The Energy KPP now Crawls, no Running Yet, but Considers Walking

The concept of a key performance parameter (KPP) or metric for Energy goes back to the two DSB Reports on Energy in 2001 and 2008 and by 2009 it made it to the NDAA.

This blogger has been writing about and advocating for measuring energy to better manage energy almost since its inception.  I just searched for "KPP" and found maybe a couple of dozen posts, the first in Oct 2008.

Seemed like it was going to take forever, but I'm happy to announce to readers who haven't gotten the news via other sources that the Energy KPP is most definitely alive and in motion. Consider this guidance excerpt OSD is passing to DOD Services:

Service performs macro analysis early in requirements process considering:

• CONOPS and OMS/MP 

• Refueling assets (force structure) and capacity 

• Frequency of refueling and % assets needed at one time 

• Convoy distances (doctrine) and estimated travel times 

• RED action on BLUE logistics 

• Attrition of refueling assets 

• Security for refueling assets 

Great stuff, right? Imagine the work involved in exploring the threat vectors to blue logistics and the motivation that would give you to get this thinking baked in early.

Here's a link to a one page overview which includes a link to this somewhat jumbled presentation.

Geiss on Air Force Energy Progress - Sep 2013 Update

Hat tip to OSD's Ollie Fritz again (and again).

Straight up, here are highlights from an interview with Dr Kevin Geiss, DASAF for Energy, from a recent article: "A more fuel-efficient Air Force"

Eighty-four percent of the Air Force’s annual $9 billion energy budget pays for jet fuel, and of that 60 percent is for 900 mobility flights per day moving cargo and people.

Even though the service has no control over fuel costs or the missions it is called to serve, it aims to “get better [energy efficiency] at every flight,” says Kevin Geiss, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy.

Dr. Geiss outlined some of the service’s energy-saving efforts in a recent interview:

Air Force Accelerates Energy Culture Change for Airmen

USAF's just-released energy culture plan is drawing some praise from folks in the right places. Here's what Jerry Dion of DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division has to say:

I am particularly impressed with their segmentation of the target audiences by AF job clusters and tailoring of messages/actions. That they have avoided the usual defaults of asking individuals to turn off lights and computers when not in use, and have really looked at the full scope of the AF enterprise in terms of people and what they do individually and as work groups is evidence of a very serious approach. The plan includes reaching out to the other services to share what they have done - more of that is needed.

You can see the Air Force's new Energy Culture plan HERE. 

I also note the prominence of metrics in this doc. Granted, much of it is fuzzy, but the impulse to measure is clearly there, and metrics can always be refined over time. On the DOD Energy Blog we promoted metrics in Operational Energy way back in 2009 in this NDU paper.

BTW, Dion is also leading the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)'s Institutional Change activities as well, and says they've reached a point where they want more visibility after developing the foundation for engaging with agencies. You can reach him thusly: jerry.dion@ee.doe.gov.

Photo credit: www.airlinebuzz.com

DOD Energy Worlds Collide: New DOEPP Speaks to DEB and Outlines Priorities

Sharon Burke, the first-ever Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP, rhymes with "soap") carved out some time from her busy schedule to give the DOD Energy Blog (DEB) some early scope guidance from her org. I asked if she'd call out the "first wins" she is shooting for, and here's what I got:

The first big win is the establishment and staffing of the DOEPP office itself, at the Assistant Secretary of Defense level. IMHO, this is something folks in the DOD energy diaspora have been calling for for over a decade - pretty remarkable to see it finally come to fruition. Burke also called out the following DOEPP attributes. DOEPP:

• Has a cross cutting view and purviews both strategic and geo-strategic
• Looks at operational and tactical vulnerabilities and opportunities (my emphasis)
• Is a central focal point for energy budgeting and funding
• Will bring a sustained focus on energy aspects of combat capability, and will keep the focus tight on combat capabilities so the DOD community will understand this is the primary mission: to support the operational mission from an energy perspective

Burke then made a point about her interest in anti-access issues, saying it was one thing when fuel and logistics lines were behind the lines and our equipment wasn't all that energy intensive. But now (see: Afghanistan) fuel lines are right in the middle of the battle space and many of our systems completely cease to function w/o a steady stream of fuel or electricity.

So back to the subject of "wins"; she stressed that current operations are her top priority, and pointed to the the Marines' XFOB at Twenty-nine Palms, CA as one place where new energy technologies and techniques will soon be harvested for use on the battlefield. She also mentioned some recent generator management successes that could potentially provide widespread energy and logistics savings if the lessons can be shared widely.

When I pressed for more, she said some "wins" won't be visible for decades even if they take place soon. By this, of course, Burke was referring to the requirements and acquisition process, that until now hasn't placed an operational value on fuel efficiency and hasn't taken advantage of energy metrics. Should the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) and energy efficiency key performance parameter (KPP) become built into the methods we use to define what we need and what we build, buy and field, our war fighters 10-15 years in the future will be the beneficiaries of a lighter, more mobile and more resilient force. However, should Burke and others seeking these changes not make quick progress, then our future fighters are doomed to fight with the same energy burdens their predecessors have consistently struggled with.

One other subtle but important note about metrics: Burke wants to make sure they're not too complicated to use. From what I've seen, I think this is an excellent point to champion.

All that said, what are the "must-do's: by the end of this year? They include:

• Define an operational energy strategy
• Issue a budget certification report
• Fully stand up the DOEPP organization and office (including an active web site, which I'll link to the minute it exists)

One final point: of course I asked about tribalism and politics and the concern that individual orgs would resist change, rather than cooperate with the DOEPP. Burke said so far she's gotten nothing but energetic and enthusiastic cooperation from folks all across the Department. And she insists that she's working hard to foster a cooperative relationship with the services, while everyone begins to start thinking differently about energy in every aspect of their operations ... with particular attention paid towards helping those currently in harm's way.

Burke and the DOEPP office clearly have a long, long way to go. But at least we can say they've started. That's more than I would have imagined possible just a few short years ago. Please help 'em if you can.

Best DOD Energy Decks from NDIA 2010

I didn't make it to NDIA's Energy and Environment conference in Denver this year, but clearly some good sessions were held. Not the least of which, from this blog's perspective, were the following three from the "Special Session on Operational Energy":

"DoD Operational Energy Considerations" - Mr. Oliver Fritz, USAF

"Building Energy Considerations Into the Acquisition Process" - COL Paul Roege, USA

"Quantifying the FBCF and Energy Key Performance Parameter" - Mr. Richard Goffi, Booz Allen Hamilton

All three are well worth you while, but I particularly like the way Rich Goffi reminds us of extant policy guidance and ties it to the Department's slow-to-be-embraced energy metrics. You can't manage what you can't (or won't) measure. And you can't show progress if you're not using accepted metrics ... or not making progress.

Announcing the FBCB: The Fully Burdened Cost of ... Batteries

This blog has covered energy metrics before plenty of times (don't worry - I won't do that annoying "here" and "here" and "here" thing; you can search for yourself). Over time, we've seen the 7-step Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) methodology genericized by the Army into the Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE), and now, thanks to an enterprising group of DOD energy specialists at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterrey, it's morphed into the Fully Burdened Cost of Batteries (FBCB).

In their brand-new paper and presentation "Batteries on the Battlefield: Developing a Methodology to Estimate the Fully Burdened Cost of Batteries in the Department of Defense" Marine Major Troy Kiper, Army Major Anthony Hughley, and Army Major Mark McClellan build on work already underway in OSD and the Army for the fuels supply chain, and modify it to reflect the particularities of the battery world.

For one thing, as Major Kiper points, there's a huge difference because whereas fuels just burn up, the FBCB is a double supply chain, with energized batteries going in, and depleted batteries coming out of the combat zone. It's nice that they develop both CONUS and operational scenarios, as some previous studies have taken the easy way out and only focused on peacetime ops at home.

For me, the biggest things to get at are less about dollar costs and more about mission enhancement or impairment. This report does the job for the supply chain/convoy/force protection concerns. But in the recommendations section, it also notes that further goodness could be derived by examining the effects of battery weights on soldiers. I hope these guys get a chance to go after this info in detail, but can tell you already, even from this ivory tower, that reducing battery loads on troops will produce more effective, less exhausted fighters every time.

Photo credit: Defenseindustrydaily.com

DOEPP Candidate Burke Gets Her Day in SASC Court

June/July 2010 Update: Burke is confirmed! See here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a long time coming, but now not only has the Director of Operational Energy position been created and a candidate nominated, but earlier this week Sharon Burke of CNAS sat with other nominees for DOD leadership positions to answer questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).

You can read 23 pages of pre-hearing questions and answers on your own, but I've pulled out what I think is the most important response right here:

Q: In your view, what are the major challenges that will confront the DOEPP?

A: The primary challenge confronting the DOEPP will be to change a longstanding, underlying assumption across the defense enterprise that energy will always be relatively cheap and available where it is needed, when it is needed. Moreover, in addressing this challenge, the DOEPP will have to confront the reality that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. A successful operational energy strategy for the Department will have to place high priority on improving the energy posture of deployed forces, both in forward operating positions and in support bases, for example, at the same time that it incorporates energy considerations into DoD’s normal business processes, from wargaming to requirements to budgeting. If confirmed, I expect to find these challenges eased by the growing, pervasive awareness of the importance of the Department’s energy posture, given experiences in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. If DoD incorporates energy as both an enabler and as a liability in how it designs and builds the force, we can make major improvements in our capability, flexibility, effectiveness, affordability, and sustainability. In this way, energy can be a strategic and tactical advantage for U.S. forces, rather than a significant source of risk (my emphasis).

You can also watch an archived video version of the hearing by clicking here. While I may have missed a thing or two, you can go straight to questions to Ms. Burke by dragging the progress bar to these time markers: 39:00, 79:00, 85:23, 95:20, 106:20, 126:40

At a minimum, recommend you listen to former Senator and SASC Chairman John Warner's introduction to the position, and to Ms. Burke as a candidate, beginning at the 39 minute mark.

I noted in her responses the articulation of two primary priorities for the DOEPP:

1. Improve the effectiveness of our deployed forces - by reducing their vulnerability to reliance on energy. In particular, to fuel lines in Afghanistan
2. DOD business process change - to implement the "full cost and full burden of energy" into everything the Department does

It may be a nearly impossible job, but I believe Burke is locked onto the right challenges, and am keen to see what happens if/when she gets the green light.

Lovins on DOD Energy Opportunities in 2010

Rocky Mountain Institute founder Amory Lovins has been in this long game longer than anyone, and much of the credit for DOD's current momentum on energy can be traced directly to his decades-long leadership and perseverance. So it's great news that NDU's Joint Force Quarterly journal has just published his current assessment and recommendations for the Department's energy strategy. (Note: because it's so timely and topical, you'll find it front and center (actually, top and right) on the DOD Energy Blog for the rest of this year.)

Biggest points of emphasis in this piece are deep drill-downs on the two new new strategic vectors (or capabilities) Lovins has been championing for some time time: endurance and resilience. The business case for the first begins early in the article:

Nobody knows how much oil is in the ground: governments, which often do not know or will not transparently reveal what they have, hold about 94 percent of reserves. But DOD, like the United States, has three compelling reasons to get off oil regardless: security, climate, and cost.... DOD’s unnecessarily inefficient use of oil makes it move huge quantities of fuel from purchase to use, imposing high costs in blood, treasure, and combat effectiveness.

Endurance gets you platforms less dependent on oil logistics, freeing soldiers up for offense vs. the defense that massive fuel convoys demand. Greater weighting of resilience, on the other hand, would liberate DOD bases from their current dangerous over-dependence on commercial power in CONUS and overseas. Once broadly implemented via renewables and the smart and micro-grids, it would also reduce our little-discussed vulnerability to trees and rodents:

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 relies on components taking years to build in just a few factories or one (often abroad), and can be interrupted by a lightning bolt, rifle bullet,malicious computer program, untrimmed branch, or errant squirrel.

The title is "DOD's Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity" and I highly recommend you read the whole thing here.

Year in Review: Top 10 DOD Energy Events of 2009

Not sure if you'll agree, but from my vantage point, this was the first year that merits a DOD Energy top ten. Folks who've been at this enterprise a long time, like Tom Morehouse and Chris DiPetto at OSD (and a small handful of others in the Services), have been doing energy grunt work without a heck of a lot of support or credit (that's my take, not theirs). Over the past decade there have been isolated wins and signs of improvement, but nothing sustained.

But this year something changed, and I have to give credit to the increasing strength of the convoy connection. It's finally shown everyone that being smart and proactive on energy issues isn't the domain of Birkenstock wearing, granola eating, tree hugging peace-nicks. The clear (and easy to understand and communicate) link between fuel convoys and 1) causalities, 2) costs, and 3) mission degradation.

I'm sure I'm leaving a lot out (that's a good thing). But without further adieu, here's the list for the year, in no particular order:

1. Gigantic Army solar installation off the ground at Fort Irwin in California's Mojave Desert to advance conversation beyond Nellis. Score - Fort Irwin: 500+ Megawatts, Nellis AFB: 14 Megawatts
2. Boeing's high tech, super efficient 787 Dreamliner finally flew. Basis for future tanker/transport? 
3. Convoy lessons brought the concept of proactive energy planning fully out of its Birkenstock phase ... for everyone.
4. Energy audits in Afghanistan commence with Marines. It's called MEAT, for Marine Energy Assessment Team, see here and here. 
5. Like DARPA to advance US space tech post Sputnik, ARPA-E's mission is to turbocharge US competitiveness in energy tech (ET).
6. 3 of the 4 Services hold major confs exclsively on energy issues. The Navy version in particular generated a huge amount of great info.
7. The first Military Operational Research Society (MORS) workshop on power and energy brought analysts together to advance thinking on energy security and energy metrics in requirements and logistics planning process. We're expecting some out-brief artifacts soon.
8. Energy war games all over the place, including NDU and GovEnergy and more.
9. Candidate to fill the long-open Director for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP) position finally nominated.
10. Self promotion alert: my paper on operational energy metrics got published by NDU/JFQ.

I believe we've got the Mo now, and 2010 promises to build on 2009 with international conferences on military energy with the UK's MOD and others, more energy audits and tactical renewables deployments in theater, and a DOEPP approved and up and running, connecting DOD energy islands by providing leadership and strategy from the center. I'm looking forward to seeing this play out, and will cover it all here ... after a short break. Happy Holidays to all !!!

Army Takes a Very Close Look at Convoy Casualties

All I can say is if you care about our troops, their ability to accomplish the missions they're given, and have been paying any attention to DOD energy issues, then this report is well worth your attention. Released in September 2009, it's called "Sustain the Mission Project: Casualty Factors for Fuel and Water Resupply Convoys Final Technical Report" and can be downloaded in PDF here.

Before you dive in deep, here are a couple of preview snippets. From the Conclusions section:

Since 2004, resupply casualties have been decreasing in Iraq and increasing in Afghanistan. Energy and water technologies are emerging that can substantively reduce the need for resupply convoys in theater; and therefore potentially reduce casualties without sacrificing operational effectiveness .... Resupplying troops in theater with fuel and water is a mission in which personnel vulnerability can be reduced through increased use of energy efficiency, renewable energy and on-site water production in theaters of operations.

and this on unforeseen consequences from Recommendations on MRAP vehicles:

The case of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle—the MRAP is a heavier, more formidable system, but fuel inefficient requiring more fuel convoys — is a good example of the issue of tradeoff between vulnerability and fuel efficiency. High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), which are particularly susceptible to improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, have been replaced by MRAPs in many cases. In the short term this is an excellent force protection solution to the IED problem; however, the MRAP consumes significantly more fuel than the traditional (and up-armored) HMMWV and therefore requires more fuel resupply convoys. The complexity and scope of these types of issues and tradeoffs is beyond the scope of the methodology and capability presented in this report. These hardware decisions require the application of large scale combat and combat support models used by the Army’s analytical agencies such as the Center for Army Analysis.

Take away: DOD requirements folks haven't had analytical tools for energy factors. Commanders' calls for better protection for troops in convoys simultaneously put more troops in harm's way as more convoys must travel IED-strewn roads to transport the additional fuel MRAPs' need vs. the trucks they replace. This report (and this blog's constant emphasis on metrics for operational energy) is a call to action for more and better energy-related analytical tools and models to improve mission effectiveness ... and save more of our brave, young folks' lives.

Photo Credit:  www.almc.army.mil

MORS Law: "Power and Energy" Workshop Announcement

Heads-up! The Military Operations Research Society (MORS) is running an outstanding energy-issues focused workshop the purpose of which is:

To consider how best to identify and capture the risk from US operational energy demand in the legacy and future force, and allow the analysis community to help determine the best approaches to inform force planning, requirements development and potentially acquisition trade-space decision-making to implement new strategic guidance and identify current analysis gaps.

This may help us figure out how to better model energy risk in DOD planning and how to make risk-informed decisions on energy within the design process for our future forces. Speakers are not yet ID'd, but I understand RADM Bill Burke, the Navy's lead for the QDR, will be in the house.

Logistics:

• Dates: 30 Nov - 3 Dec 2009
• Venue: Sheraton Reston Hotel, 11810 Sunrise Valley Drive. Reston, VA 20191
• Classification Level: UNCLASS
• Follow this link for more info and registration

Get there if you can!

DOD Energy Blog Interview with Amory Lovins - 5 Part Series (part 4)

Moving now from a response on the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) energy metric being worked at the Pentagon to a question that's a lot less direct.

Question 4) In a recent article in Foreign Affairs called "The Pentagon's Wasting Assets" (to which a response was posted on this blog, here) there seem to be recommendations for valuing Endurance more than we do today. Is this at all in alignment with your thinking?

Lovins: Very much so. Krepinevich's article encapsulates some, though not all, of the important trends that make Endurance and Resilience vital to future military success. For example, as our 2008 Defense Science Board Task Force report More Fight—Less Fuel maintained:

"Endurance exploits improved energy efficiency ... to extend range and dwell—recognizing the need for affordable dominance, requiring little or no fuel logistics, in persistent, dispersed, and remote operations, while enhancing overmatch in more traditional operations."

A lean fuel logistics tail also increases mobility, maneuver, tactical and operational flexibility, versatility, and reliability. All these attributes are required to combat asymmetrical, adaptive, demassed, elusive, and faraway adversaries. Endurance is even more valuable in stability operations, which often need even more persistence, dispersion, and affordability than the combat operations with which they now enjoy comparable priority under DoDD Memo 3000.05, sec 4.1. 

Seems to me all of the characteristics Lovins attributes to his hypothetical adversaries are in play in the AfPak region, and that UAVs like the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, which can loiter for 14 hours fully armed and for 30 hours with a lighter payload, are effective for all the reasons described above. And others see this as well. As Thomas Barnett recently wrote, UAVs are "re-symmetricizing the battlefield in a much-needed manner."

The last question in this series of questions and answers with Amory Lovins will address DOD's dependency on the brittle national grid.

DOD Energy Blog Interview with Amory Lovins - 5 Part Series (part 3)

Part 2 of this series dealt with the Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP); in part 3 responds to a question I ask him on the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF).

Question 3) Certain folks in the Pentagon have told me that the word "Cost" in the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel is causing them trouble getting the concept promulgated. They say "cost" pushes the whole endeavor towards bean counters and takes it off of everyone else's plate. And that bean counters don't really know what to do with it. Your thoughts on this?  Would use of Endurance/Resilience help move the ball forward in your opinion?

Lovins: I think formal entry of the Endurance and Resilience strategic vectors into doctrine would help enormously to drive Department-wide adoption of thinking and choices consistent with them. Meanwhile, perhaps we should talk instead about "Fully Burdened Value of Fuel." Properly valuing saved fuel (like saved mass, volume, or any other parameter) lets us think straight about how efficiently to use them. Valuing saved fuel at often one (and sometimes two) orders of magnitude more than we did before makes a huge difference. When we assumed fuel logistics was free and invulnerable we had no incentive to change. Fully weighting the full value of fuel and fuel assets will result in radically more efficient and capable platforms, with extraordinary implications both for warfighting capability and for a more stable world. Think about moving away from oil dependence and climate change drivers, for example. There are some categories where less is definitely more.

Next up I challenge Lovins to draw some actionable conclusions about a recent article that got some attention on this blog: "The Pentagon's Wasting Assets" which appeared in Foreign Policy journal. Here's that post if you want to do some prep.

DOD Energy Blog Interview with Amory Lovins - 5 Part Series (part 2)

Yesterday was about Lovins' advocacy for resilience and endurance as new Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and their relationship to the Energy Efficiency KPP. Today I'm asking what's up with the latter ... is anybody really using it (see JLTV post) and if he had his druthers, on what types of programs would he recommend using it next. Here's the Q&A:

Question 2) The Army's Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is the only remaining demonstration program for the Energy Efficiency KPP and it looks like the Army's trying to use it ... a least a little bit. That said, do you have any other programs in mind, existing or future, that might be good exemplars for energy-related KPPs?

Lovins: I believe we need to demonstrate energy as a KPP on mobility platforms and electronic systems, in each of the Services, and preferably on the big ACAT I and ACAT 2 programs. So in addition to JLTV, we should look at vehicle mounted, APU-requiring power-intensive electronics like the Cruise Missile Defense Systems – for example, Patriot / MEADS systems and its associated radar systems. Not only should energy as a KPP be added to a ship program, but it should be added to power-intensive ship defense systems like the Ship Self-Defense System managed by NAVSEA's PEO Integrated Warfare System.

What's more, I'd like to see some serious thinking about leap-ahead, rapidly fieldable, super-efficient platforms applied to the Reset opportunity. For example, the blast-bucket light armored ground vehicle described in our 2008 DSB report would seem an apt approach to replacing those HMMVVs, rather than just building more of the same for $85+ billion. Our Task Force recommended rapid development that has not yet occurred. What are we waiting for?

Good stuff, and very good question to close. Apart from the usual bureaucratic inertia, who knows the answer to this? Well?

Next up, Lovins on the current state of another key metric: the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF).