Army Energy Strategy Disruptive to Stovepipes

When it comes to energy, if you're a status quo-loving logistician for the Army, your days are numbered. A recent convening of Army leadership revealed the very forward thinking that has been going on in Army energy circles of late. The kind of thinking that has correctly identified institutional interia as the enemy, and is taking bold steps to defeat it:

• Army Secretary Pete Geren recently appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships Paul Bollinger to "build a team that will work across the Army and try to break down the stovepipes."
• Geren approved the creation of the Army Senior Energy Council on Sept. 26
• Comprised of more than two dozen senior civilian and uniformed leaders, the body is co-chaired by Gen. Pete Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, and Keith Eastin, the service's assistant secretary for installations and environment

Stovepipes, it turns out, burn more oil than all the tanks, planes and ships in the arsenal combined. The full article is here at Army.mil/News. 

Photo courtesy of US Army's Soldiers Media Center on Flickr

Lockheed "Gets It"

I want you to focus on a quote from a senior Lockheed exec whose job it is to understand the future. Speaking of DOD's emerging appreciation for energy constraints, he said :

Energy availability and cost has direction implications on DOD requirements, operations and costs.... National security strategy may need to be changed. Roles and missions of the services may be affected as well.

This isn't about subtle changes and adjustments; we're talking potentially sweeping changes across DOD and its suppliers.

This, from David Potts, Director of Planning & Analysis at LMC, at a recent GEIA conference, reminded me of a another post on recent comments from DNI Mike McConnell, another man paid to see the future with some clarity, when he said increasing contention for scarce resources, including oil, may well drive more international conflicts in the near future. 

So at a minimum the DNI and one leader at Lockheed get it. But you might well ask: Do the folks who write the JCIDS for DOD? Do the other integrators and the rest of industry? Does Congress?

DOD's Oil Clock is Ticking

I'm not exagerating when I tell you Dr. Sohbet Karbuz's "Can the U.S. military move to renewable fuels?" in last month's Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is perhaps the best, most consice summation of the militay's fuel concerns in 2008. Informed by a career of research and monitoring of global energy issues for the International Energy Agency (IEA), Karbuz writes from a consistently constructive point of view, and has been paying particular attention to the DOD for years. Compared with me, he's a true expert, and yet my own observations are almost completely in sync with his.

From speaking with senior leadership, and watching where they've put the bulk of their recent energy efforts, it seems DOD is more interested in boasting about its big electricity projects, like a very large solar installation at Nellis AFB, or wind turbines a Guantanemo, than in treating the fuel issue like the institutional life and death issue that it is.

Karbuz himself cannot help but draw discouraging conclusions from the current state of DOD energy activities which seem focused on the lesser of its great challenges:

It is a pity that most of the Pentagon's efforts are concentrated on generating electricity, which accounts for less than 12 percent of military energy consumption, and not on oil, which accounts for more than 75 percent.

Hopefully with the advent of the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) initiative in the 2009 NDAA, we'll start to see a change. But it's got to come fast, to an institution that's often averse to change. It will be decades before the the systems designed today are fielded. Do you the next planes and ships are being designed with fuel efficiency or new fuels in mind?

DNI Mike McConnell Sees Global Trouble Ahead ...

... and oil is right in the middle of it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been no walk in the park, and both will demand serious attention and consume substantial DOD resources for years. But if DNI is correct, things may only get busier for DOD in the coming two decades:

Territorial expansion and military rivalries are not likely, but cannot be ruled out, and the perception that oil is scarce could trigger conflicts between states.

I think he's being overly conservative using the term "the perception." In the 20th century we saw oil play a strategic role in economic and military success. In the 21st century there are already clear sigals that oil and gas price and availability are key leverage points for Russia and OPEC.  The pressure will come not just from the supply side, but from countries jockeying for what they see as their rightful part of the supply. As we move further into this century, McConnell sees that:

By 2025, China is likely to have the world's second largest economy and to have emerged as a major military power, the largest importer of natural resources and the largest contributor to world pollution.

It's all about energy security: the more we can move DOD and the rest of the economy off the oil standard, the less vulnerabile the US will be to the turmoil McConnell and many others see coming. Those working the problem today know it's a tough, tough problem. They need all the help we can give them.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Conservation Voltage Regulation Could Lighten the Grid's Load

Sometimes good info comes via circuitous routes. From Congressman Bartlett's office and DOD work in Hawaii, via friends at the DC Energy Consensus, please allow me to introduce Seattle-based MicroPlanet. Their Smart Grid technology reduces the amount of voltage required across the grid by reducing voltage requirements at the point of use.

Of course, the DOD needs to follow through on its own recommendations to better secure itself against the risk of grid failure, but anything that can be done to solve the problem on the other side, by reducing grid wear, tear ... and waste, has to be a welcome addition.  

Note: while MicroPlanet has done preliminary testing with the Army and the Marines, this is an early stage company still burning equity investment cash to support development work. But its technology sure seems promising ... stay tuned.

Troubling Tanker Talk

I learned one thing doing source selections at Hanscom AFB in the 1980's in an environment where every award was protested: don't change the rules mid-course. A recent article from  Aerospace Daily & Defense Report comments on the position of Pentagon acquisition chief John Young on the ongoing tanker replacement saga:

Lifecycle cost would be too thorny because of fluctuations in areas outside the Pentagon's control. For example, the price of oil recently dropped, dramatically reducing the lifecycle cost of both aircraft. However, fuel efficiency of the two bids were different, and given the challenge of projecting such costs in the future, Young says the simplest way of conducting a price competition is to focus solely on the up-front price associated with developing and buying the first aircraft.

I wanted to make the case that this procurement, more than any other, should take into account the DOD's own new policy on including the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) in its lifecycle and logistic projections for new systems. But adding that on here mid-course would just be adding to the folly. USAF either needs to award this contract based on the criteria it published when it released the RFP, or it needs to kill this acquisition and start fresh. I'd go with the latter of course.

And this time put fuel efficiency at the top of the requirements list. It's disturbing that leadership is so easily swayed by day-to-day fluctuations in the price of energy, when the overall price trends are clearly pointing up, and at risk of spiking on a moment's notice. Haven't we learned anything from the recent several years of energy-induced budget shock? It's not just the high price, it's the volatility that's beating up DOD budgeting and procurement. See posts here, here, here and here.

KC-135 Photo (from inside F-15) courtsy of USAF & James Gordon

Executive Order 13423 Drives GSA Change

There's a new energy vehicle in town, though it's not a plug-in hybrid. Washington Technology has a brief announcement of the update and more info can be found here from the GSA itself under the 03FAC Facilities Maintenance & Management schedule.

This contract will make it much easier for Federal Agencies to respond to the renewable energy and energy management objectives outlined by President Bush in last year's Executive Order 13423 (see link in sidebar)

As part of the announcement, GSA outlined the services offered via this schedule, including:

• Energy Audit Services
  
• Energy Management Program Support, Planning and Strategies
  
• Water Audits, Management and Conservation Solutions
  
• Resource Efficiency Management and Training
  
• Innovative Renewable Energy Solutions
  
• Building Commissioning Services
  
• Metering and Advanced Metering Services 
  

It's all good stuff.  And as good as it is for Federal leadership to set new energy goals and pronounce success metrics and targets, it's even better when they put the keys in the agencies' hands so they can drive themselves in this new and greatly improved direction.