CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Energy Security of Military and
Industrial Installations with Emergent
Conditions of Regulation, Technology,
Environment, and Others
James
H.
Lambert,
Associate
Director,
Center
for
Risk
Management
of
Engineering
Systems;
Research
Associate
Professor,
Department
of
Systems
and
InformaCon
Engineering;
University
of
Virginia,
USA
1
CENTRAL
VA
Acknowledgments
IEEE
•  Chris
Karvetski,
Michelle
Hamilton
•  PhD
students,
Center
for
Risk
Management
of
Engineering
Systems,
University
of
Virginia
•  Renae
Ditmer,
Ph.D.
–  President
&
CEO,
STRATCON
LLC
•  Jeffrey
Keisler,
Ph.D.
–  Associate
Professor
of
Management
Science
and
InformaCon
Systems,
University
of
MassachuseQs
Boston
•  Igor
Linkov,
Engineer
Research
and
Development
Center,
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
•  Tarek
Abdallah
and
Melanie
Johnson
–  CERL,
Engineer
Research
and
Development
Center,
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Champaign,
Illinois,
USA
2
IEEE
•  Goal
and
objecCves
•  Background
•  Overview
of
methods
•  Summary
of
principles
CENTRAL
VA
Presentation Outline
3
CENTRAL
VA
Motivation
IEEE
Energy security has been defined as:
“…the capacity to avoid adverse impact of energy disruptions caused either
by natural, accidental, or intentional events affecting energy and utility
supply and distributions systems.”
Source: United States Army. The U.S. Army Energy and
Water Campaign Plan for Installations, 2007
“…assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and
deliver sufficient energy to meet operation needs.”
Source: Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 2010
4
CENTRAL
VA
Motivation (cont.)
IEEE
Dimensions of Energy Security
1.  Surety – Preventing loss of access to power & fuel sources
2.  Supply – Accessing alternative & renewable energy sources
available on installations
3.  Sufficiency – Providing adequate power for critical missions
4.  Survivability – Ensuring resilience in energy systems
5.  Sustainability – Promoting support for the Army's mission,
its community, and the environment.
5
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Motivation (cont.)
US Army Energy Security Goals (ESGs)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Reduced energy consumption
Increased energy efficiency across platforms and facilities
Increased use of new renewable and alternative
Assured access to sufficient energy supplies
Reduced adverse impacts on the environment.
6
CENTRAL
VA
Goal
IEEE
Manage
the
emergent
and
future
condiCons
for
energy‐security
technologies
and
strategies
that
support
criCcal
missions
and
operaCons
of
industrial
installaCons.
7
CENTRAL
VA
Elements of Risk and Decision Analysis
IEEE
(strategies
and
technologies)
that
improve
energy
security
to
compare
and
evaluate
the
alternaCves
that
could
affect
the
performance
of
alternaCves
8
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Approach
•  Perform research in risk analysis for energy security of
industrial installations
•  Support stakeholders and partners in an energy security
working group
•  Assess the impacts of emergent and future conditions on
installation energy security
•  Demonstrate the methods in a case study
•  Provide a web-based assessment tool to assist with energy
security
9
CENTRAL
VA
Case Study of Ft. Belvoir, VA
IEEE
from
the
commercial
grid
•  Providing
alternaCve
–  Microturbines,
microgrids,
combined
heat
and
power,
etc.
•  Enabling
use
of
–  Biomass,
landfill
gas,
municipal
solid
waste,
geo‐thermal,
solar,
wind,
Cdal,
etc.
system
performance
10
11
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
CENTRAL
VA
Energy-Security Working Group
IEEE
Agencies,
Installation
Installation, Utilities
Sustainment
All stakeholders and
partners
Performance
Evaluation
Testing/
Monitoring
Installation,
Utilities, UVa
Energy Security
Goals
Installation, Utilities,
UVa
System
Requirements
Energy
Security
System
Lifecycle
Conceptual
Design
Installation, Utilities,
Vendors, UVa
Engineering
Specifications
Construction
Installation, Utilities,
Vendors, UVa
Installation,
Vendors, Utilities
12
CENTRAL
VA
Stakeholders
in
the
Case
Study
IEEE
–  Department of Energy (DOE)
–  National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)
–  Sandia National Laboratory; FEMP
–  Oak Ridge National Laboratory
–  C2, Power Generation Branch
–  IMCOM
–  Installation DPW
–  The University of Virginia Engineering
department
–  Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power
–  Aberdeen Proving Ground DPW
–  Dominion
–  Washington Gas
–  PEPCO
–  GE
–  Johnson Controls
13
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Performance Criteria
Performance criteria
related to agency
and regulatory goals
14
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Performance Criteria (cont.)
Mission objectives
•  Quality, prime power
•  Storage
•  Islanding
•  Renewable energy
•  Innovative technologies
•  Others
Performance criteria
Assessment and evaluation
Conceptual Designs
15
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Importance of Performance Criteria
Context-specific
assessment of relative
importance of
performance criteria
16
Lifetime cost, performance,
maintenance, repair
Sustainment
Operational readiness and
mission accomplishment
Performance
Evaluation
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Performance Criteria
Energy Security Goals
(AESIS1, 2009)
Energy Security
Goals
System
Requirements
Energy
Security
System
Lifecycle
Testing/
Monitoring
Energy consumption, integration
testing, security controls,
emissions
ESOs, technologies, resources,
priorities, capacity
Financial analysis, future
conditions
Conceptual
Design
Engineering
Specifications
Construction
Critical loads, emissions,
performance specifications
Performance tradeoffs
1US
Army, 2009. Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy (AESIS)
17
CENTRAL
VA
Performance
Criteria
(cont.)
Cost
Savings
Cooling Savings
€
€
v cooling =
IEEE
Electricity Savings
electrical output hrs availability
v electricity =
×
× electricity rate
hour
year
 cooling months hrs availability
tons chilled water output 
kwh
×
×
× electricity rate
×
hour
12 months
year
 ton chilled water 
Heating Savings
 heating demand heating output mmbtu /klb steam − steam plant hrs availability
v heating =Min 
,
×
×
} × fuel rate
year
hour
mmbtu
/klb
steam
−
microturbine
year

Fuel Costs
v fuel = −
fuel input hrs availability
×
× fuel cos t
hour
year
18
€
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Scenario
1:
Natural
Gas
Price
Nat gas only has to increase from
$8 to $13/mmbtu before the value
becomes negative
19
€
 kwh microturbine to complex

complex
labor
rate
+


kwh complex demand
 × hours outage
=
year
 kwh microturbine to lab

lab
labor
rate
×14
days


kwh lab demand


IEEE
v lost mission
CENTRAL
VA
Scenario
2:
Value
of
Lost
Mission
Huge savings increase makes
alternatives much less sensitive to
change in natural gas price.
20
IEEE
Current
Energy
System
Cooling
CENTRAL
VA
Alternatives
Average Electricity Mix
Kwh electricity
Electric
Chiller
Equipment and
Lighting
Heating
Tons chilled
water
Natural Gas
Boiler
Lbs steam
Mmbtus gas
Natural
Gas
21
Cooling
Average Electricity Mix
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Alternative
1:
Partial
Microturbines
(1.8
MW)
Kwh electricity
Electric
Chiller
Tons chilled water
Equipment and
Lighting
Heating
Absorption
Chiller
Microturbine
Lbs steam
Natural Gas
Boiler
Mmbtus gas
Natural
Gas
22
Cooling
Average Electricity Mix
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Alternative
2:
Full
Microturbines
(4
MW)
Kwh electricity
Electric
Chiller
Equipment and
Lighting
Tons chilled water
Heating
Absorption
Chiller
Microturbine
Lbs steam
Natural Gas
Boiler
Mmbtus gas
Natural
Gas
23
Cooling
Average Electricity Mix
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Alternative
3:
Full
Microturbines
(4MW)
+
Solar
PV
(0.6
MW)
Kwh electricity
Electric
Chiller
Tons chilled water
Absorption
Chiller
Equipment and
Lighting
Solar PV
Microturbine
Heating
Lbs steam
Natural Gas
Boiler
Mmbtus gas
Natural
Gas
24
Performance
criteria
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Energy-Security Designs Assessment
Conceptual
designs
Assessments of
conceptual designs on
energy security
performance criteria
25
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Emergent and Future
Conditions
Performance of energy-security
technologies is influenced by
.
26
CENTRAL
VA
Climate
Emergent and Future
Conditions
Geopolitics
Technology
…
Regulations
IEEE
Impact of Emergent and
Future Conditions (cont.)
Terrorism
Infrastructure
“In
an
age
of
terrorism,
combus3ble
and
explosive
fuels
and
…
nuclear
materials
create
security
risks.
World
market
forces
and
regional
geopoli3cal
instabili3es
broadly
threaten
energy
supplies.
Infrastructure
vulnerabili3es
pose
further
risks
of
disrup3on
to
…
installa3ons.”
Source: US Army Energy and Water Campaign Plan for Installations
27
Efficacy of
working-group
approach,
technology
efficiency,
others
Sustainment
Performance
Evaluation
CENTRAL
VA
Changing
regulations,
performance
degradation,
legacy
equipment
others
IEEE
Impact of Emergent and
Future Conditions (cont.)
Energy Security
Goals
System
Requirements
Energy
Security
System
Lifecycle
Testing/
Monitoring
Weather events, physical
threats, cyber threats,
failing connected
infrastructures, changing
regulations, others
Changing requirements,
geopolitics, threats, campaign
shifts, others
Conceptual
Design
Changing donor
objectives,
changing business
cases, others
Changing
customers,
climate,
regulations,
others
Engineering
Specifications
Construction
Changing building
requirements,
infrastructure, others
Advances in
technologies (fuel
cells, PV systems,
etc.), others
28
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Impact of Emergent and
Future Conditions (cont.)
Combining diverse
conditions
29
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Impact of Emergent and
Future Conditions (cont.)
Condition(s) most
needing further
modeling and
simulation
30
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Impact of Emergent and
Future Conditions (cont.)
31
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Prioritization of Designs with
Emergent and Future Conditions
32
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Prioritization of Designs
(cont.)
33
CENTRAL
VA
Source: Energy Security Program, Asst.
Secretary of the Army for Installation and
Environment, Kevin Geiss, Ph.D., Director
IEEE
Sample
Sample of Agency Requirements
Related to Energy Security
34
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Summary: Principles for
Addressing Diverse Emergent
Conditions for Evaluation and
Conceptual Design of Energy
Systems
35
CENTRAL
VA
Lessons Learned
IEEE
Technology stakeholders with diverse backgrounds
and representing different organizations must
communicate and negotiate during the early phases of
the systems life-cycle for the preliminary design
among multiple possible sets of requirements and
solution alternatives. There is an evolving
understanding of objectives and alternatives.
…
36
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Lessons Learned (cont.)
…
A challenge is how to address contentious
perspectives and varied experiences and knowledge
while keeping stakeholders engaged in discussion and
innovation.
37
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Systems-Based Approach
A decision-aiding method incorporating scenario
analysis and multicriteria decision analysis to
address stakeholder contention during early phases of
the systems lifecycle and to support innovation and
discussion of requirements and alternatives.
Technology
Alternatives
38
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Systems-Based Approach
(cont.)
•  Support for a technology-focused negotiation among
diverse stakeholders
•  Method(s) that processes stakeholder perspectives as
scenarios in terms of their influence on prioritizing the
alternatives using multicriteria decision analysis
(MCDA)
•  Demonstration in case study with Ft. Belvoir involving
early lifecycle of infrastructure and systems engineering
efforts
39
39
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Mise-En-Scene Theory
•  A source of contention is how stakeholders view
scenarios of the future and how they project the
future scenarios onto other stakeholders.
•  Stakeholders project their perspectives through
mise-en-scene scenarios onto other stakeholders
engaged in negotiation.
40
40
CENTRAL
VA
Mise-en-Scene Theory (cont.)
IEEE
Refine alternatives
Identify alternatives
Identify criteria
Collect mise-en-scene
scenarios
Assess coefficients and
assess alternatives on
criteria
Utilize multiple criteria
model to prioritize
alternatives
Negotiate priorities and
innovate select
alternatives
Assess necessary
coefficient shifts for each
mise-en-scene scenario
Study what mise-en-scene
scenarios most influence
priorities
Refine mise-en-scene scenarios
41
CENTRAL
VA
Mise-En-Scene Theory (cont.)
IEEE
• Mise-en-scene scenarios can lead to contention
among stakeholders.
• If focused on the alternatives, these mise-en-scene
scenarios can be used to create and move forward in
the systems lifecycle with innovative alternatives.
42
42
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Mise-en-Scene Theory (cont.)
•  Include stakeholders via mise-en-scene in an analytic
framework
–  Integrate but avoids aggregating the impressions of
various stakeholders
–  Improve and foster capability of the group to
negotiate toward innovation and consensus
–  Reduces time and resources that could be misspent on
disagreement and contention
43
43
CENTRAL
VA
Related Literature
Scenario and multicriteria analysis
IEEE
Karvetski et al. (2010a, 2010b, 2009); Ram et al. (2009);
Montibeller et al. (2006); Stewart (2005); Goodwin and
Wright (2001); Parnell et al. (1999)
Negotiation analysis and game theory
Sebenius (2009); Raiffa et al. (2002); Raiffa (1982); Fisher
and Ury (1981)
Multiple criteria analysis
Belton and Stewart (2002); Keeney and Raiffa (1993);
Keeney (1992); Chankong and Haimes (1983); Dyer and
Sarin (1979)
Risk analysis
Haimes (2009); Haimes (2007); Kaplan et al. (2001); Haimes
(1981); Lowrance (1976)
44
44
Related
Literature
(cont.)
CENTRAL
VA
THEORY
IEEE
 [Stewart 2005]
[Goodwin and Wright, 2001] 
[Karvetski et al. 2009] 
[Montibeller et al. 2006] 
 [Parnell et al. 1999]
[Karvetski et al. 2010a] 
[Karvetski et al. 2010b] 
 [Ram et al. 2009]
 [Karvetski et al. 2010c]
METHODOLOGY
APPLICATION
45
CENTRAL
VA
Principles for Energy Security
Analyses
IEEE
•  Prac&cal
Informs
long‐range
plans,
system
requirements,
and
program
drills
•  Targeted
Addresses
specific
or
criCcal/essenCal
missions
or
operaCons
•  Holis&c
Addresses
energy
use
and
energy
security
issues
in
a
single,
comprehensive
assessment
•  Pioneering
Addresses
innovaCve
technologies
and
emergent
phenomena
•  Inclusive
Captures
impact
of
emergent
condiCons
in
all
phases
of
projects
•  Compara&ve
Evaluates
compeCng
energy
security
designs
and
concepts
•  Produc&ve
Generates
mulCple,
viable
soluCon
sets
•  Effec&ve
Achieves
genuine
life‐cycle
analysis
objecCves
•  Efficient
Assesses
concurrent
energy
security
strategies
and
technologies
•  Cost‐Informed
Risk‐impact
analysis
moves
beyond
tradiConal
cost‐benefit
understanding
46
CENTRAL
VA
IEEE
Contact Information
www.virginia.edu/crmes
lambert@virginia.edu
47