Dr. Geiss Provides Best Definition of Energy Security

Air Force DAS Energy's Kevin Geiss, in a recent panel discussion, made the case for improved and continued partnerships on energy with all of the DOD services.

Along the way, he took a turn at defining the most eternally-difficult-to-define term in our business:

Energy security is having the power when and where you need and in sufficient amounts to do the job and the ability to protect that and recover from any disruption. It's not just having the power but recognizing that there are risks.

If I may use the word zeitgeist here, Geiss is in tune with our current one. In cyber security circles in 2013, when we weren't talking about Snowden and NSA, we were talking about resilience, and that's the special sauce he adds that makes it, in my mind, the strongest, most succinct definition yet.

Knowing that despite best plans and intentions, things are still going to go wrong and orgs need to be ready to respond and recover. And learn.

Article HERE.  And thanks for the hundredth time to OSD's Ollie Fritz (must buy him another beer at Miracle of Science someday).

Conference Alert: Defense Energy Summit

Haven't been this enthused about an energy conference since GovEnergy (RIP).  The line-up of speakers would be hard to beat. Though there's a caveat.

The vast majority of senior DOD and government speakers haven't yet confirmed, most likely due to frozen travel budgets (tagged with * below). Maybe some of them, like Senator Cornyn, even though Texas is a quite large, can simply drive. But the challenge is more significant for Washingtonians.

Listed Speakers

• Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs US Department of Defense
• Jonathan Powers, Federal Environmental Executive, The White House
• Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas*
• Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense*
• Richard Kidd IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy & Sustainability, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Installations, Energy & Environment, US Army*
• General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff*
• Thomas Hicks, Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy/Deputy Chief Management Officer, US Navy*
• Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, US Air Force*
• John Lushetsky, Executive Director, Army Energy Initiatives Task Force, US Army*
• Honorable Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy & Environment), U.S. Army
• Chris Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy US Department of Energy

Nevertheless, the program looks very strong with or without the keynotes. I'll be there for sure.*

Details

When: November 11-13, 2013
Where: Austin, TX
For more info and to register: www.defenseenergy.com

DOD Energy must learn from DSB report on cybersecurity strengths (and weaknesses)

DOD Energy Blog readers - I try not to do this too often, but when the content of the Smart Grid Security Blog is particularly relevant, we sometimes to a twofer.  That is publishing the same post on both blogs, albeit with slightly different titles. As you know from recent posts on the great secure smart and microgrid work going on at Naval District Washington (NDW), through the SPIDERS program, and elsewhere, much of a good portion of DOD energy security is rooted in cybersecurity. As such, I think this post and the report it references are particularly relevant to our cause.  Here you go:

Last year the US DoD released a report by one of its Defense Science Board teams and I've seen it referenced a number of times in recent weeks, especially in articles announcing our loss of the most sensitive systems design details on dozens of current and next generation weapons systems.

(Not Just) Another Conference Alert: Military Microgrids

Dan attended this conference last year and unsurprisingly came away with a lot to say, HERE. Well, time flies when you're working DOD Energy and having fun so it's one more into the breach my friends.

There's a 5-for-the-price-of-1 bullet sale going on now at Blogger, so the rest of this post will take advantage of that promotion. Good luck:

Details

• When: April 30- May 1, 2013 
• Where: Holiday Inn Rosslyn at Key Bridge, Arlington, VA 22209
• For more info and to register click: HERE
• Point of contact: Marcus W. Min, (310) 320-8128 

Confirmed Speakers: 

• Mr. Tom Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Installations and Environment, US Navy 
• Mr. Steven Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, EERE/DOE 
• Dr. Jeff Marqusee, Director, DoD Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 
• CAPT Kerry Gilpin, Director, 1 Gigawatt Task Force, US Navy 
• Dr. Tim McCoy, Director, Electric Ships, PEO-Ships 
• COL Paul Roege, Chief, Operational Energy Office, US Army
• Mr. Don Juhasz, Director, Energy Resource Management, Defense Logistics Agency
• Mr. Steve Bossart, Senior Energy Analyst, National Energy Technology Lab, DOE 
• Dr. Allen Hefner, Assistant to the National Coordinator for Grid Interoperability, NIST 
• Mr. Stephen Schneider, Vice President and Chief Solutions Architect, SAIC 
• Dr. Charles Chen, Technical Programs Manager, Advanced Concepts, Northrop Grumman 
• Ms. Angela Watmore, Director, Boeing Energy Transmission and Distribution 
• Mr. Dan Nordloh, Executive Vice President, ZBB Energy 
• Mr. Bill Becker, Director, Microgrid Solutions, Spirae 
• Dr. Bala Vinayagam, Director, Smart Grid Products, GE 
• Mr. Deepak Devin, President, Varentec 
• Mr. William Taylor, Solutions Development Leader, Energy and Environment, Honeywell 
• Mr. Richard Hockney, Chief Engineer, Beacon Power 
• Mr. Brian Lenane, Senior Principal, Strategic Initiatives, SRA 
• Mr. Liam Dohn, Project Manager, Smart Grid Division, Siemens

Haste Makes Wasteful RE Projects: DOD IG Grades ARRA Spending

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

Operational Energy Strategy: Bumper Stickers for All

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

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

CNAS Focusing on Smart Grid Security

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.

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

DoD Strategy for Sustainability and Energy Security

Executive Order (EO) 13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," was signed by President Obama on 5 October 2009. One of the provisions of this order was a requirement for each federal agency to “develop, implement and annually update a plan that prioritizes actions based on a positive return on investment for the American taxpayer and to meet energy, water, and waste reduction targets”. This past week, Dr. Ashton Carter, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD, AT&L), in his capacity as the DoD Senior Sustainability Officer, released the DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) . The Plan provides the vision for Departments in regard to sustainability is “to maintain the ability to operate into the future without decline – either in the mission or in the natural and manufactured systems that support it.” It covers four key areas: Energy and Reliance on Fossil Fuels, Chemicals of Environmental Concern, Water Resources Management, and Maintaining Readiness in the Face of Climate Change. These areas are translated into Objectives and then further refined with subordinate goals and sub goals. The sub goals provide specific management objectives to ensure the continued availability of resources critical to mission accomplishment, focus DoD to serve as a leader in the USG in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, emphasize minimizing waste and pollution and stress continuously improving mission accomplishment through management practices built on sustainability and community.

Energy efficient acquisition is addressed in the form of energy as a key performance parameter and the use of the fully burdened cost of fuel. Coming from the pen of the Acquisition Executive, I am encouraged that the community will not find a way to avoid these considerations as we look at the next generation of materiel solutions.

The plan contains an excellent summation of efforts to date as well as clear definition of the leadership structure developed to implement plan. This is one area for which DoD has been chided continually. The USD, AT&L serves as the Department’s Senior Sustainability Official and overseer of the Senior Sustainability Council (SSC). The SSC finally brings together the operational as well as the installation energy players. This council will be co-chaired by Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment (USD, I&E), Dr. Dorothy Robyn and the newly appointed Director of Operational Energy Plans and Policy (DOEPP), Sharon Burke. The SSC in turn directs the efforts of the Sustainability Implementation Working Group (SIWG) who is charged with “drafting input to the Plan and facilitating compliance and continual improvement in meeting the Plan goals.”. This group will work with existing DoD committees and working groups to address specific issues.

The ninety nine pages of the report provide an excellent and comprehensive strategic view of what is necessary for DoD to be able to sustain its mission worldwide. Energy cannot stand alone, but must be considered within the context of sustainability. The four objectives, eight goals and 21 sub goals create a holistic approach that provides the Services the starting blocks for their own sustainability strategies.

To achieve success, all strategic plans must be linked to tactical execution by the employment of the operational art. Operational art deals with “theory and practice of planning, preparing, conducting, and sustaining major operations and campaigns aimed at accomplishing operational or strategic objectives in a theater” (Joint Publication 3-0) . In the context of the SSPP it means that the Services must translate the goals and sub goals of the plan into specific responsibilities, authorities, and accountability. The operational art will be the responsibility of the SIWG as it works with the Service representatives and organizations to translate the goals in to tasks, dollars and carrots or sticks.

For example, will each building at the Air Force Academy have to reduce its energy intensity by 37.5% by 2020 from the 2003 baseline or is it just the Air Force Academy in total or the Air Force in aggregate? Who is responsible for the goal, who controls the resources to accomplish the goal and who gets the carrot or stick when goal achievement is measured? That will be the next big challenge. The DoD SSPP brings together the operational and installation players in a common forum. Will the Services be able to bring together their own factions for a common effort? These are the challenges that lie ahead in the evolution of energy security and sustainable operations. It is my sincere hope that as DoD goes through major reductions to garner the savings the Secretary of Defense seeks in the coming years, that evolution is not starved for resources. The SSPP is a great start; it will be up to the Services to translate that vision into action and energy security.

P.S. Congratulations to Tom Morehouse for his selection as the DoD Principal Deputy for operational energy plans and program. Tom is one of the “gray beards” in the Defense Energy Community and will bring unmatched depth of knowledge to this key position. Well done, Deputy DOEPP!