Pentagon's Energy Projects Should Be Reexamined

In my opinion there are two types of environmentalists – those who consider green as the color of the money, and those who want to make the world a better place to live. The people in the former group are fake environmentalists and the people in the latter category are the real environmentalists. Similar grouping can be applied for the green industry.

J. Randy Forbes (R-Va) authored an excellent article in The Hill on 23 March 2011. He underlines that decisions on DoD energy efforts should be made based on energy security and reducing costs, not simply for the sake of “being green.” “Congress must practice prudence in terms of funding energy projects and holding the DoD’s feet to the fire on cost-benefit. Adhering to simple defense criteria would help: first, there must be demonstrable savings showing a strong return on investment over a reasonable amount of time; second, the project must contribute to increased national security, especially in terms of the direct safety of our troops and sustainability of missions. Unfortunately, many current “green” energy projects at the DoD are missing the mark both in terms of security and savings.”

He gives the almost 1 million dollar Navy Project for Solar and Lighting at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia as an example. With a payback period of 447 years, the savings to investment ratio of this project is $0.03. He says that it is not responsible spending and it is certainly not improving national security. He concludes that “We cannot afford to wait for the DoD Inspector General to identify all the wasteful projects that offer no opportunity, in the next 400 years, to see any real security or financial return.”

A New York Times article on 5 April 2011 mentioned the failed technologies to save energy used by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army’s well publicized spray foam insulated tents  in an effort to slash energy needs and trap costly air conditioning inside as well as a waste-to-energy project (the Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery) designed to convert waste into either synthetic gas or ethanol. Both projects ran up against myriad obstacles and were stalled.

Unfortunately, operational energy still stands outside the realm of federal laws and mandates that require DOD to reduce energy used in installations. I believe that small reductions in operational energy (in volumetric terms) would largely exceed all the savings from installations.

One of the reasons for the green energy push by the DOD is the belief that green energy would create more jobs. I don’t share this view. Are the jobs created in excess of jobs destroyed in the other sectors of the economy? The green gadgets are pressed on DOD because of their alleged economic, security and environmental benefits. Why there is no thorough analysis of clean energy’s junk economics before spending millions of tax payers money for the projects that end up collecting dust?

In all DOD acquisitions the contracting parties should be reminded the words of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz on 9 February 2011 at the National Defense Industrial Association Symposium: Asked by an audience member for his advice to companies looking to support Pentagon projects during these austere budget times, Schwartz said: "Deliver what you promise. Period. Dot. Don't blow smoke up my ass. There is no time for it. There is not money for it. There is no patience for it."

Similarly, any industry unprofitable without sustained large government subsidies should not be pushed for decades.

The DOD Energy Security Act of 2010

U.S. Congreswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Rep) announced on 12 May 2010 the introduction of landmark legislation, the Department of Defense Energy Security Act, to dramatically overhaul the type and quantity of fuel used by the Department of Defense. The bill has four broad goals: Reduce the reliance on oil in the battlefield; Task the Department to plan holistically for their energy use; Decrease electricity consumption at facilities around the world; and Increase the self-reliance of bases by increasing the development of on-site renewable electricity. (see also the Bill Diagram).

The Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2010 (DoDESA) addresses DoD energy supply and use. DoDESA decreases consumption by facilities and by tactical and non-tactical vehicles (by Increasing the procurement of electric, hybrid, and high efficiency non-tactical vehicles; Integrating hybrid drive into tactical vehicles; Accelerating the production of biofuels for aviation that do not require new fuel infrastructure) and increases the use of renewable electricity sources to relieve the Department’s reliance on external electrical sources.

Additionally, DoDESA sets overarching policies to implement sustainable acquisition practices, sets new DoD Energy Performance Goals, and requires DoD to develop an Energy Performance Plan and an implementation assessment for accomplishing their goal of deriving 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

Her proposals are general very good. Especially the ones related to contractors. But in some areas the ambition, however appropriate, is out of reality.

What is not sound to me is the deadline for conversion. Under § 2922c-1 (Conversion of Department of Defense nontactical motor vehicle fleet to motor vehicles using electric or hybrid propulsion systems) it is added that “Not later than September 30, 2015, the Secretary of each military department and the head of each defense agency shall convert the fleet of non-tactical motor vehicles of the department or defense agency that is powered by petroleum-derived fuel to motor vehicles using—(1) electric propulsion; (2) hybrid propulsion; or (3) an alternative propulsion system with at least a 30 percent net increase in energy efficiency per vehicle over the conventional propulsion system.”

This is simply impossible. Perhaps she didn’t look carefully the number of fleet vehicle inventory. How do you convert 194,700 vehicles in the next 5 years to run on alternative fuel? See page 75 of Federal Fleet Vehicle report FY2009.

Why so much focus on electric drive and why to ignore compressed natural gas? Similarly, testing and certification plan to develop and put into operational use of biofuel derived from materials that do not compete with foodstocks for use as aviation fuel by September 30, 2016 is not realistic at all. In fact, the Bill should include a sentence something like “transporting a person with at least 10 times heavier car is insane.”

Another mission impossible in that Bill is the wording under SEC.12 IMPLEMENTATION. It reads “(b) APPLICABILITY.—This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to the activities, personnel, resources, and facilities of the Department of Defense that are located within the United States as well as those facilities, regardless of whether permanent or temporary, that are located outside the United States.” The problem is the last 7 words. This Bill in its current form cannot be applied to DOD facilities (at least to the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq) outside the US.

Another weak point of the Bill is that it does not stress the importance of energy management, supervision and oversight. Indeed these words do not even appear in the text. Oversight, especially energy related contracts and contractors as well as fuel management are extremely important issues.

For instance, in Semiannual Report to the Congress (April 1. 2009-September 30, 2009) by Department of Defense Inspector General it is stated that “The DoD IG has recognized fuels as an area subject to theft and abuse in DoD operations. Recently, some of the most significant fuel losses in Southwest Asia were caused by theft either before the tankers reached U.S. military bases or once on base…..The DoD IG identified fuel theft in Iraq and Afghanistan, which resulted in six convictions and identified over $40 million in stolen fuel. One DoD IG investigation determined that three DoD contractors in Afghanistan accepted bribes from truck drivers in return for falsified documents confirming delivery of fuel.”

The DoD Inspector General is examining a series of contracts to the International Oil Trading Company for the delivery of fuel through Jordan to U.S. troops in Iraq. According to Defense Energy Support Center Factbook FY2009, that company was awarded 1.179 BILLION DOLLARS worth contract in 2009. The same company was given another billion dollars in previous years. Who is the owner that company? Harry Sargeant, the finance chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. Maybe he didn’t do anything wrong. My question is: why does the DESC have to use middleman for buying fuel? If Congreswoman Gabrielle Giffords wants her Bill really to be novelty, she should try to change how DoD makes business.

By the way, does anyone know why Defense Energy Support Center did take out the most useful part of the Factbook (Highlights/Accomplishments in the fiscal year)? That section always appeared at the end of each Factbook until 2009.