[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-125]
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-834 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROB BISHOP, Utah
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
GLENN NYE, Virginia JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff Member
Lynn Williams, Professional Staff Member
Katy Bloomberg, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 24, 2010, Energy Management and Initiatives
on Military Installations...................................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, February 24, 2010..................................... 27
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Readiness Subcommittee................................. 3
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Readiness Subcommittee......................................... 1
WITNESSES
Hansen, L. Jerry, Army Senior Energy Executive, Senior Official
Performing Duties as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of the Army..... 7
Natsuhara, Roger M., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations, Environment and Logistics, U.S. Department of
the Navy....................................................... 9
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of Defense...... 4
Tune, Debra K., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics,
U.S. Department of the Air Force............................... 11
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................ 38
Hansen, L. Jerry............................................. 51
Natsuhara, Roger M........................................... 67
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P........................................ 31
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy........................................... 42
Tune, Debra K................................................ 82
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Shea-Porter.............................................. 95
Mr. Taylor................................................... 95
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 100
Ms. Giffords................................................. 101
Mr. Marshall................................................. 99
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 99
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Readiness Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 24, 2010.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Ortiz. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to order.
I thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before this
subcommittee today to discuss energy management and initiatives
on military installations.
Today's hearing is one of several held by this Subcommittee
relating to the Department of Defense (DOD) energy posture. We
have heard from the Defense Science Board's Energy Security
Task Force, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics on a broad range of energy issues.
Today's hearing will focus on the many energy initiatives
underway on military installations and the overarching
strategies that guide these initiatives.
In many ways, through these strategies and initiatives, the
Department has assumed a leadership role in addressing our
Nation's energy challenges. Each of the military services and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) have worked to
develop energy strategies and goals. Capping these efforts off,
the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) identifies energy and
its sister issue, climate change, as two key agents that will
play a significant role in shaping the future of national
security and the environment.
The military services have demonstrated a willingness to be
early adopters of new technologies and enablers of renewable
and alternative energy projects. They have started to lease
electrical vehicles and they work towards net zero
installations, adopt advanced metering technologies,
investigate microgrid technologies, and partner with the
private sector to develop wind, solar, geothermal and waste-to-
energy systems, just to name a few.
Initiatives are accelerating not only in variety but in
size. When it was completed in 2010, the 14.2 megawatt solar
array at Nellis Air Force Base was the largest such array in
the Americas. Today, another military installation is
contemplating partnering on a solar project 35 times larger.
This project would encompass as much as 14,000 acres and
provide 500 megawatts of solar energy to the installation and
to the grid.
Now, this is an exciting prospect. However, in a recent
report conducted at this Subcommittee's request, the Government
Accountability Office recognized that development of renewable
energy projects is not always compatible with the primary
mission of a DOD installation. I would like to hear what steps
the Department has taken to ensure that large-scale energy
projects on military installations don't eventually impede a
base's primary mission or result in another form of
encroachment.
While the Department's initiatives have been accelerating
at military installations, outside defense private-sector
initiatives have been, too. The number of domestic renewable
energy projects such as wind farms, solar power and arrays has
been increasing significantly in recent years. These projects
have great potential to enhance our energy security.
At the same time, I am concerned to learn that some of
these energy projects, particularly large wind farms and solar
towers, may have the potential to impair military readiness.
Recent tests conducted by the Department of Defense and recent
experiences at some military installations show that windmills
can significantly affect radar performance, can obstruct
military training routes, and can interfere with military
systems designed to operate in the electromagnetic spectrum.
These are significant challenges that we must address. It is
important that we understand how to balance energy security and
military readiness because our Nation needs both.
I look forward to hearing the perspective of our
distinguished witnesses today on these and other issues of
interest to the Subcommittee.
But before I recognize my good friend, Mr. Forbes, the
distinguished Ranking Member, I would like to speak for one
brief moment on a topic that we will not focus on today, but
that is important and related, and that is operational energy.
Now, this Subcommittee created a new office for a Director
for Operational Energy to advise the Secretary of Defense and
oversee energy the Department uses for military operations.
Now, I believe that a nominee has been selected and I am
hopeful that her Senate confirmation will happen quickly. It is
imperative that we round out the Department's energy team with
this key official dedicated to operational energy oversight.
With that said, I look forward to the thoughtful testimony
on installation energy management and initiatives from the
distinguished witnesses we have here today.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, my good friend, Mr. Forbes, for any remarks he may
like to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, thank you, as always, for your
service for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of our
witnesses for their time and sharing their expertise with us
today. The timing of this hearing is certainly excellent.
Whatever your views are on global warming and the benefits
of clean energy, there are certainly a few things that are
clear:
One, that the cost and risk of an exclusive reliance on
petroleum energy sources grows with each passing year.
Two, we should use renewable sources when it is cost-
competitive and when it enhances or, at a minimum, does not
detract from our military readiness.
Lastly, renewable resources can greatly increase the energy
security of our national military installations.
My primary interest today, however, is not only to learn
about goals to expand green energy in the military, but also to
understand how realistic and achievable each of the goals are.
For instance, net zero energy consuming installations is a
laudable goal from a cost savings and energy security
viewpoint. But the question is: Is it achievable? What will we
have to give up in the short run or the long run to reach this
goal?
I believe it is critical to address two serious flaws in
the rush to push green energy on military installations:
First, there seems to be no shortage of good ideas and
mandates that are placed on the Department of Defense by both
the White House and Congress without either an integrated plan
or an evaluation system to ensure we are meeting the stated
objectives. The list of mandates includes specific substantial
goals for hybrid vehicles, greenhouse gas emissions, solar
energy use and reduction goals for petroleum use and overall
reductions in energy use. Meeting just a few of the goals would
be daunting. Before we add more mandates, we should agree on
our key objectives. Is it total energy security for each
installation so that our energy sources are not ever in
question? Is the goal to ensure at least 50 percent of our
energy comes from renewable energy sources? To my knowledge,
there is no comprehensive Departmental plan beyond saving what
we can, where we can.
My second concern is the impact renewable energy products
have on military training. Solar projects can spread across
vast areas of valuable military training land and limit
military training, particularly military aviation. Even more
troubling are wind turbines. These giant devices not only
present hazards near military airfields, but they also alter
military aviation training routes across the country and can
adversely affect military training and air defense radars.
Despite these acknowledged drawbacks, wind farms are being
funded at breakneck speed by stimulus funding within a porous
regulatory oversight structure. Any large undertaking that
substantially alters land, sea or airspace, must undergo
thorough scrutiny for military training impacts as well as
other environmental concerns. Military training land and
airspace is extraordinarily difficult to acquire, so we must
preserve and protect what we have.
Mr. Chairman, I also believe we must expand our use of
renewable energy, and I have introduced legislation and
supported legislation that moves us in this direction. But like
any laudable goal, the marginal cost of any approach must be
considered. We must be careful that our national enthusiasm for
clean energy does not negatively affect military readiness. We
must do a better job of fully considering the long-term
consequences of our actions. In my view, the Pentagon's energy
goals must be realistic, compatible with military training,
advance the goal of energy security, and be a part of a
comprehensive Department-wide plan.
I would like to hear how our witnesses intend to achieve
those objectives. And, once again, thank you all for taking
your time and being here.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
Appendix on page 38.]
Mr. Ortiz. Today we are fortunate to have a panel of
witnesses representing the Department of Defense, the
Departments of the Army, the Navy and Air Force. We have with
us Dr. Dorothy Robyn. Doctor, good to see you again and
welcome. She is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment.
Mr. L. Jerry Hansen, Army Senior Energy Executive and
senior official performing duties as the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Installations and Environment.
Mr. Roger Natsuhara, good to see you again, sir. Good to
see you yesterday and see you back again. He is the Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment and Logistics.
Mrs. Debra K. Tune, performing the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and
Logistics.
Without objection, the witnesses' prepared testimony will
be accepted for the record.
Mr. Ortiz. Dr. Robyn, welcome. You may proceed with your
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Dr. Robyn. Thank you very much, Chairman Ortiz, Congressman
Forbes, and other distinguished members. It is a real pleasure
to testify today on the Department of Defense's strategy for
improving energy management at military installations.
As you know, the Department operates more than 500
permanent installations overseas and in the United States. They
contain more than 300,000 buildings and 2 billion square feet
of space. That means our footprint is 4 times that of Wal-Mart
and 10 times that of the General Services Administration (GSA).
I want to make three key points today. The first is that
management of installation energy is an extremely important
issue, and we are all grateful to you for having this hearing
and giving us an opportunity to talk about it and talk to you.
Facilities energy represents a significant cost. That is the
first reason it is such an important issue.
In 2009, we spent close to $4 billion as a Department to
power our facilities. That is about 30 percent of our total
energy bill, and that percentage is higher during peacetime
when our operational energy bill is lower. Moreover, our
installation energy needs will increase over the next several
years as we grow the Army and the Marine Corps and reduce our
presence overseas and bring troops and equipment back.
In addition to the cost of installation energy, it matters
because of its importance to mission assurance, as your opening
statements have discussed. Many experts believe that the
commercial power grid is vulnerable to disruption from cyber
attacks, natural disasters and sheer overload, and since our
installations rely on this grid, critical missions may be at
risk.
The second key point I want to make is that there are
impediments to improving the way we manage energy on our
installations. The key impediment is flawed economic
incentives.
Let me mention two examples. Mr. Chairman, you referred to
the Defense Science Board Report. I am taking those examples
right out of that. What I got was an outstanding report.
One incentive problem is referred to as split incentives.
This arises because energy efficiency typically requires an
increase in capital investment, but it yields savings over time
in operation and maintenance. That leads to under-investment in
energy efficiency when one organization or individual within
the Department of Defense is in charge of investment and
capital and another is in charge of operation and maintenance.
So there is a divergence between the incentives that they face.
A second example of flawed incentives is the commander who
succeeds in reducing energy consumption but cannot keep the
savings, which is typical. In fact, his or her budget is
typically reduced as a result of the good behavior. The
military departments have developed mechanisms to offset this
disincentive to energy conservation, but they are limited in
scope.
Now, despite these impediments, the Department has
noticeably improved its energy performance over the last five
years, largely in response to statutory and regulatory goals.
However, in the last year, the Department has stepped up the
level of effort even beyond what it has been, and that is my
third key point. And I want to talk about just the key elements
of what we are doing.
The first key element is commitment from the top. Secretary
Gates himself has made energy security a priority, and that is
reflected in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Consistent with
the legislation from this committee, the Secretary has created
the Office of Director for Operational Energy Plans and
Programs in the Office of the Secretary, and the President has
nominated Sharon Burke to head this new directorate. Thank you,
Chairman Ortiz, for the plug for her confirmation. We hope that
comes soon.
Second, the Department is investing more to improve the
energy profile of our fixed installations. Our basic strategy
is twofold: One, reduce the demand for traditional energy
through conservation and energy efficiency; and, two, increase
the supply of renewable and other alternative energy resources.
Investments that curb demand are the most cost-effective
way to improve an installation's energy profile. We know that
from work done by McKenzie and others. As Energy Secretary Chu
has observed, energy efficiency is not just the low-hanging
fruit, it is the fruit lying on the ground.
Investment designed to expand the supply of renewable
energy sources on base is also an important complement to the
demand-side investment. Although the payback period is
significantly longer than that for energy efficiency projects,
renewable energy is key to energy security on our
installations.
A third element, in addition to commitment from the top and
increased investment, we are taking advantage of the
Department's strength in research and development (R&D). The
military, as you know, has a long history of stimulating
through new technology, through R&D. When it comes to military
installations, our most valuable role will be as a test bed for
next-generation technologies coming out of laboratories in
industry, universities, and the Department of Energy (DOE).
Our built infrastructure, these 300,000 buildings, are
unique both for their size and variety, and they capture the
diversity of building types and climates in the country at
large. For a wide range of energy technologies for which
deployment decisions must be made at a local level, DOD can
play a crucial role by filling the gap between research and
deployment, the so-called ``valley of death.''
Specifically, as both a real and a virtual test bed, our
facilities can serve two key roles in which the military has
historically excelled. One is as a sophisticated first user,
and the other is for technologies that are effective to serve
as the first customer, an early customer, thereby helping to
create a market, as the Department did with everything from
aircraft to electronics to the Internet. This will allow the
military in turn to leverage the cost savings and technology
advances that private-sector involvement will yield. We are
pursuing the energy test bed approach on a small scale, and we
hope to expand this effort working with the Department of
Energy and others.
Finally, let me say that we are pursuing a couple of
initiatives to address specific challenges or impediments, the
incentives problem that I talked about. Let me just briefly
mention three of them.
First, we are addressing DOD's lack of an enterprise-wide
energy information management system for its global assets.
Large commercial enterprises manage their energy portfolio
using such systems. The Department needs one as well, one that
can provide the appropriate information on energy consumption
at various levels of aggregation, everything from an individual
building all the way up to an entire military department.
Second, we have begun what will likely be a major effort to
address the risks to our installations from potential
disruptions to the commercial electricity grid, and we will be
getting you a report that you requested in the authorization
bill that lays out our strategy for that.
Then, finally, we are devoting considerable time and effort
to a growing challenge to which you both alluded in your
opening statements, ensuring that proposals for domestic energy
projects, including renewable energy, are compatible with
military requirements for land and airspace.
We are working that problem at two levels. First--and this
is in the Office of the Secretary, and you will hear from the
services as well about this--there is a DOD product team, which
I co-chair, devoted to sustaining our test and training ranges.
We are working through that group to come up with a better
process for evaluating proposals from energy developers who
want to site a renewable project on or near an installation.
The current process for reviewing proposals and handling
disputes is opaque, very time-consuming and ad hoc. I don't
believe we are going to come up with a one-stop shop for this,
but I think we can go a long way toward improving that process
from the standpoint of developers and the Department.
Second, we are looking at the role of research and
development. Better technology can help us in two key ways. One
is to better measure the potential impact of a proposed wind
turbine project or solar tower on military operations in that
area. Second, new technology can help to mitigate the impact.
The technology is getting better. There are press reports
recently about stealth technology going a long way towards
solving the problem between wind turbines and ground radar,
though not air-based radar.
In sum, we have steadily improved our profile at
installations in terms of energy in recent years in response to
regulatory and statutory goals. While continuing on that very
positive trend, I think it is time for us to adapt our approach
to installation energy management from one that is primarily
focused on compliance to one focused on long-term cost
avoidance and mission assurance.
We have made energy security a priority. We are investing
more to achieve it. In addition to investing military
construction and sustainment dollars, we will need to leverage
the Department's strength in research and development,
particularly by using our installations as a test bed for next-
generation technologies.
Finally, we will need to address the impediments to
improved energy management, including the flawed incentives.
I very much look forward to working with you all to address
the challenges and opportunities we face in this very, very
exciting and important area.
Thank you.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the
Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Hansen, you may proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF L. JERRY HANSEN, ARMY SENIOR ENERGY EXECUTIVE,
SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING DUTIES AS THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my
pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Army's
energy security program. This Subcommittee's ongoing support,
coupled with the President's vision for energy security and
sustainability, will result in assured access to reliable
supplies of energy, to reduce risks, meet our operational
needs, and build the clean energy future that will benefit the
Nation.
We recognize that disruption of critical power and fuel
supplies can harm our readiness, our ability to accomplish
vital missions, and exposes us to a vulnerability that must be
addressed by a more secure energy posture.
Among the most immediate, significant and systemic risks we
face is dependence on the commercial power grid. In developing
the Army program, we considered operational mission priorities
foremost in planning energy security projects. We are committed
to enhancing energy security and mission assurance without
degrading those tests, training, and operational areas
essential for mission readiness, areas secured at some expense
with your assistance and support.
Sustaining Army mission capabilities and global operations
requires a tremendous amount of energy, as we all appreciate.
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Army spent approximately $1.2
billion for more than 80 trillion British thermal units of
energy to operate installations and facilities, and more than
$1.7 billion for the operational energy requirements worldwide.
To ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to
energy security, the Secretary of the Army created a Senior
Energy Council in 2008 to facilitate a cohesive Army-wide
approach to energy security. The comprehensive Army Energy
Security Implementation Strategy (AESIS) was developed with the
active participation of all Army major commands and was
approved in January of 2009.
This strategy requires energy to be a key consideration in
all Army activities, with emphasis on reducing demand,
increasing efficiency, seeking alternative sources, and
creating a culture of energy accountability while sustaining or
enhancing our operational capabilities. The strategy requires
energy activities across the Army and tracks progress of more
than 20 objectives and more than 50 metrics for meeting
established energy efficiency goals.
The Army is actively supporting advanced technologies and
is taking immediate action to implement innovative energy
initiatives to include solar, wind and geothermal power,
electric and hybrid vehicles, and improve facility energy
performance, to name but a few.
In fiscal year 2009, the Army had 67 active renewable
energy projects, 42 of which generated electricity that
qualified for credit toward the Energy Policy Act's 2005
renewable energy goal.
The Army is making significant investments in implementing
energy projects. The 2009 Army Recovery and Reinvestment Act
for research included over $600 million for more than 300
energy-related projects, such as energy efficiency, facility
improvements, and projects under the Energy Conservation
Investment Program (ECIP).
Some specific examples include at Fort Irwin, California,
where the Army, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is working with
a developer to design a plan for the largest solar project
within DOD, featuring phased construction of about 500
megawatts of solar power. This plant, which will be constructed
with approximately $2 billion of private capital, will reduce
the Army's utility costs by an estimated $20.8 million over 25
years and will provide secure electricity to Fort Irwin, even
if the commercial grid were to go down.
At Fort Bliss, we are experiencing the largest DOD facility
growth and the installation's position to become an Army center
for renewable energy. Fort Bliss has begun to utilize renewable
energy to provide secure electric power for the installation.
Also in partnership with the local community, an inland
desalination was developed to create a new supply of fresh
water, which enables many of the other projects.
At Fort Detrick, Maryland, the installation has entered
into an enhanced use lease for a central utilities plant in
support of the National Interagency Biodefense Campus to
provide an efficient, cost-effective, reliable and secure
utility asset. It is an excellent example of a public-private
partnership.
In the area of vehicle consumption, the Army is leasing
4,000 low-speed electrical vehicles to replace petroleum-fueled
non-tactical vehicles, and in 2009 the Army acquired more than
700 hybrid vehicles. These initiatives significantly reduce our
dependence on and consumption of fossil fuels while lowering
the greenhouse gas emissions.
In fiscal year 2009, the Army completed installation of
2,690 advanced electric meters and 575 advanced natural gas
meters that will be networked to a central metered data
management system to assist the energy management review and
analysis throughout the Army.
In light of the strategic threats to the commercial energy
infrastructure, the Army acknowledges and accepts that in some
cases there will be a cost premium associated with achieving
energy security. Future energy cost-benefit analysis must go
beyond short-term economic considerations and include a
determination of how much risk national leadership is willing
to accept to ensure continued operation of our critical
military installations, missions and functions.
Without power and energy, the Army lies silent. The Army's
energy security program addresses some of the great challenges
of our time: confronting our dependence on foreign oil;
addressing the moral, economic, security and environmental
challenge of global climate change; and building a clean energy
future to benefit all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward
to your questions.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
Mr Ortiz. Mr. Natsuhara.
STATEMENT OF ROGER M. NATSUHARA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mr. Natsuhara. Chairman Ortiz, Representative Forbes,
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present you with an overview of the Department of Navy
installation energy program.
The Department is a recognized leader in energy management,
research and development, and environmental stewardship,
receiving 28 percent of all of the Presidential awards and 30
percent of all of the Federal energy awards in the last nine
years. But we cannot rest on our accolades.
The United States relies far too much on fossil fuel, a
finite resource imported, to a large extent, from volatile
areas of the world. To set us on the path toward greater energy
security, Secretary Mabus has committed us to a very ambitious
set of goals that goes beyond meeting legislative mandates.
For the shore establishment, he directed that 50 percent of
our energy will come from alternative sources, and by 2015 the
Department will reduce fleet vehicle petroleum uses by greater
than 50 percent. Based on these ambitious goals, we are
developing a strategic roadmap and set of energy directives
that will provide guidance to the Navy and Marine Corps. We are
making investments, allocating resources, developing possible
legislation, institutionalizing policy changes, creating
public-private partnerships, and pursuing technology
development required to meet these goals.
Renewable energy is a key component of our comprehensive
energy program. Currently, almost 19 percent of the energy
produced or consumed on our installations comes from
alternative sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power,
and we are leading the way in the development of new
technologies. With Army Research Office (ARO) funds, we are
advancing technology to convert the ocean's thermal gradients
to electricity and potable water. We partnered with industry to
further develop the design and concept of an Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC) power plant that we plan to test near
Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in the coming years.
With investments hybrids, flex fuel and electric vehicles,
we can retire many of our petroleum-intensive vehicles
currently in use. In fact, we have already replaced 30 percent
of our non-tactical fleet with alternative fuel counterparts.
Vital to the readiness of our fleet is unencumbered access
to critical water and space adjacent to our facilities and
ranges. An example is the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), where
the vast majority of our training evolutions occur. The
Department realizes that energy exploration and offshore wind
development play a crucial role in our Nation's security and
are not necessarily mutually exclusive endeavors. However, we
must ensure that obstructions to freedom of maneuver or
restrictions to tactical action in critical range space do not
measurably degrade the ability of the naval forces to achieve
the highest value in training and testing.
The Department of Navy is committed to expanding
interagency partnerships in order to develop the United States
renewable energy economy. On January 21, 2010, Secretary Mabus
and the Secretary of Agriculture signed a memorandum of
understanding. Under this agreement, we will explore and
develop advanced biofuels, which will be a major component in
the solutions to meet our aggressive goals.
We have begun a major effort to address the risk to our
installations from potential disruptions to the commercial
electric grid. The Department is participating in interagency
discussions on the magnitude of the threat and how best to
mitigate it. Developing more renewable and alternative energy
sources on our stations will be one element of this effort.
When combined with smart grid or microgrid technologies,
investments that reduce demand and produce renewable energy
will enable installations to sustain mission-critical
activities during grid disruptions.
I take pride in the Department of Navy's energy program
with its proven track record of saving energy and making the
Nation more secure. We know we cannot meet the threats of
tomorrow by simply maintaining today's readiness and
capabilities. We will continue to lead the way through our
efforts to develop renewable energy sources, and I am confident
that the Navy and the Marine Corps will excel in meeting the
energy challenge of the 21st century.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have, sir.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsuhara can be found in
the Appendix on page 67.]
Mr. Ortiz. Ms. Tune, you may proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF DEBRA K. TUNE, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND
LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Mrs. Tune. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes, and
distinguished members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be
here to address the Air Force's efforts regarding installation
energy efficiency and security. I would like to thank the
Committee for its continued support of America's Air Force and
the many brave and dedicated airmen who serve around the globe
to protect our Nation and its interests.
From aviation operations to installation infrastructure
within the homeland and abroad, energy enables the dynamic and
unique defense capabilities of global vigilance, reach, and
power, the Air Force needs to ``fly, fight, and win'' in
airspace and cyberspace. We are proud to be a leader in
America's ongoing quest to use energy more efficiently and
effectively through improved processes, better operational
procedures, and new technologies, including the use of
alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy.
Sustaining the Air Force's mission-execution capabilities
in its global operations requires a tremendous amount of
energy. In fiscal year 2009, the Air Force spent approximately
$6.7 billion on energy to conduct our operations. Of that, $1.1
billion went to operate Air Force installations around the
world.
We also spent over $350 million last year for installation
energy projects, with the majority of the funds slated for
energy conservation initiatives that will make our bases more
energy efficient.
The case for action to reduce our energy consumption and
diversify our energy sources is compelling. Military forces
will always be dependent on energy, but we must reduce the risk
to national security associated with our current energy
posture. Our fragile energy infrastructure, such as the
national electrical grid, may hinder our ability to reliably
deliver energy during times of crisis.
Several years ago, we recognized the need to develop a
purposeful campaign that builds upon our long history of energy
conservation and leadership to create an enduring and viable
energy strategy that meets conservation mandates, establishes
energy independence, and provides the pathway to acquire the
resources necessary to make our installations energy efficient.
Accordingly, the Air Force developed a comprehensive energy
strategy to improve our ability to manage supply and demand in
a way that enhances mission capability and readiness.
A realistic assessment of the current energy situation and
environment shows the necessity to develop flexible options and
make choices and investments that will yield a balanced energy
implementation plan. It is within this context that we
developed the Air Force energy strategy.
Under this strategy, our approach to installation energy is
built on four pillars: improve our current infrastructure;
improve our future infrastructure; expand renewables; and
manage costs.
At the core of this approach is the recognition that it is
critical to reduce energy consumption and increase the
available supply of energy. From installing energy-efficient
lighting systems, to investing in the state-of-the-art energy
meters, we are continually improving the energy conservation of
our facilities and reengineering our processes. We are
expanding the use of renewable energy on our bases to enhance
energy supplies and advance energy security.
We are also collaborating with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, our sister services, other Federal agencies,
research institutions, and private industry to help us meet or
exceed our goals. By sharing our ideas and best practices, we
can improve our energy security and reduce our greenhouse
emissions through the use of renewable energy and robust energy
management practices.
The Air Force has a solid record of successes and strengths
in energy management, and we will continue to make gains
through our strategy. The key to a successful execution is
aligning our resources to the goals and creating accountability
through effective governance. Our approach will sustain our
leadership in energy conservation and alternative energy.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes, this concludes my
remarks. I thank you and the Committee again for your continued
support of our airmen and their families. I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Tune can be found in the
Appendix on page 82.]
Mr. Ortiz. Now I would like to ask unanimous consent that
non-subcommittee members be allowed to participate in today's
hearing after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity
to ask questions.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Ortiz. I am going to start off with one of the
questions that I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
The number of domestic renewable energy projects has been
increasing significantly in recent years. Since 2006, the
Department of Energy and the American Wind Energy Association
have been investigating means to enable wind energy to
contribute at least 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, by
2030 at least, an initiative that will require thousands of new
wind turbine generators. Yet, wind fields can significantly
affect radar performance and can cause obstructions and hazards
along military training routes, and not only for military
training, but I understand for Homeland Security as well.
The burden of coordinating with local communities on
proposed wind farm projects currently falls on individual
commanders, and I know, because we are going through some of
those problems right now.
I just wonder what efforts are being made to engage
proactively at the service at the Department level to mitigate
impact of new wind turbines on military training routes and air
defense radars. I am just wondering, has this been established,
have studies been made that they do impact training and radar?
This is a very interesting subject, and I know that we are
right in the middle of them, my district, right in the middle
of two military training bases. So any of you that would like
to tackle this, go right ahead.
Dr. Robyn. Sure, I will take a stab at it.
It is a serious issue. I spent the better part of a week
touring test and training ranges in Southern California in part
to get a better feel for this issue.
I don't believe that any project has gone forward that
creates any sort of a problem. I think there are a lot of
checks in this system now to keep that from happening. But it
is an opaque process and one that can take a long time. Often
the base commanders don't find out about a project until the
project is pretty far along, and that is because the energy
developers have an incentive to keep that information to
themselves. They don't want their competitors to know about it.
And the developers say, well, they often don't know that there
is a problem until late in the process. So we hear complaints
from both sides about it.
Obviously, our concern is with making sure that these crown
jewels that we have in the form of test and training ranges,
and bases more generally, can continue to operate.
I think that the Air Force--and Deb can talk more about
this, but to illustrate, probably the most difficult case is
one with Solar Reserve Company. It was a solar tower at Nellis
Air Force Base, so a different project than the one that you
talked about in your opening statement.
Nellis had concerns about it. The Air Force brought in the
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. They brought in
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) radar experts. They
spent six months studying it and determined that it would be
okay if it were moved a mile away.
So I think for the time being, when there are contentious
projects, that is going to be--that is how it is going to have
to be handled. There is going to have to be a lot of scrutiny
and study to determine whether it is okay to go ahead.
What we would like to do and what we are trying to do is to
come up with a process that can provide a more streamlined
approach for projects that aren't as controversial as that, so
that developers have some sense and can get an early read on
whether a project is going to create a problem. And one way we
have talked with WIA, the wind power folks, about is if we
create a process that allows developers to share confidential
information with us, would that be helpful? The Federal
Government has done that in other cases with cell tower siting,
for example. So I think that would help to get information
earlier.
It is, of course, an interagency process, so we have
brought the Department of Energy, the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy as well.
Number one, we are trying to come up with a better process
so that developers can get an answer sooner, more predictably.
Second, to push the envelope in terms of R&D, because I think
there will be mitigation techniques that can be developed. And
as the opportunities become more valuable, it will become in
the industry's interest to put more money in that, and it is in
our interests as well.
Mr. Ortiz. See, what happens is that most of the time this
land is outside the city's jurisdiction, there is no ordinances
that they have to follow, and people go out and they buy
thousands of acres, and this is what they want to build. But
there is nobody that they can go and file, like you say, what
they are going to build, and then all of a sudden, we say my
God, it is going to be in the path of some of these helicopter
and aircraft training.
But you are right, I hope that somebody is looking into
this, and maybe we can tighten up the rules a little bit. We
really appreciate the young men and women who go through this
training, and we want to keep them away from harm's way.
Anybody else that would like to answer?
Mrs. Tune. Sir, I would like to add, I agree with
everything that Dr. Robyn said. For the Air Force, we have
dealt with this at Travis Air Force Base with multiple wind
turbine sitings there, and we have come up with a protocol, a
siting protocol that we can work in conjunction with. If it is
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, you are exactly right; we
have a little more opportunity to engage with BLM and to
develop the siting protocols. That has worked very well.
We have a good working relationship with industry and the
developers. And our experience is the developers want it to be
a cooperative situation, so they do want to work with the Air
Force installations, provided we share information very early
in the project. They don't make a lot of investments too early.
So I think we are working through that.
I would say another agency that does get involved in
private lands is Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). So we
have been partnering with FAA as well, if you are looking at a
flight obstruction, some type of obstruction that may impact
us.
We too believe that there needs to be some centralized
process that allows the private developers to access the
information they need and to have a collaborative environment,
and we can have a standard process to ensure--because we do not
and the Air Force's position is we will not trade off
operational mission capabilities for renewables. So we need to
partner, we need to work together, it needs to be
collaborative.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen, would you like to add something?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It probably hasn't been as
big an issue in the Army as it might have been at some of our
sister services, but we did have a recent example at
Massachusetts Military Reservation where the Army coordinated
with the State, the Air Force, Coast Guard, FAA, all through
the National Guard, and wind does appear to be the reasonable
solution for renewable energy at that particular site.
But overall, we are ensuring that there will be no adverse
impact to missions as well, and we do have a work group
reviewing the process to make sure we have the requisite
visibility and oversight and we are working closely with the
other services and OSD on that.
Mr. Natsuhara. For the Navy, for the encroachments around
the bases, we have good liaison. The Marine Corps uses their
community plans and liaison offices and the Navy uses their
regional offices. So we have a pretty good handle on what goes
around the bases.
Our concern that we have been working with OSD and the
other agencies are those in the flight paths, and we will
continue to coordinate with DOD and the other services.
The Outer Continental Shelf is an issue that we are very
concerned with. As I mentioned in my statement, the Department
of Interior has established a process and we are working with
OSD on that.
So on the land, the local, we think we have a workable
process. It can be streamlined. On the Outer Continental Shelf/
ocean, we are still working with Interior and OSD to streamline
that one. Our concern is the ones that we don't know about
outside.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. We are going to have votes in the
next few minutes, and I know what happens when this happens to
be the last votes of the day. I am going to yield to my good
friend Mr. Forbes for any questions that he might have.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I thank
all of you. I am going to be very brief and try to articulate
this the best I can. I will take one shot at it.
But if you look at a college football coach or a high
school football coach when they are drawing up pass plays and
all, they spend quantities of time trying to intersect those
and make sure they are working against the defenses and they
are all planned out. Before that, when you are playing street
ball, people get together and they just say, just go deep, we
are going to throw it to you.
My worry when we are looking at some of the alternative
energy stuff that we are dealing with is we are just kind of
saying, just go deep. You know, just get as much out there as
you can. Just get it as fast as you can.
But I kind of, in a follow-up to what the Chairman just
raised, whether it is looking at impacts on our training, or
whether it is looking on whether we have an overall plan, it
seems like we got a lot of stuff out there. And when we hear at
hearings like this, we have got all of these projects and all
these kinds of things going, do we have and will we be better
served with kind of a comprehensive coming together and saying
here are our objectives? It might not be 700 different things.
It might be 50 things. But we have some quantifiable measuring
standards to see if we are reaching those.
Mr. Hansen, you talked about 700 hybrid vehicles, and Mr.
Natsuhara has talked about 30 percent of the fleet being
alternative energy. But I know when I even talk to some of my
automobile dealers, they are saying the jury is kind of out on
some of the hybrid stuff as to whether or not it makes sense to
have it.
So I would like to just have your thoughts about how we can
kind of get our arms around a more--or should we even do it--a
more comprehensive set of goals, set of objectives, how we
measure those and how we look at that together, including the
impacts on training and other things.
That will be my only question to you. I hope I have been
clear enough on the question.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, you have been very
clear on that, and I think I can see how that impression would
be given that we might be just going deep. But as a couple of
examples we have in the Army, at Fort Bliss we did a Tiger Team
that looked at the overall energy security needs of that
installation and had wide participation from other Federal
agencies as well as from the Army, and developed really a
hybrid solution to what is most appropriate based on the
business case, based on a lot of factors, State and regulatory
factors, and what is the potential there for geothermal, for
wind, for solar and so forth, and really designed a hybrid
solution for that installation that would allow it to become
eventually a net zero type of installation.
We are doing a similar process for other installations,
where we are doing an overall study now looking at all the
installations and the climates in each of the States and the
potentials that exist in all of them. I really do believe that
the solution for each installation will be a hybrid that will
include a lot of components and won't just be whoever is
available the quickest and biggest.
Mr. Natsuhara. In the Department of Navy, and particularly
our Geothermal Office has been around for a couple of decades,
so we feel pretty good that we have a lot of experience, we
have been very methodical about looking at different areas for
the geothermal. So because of our experience, they have been
around for a couple of decades.
We think at least on our geothermal, we have done a very
methodical job of looking at these things. And off of that, we
have been very methodical looking at not only the bases, but
the regions for the bases on energy, the types where it makes
sense.
We have stood up a couple of task forces in the Department
of Energy. We have a task force of energy in the Marine Corps;
they have stood up an expeditionary group that looks at energy.
So we are starting to look at it in a much more methodical
method. Within the Secretary's Office we are standing up a new
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy that will help with this
coordination also. So we are very concerned about that also.
And we are looking at that with establishing metrics also.
Mrs. Tune. Congressman Forbes, I am aiming to answer your
question a little bit differently. First, let me just say I
think the Air Force has a very aggressive infrastructure plan,
that we have looked at all of our bases and decided what makes
sense from a renewable perspective, what is the best value, you
have got to have some return, you have got to ensure you have
mission assurance and security. And so we really have a robust
plan that takes us out to 2025.
But I think your point really is with the mandates that we
have out there: Are they just mandates or are they smart things
to do? And obviously we are going to comply with the law. But I
would agree with you, we are, for example, on vehicles, we are
looking at some of the low-speed vehicles and what return we
are getting on that. And I think that we will work in
conjunction with OSD and with the administration if we need to
make some changes that are really not providing the value that
we think should be there.
So we are tracking that. We are seeing what makes sense. We
are going where the money is and where the payback is going to
be, from either, we think, a big payback from a greenhouse gas
perspective, from a security perspective, or from a financial
perspective.
And so obviously we are following mandates as well.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. And Doctor, I would just like to
have your idea, too. But one of the other things I would just
throw out to you for your thoughts is, are we able to use
modeling and simulation very well on this? Because we are no
longer just in a situation to go do it and let's get our data
in, but really we have become pretty sophisticated on how we
can do that to give us the kind of jointness we need across the
services, but also so we take at least some of the guesswork
out of that: Is that helping and how can we utilize that more
to perhaps make sure we are getting the goals that we want to
reach?
Dr. Robyn. I am not sure--well, we are certainly using
modeling and simulation to determine if a potential wind farm
project is going to have an impact on radar, other activity. So
in that sense, that has been absolutely critical. I think that
technology can get better, but that is critical.
And one point, I just wanted to reiterate what the others
said, that with respect to that issue of renewable siting and
potential incompatibility, there are a lot of checks in the
system now and none of the services are making any trade-off
between their operational needs and renewable energy. So are
you talking about modeling more generally to----
Mr. Forbes. I am talking about our capability now of
bringing modeling and simulation to advance all of our
projections and help our decision making in a much more
coordinated fashion than we have ever been able to do it
before, with limited resources and where we need to go.
I just think that is something I put on the table for you
and would love to chat more. I don't want to take up more time.
But I just think it affords us some great opportunities now to
do some things we couldn't do a decade ago to maximize our
resources and make sure we are hitting the goals that we want
to reach.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back my
time.
Mr. Ortiz. I yield to my good friend, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I realize this is
probably a little bit out of any of your leagues, but I'm going
to ask the question anyway. It is my understanding that the
gallon for a burdened cost of fuel in Afghanistan, the cost,
which is the real cost of actually delivering it to one of
those forward operating bases, is about $400 per gallon by the
time----
Dr. Robyn. No.
Mr. Taylor. Well, what is it ma'am?
Dr. Robyn. I think General Conway put that number out there
and that there has since been--there are scenarios where one
could construct a scenario where the fully burdened cost of
fuel would be $400. But the Marine Corps has done the most
recent analysis and it is--I mean it is definitely bigger than
the commodity price maybe by an order of magnitude. It is
scenario-dependent.
Mr. Taylor. Let's average it off over the cost.
Dr. Robyn. The Marines' numbers are in the vicinity of $9
to $16 a gallon as I recall. But I don't want to--I think the
argument that there isn't a--the fully burdened cost is larger
than the commodity price, that is a powerful, powerful
argument, and I am fond of making it. So I don't want to. I
just wanted to take issue with the $400.
Mr. Taylor. The reason I put that out there is my question
is, I want to, let me start by saying I want our troops to be
warm in the winter, cool in the summer, have what creature
comforts they can, understanding that they are in a war zone.
But my concern is I think the contractors who provide those
things are paid on a cost-plus basis, which, whether it is $400
a gallon or $40 a gallon, provides them with no incentive to
try to be energy conscious.
Now, from a taxpayer point of view that is wrong. But also
considering that someone is risking their life to drive that
fuel truck, whether it is a U.S. Government contractor or
someone's child serving in the military. So if we can encourage
those contractors to be more energy efficient, then we ought to
be doing that.
Now, one technology that I don't see being used that is
commonly used on commercial vessels is to take the warm water
that is cooling the propulsion unit, run that through a heat
exchanger, which in turn creates the warm water for the ship's
crew. It is my understanding that about 10 percent of all the
fuel we use is just trying to warm water. So let's say we saved
half. Five percent of the hundreds of thousands of gallons that
are shipped to Afghanistan at $40 a gallon or $400 a gallon is
a significant savings.
I am curious if you have looked into that at all because,
again, it is very common technology used by people for their
recreational boats, used by commercial vessels, but I do not
see it being used in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And the one
thing if you visit those installations, the one thing that
strikes you is the constant drone of the diesel generators at
every one of those installations, providing every bit of
electricity on almost every one of those installations. Have
you looked into it?
Mr. Natsuhara. The Marine Corps has established what they
call an experimental forward operating base at Quantico, where
they are bringing in industry to demonstrate those types of
technologies that are mature enough. And if they work----
Mr. Taylor. They do work, sir, I can assure you. The
question is, since we know it is proven technology, it is used
by average Joes, it is used by commercial vessels, who is
pushing the DOD to use it?
Mr. Natsuhara. I know that the Marine Corps is very
aggressively trying to validate these technologies. And if they
work, if the companies can demonstrate that it meets their
requirement, their plan is to buy those immediately and ship
them off to Afghanistan. And I know we have--I believe we have
some solar-powered desalination type units that have been
recently shipped out there. So they are looked at; the Marine
Corps is very much looking at those types technologies.
Mr. Taylor. Would you get back to me on this specific
thing?
Mr. Natsuhara. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 95.]
Mr. Taylor. Second thing, and if the Chairman will pardon
me, having been through a pretty catastrophic event in my
congressional district four years ago, seeing people living
without electricity, and contrasting the difference between
what happened in south Mississippi and what happened in south
Louisiana, one of the huge differences for things going better
in Mississippi was the availability of our military
installations to ride to the rescue. One of the things that
helped them was being able to prepare hot meals in the case of
the Navy construction battalion the day after the storm, but
almost every one of those installations, after putting in a
hard day's work, at almost every one of those installations
they could take a shower at the end of the day, which the
average Mississippian was not doing; they had a hot meal; and
the reason they could do that was almost every one of these
installations had their own water well, had their own sewage
treatment plant, had their own generators.
And again, I realize that multiple Presidents and multiple
Secretaries of Defense have been pushing you to buy it on the
private sector. But there will be other hurricanes, there will
be other manmade and natural disasters, and other communities
will be looking for their nearby military installations to ride
to the rescue.
In your deliberations, to what extent do you weigh at least
having an auxiliary plan of having that base be self-sufficient
for that scenario if the local grid is out for whatever reason?
Mr. Marshall. Would the gentleman yield? I might as well go
ahead and ask what I was going to ask you all, because it is
essentially along these lines, but it takes it a little
further. I will start out, I guess, by saying that Ms. Tune,
Mrs. Tune as she calls herself, is a superstar in middle
Georgia. I bet the other three of you did not know that, but
she truly is adored and extremely effective when she was at
Robins Air Force Base, and I'm glad you are kind of stuck up
there so you don't come back here and run against me or
something terrible like that, because you are very, very highly
thought of.
Now, Ms. Tune in her comments mentioned that the Air Force
had gone about the business of serving all of its facilities
and deciding what it could do as far as independent energy
sources is concerned. My guess is that survey did not
adequately take into account the possibility of installing in
all of these places small nukes that are hardened against
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, that are large enough that
they can serve the local population in the event that we do
have a major problem.
In the last bill, following along the lines of the question
from Mr. Taylor, we had language asking the Secretary to do a
study. I imagine you all are involved in that study. But it
seems to me in all likelihood we should be thinking about
slowing down a little bit on the energy initiatives that we
have begun thus far. If, in fact, what we ought to be doing is
putting in small nukes so that we are completely self-
sufficient, hardened against EMP attacks, ready to provide
power--not just services but power--to the communities that are
involved in such an attack, then we are just going to be--we
are wasting money on other projects, wind turbine, solar, et
cetera, if in fact we wind up heading in that direction. So
that elaborates a little bit more on what Mr. Taylor's question
is.
Mr. Taylor. Again I appreciate, if I may, I appreciate the
gentleman's question. But in an ideal world I am in total
agreement with Mr. Marshall. So let's start with the basics.
Are you at least keeping an eye towards having those bases
have the ability to deliver their own water, to treat their own
waste, since that does become a huge problem; sufficient
generators for each installation to take care of itself should
the local grid go down. Because those installations will be
counted on by whatever nearby community to ride to the rescue.
Do you keep that as a part of your master plan is what I
would like to know?
Mrs. Tune. Sir, for the Air Force, that is part of our
plan. I would not say that we are completely capable of doing
that. We do have backup generators and capability for that. The
first thing we do is look at the vulnerability of the grid and
assess what our threats are and how we can address those so we
can mitigate any risk that we may have.
But if you are looking at independent security for the
base, we do have two installations in the Air Force currently
that do have that scenario, that is at Tinker Air Force Base in
Oklahoma and Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. And we were able
to get that because the local utility needed it for peak loads.
And so they built that plant generation on the bases at their
expense. And we are able to, if we lost power to the grid, we
would be able to field the generator to kick-start this plant.
At Robins Air Force Base, for example, only one-third of that
generation would power the entire base and the other two-thirds
could go back out to the community. And we have the same type
of scenario at Tinker Air Force Base.
Whether we are going to be able to do that across our
installations, that is going to require a lot of joint work
with the utilities, with the local communities. It could be
expensive. We are going to have to decide where we best do
that. But you are absolutely right.
And the contingency plans, we do have that from a
perspective of backup generators and how we will provide that
support to the community in a national emergency type
situation. But we do not have that across the board. But we are
looking at that because that is something we would like to be
able to do.
Mr. Taylor. Please, sir.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Congressman, I would second Mrs. Tune's
comments and just emphasize the fact that energy security for
the Department really hits at the heart of what you describe,
because it means having assured--this is just the QDR
definition--having assured access to reliable supplies of
energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy
to meet our operational needs. And hand in hand with our energy
management programs, our energy security programs, we also have
the defense critical infrastructure protection program and we
are coordinating very closely with them to make sure that we
meet those key needs that you have described.
Mr. Natsuhara. For the Department of the Navy, as the Air
Force and the Army, for our critical loads we do have emergency
backup generators today. Secretary Mabus has for our goal to
have 50 percent of our bases at net zero by 2020, and so we are
actively working very hard to have many of our bases, and we
have some that are very close right now with different variety
of technologies from wind, solar, we have geothermal, those
types of alternate energies on our bases. So we are shooting
for--our goal is to be 50 percent net zero by 2020.
Water and wastewater, we have not addressed that yet. Most
of our bases' water and wastewater is--we do get that service
from outside the fence, and we have not looked at those in
depth yet.
Mr. Ortiz. Like I stated in the beginning, we are going to
have some votes. So let's see if we can stick to the five-
minute rule so everybody has a chance to ask questions.
Ms. Giffords, go ahead.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
panelists for being here today. It is exceptional, the work
that you are doing, not just keeping our military safe and
keeping them able to fight hard, but actually transforming
energy in America and energy on the planet and reducing our
dependency from foreign energy. It is very exciting.
As we all know, the DOD is the largest user of energy in
the world. On our installations, we spend nearly $4 billion a
year and about $16 billion on fuel. That is a lot. But the
Department is also the largest purchaser of renewable energy
now in the country, and I think also maybe even around the
planet. So there are a lot of really good success stories.
In a recent meeting that we had with you, Mr. Chairman, and
with Dr. Robyn and Assistant Secretary Dory, we spoke in great
length about installation energy issues and legislation that we
have been working with to reduce the Department's energy
consumption, increase efficiencies, and continue the
development of renewable energy on DOD installations. So we
have spent, a lot of us in this room, a significant amount of
time together.
But a couple of the points that I want to make sure we
bring out for the public, each of the services have expressed
an interest, and according to the branch, it is not a one-size-
fits-all. But I look at the Navy's China Lake geothermal plant
and, of course, Nellis' facility for the Air Force. These are
the first major large-scale projects of their type that have
brought forward. We had a recent ribbon cutting at Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base in southern Arizona.
I am curious whether or not--or, specifically, do the
services continue to plan constructing the similar large-scale
solar arrays as a viable means of achieving the net zero
installations?
Mrs. Tune. Well, I definitely believe it has been a success
for us and will continue to do so. As you probably know, many
of those larger solar arrays are third-party providers, and so
we probably will. We like that model. It is their money. And
so, yes. I would say the short answer is yes.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you for asking, Madam Congresswoman. We
don't, as you say, consider that one size fits all, so we look
at each installation individually as to what makes the most
sense there. And as I said earlier, I think that we are finding
that the hybrid solution is pretty much what we are going to
find at most installations. It might include a mix of solar and
wind, and photovoltaics (PV), geothermal, biomass. Fort Knox,
for instance, geothermal is working well because they have good
dirt. But in the Southwest there is a lot of good sun so we are
looking more closely at it in those areas just based on the
potentials there.
Mr. Natsuhara. For the Department of the Navy, since we do
have a lot of facilities in the Southwest, where it is very
advantageous, we are pursuing those in our 2011 budget. The
Marine Corps has about $30 million of photovoltaic plan for
Military Construction (MILCON) with three projects. And at the
Air Force and Army, we do like to leverage the private sector
for the photovoltaics. And we are also pursuing, as I
mentioned, geothermal in Miramar. We are also trying to get off
the landfill there, the methane gas off the landfill, to do a
cogeneration plant there through a private venture.
Ms. Giffords. That is good to know. Talking about the grid
and the dependency on the grid, that is another area of concern
that we have in this country. And I think about the ability to
sustain bases in the case that there is an attack on the grid.
Blackouts and natural disasters, of course, are unfortunately
inevitable.
I am curious whether the Department has revisited the idea
of islanding its bases, allowing each facility to maintain an
independence from the grid, and whether or not any sort of
initiatives have really been explored in this means.
Mr. Natsuhara. For the Department of the Navy, we are very
concerned about islanding. We don't want to be perceived as
just taking care of ourselves. And we are part of the
community. We are very concerned. We are looking at making sure
critical loads are, but we don't want to be perceived as an
island within the community.
Dr. Robyn. I think maybe the word ``islanding'' was used in
the Defense Science Board report. I'm not sure if that was the
source of it. And I think it is an unfortunate choice of word,
because it does conjure up images of the way the Defense
Department has in the past done things when they tended to
create their own, do it solo, and that is not always good. In
recent years they have moved much toward leveraging the broader
commercial market, and that is a very positive thing.
I think the key is there is a lot of--we are focusing
heavily on this. I think it is more on critical missions as
opposed to entire bases. So identifying at any installation are
there critical missions there that we would need to maintain in
the event of grid disruption and, if so, how do we do that? Is
the backup diesel capability, or whatever that we now have,
sufficient? Do we need to do more than that? And renewable can
be helpful. Nuclear could be very helpful. I don't see
renewable and nuclear as either/or. It could be both.
Mr. Natsuhara. Just real quick, part of it is that the new
smart-grid technologies, where you are able to isolate those
critical loads so you don't have this islanding--and that is
what we are working with, with the research agencies in the
Department of Energy, on those smart-grid technologies.
Ms. Giffords. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but to
piggyback on Mr. Taylor's point by figuring this out here in
the United States, where it is a safer and more stable
environment, we can transform a lot of that technology from
some of our forward operating bases into theater.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. I was under the impression that my
good friend, Mr. Marshall, was finished; but he is not finished
with his question. And we have two more members and I hope that
we can--we hate to keep you here until we finish the voting. I
know you have other things to do. But now let me yield to my
good friend, Mr. Marshall, for his question.
Mr. Marshall. Because of the fact that there are two others
here, and we are under 15 minutes right now, I am going to be
very, very brief and just make the observation that there may
be no inconsistency between other forms of renewable power and
nuclear, we don't know. It depends largely upon whether or not
you are hardening the other stuff. I suspect we are not. I
suspect we didn't even look into what it would cost, for
example, with Warner Robins working with the private utility to
add whatever should be added in order to have a hardened
facility that would survive an EMP attack. It is, frankly, the
attack that we are most vulnerable to here in the United States
and it is something that would be absolutely dreadful if we are
not able to get up and get running fairly quickly.
So I would just simply ask that you brief me on the
Department's current process for making decisions concerning
renewables, or others where power is concerned.
Do you take into account hardening?
I know we have gamed the consequences of EMP attacks. I
know we want to be able to produce electricity fairly quickly
after an EMP attack. We wouldn't want to do it simply for
ourselves. We would want to do it for the populations we are
serving, just like we did where Katrina was concerned. I will
just let it go at that so that the others can ask their
questions. You need not comment at this point.
Mr. Ortiz. Ms. Shea-Porter, she is a member of the
Subcommittee. And then we will give to Mr. Murphy. And we don't
want to keep you here longer than you have to be here. Thank
you. Go ahead, Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. I have been concerned about the
burn pits. I had an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Defense
authorization that prohibited disposing of medical and
hazardous wastes and plastics in burn pits. Unfortunately in
conference, they took out the part about the plastics.
I received a safety newsletter from Iraq recently and it
focused on burn pits. Their two incinerators can handle 70 of
the 110 tons of trash a day generated by the base, and the
remainder, about 40 tons a day, is burned in the open pit.
Their safety department knows of the health dangers, exposure
to dioxins and other toxic chemicals released by the burning of
these plastics, a practice prohibited in the U.S. for health
reasons. Most of the plastics are from the dining hall and the
newsletter notes the importance of recycling the plastics.
I would also add there are alternatives to using plastic
utensils. We use them right here in the House. What are you
doing, please, to reduce the quantity of plastics that are
burned in these pits, and are you open to purchasing the
renewables that would be much safer for the troops? Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. Madam Congresswoman, I am not sure the status
of alternatives to the plastic utility ware, I mean to plastic
ware, but I know that we have put out some directives on burn
pits; and we are certainly moving to eliminate those because we
recognize the hazard and potential hazard is serious, and a
serious threat to our soldiers as well as the locals. And we
can get you an answer on the specifics on that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 95.]
Ms. Shea-Porter. I would appreciate that. Again, I would
repeat that most of the plastics are from the dining hall. So
it seems a pretty simple solution. And I do believe that it is
essential to protecting these soldiers' lungs and their bodies
from some unnecessary exposure. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to ask questions today. Thank you. And to the
panel, thank you so much for your continued service to our
country and to our military.
My question today is mostly focused on facility energy, and
the Department of Defense, as we all know and as you testified
today, is the single largest energy consumer in the United
States. In 2008 alone, the Department of Defense spent $4
billion on facility energy. And I think that we can all
acknowledge that the Department needs to do much more work on
utilizing renewable energy sources. But outside the sheer
dollar value, I also know that the Department itself has
highlighted how intertwined energy security is with
installation security.
Two months ago, I read that the December 2009 GAO study on
renewable energy in our defense infrastructure clearly raised
concerns about the current challenges in ensuring installation
energy security, specifically noting--and I quote--``technical
and safety challenges required to integrate the onsite
renewable energy generation with the installation's existing
electrical infrastructure and operating the renewable
technology safety during a power supply disruption.''
Additionally, the QDR noted ``to address energy security
while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic
facilities, the Department is focused on making them more
resilient'' as well as focusing on the need to ensure that
critical installations are adequately prepared for prolonged
outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, and attacks.
So I am sure each of the services are executing their own
plans in this area, but would each of you comment on the GAO
findings in the QDR and discuss what more we need to do in
terms of research, development, integration and implementing a
strategy to ensure installation security through energy
security?
And I will start off with you, Mr. Hansen. You are a West
Point graduate; I had an opportunity to teach at your alma
mater. You can lead off. How does that sound, sir?
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. We, as part of our
Army energy security implementation strategy, are trying to
pull together all aspects of that, the R&D part, the
integration part. We haven't fully implemented all that. I am
not saying we are where we need to be yet, but we are well on
the way with the metrics to achieve that integrated approach
that you are describing.
I know that the Air Force at Robins has done some exercise
on this. There are good news stories, and we are certainly
learning from each other. So I think that we appreciate the
assistance that the Congress has given us in a number of these
areas with programs like the energy conservation improvement
program. And we try to use those smartly to improve those
security elements at both the installation level and through
energy security. That is a fairly general answer, but we are
working hard in just the areas that you identified.
Mr. Murphy. Before I go to the others, because I know my
time--if I could, just one other thing real quick. How about as
far as coordinating--I know, obviously all of you in your
individual departments and Dr. Robyn with the Department of
Defense itself, but how about the coordination with outside
agencies, outside the Department of Defense, on installation
energy issues?
For example, we all know about the historic investments
this Congress has made in smart-grid technology that has been
utilized by the Department of Energy. So is there any
coordination with the Department of Energy, with DOD, et
cetera, in regards to that?
I will turn to Dr. Robyn and anyone else that wants to
touch base.
Mr. Natsuhara. For the Department of the Navy, we just
started four working groups with the Department of Energy and
through the Department of Defense. And one of those working
groups is on the smart grid, and energy security is one of the
big topics that we have just kicked off. Through our research,
our own naval research labs, and the Department of Energy, we
really wanted to leverage that technology. We do see that as a
big area, and so we are going across the other agencies with
that.
Dr. Robyn. We meet early and often with the Department of
Energy. There is the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency, and there is a division of that devoted to
buildings and overseen by a former colleague of mine, and we
are working with them.
As you note, Department of Energy has a new program called
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) modeled after
our Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program,
and we are hoping to partner with them on the test bed idea.
The National Renewable Energy Lab--I mean there are many, many
parts of the Department of Energy that we work with on the
issue of compatibility of renewables with our air and land
requirements. They are a critical player on that as well.
Mrs. Tune. As I stated earlier, the Air Force is completing
both physical and cyber vulnerability threats, and there are
things that are short, mid, and long-term, and we are engaged,
along with the other services, in OSD, with the Department of
Homeland Security, and DOE, because we are all aggressively
working this to mitigate the risk.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
I appreciate it.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much. I think that all of us have a
huge responsibility not only to those that serve in the
military, but our taxpayers, to come up with the new ideas, new
concepts, new research that will save the taxpayers money as
well.
I think that this has been a very interesting hearing. And
we hate to keep you here because we have a series of votes. But
any member who is here, who may not be here, who might like to
ask questions, we will give them the opportunity to submit
written questions to you so you can respond.
And thank you so much. This has been very interesting
testimony, and we will work with you and stay in contact with
you. The hearing stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 24, 2010
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 24, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7834.061
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 24, 2010
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. TAYLOR
Mr. Natsuhara. On Jan 19, 2010, the Under Secretary of the Navy Mr.
Robert O. Work accepted eight solar-powered water purifiers, on behalf
of the Navy, from Quercus Trust. All eight purifers were sent to
Afghanistan and employed by the Marines operating in the Helmand
Province. Feedback from the Marines and Afghanis is very positive. We
look forward to employing other similar renewable solutions that
simplify the logistics chain and improve our combat effectiveness. [See
page 19.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER
Mr. Hansen. Theater guidelines contained in U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) Regulation 200-2 applicable to both Iraq and Afghanistan
prohibit the burning of plastics in burn pits. The recent assessment
conducted in response to a Department of the Army execution order
(EXORD), found that plastic is being separated and recycled in theater
when possible but that there is room for improvement, particularly in
segregating trash from the dining facilities. The guidelines also
require that we continue to improve solid waste disposal methods and
move away from open burn pits, to include installing incinerators.
Currently, there are 28 Solid Waste incinerators installed in Iraq
and 2 more being installed. In Afghanistan there are 4 incinerators
already operational, 17 containerized incinerators (3 Ton) being
installed, and 45 smaller (1 Ton) containerized incinerators on the
way. In addition, 15 larger (5 Ton) mobile incinerators are awarded and
plans for $80M in military construction (MILCON) for 23 incinerators
for future installation in Afghanistan.
CENTCOM and the Department of the Army are very open to employing
eco-friendly and renewable technologies when doing so is not cost
prohibitive and otherwise makes sense in the contingency environment.
Utensils made from renewable materials are cost prohibitive as the
least expensive available costs 400% more than the plastic utensils
currently being used. In addition, the alternative of reusing table
utensils is limited by cost associated with the limited potable water
supply and other sanitary conditions at sites in theater. [See page
24.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 24, 2010
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided
significant funding within operation and maintenance, military
construction, and research and development accounts for energy
projects. Just considering the operation and maintenance funding, the
Department of Defense identified 1,473 energy-related projects with an
estimated cost of $1.4 billion to be executed with Recovery Act
dollars.
Can you quantify the energy savings or energy security
benefits to the Department of Defense from these investments?
Are these or other similar energy investments correlated
with a Department-wide energy security plan?
Dr. Robyn. DOD currently has 63% of its buildings metered and is
working aggressively to fully meter all buildings by 2012. Until this
effort is complete, we are very limited in our ability to quantify
savings on these individual projects. We use engineering estimates to
project energy savings for individual projects. Also the Services
collect energy performance data by installation.
The recently released Quadrennial Defense Review makes clear that
crafting a strategic approach to energy and climate change is a high
priority for the Department. Since 2003, the Department has reduced
energy consumption per square foot by 10% at our permanent
installations. DOD's strategy for energy security starts with
establishing an enterprise-wide energy data management system to assist
us with monitoring, measuring, managing and maintaining our
installations at optimal performance levels. You can't manage what you
can't measure. The DOD strategy for our energy investment is twofold.
First we invest in making our infrastructure more energy efficient to
reduce demand. We require new construction to meet LEED Silver design
and all construction to be 30% better than ASHRAE standards. Secondly
we are investing in renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels and make us more secure from possible interruption of
the U.S electric grid.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MARSHALL
Mr. Marshall. Please detail the extent to which the Department, in
developing a strategic approach to energy efficiency and independence
on military installations both here and abroad, took into account the
threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, major weather
calamities, and other major threats.
Additionally, the FY10 National Defense Authorization Act directed
the Department of Defense to develop specifications for ``installation-
wide, unified energy monitoring and utility control systems.'' Although
the bill envisioned an installation-by-installation approach, in your
written testimony you stated that one of the Department's key
initiatives is to implement an ``enterprise-wide'' system.
1. Please provide an update on the Department's efforts to comply
with Sec. 2481 of the FY10 NDAA.
2. Are you envisioning a different approach than installation-by-
installation?
3. Please explain how an ``enterprise-wide'' approach will
integrate with ``installation-wide'' systems.
4. Please detail any delays or additional costs that will be
incurred by focusing on an ``enterprise-wide'' approach.
SEC. 2841. ADOPTION OF UNIFIED ENERGY MONITORING AND UTILITY
CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY
FAMILY HOUSING ACTIVITIES.
(a) Adoption Required.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter III of chapter 169 of title
10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2866
the following new section:
``Sec. 2867. Energy monitoring and utility control system
specification for military construction and military family housing
activities
``(a) Adoption of Department-wide, Open Protocol, Energy
Monitoring and Utility Control System Specification.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense shall adopt an open protocol energy monitoring and utility
control system specification for use throughout the Department of
Defense in connection with a military construction project, military
family housing activity, or other activity under this chapter for the
purpose of monitoring and controlling, with respect to the project or
activity, the items specified in paragraph (2) with the goal of
establishing installation-wide energy monitoring and utility control
systems.
``(2) The energy monitoring and utility control system
specification required by paragraph (1) shall cover the following:
``(A) Utilities and energy usage, including
electricity, gas, steam, and water usage.
``(B) Indoor environments, including temperature and
humidity levels.
``(C) Heating, ventilation, and cooling components.
``(D) Central plant equipment.
``(E) Renewable energy generation systems.
``(F) Lighting systems.
``(G) Power distribution networks.
Dr. Robyn. Every installation has an installation disaster response
and recovery plan that identifies critical missions and the energy and
resources to recover missions interrupted by natural disaster, physical
attack and a variety of other threats. Threats and responses due to
electromagnetic pulses for some critical assets are known. Annual
exercises are required at each installation to determine the
proficiency of the installation's people and infrastructure to respond
to an attack.
DOD recognizes that installation energy data is not collected,
analyzed and reported in the same manner across the Department. We are
working to develop an energy monitoring and utility control system
specification as required by the 2010 National Defense Authorization
Act. Currently we are reviewing concerns from the individual Military
Departments that the specification be consistent with existing systems
currently in use. Following this review we will produce an open-
protocol specification to be approved by a Tri-Service Unified Facility
Criteria (UFC) Board. Our efforts to develop an enterprise-wide energy
data management system will not slow implementation of this
specification.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. The recently released Quadrennial Defense Review
stated that climate change and energy will play significant roles in
the future security environment, that climate change, energy security,
and economic stability are inextricably linked, and that the National
Intelligence Council has judged that more than 30 military
installations, including those on Guam, are already facing elevated
levels of risk from rising sea levels. It also notes that one of the
reasons the Department is increasing its use of renewable energy
supplies is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S.
climate change initiatives.
How important is the shift by DOD to renewable energy, including
energy produced on DOD lands, to your overall strategy to address
climate change?
I am concerned about whether DOD is really taking the serious
steps, and programming the resources, necessary to successfully adapt
to the impacts of climate change in terms of both U.S. military
installations like those on Guam and in terms of working with U.S. and
international partners to help fragile states, especially coastal
states, adapt to those changes.
In addition to your efforts regarding renewable energy, what are
the other steps DOD is taking both domestically and internationally
with regard to climate change adaptation, and what is your sense of the
level of resource commitment that will take over the FYDP?
Dr. Robyn. Although other U.S. government agencies have the lead on
responding to climate change, DOD has an opportunity to exhibit
leadership on the issue. To this end, under Executive Order 13514, DOD
recently established an aggressive 34% reduction target from facilities
greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2020. Meeting this target will
require a concerted effort to both decrease energy demand and increase
the supply of renewable energy. DOD has been investing in renewable
energy on its facilities for decades and to both meet the EO target as
well as comply with statute, DOD is increasing its development of
renewable energy resources.
As to climate change adaptation, DOD is making significant
investments in research and development to quantify the potential
impacts to DOD installations and their missions and to identify
adaptation options and strategies. These activities, as indicated in
the Quadrenial Defense Review, are led by the Department's Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program. In addition, the
Department's Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program
will allow Combatant Commanders to cooperate on adaptation strategies
with foreign militaries.
Ms. Bordallo. For FY2010, the Department received more funding for
the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) than was originally
requested in the Administration's budget. Could you please explain how
DOD plans to use the additional funding?
Dr. Robyn. [The information referred to was not available at the
time of printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS
Ms. Giffords. When we discuss the prospects of net-zero facilities,
does the department intend to continue investing in credits or will it
expand its efforts to organically produce renewable energy solutions?
Dr. Robyn. Currently, Renewable Energy Credits or Certificates
(RECs) help DOD achieve federal renewable energy mandates under EPAct
2005, EO 13423, EISA 2007 and 10 USC 2911 (e) for the percentage of
renewable energy DOD produces or procures. DOD uses DOE guidance for
how the Department accounts for the RECs in the Annual Energy
Management Report to Congress. However, RECs do not create real,
measurable energy security at DOD installations since a REC is an
environmental attribute that can be purchased in a REC tradable market
as an ``unbundled'' attribute of the actual renewable energy produced
at one location and sold to another purchaser at another location.
The DOD plan is to reduce energy demand through conservation and
efficiency and increase the use and consumption of alternative energy
and renewable energy from on-site or near-site generation sources in
order to retain our ability to operate during prolonged grid outages.
Under this plan, we will be reducing our purchases of RECs.
Ms. Giffords. On-site energy generation has proven effective in
offsetting energy use. Previous systems, for example fuel cells like
those installed at Fort Huachuca in my District have a track record for
creating serious cost savings that in previous years has averaged more
than $65,000 annually.
What kind of savings could we assume if we expanded on-site
generation programs to all new facilities on installations?
How could additional on-site generation be leveraged alongside LEED
standards to achieve greater overall savings?
Dr. Robyn. Given current technology, demand reduction provides a
much quicker pay-back than on-site generation. We have therefore
focused our efforts on designing and constructing to a goal of 100%
LEED Silver. Nonetheless, we are making a significant investment in on-
site renewable projects. We have also created a test bed initiative,
leveraging our unique building portfolio to more quickly develop
renewable technologies. As an initial customer we can then put these
technologies to use on our bases.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
