The DOD Energy Blog

Pinning the Rose, Part II

2012-01-30T13:49:00.000-05:00

Second part of Annie Snider's excellent piece on Energy Security is here. Annie continues the discussion of energy security haves and have nots. Lots more have nots than haves, but, once again, the Devil Dogs of the USMC have it about right. If the utility controls a renewable source inside the gates, guns and guards, it is NOT energy security. If the commander owns the switch, it is energy security. Class dismissed.

I will have a report out soonest on the Army's Net Zero Installation Conference and the Navy/USMC (or so it seemed) Operational Energy symposium.

I also had an opportunity to sit in on a vendor meeting with the Army's Energy Initiative Task Force. TF members were well informed, insightful and helpful. If you (industry) intend to engage with the Army on large, renewable energy projects, get signed up now. Contact them here to set up a one hour session. They will brief you on the program, listen to your pitch and provide guidance on next steps. Worth the effort. I sure hope someone is doing this for energy efficiency projects!!! Dan Nolan

A Rose by Any Other Name: The Struggle to Define and Value Energy Security

2012-01-19T07:39:00.002-05:00

Excellent discussion of energy security and DOD’s struggleto define it in a Greenwirearticle by Annie Snider. Ms Sniderspoke with everyone who is anybody in the Defense energy market (and somenobodies) in a two part piece. From thehalf dozen definitions for energy security proffered in frustration by Richard Kidd,DASA, Energy and Sustainability (previous post) tothe discussion of the complexity in determining mission criticality oninstallations provided by Coby Jones, one of the best energy program coordinators in the Army, thearticle highlights the challenges inherent in such a seemingly simplefunctional area, energy.

For Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense forInstallations and Environment, it is all about the triple bottom-line: energyefficiency, expand renewable energy and improve power security. For thinktankers like the Heritage Foundation’sJack Spencer it is about operational capacity, while for ASD, Homeland DefensePaul Stockton it about resilience in the face of attacks on the national grid. For industry, the result is confusion aboutwhat is driving the market: is it energy security or the various mandates?

The one bright star in this gloomy picture is the work onsmart grids. Without a smarter grid,there can be no real energy security. Efforts from SPIDERSto microgrid work at CampSabalu-Harrison (thanks to my FB friend, S. Burke for this one) reflect theuniformed and civilian sides of the Services coming together in common cause. The smart, microgrid effort is not beingdriven by mandates, but by the recognition that “assured access” to energycomes from understanding distribution priorities can change in seconds and commandersmust be able to react to those changes.

Regardless of the definition of energy security, until DODcan value it, industry does not know how to react. Smart, microgrids are pure energy securityvalue; they may also serve to make energy use more efficient, but that isreally a bonus effect. If DOD werewilling to pay a 3% premium on power generated inside their gates, guns andguards, that would be market signal. Anything done in the way of energy efficiency can be valued as energysecurity because the safest, cleanest, cheapest and most secure electron is theone you do not use.

The follow on article to this one looks at renewable energyat military bases. Hurry, Annie, we can’twait! Dan Nolan

Power Play for Power Delay: AEITF Stiff Arms Schumer Project

2012-01-13T07:19:00.000-05:00

Senator Schumer at NY Biogas Plant

It takes a fair bit to P.O. Senator Chuck Shumer, but the nascent Army Energy Initiatives Task Forcehas done just that. Three years ago, anonprofit group, Arsenal Business & Technology Partnership, was awarded therights to develop a project supported by an enhanced use lease at Watervliet Arsenal in upstate NewYork. Part of the plan is to build a non-intermittent,24 hour a day biomass-fed power plant that would also generate steam for theArmy's artillery manufacturing center. In as much as the Artillery hasn't had a new system since the Crusadercratered, this seems like a good thing. Problem is, the AEITF is saying, “notso fast”.

Seems the cooler heads at the newly formed organizationwould like to study the proposal for a couple of years. Shumer is concerned that this delay would hurt prospects of bringing in other organizations that support the nonprofit’s development concept. The Senator thinks the loss would amount to billions of dollars. So hecalled up the SecArmy to inquire about perhaps getting this unscrewed. SecArmy, and former Congressman from theregion, John McHugh has not responded according to the article. Schumer has been a champion for renewable inN.Y. This past November he interceded ina 1.4megawatt biogas project, ensuring that it was grid connected in time toqualify for renewable energy credits. He gets it and he gets it done.

As part of their fund raising effort, the biomass partnershipat Watervliet competed for state funds for the cogeneration plant through N.Y. Gov.Andrew Cuomo's local economic development council. $800 million in funding was available, but incompeting against nine other councils around the state they did not win. The proposal for the funding listed the pricetag for the co-gen plan as $23 million.

As I mentioned in an earlierpost, the Army is getting its ducks in line to produce an IDIQ for PPAsthat would support EULs like this. It isexpected that the IDIQ RFP will be released ASAP, but will not be awarded untilFY13. And now we have SNAFU. I asked the AEITF for a comment and am stillwaiting; will keep you posted. I am alsoout of acronyms.

One technique of leadership is to find out which way thecrowd is going and get in front of it. This would appear to be a perfect opportunity to for the AEITF to showleadership. By grasping the project totheir collective breasts and charging forward there is an opportunity for aquick win and a good friend in New York. Withthe current budget struggles, that might be helpful. Willkeep an eye on this. Dan Nolan

Acronyms:

IDIQ - Indefinitedelivery/indefinite quantity

PPAs – PowerPurchase Agreement

RFP –Request for Proposal

EUL –Enhanced Use Lease

ASAP – As SoonAs Possible

SNAFU – Googleit

Photo Courtesy of DemocratandChronical.com

Local Energy Efficiency Co. Makes Good (with DOD)

2012-01-10T20:35:00.001-05:00

Local to me, that is. Also local to the point of origin of the USA. That's Lexington, Mass-based FirstFuel Software. The company and its product sound solid, though I'm sure Dan's going to ask why they're not called FifthFuel.

We blogged on the OSD's installation energy test bed program a few months ago HERE, and in one of the embedded links, you can find DOD's description of how it intends to explore FirsFuel's capabilities:

This project will demonstrate the Rapid Building Assessment tool for DoD buildings, a software powered information service for accelerative energy efficiency adoption across building portfolios. The tool uses statistical methods and advanced data mining techniques to provide building-specific performance benchmarks and custom recommendations.

We all know that the numbers of DOD buildings and the square feet they contain boggle the imagination and dwarf Walmart. Now here's what appears to be an ultra-low touch method for rapidly assessing energy performance and identifying the lowest hanging fruit improvements in each across the entire fleet.

You can read a little more on this at online tech-zine Xconomy, one of the best technology news sources you've never heard of. Hmmm, and while they're at it, maybe DOD can test your house (and mine)! Andy Bochman

US Commander in Afghanistan Says it Short and Sweet re: Operational Energy

2012-01-05T08:49:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to Ollie for this. In a recent one-page memo on energy to all servicemen and servicewomen in theater, General Allen, USFOR-A, not the first and likely not the last Marine general to completely "get" energy, summed it up this way:

"Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability."

Hard to miss his meaning. Supporting points included:

"A military force that reduces its fuel consumption becomes more agile and insulates itself from logistics disruptions."
"I expect commanders to improve fuel accountability ...."
"[Operation energy] is about increasing our forces' endurance, becoming more lethal, and reducing the number of men and women risking their lives moving fuel."

You can read the memo HERE.

Image credit (and Gen Allen bio): Wikipedia

As in Birth Control.......Energy Predictions for 2012

2012-01-02T21:16:00.001-05:00

This is the follow up to yesterday's post.....read on.

In 2012, The Army will press forward with its USACE IDIQ plan supported by the Energy Initiative Task Force. The RFP is expected in early 2012 with an award in 2013. In the interim the TF still will have to support other energy efforts, so 2012 will be the year of the wildcat energy project. Although the EITF has not embraced the 5th fuel in its mandate, conservation continues to be the cheapest, safest, cleanest and most secure way to energy security. Entrepreneurs and installations that understand UESCs and ESPCs will have a chance to steal a march ahead of the big IDIQ which will corral all future Army energy production efforts. My sincere hope is that it will accelerate the process, but I have seen bureaucracies in action, or inaction.

The Air Force and the Navy will press ahead with alternative fuels with the USAF going after Jet – A as substitute for JP8 in CONUS. Has DLA-E lost the single fuel on the battlefield fight? When I checked with my liquid fuels experts, I got this response:

“There was a study done by an AF grad student that shows that Jet A will cost more. Why? JP-8 is more expense than commercial jet because it's made in small batches. With only some aircraft converting to Jet A the batches of JP-8 get smaller so the price of JP-8 goes up. Not all aircraft can fly on Jet A. None of the studies justifying Jet A looked at the secondary effects. The AFIT study was squashed by the AFPET/CC. The AFIT Professor/student advisor and the AFPET/CC almost came to blows over this.”

Second and third order effects in the energy world rarely get the visibility they should.

The USN will continue to look for new and sustainable substitutes for the various JPs they use. Installation efforts by both will continue to be decentralized and no mandates will be issued to the base level. I will be watching NAVFAC Southwest where a number of innovative base energy efforts have been undertaken.
Operational Energy continues to chug along with most people talking while the USMC attacks. Not only did they get GREENS into the acquisition pipeline, they are using Smart Power to influence their local environment. Check out this USMC effort in the Helmand Province. The USD, OEPP was supposed to galvanize the operational energy effort, but it appears they are still building consensus with the Services. The office published its strategy in June 11 with the promise of an implementation plan 90 days later. In November I asked when the implementation plan would be published. I was passed off to the OSD PAO who informed me that:

"The Implementation Plan was released internally to the Defense Department in mid-September and we have already begun action on the initiatives outlined in the Plan. However, as with many other high-level documents of this nature, additional time was needed for full internal coordination with all relevant stakeholders in the Department before the document could be released publicly. Congressional and public release will occur upon completion of internal coordination."

We are still waiting. They have staffed their office in Afghanistan with some well-seasoned energy hands so I look for some progress out forward.

The Army handed off operational energy to the Rapid Equipping Force (again), but has since placed staff responsibility firmly with the Army G4. The folks in the G4 Logistics Innovation Agency seem to be leading the charge there.

Generally, we will see the importance of operational energy diminish over the coming year as the Services focus on redeployment and a shrinking budget. As the Department draws down from 10 years of continuous combat and watches budgets shrink and sequester, their plans to use OPM (other people’s money) to reduce demand and increase renewables will pay dividends. It will be one place where they can point to doing something positive for the troops while saving money and, in some cases, turning a profit. The various organizations focused solely on energy will face pressures to reduce their size even as they are moving from the planning phase into execution. The ones that can point to a positive balance sheet will retain their jobs. This will be a lucrative market, but an unforgiving one. The Authorities are clear, the Responsibilities less so and Accountability is none existent. It will be left up to individuals to do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing. People change for one of two reasons: overwhelming threat or overwhelming opportunity. Otherwise they just do the status quo. Without reward or penalty, energy security is based upon hope today. I hope I am wrong. Dan Nolan

DOD Energy in 2012 - Hope as a Method

2012-01-02T21:08:00.000-05:00

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 togaze into our own crystal ball and look to the future of DoD Energy. In Andy’s last post he covered thehighlights of 2011, a year of preparation. Lots of plans written, organizations organized, staff hired and ducksarranged linearly. Last year I observed that DOD would have to do thefollowing:

“Based upon previousanalysis, DOD needs to reduce its installation energy use by about 6,300billion BTUs (BBTUs) every year to make the 2013 goal. It will have to addabout 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 outif they made it. The updated DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan,FY 2011, released in December 2011 provides a good picture of what happened in2010 and what needs (needed) to happen in 2011. The original plan was published August 2010and, by law, was to have been updated within 180 days. Specifically, SEC. 842, of the 2011 NDAArequired that

“not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defensecommittees a report on the status of the achievement by the Department ofDefense of the objectives and goals on the procurement of sustainable productsand services established by section 2(h) of Executive Order No. 13514”.

The 2011 NDAA was signed in December 2010 so 180 days was inJune 2011, but since the document has neither signature nor date, it isdifficult 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 ofstatics, achievements and accolades to include these:

The NavalFacilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) established the Navy Shore EnergyBuilding Standard, which establishes energy and sustainability standards fornew construction and major renovation building projects as well as existingbuildings and routine maintenance.
The U.S.Marine Corps (USMC) issued a bases to battlefield energy and water strategy inFebruary 2011, The Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and ImplementationPlan.
The Armyhas issued three sustainability policy memos since July 2010, on theUtilization of Efficient Lighting, Managing Stormwater with Low ImpactDevelopment, and Sustainable Design and Development. In October 2010, the Armyalso issued updated implementation guidance for reauditing and re-declarationof its Environmental Management Systems. The Army issued an updated Army GreenProcurement Guide and supporting educational briefings and tools in December2010.
AirForce Instruction 32-1021, Planning and Programming Military Construction(MILCON) Projects was substantially revised in June 2010, including arequirement for all eligible MILCON projects to achieve a minimum of Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver certification and incorporatethe November 2010 Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) on Low Impact Development,into project designs.
DLAissued an update in May 2011 to its Sustainable Design and Development Policyin the form of a policy memorandum titled Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Policy. The document lays out requirementsfor sustainable design and development in all DLA MILCON projects andSustainment, Restoration and Modernization projects, plus all minor constructionprojects that exceed 25% of the current replacement value.
TheDepartment of the Navy (DON), DLA and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issuedpolicies 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 actuallyput an energy good idea into the acquisition system was the winner of theyear.

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

The three key sub goals under goal #1 provide the bestmetrics 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. (2011Goal = 18%; 2012 Goal = 21%; 2010 Attainment = 11.4%)

 1.2 - ByFY 2020, Produce or Procure Energy from Renewable Sources in an Amount thatRepresents at Least 20% of Electricity Consumed by Facilities (2011 Goal = 11%;2012 Goal = 12% 2010 Attainment = 9.6%)

 1.3 - Useof 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 FY2008 (No sub goals)

o Goal #4:GHG Emissions from Scope 3 Sources Reduced 13.5% by FY 2020, Relative to FY2008

 4.1 -Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Employee Air Travel Reduced 7% from FY 2011 by FY2020 (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, RecurringBasis, by FY 2020 (2011 Goal = 10%; 2012 Goal = 15%; 2010 Attainment = n/a)

Assuming that the mandates are what DOD is actuallyattempting 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 havereduced 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 haveproduced or procured energy from renewable sources, they must have increased production (orprocurement) 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 Iraqdrawdown increased populations at bases, I am not sanguine that those numbersare on track, making the goals for 2012 even more difficult to achieve. So, what will happen in 2012? More to follow tomorrow. Dan Nolan

2011: DOD Energy Year in Review

2011-12-28T18:04:00.001-05:00

A hearty holiday hello to you, dear reader. Lacking any snow in Boston, I decided to head north for a short vacation in between Christmas and New Years and ended up, quite happily, in a winter-wonderland version of Montreal.

Dan Nolan and I talked a lot as this year unfolded about whether we were seeing signs of progress, or merely activity (like a dozen or so conferences) with little direct benefit to the war fighter or the nation.

You might ask: how would we propose to measure progress ... and would we know it if we saw it?

Well sure. In my mind, we'd be stronger or much stronger on the two vectors of concern identified in the 2008 Defense Science Board Task Force report on Energy:

Fuel Surety - Access to ample operational fuel supplies around the world that can be delivered without interruption to wherever it is needed, and
Installation Energy Security - CONUS and other permanent bases become be markedly less dependent on the electricity from their local grid providers

I haven't provided metrics yet (and won't in this post). But one thing we both agree on is that we make demonstrable gains in both of the above objectives when we reduce the amount of fuel or electricity required to accomplish the many and varied missions of the DOD.

That's energy efficiency, also called "the fifth fuel" as noted in this late-in-the-year post, as well as this one from earlier from Dan that gets quite detailed in talking about the Marines' energy strategy with the introduction of a new metric: GPMD, for gallons per Marine per day.

In 2011, the Army, Navy and Air Force all iterated their energy strategy and planning documents and as you know, there's plenty for us to report. But as you may have guessed by now, Dan's other middle name is Accountability. At the beginning of 2011, he reminded everyone of DOD's stated goals on a number of energy initiatives including:

Beginning in 2010 the Navy and Marine Corps will change the way contracts are awarded with Industry being held contractually accountable for meeting energy efficiency targets
By 2013 DOD will procure 7.5% of its electricity from renewables; 25% by 2025
By 2015, DOD will reduce energy demand by 30%
By 2015 the Navy will cut in half the amount of petroleum used in their commercial vehicle fleet through phased adoption of hybrid, electric, and flex fuel vehicles
By 2016 the Navy will sail the Great Green Fleet, a carrier strike group composed of nuclear ships, hybrid electric ships running biofuel, and aircraft flying on biofuel
By 2016, the Air Force wants to be buying 400 million gallons of fuel alternatives that are cost competitive with petroleum based fuel and no more carbon intensive in production
than available conventional fuels
By 2020, the Navy will meet 50% of their total requirements with renewables and have 50% of their installations at Net Zero
By 2025, the Air Force must bring 1,000 MW of renewable capacity online to meet its goals.

And in so doing, he reminded me that it's hard (more like impossible) to find anyone monitoring progress on these goals. If they're purely aspirational and not intended to drive DOD's behavior and performance, then they/we should say so. If they are hard targets that must-be-met-else-heads-will-roll, that's something quite different. We hope it's the latter, but suspect it's the former.

You should read THIS ... Dan got somewhat detailed in describing a few of the obstacles blocking attainment of these objectives, and as of late December 2011, can anyone say we are on pace, or a little ahead, or a bit behind schedule on any/all of these?

At the blog, all we really want for Christmas is for DOD Energy to be treated like the true enterprise-caliber project senior leadership says it is. We expect metrics for measurement, regular updates on how we're faring, and ready carrots and sticks to incent the right behaviors and punish the wrong ones.

OK, that's enough or now. Have to brush off my translation book (app), not to mention my car. Until next time, Bonne année et bonne santé to you and yours. And remember the troops who are in harms way. Andy Bochman

Photo credit: DVIDS at Flickr.com

Phase One SPIDERS Report

2011-12-20T08:13:00.000-05:00

Here is the latest scoop on SPIDERS from the field:.

The Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for EnergyReliability and Security (SPIDERS) energy security micro-grid government andindustry partners conducted their Start of Work meeting for Phase One at JointBase Pearl Harbor Hickam (JBPHH) in Oahu 13-14 DEC 11. After a challenging acquisition process andwith widely expressed industry concerns, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)technical managers and acquisition professionals were able to select Burns andMcDonnell out of several qualified respondents. In micro-grid work, the USACEappears to be accepting some technical risk as they appliqué micro-gridcomponents and novel architecture at this scale in their push for an Enterprisesolutions DoD may adopt in the future. Burns and McDonnell and their partnersplan to push beyond their previous market experience in addressing technicaland business case metrics. Expected outcomes include integrating existingrenewable energy demonstration projects, legacy electrical infrastructure (NavyFacilities Command) and challenging Joint Capability Technology Demonstration(JCTD) deliverables aimed at leaving behind real property improvements andproviding lasting energy security for part of JBPHH. Final design review isexpected within 90 days and construction completed by summer 2012. JCTDdeliverables and evaluation reports are forecast by the end of 2012.

Since I was not present for the industry day, I have only singlesource reporting on this. Anyone elsecare to chime in? Another scout reported the pending release of Phase II at Fort Carson. More at this link. All the best, Dan Nolan

Conference Reminder: Start 2012 Operationally

2011-12-15T14:48:00.004-05:00

I will be publishing my prognostications for DOD Energy in 2012 following Andy's year end wrap up soon. 2011 seemed to be the year of on your mark….Get set……Get set.... I hope that 2012 is the year of GO!

With all the other holiday related events going on, I wanted to remind you about the kickoff of the 2012 DoD Energy Conference season on 23-25 January with the 9th Tactical Power Sources Summit at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center in Alexandria, VA. Goals of the conference are to understand acquisition requirements and technology advancement in mobile and soldier power.

They have an impressive list of speakers from government and academia. For those in Government that think you only have big DOD firms or companies that only started up a week ago to choose from, catch my friend Mike Bergey of Bergey WindPower on 23 Jan at the Alternative Energy Focus Day. Bergey is a small business out of Oklahoma that was founded in the ’70.

They represent solid, reliable technology from the backbone of America: small business. Not sure what time on the 23rd, but it should be up on the website soon. That whole day focuses on seminars on latest technology for operational energy. I will be there….hope to see you too. Dan Nolan

DEB on Blogging and More

2011-12-15T09:01:00.000-05:00

Saw Daniel Yergin yesterday and will be posting on that excellent experience soon, but before I forget, wanted to put this in front of you.

If you're one of the several thousand regular readers of the DEB (and maybe other blogs too), then you probably have a good feel for what separates a blog from a standard online news article or newspaper for that matter.

I recently came across well known tech blogger Dan Frommer's list of ingredients that make for a good blog. My favorite is #2: "Write the site that you want to read," but I think all ten points are on the mark.

If you've ever thought of writing one yourself, you'll find some simple guiding principles that'll help you have success ... and have a pleasurable experience while you're at it.

Since the holidays are approaching and you should be thinking about slowing down for a few days and enjoying some simple pleasures, here's a nice piece on the history of the Old Fashioned cocktail that includes this line:

The old-fashioned is at once "the manliest cocktail order" and "something your grandmother drank," and between those poles we discover countless simple delights, evolutionary wonders, and captivating abominations.

Pretty good, huh? Dan and may be sipping one or two of these as we prepare our DEB year in review (Andy) and 2012 preview (Dan) posts over the next few weeks. Please feel free to join us with observations and predictions of your own, and don't hold back if the urge for a classic cocktail comes over you.

Photo credit: The BittenWord.com on Flickr.com

Yergin Speaks Out Again on Favorable US Energy Security Trends

2011-12-13T16:36:00.001-05:00

Back in September we wrote a post or two on the latest thinking on US and global energy futures from energy market guru Daniel Yergin. In today's Wall Street Journal he had a bit more say re: Energy Security that I think you'll find both helpful and promising. First, the ...

Bad News

Yergin: It is true that the U.S. is still importing a larger share of its oil than it was in 1973, at the time of the first oil crisis. Even with increased domestic production and higher imports from Canada, it will still be part of the global oil market and vulnerable to disruptions and price spikes.

Again, to reinforce: the US is both a seller and a buyer of oil and gas in the global markets, and no matter what we do, that condition will remain the same. We don't set the prices, and we don't get to keep or use all that we make. We buy from many sources, ranging from very friendly to somewhat hostile, and yet there's some significant security in that diversity.

Now for what's gotten better lately and promises to improve even further in the years ahead thanks to some new ways to get at oil and gas.

Good News

Yergin: ... the shift in oil sources means the global supply system will become more resilient, our energy supplies will become more secure, and the nation will have more flexibility in dealing with crises. It ... also means that economic benefits—in terms of jobs, manufacturing and services—will register on the ground in North America.

Click HERE for the full article, and one more thing: I'll be attending a DY lecture tomorrow afternoon at MIT. If you have a question you'd like me to ask him, please fire away fast.

Image credit: Mitra Encyclopedia

Clock Strikes 13..... Fully Burdened BS

2011-12-09T10:07:00.006-05:00

Former Under Secretary of the Navy and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey once commented on a pronouncement by a retired Admiral regarding DOD energy efforts being a fad. He equated Admiral's specious argument as “like the 13th chime of a clock – it is not only bizarre in and of itself, it calls into question everything that issues from the same source”. Nathan Hodge of the Wall Street Journal just announced that it is 13:00 o’clock.

Several people rushed to get this article in front of me and I have been slow to respond. I have grown weary of explaining from where the number $400 per gallon came. Mr. Hodge raised this boogey man in a piece about air dropping fuel in Afghanistan. An otherwise good article is marred by this inaccuracy.

Why do I get so exercised about this recurring absurdity? Because I work with many small companies and I am often approached with ideas to alleviate this supposed financial burden. “Since the average price for a gallon of fuel in Afghanistan is $400, then my plan to create fuel onsite using hope and butterfly kisses for only $350 a gallon is a steal!”. I then have to destroy their dream by telling them the truth. Part of the burden in the Fully Burden Cost of Fuel is this myth.

To reiterate, the Defense Acquisition Guidance defines FBCF as : “the cost of the fuel itself (typically the Defense Logistics Agency - Energy (DLA-E) standard price) plus the apportioned cost of all of the fuel delivery logistics and related force protection required beyond the DESC point of sale to ensure refueling of this system. “

The purpose of the FBCF is to evaluate new systems and platforms during the Analysis of Alternatives portion of the requirements process known as the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. Materiel solutions will be considered more competitive that require less support infrastructure; that have a lower power requirement and that are more energy efficient. This will allow DoD to understand the implications of energy use in a given scenario. The FBCF is completely scenario driven based upon point to point movement of a specific variety (road march, attack, retrograde, etc). There can be no generic FBCF. So how did we get $400 a gallon?

In the Report of the Defense Science Board, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden, published in May 2001, the Board envisioned various scenarios in which what they called the “true cost of fuel” was computed. One of the scenarios postulated in the DSB report was fuel delivery to a ground mobile force 600 kilometers beyond the Forward Edge of the Battle Area, back when we had front lines; I miss the good old days. In this scenario the fuel would be delivered by CH-47 helicopters flying in three legs to Forward Area Rearm, Refuel Points (FARRP) and requiring a full fuel load for each helo at each FARRP. For a 1,500 gallon payload in each A/C and three stops there and three stops back, the fully burdened cost per gallon was $400. An exceptionally rare circumstance back then, maybe a bit more likely now. Still it was an extreme scenario.

People change behavior for one of two reasons: overwhelming opportunity or overwhelming threat. If those conditions do not obtain, the status quo will remain. Too often we have seen scare tactics used to try to change behavior. The $400 gallon is the equivalent of crying wolf. There are much better reasons to change: increased security, less actual cost and less impact on the environment. If we want to use economics, let’s build the business case, not the $1000 toilet seat case. The fully burdened cost in dollars is interesting in the acquisition program. The fully burdened cost in blood is the real story. Dan Nolan

Reaching Economic Parity in Some Regions, Solar is on the March

2011-12-08T12:20:00.001-05:00

Dependable tech prognosticator Ray Kurzweil has been calling it. But I realize that even hinting that solar is starting to make financial sense vs. fossils is bound to set off a chorus along the lines of "you granola chomping, Birkenstock donning, eco-utopian, bio-dome occupying dreamer."

Such is life. Of course, economists and everyone else in the energy biz are keeping their eyes on the current costs and projected trends of every kind of generation source: fossil, renewable, nuclear. And depending on how you do the math, folks of good intent can and will disagree.

A new report says that distributed solar is getting closer in many markets, even surpassing conventional generation in some. It's getting to be less about technology and subsidies, and more about pure lifecycle ROI.

GTM wrote about it yesterday, and here are a few excerpts I found interesting:

... in cost terms, the homeowner’s choice is between a solar system and other options. “Before we hit the majority of the American public, which the DOE puts out only a few more years, we still need to push the economics down a little further
The shift to solar is not going to happen all at once ... two pockets of the country [will] open up to solar first. Solar will most quickly be noticed as competitive where electricity rates are high or where utilities have inordinate monthly charges
Where PV becomes economically viable ... will be when the banks get comfortable with it and it becomes something that you just put on your mortgage, a normal thing that everybody in the neighborhood is doing because they can save a little every month on their utility bill

The report may be optimistic. Its writers may have been wearing sandals when they wrote it. But I think it's becoming less and less of a stretch to call solar a viable alternative in some geographies.

It won't work everywhere, and it won't work for everyone. But I think that in many applications, if it's not a winner today, then it will be tomorrow. Andy Bochman

Photo credit: Clearly Ambiguous on Flickr.com

Getting your Head on Straight re: DOD Energy Strategy and Planning in a Rapidly Changing World

2011-12-05T08:39:00.001-05:00

In the earliest days of this blog one of my best sources for clarity was former International Energy Agency (IEA) senior analyst Sohbet Karbuz. This man knows more about the way global energy markets function, and more about the ways DOD participates in them, than perhaps anyone on the planet.

Well, I've come back to him recently to try and grok the significance of some of the reports you may have seen lately saying the US is about to become a net oil & gas exporter, and that large fossil energy firms are increasingly focusing their efforts on unconventional resources (e.g. fracking for nat gas, shale gasoline extraction) in North America and Australia.

Here's some clarity on the contents of a CNA's recently released report on US Energy Security. First of all, the report's authors seem to have gaps in their understanding of the way the global energy markets function. In particular, they ascribe imaginary powers to individual nations and orgs when they say things like:

We are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies from this very cartel.

and ...

OPEC can increase production and drive down gas prices, erasing market incentives for developing alternative fuels ... the price of gasoline at the pump can too easily be manipulated by suppliers.

This doesn't do much to bolster the credibility of those who wrote and reviewed the report. But the report also mixes misleading or mistaken statements like those above with others that are much more on target. Here's Karbuz's take:

None of those [above quoted] claims make any sense. I was thinking about writing a few paragraphs on how the world oil markets functions and how oil prices are set. But I see that a reasonably good answer to those wrong arguments comes again from the report itself: “oil is a global commodity, priced on the global market. No matter how much more we produce here in the U.S., we can’t control the price of oil.”

He's also got a lot to say on the reports recommendations, particularly on biofuels.

There's much more to process, and by the time you've finished Karbuz's analysis (on his blog, HERE), you'll have a better feel for what's going on, and also better context in which to consider the implications for DOD of the continuously changing energy landscape. Andy Bochman

Negawatts and Heroes: San Diego Enlists Veterans for Energy Fight.

2011-11-28T13:10:00.004-05:00

Energy and climate have made many strange bedfellows. Environmentalists and Marines make common cause because each has a mission vitally impacted by the use of energy. Everyone debates the merits of their favorite renewable or alternative energy production means, but all agree on the importance of the Fifth Fuel. Along with coal, petroleum, and nuclear, renewable/alternative energy make up the four fuels we use most commonly. The fifth fuel is the cleanest, cheapest and most secure of all. It is the electron you do not use through energy conservation.

On Tuesday, 6 December 2011, I will be speaking as part of an all-day series of events coordinated by the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center in San Diego, CA, including an evening panel on the USS Midway. The Reuben H. Fleet Science Center “seeks to inspire lifelong learning by furthering the public understanding and enjoyment of science and technology”. The title of the program is “The Military Goes Green: Cutting Back on Fossil Fuel to Save Lives and Billions of Dollars”. It is co-sponsored by “EARTH: The Operators’ Manual”, an NSF-supported education and outreach project focusing on the twin topics of climate change and renewable energy. Check out the link to the website and if you are in SoCal, come by and participate.

In the process of preparing for this event, I was placed in contact with Laura Parsons of the California Center for Sustainable Energy, “a non-profit organization dedicated to creating change for a clean energy future,” a group I’ll be speaking that morning. One of their programs caught my attention and I wanted to share it with you. It is a pilot program funded by DOE “to test Community-Based Social Marketing strategies for encouraging people to do whole-house energy efficiency upgrades”. CCSE is preparing to enter the implementation phase of the program so they were looking for a target audience that would be aware of the implication of energy use, be disciplined enough to carry through with efficiency behavior and would be good representatives of the program. Guess who they picked? Veterans. The program is called the “San Diego Hero Alliance.”

According to Ms. Parsons, the program begins with a small commitment – asking veterans to pledge to do one energy efficient behavior – to bring them into this community of Energy Heroes. Once they self-identify as someone who cares about energy efficiency, the Alliance helps them to take progressive steps to learn more about their home’s energy performance, and ultimately, get a home energy upgrade. The Alliance will assist with tapping into an existing rebate program, to help overcome the cost barriers.

This is a practical and noble program. Using veterans as the stalking horses for focusing on energy efficiency brings continuity and credibility to the program. Helping veterans save on energy bills is principled and decent. One of the major impacts of efficiency programs is that they focus on air tightness standards for structures. With less air infiltration, cool stays cool and warm stays warm. Better still, pollen, moisture, dust and mold are reduced, creating a more health environment for children and other living things.

I wish them much success in this program. In areas where the cost for energy is high, such as Southern California, this makes sense for the utility and the consumer. This truly could be an Alliance of Heroes. Dan Nolan

Conference Alert – Operational Energy Steals a March

2011-11-22T12:26:00.003-05:00

On 23-25 January, the 2012 DoD Energy Conference season will kick off with the 9^th Tactical Power Sources Summit at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center in Alexandria, VA. Goals of the conference are to understand acquisition requirements and technology advancement in mobile and solider power. They have an impressive list of speakers from government and academia. Didn’t see anyone from the ASD, OEPP on the list, but am sure they will attend. 23 Jan is the Alternative Energy Focus Day with seminars on latest technology for operational energy. Should be worth the effort! See you there. Dan Nolan

Energy Efficiency is New Dream Fuel

2011-11-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

Not to be confused with the Luc Besson 90's sci fi flick, The Fifth Element, the Fifth Fuel is neither film nor fuel. Nor is it fossil or renewable.

Rather, it's an abstract concept: it is the fuel (or other energy source) you didn't need to use because you were kicking butt on energy efficiency (EE), having converted your energy operations from a ravenous beast into a lean, mean, energy sipping machine.

If you've been working in the energy sector for longer than a few milliseconds, you'll recognize the name Daniel Yergin (more about him and his most recent book HERE). Also my colleague Dan mentioned this piece in a comment on his most recent post. Well, Yergin just penned a short piece showcasing the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner as a Fifth Fuel exemplar system.

This excerpt from the Yergin article really gets me:

The decision to go for efficiency in the Dreamliner was resulted from a democratic vote that resembled an Iowa presidential caucus. In the early stages of the design process, Boeing invited representatives of 59 airlines to Seattle to take part in an election. There were just two candidates: A new jet that would go 20 percent faster versus a new jet 20 percent more fuel efficient. All in favor of more speed were to walk to one side of the room; all in favor of 20 percent more fuel efficiency, to the other side. It was a rout -- 59 to zero in favor of efficiency.

You might also want to check out "Financing the Fifth Fuel" wherein you'll find references to Duke Energy's CEO, the Mckinsey consultancy, and the mighty Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) making the clear cut business case for, and outlining the steps towards the wider adoption of, the Fifth Fuel energy efficiency concept.

It concludes thusly:

I would expect that ... models ... for financing the fifth fuel will become more commonplace ... as the imperative for more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency becomes stronger with each passing day. We should begin anticipating that eventually the biggest problem with these approaches will be answering the “too good to be true” perception. After all, who in their right mind would turn down the opportunity to save money instantly, without any cash outlay?

And I conclude with the following question: If the Fifth Fuel is EE, can you name the other four?

Dan and I hope you have a great Thanksgiving. Andy Bochman

Image credit: Boeing

Testing 1, 2, 3: DOD Facilities Energy Test Bed Project Winners for 2012 Announced

2011-11-21T08:40:00.001-05:00

575 tried, 27 succeeded. That's less than a 5% acceptance rate ... tougher than getting into Harvard or MIT I think. But well worth the effort, if some of these energy, energy efficiency and energy security strategies pan out.

OSD has just announced its list of approved test bed pilot projects, each one targeting an aspect of facilities energy use improvement. Categories include objectives with terse titles like:

Installation of a Nanotechnology Membrane HVAC System
Model-Driven Energy Intelligence
Sodium-Metal-Halide Battery Energy Storage for DoD Installations

And then there are projects whose backers couldn't, or wouldn't, limit their verbosity:

Grid-Interactive Renewable Energy Generation System with DC-Link Battery Storage Integration Capable of Hybrid Microgrid Operation to Increase Energy Security on DoD Installations

Try turning that into an acronym! And finally, technologies that sound like they could double as weapons when not helping improve energy efficiency:

Kinetic Super-Resolution Long-Wave Infrared Thermography Diagnostic for Building Envelopes

Sounds a little like ARPA-E territory, doesn't it? Though these technologies are closer to being field-able than the world-changing, very high risk / very high reward projects ARPA-E goes after.

See below for links to more DOD energy test bed information and activities:

The full list and a few more details are HERE
Installations Energy Test Bed description, HERE, including contact info
DOD/EPA/DOE Energy Test Bed symposium coming up next week (11/29-12/1) in DC. Link HERE

Environmental Entrepreneurs: Making Green by being Green

2011-11-15T10:02:00.009-05:00

Last week, Andy and I swapped towns, with Andy headed to DC while I spoke at an event sponsored by Environmental Entrepreneurs in Boston. According to their website, “Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) is a national community of business leaders who promote sound environmental policy that builds economic prosperity”. The bottomline for E2 IS the bottomline. They seek to influence policy that promotes environmentally sound business practices, but is driven to demonstrate that these are not opposing views, but complementary. Sounds like dangerous "Greenies" to me.

In my presentations I talk about how I got started in the energy industry. In mid 2006, I was working with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force and was asked to evaluate a Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement from a Marine General in the Anbar Province of Iraq. The General was asking for a hybrid electric power station. I wondered to myself, “When did the Marines become Birkenstock wearing, tree huggers?”. As it turned out, this was the JUON that accelerated the operational energy movement. It was from, then, Major General Zilmer, Commander USMC Forces, Iraq and it was because the most dangerous thing to do in his area of operation was to drive five gallons of diesel to the Syrian border outposts to run the radios and other electronics. It was a “business” decision. His most precious resources were endangered as a result of the need to power his outposts. That it might have a positive environmental impact was not even mentioned.

This is an example of how business decisions and environmental decision are complimentary and not in opposition. It is the same argument for building energy efficient buildings. The argument is invariable proffered that it is too expensive to build green. This is often heard in DOD circles were one group pays the capital cost and another pays for operations and maintenance. It may cost a nickel more to buy material that conserves energy, but the total life cycle cost usually makes it a no brainer. To quote FineHomebuliding.com ,” in what universe did it ever make sense to build a house that wasn’t energy efficient?”.

I sat down with Berl Hartman, the feisty Director of E2 New England. E2 is a virtual organization that prides itself on its independence (politically, economically, etc.). The organization was started in California by a couple of Silicon Valley folks (Bob Epstein and Nicole Lederer) and who figured out that it was possible to be environmentally responsible and economically viable. Pollution is an indicator of an inefficient system and that is bad for business. E2's mantra is making the polluter accountable for the pollution.

E2 serves as a business voice for the environment. When I joked about the Marines being Birkenstock wearing, tree huggers, I wasn’t joking. Any soldier who has ever had to report an oil spill of more than a pint in the motorpool knows what I mean. The military is the biggest bunch of Greenies going. They have to operate in a sustainable manner because they have to use that same training area over and over again. The commitment is manifested by the fact that each of the Services has its own agency such as the Army Environmental Command. DoD has figured out that sustainable operations make sense economically and for security. It is not about right or left, it is about right and wrong.

As the Services move forward with their various energy conservation, distribution and renewable projects, they have indicated that they will reach out to small businesses. For those big firms who will have to find responsible, capable small business partners, head to your local E2 meeting. I am not equating an E2 meeting to some kind of meat market, but….do you come here often? Dan Nolan

Ever Consider having your Installation Whispered?

2011-11-14T10:22:00.001-05:00

We've all seen the numbers before. The short version is goes like this: DOD dwarfs Walmart when it comes to number of square feet of buildings owned, maintained, powered, heated and cooled in the USA and elsewhere.

The amount of energy consumed by the world's largest fleet of buildings is enormous, as is the amount of energy wasted due to inefficiencies of every conceivable kind.

Well, there are folks working this challenge, such as my colleague and friend, the mighty Dave Bartlett (pictured, imposingly, above). You care read a bit more about Dave and what he and folks like him do HERE.

As you can imagine, there are cultural as well as technical barriers to work through. Especially for DOD bases that have been able to achieve some good energy savings in recent years and feel like there are no more low hanging energy efficiency fruit to pick, I like this note re: one of IBM's own facilities:

The Rochester campus had recently undergone a comprehensive energy audit resulting in double-digit energy conservation. It seemed highly unlikely to the facilities operations professionals at the campus that anything more could be done. “They (facilities operations personnel) told me that they were already doing everything that could be done to save energy,” said Bartlett. “But we achieved a 3 percent energy reduction in the first few months, and within nine months we managed to get an eight percent reduction in energy use. The work is also estimated to reduce maintenance costs for the site by 5-10 percent,” he added, “and that is real gravy on top of the energy savings.”

If this is right, there are a ton of high ROI opportunities out there for the Services to go after. Makes me want to shout! aab

Photo Credit: Association for Facilities Engineering

A Motion for Better Utility Bill Content

2011-11-11T09:13:00.001-05:00

Sorry if I confused you with School House Rock Bill, but he's a personal favorite, and I plug him whenever I can. And I'm not referring to one of the myriad energy bills coursing through ... or foundering on the rocks of the Hill these days.

No. Rather, with thanks to Mike Aimone, we've got this electric sector news for you.

This is low tech tech, easy-to-do stuff: the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has just put out a report saying that your bill, your monthly electric utility bill that is, could do much more than it probably does today.

In particular, the ACEEE contents that 3 key (and relatively easeee to implement) elements could do a lot to improve consumer usage patterns:

pro-efficiency messaging
educational tips and contacts
peer comparisons

On behalf of service members living on and off base, CONUS DOD installations could and I'd say should lobby their local utilities to make these updates. A longer summary page and the full report is available HERE. Andy Bochman

Image credit: Central Washington University

In Certain Scenarios, DOD Would be Better Fueled by Fuel Cells

2011-11-07T10:56:00.001-05:00

DOD needn't wait to start benefitting from new fuel cell capabilities, and three use cases in particular are the most promising for existing commercial fuel cell tech, according to a report just out from LMI:

Distributed power generation - as in for base load power, as well as heating and cooling needs, can be provided by fuel cell systems. This gets you energy efficiency gains and reduced: operating costs, building energy intensity, and emissions
Backup power - here the benefits are improved reliability, lower maintenance, longer life, lighter weight, and lower emissions
Unmanned vehicles - aerial and otherwise. Improved capabilities like extended range, reduced maintenance, and more are are possible

Of course, all of these benefits add up to improved energy security: bases less dependent on their local grids and operational forces that can more readily power themselves without waiting for the next convoy to come over the pass.

It's not DOD's mission to develop or incubate new technologies. Far from it. But arguably, by showing how young technologies can solve its specialized problems, it paves the way for broader applications, within and external to the military.

Click HERE to read the LMI report: Beyond Demonstration: The Role of Fuel Cells in DoD's Energy Strategy. Andy Bochman

AIETF Big Reveal is Big Deal: Don't Forget the Gators

2011-11-04T08:15:00.005-04:00

Ok, this is a long one, so get another cup of coffee and get comfy.

Yesterday, on the banks of the Potomac, the Army fell in at the Navy Yard in D.C. to unveil their plan to expediting large, renewable projects energy projects in and around their post, camps and stations. Some 250 companies sent over 300 people (not each!) to hear the hopeful news. In the impressive Admiral Gooding Conference center, with video screen every seven inches, the Army did not disappoint.

The White House sent Nancy Sutely, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality threw out the first pitch with a few softballs about DoD energy use, President Obama’s Executive Order on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance and Fort Irwin Soldiers deploying with foam tents (???). The fact that she was citing an EO issued over two years ago was a sad reflection on the fact that we lack a national energy policy. That the White House was there was impressive; their message was not.

Ms. Sutely was followed by Katherine Hammack, ASA, IE&E. Ms. Hammack had a multi-media presentation highlighting the progress the Army has made in Astro Turf ® and waterless urinals in the desert. While I poke fun, the video is worth seeing and will be available on line some where I am sure. The real point of her presentation was to introduce the team and the plan for the Army’s Energy Initiative Task Force. It kicked off with a video of the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable John McHugh announcing the EITF at GovEnergy in August. The first few seconds of that video lauds Ms. Hammack’s leadership and she was obviously uncomfortable with that, but then segued in to the announcement itself. In the announcement McHugh said the TF would be operational by 15 September and it was. Hammack then turned it over to Jon Powers, the fresh-faced Director of Outreach for the TF, who was MC’ing the affair and she Ms. Sutely and beat a hasty retreat. Always someplace else to be!

Next up was Richard Kidd, DASA, E&S. Mr. Kidd was sporting a walking cast acquired in a touch football injury administered by his seven year old son. As adorable as that is, if you don’t learn to stiff arm, bad things happen. DASA Kidd recognized the commitment of industry to this effort. By his calculation, given the number of folks in the room and typical Washington billing hours, industry plunked down about $180K in opportunity costs to be there that day. He also recognized that in order to attract the $7.1 billion in investment necessary to achieve the aggressive goal of 25% renewable energy consumption by 2025, the Army was going to have to behave differently.

In the good ole’ days, the Army issued an RFP, selected a vendor and paid for whatever commodity or services was required. For this effort, the Army must attract industry and entice them to invest in programs that will “Secure Army installations with energy that is clean, reliable and affordable”. This is the stated vision of the TF and it is telling. I know what word parsing goes on in “vision casting“ sessions, but word order matter. It would seem that energy security and mission accomplishment (reliability) is more important than affordability which clearly trumps clean. More to follow on this. Mr. Kidd then introduced John Lushetsky, the new Executive Director of the TF.

Mr. Lushetsky, a DOE alum like Kidd, brings impressive credentials to the job. With only three years’ experience in Federal government, he may be in for a bit of a shock facing the Army bureaucracy, but his much greater experience with industry and multiple business and engineering degrees he might be the right guy for the job. Lushetsky introduced the rest of his team: Kathy Ahsing, Planning; Al King, Execution and Jon Powers, Outreach (Strat Comms). They also have a detailed lawyer from the office of General Council to make sure they color inside the lines. The well-coiffed, Stan Lee (ok, a little jealous) from the Corps of Engineers rounds out the team. Why COE? Because that is where the plan comes in.

The TF plans to let an RFP in early 2012, fronted by the Huntsville office of the COE. In the Source Sought released in June the Corps said, “The U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville (CEHNC), Alabama intends to solicit and award multiple, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for use in competing and awarding Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) task orders”. The RFP will be for a Multiple Award Task Order Contracting (MATOC) for power purchase agreements supported by enhanced use leases. The goal is to award that contract by early 2013 and then go after twenty three, currently identified projects almost nationwide. The southeastern United States is notably absent in the gang of 23, with only Fort Bragg as the token representative. You wonder if that is a function of local utility requirements or no good ideas. The utilities will play an enormous role in this effort.

The indication that the Army gets this is a new game and that they must now attract investment vice pay the bills was the announcement of the intent to lift some of the burden of NEPA. The National Environmental Policy Act makes federal agencies integrate environmental impacts into their decision about proposed actions. The Environmental Impact Statement is a painful, but responsible process. If you build outside the gate, the State may not require the EIS; the Federal government does. The EITF proposes to use the Army Environmental Command to conduct do the EIS, relieve industry of this time and cost burden. Good luck, Colonel Kimmell. His boss, MG Al Aycock was in attendance, but did not speak. Clearly, IMCOM is on board. That is a big deal.

One of the tidbits tossed out was that the Army intends to keep some of the RECs. This will allow the Army to take credit, literally, for consuming RE, but could affect the ability to get financing. We will wait and see the impact of this.

The finale was a marathon question and answer session. One of the things the TF has figured out is that communications will be the key to success. After engaging about forty minutes of questioning from the throng, Power announced that the TF will soon have a link on their site to allow industry to set up appointments to visit the team and share ideas. As painful and tedious as this might be for the folks tasked to take these meetings, no one can complain about not having access. This is right out of the Information Operations handbook. I wonder what Redleg came up with the idea?

So now we will be able to access ESPCs and UESC for energy conservation (and some RE), the MATOC for large (10MW or greater) for renewable energy. RFP in early 12, award in early 13, then off to the races. So where is the gap?

The gap is in true energy security provided by smart grid technology. Conserving energy is hugely important; that is always the first step. RE is laudable, achievable and a terrific goal. That being said, unless there is a capacity to store intermittent energy, to decouple load from source and to provide the physical/cyber security necessary in a local distribution system, you do not have energy security. If the local utility can switch off the power generation, there is no energy security. When asked about this, Mr. Kidd indicated that it was not part of the EITF charter. I respectfully suggest they rethink that charter.

It will be difficult, but not impossible, to get third party financing for secure distribution systems alone. The choices are to incorporate them into these large RE projects or get funding to install them separately. The meager ECIP budget (about $135M in FY2012 Budget) can put a dent in the need, but cannot begin to address energy security. It is important to remember that EITF is there to drain the swamp (energy security), something a Gator like Mr. Lushetsky should understand. More to follow as it develops. Great start, Army!

Also want to welcome Andy back. His technical expertise and balance approach will be a welcome counter point to my ravings. Glad to be collaborating again! Dan Nolan

Return of The Thing That Wouldn't Leave

2011-11-03T21:55:00.001-04:00

There's an old SNL skit in which a character played by John Belushi (RIP) is spending a pleasant evening in the modest home of Bill Murray and Jane Curtin. As the evening winds down, though, the Belushi guy doesn't know when it's time to leave and keeps rummaging through the couple's apartment in search of more and more snacks and beverages, even while Jane Curtin's character starts doing big-time Hitchcockian screams.

That skit, called "The Thing that Wouldn't Leave" reminds me of me and the DOD Energy Blog (we call it DEB for short). After starting another blog and running it for nearly 3 years, I'm returning to work on what any right-minded person who's come here over the last year would consider The House that Nolan Built.

Well, Dan and I have talked, and he's going to continue to deliver his incredible analysis and insight about how DOD's myriad energy initiatives are and are not working. Some might call him pushy, but I like to think of him as persistent, and depending on where you sit, I bet you're glad he is the way he is. Pretty darn funny too, for an Army guy.

My new role, which hopefully will leave you more often informed and enlightened versus screaming in disbelief, will be to focus on the emerging technologies that may help DOD get where it needs to go.

Along these lines you'll see my first posts on fuel cells and smarter buildings. Renewable energy and energy efficiency aren't new concepts any more ... the novelty has worn off. Now it's time to drill down and get pragmatic (vs. idealistic) on what solutions provide the biggest energy security bangs for our increasingly limited bucks.

Hope you enjoy the new format ... I have a feeling it's going to quite nutritious. And say, do you know if there are any Fritos left? Andy Bochman

Photo credit: SNL Archives

Center Stage for Big Power: AEITF Summit

2011-11-02T13:32:00.004-04:00

Quick reminder for all DOD Energy Fans that the Army Energy Initiatives Task Force Summit is tomorrow, 3 November 2011 from 0900-1300 at the Admiral Gooding Center, Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.. We will hear from the White House and Army Energy folks on the way ahead for large, 3rd party financed, renewable energy projects to help the Army meet its goal. They are looking for some $7.1 Billion in investment over the next 10 years, so bring your checkbooks!

If you are unable to attend due to location or turnout, please send me your questions. I am looking forward to the discussion on thorny issues such as Army's authority for long term Power Purchase Agreements and how to get around utility rules for offering PPAs on a periodic basis that might not match with the contracting cycle. Should be interesting.

On another note, I have heard from several of you on the Chinese water bottle issue. I am fully aware that vendors at the Pentagon are not required to follow the strictures of the Buy American Act. I was having a bit of ironic fun with the Scouting community. I apologize for anyone who does not get my sense of humor. Keep those cards and letters coming! Dan Nolan

Bye America: What Do We Tell the Scouts??

2011-10-30T14:04:00.002-04:00

When I am not musing on DOD energy policy, programs and machinations, I try to run a business advising commercial entities on what that market looks like and what it is likely to do.

With many of the manufacturing and technology companies, I am asked about the Buy American Act. As in everything DOD, it is intricate, convoluted and understanding it will make your head hurt. I could explain it here, but somethings come with a price tag.

That being said, I couldn't resist the photo shown above, sent in by an alert Scout. Literally.The most American of groups (the Scouts) visited the most American of buildings (the Pentagon) and bought a memento of their visit. That it was a tool for conserving resources (water bottle) was secondary to having something from the Most Admired Institution (the Military).

If only it could have been made in Canton, Ohio instead of Guangdong, China.

Reducing the Obstacles to DOD Energy Goals

2011-10-28T10:45:00.005-04:00

My handsome younger brother, Jon Gensler, combat veteran, former tank and mortar platoon leader, and current energy entrepreneur weighs in on speed in energy goal attainment by DOD. Given Solyndra and recent DOD IG reports to the contrary, Gensler argues that speed in government energy efforts are necessary for the country. Project velocity ( the speed at which you can push, pull, or coerce a large scale project through contracting, design, negotiations, procurement and the various other hurdles that underpin any large scale opportunity) can be accelerated through breeching or by passing the obstacles presented by site procurement interpretation, decision maker inertia, Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) complexity.

For a guy with a meager education, (USMA, MIT, Harvard) he makes good points. Recommended reading for anyone in the industry AND Government. Especially Government. The Army is attempting to address these with the EITF which is sponsoring a three hour meeting next week in DC. This will be an opportunity to ask new TF Executive Director, John Lushetsky, former DAS Energy Efficiency and Solar Program Manager at DOE, questions based on Gensler’s article.

One of my scouts was attending FUPWG this week in Philly. Early reports indicate that there is still some disagreement on long term PPAs among the Services. Would be useful to have a definitive statement from Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Installations & Environment on the issue. Please sort out U.S. Code 2922A, Madam Secretary, and I won’t ask for anything else for Christmas. Promise. Dan Nolan

Haste Makes Wasteful RE Projects: DOD IG Grades ARRA Spending

2011-10-24T17:04:00.005-04:00

On Feb. 17 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. President Obama signed it into law four days later. As part of the stimulus package DOD received funds to support various renewable energy projects. Because of the nature of the funding, many renewable energy projects classified as Military Construction (greater than $750K), got funded very fast. As any one familiar with MilCon will tell you, this is normally a laborious and much scrutinized process. Years are spent in planning and preparation before a project is "shovel ready". But what happens if you don’t do that? Some predictable bad things.

Annie Snider has an excellent piece on a series of DOD IG reports addressing $117M received by AF and DON. (This article is outside the usual paywall; the really good stuff is on the other side.) Turns out if you want it bad, you get it bad. Windmills without wind, in front of radar; ROI rules that were unwritten and many senior positions in DOD vacant when decisions were required. If that weren’t enough of a recipe for less than sterling outcomes, compressed timelines forced decisions to be made before their time.

It is a shame that every dollar of the $335.7M earmarked for RE didn’t work 10% better than the proposal required and that the return on investment wasn’t 40% with a nine month payback. Damn shame. But what must be remembered was what ARRA was supposed to do. It was supposed get people working and money into the economy. Regardless of your opinion of the act, it did those things. What DOD got out of it was lessons learned. The DOD board that now clears RE projects to ensure that they do not detract from the mission and the Army’s Energy Initiative Task Force are examples of those lessons. Let’s hope they can reduce the errors in future projects.

What should bother us about the article is the lack of response from OSD in addressing the issue, specifically Dr. Robyn's office. I checked with Ms. Snider. She queried them, but they had no comment for record. If DOD has learned anything from previously bad events, it is to address it up front. When this stuff comes out, get it out. Tell us what you know, what you don’t know and what you are doing about what you don’t know. DON's Tom Hicks is always accessible and we appreciate his candor. The rest of the folks could take a cue. Why should OSD do this? If the Army wants $7.1B in private investment, they (and the rest of DOD) need to engender trust. Transparency goes a long way to doing just that. Other wise the press has only old retire guys with whom to talk. Dan Nolan

It's Always Sunny in D.C.: Reflections on Tough Duty in DOD Energy

2011-10-20T14:12:00.004-04:00

Just returned from a Military Smart MicroGrid Conference in D.C. that once and for all settled on the fifteen acceptable definitions for a smart microgid. What a relief that is! In essence, a smart microgrid is smaller than a minigrid and bigger than a nanogird (right, Dr. Cross?). It can accept any kind of power (DC, AC, Super), store it, and dispatch it instantaneously, independent of the commercial grid, while being omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. With briefings from every branch of the Federal Government, except the Post Office, the discussions were far ranging, sometimes frustrating but always educational.

The current major player on the block for DOD is, of course, SPIDERS, one of fortyeleven MG projects ongoing for the Department. The project manager (technical), Harold Sanborn attended, but did not speak. Since he is standing by to accept a deluge of proposals for Phase 1 he had to attend the conference wearing a gag as stipulated by FAR 100X02.z24.$$. But I could still see him smiling behind the gag.

I have been critical of many of the Department’s efforts in energy purely because it has just not been fast enough to satisfy me. I reflected on this after I went up to speak with ASD, OEPP Sharon Burke following her excellent presentation and she asked me if I was going to punch her. It kinda hurt my heart. So I would like to write a love note to all the DOD energy bubbas and bubbettes I have abused this past year.

To all of you who have taken on the thankless job of attempting to transform the most intransigent and prolific energy user in the nation: Thank You. What you do on a daily basis has the potential for transforming the Nation and resolving one of the four great challenges Tom Friedman and Micheal Mandelbaum enumerated in their excellent book, “That Use to be Us”. If you haven’t read it, get it, read it and then we will discuss.

DOD is the ultimate camel maker. We asked for a horse, they went into committee and we got a camel. If we were asking for a speedy steed that could win the Derby, we are disappointed. But if we wanted a beast of burden that could carry a heavy load with great efficiency, we are happy. As we watch the various products come out of OSD and the Joint world, we (I) have to accept that it will always be product of compromise. Whether it is a strategy or a less than optimal RFP, it is what can make it out of committee. Compared with what is coming out of the Legislature these days, the OSD energy crews are craftsmen.

Now don’t worry. This does not mean I will not return to being my crotchety old self. Andy Rooney retired, I did not. I am still going to call them the way I see them. If it is a low velocity marshmallow, I will say so. Just wanted our government readers to know that I do appreciate how hard the work is and how, sometime, you have to make it look like someone else’s idea. Thanks, Harold for always having a smile on your face and thanks, Ms Burke, for the herculean task that you take on daily without ever letting them see you sweat. The picture above is her visiting troops in Bagram. When she talk about visiting our wounded heroes at Landstuhl, you can hear the passion for what she does in her voice.

OK, everyone back on your heads! IDGA 3^rd Annual Alternative Energy for Defense next week in DC. Be there! Dan Nolan

Anxious, but Doubling Down: Industry Reacts to Uncertainty in Defense

2011-10-17T07:14:00.002-04:00

This past week, the Association of the United States Army gathered in Washington, D.C. for their annual meeting and exposition with the theme: “The Strength of the Nation”. Every star and luminary of the Army attended as did every major defense contractor, innovative technologist and U.S. Government office with a need to see and be seen. From tiny Power Breezer off in a far corner to the giants like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, the show filled all of the massive Washington Convention Center. In a time when one would have thought that the industry would be conserving resources, they appear to be doubling down. I was interested to see how energy would be reflected in products on display so I hit the floor and started asking question.

One of the areas I asked about was the impact of the energy on acquisition decisions. The requirement to use the fully burdened cost of energy in the Analysis of Alternatives process and to consider energy as a Key Performance Parameter have been in place for some time, but to what affect? I spoke with folks from corporations with interest in the ongoing Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program, one of the pilot technologies for evaluating the efficacy of FBCE. When I asked how energy efficiency had impacted their considerations in developing their prototype, the vendor said it was a major consideration, but at this time it was kind of like asking if you preferred the portholes opened or closed on the Titanic.

According to a Congressional Research Service report on the JLTV, “once testing was to be completed and technology requirements established, a full and open competition was expected to be conducted in the late summer, 2011 for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase and the Department of Defense (DOD) planned to award two contracts for the EMD phase, which was scheduled to last 24 months”. However, in February 2011, the Army announced that the award of the EMD contract would be delayed until January 2012 because the Army changed requirements for the JLTV. The change in this program, at a time when programs across DOD were being cut or eliminated, sent shockwaves through the industry. Another blow to industry confidence came with the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction as a provision of the Budget Control Act.

If the Select Committee legislative process fails to result in a law, that will trigger $1.2 Trillion across-the-board spending cuts in discretionary spending, Medicare, farm subsidies, and a few smaller entitlements. It is anticipated that DOD would take about half of these cuts. Recent speeches by the C, JCS, the CSA and other DOD senior leadership have been to remind Congress of the history of drastically reducing defense at the end of conflicts. I heard this theme echoed from industry across the board. Nobody was sweating, but nobody was particularly ebullient.

Even the Army Energy panel echoed these topics. Capo di tutti Capo for Army energy Katherine Hammack assembled an impressive collection of uniformed leadership. Her battle buddy, LTG Rick Lynch was not in attendance, but Installation Management Command was ably represented by Deputy CG, MG Al Aycock. For the first time, the Army Staff and Operational Units were represented by the soon to be G4, MG(P) Ray Mason and current 1^st Armored Division Commanding General, MG Dana Pittard. In another first, the Acquisition Community was well represented by the exceedingly handsome MG Nick Justice, Commanding General of the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (pictured above). Each speaker focused on their roles in providing for the three elements of energy concern: Basing, Soldiers and Vehicles. I took copious notes, only to find that they had already posted ALL the slides. They are here for your perusal. Worth taking the time to read.

In general, what we heard was that the Army would invest in energy efforts that had immediate, tactical impacts, but when it came to large, scale renewable energy what the Army wants to hear is, “I got the money, honey, if you got the……land”. The theme of third party finance resonated through every discussion of installation energy security. In another cost savings measure, the Army Energy Initiatives Office Task Force became the Army Energy Initiatives Task Force and announced an Army Energy Initiatives Task Force Summit for four hours on 3 November 2011. Registration is open until 21 October 2011, but when I attempted to register, the website informed me that they were at capacity and that I would be placed on a waiting list. I would have supposed that if I were hoping to do outreach, I would have it in a facility that could accommodate the potential crowd. Perhaps a web link so we can participate? We have the demand; are they out of land? Dan Nolan

Your Ship is Sailing: Navy Energy Forum 2011 Underway

2011-10-13T11:01:00.003-04:00

We mentioned it earlier, but in case you missed it, and find yourself in DC with some unexpected holes in your schedule, the Naval Energy Forum is happening today and tomorrow (10/13/2011 to 10/14/2011) at the Reagan Building in DC.

The agenda includes:

Remarks by Secretary of the Navy: New Energy Future
Remarks by Chief of Naval Operations
Affecting Culture Change: How to Create Spartan Energy Warriors
Retooling Our Fleet: Successes and Challenges
Combat Enablers: It’s About the Warfighter
Strategic Outlook
C5I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Collaboration, and Intelligence) Considerations
Energy Efficient Acquisition
Game Changing Solutions

Click HERE for more info.

From Position Improvement to Energy Security: The Road to the Smart Microgrid

2011-10-06T07:10:00.003-04:00

For those who have been tracking the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS) Joint Concept Technology Demonstration (JCTD) it has been an interesting trajectory. It started out as a very ambitious smart microgrid (or Energy Surety Microgrid as Sandia Labs, the designer, calls it) project, envisioning two simultaneous demonstrations of the technology at Hickman AFB, Hawaii and Fort Carson, Colorado. The original solicitation came out on 10 August 2011, for a firm, fixed price, best value contract for both locations, with site visits on 25 August at both locations, simultaneously. On 30 August 2011, amendment 5 to the solicitation was issued deleting the Fort Carson portion of the project. Presumably, that will be addressed in a later solicitation.

This project, in two phases, is estimated to cost $5.2M with a small business goal of 50% of the overall project cost and a period of performance of eighteen months. Although this seems like a lot of work for a big firm with only $2.6M in the return, this will be about getting there “firstest with the mostest”. The company that wins this will have a leg up on what is expected to be a $5B market.

DOD has some specified tasks it must accomplish. We have listed them before: buy biofuels, reduce energy consumption, and consume more renewable energy. In the case of installation energy, there are a number of implied tasks:

Develop systems that will provide the military effective countermeasures to asymmetric vulnerabilities associated with fragile grid conditions and escalating costs while building in mission assurance and energy security for installations
Provide improved solutions to energy security and clean energy requirements, enable opportunity pricing and offer cooperative environments where utilities may better service military installation needs.
Communications and controls that allow synchronization and load optimization

This is why DOD is, and should be, chasing the smart microgrid. In the words of one DOD senior manager, “Putting DoD as an early adopter of distributed energy management systems enables the military to help shape the standards for energy security, build business case metrics, and facilitates the adoption of alternative and renewable energy generation sources needed to better meet NetZero goals”.

In addition to the R&D effort associated with this JCTD, there are folks putting smart grids on the ground today, and in some pretty tough environments. Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power (PM-MEP) is running the Afghan Microgrid Project or AMP in Camp Sabalu-Harrison. They are receiving forward engineering support from the Research, Development and Engineering Command's Field Assistance in Science and Technology – Center, part of the 401st Army Field Support Brigade.

The team put in a one-megawatt microgrid that can replace up to 20 60-kilowatt TQGs. These Tactical Quiet Generators had been producing more than 1,300 kilowatts of power to meet a demand of less than 400 kilowatts. The situation is not atypical of spot generation in theater and, if this works, could serve as a blueprint for future operations.

Even as these R&D efforts move forward there are efforts to just be smarter in how the Services deploy energy. When units first hit the ground, every facility has its own generator. Over time, the simple process of position improvement dictates that this inefficient method be replace with some sort of mini grid. This is now being done in a significant enough effort to warrant the scrutiny of the NYT. In an article last week, Annie Snider highlighted the efforts of COL Tim Hill and the Army’s operational energy program. The system is basically just “ganging” generators together for greater efficiency, but that is a start.

At last week’s 2011 Washington Energy Summit, Dr. Dorothy Robyn, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment said, “(The) microgrid is a triple play. It's a set of self-generated electricity and controls that allow us to operate more efficiently ... in a normal mode but [also to] facilitate the incorporation of solar, wind (and) other forms of renewable energy. And most important, if the grid goes down it will allow us to prioritize and continue to operate activities that are most critical".

It looks like the lessons from the frontline are making it back to the home front. The AMP does not appear to have integrated renewables or storage as part of its construct. Putting those into the mix would seem to be the next logical step in demonstrating the importance of the smart microgrid. From dumb, ganged minigrids to smart microgrids that provide true energy security requires government investment. Third party financing for these efforts will be challenging; tough to make the business case. The technology is mature and the results are a saving in dollars and lives in convoys and ensuring mission accomplishment at installations. Without intelligent power management, renewables are just tinkering at the margins of energy security. Dan Nolan

Weathering the Storm: Impact of Space Weather

2011-10-03T07:32:00.003-04:00

Everyone talks about the weather, but NDU is doing something about it. Not terrestrial weather, but storms in space. Dr. Rich Andres brought this to my attention. This Wednesday, 5 October, the Energy & Environmental Security Policy Program and the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at National Defense University (NDU), in conjunction with US Congressional EMP Caucus, and InfraGard National Members Alliance (INMA) will gather to discuss recent war games on the impact of space weather on the electric grid.

As if we didn’t have enough to worry about, these good folks will talk about “how to better prepare for widespread and long term power outages as outlined in a number of studies from the National Academies of Science, the US Congressional EMP Commission, the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)”. We know what happens when a tree limb falls in Ohio or STUXNET gets into the firmware. Now we have to worry about what happens when the solar wind blows. As a former nuclear targeteer, I have studied the effects of massive electromagnetic pulses on electronics. We don’t get thrown back to the 19^th Century….more like the 16^th. That those effects could be created by solar activity is indeed frightening.

Registration is required so go here to sign up. If anyone attends, please send in a report. Dan Nolan

All Energy is Local: Think Main Street, not K Street

2011-09-28T06:26:00.003-04:00

Over the past couple of months I have had the opportunity to address a number of different audiences on the topic of energy security and DOD’s efforts to secure their mission critical requirements. Many of these have been sponsored by academic or industry groups who do not engage with the Government on a regular basis. None of these events were held within the Beltway. I always make sure that the audiences know that I do not and cannot speak on behalf of the Government, only as an observer. On at least two occasions I have passed invitations to the Government in hopes of an official spokesman, but have not been able to bring that about. I have made two observations from these events.

First, in some cases, the general population has little understanding of the challenges DOD faces in regard to energy security and, therefore, has no idea that DOD is taking aggressive steps to remedy the situation. They are surprised to learn that DOD is the largest energy user in the country. When I explain that DOD is three million people, 2.2 billion square feet of building space and has a utility bill of $3.9 billion, you can see the lights coming on. When I further explain that the mandates of EPACT 2005, EISA 2007, NDAA 2007 and EO 13423/13524 require DOD to reduce energy use and increase renewable/alternative energy consumption they light up with hope. “Hey, if DOD is on it, we can rest assured that our energy dilemma can be solved!”.

The second observation is that for those who are somewhat informed, their working assumption is that DOD is going to spend a lot of money to secure its energy requirements. When they hear that the Army is seeking $7.1 billion in investment for renewable energy at installations, they want to know who to call. I am asked, invariably, whether or not the Department is willing to pay any kind of a premium for energy security and I inform them that, from all indications, DOD can only pay the market rate for a kilowatt-hour or a gallon of fuel. Even with that bit of deflating news, academia and industry are heartened to hear what is going on.

The lessons here are pretty straight forward. Like politics, in DOD all energy projects will be local. Washington can write the policy, shape the discussion and hold conferences, but it will be Fort Homefront that will write the RFP, coordinate with the utility and deal with myriad local issues that must be resolved in order to get a construction job done. The Army’s Energy Initiative Office (Task Force?) is a great idea. It will serve as a one stop clearing house for legal questions, financing advice and resolution of policy issues, but Commander Righthere will make the decision at his/her base. Washington can expedite; Homefront will decide.

I would like to see DOD engaging groups outside the Beltway by providing TDY funds for local commanders and/or DPWs to attend and address local gatherings and energy forums. Those folks would be much better spokesmen than yours truly and they would be able to speak with conviction. At the last conference I attended in Raleigh Durham, someone from Fort Bragg happened to be attending and when encourage to address the audience, spoke with eloquence and authority. His message was well received.

This October there will be at least three DOD related energy conferences occurring in DC. They will be expensive to attend and will have all the usual suspects and PowerPoint. I would encourage the DOD energy leadership to start sending folks from local installations to local energy conferences. There are no finer ambassadors for the energy efforts than the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and their civilian counterparts who are working the issues every day. If the purpose of the conferences is to share information and understanding, get out to the hinterland and let Mom and Pop’s Solar Panel Company know what the opportunities are and how to access them. Big Defense Industries already know what to do. Let’s leave K Street behind and go check out Main Street. Dan Nolan

Don't forget to attend:

AUSA Annual Meeting
Naval Energy Forum
Conference on Military Smart and Microgrid
IDGA's 3rd Annual Alt Energy for Defense
SAME Conference Tampa Fl, 12 Oct 11

Yes, I get the irony............

2011 Energy Security Book List

2011-09-22T12:55:00.000-04:00

There are two new books out in the last few months I want you to know about. Whether you have time to read them, even if I am successful in getting you worked up about them, well, that's another story. So again, it's only two books, which is probably one or two more than you'll be able to get to given your current workload. But here's why you should give them a shot.

The first one is by former Austin Energy CIO Andres Carvallo, called The Advanced Smart Grid: Edge Power Driving Sustainability. Co-authored with frequent technology writer John Cooper, this book is relatively short at ~200 well illustrated pages, and is a pleasure to read. I'm going to re-use some of the laudatory words I recently posted in an Amazon review.

Before they invite you to travel with them into the future, Carvallo and Cooper do a solid job of orienting the reader with concise summaries of where the grid came from, how it's evolved over time, and as accurately as possible, how it's doing in its current state. For the many immigrants who've recently moved to energy from other sectors (like me), this is a great grounding.

The authors then look past the current climate of activity, much of it initially fueled with government grants, to a phase where business drivers alone dictate what gets deployed next. Ultimately, they begin to unveil for us a blurry but emerging vision of "the advanced Smart Grid", that's predicated on pervasive IP networking, tons and tons of data, microgrids, EVs, virtual power plants, new business models and more. For me, it was well worth the time, and depending on your background and/or day job, it might be for you too.

Book number two is from one of the (if not, THE) true giants of global energy thinking over the past decades, Daniel Yergin. Best known (to me, anyway) for his biblical telling of the history and future of the oil industry in The Prize, his new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World, expands in scope to consider all energy sources. Recently reviewed in the NYT, this excerpt seems apropos:

When it comes to assessing the world’s energy future Mr. Yergin is a Churchillian. He argues that we should consider all possible energy sources, the way Winston Churchill considered oil when he spoke to the British Parliament in 1913. “On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent,” Churchill said. “Safety and security in oil lie in variety and variety alone.”

... and one more thing, for which the a smarter grid is the essential precursor:

One of Mr. Yergin’s closing arguments focuses on the importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

Sounds great, right? Well, the bad news for you travelers is that, from a weight perspective, is that it tops 800 pages, though if you get the ebook version it's as light as can be. Now reading it, or the majority of it, that's another story. If it's too much for you to consider, maybe you can wait and hope for a movie version. But I wouldn't count on it.

Happy reading!

Photo credit: Miamism on Flickr.com
(Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog)

Where Do We Go From Here? 2010 Energy Report and Media Outreach

2011-09-21T06:47:00.000-04:00

Tremendous week, last week, for Army and Air Force energy offices with media and bloggers. I make the distinction between what bloggers do and what the media does because it is important to draw that line between journalists and the unwashed masses in the streets. We expect higher standards, more facts and less opinion from reporters. Glad I am not one of those; way too hard!

Back to the media blitz. This past Wednesday, DASAF, Energy Dr. Kevin Geiss, provided an update on what the AF has planned and accomplished over the past several months, as well as they were in reaching the various goals, mandates and executive orders under which they labor. The answer was: Dang Close.

The recently released DOD Annual Energy Management Report for 2010 ranked all the Services in the categories of energy reduction and production of renewable energy. By the end of 2010, all Services were to have reduced their energy use by 3% a year from a 2003 baseline or 15% by EOY 2010. The results for 2010: AF-14.9% , Navy – 13.7% and Army – 8.7%. (top chart)

For production of renewable energy, the goal was 5% by 2010. The winner is…… AF at 6.4% with the Army and Navy have yet to reach the 2007 goal of 3%. (bottom chart)

The Air Force bought a lot of Renewable Energy Certificates (3.3%) which helped it achieve the goal; otherwise they would have been around the 3% mark. The performance of the other Services prevented the DOD from reaching the 5% goal. So, what are the implications and ramifications of missing the mark? There do not appear to be any. I wonder if Congress will start trimming the budget to reflect where the Services should be?

The Army followed the Air Force roundtable with their own, to announce the first day of work for the Energy Initiatives Office Task Force. This is the Office (Task Force?) about which the SecArmy announce the formation at GovEnergy some weeks ago. I guess the stationary arrived. The job of the Task Force (Office?) is to provide expertise to installations for larger renewable energy projects. The Army is looking for $7.1 Billion in investment over the next ten years to put them into position to achieve 25% of their energy from renewable sources by 2025 (Sec 2911(e) of Title 10 U.S.C.). Their motto is “We have the land and the demand”. Hopefully, they will be taking on the stalled Fort Irwin 500 MW Solar project and put the hard lessons learned from that apparent slow motion train wreck.

Fortunately, they have a little time to get it together. Here in late September, there are no large scale renewable energy projects for the Army that are in the proposal stage. Lots of information being sought, but no proposal. In a post at the beginning of the year, we said that DOD would have to add 1.5% of its total energy use (after energy reductions) to make its goals. It appears that this year has been about making plans and strategies and setting up offices. Speaking on behalf of industry, we are ready to rock. DOD….ready when you are! Dan Nolan

Corrupt the Youth: Mabus sends Navy to Energy School

2011-09-14T20:10:00.003-04:00

As a recovering TRADOCian, I have a little experience trying to get something new into the curriculum at military schools. With packed schedules, anything new requires that something else be dropped. I predicted that it would be a long time before energy security started showing up in the school house. I was wrong.

The Green Hornet himself, SecNav Ray Mabus came up on the net late last month with an announcement:

"Let me give you the headline of why I'm here today," Mabus said. "Starting this fall, the Naval Postgraduate School will offer … energy graduate degree program[s], the first military educational institution to do so. And beginning early next year, NPS will launch the SECNAV Executive Energy Series – catchy title – a two-week program designed to tackle specific energy challenges."

The Naval Post Graduate School has the mission to “provides high-quality, relevant and unique advanced education and research programs that increase the combat effectiveness of the Naval Services, other Armed Forces of the U.S. and our partners, to enhance our national security”. Officers from all Services compete to attend this highly prestigious school. The fact that it is located in on Monterey Bay in Northern California does not reduce its appeal. As I well know, they are highly select in who attend. I bet it would have been fun.

That the Navy is willing to commit the resources in their educational program to highlight this area of study is telling. Where there may not be big dollars for projects in the near term, shaping future decision makers understanding of energy security is about setting the conditions for success. While DOD has been relatively short term focused, the Navy is stepping out to create the leaders for whom energy is an internalized value. Well done, Sailors!

The Normally Strong Grid's Self Inflicted Wounds

2011-09-13T08:22:00.000-04:00

So only a few days ago you saw a post here about grid lessons from Hurricane Irene. Now we're back with another major grid event and I'm not sure what to call it other than the recent Arizona, San Diego and Mexico outage ... SanMexiZona outage perhaps?

Investigations are still being conducted, but what do we know so far? Well, a transmission maintenance issue impacted a substation in Arizona, and then:

Cascading failure reached into California and Mexico, knocking power out to millions
And caused 2 nuclear facilities to shut down
Navy and Marine bases turn to back-up diesel generators and kept non-essential personnel home
And many other types of trouble you'd expect from a black out in a large US city ensued, driving cost estimates into the hundreds of millions.

It's weird. In some ways the grid is a beast, capable of absorbing the worst insults and continuing operations largely unaffected. It virtually scoffs at earthquakes, raging fires, hurricanes, tornadoes ... and across the Pacific, even Godzilla stomping out of Tokyo Bay once in a while. Sure, some outages occur in the areas where equipment is destroyed. But the grid is usually a master of defense and containment.

But then a little thing happens during routine maintenance and a big chunk of the grid unexpectedly swoons. Amory Lovins and others on the 2008 DoD Science Board (DSB) task force on Energy identified the US grid as brittle and a threat to CONUS military readiness. Here's Lovins in 2010:

The US electrical grid ... is very capital-intensive, complex, technologically unforgiving, usually reliable, but inherently brittle. It is responsible for 98–99 percent of U.S. power failures, and occasionally blacking out large areas within seconds—because the grid requires exact synchrony across subcontinental areas … and can be interrupted by a lightning bolt, rifle bullet, malicious computer program, untrimmed branch, or errant squirrel.

Seems like some of the worst behaviors we see in the grid are avoidable. In addition to the many other benefits we often describe to regulators and general public with the Smart Grid build out, improvements to reliability have got to be high on the list, if not #1.

Image credit: KUSI News San Diego
(Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog)

New DOD Energy Blog design coming ...

2011-09-07T12:15:00.001-04:00

Please bear with us as we work to implement a new logo and masthead, a more readable black type on white format, and a few other tweaks. Most of the changes have already taken place, but it may be a few more hours or days until the conversion to the new look is 100% complete. Thanks!

- the Management

The Unit Does Well What the Boss Checks: Mod the Behavior; the Culture is fine.

2011-09-01T16:20:00.005-04:00

Superb piece by Dr. Richard Andres and Micah Loudermilk in livebetter eMagazine. I love periodicals that save money on capitalization! Dr. Andres’ piece cites an experiment run by the Power Surety Task Force, where I happened to work at the time. We talked Clark Real Estate (privatized housing) into letting us modify four housing units under construction at Fort Belvoir, one as a control and three with progressively greater degrees of energy efficiency and conservation as well as renewable energy.Our goal was to be able to determine the contributions of the various mods in reducing grid energy use. The only thing we couldn't influence were who lived there or how they behaved. There’s the rub!

Our control house turned out to be the most efficient; our Cadillac house, an energy hog. After resetting everything we could reset and running the numbers again, the results were the same. So we surveyed the occupants. Control house had dual military, no kids, readers (vice TV) who didn’t like air conditioning. Cadillac house had teenagers. Need I say more?

The point that Dr. Andres and Micah make is that behavior matters in energy use. All of the Services talk about needing to change their culture to achieve greater energy awareness. But the cultures are fine. Ask any Drill Sergeant. Culture is just the transmission of values and wisdom from one generation to the next. “Here, kid, this is what works.” Wisdom is the prescription for “what works”. The medium for the transmission are the behavior of senior leadership and the actions they take. Values can be taught, but they are better caught. Each audience will require different messages, the theme tailored to that audience.

If you want to impress a room full of Marines about the importance of energy conservation, have the Commandant deliver the message and make sure commanders know that it will be part of their evaluation. That is using culture to modify behavior.

If you don’t mod the behavior, it doesn’t matter what else you do. When the PSTF introduced energy savings through spray polyurethane foam spraying on tents in Iraq, the efficiency was immediately evident. Energy consumption dropped significantly…until commanders found they had extra energy. Suddenly, other non-mission critical facilities could be powered, and who doesn’t want a latte’ on a cold winter’s night?

As a young battery commander, I decide I would check things in the battery I thought noone else was really checking. I had a great First Sergeant, superb Chief of Smoke and excellent Motor Sergeant. My Lieutenants were equally good, but they would never hear that from me! When I took it over, Bravo Battery was the best in the battalion (or so the outgoing commander said in his speech). Since everything else was going so well, I decided that my “thing” would be to check for pinholes in waterproof bags. If a waterproof back has a pinhole, the sleeping bag inside gets wet and the soldier can’t sleep. Since everyone else had a piece of checking the important stuff, I checked for pinholes.

Eventually we had NO pinholes in our waterproof bags…..but the quality of training, maintenance and supply had fallen dramatically. LTC Del Campbell, the battalion commander, took me aside and said, “Remember, the important thing is to make sure that the important thing remains the important thing”. Once I finally figured out what he meant, (thanks, Top!) I made sure I was paying attention to important things, because that is what the rest of the leadership would then do. The unit does well what the boss checks.

If you want to change behavior, assign responsibility, provide the authority commensurate with the responsibility (no unfunded mandates!) and hold those responsible ruthlessly accountable for the execution of those authorities. It is how it is done in combat and training; why not use that behavior tool here? Well done, Richard and Micah. Dan Nolan

The Loyal Skeptics: Marketplace on DOD Energy

2011-08-31T15:44:00.006-04:00

Excellent piece by Scott Tong from Marketplace on the Military and Energy. Wide ranging discussions with government and industry. Only cause for suspicion is that they interviewed me. Steve Anderson lends greater credibility to us "Loyal Skeptics". Scott also labeled Brutus Charette the "Technologist". He is such a fighter pilot, it hurts! Otherwise, very balanced. Will let it speak for itself. It is a three part series. Dan Nolan

Brutus and the Gray Lady: ExFOB Makes the NYT

2011-08-30T09:38:00.005-04:00

Excellent piece by Annie Snider of Greenwire, picked up by New York Times. COL "Brutus" Charette running another iteration of the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) at 29 Palms in Death Valley. Focus is on high efficiency solar and exportable vehicle power. I asked Annie to send me a photo of her "enjoying" the 110+ temperatures of 29 Stumps. Got an Israeli deployable solar station instead. Worth the read. Dan Nolan

Done Deal or New Opportunity: Confused at Drum

2011-08-29T13:28:00.006-04:00

On 24 August 2011, the Defense Logistics Agency – Energy, on behalf of the Army, released a Request for Information, “concerning on-site, immediately adjacent or opportunities on other private lands for any type of renewable energy supply to serve the total existing and future electricity load at US Army Garrison, Fort Drum.”

According to the RFI, the load at Fort Drum appears to be a maximum demand of 27 MW. This follows on the heels of several RFIs from the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency (AFCESA) and nine from Fort Bliss, Texas for a variety of renewable efforts. The Fort Drum RFI states:

"The Army, acting through the contracting office of DLA Energy is requesting information concerning…… any type of renewable energy supply to serve the total existing and future electricity load at US Army Garrison, Fort Drum. Current contract authorities allow the Department of Defense to enter into contracts up to a maximum term of 30 years for the provision and operation of energy production facilities on real property under the Secretary's jurisdiction or on private property and the purchase of energy produced from such facilities".

When an RFI is issued, industry has to determine if they will spend their business development dollars responding to the request. Small businesses feel that they must respond in order to get their technologies on the table. With multiple RFIs out there, this can strain already constrained resources (have you tried to get a small business loan lately?). The opportunity for up to a thirty year power purchase agreement is gold when talking to financial institution and that coupled with sound technology and a good business plan should make raising money for this effort relatively easy.

For industry, it is a critical decision process and the need to prioritize is great. For DOD to achieve its very aggressive goals it must use 3rd party financing and this means that industry and financial institutions must be comfortable with the business case for each opportunities. One of the reasons the Army formed the EIOTF was to work on these large renewable opportunities.

So, when one of the scouts out there came across an article in the Watertown Daily Times it caused a bit of confusion. Seems the local Public Services Commission approved a request by ReEnergy Holdings LLC, Latham, to buy the on-post power plant at Fort Drum from United States Power Fund LP. According to the Daily Times, “If the deal closes, ReEnergy Black River LLC — a subsidiary of ReEnergy Holdings — will convert the 50-megawatt plant from coal to biomass fuel, primarily wood chips, but also tires and solid fuels, according to the petition it filed with the PSC on April 22.”

The local Congressional Representative William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, was interviewed and indicated that this effort is the continuation of “deal previously approved to sell the plant to Catalyst Renewables, Dallas”. He also said this was an effort to take Drum off the grid. DASA, E&S Richard Kidd indicated that there was no intent currently to “island” Fort Drum. Senator Schumer also pledged his support. Apparently this acquisition has been going on for some time and has excellent Congressional support.

The plant will lease the property from Fort Drum and sell power to the installation according to the article. This appears to be a classic enhanced use lease with power purchase agreement. Of course it is not clear if it is an enhance use lease or for how long the PPA would be.

The confluence of these two events causes questions. Did DLA-E not know about the conversion and sale of the on post power plant? Is the purchase of the plant and conversion an option for this RFI? I have made inquiries to the EIOTF and to DLA-E, however, (due to Irene, I assume), have not heard back from the Army or DLA. I did speak with a gentleman in the ASA, IE&E office who played down the importance of the supposed sale of the power plant affecting the RFI. He indicated that the power plant might be part of a proposal.

That might be news to ReEnergy Holdings LLC, Latham, since they already have approval from the PSC to buy the plant. Their parent company, ReEnergy Holdings, LLC appear to be well place to do this, having purchased the 22-megawatt Lyonsdale Biomass Facility in Lyons Falls in Lewis County, NY earlier this year. ReEnergy Holdings was started by a private equity firm, Riverstone Holdings, which was founded by former Goldman Sachs Global Energy and Power Group graduates. ReEnergy also purchase an Ohio based cogeneration plant for $61M this year, so somebody has figured out how to make this work!

Bottomline, the RFI process is costly in time and effort. It is important for the government to get the best information possible, but there has to be an indication of an ROI for industry in the effort. Not sure about this case. Dan Nolan

Conference Alert: Solar Exchange East

2011-08-18T09:48:00.004-04:00

Siemens and the North Carolina Solar Center will sponsor the subject conference at NC State on 21 Septmeber, 2011. Solar Exchange East, designed for manufacturers and developers of solar power, will include topics such as advancing clean energy for a sustainable economy, solar tracking and thin film technology, financing in the solar power industry and CAE advances in solar satellite development.

The agenda features notables from government, industry and academia. In an obvious attempt to fulfill some obscure quota, I have been asked to present as well. Fair warning.

Registration is available here. Hope to see you there. Dan Nolan

Conference Alert: 6th Annual Georgia Environmental Conference

2011-08-18T09:39:00.005-04:00

Quick note about subject conference in lovely Savannah, GA next week. I will be speaking and be joined by representatives from Fort Benning to discuss energy security from a DOD and Industry perspective. Registration is still available.

More information http://www.georgiaenet.com/home.htm . Hope to see you there! Dan Nolan

DESC Lesson No. 1: Investment in Conservation and RE brings ROI

2011-08-16T16:20:00.004-04:00

As visions of the fine work to be done by the Congressional Super Committee dance in our heads, the sounds of axes being sharpened at the Pentagon have drifted over to Foggy Bottom. Late last week, the co-chair of the Congressional Defense Energy Security Caucus (DESC) sent a letter to new SecDef Leon Panetta, urging him to prioritize DoD’s energy policies and budgets so that they are not disproportionally hacked when axe swinging time arrives.

In part, the letter said, "Investments in smart energy plans will not only show returns in security and mission success, but they will contribute to future cost savings and have a unique opportunity to help foster innovative and diverse energy and clean technologies to strengthen our economy".

The letter was co-signed by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; and the office of Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who also serve as caucus co-chairs. Representative Kingston has an extremely credible voice in this argument. His 1st District is home to no less than five major bases.

In my original post on the DESC I mentioned that the role of the Caucus “educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic value of utilizing sustainable energy sources for the U.S. military, highlight and support established and emerging defense energy initiatives, and find solutions to energy challenges facing the Department of Defense (DoD)”. Looks like DoD itself may be getting schooled.

Prioritizing these efforts higher in the food chain may not look like it makes sense from a tactical level, but from a strategic point of view, if DoD doesn’t lead, who will? If energy security is not a Defense mission, whose is it? What I really want to know is: Who is going to write the letter back?? Dan Nolan

Beating Swords into Plowshares….For Fuel: 60 Year Old Defense Production Act Back in Vogue

2011-08-16T16:11:00.005-04:00

Interesting reporting in Greenwire by Annie Snider (worth the few pennies a day to subscribe). The level of discussion of biofuel is moving beyond the concern for the price of corn; the Federal government is recognizing our dependence on a commodity we do not control. The President is considering invoking the provisions of the Defense Production Act.

The Act, passed in 1950, gives the President the authority to order business to sign contracts or fulfill orders determined to be necessary to national defense. It also allows the President to issue orders allocating materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. Finally, it allows the President to requisition property, force industry to expand production and the supply of basic resources, impose wage and price controls, settle labor disputes, control consumer and real estate credit, establish contractual priorities, and allocate raw materials to aid the national defense. The President will have to declare the technology to produce biofuels (which one(s)??) as critical to the national defense. If you are a fan of small government, you will love this! Sounds a little scary; but, then the days around the Korean War were a scary time.

According to the Department of Agriculture press release, the Navy and the DOE and will design a program to provide in the neighborhood of $500M to the biofuels industry to try to bring production facilities up to commercial scale. The provisions of the Act are administered by the Department of Commerce. The intent of the Act is to provide the military the critical material necessary for the national defense.

Normally, I am a fan of market forces and sink or swim in the economic area. Biofuels are a special case. If unusual efforts are not undertaken, biofuels will never get to a commercially competitive range. In case you have not heard, the top five companies for 2011 in America according to Fortune Magazine are:

Wal-Mart Stores
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
Fannie Mae

You may note that 2, 3, and 4 happen to be oil companies. I would surmise that they probably have the cash reserves to beat biofuels on price for a very long time.

The other argument you often hear against this is that the government shouldn’t pick winners. If you think that is the case, go talk to a contracting officer. The government picks winners all the time! Usually, in free and open competition. Presumably this program will select among the various contenders for performance (JP8 identical), sustainability (not food!), price, etc.

The bottomline is that we and our trading partners are vulnerable to oil depletion or denial. Biofuels are a step on the path to the final revolution in transportation…..flying cars! Or electric. Or whatever sustainable energy source can provide us the mobility we require without the vulnerability. Dan Nolan

R. James Woolsey on Fads and Charlatans

2011-08-11T15:30:00.005-04:00

I recently took exception to an opinion in the WSJ, expressed by a former admiral regarding DOD's clean energy efforts. I have been joined in this by two gentlemen with much more impressive credentials, credibility and understanding of the topic than I. Amory Lovins posted his response on the WSJ and now former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, R. James Woolsey has added his comments to our humble blog. I highly recommend you read his comments, posted in full below.

I have worked on both energy and national security issues for a number of years. "Of Mustard Fuel and Marines" by R.Adm. Robert James (ret.) in the Wall Street Journal of August 2 is both tendentious and inaccurate to an extraordinary degree. Our fighting men and women and Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman Amory Lovins, who often advises them on energy issues (and has posted a detailed reply under James’s oped), should be proud that a former oil company executive (VP of Mobil, economist at Continental Oil) should have to descend to such distortions in order to attack their efforts to move our military forces as quickly as possible away from dangerous oil dependence.

What motivates the military to work hard at this? "Fads" says James and "political correctness". He misrepresents Lovins as advocating the use of land appropriate for food crops to produce alternative fuels when in fact for decades the scientist has rather been a leading advocate of the use of feedstocks such as agricultural waste, prairie grass, and trash. James also ignores the innovative efforts by the Navy, his own military service, to use algae that require no land (just underground steel tanks) to make aviation fuel out of cheap sugar, as well as other types of algae that use very small amounts of land.

James ridicules "inventing cars that get 125 mpg". But my family already drives two that come near that: a plug-in Prius and a Chevy Volt. He also mocks the Marines, because of land-use issues, for experimenting with a truck-based plant that turns poppies into biofuels. But poppies are not known for their nutrition.

His strangest strawman is a mythical Marine unit commander, fanatically green, whom James feels he must caution not to endanger his unit by erecting a three-story windmill that discloses its position to the enemy. I have known a number of Marines over the years. This argument of James's is like the 13th chime of a clock – it is not only bizarre in and of itself, it calls into question everything that issues from the same source.

R. James Woolsey is Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a venture partner with Lux Capital, and a former Under Secretary of the Navy and Director of Central Intelligence.

Emerging Idea: Energy Initiatives Office

2011-08-10T13:48:00.002-04:00

Today, at the lunch closing GovEnergy 2011, the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh announced the formation of another office to deal with energy. The Energy Initiatives Office Task Force (EIOTF) will be formed not later than 15 September 2011 under the leadership of Ms. Katherine Hammack, the ASA, Installations, Energy and Environment. The Office/Task Force will oversee Soldier Power, Vehicle Power and Basing Power, fusing the responsibility for Facilities Energy and Operational Energy.

According to the press release, the EIOTF is focused on “on-site, large scale RE generation”. They will be able to provide the expertise that bases are supposed to lack to “identify and evaluate technologies, negotiate with utilities, and manage the construction, operations and maintenance of large scale renewable energy projects”. The Office Task Force estimates that, in order to reach the goal of 25% RE at installations by 2025, investments of over $7B over the next ten years will be required to generate the additional 2.1 million megawatt hours required.

The EIOTF plans to leverage the memorandum of agreement signed between DOE and DOD in September of last year. Presumably, in accordance with the memo, DOE will provide personnel and expertise to DOD in a fully reimbursable rate that will include Labor (including labor hours and skill mix), Materials (including any equipment), Travel, Other Direct Costs, Laboratory Directed Research and Development (if applicable), Overhead, Federal Administrative Charge (if applicable). From personal experience, this can be very expensive. While DOE can provide the technical expertise, hopefully, industry will be part of the team. Understanding business concerns is key to creating business cases.

The Residential Community Initiatives (RCI) model will be used by the EIOTF. RCI is the Army’s portion of the DOD Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). The program “is a public/private program whereby private sector developers may own, operate, maintain, improve and assume responsibility for military family housing, where doing so is economically advantageous and national security is not adversely affected”. One of the important aspects of RCI is that the government begins the National Environmental Policy Act process before solicitations are issued. If this is copied by the EIOTF it will certainly expedite the process.

The composition of the Office is not yet established and its guiding document, the Army’s Renewable Energy Execution Plan is as yet unpublished. If the EIOTF lives up to its goal of “streamlining existing acquisition processes and [leveraging] industry for the execution of large scale renewable and alternative energy projects” there is goodness in the idea. There is also a need for similar efforts on the conservation side of the equation. ESPCs and UESCs need work to improve the process of reducing electricity requirements via third party financing. After speaking with dozens of industry representatives on the floor of GovEnergy for the last three days, I assure you, industry is ready. What they want to see is clear delineation of who is responsible, what authorities are available and how accountability will be held. Simply saying that Net Zero is a goal is insufficient. Unless a commander somewhere is given the responsibility, appropriate authorities (resources) and knows that he/she will be held accountable, there will be no sense of urgency. The unit does well what the boss checks. Dan Nolan

GovEnergy 2011 Day 1: A River of Information

2011-08-09T09:09:00.007-04:00

GovEnergy 2011 kicked off in Cincinnati this Monday with government, industry and academia in attendance. The morning pep rally featured senior folks from GSA, DOE, EPA and DOD. The theme was “A River of Solutions” and each speaker talked about the challenges facing their organizations. In every case the challenge was energy security and finding the business case that allowed the organization to justify investment in it. A gentleman from the City of Cincinnati explained that it is difficult to make the business case for renewables when the utility rate in his city is about 5 cents a kilowatt/hour. Damn that cheap, abundant coal, water and land!

One bit of good news up front. Dr. Robyn, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment announced that she had been given the authority to approve long term contracts (up to 30 years) for power purchase agreements for all electrical energy sources (not just geothermal). Previously this authority had rested with the Secretary of Defense. We commented on this authority earlier.

There were no less than fifteen educational tracks running simultaneously. My head was spinning but I decided to follow the energy security track and the first session was déjà vu all over again. Billed as being anchored by MG Dana Pittard, CG, Fort Bliss, it was nearly the exact same panel that formed for the Army/Air Force Energy conference two weeks before. Messieurs Geiss, Kidd and Cotton (GE) brought good things to life. Geiss and Kidd were standing in for their respective General Officers who had been otherwise detained.

A much appreciated addition to the panel was C.A. “Skip” Cofield from the Southern Company. The Southern Company owns four of the largest utilities in the southeast and if you are talking about reducing energy use or building renewables, you MUST engage the utilities early and often. Mr. Cofield gave a great adverting pitch for the Southern Company and their demonstrated ability to recover from disasters (Katrina, Alabama tornadoes, etc.), and also added a word to my meager vocabulary: Isochronous. In power generation, isochronous means that the frequency of the electricity generated is "flat" or constant. The term was used in reference to Warner Robbins AFB and their ability to continue operations when the commercial grid goes down. Warner Robbins has a Georgia Power-owned and operated facility on base that facilitates the transition, and WR can operate isochronously. I like the word, and what it signifies re: energy security capabilities.

Mr. Kidd of the Army noted that there does not exists a mutually agreed upon definition of Energy Security. One bright, enterprising employee of the U. S. Corps of Engineers rose during the Q&A to ask Mr. Kidd if we might, please, have a definition so that all the uncertainty about what is expected of the USACE and energy security could be removed. Mr. Kidd assured her that he would get right on it….by tasking the USACE for the definition. No good deed goes unpunished. Let me offer my own humble definition:

Energy Security is the assured access to mission critical energy at acceptable financial and environmental costs in an isochronous manner.

If you want levels of energy security, you can call them mission critical, mission essential and mission supportive. Assured access is about whose hand is on the lever allowing isochronous access to electricity. If it is the utility, it is not necessarily assured. If it is the commander, then it is. And acceptable financial and environmental costs will be determined on a case by case basis.

The military is a doctrine driven institution. Doctrine provides a common language, as is the case in other professions. If we are to have energy security, we must have a common understanding of what that means.

Mr. Kidd also announced (drum roll, please) that the largest energy security information effort ever launched, was, er, launched. Fort Bliss, Texas, in support of their Net Zero energy, water and waste effort, has released nine Requests for Information for multiple technologies. Bliss wants to know about waste to energy, wind (large and small), solar, geothermal, microgrids and more.

Industry now has until early October to provide information to Fort Bliss. An army of evaluators is even now examining the documents to decide if their companies should take the next steps. Once the RFI responses are delivered, Team Bliss will use the information gathered to craft their Requests for Proposal. So, industry: dust off the responses sent into the Air Force Civil Engineering Agency for their RFIs, paint them green and send them west (or east for you Left Coasties). Also take a look at what the USACE has requested in their Sources Sought for Power Purchase Agreements. They should be mutually supporting.

Defining energy security and attaining it will be a long slog. The processes the Services are following are lengthy, but legitimate. As Jon Power of the Army likes to say, “We’ve got the Land, We’ve got the Demand”. The river of solutions flows through industry and the Department must be a good partner if we are to attain definable, demonstrable energy security for our installations and our nation. That means transparency, consistency and the ability to maintain the course. We are all in this for the long haul and we are all in it together. Dan Nolan

Changing the Paradigm for Operational Energy: REF 6 Speaks

2011-08-04T10:48:00.004-04:00

In a previous post I mentioned that the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) was taking on the role of executor for operational energy, similar to the USMC Expeditionary Energy Office. I had the opportunity to speak with the current director of the REF, Colonel Pete Newell. COL Newell, former commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division is a veteran of Panama, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. As a side note, you can tell when the Army thinks a position is important; they assign a former brigade commander. Newell is only the second former brigade commander to fill this role. Good news for the REF. His predecessor, BG Dave Bishop went on to become a flag officer.

I asked COL Newell why the REF took on the energy mission. His answer surprised me, but should not have. As far as the REF is concerned energy security is just another problem that commanders in contact are experiencing and it needs an immediate solution. That is the mission of the REF. They are designed to find technology solution to commanders’ immediate battlefield needs. "The REF cannot solve all of the Army's Energy problems" he said. Newell clearly understands the challenge. He described a recent visit to a brigade in Afghanistan where the unit was preparing to resupply a combat outpost (COP). In order to do so it would be required to secure 7 or 8 valleys along the route. It would take two battalions to conduct the operation and would resupply the COP for 10 days. The operation would result in the COP having the beans, bullets, water and fuel necessary to execute its mission.

Unlike so many others who have created new organizations to deal with energy security, the Army turned to its utility infielder and said, “Here’s the problem; get some solutions”. It is not something special; it is simply another set of problems and the REF solves problems.

Newell’s own experience as a brigade commander in Iraq was being responsible for well over a dozen separate COPS spread out over swampy terrain with, in many cases, one way in and one way out. The danger was in becoming predictable if the supplies must go out every 4 or 5 days. If he could have reduced demand and had adequate storage as he did with food, ammo and water, he could have ensured that patterns did not become predictable.

In at time of dwindling resources, COL Newell felt assured that if the warfighter needs it, the Services will provide it. I asked what made this foray into operational energy different than the Power Surety experience. He said, unlike 2006, the DTOMLPF wheel has started turning with the publication of a white paper on power and energy by TRADOC in April 11. This begins the creation of a big “R” requirement for the Army Acquisition Community. Additionally, this time the leadership is committed with the Vice Chief of Staff coming up on the net and visits to the REF by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy, Environment and Infrastructure as well as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. I hope they noted that after eight years the REF is still housed in trailers. They do not want to appear to be too permanent. Finally, MG Raymond Mason, the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G4 has the rose for the Army for operational energy.

That energy is to be considered like any other logistical problem first, makes sense. We impose fire discipline because it is the most effective AND efficient way to employ a logistically constrained commodity. I never heard any of my gunners say they had too much ammo! The Army has a magnificent culture of discipline. They do not have to change that culture; just use it to change behavior. Energy discipline can be as effective as fire discipline.

Many have tried to make operational energy something other than it is. I like Newell’s approach. The real paradigm change is how he intends to go about it. In the early days of the REF there was an almost arrogance about the mission. They (we) felt that they (we) could not be held up by bureaucratic procedures imposed by what was considered an antiquated acquisition system. The REF was dismissed by the acquisition community as creating an unsustainable logistics environment and doing one off, “boutique” fielding of equipment. Newell is taking on the mission of creating solutions that are doctrinally sound, meet federal acquisition regulations legal requirements and are logistically sustainable. Previously,successful solutions were “thrown over the wall” to the acquisition and logistics community to figure out how to “field” the solution (vice “equip”) and to logistically sustain it. The new REF paradigm is to bring the team together so that parallel paths can move successful solutions more quickly into the mainstream.

For energy, COL Newell will pull expertise from Program Manager, Mobile Electric Power and Program Executive Office, Soldier, the G4, the Logistics Innovation Agency and other labs, agencies and industry as necessary, while still ensuring that the solutions get to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in a rapid fashion. This effort is to be commended and encouraged. Leave the egos at the door.

Energy is a battlefield commodity like water, ammunition and food. In order to sustain the war fighter we must be able to provide the “tools of Mars” in a way that is sustainable in blood and treasure. Fire discipline ensures that targets are serviced adequately without wasting ammunition. Murphy’s rules of combat says there will always be one more enemy squad than you have magazines. We need to think about energy use in the same way. If it is practiced at the installation, it can be second nature in the field. Sweat in training so you won’t bleed in combat. Same holds true for energy.

O.K., team. It is off to the banks of the Ohio River and Cincinnati for GovEnergy 2011. Look forward to seeing many of you there and posting from the site for those who cannot make it. Dan Nolan

Acronym Soup:

DOTMLPF

Doctrine: the way we fight, e.g., emphasizing maneuver warfare combined air-ground campaigns.
Organization: how we organize to fight; divisions, air wings, Marine-Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), etc.
Training: how we prepare to fight tactically; basic training to advanced individual training, various types of unit training, joint exercises, etc.
Materiel: all the “stuff” necessary to equip our forces, that is, weapons, spares, etc. so they can operate effectively.
Leadership and education: how we prepare our leaders to lead the fight from squad leader to 4-star general/admiral; professional development.
Personnel: availability of qualified people for peacetime, wartime, and various contingency operations
Facilities: real property; installations and industrial facilities (e.g. government owned ammunition production facilities) that support our forces.

Raising the Level of Debate: Politics and Energy Security

2011-08-03T05:48:00.006-04:00

Retired Rear Admiral and former CIA branch chief, Robert James opines in the WSJ that the Military is taken in by fads and charlatans. Other than “The Army Wants to Join You” or George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, that appears to be a bit much. What ADM (R) James observes is that food for fuel and Amory Lovins are the latest incarnation of this. Some things I just cannot let pass.

With all due respect, Admiral, really??? We all get it, food for fuel is a bad idea. That being said, you do not make Grey Poupon out of camelina. The reference to camelina as a member of the mustard family is a ruse. "Look, they are using food!!!" In a similar vignette, a well intended Marine Sergeant conducted a cotton seed to fuel experiment in Afghanistan. This was a local “good idea” that was not sponsored by the USMC. Why? Because food for fuel is a bad idea. Next question. Fuel on the battlefield will be whatever is available; right now, fossil fuel is available. But if Kyrgyzstan starts growing camelina as a cash crop and makes fuel out of it, good for them and DLA-E can buy it and our equipment can use it. By the way, fuel on the battlefield does not cost $400 a gallon. Speechwriters, stop telling that to your bosses. Read this.

As far as worrying about the enemy seeing a windmill, you can see Camp Leatherneck from space! Of course the big, honking fuel trucks for the diesel generators wouldn't give up your position. Alternative and renewable energy is intended for big FOBs and small units. Thirty pound of batteries or ten pounds and a solar blanket (and twenty pounds of additional ammo) seems like a smart choice.

I do not know if Admiral James actually read “Winning the Oil Endgame” (WOE) all the way through or if he just dismissed it out of hand as the rantings of an “enviro”. If you read it, it is a business case argument for reducing mobility energy requirements and then providing that reduced requirement by, first, renewable fuels and then, for ground mobility, with electricity from renewable sources. Since only 1% of the energy used to move a car actually moves the driver, perhaps we could do better. Light weight, lower drag materials is what Amory talks about. Remember the Rand report quote? "…the military is best served by efforts directed at using energy more efficiently in weapons systems and at military installations." I would give WOE another read. If you would like to know what Amory Lovins thinks, read this.

Can we please elevate the discussion? We need not worry about the DOD giving up its mission in order to be "green". It is doing it to because commanders in the field are asking for it. It did not start with the Obama administration. It’s not political. The Joint Urgent Operational Needs statement that awoke the Military to this issue came from a Marine General in Iraq in 2006. As my first platoon sergeant said to me, "LT, if you are doing something stupid, you ought not do that". To imply that a commander who must deny the enemy knowledge of his location would put up a wind turbine intimates that the commander is stupid or that the reader is stupid. We old retired guys have to keep in mind that these kids out there commanding brigades are pretty sharp. Let us not use political paintbrushes to tar those who seek greater security. Dan Nolan

Army Energy Website is Up

2011-07-29T20:49:00.002-04:00

The Army has created a page with all the latest news on energy. You can read about how BRAC saves energy, hear GEN Petraeus address to the Army/Air Force Energy Conference and catch up on new programs like the test base camp and old projects like the Advanced Medium Mobile Power Sources that were finally green lighted for full rate production on 20 July. Well done page and very informative.

From the Ashes to the Edge: Army OE Capability Resurrected

2011-07-28T14:04:00.005-04:00

In a previous post, I lamented the lack of an execution arm for operational energy for everyone but the Marines who have the Expeditionary Energy Office. In 2006 -2008, the Army had the Power Surety Task Force (PSTF), embedded in the Rapid Equipping Force (REF) that served that function. The REF finds technology solutions to commanders’ immediate battlefield needs and brought the Joint Force robots, visible laser designators, anti-sniper technologies and enhanced armor.

The adventure in operational energy that was the PSTF brought about, HiPower, tactical garbage to energy, the Net Zero Plus Joint Technology Demonstration and the Net Zero Forward Operating Base at the National Training Center. Unfortunately, it was a bit avant garde for the timorous REF Director at that time and he had it transferred to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE). DDRE was also running the Energy Security Task Force, the ad hoc predecessor to the Office of Operational Energy Plans and Policy (OOEPP). When OOEPP got up and running, they inherited the PSTF, but decided that their office would just do plans and policy and not do execution. The PSTF was allowed to die a proper contractual death. But the Phoneix arises!

Yesterday, at storied Fort Belvoir, VA the REF announced that “The U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force has partnered with the Defense Technical Information Center's (DTIC) Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis Center (WSTIAC) to procure, deploy and assess hybrid alternative and renewable energy systems in an effort called "Energy to the Edge". Selected renewable and alternative energy solutions include Solar Stick 360 3kW hybrid energy system, ZeroBase H-Series 5kW Regenerator, Skybuilt's Skycase portable power system, Iris Technologies Personal Power System (SPACES) and Qinetiq's 1kW JP-8 generator.” As soon as the REF posts a link to the release, will get it to you.

How this will be accomplished is unclear. Whether a sub-organization will be reconstituted or this will simply be added to the plates of folks already there, is not known. What is known is that their number one customer, U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, is straining at the bit for this capability. Before he departed, GEN Petraeus submitted a memo to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics listing four operational energy requirements. GEN Mattis, Commander, U.S. Central Command endorsed the request and added one of his own. CENTCOM wants a team of energy experts from the Services and Industry to visit Afghanistan to conduct "a baseline study to reduce fuel consumption at our forward operating bases". Having done a couple of these, I recommend that CENTCOM send a General Officer to lead this team and ensure they get access to the information often closely guarded by support contractors.

The REF is the un-acquisition outfit that gets it done. It is the perfect place to put the requirement. I caution the leadership to gird their loins against the folks that will tell them it is not their job. The REF mission is to, “rapidly provides urgent capabilities to U.S. Army forces employed globally by harnessing current and emerging technologies in order to improve operational effectiveness”. Operational energy is just such an “urgent capability”. Dan Nolan, PSTF 2006-2008

INSS Comes to Defense of DOD Energy Plan: "Next Piece Won't be Vague"

2011-07-28T12:34:00.006-04:00

This just in.....DOD publishes DOD Energy Strategy. National Defense University declares that criticism is unjust. They are hopeful.

"Hopefully the implementation plan will address the criticisms voiced about the vagueness of the strategy”, says Dr. Richard Andres.

The Institute for National Strategic Studies lauds the ASD, OEPP for getting a “first piece in the overall energy plan” published just two years after being directed to form by Congress in 2009. Of course the speed with which DOD was able to place a nominee before Congress should have given a clue in that the confirmation hearing did not occur until early 2010.

Not sure what Dr. Andres feels is unjust. The Energy Security Strategic Plan published by the DOD Energy Security Task Force in 2008 was a comprehensive and directive document. Many of its authors work in the office of the ASD/OEPP. I guess my lack of patience is that most of the work had been done; the challenge should have just been in re-coordinating.

But the fact is, the Services hold all the cards. The only one that Ms. Burke holds is the ability to certify the energy budget for Services against the DOD plan. The longer we wait for the plan, the less time the Services have to ensure their budgets are compliant. Of course, I am not sure what happens if a budget is not certified. Maybe they get another 90 days and a do over. Dan Nolan

Breach or By-Pass: Overcoming Obstacles to DOD Energy Goals

2011-07-27T07:32:00.004-04:00

In DOD energy, the vision is clear and the strategic goals are well articulated. What is missing is direction to those who will execute the strategy at the operational and tactical levels. If you ask a Director of Public Works at an Army Post (and I have) what their responsibilities are regarding achieving 25% renewable energy by 2025, they will look at you as if you have an even number of heads.

A recent article in National Defense Magazine questioned DOD’s ability “to turn glossy rhetoric into ironclad policies”. This observation came as results of remarks by former Vice Chief of Naval Operations, ADM (R) John Nathman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Nathman attributes this in part to a lack of an overall National Energy Policy. I would agree that we do not have a new energy policy, but there are plenty of existing laws and executive orders still in effect.

The current energy policy is expressed in two laws (EPAct 2005 and EISA 2007) and two executive orders, (13423 and 13514). They provide sufficient guidance for DOD to create strategy, operational direction and tactical instruction. The following is what is required of DOD:

Biofuels Target Purchases by 2022 (at market price):

Cellulosic ethanol 16 Billion Gallons
Biomass Based diesel 5 Billion Gallons
Other Biofuels 15 Billion Gallons

Renewable Energy Goals (at “acceptable rates):

2010 5%
2013 7.5%
2025 25%
2050 50%

Energy Efficiency Goals (relative to 2003; where economically feasible)

2015 30%

The lack of a new national energy policy is not a hindrance to DOD energy planning. What is missing is fixing the responsibilities. The authorities are there (ECIP, MILCON, UESC, ESPC, MATOC, PPA). Because no one is responsible, no one can be held accountable. As one comment I received stated, “who cares about the OEPP plan; show me the budget!".

For operational energy, the acquisition community and contracting command should be getting the rose for figuring out the COTS, GOTs, new development solutions and/or contract modifications necessary. For biofuels, Defense Logistics Agency – Energy will be responsible for that acquisition, but at competitive prices (if Shell Aviation will allow it; how long can Shell sell at a loss?). Infrastructure energy responsibility for renewables and energy conservation will have to devolve upon the Corps of Engineers, Army’s Installation Command, Navy Facilities Command and the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency. From there it will pass to the tactical level at the bases and post through the installation command structure. The HOW of this must be in the much promised, forthcoming PLANs. Will every base need to reduce by 7.5% by 2013 or will it be measured as a Service?

There is no question that this is hard work. By Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Services control the budget. Any plan at the OSD level must be coordinated with (agreed to by) the Services. How hard could that be? Dwindling resources make budgeting agreements hard to achieve. Ask the President and Speaker.

The final piece of the article talked about getting DOD to change their appreciation of the “time value” of money. A dollar spent today on energy conservation saves hundreds in five years, but the Pentagon has been famously “penny-wise and pound-foolish”. As sexy as renewable are, conservation is the best bet for DOD. The smaller the energy foot print, the easier it is to get 7.5% from RE sources. Culture change indeed! Dan Nolan

Acronyms:

EPAct 2005 – Energy Policy Act of 2005
EISA 2007 – Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
ECIP – Energy Conservation Investment Program
MILCON - Military Construction
UESC – Utility Energy Services
ESPC - Energy Savings Performance Contracts
MATOC - Multiple Award Task Order Contract.
EUL – Enhanced Use Lease
PPA – Power Purchase Agreement
COTS – Commercial Off the Shelf Technology
GOTS – Government Off the Shelf Technology
OSD – Office of the Secretary of Defense

ARPA-E, Industry and DOD Energy Leadership: Who leads, who follows?

2011-07-25T05:54:00.007-04:00

As a follow up to the last post on the Army/Air Force Energy Forum, after Secretary Chu spoke we heard from other DOD luminaries, high ranking government officials and industry leaders. Again, the themes of “ DOD is vulnerable due to energy insecurity; DOD has a history of technology leadership; DOD helps get technology economically launched; DOD can get it done”. At one point former Senator John Warner, thumped the podium and declared, “DOD Must Lead!”.

For me the highlight of the conference was the very refreshing talk by Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director, Advance Research Projects Agency –Energy (ARPA-E). Their mission statement is much too long to quote here, but , it uses words like “freshness”, “out of the box” and “nibble and sparse” without a hint of self-consciousness. Dr. Majumdar’s presentation focused on some very cool and critically essential projects, all of which had great acronyms like BEEST, IMPACCT, GRIDS, etc. ARPA-E is assuming the mantle of pushing the technology boundaries in a very focused manner on energy. His matter of fact approach to describing things like microorganisms that convert CO2 into liquid fuels had the effect of generating excitement for bugs that crap oil! The good Doctor conceded that not all or, for that matter, many of these projects would bear fruit, but that was their mission: to go where industry might not go. Of course, where is industry going?

I won’t go into all the breakout session I attended, but will give you some general impressions. Other than the DOE discussions, the only piece of new information I gathered was that the Program Manager, Ground Soldier sent some solar panels and fuel cells along with the Iron Rangers of the 1-16th Infantry Battalion to Afghanistan. Apparently this happened back in January while I wasn’t paying attention. Why the PM, Ground Soldier planned, financed and executed this rather than PM, Mobile Electric Power was not adequately explained. Other than that, it was mostly a recitation of why energy security is important to DOD, promises that “the plan is coming” and great recruiting by the Marine Corps (excellent video, Brutus). Not much new ground was plowed.

Industry was there in force and led several moderated panels. The list is informative:

Mr. Scott Sklar, President Stella Group, LTD
Mr. Paul Bollinger, General Manager Government Solutions, Boeing Energy (former DASA, Energy and Privatization)
Mr. Alex Beehler, President of Alex A. Beehler & Co., LL (former Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations & Environment)
Mr. Mike Aimone, Battelle Memorial Institute, (former Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, HQ USAF)
Mr. Kevin Billings, Lockheed Martin, (former Acting Assistant Secretary of the United States Air Force for Installations, Environment & Logistics)
Mr. Marc Gottschalk, Proterra

It was nice to see so many friends and members of the former DOD energy regime. Many of the listed folks all a hand in writing energy plans, policies and programs for years in DOD. They were the giants upon whose shoulders the new regime should have stood to advance “The Plan”. The clock is ticking towards achieving the goals and mandates for energy. The DOD Operational Energy Plan was published on 14 June 2011 with the promise that the Implementation Plan would follow in ninety days. 15 September 2011 is a much awaited day. Industry is standing by for action. Installation energy is still an open question. Who is responsible, what are the authorities and how will accountability be kept? If this is going to be done with public/private partnership, the public side must answer those questions. Dan Nolan

USA/USAF Energy Forum, Day 0.5: Leadership, Technology and Empty Barrels

2011-07-20T05:57:00.007-04:00

The first day of the first bi-Service Energy Forum is in the books and it was an impressive first. That the Army and Air Force where able to coordinate schedules and allow hundreds of government, industry, academic and media bubbas to assemble, mingle and learn was a first. As Dr. Kevin Geiss , Air Force Deputy Assistant Sec for Energy pointed out, by holding a joint conference, they eliminated one set of air travel, hotel bills and conference fees (not to mention bar bills), allowing us all to stretch our budgets, reduce our travel related GHG footprint and juxtapose Service agendas. The downside was an agenda so packed with simultaneous breakout sessions that it became almost impossible to choose where to be. That being said, themes began to emerge quickly.

After opening remarks by respective Assistant Secs for installations, energy, environment, logistics and what have you , the first plenary session kicked off with the White House Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Under Secs from the Air Force and Army extolling the virtues of DOD involvement in energy security. “DOD has a history of leadership, DOD helps get technology launched, DOD can get it done” was the chorus and all were singing. The first sour note began to creep in when Mr. Westphal (Army) let slip that, oh, by the way, we don’t have any big money to do this and it is going to get tougher. You could hear the collective sucking of teeth by all the industry folks. Of course this is really not news. All of the government folks have been telling us that they cannot achieve their lofty goals without third party involvement and their industry partners. Still, many of the folks who were there hoping to dig into the supposed barrels of DOD money for energy, were shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover the barrel is bare.

This was followed by the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. Dr. Chu is the funniest, Nobel Prize winning, experimental physicist I know. At one point, when describing the Energy Innovation Hub concept, he said that while working in a previous job a couple of years ago, he had tried to get DOE interested in the concept, with little luck. “The current administration has been more receptive to my ideas.” And then he told us, that that was the joke. We laughed. Sometimes we forget that Nobel Prize winners who have done remarkable work on cooling lasers and have the vision to predict a glucose based economy (vice carbon) are just plain folks. I am seriously in awe of this man and his ideas. I would also like to have a beer with him.

Dr. Chu went on to discuss the multitude of projects in which DOE is engaged, many in support of DOD. He reminded the audience that DOE has an extensive history in working with explosives (see Manhattan Project) and is helping DOD look at IED resistant vehicles. SecEn went on to talk about what DOD could do to its 2.2 BILLION square feet of buildings to reduce their energy impact and closed by showing where other nations ranked in developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity as a percentage of their GDP. For a guy with such awesome technology at his finger tips, you would have thought he could have come up with a slide format that would have allowed him to show where the U.S. ranked on that scale. Unfortunately he could only list the top sixteen countries. What do China and Brazil know that we don’t?

I will break here so that Andy Bochman doesn’t yell at me for writing another book instead of a blog, but lots more to follow on the themes of DOD leadership, technical innovation and bare bank account. Tomorrow will have observations on the first day breakout panels and the most impressive presentation of the day. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t from DOD.

For all of you who came up to me and expressed your appreciation for what Andy and I have tried to do in this space, thank you. As much as I pick at DOD on energy, it is only because I am impatient. We are the nation that electrified the world in the first half of the last century and computerized it in the second half. What should we be doing in the first half of this century? Ask Dr. Chu. He will tell you we should be developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity. Hear, Hear. Dan Nolan

Straight DOEPP on Bad Gas: Burke on Hi GHG Fuel

2011-07-17T11:15:00.003-04:00

In a recent post on the White House blog (thanks, J.B.) the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (AS DOEPP), Sharon Burke brought our attention to a rapid development program sponsored by the Army’s Tank and Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Command in Warren, MI (TARDEC). The program, called the Fuel Efficiency Demonstrator-Alpha (FED-Alpha), produced a prototype vehicle that “has all the capability of an up-armored M1114 Humvee, but with modifications that can improve fuel economy by 70%”. I attended the industry day in September 2008 and in less than three years, the first prototype is unveiled. In the world of Acquisition, this is lightning speed. I hope that this process can be streamlined, is replicable and changes how we think about our current archaic process. But this is not the big new.

Ms. Burke goes on in the post to discuss a current move afoot in Congress to repeal the provisions of Sec 526. Essentially, Sec 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 says DOD can use no fuel whose production has greater carbon intensity than standard petroleum processing. Congress is considering language to repeal that provision. The ASDOEPP draws the connection between increases in greenhouse gases (GHG), climate change and security. Where previously DOD has planned for the implication of climate change, they have not directly attributed it to anthropogenic causes. In many cases they have avoided the discussion, in the words of one Navy official, “we don't want to get into a tail chase over climate change…”.

In a time when Congress’ efforts could be better spent, having an Administration official set the record straight is important and appropriate. The ideology behind the attempt to repeal Sec 526 is about denial of the causes of climate change, not about greater military flexibility. It was good to see Ms. Burke strip the camouflage from this waste of time. Dan Nolan

Simple Solutions and Occam's Razor: Why we are not seeing rapid adoption of energy solutions.

2011-07-17T10:00:00.003-04:00

Interesting article in the Environmental Entrepreneurs “E2 Update” by David Willson. Mr Willson attended the 26 April 2011 White House Forum on Energy and heard DepSecDef Bill Lynn and DepSecEn Daniel Poneman speak. He was moved to write his article after hearing the tales of woe that the military was telling, yet again. It is the same tale that has been told since August 2006 when Major General Zilmer, USMC asked for a hybrid electric power station. Mr. Willson, who has a twenty five year history in the energy field, presents some simple (and possibly simplistic) solutions to the challenges of battlefield energy.

His holistic approach starts with energy efficiency. Geothermal heat pumps are one solution to inefficient generators and HVAC units. Close looped systems exchange heat between the atmosphere and cool temperatures thirty feet below the surface (more here). Small wind turbines provide the pumping power. Simple solutions for complex problems.

Mr. Willson also recommends swamp coolers as an old and proven technology. The water intensity of evaporative cooling may be a bit much for desert climes, but worth a look. He also advocates for thermally efficient buildings such as the Afghans have been building for centuries. On that point he aligns with COL (RET) T.C. Moore, USMC of leader of the Marine Energy Assessment Team. Can’t wait to see those showing up in the Sand Book.

Power production gets only a short mention. He is an advocate for combine heat and power applications. According to the Federal Energy Management Program, CHP “offers extraordinary benefits in terms of energy efficiencies and emissions reductions by optimizing the use of heat that would otherwise be wasted when generating power. CHP systems can improve power quality, reliability, and overall energy security”. These systems can be retrofitted to any system that produces heat as a byproduct. What’s not to love?

The bottom-line is that Mr. Willson’s suggestions are common sense, simple and have all been proffered before. Why have they not been adopted? Most often, we hear that U.S. Forces do not want to appear as permanent and such improvements give that impression. More directly, it may be because no one has changed the specifications that the various Contracting Commands use in writing the contracts for Logistics Civil Augmentation Program and for the contracts in support of CONUS installations.

The philosophical principal of Occam’s Razor is that we should tend toward the simpler theories in the absence of sufficient facts to support a more complex answer. In all the DOD energy conferences I have attended, I have never heard someone from any of the Contracting Commands speak about how energy efficiency is being considered in the products or services for which the government contracts. That does not mean it is not being done; it just says that I have not observed it. It will feature in the questions asked at this week’s Army/Air Force Energy Forum. Remember, if you cannot attend, send me your questions and I will respond; better still, post them in the comments section. Look forward to seeing many of you on Tuesday and Wednesday. Dan Nolan

DESC is Dead; Long Live DESC: Congress Opens Little Energy Schoolhouse

2011-07-08T15:54:00.005-04:00

As you may know, late last year the Defense Energy Supply Center was reflagged as Defense Logistics Center – Energy. Soon thereafter, another organization seized the acronym DESC for their own purposes. Coincidence? Or just trying to save money on letterhead?

On 11 March 2011 the Congressional Member Organizations (caucuses) approved the formation of the Congressional Defense Energy Security Caucus. Chaired by Congressman Maurice D. Hinchey of the Fighting 22nd District of New York (sorry, Mr. Colbert), the current members of the DESC are, Roscoe Bartlett (co-chair), Jack Kingston (co-chair), Gabrielle Giffords (co-chair), Earl Blumenauer, Gerry Connolly, Randy Forbes, John Garamendi, Colleen Hanabusa, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Adam Kinzinger, Jim Langevin, Mike Turner and Delegate Madelleine Bordallo

This week, on 7 July, alongside Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Pia Carusone, Chief of Staff for Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Mr. Hinchey unveiled DESC. The stated purpose is to “educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic value of utilizing sustainable energy sources for the U.S. military, highlight and support established and emerging defense energy initiatives, and find solutions to energy challenges facing the Department of Defense (DoD)”. School is now in session.

Also present at the unveiling was Sharon Burke, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs who spoke at the kickoff. "By forming the Defense Energy Security Caucus, Representatives Bartlett, Giffords, Hinchey, and Kingston are continuing the strong leadership the Congress demonstrated when they helped create the DoD Operational Energy office in 2009. Working together, I believe we can transform the way the Department uses energy, which will improve capabilities for our warfighters, cut costs for American taxpayers, and ultimately save lives."

I spoke with the military liaison staff of Congressman Hinchey’s office about the focus for the Caucus. They pointed out that the Caucus was bipartisan and had representation on the Appropriations and Authorization Committees. The Caucus will serve as a central hub for information and education on Defense Energy and will host briefings and tech events to bring together members of industry, academia and government. Their goal is to “give defense energy security policy an additional synergistic platform that will contribute to mission success, protect lives, save money, and safeguard the environment”.

In addition to being a central repository for all things Defense Energy, my hope is that they serve as an accountability partner for DOD energy efforts. Responsibilities must be clearly articulated, authorities must be provided appropriately and accountability must be ruthless. Having someone from outside the house (and from the House) looking in can be very helpful in making sure that there is balance AND success in achieving the very aggressive goals that have been set by legislative decree, presidential order and internal DOD policy. I wish them all success. We need it! Dan Nolan

National Power and Lights at Night: Veterans for Smart Power

2011-07-07T11:35:00.005-04:00

Like Groucho Marx, I would rarely join any group that would have me as a member. That being said, I am a member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC), specifically the Veterans for Smart Power faction. The USGLC is a “broad-based influential network of 400 businesses and NGOs; national security and foreign policy experts; and business, faith-based, academic and community leaders in all 50 states who support a smart power approach of elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense in order to build a better, safer world”. Veterans for Smart Power is for “veterans of all ages and ranks who share a commitment to elevating and strengthening our non-military tools of global engagement – alongside our military – so we can build a better, safer, more prosperous America and world”. My particular focus is on using all the elements of national power (economic, military, political and information) to promote the proliferation of clean, distributed energy in developing countries so that they do not become havens for terrorist organizations. When you turn the lights on, the cockroaches scatter.

As Kissinger said, America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. Our interest in other countries is as markets or as sources of raw materials, goods and/or services. It is in our interest to help foster the maturation of developing countries so that their economies are markets driven, their security assured, their people are represented and their press is free. Under these circumstances, nations tend to become good trading partners and all boats rise.

If you look at the map of the world above it shows you where the Pentagon thinks the 21st century wars will occur. What is most informative is if you look at that same map at night. Inside the zone, very little light at night. Light at night means kids can study, small manufacturing can occur and women need not travel far to gather wood for fires. Light at night is the beginning of economic development. But without safety and security that does not happen. Safety is being free from molestation in your person and property. Security is believing that you are free from molestation in your person and property. There is a difference. Too often in the last couple of decades, we have turned to the military to fix problems we failed to solve with the other elements of power. I would rather invest in a USAID schools program than deal with the results of a void filled by a madrasa.

Next week in Washington, D.C., the USGLC is hosting a conference to discuss a smart power approach to global leadership. Unfortunately, the reservations are maxed out. It is still possible to tune in to the address by Vice Chairman, JCS, GEN Cartwright’s address streamed on www.usglc.org this Tuesday, July 12 at 9:15 AM. I recommend you check out the address and the organization. War is no longer just an extension of policy by other means (sorry, dead Carl); it is the failure to properly use all the tools available. Dan Nolan

Chumming the Water: Army Looks for Big Fish for PPAs

2011-07-05T14:54:00.007-04:00

Several times in these postings, I have chided the government over the issue of vision without resources. It appears that the Army is now putting its money where its mouth is. Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Huntsville office released a request for information for “Sources Sought: Renewable and Alternative Energy Power Production for Army Installations”. The estimated value of the proposition is between $50 million and $900 million.

Before we go popping champagne corks, we need to review the bidding. A Sources Sought notice is simply a summary posted by an agency so that they can see what is out there in support of a project possibility. It is not a solicitation for work, nor is it a request for proposal. (Reference the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Subpart 7.3 and OMB Circular A-76). If there are sufficient “sources”, the government may develop a scope of the work they require that can be later refined into a statement of work (SOW). The SOW would then be included in a request for proposal or quote (depending on specificity) for discrete project requirements. This is akin to chumming the water to bring the big fish in.

In this particular case the USACE “intends to solicit and award multiple, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for use in competing and awarding Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) task orders”. They are looking for contractors to come build renewable and alternative energy production facilities for Army use that are on or near Army installations. The contractor will be responsible for financing, building, operating and maintaining energy production facilities. The reason a contractor would do this is for a guarantee that the Army and/or local utility (depending on the local laws) would purchase the power on a long term basis. According to the announcement, “the length of contract for the sale of the energy to the Army cannot exceed 30 years”. WHAT??

Ok, this is going to get a little legally nerdy. For a long time, only one of the Services felt that they had the authority to enter into long term power purchase agreements for renewable energy other than geothermal. U.S. Code 2922A says that the Service Secretaries can enter into energy or fuel contracts up to 30 years, but only for (1) “under section 2917 of this title” (geothermal) ; and (2) “for the provision and operation of energy production facilities on real property under the Secretary’s jurisdiction or on private property and the purchase of energy produced from such facilities”. Unless waived, it still requires the SecDef’s approval, so who is really calling the shot? Secretary Panetta! If you want to know what others think the new SecDef thinks, check out this Annie Snider NYT article. No direct statements from Sec Panetta, but much hopeful musings.

For some time the Navy has interpreted piece of Code differently. At the 2011 Association of Defense Communities, CAPT Clayton Mitchell presented NAVFAC Energy Offices view. In their opinion, Section A(2) is the operative statement, but applies to all energy, not just geothermal. This provision has never been used; the Navy’s Miramar Land Fill Gas project could be the first to test the water.

At last week’s USAF Alt Energy Symposium in Tuscon it was stated (by person unknown), that DOD was intending to move forward on the use of 2922A for energy other than geothermal and now we have the Army hinting that they will do likewise. All they have said is that it cannot exceed 30 years, not that they would do 30.

The big deal here is that 30 year power purchase agreements are a big deal. Banks like 30 year income streams guaranteed by the U. S. Government. Absent the default of the USG, this is money in the bank. It is also a way to energy security via third party financing and public/private partnerships. I hope that lots of companies submit for this “Sources Sought” and lots of great partnerships are established. I also hope that the scope of this is closer to the $900M than the $50M (Congress, are you listening?).

DOD has to have energy security and it is worth paying a nickel extra for clean, economic and secure energy. I have cautioned that DOD should not be looked to as the driver of the clean energy market. DOD’s mission is to fight and win the Nation’s wars, not stimulate the economy or open markets. That being said, a significant investment for energy the Army already needs, in renewable technologies cannot help but have a positive effect on those industries. We still have a long way to go. Dan Nolan

Transparency in the DOD Energy Effort: Zoomies Set the Standard

2011-06-29T20:07:00.005-04:00

The Air Force just concluded their Renewable Energy Symposium at Ventana Canyon, Tucson, Arizona. Over the course of the two day discussion, the group discussed Corporate Energy, Congressional Energy Perspective (from Rep. Giffords’ office), industry trends and technology, technology, technology. For those of you, like me, who did not attend, the AF has made most of the information available. The same day as the conference closed. Very impressive. As a former information operator I understand the impact of timely information. One way to tamp down uncertainty is to provide knowledge as quickly and as succinctly as possible.

The Air Force, specifically, the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, had the website up and the information out within hours of COL David Uselman and COL Patrick Kumashiro’s closing remarks. In a market place where information has been slow to be shared (or created), the USAF has set the standard in transparency. As far as the substance, that will take a little time to review.

The next opportunity to excel will be the Air Force & Army Energy Forum 19-20 July in DC. Again, for those who are not able to attend but have questions you would like asked, please add them to the comment section and I will take them with me. All in good taste, of course! Dan Nolan

DOD/Army Leadership Steps out on Operational Energy: The Lab Is Open

2011-06-26T18:13:00.008-04:00

Since the demise of the Power Surety Task Force, the Army has not had an agency focused on evaluating and deploying operational energy technology. Deficiency resolved, apparently.

This past week, Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs and Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment oversaw the opening of the Army’s new Base Camp Systems Integration Lab (SIL) at Fort Devens, MA.

The SIL is under the direction of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. It is composed of two, 150 person base camps, one configured for current capabilities and one to assess new technologies.

“Instrumentation on the SIL will measure water, fuel and power usage to help increase energy efficiency and base camp commonality.” The decision for the 150 person size is related to the “Force Provider” base camp in a box. Actually, it fits nicely in a single C-17, not a box.

This is a great way to get at the operational needs surrounding energy. The two sites will allow the evaluation of off the shelf technologies AND the development of next generation tech. The Force Provider is intend to be emplaced rapidly (four hours), support 150 people indefinitely and then go back into the box for use elsewhere. If the SIL focuses on just Force Provider requirements, it will miss the huge energy sinks that are the follow-ons to the expeditionary life support provided by FP, the more enduring Forward Operating Bases. We hope the lessons from the SIL will inform the contracting process that supports these Forward Operating Bases. I am sure they thought of that, but if it has not come up, here is another tidbit from NPR that helps crystallize the challenge. Dan Nolan

Preparing for the last battle: Lessons from Afghanistan

2011-06-23T07:31:00.006-04:00

Interesting piece published in the NY Times about missed opportunities in U.S. efforts to improve Afghan infrastructure. This is not a strictly DOD energy story, but it should inform thinking about future operations and our own infrastructure challenges at home. The article, written by Patricia McArdle, reports on a number of efforts to bring energy security and other infrastructure projects to the Afghan people that went awry because we failed to understand the territory. In her 12 months as a political advisor with the Department of State, Ms. McArdle had a front row seat to observe the outcomes of many well intended plans. Standard operating procedures tell you what to do in a given set of circumstances. If that “given set of circumstances” do not exist, there is no SOP. We must reward innovation and not always compliance.

Despite a 2004 Department of Energy study of Afghanistan energy sources that “ revealed abundant renewable energy resources that could be used to build small-scale wind- and solar-powered systems to generate electricity and solar thermal devices for cooking and heating water”, the U.S. brought in diesel generators and created a critical vulnerability.

International building codes dictated that the U.S. build concrete and cinderblock buildings for local projects, resulting in buildings that were hot in summer and cold in winter. The Afghan locals build with “cob — a mixture of mud, sand, clay and chopped straw molded to form durable, elegant, super-insulated, earthquake-resistant structures. With their thick walls, small windows and natural ventilation, traditional Afghan homes may not comply with international building codes, but they are cooler in summer and warmer in winter than cinder-block buildings”. I first noticed this when, then Colonel T.C. Moore, USMC, head of the Marine Corps Energy Assessment Team (or as we liked to call him, the MEAT Head) pointed it out while we were visiting COB Payne in Southern Afghanistan. “You know, there’s a reason they build them that way” T.C. mused, “What don’t we get?”.

Even when DOD tried a renewable project in support of our Afghan partners, they looked through their own filters, not the locals. An example can be found in Dina Maron’s article about an Army Corps of Engineers' plan running into trouble with a wind project in Afghanistan. A plan to build a 1 MW wind turbine for the Afghan equivalent of my Rock Bound Highland Home (West Point) went poorly. Problem was that the guy who drew the blueprints hadn’t walked the road. The 300 ton crane necessary for this behemoth couldn’t navigate the terrain. A U.S. solution (huge, centralized power) is not necessarily the answer in less developed regions. Typically, in Afghan wind project one sees small, distributed generation and it is for a reason. A hundred 10KWs would have been more manageable in this terrain.

In the great book, “America’s First Battles, 1776-1965” edited by Charles E. Heller and William A. Stofft, we learned that American’s tend to prepare for the first battle of the next war based upon how they fought the last battle of the previous war. This book changed American Military doctrine in a very positive way. We needed to be steeped in the past, not mired in it. After World War II, America helped rebuild Japan and Germany with 1950s technology. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have done the same thing: good, solid 1950s technology. Our model was big power plants and a larger grid, because that is what worked for America… and …Japan and …Germany. We must not prepare for the next battle with the tools of the last. Dan Nolan

Pike's Peek in to Military Power: The Encyclopedia of DOD Energy

2011-06-21T19:34:00.007-04:00

If you are in or have any intention of entering the DOD energy field, you must read the new report by Pike Research. According to their website, Pike Research is “a market research and consulting firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean technology markets.” The report entitled “Renewable Energy for Military Applications”, like all research efforts, is a snapshot in time. The data call cutoff date was Jan 2011. That being said it is the most comprehensive examination of everything related to DOD energy. There are a couple of minor inconsistencies and omissions, but this is still the most encyclopedic compilation of DOD energy data that I have seen.

The report focuses on the mandates for and development of renewable energy technologies within the DOD. Additionally it provides a "moment in time" view of current energy use, supply topics, financial mechanisms and legislative/administrative mandates. It does not try to reach conclusions but provides the facts necessarily to look at this potentially huge market with intelligence.

Pike Research “concentrates on the wide array of emerging renewable energy technologies presently competing for incorporation into mainstream activities". They discuss energy conservation actions suggest as part of the movement toward LEED certification, insulation measures for forward operating bases, retrofits for military installations and cyber security and other cleantech markets.

Pike provides the facts; interpretation is left up to the readers. Definitely worth the investment if one choose to engage in this most rapidly evolving segment of the energy market. See you there! Dan Nolan

The Ultimate Operator on Operational Energy: Petraeus Speaks

2011-06-18T09:36:00.003-04:00

The Commander, International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces – Afghanistan, and soon to be CIA Director, came up on the net about operational energy this month. On 7 July GEN David H. Petraeus signed a memo directing commanders throughout his organization to make energy informed, risk based decisions on aviation and vehicle operations, base camp design, power and water generation and distribution. They are also charged with rapid technology transition of new fuel savings methods and the pursuit of existing, proven alternative energy options that reduce the use and transport of fuel (Power Surety Task Force Mission!). Finally commanders must ensure energy is considered in requirements and oversight of contracts.

To assist in this process, General Petraeus is establishing an office charged with improving operational capabilities through changes in how Coalition forces use energy. This means that changes in energy use will be required of all the partners in the Coalition. If anyone is using energy more profligately than the Yanks, I will be stunned.

General Petraeus is the first person in uniform, in contact, above the grade of BG (sorry, Steve) to publicly recognize the impact of energy on operations. The Services have all spoken up (more or less), but now the Warfighters, as part of a Coalition and a Combatant Command, have issued direction. If commanders are being given the responsibility then, presumably, they will be given the authorities (resources). The only thing left to do is establish the accountability process and, again, presumably, the office GEN Petraeus is establishing will do that. We will continue to watch for developments. Dan Nolan

DOEPP Deal Part 3: DOD Assessment of Services Budgets for Operational Energy

2011-06-16T14:25:00.007-04:00

We wrote earlier about the long awaited report from the Assistant Secretary of the Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASDOEPP) certifying the Services budgets as regards Operational Energy. As previously, mentioned all Service budgets were certified against their own strategies. The last post covered the Army's certification. The following is a synopsis of the findings by Component for the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

The Air Forces’ plan is different from the other Services in that they seek “other than Materiel solutions such as changes in Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities as the means to attain their goals. They are using techniques such as: optimizing aircraft centers of gravity, diplomatic cleared routing, European routing, and aircraft crew ratios which should provide $59M in savings in 2012. The use of simulators garners a whopping $368M. The USAF hopes to save a total of $494M over FY2012. A half a billion dollars in savings will turn heads, even in the Pentagon. What the Air Force knows is that the cheapest, cleanest, most secure electron is the one you don’t use.

As for their plan to purchase 50% of their domestic aviation fuel via alternative fuel blend at cost competitive rates, the only thing lacking is alternative fuel blend at cost competitive rates. If Solazyme or Amyris has to compete with Shell Aviation, Texaco or Chevron I am not sure of their chances. And if I am a big fuel provider, how much loss can I take before the other guy breaks? The Air Force has done a great job of certifying their aircraft, but getting alternative fuels that can compete on cost maybe a stretch. As long as all fuels are receiving subsidies, to include fossil fuels, the playing field is not level. Of course if the price of oil continues to go up, all bets are off!

The Air Force is green on Increasing Supply and Expeditionary Base Efforts. Reducing Demand gets a yellow rating due to challenges in monitoring and measuring efforts and work on improving legacy systems. Their budget for FY2012 is certified.

This annual report has the potential to provide a guiding hand for the Services in a way that is not intrusive or dictatorial. What is not clear is what would happen if a Service budget is not certified in accordance with a DoD strategy? If the forthcoming DoD Operational Energy strategy assigns responsibilities, and provides authorities (resources) then this report will serve as the accountability mechanism. If there is no penalty for failure to certify, then all they will have is hard feelings or a report that is all rosy. Neither outcome is useful. Dan Nolan

DOEPP Deal Part 2: DOD Assessment of Services Energy Budget Budgets for Operational Energy

2011-06-16T08:42:00.007-04:00

We wrote earlier about the long awaited report from the Assistant Secretary of the Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASDOEPP) certifying the Services budgets as regards Operational Energy. The timing of the release of this report is interesting. It was released on a Friday afternoon. For strategic communicators this is the prime time for issuing bad news. Have used the technique myself. The important thing is to then follow up with something to distract, such as the Operational Energy Strategy released the following Tuesday. Well played.

As previously, mentioned all Service budgets were certified against their own strategies. The following is a synopsis of the findings by Component. We split this post up into three section because of my attention span. Part 3 will be up tomorrow.

The Army’s budget was compared against their 2009 Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy. The ASDOEPP toyed with the idea of comparing it with the draft U.S. Army Power and Energy Strategy White Paper, dated April 1, 2010, but decided that it didn’t qualify as the Army’s stated strategy. Plus it in no way reflected what was contemplated in the FY2012 budget.

The Army has five energy security goals:

ESG 1. Reduced Energy Consumption
ESG 2. Increased Energy Efficiency Across Platforms and Facilities
ESG 3. Increased Use of Renewable/Alternative Energy
ESG 4. Assured Access to Sufficient Energy Supply
ESG 5. Reduced Adverse Impacts on the Environment

Only 3 goals were seen as applicable to operational energy: ESGs 1, 2 & 3. The FY2012 Army budget was then examined to determine how well it supported the execution of these three goals. These were the assessment tools for this budget certification process.

For the most part, the Army was given credit for ongoing, long planned, acquisition programs begun well before their strategy was published and treated as supportive of the strategy. Programs such as the Advanced Mobile Medium Power Sources (AMMPS) that is to replace the current generation of Tactical Quiet Generators and the Hi Power program funded by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering in 2008, were examples of goal supporting programs. Also TARDEC’s Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility Integration program and the Rotorcraft Propulsion and Drives efforts received recognition for their support for ESG2. In fact, of the $212M identified as supportive of operational energy issues, 81% of the funding was in Science and Technology efforts.

Three other endeavors were noted as supportive of the Army’s stated energy security goals: foaming tents, the Tactical Fuel Managers Defense (TFMD) system and the Smart and Green Energy (SAGE) effort. The report goes on to note that the Army did not provide information on the tent foaming (ask Steve Anderson), SAGE will not be funded in 2012 and that no sustainment cost are programed in FY2012 for TFMD. Apparently, if you are not an acquisition based effort in the Army, you will have a glorious, but short life span.

The Army was rated as yellow in ESG 1&2 and green in ESG 3. No explanation of what the color code means was provided. Perhaps DOD should take a tip from DHS decision to drop color codes. It appears that they are grading on a pass/fail basis anyway and, in the case of the Army, energy leadership is defined as figuring out which way the crowd is going and getting in front of it. The Army should have been recognized for its Net Zero efforts on its power projection platforms (installations), but since there are no budget lines associated with it, there is no recognition. Their budget for FY2012 is certified.

Will post the Navy, Marine and Air Force certifications tomorrow. More to follow. Dan Nolan

Operational Energy Strategy: Bumper Stickers for All

2011-06-15T07:38:00.009-04:00

The Department of Defense rolled out its Operational Energy Strategy yesterday with all the impact of a low velocity marshmallow. The Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms sets forth standard US military and associated terminology to encompass the joint activity of the Armed Forces of the United States. This document defines strategy ”as a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”. It would be expected that a strategy published by DoD would conform to this characterization. This document does not.

What was released yesterday was a rehash of recent military energy history and bumper stickers. It was due to Congress on 21 December 2010. Six month later we get a missive signed by the DepSecDef (guess the SecDef was still on the farewell tour) that the National Journal summed up by saying, “Right now, the energy strategy consists of a new office, a new way of thinking about energy, and a three-point plan laid out in an 11-point memo that’s full of slogans but short on specifics”

The strategy promises an implementation plan within 90 days that ”will include specific targets and timelines for achieving this strategy in the near-, mid-, and long-term”. The strategy and implementation plan will be updated annually and will serve as the basis for the ASDOEPP’s annual certification of Service operational energy budgets. So, what are the “set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”? The three bumper stickers read: More fight, less fuel; More options, less risk; and More capability, less cost. Let’s take a closer look at what the strategy requires of the Services..

The first Strategic Goal is to “reduce the demand for energy in military operations”. The strategy requires the Services to:

Document actual and projected energy consumption in current and planned military operations
Accelerate and adopt technological and management innovations from across the “DOTMLPF” spectrum to reduce demand and improve efficiency

The second Strategic Goal is to “diversifying and securing military energy supplies (in order to) improve the ability of our forces to get the energy they require to perform their missions”. The strategy requires the Services to:

Diversify and develop new energy sources suitable for expeditionary use, to include efforts aimed at developing the capacity of partner nations in support of U.S. strategic goals
Assure reliable energy supply for critical operational missions at fixed installations

Finally, the third Strategic Goal is to ensure that “energy consumption and the associated costs and logistics challenges are taken into account in all decisions about strategic planning, structuring, equipping, and posturing the force. The strategy requires the Services to:

Analyze and report the primary “lessons learned” from current operations to inform future planning, to include the tactical, operational, and strategic consequences
Apply those lessons to future military force development
Demonstrate civilian and military leadership commitment to incorporating energy analysis and planning

The strategy consists of telling the Services to figure out how they are using energy and then use less; get more sources (types?) of energy and plan for energy in force development. In the entire document there is only one mention of the fully burdened cost of energy and no mention of energy as a key performance parameter. Both of these are required by law but with caveats.

The promise of the implementation plan is tantalizing. Targets and timelines are not enough; the Department has those and each Service has their own. What are required are measureable objectives for each goal with associated authorities (resources) and a belly button for each objective so that there is someone to be held accountable. Then, when the ASDOEPP provides their annual report to Congress on Service budget certification for operational energy, they will have a set of measurable objectives against which to measure. Responsibility, Authority and Accountability: my bumper sticker. Dan Nolan

It's Here

2011-06-14T17:01:00.001-04:00

This just in, hot off the presses from Sharon Burke and crew (from the office of the ASD of Operational Energy Plans and Programs - there's no more DOEPP). Titled: "Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy", it's a first-of-its-kind document.

I'm sure Dan's going to have a thing or two to say about this report, but wanted to get it in front of DOD Energy Blog readers asap so you can form your own opinions.

You can download it by clicking on the cover image or by clicking HERE. Enjoy.

And in case you were wondering ... yes, I am trying to win the 2011 blog post title brevity award with this. Let's see if someone dares to try a shorter one.

DOEPP Deal: DOD Assessment of Services Budgets for Operational Energy

2011-06-13T07:35:00.004-04:00

The long awaited report from the Assistant Secretary of the Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASDOEPP) hit the streets late last week. As part of her statutory duties, Ms. Burke is required to:

review the DoD Components' proposed budgets and not later than January 31 of the preceding fiscal year for which the budgets are proposed, provide the Secretary of Defense a report containing the Director's analysis, comments, and findings of operational energy aspects of the proposed budgets as well as the certification of the Director regarding whether the proposed budget is adequate for implementation of the operational energy strategy.

The report evaluates the Services’ FY2011 budgets for operational energy in regard to their own stated strategy. In the coming years that assessment will be against the DOD Operational Energy Strategy, but since that had not been published by the due date of this report, the ASD used the Components’ own plans as the point of comparison. This is a gut check: are you walking the walk or just talking the talk.

Across the board, the Services proposed FY 2011 budgets were certified as “adequate for implementation of the operational energy aspects of their energy strategy”, with the following caveats.

1. DOD doesn’t know how energy is being consumed at the point of use. They know how much was delivered, but how it was used is unclear. What did that truck do? What was that generator powering? Was that air craft doing close support, logistics or recce?

2. Significant opportunities to improve energy efficiency in legacy mobility assets are believed to exist, but have not been identified and, therefore, not adequately funded.

3. 58% percent (down from 62% in the original version of the report) of the budget goes to research, development, technology and engineering. There are mature, shovel ready technologies on the commercial shelf, ready to go and more funds should be allocated to those efforts, rather than the long term, routine, science and technology acquisition path.

4. Energy costs are underestimated in acquisition analysis. Operational energy concerns are not addressed in models and simulations. The fully burdened cost of energy and energy as a key performance parameter were supposed to solve this. Use them.

We will provide an analysis of the report’s assessment of each of the Services. I think you will see that the ASD, OEPP was grading on a curve this year. The long awaited DOD operational energy strategy will be rolled out this week by DepSecDef Lynn and Ms. Burke. More to follow on that as it develops. Dan Nolan

Conference Alert: Joint Operations for Energy

2011-06-09T07:57:00.006-04:00

The Army and Air Force are joining together for this year's energy forums. Scheduled for 19-20 July at the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, VA, registration is now open here.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Kevin Geiss points out that this effort shows the Services coming together to share resources and knowledge. The joint session will also cut down the travel requirements for those who usually attend both forums. They will also be able to bring in speakers from DOE, the White House and Congress with out double tapping those busy folks for separate events. Draft agenda is online now. The Navy will have their forum in October.

Of course, there is no free lunch and the cost for this event is about $500 for non government attendees. If, like many small businesses, the price tag for travel, fee and hotel are outside your budget, feel free to pass your questions to us here and we will try to get answers for you and publish them in a follow up blog. For those who can attend, see you there! Dan Nolan

Energy Efficient Congressmen Add Tasks for Operational Energy

2011-06-06T09:06:00.009-04:00

In a previous post I mentioned that the current National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 under consideration by Congress has a provision that will allow the Pentagon to purchase alternative fuels that produce greater carbon emission than conventional fuels in the refinement process, contrary to the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now another couple of provisions have been added that actually require DOD to do what they have already said they would do…but have not quite done.

Representatives Blumenauer (picture), Connolly, Hinchey, Capps and Welch have added two amendments (#115 and #150) that require that the DoD consider energy efficiency when purchasing warzone structures like tents, and to evaluate combat-zone energy efficiency programs and make recommendations on how to deploy them to further reduce risks to supply convoys.

Essentially, Congress is requiring DOD to use the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) and energy efficiency as a key performance parameter (KPP) to evaluate warzone structures as yet unprocured and to evaluate energy efficiency programs that reduce fuel resupply risks. That is, unless someone has a better idea than FBCF and KPPs. The gang at Natick Soldier Center is charged with the procurement of deployable structures, the US Army Corps of Engineers works the requirements for follow on structures like Seahuts, et al and the Combatant Commanders establish standards via document like the Sandbook. Fortunately, the Department has an agent charged with operational energy, so these requirements will fall on the shoulders of the ASD, OEP&P.

It will be up to the Operational Energy Plans and Programs office to figure how to cut across the bureaucratic morass and get shelters that protect the occupants from the elements, support the mission and, only then, select from among alternatives that demonstrate themselves to be the most energy efficient. The energy efficiency of alternative solutions is already an optional requirement in the acquisition process. This provision will make it required for shelters and will affect the next generation of deployable structures, several years down the line. This is where the second provision comes into play.

There are a number of energy efficiency programs that are being tried at the local level. Now it will be incumbent on DoD to evaluate those programs for recommending their proliferation or termination. Whether it is cotton oil to fuel or spray foam tents, the OEP&P will have their work cut out. Hopefully, the Congressmen (and woman) have funded the mandates. Otherwise these provisions will go the way of all visions without resources….hallucination.

I see your Sec 526 and raise you Sec 844: House Tinkers with DOD Energy

2011-05-31T06:37:00.005-04:00

In the middle of the last decade, the USAF toyed with the idea of making fuel. Specifically, they considered building a plant to convert coal to liquid fuel which would be mixed 50/50 with JP8. The plant was planned for Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. In early 2009 the plan was scrubbed because an “Air Force review cited possible conflicts with the wing's mission, including degradation of security in the vicinity of weapons storage area; interference with existing missile transportation operations; and issues with explosive safety arcs and operational flight safety.”. What really killed the program was Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This section of the act requires any fuel used by the federal government to be no more carbon-intensive in processing than gas and oil. Because the methods used to convert natural gas and coal to fuel are much more carbon intensive than current conventional refining methods, those fuels got the ax. But, not so fast.

The current National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, under consideration by Congress (H.R. 1540) contains Section 844 which exempts the U.S. Military from Section 526 of EISA 2007. This exemption is to encourage the inclusion of carbon intense synthetic fuels in the Military’s mix of fuel alternatives. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review determined that climate change is an “accelerant of instability.” It concluded that the military must “develop enterprise-wide climate change and energy strategies.” Congress would now be giving the Military permission to act contrary to its own best interest. Hopefully, having the ability to do a dumb thing and actually doing it are separate events. This effort has been seen as an attempt to slow the Military March to Green.

LTG(R) Norm Seips, USAF has come up on the net regarding this in a recent post. General Seips, former commander of the 12th Air Force can speak authoritatively on fuel use. As a command pilot with over 4,500 hours with a jet strapped to his back, he is a voice to which one should listen. His comments:

Just as the DOD's recent Quadrennial Defense Review predicted, the military's expansion into alternative fuels is stimulating interest and investment from the private sector. Young companies with promising technologies are looking to the military as a possible first customer. Their products could be in high demand on the global market as well, and could make a big difference in our trade balance.
This is a great opportunity for the military and the government to serve as a catalyst for a new age of innovation that could do wonders for reviving our economy, improving our national security and reducing global warming.
On the other hand, repealing Section 526 will sidetrack the process already underway at the Pentagon and simultaneously shatter any semblance of certainty in the commercial marketplace. Repeal would discourage innovation and force the military in to a deepening dependence on dirty fossil fuels with a giant price tag in lives and treasure.

Many are calling for the Military to be the catalyst for the growth of a “green economy”. The Military is engaged in this arena because it makes good sense from a security, economic and environmental perspective. The Military buys fuel; it does not make it. It should buy fuel that serves it well. That means locally procured at market prices. If that fuel decreases security, is too expense or has a negative environmental impact it should be off the menu. I agree with LTG Seips. Dan Nolan

Coalition Warfare for Energy

2011-05-23T06:20:00.003-04:00

U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command is leading an effort along with the U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center to reduce energy use and provide alternative energy at a Navy forward operating base in Djibouti, Africa with the assistance of the Kansas Army National Guard. The concept is simple enough: solar shades with battery storage reduces the requirement for air conditioning and provides about 2 Kw of power. The charrette has been running since last July and has been so successful that the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa has decided to keep the equipment and add it to the property book. This is an example of an abbreviated acquisition process. From R&D to MTO&E in under a year is an impressive record. Now, I don’t think it is ACTUALLY on the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment, but I hope the folks at TRADOC are figuring out how to do that.

The effort has been nominated for the 33rd Annual Secretary of the Army Energy and Water Management Awards. Typically, these awards have been presented to Army installations energy and water efforts. It is time to recognize the efforts in operational energy. While the dollar savings are often the focus in these awards, this project and its potential savings can be measured in dollars and blood.

Energy Dollars in Austere Times: NDAA12 Markups

2011-05-09T20:46:00.004-04:00

Recently the House Subcommittee on Readiness released their marks on H.R. 1540, the FY12 National Defense Authorization Bill with this press release. Energy was highlighted in the mark up. In their comments they said:

“The Committee continues to monitor DoD's energy use and encourage the Department to be more energy efficient, demonstrate a return of the energy investments, and enhance energy security. This year's NDAA includes several energy-related provisions for operation and maintenance, operational energy, and military installations.”

These provisions include:

Promoting energy-efficient technologies in logistics support contracts for contingency operations which will reduce demand for fuel and result in cost savings. We hope that this means that Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contracts will now contain a provision rewarding contractors for energy efficiency. As long as fuel is a government furnished item (as it often is), there is no incentive to be more efficient in diesel powered generator electricity production or more efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Leasing energy inefficient structures means more money for contractors than if the government purchases and insulating those structures properly. If anyone has seen evidence that these provision are being included in LOGCAP contracts, please let me know. Happy to share that good news.
Requiring the Navy to meter piers to capture data when ships are docked in port, and authorizes $3.0 million for this effort. This is another case for “what can be measured can be managed”. A ship alongside routinely draws shore power and the Navy needs a way to determine the cost of that commodity.
Authorization for $30.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million for Operational Energy Capability Improvement. Presumably this is funding for the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. By now the plans must have been written so this money should be headed for programs. The question is, whose programs? The only entity that is focused solely on operational energy is the USMC’s Expeditionary Energy Office and they are slated for $9.0 million for the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Forward Operating Base. Otherwise it is likely to go to the SPIDERS JCTD. We look forward to that see how those funds are distributed. If you want to know what is important, follow the money.
Authorization for $45.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million for the Installation Energy Test Bed. This is the program mention in a previous posting, focused on finding ways to decrease energy demand, develop smart distribution systems and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy at U.S. military installations worldwide. This program has great potential for industry participation if not consumed by government research and development agencies. Although sponsored by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, the hope it that the focus is on certification of commercial and government off the shelf technology.

Of course this is only the first step in a long process that may not reach the President’s desk until early 2011. In an era where ideology often trumps logic in the legislative process, what eventually makes it to DOD will be telling. The nearly $80 million represented above does not include the estimated $130 million in military construction dollars for the Energy Conservation Improvement Program. $210 million is a drop in the bucket compared with the overall budget, yet is does show a commitment by DOD to advance energy security. A much greater investment must be made by third party financing, if DOD and DOE can streamline the process and installation commanders can be convince it is economically responsible. All the stated energy goals and intent won’t accomplish this without strong leadership. Goals without responsibility, authority and accountability only set false expectations and create uncertainty. Dan Nolan

Innovative Fund Mechanism Turns Trash into (Potential) Energy

2011-05-05T07:47:00.004-04:00

Late last month, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) cut the ribbon on a transportable, plasma waste to energy system at Hurlburt Field in the Florida Panhandle. Terry Yonkers, the ASAF for Installations, Environment and Logistics is quoted as saying, "This is the first waste-to-energy project of this technology to go into an air base. It has been a long time in the making.". I first saw this briefed in February 2009 and at that time the plan was to begin in FY08 and finish in FY10 at a cost of $6.5M. According to the article, the final cost was $7.4M, which, for a research and development experiment, is pretty close to the mark.

The system consumes about 11.5 tons of waste a day to include an intended 8.3 tons of domestic trash from Hurlburt Field itself. Burning at 5,000 degrees Celsius, the system can burn anything to include medical waste and its product is a useable syngas and a glassy rock that can be sold commercially. Although this is still an experimental facility, the ability to destroy any and all solid waste could save the base the cost of its recycling center and program.

The system has been widely billed as a waste to energy project, but for now is just a waste destruction process. It is hoped that it will be a net energy producer but has yet to demonstrate that capability. A simple gasification process with which I am familiar, uses engines specifically designed to operate only on syngas (as opposed to “sweetening” with natural gas) can produce 2 MW from a defined waste stream of 42 tons a day. The key is that that system produces electricity at a kilowatt per hour rate that is competitive with the local utility. That the Hurlburt system produces a net excess of energy is one thing; the cost per kilowatt hour will be another. We wish them luck on the experiment.

There are a couple of very interesting features to this story. One is was the driving force behind it and the other is how it was funded. The effort was sponsored by the Air Force, nurtured by the quiet professional of the Air Force Special Operations Command, but is truly the baby of the AFSOC Environmental Chief, Ron Omley. Mr. Omley has been championing this project for the past four years. Typically, these efforts are led by Directors of Public Works or Resource Efficiency Managers. This shows the inextricable link between energy and the environment and Mr. Omley lives this every day. Well done, Ron.

As for the funding, this project had a combination of Air Force Smart Operations 21 and OSD Comparative Technology Office funding. The CTO funding came from the Foreign Comparative Testing Program (FCTP). The FCTP’s mission is to “test items and technologies of our foreign allies and friends that have a high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in order to satisfy valid defense requirements more quickly and economically.”. The Canadian origin of the system, built by PyroGenesis Canada, qualified it for these funds. This is an innovative way to fund an R&D project. I wonder where the system to which they are comparing it is operating. Pocatello, Idaho?

If DOD is to attain all of their very aggressive goals for demand reduction, smart distribution and renewable/alternative energy production in a dwindling resource environment, champions like Ron Omley and innovative funding like this must become the norm. Had this same project been done as an enhanced use lease, I dare say that we would just be finishing up the environmental impact statements instead of cutting the ribbon. I wonder if the ribbon was made of red tape? Dan Nolan

Acronym Decoder Ring

ASAF – Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense

CNAS Focusing on Smart Grid Security

2011-04-27T14:09:00.001-04:00

As you know, it's rare for me to make the same post on both blogs. But rare means infrequent, not never, and so here you go:

The DC-based Center for New American Security (CNAS), host of the excellent Natural Security blog that highlights the security interconnectedness of many different domains, is having a Smart Grid Security week. You'll note their particular interest in critical infrastructure in general, and DOD in particular.

And of course, I warm to this part of their non-alarmist opening statement:

Today, we’re beginning to get a better sense of the ground truth, ever-moving as it is. About a month ago we held a workshop on smart grid tech and cyber security, with a great cross-section of experts. My main takeaways were that there are real cyber threats in considering smart grid deployment, but that there are many USG efforts underway to mitigate and manage the risks. The holes that exist seem to be things like improving coordination within DOD on grid security, ensuring interagency communication, and setting consistent standards for DOD contracts that include smart grid and electric infrastructure work (and hopefully standards more rigorous than for anywhere else).

See announcement HERE. And stay tuned for their follow-on posts ... there are already some new ones today.