You are on page 1of 81

 

Powering the Armed Forces

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

 

The Hoover Institution gratefully acknowledges THOMAS AND BARBARA STEPHENSON for their significant support of the Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy and this publication.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

 

Powering the Armed Forces
MEETING THE MILITARY’S ENERGY CHALLENGES
Foreword by George P. Shultz

Introduction by Sharon E. Burke

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret) Jeremy Carl, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution Lieutenant Commander Manuel Hernandez, USN

HOOVER INSTITUTION PRESS
STANFORD UNIVERSITY   STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, founded at Stanford University in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, who went on to become the thirty-first president of the United States, is an interdisciplinary research center for advanced study on domestic and international affairs. The views expressed in its publications are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution. www.hoover.org Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 628 Hoover Institution at Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, California 94305-6010 Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holders. For permission to reuse material from Powering the Armed Forces: Meeting the Military’s Energy Challenges, ISBN 978-0-8179-1545-2, please access www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-forprofit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of uses. Hoover Institution Press assumes no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. First printing 2012 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Manufactured in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum Requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-1545-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-1546-9 (e-book)

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS
Foreword by George P. Shultz Preface Acknowledgments Introduction by Sharon E. Burke Overview of Current Military Energy Strategy Defense Department Operational Energy Strategy U.S. Army Energy Vision U.S. Navy Energy Vision U.S. Marine Corps Energy Vision U.S. Air Force Energy Vision Summary of Recommendations The Electric Grid and Distributed Generation Sustained R&D and Technological Innovations Process Improvements Appendix 1: Members of the Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy Appendix 2: Conference Agenda Appendix 3: Conference Participants Notes About the Authors About the Hoover Institution’s Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy
v
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

vii ix xiii 1 3 5 9 11 15 17 19 23 29 35

47 53 57 59 63 65

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

FOREWORD
George P. Shultz
Chair, Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy

AMONG OUR NATION’S TOP CHALLENGES is this one: can we
muster the national consensus and the political will necessary to solve our energy problems? These problems include our excessive dependence on imported oil, an energy-distribution system vulnerable to disruption, the volatility of energy prices, and the vulnerability on the battlefield and elsewhere created by the distance between where energy is generated and where it is consumed. Energy is so embedded in our everyday life that the attack on the problem must be broad based, reflecting the size and diversity of the country and the complexity of the issues. The American economic system and our system of governance are well suited to deal with that kind of situation. Local, state, and federal governments each can address different aspects of the energy problem. For example, energy efficiency can be achieved through new codes for buildings, enacted at the local level. States, as California has shown, can lead the way in improved fuel-efficiency standards.
vii
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

viii | FOREWORD

The military services have led the federal government’s energy effort as they have reduced their dependence on oil, as they increasingly understand the monetary and human costs of supplying fuel to remote combat zones, and as they deal with the danger of relying on expensive and volatile commodities to fuel American air power. New research programs launched by the Department of Energy and private organizations show signs of yielding results. Our free markets can rapidly adapt to changing economic conditions and to new technologies if they are allowed to do so. Broadly, across the country, energy security and national security are increasingly being seen as one and the same. For example, policies that encourage the use in cars of fuels with a lower carbon footprint enhance the nation’s national security because this diminishes the need for imported oil. New methods of extracting natural gas from shale promise to deliver cleaner energy at lower prices on a sustained basis. Sustained research and development in the energy field can be key to our energy security, our national security, and our economic wellbeing. And we are just at the beginning of game-changing new technologies in several fields, ranging from improved solar technologies to higher-efficiency combustion. So we have energy problems and many opportunities to work on these problems effectively. Efforts can and do come from the private sector and from all levels of government. In this report, we see the impressive work now under way in the U.S. military forces. For all this to succeed, we need leadership, and that is what our military is providing.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PREFACE

THE HOOVER INSTITUTION’S Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on
Energy Policy and senior Department of Defense leadership on energy held a conference on December 12, 2011, at the Hoover Institution. The conference was an opportunity to discuss energy security and the Defense Department’s contribution to energy issues from the strategic level to the operational and tactical battlefield environment. The agenda included an overview of the Department of Defense energy policy and U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Army experience in converting that policy into operational form. In the wake of the March 2012 release of the Defense Department’s plan for implementing its operational energy strategy (a plan that echoed many of the conference themes), we believe it useful through these proceedings to highlight the key debates, challenges, and themes of the Defense Department plan. This perspective on how the Department of Defense is addressing energy challenges is informative and helpful to all who are committed to energy security. Secretary George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the conference.
ix
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

x | PREFACE

The conference brought together senior defense officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as representatives from the National Defense University and Naval Postgraduate School. The presenters, in order of appearance, were 7 Dr. Richard B. Andres, Chair, Energy & Environmental Security Policy, National Defense University 7 The Honorable Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs 7 The Honorable Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) 7 The Honorable Terry A. Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics) 7 The Honorable Katherine G. Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment) 7 Dr. Karl van Bibber, Vice President & Dean of Research, Naval Postgraduate School 7 Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, USN, Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division 7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr., Director, Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Energy Office Participants in the conference included energy experts, entrepreneurs, scientists, economists, and military fellows inresidence, all sharing the conviction that formulating good energy policy is one of the nation’s most important priorities. During the conference, it became apparent how energy critically relates to our national security mission and to determin-

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PREFACE

| xi

ing the effectiveness and safety of our men and women fighting on land, at sea, and in the air. The Defense Department clearly is committed to improving our nation’s energy position and to demonstrating its ability to influence events through its commitment to sound policies and tangible contributions across the spectrum of energy security. Throughout the conference, participants fleshed out ideas and recommendations that might improve the performance of the U.S. military in responding to the energy challenge. Following an introduction by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs Sharon Burke, we present an overview of current Department of Defense energy policies and strategies.1 We follow with a summary of recommendations for continuing to develop these  strategies and highlights of the conference proceedings. These are summarized in dialogue format, edited and condensed for the sake of brevity and introduced with explanatory material on each subject covered. A full transcript of the conference is available at www.poweringthearmedforces.com.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE AUTHORS WOULD LIKE TO acknowledge the support and
participation of the leadership of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, as well as the Department of Defense, National Defense University, and the Naval Postgraduate School. Each of these institutions generously provided participants at the highest levels of their organizations to attend our conference. These leaders helped spur our thinking on this critical issue.

xiii
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Sharon E. Burke
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs

FOR THE NATION, OUR ENERGY SECURITY,

economic wellbeing, and national security are inextricably linked. For the Department of Defense, better energy security means a more effective military force—one that is more agile, lethal, and adaptable, and one that can better fulfill its mission to protect the nation. At the same time, several trends, from the rising global demand for energy to changing geopolitics, as well as new threats, mean that the cost and availability of energy for Americans and our troops will be less certain in the future. By being smarter about our energy use, we can make a military and nation built to last. Whether at our fixed installations or in operations, Defense Department energy initiatives are about meeting the defense mission, today and for the future. Our challenge is to ensure that U.S. forces can meet any threat, anywhere in the world. To ensure this, we must improve the efficiency of our energy use, diversify our energy sources, and ultimately build a military
1

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

2 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

force that uses energy as a strategic advantage rather than as a burden. As General John Allen, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, wrote in a recent memorandum to our men and women there: “How we use energy in the battlespace can provide a strategic and tactical advantage. . . . This is about combat effectiveness.” Indeed, General Allen’s observations are as important for rebalancing our force in the Asia-Pacific region as they are for conducting our mission in Afghanistan. There is another important benefit to our energy security initiatives. The Department of Defense spent more than $15 billion on energy for military operations last year. However, this is one area where we really can get more with less: we can get more military capability and better infrastructure with less energy and lower bills for American taxpayers. That is yet another reason why the department will continue to be a leader in harnessing energy innovation to enhance our operational effectiveness. And as we promote innovations in efficiency, renewable energy, and other technologies to make us a better military, we will also lead the way for the nation.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MILITARY ENERGY STRATEGY

WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, the armed forces are the leading user of fossil fuels, which is reason enough for the price and source of energy to be of particular concern to military planners. According to the Department of Defense, in 2010, U.S. armed forces consumed nearly 5 billion gallons of petroleum in military operations, at a total cost of $13.2 billion, representing a 255 percent increase over the amount paid in 1997. The Air Force accounts for 57 percent of total petroleum consumption, the Navy accounts for 34 percent, and the Army, 9 percent. Unsurprisingly, given the current budget constraints and the difficulties of maintaining challenging fuel supply lines in theater, our armed forces have taken a particular interest in energy policy as of late. As a result of this, each branch of service has developed an energy policy, strategy, and goals, attempting to harmonize with the Defense Department’s overall energy vision. As a preface to our own discussion and recommendations, we present in the following subsections the current state of these policies, strategies, and goals for the Department of Defense as a whole and for each branch of service.1
3
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY
‘‘Any president is going to want a military that’s ready, right now, for a global mission—that can deploy anywhere in the world rapidly for a big range . . . of missions, whether it’s humanitarian and disaster relief, which the Department now considers to be core missions, or whether it’s conventional combat, or irregular combat, or cyber war. We need to be ready for a full range of contingencies everywhere around the world. And that inherently requires a great deal of energy.” —Secretary SHARON BURKE

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT’S OPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY
guides “how to better use energy resources to support the Department’s strategic goals and the Nation’s energy security goals, while allowing lowering risks to our warfighters, shift resources to other warfighting priorities, and save money for American taxpayers.”1 The goal of the operational energy strategy is to develop energy security for the warfighter— to ensure that U.S. forces have a reliable supply of energy for
5
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

6 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

21st-century military missions. To achieve this goal, the strategy outlines a threefold approach: 7 More Fight, Less Fuel: Reduce Demand for Energy in Military Operations. Today’s military missions require large and growing amounts of energy with supply lines that can be costly, vulnerable to disruption, and a burden on warfighters. Strategic Goal: The department will reduce the overall demand for operational energy and improve the efficiency of military energy use in order to enhance combat effectiveness and reduce risks and costs for military missions. 7 More Options, Less Risk: Expand and Secure Energy Supplies for Military Operations. Reliance on a single energy source—petroleum—has economic, strategic, and environmental drawbacks. In addition, the security of energy-supply infrastructure for critical missions at fixed installations is not always robust. Strategic Goal: The department will diversify and secure military energy supplies in order to improve the ability of U.S. forces to obtain the energy required to perform their missions. 7 More Capability, Less Cost: Build Energy Security into the Future Force. While the force’s energy requirements entail tactical, operational, and strategic risks, the department’s institutions and processes for building future military forces do not systematically consider such risks and costs. Strategic Goal: The department will consider energy security in strategic planning and force development in order to provide energy security and enhanced warfighting capability for U.S. forces in the future.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY

| 7

Indeed, the department has been making progress in using less energy—more fight for less fuel. According to Secretary Sharon Burke:
Soldiers and Marines have reduced their energy consumption in Afghanistan by using solar rechargeable batteries, solar microgrids, more efficient tents, and better fixed shelters. The Army is using generators at its forward operating bases that are 20 percent more efficient, and become even more efficient by being wired together. The Navy, too, has made good progress by incorporating energy considerations into its operations and its acquisitions process.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

U.S. ARMY ENERGY VISION

“[O]ur primary platform is the soldier, the dismounted soldier. A lot of the fuel is what they’re carrying on their back. And a lot of that is batteries. So that’s where our focus is. We know we need to increase energy efficiency and so that is certainly a huge focus for us in many ways.’’ —Secretary KATHERINE HAMMACK

“An effective and innovative Army energy posture, which enhances and ensures mission success and quality of life for our Soldiers, their Families, and Civilians through Leadership, Partnership, and Ownership, and also serves as a model for the nation.” —U.S. Army’s ENERGY VISION

THE U.S. ARMY HAS BOTH installation and operational energy
requirements. The Army has the largest energy consumption in its facilities of any government agency (more than 80 billion BTUs at a cost of $1.2 billion in FY 2010). In its operations, the Army spent $2.5 billion on fuel purchases in FY 2010.1 The
9
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

10 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

Army’s energy vision is supported by its energy security mission to reduce demand, increase efficiency, and increase usage of alternative sources of energy while enhancing operational capacity.2 The U.S. Army identifies “Surety, Survivability, Supply, Sufficiency, and Sustainability as the core characteristics defining the energy security necessary for the full range of Army missions. Energy security for the Army means preventing loss of access to power and fuel sources (surety), ensuring resilience in energy systems (survivability), accessing alternative and renewable energy sources available on installations (supply), providing adequate power for critical missions (sufficiency), and promoting support for the Army’s mission, its community, and the environment (sustainability).”3

Army’s Strategic Energy Security Goals
7 Reduce energy consumption. 7 Increase energy efficiency across platforms and facilities. 7 Increase use of renewable and alternative energy. 7 Ensure access to sufficient energy supplies. 7 Reduce adverse impacts on the environment.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

U.S. NAVY ENERGY VISION

“A Navy that values energy as a strategic resource; a Navy that understands how energy security is fundamental to executing our mission afloat and ashore; and a Navy that is resilient to any potential energy future.” —Navy ENERGY VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, October 2010

‘‘Is this time different?’’ —Secretary JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL

‘‘Changing energy usage in the Navy is really all about culture and whether or not you can transform the ethos of a service.’’ —Vice Admiral PHILIP CULLOM

THE NAVY’S ENERGY STRATEGY is centered on increasing energy
security, efficiency, and environmental stewardship while maintaining America’s role as the world’s preeminent maritime power.1 The secretary of the navy has set two priorities for naval energy reform: energy security and energy independence.
11
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

12 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

7 Energy security is achieved by using sustainable sources that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operational requirements and force sustainment functions, and by having the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs. 7 Energy independence is achieved when naval forces rely only on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence increases operational effectiveness by making naval forces more energy self-sufficient and less dependent on vulnerable energy production and supply lines. The Navy intends to increase both strategic and tactical warfighting capability with its energy policy. “From a strategic perspective, the objective is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Tactically, the objective is to use energy sources available on location and increase energy efficiency to reduce the volatility that is often associated with long fuel supply transport lines.”2

Secretary of Navy’s Energy Goals
7 Energy-Efficient Acquisition: Evaluation of energy factors will be mandatory when awarding Department of the Navy contracts for systems and buildings. 7 Sail the “Great Green Fleet”: DoN will demonstrate a Green Strike Group in local operations by 2012 and sail it by 2016. 7 Reduce Non-Tactical Petroleum Use: By 2015, DoN will reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

U.S. NAVY ENERGY VISION

| 13

7 Increase Alternative Energy Ashore: By 2020, DoN will produce at least 50 percent of shore-based energy requirements from alternative sources; 50 percent of Navy and Marine Corps installations will be net-zero energy consumers. 7 Increase Alternative-Energy Use DoN-Wide: By 2020, 50 percent of total energy consumption will come from alternative sources.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

U.S. MARINE CORPS ENERGY VISION

“To be the premier self-sufficient expeditionary force, instilled with a warrior ethos that equates the efficient use of vital resources with increased combat effectiveness.” —Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan “BASES-TO-BATTLEFIELD,” March 2011

‘‘[A] resource-efficient Marine is a more combat-effective Marine.’’ —Colonel ROBERT CHARETTE, USMC

THE U.S. MARINE CORPS expeditionary energy strategy centers on altering the way the Marines think about energy to understand that more efficient usage of energy and water resources must be part of the warrior ethos.1 The strategy says that by 2025 the Marines will have expeditionary forces capable of maneuvering from the sea and sustaining C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) and life-support systems in place. Also, the strategy says that “the only liquid fuel needed will be for mobility
15
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

16 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

systems, which will be more energy efficient than systems are today.“ In order to do this, the Marines have set a 2025 goal of increasing their energy efficiency by 50 percent, using a 2010 baseline of our force in Afghanistan. Achieving these goals will “allow Marines to travel lighter—with less—and move faster by reducing the size and amount of equipment and dependence of bulk supplies.” The Marine Corps identifies three key elements for success: “(1) to aggressively pursue innovative solutions to increase energy efficiency in our platforms and systems, (2) to increase our use of renewable energy, and (3) to change our ethos—to train each Marine that a resource-efficient Marine is a more combat-effective Marine.”2

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

U.S. AIR FORCE ENERGY VISION

“Make energy a consideration in all we do.” —Air Force ENERGY PLAN, 2010

“The Air Force fights from fixed locations, our installations. . . . We have a significant dependence on the commercial grid for the energy that we use day-to-day on our installations. We all know that introduces a certain amount of risk, and certainly jeopardizes our effectiveness to do our critical missions even if a power outage is only for a couple of hours. So for us, we think in terms of installation security as one of our primary concerns.” —Secretary TERRY YONKERS

THE U.S. AIR FORCE is the largest energy consumer in the federal government, using more fuel than the Navy, Army, and Marine Corps combined. Therefore addressing its energy needs is a particularly critical portion of our armed forces’ energy strategy.
17
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

18 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

The Air Force energy plan is built upon three pillars (see below) that guide energy management within the Air Force. The plan “provides guidance to Airmen to help reduce demand, increase supply—through a variety of alternative and renewable types of energy—and change the culture.”

Air Force Energy Plan Pillars
7 Reduce Demand: The Air Force is committed to reducing aviation, ground operations, and installation energy demand. The goals and objectives developed to reduce demand cover each of these areas and provide the framework for each executing organization. 7 Increase Supply: The Air Force is committed to increasing the amount of energy supplies available to enhance our nation’s energy security. Where possible, the Air Force will develop and use renewable and alternative energy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The goals and objectives to increase supply target these three areas: aviation fuel, ground fuels, and installation energy. 7 Change Culture: Changing the Air Force culture is critical to achieving the Air Force’s energy vision. As the culture changes and the Air Force increases its energy awareness, new ideas and methodologies for operating more efficiently will emerge as airmen consider energy in their day-to-day duties.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

IN MARCH 2012, the Department of Defense released its operational energy implementation plan, which outlined the path forward regarding energy. Many of the statements in the plan echo concerns and deliberations raised by the participants in the Hoover Institution’s conference. The operational plan is an excellent adjunct to this report, which builds on several of the implementation recommendations from the plan while also offering possible alternative paths forward. Research opportunities and process recommendations emerged from the presentations and discussions at the conference. In addition, the following notable themes emerged: First, energy is a necessary and critical warfighting enabler. Why, how, when, where, and how much the Defense Department uses energy are important issues and have vital implications for the men and women in uniform. What the department does must first and foremost serve the core military mission. Those technologies and policies most likely to succeed in a military environment will be those that maintain a relentless focus on serving that mission. The initiatives and efforts by the Defense Department, in support of combat missions, often eventually find their way
19
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

20 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

into the commercial marketplace: energy efficiency, supply, and storage are just some of the areas in which technologies have migrated from the military to civilian use. Second, energy policy can be and is partisan, but the [defense] mission should not be. The men and women, military and civilian, of the Defense Department are perhaps our only remaining honest brokers who, as numerous independent surveys have shown, retain the full confidence and trust of the American people. As a result, they are uniquely able to work across multiple interest and partisan groups in pursuit of the well-being of the United States. The Defense Department is also uniquely capable of bringing its scale and demand pull to effect commercial-scale, economically beneficial innovations and developments that normally require decades and billions of dollars to complete. Third, the country has a genuine and serious energy problem, whose significance is not always fully evident to the American people. Political leaders have failed to effectively communicate this imperative, and have failed to ignite the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that has been the hallmark of our country. Throughout the conference, participants referred to many ways in which the Defense Department welcomed assistance on energy issues. These fell into three primary areas: One area was the need to lessen the military’s dependence on the electric grid. Participants highlighted the country’s extreme dependence on the electric grid and its significant vulnerabilities, such as the potential for terrorist disruptions, technical breakdowns, or weather-related disasters. Participants discussed various distributed-energy and smart-grid solutions that could be used to address this issue.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

| 21

A second area was the need to support basic research on energy on a generous, sustained basis. The United States requires steady support for a broad scientific and technical base that encourages transformative, breakthrough scientific discoveries with a comprehensive, practical, and interdisciplinary approach. A third area was the need for the Defense Department to make meaningful and significant process improvements, highlighting the need for organizational culture shifts at all levels, in support of the warfighter. We discuss these areas further in the following subsections of the conference report.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

THE ELECTRIC GRID AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

AN EXCESSIVE RELIANCE on the electric grid poses a danger to
our national security and our military’s operational effectiveness. The military should place less reliance on the electric grid. The existing grid should be strengthened to minimize the effects when disruptions do occur. However, the military should explore options such as distributed-power systems as an alternative both at home and in the combat theater. For the purposes of this paper, threats to the grid are found in four primary categories: physical, cyber, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and regulatory. As Dr. Richard Andres noted during the conference:
We have become utterly dependent on the electric grid over the last fifty to seventy years. Given our dependence on the grid, if it were to suddenly go away, it could have catastrophic results to our way of life. The problem is that it’s becoming increasingly fragile and extremely vulnerable.

Given that the U.S. military’s role is very much to defend against these sorts of security vulnerabilities, strengthening the
23
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

24 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

grid to limit its vulnerability to disruption, while also adding the flexibility to reduce our exclusive reliance on the grid for electricity is a national-security imperative. Dr. Andres laid out the case for concern:
[I]f the electric grid were to suddenly go away, the odds are we would have millions or tens of millions of deaths very quickly.

Dr. Andres added that military and law-enforcement officials are well aware of the problems with the grid and outlined a worst-case scenario of a sudden and prolonged grid failure:
Because we’re now on electronic commerce, you can’t buy or sell. Most people have about three days’ worth of food at the house. And stores stop functioning immediately. So people begin to look for food. We had a lot of folks from the National Guard and police enforcement come in, and they said that they expected within two or three days there would no longer be National Guard or police enforcement because people would go home to take care of their families. These are guardsmen and police talking.

Secretary Terry Yonkers noted the biggest threats to the grid may not be physical, but cyberattacks:
Nobody likes to talk about cyber. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, if there is a cyber crisis, it is denied. But I think it is a serious problem.

Another threat to the grid discussed by many participants was the potential for an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) taking out the grid, while acknowledging the subject was shrouded in mystery. Such an EMP is a low-probability event, but would

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

THE ELECTRIC GRID AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

| 25

have high consequences if it took place. Secretary Sharon Burke identified this as a potential problem for the Defense Department, observing:
[W]e haven’t really characterized well what the effects of an electromagnetic pulse would be on [electricity production and transmission] systems on the ground. It really hasn’t been very well characterized, so that’s part of the problem.

In addition to these technical problems, Dr. Andres observed that the regulatory problems remain challenging:
I can’t tell you how many commanders of bases have called me up and said, “Hey, what are we going to do? We have these great ideas for distributed power. We have the land. We have the opportunities. But we can’t get through the local political infrastructure to make this happen.”

Furthermore, challenges to implementing distributed energy go beyond the political and logistical and enter into issues of site security. As Secretary Burke observed:
Can you have micro-grids and renewable energy sources or even small modular nuclear reactors that would give you a standoff capability that lasts more than forty-eight hours or seventy-two hours?

Other problems relate to the functionality of some types of distributed power systems in high-consequence environments. As Secretary Katherine Hammack said:
One of the challenges with the micro-grids, you have wires all over. A soldier running for protection—you don’t want him tripping

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

26 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES
over a wire. If you have one generator per tent, there’s not a lot of wires there and as much to trip over. It’s a simpler system. So we have to try and work solutions that are enablers to the mission.

Ultimately, to address these problems, and to reduce the Defense Department’s reliance on the grid, we reiterate the recommendations of the previous Hoover-Brookings joint study on distributed power, published in November 2011.1

Recommendations
With respect to the grid and deployment of distributed-power systems (DPS), we believe the Defense Department should 7 Partner with private-sector and academic institutions to research the impacts of DPS on reliability and security. We recommend the Defense Department thoroughly assess the reliability-related costs and benefits of DPS for the department’s operations. The assessment should include the following priorities: (a) study distributedenergy resources, including storage and the smart grid, versus centralized energy generation; (b) accelerate development and deployment of high-efficiency technology options; (c) accelerate plug-and-play features of distributed-generation appliances; and (d) deploy a pilot to demonstrate costs and benefits to the grid and society. Much work has been done on the cybersecurity of the smart grid, notably by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Cyber Security Working Group (CSWG) of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. We recommend the Defense Department work with other

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

THE ELECTRIC GRID AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

| 27

branches of the federal government to adopt the CSWG’s guidelines. 7 Support DPS through military procurement and deployment. Through large-scale procurement, the military can help to drive down the unit costs of renewable DPS technologies, and serve as a pioneer for other sectors of the economy that want to gain expertise in the installation, operation, and maintenance of DPS. For expeditionary operations, we recommend that the military expand programs, such as the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS), that use DPS technologies. The purposes of these programs are to reduce the use of liquid fuels on the front lines, as well as increase the operational efficiency of personnel in theater by extending patrol lengths without needing to refuel, reducing the need for long supply lines, and providing other tactical advantages. The focus should continue to be on deploying DPS technologies that will most enhance the core fighting effectiveness of these expeditionary forces. We recommend the U.S. military develop a more formal scheme for systematizing and quantifying DPS risks and benefits. Such a scheme should include a means of allowing the armed forces to accurately internalize the fully burdened cost of fuel for expeditionary energy on the battlefield as recommended by Defense Science Board in 2001 and 2008.2 These costs include the commodity costs of fuel and the logistics and force protection costs required to move and protect it.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

28 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

7 Make DPS and micro-grids an essential component of base infrastructure. The United States has more than 1,000 bases and military installations in 63 countries. Of these, 209 bases are often connected in different ways to power infrastructures with varying reliability. To maximize the reliability and security of operating environments both in the United States and overseas, the U.S. military should consider distributed generation and micro-grids as an essential part of its strategy for generating and consuming power.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

SUSTAINED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT of new energy technologies is critical and is addressed in the military’s operational strategy implementation plan. The plan lists improving operational energy innovation as one of three key targets to meet the overall goal of reducing the energy demand for military operations. The plan calls for the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering to identify investment gaps in the Defense Department’s science and technology portfolio by Q4 2012 and include recommendations for closing those gaps. Sustained investments in research and development was most frequently identified as key for the military to address. Many participants mentioned storage, lightweight materials, efficient heating and cooling, and alternative fuels as critical areas for investment in research and development. Perhaps the most critical of these areas is biofuels, which is particularly important for the Navy’s energy strategy. The operational strategy implementation plan has called for creating a

29
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

30 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

draft alternative-fuels policy for the Department of Defense by Q2 2012, along with a draft alternative-fuels investment portfolio to be developed by Q4 2012. The strategy document noted that while the Air Force and Navy, in particular, have moved forward aggressively with biofuels, there is no department-wide biofuels strategy in place. In August 2011, the Departments of the Navy, Energy, and Agriculture announced a three-year, $510 million joint venture with the private sector to develop advanced biofuels compatible with existing military infrastructure. But a number of science and engineering challenges remain. One of these is getting to sufficient scale for the military’s needs. As Secretary Terry Yonkers noted:
Fuels, all the different kinds of fuels—camelina, switch grass, different plants from the southwest desert—there’s all sorts of things that can grow on marginal land that are interesting and potentially viable alternatives. Cellulosic reduction has the potential to really be able to drive oil prices down. The challenge remains the ability to bypass through the plant stage.

And as Dr. Richard Andres observed:
The military’s experimentation with alternative fuels—certifying U.S. aircraft to fly on any number of alternative fuels, the Great Green Fleet, and biofuels have the potential to set the stage so that when oil prices become high enough, alternative fuels look really good in comparison.

According to Secretary Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, the military must play a critical role in building out such an industry, but

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

| 31

these fuels must meet several stringent requirements that are far from being met:
For the Navy to meet this goal, it is critical to stimulate a biofuels industry. We’ve been spending considerable effort on the properties of the requisite biofuel. I can say that we’re agnostic about the feedstock, but the fuel that we use must be a drop-in fuel. It can’t have a worse carbon footprint than our current fuels. It must be able to be technologically and commercially viable quite soon. We must be able to get it in sufficient quantities to meet our needs. And it has to have a price point that is acceptable to those in the Department of Defense who buy our fuels for us. We aren’t looking at a subsidy.

The military is therefore accelerating its efforts in biofuels development. According to Secretary Pfannenstiel:
We have the opportunity between 2012 and 2016 to work with the biofuels industry, to develop the prices, to develop the products, to develop the refineries that will get us to the quantities we need by 2016.

Dr. Lucy Shapiro noted that there are multiple dimensions to the scalability problem:
The scale-up is on two levels. One is scaling the basic biological process. And that is basic research, because whatever we’ve got out there now, it’s not the factory, it’s not the big system, it’s making the basic biological process scalable.

Another major technical challenge to overcome is in battery storage, where forces remain too heavy, often due to the

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

32 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

requirement of excessive numbers of batteries to equip the modern warrior. As Secretary Katherine Hammack said:
The dismounted soldier carries as many as seventy batteries of a dozen different types. We are in need of rechargeable batteries and energy storage for a variety of applications.

Further emphasizing the necessity of a more mobile and flexible force, another key area for innovation that Secretary Hammack stressed was lightweight materials:
In the battles we’re in, with the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), we have an increased number of amputees and our soldiers are losing limbs. We are up-armoring MRAPs, and that is adding in a layer of foam and another plate. The foam acts as a cushioning, and we’ve redesigned the seats. We’ve done that to about 2,000 MRAPs now. Eighty IED hits on those, and the worst injuries are a broken wrist and a sprained ankle. That’s good news, but that adds 2,500 pounds to the MRAP and that means its fuel efficiency goes down. If we had materials that could have the same resilience against impact, but would not add weight, we could add capability. We’re uparmoring the soldier and up-armoring the vehicle and that’s adding weight. And that means that we need help in materials.

Colonel Robert Charette, responding from his position as a field officer in theater, stressed the importance of innovation in portable heating and cooling technologies:
We need electronics that can operate without coolant, because one of the big things on the battlefield that’s giving us problems is coolant and the efficient heating and cooling of personnel.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

| 33

Recommendations
We believe that the Department of Defense should 7 Continue focusing on research and development in sustained energy, with a particular emphasis on storage, lightweight materials, efficient heating and cooling, and alternative fuels. Progress in each of these areas would do a great deal to enable increased operational effectiveness of the warfighter. 7 Devote research efforts to biofuels and other alternative liquid fuels, while paying careful attention to proceed only to the extent that such fuels can provide the military with critical energy security benefits at a meaningful scale and at an affordable cost, or for particular tactical benefits. 7 Focus on other technologies that will add combat capability for the warfighter. Continue to reach out to private industry regarding promising technologies that, while not yet market competitive for civilian use, may offer the military with key tactical benefits that can easily justify a higher price. An example of this can be seen in the Army’s Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS) program, which was successfully deployed in Afghanistan.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

HROUGHOUT THE CONFERENCE, participants made explicit and implied references to areas where the Defense Department needed to make meaningful and significant process improvements, highlighting the need for organizational culture shifts, at all levels, in support of the warfighter. The department can  make significant gains in achieving its stated energysecurity objectives by implementing and institutionalizing process improvements beyond the individual warfighter and toward systemic, organizational levels, particularly in strategic and operational planning and acquisition processes and methods. Dr. Jim Sweeney raised three issues concerning the efficiency of the tools provided to the warfighter and the incentives for motivating energy-efficient behavior on the field:

T

One issue is that the technology you supply is not as energy efficient as it could be. The vehicles you give the troops, for example, are less fuel efficient. Second, the organizations and incentives don’t give the people in the field a reason to pay attention to the consequences for the supply line. And the third is culture and attitudes—”energy efficiency is for wimps” as an attitude.

35
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

36 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

Secretary Sharon Burke described the challenges associated with driving cultural change in the Defense Department and highlighting the responsibility to provide the warfighter with the tools necessary for the mission:
Culture change is a slippery beast in that you’ve got to give people the tools in order for them to change the culture. I would say that the future force building and getting into the acquisition process is one of the hardest aspects of this process. How do you give people the tools and understanding and the frame of reference they need in order to change their culture? The incentive system may not line up here. Pulling that apart and figuring out how exactly to change it is not easy and it’s something that we all do a lot. I think the burden’s on us to put the tools and the rationale in the hands of people in the field. The burden is on us who work on this issue to make this work for our forces. I would say that one of the places where I think it’s harder is in the acquisitions community, for a variety of reasons. By the time you’ve got a major system that’s in the hands of someone forward, there’s not a lot they can do to change the basic nature of that system.

Secretary Burke further described the practical problems facing the warfighter in Afghanistan:
Let’s take a forward operating base in Afghanistan. You have a unit there and, depending on its size and its circumstances, it may be that this is a group of a few hundred soldiers from mixed services who’ve moved into a position. Now they may or may not have had engineering help in building that base. They may be on their own to figure it out and they may be ordering things off a table of

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

| 37

equipment or theater-provided equipment. They’re going to say, “We need shelters.” So they’ll just order that and they get tents. . . . So they’re going to get whatever they have on their list, they’re going to get tents, they’re going to get generators to provide power to those tents where they may have lights, communications gear, heating, and cooling. They’re going to have some kind of latrine system. They’re going to have a field kitchen. They’re probably going to have some kind of laundry, because again, you’ve got to keep these people healthy and working in these circumstances. You will probably have a generator mechanic, who knows how to run the generator, but he just knows how to run the generator. So you may have them putting a generator on every tent and that generator may be working at 10 percent efficiency, but they may not have the tools or the knowledge to run it in a different way necessarily. The tent—if it’s new, it probably is going to have some kind of a liner, but the thermal efficiency is low. It is what it is. They’re fighting a war and they’re ordering the equipment that they can.

There’s no reason why they would know that they’re using energy inefficiently and they’re creating a demand pull that’s going to cause somebody to fly or truck energy to them. They would have no way of knowing that. Their focus is on, “Okay, here’s our mission and this is what we have to do.” They’re not thinking about “The stuff I ordered is really inefficient.”

Dr. Sweeney suggested the problem of implementing energy-responsible culture change resided at the organizational level:
[I]t sounds to me that the problem has nothing to do with the men and women in the field. The problem has to do with the way the system is organized.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

38 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES
I think there’s a lot of parallels to energy use and energy efficiency in the overall economy, where the goal’s not to reduce the use of energy in itself, because after all, there’s a good reason we have energy. We want it there, so we’re trying to look at failures. But at our center [Precourt], I spent a lot of time at the beginning, trying to ask where the nature of the problem is and concluded that the nature of the problem was mostly in individual behavior and behavior in companies and so forth. I hear the comments from you that say, no, that’s probably not where the problem is in the military. Your structure is where the problems are. It’s probably not in the individual person in the field. One of the things that I’d like to be able to do is maybe sit in and suggest, for example, maybe in that area it’s not so parallel to the residential issues, but rather it’s an issue of how you designed the systems? Or maybe it’s just the reality of your situation and you have to live with it? Personally I don’t think we should see behavioral change as the key issue. From what I hear, it’s probably systems analysis that has more to do with it.

Strategy planning and end-states need to inform and drive programs, particularly energy and related acquisitions. Secretary Burke highlighted the need to deliberately consider energy security, requirements, and implications to strategic and operational planning processes and methods:
The combatant commanders do operational plans. Whatever scenario they think they may have to get involved in as a force, they have a plan for it. We’d really like to look at the energy implications of those plans and let that help drive the innovation. What do we need to be able to do and how might the full range of energy technology help us do it? One of the challenges we have is to figure out how to use those planning tools that the department already

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

| 39

engages in, which is how we justify every other kind of purchase. How do we tie that planning better to the full range of what’s possible in the energy field?

Admiral Philip Cullom added:
On the service side of the house, there are milestone points and gate reviews through which every acquisition project must pass. If at the very beginning of the process, the first gate review, a service commits to mandatorily considering energy as a Key Performance Parameter or a Key Success Attribute, it will dramatically improve a platform or weapon system’s energy efficiency. No longer a “nice to do,” it’s now a “must do.” That forces change.

Strengthening this link between strategic objectives and acquisitions will provide the warfighter with the tools necessary to accomplish the mission and support organizational cultural changes on energy. Energy considerations in strategic planning and end-states can help inform total “fully burdened costs,” to include energy in future force development and warfighter requirements. According to Secretary Burke:
We have an acquisition process that is byzantine. There are some good reasons for that, which is when you’re buying a system that costs billions of dollars that you want to be able to use fifty years from now, you want to make sure you get it right. But changing that system is not easy. You have to get in from the very beginning in the war gaming and the strategic planning and then in the requirements generation. So when you look at the threat environment you’re anticipating, you ask, “What do you think you need to be able to meet that?” And then start building it. We’ve

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

40 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES
got to get energy considerations in at every step of the way, which is what we’re doing and everyone here today is working on this together, getting into these processes and making sure that energy’s considered.

Dr. Richard Andres highlighted the failure of markets to take externalities into consideration:
Markets don’t take into account externalities and obviously everyone can talk about how markets do not take into account pollution but from a DoD perspective, they also don’t do very well at taking into account the military requirements for supporting markets, such as, for instance, global oil markets. And we’re spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives abroad protecting oil routes.

Secretary Burke noted the nonmonetary aspects in value propositions:
[T]he closer you get to the fight, the more our value proposition changes. Some of the returns we’re looking for are going to be nonmonetary—for example, military capability.

Secretary Katherine Hammack echoed Secretary Burke’s comment:
Our costs in theater for fuel ranges from $7 per gallon up to $40 per gallon, which, as Secretary Burke said, means that some of these strategies, which might not have a great return on investment in the continental United States, may have a much better return on investment in theater. But then when you factor in lives, risks, and vulnerabilities, it certainly is a great return.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

| 41

Secretary George P. Shultz highlighted the Defense Department’s ability to conceptualize total cost:
That’s an interesting example of how the military has an ability to conceptualize the total cost. That’s harder to do in the civilian economy because you look at a gallon of gas and that’s it. So this is a very impressive, interesting, contribution.

Secretary Terry Yonkers highlighted the costs, time valuation, and payback period of Defense Department investments:
The other dimension of this is the payback. And so we think in terms of five years and some of the discussions we’re having across the board is, if we make smart investments, it will take about ten or eleven years to hit the breakeven point. But after that point in time, we’ll save a billion and a half or more dollars, once we get into sort of the full production and the modification. Well, because we’re focused on the five-year time frame, most people hardly ever play into the overall organizational decision to fund them. So we’ve got to break that paradigm as well as these other things that Secretary Sharon Burke was talking about—the color of money and authorities and all the other kinds of things going on.

Admiral Cullom added:
[T]here are a lot of different ways you can evaluate how your investments are doing. Do you look at it in terms of the specific return on investment? The payback period? Clearly, those are essential criteria for every initiative. But much of Secretary Terry Yonkers’ point is, as you do that, you’ve also got to think about the long haul—the total long-term impact the investment has over the lifecycle of asset or platform ownership. That’s true for all the military

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

42 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES
services—assessed value depends on how you look at and value the output of your investment. And I think all the services believe you need a fully calculated valuation of what the investment effort could end up yielding.

Ensuring sustainable progress and institutional support for energy security requires two critical factors: Identifying and implementing adequate energy-performance metrics to support energy security initiatives and objectives, and institutionalizing these efforts throughout the department. As Secretary Burke said:
I think one thing we need is better metrics for measuring how we use energy in the fight and in our systems. If you start throwing out goals but you don’t really understand how you consume energy, then you can’t be sure that you’re heading for the right outcomes. [W]e do need to find ways to use less energy for everything that we need, to get more military output for every unit of energy input. Talk about metrics. That’s one I’d like to see—effectiveness metric.

A systemic cultural change in the strategic planning and acquisition processes and methods, if it is to be long-lasting, needs to be institutionalized throughout the department. Secretary Burke highlighted the need to restructure the acquisition process so that we are task organized. That is, the same people who buy are ultimately responsible for how we are going to pay for the purchases in the long term:
I’d say that it’s also in the way we’re structured in that major systems have a program manager and executive officers, who are

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

| 43

responsible for developing that program and getting it to life and getting it as an actual system. But they’re not the ones that operate it over time. So their incentive is to get it built and to get it in the arsenal, because this is what our folks need. Like a ground combat vehicle, the amphibious vehicle, these are things that the Marines and the Army have defined as they have to have it in the force. And the program manager’s job is to get them what they need. So sometimes there’s a split-incentive problem there and who pays the bills for certain kinds of things is not who buys the system. We have that problem, just like the rest of the economy does, all over the place, including even in theater. Who pays the bill for the fuel is not the same as the person who uses it. The demand signal that’s being created on the ground is being met by air. Those bills are all paid by different people. So it is part of our challenge—not that easy to solve this problem.

Secretary Jackalyne Pfannenstiel added:
The other question is, what is the future for expeditionary warfare technologies? The solar backpacks, for example. Even if we pull out of Afghanistan shortly, we’re going to continue developing our technology. But how do we proceed with these technologies when they’re not being shipped over to theater within six months? They’re going to be important for the future of the Marine Corps and the Army and the Air Force and the Navy. We don’t want to slow our progress. We have to anticipate our warfighters’ needs and be ready, not be scrambling after the fact. It needs to be institutionalized. It needs to be part of what the Department of Defense does.

Admiral Cullom concluded by emphasizing institutionalization inside the Pentagon in order to help move the

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

44 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

American economy in ways that will help our desired energy position:
We’re at war, we have a lot of needs, and we have a way to enable energy to make a difference in the warfight—saving lives, giving us more combat capability in the process, and being more Spartan in the use of our resources at this challenging time. We need to institutionalize it within the Pentagon, yes. But we can’t do it alone. We need to work outside of the Department of Defense to make sure these programs are sustainable and institutionalized—across departments and agencies but also across all of American Society. Our efforts must move the American economy to help our energy position in the long term, not just in the next several years or the next administration.

Recommendations
We believe the Department of Defense should 7 Focus culture-change initiatives beyond the individual warfighter and on the broader organizational level, particularly in the strategy and policy and acquisition workforce. Without broader organizational change and buy-in, plans developed by energy-specific personnel are unlikely to be effective. 7 Incorporate energy security into strategic and operational planning and Defense Department acquisition. If energy security is not a component of the formal budgeting and acquisition process, the military will continue to sub-optimally allocate its money, purchasing

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

| 45

items with lower up-front costs but crippling long-term energy costs. 7 Identify and implement energy-performance metrics to support energy security initiatives and objectives, and institutionalize use of these metrics throughout the department. As the organizational theorist Peter Drucker famously observed decades ago, “What gets measured, gets managed.”

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 1 MEMBERS OF THE SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE ON ENERGY POLICY

Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. is chairman retired and a director of Bechtel Group. Gary S. Becker, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1992, is the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago. Paul Berg is currently the Cahill Professor of Biochemistry emeritus at Stanford University. Samuel W. Bodman is the former U.S. secretary of energy from 2005 to 2009, having previously served as deputy secretary of the treasury and deputy secretary of commerce. Michael J. Boskin is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics at Stanford University.

47
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

48 | APPENDIX 1

Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member and director of research for the ShultzStephenson Task Force on Energy Policy. John F. Cogan is the Leonard and Shirley Ely Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University. Sidney D. Drell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of theoretical physics (emeritus) at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University. James E. Goodby is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow with the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. Lawrence H. Goulder is a professor and chair of the Department of Economics at Stanford University, where he is also a Kennedy-Grossman Fellow in human biology and a senior fellow at the Institute for Economic Policy Research. Kenneth L. Judd is the Paul H. Bauer Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Alexander A. Karsner was assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy from 2005 to 2008. Howard H. Leach serves as president of Leach Capital, LLC, and Foley Timber & Land Company. Kevin M. Murphy is the George J. Stigler Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Jens K. Nørskov is professor of chemical engineering and of photon science at Stanford University and at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. William J. Perry, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor at Stanford

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 1

| 49

University, with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering and the Institute for International Studies, where he is co-director of the Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration of Stanford and Harvard Universities. Perry was the nineteenth United States secretary of defense, serving from February 1994 to January 1997. His previous government experience was as deputy secretary of defense (1993–94) and undersecretary of defense for research and engineering (1997–81). John Raisian, the Tad and Dianne Taube Director of the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow, is a labor economist whose current interests include the application of economic principles to public-policy formation and the appropriate role of government in society. William K. Reilly is the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); founding partner of Aqua International Partners, a private-equity fund invested in water and renewable energy companies; and senior adviser to TPG Capital, an international investment partnership. Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution and professor of political science at Stanford University. From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the sixty-sixth secretary of state of the United States. Burton Richter is a Nobel laureate (physics, 1976); the Paul Pigott Professor in the Physical Sciences emeritus, Stanford University; former director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory; and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

50 | APPENDIX 1

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret.) is currently the Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From September 2007 to September 2011, he served as the twenty-ninth chief of naval operations. Henry S. Rowen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a professor of public policy and management emeritus at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a member of Stanford’s Asia-Pacific Research Center. Lucy Shapiro is a professor in the Department of Developmental Biology at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, where she holds the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Chair in Cancer Research. George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was sworn in on July 16, 1982, as the sixtieth U.S. secretary of state and served until January 20, 1989. Kiron K. Skinner is the W. Glenn Campbell Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Abraham D. Sofaer, who served as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State from 1985 to 1990, was appointed the first George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in 1994. Thomas F. Stephenson, who joined Sequoia Capital in 1988, focuses on information technology and health-care companies. He is a former U.S. ambassador to the Portuguese Republic and spent twenty-two years with Fidelity Investments. James L. Sweeney is a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 1

| 51

John B. Taylor is the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution and the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University. David G. Victor is a professor at the University of California, San Diego, in the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation. R. James Woolsey was the Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 2 CONFERENCE AGENDA
ENERGY TASK FORCE MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2011 HOOVER INSTITUTION STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Monday, December 12, 2011
8:30 a.m.–8:45 a.m. Welcoming Remarks 7 The Honorable George P. Shultz 8:45 a.m.–9:30 a.m. DoD’s Contribution to Strategic Energy Issues Presenter: 7 Dr. Richard B. Andres, Chair, Energy & Environmental Security Policy, National Defense University 9:30 a.m.–10:15 a.m. Pioneering Efforts in Energy: Department of Defense Energy Policy
53
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

54 | APPENDIX 2

Presenter: 7 The Honorable Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs 10:15 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Implementing DoD’s Energy Policy—The Navy/Marine Corps, Air Force, and Army Experience: Programs, Technology, and Applications Presenters: 7 The Honorable Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) 7 The Honorable Terry A. Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics) 7 The Honorable Katherine G. Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment) 12:00 p.m.–1:00 p.m. Working Lunch and Presentation: Operationalizing DoD’s Energy Policy: The Department of the Navy Experience Presenters: 7 Dr. Karl van Bibber, Vice President & Dean of Research, Naval Postgraduate School 7 Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, USN, Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division 7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr., USMC, Director, Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Energy Office

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 2

| 55

1:00 p.m.–1:45 p.m. Discussion on the U.S. Military and the Future of Energy: Challenges and Opportunities 1:45 p.m.–2:00 p.m. Concluding Remarks The Honorable George P. Shultz

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX 3 CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

Speakers (in order of appearance): Richard B. Andres is the Energy & Environmental Security Policy Chair at National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. Sharon E. Burke is assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs. Jackalyne Pfannenstiel is assistant secretary of the Navy (energy, installations and environment). Terry Yonkers is assistant secretary of the Air Force (installations, environment and logistics). Katherine Hammack is assistant secretary of the Army (installations, energy and environment). Karl van Bibber is vice president and dean of research, Naval Postgraduate School. Philip H. Cullom, Vice Admiral, USN, is director of energy and environmental readiness and is deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics. Robert J. Charette Jr., Colonel, USMC, is director of the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Energy Office.

57
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

NOTES
Preface
1. The details of these energy strategies can be found at http://energy .defense.gov (DoD strategy), http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon .mil (Army strategy), http://marines.mil/community/Pages /ExpeditionaryEnergy.aspx (Marine Corps strategy), http://www .safie.hq.af.mil/energy/index.asp (Air Force strategy), and http:// greenfleet.dodlive.mil/home (Navy strategy).

Overview of Current Military Energy Strategy
1. All boxed text in this chapter is taken directly from the following sources, which provide further details on the Defense Department’s and service branches’ strategies: http://energy.defense.gov, http:// army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil, http://marines.mil/community /Pages/ExpeditionaryEnergy.aspx, http://www.safie.hq.af.mil/energy /index.asp, and http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/home.

Defense Department Operational Energy Strategy
1. http://energy.defense.gov/OES_report_to_congress.pdf.

59
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

60 | NOTES TO PAGES 9–16

U.S. Army Energy Vision
1. Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability, “Army Power and Energy,” GreenGov Symposium, November 1, 2011, http://www.greengov2011.org/presentations /CleanEnergy/GreenGov-2011-CleanEnergy-S5-RichardKidd.pdf. 2. Army Senior Energy Council, “Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy,” January 3, 2009, http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ Partnerships/doc/AESIS_13JAN09_Approved%204-03-09.pdf. 3. 2012 Army Posture Statement: The Nation’s Force of Decisive Action, “Addendum J—Army Energy Security Enterprise,” https://secureweb2 .hqda.pentagon.mil/VDAS_ArmyPostureStatement/2012/addenda /addenda_j.aspx.

U.S. Navy Energy Vision
1. Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs, “Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report,” January 2001, http:// energy.defense.gov/FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certification _Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf. 2. http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy (DoD energy strategy).

U.S Marine Corps Energy Vision
1. http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/USMC%20 Expeditionary%20Energy%20Strategy.pdf (“United States Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan”). 2. http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/USMC%20 Expeditionary%20Energy%20Strategy.pdf.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

NOTES TO PAGES 26–27

| 61

The Electric Grid and Distributed Generation
1. Hoover Institution/Brookings Institution, “Assessing the Role of Distributed Power Systems in the U.S. Power Sector,” October 2011, http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents /Distributed-Energy.pdf. 2. http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents /Distributed-Energy.pdf.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret.), is an Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution who graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1973. In September 2007, he became the twenty-ninth chief of naval operations after holding six operational commands; he is one of only two officers in the navy’s history to have commanded both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. Ashore he served as the commandant of the US Naval Academy, during which time he led the strategic planning efforts that underpinned that institution’s first capital campaign. He was also the navy’s chief of legislative affairs, responsible for the Department of the Navy’s interactions with Congress, and the deputy commander of the US Pacific Command during the massive relief effort following the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of the Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy. His work focuses on energy and environmental policy, with an emphasis on energy security and global fossil fuel markets. Before coming to Hoover, Carl was a research fellow at  the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford and a visiting fellow in resource and development
63
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

64 | ABOUT THE AUTHORS

economics at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, India. Most recently, he was Hoover’s lead author of Assessing the Role of Distributed Power Systems in the U.S. Power Sector, a major study Hoover conducted jointly with the Brookings Institution. His work has appeared in numerous books and journals in the energy and environmental fields. His writing and expertise have been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and many other publications. Jeremy holds degrees in history and public policy from Yale and Harvard Universities. Lieutenant Commander Manuel Hernandez is a national security affairs fellow at the Hoover Institution. At sea, he served as engineering officer on the USS Thach (FFG 43), auxiliaries officer on the USS Reuben James (FFG 57), communications  officer on the USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and machinist mate on the USS Shasta (AE 33). Ashore, he served as engineering assessor for Pacific Fleet ships, Afloat Training Group Pacific; executive officer, US Central Command J5 Coalition Coordination Center; congressional liaison for strategy and policy, DON Office of Legislative Affairs; and strategic planner in the International Engagements Directorate (OPNAV N52) on the staff of the chief of naval operations in Washington, DC. Hernandez holds degrees in economics, finance, and public policy from Old Dominion and Harvard Universities.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

 

About the Hoover Institution’s SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE ON ENERGY POLICY       The Hoover Institution’s Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy addresses energy policy in the United States and its effects on our domestic and international political priorities, particularly our national security. As a result of volatile and rising energy prices and increasing global concern about climate change, two related and compelling issues—threats to national security and adverse effects of energy usage on global climate—have emerged as key adjuncts to America’s energy policy; the task force will explore these subjects in detail. The task force’s goals are to gather comprehensive information on current scientific and technological developments, survey the contingent policy actions, and offer a range of prescriptive policies to address our varied energy challenges. The task force will focus on public policy at all levels, from individual to global. It will then recommend policy initiatives, large and small, that can be undertaken to the advantage of both private enterprises and governments acting individually and in concert. The core membership of this task force includes Stephen D. Bechtel Jr., Gary S. Becker, Paul Berg, Samuel Bodman,
65
Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

66 | SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE ON ENERGY POLICY

Michael J. Boskin, Jeremy Carl, John F. Cogan, Sidney D. Drell, James E. Goodby, Lawrence H. Goulder, Kenneth L. Judd, Alexander A. Karsner, Howard H. Leach, Kevin M. Murphy, Jens Nørskov, William J. Perry, John Raisian, William K. Reilly, Condoleezza Rice, Burton Richter, Admiral Gary Roughead, Henry S. Rowen, Lucy Shapiro, George P. Shultz (chair), Kiron K. Skinner, Abraham D. Sofaer, Thomas F. Stephenson, James L. Sweeney, John B. Taylor, David G. Victor, and James Woolsey.

Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.