, greg@tinkler.us2005-2009 in constrNo DataNo Data No DataNoDataNo Data No Data1997No Data No DataNo Data No DataNoDataNo Data No Data2000No Data No DataGeneral InformationMarines Quantico Marine Corps Base Quantico VAA6-1APPENDIX A6NAVY / MARINE CORPS - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC ADGHP Type# of GHPunitsInstalledProjectTotalInstalledTonsGHPCoolingEfficiency(EER)GHPCoolingCapacity(TON)GHPHeatingEfficiency(COP)GHP HeatingCapacity(BTUH)Fluid Typeused inGHPGHP PipingMaterialUsedEstimated LandArea Used forProject (sq ft)Thermal Conductivity(BTU / hr-foot-oF)Average Bore HoleDepth For VerticalLoops (ft)PredominantSoil TypePredominantRockFormationsAverageDistance toWater Table(ft)AverageDistance toBedrock (ft)AverageFrostDepth (ft)IECCClimateZoneClassV 29 36No Data36No Data320500 water PE 5625No Data280No Data No Data11.4No Data4 4ANo Data No Data2500No Data No Data No DataPolyetheleneNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data2ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataSand/Silt none 10 1No DataVertical 600 1200 14No Data No Data No Datawater polyethylene 360,000 1.3 375sand, gravel,clayGARNETSCHIST30 290 2 4AVNo Data225No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data4ANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No Data4AGHP Technical InformationA6-2APPENDIX A6NAVY / MARINE CORPS - PLANNED PROJECTS12345678AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM ANAverage UtilityRate at Projectonset ($/kWh)CurrentAverageNatural GasRate ($/kcf)Current AverageElectric Rate($/kWh)Project FinanceMechanismProjectInvestment Cost($)GHP annualOperation andMaintenanceSavings ($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation($)Annual EnergySavings fromGHP Installation(kWh)GHP ProjectEstimatedEconomicLife (yrs)ProjectPaybackPeriod (yrs)No Data No Data No DataANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No DataUESCNo Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data.059 +$12.00/kW/MonthANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data$0.13No Data No Data No Data6,000,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 300,000.00$ 650,000 20 1No Data No Data No DataANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataNo Data No Data No DataANo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataGHP Economic InformationA6-3

# APPENDIX B

STATE REGULATIONS FOR CLOSED LOOP GSHP SYSTEMS AS REPORTED IN

(SHONDER, ET. AL., IN PRESS), REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

NOTE: INFORMATION IN THIS TABLE MAYBE DATED. FOR MORE UP TO

DATE INFORMATION, CHECK THE GHPC WEBSITE ( www.geoexchange.org )

OR CHECK WITH THE STATE

# B-2 Table B.1. State Regulation s for Closed Loop Systems

State Regulation Type Regulation Details

Vertical Borehole: Alaska

Grouting: Section 80.015 of the Drinking Water Rules 18 AAC 80

Horizontal Trench:

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting:

Heat Transfer Fluids: Arkansas

Heat Exchanger: Arkansas Water Well Constructi on Code Rules and Regulations

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: Well Construction and Licensing of Well Drillers Regulation Arizona

Heat Exchanger: Constructed in Accord ance with Current Industry Standards

Horizontal Trench: Geothermal Well Rules - Office of the State Engineer, Water Resources

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: Geothermal Well Rule s AND Water Well Construction Rule 2 CCR

Heat Transfer Fluids: Non Toxic, Regula ted by Office of the State Engineer Colorado

Heat Exchanger: Closed-Loop Ground Source Heat Pump Systems: Installation Guide

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: Connecticut Well Drilling Code

Heat Transfer Fluids: Department of Consumer Pr otection, Department of Environmental Protection

Heat Exchanger: Connecticut

Direct Expansion System: Department of Consumer Protection, Division of Plumbing and Piping

Vertical Borehole: Delaware

Grouting: Regulations Governing the Construction of Water Wells

Florida Vertical Borehole: Water Well Construction Regulations

Georgia Vertical Borehole: The Water Well Standards Act

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting:

Heat Transfer Fluids: Well Construction Standard s Rules IDAPA 37.03.09 Idaho

Heat Exchanger: Constructed in Accord ance with Current Industry Standards

Illinois Applicable Regulations: Illi nois Water Well Construction Code

Vertical Borehole: Indiana

Grouting: The Final Rules Concerning the Regulation of Water Well Drillers 312 IAC 16

Vertical Borehole: Kansas

Grouting: Water Well Contractor's License; Wa ter Well Construction and Abandonment

Regulations

Horizontal Trench: Kentucky

Vertical Borehole: The Groundwater Protection Plans (401 KAR Chapter 5:037) Regulations

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting:

Heat Transfer Fluids: Louisiana

Heat Exchanger: Water Well Rules, Regul ations and Standards, State of Louisiana

Vertical Borehole: Environment Articl e 9-1305, Annotated Code of Maryland

Grouting: Maryland

Heat Transfer Fluids: Well Construction (COMAR 26.04.04) rules

Massachusetts Vertical Borehole: The Water Well Diggers and Drille rs Registration (313 CMR 3.00)

Vertical Borehole: R 325.1606 of the Michigan Water We ll Construction and Pump Installation Code Rules Michigan

Grouting: Dept. of Health, Bureau of Environmen tal and Occupational Health , Div. of Water Supply

Vertical Borehole: Permit to Install Vertical Exchanger / Wells, Bo rings, and Underground Minnesota Uses

Grouting: Minnesota

Heat Exchanger: Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses Minnesota Rules

Vertical Borehole: Mississippi

Grouting: Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protection Regulations

Horizontal Trench:

Vertical Borehole:

Heat Transfer Fluids:

Grouting:

Heat Exchanger: Nebraska

Direct Expansion System: Title 178, NAC 12: Regulations Governing Wa ter Well Construction, Pump Installation

and Water Well Ab andonment Standards

# B-3 Table B.1. State Regulations for Closed Loop Systems (Cont’d)

State Regulation Type Regulation Details

Vertical Borehole: Nevada

Grouting: Underground Water and Well regulations - Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources

New Hampshire Vertical Borehole: The New Hampshire Water Well Board Rules - Chapters We 100 through We 1000

Vertical Borehole:

Direct Expansion System: Section 58:4A-23 of the Subsurf ace and Percolating Waters Act

Heat Transfer Fluids:

Heat Exchanger: Well Permit - Department of Environmental Protection, Well Permitting and Regulations

Section New Jersey

Grouting: New Jersey Grouting Infomation Sheet - Department of Environmental Protection

Horizontal Trench:

Vertical Borehole:

Heat Transfer Fluids:

Direct Expansion System: Position Paper - New York State Department of E nvironmental Conservation

Grouting: Grouting Procedures for Ground Source Heat Pump Systems - IGSHPA New York

Heat Exchanger: IGSHPA Guidelines - New York State Department of Envi ronmental Conservation

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: North Carolina

Heat Exchanger: Regulations Pending

Horizontal Trench: Chapters 33-19 and 43-02-07 of the North Dakota Century and Administrative Codes

Vertical Borehole: Chapters 38-19 and 43-02-07 of the North Dakota Century and Administrative Codes

Grouting: Grout Regulations - No rth Dakota Geological Survey

Heat Transfer Fluids:

Heat Exchanger: North Dakota

Direct Expansion System: Must be Approved by the State Geologist

Horizontal Trench:

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: Oklahoma

Direct Expansion System: Water Resources Board Rules and Regulati ons, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)

Title 785

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting: Oregon

Heat Exchanger: Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Divisi on 240-Construction and Maintenance of

Monitoring Wells, Geotechnical Holes, and Other Holes

Vertical Borehole: Dept. of Environmental Manageme nt, Division of Groundwater and Freshwater Wetlands Rhode Island

Grouting: Rules Governing The Enforcement Of Ch p. 46-13.2 - Drilling of Drinking Water Wells

South Carolina Vertical Borehole: Section R.61-71.2 of the South Carolina Well Standards and Regulations

Vertical Borehole: Tennessee

Grouting: Underground Injection Control Chapter 1200-4- 6

Vertical Borehole:

Grouting:

Heat Transfer Fluids: Vermont

Direct Expansion System: The Water Supply Rule Chapter 21, Part 12 of the Environmental Protection Rules

Vertical Borehole:

Direct Expansion System: Section 1.1 of the Private Well Regulations VR 355-34- 100

Grouting: Section 3.7 (C) (3) of the Private Well Regulations Virginia

Heat Exchanger: The Virginia Board for Contractor s, Rules and Regulations Title 54.1, Chapter 11

Washington Vertical Borehole: Minimum Standards for Construc tion and Maintenance of Wells

West Virginia Vertical Borehole: The Water Well Regulations 64CSR19

Vertical Borehole: Section NR 812.02 - Well C onstruction And Pump Installation Regulations

Grouting: Section NR 812.05 Disposal of Pollutants; Injection Prohibition

Heat Exchanger: Section NR 812.09 Department Approvals Wisconsin

Direct Expansion System Approval by the Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, Dept.of Natural Resource

Horizontal Trench: Chapter IX of the Wy oming Water Quality Rules And Regulations

Vertical Borehole: Chapter IX and Chapter XI Part G, of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules And Regulations

Grouting: Section 65 of the Department of Environmental Qu ality regulations Wyoming

Heat Transfer Fluids: Non-toxic Fluids - The Department of E nvironmental Quality

# APPENDIX C

List of Useful Websites related to GSHPs (SHONDER, ET. AL., IN PRESS), Reprinted

with Permission

# C-2 

# List of Useful Websites

http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/f inancing/ghpresources.html

The website of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management

Program (FEMP) contains a wealth of informati on pertaining to GHPs in Federal

facilities, including brochures, case studies, a generic GHP gui de specification, software

tools, and detailed guidance on how Federal facilties can access pr ivate financing through

the regional, technology specific, and utility energy savings performance contracts

(ESPCs) developed by FEMP.

http://www.eren.doe.gov/geot hermal/geoheatpumps.html

The Geothermal Energy Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents a

series articles on GHPs for homes, schools, a nd commercial buildi ngs. Another article

contains a through description of the ener gy and environmental benefits of GHPs.

http://www.ghpc.org

The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium is an organization of electric utilities and

their institutions, equipment manufacturers a nd their allies, the U.S. Department of

Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, and the Consortium for Energy

Efficiency with the objective of reducing th e barriers to wide-scale customer acceptance

of GHP technology. In addition to basic information about the technology, the

consortium’s website contains detailed cas e studies of more than 100 residential and

commercial GHP applications from across Nort h America. There are also links to the

websites of heat pump manufactur ers, utilities, ESCOs and ot her organizations active in

the GHP industry.

http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu

Another organization promoting th e use of GHP technology is the International Ground

Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) , located on the campus of Oklahoma State

University. IGSHPA provides a forum for in formation exchange and discussion, offers

continuing education and training for i ndustry professionals, and promotes the

development of industry-related standards. It s website contains basic information on the

operation of GHPs, their cost, and their use in various applications. Of particular value is

the state-by-state directory of GHP contra ctors. IGSHPA’s semi-annual conferences

provide an excellent introduction to the t echnology, including hands -on demonstrations

of how the equipment is installed and operated.

http://www.ornl.gov/femp/

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is the home of FEMP’s GHP Core

Team, which provides technical expert ise and assistance on GHP projects and

# C-3 technologies to the Federal government. Th e website includes brochures on GHP

technology and alternative finance mechanis ms, case studies of GHP projects in the

Federal sector, and software developed by Core Team members. There is also a link to

ORNL’s HVAC Construction and Maintenanc e Cost Database, which was used to

develop the cost information contained in this guide.

http://geoheat.oit.edu/

Located at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath, OR, the Geo-Heat Center is

a small organization promoting the use of GHP technology in the U.S. Northwest. In

addition to descriptive brochures and links to other organizations, the website contains

information on groundwater source heat pumps th at is generally unavailable elsewhere.

Of particular interest is th e Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bu lletin, which contains case

studies and design information for various GHP system types in a wide variety of

applications. The website also contains the “Outside the Loop Newsletter”, an

informative publication produced at the Universi ty of Alabama. At present the newsletter

is no longer being produced, but the back issues contain valu able information on costs,

cost containment and other design issues associated with GHPs.

http://bama.ua.edu/~geocool/

The University of Alabama maintains this website. This site has a lot of different

information relating GSHPs.

http://www.alliantgeo.com/

The Geothermal Information Office is a collaborative effort bewteen Alliant Utilities

and the Electric Power Research Institute. The website provides basic information on

geothermal heat pumps, including case studi es of applications in Alliant’s service

territory (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin) and links to installers and

manufacturers.

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publica tions/outreach/technology/geothermalheatpu

mps.pdf

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers a small brochure describing

the benefits of GHPs for en ergy conservation and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases

and other pollutants.

# APPENDIX D

DOD GSHP LESSONS LEARNED

# D-2 

# D.1 Lessons Learned

This Appendix on lessons learned is broke n down into four general categories:

Financing, Design, Installation, and Performa nce and Energy Savings. Additionally,

Chapter D.2 includes specific feedback from DOD field personn el with intimate

knowledge of DOD GSHP projects.



# D.1.1 Financing

A number of methods have been used to fi nance GSHP projects on DOD facilities. In

addition to the more traditional military cons truction funding, other funding sources exist

such as DOD’s Energy Conservation Invest ment Program (ECIP), or alternative

financing via Energy Savings Performance C ontracts (ESPC) and Ut ility Energy Savings

Contracts (UESC).

In an ESPC, an energy services company (E SCO) conducts a compre hensive energy audit

and identifies improvements that will save energy at the facility. In consultation with the

agency customer, the ESCO designs and constructs a project that meets the agency's

needs and arranges financing to pay for it. The ESCO guarantees that the improvements

will generate energy and energy-related operations and maintenance savings sufficient to

pay for the project over the term of the cont ract. After the contract ends, all additional

cost savings accrue to the agency. Cont ract terms up to 25 years are allowed.

UESCs are similar to ESPCs, with the utility company or a subsidiary playing the role of

the ESCO. In UESC it is the utility that fi nances and installs the energy conservation

measures, and repayment is made through the utility bill. An example is Fort Knox,

Kentucky, which has used UESC contracts to install nearly $90 million in GSHP and

associated equipment.

A notable early example of an ESPC was th e Fort Polk residential project, which

installed 6,600 tons of GSHP equipment in 4,000 family residences with a total cost of

$19 million, financed over 20 years. Sin ce 2001, about $49 million in commercial, and

$17 million in residential GSHPs have been installed at DOD sites using DOE’s Super

ESPCs. GSHP projects have also been inst alled at DOD sites using the ESPC contracts

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers and the Air Force. Site-specific ESPC

contracts have been used as well.

In general an ESPC is a comprehensive, f acility-wide energy conservation project that

may include several conservation measures. GSHP projects and other ECMs with longer

paybacks can be included in ESPC projec ts because they are bundled with shorterpayback ECMs like high efficiency lighting retrofits.

A major advantage of federal ESPC projects is that ESCOs provide annual measurement

and verification (M&V) reports to the facility. These reports document the measurements

and calculations used by the ESCO to verify that the guaranteed savings were actually

delivered during the previous year, and provide assurance to the facility that the projects

are performing as advertised. M&V is not a requirement in UESC contracts, but DOD

# D-3 sites can and should include M&V in UESC contracts. Without annual verification of

savings, sites will have little or no evidence that the project is performing as expected as

discussed in Chapter 2.2 as related to inaccurate reported annual cost savings.



# D.1.2 Design

The design of a GSHP system begins like a ny other HVAC project with the calculation of

building loads. However, unlike equipment that rejects heat to air or extracts heat from

air, GSHP equipment can have a substantia l impact on its heat source/sink, the ground.

Thus, rather than being ba sed solely on the maximum amount of energy rejected

to/extracted from the ground, the amount of heat rejection/heat extr action must be known

along with its history. Thus, when calculating the building loads, it is important to pay

attention to the level of detail that will be required by the software to be used in designing

the ground loop, as will be discussed in the ne xt section, although, equipment will still be

sized based on maximum zone loads.

A number of different types of water-source heat pumps are available for use in GSHP

systems. Both up-flow and down-flow units are available as well as horizontal and

console units. Water-to-water units are al so available for radiant floor heating

applications, hot water heating, or ventilat ion air preconditioning. Typical commercial

scale application use units mounted in the ce iling space or small utility closets. These

units are quiet enough such that noise is not generally a problem.

One of the principal advantages of GSHP is the flexibility of zoning. In general it is best

to treat each zone with its own individual heat pump. In addition, there is little, if any,

advantage to using a larger unit to serve seve ral areas even if they are reasonably served

as a single zone. There are two reasons why the “bigger is better” mentality may not be

best with GSHP systems:

• In general the smaller heat pump units th emselves have higher efficiencies than

larger units.

• The cost advantage of a single larger un it over multiple smaller units is modest

and will be easily offset by the extra ducting costs of larger units. Total fan

energy will also be lo wer with less ducting.

In concert with the decision on how to serve the zones with heat pumps, a decision needs

to be made regarding the best way to conf igure the ground coupling loops that will serve

the heat pumps. The principal options are:

• Connect all heat pumps to a common ci rculating loop and a common set of

ground-coupling wells. This works best for compact floor plans and allows the

maximum benefit to be derived from diversity of the zone loads.

• Provide a separate ground-coupling loop fi eld for each heat pump unit. This

works well where the floor plan is spread out, like school buildi ngs, and in retrofit

situations where it would be difficult to run piping for th e central circulating loop.

It thwarts any attempt to take advant age of diversity, but provides redundancy

such that any system failures will only affect single zones.

• Some combination of the two solutions a bove. This solution offers exceptional

flexibility for buildings that don’t fall clearly into one of the categories above.

# D-4 Consult GSHP design manuals (ASHRAE, 19 97) for more detailed discussion and

examples of possible arrangements of heat pump units and zones, methods of pumping

for the circulating loop, a nd control of the pumps.

Water source heat pumps are now rated in accordance with ISO 13256-1. Three sets of

rating conditions have been establishe d depending on application, ground coupled,

ground water, or water loop (a boiler/towe r system that is not ground coupled).

Recommendations for heat pump units are:

• For cooling the recommended minimum EER when rated is accordance with ISO

13256-1 is 16.2 for ground water systems a nd 14.1 for ground coupled systems.

In heating the recommended minimum CO P when rated is accordance with ISO

13256-1 is 3.6 for ground water systems and 3.3 for ground coupled systems.

• Do not allow multi-speed or variable speed units to be rated at any condition other

than high speed on compressor and fan. Rating under lower compressor speeds

with high fan speed results in impressive EER , but little or no latent heat removal

will be possible under this condition.

• The head loss in the water coil of the heat pump should not exceed 45 kPa (15

feet of water) when the flow rate is at 0.19 L/s (3 gpm) per nominal ton of cooling

capacity.

• Avoid the use of heat pumps that require proprietary thermostats and controls.

These can be difficult to maintain without special skills and equipment and simply

are not necessary for most systems.

Aside from the energy efficiency motive fo r specifying high efficiency equipment the

designer should be aware of two other major advantages of high efficiency heat pumps:

• High efficiency equipment will discard le ss heat to the ground loop in the cooling

mode and will require smaller ground l oops helping to avoid costs on this

expensive part of the project.

• High efficiency units will perform much be tter at conditions other than the design

point. Thus, if for exampl e in the cooling mode the EWT ends up being higher

than planned, high efficiency units will loose much le ss capacity and sacrifice

much less efficiency than will lower efficiency units.



# D.1.2.1 Design of Vertical Gr ound-Coupling Heat Exchangers

Sizing of the ground-coupling for a heat pum p is different than sizing conventional

equipment. The capacity of the ground to abso rb or provide heat is a transient heat

transfer problem. The thermal state of the ground is determined by prior heat

addition/extractions rates and durations. While significant imbalance of heat

extraction/heat rejection can be tolerated, the long term impacts must be considered. The

ground can not be assumed infinite and the interaction of adjacent borehole heat

exchangers is very important for commercial scale systems. In summary, the designer

needs to know the load duration information as well as peak load and needs a design tool

that appropriately considers all these factors as well as accurately models the heat transfer

in the ground.

# D-5 Because of the diversity in loads in multizone building, the design of the ground coupling

heat exchanger must be based on peak block load rather the installed capacity. This is of

paramount importance as ground coupling is us ually a major portion of the total GCHP

system cost and oversizing will render a project economically unattractive.

Early in the development of GCHP system s many systems were sized using rules-ofthumb and local experience, this is particularly true for residential scale systems. This

practice is not prudent for commercial scale systems or for military family housing where

the bore-fields from adjacent housing units may be in close proximity. This is

particularly true for systems where there wi ll be a large imbalan ce between heating and

cooling loads. For all but the most norther n climates, commercial scale buildings will

have significantly more heat rejection th an extraction. This imbalance in heat

rejection/extraction can cause heat buildup in the ground to the point where heat pump

performance will be adversely affected and hence system efficiency and possibly

occupant comfort will suffer. Proper design for commercial scale systems requires the

use of computer design software. Design software for commercial scale GSHP systems

should consider the interaction of adjacent l oops and predict the potential for long term

heat buildup in the soil. So me sources of PC based GSHP design software packages that

address this need are:

• GchpCalc, Energy Information Services, http://www.geokiss.com/ , 205-799-

4591, $300. This program includes built in ta bles for heat pump equipment from

most manufacturers. Input is in the form of daily heat loss and gains at design

conditions, approximate annual full load hours, and desired operating

temperatures.

• GLHEPRO, International Ground Source Heat Pump Associ ation (IGSHPA),

http://www.mae.okstate.edu/Facult y/spitler/glhewin/glhepro.html , 800-626-4747,

$525. Input required is monthly heat ing/cooling loads on heat pumps and

monthly peak loads either entered direct ly by user or read from BLAST or Trane

System Analyzer and Trane Trace output files.

Each of these programs will re quire input about the soil thermal properties, borehole

resistance, type of piping and borehole arrange ment, fluid to be used, and other design

parameters. Many of the require d inputs will be available from tables of default values.

The designer must be careful to ensure that the values chosen are representative of the

actual conditions to be encountered in order to ensure efficient and cost effective designs.

More details on design methods can be found in (Sanner, 1999). It is highly

recommended that designers be trained in the use of the software by the software vendor

before using it for actual design.

Test borings to determine the type soil forma tions and aquifer locations will substantially

improve design accuracy and may help redu ce costs by eliminating overly conservative

designs that result from uncerta inties. Even with the information from test borings some

uncertainty will remain with respect to th e soil thermal properties. Design software

programs make it possible to easily vary design parameters within the range of

anticipated values and determine the sensitivit y of the design to a particular parameter.

In many instances, particularly commercial s cale projects or projects with many family

housing units, it is advisable to obtain sp ecific information on ground loop performance

# D-6 by doing thermal testing of a sample borehole. A specification for this testing is available

in (ASHRAE, 2003) and there are several commercially av ailable sources for such

testing.

In heating dominated climates a mixture of an tifreeze and water will need to be used in

the ground coupling loops if l oop temperatures are expected to fall below about 5oC

(41oF). (Heinonen, 1997) establishes the im portant considerations for antifreeze

solutions for GCHP systems and provides guidance on selection.

The regulatory requirements for vertical boreholes used for ground-coupled heat

exchangers varies widely by state and thus the local governing au thorities should be

consulted. One note of caution to the designer: some regu lations, installation manuals,

and/or local practices call fo r partial or full grouting of the borehole. The thermal

conductivity of materials normally used for gr outing are very low when compared to the

thermal conductivity of most native soil form ations. Thus, grouting will tend to act as

insulation and hinder heat transf er to the ground. Experiment al work by (Spilker, 1998)

has confirmed the negative impact of grout on bore hole heat transfer. Under heat

rejection loading average water temperature wa s nearly 6oC (11oF) higher for a 16.5 cm

(6.5 in.) diameter borehole backfilled with st andard bentonite grout when compared to a

12.1 cm (4.75 in.) diameter borehole backfilled with thermally enhanced bentonite grout.

Using fine sand as backfill in a 16.5 cm (6.5 in.) diameter borehole lowered the average

water temperature over 8oC (14oF) when comp ared to the same diameter bore backfilled

with standard bentonite grout. For a typical system (Spilk er, 1998) with a 16.5 cm (6.5

in.) diameter borehole the use of standard bentonite grout would increase the bore length

required by 49% over fine sand backfill in the same borehole. By using thermally

enhanced grout in a smaller 12.1 cm (4.75 in.) borehole the bor e length is only increased

by only 10% over fine sand backfill in the larg er 16.5 cm (6.5 in.) diameter borehole.

The results of (Spilker, 1998) suggests three steps that may be taken to reduce the impact

of grout on system performance:

• Reduce the amount of grout us ed to the bare minimum. Sand or cuttings may be

used where allowed but care must be used to ensure that the entire interstitial

space between the piping and the borehole diameter is filled.

• Use thermally enhanced grout wherever possible. For information on thermally

enhanced grout consult (ASHRAE, 1997) or (Spilker, 1998).

• Reduce the borehole diameter as much as possible to mitigate the effects of

whatever grout or backfill is used.



# D.1.2.2 Piping and Pu mps for GCHP Systems

Failures in early GCHP systems have led to st andard practice and materials for the buried

piping used in these systems that will result in long reliable life times. The only piping

material that is now used for the burie d portion of the syst ems is high density

polyethylene (HDPE) of very specific grades. All joints are thermally fused, either butt

or socket type. Specifications for the pipi ng material and joini ng process may be found

in (ASHRAE, 1997). Installers of these systems are certified by International Ground

Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) after being trained and demonstrating

# D-7 competency with the materials and methods. For piping within the building any of the

normally acceptable materials may be used that are in accordance with local codes.

Many possible header arrangements exist for connecting the multiple ground-coupling

wells that exist in a typical commercial scal e project. The conflicting objectives that

must be considered in designing the headers and sizing the piping are the desire to reduce

pumping power consumption and the need to av oid laminar flow which inhibits fluid side

heat transfer. (ASHRAE, 1997) contains recommendations for layout and sizing of

multiple ground loop systems. An additional consideration for ground-loop piping is the

placement of purge valves at strategic loca tions in the supply and return headers.

Pumping energy consumption in GCHP can be ex cessive if proper care is not taken in the

design. Pumping energy consumption will be acceptable if the following guidelines are

observed:

• Size piping and headers properly based on the recommendations of (ASHRAE,

1997).

• Avoid the use of antifreeze unless necessary and if so keep concentrations to a

minimum.

• Use variable speed pumping and two-wa y valves at the heat pumps for all

centrally pumped systems.

• Use pumps with high efficiency motors and design them to operate near their

point of maximum efficiency.

• Select heat pumps and control va lves with low pressure drops.

• Do not pump more fluid to the heat pump s than necessary. High efficiency units

will operate with little performance degradation at lower flow rates.

(ASHRAE, 1997) suggests the following benchm arks for pumping energy consumption:

Pump Input Power/Cooling Capacity Relative Ranking

(W/Ton) (Hp/100 Tons)

≤ 50 ≤ 5 Excellent

50-75 5-71⁄2 Good

75-100 71⁄2-10 Mediocre

100-150 10-15 Poor

>150 >15 Bad



# D.1.2.3 Dealing with Ve ntilation Air Requirements

Emphasis on improved indoor air quality requi res much more careful treatment of

ventilation air requirements than in the past. Heating and cooling this ventilation air can

become a major load for the HVAC system. GCHP’s are able to deal with these

ventilation loads as long as they are addresse d at the outset. The various types of GCHP

system arrangements lend themselves to differing solutions. For example, for a

classroom or hotel type application in a m oderate climate it may be acceptable to use

console type heat pump units and provide ven tilation air through the wall directly to the

unit. For larger systems that will have duc ted ventilation air to the units, in heating

dominated climates a sensible heat recove ry unit may provide th e best solution to

preconditioning the ventilation air. Anothe r solution for ducted systems in heating

# D-8 dominated climates would be to use a coil for preconditioning the ventilation air. The

water/antifreeze solution circulat ed to the coil could be ei ther heated by fossil fuel,

electricity, or a water-t o-water heat pump.

Providing ventilation air can be very problematic in humid air conditioning climates as

well because of all the excess humidity that it brings into the conditioned space. The

water-to-air heat pumps used in GCHP systems have a real advantage here as they have

very high latent capacity. For this reason it may not be necessary to consider total heat

recovery units in GCHP systems. The use of coils to precondition air is also an option in

the air-conditioning mode as well. The chille d water for the coils can be provided by a

water-to-water heat pump. Wh en this is done it is possibl e to downsize th e individual

zone heat pumps. Under part load conditions this arrangement will provide better

humidity control by dehumidifying the incomi ng air stream effectively. Several detailed

examples of methods for handling ventilatio n air in GCHP system s are contained in

(ASHRAE, 1997).



# D.1.2.4 Hybrid Systems and Ot her Cost Control Measures

As noted above, even in northern climates HVAC requirements of commercial scale

buildings are often dominated by air conditi oning. For ground coupled systems that use

the ground as a heat source/sink large imbalan ces between heat reje ction and addition can

present a problem. The computer software programs for ground loop design discussed

above allow the designer to ensure that heat buildup in the ground will not cause

problems over the system’s lifetime. However, where large imbalances exist adding a

cooling tower is an option that will help re duce the imbalance and also reduce the amount

of ground loop required. Closed circuit fluid coolers are often used for this purpose with

this type of system often referred to as a “Hybrid GCHP”. Some discussion of

supplemental heat rejection with cooling to wers is contained in (ASHRAE, 1997) but a

more comprehensive source of informati on on design methods is in (Kavanaugh, 1997).

A hybrid design is one of many cost control measures available to designers of GCHP

systems. GCHP are inherently simple syst ems and controlling costs in GCHP system

design is easily done as long as the designer does not try to use methods and equipment

more appropriate to conventional systems desi gn. An excellent example of this is found

in system control. Because the GCHP system achieves zone control via individual heat

pump units serving each zone, elaborate co ntrols (i.e. DDC) are neither necessary, nor

desirable. The designer new to GCHP systems would be wise to consult a separate

chapter in (ASHRAE, 1997) devoted to co st control measures in GCHP systems.



# D.1.2.5 Choice of Designer

The basic concept of a GSHP is not new, yet on ly in the past few y ears have they become

popular. While the design and inst allation infrastructure is fully in place in some parts of

the United States, in many areas the necessary infrastructure is underdeveloped. Thus, it

may be difficult to find qualified designers and installers in a particular area. For larger

projects involving many individual GSHP syst ems such as a major project in a family

housing area, or for larger commercial-scale applications on DoD fa cilities, it's quite

feasible and often advisable to seek experienced designers an d installers from outside the

# D-9 local area when necessary. Many installers of GSHP have shown themselves to be

competitive even at locations significantly distant from their normal operating area.

Design guidance has also been evolving very rapi dly in this field and it’s prudent to seek

out designers who are familiar with and use the most recent guidance. The most recent

comprehensive design guidance can be found in (ASHRAE, 1997) and (ASHRAE, 2003).

Training of designers is essentia l, but experience is also a major factor. In summary, for

a successful installation the se lection of competent designer s and installe rs cannot be

overemphasized.



# D.1.3 Installation Lessons Learned

While GSHP systems are not difficult to in stall, they are significantly different,

particularly the ground-coupling portion of the system, from other more conventional

types of heating and cooling eq uipment. Water well drillers, for example, may be able to

install a vertical ground-coupling loop field, but unless they are expe rienced expect them

to take much longer than an experienced ground loop installer, with attendance cost

increases. The integrity of the installa tion may also be compromised. Many GSHP

projects have been dismissed in the early economic analysis due to the high cost of

ground-coupling and in some of these inst ances a quote from an experienced and

competitive installer could have turned the economics of the project around. The

International Ground Source Heat Pump A ssociation (IGSHPA) has a certification

program for installers and it is recommended that only IGSH PA certified installers be

used on DOD projects.

In some situations unexpected problems will be encountered when installing the groundcoupling, especially vertical loops. The cont ractor and government must be flexible to

work around these problems. For example, if the design calls for tw o 300 foot boreholes

for a family housing unit and drilling difficultie s are encountered at a depth of 200 feet,

then the design must be modifi ed in the field, to three 200 fo ot boreholes. Assurance of

installed vertical heat exchanger lengths is simplified by prefabricated u-tubes that have

depth markings printed on the pipes; this is a highly recommended feature that should be

specified.

Careful quality control is required on instal lation of the ground-c oupling because of the

critical nature of that portion of the system s and the inability to make corrective actions

after installation is complete. For example, if the design has been made based on a 4 1⁄2

inch borehole backfilled with thermally enhanced grout, a field change to a larger

borehole and/or conventional grout could l eave the ground-coupling grossly undersized.

Failure to completely grout and/or backfi ll the bore holes can also be a serious

deficiency. Thus, close quality control must be maintained to ensure that seemingly

trivial field changes are not made to th e design which might render the installation

inadequate.



# D.1.4 Performance an d Energy Savings

Several demonstration projects have monito red the design, installation, and performance

of GSHP at DOD installations, many of the le ssons learned reported in this section above

have come directly or indirec tly from these projects. With respect to the performance of

# D-10 the heat pumps themselves results were not su bstantially different th an expected based on

manufacturer’s data once the additional parasitic losses were accounted for, see

(Phetteplace, 1992) and (Phetteplace, 1996) for examples.

Energy saving from GSHP projects have been impressive where comparisons could be

made. For example, from early demonstrat ion projects in family housing units at Ft.

Polk, LA (Phetteplace, 1999) reported saving of 29% when GSHP were compared to airto-air heat pumps. The result of these demonstration projects were used as justification to

retrofit all 4003 family housing units at Ft. Po lk to GSHP using a shared energy saving

project. The results of this massive retrof it projects confirmed th e earlier findings with

energy saving of 32% accompanied by demand reductions of 40% (Shonder and Hughes,

1997). Similar energy saving we re found at other DoD demons tration project sites, for

example (Sullivan, 1997), reported average an nual energy savings of 38% at Ft. Hood

Texas, and 29% at Selfridge Air Na tional Guard Base in Michigan.

Despite the impressive energy saving, in sma ll scale retrofit projects the economics were

not always attractive. (Sullivan, 1997) for example, estimates simple payback periods

15-20 years based on his results at Ft. Hood (T X) and Selfridge Air National Guard Base

(MI). Clearly, economics are more favorable on larger scale installations as well as new

construction as evidenced by the many projects that have been implemented as shared

saving performance contracts.



# D.2 Lessons Learned as Reported by DOD Field Personnel

In addition to the data call that was conducted as part of this report, DOD personnel

intimately involved with DOD GS HP projects were asked to volunteer any lessons they

have learned in dealing with GSHP systems at their installations. The following are the

responses given by DOD personnel.

DOD Branch: ARMY

Project Location: AWC Carlisle Barracks, Ca rlisle, PA. Resident ial and Commercial

GSHPs installed.

Point of Contact: Gary Swe ppenhiser, P.E., General Engineer, 309 Engineer Ave, ATZEDPW-E, Carlisle, PA 17013, 717-245-3746

Lesson(s) Learned:

1. Well depth is critical on standing column well design. Due to unique geologic

conditions in this area, such as limestone ca verns, mud pockets, some of the wells were

not as deep as design requirements. This requ ires the well to bleed off excess water more

frequently. Since a high quality native trou t stream runs through the Post we had to

discharge most of the excess bleed water to the local municipal sewer system resulting in

high sewer fees.

2. Some of the commercial buildings that have cooking facilities complain about

humidity control issues. The geothermal systems do not have reheats to allow for

humidity control. Additionally ASHRAE requi res a certain amount of outside air, which

at certain times will draw in a lot of unconditioned moist air.

3. The first winter, we had numerous probl ems with units freezing up since the bleed

water temperature was set too low. This has been corrected.

# D-11 4. Make sure you and your well driller have a good plan for controlling runoff during

well drilling operations. This can be mess y, especially when you hit clay pockets.

DOD Branch: ARMY

Project Location: Fort Belvoir, VA GSHPs inst alled at Pilot Lounge, Visitors Center, and

Veterinary Clinic.

Point of Contact: Randy Smidt, Energy Engin eer, SpecPro Inc., Contractor to Fort

Belvoir Environmental and Natural Resource Division, Randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil

703-806-0023

Lesson(s) Learned:

If these 3 projects were not included in a VE RY large ESPC, we most likely would not

have done these projects. In the case of bl dg 610, the location of th e well field in close

proximity to the building has complicated siting of an addition to the building structure.

610 has issues with needing to be reset afte r almost every power outage. Not quite so

critical for a/c, but has caused problems with keeping the military working dogs warm

during heating season if power outage occu rs at night or over the weekend.

DOD Branch: ARMY

Project Location: Fort Riley, Manhattan, KS BOQ and Family Housing GSHPs installed,

one Hybrid system.

Point of Contact: Russ Goering P.E., Chief, Energy Office, ESD PW

Bldg 408 Pershing Court, Fort Riley, KS 66442-6016, 785-239-2371

russ.goering@riley.army.mil

Lesson(s) Learned:

1.) The only installation problem I can remember was that the well driller

encountered many underground voids.

2.) In 2001-2003, new Family Housing units us ing conventional high-efficiency gas

furnace and electric air conditioner were constructed adjacent to the GSHP

units. They were built using similar c onstruction, i.e., wood-framed, vinyl-sided,

composition shingle roof, and comparable le vels of fiberglass insulation. The Ft

Riley Energy Office was able to get mete rs installed and monitored on a few of

the units for a short time. This provide d a side-by-side comparison of GSHP vs.

conventional gas furnace/electric A/C units on similar buildings. Unfortunately

only 7 months of side-by-side data was collected. The results showed the GSHP

units had metered annual energy intensity at approximately 27 KBtu/SF, and the

conventional units had an estimated annua l energy intensity at approximately 54

KBtu/SF. (This is total energy usage including HVAC, hot water, power, and

lighting. Data was extrapolated for a nnual estimate for the conventional units.)

3.) Interviews with occupants of the GSHP units revealed th ey were pleased with the

GSHP’s. Positive comments included the absence of the noise/unsightly

appearance of the exterior condensing unit and good thermal comfort. The only

problem reported was difficulty in fi guring out the operation of digital

thermostats. No reliability or discom fort problems were reported with the

GSHP’s.

# D-12 DOD Branch: ARMY

Project Location: YongSan Garrison, Seoul, S. Korea, Various Administration / Family

Housing Units.

Point of Contact: Ghim, John D., GS-13, Area II SA DPW , john.d.ghim@us.army.mil

Lesson(s) Learned:

1. The Yongsan ESPC contract was writt en by Department of Energy for 15 years

monitoring service, the contract requires annua l verification and testi ng by contractor for

government review and approval. The conditi ons and requirement of building changes, a

savings outlook of 15 years is too long, the dynami cs of mission forces installation to be

flexible in savings initially calculated, it is very difficult to maintain the same parameters

for 15 years.

2. The maintenance and service portion of ESPC contra ct needs to be clarified; there are

gray areas on who is responsible for repl acement and repair. The responsibility of

replacement and repair work needs to be clea rly identified and separated. According to

the contract, the equipment is owned by the contractor; however operations and

maintenance is responsibility of installa tion, the repair and re placement related to

operations is vague. This is not a pr oblem with new equipment; however as the

equipment age, life cycle replacement becomes gray on who is responsible for repair and

replacement.

DOD Branch: NAVY

Project Location: NAS PATUXENT RIVER

Point of Contact: Mel Green 301-757-4721

Lesson(s) Learned:

• Filters need to be replaced more often than twice a year.

• Drain plugs need to be cleaned several times a year.

• Ability to remotely monitor each un it greatly improves the support to the

customer.

• Have a POC that is familiar with system. Problem was not repaired for three

years as personnel unfamiliar with system did took band-aid approach instead of

permanent fix.

DOD Branch: Navy / Marine Corps

DOD Installation Project Located and any other Pertinent Project Information:

Marine Corps Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune Bases

POC wishes to remain nameless

Lesson(s) Learned:

The lessons learned can be extensive fr om a project that does not provide the

preconstruction estimated savings.

1. System Design: The design of the GSHP systems is highly dependant on tests of the

ability of the ground to store excess ener gy for use from the cooling season for

recovery in the heating season. Testing procedures based strictly on acceptable

industry practices may result in not consid ering a critical fa ctor: the flow of

underground water in the geological forma tion in which the ground heat exchangers

were installed. Where ther e is substantial underground water movement, the waste

energy is not stored but is “washed” awa y. The result is that the soil conductivity

# D-13 test, crucial to the correct sizing of the ground heat exchanger, gives a soil

conductivity reading that can be as much as 40% higher than when there is little or no

groundwater movement. This may be satisf actory for cooling operation but is a very

serious problem when heating is required as the waste energy is not being saved for

future use.

2. System Installation: The GSHP system is not the same as “split” heat pump

systems. It is critical that instal lation, operation and ma intenance personnel

understand the differences to ensure the proper service and maintenance of the

equipment. There are two installation co mponents: the interior heat pump and the

exterior header and ground heat exchange r piping. When connecting to existing

residential duct systems, some additional ca re must be taken. Supply ducts must be

properly sealed. Ducts in crawl spaces should not lie on the ground. Openings in

walls and ceilings of the room where the GSHPs are located should be closed. In

certain circumstances supplemental strip h eating may be justified for use in the

heating season but this should be looked at closely. The lesson learned is that all

units must be carefully inspected for cont ract compliance and for correct installation

of the GSHP systems. These are a system, not merely individual components. The

supply and return ducts are also a part of the system. The weakest component will

determine the success or failure of the project. Site supervision is crucial to have a

satisfactory installation.

3. Tenants: Tenant control of temperature settin gs presents significant challenges to

controlling energy use in family housing. A recent survey of GSHP complaints

revealed that almost all tenants surveyed had thermostats set at significantly lower

temperatures than the GSHP systems were designed to maintain during the cooling

season. When set at too high of a temp erature during the he ating season, GSHP

systems will use excessive amounts of ener gy particularly those systems that have

been retrofitted with electric resistance h eating coils. The lesson learned is that

education alone is not a solution for pr operly operating the GSHP systems by the

tenants. A suggested way to help enforce proper use of the GSHP systems is for the

tenant to be metered and excessive ener gy use billed to the tenant. A program

providing individual electric metering at each housing unit is being implemented by

the privatization contractor at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point.

4. Maintenance Staff : Equipping and training maintena nce staff and implementation of

correct maintenance procedures are critical to ensure properly operating systems. In

addition, a database used to track the ope rating history of equipment components at

individual buildings provides a method to s ee and act on trends that develop over time

with the equipment. The lesson learned is that the maintenance program, when large

quantities of GSHP’s are involved, require s technically competent service personnel

as well as a database for tracking the perf ormance of the HVAC systems in all of the

residences.

There is a very positive lesson that has been learned: the GSHP system has a

substantially greater capability to perform under advers e conditions that does a high-

# D-14 efficiency split system while providing significant energy savings. Many observations

were made of the GSHP’s operating at level in excess of the design cr iteria in the cooling

mode. While this may be attributed to the ground conditions surrounding the ground heat

exchangers, it also illustrates that GSHP’s are superior to high-efficiency split systems

even when the installation leaves much to be desired.

One final lesson learned included in this sec tion isn’t from a DOD site at all, rather a

Pennsylvania elementary school constructed in 2003 in Hanover, PA that achieved LEED

Gold certification and learned a valuable le sson for GSHP systems (Turpin, 2006). The

lesson learned involved the original design of a ground heat exch anger for the school

having to be reduced in size and depth of bore holes during installation because of the site

geology. This caused the system to be unders ized and was evident during the first major

cold event when returning wa ter temperatures from the ground heat exchanger were 33

degrees F and building temperatures hovered in the mid-60’s. The solution was to

hybridize the system and add an in-line supplem ental boiler to contribute during cold

spells. It turns out this hybrid system soluti on cost less then the original design of the

ground heat exchanger would’ve been and the energy and associated savings were still

realized. This lesson learned indicates that hybrid systems can make a lot of sense in

terms of both cost and system performance.

All of the above lessons learned are exce llent information for DOD personnel unfamiliar

with GSHP systems to get a feel for potential areas of concern with GSHP systems. The

main themes that are evident in these lessons learned include:

• Correct GSHP system design and installati on is critical to ensuring the system

performs as designed;

• Education of GSHP system operation for maintenance staff and building tenants

is critical to ensure the system s continue to operate properly;

• Great care must be shown when planni ng GSHP system layout to ensure ground

heat exchanger bore fields don’t interfere with future change s in the mission of

the base; and

• Hybridizing GSHP systems can solve system underperformance and may be the

most cost effective design option.

# APPENDIX E: List of Acronyms

AFCESA Air Force Civil E ngineering Support Activity

ASHRAE American Society of Heating Re frigeration and Air-c onditioning Engineers

BEQ Bachelor Enlisted Quarters

BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters

COP Coefficient of Performance

CERL Construction Engin eering Research Laboratory

CONUS Continental United States

CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

DoD Department of Defense

DoE Department of Energy

DST Duct Ground Storage Model

DUERS Defense Utilities Energy Reporting System

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center

ESPC Energy Savings Performance Contract

ESCO Energy Services Company

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

GCHP Ground Coupled Heat Pump

GHC Geo-Heat Center

GHPC Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium

GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump

GSU Ground Source, High Efficiency Upflow Heat Pumps

GWHP Ground Water Heat Pump

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IGSHPA International Ground S ource Heat Pump Association

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

NDAA FY06 National Defense Author ization Act of Fiscal Year 2006

NFESC Naval Facilities Engi neering Service Center

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

QC Quality Control

RPCS Real Property Cl assification System

SDR Standard Dimension Ratio

SME Subject Matter Expert

SWHP Surface Water Heat Pumps

TRNSYS Transient Energy System Simulation Tool

UESC Utility Energy Services Contract

UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

USGBC United States Green Building Council

USGS United States Geological Survey

WBDG Whole Building Design Guide

# APPENDIX E: List of Acronyms

AFCESA Air Force Civil E ngineering Support Activity

ASHRAE American Society of Heating Re frigeration and Air-c onditioning Engineers

BEQ Bachelor Enlisted Quarters

BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters

COP Coefficient of Performance

CERL Construction Engin eering Research Laboratory

CONUS Continental United States

CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

DoD Department of Defense

DoE Department of Energy

DST Duct Ground Storage Model

DUERS Defense Utilities Energy Reporting System

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center

ESPC Energy Savings Performance Contract

ESCO Energy Services Company

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

GCHP Ground Coupled Heat Pump

GHC Geo-Heat Center

GHPC Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium

GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump

GSU Ground Source, High Efficiency Upflow Heat Pumps

GWHP Ground Water Heat Pump

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IGSHPA International Ground S ource Heat Pump Association

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

NDAA FY06 National Defense Author ization Act of Fiscal Year 2006

NFESC Naval Facilities Engi neering Service Center

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

QC Quality Control

RPCS Real Property Cl assification System

SDR Standard Dimension Ratio

SME Subject Matter Expert

SWHP Surface Water Heat Pumps

TRNSYS Transient Energy System Simulation Tool

UESC Utility Energy Services Contract

UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

USGBC United States Green Building Council

USGS United States Geological Survey

WBDG Whole Building Design Guide