FISCAL YEAR 1999
ANNUAL REPORT
ON
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Administration and Resources Management
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (3101 A)
Washington, DC 20460
-------
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION 2
Recent Lessons Learned 3
Laboratories for the 21st Century 5
II. ENERGY PERFORMANCE GOALS 5
Past Performance—Meeting the 10 Percent Goal 6
Green Riders—Energy Management in Leased Buildings 6
III. IMPLEMENTATION—TOWARD A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT EPA 7
Energy Management Training 7
Energy-Efficient Technical Support Team 7
Energy Savings Performance Contracts 8
Green Power Purchases 10
Renewable Technologies 11
IV. ENERGY AND WATER REPORTING 13
Carbon Dioxide Production 13
Water Consumption 13
Facility Energy and Water Reduction Activities 14
V. NEW CONSTRUCTION—ENERGY-EFFICIENT FROM THE START 17
VI. PARTNERSHIPS 17
Carnegie-Mellon University 17
Energy Star® Buildings Program 18
Photovoltaic Installation at RTP 18
VII. INCENTIVE AWARDS 19
VIII. CONCLUSION 19
APPENDIX A: CONSUMPTION DATA 20
Assumptions and Estimates for Facility Consumption Data 21
Exhibit 1—EPA Facilities and Baseline Energy Consumption FY85 22
Exhibit 2—EPA Facilities and Energy Consumption Comparison FY95 23
Exhibit 3—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY99 24
Exhibit 4—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99 25
l
-------
Exhibit 5—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY85 and FY99 26
Exhibit 6—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY95 and FY99 27
Exhibit 7—EPA Electric Consumption Totals FY99 28
Exhibit 8—EPA Gas Consumption Totals FY99 29
Exhibit 9—EPA Fuel Oil Consumption Totals FY99 30
Exhibit 10—EPA Propane Consumption Totals FY99 31
Exhibit 11—EPA Steam Consumption Totals FY99 32
Exhibit 12—EPA Water Consumption Totals FY99 33
Exhibit 13—EPA Water Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99 34
APPENDIX B: AFV DATA 35
EPA's Alternative Fuel Vehicles Acquisition Report for Fiscal Year 1999 36
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Through innovative measures and commonsense initiatives, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has made great strides in decreasing its energy and water consumption.
This report describes EPA's energy and water conservation progress in fiscal year 1999. EPA's
primary objectives in these areas include effective and efficient use of natural resources in the
design, construction, and maintenance of the Agency's facilities and facility systems.
In the past year, EPA continued implementing its first energy savings performance contract
(ESPC); incorporated energy- and water-efficiency standards for building systems into its leases
and construction projects; purchased 100 percent green electricity for one of its laboratories; and
invested in energy- and water-efficient products and sustainable design techniques for retrofit,
repair, and design projects. These efforts helped EPA reduce its overall energy consumption by
10.1 percent from 1985 to 1995 and meet the 10 percent milestone mandated by the Energy Policy
Act of 1992. EPA is poised to continue the trend and decrease energy consumption 30 percent by
2005, surpassing its required reduction goal under Executive Order 13123.
Currently, EPA is upgrading existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in
many of its facilities to make them even more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The
Agency also is using cutting edge renewable and low emission technologies, such as photovoltaic
lighting, a solid oxide fuel cell power station, and electricity generated from renewable resources.
Information on these energy savings and pollution prevention projects is included in this report.
In addition, the report discusses ESPCs, the innovative funding mechanism EPA is using to
finance comprehensive energy- and water-efficiency upgrades. The report discusses EPA's first
ESPC-funded energy upgrade at its Ann Arbor, Michigan, facility and lists the other facilities that
are slated to award ESPCs in the future.
As evidenced by the projects and goals discussed in the pages ahead, EPA is striving to
virtually eliminate Agency reliance on polluting energy sources and significantly reduce its water
usage. Through ESPCs, green power purchases, and an Agency-wide commitment to sound
energy and water management, EPA will achieve this goal.
Romulo Diaz
Assistant Administrator
EPA Office of Administration and Resources Management
February 15, 2000
1
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT)
requires federal agencies to reduce energy
consumption and to report energy use in buildings
and vehicles. Using 1985 as the baseline year,
EPACT mandated that federal agencies reduce
energy use in nonindustrial facilities 10 percent by
1995, 20 percent by 2000, and 30 percent by 2005.
In the spring of 1999, the President signed Executive
Order (EO) 13123, Greening the Government
Through Efficient Energy Management, which
requires agencies to reduce energy consumption 30
percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010. This EO
also mandated that federal industrial facilities,
including laboratories, be included as part of the
reporting and energy efficiency improvement
goals—facilities that were exempt under EPACT and
EO 12902, an earlier energy-efficiency EO.
Laboratories and manufacturing facilities now are
required to meet and report on the reduction goals
detailed in the text box to the right.
This report addresses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) energy and
water efficiency and conservation activities for the buildings and vehicles it owns and operates.
The first portion of this document outlines EPA's buildings program. Appendix A provides data on
EPA's progress in energy and water efficiency for fiscal year (FY) 1999 (October 1998 through
September 1999).
Appendix B, EPA's Alternative Fuel Vehicles Acquisition Report for Fiscal Year 1999, is
the Agency's update of its efforts to purchase alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). EPACT and EO
13031 mandated that federal agencies increase the percentage of AFVs in their motor vehicle fleets
to 33 percent for FY97, 50 percent for FY98, and 75 percent for FY99 and beyond. This report
reflects the Agency's efforts to comply with these mandates. As Appendix B indicates, while EPA
has significantly increased its AFV acquisitions during the past few years, the Agency has not yet
been able to meet these targets. The agency has embarked, however, upon a more deliberate and
aggressive strategy and intends to achieve compliance and demonstrate leadership in this arena.
EO 13123 Energy Reduction
Goals
Industrial and Laboratory Facilities
(1990 baseline):
20 percent by 2005
25 percent by 2010
Other Federal Facilities (1985
baseline):
30 percent by 2005
35 percent by 2010
Note: Every federal facility must meet
these goals unless it meets exemption
criteria.
2
-------
EPA Sets a Standard
Under EPACT, EPA is not required to report its facility energy or water consumption
because all of its facilities are laboratories and, therefore, are exempt from EPACT
requirements. To prove its environmental commitment, EPA voluntarily decided in 1993 to
report the energy and water consumption for its laboratory facilities and to meet or exceed the
energy reduction goals that were set for less energy intensive nonindustrial facilities.
This report addresses and includes the following:
Energy performance goals.
Energy-efficiency implementation.
Energy and water reporting.
New construction.
Partnerships.
Incentive awards.
Appendix A containing current and projected energy and water consumption data
for each EPA laboratory.
Appendix B containing EPA's AFV acquisition report.
Recent Lessons Learned
Due to energy-intensive health and safety requirements for the one-pass air required in a
laboratory, EPA's energy consumption is extraordinarily high when compared to more traditional
government facilities such as office buildings. One-pass air, strict temperature and humidity level
requirements, as well as high-tech energy intensive laboratory equipment cause EPA's level of
energy consumption to dwarf that of other federal agencies, which have a lower percentage of
laboratory space or have not been reporting their laboratory facilities' energy consumption. To
reduce these energy demands, EPA is aggressively pursuing energy-efficient upgrades at several of
its laboratories.
EPA has learned its largest opportunity to improve energy efficiency is within the
laboratories' heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. The Agency's strategy for
achieving the EPACT mandated 20 percent reduction goal by 2000 is to incorporate
3
-------
comprehensive, advanced energy-efficient HVAC technologies in as many laboratories as possible
in the time available. The 30 percent reduction by 2005 and 35 percent reduction by 2010 will be
met by purchasing renewable energy and renewable energy technologies and by continuing the
program of retrofits and advanced engineering in existing and new laboratories.
In pursuit of these goals, EPA conducted audits of its laboratories to better understand how
these facilities used energy and to determine the best approach for reducing their energy
consumption. From its audits and experiences, EPA developed a number of important conclusions
regarding energy- and water-efficiency improvements in laboratory facilities. These conclusions
include the following:
1. At EPA laboratories, HVAC systems account for approximately 70 percent of
energy consumption, while 20 percent goes to plug loads (e.g., computers, copiers,
and laboratory equipment), and lighting consumes the remaining 10 percent.
2. Lighting retrofits produce no observable energy reductions in electric meter
readings because they represent such a small percentage of overall energy use.
3. Water consumption in restrooms is minor compared to consumption by the HVAC
system and process loads.
4. One-for-one replacement of inefficient with efficient HVAC components produces
relatively small energy-efficiency improvements for the building because energy
efficiency is a systemic goal that must be addressed from a systemic perspective.
5. Significant and measurable efficiency improvements will result only from a
comprehensive, integrated replacement of all HVAC components.
6. Advances in integrated HVAC component automation can significantly increase
energy efficiency.
7. Highly integrated, advanced HVAC systems can provide laboratory energy-
efficiency improvements of greater than 50 percent.
8. Improvements of this type greatly exceed the Agency's funding ceilings, but
affordable, piecemeal projects will do little to achieve the 2005 20 percent reduction
goal mandated by EO 13123.
9. Energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) are the most likely funding vehicle
available to pay for the upgrades.
10. New laboratory designs must include integrated, advanced HVAC systems
approaches as one part of an integrated, sustainable design process.
4
-------
11. HVAC designs for all retrofit or new laboratories must consider the application of
combined heat and power to replace stand-by power.
12. Due to the long life cycles of government laboratories, renewable power and other
advanced technologies can be viable cost saving and environmentally desirable
options. Furthermore, according to EO 13123, energy consumed from renewable
sources will not count in the Agency's energy per square foot calculation.
Although EPA could have exempted all of its facilities from reporting because as
laboratories they all fall under the original industrial facility exclusion, the Agency established and
met the 10 percent energy reduction goal in 1995 as required by EPACT for nonindustrial facilities.
The Agency will continue to strive to meet EPACT's more ambitious 30 and 35 percent reduction
goals. In doing so, it will simultaneously meet and exceed the EO 13123 mandates for industrial
facilities. EPA recognizes that although these goals are achievable for laboratory facilities, they are
quite ambitious and require a total commitment to the elements noted above.
Even with its commitment to energy efficiency, several challenges confront the agency.
These challenges include the following:
Designs for its newest laboratories were completed before the elements listed above
were proven and generally accepted.
Funding levels for new construction generally force the agency to "value-engineer"
its projects, sometimes eliminating aggressive energy-efficiency measures with long
term payback periods in order to reduce initial construction costs.
ESPC contracting cannot be used in new construction so these laboratories must be
built as designed. EPA must then implement aggressive energy-efficiency
modifications at additional costs after occupancy.
Laboratories for the 21st Century
EPA believes laboratory facilities provide a significant opportunity for improving energy
and water efficiency throughout the federal government. EPA's own experiences improving
laboratory efficiencies have encouraged the Agency to work with the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Federal Energy Management Program and academia to organize a new, national initiative.
At the most recent "Laboratories for the 21st Century" conference, held September 8 to 10, 1999, in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, EPA announced the development of its Laboratories for the 21st
Century initiative known as Labs21. Labs21 will become a national program promoting energy
efficiency and improved environmental performance in federal and private sector laboratories and
will provide the tools and expertise to dramatically improve laboratory efficiencies. EPA believes
the energy- and water-efficiency technologies promoted by Labs21 and incorporated into the
nation's laboratories will "trickle down" to other building types to provide even greater
environmental and economic benefits at the national and global levels. As the most innovative and
5
-------
important engines of economic growth, our laboratory facilities must demonstrate the value of
preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Labs21 will help ensure they do. As
currently envisioned, Labs21 will focus on the following activities:
Create a national database of current environmental practices, including energy and
water consumption data for a variety of laboratory types. The data can be used to
compare laboratory performance.
Negotiate voluntary goals for laboratory environmental performance, including
energy- and water-efficiency goals, with each potential Labs21 participant.
Provide training or other opportunities to exchange technical information.
Establish partnerships with interested Labs21 participants.
Promote the Labs21 initiative.
II. ENERGY PERFORMANCE GOALS
When designing, constructing, and maintaining its facilities, EPA uses natural resources
conservatively and seeks to incorporate innovative technologies that are cost-effective and
environmentally sound throughout their life cycles. EPA's Energy and Water Efficiency Program is
committed to reducing energy consumption by upgrading existing HVAC systems and
incorporating innovative energy-efficient and renewable technologies where feasible. In addition,
the Agency is pursuing opportunities to purchase renewable energy whenever economically viable
to further improve its environmental performance. These objectives are driven jointly by federal
energy and water management regulations and EPA's commitment to its mission.
To meet its goal of reducing energy consumption 30 percent by 2005, based on the 1985
baseline, EPA will rely on aggressive energy-efficiency projects financed through ESPCs. In 2000,
EPA will see the actual energy-efficiency gains of its ESPC-financed project at Ann Arbor,
Michigan, which guarantees a 66 percent reduction in energy use. These same engineering
concepts are being replicated in four other EPA laboratories, which will soon award ESPCs.
Past Performance—Meeting the 10 Percent Goal
In 1985, EPA was responsible for the energy bills of 12 facilities, as shown in Exhibit 1
(page 21). The Agency's annual energy consumption that year was 399,992 British thermal units
(Btus) per square foot. By 1995, several EPA facilities had achieved reductions in energy
consumption of 20 percent or more, allowing the Agency to reach the EPACT and EO 12902 goal
of a 10 percent reduction in energy use from the 1985 baseline. As shown in Exhibit 2 (page 22),
the overall Agency energy consumption in FY95 was 10.1 percent below the 1985 baseline.
6
-------
EPA achieved this overall reduction by using a progressive approach at each of its owned
and operated facilities, including:
Implementing an energy-efficient lighting retrofit program consistent with the
Agency's Green Lights® Program goals.
Incorporating updated energy-efficiency standards for building systems into
Agency leases and construction projects.
Pursuing a general awareness and education campaign for Agency employees and
managers on the environmental advantages of improving energy efficiency.
Managing equipment and technologies more efficiently.
Green Riders—Energy Management in Leased Buildings
Federal agencies are not required to report energy and water consumption data for
buildings they do not own or operate. EPA does not own or operate any of its office buildings. As
part of its mission to protect and improve the environment, however, EPA decided to exert some
control over the energy and water management of its office buildings and recently began requiring
"green riders" as part of its leases for newly constructed leased buildings. The green rider, which
includes environmentally preferable criteria such as energy and water efficiency measures, is an
amendment to the Agency's solicitation for offers (SFO) for constructing or retrofitting EPA
facilities. EPA used green riders for its new Region 3 and Region 7 office buildings and the Region
7 laboratory currently under construction. When potential contractors submit bids to build a new
facility for EPA's use, they are required to address the green rider as part of the proposal process.
The green rider for Region 7's office building provided environmentally preferable specifications
and guidelines for the HVAC systems to improve the facility's energy efficiency. A copy of Region
7's green rider will be available at this fall.
III. IMPLEMENTATION—TOWARD A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT EPA
Federal agencies have the capacity and responsibility to provide leadership in energy-
efficient management practices and to encourage the expanded use of environmentally beneficial
products and technologies. EPA is committed to this ideal and is reducing its facility energy
consumption through Agency-wide energy management training, an energy-efficiency technical
support team, ESPCs, green power purchases, and renewable technologies.
Energy Management Training
7
-------
In 1997, EPA, in cooperation with Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories (LBL) and DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), instituted an annual conference for agencies
pursuing energy upgrades in federal laboratories. The conference, "Laboratories for the 21st
Century," provides information on energy-efficient technology alternatives for laboratory
applications and creates a forum for federal laboratories to obtain up-to-date information and
support for implementing energy efficiency programs.
The conference is organized into two sessions—a formal training component and an
informal open discussion. The training is provided by a host of speakers from EPA, DOE, LBL,
NREL, academia, and the private sector who present views and technical information on subjects
as varied as utility deregulation; passive solar design; and laboratory design, construction, and
operation issues. The informal sessions enable attendees to present their agency's or industry's
current issues and projects and exchange views and experiences with their peers.
The third annual "Laboratories for the 21st Century" conference took place September 8 to
10, 1999, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Almost 200 participants attended the conference, which
was open to both federal and nonfederal participants for the first time. The conference agenda,
presentations, and speaker biographies are posted on the conference Web site at
.
Energy-Efficiency Technical Support Team
EO 13123 requires each federal agency to assemble a technical support team to encourage
the use of appropriations, ESPCs, and other alternative financing mechanisms necessary to meet the
energy-efficiency goals and requirements of the order. EPA has designated John C. Chamberlin as
its senior energy official. The Agency's national energy coordinator and team manager is Phil
Wirdzek. The core members of the energy team are Doris Ellis, Bucky Green, and Bill Wise. The
team is supplemented with architects and engineers from the EPA's Architecture, Engineering, and
Real Estate Branch (and from the appropriate DOE laboratory for ESPC support) on a project basis.
EPA previously designated site energy managers for each of the Agency's 19 facilities. Phil
Wirdzek maintains the current list of site energy managers.
Energy Savings Performance Contracts
EPA is pursuing ESPCs to finance the significant initial cost of comprehensive energy
upgrades. ESPCs are a form of third-party financing that fund energy-saving upgrades using the
savings from future utility bills. This funding mechanism allows federal agencies to obtain energy-
efficient technologies without having to commit capital funds. The table on the next page shows the
baseline and expected consumption rates in 2005 for each facility and the method of achieving
each reduction (ESPC or funded projects). The table shows that if each ESPC project results in an
expected 30 to 50 percent energy reduction per facility, and funded projects result in an anticipated
10 to 30 percent energy reduction per facility, Agency energy consumption will be reduced 32
percent from the 1985 baseline by 2005.
8
-------
ESPCs allow facilities to undertake large-scale energy-efficiency upgrades without
incurring capital costs. Through this financing mechanism, the Agency can implement upgrades by
signing a contract with an energy services company (ESCO). The ESCO funds, installs, operates,
and maintains the energy-efficient upgrade project. Based on the contractual agreement, EPA pays
a portion of its annual energy cost savings to the ESCO for the life of the contract.
DOE's Super ESPC program makes the ESPC process easier by streamlining the selection
and award process. With Super ESPC awards, five or six ESCOs in each of the four regions
(northwest, southwest, midwest, and west) win the right to bid for ESPC upgrades in federal
facilities. EPA can approach any of the ESCOs for assistance and the ESCOs can submit unsolicited
proposals for upgrade projects to the Agency.
In October 1997, the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) and
NREL offered training for EPA's engineers and laboratory managers on ESPCs. The course
provided details on bundling energy-efficient components to improve the investment potential for a
project, on the step-by-step approach to be used in developing an ESPC contract or delivery order,
and on the regional delivery order for ESPC contracts that DOE has established with NREL for all
federal users. EPA awarded an ESPC to fund energy upgrades for its Ann Arbor, Michigan, facility
in 1998 and currently is installing and overhauling the facility's energy infrastructure. In addition,
in FYOO the Agency will award ESPCs to finance comprehensive energy upgrades at the following
facilities: Narragansett, Rhode Island; Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Ada, Oklahoma. Other facilities
slated to award ESPCs include Athens ORE), Georgia; Duluth, Minnesota; Las Vegas, Nevada; and
Richmond, California. EPA expects to achieve a greater than 50 percent reduction from current
energy consumption levels for each facility undergoing a comprehensive upgrade paid through an
ESPC. Energy reduction goals for each facility are provided in the table on the following page.
EPA's three new facilities (Athens ESD, Georgia; Fort Meade, Maryland; and Golden, Colorado)
are not included in this table because construction had not been completed when the goals were
made.
9
-------
2005 Projected EPA Facilities Consumption and Comparison
Location
19X5
Baseline
Utii/fr
Project
T\pe
K\pcc(cd Reduction
Lex els From IW7
Projected
2005
Consumption
litu/lV
DilTerenc
e from
Baseline
<"'»)
Percent
Year
Athens, GA
339,756
ESPC
-50
2004
151,049
-56
Ann Arbor, MI
713,864
ESPC
-50
2000
248,361
-65
Duluth, MN
257,368
ESPC
-30
2003
206,618
-20
Ada, OK
379,587
ESPC
-50
2000
136,371
-64
RTP, NC
459,305
FP
-10
2002
476,216
4
Las Vegas, NV
278,634
ESPC
-25
2002
198,182
-29
Gulf Breeze, FL
307,643
ESPC
-50
2000
106,732
-65
Corvallis, OR
293,938
FP
-30
2002
133,011
-55
Edison, NJ
145,087
LEED
-30
2004
52,212
-64
Cincinnati, OH
401,312
FP
-30
2005
211,919
-47
Narragansett, RI
436,867
ESPC
-50
2000
247,196
-43
Manchester, WA
370,630
FP
-50
2005
143,429
-61
Houston, TX
572,433
~
~
~
524,775
-8
Newport, OR
174,433
FP
-30
2004
126,466
-27
Montgomery,
AL
287,811
~
~
~
278,182
-3
Richmond, CA
660,518
ESPC
-50
2002
267,031
-60
TOTAL
3W.W2
2n2.21(<
-32
~ No Current Energy Efficiency Improvements
ESPC (energy savings performance contract)
FP (funded project)
LEED (leadership in energy and environmental design)
10
-------
Green Power Purchases
Renewable or green power includes energy generated from any of the following sources:
Biomass generates electricity by burning waste wood and other plant materials.
EPA's definition of biomass also includes generating electricity from landfill gas,
which is emitted as waste decomposes in landfills.
Geothermal energy produces electricity using the heat of the earth's core.
Small hydroelectric projects (30 megawatts or less) generate electricity from
running water without requiring large dams that adversely affect wildlife or local
communities.
Solar power produces electricity from the sun.
Wind generates electricity by powering windmills.
Ocean-based power derives electricity from the constant motion of waves or
variations in ocean temperature.
In response to the deregulation of electric utilities, it will be difficult for renewable energy
production generators to compete with cheaper, but more polluting, electricity generation sources
such as coal and natural gas. The federal government can help accelerate the growth of renewable
energy sources by requiring the purchase of green power for a percentage of its overall energy
requirements. Since one of the motivations for improving energy efficiency is reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, EO 13123 creates renewable energy "credits" for energy derived from renewable
resources. Therefore, EPA does not include its renewable energy in its Btu per square foot
calculations since the ultimate goal of reducing Btus per square foot is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. This assumption is noted again on page 20 and reflected in the tables appearing in
Appendix A.
EPA is committed to accelerating the acceptance of this cleaner alternative power and
established a pilot for its use at its Region 9 facility in Richmond, California. In May 1999, EPA
and its partners, NREL and the General Services Administration, awarded EPA's first renewable
electricity contract to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). SMUD now provides the
laboratory with 100 percent renewable electricity from a landfill gas plant. Purchasing renewable
electricity at the Region 9 lab reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel-based
power by more than 2.3 million pounds per year. This is equivalent to reducing the number of
automobile miles driven annually in California by 2 million miles. The project also makes EPA the
first federal government entity to implement the use of green power at one of its facilities.
The Agency also plans to implement green power purchasing at its Chelmsford,
Massachusetts (currently under construction), and Golden, Colorado, facilities. When these
transactions are completed, the Chelmsford facility will purchase 100 percent of its electricity from
11
-------
renewable power sources and the Golden facility will purchase close to 20 percent. In addition,
EPA is supporting a biomass combined heat and power system at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) field station in Athens, Georgia. This project could reduce EPA's Athens-ORD
facility's reliance on traditional electric energy sources by 100 percent as well. The Agency is
planning other green power purchases as deregulation occurs across the country.
Other efforts to obtain power from renewable sources include the installation of a solid
oxide fuel cell (SOFC) at the Ft. Meade, Maryland, laboratory; a 100 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic
system at the Research Triangle Park laboratory; and a 500 kW wind power electric generator at the
Narragansett, Rhode Island, laboratory. (For more information on the SOFC, see the bullet on Ft.
Meade on page 14.)
Renewable Technologies
In 1997, through an interagency agreement, EPA and DOE tasked NREL with assessing the
potential for implementing renewable energy technologies and energy and resource efficiency
measures at the 16 EPA laboratories where EPA paid the utility bills. (EPA has built three new
facilities since the report was completed.) NREL identified seven renewable technologies in its
Renewable Energy Opportunity Assessment report: solar water heating, solar ventilation preheating,
photovoltaics, ground source heat pumps, solar cooling, skylights, and daylight controls. Pages 13
to 15 provide specific information on the renewable energy projects planned or under way at EPA
facilities.
EPA recognizes that incorporating renewable energy sources and technologies combined
with increased energy efficiency is the most environmentally beneficial method to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. In all ESPCs, EPA requires the installation of renewable technologies as
part of the overall upgrade.
A summary of EPA's energy-efficiency improvements for each facility is provided in the
table on the following page.
12
-------
Summary of EPA's FY97 to FYOO Energy-Efficiency and Renewable Energy Improvements
LOCATION
n •)-
n
n oo
Golden, CO
N/A
N/A
~
20 percent green
electricity will be
purchased
Richmond, CA
~
~
100 percent green
electricity purchased
Third party financing
contract will be awarded
Athens (ORD), GA
~
~
DDC installed,
biomass boilers
designed
EPA will purchase power
from USDA biomass
generator
Athens (ESD), GA
~
~
~
~
Ft. Meade, MD
N/A
N/A
SOFC planning
SOFC will be awarded
Ann Arbor, MI
Photovoltaic
ESPC awarded and
ESPC underway
ESPC completed; 66
lighting
started
percent efficiency
Duluth, MN
~
Energy-efficient
windows installed
~
ESPC will be considered
Ada, OK
~
~
~
ESPC will be awarded
RTP, NC
~
~
~
Photovoltaic installation
Las Vegas, NV
~
~
~
Third party financing
contract will be awarded
Gulf Breeze, FL
Fleat pipe installed
NDDC system
designed
NDDC installed
photovoltaic dock
lighting installed
ESPC will be awarded
Cincinnati, OF!
~
Chiller replacement
completed
~
Exhaust heat reclaim
installed
Corvallis, OR
~
~
~
~
Edison, NJ
~
Energy-efficient
windows installed;
solar hot water
heaters designed
Solar hot water
heaters installed
Green power purchase
Narragansett, RI
~
~
~
ESPC will be awarded;
green power purchase
Manchester, WA
~
~
~
~
Flouston, TX
Energy Management
System (EMS)
completed
~
~
~
Newport, OR
~
~
~
~
Montgomery, AL
~
~
~
~
~ No current energy-efficiency improvements underway.
N/A = Not applicable because the facility had not yet been constructed.
13
-------
IV. ENERGY AND WATER REPORTING
Though it was not required in previous years, EPA has been reporting its energy and water
consumption data since 1993 using a quarterly report form that is completed by each facility's
energy manager. The quarterly report includes consumption and cost information for all forms of
energy, including electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil, and purchased steam, as well as square
footage information.
EPA's energy consumption database shows that the Agency's facilities consumed the
following energy in FY99:
148.1 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of
electricity
5.8 million ccf natural gas
118,997 gallons (gal) of fuel oil
5,332 gal of propane
50.7 million pounds (lb) of purchased
steam
Annual energy consumption for FY99 at each facility is summarized in Btus in Exhibit 3
(page 23). In facilities covering approximately 3.1 million square feet of space, EPA consumed
375,263 Btus per square foot during FY99.
Carbon Dioxide Production
Through its efforts to reduce energy consumption, EPA has eliminated the production of
approximately 4,309 tons of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions associated with energy production
since 1995. EPA projects that by 2005, its facilities will have reduced carbon emissions by more
than 11,023 tons of carbon. This is equivalent to more than 8,300 cars removed from the road per
year and more than 11,000 forested acres planted each year.
Water Consumption
During the past 5 years, EPA has required its facilities to monitor and report water
consumption and costs on a quarterly basis along with the energy consumption data. Since 1994,
EPA has required the use of water conserving equipment in all newly leased and built facilities.
Assessments of water efficiency opportunities are part of EPA's facility site visit program and have
led to operational and management measures that have reduced water consumption.
Conversion Factors
Electricity = 3,412 Btu/kWh
Natural Gas = 103,100 Btu/ccf
(ccf=therms/1.03)
Fuel Oil = 138,700 Btu/gal
Propane = 95,500 Btu/gal
Purchased Steam = 933 Btu/lb
14
-------
EPA's total water consumption increased 4.5 percent between 1997 and 1999, but most of
this increase was due to the addition of three new facilities. Excluding the new facilities, EPA's
water consumption actually decreased 6.3 percent. Several facilities reduced water consumption by
more than 20 percent including Narragansett, Rhode Island; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Duluth,
Minnesota; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Manchester, Washington. (See Exhibits 12 and 13 on pages 32
and 33 for facility-specific water consumption data.) EPA expects significant reductions in the
water consumption at its facilities by installing ground source heat pumps. The heat pumps, which
require no water usage, will replace cooling towers, which require significant volumes of water.
Facility Energy and Water Reduction Activities
Following are synopses of the energy- and water-efficiency activities for 15 of EPA's 19
laboratories. Efficiency improvement opportunities are still being assessed for the remaining four
facilities.
Ada, Oklahoma. The Ada facility decreased energy consumption by 12 percent from FY97 to
FY99. To further streamline its energy usage, the laboratory will soon undergo a
comprehensive energy-efficiency upgrade of its HVAC system. The upgrade will include
installation of a ground-source heat pump system, complete variable air volume system for air
supply and fume hood air exhaust, and an integrated direct digital control (DDC) system for
HVAC, energy, fire, and security management. All of these efforts will be funded by an ESPC
to be awarded in 2000 and will make Ada an energy-efficient showcase facility. Johnson
Controls Inc., the energy services company, is expected to guarantee a 60 percent reduction in
energy consumption.
Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 1998, an ESPC was awarded at EPA's Ann Arbor facility, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). The new energy system currently being
installed through the ESPC will guarantee at least a 66 percent reduction in energy
consumption. The planned energy upgrade will establish NVFEL as an energy and
environmental showcase facility by reducing source emissions, energy consumption, energy
costs, and incorporating renewable technologies. Installation of a real-time demand meter will
help the facility reduce its electrical demand peak. The project was awarded to NORESCO of
Framingham, Massachusetts, and its energy-efficiency benefits will begin in 2000.
Athens, Georgia (ORD andESD). Results of a recent feasibility study for the Athens
laboratories indicate that large quantities of biofuel are available locally. Though EPA was
unable to utilize this technology in the design of its new Athens laboratories, EPA is working
with USDA and DOE to have the technology incorporated into USDA's campus renovation
program. The next phase of this project will determine the size, type, cost, and potential
funding options for the plant equipment best suited for the Athens federal laboratory facilities.
A strong partnership between EPA, DOE, USDA, and state agencies will be the foundation for
making this project a success. The facility also has a solar hot water heater at the onsite day-
care center, which contributed to the 17 percent decrease in energy consumption at the Athens
(ORD) facility from 1997 to 1999.
15
-------
Cincinnati, Ohio. Energy-efficient projects for this facility included installing a closed-loop
glycol cooling tower, energy-efficient elevator motors, boiler controls, a revolving door to help
maintain temperature and building pressure, a new HVAC system, improved windows and
insulation, a new energy-efficient boiler, enthalpy recovery from boiler exhaust, and adopting
the Green Lights® program.
Duluth, Minnesota. At the Duluth facility, EPA installed an energy and environmental
management system to minimize energy waste through improved equipment controls. This
system has helped the facility decrease its energy consumption by 18 percent from FY97 to
FY99. In FYOO, EPA will replace two large boilers with 10 smaller boilers to improve the
heating system's efficiency. EPA is in the process of determining the Duluth facility's energy
baseline and is considering upgrading the facility's energy system through a Super ESPC.
Several energy savings measures were investigated, including geothermal heat pumps, wind
turbines, and photovoltaics but have not been pursued.
Edison, New Jersey. EPA recently installed three solar energy water-heating systems that are
now the primary source of hot water in their respective facility areas. All three solar heating
systems consist of a preheat tank (between 66 and 120 gallons) and various numbers of roof-
mounted, single glazed, liquid evacuated tube collectors. Because the building relies on the
electrical systems only for auxiliary heating when necessary, the solar heaters allow the facility
to conserve electricity and fossil fuel. So far, Edison's solar technology has registered energy
savings results significantly higher than expected.
Ft. Meade, Maryland. EPA completed occupancy of its new laboratory facility at the Ft. Meade
Maryland, Army base in the spring of 1999. The facility was designed with a variety of
advanced energy components including variable air volume technology. Thus far, little data is
available on its energy use, but EPA hopes to see some improvement over previous designs
with constant or 2-stage air volume systems. Additionally, EPA, DOE, Siemens-Westinghouse
Power Corporation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and others have assembled a public/private
partnership to demonstrate the first successful operation of a mega-watt solid oxide fuel cell
module integrated with a small gas turbine. This hybrid power system will demonstrate the
highest electrical efficiency (60 percent) and lowest emissions of any power plant fueled by
natural gas. The electrical power produced will supply some of the laboratory's load, and any
excess power will be fed into the local power grid. The SOFC technology also has the potential
to virtually eliminate NOx and SOx emissions and drastically reduce greenhouse gases. Initiation
of this project is expected in mid-2000. The green design of the facility, in addition to the
planned SOFC demonstration makes Ft. Meade an EPA showcase facility.
Golden, Colorado. In the summer of 1999, EPA began occupying its new Region 8 laboratory.
This leased laboratory facility incorporated a variety of energy-efficiency components
including a DDC system to monitor operating conditions of HVAC. By monitoring equipment
in this way, the facility saves time, money, and energy by fixing problems immediately.
Further, EPA applied for a DOE renewable energy project grant to build a transpired solar
collector panel for the south wall of the facility's hazardous materials building. The solar panel
16
-------
will save energy by preheating ventilation air during heating conditions. In addition, EPA is
currently negotiating with NREL to purchase wind power to serve 20 percent of its electricity
needs.
Gulf Breeze, Florida. EPA recently installed timers on approximately 20 electric water heaters
and is installing nodal direct digital controls (NDDCs). The NDDCs will improve building
controls to minimize energy waste and monitor building security, fire protection, and indoor
environmental quality. Also in FY98, EPA installed a photovoltaic system to generate onsite
electricity to light the facility's piers. Plans are being set for a facility energy upgrade through
the southeast Super ESPC. EPA negotiated an interagency agreement with DOE to provide a
no-cost energy audit, which will be used to create the energy baseline model. EPA received a
contractor-identified ESPC project from Duke Solutions, a subsidiary of Duke Power, which it
hopes to award in 2001.
Houston, Texas. The facility conducted air system modifications and upgraded an existing DDC
system. It incorporated a cooling tower condensate return system to reduce water consumption
and operating costs and enhance environmental conditions. Without this system, large volumes
of water would have to be supplied by the local water utility. EPA is incorporating the use of a
night setback system to control exhaust fans, laboratory fume hoods, and supply air. In
addition, EPA is evaluating technology and operational options to reduce the levels of cooling
and reheating required to reach temperature set-points.
Las Vegas, Nevada. This leased laboratory facility is being reviewed for an energy-efficiency
upgrade through a third party financing agreement with the owner, University of Nevada at Las
Vegas.
Narragansett, Rhode Island. To improve on the 17 percent decrease in energy consumption
over the past 3 years, the Agency is designing an HVAC system upgrade that will use
geothermal heat pumping and latent energy recovery technologies. The design of this system
will be determined by the readily available heating and cooling potential of circulated bay
water used for salt water testing in the laboratory. This project will be pursued through an
ESPC; the request for proposal (RFP) will require renewables. DOE has awarded its Super ESPC
contract with which EPA expects to upgrade this facility. EPA will awards its ESPC in 2000. In
addition, EPA is researching the purchase of green power for this facility as well as a wind
powered electric generator for the site.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. When construction on the National Computer
Center and its host facility in RTP is completed, it will mark the opening of one of the
largest photovoltaic (PV) installations on the east coast. The 100-kilowatt, integrated roof
power system will convert the sun's light into energy, feeding it directly to the building and
supplementing the main power utility. PV technology for the computer center is produced
by Solarex Corporation. The system incorporates PV cells backed with insulating
polystyrene foam, turning solar energy into usable power while increasing the building's
thermal insulation. EPA expects to complete the building and solar installation by
December 2000.
17
-------
Richmond, California. This leased laboratory facility is in the planning stages of a third party
financing agreement for energy efficiency improvements provided by the owner. EPA is
working with DOE, NREL, LBL, and the building owner to negotiate the agreement. In
addition, as discussed on page 9, 100 percent of the electricity for the Region 9 laboratory is
green power provided by landfill methane gas.
V. NEW CONSTRUCTION—ENERGY EFFICIENT FROM THE START
With new facilities, EPA has the opportunity to make its buildings energy and water
efficient from the start. For new construction projects, EPA is attempting the following:
Going beyond the applicable codes and regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 435 Subpart
A) to pursue DOE design initiatives encouraged by EPACT and EO 13123. These
include passive energy design strategies, use of waste energy and reclaimable
resources, and the use of solar and renewable energy.
Maintaining among staff, site managers, site designers, and contractors a high level
of technological awareness, particularly concerning renewable energy technologies,
and committing to use those technologies whenever possible and cost-effective.
Ensuring that all new environmental control systems are highly automated by
continuously monitoring the expected energy-efficiency and pollution prevention
levels.
Amending the Program of Requirements for new facilities to include requirements
for renewable technology applications.
VI. PARTNERSHIPS
For the past several years, EPA has pursued public/private partnerships to encourage the
use of innovative technologies for environmental efficiency measures. These partnerships are
proving to be fundamental for implementing state-of-the-art energy-efficient technologies in EPA's
own facilities or in projects being carried out by others. The following are representative of the
range of partnership activities in which the Agency is involved.
Carnegie-Mellon University
EPA is a member and sponsor of the Industry/University Cooperative Research Consortium
(IUCRC) at the Carnegie-Mellon University Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics. With
18
-------
the National Science Foundation (NSF) as an additional sponsor, the IUCRC includes government
representatives to help determine research priorities and encourage information transfer among
groups. EPA's funding and participation in the IUCRC is used by the NSF to support research
projects that explore the integration of building design, materials, construction, lifecycle uses, and
operations. These activities are undertaken to improve occupant health, satisfaction, productivity,
and to prevent detrimental impacts to the environment and natural resources.
The research of the IUCRC deals directly with the environmental, economic, and industrial
issues involved with the building industry. EPA is interested in advancing the research and
development of building concepts, technologies, and systems. Also, EPA is interested in
understanding and demonstrating the environmental benefits of these advancements, including
their applications and instrumentation, whenever possible, in its own buildings and facilities.
Energy Star® Buildings Program
In 1997, EPA signed a letter of commitment to partner with DOE in support of the Federal
Energy Star® Buildings Program, demonstrating its commitment to being a leader in energy
efficiency. Both parties recognize that widespread use of cost-effective, energy-efficient building
design and technologies in consideration with other energy-efficiency measures can improve
personnel productivity, reduce emissions of many pollutants, reduce needless expenses, and
improve the nation's energy security and economic competitiveness.
This letter of commitment addresses two objectives. First, it reaffirms EPA's responsibility
to install, at a minimum, all cost-effective energy efficiency measures with a payback within 10
years or less by 2005. Second, as the co-administrator of the Energy Star® Building program and a
partner under this agreement, EPA recognizes its responsibility to serve as an example of
excellence and leadership for program implementation.
The other main points of the letter, which reinforce EPA's existing program fundamentals,
are listed below:
Aggressively pursue all cost-effective, energy-efficient, and environmentally
friendly building technologies and procedures in EPA facilities through
public/private partnerships and ESPCs to facilitate implementation of these measures
and promote short- and long-term cost and energy savings.
Evaluate the feasibility of cost-effective implementation of the full range of
commercially available energy-efficient and sustainable building technologies,
designs, and maintenance options.
Integrate and combine energy-efficient building upgrade measures to maximize
energy efficiency and pollution prevention, while increasing the net present value
of the investment.
19
-------
Create an integrated environmental efficiency program that encompasses initiatives
such as pollution prevention, sustainable building practices, use of renewable
resources, awareness, and green purchasing.
Photovoltaic Installation at RTP
By partnering with Virginia Alliance Solar Electricity (VASE), Solarex, PowerLight, and the
Department of Energy (DOE), EPA successfully arranged for $500,000 in financial assistance for a
partially solar-powered computer center at EPA's RTP facility. When construction on the National
Computer Center is completed, it will mark the opening of one of the largest photovoltaic (PV)
installations on the east coast. The 100-kilowatt, integrated roof power system will convert the
sun's light into energy, feeding it directly to the building and supplementing the main power utility.
Among one of the largest single PV installations in a federal facility, the RTP computer center not
only gives EPA the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness and marketability of an alternative
technology, but it also serves as a powerful example of the Agency's commitment to sustainable
energy principles. In addition, the PV system supports the Million Solar Roofs initiative, which
challenges American businesses and communities to install solar systems on one million roof tops
by 2010. More specifically, the RTP installation supports President Clinton's 1997 commitment
that the federal government alone will install 20,000 solar rooftop systems by 2010.
VII. INCENTIVE AWARDS
The DOE-sponsored "You Have the Power" campaign was initiated to increase awareness
of energy efficiency throughout the federal government. EPA is an active participant and has
identified and awarded 17 EPA employees as energy champions. Criteria for selection is based on
an individual's effort and success in striving to conserve energy through building design and
operation, real estate transactions, and overall promotion of energy efficiency awareness. Several
promotional materials were developed for the campaign, including energy champion posters that
highlighted the selected EPA individuals and their environmentally commendable work. For more
information on this campaign, visit the Web site at .
VIII. CONCLUSION
EPA will strive to reduce energy consumption 30 percent by 2005 based on its 1985
baseline, which is the goal established in EPACT and EO 13123 for nonindustrial facilities. EPA
previously committed to meeting this energy reduction goal and will continue to do so even though
the EO 13123 reduction goals for industrial facilities are less stringent. (Under EO 13123,
laboratories must reduce energy consumption 20 percent based on a 1990 baseline by 2005.) EPA
plans to accomplish this goal using ESPCs to upgrade the majority of its owned facilities. EPA also
plans to use renewable and cutting-edge energy-efficient technologies, and purchase green power
20
-------
whenever financially feasible to further the goals of pollution prevention through increased energy
efficiency. The Agency's mission to protect the environment make meeting the EPACT and EO
13123 2005 and 2010 goals of 30 and 35 percent reductions natural commitments. EPA intends to
turn its environmental commitments into success stories. If successful, EPA will virtually eliminate
its reliance on polluting energy in its laboratories.
21
-------
Appendix A: Consumption Data
EPA Facilities and Baseline Energy Consumption FY85
EPA Facilities and Energy Consumption Comparison FY95
EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99
EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY85 and FY99
EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY95 and FY99
EPA Electric Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Gas Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Fuel Oil Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Propane Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Steam Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Water Consumption Totals FY99
EPA Water Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99
22
-------
Assumptions and Estimates for Facility Consumption Data
Please note that the assumptions listed below were used to develop the information
presented in the following tables because some facility information was unavailable. To calculate
Agency-wide totals, estimates and assumptions were made for the following facilities:
Edison, New Jersey
Electricity and gas costs were provided for the fourth quarter, but not the actual
consumption data. As a result, EPA estimated the fourth quarter consumption data
by multiplying the fourth quarter cost data by the average cost per unit from the first
three quarters.
Fort Meade, Maryland
This facility did not come on line until the third quarter of 1999. Since the facility
was only operational half of the year, EPA multiplied its third and fourth quarter
consumption data by two to estimate its consumption for an entire year. EPA used
this figure to avoid artificially reducing EPA's annual consumption data, which
would have occurred if EPA had only used information from the 5 months the
facility was in operation.
Montgomery, Alabama
Because the Montgomery EPA facility is located on a military base that does not
separately meter individual facilities, exact consumption data for this facility is
unavailable. The data used was calculated using an estimated dollars per kilowatt or
ccf rate and the actual dollar amount billed. This information was unavailable in
previous years. As a result of this more reliable estimate, EPA adjusted its 1995
energy consummption data to more accurately reflect EPA's actual energy and
water consumption.
Richmond, California
Richmond's Btus per square foot number does not include electricity consumption
for half of the third quarter and all of the fourth quarter because the electricity came
from renewable sources during that time. As implied by EO 13123's reference to
renewable energy credits, energy derived from renewable resources should not be
included in Btus per square foot calculations since the ultimate goal of reducing
Btus per square foot is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Substituting renewable
energy for traditional energy sources eliminates greenhouse gas emissions.
23
-------
Exhibit 1—EPA Facilities and Baseline Energy Consumption for FY85
1 AC II I 1 II S
SO I ari: 1 KIT
I'M? IS I I S
IJASKI.INi:
IS I I SO I I
RI.GION 1
Narra^aiiM-M. Rl
65.726
~>8 71 i 5^0 4~,~>
436.867
RI G ION :
r.ilivnn. N.I
131.500
19.078.940.500
145.087
RI G ION 4
Athens ORD, GA
71,409
24,261,636,204
339,756
Gulf Breeze, FL
48,073
14,789,321,939
307,643
RTP, NC
677,687
311,265,027,535
459,305
RI G ION ?
Ann Arbor, MI
133,631
95,394,360,184
713,864
Duluth, MN
137,992
35,514,725,056
257,368
Cincinnati, OH
383,817
154,030,367,904
401,312
Rl.t.lON f.
Ada. OK
57.133
21.686.944.071
Rl.t.lON •}
1 .a-> Yr»as. NY
84.195
23.459.589.630
RI.GION 1(1
Manchester, WA
40,560
15,032,752,800
370,630
Corvallis, OR
99 5fP
29.247.418.876
293.938
TOTAL
I.WI.22?
~2.4-4.f.O?.l4l
3'>').'>') 2
24
-------
Exhibit 2—EPA Facilities Energy Consumption Comparison FY95
1 AC II I 1 II S
soi aki: i i:i i
BASKLIM!1
IS I I SO I T
i')')? B i t so ri
DM 1 KKI.NC I!
ri-:c;ion i
N;irr;i
-------
Exhibit 3—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY99*
r.\c ii.i i ir.s
TOTAL COST
SOI AKI 1 I.I.I
s SO I T
I5 IT S
1811 SO I T
KI-GION 1
N;irr;i
-------
Exhibit 4—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99*
r.\c ii.i i n:s
n')'
n >m
n ')'>
nil it:ri m i:
i-vr to rvw <"..)
ISTl S(,>
ISTl S
IS I I so
ISTl S
IS IT S(,>
IS I I S
1ST 1 SO
IS I I S
Niii'i'ii^iiiiM'll. Kl
494.392
; 1.2" v' '^2.
445.362
30.81 1.067.052
41 1.578
2s. TvS. ¦"."¦.
-1". *
-1". *
r.ilivnn. N.I
74.588
30.421.541.585
70.575
28.784.828.913
73.291
2".S"2. I2--.S"
-1." 1
-1." 1
l-'url Meade. Ml)
NA
NA
NA
570.576
80.165.934.280
\ \
Athens ORD, GA
302,097
26,414,461,583
253,407
22,157,168,340
248,541
21,731,673,492
-17.73
-17.73
Athens ESD, GA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
503,595
32,733,651,818
N/A
N/A
Gulf Breeze, FL
213,464
16,796,818,792
204,081
16,058,496,112
236,411
18,602,496,960
10.75
10.75
Montgomery, AL
350,739
19,146,846,900
350,739
19,146,846,900
350,739
19,146,846,900
0
0
RTP, NC
540,340
483,219,394,908
515,643
470,903,457,108
530,033
484,044,904,652
-1.91
0.17
Ann Arbor, MI
496,721
78,733,820,860
509,608
80,776,359,100
540,573
85,684,593,360
8.83
8.83
Duluth, MN
295,169
38,356,023,420
306,330
39,806,359,252
241,824
31,424,123,688
-18.07
-18.07
Cincinnati, OH
302,741
154,617,892,640
368,206
188,052,137,068
348,164
177,816,375,308
15.00
15.00
Ada, OK
272,743
19,485,026,992
279,912
19,997,160,854
239,260
17,092,960,380
-12.28
-12.28
Houston, TX
524,775
22,355,403,664
309,660
22,122,697,568
547,353
23,317,221,528
4.30
4.30
(.olden. CO
N A
\ \
N A
N A
484.226
23.146.020.480
\ \
\ \
Las Vegas, NV
264,242
22,247,856,611
268,242
22,584,645,238
308,443
25,969,382,280
16.73
16.73
Richmond, CA
534,061
16,075,249,300
601,343
18,100,410,520
415,803
14,874,001,856
-22.14
-7.47
Manchester, WA
286,857
14,308,717,924
247,898
11,412,962,664
296,234
14,776,447,764
3.27
3.27
Newport, OR
180,666
8,317,875,960
176,874
8,143,297,568
189,420
8,720,901,400
4.85
4.85
Corvallis, OR
266,022
30,779,319,300
216,263
25,022,110,820
253,656
29,348,482,860
-4.65
-4.65
IOTAI.
35N.fi""
l.0l?.4"'J.302."'J?
3?fi. 1 If.
I.023.HN0.005.0""
3"?.2fi3
1.1 fifi.Wi2.24fi.fi 1
4.f.2
I4.'>2
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
27
-------
Exhibit 5—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY85 and FY99*
r.\c ii.i i ii:s
n s5
KA ')')
dm i i:ki:n( i: n x? to
R'W("»I
IS I I SO IT
IS I I s
IS I I SO IT
IS I I S
IS I I SO I I
IS I I s
K KG ION 1
Niii'i'ii^iiiiM'll. RT
436.867
28.713.499.029
41 1.578
28.473.800.776
-5.79
Kl GION 2
r.ilivnn. N.I
145.087
19.078.950.1 17
73.291
-49.48
Kl GION 3
Korl Meade. MA
N A
N A
570.576
80.165.934.280
N A
\ \
Kl GION 4
Athens ORD, GA
339,756
24,261,631,680
248,541
21,731,673,492
-26.85
-10.43
Athens ESD, GA
N/A
N/A
503,595
32,488,480,018
N/A
N/A
Gulf Breeze, FL
307,643
14,789,319,545
236,411
18,602,496,960
-23.15
25.78
Montgomery, AL
N/A
N/A
350,739
19,146,846,900
N/A
N/A
RTP, NC
459,305
311,265,245,313
530,033
484,044,904,652
15.40
55.51
Kl GION 5
Aim Arbor, Ml
713,864
95,394,306,640
540,573
85,684,593,360
-24.28
-10.18
Duluth, MN
257,368
35,514,792,617
241,824
31,424,123,688
-6.04
-11.52
Cincinnati, OH
401,312
154,030,489,307
348,164
177,816,375,308
-13.24
15.44
KI.GION f.
Ada, OK
379,587
21,686,923,688
239,260
17,092,960,380
-36.97
-21.18
Houston, TX
N/A
N/A
547,353
23,317,221,528
N/A
N/A
KI.GION S
(.olden. CO
N A
N A
484.226
23.146.020.480
N A
\ \
KI.GION ')
Las Vegas, NV
278,634
23,459,585,938
308,443
25,969,382,280
10.70
10.70
Richmond, CA
N/A
N/A
415,803
14,874,001,856
N/A
N/A
KI.GION 10
Manchester, WA
370,630
15,032,754,030
296,234
14,776,447,764
-20.07
-1.70
Newport, OR
N/A
N/A
189,420
8,720,901,400
N/A
N/A
C'nn alli->. OR
293.938
29.247.403.717
25.^.656
29.348.482.860
-13.70
0 > 5
1'OTAI.
2
—2.4~4.'>01.f.2l
3~?.2fi3
1.1 Mi.Wi2.24fi.fi 1 ?
-fi.is
51.0"
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
28
-------
Exhibit 6—EPA Energy Consumption Totals FY95 and FY99*
r.\c ii.i i ii:s
n ')?
DM 1 I.KENC 1. 1 VJ5IO
l-'VW<"»)
IS I I SO I I
IS I I S
IS I I SO IT
IS I I S
IS I I SO I I
IS I I S
UI(.IO\ 1
Niii'i'ii^iiiiM'll. Kl
.¦596.457
27.427.712.056
II l."s
:s. r :s.
3.81
vS|
ki.(.io\ :
r.ilivnn. N.I
58.359
23.802.324.799
" v2"l
2" S"2. 12" s ''
25.59
2^"
Kl GIO\ 3
l ol l Meade. Ml)
N A
^ II 1 i
80.165.934.280
N A
\ \
Kl GIO\ 4
Athens ORD, GA
255,387
22,330,233,745
248,541
21,731,673,492
-2.68
-2.68
Athens ESD, GA
N/A
N/A
503,595
32,733,651,818
N/A
N/A
Gulf Breeze, FL
255,435
20,099,399,364
236,411
18,602,496,960
-7.45
-7.45
Montgomery, AL
350,739
19,146,846,900
350,739
19,146,846,900
0
0
RTP. NC
492.01 1
449.321.820.412
^ v.... v;
484.044.904.652
7.73
Kl GIO\ ?
Ann Arbor, MI
569,409
90,255,362,720
540,573
85,684,593,360
-5.06
-5.06
Duluth, MN
316,286
41,100,049,260
241,824
31,424,123,688
-23.54
-23.54
Cincinnati, OH
370,019
188,978,546,924
348,164
177,816,375,308
-5.91
-5.91
Kl (.ION (<
Ada, OK
310,105
22,154,188,396
239,260
17,092,960,380
-22.85
-22.85
Houston, TX
540,606
23,029,800,824
547,353
23,317,221,528
1.25
1.25
KI.GION S
(.olden. CO
N A
is
23.146.020.480
N A
\ \
KI.GION ')
La-, Vi-»a>, W
287,793
24,230,751,284
>.SJ \_>
7.18
"is
Richmond, CA
633,874
19,079,594,700
415,803
14,874,001,856
-34.40
-22.04
K T.GION 10
Manchester, WA
261,018
13,019,829,360
296,234
14,776,447,764
13.49
13.49
Newport, OR
194,688
8,963,426,360
189,420
8,720,901,400
-2.71
-2.71
Corvallis, OR
273,549
31,650,112,020
253,656
29,348,482,860
-7.27
-7.27
IOTAI.
3?'J.4H'J
1.024.5N'J.'m. 124
3~?.2fi3
l.lfifi.'Jfi2.24fi.fil?
4.3'J
I3.'J0
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
29
-------
Exhibit 7—EPA Electric Consumption Totals FY99*
r.\c ii.i i ii:s
ki-gion i
I l.l t I KIt
(k\\ ll)
COST
s k>\ ll
Narragansett, RI
3,367,998
$247,149
$0,073
Kit. ION :
r.ilivnn. N.I
I.""
S489.454
SO.098
Kl.t.lON 3
l orl Meade. Ml)
9.093.140 1 S666.058
Si I.I 1 ;
Kl.t.lON 4
Athens ORD, GA
4,096,366
$233,186
$0,057
Athens ESD, GA
4,596,039
$208,413
$0,045
Gulf Breeze, FL
5,452,080
$225,407
$0,041
Montgomery, AL
2,341,700
$117,100
$0,050
RTP. NC
63.223.421
$2,844,900
$0,045
Kl.t.lON 5
Ann Arbor, MI
7,098,380
$493,798
$0,070
Duluth, MN
2,628,224
$114,588
$0,044
Cincinnati, OH
16,924,809
$981,136
$0,058
Kl.t.lON (,
Ada, OK
3,071,640
$160,555
$0,052
Houston, TX
3,567,744
$176,923
$0,050
Kl.t.lON S
Golden, CO
2,204,040
$100,402
$0,050
Kl.t.lON ')
La-, Vega-,, NY
4,784,915
$274,979
$0,057
Richmond, CA
1,754,988
$164,409
$0,094
Kl.t.lON 10
Manchester, WA
2,022,472
$128,447
$0,064
Newport, OR
2,555,950
$94,295
$0,037
Corvallis, OR
4,313,380
$180,114
$0,042
I'O'I'AI.
I4S.IW5.I4I
S".'J0I.3I4
S0.053
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
30
-------
Exhibit 8—EPA Gas Consumption Totals FY99*
1 AC M l 1 M S
(.AS (id)
COST
s ci r
Kl (.ION 1
IN;irr;i.f> 1
S0.3SS
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
* * No natural gas consumption.
31
-------
Exhibit 9—EPA Fuel Oil Consumption Totals FY99*
1 AC II I 1 II S
11 l"l. OIL (mil)
COST
Soul
ki gion i
N;irr;i
-------
Exhibit 10—EPA Propane Consumption Totals FY99*
1 \( ILI 1 II S
PKOIWNK (liiil)
COST
s liiil
KIKJON 1
Narragansett, RI
**
**
**
KIKJON :
r.ilKnn. N.I
3.482
S4.736
S 1.360
KIKJON 3
Fort Meade, MD
**
**
**
KIKJON 4
Athens ORD, GA
**
**
**
Athens ESD, GA
**
**
**
Gulf Breeze, FL
**
**
**
Montgomery, AL
**
**
**
RTP, NC
**
**
**
K IK JON 5
Ann Arbor, MI
**
**
**
Duluth, MN
**
**
**
Cincinnati, OH
**
**
**
K IK JON f,
Ada, OK
**
**
**
Houston, TX
**
**
**
K IK JON S
(¦nldell. CO
K IK JON *)
Las Vegas, NV
**
**
**
Richmond, CA
**
**
**
KIKJON 10
Manchester, WA
1,850
$2,441
$1,319
Newport, OR
**
**
**
Corvallis, OR
**
**
**
TOTAL
5.332
s-.l"
s 1.34f»
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
** No propane consumption.
33
-------
Exhibit 11—EPA Steam Consumption Totals FY99*
1 AC II I 1 II S
STKAM (IM
COST
S lbs
KKGION 1
Narragansett, RI
**
**
**
kkgion :
r.ilivnn. N.I 1
kkgion 3
Fort Meade, MD
**
**
**
KKGION 4
Athens ORD, GA
**
**
**
Athens ESD, GA
**
**
**
Gulf Breeze, FL
**
**
**
Montgomery, AL
**
**
**
RTP, NC
50,681,000
$566,852
$0,011
KKGION 5
Ann Arbor, MI
**
**
**
Duluth, MN
**
**
**
Cincinnati, OH
**
**
**
KKGION (,
Ada, OK
**
**
**
Houston, TX
**
**
**
KKGION S
Gulden. C O 1
KKGION •)
Las Vegas, NV
**
**
**
Richmond, CA
**
**
**
KKGION 10
Manchester, WA
**
**
**
Newport, OR
**
**
**
Corvallis, OR
**
**
**
TOTAL
50.f»S 1.000
s5f»f».N52
SO.OI 1
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
* * No steam consumption
34
-------
Exhibit 12—EPA Water Consumption Totals FY99*
, A( .. . . .. s
ILO(»al)
COS!
S iial
Kl GION 1
Narra^aiiM-M. Kl
SI 1.629
Kl GION :
r.ilivnn. N.I
5.91 1.444
Kl GION 3
I'm 1 Meade. Ml) 1 \2.\ '*2.'*••••
Kl GION 4
Athens ORD, GA
4,311,461
$18,613
$0,004
Athens ESD, GA
5,358,964
$18,030
$0,003
Gulf Breeze, FL
5,920,509
$19,408
$0,003
Montgomery, AL
1,315,440
$1,769
$0,002
RTP. NC
57 5^5
VTS. 1^
$0,005
Kl GION 5
Ann Arbor, MI
16,662,856
$77,070
$0,005
Duluth, MN
1,566,265
$3,279
$0,002
Cincinnati, OH
39,998,289
$103,768
$0,003
KI.GION r.
Ada, OK
5,672,232
$11,207
$0,002
Houston, TX
5,797,000
$34,621
$0,006
KI.GION S
Gulden. CO
1.497.281
s 1.1"-
s.
KI.GION •)
La-, Vi-»a>, NY
6,914,240
$12,484
$0,002
Richmond, CA
258,094
$9,251
$0,036
Kl GION 10
Manchester, WA
2,429,370
$7,168
$0,003
Newport, OR
827,000
$3,207
$0,004
Corvallis, OR
6,147,491
$32,440
$0,005
TO'l'.M.
IK4.?'J3.32~
S~25.0I2
SO.IMM
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
35
-------
Exhibit 13—EPA Water Consumption Totals FY97 Through FY99*
r.\c ii.i i ii:s
i-vr ii,o(G.\i.)
rvM ii,o((,.m.)
rVJ'J 11,0 ((,.\l.)
DM 1 IK K\C 1.
rvr io rvw<"»)
K KG ION 1
\arragaiiM.-ll, R1
5,421,881 1 5,702,240
4,276,556 1 -21.12
k kg ion :
r.dKon. n.i
4.81 y..iM 1 6.408.860
5.911.444 1 22.66
k kg ion 3
l ol l Meade. Ml)
|
12.132.300 1 NA
k kg ion 4
Athens ORD, GA
4,728,362
4,167,692
4,311,461
-8.82
Athens ESD, GA
N/A
N/A
5,358,964
N/A
Gulf Breeze, FL
8,029,125
6,358,500
5,920,509
-26.26
Montgomery, AL
1,315,440
1,315,440
1,315,440
0
RTP. XC
52.462.383
41.341.212
*)7
Q "~j C)
K KG ION 5
Ann Arbor, MI
17,255,315
17,064,783
16,662,856
-3.43
Duluth, MN
6,106,112
3,139,920
1,566,265
-74.35
Cincinnati, OH
46,377,755
23,047,748
39,998,289
-13.76
K KG ION f.
Ada, OK
2,021,379
5,242,548
5,672,232
180.61
Houston, TX
5,270,253
5,805,000
5,797,000
9.99
K KG ION S
Golden, CO
N/A 1 N/A
1,497,281 1 N/A
K KG ION ')
La-, \'i-»as, NY
10,061,000
7,716,000
6,914,240
-M 2s
Richmond, CA1
56,100
293,778
258,094
N/A
Kl GION 10
Manchester, WA
7,406,695
2,543,755
2,429,370
-67.20
Newport, OR
1,019,000
814,000
827,000
-18.84
Corvallis, OR
4,183,107
5,383,157
6,147,491
46.96
I'OTAI.
l"fi.4 .1"!
I3fi.344.fi33
IS4.335.233
4.45
NOTE: Excluding the new facilities (Fort Meade, MD; Athens (ESD), GA; and Golden, CO),
EPA's water consumption actually decreased 6.31 percent.
*NOTE: Please see list of assumptions on page 21.
36
-------
Appendix B: AFV Data
EPA 's Alternative Fuel Vehicles Acquisition Report for Fiscal Year 1999
1 .Richmond's FY97 water consumption figure only includes the first and second quarters and can not be fairly compared to FY99
data. Since this data is incomplete, Richmond's data is not included in the totals for FY97 or FY99.
37
------- |