Monday, January 2, 2012

DOD Energy in 2012 - Hope as a Method

This is a tale in two tellings.  Today we will look at where DOD ended the year and tomorrow we will look at the way ahead.

As the crystal ball descends in Times Square, it is time to gaze into our own crystal ball and look to the future of DoD Energy.   In Andy’s last post he covered the highlights of 2011, a year of preparation.  Lots of plans written, organizations organized, staff hired and ducks arranged linearly. Last year I observed that DOD would have to do the following:
  “Based upon previous analysis, DOD needs to reduce its installation energy use by about 6,300 billion BTUs (BBTUs) every year to make the 2013 goal. It will have to add about 1.5% of its total energy use every year in order to reach the 2015 goal. “
We will have to wait until about August of 2012 to find out if they made it. The updated DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, FY 2011, released in December 2011 provides a good picture of what happened in 2010 and what needs (needed) to happen in 2011.   The original plan was published August 2010 and, by law, was to have been updated within 180 days.  Specifically, SEC. 842, of the 2011 NDAA required that
“not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the status of the achievement by the Department of Defense of the objectives and goals on the procurement of sustainable products and services established by section 2(h) of Executive Order No. 13514”.
 The 2011 NDAA was signed in December 2010 so 180 days was in June 2011, but since the document has neither signature nor date,  it is difficult to know if it was submitted on time, but the fact that “FINAL_OCT11” is in the document title, I kind of doubt it.  The report echoed the info in the DOD AEMR FY2010 report. 

If you wade through the 115 pages you will find a trove of statics, achievements and accolades to include these:
  • The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) established the Navy Shore Energy Building Standard, which establishes energy and sustainability standards for new construction and major renovation building projects as well as existing buildings and routine maintenance.
  •  The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) issued a bases to battlefield energy and water strategy in February 2011, The Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan.
  •  The Army has issued three sustainability policy memos since July 2010, on the Utilization of Efficient Lighting, Managing Stormwater with Low Impact Development, and Sustainable Design and Development. In October 2010, the Army also issued updated implementation guidance for reauditing and re-declaration of its Environmental Management Systems. The Army issued an updated Army Green Procurement Guide and supporting educational briefings and tools in December 2010.
  • Air Force Instruction 32-1021, Planning and Programming Military Construction (MILCON) Projects was substantially revised in June 2010, including a requirement for all eligible MILCON projects to achieve a minimum of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver certification and incorporate the November 2010 Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) on Low Impact Development, into project designs.
  • DLA issued an update in May 2011 to its Sustainable Design and Development Policy in the form of a policy memorandum titled Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Policy. The document lays out requirements for sustainable design and development in all DLA MILCON projects and Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization projects, plus all minor construction projects that exceed 25% of the current replacement value.
  • The Department of the Navy (DON), DLA and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issued policies in FY 2010 to reduce the use of printing paper.

Six highlights, all paper.  Except for the last one; I am sure that was issued electronically.  I think the fact that the Marines actually put an energy good idea into the acquisition system was the winner of the year. 

The comprehensive sustainability plan has four objectives and eight supporting goals.   Goals #1, 3 and 4 pertain to energy. 

The three key sub goals under goal #1 provide the best metrics for determine if DOD is serious about this, or just phoning it in.

o     Goal #1: The Use of Fossil Fuels Reduced
             1.1 - Energy Intensity of Facilities Reduced  by 30% from FY 2003 by FY 2015 and 37.5% by FY 2020.  (2011 Goal = 18%; 2012 Goal = 21%; 2010 Attainment = 11.4%)
             1.2 - By FY 2020, Produce or Procure Energy from Renewable Sources in an Amount that Represents at Least 20% of Electricity Consumed by Facilities (2011 Goal = 11%; 2012 Goal = 12% 2010 Attainment = 9.6%)
             1.3 - Use of Petroleum Products by Vehicle Fleets Reduced 30% from FY 2005 by FY 2020 (2011 Goal = 12%; 2012 Goal = 14% 2010 Attainment = 5.3%)
o   Goal #3: GHG Emissions from Scope 1 and 2 Sources Reduced 34% by FY 2020, Relative to FY 2008 (No sub goals)
o     Goal #4: GHG Emissions from Scope 3 Sources Reduced 13.5% by FY 2020, Relative to FY 2008
             4.1 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Employee Air Travel Reduced 7% from FY 2011 by FY 2020 (2011 Goal = 0%; 2012 Goal = 0% 2010 Attainment = n/a)
             4.2 - 30% of Eligible Employees Teleworking at Least Once a Week, on a Regular, Recurring Basis, by FY 2020 (2011 Goal = 10%; 2012 Goal = 15%; 2010 Attainment = n/a)

Assuming that the mandates are what DOD is actually attempting to meet, the 2012 bottom line for energy is a reduction in intensity and an increase renewable energy use (or procurement).  The numbers are very straightforward.  DOD must have reduced intensity by 6.4%  in 2011 and then drop an additional 3% in 2012 to get on target.  In order for DOD to meet the mandates to have produced or procured energy from renewable sources, they  must have increased production (or procurement) by 1.4% in 2011 and then pick up an additional 1% in 2012. 

Given that 2011 was the year of paper and that the Iraq drawdown increased populations at bases, I am not sanguine that those numbers are on track, making the goals for 2012 even more difficult to achieve.  So, what will happen in 2012?  More to follow tomorrow.  Dan Nolan

1 comment:

Brian Smith said...

Those responsible for building the reports could potentially use them as a means for assigning responsibility. Under this scenario, report writers could request monthly or quarterly progress reports from facilities managers or regional facility managers. They could use the progress reports to gauge progress / reward positive results / punish negative ones.

Yet with 6 months to complete the report--and DOD using the full 6 months--it appears the report is merely an afterthought...paper to be pushed because Congress said so.

I could be wrong...or as you say...I hope I'm wrong.