Conference Alert: Defense Energy Summit

You've got plenty of time for this one, but want to get it on your calendar early.  Here's the Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am":

• Who: Headliner will be Sharon Burke,  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
• What: a 3-day conference and expo covering operational and installation energy issues
• When: 11-13 November, 2013
• Where: Austin, TX (venue is TBD)
• Why: GovEnergy is gone. The sequester has landed. This is a good chance for like-minded leaders and doers to get together and chart a course together for 2014 and beyond.

Also until August 8th you can submit proposals for the annual Defense Energy Challenge (DETC), which matches new energy solutions for DOD with testing and procurement opportunities.

--------

Conference URL
http://www.defenseenergy.com/

Photo credit: Knowsphotos on Flickr (and yes, that's a Stevie Ray Vaughan statue in the foreground. RIP.)

Aim High 2013: USAF Updates its Energy Plans

B-2 Spirit - Click to greatly enlarge

I remember talks several years ago with Mike Aimone, then an SES and big cheese of Air Force installations and logistics on a workable definition of energy security. After a stint at  Battelle, he's back in DOD as Director, Business Enterprise Integration ODUSD (AT&L)/I&E (BEI) (thanks to Scott Sklar for the correction). Nevertheless, the Air Force's search to define and deliver energy security goes on.

USAF has just released its 2013 Energy Plan, its first revision to the 2010 edition, and it addresses all the right topics, albeit at very high, and highly polished, level. Included is this sidebar on Installation Energy Security:

Ever Consider having your Installation Whispered?

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

The Final Veil: Army Announces Net Zero "Winners"

Today in sunny San Antonio, the ASA, IE&E dropped the seventh veil and revealed the names of the 17 Army/Joint installations selected for the Net Zero Energy, Water and/or Waste contest. With over 100 applicants in the three categories, the winners are as follows (drum roll please):

A Net Zero Energy Installation produces as much energy on site as it uses, over the course of a year. The Army's Pilot Net Zero Energy Installations are:

1. Fort Detrick, MD
2. Fort Hunter Liggett, CA
3. Kwajalein Atoll, RMI
4. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Ca
5. Sierra Army Depot, CA
6. West Point, NY.

Additionally, the Oregon Army National Guard has volunteered to pilot a unique and challenging Net Zero Energy initiative, which includes all of their installations spread across the entire state. This strategy will be included in the environmental analysis.

A Net Zero Water Installation limits the consumption of freshwater resources and returns water back to the same watershed so as not to deplete the groundwater and surface water resources of that region in quantity and quality over the course of a year. The Pilot Net Zero Water Installations are:

1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
2. Camp Rilea, OR
3. Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico;
4. Fort Riley, KS
5. Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA
6. Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA.

A Net Zero Waste Installation reduces, reuses, and recovers waste streams, converting them to resource values with zero landfill over the course of a year. The Army's Pilot Net Zero Waste Installations are:

1. Fort Detrick, MD*
2. Fort Hood, TX
3. Fort Hunter Liggett, CA*
4. Fort Polk, LA;
5. Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA*
6. US Army Garrison, Grafenwoehr, Germany.

Net Zero Installation is comprised of three interrelated components: Net Zero Energy, Net Zero Water, and Net Zero Waste. Two installations have volunteered to be integrated Net Zero Installations:

1. Fort Bliss, TX
2. Fort Carson, CO.

At a later briefing by the DASA, E&S a timeline for NEPA was shown that indicated that the intent was to begin site specific NEPA work as early as November 2011. Since site specific work cannot be done until a project is selected and all projects will be funded via ESCP, UESC or EUL, the timeline to get RFPs out, proposals back, down selection and contracting is very tight. This, coupled with the fact that IMCOM has to reduce its civilian work force by 10,000 by October 2011 according the LTG Lynch, IMCOM CG, means a very aggressive timeline to accomplish fearsomely complex contracting with less folks to do it. I hope the benefits of being selected for this pilot program are worth it. I am reminded of the old say, “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it”. Dan Nolan

*Winner in two categories

Acronym Soup:

ASA, IE&E – Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation, Energy and Environment

DASA, E&S – Deputy Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability

NEPA – National Environmental Protection Act

ESCP – Energy Savings Performance Contract

UESC – Utilities Energy Services Contract

EUL - Enhanced Use Lease

IMCOM – Installation Management Command

Scouts Out! New Intel on DOD Smart Grid

Every now and then the Cavalry Scouts out there come across a great piece of intel and share same. I have a special place in my heart for Cavalrymen. I like to say that I was raised by them, but that I am ok now.

SmartGridNews.com has an excellent piece on DOD efforts on smart grid activities. The key to energy security is the smart grid. Demand reduction is critical and every location has some type of renewable energy potential, but if you do not have the means to optimize the balance between supply and demand, we are back to what John Spiller likes to call the "Swartzkopf method of providing power". The Swartzkopf method goes like this: "Tell me what your peak load is, then I will provide that generation and double if for back up". It is how we get 19Mw of production at Camp Leatherneck to meet a 5MW load (long since fixed). By DOD standards, this is a small contract, but anything that moves the team closer to the goal line is worth doing. The inclusion of a storage systems can help intermittent renewables serve around the clock. The challenge there is getting that stored power back at a reasonable price. The system is also intended to allow recharging of electric vehicles, another key step in fusing the transportation systems with the electrical grid.

Since this is happening at Wheeler Army Airfield, I am assuming this is part of the SPIDERS JCTD. Anyone with better intel, please comment. The article also has a link to a piece that discusses the Installation Test Bed Program, mention here a couple of weeks ago. The $30 million requested in the FY2012 budget for this program appears to have materialized as around $36M after the last CR and Defense Budget was passed. Anyone with better intel, please comment.

In the last couple of posts there have been undefined or ill defined acronyms. Alert readers have commented on those and I have tried to circle back and fix those errors. I will include undefined acronyms at the end of each piece in the future. All of the comments, even the anatomically impossible ones, have been helpful; keep 'em coming! Next week, I will be at the AUSA ILW Installations Symposium and Exposition and will report from there. Dan Nolan

Acronym Soup

• SPIDERS: Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security
• JCTD: Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstation

Open Kimonos and Bureaucratic Titans: Making Army Net Zero Work

In the spirit of the “open kimono” the Army opened up last week to reveal…..another kimono. On 5 April the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, Ms. Katherine Hammack and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnership held a bloggers roundtable. The purpose of the event was to discuss the announcement of the installations selected in the Net Zero Energy, Water and Waste competition. Plan is for five in each of the three categories. The goal is to accomplish this by 2020. Ms. Hammack stated that she would announce the winners on 19 April at the AUSA ILW Army Installations Symposium and Exposition. The news here is how this program is to be funded.Existing Authorities!

Ok, no real shocker there. This is recognition of the need to accomplish the task with dwindling resources. The challenge will be to streamline the processes to be able to get to the Net Zero goals by 2020. From the vision statement, the Army said:

The Army is leveraging available authorities for private sector investment, including using power purchase agreements (PPA), enhanced-use leases (EUL), energy savings performance contracts (ESPC), and utilities energy service contracts (UESCs) as tools to achieve these objectives.

Third party financing has many obstacles. PPAs require cooperation of the utilities and electricity produced at competitive rates. EULs require a PPA to work and PPA may not be economic. ESPCs require measurement and verification performed by the same vendor who performed the work, a bit off putting for some commanders. UESCs require no M&V at all. All physical work done on federal property requires National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work, which if left to the contractor, increases the cost of the project (if the government picks up work it can be done cheaper and faster). An example of the contractor having to bite that bullet is the Fort Irwin effort. In that case, an EUL is used, coupled with a PPA. According to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' paper, this $2 billion/13 year 500MW solar project, begun in December 2008 is now in the second year of what is hoped to be a two year NEPA permitting process.

Granted that this is a HUGE project, it still takes four to five years to get to the point that a shovel goes into the ground. That will be true of any size project. A current UESC with which I am very familiar, has been ongoing for two years without dirt moving. Of course we are looking for agility in a partnership between utilities and the government, two of the largest bureaucracies on the planet. ESPCs are already awarded contracts to sixteen large companies and small business nips at their heels to get noticed and for the opportunity for scraps of work. ESPCs and UESCs are Department of Energy contracts and streamlining them must come from DOE. According to the ASA’s office, they are working very closely with DOE on this. Seems as if Mr. Kidd still has friends at FEMP!

The Army has consolidated operational and installation energy policy under Ms. Hammack. Unity of command is always a good idea. The challenge comes in the execution. Policy charts the course, but the hand on the tiller must be an implementer. For installation energy, that is clearly LTG Lynch, CG of IMCOM…. or LTG Van Antwerp, USACOE if it is new construction.

On the operational side, the Army has no central focus. It must be divided up among the various acquisition entities that move at their own institutional pace. Recently the ASD, OEPP touted the deployment of the Advanced Medium Mobile Power Sources (AMMPS) as a great energy savings tool, which it will be. But, the AMMPS has been in PM, Mobile Electric Power’s product development line over a decade. It is difficult to find an energy innovation deployed by the Army since Marine General Zilmer asked for some help in 2006. Unless there is an organization with a uniformed lead, execution will continue to seriously lag policy. Dan Nolan

Undefined Acronyms:

AUSA: Association of the United States Army

ILW: Institute of Land Warfare

PM: Program Manager

IMCOM: Installation Management Command

FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program

Energy Innovation: Operations and Installations

This past week I attended the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation hosted conference entitled "Operation Energy Innovation: A Stronger, Smarter Fighting Force". The intent for the program was to examine how "DOD can play a prime role in accelerating cleantech development".

The agenda kicked off with a brief hello from Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA). A recent article by Congressman Forbes highlighted his concern that DOD should have their feet held to the fire on energy projects. Simply being “green” is not enough. He cited one Navy project that apparently had a 477 year payback period. I am not sure that anyone is DOD is doing “art for art sake”. His message was that DOD could play a role in innovation, but its job was not to bridge the valley of death for developers. He is a big fan of the ExFOB, but who isn’t? They don’t write policy. They just get stuff done.

Congressman Forbes was followed by Senator Mark Udall who talked about his intent to reintroduce the Department of Defense Energy Security Act when its co-sponsor Congresswoman Gabby Gifford returns to the House. Congresswoman Gifford is a great friend to DOD Energy and we wish her a speed recovery. The goals of the act are to reduce DOD reliance on oil on the battlefield; tasks DOD to plan better for energy use; decrease electricity use at bases; and develop onsite renewables. The devil is in the details and the appropriations.

After the micro remarks by the members of Congress, the panel kicked off with each member making brief statements followed by a very informative Q&A. Matt Hourihan of ITIF led off with comments on his paper , co-authored with Matthew Stepp. The document remakes the case for DOD energy security with plenty of example of how DOD has “led the way” in technology development. The two condition necessary for this as stipulated in the paper are that Congress must provide “responsible support” for DOD efforts and that DOD must continue its energy security development in a “collaborative and information sharing manner”. Not completely sure what this mean. Will develop the situation!

These remarks were followed by Dr. Dorothy Robyn, DUSD, Installations and Environment and Ms. Sharon Burke, ASD, Operational Energy Plans and Programs. The gist of their remarks was about DOD’s role in innovation in the energy space. Both made it clear that DOD was in the game, but that any effort would have to show direct energy security returns and would have to be economically sustainable. Ms. Burke commented on the fact that she had an Energy Innovation Fund, but not much about where it will go. She promised that more detail would be available when her operational energy strategy was finished staffing and published. We look forward to that.

Dr. Robyn talked about the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDEP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) efforts to develop and promote an Installation Test Bed. Dr. Jeff Marqusee, the director of ESTCP was called to the mike several times to discuss the program. The energy topics for which proposals will be solicited are:

1. Smart Micro-grids and Energy Storage to Increase Energy Security on DoD Installations
2. Renewable Energy Generation on DoD Installations
3. Advanced Component Technologies to Improve Building Energy Efficiency
4. Advanced Building Energy Management and Control
5. Tools and Processes for Design, Assessment and Decision-making Associated with Energy Use and Management

Selection of winners in this year’s process will be announced in October 2011. For more detail, check here.

I commend the panel and ITIF for leaving a large chunk of time for questions. I further commend all for not dodging the tough ones and for having SMEs on hand where required. I didn't like all the answers, but I liked that we got to ask the questions.

As we await the release of the Operational Energy Strategic Plan we have to keep the organization of DOD in mind. The office of the Secretary of Defense has responsibility for developing policy, how things ought to be done. The Services have Title 10, U.S. Code responsibilities. It is their purview to organize, man, equip, and train the forces necessary for the combatant commanders and they get the final vote on what gets fielded. For the Strategic Plan to have a lasting impact it must assign responsibilities for tasks, provide the authorities (resources) required and a mechanism for accountability. These will have to be reflected in the Services' execution plans. And Ms. Burke gets to grade those plans in her annual report to Congress, so that should close the circle. It will be interesting to watch the wrangling. Only the Marines have an organization chartered to do operational energy at this time. That would appear to be a big leg up in the resource restricted environment in which all the Services now must operate. Dan Nolan

Nuclear Comeback for DOD Bases?

Life would be so simple if we could conduct a feasibility study, find feasibility, then navigate through the regulatory processes with uncommon aplomb and install small new nuclear reactors at each of our bases. Each base would have a constant flow of electricity more than adequate for all of its own needs, including all mission systems, base housing, key services, etc. In fact, most would have power to spare should the host community ever find itself in an emergency situation where power to key facilities like hospitals would be a lifesaver.

Well, looks like DOD's going to take a run at this, thanks for a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2010 that says so. Here's an excerpt from an outstanding summary by William A. Macon, Jr., Army Reactor Program Manager:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to assess the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations. Not later than June 1, 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing the results of the study. In summary, the study shall consider: options for construction and operation; cost estimates and the potential for life cycle cost savings; potential energy security advantages; additional infrastructure costs; impact on quality of life of military personnel; regulatory, State, and local concerns; impact on operations on military installations; potential environmental liabilities; factors impacting safe co-location of nuclear power plants on military installations; and, any other factors that bear on the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants
on military installations.

Clearly, as Army Energy Security Implementation Plans (AESIPs) are developed according to the AESIS and the Secretary of Defense conducts a formal feasibility study on deploying nuclear power plants on military installations, the nuclear energy option for military power and fuel production will likely gain increased attention and may warrant consideration by senior leaders in coming years. The potential renaissance of an Army Nuclear Power Program comes at a time when the commercial nuclear power industry is actively pursuing new nuclear power plants, with 28 combined operating license applications currently under review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

It also comes at a time when there are compelling new designs for smaller nuke plants, my favorite being Hyperion's bathtub-sized nuke that requires very little care and feeding and generates all the energy most bases need. Hyperion was covered on the DOD blog some time ago, here in fact. But before I get too worked up, it's important to note Macon's own nagging concern that that the NDAA did not fully include the feasibility of the regulatory processes to implement reactor development on military installations, and as he says, this is not a trivial issue. Considerable regulatory development still lies ahead, even if all the technical studies come up roses.

So here's Macon's full paper, complete with the historical context you'll need to weigh the odds that nuclear powered bases will come to pass ... in our lifetime. Depending on your age, that is.

Air Force Academy Charts a Clean Tech Energy Future

I attended the Air Force's premier institution of higher learning in 1980's and remember the modernist buildings and breathtaking landscape (breathtaking in part, due to the scarcity of O2 at 7,500 feet above sea level). In between countless push ups and keeping my chin in, I remember wondering in the long winter hours how much they spend to they heat the place given all that glass.

Well, as this energy plan summarizes, senior leaders and facilities managers at USAFA have been thinking about how to turn some of their current energy liabilities into advantages by making the most of MILCON energy efficiency-related construction programs, as well as the decent solar, wind and hydro characteristics of the sprawling, front range Colorado Springs campus.

Here's how they say it:

The Air Force Academy is positioned to lead the charge in energy conservation, conversion away from fossil fuels, and research into new, innovative renewable energy technologies. We have 18,500 acres of natural resources including forests, water, solar, wind, geothermal, kinetics and biomass. Our team includes committed leadership, talented research scientists and engineers, dedicated energy management professionals and a base populace that understands the importance of energy independence.

This plan delves into the Air Force Academy’s goal to be a “Net-Zero” electricity installation and to reduce our carbon footprint from facility and transportation sources. Our broad objectives are challenging, yet achievable:

• Become a “Net-Zero” electricity installation by the end of calendar year 2015
• Meet all federal energy reduction mandates
• Play a leading role in renewable energy research
• Embody each cadet with an understanding that energy must be a consideration in all we do

Some great projects with tons of potential for cadet learning and culture change. All of which should impact the AF more broadly as the grads move out into leadership positions in the "Real Air Force". Here's the full plan for your review ... it's pretty ambitious ... looking forward to watching them pull this off.

BAE and other Integrators Gearing up to Crank out Microgrids

I'll attempt follow-on posts with more more details on individual implementations, but for now here's news of a batch of integrators starting a bunch of microgrid projects. And Jeff St. John at Greentechmedia noting the applicability to DOD facilities:

BAE, for its part, joins fellow defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing that are entering the smart grid space, though those companies have primarily cast themselves as system integrators and providers of security for smart grid deployments. Still, microgrid projects seem to be a natural for military contractors, since military bases could be seen as one of the "critical assets" that need to keep the power on in case of natural disruption or intentional attack.

Here's the whole thing.

EULogy for Installation Energy Problems - The Benefits of the Enhanced Use Lease (EUL)

As you'll see, Sabot 6 CEO and DOD Energy Blog guest blogger Dan Nolan has been busy lately. First, the intro, from the Army's Enhanced Use Leasing Page:

With the expanded authority of Title 10 USC § 2667, each of the Services within the Departments of Defense have the authority and incentive to obtain a broad range of financial and in-kind considerations for leasing opportunities. The changes to Section 2667 expand the purposes for which lease proceeds may be used, and augment the types of in-kind consideration which may be accepted for leases. These changes maximize the utility and value of installation real property and provide additional tools for managing the installation's assets to achieve business efficiencies. 

Now here's Dan with notes from front lines of DOD renewable energy development:

I just returned from the oral defense of a proposal to build a minimum of 500 megawatts of solar power generation at Fort Irwin, California. The sites that Fort Irwin identified have the potential for over a gigawatt of power generation, essentially a new  nuclear plant. It will cost the Army nothing. In fact, the installation has the opportunity to receive secure power produced on post (only a fraction of the produced power), at fair market value PLUS in kind services from the commercial entity or the equivalent in cash for the lease. The in kind services (road building, etc.) would be of direct benefit to the installation. The business entity that wins this contract will be able to sell the excess power into the California, Nevada and New Mexico markets that are desperate for new power generation. If we were to utilize the millions of acre of "buffer zones", the land surrounding military installations separating them from the civilian communities, to produce power from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass (you name it!), we could begin to substantially reduce our requirements for coal fired power plants. It is just good business ... and business is very interested.

The Defense Science Board identified the vulnerability of installations due to being tied to a fragile power grid. Dollars for installations continue to shrink. Clean, renewable energy becomes cost competitive as demand for the technology increases. The process is time consuming and sometimes onerous, but has so many upsides that it needs to be a national movement. Every installation commander should be pursuing these opportunities. It won't all happen on their watch, but their children will thank them. 

Army Energy Scope Snapshot

Note: slide above lists recent the massive responsibilities related to running Army installations and does not include vehicles or the fuel to power them, including tanks, APCs, trucks, humvees, helicopters, planes, etc.  Consider full energy security and cost issues and its staggering. Not something a few hundred turbines and solar panels are going to put a dent in anytime soon ... but you've got to start somewhere.  Go here for current Army Energy page, and look to link on right for excellent article on "culture change" requirements by Mr. Don Juhasz from the Office of the Assistant Army Chief of Staff for Installation Management.

Scope & Setting the Stage

I'll open with a few posts related to a Defense Science Board (DSB)'s Feb 2008 report. Here is their characterization of DOD energy scope as of EOY 2007, in DSB's own words:

• DOD is the largest single consumer of energy in the US
• In 2006, it spent $13.6 billion to buy 110 million barrels of petroleum fuel (about 300,000 barrels of oil each day), and 3.8 billion kWh of electricity
• This represents about 0.8% of total U.S. energy consumption and 78% of energy consumption by the Federal government
• Buildings and facilities account for about 25% of the Department’s total energy use
• DoD occupies over 577,000 buildings and structures worth $712 billion comprising more than 5,300 sites
• In 2006, the Department spent over $3.5 billion for energy to power fixed installations, and just over $10 billion on fuel for combat and combat related systems
  

These figures exclude energy used by some contractors that performed “outsourced” DoD functions, but are as accurate as current accounting systems permit

So that's the baseline. It's big, spread out, and consumes a huge amount oil to do the job. It's always been that way, since we phased out horse drawn cannon. And it's going to be this way until we can come up with some better approaches. As you'll see in ensuing posts, DSB has already generated some solid new ideas.