Rebaselining puts everyone on the same page Published Nov. 30, 2012 By Amy Ausley AFCEC Public Affairs TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- When you are comparing data, the old adage "comparing apples to apples" is important. For the Performance Measurement and Analysis Division, part of Air Force Civil Engineer Center's Energy Directorate, Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., the last few years of energy intensity data has been more like comparing "apples to oranges," making it difficult to show whether the Air Force is meeting federally mandated energy reduction goals. The congressionally mandated energy intensity goal of 3 percent reduction each year with a total of 30-percent reduction by 2015, is based on the 2003 'baseline year' and the numbers collected in 2003. That year, energy was just beginning to be a major focus for the military and as a result, there wasn't clear guidance on collecting energy intensity data. The guidelines in place at the time were issued in 1996 and were vague and subject to different interpretations. "It was extremely difficult for us to do analysis at the base level," said Rick Weston, AFCEC engineer. "We could look at the Air Force gross energy intensity, but there was no consistency in data from individual bases because personnel at each base had interpreted the regulations and guidance differently." Reviewing the numbers In 2008, there was a major increase in the focus on energy. The Air Force Audit Agency did an audit of the 2003 energy baseline and determined there were significant errors. Some bases reported Renewable Energy Credits as consumed energy even though RECs are not considered as energy consumption. Other bases reported renewable energy twice, while some were not reporting it at all. There was confusion when reporting tenant consumption. All of these issues added up to significant problems when AFCEC tried to do its analysis. As a result, AFCEC published Engineering Technical Letter 11-6, which provides specific details and guidance regarding how to report the 2003 data. Upgrades and training Another step was an upgrade to the reporting system. The Air Force previously used the defense utilities energy reporting system, which was written in the 1970s and had never been updated. The new system, the Air Force energy reporting system, is more user-friendly, has built-in error checking and has the ability to create reports using a special program to extract data. AFCEC has provided extensive training on the new ETL and the new reporting system to be sure all the bases and major commands are able to use both efficiently. Now every base is using the same criteria and has resubmitted 2003 data using the new guidelines and reporting system. And that means a change in the Air Force base line numbers. The previous baseline number was 136,437 BTUs per sq foot. The new baseline has been changed and approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and is now 140,165 BTUs per sq foot. Even though it's not a big change, it still makes a difference, Weston said. "The new number is not a huge difference but it changed the numbers at the base level. Some bases went up, others went down and it actually decreased the baseline consumption and the square footage across the Air Force," he said. Everyone benefits The Air Force facility energy program will benefit from the OSD-approved rebaselining effort in several ways. First, AFCEC can do a real "apples to apples" comparison. Second, since all the data will adhere to the same strict reporting guidelines, there will be fewer discrepancies. Third, with accurate data, individual base-level performance goals can be set taking into account the unique circumstances at each base such as mission, climate, and location. Finally, the Air Force will be able to better focus on where to invest funds, considering which base projects will have the best energy savings and economic paybacks. Being on the same page is good for everyone involved in the process, Weston said. "For the first time in a long while, the base is looking at the same information, gathered using the same criteria as the MAJCOM, who's looking at the same number as the Air Force, who's looking at the same number as the OSD," he said.