# Port Gamble S’Klallam > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aport_gamble_sklallam%3Ae4a7d30831f8ea06 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aport_gamble_sklallam%3Ae4a7d30831f8ea06. Public record. Not legal advice.