Office of the Secretary of Defense 

REPORT TO CONGRESS

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 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 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) requested a report on the use 

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

follows: 

 

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

• An assessment of the applicability and cost effectiveness of the use of GSHPs 

at DoD facilities in different geographic 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 encouraging the increased use of GSHP 

systems at DoD facilities. 

Summary of Findings 

A GSHP system transfers heat to and from the 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 systems are operating on 

DoD installations. The most common application 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 projects 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 hybridized1 with conventional heating, ventilating and airconditioning (HVAC) equipment are cost effective in the Northeast, Southwest, Western 

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

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

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

is needed to identify specific opportunities in these regions. 

 

1

 The term “hybridized” refers to installing a GSHP system coupled with traditional HVAC equipment 

such as a cooling tower or a boiler. 
ii

Requirements such as section 109 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) require 

incorporating sustainable design 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 construction 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 problem 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 troubleshooting 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) published 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 GSHP are soil thermal properties. These 

properties are often completely unknown and the difficulty 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 new construction and retrofitting of facilities. 

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

• Correct GSHP system design and installation 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 correctly; 

• Great care must be shown when planning 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 systems continue to operate properly; and 

• Hybridizing GSHP systems can solve system 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 Facilities within the Continental United States .... 8 

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

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

2.3 DoD Current GSHP Inventory and Analysis............................................................ 9 

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

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

3.1 Design Considerations that Affect Applicability 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 Construction and Retrofitting for DoD Facilities ...... 30 

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

4.2 GSHP Applicability for New Construction 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 New 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 Facilitating 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 / Marine Corps Planned Projects 

APPENDIX B – State Regulations for Closed Loop GSHP Systems

APPENDIX C – List of Useful 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 Installed 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 and Range for Installed Project Economic 

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5(a): Building 137 (classroom)............................................................ 28 

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

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

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......................... 29 
vi

FIGURES 

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4: DoD GSHP Historical Tons Installed................................................ 14 

Figure 5(a): Project Cost per Ton Installed Capacity (Commercial Projects, log scale)... 14 

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

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

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

Figure 7(b): DoD GSHP Average Project Payback............................................. 22 
1

1. Introduction 

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

Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 (Public 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 facilities in different geographic regions 

of the United States; 

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

pumps for purposes of new construction at, and retrofitting of, 

DoD facilities; and 

(4) Recommendations for facilitating and encouraging the 

increased use of ground source heat pumps at DoD facilities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 Background Information on Ground-Source Heat Pump Technology 

within the Continental United States 

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

be reversed without the addition 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 energy. 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 supplies that heat to a higher temperature sink, such as the 

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

reversed and the heat is extracted from the cooler inside air and rejected 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 the heating mode and reject 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 air-conditioner functions similarly to an air-to-air heat 

pump, except it is not designed to reverse the cycle to provide heating. 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 Pumps, Earth Source Heat Pumps, Geo-source 

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

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

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

names to connect with their targeted 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 water 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 exchanges 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 circulating 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 horizontal (Figure 1b) arrays of buried High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 

pipe that form heat exchangers with the ground. Vertical heat exchangers are fabricated 

by drilling boreholes into the ground and inserting 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 addition to low land area requirements, vertical 

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

potential for heat exchange, and adaptability to most sites. Among vertical groundcoupling’s disadvantages are potentially higher cost, problems in some geological 

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

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

Horizontal heat exchangers may be installed 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 skills and equipment combined with lower 

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

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

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

swings of the soil at the typical burial depths. 
3

An alternate method of installing a horizontal 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 plastic 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 maintain the appropriate spacing. The material 

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

slinky method with the coils placed vertically in trenches. Obtaining adequate 

compaction of the backfill can be difficult for the vertical slinky configuration. Slinky 

systems have the same advantages as conventional horizontal systems but require less 

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

disadvantage to the slinky system is the additional 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 seasonal temperature swings and 

hence lower equipment efficiencies. 

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

These systems extract water from the ground, exchange 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 “standing column well” (Figure 1f). In general, systems of this 

type require special geology, which has limited 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 formation surrounding the well through convection 

and advection. When the temperature of the water 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 cost in most cases, especially in larger 

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

area environmental regulations. For larger GWHP applications, heat exchangers isolate 

heat pumps from ground water resulting in reduced water quality requirements. 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 clean. Avoiding contact between the ground water 

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

systems. Failure to use the best design practice 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 method transfers heat through “coupling” HDPE pipes submerged 

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

“Slim Jim,” transfers heat though stainless steel or titanium plate heat exchangers. 
4

(h) Surfac

with ind

(e) Ground water heat pump (g) Surface water heat pump system.

systems with disposal at surface.

(d) Ground water 

with supply and 

(a) Vertical ground-coupled 

system

Figure 1: Various types of GSHP Configurations

(c) Horizontal slinky groundcoupled system (b) Horizontal ground- coupled system

(f) Standing Column Well

Figures (a)-(h) provided by CRREL, except (f), (IGSHPA, 2000)

(h) Surfac

with ind

(e) Ground water heat pump (g) Surface water heat pump system.

systems with disposal at surface.

(d) Ground water 

with supply and 

(a) Vertical ground-coupled 

system

Figure 1: Various types of GSHP Configurations

(c) Horizontal slinky groundcoupled system (b) Horizontal ground- coupled system

(f) Standing Column Well

Figures (a)-(h) provided by CRREL, except (f), (IGSHPA, 2000)

(a) Vertical ground-coupled system 

(b) Horizontal groundcoupled system (c) Horizontal slinky ground- coupled system (d) Ground water h

with supply and re-

(e) Ground water heat pump systems with disposal at surface 

(f) Standing Column Well (g) Surface water heat pump system (h) Surfac

with indire
5

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

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

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

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

system, when either heat extraction or rejection becomes imbalanced the average ground 

temperature will drift over years. Eventually the ground temperature will be outside a 

useable temperature range for either heat rejection or heat extraction. The result is that 

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

cooling tower to the GSHP system, to make a Hybrid GCHP system, to provide 

supplemental heat rejection capacity. The additional heat rejection capacity enables the 

heat rejection and heat extraction to be kept in balance. 

Another type of ground-source heat pump system is the direct expansion GCHP. The 

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

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

fluid. The direct expansion GCHP has the potential 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 ground/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 others in matching the best HVAC system to 

the application. 

1.2 Current Status of GSHP Technology within CONUS 

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

GSHP units installed and operating within CONUS 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 GSHP industry in CONUS, the Geothermal 

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

Association (IGSHPA). Additionally, there are academic organizations supporting 

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

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

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

ASHRAE, through Technical Committee TC6.8 (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 Department of Energy’s (DoE) ORNL is the lead 
6

laboratory for DOEs GSHP technology specific 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, which lists GSHP software. The website 

identifies software used as aids in determining 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 

system2

, which outlines CONUS into 15 zones3. Further, the methodology used to 

analyze both current and potential GSHP installations 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 project characteristics used to screen for 

potentially successful GSHP applications include identifying factors that contributed to 

an existing GSHP system performing well and 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 task, DoD collaborated with ORNL. Using the 

results of the computer modeling, the output was 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 for new-construction and retrofit projects at 

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

 

2

 Additional information on the DOE’s climate classification system can be found at 

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

http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/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.

5-25 12.0 600,000 3.5 1200 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. 

1. 2. 3. 4. 
7

chapter are specific issues related to new construction and retrofit for three DoD facility 

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

these requirements. 

Chapter 5 provides conclusions and recommendations and addresses ways that DoD can 

further encourage GSHP usage 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 installations 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 the accuracy of the collected data. Review 

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

contact either confirmed or corrected the suspect data. The 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 commercial systems and residential 

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

ton4. Linear regression analyses on both sets of data yield R2 values close to unity, which 

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

similar systems installed in the private industry. For 2006, regression analyses 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 energy savings were calculated by using ASHRAE Technical 

Committee 6.8 Geothermal Energy Utilization research that estimates GSHP full load 

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

verified with the appropriate point of contact. 

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

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

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

overall percent difference between the reported annual cost savings and the threshold 

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

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

Similarly, the reported annual energy savings are higher than the corresponding upper 

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

of these values have a percent difference greater than 50% of the threshold value. The 

 

4

 The cost data in Figures 5a and 5b was adjusted for inflation and location. 
9

overall percent difference from the threshold value is -31%. These reported annual 

energy savings values are considered reasonable 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 defined by DoE International Energy Conservation 

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

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

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

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

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

to approximately 52,000 tons of installed GSHP capacity. Total installed capacity is 

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

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

classes using the DoD Real Property 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. Barracks / Bachelor Officer Quarters (BOQs) / 

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

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

The reported total annual energy savings from currently operational GSHP systems is 

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

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

The low reporting rates and inaccurate reporting 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 installed 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 are 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 particular technical and economic 

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

data have been normalized by dividing their values with the corresponding installed 

GSHP capacity of the project. Cost effectiveness 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_Budget/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 figures 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. 
11 

Figure 2: DOD Installations with Figure 2: DOD Installations with GSHPs Currently Installed or Planned to be Installed Currently Installed or Planned to be Installed

(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs (Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs et. al. et. al., 2002) , 2002)

Fort Irwin

Albany MCLB

Rock Island Arsenal

Fort Riley

Fort Campbell

Fort Polk

Selfridge AiNG

Fort Bragg

MCAS Cherry Point

Fort 

Fort Sill

AWC CarlislBarracks

Fort Jackson

Fort Hood

Fort Bliss

Little Rock AFB

Luke AFB

USAF Academy

Pensacola NAS, NAS Whiting Field, 

& NA Corry Station

Hulburt& Eglin AFBTyndall AFB

MacDill AFB

Offutt AFB

Cannon AFB

Charleston 

& NWS Ch

DyessAFB

Laughlin AFB

KingMercAcad

Beaufort MCAS & Parris Island MCRD

USACE

Fort Knox

USACE

USACE

Lake CityAmmo Plant

McAlester

Ammo Plant

USACE

Tooele Army Depot

USACE

National Guard 

Armories

Navy Supply 

Corps School

DRY HUMID MA

R

I

N

E

Figure 2: DOD Installations with Figure 2: DOD Installations with GSHPs Currently Installed or Planned to be Installed Currently Installed or Planned to be Installed

(Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs (Shown on DOE IECC Climate Classification Map) (Briggs et. al. et. al., 2002) , 2002)

Fort Irwin

Albany MCLB

Rock Island Arsenal

Fort Riley

Fort Campbell

Fort Polk

Selfridge AiNG

Fort Bragg

MCAS Cherry Point

Fort 

Fort Sill

AWC CarlislBarracks

Fort Jackson

Fort Hood

Fort Bliss

Little Rock AFB

Luke AFB

USAF Academy

Pensacola NAS, NAS Whiting Field, 

& NA Corry Station

Hulburt& Eglin AFBTyndall AFB

MacDill AFB

Offutt AFB

Cannon AFB

Charleston 

& NWS Ch

DyessAFB

Laughlin AFB

KingMercAcad

Beaufort MCAS & Parris Island MCRD

USACE

Fort Knox

USACE

USACE

Lake CityAmmo Plant

McAlester

Ammo Plant

USACE

Tooele Army Depot

USACE

National Guard 

Armories

Navy Supply 

Corps School

DRY HUMID MA

R

I

N

E

All of Alaska in Zone 7 Except for the following Boroughs in Zone 8: Bethel Northwest Arctic Dellingham Southeast Fairbanks Fairbanks N. Star Wade Hampton Nome Yukon-Koyukuk North Slope 

Zone 1 includes Hawaii, Guam Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands 
Table 3(a). DOD CONUS GSHP Average and Range for Installed Project Technical Data

ARMY 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 (

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 

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 (

DOD WIDE 139 (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 (

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 WIDE 0.06 (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)

DOD Branch 

 Average (Range) 

Building Area (KSF)

DOD Branch

 Average (Range) 

Electric Utility Rate 

($/kWh)

Average (Range) Thermal 

Conductivity (BTU/hr-foot-oF)

Average (Range) 

Bore Hole Depth (ft)

Averag

Distanc

Ta

Average (Range) 

Calendar Year 

Installed

Average (Range) Cooling 

Efficiency (EER)

Average (Range) Heating 

Efficiency (COP)

Average (Range) Land 

Area Used for GSHP Loop 

(KSF)

Average (Range) 

Reported Annual Energy 

Savings / Ton (kWh)

Average (Range) Project 

Estimated Economic Life 

(yrs)

Average (Range) Project 

Payback Period (yrs)

Average (Range) 

Natural Gas Rate 

($/kcf)

Average (Range) Project 

Investment Cost / Ton ($)

Table 2. DOD CONUS GSHPs Installed Pertinent Information 

Total Reported GSHP's Operational1 Total Reported Annual S

(#) / (installed Ton Capacity) 71 72 61 17 74 73 44 21 53 14 22 54 69 13 (kWh) 

ARMY 193 9,534 / 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 AIRFORCE 27 3,934 / 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 NAVY / MARINE CORPS 44 7,679 / 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 TOTAL 264 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 

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 hi

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 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 Performan

2. The buildings in which GSHP have been installed for all of the projects reported in the datacall have been classified using the DOD Real-Property Classification System (RPCS) two-digit code level. The following two digits corres

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing, 61-Administrative Buildings, 17-Training Facilities, 74-Indoor Morale Welfare, and Recreation Facilities, 73-Personnel Support and Services Facilities, 44-Covered Storage, 21-Maintenance Fac

14-Land Operational Facilities, 22-Production Facilities, 54-Dental Clinics, 69-Administrative Structures Other Than Buildings, 13-Communications, Navigation Aids and Airfield Light. 

Total # Of GSHP 

DOD Branch Projects Reported

% 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 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

DOD 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

R2

 = 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

70000

1988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Year

Tons 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

R2

 = 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 Projects, Log Scale)

Installed Capacity (Tons) 

Installed Capacity (Tons) 
 15

3. An Assessment of Applicability and Cost Effectiveness of 

GSHPs at DoD Facilities for Different 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 bore holes. ASHRAE reports that describe 

related GSHP design issues are listed 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 cost of a GSHP system is highly dependent on other sitespecific requirements in addition to peak capacity. One site requirement is to select the 

type of heat transfer methodology. For example, 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 discovered to be under-sized 

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

increased operational costs and degraded equipment performance. 

HVAC load requirements, specific load demand 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 requires consideration of load variations, peak load, building 

type, building envelope construction, HVAC zone layout, and any non-space heating and 

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

design calculations, such as heat transfer interaction between adjacent loops and longterm heat build-up potential, can be performed using GSHP design software. Two 

commonly used GSHP design software packages 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 properties, 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 parameters, 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 commercially available sources for such testing are listed in 

Appendix C. 
 16

possible to conveniently test the 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 cost prohibitive due to design adjustments 

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

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

with a supplemental heat rejecter, such as a closed circuit fluid cooler type-cooling tower, 

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

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

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

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

Ground water availability and associated regulatory issues must be considered. 

Information on ground water resources suitable for preliminary analysis is available from 

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

http://capp.water.usgs.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 regions that lack a local 

infrastructure, acquiring a properly 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 complex or larger systems. 

3.2 General DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment 

Generalizations about the applicability of GSHPs 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 experiences can provide some insight into 

identifying successful regional applications. The general assessments provided in this 

section are largely based on experiences from the private sector. 

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

residential scale applications such as family 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 relative 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 cost of electricity due to the rapid price 

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

worthy of consideration. 

In contrast, due primarily to cooling requirements, commercial scale applications possess 

more favorable economics. However, site-specific factors determine applicability. 

Standing column well systems have the widest application of any system type in 
 17

commercial scale applications in the Northeast. Vertical ground coupled systems are 

often cost prohibitive due to high costs associated 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, commercial 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 vertical ground coupled, while some commercial 

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

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

change as fossil fuels prices increase. 

Southeast: GSHPs have seen widespread development in the Southeast. Installations 

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

installations are vertical ground coupled, but there have been some surface water and 

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

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

systems for schools with dispersed floor plans 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 favorable for GSHP systems and resulted 

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

systems are both vertical and horizontal ground 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 applied specifically in commercial scale 

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

schools. 

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

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

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

ground-coupled systems. However, hybrid GSHPs 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 penetration is still relatively 

low. 
 18

3.3 Detailed DoD GSHP Geographical Assessment 

Using data from existing DoD GSHP installations, computer models predicted the 

feasibility of GSHP systems in different climate zones.7 The feasibility of using GSHP 

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

installations. The analysis determined applicability and cost effectiveness of using GSHP 

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

used at DoD installations, computer based 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 building8

 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 zone 3A has an estimated 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 percentage of GSHP use indicates that there is a 

great potential for DoD buildings to implement GSHP technology. 

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

energy savings (in kWh) of a project divided by its total installed tons with an assumed 

unity cost factor. A higher ratio translates into a higher likelihood that the project will be 

cost effective. Normalizing the cost factors prevents discrepancies that are introduced 

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

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

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

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

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

analysis only includes annual energy savings values 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 values 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 system defines different climate zones. 8

 Per the Base Structure Report, a building is classified as a roofed, floored, 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, office and/or manufacturing spaces. 
 19

Insufficient DoD data9 is available to draw conclusions regarding cost effectiveness on an 

empirical basis for climate zones in the Dry (B) category and Marine (C) category shown 

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

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

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

been installed in the 4A climate zone, followed 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 country. Furthermore, from the 

analyses conducted in this section, climate zones 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 data, making it difficult to compare them with climate 

zones in the Humid (A) category. No GSHP systems have 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 Zones

Climate 

Zone No.

Number of 

Projects Reported

Total Building Area 

GSHPs Service 

(KSF)

Total Number 

of GSHP 

units Installed

Total GSHP 

Installed 

Tons 

Average 

GSHP Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

Average GSHP 

Heating 

Efficiency (COP)

Total Estimated 

Land Area Used for 

GSHP Ground 

Loops (KSF)

Average Thermal 

Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-footoF)

Average Bore 

Hole Depth For 

Vertical Loops (ft)

Total P

Invest

Cost 

3A 60 17,186 12,962 28,557 12.31 3.86 4,669 1.06 233 92,27

 

4A 103 3,444 4,152 10,143 13.25 3.24 3,098 1.65 376 83,13

 

2A 26 374 2,126 8,271 14.70 3.40 306 1.24 253 9,43

 

3B 4 No Data 791 2,715 13.50 No Data 441,000 No Data No Data 6,88

 

5A 5 276 1,066 2,168 20.83 4.00 17 1.30 430 9,59

 

6A 3 104 44 155 14.80 3.53 17 1.05 267 23

 

4B 1 No Data No Data 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No D2B 1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No D5B 4 25 6 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2,50

 

Notes: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 Estimates

Climate 

Zone No.1

Climate Zone 

Name / Type1

Representative US 

City

DOD Bldgs 

Owned2 

(KSF) 

DOD 

Reported 

GSHP 

Installed 

(KSF)

DOD % 

Building 

square 

Footage using 

GSHP

Average Cost 

Effectiveness3 

(Annual Savings 

(kWh) / Ton 

Installed)

Average Project 

Payback Period 

(yrs)

1A Very Hot - Humid Miami, FL 78,716 0 0.00% N/A N/A1B Very Hot - Dry -- 0 0.00% N/A N/A2A Hot - Humid Houston, TX 153,252 374 0.24% 1,304.67 12.202B Hot - Dry Phoenix, AZ 22,967 1 Project No Data No Data No Data3A Warm - Humid Memphis, TN 361,013 17,186 4.76% 4,941.33 8.603B Warm - Dry El Paso, TX 205,839 4 Projects No Data No Data No Data

3C Warm - Marine San Francisco, CA 70,089 0 0.00% N/A N/A

4A Mixed - Humid Baltimore, MD 377,642 3,444 0.91% 9,682.90 12.004B Mixed - Dry Albuquerque, NM 14,385 1 Project No Data No Data No Data

4C Mixed - Marine Salem, OR 50,039 0 0.00% N/A N/A

5A Cool - Humid Chicago, IL 184,607 276 0.15% 511.06 15.105B Cool - Dry Boise, ID 100,140 25 0.02% No Data No Data6A Cold - Humid Burlington, VT 55,527 104 0.19% 16.22 27.306B Cold - Dry Helena, MT 5,488 0 0.00% N/A N/A

7 Very Cold Duluth, MN 15,543 0 0.00% N/A N/A8 Subartic Fairbanks, AK - 0 0.00% N/A N/A

Notes: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 http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/climate_paper_review_draft_rev.pdf

2. Data In this column calculated by using the DOD building information reported in the DOD Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2005 Baseline and totaling the Building Square foot3. 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 

20 
21 

M DRY (B) HUMID (A)

AR

I

N

E

(C)

Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD Existing Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD Existing GSHPs for each Climate Class for each Climate Class

ClimRepTotDONo 

Climate Zone 3Representative Total DOD BuDOD GSHPs InCost EffectivenAve Project Pa

ClReToDOCoAv

Climate Zone 5A-Cool-HumidRepresentative City: Chicago, ILTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 184,607DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 276Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 511Ave Project Payback: 15.1

Climate Zone 6A-Cold-HumRepresentative City: BurlingTotal DOD Buildings (KSF)DOD GSHPs Installed (KSFCost Effectiveness (kWh/ToAve Project Payback: 27.3

Climate Zone 7-Very ColdRepresentative City: Duluth, MNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 15,543DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 4B-Mixed – DryRepresentative City: Albuquerque, NMTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 14,385DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 4CMixed – MarineRepresentative City: Salem, ORTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 50,039DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 5B-Cool – DryRepresentative City: Boise, IDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 100,140DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 25No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 6B-Cold – DryRepresentative City: Helena, MTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 5,488DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 2A-Hot – HumidRepresentative City: Houston, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 153,252DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 374Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 1,305Ave Project Payback: 12.2

Climate Zone 2BHot – DryRepresentative City: Phoenix, AZTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 22,967DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 3CWarm – MarineRepresentative City: San Francisco, CATotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 70,089DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available Climate Zone 3B-Warm – Dry

Representative City: El Paso, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 205,839DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 4 ProjectsNo Effectiveness Data Available

M DRY (B) HUMID (A)

AR

I

N

E

(C)

Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD Existing Figure 6: Geographical Summary of DOD Existing GSHPs for each Climate Class for each Climate Class

ClimRepTotDONo 

Climate Zone 3Representative Total DOD BuDOD GSHPs InCost EffectivenAve Project Pa

ClReToDOCoAv

Climate Zone 5A-Cool-HumidRepresentative City: Chicago, ILTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 184,607DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 276Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 511Ave Project Payback: 15.1

Climate Zone 6A-Cold-HumRepresentative City: BurlingTotal DOD Buildings (KSF)DOD GSHPs Installed (KSFCost Effectiveness (kWh/ToAve Project Payback: 27.3

Climate Zone 7-Very ColdRepresentative City: Duluth, MNTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 15,543DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 4B-Mixed – DryRepresentative City: Albuquerque, NMTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 14,385DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 4CMixed – MarineRepresentative City: Salem, ORTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 50,039DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 5B-Cool – DryRepresentative City: Boise, IDTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 100,140DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 25No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 6B-Cold – DryRepresentative City: Helena, MTTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 5,488DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 2A-Hot – HumidRepresentative City: Houston, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 153,252DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 374Cost Effectiveness (kWh/Ton): 1,305Ave Project Payback: 12.2

Climate Zone 2BHot – DryRepresentative City: Phoenix, AZTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 22,967DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 1 ProjectNo Effectiveness Data Available

Climate Zone 3CWarm – MarineRepresentative City: San Francisco, CATotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 70,089DOD GSHPsInstalled (KSF): 0No Effectiveness Data Available Climate Zone 3B-Warm – Dry

Representative City: El Paso, TXTotal DOD Buildings (KSF): 205,839DOD GSHPs Installed (KSF): 4 ProjectsNo Effectiveness Data Available

Figure 6: Geographical Summary of Existing GSHPs for each Climate Class 
 22

Figure 7(a): DoD GSHP Cost Effectiveness (kWh/TON) vs. Climate Zone

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2A 3A 4A 5A 6A

Cost 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 Zone

Average Project Payback (years)
 23

3.3.2 Modeling Simulation Analysis 

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

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

different GSHP applications. Three building types commonly found at DoD installations 

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

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

GSHP technology. 

For each building, as-built drawings, site notes, and blueprints were used to develop a 

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

window types, shading, occupancy patterns, internal generation, and lighting were taken 

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

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

plans if the existing HVAC drawings proved incompatible with the goals of the project. 

3.3.2.1 The Modeled Buildings 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

building is subdivided into 21 zones. 

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

BOQ. The area of the building 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 individual bedrooms and living spaces are each 

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

as a single zone. This simplification allowed 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 building 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 concrete masonry units, the interior walls of 

gypsum board covering concrete masonry units, 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 modeling 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 bore GSHP system was designed for each 

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

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

building in each location. 

3.3.2.3 The Simulation Modeling Program

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

model and analyze GSHP applications for the 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 facilities. 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 the same way real systems are 

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

systems studied in this report (ground heat exchanger, water-source heat pump, cooling 

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

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

F and a cooling set-point of 76oF with a 2oF dead band temperature 

difference. The heating and cooling was allowed to be on at any time 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 were Trane model Ground Source High Efficiency 

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

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

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

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

dry-bulb temperature. Manufacturer’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 conditions. 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 entering 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 comprised 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 Ratio SDR-11 polyethylene pipe 

with 3 inches between centers of the u-tube 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-Fahrenheit. For each building in each location, 

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

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

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

The simulation uses the duct ground storage model (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 actual ground heat exchanger installations. 

3.3.2.6 The Soil Parameters 

One of the most important factors in the design 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 most projects, in situ tests are performed to 

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

different soil types were simulated in each location: 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 British 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 cooling tower was chosen as the secondary heat 

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

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

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

ground heat exchanger in heating dominated applications. For cooling dominated 

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

the cooling tower is valved-out of the simulations. 

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

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

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

heat pumps are in net heating mode or whenever 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 leaving heat pump fluid temperature of 89°F with the tower fan 

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

leaving heat pump fluid temperature 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 boiler is used to provide heat to the working 

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

82%. The boiler adds heat to the loop whenever 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 minimum set point temperature 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. Experience has shown that most of the commercial 

buildings receiving GSHP retrofits at DoD facilities 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 energy and maintenance savings. Given the popularity of this 

retrofit, the baseline equipment in all buildings 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 cost 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 utilities energy reporting system (DUERS) data 

for military installations in each city. Average 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 for 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 city, and for each of the soil types. The simple payback is 

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

maintenance cost savings realized by the GSHP retrofit. 

For the most part, the results accord with experience. 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 installed in DoD facilities in these locations. 

Fresno, San Diego, Santa Maria, and Seattle 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 have essentially no heating loads, a large 

number of ground heat exchangers 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 temperature above 40°F over a 20-year period. 

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

the thermal conductivity, the shorter the payback, because soil formations with high 

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

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

feasible in locations where vertical bore GSHP 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 systems only. Depending on the availability of 

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

example — may be economical in locations where 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 GSHP 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 payback (years) of vertical bore GSHP and 

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

 Vertical bore GSHP 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 payback (years) of vertical bore GSHP 

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

 Vertical bore GSHP 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 annual 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 Louisville, 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 GSHP 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 the installation cost of 

the GSHP or hybrid system by the annual energy 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 conventional equipment or installing ground source 

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

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

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

comparing GSHPs with new conventional equipment. 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 percent 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 Building Performance Standards” identifies 

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

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

effective, and to apply sustainable design principles 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 Force Policy Directive on Energy Management 

that implements requirements of DoD Instruction 4170.11 “Installation Energy 

Management.” 

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

December 2005, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (OASA) 

mandated by memorandum the immediate implementation of various no-cost, 

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

Water Campaign Plan for Installations 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 rating11 in addition to meeting the requirements of EPAct 2005. 

• DoD and several Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding as 

part of the Whole Building Design Guide12 (WBDG) for new building design. 

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

objectives of the WBDG is to incorporate 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 indicates the Federal Government as a whole oversees 

about 500,000 buildings: http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/sustainable.cfm 11 The United States Green Building Council’s (USGBCs) 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 Construction and Retrofit Projects 

Recent research comparing GSHP systems with conventional systems indicates that well 

designed GSHP systems can be life cycle cost 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 overall reduced energy consumption. For the 

remaining GSHP projects, data related to savings 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 reported 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 

alternative13 when considering a replacement for an existing traditional HVAC system 

that is operating near the end of the equipment life cycle. A Hybrid GSHP system14

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

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

requirements while incorporating sustainable design principles. DoD can increase the use 

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

facilities and heating and cooling system retrofit projects 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 coupling is a primary factor 

in considering GSHP technology for new construction of family housing, other sitespecific factors affect project economics as discussed previously.15 In addition to land 

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

• Capacity of the electrical system to accommodate increased load 

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

and providing freeze protection to these pipes 

• Difficulty related to using desuperheaters16 for domestic hot water heating where 

HVAC and domestic hot water heating 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 for 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 achieved during the cooling season when excess heat is 

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

hot water. 
 32

• Difficulty related to installing new ductwork as usually required in buildings 

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

• Difficulty related to increasing existing ductwork size as usually required in 

buildings equipped with forced air heating but no cooling system 

DoD is awarding contracts, which provide operations, maintenance, and renovation of its 

family housing, an effort known as housing privatization. Although privatized houses are 

contractor maintained and operated, DoD has an interest in using 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 effective technologies for all 

renovation and new construction of DoD family housing. 

4.2.2 Administration and Office Buildings and Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

GHSP systems, when properly designed for commercial scale buildings, offer equal or 

superior comfort compared to conventional HVAC systems with reduced operations and 

maintenance costs. Commercial scale buildings include the following categories: 

administrative, office, and unaccompanied personnel housing. DoD data shows that 17% 

of the total installed GSHP capacity is used at commercial scale buildings. When 

choosing a GSHP system over a conventional HVAC system, the return-on-investment of 

a commercial scale application is typically more favorable than that of a residential scale 

application, given the same conditions. Further, the cost savings17 from using a GSHP 

system in-lieu of a more complex conventional 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 GSHP 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 the site and the usage of the building. 

For retrofit applications of commercial scale DoD buildings, available land area and 

economic issues should be considered. Other potential issues include: 

• Adequate sizing of the electrical system where fossil fuel heating equipment is 

being replaced; 

• Potential modification of ventilation air systems due to the inability of the water 

to air heat pump to heat large quantities of cold outdoor air to acceptable air 

temperatures; 

• Adequate sizing of ductwork where units that have been equipped with fossil fuel 

fired forced air heating but not air-conditioning since GSHP systems use lower 

output temperatures requiring 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 radiant 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 sized for the typical 160-180 °F hot water 

supply; 

• Buildings currently supplied heating and/or cooling from a centralized plant may 

experience many of the same issues as buildings with fossil fuel fired equipment. 

However, the ability to distribute heating/cooling equipment into the conditioned 

zones, which results in little 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 GSHP units often have higher efficiencies 

and that air distribution from a single source results in increased fan power 

consumption and frictional losses, locating 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 good candidates for GSHP systems. These 

industrial buildings rarely have any air-conditioning equipment installed, which results in 

an uneven heating and cooling load profile. This results in the requirement for very large 

and expensive GSHP systems for all but ground 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 loads, 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 feasible 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 thermal 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 stratification 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 consider, especially for retrofit projects where 

an older existing system can be retrofitted and combined with a GSHP system. Hybrid 

systems often involve coupling a ground heat exchanger with an auxiliary heat rejecter, 

such as a cooling tower. Alternatively, the ground heat exchanger can be coupled with a 

supplemental boiler. “A Capitol Cost Comparison of Commercial Ground-Source Heat 
 34

Pump Systems” by Rafferty indicates 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 from 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 indicate that hybrid GSHP systems may have 

better applicability for DoD facilities in CONUS regions where non-hybrid GSHP 

systems are not cost effective. DoD personnel are encouraged to consider hybrid GSHP 

system in these regions for new-construction and especially for retrofit projects. The 

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) report, “Assessment of Hybrid 

Geothermal Heat Pump Systems,” is a resource 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 retrofitting opportunities for federal facilities from 

• http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/newconstruction.html

DoD personnel interested in evaluating GSHP potential for their facility 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 available in “Guide to Geothermal Heat Pump Applications in 

Federal Facilities” from ORNL. The information 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 larger capital costs and longer payback periods are combined 

with shorter payback energy conservation measures through alternative financing 

mechanisms like ESPCs or UESCs. The majority of GSHP systems within DoD have 

been financed through either an ESPC or UESC. DoD personnel interested in evaluating 

GSHP technology potential through alternative financing mechanisms 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 includes a section on financing as related to lessons 

learned from past DoD projects and includes a discussion on alternative financing 

methods. 

The following DoD points of contact have been 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 Installation Management, (703) 601-0374, DSN: 329-

0374, email: don.juhasz@us.army.mil

• Air Force: Mr. Gerald Doddington, AFCESA, Gerald.Doddington@tyndall.af.mil

• Navy / Marine Corps: Mr. Bryan Long, Naval Facilities Engineering Service 

Center, Energy Engineering Branch 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 Recommendations for Facilitating an 

Increased use of GSHPs at DoD Facilities 

This chapter summarizes the findings of this report, including recommendations for 

further GSHP implementation at DoD facilities. Appendix D includes information from 

lessons learned associated with 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 new 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 recommends some strategies DoD can undertake. 

This report was conducted to fulfill the requirements of Section 2825 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 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 identifies the most common 

applications of GSHP in the Department; provides an assessment of applicability and cost 

effectiveness of the use of GSHP in various geographic regions of the U.S.; provides a 

description of the relative applicability of GSHP systems as related to new construction 

or retrofitting of DoD facilities; and provides recommendations 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 fulfill 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%), training 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 the 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, Southeast, 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 modeling conducted for three representative DoD 

buildings indicated that vertical-bore GSHP systems when hybridized18 with 

conventional HVAC equipment were cost effective in the Northeast, Southwest, Western 

Mountain, Northwest, and West Coast regions of the CONUS. However, modeling 

shows that vertical-bore GSHP systems alone are not cost effective, in general, within 

these regions with the caveat that other specific site conditions could yield favorable 

 

18 The term “hybridized” refers to installing a GSHP system coupled with traditional HVAC equipment 

such as a cooling tower or a boiler. 
 37

economics. Some anomalies that may influence 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 description of the relative applicability of 

GSHP systems as related to new-construction and retrofitting of DoD facilities. Chapter 

4 discussed this applicability. Chapter 4 discussed the new federal and DoD 

requirements as per EPAct 2005 and subsequent service policies for new-construction 

and retrofit projects at Federal facilities. These new requirements include aggressive new 

standards for incorporating sustainable design practices into all federal new construction 

and retrofit projects as long as they are life cycle cost effective 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 has been proven to be cost effective: the 

South, Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions of CONUS. Chapter 4 also 

discussed site-specific issues related to new construction and retrofit scenarios for major 

DoD building categories. Some specific parameters that heavily affect the cost 

effectiveness of using GSHP technology for facilities 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 vast number of lessons learned from DoD 

GSHP projects. GSHP can be a cost effective alternative in new construction and 

retrofitting of facilities. Lessons learned include: 

• Correct GSHP system design and installation 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 planning 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 systems 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 IGSHPA 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. The 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 will 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 evolving 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 could 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 potentially be life cycle cost effective. 

These analyses will be continued for more site-specific DoD installations. DoD 

advocates will continue this work in collaboration 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 GSHP 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 are nearing or past their design life. 
 40

References 

ASHRAE, (1997), “Ground source heat pumps—design of geothermal systems for 

commercial and institutional buildings”, American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta, Ga. 

ASHRAE. (2003). ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications, Chapter 32. American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 

Atlanta, Ga. 

Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2005 Baseline, Office of the Deputy under Secretary 

Department of Defense (Installations and Environment). 

Briggs, et. al., (March 26, 2002), “Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes and 

Standards,” Technical Paper Final Review 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/procurement/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,” Technology Installation Review, Available on 

the internet at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/hyhgp_tir.pdf. 

Garg, Suresh C. (1997), Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps Procurement Guidelines, Special 

Publication SP-2026-E&U, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, 1100 

23rd 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 Heat Pump Systems, Report 908RP, 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE), Atlanta, GA. 

International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), (2000), Certified 

GeoExchange Designer (CGD), Training Material. 

Kavanaugh, S.P. (1997), Analysis and Development 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 States of America Country Update,” 

Proceedings World Geothermal Congress. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2000), “Geothermal Heat Pumps in K-12 Schools, 

Chapter 7 Total Life Cycle Costs”, ORNL/TM2000/80, available on the internet 

at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/femp/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 No. G0656A-1991, American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers 

Phetteplace, G. (1995), Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps for Family Housing Units, User 

Guide, Facilities Engineering Applications 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 Engineers Heartland Technology 

Transfer Conference, Electrical/Mechanical, June 1998, Kansas City MO. 

Phetteplace, G. (1999), Heating and Cooling Buildings with Geothermal Heat Pump 

Systems, DoD Commanders Conference, 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), Electrical Energy and Demand Savings from a 

Geothermal Heat Pump Energy Saving Performance 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 copy, email at shonderja@ornl.gov. 
 42

Spilker, Elliott H. (1998), Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Loop Design Using Thermal 

Conductivity Testing and the Effect of Different Backfill Materials on Vertical 

Bore Length, Proceeding of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), January 1998 meeting, San Francisco 

CA, paper SF98-1-3. 

Sullivan, W. (1997), Monitored Performance of Residential Geothermal Heat Pumps in 

Central Texas and Southern Michigan, 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 Commercial Ground-Source 

Heat Pump Systems”, as reported in the March 1994 issue of the Quarterly 

Bulletin (Vol. 15, No. 3), Geo-Heat Center, 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/Marine Corps Planned Projects 
APPENDIX A1 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

Army Fort Irwin Barstow CA No Data Family Housing 71 New FHU Mr. Frank Talampas, (760) 380-3429, francisco.talampas@irwin.Army Fort McNair Washington DC 41,795 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 16-20,29,31 Mark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 

Army Mobile District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Panama City Site Office Panama City FL No Data Administrative 61 No Data Terrence D. Jangula, Panama City Site Manager, (850) 784-9

terrence.d.jangula@sam.usace.army.mil 

Army National Guard Armory Estherville IA 31,205 Covered Storage 44 New construction 31,205 Sq Ft Earl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513, earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil 

Army National Guard Armory Warterloo IA 35,305 Covered Storage 44 Addition/Alteration 35,305 Sq Ft Earl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513, earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil 

Army National Guard Armory Ft Dodge IA 37,307 Covered Storage 44 Addition/Alteration 37,307 Sq Ft Earl Harper, Energy Manager, (515) 252-4513, earl.harper@ia.ngb.army.mil 

Army St. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1 Bldg Carlyle IL No Data Administrative 61 No Data (618) 594-2484 Army St. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1 Bldg Carlyle IL No Data Administrative 61 No Data (618) 594-2484 Army 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.aArmy Fort Riley Manhattan KS 38,146 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Retro BOQ Russ Goering, Fort Riley DPW, (785) 239-2371, russ.goering@riley.army.mil 

Army Fort Riley Manhattan KS No Data No Data No Data No Data Russ Goering, Fort Riley DPW, (785) 239-2371, russ.goering@riley.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 127,096 Administrative 61 # 1467 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 72,016 Administrative 61 # 1468 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605 Administrative 61 # 1476 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 1477 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 1478 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 3,707 Administrative 61 # 1489 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,485 Administrative 61 # 2372 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,088 Training Facilities 17 # 5217 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,652 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 855 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,991 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 856 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 12,500 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 857 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 1474 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 1475 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

General Information

A1-1
APPENDIX A1 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

Water Util 200 600 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Da

V 7 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Da

H,O 16 16 No Data 16 No Data 192,000 Water Copper 300 No Data No Data SS Limesto

V,C 16 81 16.20 43 3.6 453,400 30% Glycol HDPE 1,200 No Data 300 Sand/Clay LimestoV,C 11 26 12.00 15 3.0 134,100 30% Glycol HDPE 9,800 1.05 200 Sand LimestoV,C 17 48 16.20 26 4.0 262,500 30% Glycol HDPE 6,400 No Data 300 Clay/Silt LimestoV,C 4 18 15.40 35 3.77 50,000 Glycol Polyethylene 1 No Data 200 Silt/clay No DaV,C 2 12 15.40 35 3.77 50,000 Glycol Polyethylene 1 No Data 200 Silt/clay No Da

V 40 120 14.50 3 No Data 34,700 28% methanol PVC 10,000 No Data 250 Silt DolomV 32 51 No Data 51 No Data 712,000

25% 

propylene 

glycol

PE 8,000

769,000 BTUH heat 

rejection in 60 holes 200' 

deep.

200 Silty clay Limesto

shale 

V 88 245 No Data 245 No Data 2,472,700 No Data PE or PB 8,800

3,698,000 BTUH heat 

rejection in 74 holes 250' 

deep + 102 holes 300' 

deep.

275 Silty clay Limesto

shale 

H,C 69 195 13.00 195 3.1 2,690,000 Water HDPE 8,800 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 52 160 13.00 160 3.1 2,208,000 Water HDPE 7,200 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C,Hy 15 46 13.00 46 3.1 634,800 Water HDPE 2,800 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 6 17 13.00 17 3.1 234,600 Water HDPE 1,120 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 6 17 13.00 17 3.1 234,600 Water HDPE 1,120 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 3 6 13.00 6 3.1 82,800 Water HDPE 500 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C 3 15 13.00 15 3.1 207,000 Water HDPE 2,000 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 21 30 13.00 30 3.1 414,000 Water HDPE 3,000 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limesto

GHP Technical Information

A1-2
APPENDIX A1 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

 No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data  No Data 17.39 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data  No Data No Data 0.09600 $ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

$ 10.52 0.07123 $ 0.08921 $ A 61,100 $ No Data 2,236 $ 1,310 20 

$ 9.60 0.07553 $ 0.06333 $ A. 78,500 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ 10.22 0.08035 $ 0.07194 $ A 98,488 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ No Data 0.09000 0.06000 $ A 50,000 $ 1,436 $ 2,872 $ 48,000 50 

$ No Data 0.09000 0.06000 $ A 24,000 $ 1,933 $ 3,866 $ 64,000 50 

$ 12.10 0.03100 $ 0.03100 $ Super ESPC TS 291,351 $ 13,269 $ 4,138 $ 17,407 25 

$ 11.10 0.04000 $ 0.05000 $ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

$ 11.10 0.04000 $ 0.05000 $ A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data $ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 635,000 $ 9,530 $ 46,379 $ 654,162 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 1,440,000 $ 21,600 $ 105,120 $ 1,482,708 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 495,000 $ 7,000 $ 34,067 $ 480,657 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 180,000 $ 2,500 $ 12,167 $ 171,747 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 180,000 $ 2,500 $ 12,167 $ 171,747 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 78,000 $ 1,100 $ 5,353 $ 75,615 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 178,150 $ 2,545 $ 12,386 $ 174,678 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 75,000 $ 2,725 $ 13,262 $ 186,987 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 196,000 $ 3,800 $ 18,493 $ 260,844 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 196,000 $ 3,800 $ 18,493 $ 260,844 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 196,000 $ 3,800 $ 18,493 $ 260,844 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ ECIP 825,000 $ 11,800 $ 57,427 $ 810,082 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ ECIP 875,000 $ 12,500 $ 60,833 $ 858,148 23 

GHP Economic Information

A1-3
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

27282930313233343536373839404142

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 1479 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 1480 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5916 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5919 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5920 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5921 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5922 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5936 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5937 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5938 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5939 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,905 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5941 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6010 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6011 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6015 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 40,650 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6017 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

A1-4
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

27282930313233343536373839404142

H,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 25 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 4,480 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 20 57 13.00 57 3.1 787,000 Water HDPE 3,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

A1-5
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

27282930313233343536373839404142

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ ECIP 875,000 $ 12,500 $ 60,833 $ 858,148 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ ECIP 825,000 $ 11,800 $ 57,427 $ 810,082 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 615,000 $ 12,300 $ 59,860 $ 844,373 23 

A1-6
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

434445464748495051525354555657585960

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605 Training Facilities 17 # 2371 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,631 Training Facilities 17 # 2373 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Administrative 61 # 2374 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Training Facilities 17 # 2375 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 35,760 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2376 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 35,760 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2377 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2378 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 39,218 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2379 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,647 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2380 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 23,605 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 2381 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,752 Administrative 61 # 2002 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 31,602 

 Indoor Morale, 

Welfare, and 

Recreation 

Facilities 

 74 # 1174 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 22,363 

 Indoor Morale, 

Welfare, and 

Recreation 

Facilities 

 74 # 4249 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 22,956 

 Indoor Morale, 

Welfare, and 

Recreation 

Facilities 

 74 # 4250 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5915 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5917 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,796 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5940 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 5942 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

A1-7
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

434445464748495051525354555657585960

H,C,Hy 27 62 13.00 62 3.1 856,000 Water HDPE 3,600 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 29 90 13.00 90 3.1 1,242,000 Water HDPE 5,200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 27 62 13.00 62 3.1 856,000 Water HDPE 3,600 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C,Hy 11 38 13.00 38 3.1 530,000 Water HDPE 2,200 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C 16 80 13.00 80 3.1 1,104,000 Water HDPE 8,000 1.85 300 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 13 43 13.00 43 3.1 590,000 Water HDPE 3,750 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 13 38 13.00 38 3.1 530,000 Water HDPE 3,750 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

V,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

A1-8
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

434445464748495051525354555657585960

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 495,600 $ 7,080 $ 34,456 $ 485,932 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 875,000 $ 12,500 $ 60,833 $ 858,148 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 822,500 $ 11,750 $ 57,183 $ 806,565 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 822,500 $ 11,750 $ 57,183 $ 806,565 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 750,750 $ 10,725 $ 52,195 $ 736,225 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 750,750 $ 10,725 $ 52,195 $ 736,225 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 822,500 $ 11,750 $ 57,183 $ 806,565 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 822,500 $ 11,750 $ 57,183 $ 806,565 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 875,000 $ 12,500 $ 60,833 $ 858,148 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 495,600 $ 7,080 $ 34,456 $ 485,932 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 2,925 $ 14,235 $ 200,762 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 632,000 $ 9,480 $ 46,136 $ 650,645 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 339,000 $ 6,600 $ 32,120 $ 453,107 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 339,000 $ 6,600 $ 32,120 $ 453,107 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

A1-9
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

61626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6012 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 11,699 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6018 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 6424 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 4,292 

 Personnel 

Support and 

Services Facilities 

 73 # 5223 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 63,927 

 Personnel 

Support and 

Services Facilities 

 73 # 7729 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 36,758 Administrative 61 # 5101 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 135,840 Training Facilities 17 # 1720 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 50,816 Training Facilities 17 # 1726 Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-835

gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 29,029 

Communication

s, Navigation 

Aids and Airfield 

Light 

 13 Bldg. 1560 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Dental Clinics 54 Bldg. 1562 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1563 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 25,168 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1830 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 17,175 Training Facilities 17 Bldg. 1456 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 39,020 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 522 David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 6,762,608 Family Housing 71 Retro FHU David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15009A David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15009D David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15010A David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,472 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15010D David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,434 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15008B David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 1,434 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15008C David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509A David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509B David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509C David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15509D David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

A1-10
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

61626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485

V,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt LimestoV,C 2 40 13.00 40 3.1 552,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

V,H,C, Hy 16 86 13.00 86 3.1 1,033,000 Water HDPE 2,400 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C 1 5 13.00 5 3.1 69,000 Water HDPE 500 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt LimestoH,C 68 200 13.00 200 3.1 2,760,000 Water HDPE 28,000 1.85 300 Clay/Dirt Limesto

V,C 25 75 13.00 75 3.1 1,035,000 Water HDPE 6,800 1.85 427 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,O,Hy 26 75 13.00 75 3.1 1,035,000 Water HDPE 600 1.85 1000 Clay/Dirt Limesto

H,C 16 73 13.00 73 3.1 1,007,000 Water HDPE 6,500 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limesto

V, H,C no data 110 13.0 110.0 3.8 1,320,000 R-22 Polyethylene 22,792 No Data 250 Clay No Da

V, H, 

hybrid,C no data 150 13.0 150.0 3.8 1,800,000 R-22 Polyethylene 31,080 No Data 250 Clay No Da

hybrid,C no data 85 13.0 85.0 3.8 1,020,000 R-22 Polyethylene 17,612 No Data 250 Clay No Da

V,C no data 99 13.0 99.0 3.8 1,188,000 R-22 Polyethylene 20,512.8 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C no data 82 13.0 82.0 3.8 984,000 R-22 Polyethylene 16,990.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 70 105 12.0 105.0 3.5 1,260,000 R-22 Polyethylene 21,757 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,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 DaV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2 12.0 2.0 3.5 24,000 R-22 Polyethylene 414.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Da

A1-11
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

61626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 175,000 $ 3,500 $ 17,033 $ 240,328 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ A 800,000 $ 12,000 $ 58,400 $ 823,857 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 10,000 $ 1,300 $ 6,327 $ 89,097 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 1,150,000 $ 19,000 $ 92,467 $ 1,304,220 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 698,000 $ 11,025 $ 53,655 $ 756,741 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 614,000 $ 12,000 $ 58,400 $ 823,857 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 1,016,000 $ 15,250 $ 74,217 $ 1,046,893 23 

$ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 38,115 $ 495,000 20 $ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 51,975 $ 675,000 20 $ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 29,453 $ 382,500 20 $ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 34,304 $ 445,500 20 $ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 28,413 $ 369,000 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 36,383 $ 472,500 20 $ 12.00 0.06500 $ 0.07800 $ ESPC-Army 20,000,000 $ No Data 2,079,000 $ 27,000,000 20 

$ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 693 $ 9,000 20 

$ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 693 $ 9,000 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 693 $ 9,000 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 644 $ 8,370 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 644 $ 8,370 20 

A1-12
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

8687888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510A David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510B David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510C David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Fort Polk Leesville LA 2,406 Family Housing 71 Bldg. 15510D David Hopper, Fort Polk DPW, (337) 531-6877, david.l.hopper@us.army.mil Army Aberdeen Proving Grounds Aberdeen MD No Data Family Housing 71 

642 Units - Slab on Grade 

with 17 year old Failing Air

to Air Heat Pump's

Brandon Davis, Site Energy Manager, (410) 306-1151, 

brandon.davis16@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Meade Fort Meade MD 347,291 Family Housing 71 FH Areas 2500, 4200, 4300, & 4500 Joseph Moyer, Site Energy Manager, (301) 677-9276, joseph.v.moyer@us.army.mil 

Army Selfridge Air National Guard Detroit MI No Data Family Housing 71 Single & Duplex Dwelling Units Ron Wesley, (586) 307-4189, ronald.p.wesley@us.army.m

Army Lake City Army Ammunition Plant Independence MO No Data Administrative 61 GHPs part of a larger bldg. retrofit project Brian Yeager, (816) 796-7347 (operating contractor engineerin

Army Kansas City District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stockton Lake, Stockton MO No Data Administrative 61 Ten to 15 staff members, plus general public Thomas P. Long, Operations Project Manager, (417) 276-31

Thomas.P.Long@nwk02.usace.army.mil 

Army St. Louis District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2 Bldgs Wappapello Lake MO No Data Administrative 61 No Data James Gracey, (573) 222-8562, James.W.Gracey@usace.armArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bay 6 - 7.2KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bay 2, 2ND Floor - 7.2KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 14,400 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bays 1&2, 1st Floor - 14.4 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bay 1, 2nd Floor - 7.2 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 28,800 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bays 3, 5 - 28.8 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 3,000 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2539 - 3 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 3,300 

 Indoor Morale, 

Welfare, and 

Recreation 

Facilities 

 74 Bldg. 700 - 3.3 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 14,400 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2525, Bay 4 - 14.4 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 68,300 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldgs. 1077, 1078, 2705, 2715 - 68.3 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 5,500 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 360, DVQ - 5.5KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 16,700 Training Facilities 17 Bldgs. 1204/1205 - 167 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 7,200 Administrative 61 Bldg. 2719 - 7.2 KSF Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 19,878 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 635 Andrew Bennett, Chief - OMD / All Projects, (580) 442-360

andrew.f.bennett@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 22,883 Administrative 61 Bldg. 652 Jerry Schmidt, Engineering / All Projects, (580) 442-4219

jerry.schmidt1@us.army.mil 

A1-13
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

8687888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109

V,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 2.13 12.0 2.1 3.5 25,560 R-22 Polyethylene 441.3 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No DaV,C 1 1.86 12.0 1.9 3.5 22,320 R-22 Polyethylene 385.4 No Data 250 Clay No Da642 

Individual V, 

C

642 1,242 12.40 1.5 - 1.8 - 3.0 5.3 - 5.0 - 4.8 16,300 - 20,900 - 35,000 Water + Methanol Polyethylene Total FH Units - 900,000 No Data 140 Sandy Soil No Da

V,H 166 452 16.0 - 16.9 452 3.40 - 3.70 20,000 - 40,000 Water HDPE 2,320,000 0.04 300 Earth No Da

H,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 Da

H, C 3 24 14.4 12 3.4 141,000 Ethylene glycol PVC 13,000 No Data not applicable Silty clay loam Limesto

V,C 3 16

ISO-A27-

30/B25, 19 

KW

16, three 

units, 104 

oz. 

Refrigerant 

per unit 

A20/W20/B0 

23/16Kw 

heating

132 BTUH at 

12 BTU per 

ton. 16 Ton 

total capacity 1 

– 6 Ton, and 2 

– 5 Ton units

Ethylene 

glycol Polyethylene 2,500 No Data 200 feet per each well Various clays Limesto

V,C 2 15 14.6,15.1,16. 6 15 4.79-4.88 173,200 Methanol PE 19,000 No Data 225 Clays Limesto

V,C 9 45 14.00 38 3.2 401,000 Ethanol HDPE 3,600 1.03 398 X 20 Sand and Clay None V,C 8 26 12.00 22 3.3 202,000 Ethanol HDPE 943 1.03 375 X 8 Sand and Clay None V,C 31 57 16.00 52 4 610,000 Ethanol HDPE 6,800 1.03 405 X 27 Sand and Clay None V,C 10 29 13.50 23 3.4 253,000 Ethanol HDPE 950 1.03 375 X 8 Sand and Clay None V,C 24 100 11.00 72 3.4 840,600 Ethanol HDPE 5,600 1.03 400 X 27 Sand and Clay None V,C 7 8 14.00 7 3.9 70,700 Ethanol HDPE 400 1.03 300 X 4 Sand and Clay None V,C 7 11 13.50 10 3.8 93,100 Ethanol HDPE 400 1.03 420 X 4 Sand and Clay None V,C 14 45 13.50 35 3.4 329,200 Ethanol HDPE 2,800 1.03 400 X 14 Sand and Clay None 

V, 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 

V,C 23 17 15.50 15 3.2 169,000 Ethanol HDPE 2,400 1.03 300 X 12 Sand and Clay None V,C 280 243 13.50 432 3.7 4,622,000 Water HDPE 58,600 1.03 305 X 264 Sand and Clay None V,C 6 18 12.70 16 3.2 132,630 Ethanol HDPE 800 1.03 400 X 6 Sand and Clay None 

V-C 42 32 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,800 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 42 32 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,800 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandsto

A1-14
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

8687888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109

$ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 738 $ 9,585 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 644 $ 8,370 20 $ 12.00 0.05000 $ 0.07800 $ A No Data No Data 644 $ 8,370 20 $ 13.77 0.04550 $ 0.10000 $ Super ESPC TS 4,964,428 $ 170,000 $ 392,597 $ 8,637,858 21 

$ 14.82 0.04890 $ 0.06880 $ ESPC 2,237,933 $ 310,000 $ 52,200 $ 10,129 MBtu (electric and gas) 18 $ No Data No Data Utility Co Paid No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

0.07000

$ No Data 0.04200 0.04200 $ ARMS 300,000 $ not determined not determined not determined 20 no

$ No Data 0.05600 0.05600 $ 

Congressional Add 

after original facility 

was destroyed by a 

tornado in May of 

2003

 Unknown - Can 

find with 

additional time for

research - 

Approximately 

$50K 

$ 5,000 2,688 $ 85,000 - 90,000 No Data Le

 No Data No Data 0.01090 $ A No Data No Data Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 400,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 250,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 650,000 $ 10,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 300,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 900,000 $ 30,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 125,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 100,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 450,000 $ 10,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.07750 $ 0.07180 $ UESC 1,235,930 $ 50,000 $ 18,000 $ 250,700 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 200,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ MCA 5,000,000 $ 100,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 79,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 387,358 $ No Data No Data No Data 20  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 387,358 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

A1-15
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 22,465 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 850 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 851 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 852 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 853 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 11,117 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 854 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 9,330 

 Personnel 

Support and 

Services Facilities 

 73 Bldg. 1005 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No Data No Data No Data Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No Data No Data Bldg. 1602-1603 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 25,715 

 Land 

Operational 

Facilities 

 14 Bldg. 1607 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 9,287 Administrative 61 Bldg. 1803 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 34,452 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 300 Area Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 8,256 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 1800 Area Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 21,819 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 1900 Area Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 117,882 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 2000 Area Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 2,048 Maintenance Facilities 21 Bldg. 2285 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 5670 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 5671 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 5674 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 14,710 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 5675 Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 

Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 17,604 Production Facilities 22 Bldg. 164 Kevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, 

7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 

Army Tulsa District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Navigation Project Office Sallisaw OK No Data Administrative 61 Office complex Todd Carr, (918) 775-4474 ext. 739, Todd.Carr@SWT03.usace.

Army AWC Carlisle Barracks Carlisle PA 109,570 Family Housing 71 104 residences Gary Sweppenhiser, Carlisle Barracks DPW, (717) 245-374

Gary.Sweppenhiser@us.army.mil 

A1-16
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131

V-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 40 30 9.6 38,780 3.8 11,000 Water SDR-11 12,000 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 9 54 13.9 7 4.6 76,000 Water SDR-11 5,400 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandsto

 No Data No Data No Data 14.3 10 5.0 145,000 Water SDR-11 8,200 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandsto

V-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 V-C 4 80 13.3 20 3.1 334,500 Water SDR-11 28,512 No Data No Data No Data No DaV-C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data 0.97 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 10 30 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 4 12 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 10 30 13.9 3 4.4 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 200 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 37 111 11.0 3 3.9 42,500 Water SDR-11 1,125/ea. 1.08 300 Silt/clay SandstoV-C 2 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR-11 No Data No Data No Data No Data No DaV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay LimestoV-C 17 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A Water SDR-11 N/A 0.97 N/A Silt/clay LimestoV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay LimestoV-C 17 37 12.2 2 4.5 30,000 Water SDR-11 13,600 0.97 200 Silt/clay Limesto

Vertical and 

Horizontal 6 21 13.6 20 3.3 178,400 N/A HDPESDR11 7,500 N/A 300 Clay Shale 

sandsto

C 5 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chevron G54Polybutylene 2,500 N/A 180 Sandy N/A 

Standing 

column well 171 639 24.00 639.0 4.0 7,675,200 Water PVC Sch 80 4,200 1.3 520 Clay Limesto

A1-17
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 276,255 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 276,255 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 276,255 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 276,255 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 276,255 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP 2,329,600 $ No Data 154,309 $ 263,114 20 

$ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ JOC 490,792 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 211,254 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 $ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ JOC $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ 8A Set-Aside $ 24,733.21/ea. No Data No Data No Data 20  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ IDIQ 79,138 $ No Data No Data No Data 20  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ Demand-Side 298,780 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ 13.77 0.06700 $ 0.07540 $ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ Demand-Side 298,780 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ Demand-Side 298,780 $ No Data No Data No Data 20 

$ 9.13 0.04700 $ 0.07100 $ A 200,000 $ 500 $ 11,500 $ Eliminated steam 25 

 No Data No Data No Data No Data 11,983 $ No Data No Data No Data 25 

$ 17.81 0.06490 $ 0.06990 $ Super ESPC TS 2,500,000 $ 51,187 152,632 443,506 20 

A1-18
APPENDIX A1 

12

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

General Information

132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153

Army AWC Carlisle Barracks Carlisle PA 107,613 Administrative 61 18 Bldgs, mixed use Gary Sweppenhiser, Carlisle Barracks DPW, (717) 245-374

Gary.Sweppenhiser@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Jackson Fort Jackson SC 1,787,000 Family Housing 71 

1295 units at Family 

Housing, 74 units at 

Palmato, 174 units at 

Kennedy Hall

Georges Dib, Fort Jackson DPW, (803) 751-3823, 

georges.dib@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Bliss Fort Bliss TX No Data No Data No Data Multiple Juan Morales, (915) 568-2823, moralesj@bliss.army.mil 

Army Fort Bliss Fort Bliss TX No Data Family Housing 71 Multiple Juan Morales, (915) 568-2823, moralesj@bliss.army.mil 

Army Fort Hood Fort Hood TX No Data Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 83008-1 and 82006- 1 Bobby Lynn, (254) 287-8716, bobby.lynn@us.army.mil 

Army Fort Hood Fort Hood TX 40,782 Administrative 61 Bldg. 4612 Kenneth.R.Allison, (254) 287-7194, kenneth.r.allison@us.armArmy Tooele Army Depot Tooele UT 25,091 

 Personnel 

Support and 

Services Facilities 

 73 

Fire Station (Bldg 8) - 

(Ammo handling (Bldg 

1254)

Jay Weyland, (435) 833-3702, DSN:790-3702, 

weylandj@emh3.tooele.army.mil 

Army Fort Myer Arlington VA 31,698 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 19 - 22 Mark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 

Army Fort A.P. Hill Bowling Green VA No Data No Data No Data No Data Frederick Hwee, DPW/EPS, (804) 633-8426, frederick.hwee@us

Army Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 2,948 

 Land 

Operational 

Facilities 

 14 Bldg. 3137 Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023, randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil 

Army Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 5,728 

 Medical and 

Medical 

Support 

Facilities 

 53 Bldg. 610 Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023, randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil 

Army Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir VA 984 

 Administrative 

Structures 

Other Than 

Buildings 

 69 Bldg. 1472 Randy Smidt, Site Energy Engineer, (703) 806-0023, randall.smidt@belvoir.army.mil 

Army Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2715 Loop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-196

bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 8

Army Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2716 Loop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-196

bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 8

Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 25,911 Administrative 61 Bldg. 100 Select Energy, R Rauf Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 5,958 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 93 Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 3,204 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 19 Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 7,021 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 157 Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA 7,021 Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 158 Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA No Data Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 15A Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Fort Monroe Fort Monroe VA No Data Family Housing 71 Qtrs. 15B Rob McRacken, Fort Monroe DPW, (757) 788-5366, robert.mcracken@us.army.mil Army Huntington District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Beach Fork Lake Lavalette WV 1,065 Maintenance Facilities 21 Gary Trautwein, Beach Fork Lake, (304) 525-4831, gary.p.trautwein@lrh01.usace.army.mil 

A1-19
APPENDIX A1 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

GHP Technical Information

132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153

Standing 

column well 62 426 24.00 426 4.0 5,116,800 Water PVC Sch 80 2,800 1.3 520 Clay Limesto

Vertical 1,543 3,801 10.45 3,801 3.3 30,000 Water HDPE 978,375 1.4 350 Sand/Clay Sandsto

V, H 6 360 13.50 360 80 8.6 MBTU Water HDP 435,000 No Data No Data No Data No Da

V 585 1,755 85.00 1755 80 21 MBTU Water HDP 6,000 No Data No Data No Data No DaV 2 3 16.0-16.0 2.5 3.3-3.5 21,000 - 25,000 Water 1" Polyethelene 800 1.2 250 Brown Clay Shale 

V 27 166.9 13.0-16.2 93.6 3.0-3.3 312,200 Water

Phillips 

Driscopipe 

5300 Climate 

Guard Pipe 

(Black 

Polyethelene

) 3/4"-4"

45,544 1.2 300 Brown Clay Shale 

Water 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 Da

V 4 75 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Da

V,C 38 119 No Data No Data No Data No Data Water, glycol Polyethylene N/A No Data 172 No Data No Da

V 1 15 10.80 10 3.5 No Data Water SDR 11 6,000 No Data 290 No Data No DaV 4 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water SDR 11 6,000 No Data N/A No Data No DaV 1 5 15.60 3 3.2 No Data Water SDR 11 1,200 No Data 210 No Data No DaV No Data 305 No Data 305 No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 68,400 No Data 275 Sandy/Clay None V No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 44,800 No Data 280 Sandy/Clay None 

V,C 11 81 4.30 (SI) 43.6 3.4 No Data Glycol PVC 9000 No Data 280 Loam None V,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None V,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None V,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None V,C 2 10 No Data 10 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 900 No Data 200 Loam None V,C 2 5 No Data 5 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 450 No Data 200 Loam None V,C 2 5 No Data 5 No Data No Data Glycol Polyethylene 450 No Data 200 Loam None 

V, C 1 3 13.0 24 4.4 38.0 Water-Glycol polyethylene 360 No Data 80 No Data No Da

A1-20
APPENDIX A1 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153

$ 17.81 0.06490 $ 0.06990 $ Super ESPC TS 4,300,000 $ 34,124 101,755 295,670 20 

$ 12.03 0.04230 $ 0.04920 $ Super ESPC R 10,763,588 $ 222,475 $ 470,325 $ 1,761,937 22 

$ 10.86 0.05810 $ 0.06860 $ OMA 1,620,000 $ Unknown Unknown Unknown 20 

$ 10.86 0.05810 $ 0.06860 $ MCA 5,265,000 $ Unknown Unknown Unknown 20 

$ 12.03 0.06100 $ 0.08000 $ A No Cost Demo Units $ 5,000 1,200 $ 65,000 14 

$ 12.03 0.07000 $ 0.08300 $ A 354,603 $ 6,488 $ 55,627 $ 695,342 19 

$ 9.00 0.03390 $ 0.03880 $ P2 Funding 160,345 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data 

 No Data 13.59 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

 No Data No Data No Data ESPC-Army 931,000 $ 146,000 $ 57,000 $ 479,000 18 

$ 14.53 0.04400 $ 0.04800 $ ESPC 38,430 $ No Data 557 $ 12,780 No Data 

$ 14.53 0.04400 $ 0.04800 $ ESPC 74,394 $ No Data 1,438 $ 23,393 No Data 

$ 14.53 0.04400 $ 0.04800 $ ESPC 17,010 $ No Data 198 $ 2,695 No Data 

 No Data 9.76 $ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data  No Data 9.76 $ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

$ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ ESPC-Army No Data 1,850 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data 

$ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 78,096 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data $ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 110,816 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data $ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 74,580 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data $ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 74,580 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data $ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 86,852 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data $ 14.74 0.05500 $ 0.05900 $ A 86,852 $ 350 $ Unknown (no metering) Unknown (no metering) No Data 

 No Data No Data No Data 8,684 $ No Data No Data No Data 30-40 No Data 

A1-21
APPENDIX A2 

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

A B C DE FG H

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information

Army 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 Data No Data Bldg. 7112

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 13,752 Administrative 61 # 488 Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 8,573 Administrative 61 # 1001 Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 41,783 Administrative 61 # 1002Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 28,884 

Communications, Navigation 

Aids and Airfield 

Light 

 13 # 1227

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 15,438 Administrative 61 # 1101Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data No Data No Data # 4249A

Army 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 10,052 

 Personnel Support and Services Facilities 

 73 # 469

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 55,934 Administrative 61 # 203 Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY No Data No Data No Data # 1327

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 16,692 

 Medical and Medical Support Facilities 

 53 # 1003

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 29,800 

 Personnel Support and Services Facilities 

 73 # 204

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 9,600 Administrative 61 # 614 Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY

 Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Facilities 

 74 # 1102 

Army Fort Knox Fort Knox KY 16,753 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 # 1117

Army Selfridge Air National Guard Detroit MI No Data Family Housing 71 Single & Duplex Dwelling UnitsArmy Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 726,986 Administrative 61 

Bldgs. 800, 1150, 1152, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1212

Army Fort Monmouth Monmouth County NJ 2,500 Administrative 61 Bldg. 603 - 2.5 KSFArmy Fort Drum Fort Drum NY 86,900 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 MCA project

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 279,050 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 1602-1603

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 70,995 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 2025

A2-1
APPENDIX A2 

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

I JK 

Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)

Calender 

Year 

Installed

Project Status

Cons

R

Mr. Frank Talampas, (760) 380-3429, francisco.talampas@irwin.army.mil 1997 No Data No DMark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DDewayne Smith, (270) 798-5652, neal.d.smith@us.army.mil 2006 Under Construction No D

Gary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Planning No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Construction No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DGary Meredith, Fort Knox Energy Manager, (502) 624-8358, gary.meredith@knox.army.mil 2006 Design No DRon Wesley, (586) 307-4189, ronald.p.wesley@us.army.mil 1995 No Data No D

Kevin 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.mil 2004 / 06

Operational / Under Construction

Retrof

Kevin Dooney, Fort Monmouth DPW, (732) 532-6360, Kevin.Dooney@mail1.monmouth.army.mil 2006 Under Construction New CClark/ Zandler LLC 2006 50% complete New CMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil No Data No Data No DMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No D

General Information

A2-2
APPENDIX A2 

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP 

Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomin

Rock 

Formatio

Water 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 V 7 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Vertical 89 64 16.00 64 3.5 764,500 Water HDPE 32,000 1.68 290 Clay/Chert Ft Payne CH,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone V,H,C,Hy 13 24 13.00 24 3.1 330,000 Water HDPE 8,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,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 H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone V,C 8 89 13.00 89 3.1 1,228,000 Water HDPE 6,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy 30 97 13.00 97 3.1 1,339,000 Water HDPE 12,000 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 400 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C 1 5 13.00 5 3.1 69,000 Water HDPE 200 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,C,Hy No Data No Data 13.00 No Data 3.1 No Data Water HDPE No Data 1.85 500 Clay/Dirt Limestone H,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 V,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 V,C 5 10 14.00 9 3.8 92,500 Ethanol HDPE 5,000 1.03 340 X 6 Sand and Clay None V,C 5 160 11.00 160 3.0 900 23% glycol Polyethylene 12,600 1.3 250 Sand (moist) No Data  No Data No Data No Data 14.3 10 5.0 145,000 Water SDR-11 8,200 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone V-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 V-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 

GHP Technical Information

A2-3
APPENDIX A2 

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

 No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No  No Data 17.39 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

$ 12.57 0.05620 $ 0.05620 $ UESC 509,450 $ 15,440 $ 9,767 $ 531,241 22 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 275,040 $ 4,125 $ 20,075 $ 283,118 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 171,000 $ 2,575 $ 12,532 $ 176,729 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 901,660 $ 13,525 $ 65,822 $ 928,488 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC No Data No Data 3,000 $ No Data 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 308,667 $ 4,630 $ 22,533 $ 317,702 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 378,000 $ 5,675 $ 27,618 $ 389,508 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 1,331,667 $ 19,975 $ 97,212 $ 1,371,336 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 201,000 $ 3,015 $ 14,673 $ 206,917 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 1,119,000 $ 16,780 $ 81,663 $ 1,151,817 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ A No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data 23 $ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 596,000 $ 8,940 $ 43,508 $ 613,716 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ Private Funds - $ - $ 750 $ 43,083 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 252,000 $ 3,780 $ 18,396 $ 259,379 23 

$ 11.78 0.03911 $ 0.03911 $ UESC 335,000 $ 5,025 $ 24,455 $ 327,374 23 

$ No Data No Data Utility Co Paid No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

0.07000

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07175 $ Super ESPC TS 21,500,000 $ 841,296 $ 271,764 $ -8,655 30 

$ 15.43 0.08940 $ 0.07180 $ SRM 75,000 $ 5,000 $ No Data No Data 20 No 

$ 11.89 0.07020 $ 0.07020 $ A (MCA) 734,079 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP 2,329,600 $ No Data 154,309 $ 263,114 20 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP 995,800 $ No Data 66,693 $ 231,763 20 

GHP Economic Information

A2-4
APPENDIX A2 

12

A B C DE FG H

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information

29303132333435363738394041424344

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 27,491 

 Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Facilities 

 74 Bldg. 3281

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 197,252 Administrative 61 Bldg. 4700Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 58,765 

 Indoor Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Facilities 

 74 Bldg. 5485

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 46,034 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldgs. 5600 Area

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK 13,288 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

 72 Bldg. 5684

Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Army Fort Sill Lawton OK No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 12,915 

 Land Operational Facilities 

 14 Bldg. 228

Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 1,686 Training Facilities 17 Armed Forces Reserve CenterArmy McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK No Data Production Facilities 22 BCT Building

Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant McAlester OK 21,438 Production Facilities 22 Bldg. 103

Army Fort Myer Arlington VA 31,698 Family Housing 71 Bldgs. 19 - 22Army Fort A.P. Hill Bowling Green VA No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Army Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2715Army Fort Eustis Fort Eustis VA No Data Administrative 61 Bldg. 2716

A2-5
APPENDIX A2 

12

I JK 

Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail)

Calender 

Year 

Installed

Project Status

Cons

R

General Information

29303132333435363738394041424344

Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006

Under Construction - 95% 

 No D

Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006

Under Construction - 95% 

 No D

Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Planning No DMichael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006

Under Construction - 80% 

 No D

Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil 2006-07

Under Construction - 42%

 No D

Michael Baird, REM / All Projects, (580) 442-3577, michael.baird1@us.army.mil Open Design No DKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2008 Planning No DKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DKevin Henderson, MCAAP Energy Coordinator, (918) 420-7455, DSN:956-7455, kevin.d.henderson@us.army.mil 2007 Planning No DMark Zangara, Fort Myer DPW, (703) 696-3804, mark.zangara@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DFrederick Hwee, DPW/EPS, (804) 633-8426, frederick.hwee@us.army.mil 2001 No Data No DLoop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200 bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 819-2926 1998 No Data No D

Loop contractor - Cliff Bunn, VA Energy Services, (804) 749-1962, 200 bores at 300 ft depth? Tried Wayne Spitzner, Evantage, (804) 819-2926 1999 No Data No D

A2-6
APPENDIX A2 

12

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP 

Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomin

Rock 

Formatio

GHP Technical Information

29303132333435363738394041424344

V-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 

V-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 V-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 V-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 V-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 V-C 110 330 3.0 14 4.5 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone V-C 200 600 3.0 14 4.5 42,000 Water SDR-11 1,125 0.97 200 Silt/clay Sandstone V-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 Vertical 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 Vertical 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 Vertical 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 Vertical 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 V 4 75 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data V,C 38 119 No Data No Data No Data No Data Water, glycol Polyethylene No Data No Data 172 No Data No Data 

V No Data 305 No Data 305 No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 68,400 No Data 275 Sandy/Clay None V No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Water 1" HDPE 44,800 No Data 280 Sandy/Clay None 

A2-7
APPENDIX A2 

12

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

GHP Economic Information

29303132333435363738394041424344

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP 710,410 $ No Data 8,935 $ 96,983 20 

$ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No $ 13.77 0.07000 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ ECIP 1,356,000 $ No Data 33,555 $ 345,154 20  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No  No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No 

 No Data 13.77 $ 0.07540 $ COE No Data No Data No Data No Data 20 No  No Data 9.13 $ No Data ECIP 55,000 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 9.13 $ No Data A 1,500,000 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 9.13 $ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No  No Data 9.13 $ No Data ECIP 375,000 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 13.59 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No  No Data No Data No Data ESPC-Army 931,000 $ 146,000 $ 57,000 $ 479,000 18 

 No Data 9.76 $ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No  No Data 9.76 $ No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

A2-8
APPENDIX A3 

123456789

1011121314151617181920

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

Air Force Little Rock Air Force Base Little Rock AR 1,871,448 Family Housing 71 Retro FHU Larry Whitt, DSN 574-3087 Air Force Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 7,018

 Personnel Support Facility 73

 No Data 

Craig Jendrusch, PJM, Capstone Building Corp., 501.983.8040 

Air Force Luke Air Force Base Glendale AZ No Data Unaccompanied espc? Hybrid? 72 No Data 

Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Administrative 61 Office Bldg 8486 USAFA Energy Manager Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Administrative 61 South Gate USAFA Energy Manager Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Indoor MWR fac Batters Cages 74 USAFA Energy Manager Air Force Bolling AFB Washington DC No Data Family Housing 71 Base Housing Kavanaugh's list Air Force Hurlburt Air Base Ft. Walton Beach FL No Data Family Housing 71 Retro FHU No Data 

Air Force Eglin Air Force Base Ft. Walton Beach FL No Data Family Housing 71 One pilot project in housing (106 Palm Cir.) James Mardis, 850-883-4810 

Air Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No Data No Data No Data No Data Gilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 Air Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No Data Training Facilitie 17 No Data Gilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 

Air Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No Data Training Facilitie 17 No Data Gilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 

Air Force Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City FL No Data Family Housing 71 Base Housing Gilbert Walker, DSN 523-4715 Air Force MacDill Tampa FL Unaccompanie 48,000 d BQ Bill Gregg, 813-828-8681 

72 

Air Force Offutt AFB Offutt NE No Data Unaccompanied commercial 72 No Data 

Air Force Cannon Clovis NM No Data Administrative 61 No Data No Data 

Air Force Charleston Air Force Base Charleston SC No Data Family Housing 71 residential Chris Gain, 843-963-5019 Air Force Dyess AFB Abilene TX No Data No Data No Data No Data Kavanaugh's list 

General Information

A3-1
APPENDIX A3 

123456789

1011121314151617181920

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomi

Rock 

Formati

Vertical 1535 3070 14 2 4.5 23000 Water HDPE No Data 0.82, 1.65, 2.47 No Data varies 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 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 

H & V, C 3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

H, C 1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

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 Vertical 318 795 No Data 2.5 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Vertical 100 250 No Data 2.5 HDPE No Data No Data 

Vertical 1 3 14.5 SEER 3 4 40 WATER HDPE 40 1.4 250 Medium to fine saNone 

Vertical 10 40 No Data 4 No Data No Data No Data HDPE No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Vertical 1 20 No Data 20 No Data No Data No Data HDPE No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Vertical No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Vertical 160 540 No Data 3.4 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Vertical 50 150 No Data 3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

vertical 790 983 No Data 1.2 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data  No Data No Data 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Vertical 965 3200 No Data 3.3 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 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

GHP Technical Information

A3-2
APPENDIX A3 

123456789

1011121314151617181920

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

0.0416 7.41 0.0484 UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 

7.41 0.0484

 No Data 

$ 43,277

 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

 No Data 7.98 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

0.0438 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 529$ 1,057,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

0.0438 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 529$ 682,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

0.0542 6.81 0.0542 O&M/SRM/EEIC 529$ 610,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0647 14.95 0.0767 A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0406 9.03 0.0573 UESC & ECIP No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0433 9.03 0.0607 UESC/PILOT 10000 70 780 TBD 20 

0.027 8.53 0.0719 UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.027 8.53 0.0719 UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.032 8.53 0.0719 AF No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

0.0382 8.53 0.0513 AF No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0651 9.02 0.0692 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0178 7.62 0.019 UESC 2500000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0513 6.94 0.0513 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0454 7.41 0.0585 ESPC-Army 6500000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No 0.0476 6.93 0.079 A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No 

GHP Economic Information

A3-3
APPENDIX A4 

123456789

1011

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

Air Force Little Rock AFB Little Rock AR 7,018 Personnel Suppo 73 No Data Craig Jendrusch, PJM, Capstone Building Corp., 501.983.8

Air Force Luke Air Force Base-added Glendale AZ No Data Unaccompanied 72 espc? Hybrid? No Data Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Administrative 61 Stadium Blvd. USAFA Energy Manager 

Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Administrative 61 Visitor Center USAFA Energy Manager 

Air Force USAF Academy Colo. Springs CO No Data Administrative 61 North Gate USAFA Energy Manager Air Force MacDill Tampa FL Unaccompanied 72 48,000 BQ Bill Gregg, 813-828-8681 

Air Force Charleston Air Force Base Charleston SC No Data No Data No Data None Chris Gain, 843-963-5019 

Air Force Laughlin Air Force Base-added Del Rio TX No Data Unaccompanied 72 new constr Ben Graf, DSN 732-4917 

Air Force Whiteman Knob Noster MO 205,908

Maintenance; Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 21, 72 10 buildings Whiteman CE Energy Manager 

General Information

A4-1
APPENDIX A4 

123456789

1011

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predom

Roc

Format

 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 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 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 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 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

Vertical 50 150 No Data 3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Vertical 46 1055 No Data 22.9 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data Vertical 58 No Data 16.1 to 18.3 ,080 to 12,14 3.4 to 3.7 1,120 to 5,592 water HDPE 42000 1.17 350 limestone No Data 

H & V, C 13 200 16 54 to 10

 No Data No Data 

water HDPE

 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

GHP Technical Information

A4-2
APPENDIX A4 

123456789

1011

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

 No Data 7.41 0.0484 No Data $ 43,277 No Data No Data No Data No Data N

 No Data 7.98 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N No Data 6.81 0.0542 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N No Data 6.81 0.0542 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N No Data 6.81 0.0542 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

0.0651 9.02 0.0692 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N0.0484 7.41 0.0484 ESPC-Army 6500000 No Data No Data No Data No Data N

$0.07 6.77 0.0703 MILCON 7300000 No Data No Data No Data No Data N

0.04 7.15 0.038 ESPC-DOE $2,135,834 $23,124 $41,942 35268 20 

GHP Economic Information

A4-3
APPENDIX A5 NAVY 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal 

Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) DOD RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

Navy Washington Naval Yard Anacostia 

DC

No Data

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 

 72 

Bldg A-93 Doug Henderson, BFA (703-466-7400); David Ames, VA Energy Sv

Navy US Naval Observatory Washington DC Administrative 10,519 B Bldg 78 Pete Collat, Summer Consultants, Inc., 703-556-8820 

61

Navy US Naval Observatory Washington DC No Data Administrative B Bldg 1 Douglas Henderson, BFA (757-466-7400); 

61

Navy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 LHT Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTO

Navy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Corry Housing Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Quarters 2 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Quarters 4 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Barrancas/Cabanis Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Cabaniss / Barrancas Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Barrancas Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 Cabaniss Crescent 2 Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Naval Air Station Whiting Field Milton FL No Data Family Housing 71 Whiting Pines Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Naval Air Station Whiting Field Milton FL No Data Family Housing 71 Whiting Pines Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy NA Corry Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy NA Corry Station Pensacola FL No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTONavy Naval Supply Corps School Athens GA No Data Family Housing 71 No Data Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@southernco.com Navy Patuxent River Naval Air Station Patuxent R. NAS MD 27,247 Administrative B Bldg. 2189 Mel Green, NAVFAC PAXRIV, 301-757-4721, Melvin.green@navy.m

61

Navy Patuxent River Naval Air Station Patuxent R. NAS MD 137,440 Administrative B 9 bldgs total Mel Green, NAVFAC PAXRIV, 301-757-4721, Melvin.green@navy.m

61

Navy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA 470,000

Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing

 72 

No Data Robert P. Harvey, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-492-8533 

Navy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA 164,000

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 

 72 

MILCON Project # P712; 44Brian Cooper, USN Facilities Engineering, 757-322-4242 

Navy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA 93,000

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 

 72 

No Data Miles Lumbard, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-2844 

Navy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA 8,000

 Medical and Medical Support Facilities 

 53 

No Data Miles Lumbard, NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-2844 

Navy NWS Charleston Goose Creek

SC 1,000,000

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 

 72 

1,000,000 sq. ft No Data 

Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,100 family housing 71 46 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,300 family housing 71 139 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,500 family housing 71 54 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,400 family housing 71 5 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 1,800 family housing 71 5 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines Albany MCLB Albany GA 2,500 family housing 71 1 residences Eddie Hunt, (229) 639-5979 Marines MCAS Cherry Point Havelock NC No Data family housing 72 No Data Joseph Jackson, (252) 466-4703, JacksonJG@cherrypoint.usmc.m

Marines New River MCAS Jacksonville NC 145,854 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

72 AS4211, AS4212 2@3story Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 

Marines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 8,400 Admin Building 61 SH50 - Ammo Supply Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 Marines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 3,000,000 Family Housing 71 2,049 Residences Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5024 Marines Camp Lejeune Jacksonville NC 22,088 Admin Building 61 Marston Pavillion, PP730 Jim Sides, Utilities Director, 910-451-5030 Marines Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort SC 1,482,000 Family Housing 71

1,236 residences, 

1482000 sq ft.

Bill Eisele, South Carolin Electric and Gas, (803) 217-9220, 

beisele@scana.com 

Marines Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station (I&II) Beaufort SC 424,451 ties, Administrativ 17, 21, 22, 53, 38 Bldgs, mixed use David Hayden, Trane GCC Account Executive, (361) 883-5561, dhayden@trane.com 

Marines Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island SC 27,170 Unaccompanied Personnel 

Housing 

72

2 story Ronnie Myers, ronnie.myers@usmc.mil 

No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

General Information

Marines Quantico Marine Corps Base Quantico VA

A5-1
APPENDIX A5 NAVY 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predomin

Rock 

Formatio

V 29 36 No Data 36 No Data 320500 water PE 5625 No Data 280 No Data No Data 

H, V 38 46 4.5 * 46 2.8 * 419500 water PE 9600 2 400 (all 24) 0' of rock, 50' of cla lots 

H, V 47 75.7 No Data 75.7 No Data 904300 water PE 16000 2 400 70-80 ft clay & rock No Data 

V,O 250 625 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data 

V 200 500 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data V 1 9 No Data 9 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 1600 1.4 260 sand No Data V 2 8.5 No Data 8.5 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 1600 1.4 260 sand No Data V 152 320 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data V 30 126.5 No Data 126.5 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 12000 1.4 260 sand No Data V 10 30 No Data 30 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 4000 1.4 270 sand No Data V 36 135 No Data 135 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 14400 1.4 240 sand No Data V 328 984 12.23 2.5 3 Unknown Water Polyethelene Unknown 1.4 225 Spodosols No Data V 329 770 No Data 770 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 131600 1.4 225 sand No Data V 200 600 No Data 600 No Data No Data water Polyethelene 80000 1.4 260 sand No Data 

No Data No Data 2500 No Data No Data No Data Polyethelene 1.4 No Data 

V 55 148 No Data 148 No Data No Data 21% methanoPolyethelene 22000 No Data 245 rock No Data 

V 18 114 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

V,H 137 399 18.9 399 4.3 4,367,000 water Polyethelene 90400 No Data 225

sand, gravel,

clay No Data 

vertical 499 814 No Data No Data 4.376 No Data water/glyc HDPE 130,680 1.007 500 Grey Clay none vertical 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 vertical 124 160 No Data No Data No Data No Data water/glyc HDPE parking lot 1.007 200 Sand/Silt none vertical No Data 21 No Data No Data No Data No Data water/glyc HDPE No Data 1.007 200 Sand/Silt none 

No 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 

T024-1VTC-FR 46 92 16.2 2 3.5 18200 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 231 Sand, Sandy Fract Limes

T030-1VTC-FL 139 347.5 18.5 2.5 4.0 19000 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 305 Sand, Sandy Fract Limes

T036-1VTC-FR 54 162 17.0 3 3.5 24500 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 221 Sand, Sandy Fract Limes

T042-1VTC-FL 5 17.5 16.6 3.5 3.7 30000 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 268 Sand, Sandy Fract LimesT048-1VTC-FL 5 20 15.8 4 3.5 36500 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 292 Sand, Sandy Fract LimesT060-1VTC-FL 1 5 14 5 3.2 48000 H2O HDPE 10,000 0.9 305 Sand, Sandy Fract Limes

Closed Vertica 1128 2773 16 2773 20,866,000 H2O HDPE 45,120 1.21 250 Sand No Data 

V-C 118 40 13.5 - 14.1 35 4.6 - 5.1 258,000 R-410A Polyethylene 38,400 1.12 239 Baymeade, Fine Sand None 

V-C 10 20.5 13 - 14.1 1.0 - 7.5 3.0 - 3.3 100,450 Water Polyethylene 6,300 No Data 205 Baymeade- Urban None 

V-C 2,099 3,700 14.8 - 15.1 3,700 4.6 - 5.0 55,459M Water Polyethylene 389,100 1.12 - 1.54 176 Goldsboro, Baymeade None 

V-C 8 95 12.1 95 3.25 888,400 Propylene Glycol Polyethylene 42,000 1.54 200 Baymeade- Urban, Muckalee Loam None 

V 1236 2484 16 2484 5 2649 water HDPE 993,600 1 180 sand, clay, shell limeston

various

172 WTA, 

34 WTW 1595 16 1595 5 1701 water HDPE 638,000 1 300 sand, clay, shell limeston

V, C, 70 

boreholes 64 50 12.2 50 4.2 12000 water HDPE 23,000 No Data 210 Sand No Data 

V 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 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

GHP Technical Information

A5-2
APPENDIX A5 NAVY 

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated 

Economic 

Life (yrs)

P

P

Pe

No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NNo Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NNo Data No Data 59 UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 59 A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data UESC 76271 No Data No Data No Data 20 NNo Data No Data No Data UESC 98468 No Data 1154 No Data 20 No Data No Data 59 A 130000 No Data No Data No Data No Data 

0.059 No Data No Data UESC 619170 No Data 19900 337240 20 

No Data No Data No Data UESC 129562 1250 4117 No Data 20 N

0.06347 No Data No Data UESC 435938 7200 27108 56445 20 

No Data No Data 59 UESC 322000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data UESC 2180472 7500 20713 No Data 20 

0.07826 No Data No Data UESC 2533916 0 122422 907347 20 N

No Data No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data N

0.0354 No Data No Data UESC 787286 24429 29343 No Data 20 

No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

0.0692 No Data 0.092 Super ESPC TS 3,784,035 $ 43,924 $ 200,369 $ 916999 20 

.033 + $5.20/kW No Data

.059 + 

$12.00/kW/Month ESPC $8,300,000 $500,000 $530,000 18,000,000

13yr financed 

term

8.4

p

.035 + $5.20/kW No Data

.059 + 

$12.00/kW/Month A $15,000,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data N

.035 + $5.20/kW No Data

.059 + 

$12.00/kW/Month A $7,000,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data N

.035 + $5.20/kW No Data

.059 + 

$12.00/kW/Month A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

No Data No Data No Data UESC 1,000,000.00 $ No Data No Data No Data No Data 

$0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 532,864 $ 2,447 $ 26,697 $ 166,935 22 

$0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 1,610,177 $ 7,395 $ 80,672 $ 504,434 22 

$0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 625,536 $ 2,873 $ 31,340 $ 195,967 22 $0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 57,920 $ 266 $ 2,902 $ 18,145 22 $0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 57,920 $ 266 $ 2,902 $ 18,145 22 $0.046 $8.38 $0.061 Super ESPC TS 11,584 $ 53 $ 580 $ 3,629 22 $0.033 No Data $0.043 UESC 9,164,250 $ 99,470 $ 1,120,175 $ 18,279,000 20 

0.0541

1.11843

0.0537 A No Data No Data

No Data No Data No Data N

0.0562 1.11843 0.0537 A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N0.0562 1.11843 0.0537 UESC 16,117,326 - 1,457,625 20,939,000 20 0.0562

1.11843

0.0537 UESC 878,141 No Data

No Data No Data No Data N

$0.05494/KWH

$7.26/Dekatherm No Data

$0.063/KWH

$15.7421/Dekatherm UESC $ 11,501,557 $ 453,600 $ 983,167 12,405,781 20 

$0.044/KWH

$5.69/Dekatherm No Data

$0.05469/KWH

$10.61/Dekatherm Super ESPC TS $ 8,741,219 $ 450,000 $ 259,302 7,778,589 20 

$0.040 No Data $0.050 A $ 52,600 $ 36,164 $ 8,085 19,000 20 

No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NNo Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

GHP Economic Information

A5-3
APPENDIX A6 NA

12345678

A B C DE FG H I 

Federal Agency Facility Name City State Building Area (Sq. Ft.) DOD RPCS Facility Class (2-digit Group) RPCS 2- digit Code Building Additional Information Project Point of Contact (Name, Phone, e-mail) 

Navy Washington Naval Yard Anacostia DC No Data No Data No Data Bldg A-93 Doug Henderson, BFA (703-466-7400); David Ames, VA Energ

804-358-200x doesn't work tried all 10 digits 

Navy NA Corry Station Pensacola FL No Data No Data No Data No Data Gladies Wooten, 850-452-4412 / Patricia Melton, SCES PGMELTON@southernco.com 

Navy Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach VA

 No Data No Data No Data No Data Lutz, Daniel E LTJG NAVFAC MIDLANT, 757-433-2618 

Navy Kings Point Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point NY No Data No Data No Data Retro Greg Tinkler, 281-450-3399, greg@tinkler.us 

 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

General Information

Marines Quantico Marine Corps Base Quantico VA

A6-1
APPENDIX A6 NA

12345678

M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 

GHP Type

# of GHP 

units 

Installed

Project 

Total 

Installed 

Tons 

GHP 

Cooling 

Efficiency 

(EER)

GHP 

Cooling 

Capacity 

(TON)

GHP 

Heating 

Efficiency 

(COP)

GHP Heating 

Capacity 

(BTUH)

Fluid Type 

used in 

GHP

GHP Piping 

Material 

Used

Estimated Land 

Area Used for 

Project (sq ft)

Thermal Conductivity 

(BTU / hr-foot-oF)

Average Bore Hole 

Depth For Vertical 

Loops (ft)

Predominant 

Soil Type

Predom

Roc

Format

V 29 36 No Data 36 No Data 320500 water PE 5625 No Data 280 No Data No Data 

 No Data No Data 2500 No Data No Data No Data Polyethelene 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 

Sand/Silt non

Vertical 600 1200 14 No Data No Data No Data water polyethylene 360,000 1.3 375 sand, gravel, clay GARN

SCHI

V 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 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 

GHP Technical Information

A6-2
APPENDIX A6 NA

12345678

AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM 

Average Utility 

Rate at Project 

onset ($/kWh)

Current 

Average 

Natural Gas 

Rate ($/kcf)

Current Average 

Electric Rate 

($/kWh)

Project Finance 

Mechanism

Project 

Investment Cost 

($)

GHP annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Savings ($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

($)

Annual Energy 

Savings from 

GHP Installation 

(kWh)

GHP Project 

Estimated Economic 

Life (yrs)

 No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

 No Data No Data No Data UESC No Data No Data No Data No Data N No Data No Data .059 + 

$12.00/kW/Month A

 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

$0.13 No Data No Data No Data $ 30,000.00 6,000,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 650,000 20 

 No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

 No Data No Data No Data A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N

GHP Economic Information

A6-3
 

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 Regulations for Closed Loop Systems 

State Regulation Type Regulation Details 

Alaska Vertical Borehole: 

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 Construction Code Rules and Regulations 

Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: Well Construction and Licensing of Well Drillers Regulation Arizona 

Heat Exchanger: Constructed in Accordance with Current Industry Standards 

Horizontal Trench: Geothermal Well Rules - Office of the State Engineer, Water Resources 

Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: Geothermal Well Rules AND Water Well Construction Rule 2 CCR 

Heat Transfer Fluids: Non Toxic, Regulated 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 Protection, Department of Environmental Protection 

Heat Exchanger: 

Connecticut 

Direct Expansion System: Department of Consumer Protection, Division of Plumbing and Piping 

Delaware Vertical Borehole: 

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 Standards Rules IDAPA 37.03.09 

Idaho 

Heat Exchanger: Constructed in Accordance with Current Industry Standards 

Illinois Applicable Regulations: Illinois Water Well Construction Code 

Indiana Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: The Final Rules Concerning the Regulation of Water Well Drillers 312 IAC 16 

Kansas Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: 

Water Well Contractor's License; Water Well Construction and Abandonment 

Regulations 

Kentucky Horizontal Trench: 

Vertical Borehole: The Groundwater Protection Plans (401 KAR Chapter 5:037) Regulations 

Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: 

Heat Transfer Fluids: 

Louisiana 

Heat Exchanger: 

Water Well Rules, Regulations and Standards, State of Louisiana 

Vertical Borehole: Environment Article 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 Drillers Registration (313 CMR 3.00) 

Michigan Vertical Borehole: R 325.1606 of the Michigan Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Code Rules 

Grouting: Dept. of Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health, Div. of Water Supply

Vertical Borehole: Permit to Install Vertical Exchanger / Wells, Borings, and Underground Minnesota Uses 

Grouting: 

Minnesota 

Heat Exchanger: Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses Minnesota Rules 

Mississippi Vertical Borehole: 

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 Water Well Construction, Pump Installation 

and Water Well Abandonment Standards 
 B-3

Table B.1. State Regulations for Closed Loop Systems (Cont’d) 

State Regulation Type Regulation Details 

Nevada Vertical Borehole: 

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 Subsurface 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 Environmental Conservation 

Grouting: Grouting Procedures for Ground Source Heat Pump Systems - IGSHPA 

New York 

Heat Exchanger: IGSHPA Guidelines - New York State Department of Environmental 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 - North 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 Regulations, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 

Title 785 

Vertical Borehole: 

Grouting: 

Oregon 

Heat Exchanger: 

Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Division 240-Construction and Maintenance of 

Monitoring Wells, Geotechnical Holes, and Other Holes 

Rhode Island Vertical Borehole: Dept. of Environmental Management, Division of Groundwater and Freshwater Wetlands 

Grouting: Rules Governing The Enforcement Of Chp. 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 

Tennessee Vertical Borehole: 

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 Contractors, Rules and Regulations Title 54.1, Chapter 11 

Washington Vertical Borehole: Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells 

West Virginia Vertical Borehole: The Water Well Regulations 64CSR19 

Vertical Borehole: Section NR 812.02 - Well Construction 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 Wyoming 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 Quality regulations 

Wyoming 

Heat Transfer Fluids: Non-toxic Fluids - The Department of Environmental 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/financing/ghpresources.html

The website of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP) contains a wealth of information pertaining to GHPs in Federal 

facilities, including brochures, case studies, a generic GHP guide specification, software 

tools, and detailed guidance on how Federal facilties can access private financing through 

the regional, technology specific, and utility energy savings performance contracts 

(ESPCs) developed by FEMP. 

http://www.eren.doe.gov/geothermal/geoheatpumps.html

The Geothermal Energy Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents a 

series articles on GHPs for homes, schools, and commercial buildings. Another article 

contains a through description of the energy 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 and their allies, the U.S. Department of 

Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency with the objective of reducing the barriers to wide-scale customer acceptance 

of GHP technology. In addition to basic information about the technology, the 

consortium’s website contains detailed case studies of more than 100 residential and 

commercial GHP applications from across North America. There are also links to the 

websites of heat pump manufacturers, utilities, ESCOs and other organizations active in 

the GHP industry. 

http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu

Another organization promoting the 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 information exchange and discussion, offers 

continuing education and training for industry professionals, and promotes the 

development of industry-related standards. Its 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 contractors. IGSHPA’s semi-annual conferences 

provide an excellent introduction to the technology, 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 expertise and assistance on GHP projects and 
 C-3

technologies to the Federal government. The website includes brochures on GHP 

technology and alternative finance mechanisms, 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 Maintenance 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 that is generally unavailable elsewhere. 

Of particular interest is the Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 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 University of Alabama. At present the newsletter 

is no longer being produced, but the back issues contain valuable 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 studies of applications in Alliant’s service 

territory (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin) and links to installers and 

manufacturers. 

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/outreach/technology/geothermalheatpu

mps.pdf

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers a small brochure describing 

the benefits of GHPs for energy 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 broken down into four general categories: 

Financing, Design, Installation, and Performance and Energy Savings. Additionally, 

Chapter D.2 includes specific feedback from DOD field personnel with intimate 

knowledge of DOD GSHP projects. 

D.1.1 Financing 

A number of methods have been used to finance GSHP projects on DOD facilities. In 

addition to the more traditional military construction funding, other funding sources exist 

such as DOD’s Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP), or alternative 

financing via Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) and Utility Energy Savings 

Contracts (UESC). 

In an ESPC, an energy services company (ESCO) conducts a comprehensive 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 contract. After the contract ends, all additional 

cost savings accrue to the agency. Contract 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 finances 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 the 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. Since 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 installed at DOD sites using the ESPC contracts 

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Air Force. Site-specific ESPC 

contracts have been used as well. 

In general an ESPC is a comprehensive, facility-wide energy conservation project that 

may include several conservation measures. GSHP projects and other ECMs with longer 

paybacks can be included in ESPC projects 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 any 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 substantial impact on its heat source/sink, the ground. 

Thus, rather than being based solely on the maximum amount of energy rejected 

to/extracted from the ground, the amount of heat rejection/heat extraction 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 next 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 also available for radiant floor heating 

applications, hot water heating, or ventilation air preconditioning. Typical commercial 

scale application use units mounted in the ceiling 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 several 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 themselves have higher efficiencies than 

larger units. 

• The cost advantage of a single larger unit 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 lower 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 configure the ground coupling loops that will serve 

the heat pumps. The principal options are: 

• Connect all heat pumps to a common circulating 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 field for each heat pump unit. This 

works well where the floor plan is spread out, like school buildings, and in retrofit 

situations where it would be difficult to run piping for the central circulating loop. 

It thwarts any attempt to take advantage of diversity, but provides redundancy 

such that any system failures will only affect single zones. 

• Some combination of the two solutions above. 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, 1997) for more detailed discussion and 

examples of possible arrangements of heat pump units and zones, methods of pumping 

for the circulating loop, and control of the pumps. 

Water source heat pumps are now rated in accordance with ISO 13256-1. Three sets of 

rating conditions have been established depending on application, ground coupled, 

ground water, or water loop (a boiler/tower 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 and 14.1 for ground coupled systems. 

In heating the recommended minimum COP 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 for specifying high efficiency equipment the 

designer should be aware of two other major advantages of high efficiency heat pumps: 

• High efficiency equipment will discard less heat to the ground loop in the cooling 

mode and will require smaller ground loops helping to avoid costs on this 

expensive part of the project. 

• High efficiency units will perform much better at conditions other than the design 

point. Thus, if for example in the cooling mode the EWT ends up being higher 

than planned, high efficiency units will loose much less capacity and sacrifice 

much less efficiency than will lower efficiency units. 

D.1.2.1 Design of Vertical Ground-Coupling Heat Exchangers 

Sizing of the ground-coupling for a heat pump is different than sizing conventional 

equipment. The capacity of the ground to absorb 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 usually a major portion of the total GCHP 

system cost and oversizing will render a project economically unattractive. 

Early in the development of GCHP systems 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 will be a large imbalance between heating and 

cooling loads. For all but the most northern climates, commercial scale buildings will 

have significantly more heat rejection than 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 loops and predict the potential for long term 

heat buildup in the soil. Some 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 tables 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 Association (IGSHPA), 

http://www.mae.okstate.edu/Faculty/spitler/glhewin/glhepro.html, 800-626-4747, 

$525. Input required is monthly heating/cooling loads on heat pumps and 

monthly peak loads either entered directly by user or read from BLAST or Trane 

System Analyzer and Trane Trace output files. 

Each of these programs will require input about the soil thermal properties, borehole 

resistance, type of piping and borehole arrangement, fluid to be used, and other design 

parameters. Many of the required 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 formations and aquifer locations will substantially 

improve design accuracy and may help reduce costs by eliminating overly conservative 

designs that result from uncertainties. Even with the information from test borings some 

uncertainty will remain with respect to the soil thermal properties. Design software 

programs make it possible to easily vary design parameters within the range of 

anticipated values and determine the sensitivity of the design to a particular parameter. 

In many instances, particularly commercial scale projects or projects with many family 

housing units, it is advisable to obtain specific 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 available sources for such 

testing. 

In heating dominated climates a mixture of antifreeze and water will need to be used in 

the ground coupling loops if loop temperatures are expected to fall below about 5oC 

(41oF). (Heinonen, 1997) establishes the important 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 authorities should be 

consulted. One note of caution to the designer: some regulations, installation manuals, 

and/or local practices call for partial or full grouting of the borehole. The thermal 

conductivity of materials normally used for grouting are very low when compared to the 

thermal conductivity of most native soil formations. Thus, grouting will tend to act as 

insulation and hinder heat transfer to the ground. Experimental work by (Spilker, 1998) 

has confirmed the negative impact of grout on bore hole heat transfer. Under heat 

rejection loading average water temperature was nearly 6oC (11oF) higher for a 16.5 cm 

(6.5 in.) diameter borehole backfilled with standard 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 compared to the same diameter bore backfilled 

with standard bentonite grout. For a typical system (Spilker, 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 bore length is only increased 

by only 10% over fine sand backfill in the larger 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 used 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 Pumps for GCHP Systems 

Failures in early GCHP systems have led to standard practice and materials for the buried 

piping used in these systems that will result in long reliable lifetimes. The only piping 

material that is now used for the buried portion of the systems is high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) of very specific grades. All joints are thermally fused, either butt 

or socket type. Specifications for the piping material and joining 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 scale 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 avoid 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 locations in the supply and return headers. 

Pumping energy consumption in GCHP can be excessive 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-way 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 valves with low pressure drops. 

• Do not pump more fluid to the heat pumps than necessary. High efficiency units 

will operate with little performance degradation at lower flow rates. 

(ASHRAE, 1997) suggests the following benchmarks 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 Ventilation Air Requirements 

Emphasis on improved indoor air quality requires 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 addressed 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 moderate climate it may be acceptable to use 

console type heat pump units and provide ventilation air through the wall directly to the 

unit. For larger systems that will have ducted ventilation air to the units, in heating 

dominated climates a sensible heat recovery unit may provide the best solution to 

preconditioning the ventilation air. Another 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 circulated to the coil could be either heated by fossil fuel, 

electricity, or a water-to-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 chilled water for the coils can be provided by a 

water-to-water heat pump. When this is done it is possible to downsize the individual 

zone heat pumps. Under part load conditions this arrangement will provide better 

humidity control by dehumidifying the incoming air stream effectively. Several detailed 

examples of methods for handling ventilation air in GCHP systems are contained in 

(ASHRAE, 1997). 

D.1.2.4 Hybrid Systems and Other Cost Control Measures 

As noted above, even in northern climates HVAC requirements of commercial scale 

buildings are often dominated by air conditioning. For ground coupled systems that use 

the ground as a heat source/sink large imbalances between heat rejection 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 reduce 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 towers is contained in (ASHRAE, 1997) but a 

more comprehensive source of information 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 systems 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 design. 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 controls (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 cost control measures in GCHP systems. 

D.1.2.5 Choice of Designer 

The basic concept of a GSHP is not new, yet only in the past few years have they become 

popular. While the design and installation 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 systems such as a major project in a family 

housing area, or for larger commercial-scale applications on DoD facilities, it's quite 

feasible and often advisable to seek experienced designers and 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 rapidly 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 essential, but experience is also a major factor. In summary, for 

a successful installation the selection of competent designers and installers cannot be 

overemphasized. 

D.1.3 Installation Lessons Learned 

While GSHP systems are not difficult to install, they are significantly different, 

particularly the ground-coupling portion of the system, from other more conventional 

types of heating and cooling equipment. Water well drillers, for example, may be able to 

install a vertical ground-coupling loop field, but unless they are experienced expect them 

to take much longer than an experienced ground loop installer, with attendance cost 

increases. The integrity of the installation 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 instances a quote from an experienced and 

competitive installer could have turned the economics of the project around. The 

International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA) has a certification 

program for installers and it is recommended that only IGSHPA certified installers be 

used on DOD projects. 

In some situations unexpected problems will be encountered when installing the groundcoupling, especially vertical loops. The contractor and government must be flexible to 

work around these problems. For example, if the design calls for two 300 foot boreholes 

for a family housing unit and drilling difficulties are encountered at a depth of 200 feet, 

then the design must be modified in the field, to three 200 foot 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 installation of the ground-coupling because of the 

critical nature of that portion of the systems 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 leave the ground-coupling grossly undersized. 

Failure to completely grout and/or backfill 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 the design which might render the installation 

inadequate. 

D.1.4 Performance and Energy Savings 

Several demonstration projects have monitored the design, installation, and performance 

of GSHP at DOD installations, many of the lessons learned reported in this section above 

have come directly or indirectly from these projects. With respect to the performance of 
 D-10

the heat pumps themselves results were not substantially different than 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 demonstration 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. Polk to GSHP using a shared energy saving 

project. The results of this massive retrofit projects confirmed the earlier findings with 

energy saving of 32% accompanied by demand reductions of 40% (Shonder and Hughes, 

1997). Similar energy saving were found at other DoD demonstration project sites, for 

example (Sullivan, 1997), reported average annual energy savings of 38% at Ft. Hood 

Texas, and 29% at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan. 

Despite the impressive energy saving, in small 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 (TX) 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 GSHP 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, Carlisle, PA. Residential and Commercial 

GSHPs installed. 

Point of Contact: Gary Sweppenhiser, 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 caverns, mud pockets, some of the wells were 

not as deep as design requirements. This requires the well to bleed off excess water more 

frequently. Since a high quality native trout 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 requires 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 problems 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 messy, especially when you hit clay pockets. 

DOD Branch: ARMY 

Project Location: Fort Belvoir, VA GSHPs installed at Pilot Lounge, Visitors Center, and 

Veterinary Clinic. 

Point of Contact: Randy Smidt, Energy Engineer, 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 VERY large ESPC, we most likely would not 

have done these projects. In the case of bldg 610, the location of the 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 after 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 occurs 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 using conventional high-efficiency gas 

furnace and electric air conditioner were constructed adjacent to the GSHP 

units. They were built using similar construction, i.e., wood-framed, vinyl-sided, 

composition shingle roof, and comparable levels of fiberglass insulation. The Ft 

Riley Energy Office was able to get meters installed and monitored on a few of 

the units for a short time. This provided 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 annual energy intensity at approximately 54 

KBtu/SF. (This is total energy usage including HVAC, hot water, power, and 

lighting. Data was extrapolated for annual estimate for the conventional units.) 

3.) Interviews with occupants of the GSHP units revealed they 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 figuring out the operation of digital 

thermostats. No reliability or discomfort 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 written by Department of Energy for 15 years 

monitoring service, the contract requires annual verification and testing by contractor for 

government review and approval. The conditions and requirement of building changes, a 

savings outlook of 15 years is too long, the dynamics 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 contract needs to be clarified; there are 

gray areas on who is responsible for replacement and repair. The responsibility of 

replacement and repair work needs to be clearly identified and separated. According to 

the contract, the equipment is owned by the contractor; however operations and 

maintenance is responsibility of installation, the repair and replacement related to 

operations is vague. This is not a problem 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 unit 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 from 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 energy for use from the cooling season for 

recovery in the heating season. Testing procedures based strictly on acceptable 

industry practices may result in not considering a critical factor: the flow of 

underground water in the geological formation in which the ground heat exchangers 

were installed. Where there is substantial underground water movement, the waste 

energy is not stored but is “washed” away. 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 satisfactory 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 installation, operation and maintenance personnel 

understand the differences to ensure the proper service and maintenance of the 

equipment. There are two installation components: the interior heat pump and the 

exterior header and ground heat exchanger piping. When connecting to existing 

residential duct systems, some additional care 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 heating 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 contract 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 settings 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 temperature during the heating season, GSHP 

systems will use excessive amounts of energy particularly those systems that have 

been retrofitted with electric resistance heating coils. The lesson learned is that 

education alone is not a solution for properly 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 energy 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 maintenance staff and implementation of 

correct maintenance procedures are critical to ensure properly operating systems. In 

addition, a database used to track the operating history of equipment components at 

individual buildings provides a method to see 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, requires technically competent service personnel 

as well as a database for tracking the performance 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 adverse 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 criteria 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 section 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 lesson for GSHP systems (Turpin, 2006). The 

lesson learned involved the original design of a ground heat exchanger for the school 

having to be reduced in size and depth of boreholes during installation because of the site 

geology. This caused the system to be undersized and was evident during the first major 

cold event when returning water 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 supplemental boiler to contribute during cold 

spells. It turns out this hybrid system solution 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 excellent 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 installation 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 systems continue to operate properly; 

• Great care must be shown when planning GSHP system layout to ensure ground 

heat exchanger bore fields don’t interfere with future changes 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 Engineering Support Activity 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers 

BEQ Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 

BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters 

COP Coefficient of Performance 

CERL Construction Engineering 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 Source Heat Pump Association 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

NDAA FY06 National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006 

NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center 

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

QC Quality Control 

RPCS Real Property Classification 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 Engineering Support Activity 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers 

BEQ Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 

BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters 

COP Coefficient of Performance 

CERL Construction Engineering 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 Source Heat Pump Association 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

NDAA FY06 National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006 

NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center 

OIT Oregon Institute of Technology 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

QC Quality Control 

RPCS Real Property Classification 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