Implement This! DOEB Gathers Data

Yesterday I reintroduced the Operational Energy Strategy (OES) and gave a peek into the targets established in that document.  Now, let’s break down the requirements of the Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan (OESIP) along its timelines. Each of the targets is supported by specific requirements. Although designed for long term impact, the plan has specific requirements in each of the remaining quarters of 2012.  I have added my anticipated (hoped for) outcome of each of the requirements.  The OESIP direct the production of  A LOT of reports.  It does not say how those reports will be used. 

In 2^ndQFY12 the ASDOEPP will join forces with the designee of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director for Logistics, Lt. Gen. Brooks Bash to form the Defense Operational Energy Board (DOEB).  The DOEB will be responsible for promoting operational energy security, overseeing the implementation of the Strategy, and measuring Departmental success.  The charter for this board will be presented to, and approved by the board this quarter….or in the next 13 working day. 

         Anticipated outcome: A mission statement detailing responsibilities, authorities and how the DOEB will be held accountable.

Target 1: Measure Operational Energy Consumption

        The OESIP requires that “the Military Departments and Defense agencies will report to the Defense Operational Energy Board (2nd Quarter FY 2012) an operational energy baseline, using all available data on actual energy consumption in support of military operations in FY 2011 and projected consumption in FY 2012 – FY 2017”.  This will be a very busy 13 days!

         Anticipated outcome: Finally, after 10 years of war, the DOD will have a clear understanding for how operational energy is consumed by system and mission type.  Right?

  

In 3^rdQFY12 the pace picks up with the following deliverables. Here they are by target.

Target 2: Improve Energy Performance and Efficiency in Operations and Training

Services and Agencies will provide reports concerning actions taken to improve operational energy baselines reported in 2^ndQFY12.  Additionally, Combatant Commanders (CoComs) will report to DOEB on plans to improve performance and efficiency within their areas of responsibility. This presupposes that the CoComs have that data available. 

Anticipated outcome: A compendium of lessons learned from all the CoComs regarding success in improving performance and increasing efficiencies for energy consuming systems.  The challenge will be in transformation the anecdotal information into prescriptive wisdom.  Otherwise it will be just pile of reports gathering dust.  

Target 3: Promote Operational Energy Innovation.

Services and Agencies will report to the DOEB on energy-related risks to fixed installations. 

Anticipated outcome: A risk assessment that may then be prioritized for resource allocation to address the most critical, mission related energy insecurities.

Target 6: Incorporate Energy Security Considerations into Requirements and Acquisition.

Incorporate Operational Energy into Modeling and Simulation:  Services and Agencies will report to the DOEB on how they are using or modifying analytic techniques and modeling and simulation (M&S) tools to account for operational energy considerations in force planning, capability gap analyses, and requirements development and acquisition program-related analyses.

Anticipated outcome:  I assume that this is an accountability measure to determine how (and if) the Services are executing their mandated instructions regarding prioritization of energy in acquisition decisions.  And if they are not……?

Include Operational Energy in the Requirements Process.  Once the Joint Staff issues policy for how to do this, then, through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) will oversee implementation of the effort to meet the congressional intent of an energy performance attribute in the requirements development process in individual programs. The Joint Staff, USSOCOM, and the Military Departments will report overall progress in implementing an energy performance attribute to the Defense Operational Energy Board.

Anticipated outcome: This one is a twofer.  The JS has to issue policy on how to include OE in the Requirements process and then reports can be produced on progress toward implementation.  Or maybe the reports will be more generalized…hard to report on policy implementation prior to policy creation. 

Apply Operational Energy Analyses to Defense Acquisitions. In accordance with yet to be published policy from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), the Services will develop and apply Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE) analyses throughout the acquisition process. The Military Departments will report overall progress on implementing FBCE to the DOEB.

Anticipated outcome:   Another twofer.  Unless the policy is already on the street (please send copy if so), it will be nearly impossible to produce a report on progress in implementation. 

Finally, in 4^thQFY12 the OESIP policies up the battlefield and follows up on second quarter requirements. 

Target 2: Improve Energy Performance and Efficiency in Operations and Training

Establish Departmental Operational Energy Performance Metrics. The DOEB will develop Departmental operational energy performance metrics to promote the energy efficiency of military operations by the end of FY 2012. The Board may establish a working group to develop these metrics, in consultation with the DoD Components and based on the consumption baselines provided by the Military Departments and Defense agencies (in 2^ndQFY12).

Anticipated outcome: Operational Energy Metrics!!!  Finally. 

Target 3: Promote Operational Energy Innovation.

Assess Departmental Energy Science and Technology Gaps and Recommend Options. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) will identify investment gaps in the Department’s science and technology (S&T) portfolio necessary to reduce demand, improve system efficiency, and expand supply alternatives, as articulated in the Operational Energy Strategy. ASD(R&E) will provide the final report to the DOEB and include recommendations on possible options for filling the gaps.

Anticipated outcome: A prioritized list of identified S&T gaps that can be provided to Al Shaffer and the gang at ASD (R&E) to set goals for DOD labs in energy work.  I wonder how that will synch up with the $18M doled out earlier this year for OE research to over 8 DOD/DOE Labs?  

Target 5: Promote the Development of Alternative Fuels.

Establish a Departmental Alternative Fuels Investment Portfolio. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (DASD(MIBP)) will present to the DOEB a briefing on joint investments in alternative fuels using Defense Production Act (DPA) authorities.

Anticipated Outcome: DOD will finally have a grip on all the various alt fuel programs….but only those sponsored under DPA.  Are there others???

Target 7: Adapt Policy, Doctrine, Professional Military Education, and Combatant Command Activities.

Adapt and Adopt Policy, Doctrine, and Professional Military Education (PME) for Operational Energy. The Joint Staff and Services will report to the DOEB on how policy, doctrine, and PME will support reduced energy demand, expanded energy supply, and future force development.

Anticipated Outcome: A clear identifications of the shortcomings in policy, doctrine and PME that can produce a prioritized list of specific actions necessary to correct those shortcomings.  This plan would be handed back to the JS and Services for immediate inclusion in their own plans to address shortcomings in everything else they do. 

 Incorporate Operational Energy into Combatant Command Activities. As appropriate and consistent with annual classified guidance to the CoComs, the Joint Staff and CoComs will report to the DOEB on command measures to incorporate Operational Energy Strategy goals into theater campaign plans, security cooperation initiatives, joint and combined exercises, and other activities designed to achieve theater and country objectives.

Anticipated Outcome: Sometimes the mere act of observation affects what is being observed.  If you have to write the report, you have to know what you are doing.  If there is nothing to report, you report that and what you are doing to fix it.  This effort should provide the internal planning guidance used by the CoCom or it should create it.  Either is a good outcome.

Conclusion.

This 28 page implementation plan for the 13 page strategy will disappoint many.  For those who are for bold action, it is too late.  Bold action was necessary in 2001 when the Defense Science Board published its first findings on DOD energy.  Bold action could have been taken in 2007 when the Power Surety Task Force sent teams into FOBs and recommended game changing strategies, some of which are bearing fruit today.  With Operation Iraqi Freedom in the rear view mirror and the rapidly growing popularity of an accelerated draw down in Afghanistan, bold action is not in the card.  What the OESIP does is set the conditions for success in the future.  The reports the DOEB has directed will create the base of knowledge necessary to develop the prescriptive wisdom that will shape operational energy in future engagements.   Even as the Rapid Equipping Force, PM-MEP, and ARCIC continue to push the development envelop for OE, the ASD, OEPP is working on the military we want, not the military we have.  Dan Nolan