A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 1

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Ariel Castillo, Ph.D.

ODASD(Energy)

Director

Installation Energy Resilience

2

Measuring Success in Resilience
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 3

LCCA & 

Business case

Cyber

Physical

EM

Service 

requirements

Critical Loads/ 

Infrastructure

Design & 

construction

Generation and 

Fuel/Storage

Spare 

components

Maintenance

Financing

Islanding 

requirements

Strategic/Risk 

Requirements

Mission 

Requirements

Installation 

Requirements

Execution

Requirements

ERA Tool, Exercises, & DERB study/tools (ODASD(E) Commissioned)

Other considerations for site and project execution/implementation

On-going collaboration between MIT-LL and INL

Outage 

duration

Adversaries Mission Metrics

Integration of risk and mission-based decision 

making is an integral aspect of energy resilience

Interdependent 

Infrastructure

Funding Impacts:

• Energy Resilience Conservation and Investment Program 

• Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution

• Alternative Financing

DoD Requirements for Energy Resilience

Metrics span across 

these requirements
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

ER Overview: Inclusion of Mission-Based Decision-Making

4

Critical Mission Operations (Sample - For Training Purposes Only)

Global Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR)

Power/Force Projection – Mobilizing, 

Deploying, and Demobilizing

Strategic Command Communication -

Command and Control

Life, Health, and Safety Operations

❑ Step 1 – Criticality of mission and supporting functions

➢ Services and Defense Agency provided during PR review in 2014 

➢ Validated through MIT-LL was the need for broader and strategic energy 

resilience framework, inclusive of:

▪ Service and Defense Agency Warfighting Missions

▪ Emergency, Recovery, and Response Missions

▪ Supporting Installation Infrastructure and Interdependencies

❑ Step 2 – Mission requirements of those critical mission operations

➢ In terms of ‘resilience’ – what disruption risk is appropriate? (e.g., 

availability, downtime, etc.)

❑ ODASD(Energy) has commissioned MIT-LL to establish and test 

resilience framework for mission and installation requirements

➢ MIT-LL to collaborate with INL to broaden comprehensive and automated 

risk-based decision tools and exercises to inform DoD requirements

Important to establish a holistic and strategic resilience framework that integrates mission and installation 

stakeholder communities that encourage mission-based decision-making.

Important questions:

➢ Mission operator coordination? 

➢ Were mission dependencies evaluated? 

➢ Were mission-to-mission solutions reviewed and 

identified? 

➢ Were risk-based mission requirements 

developed and considered?

➢ Is an infrastructure solution required or needed?

DoDI 4170.11 requires alignment to critical 

energy requirements to prioritize and inform 

mission-based metrics development. 
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Base-Level Metrics Example – Base Grid

5

Example Case – Not an actual installation (solutions will vary based on mission requirements of military installations) 

A

A

A

• OM&T and right-sizing (generation)

• Consider upgrading/improving distribution 

system, equipment, and fuel for critical loads 

(not typically industry system standards – but 

mission-based standards)

• Consolidated/distributed generation at the 

critical feeder on the base

• Spot generators/UPS at specific critical 

facilities could still be required

• Essential to ensure mission-specific security 

requirements are met (resilience requirements 

allows for lower surface area protection)

• Renewable energy options can also be considered to help offset fuel related 

costs and vulnerabilities (however, based on local resource constraints and 

batteries beyond UPS generally difficult to support thru a LCCA)

• Typically, we look at “fixed” energy systems – evaluation of flexible options 

(e.g., duel-fuel) and even mobile generation (lowers vulnerability surface 

area further)

Current authorities were developed for alignment to 

industry, not mission-based metrics and standards.

Generally, this was found to be a good option to 

improve resilience affordably (MIT-LL study).

Substation

Distributed Gen

Spot Gen / UPS

Mobile Gen

DoD Installation Energy Resilience 

is both technology and authority 

agnostic. It is about mission and 

economic performance.

= Critical Loads

A = Availability

Primary Energy Resilience Metrics:

• Critical load – Establishes a requirement 

for energy resilience

• Availability – Establishes level of 

performance needed to meet that 

requirement 

• Duration – Establishes period of time 

you will meet the requirement and the 

level of performance

*All metrics must be risk-informed to align 

with resilience and mission requirements.

Example Solutions
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

DoD Energy Resilience Analysis 

(ERA) Tool and Exercises

6
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

DoD Energy Resilience

Tools, Assessments, and Exercises

7

Sicily

NAS Sigonella 1

NRTF Niscemi NAS Sigonella 2

Hawaii

JBPHH

Fort Greely

Guam

NSA 

Andersen NB Guam

NBGTS

• Tools and assessments allow 

sites to understand risks to 

critical systems and inform 

project development

• Tabletop exercises investigate 

responses and capabilities 

during an extended simulated 

outage

• “Pull-the-plug” exercises 

provide awareness of actual 

system capabilities during a 

real outage

• Adverse weather events are 

damaging our electrical 

infrastructure

• Downstream effects may 

cause outages on DoD 

installations

• Real-world testing ensures 

preparedness for an outage 

scenario

NB Kitsap Bangor

NB Kitsap Keyport

Beale AFB

Fort Irwin

Camp Pendleton

NB San Diego

NB Coronado

NB Point Loma

Camp Lejeune

NS Norfolk

JB Andrews

NSA Philadelphia

Philadelphia NSY

Fort Stewart

Dobbins ARB

Barnes ANG

Vandenberg AFB

NSB Kings Bay

Creech AFB

Hanscom AFB

Fort Bragg

Fort Hood

Analysis and Exercise 

Locations

7 2 5 16

30 energy resilience base assessments and exercises completed

- 1/5 of the Department’s electricity consumption

- > $450 million in electricity costs
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

DoD Energy Resilience

ERA Tool Analysis Methodology

8

30 energy resilience base assessments and exercises completed

- 1/5 of the Department’s electricity consumption

- > $450 million in electricity costs

Energy System 

Architectures

Financial Model

Critical Load Profile

Component Devices

Reliability Model Resource Availability

Analyze Results

Recommendation

Monte Carlo 

Simulation

Grid Tied Solar

Islandable Solar

Building Gens

Central Gens

Building Battery

Site Battery

Microgrid

Cogeneration

Fuel Cell

Grid Electricity
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Energy Resilience Analysis of Alternatives

Optimizing to meet mission requirements {historical outages}

9

5793

Lower cost

Existing

solution

More

resilient

Architecture #

Mission Attribute 

Unserved Energy (MWh)

Cost Attribute 

Lifecycle Cost ($/kWh)

Architecture #22 assets:

• Central & building generators

• UPS

• Grid-tied solar

Architecture #9 assets:

• Microgrid 

• Central generators

• Islandable solar

Architecture #24 assets:

• Microgrid

• Central & building generators

• Islandable solar

Solar PPA

Nat. Gas

Electricity

Maintenance

CapEx

High-cost options typically include advanced/large-scale 

microgrids (can lead to large-scale distribution system 

upgrades), battery integration, and/or fuel cells

Low-cost options include generators, targeted/centralized 

generators and/or microgrids, and/or solar (near the point of 

use – focused on mission requirements of the base)

LCCA Value Streams (Direct):

• Right-sizing to mission requirement

• Reduce capital, operations, maintenance, 

and testing costs

• Reliability/repair & utility bill savings

• Financial incentives 

▪ Available in my region? 

▪ Mission/security requirements?

Value streams were aligned to existing LCCA 

requirements for project-level submissions (see 

DoDI, NIST Handbook, FM regs, ERCIP, etc.)
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Energy Resilience Analysis of Alternatives

Optimizing to meet mission requirements {2 week outage}

10

8861

Cost Attribute 

Lifecycle Cost ($MM)

Mission Attribute

Unserved Energy (MWh)

Architecture #

Architecture #9 assets:

• Microgrid 

• Central generators

• Islandable solar

Architecture #24 assets:

• Microgrid

• Central & building generators

• Islandable solar

Long Duration Outage

Typical Outages

Architecture #22 assets:

• Central & building generators

• UPS

• Grid-tied solar

Important findings and highlights:

• Results / outcomes not dramatically changed

• Least cost solution(s) to meet requirement remains stable 

• AoA allows direct LCCA value streams to be considered 

equitably for fair comparison (all receive customized value)

• Fuel remains a requirement (even in RE + battery 

solutions) – technical/economic obstacles make RE + 

battery solutions difficult for resilience applications

Any generalized non-direct benefits will 

drive down the costs of all solutions (e.g., 

productivity savings, food spoilage, etc.)

High-cost options typically include advanced/large-scale 

microgrids (can lead to large-scale distribution system 

upgrades), battery integration, and/or fuel cells

Low-cost options include generators, targeted/centralized 

generators and/or microgrids, and/or solar (near the point of 

use – focused on mission requirements of the base)

Existing

solution
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Simplified View of 

Energy Resilience Metrics

11
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

$1M in Capital and $100k/yr in OM&T

12

Generators Only 

(2MW load, n+1 configuration, 

>99.9975% reliability)

Microgrid, Solar PV, & Storage

(0.25MW load, n configuration, >99.5% 

reliability)

45 gallon 

barrels of 

diesel fuel

268

1MW diesel 

generator 3 †

Technician with 

annual training* 1

Hours of electrical 

outage system 

can withstand

72

1MWh 

battery 

system

1

Hours of electrical 

outage system 

can withstand

12

250kW Solar 

PV Farm 1

Advanced 

technician with 

annual training*

1

Basic microgrid 

control system 1

*Cost of maintenance 

included in technician cost

†Fuel tanks included in 

generator cost

Duration

Load 

Requirement

Performance 

Measure

Technical Metrics

Mission drives 

requirements for 

technical metrics. 

Sustainment

Defined metrics allow for easier 

apple-to-apple comparisons 

across technology types.
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 13

* General values provided for training purposes. Values may differ depending on the installation.

† Diesel fuel consumed in 33% efficient generators.

‡ Lithium ion batteries with 15% roundtrip efficiency loss.

Metric Generators and 

Fuel

Microgrid, Solar

PV, and Storage

Average Load (based on mission requirement) 1 MW

Project Area Required 53 m2 10,000 m2

Storage Volume Required 8.5 m3 95 m3

Fuel/Storage Energy Density 3200 kWh per m3 † 589 kWh per m3 ‡

Training Requirement Simple Complex

Security Concerns Physical, EMP Physical, Cyber, 

EMP

Resilient Technology Comparison

Defined metrics allow for easier 

apple-to-apple comparisons 

across technology types.
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Defense Energy Resilience 

Bank (DERB) Study

14
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Energy Resilience Project Development

Insights from Investors and Developers

15

Key Takeaways:

Investors, lenders, and developers actively compete in the market to fund commercially viable, 

bankable infrastructure projects and are keenly interested in DoD energy resilience projects 

DoD should demonstrate to the commercial market a long term and stable commitment to 

energy resilience projects given the significant repayment periods and previous examples of 

projects being postponed or canceled after agreements were signed 

DoD 

Commitment

Lenders are often unaware of resilience projects coming to market. They want to see more 

active, frequent and centralized sharing of information on project pipelines across service 

branches

Awareness of 

Projects

Shorter procurement cycles and time to project closing will increase lender interest and 

improve commercial terms for the DoD

Procurement 

Cycles

Financiers want to see more regularity in the frequency, volume and size of projects in the 

DoD energy project pipeline. This will incentivize them to dedicate more resources to learn and 

engage in the market, and improve the DoD’s commercial position in negotiations

Project 

Pipeline

All contracting offices should use standardized contract terms and conditions for TforC, TforD, 

and force majeure provisions, and include clear energy resilience requirements and 

performance terms for risk management. Economic valuation of threats such as natural, 

climate, physical, reliability, and cyber is possible.

Standard 

Contract 

Terms

U.S. lenders often look to resell their loans to secondary investors. Limitations on the ability to 

resell financings to foreign institutions limit the pool of available capital to finance resilience 

projects and can lead to higher long term financing costs paid the service branch

Foreign 

Institutional 

Investors

*
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 16

How do I evaluate ER metrics fairly in proposals?

RFI and RFP templates for cost based on mission requirements

MW/Availability 90% 95% 97% 99% 99.9% 99.99% 99.999% 99.9999%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Expected Costs ($000) to Deliver Energy Resilience Performance

Requesting total costs and dollars per energy 

unit protects the Government’s financial 

interests, and aligns directly to mission 

requirements. Allows for technology agnostic 

comparisons to select best value technology to 

meet critical mission requirements. 
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 17
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O

Electric Power Resilience Working Group Established

2013

2014

2015

2016

2012

2017

2018

2019

2020

DoD Electric Power Resilience Memo Released – first definition and requirements established

Study to Investigate Business Case Analysis Approaches for ER Commissioned with MIT-LL

DoDI 4170.11 Updated – codified ER definition and requirements

MIT-LL Study and Initial Development of ERA Tool Completed

OM&T Strategy and Implementation Guidance Released

RFI Released for Study of Alternative Financing For ER Projects

RFQ Released for Study of Alternative Financing For ER Projects

First ERCIP Guidance to Include ER Released

Demand Response Guidance Updated to Include ER

IEP Requirements Updated to Include ER

Policy on ESPC/UESC Contracts Updated to Include ER

Utilities Privatization Guidance Updated to Include ER

First AEMRR Guidance to Include ER Metrics and Standards

First ERCIP Guidance to Require MIT-LL ERA Tool Output For Project Selection

ODASD(Energy) Energy Resilience Timeline

Shift from energy “security” to “resilience”

Broadened initiative from “electric” to “energy”
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 19

How do I evaluate ER metrics fairly in proposals?

RFI and RFP templates for cost based on mission requirements

MW/Availability 90% 95% 97% 99% 99.9% 99.99% 99.999% 99.9999%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Expected Life Cycle Costs ($ per kWh) to Deliver Energy Resilience Performance

Requesting total costs and dollars per energy unit protects 

the Government’s financial interests, and aligns directly to 

mission requirements. Allows for technology agnostic 

comparisons to select best value technology to meet 

critical mission requirements. 
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 20

Your missions are important, make sure to measure/demand performance.

Do this early and often, or you will lose negotiating leverage and pay for it later. 30 Seconds

60 Seconds

5 Minutes

10 Minutes

15 Minutes

20 Minutes

25 Minutes

30 Minutes

35 Minutes

40 Minutes

45 Minutes

50 Minutes

55 Minutes

60 Minutes

65 Minutes

70 Minutes

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert appropriate 

mission/facility

Insert appropriate 

mission/facility

Insert appropriate 

mission/facility

Insert appropriate 

mission/facility Actual Down Time

Mission/Building/Equipment 

Affected

Insert appropriate 

mission/facility

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Insert $ amount

Availability Failure Penalty Table

Allowable Down Time None 60 Seconds 10 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes

How do I build in ER metrics into contracts?

An Example – Concept Only
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 21

DoD Lessons Learned

1. Collaboration of critical mission operations and mission requirements is a necessary 

first step to achieve energy resilience (don’t assume a technology or execution path)

❑ Did you also consider mission-to-mission solutions? Do you need an infrastructure solution?

2. Determination of critical loads is important to assign prioritization, reduce vulnerability 

risks, and to consider cost-effective options to what our mission requires

❑ What exactly are my mission requirements and the level of performance I expect at those 

critical loads identified?

3. Availability/reliability of distribution system and current energy systems at critical 

loads in question require consideration prior to implementing any new energy system 

or generation options

❑ What is current level of availability performance (i.e., current resilience)?

❑ Am I operating, maintaining, and testing my current systems and equipment?

❑ Is further resilience required? What types of resilience are possible on my base?

❑ What are my options? (e.g., upgrade current systems, pursue new systems, etc.)

4. Consideration of various technologies, inclusive of fossil and renewable energy options 

are necessary when considering distributed and continuous power to ensure mission 

performance 

Think about 

costs/tradeoffs as 

you increase 

complexity of 

solutions.

Yes, lessons learned! We started the 

effort back in Dec 2012.
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 22

DoD Lessons Learned

5. “New” upgrades, distributed energy resources and other technologies can provide 

an installation greater flexibility in servicing critical loads, however, the Component 

must understand their current level of resilience and if the mission requires 

additional resilience. Examples:

❑ First consider upgrading/improving distribution system, equipment, and fuel for critical 

loads

❑ Consolidated/distributed generation at the substation/critical feeder level

❑ Spot generators at specific critical facilities can continue if additional resilience is required

❑ Renewable energy options can also be considered to help “offset” fuel related costs and 

vulnerabilities (needs to tie back to mission requirements and capabilities)

❑ Remember, you are remediating disruption risks, so fuel is likely still needed 

❑ Difficult to consider a renewable “only” option since fuel outcompetes batteries when considering cost/technical 

tradeoffs in a disruption scenario (difficult to size batteries to MW-level critical loads: not a R&D project)

❑ Typically, we look at “fixed” energy systems – evaluation of flexible options (e.g., duel-fuel) 

and even mobile generation can also be considered to remediate disruption risk

6. Energy resilience metrics are needed to help right-size solutions that align to what 

our mission requires

❑ How do we know if we are getting the right resilience from vendors/contracts today? Are 

we building in energy resilience metrics into our contracts?

Think about 

costs/tradeoffs as 

you increase 

complexity of 

solutions.

Whatever the 

solution, don’t 

forget about 

mission 

performance
A u g u s t 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 • C o l o r a d o C o n v e n t i o n C e n t e r • D e n v e r C O 23

DoD Energy Resilience

Energy Resilience Project/Program Questions

1. Does the project proposal have support/commitments from those mission operators/tenants impacted (e.g., commit docs)?

2. Does the project directly remediate disruption risks to critical mission operations on the base?

3. What types of critical mission operations are risks being remediated for? What are the mission requirements of the identified

critical mission operations (e.g., downtime risk tolerance requirement used to help determine energy resilience metrics such 

as availability, reliability, and quality thresholds)?

4. What is the critical load amount (e.g., kWs, MWs, etc.) of the identified critical missions? What portion of the critical load is 

being impacted by the project (if different from amount provided)?

5. Is the base currently compliant to near-term energy resilience requirements (e.g., current level of reliability is aligned to what 

missions require, generator and other system OM&T, etc.)? Does it actually require “more” resilience?

6. What are the components of the project (e.g., generation, infrastructure, equipment, and fuel) that are being paid for that are 

tied to the critical load in question and that are also needed to remediate disruption risk?

7. Does the project remediate a risk? This is determined by the current state of the availability/reliability and the improvement 

expected to meet the mission requirements at the critical missions identified? Provide quantification of resilience metrics to 

confirm (e.g., technical metrics: availability, reliability, and quality).

8. Has there been an independent government life-cycle cost assessment conducted, and an analysis of alternatives conducted? 

Have the cost and mission tradeoffs been assessed across the alternatives (inclusive of upgrades)?

9. Have the appropriate stakeholders coordinated on the project selection (e.g., installation support, financial, and mission 

operator/tenants)? Is there commitment to sustain the project over its life? Have each stakeholders’ budgets been reviewed 

to identify “fair share” contributions to implement/execute the project? 

10. Have the near-term execution impediments been remediated prior to project selection (e.g., infrastructure ownership, 

integration of power systems, land ownership, host-tenant/installation-mission agreements, etc.)?

11. What are the base’s plans to include energy resilience metrics to ensure performance? Describe how energy resilience 

metrics will be included in contracting to ensure contractor/vendor performance, and ensure missions requirements are met.

Typical questions to better understand if you are pursuing an energy resilience program/project.