Sequester means DOD Energy now Racing under Yellow Flag

From multiple sources, the threat (and since March 1st, the reality) of sequester-driven DOD budget cuts has put many energy related initiatives on hold. In some cases, it's full stop for the foreseeable project. In others, there's an expectation that things will keep going but will be at reduced speed.

Not complaining, mind you. While energy security is top of mind for this blog, military planners clearly have bigger and more pressing concerns at this moment. Energy will have to take a back seat until sequester and other budget-related issues are sorted out.

There are exceptions of course, with some energy projects still motoring on. But since the inception of the DOD Energy Blog in the summer of 2008, hot on the heals of the 2008 Defense Science Board report on Energy, we've never seen a lull like this one.

Let's hope energy gets the green flag again soon. And BTW, if your experience of the sequester's impact on DOD Energy is markedly different than the way I've characterized it here, plus make comment or drop an email and we'll revise accordingly. Thanks. Andy

Photo credit: wikimedia.org

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

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

Energy Dollars in Austere Times: NDAA12 Markups

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