Port Gamble S’Klallam
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
PNNL-37677
Port Gamble S’Klallam
Tribe Strategic Energy
Plan
December 2025
Shannon Idso, PNNL
Kristen Jones, PNNL
Malcolm Moncheur de Rieudotte, PNNL
Andrea Mengual, PNNL
Lindsay Sheridan, PNNL
Molly Grear, PNNL
Nicole Harvey, PNNL
Travis Stanislaus, PNNL
Shoko Chapple, PNNL
Eriq Acosta, Spark Northwest
Haya Muñoz, Spark Northwest
Lindsey Bear, Spark Northwest
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency
thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial
Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
operated by
BATTELLE
for the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
Printed in the United States of America
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from
the Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
www.osti.gov
ph: (865) 576-8401
fox: (865) 576-5728
email: reports@osti.gov
Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312
ph: (800) 553-NTIS (6847)
or (703) 605-6000
email: info@ntis.gov
Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov
Choose an item.
PNNL-37677
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Strategic Energy
Plan
December 2025
Shannon Idso, PNNL
Kristen Jones, PNNL
Malcolm Moncheur de Rieudotte, PNNL
Andrea Mengual, PNNL
Lindsay Sheridan, PNNL
Molly Grear, PNNL
Nicole Harvey, PNNL
Travis Stanislaus, PNNL
Shoko Chapple, PNNL
Eriq Acosta, Spark Northwest
Haya Muñoz, Spark Northwest
Lindsey Bear, Spark Northwest
Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99354
PNNL-37677
Summary
The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST), originally known as the Strong People, has been
established in the Puget Sound Basin and surrounding areas since 2400 BCE. The Tribe has a
reputation for grit and resilience, with a vision as a sovereign nation to be self-sufficient, proud,
strong, healthy, educated, and respected.1 Tribal members have for many generations
subsisted off the land—hunting, fishing, and living deeply connected to the land and its
resources. As outlined in PGST’s 2024 Priority Climate Action Plan,2 the Tribe recognizes the
need to take action to reduce the harmful impacts of severe weather and enhance the energy
independence and resilience of its community. To further support these goals, PGST applied for
and received technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy
Technology Innovation Partnership Project (ETIPP)3 from 2023 to 2025. Through a communitydriven approach that leverages local partner networks and national laboratories, ETIPP
supports remote, coastal, and island communities in transforming their energy systems by
providing technical assistance tailored to each community’s needs. Goals and principles guiding
this work were developed by PGST.
The PGST Reservation is connected to the rest of Kitsap County by a single road, Hansville Rd
NE, which can result in the reservation becoming cut off from the nearest emergency services if
the road is closed for any reason (e.g., vehicle accidents, downed trees). PGST’s electricity is
supplied through two power lines: One is a transmission line that comes up from Hansville Rd
NE; the other is an underwater distribution cable that crosses Port Gamble Bay. PGST’s
location puts them at the “end of the line” for power restoration, resulting in multiday power
outages when storm events disrupt existing power sources. During a power outage, Tribal
members wait for power to be restored, and the community can quickly become isolated from
outside resources. Because of these challenges, PGST developed an energy vision that centers
around enhancing resilience for the community through energy diversification, self-reliance, and
capacity building. By engaging Tribal leaders and stakeholders, the following guiding principles
for PGST’s energy vision were identified:
• Resilience: Implement renewable energy generation, battery storage, and other
redundancy/resilience measures to sustain critical infrastructure for 7 days in the case of a
severe power outage or natural hazard.
• Capacity building: Develop internal capacity, infrastructure, and local workforce to support
the Tribe’s energy transformation and engage with staff, partners, and the community to
achieve energy and resilience goals.
• Energy efficiency: Empower both Tribal staff and community members to improve energy
efficiency in Tribal community buildings and their own homes.
• Energy system transformation: Advance toward the goal of transforming energy systems
on PGST’s Reservation and achieving energy independence by exploring options such as
renewable energy generation, battery storage, microgrids, and fleet electrification.
1
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe https://pgst.nsn.us/
PGST Priority Climate Action Plan https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202404/portgamblesklallamtribe-pcap.pdf
3
Energy Technology Innovation Partnership Project https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/energytechnology-innovation-partnership-project.html
2
Summary
ii
PNNL-37677
Where applicable, these guiding principles were aligned with existing initiatives and strategic
plans. To support the development of the Strategic Energy Plan, the team conducted the
following activities:
• Established a baseline energy use for PGST’s campus facilities.
• Conducted initial feasibility studies of renewable resources, including solar photovoltaics
(PV), wind energy, marine energy, and bioenergy.
• Performed energy and water efficiency audits in selected PGST buildings, including the
Administration, Youth Center, Children and Family Services/Police (CFS/Police), and Early
Childhood Education buildings.
• Identified risks and vulnerabilities to critical energy infrastructure.
• Analyzed the potential for other technologies, such as ground source heat pumps and
electric vehicle charging.
• The Säzän Group (Säzän), along with team members from Spark Northwest and MZ Solar
Consulting, conducted a techno-economic analysis and feasibility study for potential
microgrids that could enhance resilience for key PGST facilities.
• Spark Northwest, along with team members from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
and PGST, developed a workforce development plan, including education and training
programs and energy career pathways.
The analyses result in the following key findings:
• Solar PV—for example, solar panels—on various PGST-owned facilities can offset
11% to 33% of individual building loads. Of the renewable energy technologies analyzed,
solar PV is the most viable for PGST because of the combination of resource availability and
local preferences. On PGST-owned facilities such as the Beach Shelter, Clinic, Early
Childhood Education, Tribal housing, and Wastewater Treatment Plant buildings, there is
the potential to install solar PV systems that could help offset between 11% and 33% of the
individual building loads. Open areas such as the Clinic and Casino parking lots also have
significant potential for solar PV.
• Other renewable energy technologies were explored, and some warrant further
exploration. Marine energy and wind energy were found to have limited viability to serve
PGST facilities because of a combination of resource availability and cultural significance.
The area lacks a significant marine energy resource, and the Tribe wanted to avoid any
potential impacts of marine energy devices on local fisheries.1 The wind energy resource
offers potential in limited areas that are less viable because of distance from other
infrastructure. Wind energy was also deprioritized because of potential impacts to wildlife,
particularly the bald eagle population.2 Other technologies such bioenergy may be viable in
the long term and merit additional investigation.
• Microgrids are feasible at multiple locations with one selected for implementation.
The microgrid feasibility study resulted in three prioritized microgrid system concepts to
strengthen the ability of key PGST facilities to withstand a 7-day outage:
1
As marine energy remains an emerging sector with few commercially deployed technologies, the full
extent of its environmental impacts is not yet fully understood, though research is actively progressing.
2
Conversations with PGST leadership revealed that populations of bald eagles resided on trust and new
lands. Since wind energy can impact avian populations in a variety of ways, including habitat loss and
physical impact, PGST opted to not potentially disrupt existing populations with a wind energy project.
Summary
iii
PNNL-37677
–
Concept 1: Clinic Building Critical Loads Solar and Storage Microgrid
–
Concept 2: Early Learning Center/Clinic Building Solar and Storage
–
Concept 3: Higher Education/Longhouse/Elder’s Solar and Storage Microgrid.
Based on stakeholder interest and its financial benefit, lowest operating cost, and lowest project
complexity, Concept 1 was selected for near-term implementation. PGST has obtained a
Washington Department of Commerce Clean Energy Grant to pursue this project, and the
remaining microgrid options may be considered for implementation in the future.
• Efficiency measures can provide estimated cost savings of $15,818 annually. The onsite energy and water audit of selected PGST buildings identified efficiency measures with
estimated annual cost savings of $15,818 from avoided electricity and propane costs. The
estimated cost to implement all identified measures is $156,480, which yields a simple
payback period of 9.9 years and a savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) of 1.3. Incentives by
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) could reduce the simple payback even further. These audits
highlight there are likely additional efficiency opportunities to be pursued at PGST
administrative buildings and potentially on other buildings on the reservation. Key next steps
for PGST include conducting energy audits at all PGST campus buildings, working with PSE
to identify additional incentive and rebate opportunities, and developing a process for
periodically reviewing energy and water consumption in its buildings.
• Resilience strategies are needed to harden critical energy infrastructure against
potential threats. Critical infrastructure was identified through conversations with PGST
staff and Tribal Council members and is defined as assets and systems that provide
functions necessary for the Tribe’s way of life. This includes critical buildings, backup
generators, water/sewer infrastructure, and PSE infrastructure. A variety of hazards put the
infrastructure at risk; in particular, earthquakes, coastal flooding, sea level rise, and severe
weather and windstorms could have implications for resilience improvement efforts and
potential renewable energy siting efforts. There are strategies PGST can use to mitigate the
risks to its infrastructure.
Understanding the opportunities for various technologies and interventions at its campus
facilities is only the first step for PGST to achieve its energy vision. With this information, the
Tribe can take targeted steps to advance toward each of its goals and eventually grow its
program to reach beyond the campus buildings. The strategic plan presented in this report
outlines a few short-, medium-, and long-term steps PGST can take to achieve its goals.
Engaging Tribal residents and developing the local workforce will also be key in PGST’s
success, ensuring all stakeholders can play a role in executing the Tribe’s energy vision.
Summary
iv
PNNL-37677
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Energy Technology Innovation Partnership Project (ETIPP)
program, which receives funding and support from several offices within the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The National Laboratory
of the Rockies (NLR), formerly known as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
manages the ETIPP program. Sean Esterly and Trent Dillon at NLR oversaw this project.
We extend our appreciation to Säzän Group for its partnership in assessing microgrid
technologies for the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) and its support in integrating its
separate project outcomes into this related project. The Säzän team was led by Tom Bowen.
We would like to acknowledge Spark Northwest for its role as a community partner, facilitating
meaningful relationships with the PGST community and engaging in discussions to ensure the
project scope and ongoing efforts aligned with the Tribe’s needs, resulting in context-sensitive
and well-vetted recommendations. The Spark Northwest team was led by Eriq Acosta and
supported by Mia Devine, Lindsey Bear, and Haya Muñoz.
Finally, special thanks to our partners at PGST including project manager Tamara Gage and the
PGST steering committee, including Mike Rorem, Sam Phillips, Joe Sparr, Benjamin Harrison,
Kelly Sullivan, and Matt Ives (Tribal Council Member). We are grateful to the many Tribal staff
and members who provided feedback, data, access to Tribal facilities, and other resources
essential to success. PGST’s unflagging engagement and support were crucial to this
partnership project.
Publication Acknowledgment and Legal Disclaimer: This work was authored by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and project partners for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily
represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the
publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government
retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the
published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Technology Innovation
Partnership Project (ETIPP). ETIPP is a community-led technical support program for coastal,
remote, and island communities to access unique solutions and increase energy resilience. By
uniting federal agencies, national laboratories, regional organizations, and community
stakeholders, ETIPP provides tailored technical support to help communities achieve affordable,
reliable solutions to their energy system challenges. This collaborative model leverages the
combined expertise and resources of its partners to deliver comprehensive, practical solutions
that align with local needs.
Acknowledgments
v
PNNL-37677
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AC
Alternating Current
AFDC
Alternative Fuels Data Center
ASHRAE
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers
BEV
battery electric vehicle
BESS
battery energy storage system
BSE
Building Science Education
CFS
Children and Family Services
DC
direct current
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
E2C
Energy to Communities
EERE
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA
Energy Information Agency
ESPC
energy savings performance contracts
ETIPP
Energy Technology Innovation Partnership Project
EV
electric vehicle
EVI
electric vehicle infrastructure
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHX
ground heat exchanger
GSHP
ground source heat pumps
GW
gigawatt
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICE
internal combustion engine
IGSHPA
International Ground Source Heat Pump Associate
lbs/ft2
pounds per square foot
kW
kilowatt
kWDC
kilowatts direct current
kWh
kilowatt-hour
kWh/m2/day
kilowatt-hours per square meter per day
m
meter
MMBtu
million British thermal units
mpg
miles per gallon
mpge
miles per gallon equivalent
m/s
meters per second
Acronyms and Abbreviations
vi
PNNL-37677
MW
megawatt
MWDC
megawatts direct current
NEVI
national electric vehicle infrastructure
NOAA
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NLR
National Laboratory of the Rockies
NSRDB
National Solar Radiation Database
NWIC
Northwest Indian College
O&M
operations and maintenance
OBF
on-bill financing
OBR
on-bill repayment
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PACE
property-assessed clean energy
PGST
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
PHEV
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PNNL
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PSE
Puget Sound Energy
PV
photovoltaic
REAP
Rural Energy for America Program
SIR
savings-to-investment ratio
SUV
sport utility vehicle
TERO
Tribal Employment Rights Office
TMY
typical meteorological year
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
WAHP
water-to-air heat pump
WBDG
Whole Building Design Guide
WWHP
water-to-water heat pump
Acronyms and Abbreviations
vii
PNNL-37677
Contents
Summary........................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................vi
1.0
2.0
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Project Approach to Technical Assistance ............................................................ 2
1.1.1
Scoping ................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2
Site Visits ................................................................................................ 3
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape ........................................................... 4
2.1
3.0
Energy Vision ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2
Energy Baseline .................................................................................................... 5
Renewable Resource Assessments ................................................................................. 8
3.1
Viable Renewable Energy Technologies............................................................... 8
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.2
Renewable Energy Technologies for Future Consideration ................................ 20
3.2.1
Wind Resource Assessment ................................................................ 21
3.2.2
3.3
4.0
5.0
Bioenergy Resource Assessment ........................................................ 25
Renewable Energy Technologies Considered but Not Recommended .............. 26
3.3.1
Marine Energy Resource Assessment ................................................. 26
Microgrid Assessment ..................................................................................................... 28
4.1
Concept 1: Clinic Critical Loads .......................................................................... 28
4.2
Concept 2: Early Childhood Education/Clinic Combined .................................... 29
4.3
Concept 3: Education/Longhouse/Elder’s Buildings............................................ 29
4.4
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 30
Energy Infrastructure Analyses ....................................................................................... 31
5.1
Energy Audits ...................................................................................................... 31
5.1.1
Energy and Water Efficiency Project Financing ................................... 33
5.1.2
Recommendations ................................................................................ 33
5.2
Critical Infrastructure Analysis ............................................................................. 34
5.3
Electric Vehicle Analysis ..................................................................................... 37
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
Contents
Solar Resource Assessment .................................................................. 8
Overview of the Solar Resource on Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Land ........................................................................................................ 9
Existing Solar on Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Clinic .......................... 10
Solar Photovoltaic Assessments .......................................................... 11
Recommendations ................................................................................ 17
Electric Vehicle Overview ..................................................................... 37
Considerations for Electric Vehicle Analyses ....................................... 43
Analysis Results ................................................................................... 45
viii
PNNL-37677
5.3.4
5.4
Ground Source Heat Pump Analysis................................................................... 54
5.4.1
Technology Overview ........................................................................... 55
5.4.2
Operational and Maintenance Considerations ..................................... 59
5.4.3
5.4.4
6.0
Recommendations ................................................................................ 53
Port Gamble Assessment ..................................................................... 60
Recommendations ................................................................................ 60
Energy Workforce Development Framework .................................................................. 62
6.1
Mission ................................................................................................................ 62
6.2
Objective ............................................................................................................. 62
6.3
6.4
6.5
National and State Energy Workforce Growth Trends ........................................ 62
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Current Workforce: Opportunities and
Challenges .......................................................................................................... 63
6.4.1
Capacity Building .................................................................................. 64
Workforce Development Case Studies ............................................................... 66
7.0
6.6
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 67
Funding Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 69
8.0
7.1
Types of Funding Opportunities .......................................................................... 69
7.2
Funding Opportunity Sources.............................................................................. 70
PGST Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................... 72
9.0
References ...................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A PGST Workforce Energy Transferable Skills to Energy Fields .............................. A.1
Appendix B Energy Workforce Development Resources .......................................................... B.1
Appendix C Electric Vehicle Readiness Considerations and Examples ....................................C.1
Figures
Figure 1.
Short-term action priority timeline for the Port Gamble S’Kallam Tribe ................. 2
Figure 2.
Left: Health Clinic site chosen for microgrid implementation; right: Beach
structures assessed for solar PV potential.. .......................................................... 3
Figure 3.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Monthly electricity consumption for selected PGST administrative campus
meters (Jan 2022–Sep 2023). ............................................................................... 7
Monthly variation of solar radiation available in Port Gamble (NSRDB) ............. 10
Measured and modeled monthly power output for the PGST Clinic solar
PV array .............................................................................................................. 11
Potential Clinic carport solar PV .......................................................................... 13
Potential Casino carport solar PV ....................................................................... 14
Figure 8.
Potential Wastewater Treatment Plant rooftop solar PV ..................................... 15
Figure 9.
Potential housing rooftop solar PV. Existing skylights (covered by orange
box) will reduce the amount of space available................................................... 16
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figures
ix
PNNL-37677
Figure 10.
Potential beach shelter rooftop solar PV ............................................................. 17
Figure 11.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Annual average 50-m wind speed from Global Wind Atlas outlining Port
Gamble S’Klallam a) trust and b) new lands. ...................................................... 23
Tree height considerations for northern Washington, with heights sourced
from (Barts 2018). ............................................................................................... 24
Normalized annual average wind speeds at PGST lands for the last 50
years from ERA5. ................................................................................................ 24
Axial flow turbines (a, b) rotating on the axis of the incoming water flow,
whereas cross-flow turbines (c, d) rotate across the flow. .................................. 27
BEVs vs. PHEVs. ................................................................................................ 38
Benefits of electric vehicles.. ............................................................................... 39
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Conventional and electric vehicle cost of ownership comparison. ...................... 41
Comparison for additional vehicle types.............................................................. 42
Overview of vehicle charger types ...................................................................... 43
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Electric vehicle charging station locations near the PGST Reservation.............. 44
PGST fleet electrification scenarios .................................................................... 47
Figure 22.
Workplace EV adoption and charger needs projected from 2025 to 2050
at the PGST main campus. ................................................................................. 50
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Components of a water-to-water ground source heat pump ............................... 56
Ground heat exchanger configurations ............................................................... 57
Figure 25.
Zoom-in of Washington State Geologic Map for Port Gamble Area.................... 60
Figure 26.
Leadership and learning take many forms. Tribal Council and Tribal
members build a future together and empower students and community
members through solar education.. ..................................................................... 65
Short-term action priority timeline........................................................................ 72
Action priority timeline ......................................................................................... 74
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Tables
Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
PGST Energy Goals, Metrics, and Targets ........................................................... 5
2022 Electricity Consumption at PGST Tribal Government Facilities ................... 6
Summary of Solar PV Technical Potential by Location ....................................... 12
Solar PV Recommendations ............................................................................... 18
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Wind Energy Assessments for Sites on PGST Lands......................................... 22
Summary of Recommended Energy and Water Efficiency Measures for
the PGST Audited Buildings ................................................................................ 32
Energy Efficiency Funding Avenues.................................................................... 33
Table 8.
Energy Audit Recommendations ......................................................................... 33
Table 9.
Summary of Hazards, Risk Level, and Critical Infrastructure with the
Potential for the Highest Risk at PGST. .............................................................. 35
Table 10.
Critical Infrastructure Resilience Recommendations........................................... 36
x
PNNL-37677
Table 11.
Inputs for Conventional and Electric Vehicle Comparison .................................. 39
Table 12.
Conventional and Electric Vehicle Fuel Use and Cost Comparison
Results Using AFDC Calculator .......................................................................... 40
Fleet Charging Infrastructure Factors and Assumptions ..................................... 45
Fleet EV and Charger Estimations ...................................................................... 48
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Tables
Workplace Charging Infrastructure Factors and Assumptions ............................ 49
Workplace EV and Charger Estimations ............................................................. 51
EV Charging Infrastructure Needs for Community EV Adoption. Source:
EVI-Pro Lite Model .............................................................................................. 52
Electric Vehicle Recommendations ..................................................................... 53
Ground Source Heat Pump Recommendations .................................................. 61
Workforce Development Recommendations ....................................................... 67
Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Actions To Advance PGST’s Energy
Vision................................................................................................................... 75
xi
PNNL-37677
1.0 Introduction
The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST), originally known as the Strong People, has been
established in the Puget Sound Basin and surrounding areas since 2400 BCE. The Tribe has a
reputation for grit and resilience, with a vision as a sovereign nation to be self-sufficient, proud,
strong, healthy, educated, and respected.1 Tribal members have for many generations
subsisted off the land—hunting, fishing, and living deeply connected to the land and its
resources. As outlined in PGST’s 2024 Priority Climate Action Plan,2 the Tribe recognizes the
need to take action to reduce the harmful impacts of severe weather and enhance the energy
independence and resilience of its community. To further support these goals, PGST applied for
and received technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy
Technology Innovation Partnership Program (ETIPP)3 from 2023 to 2025. Through a
community-driven approach that leverages local partner networks and national laboratories,
ETIPP supports remote, coastal, and island communities in transforming their energy systems
by providing technical assistance tailored to each community’s needs. The PGST ETIPP project
is led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)4 with support from regional nonprofit
partner Spark Northwest5 and administrative support from the National Laboratory of the
Rockies (NLR).6
The project had four key focus areas:
1. Provide education and outreach to build capacity within the Tribal Council, staff, and
community members to understand and address energy topics.
2. Understand resilience needs and identify resilience improvements for critical infrastructure.
3. Conduct strategic energy planning for Tribal government buildings, including establishing an
energy baseline and identifying energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities.
4. Create a framework for energy transition workforce planning and development.
This report documents the results and recommendations from the technical assistance efforts of
the ETIPP project and serves as a Strategic Energy Plan (Figure 1) that can be used to support
and guide PGST’s energy-related decision making as it strives to achieve its energy goals.
1
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe https://pgst.nsn.us/
PGST Priority Climate Action Plan https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202404/portgamblesklallamtribe-pcap.pdf
3
Energy Technology Innovation Partnership Project https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/etipp-technicalassistance.html
4
PNNL ETIPP Communities https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/ETIPP/communities
5
Spark Northwest https://sparknorthwest.org/
6
ETIPP Communities https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/communities.html
2
Introduction
1
PNNL-37677
Figure 1. Short-term action priority timeline for the Port Gamble S’Kallam Tribe
1.1 Project Approach to Technical Assistance
This project involved collaboration between PNNL (technical assistance), Spark Northwest
(regional partner), and NLR (administrative support). All laboratory partners, including
representatives from PGST, met biweekly for discussion and updates on the technical
assistance process. To understand PGST’s energy goals, Spark Northwest created an online
Mentimeter survey to encourage active participation in topics such as priority projects, energyrelated concerns, visions of success, interest in renewable technologies, and community values.
1.1.1
Scoping
The technical assistance began with a collaborative scoping process to identify the objectives of
the project. The scope development began with discussions to understand the Tribe’s cultural
values and beliefs before engaging in conversations around energy goals and energy vision.
After initial results were reviewed, two additional surveys were created to gather more detail
about specific technologies and opportunities for the Tribe. One survey was created to assess
the Tribe’s interest in wind energy, the potential challenges it might see bringing wind energy to
the community, and what approach the Tribe prefers for education on new technologies. The
second survey was created to assess the Tribe’s interest in solar energy, rank the types of solar
technologies, describe its definition of energy resilience, identify challenges to bringing solar
energy to the reservation, and understand the Tribe’s preparedness and capacity for
renewables. These surveys provided valuable insights that would shape the Tribe’s energy
goals and energy vision.
Introduction
2
PNNL-37677
1.1.2
Site Visits
Figure 2. Left: Health Clinic site chosen for microgrid implementation; right: Beach structures
assessed for solar PV potential. Photos by Kristen Jones, PNNL.
In addition to the biweekly meetings, the project team met with the Tribe at the PGST campus
for three site visits. The first visit occurred in November 2023 and focused on relationship
building and introduction to the ETIPP program and potential outcomes. Other outcomes of that
site visit included familiarization with energy terminology and renewable energy technologies;
discussions around resilience, considerations for siting energy projects, and expectations
(Figure 2). In addition, as part of the Commerce + Storage prize, engineers from the Säzän
Group (Säzän) analyzed the Tribe’s buildings and energy infrastructure. The third site visit took
place in April 2024 with the goal of conducting energy audits of four priority buildings:
Administration, Youth Center, Community Family Services/Police, and Early Childhood
Education. This site visit included a building engineer from PNNL to conduct the energy audits
and two representatives from Puget Sound Energy (PSE).
Introduction
3
PNNL-37677
2.0 Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape
The PGST Reservation is located on the northern tip of the Kitsap Peninsula in Washington
State and is home to about 1,400 Tribal members. The PGST Reservation is connected to the
rest of Kitsap County by a single road, Hansville Rd NE, which can result in the reservation
being cut off from the nearest emergency services if the road is closed for any reason (e.g.,
vehicle accidents, downed trees). PGST’s electricity is supplied through two power lines: One is
a transmission line that comes up from Hansville Rd; the other is an underwater distribution
cable that crosses Port Gamble Bay. PGST’s location puts it at the “end of the line” for power
restoration, resulting in multiday power outages when storm events disrupt existing power
sources. During a power outage, Tribal members wait for power to be restored, and the
community can quickly become isolated from outside resources. Because of these challenges,
PGST developed an energy vision that centers around enhancing resilience for the community
through energy diversification, self-reliance, and capacity building.
2.1 Energy Vision
By engaging Tribal leaders and stakeholders, the following guiding principles for PGST’s energy
vision were identified:
• Resilience: Implement renewable energy generation, battery storage, and other
redundancy/resilience measures to sustain critical infrastructure for seven days in the case
of a severe power outage or natural hazard.
• Capacity building: Develop internal capacity, infrastructure, and local workforce to support
the Tribe’s energy system design and implementation and to engage with staff, partners,
and the community to achieve energy and resilience goals.
• Energy efficiency: Empower both Tribal staff and community members to improve energy
efficiency in Tribal community buildings or their own homes.
• Energy system transformation: Advance toward the goal of transforming energy systems
on PGST’s Reservation and achieving energy independence by exploring options such as
renewable energy generation, battery storage, microgrids, and fleet electrification.
Where applicable, these guiding principles were aligned with existing initiatives and strategic
plans. The principles can be translated into actionable goals, metrics, and targets as shown in
Table 1 and can be used by the Tribe to direct future energy transition and resilience efforts.
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape
4
PNNL-37677
Table 1. PGST Energy Goals, Metrics, and Targets
Goal
Metric
Target
Enhance resilience of Tribal
government buildings and critical
infrastructure
Days of operations maintained
during outage
Provide redundancy and flexibility of
energy resources in an emergency
Portable energy resource provided One (1) solar trailer
7 days
Develop a pathway to
Renewable energy industry training
offering a training program
program offered
locally
Renewable energy positions hired
by PGST
One (1) position in 2025
(renewable energy
manager), 1–5 positions in
the next 5–10 years as
infrastructure (solar
photovoltaics [PV],
microgrid, battery storage,
EV) grows (e.g., solar
installer/technician,
electrician, engineer,
sustainability manager)
Number of buildings audited
Conduct energy audits at all
Tribally owned buildings
Number of efficiency projects
implemented
Apply energy efficiency
measures from Energy Audit
Report to 1–2 selected
buildings in 2025 (budget
dependent)
Local renewable energy workforce
Improve energy efficiency in Tribally
owned buildings
Percent of PGST vehicle fleet
Increase energy independence and electrified
reduce carbon footprint through fleet
Electric vehicle (EV) charger
electrification
installation
25% of PGST vehicle fleet
electrified by 2035
Install one (1) or more EV
chargers for community use
2.2 Energy Baseline
Estimating the potential impact of renewable energy deployment requires an understanding of
current energy use. An energy baseline establishes a starting point to model growth and future
electricity needs. It also helps determine seasonal variations in electricity consumption, enabling
a comparison with the energy generation potential of various types of renewable energy
technologies.
This energy baseline focuses on the PGST Administrative Campus, which comprises facilities
for governmental administration, community services, client services, police, and courts. (PSE
provided monthly electricity consumption for all PGST Administrative Campus meters between
January 2022 and September 2023.) The PGST campus is not connected to natural gas
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape
5
PNNL-37677
infrastructure; however, PGST receives regular propane deliveries. Several buildings use
propane for space and water heating purposes (Admin, Children and Family Services
[CFS]/Police, Early Childhood Education), cooking (Elder’s Center) or backup generation
(CFS/Police, Food Bank). The campus water pump is also powered by a propane generator.
The facilities considered in this energy baseline, their associated electricity meter, and
their 2022 electricity consumption are included in Table 2. The clinic has a 25.4kilowatts direct current (kWDC) solar photovoltaic (PV) array, which generates
approximately 25,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, or about 11% of the building’s
annual electricity needs. This array is described further in Section 3.1.3.
Table 2. 2022 Electricity Consumption at PGST Tribal Government Facilities
Meter Number
Meter Name
2022 Electricity
Consumption
(megawatt-hours
[MWh])
P159381367
Tribal Center/Admin/gym/kitchen
217
P150795473
Clinic
206
P158622203
Early Childhood Education
163
X162347032
Elder’s Center
76
X162347031
Fitness Center
55
X144384087
CFS/Police
51
P159381976
Campus Water Pump
50
P159381368
Youth Building
49
X159358493
Food Bank
44
X156028433
Education/Longhouse
44
X152786631
Housing
39
P159382320
Main Lift Station
37
X162346257
Library
30
X158653138
Natural Resources
17
P144385871
Streetlights Baseball Field Rd
14
X159358495
Baseball Concession
2
P159381976
Campus Water Pump
50
P159381368
Youth Building
49
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape
6
PNNL-37677
The three largest electricity users are the Tribal Center/Admin/gym/kitchen, the Clinic, and Early
Childhood Education buildings. In addition, electricity consumption varies seasonally, with the
highest consumption in the winter months (Figure 3). The three largest electricity users also
have the highest seasonal variability in energy usage.
Figure 3. Monthly electricity consumption for selected PGST administrative campus meters
(Jan 2022–Sep 2023).
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Energy Landscape
7
PNNL-37677
3.0 Renewable Resource Assessments
The project team assessed the energy generation potential for several types of renewable
energy technology. At the time of this study, PGST was primarily interested in solar PV, but
additional exploratory analysis was conducted for wind, marine, and biomass energy
(bioenergy). Based on feedback provided by PGST on the results of each assessment, it was
determined that solar PV is the most viable technology for the Tribe at this time, with wind and
biomass energy applications being open for further consideration in the future. Marine energy
was determined to not be viable on PGST lands.
This section presents the results of all renewable energy assessments based on their
applicability to PGST:
• Viable technologies: solar PV assessment
• Technologies for future consideration: wind and biomass energy assessments
• Technologies considered but not recommended: marine energy assessment.
3.1 Viable Renewable Energy Technologies
3.1.1
Solar Resource Assessment
Solar power, also known as solar energy, is a renewable source of electricity generated by
harnessing the radiant energy emitted by the sun. Solar power is primarily generated using PV
solar panels, which convert sunlight into electricity. These panels comprise semiconductor
materials that release electrons when exposed to sunlight, generating a direct current (DC) that
can be converted into alternating current (AC) for use in homes, businesses, and industries.
Solar power allows communities to generate their own electricity, reducing reliance on fossil
fuels and utility providers, while lowering the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
electricity generation. Solar PV systems are designed to generate power for 20–30 years. At the
end of the system’s life, options include refurbishing the system by repairing and replacing
individual components, repowering the system by replacing the entire PV array and/or inverters,
or decommissioning the system by removing the PV array, racks, foundations, and enclosures
and restoring the site to its original state.
Solar PV is installed at a range of scales to meet various needs, from powering individual
buildings to powering entire communities. Residential rooftop PV capacity typically ranges
between 5 and 20 kilowatts (kW), sized to provide power for an individual building. Communityscale PV can be installed on rooftops, carports, or the ground and can range widely in
capacity—from 20 kW to more than 2 megawatts (MW), providing power to dozens or hundreds
of buildings. Utility-scale projects have arrays that are either single-axis tracking (i.e., the array
follows the sun as it travels across the sky to maximize energy production) or fixed-axis and
tend to have capacities ranging from 1 MW to more than 1 gigawatt (GW) for the largest
projects.
Capital costs for installing solar PV typically range around $3,000/kW for residential rooftop
solar, $2,000/kW for community-scale fixed-tilt ground-mount solar, and $1,000/kW for utilityscale single-axis tracking ground-mounted solar (Feldman et al. 2021). These cost benchmarks
are based on national averages and can be significantly higher in remote or rural areas.
Renewable Resource Assessments
8
PNNL-37677
Operations and maintenance (O&M) for solar PV is relatively simple, especially for fixed-axis
systems, because they have no moving parts. O&M tasks include periodic cleaning of the
modules, vegetation management, system inspection, and corrective maintenance. On PGST
land, regular rainfall may be sufficient to keep panels clean—at least during the winter months.
Relying solely on solar PV for electricity production can be challenging because of the
resource’s inherent intermittency and variability. Integrating other generation technologies, such
as small-scale wind and energy storage, can help smooth out these fluctuations in electricity
generation.
In siting solar PV, considerations vary depending on the mount type (i.e., rooftop/carport or
ground-mounted). In general, an ideal site will have a south-facing orientation (in the northern
hemisphere), proximity to existing roads and electrical infrastructure, and minimal shading from
buildings, trees, or other obstacles. For rooftop/carport solar, there are additional factors to
consider, including the size, shape, slope, condition, and age of the roof. It is typically advisable
to consider roofs with a projected lifespan of at least 15 years and the capacity to bear an
additional load of 2–4 pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2). Rooftop solar PV typically necessitates
around 100 ft2 per kWDC of suitable rooftop space, which is defined as facing west, southwest,
south, southeast, or east; not being excessively tilted (<60°); not experiencing excessive shade;
and having an uninterrupted footprint of at least 100 ft2. Considerations for ground-mounted
solar include factors such as slope, soil type, and ground cover. The ground should be as level
as possible, and the choice of mounting options may vary depending on the soil type. It is also
important to consider ground cover beneath the array to prevent vegetation from growing over
the panels. Ground-mounted PV typically requires 5–7 contiguous acres per megawatt direct
current (MWDC) for the entire footprint.
Many resources exist for communities interested in deploying PV. DOE has compiled a list of
tools that can be used to estimate the amount of solar that could be installed on a given
rooftop.1 For communities interested in deploying solar, the DOE Solar Power in Your
Community2 guidebook is a good place to start, as is the Energy Transitions Playbook.3
3.1.2
Overview of the Solar Resource on Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Land
Port Gamble has a global horizontal irradiance resource that averages 3.3 kilowatt-hours per
square meter per day (kWh/m2/day). Solar estimates come from NLR’s National Solar Radiation
Database (NSRDB), which contains decades of solar radiation data covering the United States
and some international locations.4 This resource is seasonal; there is more solar energy
available during the summer and less during the winter when cloud cover is more frequent and
days become shorter (Figure 4).
1
DOE Solar Potential https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-rooftop-potential
DOE Solar Guidebook https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/202303/Solar_Power_in_Your_Community_Guidebook_March2023.pdf
3
DOE Energy Transitions Guidebook https://www.eere.energy.gov/etiplaybook/
4
National Solar Radiation Database https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/70627.pdf
2
Renewable Resource Assessments
9
PNNL-37677
Figure 4. Monthly variation of solar radiation available in Port Gamble (NSRDB)
The NSRDB distills many years of radiation data into a single typical meteorological year (TMY),
which is a year of hourly data that represents median weather conditions over many years by
selecting the most typical January across the dataset, the most typical February, and so forth.
The PVWatts® calculator1 uses these data to estimate the energy production of user-defined
solar PV systems (Dobos 2014). The PVWatts calculator was used to validate the electricity
production of an existing solar PV array on the Clinic.
3.1.3
Existing Solar on Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Clinic
PGST has an existing 25.4 kWDC solar PV array on the campus clinic building, in operation
since 2021. Because PGST does not undertake regular cleaning of the array, it was interested
in validating solar PV output from the array with modeled data to better understand if the array
was impacted by panel soiling losses.
As such, actual power production data from that array from SolarEdge (July 2023–December
2024) were compared to modeled power production from TMY weather year using PVWatts.
TMY data were used because irradiation data for 2023–2024 are not currently accessible
through the NSRDB.
Figure 5 indicates good agreement between the modeled and measured data. In some cases,
the measured output is smaller than expected (e.g., July 2023, August 2024) or larger than
expected (e.g., November 2023, March 2024). This is because solar radiation varies month-tomonth and year-to-year, and this analysis uses TMY data rather than actual 2023–2024 data.
Because the measured output is relatively close to the modeled data, this analysis confirms the
PV array is operating as expected.
1
PVWatts Calculator https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
Renewable Resource Assessments
10
PNNL-37677
Figure 5. Measured and modeled monthly power output for the PGST Clinic solar PV array
3.1.4
Solar Photovoltaic Assessments
Several locations of interest for deploying solar PV were identified through
conversations with Tribal staff. These locations include the Wastewater Treatment Plant
drain field, the Clinic parking lot, the Casino parking lot, housing, the Fitness Center,
CFS/Police, the Hatchery, and a beach shelter. Solar PV technical suitability was
assessed for each location using Aurora Solar design software. Sites with a total solar
resource fraction1 greater than 85% were considered technically feasible.
In addition, Säzän evaluated solar PV on other rooftops as part of its microgrid
assessment, further described in Section 4.0. Säzän assessed additional solar PV on
the rooftop of the Clinic, Early Childhood Education, and Longhouse.
Table 3 provides an overview of the technical potential for solar PV at each location, the
potential annual electricity generation, the percent of the building’s consumption the
system could offset, and an estimate for system cost. Additional details for each site
assessed by PNNL are provided in the following sections. Additional details for the sites
assessed by Säzän can be found in its microgrid report.
1
The ratio of solar insolation available accounting for shading, orientation, and tilt, compared to the total
amount of insolation at the optimum orientation and tilt but without shading, expressed as a percentage.
Renewable Resource Assessments
11
PNNL-37677
Table 3. Summary of Solar PV Technical Potential by Location
Solar PV Technical
Potential (kWDC)
Location
Potential Annual
Electricity
Generation
(kWh/year)
Building 2022
Electricity
Consumption
Offset (%)
Beach shelter
3.5
3,700
N/A
Casino parking lot
1,676
1,600,000
N/A
CFS/Police
Not recommended because of
shading from tall trees to the
south
N/A
N/A
Clinic
66.2
68,000
33
Clinic parking lot
46
38,900
13
Early Childhood
Education
50
52,100
32
Fitness Center
Not recommended because of
shading from the Health Clinic to
the south and tall trees to the
west
N/A
N/A
Hatchery
Not recommended because of
N/A
shading from tall trees to the east
N/A
Longhouse
45; not recommended because of
45,500
roof structural concerns
1041
Tribal housing
4
4,200
11
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
buildings
50
43,400
17
Not recommended; Washington
Wastewater
Department of Health prohibits
Treatment Plant drain building structures over any areas N/A
field
in the drain field and reserve
areas
3.1.4.1
N/A
Clinic Parking Lot
The Clinic parking lot was identified as a location of interest for carport-mounted solar PV. Two
parking areas can each accommodate 23-kW arrays (Figure 6), generating up to 38,900 kWh
annually (13% of the Clinic’s 2022 consumption: 206 MWh). The other parking areas experience
significant shading from the Clinic, Fitness Center, and trees, and carport solar PV is not
recommended.
1
The Education and Longhouse buildings share the same meter.
Renewable Resource Assessments
12
PNNL-37677
Figure 6. Potential Clinic carport solar PV
3.1.4.2
Casino Parking Lot
The Casino parking lot was identified as another location of interest for carport-mounted solar
PV. Up to 1,676 kW of solar PV could be installed (Figure 7). These arrays could generate up to
1,600 MWh annually, equivalent to nearly all the PGST Administrative Campus’s 2022 electricity
consumption: approximately 1,600 MWh.
Renewable Resource Assessments
13
PNNL-37677
Figure 7. Potential Casino carport solar PV
3.1.4.3
Wastewater Treatment Plant Drain Field
The Wastewater Treatment Plant drain field was identified as a location of interest for groundmounted solar PV because it is a large, open area located near the Tribally owned casino and
hotel. Initial research indicated deploying ground-mounted solar PV between the drain field cells
might be possible. However, the Washington Department of Health prohibits building structures
over any areas in the drain field and reserve areas (Washington State Department of Health
2024). As such, pursuing solar PV on the drain field is not recommended. However, solar PV
suitability was assessed for two buildings south of the drain field (Figure 8). These buildings
have the potential for 32 kW and 18 kW of solar PV, respectively, and could generate up to
27,100 kWh and 16,300 kWh annually, respectively (17% of the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s
2022 consumption: 254 MWh).
Renewable Resource Assessments
14
PNNL-37677
Figure 8. Potential Wastewater Treatment Plant rooftop solar PV
3.1.4.4
Tribal Housing
The upper south-facing side of the housing building receives minimal shading from the
Longhouse. However, existing skylights limit the space available for solar PV. The roof has the
potential for up to 4 kW of solar PV (Figure 9), which could generate up to 4,200 kWh annually
(11% of the building’s 2022 consumption: 39 MWh).
Renewable Resource Assessments
15
PNNL-37677
Figure 9. Potential housing rooftop solar PV. Existing skylights (covered by orange box) will
reduce the amount of space available.
3.1.4.5
Children and Family Services/Police
No solar PV is recommended on the rooftop of the CFS/Police building because of shading from
tall trees to the south.
3.1.4.6
Fitness Center
No solar PV is recommended on the rooftop of the Fitness Center because of shading from the
Health Clinic to the south and tall trees to the west.
3.1.4.7
Hatchery
No solar PV is recommended on the rooftop of the Fitness Center because of shading from the
Health Clinic to the south and tall trees to the west.
3.1.4.8
Beach Shelter
The beach shelter, located on Point Julia, has the potential for up to 3.5 kW of solar PV
(Figure 10), which could generate up to 3,700 kWh annually.
Renewable Resource Assessments
16
PNNL-37677
Figure 10.
3.1.5
Potential beach shelter rooftop solar PV
Recommendations
Table 4 shows short- (<5 years), medium- (5–10 years), and long-term (10+ years)
recommendations for advancing solar PV at PGST. High-level budget and staffing
considerations are provided for reference but should be further investigated and refined as
recommendations are implemented.
It should be noted these solar PV projects have simple payback periods of ~22/23 years. Grants
and tax incentives could shorten the payback period and make these projects more attractive to
PGST.
Renewable Resource Assessments
17
PNNL-37677
Table 4. Solar PV Recommendations
Recommendation
Develop an O&M plan for
existing and future solar
PV installations
Description
Time
Frame
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Develop an O&M plan for Short term Low cost
existing and future solar
PV installations that aligns
with PGST’s typical
operations. O&M plan
components can include
the following:
• Performance monitoring:
checking PV systems are
operating as expected
Maintenance
staff, minimal
training
• Preventive maintenance:
cleaning, inspecting
panels and electrical
connections, performing
other scheduled
maintenance, and so on.
Determine the feasibility of
solar PV on all existing
government buildings,
parking lots, and other
available open areas
Identify other potential
areas for PV and conduct
assessments of potential
installations.
Renewable Resource Assessments
Short term Low cost
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
18
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Create a priority list of PV
projects based on
additional considerations
Description
Considerations when
prioritizing solar PV
projects include the
following:
• Potential for energy
generation
Time
Frame
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Short term Low cost
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
• Cultural/visual constraints
• If rooftop-mounted: roof
condition/structure (does
not require replacement in
next 25 years; must be
able to support additional
weight from panels)
• Shading, including future
vegetation growth and
new buildings from
campus development.
Based on these
considerations, some
candidates for
prioritization include the
Clinic and the Early
Childhood Center.
Developing a more
comprehensive list based
on the above criteria is
also recommended.
Solicit and review solar
installer bids
Research and contact
several solar installers to
get multiple bids. Ensure
any selected installers are
licensed, bonded, and
insured to install solar
projects in the area.
Short term Low cost
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
Compare and select solar
installer bids
Evaluate bids and
understand contract
terms. Discuss and
understand any available
tax incentives, potential
tax implications, financing
options, the terms of the
installer’s contract,
warranties, maintenance
agreements (if any), and
contingencies if the
installer closes its
business.
Short term Low cost
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
Renewable Resource Assessments
19
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Description
Time
Frame
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Research and procure a
portable solar trailer for
use during power outages
Portable solar trailers with Short term
optional battery energy
storage could provide
electric power to PGST
residents and critical
infrastructure during an
unexpected power outage.
Investigate the possibility
of procuring a solar trailer
for PGST.
Variable cost
depending on
system size and
components
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
Pursue solar PV
development on campus
building rooftops
Once sites have been
evaluated and prioritized
and bids have been
requested and reviewed,
proceed with solar PV
project development.
Short to
medium
term
Residentialscale solar PV
costs around
$3,000/kW and
will likely be
more expensive
given the Tribe’s
location
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
Engage and educate
PGST residents on solar
PV
Engage with and educate
local stakeholders on the
potential benefits and
pathways of installing
solar PV locally.
Short to
medium
term
Low cost
PGST staff:
solar technician,
energy
manager,
facilities and
maintenance
staff, and others
as needed
Investigate options for
installing solar PV in the
broader PGST community
Options to investigate can
include community solar,
where a single, larger
solar PV array can be
owned by multiple
individuals, sharing its
benefits; or creating a
program to support
residents interested in
pursuing solar by helping
them access resources
such as information,
vendor lists, and incentive
options.
Short to
medium
term
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy
manager,
environmental
outreach and
education
coordinator,
solar technician,
and others as
needed
3.2 Renewable Energy Technologies for Future Consideration
In addition to solar PV, PNNL conducted resource assessments for wind energy, marine energy,
and bioenergy on PGST lands. Of the additional technologies evaluated, only wind energy and
bioenergy have some potential applicability for the Tribe. The results of the resource
assessments are included in this section for future consideration by PGST.
Renewable Resource Assessments
20
PNNL-37677
3.2.1
Wind Resource Assessment
Wind power is a renewable source of electricity generated by harnessing the kinetic energy from
wind. Wind power is primarily generated with wind turbines, which are commercially available in
a range of sizes and designs. Like solar power, wind power can allow communities to generate
their own electricity, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and utility providers, while lowering the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation. Wind systems are designed to
generate power for 20–30 years.
Incorporating wind into an energy portfolio provides various benefits, beginning with renewable
energy generation. In addition, wind turbines have small land use footprints allowing for land couse for crops, grazing, pollinator planting, and other uses. Wind speeds at turbine heights tend
to be higher at night and in the winter in many U.S. locations, making wind energy
complementary to solar energy. On PGST lands, wind resource models predict the highest
winds at turbine heights to occur during the evening and during winter. Challenges for adding
wind to an energy portfolio include the limited availability of service providers, particularly for
small turbines. Wind turbines can also pose challenges including wildlife impacts and radar
interference, particularly for larger turbines. Wind turbines should be sited at a distance from the
known eagle nesting areas on PGST lands. Permitting and zoning for wind turbines can be
difficult at any turbine size. Sound emissions, shadow flicker, and ice throw are all challenges
associated with wind energy that can be mitigated with proper setback distance from human
environments and property lines.
For a small distributed wind turbine with a rated power capacity within 100 kW, installation costs
between 2020 and 2023 ranged from $2,200 to $10,600/kW, with an average of $6,200/kW. For
midsize and large distributed wind turbines with rated power capacities greater than 100 kW,
installation costs between 2020 and 2023 ranged from $1,500 to $5,300/kW, with an average of
$2,750/kW. O&M costs are a significant expense for wind farms and large distributed wind
projects but are typically minimal for small distributed wind projects. O&M costs are typically
around $35 per kW per year for small distributed wind turbines and around $20 per kW per year
for midsize and large distributed wind turbines (PNNL 2024; Distributed Wind Project
Database1).
The sites selected for wind resource assessment were the result of collaborative approaches
between PGST and PNNL. PGST proposed the clearing west of the Casino and the drain field
locations for wind assessments, and PNNL provided assessments for comparison at the
windiest sites at the PGST trust and new lands, Point Julia and the clearing east of Hood Canal
Drive (Table 5). Wind will not be considered at Point Julia because of the cultural and historical
significance of this site; however, the estimates are included in this report for comparison.
At each site, three high-resolution wind resource datasets provided a range of wind speed
estimates: Global Wind Atlas,2 WIND Toolkit,3 and Wind Report.4 A potential wind energy
project is considered feasible if the annual average wind speed at 50 meters (m) above ground
at a site of interest meets or exceeds a 5 meters per second (m/s) threshold. At each of the four
sites, the estimated 50-m annual average wind speeds hovered around the threshold of 5 m/s.
Wind speed estimates ranged between 4.4 and 5.0 m/s at the clearing west of the Casino, 4.8
1
Distributed Wind Project Database https://www.pnnl.gov/distributed-wind/market-report/data
Global Wind Atlas https://globalwindatlas.info/en
3
Wind Resource Database https://wrdb.nrel.gov/data-viewer
4
Wind Report https://www.newrootsenergy.com/wind-report-modeling-tools
2
Renewable Resource Assessments
21
PNNL-37677
and 5.1 m/s at the drain field, 4.7 and 5.4 m/s at Point Julia, and 4.9 and 5.7 m/s at the clearing
east of Hood Canal Drive. Figure 11 shows the annual average 50-m wind speed at PGST trust
and new lands.
Table 5. Wind Energy Assessments for Sites on PGST Lands
Bergey
Excel 10
Turbine Model
Northern
Eocycle EOX
Power
S-16
Systems 10028
EWT DW 54900
GE 2 ME-116
Nameplate capacity
15 kW
25 kW
100 kW
900 kW
2.3 MW
Hub height
37 m
24 m
37 m
50 m
80 m
Minimum setback radius
46 m
from property lines
35 m
56 m
85 m
152 m
Maximum tree/building
height within 150-m
radius of turbine
22 m
6m
13 m
13 m
12 m
15 MWh
29 MWh
129 MWh
810 MWh
4,052 MWh
–
–
–
–
–
21 MWh
39 MWh
168 MWh
1,119 MWh
5,158 MWh
19 MWh
36 MWh
156 MWh
1,017 MWh
4,778 MWh
–
–
–
–
–
22 MWh
42 MWh
176 MWh
1,176 MWh
5,314 MWh
18 MWh
34 MWh
150 MWh
965 MWh
4,594 MWh
–
–
–
–
–
26 MWh
47 MWh
195 MWh
1,340 MWh
5,826 MWh
22 MWh
Single turbine energy
estimate: clearing east of –
Hood Canal Drive
30 MWh
41 MWh
167 MWh
1,104 MWh
4,870 MWh
–
–
–
–
55 MWh
216 MWh
1,524 MWh
6,159 MWh
Single turbine energy
estimate: Clearing west
of Casino
Single turbine energy
estimate: drain field
Single turbine energy
estimate: Point Julia
Renewable Resource Assessments
22
PNNL-37677
Figure 11.
Annual average 50-m wind speed from Global Wind Atlas outlining Port Gamble
S’Klallam a) trust and b) new lands.
The estimated wind speed ranges were converted to energy estimates for five commercially
available wind turbines with rated power capacities ranging from 15 kW to 2.3 MW (Table 5). A
loss assumption of 19% was accounted for in the estimates, representing loss because of
downtime for planned or unplanned maintenance, weather and environmental impacts, and line
and transformer loss. The site with the highest wind resource potential—the clearing east of
Hood Canal Drive—has estimated annual wind energy generation potentials of 30 MWh with a
single 15-kW wind turbine up to >6,000 MWh using a single 2.3-MW wind turbine. However, the
clearing east of Hood Canal Drive is at the greatest distance from energy demand centers and
infrastructure, requiring the installation of transmission at additional cost. Table 5 also includes
the maximum tree and building height that can exist within 150 m of the wind turbine. To
complement such an analysis, Figure 12 shares the maximum heights of common trees in
northwestern Washington.
Renewable Resource Assessments
23
PNNL-37677
Figure 12.
Tree height considerations for northern Washington, with heights sourced from
Barts (2018).
PGST requested information about potential changes in the long-term availability of its wind
resource. To assess the trends, the reanalysis model ERA5,1 which assimilates meteorological
observations, was examined for a 50-year period (Figure 13). Over the most recent decade,
wind speeds tended to be slightly lower than the 50-year average, indicating wind speeds could
be on a gradual decline in the area. Long-term trends in the wind resource change for various
reasons, including tree growth, vegetation clearing, and urbanization.
Figure 13.
Normalized annual average wind speeds at PGST lands for the last 50 years
from ERA5.
3.2.1.1
Recommendations
The wind resource on PGST lands hovers near the threshold for feasible wind energy
development, with the best wind resource (clearing east of Hood Canal Drive) located at a
1
ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/reanalysis-era5-single-levels?tab=download
Renewable Resource Assessments
24
PNNL-37677
distance from PGST facilities and infrastructure. However, considerations about environmental
impact, infrastructure location, wind power costs, and the cultural and historical significance of
potential sites make wind energy a less desirable technology for PGST in the near term. In
particular, wind energy was deprioritized because of potential impacts to wildlife, including the
bald eagle population.1 Future actions to further investigate wind energy potential could include
the following:
• Work with subject matter experts such as wildlife experts or biologists to understand
potential environmental impacts from wind and develop a mitigation plan.
• Evaluate potential incentives and grants that could reduce the cost of wind energy projects.
For example, a small wind turbine on PGST trust land could become more cost-effective if
placed at a farm or rural small business that qualifies for a U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grant.
3.2.2
Bioenergy Resource Assessment
Biomass energy (bioenergy) refers to the electric or thermal energy produced from organic
feedstocks. The feedstock used for biomass energy production can come from several types of
streams such as agricultural, forest wood, wood processing, animal, industrial, and urban waste.
Agricultural products can be purpose-grown for biomass energy, such as poplar, or can be
byproducts, such as crop residue. Other sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste
are also considered renewable; however, they are not commonly included in biomass energy
assessments and are instead considered waste-to-energy solutions.
Bioenergy can provide power and/or heat through several technologies. Combustion burns the
feedstock for heat or electricity generation. Gasification breaks down the feedstock into syngas
(synthesis gas; a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen), which can be used to generate
electricity. Anaerobic digestion breaks down the feedstock into biogas, which can be used for
heat or electricity generation. Landfill gas uses methane produced by landfills to generate
electricity. Cogeneration generates both useful heat and electricity. Pyrolysis produces biofuels,
for use primarily in transportation.
As of the date of this study, PGST had not assessed the available biomass produced by its
residents or commercial operations (e.g., marine and forest), so a full assessment of the
bioenergy potential for PGST could not be completed. However, PGST was interested in
understanding how it may be able to explore bioenergy further.
There are several factors to consider when investigating the use of biomass for energy
generation:
• The availability of biomass feedstock should be consistently reliable over time, both in
quantity and quality, to ensure consistent and reliable energy generation. Importing
feedstock would not be feasible because of transportation costs.
• The specific type(s) of biomass feedstock will impact collection and transportation methods,
costs, and feedstock processing requirements (e.g., chipping or grinding, mixing, and
drying).
1
Conversations with PGST leadership revealed that populations of bald eagles resided on trust and new
lands. Since wind energy can impact avian populations in a variety of ways, including habitat loss and
physical impact, PGST opted to not potentially disrupt existing populations with a wind energy project.
Renewable Resource Assessments
25
PNNL-37677
• A biomass plant will need access to supplies of power, fuel, and water as well as
wastewater discharge. Thermal generation plants should be located near a consistent
thermal load, and power generation plants should have a nearby point of interconnection to
the local grid. The site should include space for storage of the feedstock; more storage is
required for seasonally variable feedstocks and for increased resilience (i.e., more on-site
fuel supply). Access for delivery trucks should also be considered.
3.2.2.1
Recommendations
Bioenergy may be viable for PGST and is worth exploring further. Next steps include
characterizing available feedstock types and amounts, considering potential use cases (i.e.,
providing consistent baseload energy to reduce utility bills, balance peak electricity demand by
producing electricity only during peak hours, or providing heat and/or power to critical facilities),
selecting the desired energy output and potential end uses, and identifying suitable locations.
3.2.2.2
Case Study
Nenana, Alaska
The small town of Nenana, Alaska (population 363), has invested in a bioenergy boiler to supply
heat to community buildings. This boiler uses biomass (wood chips) left over from nearby
logging operations (bought from the Alaska Department of Nature Resources) as a fuel source
and provides heating to the local school, fire station, and library. Since 2020, Nenana has relied
on 14 grants from organizations such as the USDA Rural Energy Pilot Program and the U.S.
Forest Service Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Grant Program (Voegele 2023).
The boiler is from Biomass Energy Techniques, a company that specializes in biomass-based
energy solutions to create customized applications for users ranging from simple residential
systems to small commercial applications.1 The system in Nenana is 80% efficient and offsets
almost 50,000 gallons of fuel per year. The system will also create biochar, a carbon-rich
organic waste material, that can be used for soil enrichment and will create another revenue
source for the community.
3.3 Renewable Energy Technologies Considered but Not
Recommended
3.3.1
Marine Energy Resource Assessment
Marine energy is a renewable energy resource where energy is created by the movement of the
ocean. This is typically divided into wave energy and tidal energy, though energy can also be
created from gradients in temperature or salinity. Wave energy devices capture the movement
of the waves, such as up and down or side to side. Wave energy is not feasible near PGST;
wave energy development for grid-scale applications typically requires more open ocean
conditions, such as the coast of Washington State.
Tidal energy typically refers to capturing energy in places where water is flowing quickly
because of tidal changes. As the tide rises, it pushes water from one place to another, which
can create currents. Tidal energy devices have not yet converged on one design—they can look
like wind turbines underwater (called axial flow turbines; Figure 14a, b) but can have different
1
Biomass Energy Techniques Inc. website https://biomassenergytechniques.com/
Renewable Resource Assessments
26
PNNL-37677
numbers of blades. Another tidal generation technology looks more like lawnmower blades
(called cross-flow turbines; Figure 14c, d).
Figure 14.
Axial flow turbines (a, b) rotating on the axis of the incoming water flow, whereas
cross-flow turbines (c, d) rotate across the flow. Illustrations by Candace Briggs,
PNNL.
A review of National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal current data
for locations near PGST showed there are not any areas with sufficiently high current speeds to
make the use of tidal energy viable for PGST. Because of this lack of resources and considering
PGST’s strong cultural and economic ties to the ocean, the use of marine energy is not
recommended at this time. Specifically, the Tribe aims to avoid potential impacts and
interferences to fisheries.
Renewable Resource Assessments
27
PNNL-37677
4.0 Microgrid Assessment
DOE defines a microgrid as “a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources
that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid” (DOE 2012). In simple terms, a
microgrid is a small power system that can operate connected to the larger grid or by itself in
stand-alone mode. A microgrid comprises the combination of power generation and storage
resources (e.g., renewables, batteries, fuel-fired generators), distribution infrastructure (e.g.,
wires, switchgear, protective devices, transformers), and loads being supplied with electricity.
Loads powered by a microgrid can range from several loads or buildings to a small town or
large campus.
Microgrid technology emerged to address reliability concerns, ensuring critical power
infrastructure remained operational even during power grid failures. Consequently, most early
microgrids were primarily fueled by fossil fuels. However, the current definition of microgrids has
emerged from a combination of these reliability needs as well as other goals—including
reducing carbon emissions, lowering electricity costs, and increasing the deployment of
renewable energy. This has resulted in renewable energy sources, such as solar PV or wind
turbines, being added to fuel-fired generation to power microgrids. Typically, microgrids are
configured to operate either in parallel with a utility grid or autonomously if there is a grid outage
or if there is no utility feed available.
Säzän worked with Spark Northwest and MZ Solar Consulting in partnership with PGST and the
Washington State Department of Commerce Solar Plus Storage for Resilient Communities
Technical Assistance program to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a microgrid system on
the Tribal campus. Säzän evaluated three microgrid concepts for the ability to achieve the
following goals:
• Provide resilient power to prioritized facilities for a design-case 7-day outage scenario
• Avoid impacts to trees on-site, underground utilities, and future campus developments
• Develop a solar and battery energy storage system (BESS) demonstration project with lower
project complexity to support constructability, maintenance, and operations.
The three concepts are summarized next; more information can be found in the Säzän report.
4.1 Concept 1: Clinic Critical Loads
This concept was prioritized and is planned for implementation by PGST. It supports the existing
Clinic Generator Panel G1 by adding a solar and battery storage component to the existing
diesel generator. This system would provide resilient power to 50% of Panel G1 loads for a 7day outage beginning early January.
This system was developed in response to the Tribe’s feedback on other concepts and a desire
for low complexity for a first solar and storage installation on campus. It reduces trenching and
site impacts by reducing system size and using the building wall for locating some equipment.
The suggested hybrid inverter equipment combines switching, solar inverter, and controls into a
single compact form factor to further reduce system complexity and costs.
System components include expanding the existing 25.4-kWDC array on the Clinic rooftop by
66.2 kWDC to a total of 91.6 kWDC, a 122.9-kWh BESS, and the existing 150-kW generator.
Microgrid Assessment
28
PNNL-37677
4.2 Concept 2: Early Childhood Education/Clinic Combined
This concept combines the Early Childhood Education and Clinic buildings into a single solar
and storage microgrid. This system would provide resilient power to 75% of system loads for a
7-day outage beginning in early January.
This system is significantly more complex than Concept 1 and is not recommended for
development. Siting battery equipment on the highly constrained campus was a recurring
challenge through this study and is a key issue with this system. In addition, the distance
between the building’s electrical panels would require complex trenching and sitework to
interconnect. Major system components and evaluated locations on-site are shown in the
concept site plan in a separate report from Säzän.
Although this microgrid concept is not recommended, solar-only projects for the Early Childhood
Education building were found to be feasible and can provide significant annual cost savings
through net metering while laying the groundwork for incorporating a future battery storage
system.
System components include expanding the existing 25.4-kWDC array on the Clinic rooftop by
70.5 kWDC to a total of 95.9 kWDC, a 50-kWDC array on the Early Childhood Education rooftop,
an 880-kWh BESS, and the existing 150-kW generator from the Clinic.
4.3 Concept 3: Education/Longhouse/Elder’s Buildings
This concept would combine the Education, Longhouse, and Elder’s buildings into a single solar
and storage microgrid. This project would use a 45-kW solar array on the roof of the Longhouse
and medium-scale battery equipment near the existing utility transformer, with a new gas
generator to provide 100% of building loads for a 7-day outage in early January.
Although this was evaluated as a constructable system, it is not recommended for development
for the following reasons:
• Site constraints: buried water and sewer utilities surrounding the buildings to the south and
east; important gathering areas and natural view corridor on the north and west
• Uncertainty around new facility construction location and potential shading impacts
• Longhouse roof structural concerns
• Elder’s and Education building roofs are poor choices for solar (north facing).
In winter, outage resilience is determined primarily by the generator fuel available. In other
seasons, however, when sufficient solar power is available to recharge the battery during the
day, a utility outage can last much longer and not require as frequent operation of the generator.
Smaller systems focusing on critical loads may also be feasible; however, the uncertainty
around future development adjacent to the building makes the risk of solar shading and exterior
battery location a concern. The Longhouse is the only of the three buildings that appeared to
have unobtrusive areas to install batteries inside the building, but rooftop solar is of concern as
discussed previously. System components include a 45-kWDC array, a 153.6-kWh battery
energy storage system, and a 75-kW gas generator with 500-gallon liquid petroleum tank.
Microgrid Assessment
29
PNNL-37677
4.4 Recommendations
In 2024, PGST applied for and received a Washington Department of Commerce Clean Energy
Grant to pursue the implementation of microgrid Concept 1. The project is expected to be
completed in the next 5 years. Following the implementation of the Concept 1 microgrid, PGST
could evaluate pursuing the microgrids described in Concepts 2 and 3. Because Concepts 1
and 2 overlap, adding solar PV and BESS to the Early Learning Center in the future may be
possible, but the Clinic will already have panels.
Microgrid Assessment
30
PNNL-37677
5.0 Energy Infrastructure Analyses
PNNL conducted a series of additional energy infrastructure analyses to identify opportunities
and recommendations for PGST to achieve its energy vision. These analyses included the
following:
• Energy audits
• Critical infrastructure analysis
• Electric vehicle analysis
• Geothermal resource analysis.
The Tribe follows state standards for energy infrastructure in buildings and is also seeking to
enhance its implementation of efficient energy infrastructure in future building investments.
PGST is reliant on the rigorous Washington Energy Code as part of its Design & Construction
Standards. Any building requiring a Title 24 permit will require compliance with the Washington
Energy Code. Washington State also has Clean Building Performance standards that take effect
in 2026–2028, though these will cover only buildings greater than 50,000 ft2 and may not be
applicable to PGST. The Tribe would like to support the integration of efficient energy
technologies in future building investments such as solar PV, electric vehicle (EV) readiness,
energy efficiency measures, and ground source heat pumps. Related standards and
expectations could be documented in a set of Owner’s Project Requirements to inform those
bidding and developing the Tribe’s future construction projects.
5.1 Energy Audits
PNNL conducted an on-site energy and water evaluation (energy and water audit) for PGST to
assess energy and water use at four of the Tribal facilities and identify efficiency opportunities.
This assessment can serve as a template for similar efficiency and electrification improvements
that can be identified and pursued in other PGST facilities not audited during the ETIPP.
The on-site evaluation was conducted on April 11, 2024, to assess energy efficiency, water
efficiency, and electrification opportunities. Electrification measures are intended to convert
existing propane-fueled equipment to electric-powered equipment. The total floor space
evaluated was 49,595 ft2, which includes the Administration, Youth Center, CFS/Police, and
Early Childhood Education buildings. The estimated annual cost savings of the identified
efficiency measures is $15,818 with estimated annual electricity and propane consumption
savings of 398 million British thermal units (MMBtu; 116,732 kWh) and 259 MMBtu (2,826
gallons), respectively. The estimated cost to implement all identified measures is $156,480,
which yields a simple payback period of 9.9 years and a savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) of
1.3, excluding potential incentives provided by PSE. With PSE incentives, the total estimated
simple payback is reduced to 8.9 years.
Table 6 summarizes the energy and energy cost savings, investment cost, and potential
incentives for PGST.
For additional information about the energy auditing process and results, refer to the Energy
and Water Assessment for PGST report that was provided to PGST in September 2024.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
31
PNNL-37677
Table 6. Summary of Recommended Energy and Water Efficiency Measures for the PGST Audited Buildings
Electricity Savings
MMBtu/
yr
(kWh/yr)
HVAC controls
Heating/cooling
Lights (exterior)
Domestic hot
water
Roof
Weatherization
Project Total
189
(55,319)
-101
(-29,695)
2
(610)
-4
(-1,043)
287
(84,185)
25
(7,356)
398
(116,732)
$/yr
$4,317
($1,941)
$57
($106)
$7,614
$699
$10,640
Propane Savings
MMBtu/
yr
(gal/yr)
0
248
(2,709)
0
7
(71)
0
4
(46)
259
(2,826)
$/yr
Total
Savings
($/yr)
Investment
($)
Simple
Payback
(yr)
SIR
Potential PSE
Incentives
$0
$4,317
$3,571
0.8
15.0
$0
$4,957
$3,016
$98,760
33
1.8
$678
$0
$57
$2,221
39
1.2
$274
$130
$24
$13,957
582
0.0
$1,200
$0
$7,614
$31,655
4.2
4.1
$14,000
$91
$790
$6,316
8.0
0.6
$0
$5,178
$15,818
$156,480
9.9
1.3
$16,152
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
32
PNNL-37677
5.1.1
Energy and Water Efficiency Project Financing
Funding is a key consideration when evaluating the implementation of energy and water
efficiency projects for a building portfolio. Table 7 describes common avenues for funding
efficiency projects and provides some considerations for PGST as it explores energy efficiency
projects (Better Buildings n.d.). Other less common funding avenues such as leases,
commercial property-assessed clean energy (PACE), efficiency-as-a-service, and on-bill
financing (OBF) and repayment (OBR) may also be available depending on the scale of the
project.
Table 7. Energy Efficiency Funding Avenues
Funding Avenue
Self-funded
Debt or loan
Description
Key Considerations
The building owner pays for the
projects directly using its own
funds (capital or operating).
• Most simple and direct method for funding
projects.
The building owner borrows funds
from banks or other lenders to
finance the project.
• Added cost to the project.
• The financial benefits of the project are fully
captured by the building owner.
• Access to capital may not be available for all
types of projects.
Energy savings
An energy service company
• May be an option for owners with large
performance
installs the project and is paid from
projects or that are interested in bundling
contracts (ESPC) the cost savings the project
several smaller projects.
creates.
• May require little to no upfront cost for the
owner.
• Some projects may not qualify for ESPC,
especially if savings are relatively low.
5.1.2
Recommendations
Table 8 shows a set of energy auditing recommendations for PGST.
Table 8. Energy Audit Recommendations
Recommendation
Description
Complete energy and water Select additional buildings to
audits of the remaining
complete energy and water
PGST campus buildings.
audits for and engage
appropriate staff or consultants
to conduct the audits. Use the
results to inform next steps for
energy and water efficiency
project implementation.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
Time
Frame
Budget
Considerations
Staffing
Considerations
Short term Low to medium
PGST facilities
cost, depending staff or energy
on the number of manager
buildings
33
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Description
Time
Frame
Budget
Considerations
Staffing
Considerations
Work with PSE to identify
energy rebates and other
incentives for energy
efficiency projects.
When completing additional
Short term No cost
energy and water audits, work
with PSE to understand the
potential energy rebates and
incentives that might be
available for project
implementation. Consider these
rebates when estimating the
potential cost of efficiency
measures.
PGST facilities
staff or energy
manager
Develop a prioritized list of
efficiency projects for
implementation and explore
funding opportunities for
those projects.
Collect and compare bids for
recommended energy and
water efficiency projects and
determine eligibility for
grants/outside funding. Select
and prioritize projects for
implementation based on costs
and potential benefits (e.g.,
energy and water consumption
savings, cost savings, building
occupant benefits).
Short term No cost
PGST facilities
staff or energy
manager
Implement energy and
water efficiency projects.
Select projects for
implementation and engage
appropriate staff or external
contractors to execute the
projects. When implementing
projects, consider whether any
could be bundled to reduce
disruption to operations and
optimize costs.
Short to
medium
term
Variable cost
PGST facilities
staff or energy
manager/external
contractors
Develop and implement a
process to periodically
review energy and water
use by building and
complete energy
audits/retro-commissioning
on a schedule.
Develop a process that aligns
with PGST’s operations to
periodically review energy and
water use by buildings. This
process could also include
conducting energy and water
audits as well as retrocommissioning studies for
PGST buildings on a set
schedule.
Short to
medium
term
No cost
PGST facilities
staff or energy
manager
5.2 Critical Infrastructure Analysis
As part of the ETIPP, PNNL worked with PGST to conduct a vulnerability analysis of critical
energy and water infrastructure on PGST lands. Because of its remote location on the northern
tip of the Kitsap Peninsula in Washington State, the Tribe relies on a single road (Hansville
Road) to connect with the rest of Kitsap County, and electricity is supplied by a single
transmission and a single distribution cable. These conditions mean weather-related power
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
34
PNNL-37677
outages can take hours to resolve, and any disruptions to the road can quickly isolate the Tribe
during emergencies. These factors make designing and implementing hazard-resilient critical
infrastructure especially important.
This analysis identified critical infrastructure, analyzed potential hazards or threats to that
infrastructure, and suggested strategies for improving the infrastructure’s resilience. This report
also briefly considers currently planned resilience work, including by PSE, Kitsap County, and
an independent renewable energy project in the early stages of development.
Critical infrastructure was identified through conversations with PGST staff and Tribal Council
members and is defined as assets and systems that provide functions necessary for the Tribe’s
way of life. Critical infrastructure identified in this analysis includes critical buildings, backup
generators, water/sewer infrastructure, and PSE infrastructure.
Potential hazards or threats to infrastructure—and the associated level of risk—were identified
by overlaying geographic information system layers of the geographical extents of known
hazards over a map of the PGST lands and critical infrastructure. Known hazards include the
following:
• Coastal bluff erosion and landslides
• Drought and high heat
• Earthquakes
• Sea level rise and coastal flooding
• Tsunamis
• Wildfires
• Severe weather and windstorms
• Terrorism, cyberattacks, and vandalism.
Various hazards put the PGST at risk and should be considered both in resilience improvement
efforts and potential renewable energy siting efforts (Table 9). In particular, earthquakes, coastal
flooding and sea level rise, and severe weather and windstorms could have implications for
siting locations, materials and construction considerations, and incorporation of mitigation
measures in energy and resilience planning. For additional information about how risks were
determined and specific recommendations, refer to the Improving Resilience for the Port
Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Critical Infrastructure report which was provided separately to PGST.
Table 9. Summary of Hazards, Risk Level, and Critical Infrastructure with the Potential for the
Highest Risk at PGST.
Hazard or Threat
Risk Level
Infrastructure at Highest Risk
Coastal bluff erosion and
landslides
High
Houses along bluff edge; water reservoirs on
landslide-prone areas
Earthquakes
High
All infrastructure at risk; older buildings are more
susceptible to damage
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
35
PNNL-37677
Hazard or Threat
Risk Level
Infrastructure at Highest Risk
Sea level rise and coastal
flooding
High
Hatchery and Hatchery backup generator; other
infrastructure at Point Julia
Tsunami
High
Hatchery and Hatchery backup generator; other
infrastructure at Point Julia
Wildfire
Low
PSE transmission lines
Severe weather and
windstorm
High
PSE transmission lines, Elder’s Center, Early
Childhood Education Center
Terrorism, cyberattack,
vandalism
Moderate
PSE substations
Recommendations
Suggested strategies for improving resilience of critical infrastructure were chosen based on
various resources such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster planning
guides, PNNL, NOAA, and Homeland Security resources and by using tools such as the
Technical Resilience Navigator.1 Table 10 shows a subset of critical infrastructure resilience
recommendations for PGST. Additional resilience recommendations and detailed analysis on
hazards relevant to the PGST lands can be found in the Improving Resilience for the Port
Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Critical Infrastructure report which was provided separately to PGST.
Table 10. Critical Infrastructure Resilience Recommendations
Recommendation
Description
Time
Frame
Budget
Considerations
Staffing
Considerations
Explore coastal bluff
erosion mitigation
measures.
Erosion mitigation can include
Medium to Variable cost
beach nourishment, runoff
long term
mitigation, upper bluff protection,
and so on.
Contractor; PGST
staff:
environmental
planner
Consider adopting relevant
earthquake and tsunami
codes.
Building codes can be applied to Medium to Variable cost
new construction and existing
long term
buildings and address both
structural and nonstructural
building components.
PGST staff:
construction,
building
supervisor
Consider seismic
construction when planning
new developments or
renovating existing
buildings.
Seismic construction strategies
Medium to Medium to high
include foundation isolation,
long term cost
shear walls, shock absorbers,
and flexible or reinforced building
materials.
PGST staff:
construction,
building
supervisor
1
Technical Resilience Navigator https://trn.pnnl.gov/
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
36
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Establish zones of
protection around critical
infrastructure to reduce
wildfire risk.
Description
Create defensible space using
noncombustible ground cover
and vegetation management
proximity zones around critical
infrastructure.
Develop response plans for Create emergency plans to
quick load shedding during prioritize critical loads during
emergency events.
emergency events or unplanned
outages.
Time
Frame
Budget
Considerations
Staffing
Considerations
Short term Low to medium
cost
PGST staff:
maintenance
Short term Low cost
PGST staff:
energy manager,
safety
coordinator,
utilities
Develop vegetation
management plans near
critical infrastructure.
Create regularly scheduled plans Short term Low cost
to trim/remove dead foliage from
around critical infrastructure to
reduce the risk of damage during
a severe weather event.
PGST staff:
maintenance
Prepare emergency flood
mitigation for vulnerable
equipment/facilities located
at Point Julia.
Emergency flood mitigation
includes the use of sandbags,
temporary flood barriers, and
flood wrapping. Need for flood
mitigation might increase as sea
levels rise.
PGST staff:
maintenance,
facilities
Short term Low to medium
cost
5.3 Electric Vehicle Analysis
PGST was interested in understanding the EV charging needs to meet growing EV adoption for
PGST’s staff, visitors, and fleet. The project team evaluated EV adoption scenarios assuming
varying degrees of vehicle electrification and vehicle turnover to estimate charging infrastructure
needs.
5.3.1
Electric Vehicle Overview
EVs are vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor that draws electricity, at least in part,
from a battery. Some EVs are all-electric and operate exclusively on a battery (BEVs), whereas
others are plug-in hybrids (PHEV) with an internal combustion engine (ICE) in addition to a
battery(U.S. Department of Transportation 2025); see Figure 15 for an illustration of the
difference between the two types. PHEVs operate as conventional ICE vehicles when not in
electric mode, whereas BEVs operate solely on electricity. The analysis conducted for PGST
focused primarily on BEVs, referred to in this report as EVs or all-electric vehicles.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
37
PNNL-37677
Figure 15.
5.3.1.1
BEVs vs. PHEVs. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2025)
Benefits and Challenges of Electric Vehicles
Transitioning toward EVs from conventional ICE vehicles can offer various benefits and some
potential challenges. Benefits of EVs typically include lower cumulative cost of ownership, lower
fueling costs, lower maintenance costs, and higher fuel economy (Figure 16). EVs also emit
fewer (in the case of PHEVs) or no (in the case of BEVs) tailpipe emissions and are responsible
for fewer life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (U.S. Department of Transportation 2025).
Electrifying the PGST fleet and supporting community members and visitors with EV
infrastructure will allow the Tribe and community to experience some of these benefits and
support the goals of PGST's Climate Action Plan. There are also potential challenges to
consider when transitioning from ICE vehicles to EVs—primarily challenges related to meeting
vehicle operational demands and charging demands. These challenges can be avoided or
addressed through proactive planning. It is important to ensure EVs will be able to meet
operational needs because they have different duty cycles and “fueling” requirements from ICE
vehicles. Although most current EV technology is best suited for short- to medium-length trips
because of vehicle ranges and sizes, technology is quickly improving to accommodate longer
trips and increased operational demands. Technology improvements include continued
improvements to vehicle driving range and load capacity as well as increased public charging
infrastructure availability to support longer trips. Although the cumulative cost of EVs is lower
than that of ICE vehicles, the upfront cost is usually higher. The federal Clean Vehicle Tax
Credit and Washington State EV Instant Rebate Program are both designed to help lower the
upfront cost of EV purchases. PGST may also qualify for grant funding to help cover the costs of
vehicles and infrastructure. These programs may change over time and should be confirmed
when considering EV purchases.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
38
PNNL-37677
Figure 16.
5.3.1.2
Benefits of electric vehicles. Source: DOE (n.d.-a).
Electric and Conventional Vehicle Comparison
The cost-effectiveness of EVs in a particular application (e.g., fleet, personal use) depends on
factors such as the upfront and maintenance costs of the vehicle, the number of trips and miles
traveled annually, and the local costs of gasoline and electricity. DOE’s Alternative Fuels Data
Center (AFDC) provides a calculator that allows users to compare the cost of operating two
vehicles of their choice.1 To provide a more locally relevant comparison for PGST, the project
team used the AFDC calculator to compare the most-commonly sold conventional vehicle in
Washington State in 2023—a Toyota RAV4—with the Hyundai Ioniq 6 EV. The comparison
uses the default inputs provided by the calculator for vehicle costs, number of trips, distance
traveled, and others as summarized in Table 11.
Table 11. Inputs for Conventional and Electric Vehicle Comparison
Recommendation
Description
Conventional vehicle
2023 Toyota RAV4 AWD 4cyl 2.5L Automatic (S8) Gasoline
Conventional vehicle cost
$31,185
1
DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
39
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Description
Conventional vehicle fuel
economy (city/highway)
25/33 mpg
Electric vehicle
2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6 Standard Range RWD cyl L Automatic (A1) EV
Electric vehicle cost
$49,990 (no tax credits assumed)
Electric vehicle fuel economy
(city/highway)
26/29 kWh/100 miles
Gasoline price
$4.54 (2023 annual average based on U.S. Energy Information
Agency [EIA] Data1
Average daily driving distance
34 miles
Days per week
5 days/week
Weeks per year
49 weeks/year
Percent time on highway for
daily use
45%
Other trips annual mileage
3,596
Percent time of highway for
other trips
80%
Location
Washington State
The results of the comparison are shown in Table 12, and the cumulative cost of ownership by
year is shown in Figure 17. In this example, the Hyundai Ioniq 6 has a lower cumulative cost of
ownership over 15 years.
Table 12. Conventional and Electric Vehicle Fuel Use and Cost Comparison Results Using
AFDC Calculator
Vehicle
2023 Toyota Rav4
Annual
Fuel Use
397 gallons
2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6 0 gallons
Annual
Electricity
Use
Annual
Annual
Annual
Cost per
Fuel/Electricity Operating
Emissions
Mile
Cost
Cost
(lbs CO2)
0 kWh
$1,803
$4,060
$0.34
9,530
3,007 kWh
$303
$2,408
$0.20
663
1
U.S. Energy Information Administration
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0u_pte_swa_dpg&f=m
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
40
PNNL-37677
Figure 17.
Conventional and electric vehicle cost of ownership comparison.
Source: DOE (n.d. -b).
This example is intended to illustrate how to compare various vehicle types in terms of fuel
economy and cost of ownership, but results will vary with different inputs. Figure 18 shows the
cost of ownership comparison for additional vehicle types.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
41
PNNL-37677
Figure 18.
5.3.1.3
Comparison for additional vehicle types. Source: DOE (n.d. -b).
Types of Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support the adoption of EVs, users will need access to reliable charging infrastructure at
home, fleet facilities, their workplace, or other public destinations. Charging infrastructure is
typically described using the following terminology: station location, EV charging port (also
called charger), and connector (DOE n.d.-b). These can be defined as follows:
• Station location: The physical location of the charging port. The location can have one or
more ports.
• EV charging port (or charger): The charging infrastructure that may have one or more
connectors and can charge one or more vehicles at a time.
• Connector: The physical device that is used to charge the vehicle.
Charging equipment is typically classified by how quickly it can charge a vehicle. Figure 19
provides an overview of the three main types of chargers, including how quickly they can charge
a vehicle and the most common types of connectors they use: AC Level 1, AC Level 2, and DC
fast charging.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
42
PNNL-37677
Figure 19.
Overview of vehicle charger types
Level 1 chargers are more often used for at-home charging; Level 2 chargers may be found at
homes but also in public and workplace charging setups; and DC fast chargers are more typical
for public charging.
5.3.2
Considerations for Electric Vehicle Analyses
This section describes some key considerations for the analysis of EV adoption and charging
infrastructure needs for PGST.
5.3.2.1
Charging Station Locations
There are three Level 2 charging stations in the vicinity of the PGST Reservation: one at The
Point Casino with four ports, one at the Kitsap Transit George’s Corner Park and Ride with four
ports, and one at a nearby Albertsons grocery store with two ports.1 There are additional
stations located near Port Ludlow, Poulsbo, and Bainbridge Island; Figure 20 shows these
locations on a map. Additional charging stations are likely to be needed to support EV adoption
for PGST.
1
DOE EV Charging Locations https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-locations#/find/nearest?fuel
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
43
PNNL-37677
Figure 20.
Electric vehicle charging station locations near the PGST Reservation.
Source: DOE (n.d. -b).
5.3.2.2
Policy Drivers
Policy can be an important driver for how quickly a technology such as EVs is adopted in a
community. An example of a policy that may influence PGST’s adoption of EVs is Washington
State’s 2022 Move-Ahead Washington, a transportation package that establishes a nonbinding
goal of having all passenger and light-duty vehicles sold, purchased, or registered in the state to
be electric by 2030 (S.B. 5974 2022). Although achieving this goal will be challenging
(Interagency Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council 2024), the policy may influence the types of
vehicles sold in Washington State and may make EVs more common. Other driving policies
include state and federal incentives to reduce the cost of purchasing an EV (Washington State
Department of Commerce 2025; DOE n.d.-a) and utility programs that support the installation of
EV charging infrastructure—such as PSE’s Up & Go Electric program.1 Some jurisdictions, such
as the City of Seattle (Ordinance 125815), have established EV readiness ordinances that
require new construction projects to plan for (and in some cases install) EV charging
infrastructure. More information on EV readiness considerations and examples can be found in
Appendix C.
5.3.2.3
Charging Infrastructure Cost
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure can have multiple configurations, and installation costs
can vary widely. Cost considerations for charging infrastructure include the following:
• One-time costs (ICF 2025):
1
PSE EV Basics https://www.pse.com/en/pages/electric-cars
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
44
PNNL-37677
–
Electric infrastructure upgrades: In some instances, upgrades to the electrical
infrastructure itself (e.g., wiring, panels) may be required to install an EV charger.
–
Charging equipment: The costs of the charging equipment itself can vary based on the
charging level (1, 2, or fast), connector type, location, output, and other factors.
–
Installation: Costs may vary based on location, number and type of the infrastructure,
local design, permitting and construction costs, and other factors.
• Ongoing costs:
–
Electricity: Costs of the electricity used to charge the EV. The costs incurred will depend
on the ownership structure for the charger; for example, a charger’s owner may opt to be
reimbursed for electricity costs by charging users on a per-kWh, session, or length-oftime basis or may opt to provide the charging as a free-of-charge service.
–
Maintenance: May include inspecting and cleaning cables along with other activities to
keep the charger functioning in optimal condition.
Other costs may be incurred depending on the charger’s ownership structure. For example, if
the charger will be connected to a charging network, initial networking costs may be required
and periodic fees assessed to keep the charger connected to the network. In addition, under
some ownership models a charger may be owned by one party but installed at a location owned
by a third party—in which case there may be lease or other similar costs involved.
It is sometimes most cost-effective to install EV chargers in groups of four or more, considering
the electrical upgrade and construction costs at each site. Multiple chargers at a given location
can also increase the overall reliability of the charging location for EV drivers.
5.3.3
Analysis Results
5.3.3.1
Fleet
The fleet analysis focused on understanding the high-level fleet electrification trajectories and
potential charging needs for PGST. However, fleet electrification is highly dependent on fleet
characteristics and behavior and requires a more detailed assessment. Table 13 shows a
summary of the factors and assumptions made for the PGST fleet EV analysis.
Table 13. Fleet Charging Infrastructure Factors and Assumptions
Factor
Number of
vehicles
Considerations
Assumptions for Analysis
PGST’s fleet comprises 85 vehicles of a variety of
types: light-duty (e.g., sedans or passenger sport
utility vehicles [SUVs]), trucks, buses, and other
commercial vehicles. The number and types of
vehicles to be electrified will affect the quantity and
type of charging infrastructure needed.
70 of the light-duty vehicles in
PGST’s fleet could be
electrified. Other vehicle types
may be electrified in the future
but were not included in this
analysis.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
45
PNNL-37677
Factor
Considerations
Assumptions for Analysis
Vehicle usage
The number of trips vehicles take on a periodic
basis, the distance traveled, and the amount of
downtime available for each vehicle can affect
charging patterns and charging infrastructure
needs. Vehicles used daily for extended trips will
need more frequent and longer-lasting charges
than vehicles used less frequently or for shorter
trips.
Apart from fisheries and police
vehicles, most fleet vehicles
are used during business
hours, allowing overnight and
weekend charging. The total
daily distances traveled vary
by department but typically do
not exceed 50 miles/day.
EV types
There are two main types of EVs that may replace
existing vehicles: all-electric vehicles and PHEVs.
The charging needs for each vehicle type are
different.
Fleet vehicles would be
replaced with all-electric
vehicles, not PHEVs.
Charging station
location
The location where vehicles are housed and their
travel distances and routes can influence the
distribution of charging infrastructure and the
number of chargers needed.
Vehicles will be charged at a
central location, to be
determined by PGST.
Charger-to-vehicle Depending on the fleet’s needs, a single charger
ratio
may be able to support more than one vehicle.
Often, a ratio of 1.5 EVs per charger is used, but a
2:1 ratio may also be possible (DOE n.d.-c). Fleets
with little downtime may require a 1:1 EV-tocharger ratio.
2:1 EV-to-charger ratio.
Three fleet electrification scenarios were evaluated:
• Scenario 1: Follows Washington State’s Move-Ahead Washington plan of 100% EV sales by
2030 and assumes PGST’s fleet vehicle turnover rate is 10 years per vehicle.
• Scenario 2: Follows Washington State’s Move-Ahead Washington plan of 100% EV sales by
2030 and assumes PGST’s fleet vehicle turnover rate is 15 years per vehicle.
• Scenario 3: Based on a 5-year delay to PGST’s 2024 Climate Action Plan, which
recommends PGST transition 10 passenger vehicles, 5 trucks, and 1 bus per year from
2027 to 2030 for a total of 48 vehicles over 3 years. It is now unlikely the original goal can
be achieved by 2030, but the intention remains to meet this goal now by 2035. For this
analysis, the scenario focuses on light-duty vehicles; buses are not included in the projected
vehicle count. After achieving 45 EVs by 2035, this scenario projects a 10-year vehicle
turnover rate. Note the Climate Action Plan suggests the installation of 10–15 chargers
distributed throughout the reservation to support the proposed fleet electrification.
Figure 21 and Table 14 show the percentage of PGST’s fleet that would be electrified through
2050 under each scenario and the associated demand for EV charging. Scenario 3 is the most
likely scenario given current resources and planning timelines. The number of chargers and
locations for fleet electrification will need to be determined upon further analysis of fleet
patterns, but it is estimated at least 35 chargers will be needed to support significant fleet
electrification in the long term.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
46
PNNL-37677
Figure 21.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
PGST fleet electrification scenarios
47
PNNL-37677
Table 14. Fleet EV and Charger Estimations
Year (20XX)
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Scenario 1: EVs
0
3 8 13 19 26 33 40 47 54 61 68 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Scenario 1: Chargers 0
2 4 7 10 13 17 20 24 27 31 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Scenario 2: EVs
0
2 5 9 13 17 22 27 31 36 41 45 50 55 59 64 69 70 70 70 70
Scenario 2: Chargers
0
2
3
5
7
9
11
14
16
18
21
23
25
28
30
32
35
35
35
35
35
Scenario 3: EVs
Scenario 3: Chargers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
6
23
12
34
17
45
23
52
26
59
30
66
33
70
35
70
35
70
35
70
35
70
35
70
35
70
35
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
48
PNNL-37677
5.3.3.2
Workplace
The workplace EV analysis focused on understanding how PGST may be able to meet future
charging infrastructure needs for its administrative campus staff and visitors. Table 15 shows a
summary of the factors and assumptions made for the PGST workplace EV analysis. Note all
vehicles were assumed to be light-duty vehicles.
Table 15. Workplace Charging Infrastructure Factors and Assumptions
Factor
Number of
vehicles
Considerations
PGST estimates at its peak the administrative
campus may receive approximately 275
vehicles/day, including staff and visitors. This
applies primarily to weekdays; and during
weekends the number decreases significantly.
Assumptions for Analysis
275 vehicles/day per weekday
Charging behavior According to the 2023 EV driver survey, 28% of EV Apply the weekly and daily
owners who have access to workplace charging
charging assumptions listed
use it weekly and 22% use it daily (Plug In America
2023). This means not every vehicle visiting the
administrative campus will be charging there every
day—some charging may happen at home or at a
public charging port.
Charger type
In a workplace or retail setting, Level 2 and fast DC Preference for Level 2
chargers are more common.
chargers
Vehicle downtime
Staff and visitor behavior—including how long they
stay on campus or charge their vehicle—will affect
the number of EV chargers needed. This variable
can be adjusted through various parking policies
(e.g., providing a time limit for parking at an EV
charger).
Each Level 2 charger can
provide two charges/day,
assuming an average charging
time per vehicle of 3 hours and
switching time between EVs
Three electrification scenarios for the vehicles visiting the PGST campus were evaluated:
• Scenario 1: Follows Washington State’s Move-Ahead Washington plan of 100% EV sales by
2030 and assumes the individual vehicle turnover rate is 10 years per vehicle.
• Scenario 2: Assumes a slower electric vehicle rollout—100% EV sales by 2045 instead of
2030—and assumes the individual vehicle turnover rate is 10 years per vehicle.
• Scenario 3: Assumes a slower electric vehicle rollout—100% EV sales by 2045 instead of
2030—and that the individual vehicle turnover rate is 15 years per vehicle.
Figure 22 and Table 16 show the percentage of total visitors to the PGST campus that would be
using EVs under the three scenarios and the number of chargers needed to support them.
Under the assumptions listed in Table 15, we estimate one EV charger will be needed for every
5–7 EVs visiting the PGST campus. If all 275 vehicles visiting PGST campus are electrified,
approximately 38 Level 2 chargers would be needed to support their charging needs (assuming
a mix of home and workplace charging).
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
49
PNNL-37677
Workplace EV Adoption and Charger Needs
40
100%
Scenario 1 - EV Chargers
Needed for 100% EV Sales
2030, 10 Year Turnover
30
60%
20
40%
10
Number of EV Level 2 Chargers
Percentage of EVs
80%
Scenario 2 - EV Chargers
Needed for 100% EV Sales
2045, 10 Year Turnover
Scenario 3 - EV Chargers
Needed for 100% EV Sales
2045, 15 Year Turnover
Scenario 1 - Percentage of EVs
on Campus
Scenario 2 - Percentage of EVs
on Campus
20%
Scenario 3 - Percentage of EVs
on Campus
0%
0
2025
2028
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 22.
Workplace EV adoption and charger needs projected from 2025 to 2050 at the
PGST main campus.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
50
PNNL-37677
Table 16. Workplace EV and Charger Estimations
Year (20XX)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Scenario 1: EVs
Scenario 1: Chargers
Scenario 2: EVs
15
28
45
65
89
117
144
172
199
227
254
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
3
4
7
10
13
17
20
24
28
32
36
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
13
21
30
40
52
64
77
92
107
123
141
159
178
199
220
243
266
275
275
275
275
275
275
Scenario 2: Chargers
2
3
5
6
8
9
11
13
15
17
20
22
25
28
31
34
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
Scenario 3: EVs
Scenario 3: Chargers
10
16
22
29
36
44
53
63
73
84
96
108
121
134
149
167
183
199
216
233
252
270
275
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
12
17
23
26
30
33
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
51
PNNL-37677
5.3.3.3
Community
The EV charging infrastructure needs for PGST’s broader community of 400 households were
analyzed using NLR’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection (EVI-Pro Lite) tool1 using the
following assumptions:
• Two vehicles per household, 800 vehicles in total.
• EVI-Pro Lite inputs:
–
Focused on models and projections for the Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard,
Washington area.
–
Types of vehicles: 34% sedans, 38% sport utility vehicles (SUVs), 22% pickup trucks,
6% vans
–
24% of vehicles are PHEVs
–
99% of drivers have access to home charging (prepopulated in the model to reflect
region-specific estimates)
–
The model was run with 8,000 vehicles and scaled to 800 (model inputs started at 2,500
vehicles).
Table 17 shows the estimated number of chargers needed to support 800 vehicles in the PGST
area. Note this is a preliminary estimate and the level and number of chargers needed can
change depending on driver behavior, vehicle types, availability of other charging infrastructure
in the area, and other factors.
Table 17. EV Charging Infrastructure Needs for Community EV Adoption.
Source: EVI-Pro Lite Model
Charging Port
Type
Level 1
Level 2
1
Number of
Ports
Location
Notes
Charging Port
Type
Single family
227
Can support PHEVs
Single family
Multifamily
1
-
Multifamily
Single family
523
Multiple ports may be needed Single family
for households with more than
one vehicle
Multifamily (shared 3
private)
More may be needed
depending on multifamily
occupancy
Multifamily
(shared
private)
Workplace (shared 9
private)
-
Workplace
(shared
private)
DOE EVI Pro-Lite Tool https://afdc.energy.gov/evi-x-toolbox#/evi-pro-ports
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
52
PNNL-37677
Charging Port
Type
DC fast charging
(150 kW+)
5.3.4
Number of
Ports
Location
Notes
Charging Port
Type
Public
25
Installed in public locations
such as retail stores,
recreation or community
centers, healthcare facilities,
education facilities, and
around neighborhoods
Public
Public
2
-
Public
Recommendations
Recommendations for EVs are summarized in Table 18.
Table 18. Electric Vehicle Recommendations
Recommendation
Understand EV
charging
infrastructure
incentives
Description
Explore federal, state, and local
incentives, including any that may
support installation of residential
charging infrastructure. Incentive
options may include the following:
•
Federal level: tax credits for
EVs and chargers; National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
(NEVI) program (2022–2026)
grants
•
State level: Washington EV
instant rebate program, EV
infrastructure tax exemption,
grants
Time
Frame
Short term
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy manager
Utility level: PSE Up & Go Electric
Program.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
53
PNNL-37677
Recommendation
Description
Identify local EV
charger installation
requirements and
costs
Engage with PSE to identify EV
charger installation needs and
costs, including upgrades to
electrical service and equipment.
Assess the potential for workplace
EV charging at the Health Clinic
and potentially other fleet,
workplace, and community
locations.
Time
Frame
Short to
medium
term
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy manager
Investigate building codes, parking
ordinances, and zoning ordinances
for EV charging infrastructure.
Fleet electrification:
conduct a detailed
fleet electrification
needs assessment
Evaluate in detail the driving
Short term
requirements and potential
aggregated parking/charging
locations for fleet vehicles.
Conduct outreach with fleet vehicle
users to determine interest and
potential concerns regarding fleet
electrification and EV charging.
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy manager
Fleet electrification:
identify lessons
learned from
existing projects
Coordinate with the EV charging
installation project manager at the
Point Casino to discuss lessons
learned and any
recommendations.
Short term
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy manager
Fleet electrification:
develop a detailed
electrification plan
and begin
implementation
Complete sizing analysis and
refine vehicle fleet inventory and
electrification plan in close
coordination with ongoing campus
planning efforts.
Short to
medium
term
Variable cost
PGST staff:
energy
manager,
departmental
staff
Community: focus
on education and
outreach regarding
transportation
electrification
technologies and
potential benefits
Coordinate with the housing
Short to
program to assess resident interest medium
in EVs and provide relevant
term
educational materials.
Low cost
PGST staff:
energy
manager,
housing program
staff
5.4 Ground Source Heat Pump Analysis
PGST requested the ETIPP team to provide an overview of ground source heat pumps
(GSHPs), also known as geothermal heat pumps, and explore the applicability of this
technology for its campus. This section provides an overview of the technology and O&M
considerations and describes the results of the PGST-specific analysis. There are multiple
examples of GSHP installations nationwide, many of which are tracked by DOE’s Geothermal
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
54
PNNL-37677
Heat Pump Case Studies Map.1 In the Pacific Northwest, Seattle Public Schools has installed
GSHPs in 15 schools, eliminating gas-fired boiler systems and generating a 30%–77%
reduction in weather-normalized energy use. These projects have been so successful that
Seattle Public Schools now intends to retrofit two to three schools each year (DOE 2024a).
5.4.1
Technology Overview
Ground source heat pumps are one the of the most efficient types of HVAC systems available.
High efficiencies are achieved by using the ground as a heat exchange medium. Just 30 feet
below the surface of the earth, ground temperatures remain constant almost year-round, which
makes exchanging heat much easier. Although many portions of the country experience
extreme air temperature swings that affect the efficiency of air source heat pumps, the ground
remains at a relatively constant temperature.
There are two types of GSHPs: water-to-water heat pumps (WWHP) and water-to-air heat
pumps (WAHP). WWHPs use water as the heat transfer medium to circulate cooled or heated
water through the building to condition it. Some examples of water distribution systems (also
called hydronic systems) are radiant floors, fan coil units, air handling units, and radiators.
WAHPs use air as the heat transfer medium to circulate heated or cooled air throughout the
building. GSHPs typically comprise three major components: the heat pump, ground heat
exchanger (GHX), and circulating equipment. Heat pumps are located indoors (typically in a
mechanical room) and use electricity to augment the temperature of the ground loop fluid by
increasing the temperature in heating mode and decreasing it in cooling mode. The circulation
system circulates the heated or cooled air or water throughout the building. This system
comprises pumps (for WWHPs) or fans (for WAHPs) and the accompanying interior HVAC
equipment such as air handling unit or fan coil unit. Figure 23 shows the components of a
WWHP.
The third portion of a GSHP is the GHX, which is responsible for transferring heat to and from
the ground via a heat transfer fluid (usually water or a mixture of water and glycol). Ground heat
exchangers come in several different configurations grouped into four main categories: 1) open
loop, 2) closed loop vertical, 3) closed loop horizontal, and 4) pond or water loop. Figure 24
shows various GHX configurations. Open loop GHXs comprise two or more wells called supply
well(s) and injection well(s). Both supply and injection wells can range in depth but are generally
similar in depth to water wells because they must be deep enough to access groundwater. A
submersible pump is installed at the bottom of the supply well, which pumps groundwater to the
heat pump. The water is circulated through the heat pump where heat is either extracted
(heating mode) or rejected (cooling mode); water is then transferred back into the groundwater
via the injection well. This type of GHX configuration is highly efficient because of the deep
depths achieved, which leads to the most stable groundwater temperatures. However, open
loop systems do have some disadvantages. For example, open loop systems cannot be
installed everywhere, and adequate water supply must be available. In addition, some states
have regulations that prohibit or limit the distribution of geothermal well water into ground or
surface water. In addition, this type of configuration requires the most pumping energy to
circulate fluid from the supply well up to the heat pump.
1
DOE’s Geothermal Heat Pump Case Studies https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-heatpump-case-studies
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
55
PNNL-37677
Figure 23.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
Components of a water-to-water ground source heat pump
56
PNNL-37677
Figure 24.
Ground heat exchanger configurations. Source: PNNL (2003).
Closed loop GHXs do not exchange water directly with the ground. Instead, all water (or water
glycol mix) is contained within piping that is buried in the ground. In a horizontal closed loop
configuration, piping is buried 4–6 feet in the ground in a horizontal manner (DOE n.d.-d). This
configuration of piping provides ample heat transfer area between the ground and pipe;
however, it requires the largest amount of open land to install.
Vertical closed loop GHXs have piping that is installed vertically into a borehole that has a
diameter of approximately 4 inches. The number and spacing of boreholes depend on the
capacity of the system, but a general rule is one borehole per ton of system capacity (IGSHPA
n.d.). These types of GHX generally require less area than horizontal configurations. Two pipes,
connected at the bottom with a U-bend to form a loop, are inserted into the borehole, which is
then filled with grout to improve heat transfer performance. Each borehole is connected via a
horizontal pipe buried within the ground and then connected back to the heat pump in the
building. Each borehole is around 100–400 feet deep, and boreholes are spaced around 20 feet
apart. This configuration is the most common type of GHX used in commercial and larger
buildings because of the smaller land requirements.
Pond loop or water loop GHX configurations are the least common. These types of GHX have a
plate-and-frame heat exchanger or looped exchanger placed within a body of water such as a
pond, lake, or ocean. Heat is exchanged with the body of water instead of with the ground. Pond
loop systems require a body of water large enough to accommodate the capacity of the system
without raising the temperature of the water body more than 1°F. These systems are typically
the most economical because no drilling to trenching is required, avoiding those costs.
However, because a sufficiently large water body is required, these systems are very location
dependent but can be an excellent fit for locations near water.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
57
PNNL-37677
When deciding which type of GSHP system will be the best fit, there are a few important
considerations:
• Building/campus size: GHSPs can provide heating and cooling to a single building or
campus comprising multiple buildings. If the building or campus being considered is
commercial and large (>10,000 ft2), either an open loop geothermal system or closed loop
vertical GHX should be used. Although a horizontal closed loop system could provide
sufficient heating and cooling to a large building, its large area requirements may make it
impractical for a campus application.
• Land availability: Land availability goes hand in hand with building size. As mentioned,
horizontal closed loop systems require the most space to install and are generally used
where plenty of open land is available, building size is small (residential or small
commercial), or well/borehole drilling is difficult and costly (such as drilling in hard rock, e.g.,
metamorphic rock). Vertical closed loop systems require less land availability than horizontal
loop systems and are commonly used for large commercial buildings where sufficient open
space is not available. If space is limited, however (such as in an urban location), boreholes
can be drilled underneath parking lots or in landscaped areas. Once the borehole(s) is
installed, landscaping can be introduced over the borehole(s), or a parking lot can be
installed over the top of the borehole(s). Open loop geothermal systems require even less
space than closed loop vertical and should be considered if space is an issue and sufficient
groundwater is available.
As a rule, less than 5,000 ft2 of obstacle-free area is required for residential to small
commercial systems; 5,000–12,500 ft2 for average commercial systems; and 12,500–43,560
ft2 for large commercial systems. Greater than 43,560 ft2 (i.e., more than an acre) of
obstacle-free area is required for large commercial to district-scale GSHP systems.
• Water availability: Open loop geothermal systems require a certain groundwater flow rate
to maintain system capacity. The flow rate depends on the size of the system installed and
will need to be evaluated by an engineer. Groundwater is not a limiting factor for closed loop
systems. Therefore, if no groundwater is available, a closed loop system will need to be
installed.
• Soil and geology type: Soil and geology are important for two reasons: drilling/trenching
and system capacity. Soil type has a direct impact on system sizing and capacity for closed
loop systems. Dense soil with high moisture content such as clay is ideal. Loose sediments
such as sand have poor thermal conductivity and are much less conducive to installing a
GSHP. Because open loop systems use the temperature of the groundwater for heat
transfer, ground conductivity is not a significant factor in system sizing. For closed loop
systems, however, high ground thermal conductivity is desired. The higher the thermal
conductivity of the ground, the larger the system capacity (meaning higher heating and
cooling output). This is desirable because it will reduce GHX length, reducing project costs.
For closed loop vertical GHX, look for dense rock with high water content such as igneous
rock.
Soil and geology type also impact drilling or trenching. If bedrock is close to the surface,
trenching may not be possible. If this is the case, a closed loop vertical or open loop system
will need to be installed. Conversely, if rock is exceptionally hard—such as with
metamorphic rock—drilling a well or borehole for open loop or vertical systems will be
difficult and expensive. In this case, a horizontal GHX could be a better fit, depending on
land availability and building size.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
58
PNNL-37677
• Cost: Cost is always a concern in any building project and should be minimized where
possible. A preliminary economic assessment should be performed before a GHX type is
chosen. Because there are many factors that make up the cost of a GSHP, it is difficult to
say which system may be most cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness depends on several of the
variables listed previously such as soil and geology type and availability of groundwater. As
a rule, GSHPs cost $7,765/ton ±$4,632/ton to install and $109/ton ±$94/ton to operate and
maintain.
Several tools exist to help assess the economic feasibility of GSHPs. The first is REopt,1 a
web-based tool designed to optimize renewable energy systems (GSHPs included) for a
building or campus. This tool optimizes a vertical closed loop GSHP based on location and
building characteristics. The second tool is called the GSHP Screening Tool2 and functions
similarly to REopt—however, this tool is specific to GSHPs and provides additional
information on economics and performance.
• Local regulations: Local and national regulations must be adhered to when designing and
installing any GSHP project. These regulations impact a project in various ways depending
on the location. In Washington State, for example, the Washington Advisory Council has
published guidance on the minimum standards for the construction of GSHPs.3 These
standards outline drilling practices for boreholes and open loop wells in the state of
Washington. In this state, open loop systems are permitted; however, other states may not
allow the discharge of water into ground or surface water. In such cases, open loop systems
would not be allowed. This code also outlines the necessary setback from water wells and
provides guidance to avoid contamination of ground and surface water during installation.
Once the appropriate type of GSHP has been chosen and designed, the GSHP will need to be
installed. It is important to choose a contractor that has the appropriate accreditations and
experience for GSHPs. The International Ground Source Heat Pump Associate (IGSHPA) has
gathered and maintains a directory4 of certified businesses and professionals, which may be
helpful when choosing a contractor. In addition to this resource, the Geothermal Exchange
Organization provides a state-by-state directory5 that identifies various professionals for GSHP
services such as consultants, engineers, and contractors.
5.4.2
Operational and Maintenance Considerations
Similar to air source heat pumps, GSHPs typically require less maintenance than traditional
HVAC systems such as furnaces, boilers, and chillers. However, maintenance personnel should
be trained in the new maintenance for the GSHP if one is installed and consider the following
specific maintenance requirements for each GSHP component:
• The GHX is durable and has few moving parts, making maintenance simple. Maintenance
for the fluid loop primarily consists of cleaning strainers (open loop) and maintaining proper
pressure and glycol concentrations (closed loop). Fluid pumps require standard pump
maintenance.
1
REopt https://www.nrel.gov/reopt/
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) GSHP Screening Tool https://gshp.ornl.gov/
3
WA State Legislature Title 173 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-160453#:~:text=(a)%20A%20ground%20source%20heat,the%20public%20water%20supply%20wells.
4
IGSHPA Member Directory https://igshpa.org/business-directory/
5
Find a Pro! https://geoexchange.org/find-a-pro/
2
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
59
PNNL-37677
The heat pump requires similar maintenance to an air source heat pump. However, because
there is no exterior condensing unit, maintenance for the interior heat pump is even more
simple than for an air source heat pump. DOE has published guidance on the maintenance
of air source heat pumps (which applies to GSHPs).1 Typical maintenance includes tasks
such as inspecting ducts, filters, and blowers and checking for refrigerant leaks.
• Circulating equipment maintenance is the same as for any other system. Maintenance best
practices can be found in the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)’s Standard for Inspection and Maintenance of
Commercial Building HVAC Systems.
5.4.3
Port Gamble Assessment
The Port Gamble area primarily comprises unconsolidated sediments and glacial till (Schuster
2005) as shown in Figure 25. These types of rocks have low thermal conductivity compared to
other rock and soil types. Given this limitation, a GSHP at Port Gamble may still be viable but
may require additional GHEX length or additional boreholes to achieve the desired system
capacity ratings. PGST may also have access to shallow and deep aquifers (Terracon 2018)
that could be used for GSHP systems, but additional investigation would be required to
understand any potential environmental impacts.
Figure 25.
Zoom-in of Washington State Geologic Map for Port Gamble Area.
Source: Schuster (2005).
5.4.4
Recommendations
Recommendations for GSHPs are summarized in Table 19.
1
DOE Heat Pump Maintenance https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/operating-and-maintaining-yourheat-pump
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
60
PNNL-37677
Table 19. Ground Source Heat Pump Recommendations
Recommendation
Consider installing
ground source
pumps for new
construction
buildings or as a
replacement for
HVAC systems
during a planned
upgrade
Description
Time
Frame
Work with a consultant to evaluate Short term
the feasibility of GSHPs for new
construction buildings or future
HVAC system replacements. If
viable, consider GSHPs as an
option and work with a qualified
contractor to scope and install the
project.
Energy Infrastructure Analyses
Budget
Staffing
Considerations Considerations
Traditional
GSHPs cost
around $13,084
per ton installed
(Shonder and
Walker 2024)
Installation and
maintenance
contractor,
consultant, or
other staff
61
PNNL-37677
6.0 Energy Workforce Development Framework
By integrating insights gained from community engagement and capacity building initiatives,
along with consultations with PGST, the project team formulated the following proposed
framework designed to assist PGST in developing its energy workforce.
6.1 Mission
The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe of Indians’ Energy Workforce Development Framework aims
to bridge skill gaps, create employment opportunities, and promote sustainable economic
growth through comprehensive hands-on workshops and training. The framework is designed to
empower PGST members by facilitating access to meaningful educational opportunities,
particularly within the renewable projects that impact the Tribe. The goal is to ensure members
are well-prepared and equipped to hold sustainable and impactful careers, contributing to the
overall economic growth of the community.
6.2 Objective
PGST aims to equip individuals with the skills and knowledge necessary for careers in the
renewable energy sector, thereby promoting sustainable economic growth and environmental
stewardship within the Tribe and surrounding communities. To achieve this objective, PGST is
engaging closely with renewable energy and community partners through community-focused
education that disseminates energy knowledge. The framework approach includes hands-on
learning opportunities and the cultivation of energy advocates.
Many underserved and overburdened communities lack access to economic development
opportunities and the educational resources essential for their advancement. It is crucial to
recognize the significance of economic development strategies because they could positively
impact thousands of individuals across multiple generations. To support the Energy Workforce
Development Framework, the Tribe has partnered with Spark Northwest and secured funding to
offset some costs associated with facilitating and participating in training programs that the Tribe
has already implemented and will continue to offer.
6.3 National and State Energy Workforce Growth Trends
The renewable energy industry is generally divided into five technology areas: electric power
generation, energy efficiency, fuels, motor vehicles, and transmission. Since 2020, 48% of new
energy jobs are in the renewable energy space, with renewable energy jobs representing 5% of
all new jobs in the United States in 2023 (DOE 2024b). In 2023, transmission, distribution, and
storage employment grew by 3.8%; solar employment grew by 5.3%; and energy efficiency
employment grew by 3.4%.44 The industry sectors that saw the highest job growth from 2022 to
2023 were utilities and construction. Although energy job sectors are growing and more job
demand and opportunity is increasing, employers are reporting difficulty in hiring qualified
candidates. For example, 48% of motor vehicle employers and 43% of energy efficiency
employers reported it was difficult to find qualified workers because of lack of experience,
training, and skills or because they had insufficient qualifications.44
In Washington State, there were 4,351 solar PV jobs reported in 2020; in 2025, it is estimated
this could increase to 5,738 and potentially to 11,213 jobs by 2030. Similarly, battery storage
jobs were reported at 2,051 in 2020 but estimated to potentially increase to 5,563 in 2025 and
Energy Workforce Development Framework
62
PNNL-37677
11,557 jobs in 2030 (Truitt et al. 2022). In 2020, energy efficiency had 1,140 reported jobs, but
estimates show in 2025, there could be 3,167—increasing to 4,927 jobs in 2030.45 All these
estimates show an increase in job demand for innovative energy-related occupations in
Washington State.
6.4 Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Current Workforce: Opportunities
and Challenges
PGST has an established workforce, the majority of which resides within Kitsap County; 39% of
employees are Tribal members as of a meeting with PGST human resources on November 1,
2024 (Melody Bidtah and Jennifer Wright-Tom, pers. comm.). Although PGST has one energy
job currently, its workforce possesses a variety of transferable skills applicable to energy job
fields (Appendix A). Many of these positions are directly applicable to the innovative energy
industry, such as grant writer, facilities manager, and energy resilience coordinator. Skills of a
construction and maintenance laborer or carpenter laborer can directly transfer into an energy
field, or an individual can choose to get additional training—for example, a solar PV installation
certification. According to the DOE Workforce Development Blueprint, many transferable skilled
workers in current occupations fall into three categories—direct, refocus, and reboot—which the
blueprint defines as follows:
• Direct: Essentially the same core qualifications, technical knowledge, skills, and work
environment, with a high likelihood of recruitment and retention in the sector.
• Refocus: Similar work, but some skill or knowledge upgrading is likely required to increase
the chance of successful transition.
• Reboot: The work is very different; there is a need to invest significant effort to qualify for a
position (SCEP 2023).
Many of the positions in PGST’s current workforce fall within a potential refocus category and
would require some training or education in innovative energy technologies or energy efficiency,
for example, to apply to the energy workforce. In discussions with PGST’s human resources
department, it consistently has a strong applicant pool for openings in the Housing, Facilities,
and Utilities departments. The departments that have hiring difficulties tend to be Health, Legal,
and Finance. It is also important to note in many cases PGST staff could acquire additional
training to support PGST’s energy vision while remaining in their current positions. More
research is needed to understand the hiring landscape and employability in the renewable
energy sector in and around Kitsap County—as well as determination of level of interest by
current employees and community members—prior to development of a training program.
Challenges may arise as the Tribe develops its energy workforce. Motivating individuals to seek
career advancement opportunities or additional training can be difficult, especially if it involves
forfeiting pay or taking time off work. Other barriers include lack of transportation to training
facilities, limited online access, and general time constraints. In addition, finding childcare during
training sessions can be problematic.
To address these issues, Spark Northwest—in partnership with PGST—applied for and
received additional Clean Energy Prize funds through the DOE. The primary objective of the
Prize was to establish new or use existing partnerships to support renewable energy projects in
rural or remote regions of the United States. The secondary objective was to develop renewable
energy initiatives that enhance resilience, safety, reliability, and availability of energy while
Energy Workforce Development Framework
63
PNNL-37677
minimizing the negative environmental impacts of energy production in these communities. This
funding allowed Spark Northwest to offer stipends and travel reimbursements to participants.
As an education and training provider, it is crucial for PGST to consider and accommodate
potential barriers to reaching a broad and diverse pool of workers. PGST has Tribal members
living off-reservation, both in-state and out-of-state. To make energy training accessible to them,
offering both in-person and online training options would be beneficial.
A table of resources relevant to implementing the Energy Workforce Development Framework
can be found in Appendix B.
6.4.1
Capacity Building
6.4.1.1
Internal ETIPP Capacity Building
PNNL brought in technical experts to present on various energy technologies to build capacity
within PGST. These presentations covered solar energy, geothermal energy, marine energy,
wind energy, bioenergy, microgrids, and EVs. Presentations often included an overview of the
technology or technologies, considerations for implementation, case studies of real projects,
potential opportunities available on PGST land, cost estimates, and resilience considerations.
The team provided summary slides for each topic that the Tribe can use for future reference.
6.4.1.2
Community Engagement and Education
Spark Northwest pursued a comprehensive strategy to raise Tribal member awareness and
involvement in the ETIPP project. The components of the strategy included the following:
• Engaging partners early in the planning process
• Customizing workshops to community needs
• Fostering positive social-emotional experiences with energy technology
• Providing regular mentorship opportunities through workshops for energy champions
• Holding regular monthly meetings with Tribal stakeholders
• Maintaining a presence in the community by participating in community events and
gatherings.
The training project began in fall 2024. To raise awareness of the Strategic Energy Plan and
build support among Tribal members, the following community education activities were
completed throughout the energy planning process (Figure 26). The “Energy 101” and the Mock
Roof Installation training epitomized the transformative power of experiential learning. With the
hands-on teaching style of Remote Energy, the education partner, participants were
encouraged to go beyond theoretical learning by engaging in practical applications and
installation.
• Energy 101: The curriculum, designed by Remote Energy, introduced participants to the
basic principles of electricity such as AC/DC current, calculating loads, and PV system
management to encourage discussions about possible projects for their Tribes. After the
lecture-based presentation and classroom discussion, students went outside to conduct
experiments in the sunshine with multimeters and water pumps and handled small solar
Energy Workforce Development Framework
64
PNNL-37677
modules. Spark Northwest and Remote Energy hosted four workshops in 2024 and plan
four more in 2025.
• Mock Roof Installation: Participants who were eager to continue their education after
Energy 101 were invited to expand their understanding of system measurements and
calculations and physically interact with larger-scale solar arrays. Over 2 intensive days,
participants immersed themselves in hands-on curriculum where they assembled systems
on prebuilt mock roof installations and grappled with real-world challenges. They conducted
two 2-day courses on campus at Northwest Indian College in Bellingham with a total of 14
attendees. These courses included a lecture-based presentation and interaction with tools
and solar panels (November 2023) and a hands-on application course with wiring circuits,
installing panels, and determining system size (May 2024). Courses were customized to the
community’s needs and input. Spark Northwest and Remote Energy hosted two workshops
in 2023–2024 and plan to host two more in 2025. Spark Northwest and Remote Energy also
conducted surveys to obtain feedback from all workshop participants on the quality of
curriculum, presentation, and impact on their knowledge.
• High School Senior Credit Recovery Suitcase Build: From August 5 to 8, 2024, Spark
Northwest facilitated a technical Energy 101 course and a solar suitcase build for high
school seniors. The program included a 1-day Energy 101 course, using an in-house
curriculum. For the solar suitcase build, Spark Northwest used We Share Solar Technology
and curriculum, guiding students through the theoretical aspects, construction,
troubleshooting, and system expansion. The solar suitcase is a comprehensive 250-watt
battery backup system. It features solar charge and load regulation, circuit breakers for
switching and safety, and sockets for lights and charging 12-volt and 5-volt DC appliances
such as mobile phones, computers, and e-readers. Two solar suitcases along with physical
and online curriculum were procured for the Tribe for continued learning and emergency
use.
Figure 26.
Leadership and learning take many forms. Tribal Council and Tribal members
build a future together and empower students and community members through solar
education. Photos from Spark Northwest.
As a result of these training initiatives, four Indigenous energy champions emerged. These
individuals demonstrated high engagement with the material, contributed to shaping the
approach, and promoted broader participation. They are now equipped to facilitate energyrelated discussions, identify leaders, and advance their Tribes toward energy planning
independence.
Energy Workforce Development Framework
65
PNNL-37677
6.5 Workforce Development Case Studies
The case studies presented in this section show examples of programs that are either available
to PGST Tribal members or that PGST could consider replicating in its workforce development
efforts.
1. Tulalip Tribes1
The Tulalip Tribes Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO) Vocational Training Center offers
14-week free construction training courses to Tribal members and non-Native spouses and
parents. Upon completion of the course, students will earn a certificate from Renton Technical
College or South Seattle Community College. The program comprises hands-on shop
experience, strength building, engagement in outreach programs, exposure to various trades,
visits from guest speakers, and classroom instruction. Classes offered in the program include
blueprint reading, trades math, construction skills, structural trade finishes, electrical, plumbing,
foundations, CPR, first aid, flagger certification, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) certification, energy efficiency, and soft skills. This program helps prepare students for
a career in construction or to continue in another educational or apprenticeship program. This
program is held at the TERO Vocational Training Center in Tulalip, Washington. The program
seeks to connect with the community not only by providing training and career pathways for
students but also by creating local partnerships for mutually beneficial opportunities for the
students to practice their skills, such as building 13 tiny homes for the Low-Income Housing
Institute in Seattle.
2. Puyallup Tribe of Indians2
The Puyallup Tribe of Indians Workforce Development Program aims to provide Tribal members
with meaningful employment opportunities and the ability to develop their job skills and increase
future employment eligibility. The program offers 240 hours of full- or part-time employment to
successful applicants within Tribal departments that need additional staff. The workforce
development program also offers three other program options for those who have or desire a
specific skill set. The first is the “Clean Our Rez Program” where employees work 240 hours
cleaning up the reservation; the second is the cemetery maintenance program, which offers 240
hours of cemetery maintenance and funeral preparations. The third option is Elder’s trash
pickup. In addition to employment, the workforce development staff can also provide
employment services such as interview practice, resume development, computer skill support,
and assistance in acquiring certifications. This program is open to Puyallup Tribal members 18
years of age and older and can be extended for another term if performance is satisfactory. This
program provides Tribal members with job skills essential for future employment either within
the Tribe or at outside employment.
A similar program at PGST could help Tribal members receive on-the-job training in
departments of PGST’s choosing, potentially providing opportunities for “in-house” training of
energy-related positions. This could also be an opportunity for program participants to access
workforce development resources provided in this plan and training developed by Spark
Northwest.
1
Tulalip TERO Vocational Training Center https://tvtc.tulaliptero.com/
Puyallup WFD https://www.puyalluptribe-nsn.gov/employment-training-programs-services/workforcedevelopment-program-wfd/
2
Energy Workforce Development Framework
66
PNNL-37677
6.6 Recommendations
Table 20 shows recommendations for PGST to expand and implement its Energy Workforce
Development Framework. All these recommendations could be implemented near term.
Table 20. Workforce Development Recommendations
Focus Area
Ongoing
community
engagement
Recommendation
Promote awareness, education,
and participation to facilitate
understanding of renewable
energy benefits within the
community, encouraging local
support and participation.
Considerations
Host workshops to promote energy
knowledge through community-centric
education, using hands-on learning tools and
nurturing energy champions.
Interdepartmental involvement:
•
Secure funding (Grants Dept.)
•
Curriculum development (Education
Dept.)
•
Training center/use Northwest Indian
College (NWIC) satellite site at PGST
(Education Dept.)
•
Training, connection to resources
outside of Tribe (Human Resources)
Job placement (Human Resources).
Skills development
Continue to provide and participate •
in comprehensive training
•
programs that cover the latest
technologies and practices in
renewable energy, including solar, •
wind, and bioenergy.
Facilitate Energy 101 workshops
Conduct renewable energy
demonstrations at community events
Disseminate energy information (i.e.,
rebates and grants to community
members)
•
Facilitate solar PV fundamentals course
for the community
•
Mentor energy champions to allow
replication and continued knowledge
growth regarding renewables
Information tracking (out
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.