Clean Energy Economy Forum: Energy Security

Uploaded by whitehouse on 28.07.2010

Director Browner: Good afternoon, and let me begin by thanking all of you
for joining us here today and introducing myself.
I am Carol Browner.
I am an assistant to the President and the Director
of the newly created White House Office on
Energy and Climate Change.
Let me also thank Greg Nelson and all of the
folks in the Office of Public Engagement who worked so hard
to organize this event.
And let me acknowledge Secretary Mabus and Deputy Secretary
Poneman who will be speaking to you later.
But I want to acknowledge all of their great leadership when
it comes to important issues of clean encourage
and energy security.
And finally, I want to thank all of the men and women in uniform,
the senior officers and the young veterans for their
service to our country and for joining us here today.
The President, when he came to office,
thought the issues of energy and climate change were so
important that he created a brand new office;
an office to focus on these issues exclusively.
And as part of that effort we began by reaching out to the
various cabinet agencies and departments that we all think
of as having jurisdiction over energy and climate
change issues, sort of the obvious ones,
Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Interior.
And this group quickly became dubbed the Green Cabinet.
Now, the interesting thing is within a few weeks of starting
the Green Cabinet in our regular meetings,
we started getting phone calls.
Other people thought they, too, had an interest in the issues
of energy which was really, you know, great news.
So Secretary Shaun Donovan at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development is now part of the group.
He is working to set standards to make our
buildings more efficient.
Secretary Hilda Solis at the Department of Labor
is training workers for the clean energy jobs of the future.
Administrator Karen Mills of the Small Business Administration is
issuing loans to entrepreneurs who want to power their small
businesses with renewable energy.
And so our group has now grown, it's almost -- it's more than
doubled since we started.
But the best call I got is when I got a call from Ray
Mabus saying I bet you don't know this, but we, too,
want to be a part of your group.
And so Secretary Mabus, obviously we're that thrilled
to have you and all of the outstanding work that you
have been doing to really green the Navy,
I think is providing leadership for all of us and good insight
in to what is possible.
As part of this effort to engage the public,
we have been hosting forums, I think on a dozen of issues
here in the White House.
And obviously today's forum is dedicated to the discussion
of energy security.
And so this afternoon in addition to hearing from
Secretary Mabus and Secretary Poneman,
you're also going to hear from retired generals,
officials currently serving at the Department of Defense.
And veterans from the war.
You will also hear from experts who have devoted their careers
to combating climate change, curbing our dependence on fossil
fuels and preserving our nation's security.
We hope we do these events and we hope they are helpful to
people as a way for us to learn and a way for you to learn,
a way to really engage a dialogue on the issues that
are so critical to the country, to the world and obviously
to the President.
Many of us have spent working together the last year and a
half trying to craft important clean energy legislation,
legislation, comprehensive energy legislation that would
put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions,
that would create a new generation of clean energy
jobs position in the United States to compete in the global
clean energy revolution.
And that would also give us sort of comprehensive energy reform
in terms of a standard on renewable energy and all of
the other factors that we think are important to a
different energy future.
Obviously last week we were disappointed.
Senator Reid, after all of the work that he has done,
Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer and others on The Hill,
we were not able to see our way to 60 votes and the system in
which we currently do this work requires the 60 votes.
But we want to be clear that people understand we still
remain committed to the issue of comprehensive energy reform
for this country and the issue of climate change.
We believe these are real issues.
These are important issues.
They precept opportunities for people of this country and so
as we move forward, as Majority Leader Reid moves a slimmed-down
Bill forward we will continue to work for passage of that.
But we will also continue to look at what are the
authorities that we have.
What are the opportunities that we have within the government
to create change and to start to build towards
a different energy future?
And so I hope today can be as much about that.
That we can learn from you all; what are the things you think
we could be doing, we should be doing,
perhaps could be doing better.
Not just listen to us in terms of what we're doing but actually
help us think about how we take authorities that we already have
and really create something important for the future of
our country.
And so with that, again, let me thank you for joining
us here today.
And let me recognize and introduce to you the Secretary
of the Navy, a wonderful public servant who is, as I said,
doing a great job at the Navy, but has also taken on an
additional responsibility on behalf of the President in
the near term which is he is helping to craft,
working with governors, local government officials,
the citizens of the Gulf Coast, a long-term restoration plan
as we look to sort of the next phase of the situation
in the Gulf.
Obviously the well will be closed, we hope mid August,
but that's not the end.
We have an obligation to continue to work with the
people of the region.
We will continue to work with the people of the region as we
see the health of the Gulf, the economic health of those
communities restored.
And there was no better person to undertake that sort of
planning process than Secretary Ray Mabus and we are so
appreciative to you for that.
And with no further ado, Secretary Ray Mabus.
Secretary Mabus: Afternoon to the just-departed Carol Browner.
Thank you, thank you for that wonderful introduction.
Deputy Secretary Poneman, to all the familiar faces I see
in the audience.
I'm really happen to be here today to talk about energy
reform to people who are so passionately interested in it
and to people who so wonderfully care and share about the
President's vision of creating a new energy economy and a new
energy future for this country.
I'm going to say something that is completely, obviously,
absolutely self evident: America relies too much on fossil fuels.
That dependency degrades our national security.
It affects our economy in negative ways.
And through carbon emissions, and we have learned catastrophic
spills, harms our planet.
Strategically, too much of our oil comes from volatile
places on earth.
We would not let some countries like Venezuela or Russia design
and build our warships or our airplanes for our military.
And yet we do give them a say on whether those ships will sail or
whether those planes will fly, because we buy our
energy from them.
That's at a strategic level.
At the tactical level, our dependence affects us as well.
I have been in office 14 months.
I have been able and honored to visit with literally tens of
thousands of sailors and marines around the world.
I've had a hundred or more all-hands calls in bases
ranging from Okinawa to Afghanistan.
And I've seen close up the evidence of our military's
dependence on oil and our military's demand for power
and the resulting impact on our people.
Getting a gallon of gasoline to a marine at a forward-operating
base in Afghanistan is not easy.
Every day, every day young men and women guard vulnerable fuel
convoys as they move from the logistics hub
to forward-operating bases.
Gasoline is the single thing we import most into Afghanistan.
And those convoys represent the last legs of a supply
system that begins thousands of miles away.
It goes through the coast of Pakistan where ships offload
fuel onto trucks and then the slow journey all the way up
and across the Hindu Kush into Afghanistan.
It's dangerous.
A lot of these convoys are hit with IEDs or with ambushes.
Sometimes, before they even get to Afghanistan.
The cost in people is significant.
For every 24 convoys, we lose a marine, a soldier,
a sailor or an airman; one for every 24 convoys.
That is too high a price to pay for power.
We have to change the way we use and produce energy.
We not only will save lives in Afghanistan,
we will also free up those marines, soldiers,
those sailors, those airmen, to do what they are there to do,
which is to fight, to build, to engage.
As Carol Browner said seven weeks ago,
I was honored when the President asked me to develop a plan for
the long-term revitalization of the Gulf Coast because in the
Gulf over the last three months we have seen another cost of
energy infrastructure too dependent on oil.
Since I've gotten this collateral duty,
I've gone to the Gulf repeatedly on behalf of the President to
talk to people and mainly to listen to their ideas about how
we can environmentally and economically restore the Gulf
Coast; to make it better than it was the day before
the well blew out.
I have seen for myself the impact of oil on
marshes and beaches.
I've seen the impact on fishing and tourism.
And I've seen the impact on an economy that is geared to fossil
fuel production with far too few alternatives.
What affects the Gulf Coast affects the nation,
because so much of our energy is produced there.
And the Gulf Coast, like the nation,
relies way too much on fossil fuels.
But we have an amazing opportunity to change this.
Over the next few years in the Gulf we have an opportunity to
create a show case for alternative energy.
To enact measures that can spur diverse investments,
diverse economic development in the region and move the Gulf
Coast and our country toward a cleaner energy future and
a cleaner energy economy.
Navy and Marine Corps have a similar opportunity to lead
the country toward a new energy future.
That's why in October 2009 I issued five energy targets
from my department, the most important of which is by 2020,
one decade from now, half of all the energy we use ashore and
afloat, in the air, on the sea, under the sea and on land,
will come from alternative sources.
We're already taking the first steps.
This spring, we had a super sonic flight of
an F-18 fighter dubbed the Green Hornet.
50/50 blend of biofuel and AV gas.
This fall, we're going to move that testing of biofuel
to our surface fleet.
At Quantico, the marines have built an expeditionary
testing ground, a forward-operating base,
to look at new energy efficient technologies.
Through Recovery Act funds and other funds that we've put to
the purpose, we're making investments in solar and
geothermal and waste energy projects.
Across the country we're working with universities and
industries, states and other departments of the federal
government such as Energy and USDA to advance research,
development and most importantly fielding of
these alternative fuels.
With alternative energy, Navy and Marine Corps will improve
the range and endurance of our ships and planes,
will reduce our reliance to a vulnerable supply chain,
and we'll create a resistance to the external shocks that
comes from over reliance on a very fragile global
oil infrastructure.
Our own history in the Navy shows that progress only
comes when we think boldly.
The Navy has always been a leader in
adopting new technologies.
In the middle of the 19th century,
we traded sail for coal.
Forty years later, the beginning of the 20th century,
we went from coal to oil.
And in the middle of the 20th century we added nuclear power
to our fleet.
Now all our carriers and submarines are nuclear powered.
In every single case, not missing a one of those,
there were people who said that a terrible mistake
was being made.
That we were trading one certain form of energy for
one that was uncertain.
We were trading an infrastructure, for example,
the case of coal where we had coaling stations all around the
world, for one that did not exist in large enough quantity
to service the Navy.
And nuclear, they said it was too untested,
could not be made safe enough or small enough to fit into
things like submarines.
Every single time they were wrong and they're going to
be wrong this time, too.
Innovation made us better fighters.
Innovation made us better services.
Adding new generation of biofuels to the fleet and
solar and wind and geothermal and hydrothermal and wave action
is merely one more revolution or evolution in the way we generate
and use power.
The extension of an innovative spirit to a new century.
Energy reform and the new energy economy are
not just talking points.
It's not a political game.
It means lives of our troops.
It means making our military better fighters.
It means making our country more independent.
I'm incredibly grateful that this President has made the
point very clearly and he has shown the foresight to look
beyond the present both in the Gulf and with energy reform,
and that he has been such a forceful voice for change
in this area.
Because changing the way that energy is used and produced in
our country, in our services, is the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to do for our security.
It's the right thing to do for our economy.
And it's the right thing to do for our environment.
As the President said, we are choosing bold
action over inaction.
For the Navy and Marine Corps we're placing our faith in a
234-year history of meeting every mission;
overcoming every challenge.
America has done no less.
Every generation of Americans has made our country great from
the founding of the Republic, to the creation of our industrial
power, to our journey to the moon.
Every generation, or nation's capacity for innovation,
our thirst for knowledge, and our dedication to make a better
world has defined what it means to be American.
These same qualities can and will lead this generation to
achieve greater energy security and true energy independence.
That's a goal worth having.
That's a goal worth striving for.
That's a goal worth achieving.
Thank y'all.
Deputy Director Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I'm Greg Nelson, Deputy Director of the White House
Office of Public Engagements.
And in my role I cover energy issues and have had a chance
to work very closely with the Department of Energy.
Our next speaker is going to be Dan Poneman who is
the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy.
Mr. Poneman, in addition to being Deputy Secretary,
also serves as the agency's chief operating officer.
And has a long history and a long interest in working in
intersection of energy and security issues,
including time here at the National Security Council.
So one more keynote session and then we're going to move
into our panels.
Mr. Poneman.
Deputy Secretary Poneman: Thank you and good afternoon.
And first I would also like to acknowledge two
now-departed leaders.
Deputy Secretary Poneman: Make sure you tell them what I'm about to say.
No, honestly, Carol Browner has been a superb leader on White
House environmental energy issues and the leadership she
has provided in the recent months on the Gulf has been
extraordinary and above her normal duties.
Secretary Mabus I can say honestly,
having not known him before, is a visionary.
And you heard a lot of that vision here today.
And it's not a bad thing in government, I think,
at all times to hear a coincident set of remarks and it
is no coincidences that you will hear much of the same from me.
We met several months ago, Secretary Chu and I went over,
met with Secretary Mabus, Under Secretary Work and others and
he laid out a similar vision to where you heard here today
and it gave rise to a very intensive work effort which
you will hear more about.
Also before I begin my remarks, I do want to thank and honor the
service of all the men and women in uniform and out of uniform
who are struggling every day in parts far flung,
places far and near to keep the rest of us safe.
We honor that service and many of you who lead them here;
you have our un-lying gratitude and respect.
So thank you very much for the sacrifice and the service.
It is fitting that today's forum includes representatives
from both: the energy and defense sectors,
people from academia and the business community.
Our energy challenges don't just affect a sector.
They affect all of us, from the small businessman hoping
that the natural gas prices stay under $5,
to the parent trying to make ends meet and looking at the
kitchen table piled up with bills and battling a question
of rising utility costs, to the soldier driving a fuel convoy
through a war zone battling the elements of sand storms and a
roasting sun as well as IEDs and hostile fire.
The security and the prosperity of the United States are
directly tied to energy.
That is why we must break our excessive dependence on fossil
fuels and put this country on a path to a clean energy future.
This path will lead to a more secure nation,
a stronger economy, and a healthier environment for
generations to come.
The status quo is unsustainable.
A May 2009 report from the Center of Naval Analyses,
I see my good friend Sherri Goodman here.
And thank you for all the good work you've put in both in
government and out, they're report powering America's
Defense Energy and the Risks to National Security issued by
a respected group of retired flag officers,
called our national energy posture a serious and urgent
threat to national security.
There are many dimensions to that threat.
The first dimension, which Secretary Mabus just spoke
about, is the most immediate and indeed it is one we know sadly
all too well: the vulnerability of our troops as they travel
through areas of conflict to deliver fuel to the war fighter.
The second dimension is economic.
The more we spend on energy, the less we can spend on our
other national priorities.
Let me just give you a few examples.
A gallon of fuel can cost $40 or more in theater.
Every $10 increase we pay per barrel of oil adds more than
$1.3 billion in additional energy costs for the
Department of Defense.
And overall the United States spends about a billion dollars
a day to import oil.
Now, as we all know the beneficiaries of the global
appetite for oil includes governments that do not
always wish us well and that do not always share our values
or our interests.
To cite one example, in 2008 alone,
Iran earned approximately $73 billion for its oil exports;
obviously funds that could go to the further development of
the nuclear capability that they have that threaten not
only the region, but the world.
Even in a carbon-constrained world,
oil demand will continue to grow in coming decades as the world's
population continues to grow.
Now the final dimension I want to mention harkens back to Carol
Browner's opening remarks and that is the threat
of climate change.
In another CNA report entitled National Security and the Threat
of Climate Change, the CNA Military Advisory Board
concluded, and I'm quoting here, "climate change can act as a
threat multiplier for instability in some of the most
volatile regions of the world and it presents significant
national security challenges for the United States."
We could see millions of refugees displaced by draught
or flooding which could trigger significant regional conflicts.
We could see humanitarian crises unfold as agricultural
patterns are disrupted.
And we could see tensions between countries intensify
as water resources grow scarcer.
Climate change by definition knows no boundaries and its
effects around the world will greatly affect our security.
While the energy challenges we face are great,
they are by no means insurmountable.
And here I think that the words of Secretary Mabus with respect
to American innovation and its illustrious tradition
are extremely apt.
In fact, solving these challenges presents
opportunities to enhance our security and promote
our prosperity.
As President Obama and Secretary Chu have made clear it's in our
national interest to play a leading role
in the clean energy revolution.
China, the European Union and other countries are moving
aggressively on clean energy.
Now instead of spending billions of dollars on importing oil,
or on importing clean energy technologies,
we should invest those dollars in America's workers,
in American innovation, in American technology.
We should invest these dollars creating clean,
home-grown sources of energy that will increase our energy
security and curb the carbon pollution that
threatens our planet.
Under President Obama's leadership we have already
taken strong action to build a clean energy future.
The American recovery and reinvestment act has made a
$90 billion down payment on this future and is putting Americans
to work making our homes and businesses more energy
efficient, doubling our capacity to generate renewable
electricity, and modernizing our electrical grid.
Now we need to build on that momentum.
At the Department of Energy obviously we are actively
pursuing clean energy including new ways to harness the sun,
the wind, the soil, and we're working to reduce energy demand
through significant investments in energy efficiency.
I'm glad to report that we're not alone in these efforts.
All branches of our armed forces are taking steps to green their
operations as the nation's single largest consumer of
energy; the Department of Defense has tremendous
leadership in this area and will continue to have
a significant impact.
For example, our armed forces have begun insulating tents
in forward-operating bases, reducing energy use and the
number of convoys needed to deliver fuel.
This simple act can save money and make help our troops safer.
And as you've heard from Secretary Mabus, the U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps have an ambitious plan to achieve a
new energy posture including the goal of obtaining half of their
energy from alternative sources by 2020.
I would also note that the other branches have also been in
direct discussion here, and I know somewhere out there under
Secretary Conaton of the Air Force and I have already begun
a series of conversations which I think are leading
in exactly the same direction.
So the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense share
a vision of a safe, secure energy future.
This has provided us with a strong foundation to work
together on energy issues.
For example, we're already working with the Air Force
to assess the feasibility of installing solar photovoltaic
systems and wind turbines on some bases.
We're joining with the Army and the Navy to
work on micro grid technology.
And we're providing technical assistance to Fort Campbell on
its Zero Energy Home Project.
Building on this partnership today I am pleased to announce
that Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Bill Lynn and I have signed a memorandum of understanding
between the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to
strengthen the coordination of our efforts to enhance
energy security.
This agreement will allow us to expand our already strong
cooperation in areas ranging from energy efficiency to
smart grids to renewable energy and many others.
Our two agencies are taking a broad look about where and how
we can partner to accelerate clean energy innovation.
Through this memorandum of understanding,
we can develop joint initiatives from major
energy technology research, development and demonstrate
programs of mutual interest.
We can collaborate on science and technology projects at DOD
and DOE research institutions, so that we can better
synchronize our efforts.
And we can promote exchanges of knowledge and personnel to
learn more from each other.
Robust cooperation between our agencies will benefit both the
service member and the civilian.
Solving military challenges through innovation has the
potential to yield spin-off technologies that benefit the
civilian community, as well.
Our efforts in everything from vehicle electrification to
building longer, lighter batteries to grid security
could have both military and civilian applications.
Right now, for example, I understand that our soldiers
may carry 20 pounds of battery in theater.
Let's build lighter batteries that not only will improve our
advanced vehicles but will allow our soldiers to move further,
faster, and with less fatigue.
The Department of Energy and our national laboratories have
deep technical expertise to support the military's
clean energy initiatives.
On the other side, the Department of Defense
with its purchasing power, its far flung installation
and extensive fleets of vehicles on land, sea and air can serve
as a test bed for innovation, helping demonstrate clean
energy technologies and move them to the marketplace.
This in turn will help promote a broader adoption of technologies
that can strengthen our national energy security.
This is a classic win-win situation.
We gain energy security, we strengthen the war fighter,
and we promote American prosperity.
There are enormous opportunities here.
Take the area of advanced fuels, for example.
To reduce our dependence on imported oil,
to cut pollution and to create good jobs,
it's in the national interest to develop clean domestic
sources of fuel.
At the DOE we're supporting a range of activities in this
area from developing the next generation of biofuels
to supporting pilot projects elsewhere.
Just last week, I announced that the California Institute of
Technology and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory will lead an
energy innovation hub focused on finding a cost effective
method to produce fuels directly from sunlight.
Our RPE program based on the defense of our very successful
and historically, you know, honored DRPA program is
supporting innovative research into ways to use microorganisms
to harness chemical or electrical energy to
convert carbon dioxide into liquid fuels.
And the department's biomass program is helping develop cost
competitive advanced biofuels.
Additionally, through the Recovery Act,
we're helping support the construction and operation
of 19 biorefinery plants that will produce advanced biofuels,
biopower and bioproducts using biomass feed stocks.
In order to have a thriving advanced fuels industry here
in the United States, we not only need to figure out the
technology piece, we also need to have sufficient aggregate
demand, and that's where the Department of Defense can help.
The Air Force consumes about 2.5 billion gallons of aviation
fuel per year.
Each day, more than 170,000 barrels of oil are delivered
to our war theaters.
Overall, the defense department uses about 300,000 barrels of
oil a day.
That's enormous.
As you heard from Secretary Mabus,
the Navy Marine Corps will be testing biofuels in jets,
combat boats and gas turbines to cut down on its reliance on oil.
So the military cannot only help test out new biofuel and
advanced fuel technologies, but create demand for them.
You know, when we were waiting outside,
Secretary Mabus told me that DOD consumes something like 2% of
our national oil consumption.
And when you think of that, even though 2% may not sound
like a large in percentage term, when it adds up to 300,000
barrels of oil, you do have sufficient demand that can drive
some of these innovations that are harder to do sometimes than
some of our stationary power investments where you can have
a power purchase agreement and that sort of thing.
So it really is a very powerful tool.
So overcoming our energy challenges will require
various parts of the government to cooperation in new ways that
advance clean energy and efficiency.
We can obviously do more by working together than
by working alone.
We can do it faster and we can do it cheaper.
Building a new energy future is the right thing to do to
strengthen our national security,
to promote our economic prosperity,
and to save our climate.
It's also the right thing to do for America's men and
women in uniform.
Just imagine a future where we're powering jets with
biofuels from America's tremendous biomass resources
instead of fossil fuels purchases from abroad.
A future where young soldiers rely on solar panels at zero
energy installations instead of driving fuel
convoys through war zones.
A future where our country is prosperous, secure and healthy,
fueling our own future and not our adversary's ambitions.
Working together, we can create this future.
The nation expects from us no less.
Thank you.
Deputy Director Nelson: All right, great.
We're going to jump into the heart of it now.
We've had two speakers who could help frame the
conversation for us from both the Department of Energy and
the Department of Defense.
We're going to invite up our first panel.
Our first -- the moderator for our first panel is going to be
Director Sharon Burke, she's the Director of Operational Energy
Plans and Programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Ms. Burke is the inaugural director of this newly created
office and she's the principal advisor to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense on operational security.
So Ms. Burke, come up and first panel, go ahead and come on up.
Director Burke: Well, good afternoon.
And as Greg told you, I'm Sharon Burke.
I was sworn in a month ago as the Director of Operational
Energy Plans and Programs.
And because I believe humility is a very important value,
I'm happy to tell you that the acronym is DOEPP,
that I am the DOEPP.
Director Burke: So we do like our acronyms at the Department of Defense.
I'm very honored to be in that position.
I'll tell you a little bit more about it.
What I'll do is just give a few overview introductory remarks,
and then I will introduce you to our panelists,
starting with John Conger on the end and coming up here to
Under Secretary Conaton, since she will be the
next speaker after me.
So let me just start with a few overview comments.
Starting about my job, the Operational Energy Plans
and Programs Office.
This is a brand new position that was created by Congress
in 2009 in the Defense Authorization Act.
And the job is essentially to make sure that our military
forces have the energy they need to defend the country,
when they need it, where they need it.
So more formally in the law, the definition of that is that
operational energy is the energy you need to train,
move and sustain forces, weapons and equipment
for military operations.
And this an interesting distinction between the energy
we use in our facilities and the energy we use for our forces.
And that may be a new idea to separate things out that way,
and it may be a new office.
But concerns about operational energy are nothing new.
Fuel supplies have long been a very important strategic
operational and tactical concern for the U.S. military and also a
target in times of war.
This is as old as the history of war.
And, in fact, one of my favorite quotes about this is General
George Patton from World War II when he said,
"my men can eat their belts but my tanks have got to have fuel."
And the context for that quote was that the third army was
marching into Germany and came to a screeching halt because
they ran out of fuel supplies.
My father-in-law, I was talking to him about it,
he's a World War II veteran of Patton's Army, in fact.
And I asked him if he remembered this,
that they were running out of fuel.
And he sort of squinted and looked at me and said, "no,
Patton got cut off.
They didn't want him to go any further."
So be that as it may, the military runs on fuel and
fuel is always a strategic good and a tactical good
and an operational good.
What's different today, and we have a very strong echo to
Patton's words and perhaps other aspects of Patton's character to
the current day.
In 2003, I think a lot of people in this audience know very well
that then Lieutenant General Jim Mattis said in Iraq,
he asked "to unleash us from the terror of fuel."
And he was referring specifically to what both of our
key note speakers so ably were referring to, that the convoys,
the military convoys were getting hit as targets of war.
Now, our -- and our military is far more energy intensive than
it was during World War II.
Patton's army was consuming something like 300,000 gallons
a day, and the Department of Defense today as you
heard consumes something like 300,000 barrels of fuel a day
-- 300 million barrels of fuel a day.
So, no, you're shaking your head.
Thousand, million, you know, in our world,
it's hard to get all those numbers straight.
300,000 barrels a day, which is a much larger number,
that much I do know.
But the point being that our military is far more energy
intensive than it has been before.
And also those convoys are in the battle space far more than
they had been before, because of the nature of these fights.
In asymmetric war and counterinsurgency warfare,
your logisticians, as General Chiarelli said recently to me,
your logisticians are combatants.
So it's a totally different kind of war.
It's a totally different military.
And that's really where the impetus for my office came from.
It came from deployed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They were the ones that said this is a constraint
on what we can do.
This is a constraint on our missions and we need
help with this.
Congress heard that and created this office,
and the Obama Administration, it fit in very well with their
priorities on energy.
So it's an honor to be in that job.
And, you know, it's true as a country;
we're used to thinking about our dependence on oil as a strategic
and even a geo strategic problem.
I think people do accept that.
But for the military as a tactical and an operational and
a strategic problem, it's something new.
So we consume between 300,000 barrels,
300 and 400,000 barrels a day.
Last year, that meant our total energy costs were about 13.4
billion, so that means 70% of that was for operational uses,
or combat uses, if you will accept that term.
That's about 9.6 billion.
That makes the Department of Defense,
as the both of our speakers alluded to,
the single largest institution -- institutional user of energy
in the country.
And even it rivals the use of entire nations.
That means, that translates for us to a loss of mission
effectiveness, to too much risk in our missions.
It compromises our capability.
And the real question that it comes down to for U.S.
forces is can our military, can our soldiers and our
systems, our airmen, our sailors and our Marines,
can they perform as they're supposed to?
Can they do what they're designed to do?
And the question is not necessarily.
With that kind of a tether of fuel,
they can't always do what they need to do,
both in terms of getting done the mission.
A system like an MRAP takes a lot of oil to operate in the way
that it was designed to do, and it takes a lot of fuel convoys
behind it supplying it.
Can it do what it was designed to do?
And that's the key question for us.
At the same time for our strategic goals,
if one of our goals is to protect the population as a
counter insurgency goal, energy has to be part of that goal,
too, and are we able to do that, as well.
And that's a very good question.
These challenges are only going to get worse as the global
supply and demand picture gets more complicated,
and as those trends grow less auspicious and climate change
pressures increase, and the department is working
to address this.
Energy is a high priority for our leadership,
as you just saw across the building.
And I think specifically what I believe you'll hear from my
colleagues here is there's been a fundamental shift.
We have certainly a nexus of regulations,
laws and executive orders that govern at our facilities
how we use energy.
And we of course do our best to comply with those and that's
been a very happy experience and there are a lot of good stories
to tell about that.
But we're also moving beyond compliance to a question of
combat effectiveness and the way that energy supports
our combat effectiveness.
And each service is doing a great deal in this area.
They're developing strategies and standing up offices to
look specifically at this.
They're increasing their funding.
And this is, again, this is to meet our own needs.
This is to make our military more effective.
And in doing that, that's how DOD presents the greatest
opportunity for innovation.
When we meet our own needs, when we manage our demand,
when we innovate and we solve our problems,
then we create opportunities for the civil sector.
And I think the DOD, DOE, MOU that Secretary Poneman just
announced is a great opportunity for us to use that cooperation
to help solve the military's needs.
And just one final note before I introduce to you my colleagues
from the services and from OSD where they can tell us more
about what they're doing, the Department of Defense uses
300,000 barrels of oil a day, but the country uses
22 million barrels.
We are between 1 and 2% or less of national consumption.
So we can't solve the country's problem.
This is something that all of the country has to do.
We all have to do this together.
The entire economy needs to figure out the solution
to the problem.
But for the department, we definitely need to figure
out our own problem and how to be more effective,
how to account for our logistics needs and how
we support our forces better.
And when we do that, we will help the nation in a variety
of ways by providing a more effective defense and also
in the innovation that we spur.
We will be able to translate that over.
Now, DOD is, of course, I think looking at who's in the
audience, you're well aware is a command and control organization
with a very strong leadership.
But it's also decentralized.
And each of our services have their own way of answering these
challenges, both routinely at facilities and also in
military operations.
Each has distinct roles and missions and distinct ways
that they're going to meet this challenge.
So that's why we're so fortunate today to have some very
important leadership from the department joining us.
And I will start on the end so that we can come back to
our first speaker.
John Conger is the Deputy to the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment.
And he's going to give you some pretty impressive numbers about
the universe that he has oversight of.
But his organization oversees the policy for
all the facilities and installations that the
Department of Defense runs.
And then Tom Hicks, and Tom, I've got to look at your bio
to make sure I get your title right since you're
a brand new official.
It's very exciting that we have such wonderful new officials to
join us today.
But Tom is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy in the Navy
serving under the Assistant Secretary for Installations.
And Tom comes to the Navy with tremendous private sector
experience in energy.
So the fact that we have an experienced energy official
who's coming to benefit the Navy and help us understand what the
art of the possible is a great thing for us.
And then Jerry Hanson is Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army in
Installations and Environment.
And Jerry is a veteran himself of the Army and he comes with
long experience in how these issues most affect the men and
women in uniform.
And we're lucky to have someone of his experience here today to
talk to us about what the Army is doing.
And then, Under Secretary of the Air Force, Erin Conaton,
who is the Air Force's Senior Energy Official.
And what's really exceptional about having her here today is
not only because the Air Force is the single largest consumer
of fuel and mobility fuels in the Department of Defense,
but also that she integrates all of the energy portfolios along
with many others, cyber, space, she has oversight
over the entire portfolio of what's really important
to the Air Force.
And the fact that energy is in her portfolio tells you
how they're looking at these issues.
So you can tell from all of these officials that the
department takes these issues seriously and has a great deal
to say about it.
And with that, I will turn it over to them.
Under Secretary Conaton.
Under Secretary Conaton: Thank you, and thanks to Sharon.
As she said, I'm the Under Secretary of the Air Force,
and for folks who are watching on the web who are not in D.C.,
that means I'm the number two civilian in the Air Force.
I have many of my uniformed colleagues here today.
And I didn't realize this but I have to start by apologizing
to Sharon, because before I had this job,
I've been on the job only about four months,
I was the staff director at the House Armed Services Committee,
and we were the ones who created her position.
And if I had realized that we had made her a DOEPP,
I would have thought better of it.
We really didn't think of that.
Director Burke: You didn't know it was going to be me, right?
Under Secretary Conaton: I didn't, but I had hoped.
Under Secretary Conaton: I really appreciate the opportunity to be here
today with tremendous joint colleagues.
As Sharon said, one of the things that was unique to me
when I got into this job was that one of the hats I get to
wear is being Senior Energy Official for the Department
of the Air Force.
And as I understood why that position was created,
it was for exactly the reason Sharon mentioned,
which is we do a lot of work on the installation side at
our bases trying to make our bases more,
or I should say less energy intensive.
But we also do a lot of work on the operational side with
our fleets and with the fuel that we use both in theater
and around the country.
And so the vision of our Secretary was that we should
have a member of the Air Force senior leadership who brought
together those halves of the equation and could keep constant
leadership focus on this issue.
And I think that you'll hear this as a consistent theme,
and certainly embodied in Secretary Mabus.
But I think you need leadership consistently focused on these
issues and driving it forward.
And it's an important priority for me,
it's an important priority for the Air Force,
and I suspect you're going to hear it's an important priority
for the other services, as well.
I guess as we think about this and why energy is important,
you've heard a number of reasons.
One it's a strategic imperative.
Both President Obama and Secretary Gates have said
time and again that this is a national security issue.
And I think the military has heard that loud and clear.
It's also, as we've already talked about at great length,
because of the convoys, because of the percentage of fuel that
the Air Force and the Department of Defense
more broadly uses, this is an operational imperative.
And I think for all of the services and for DOD,
this is about mission accomplishments.
So there are broader national goals at stake.
But for us, the primary driver is making sure we can accomplish
mission on the battlefield and do it with the least risk to our
service members in the process.
And the third reason is about the financial impact that the
cost of energy has for the nation,
but certainly for the Department of Defense.
And many of you have heard Secretary Gates' mandate and
initiative to look for efficiencies inside the
Department of Defense.
And I think all of us are looking at how we
use fuel in that regard.
We need to take every dollar possible that's available to
the Department of Defense and put it toward fore structure,
put it toward modernizing weapon systems,
so every dollar of fuel that we save is good for the planet and
good for the country, but also good for our services in terms
of allowing us to reinvest those dollars elsewhere.
We've -- I suspect all of us are going to touch a little bit on
what our services have done and where we're trying to head.
We're looking at things in very simple terms,
but I think the simple terms are what gets us there, which is,
you know, we're trying to reduce the demand, increase the supply,
and change the culture of the Air Force in terms of how we
think about energy.
So we've made some progress already reducing fossil fuel
usage almost 9% since 2003 and reducing the energy intensity
on our bases nearly 15%.
We have a number of really innovative leaders inside the
Air Force, including those who are working out of our air
mobility command; they're the ones who deal with all the large
planes that take things both to theater and around the country.
And they're doing really innovative but, again,
simple things, like reducing aircraft weight,
decreasing auxiliary power unit use,
and coordinating better with our foreign partners about the
routings that we use to make them more fuel efficient.
On our installations, we're doing a lot of work to increase
the use of renewable fuels and whether that's solar arrays out
at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada,
which obviously has great sun, or whether it's wind turbines
out at F. E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming,
we're trying to take a targeted look at what types of bases can
make use of what types of renewables and take that ever
further as we move forward.
Because we largely fight from our bases as opposed
to the other services which deploy forward,
we're also giving a lot of thought to the resiliency of
our installations and making sure that we're not so reliant
on the local power grid that we couldn't keep doing what we
needed to do even in the event of loss of access to that.
And on the -- also on the demand side,
we're looking very aggressively at alternative and biofuels.
Some may not know, because I, even though we know it in the
Air Force, other folks have told us,
I didn't know you all did that.
Back in 2006 we flew our first aircraft,
the B-52 with a 50/50 blend of JP8 and synthetic fuel.
And since then, we've certified another eight types of aircraft
in the Air Force inventory.
So we're moving through our airframes in terms of certifying
them with synthetic fuel and now moving on to biofuels,
and will continue to do that very much as our
sister services are doing.
Our goal is to be able to acquire in a cost competitive
way 50% of our fuel usage by 2016.
We know that's an ambitious plan.
But we want to be able to send a message to industry that when
you're prepared to provide that kind of fuel,
we are a ready and willing customer for you.
The last thing I just wanted to focus on for a minute is
the importance of partnerships in this work.
I think you've already heard it with Secretary Mabus and
Secretary Poneman, I think you see it visually displayed here
by the fact that the services and OSD are working together.
But one of the things that we've talked about a lot,
and the Air Force just completed a large energy forum where we
had several hundred leaders, in fact some of you in this room
were likely there, coming together with our senior
military leadership, as well as industry representatives
from across the country.
This is a team sport and something that none of us
can do by ourselves.
And so I really encourage this dialogue across the government.
But I hope that folks who are in industry here are also part of
that dialogue, both in terms of the markets that might be
available for alternative fuels, but also for other reasons.
We know the great work that industry is doing around the
country and the commercial sector to create more renewable
fuels, and/or renewable sources of energy.
And we in the Department of Defense need to be prepared to
be in dialogue with you early in those development projects where
those development projects might have an impact on our
bases and our operations.
We've, I think we're prepared to do that.
We want to make sure that the energy creativity out there is
compatible with the operational demands on our forces.
So with that, I'll just say I'm thrilled to be here and to take
questions when we're done.
The partnership here has been really tremendous and I really
thank the White House team for thinking to include the
Department of Defense in this effort.
Director Burke: Thank you, Under Secretary.
If I could now ask each of our colleagues to give just a few
minutes of remarks and then we'll open it up so that we
can have a dialogue with our audience, that would be great.
Secretary Hanson.
Secretary Hanson: It's a pleasure to be here.
I do appreciate the White House's initiative in this area
and the leadership in this important area to all of us.
And I will say that I see important enthusiasm building
throughout the service, as well as throughout the administration
in this area, and that's really heartening.
As the other services, we consider energy security to
be an operational imperative, and some have said that it's
a mission enhancement.
I would differ with that, it is that,
but it's also a mission enabler.
Energy -- it's not a mission.
The Army accounts for about 21% of DOD's fuel and power usage.
The secure supplies of fuel and power at home and abroad are
absolutely essential to our mission.
Without it, our TACs, our tactical vehicles,
our convoys, our operation centers all sit idle.
It's hard to imagine any part of the Army that isn't dependent
upon fuel for its operational mission.
So we're focused on Army installations,
on tactical operations, on soldier training,
and we're also involved with energy security for fixed
installations, for our deployed forces and
operational energy use.
And although I'm resident in the installations in environment and
energy within the Army, this certainly involves all aspects
of the Army.
We're collaborative -- collaborating closely with our
R&D partners and our acquisition folks and with our senior
leadership as well as the other services sharing best practices
and collaborating interagency work groups,
defense energy work group and so forth.
And we are learning a lot from each other.
We're all pretty much on steep learning curves.
But we are involved, I think, as importantly as any of our
investment programs is our culture change.
And that's something that has been late in coming,
but it's definitely growing in momentum now.
The contributing factors to our decision to accelerate this
energy security programs included the rapidly rising
energy costs of global climate change,
the vulnerabilities to convoys, et cetera,
both physical and cyber.
And our aggressive implementation strategy,
which we produced over a year ago,
is producing significant results across the Army.
And our strategy at most installations includes a
hybrid mix of multiple sources of energy, alternative energy,
such as solar, geothermal, wind and bio mass,
waste energy, et cetera.
In the acquisition area, the Army now requires that energy
productivity be part of all Army acquisition programs.
And this will have a positive impact at the installations as
well as we get more tactical vehicles that
consume less energy.
We're also making the necessary R&D investments to ensure that
we are fielding technologies and weapon systems that are
more energy efficient and less dependent.
A few examples of Army initiatives include the
500-megawatt solar energy project at Fort Irwin,
California, enhanced use lease project.
That's our premium year training facility which will meet Irwin's
total energy requirements by 2017,
with an infusion of roughly $2 billion in private capital.
We aren't going to get there solely with service investments
and with any of our goals and we're delighted to have private
partnership and investment and we will -- that's an important
part of our strategy, and that's true for all the services.
Also, at Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada,
we'll partner with industry to conduct a 30-megawatt geothermal
power plant which by 2014, by December 2014 which meet all of
their energy requirements.
We pioneered the spray foam installation that was mentioned
earlier in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we are looking at that for other temporary
facilities world wide.
And that reduced energy requirements in those
facilities by 50%.
For none tactical vehicle requirements we are building
one of the largest electrical and hybrid fleets in the country.
We are working now on leasing 4,000 electric vehicles and 700
hybrids which are expected to save over a hundred thousand
metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
And 7.5 million-gallons of fuel over six years.
By the end of 2012 we'll designate five fixed
installation to achieve zero, net zero energy status by 2021
and we'll add to that another 25 installation by 2014 which will
have achieved that status by 2031.
And all other installation in the Army will be working toward
that end as well.
In the next five years we plan to fuel smart grid
capabilities for technical command posts and forward
operating bases providing automated electric power to
consumers from multiple sources.
With this real time condition sensing and monitoring two ways
communications and control and we expect smart grid
capabilities to increase the energy security of
our operational forces.
We are also planning micro grid projects in several
places in the Army that will incorporate renewable and waste
energy power generation.
And finally I would just say our Army community, families,
soldiers, civilians, leadership, we are all committed to this and
to the culture change that goes along with it.
And we are delighted to be part of the community that is all
working toward that end.
Thank you.
Director Burke: Thank you, Secretary Hansen.
And I should add that you mentioned national
training center.
There is also technology demonstration there of actual
operational energy and forward deployment options that is in
that zero which is a terrific project as well.
Army has done some great things there.
Secretary Hicks. Take it over.
Secretary Hicks: Thank you. And again, thank you for the White House and DOD and
DOE for the leadership you are showing in hosting this event.
As the -- Secretary Mabus made mention in his remarks,
we as a nation rely or buy far too much oil from a pretty
volatile places in the world.
Places that don't really like us too much in some cases.
As the navy and marine corps, we certainly rely too much on
that oil to power our Fleet.
We know that the global sources are finite.
New sources as we are seeing in the gulf are increasingly
difficult to find, develop and the costs for that fuel continue
to rise with increasing demand in the developing world.
These facts have strategic implications for our
international stability and in the navy our own
maritime security.
You know, as the secretary mentioned,
he mentioned the fuel convoys with the marine corps earn for
every 24 convoys we have one wounded or killed American.
So we have and expensive highly guarded fuel that degrades our
combat capability at tip of the spear.
Likewise, with the navy, similar case,
obviously the more fuel you burn on a ship,
the more often you need to refuel.
Meaningless operational flexibility for our Fleet
and our strike group commanders.
I think putting it very simply; fuel efficiency equals greater
war fighting capability.
I think this is really the why we are here.
Why we are talking about this.
And why we are so passionate about getting in front of
our energy use.
And so let me tell you little bit about the what.
As secretary mentioned his five goals are mentioned.
His favorite goal, which is the 50% of the Department of Energy
or Department of Navy energy use will be from alternative
sources by 2020.
As the person that is on point for all five goals,
they are all very important to me.
They are all my children who I need to rear and see grow
up and move on.
Let me go through a little of those briefly and give you a
little sense of what we are doing.
First goal I would mention is energy efficiency acquisitions
as I would call it.
And really, what this is looking at is to change the way we award
contracts in the navy and marine corps;
essentially using our buying power to produce real results.
One activity for those who read the federal register religiously
like we all do, there is a notice in there little while
back at the end of May about the preferred supplier program.
This is an effort we have ongoing.
It will be a pilot effort really to see how we can put more of an
incentive, we can create an incentive for industry
to really demonstrate that they have really have stepped forward
with respect to efficiency.
I think that is kind of a first step as to where we are going.
There will be more to come.
Non-tactical vehicles.
These are the commercial Fleet for the folks and
part of the DOD.
We have 50,000 vehicles in the navy.
And our goal there is to reduce our energy use,
our petroleum use, by 50% by 2015, so the clock is ticking.
We have got five years to reach 50%.
Good news is every year on average;
we have a churn rate if you will of about ten thousand
vehicles per year.
So this is an opportunity, real opportunity for us to have some
significant impact.
And I think in addition to that, if we can look for ways like the
Drive Cam Program that the Marine Corps has piloted
where they put cameras in the vehicles,
really under the auspices of safety.
Through drive safety improvement so they didn't have as many
mishaps which they are actually seeing.
But as indirect result of that, they are also seeing
15% reduction of energy use.
So those kinds of things, those behavior kind of components with
things that we need to look at strongly going forward.
Next, third goal is the Great Green Fleet.
By 2012, we will demonstrate in local operations carrier strike
group, solely based on alternative fuels.
2016, we'll deploy that strike group on bio fuels.
And so when you look at that and you dial back the numbers,
what does that mean and where are we today?
We have got lots of numbers.
300,000-gallons or barrels of --
Director Burke: Barrels.
Secretary Hicks: I can tell you by 2012 as we look at our bio fuel need,
by 2012 we'll need 8,000-barrels of bio fuel and both for
aviation and for our surface vessels to go through that
exercise and all the testing that is going
to be required for that.
So, 16,000-barrels by 2012.
By 2016 as we deploy carrier strike group
we'll need 160,000-barrels.
So, tenfold increase.
By 2020, to meet the goals we have,
we'll need 16 million-barrels of fuel.
We are roughly 30, 32 million today.
We'll see some efficiency improvements certainly by 2020.
But, we'll be around 16 million-barrels.
That is what we'll need.
Compare that to the industry just to give you a sense.
We are two percent of the energy use compared
to the private sector.
You look at the commercial aviation's needs are.
They are at 400 million-barrels per year that they need of fuel.
So it is really great to see the DESC,
Defense Energy Support Center, which is now, I think,
going to be re-branded as DLA Energy.
As a couple of weeks ago, they are working with industry to
make sure our needs are going to be met in those areas.
We are working with them along those lines as well.
Then we are also going to produce 50% of our shore
energy on our installations and half of our installation
will beneath zero by 2020.
Now, the first question will be, how are you going to do that?
I am going to tell you here we don't know.
But I know this, when you give the Navy and the Marine Corps
a challenge, they step up and we'll figure it out.
So we are working on that and we are putting money in research
and we are going through the, you know,
the ways in which we are going to meet that.
So it is as the secretary said, you need to put bold goals out
and you will be surprised by the way in which those are met.
And lastly, the 50% of our energy use will be from
alternative sources.
Now, the one thing that isn't in those goals and the way I think
we can meet and exceed those goals is really as we heard it
here today which is great to hear about changing the culture.
And I think this is going to be the key to our success in
all of those things.
We have great vision across this table and all of the services.
We have -- we are not short on ideas.
We are not short on projects.
We are replete with that.
I think the thing we need to do is continue that and continue
the R&D end, but also have a focus on the culture piece.
The culture change that is going to be needed.
And I think as it gets and as you look back to how we are
going to get that, I think we need to make this individual.
We need to personalize energy use.
We need to have every individual, every marine,
every sailor, every civilian, every dependent,
every individual to see and value energy as being critical
to war fighting capability as we know it is.
But we need every individual to do that.
And I think as you look at the DOD, what we are good at is,
one of the things we are really good at is modifying behaviors.
We call them basic training. We can do this.
And I think we have the ability.
And I think this will -- this is something that I'm excited about
and it is area that we need to work together on as a way we can
really make sure that the results that we get,
that we meet the goals, but we get the results,
we sustain the results and we build on those.
So with that, thank you.
Director Burke: Thank you, Tom.
And just for the non DOD folks in the room,
DLA Energy is the defense logistics agency energy.
They are the entity represented here today by a very senior
person that actually moves fuel around for the Department of
Defense and other customers as well.
So and you can see I've only been in the job a month and
I already can't tell the difference between
thousands and millions.
By next month it will be millions and billions.
John Conger, please take it away.
Mr. Conger: All right. I guess I am wrap-up.
I'm looking at the clock and realizing that I've got to speak
quickly in order for you all to have time for questions.
I'll do my best to do that.
I am NOSD, I am Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for installation
and environment, which basically means that where as Sharon has
got the folks in the field and she has oversight over the gas,
I have the electricity and the building.
Couple of statistics for you, because we are replete with
statistics today.
I'll give you a different 300,000.
We have 300,000 building in the Department of Defense.
That is 2.2 billion square feet.
That is just to give a sense of reality to a large number.
That is ten times the inventory of GSA.
And for those of you out there in the real world who don't know
what GSA is, General Services Administration,
they are basically are the nation's,
government's real estate agent.
We have ten times what they have.
To put it in more real terms, that is four times Wal-Mart.
That is pretty large.
To give a sense of the size of the foot print we have.
We have 30 million acres that the Department of Defense runs.
That is Pennsylvania.
That is once again, a sense of scope of what we have to have
oversight over and frankly what kind of a utility bill
we are responsible for.
That utility bill is $3.8 billion in fiscal year 09.
That is only 28% of our energy bill.
Rest of it, the fuel that you have been hearing so
much about today.
Now, our first couple of speakers talked a lot about
big strategic themes and very important big strategic themes
and one of Secretary Mabus' lines was,
when you look at things from a strategic view,
you get big goals.
And then he talked about his 50% goal.
We have lots of goals in the Department of Defense.
But those are all track back to strategic and tactical frankly
goals that we have.
One of the things that I had a series of why do we do this and
why do we care points.
I think I am going to do it back ways from the way I had
it drafted just to make a point.
We have a goal here in the Department of Defense
to reduce our carbon emissions by 34% by 2020.
It is a goal that is compliant.
We are moving beyond compliance.
And I will show you in a minute how we are getting beyond that.
We don't do -- I am the number two environmental official in
the Department of Defense, but I am here to tell you we are not
doing this for the environment.
We are not.
That is not why we are doing what we are doing.
That is important.
I'm an environmentalist.
I love to be green but that is not why we are doing it.
We are doing this for emission.
We are meeting that 34% goal. How?
Because we have energy reduction goals and renewable energy goals
that will basically when you do the math it comes out to 34%.
Why do we have those goals?
We have those goals for the very reasons you have
been hearing today.
We have reductions in energy efficiency that we are trying
to do because it is important to emission.
We have increases in supply that we are,
we need to do because it is important to have energy
security at our installations.
If I could, the operational requirements were defined
very well.
There was a defense science forward report that came out
a couple of years ago that had two very important points.
One of which was talking about this tether of fuel and fully
burden cost of fuel that we are responsible for in the field.
But the second important point was the vulnerability
of the electricity grid.
Now, I have a little bit of recent personal experience with
this because I still do not have power at my home outside of DC.
I lost power at 3:30 on Sunday and I do not have it today.
They are telling me Thursday or Friday.
So that is a reflection of what can happen and what you
are going to have to deal with and what our bases
cannot allow to happen.
They need to be able to reduce their energy usage and increase
their energy supply on base, so that they are not vulnerable to
those same issues.
We have on those bases in the United States in particular
increasingly they are having a direct role over in the fight.
We fly UAV's from a base in Nevada and those UAV's are
flying across the world.
We are analyzing intelligence here in the United States that
is corrected in other places.
We are doing things that have direct impact to theater here
in the United States and we can no the allow ourselves
to be vulnerable to that grid going down.
And so we have to build up our own energy security capability
in our installations at home am second big reason that directly
affects our energy security is fiscal reality of that
$3.8 billion.
How much do you think that tactical aircraft costs?
Well, one not the first one, but the marginal one,
costs a lot less than that.
That -- the reduction that we can make in that costs is going
to buy more fighting capability and so when we can reduce our
energy usage, when we can increase the amount we supply
ourselves, when we can make deals with the utilities to
say come, put your solar rays on top of my roof,
and you give me a deal.
We are incorporating in to our budget the ability to buy more
war fighting power.
And that is important.
And that is why we do what we do.
Now, there are great goals here that you have heard earlier.
And you are going to hear some more in the next panel about
the effects of climate change overseas and such.
But when it gets down do it and you are fighting budget wars in
the building it is the mission that makes the difference.
And this is all about mission.
Now I wanted to say -- I got one more minute.
One quick word about working with the Department of Energy.
This is a real opportunity here.
This is about taking advantage of like capabilities.
They are doing research on things that are important to us.
Secretary Ponemone made a lot of great points and we have been
working with them before we had the MOU signed and we are going
to work with them even more closely afterwards.
There are going to be a lot of -- there are a lot of projects
right now and I'm not going to go into all of them that we are
already working on with them.
But I wanted to put on my policy geek hat for just a second here.
And recall something called Science In The National
Interest, which was a paper that came out after World War II by
Vannevar Bush that -- the first National Science
Adviser and he talked about three reasons why we do research
here in the United States, why it is important for the
federal government to pay money for the research.
One was for the national defense, second was health,
and third one was for the economy.
And frankly there is and argument that all three of
those coming to here in this green technology.
We are talking about green jobs, we are talking about cleaner air
and you are talking about national security.
We don't do this to be green.
But we do it for our national interest and that is green and
that is pretty much what I have to say.
Director Burke: Thank you, John. That is great.
Much appreciate everybody for your comments and at this point
if people have questions or would like to get in the
conversation we would like to do that.
If you would please identify yourself and your organization.
James Marvin: Yes, ma'am. I am with Operation Free.
My name is James Marvin.
I just retired after 20 years of active duty with the Navy Seals.
I want (inaudible) to (inaudible) power.
I moved to Seattle to get away form all the (inaudible).
My question is how can a city, Seattle -- how can the state of
Washington get involved at the local or state level to help all
of your efforts and provide part of that conduit that will
help the momentum and push us over the top?
How can we get connected?
How can I go back to Seattle and talk to the business leaders in
the community and get it started and help them,
help them out as --
Director Burke: I think John Conger is a good person to answer that question.
I think and I'll tell you why because there are many
installations in the country and many communities have
strong relationships.
But also those bases are run; you know there are policies
coming from the services and from the Office of the Secretary
of the Defense.
But ultimately the base commander runs his base.
And the community has an opportunity to engage at that
level for sure.
If you are asking about city and state,
and I know Fort Lewis there is a certainly a big presence
where you are, so, John, is that a fair thing to say?
Mr. Conger: Yes. If I could, it is always important for a
local community to have a good relationship with the base.
There are going to be local interests that impinge upon
the base and vice versa.
And so if there is a good working relationship,
you are going to be able to work together,
rather than against each other.
I have examples that I won't put anybody on the spot where there
are places where things didn't work out so well between the
relationship and the local community.
And places where it did work really well and you can see
the benefit to mission.
So that is one.
Two, I think that rather than being specific,
I think the local commander is going to know what his needs are
whether it is energy; we are talking about energy today.
If there is -- Erin referred to the possible conflicts
with certain projects.
I think it is important for the folks developing those projects
and the states who find out about them to talk to the
local bases and talk to DOD, at large, as soon as possible,
because we may be able to say, well,
look that is going to be a problem where it is.
But if you move that wind mill three miles that way,
we are all golden.
That kind of conversation is important.
Director Burke: I think the engagement is good.
Secretary Conaton, you want to jump in?
Secretary Conaton: Yes. I wanted to jump in for a second.
I think -- I think you can engage either way.
Certainly it is always feel free.
Washington is sort of a one stop shop.
If you can't figure out another way to sort of connect here and
one of the things that we are doing in DC is take all the good
ideas from individual bases, from individual partnerships
with industry and local government and to see whether
there is broader applicability of that.
Nationally or in other parts of the country.
And we do that both in terms of good ideas for the bases
themselves and also in terms of what John was just mentioning
where we may have compatibility issues where a project that
would benefit the community may have an operational impact.
So just as an example, the air force,
we are having a forum out in Nevada next month.
And anybody who would like to come,
I would be happy to get you the information.
But the idea there is to take a State like Nevada like that has
a significant military presence and where there have been some
concrete examples of local industry working with bases to
make sure we have got compatible development projects and then
try to use that forum and that Nevada model to go
little bit broader nationally.
So I certainly encourage the base commander,
base community council kind of relationship for these things.
But also just to note that we are trying to broaden from the
base level and get ideas across the country.
Director Burke: Yes, in the back.
Jonathan Murray: Jonathan Murray, and I'm also with Operation Free and true to
National Security Project.
-- veterans all across the country have taken action and
let the public know about our defense oil and how climate
change affects our National Security.
And I can say; wholeheartedly, that we are all aware of the
efforts that DOD is taking to renew energy
and green technology.
One of the things that we talked about over and over again at DOD
is the largest user of energy in the country,
but also leading the way in this.
And people's jaws drop when they hear this stuff and they hear
these facts and figures.
I guess -- I guess I kind of have that suggestion and also a
question as to how can you guys get the word out to public even
more that DOD takes this stuff seriously and this is an issue
of national security?
Because once they hear it coming from you guys, the secretaries,
under secretaries, I think they'll really start to take
this stuff more seriously.
Director Burke: Well, I think first of all,
we are here and these people are all speaking publicly.
But also we are doing it.
And I think most important things we can do is do it.
And there is a lot of important advancements but we also have a
long way to go.
We still have some very important gains we have
to make in how we are posturing for the future as far as our
energy use goes.
We also are very fortunate to have the leadership we do and
the fact that you have Secretary Mabus,
the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
the secretary of the Army that we have these leaders that are
making statements that are in public.
And that are being heard.
I think helps a great deal.
As for beyond that, our engagement with the public,
I think we are all looking at how to do that and prove that
including in the ways that my colleagues just discussed as
far as at the base level and making sure we are learning
those lessons and feeding them back out.
Does anybody else want to comment specifically on
public engagement strategies?
It is just -- I agree with you completely.
I think we have an important voice.
At the same time for me what I would like to see my colleagues
doing is focusing on fixing the problem.
But we are happy that you are doing that.
And certainly we'll be happy to put the information into play
that others can publicize.
Under Secretary Conaton: I just had one other thing mostly from my previous life
on the hill.
Which is to say the thing that had -- one of the thing that had
most resonance with members of congress who I think are
generally a good reflection of the communities in which they
come is honestly you know the work that Sherry Goodman did
with a series of former general and flag officers.
General Sullivan is here.
There are others who have been involved in this work.
And I think from a member of congress' perspective hearing a
uniformed military leader get up and talk passionately about
energy, the environment, climate change,
and why it matters in an operational sense had a real
echo chamber kind of perspective.
So I think it is incredibly important for those of us who
are civilian's leaders of the department to do that speaking,
but I think the power of the uniformed voice on this is
tremendous I think in making a difference with people who
haven't perhaps been as familiar with these issues.
Director Burke: Yes.
Mike Wallace: Mike Wallace. I'm Chief Operating Officer at
Constellation Energy.
Several of you -- thank you.
Several of you discussed important of reliability of
the grid, infrastructure, the national security implications
of taking down our reliance on oil and I might say gas as well.
With the large electricity bills that you do have right now at
the various bases in the US, how do you think about the
deployment of the new nuclear plants on defense bases for
purposes of provides on-site electricity needs as well as
providing if you will off site electricity needs through public
private partnerships?
Director Burke: Go ahead John.
Mr. Conger: All right.
Believe it or not, there is a study that was legislated on
this very issue that we are working on right now.
So rather than preview the answers because we
are still in work.
We are looking at that possible solution and we are going to
send an answer back to congress and I'm sure it will be
available to everybody when we are done.
That is still in work right now.
Director Burke: Yes. Go ahead.
Bill Siddall: Bill Siddall from Next Energy Center in Detroit.
I'm actually operating one of the micro grids -- One of the
questions that I have is what could the panel do as cross
functional group to define the costs of power?
We are going through our technology,
can we determine benefits.
It was very difficult to come up in this particular application.
How much is it really paying?
So as a cross function, what we can do to help businesses
at the time.
How much can we invest in certain areas that would provide
a significant pay off.
Is this possible to come up -- I know that would be a
very difficult hair ball if you will to manage.
But on ongoing basis to define what is DOD or DOE going to pay
for electronic --
Director Burke: Wow. Well, you know, it is a difficult question to answer in
the context in which you are posting it.
Since your specific project is a micro grid,
one way to access the answer is it depends on what the
power is for.
And there are a number of different answers to that.
For example for our current deployments for our soldiers
and marines and air man and sailors who are supporting,
who are out on the tactical edge,
they need a different set of options than someone in
a installation needs.
Or even someone who is in a support base.
Supporting combat needs.
And the cost is of course always going to be important.
But even more important is the capability and what they
can actually do when they are foot paroles a long
way from anything.
So the cost calculations there for the kinds of energy options
they need may be very different from what a base needs in where
it is operating off of commercial grid.
There is not going to be one single answer.
And there is another concept that has been mentioned several
times, floating burden of cost of fuel.
What that concept originally came from,
a lot of people believe it is incorporating externalities to
come up with a more representative cost.
But where it actually came from is when we are buying
weapons systems.
And we are building something that we are -- that is to deal
with future contingencies.
It is incorporating the logistics costs of that system.
Can it actually do what it needs to do?
If in a future scenario you envision this system operating
that way, can you actually support it in the field?
So it is an attempt to incorporate all of the different
externalities, how much supply you need to run to it.
Whether it is through oil or tankers or whatever it is.
What kind of a force protection you need on that.
Not just the actual cost of the fuel that you are paying
to a contractor.
And there is a lot of work inside the building to figure
out exactly how to calculate that number.
Both for current operations, sort of the assured delivery
price of fuel and also when we are looking at an acquisition.
How you incorporate that.
And in fact it is mandatory, by law,
Congress mandated that we figure out what those numbers are and
incorporate them into our way of doing business.
So you will see that and also when the other mechanism that
congress has mandated is key performance parameter
for energy efficiency.
Again, part of the acquisitions process that you consider such
things when you are looking at which systems to buy.
The department is required to do these things,
and we are all working together to figure out how to do that in
a consistent and fair way.
And if anybody else wants to add to that question,
that would be great, but it's something that we're all working
on right now actively.
Secretary Hanson: I'm not sure I totally got the gist of your question,
but I heard it, but I'm -- you know,
the energy costs are so variable by region.
What you pay at Fort Bliss is so different than Hawaii,
for instance.
So that there is no, as Miss Burke said,
there's no one figure that we, I don't think we would agree on,
but maybe we can talk a little more offline.
Bill Siddall: Just as a point of clarification,
I guess I wasn't looking for just one number.
It was a process that the team could put forward to say any
given time this is how we're evaluating power in these
particular applications.
If you have a good idea for technology (inaudible) or a
facility, here is the metric that you measured it by.
(inaudible) says, yep, it's worth going after that
technology to invest in it.
There's a market, so-to-speak, for us on the business side to
go after (inaudible).
Secretary Hanson: I would hope if we do that that we factor in costs other
than dollars, as well.
In some cases energy security may require investment that
is not necessarily going to save money.
Director Burke: And then I think that's our last question there.
Karen Florini: Karen Florini with Environmental Defense Fund.
I wanted to tie that point back in with a couple of others that
I made before.
Despite the heroic and very effective efforts by CNA to get
the word out to the public on the issue of climate change as a
national security effort, that clearly has not penetrated,
and I -- you know, we've got to do something to up the intensity
on that by a good couple orders of magnitude.
I wanted to ask whether the Department of Defense has
thought about trying to educate down through the line of command
not on energy security, per se, but rather on climate change
itself as a national security threat and whether you are
encouraging folks throughout that change of command to
incorporate that into their public messaging on the issues.
Director Burke: Thank you for your question and I think it's an excellent
segue to the next panel.
And there is also a defense official on the next panel
who is going to talk specifically to that.
Because I would disagree with your question.
This panel is talking about energy security specifically,
but the department is talking about climate change,
and the quadrennial defense review, in particular,
laid the baseline for how the department is going to look
at those challenges.
John Conger has in his shop responsibility for adaptation
planning, and I think also the Navy in particular,
before I came into my job, I was working at a national academies
of science naval studies board report that the Navy
commissioned on how exactly climate change is going to
affect their operations.
So, I would say that that's -- it has penetrated certainly
at a leadership level.
And as far as whether or not it's operational at the sailor,
soldier, airman level, you know, it may not be that it needs to
be at specifically where all what we've been talking about.
We're talking about reducing our energy consumption.
And, you know, in my job, that's the best thing I can do for
climate change is to cut the department's energy consumption.
So I do consider that directly germane.
But, Tom, did you want to say is something about the way the
Navy is looking at this since you've been leading the way?
Secretary Hicks: Sure. I'll just say that, you know, just to your point,
Sharon, I mean, if we can tie this at that lower level to,
you know, combat capable, I mean, we're getting to the
climate change issue through energy issues.
So, and I think that is something,
when you talk about mission, that is something that's on
the forefront of every soldier, every sailor,
every marine's mind how we can do that.
And if we can kind of ingrain into them the importance of
energy efficiency, and we know energy efficiencies will get us
to the climate change answers, rather than kind of coming to
them with climate change -- and that might be a little
in nefarious -- well, not in nefarious,
but a little nebulous -- sorry, nebulous is the word I meant --
for some to be able to handle.
So that's kind of the approach that we're
taking is really through that.
And I think we've got, as through all the services,
you know, wonderful education awareness programs.
And I don't think that's the end.
I think that's the beginning of the beginning.
And I think we can kind of build on those awareness,
get is into this idea I mentioned before about the
behavior change piece.
I think at the end of the day, it's going to be focused on
things like energy efficiency rather than climate change,
but we can talk about it, I think, in those terms,
but I think the focus will be on things like efficiency,
because that's going to go right to mission and right
to war fighting capability.
Director Burke: John, a quick last word.
We're already borrowing time from the other panels.
Mr. Conger: Okay. Two quick things: One, I already talked
about our carbon target.
It is probably if not the most, one of the most aggressive
targets in the government, and we have every intention
of making that.
The second thing is, the reference to the QDR,
we talk about climate changes and instability accelerant,
which is a nice turn of phrase, but it really means you're going
to have more work to do if you continue along this path,
and that's serious business, and that means lives,
and I think people take it seriously.
So, thanks.
Director Burke: Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Well, thank you very much for listening, and to the panelists,
thank you very much for what you had to say and for your
leadership on these issues.
Deputy Director Nelson: Thanks, panelists.
We are going to take a five-minute break,
literally five minutes, and we're going to come right back
and start up with panel two.
So, thanks everybody.
We'll call you back to order in a couple minutes.
(cross talk)
Deputy Director Nelson: Okay, folks, please settle back into your seats.
We're going to get started here in about one minute.
So go ahead and settle back in.
(cross talk)
Speaker: Okay. Well, welcome back. It looks like we've got
most of the audience back.
And so why don't we go ahead and get started.
As the others said, now we'd like to step back a little bit.
What we heard about before was, in the services,
what are they doing now to increase energy efficiency,
to address climate change, to take advantage of new
technologies, to move away from the traditional fuels and the
traditional technologies?
But if you step back and look at the big picture of what is
required to meet the reductions in carbon emissions that are
required to address climate change,
it's going to take more than incremental changes
on existing technologies.
It's going to require more than one major break through
in technology and science.
And I'd like us to focus on that a little bit today,
and at least that's what I'm taking away from,
because I think what the administration is doing is
really pursuing a course where we have the Department of Energy
and science working the military and the other agencies to move
forward with this innovation and cause it to happen as quickly as
we can cause it to happen.
So we don't know where the innovation or the breakthroughs
are going to occur, but we know that they have to occur if we're
going to meet these goals.
So the previous panel was really focusing on what we're doing to
better accomplish the mission.
And what I'd like to step back and say is,
what can we do in the military to help achieve that broader
goal of identifying those breakthroughs,
developing those breakthroughs, implementing them that allows us
to get where we need to go.
And that really builds on what Secretary Mabus said and what
Deputy Secretary Poneman said, and we'll have some more
discussion about the memorandum of understanding that Deputy
Secretary Poneman referred to, but there's at least three ways
in which the military can really allow us to implement this goal.
The first is, and you heard this already,
and you'll hear a little bit more about it,
is the military requirements are so high or so stringent.
Cost isn't really as much of a factor as making sure you
accomplish the mission that you meet the requirements for
lightweight, high density, reliable energy sources,
especially in the operational arena.
And those higher requirements can
really be a spurred innovation.
And the military, therefore, is often
the innovator's first customer.
And then because of the worldwide reach and just the
size and scale of the military, the number of environments it
works in, it really is excellent test bed for a lot of our new
technologies, for finding out where they work,
where they don't work.
So the military is a test bed for development laboratory.
To understand what works and doesn't work is another key
factor they can play.
And finally, just due to their size and their large energy
needs, they can often be a very large first customer.
So the innovator's sort of financial valley of death come
up with a bright idea but sort of staying with it and having
the resources to carry through the development of new
technologies, you really need a large first customer,
and the military can really play that role.
So today, we have five expert panelists to sort of talk about
this looking forward and bringing together the energy
and the climate change issues.
And sort of introducing the order in which they are going
to speak, first we have Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Strategy, Amanda Dory.
And she was very involved in the quadrennial defense review that
we heard about already, and she'll expand on that.
Then Robin Eckstein, Iraq war veteran,
is going to talk about that tether, that fuel tether,
and what it's like on the front lines,
and how important and how severe the requirements are,
and what we need to do to address that.
Then Sherri Goodman, who is the Senior Vice President and
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for the Center for
Naval Analyses, is going to introduce and talk about
recent studies they've gone on this issue.
And General Gordon Sullivan who is a member of their board is
also going to talk about those studies and how it
relates to these issues.
And finally, Holmes Hummel, a senior policy analyst with the
Policy and International Affairs Office of the Department of
Energy will wrap up talking about this marriage between
the military and the Department of Energy,
trying to bring science and the application together to allow
us to accomplish these breakthroughs.
So with that, Amanda, you want to take it away?
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: (inaudible)
Speaker: I think just use -- otherwise, we'll be playing musical chairs.
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: Excellent. The waltz, the moderator waltz.
Speaker: Yeah.
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: Good. Good afternoon, and I'm glad to see the audience
here in D. C., and I understand we're being
broadcast via web, as well.
So, good afternoon to all of you, as well.
As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy,
an important aspect of our office's work is to flag for
senior leaders in the defense department issues that we'll
have an impact on defense strategy and planning efforts.
Today's national security challenges are fueled and
complicated by a number of powerful trends,
such as the global economic downturn,
cultural and demographic shifts, climate change,
growing resource scarcity, and the spread of potentially
destabilizing technologies.
And these trends are fundamentally reshaping
the strategic landscape.
The impact on energy security and requirements necessitate
careful attention within the Department of Defense and within
the broader national security community.
As mentioned already, the recently concluded 2010
quadrennial defense review stated that climate change and
energy are two key issues that play a significant role in
shaping the future security environment.
Although, they produce distinct types of challenges,
climate change, energy security, and economic stability are
inextricably linked.
The actions that the department takes now can prepare us to
respond effectively to these challenges in the near term
and in the future.
The defense department is seized with energy based
on strategic imperatives, operational imperatives,
and budgetary implications.
Civilian and military leaders are focused on improving both
operational and installations energy,
as you heard from the prior panel.
Further, in the department's fiscal 11 budget submission,
energy efficiency is one of 10 high priority performance goals.
At the strategic level, access to energy is vital to the
functioning of the United States and the global economy.
The 2010 national security strategy recently released
by the White House stated that without significant and timely
adjustments, our energy dependence will continue
to undermine our security and prosperity.
From the view of the Department of Defense,
energy security challenges fall into four major themes.
The first has to do with security of the global commons.
Most petroleum products are transported by CE,
and much of this trade passes through vulnerable choke points,
such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca.
The free flow of energy through these vital channels could be
threatened by piracy, terrorism, political instability,
or military action.
Department of Defense and like-minded partners play
a critical role in preserving these sea
lines of communication.
Also at the strategic level, the issues of volatility and
vulnerability, tightening global oil supplies and political
instability within oil producing nations have created significant
price volatility in recent years creating budgetary
challenges for the department.
Additionally, the demonstrated willingness of is some countries
to use energy resources in a coercive fashion exacerbates
this energy related security challenge.
A third challenge is the increasing risk
to operating forces.
Our dependence on traditional non-renewable
fuel sources constitutes a significant liability for
our forces worldwide.
A sizable portion of our fore-structure is dedicated
to fuel related logistics is support,
leading military leaders, and I'm sure this quote has been
already used by our Cent Com Nominee, General Mattis,
describing the need to unleash us from the tether of fuel.
The capabilities of potential adversaries to attack our mobile
and fixed energy supplies, as well as our delivery forces
through both conventional and asymmetric means increase risk
to U.S. forces.
And fourth, the issue of grid resiliency.
Department of Defense relies on the nation's electrical grid,
a fragile grid, to deliver electricity to more than 500
installations composed of more than 5,500 sites
within the United States.
The production and delivery of electrical power to most
installations involves commercial entities as regulated
at the state and local level.
Improved grid resiliency is less important for both a
domestic and national security perspective.
I'll wrap up by saying that the largest federal,
as the largest federal energy user at installations and in
operational applications, the Defense Department is in a
unique position to research, develop, test,
and evaluate new energy efficient technologies.
And the memorandum of understanding,
previously described by energy Deputy Secretary Poneman,
formalizes the collaborative opportunities,
and Holmes Hummel will describe those further.
Finally, I'd like to say that it's the forward deployed
soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is truly aware of the
critical implications of energy usage from the tactical level
all the way back up to the strategic level.
This awareness stems from firsthand knowledge of both the
logistical vulnerabilities associated with energy intensive
deployed military operations, as well as the local and regional
resource scarcities that stress vulnerable populations and
governance capacity.
I think that's a perfect tie-in to hearing from the tactical
level perspective what energy efficiency can really do for us.
Thank you.
Speaker: Yes, absolutely. Robin?
Ms. Eckstein: Thank you very much.
Yeah, so my name again is Robin Eckstein,
and I'm one of the volunteer veterans with Operation Free.
A little background about that is Operation Free is a member of
the Truman National Security Project.
It's an organization, a coalition of veterans and
national security organizations, and we've been traveling the
country since last October, really at a grassroots level,
letting people know about the national security implications
of our energy policy and climate change,
and letting it know by firsthand accounts.
Veterans like myself, who I served in the Army for seven
years and actually deployed to Iraq in 2003 after the initial
invasion with the 1st armored division.
While I was there, my job was a truck driver, an 88 Mike.
So, you know, the last panel constantly was talking about
all these convoys and supplying this fuel.
Well, I was in them.
You know, every day when I rolled out the gates of Baghdad
International Airport, it was a crap shoot as far as what we
were going to encounter, you know, IEDs, sniper fire,
was anyone going to be shot or killed,
and these were the things like we're really dealing
with every day.
Because if we can't get to these forward operating basis to get
them fuel, they can't function, they can't run their logistical
equipment, their generators, their vehicles, nothing,
and the dominoes just continue to fall after that, you know,
as far as who can complete their mission.
And so being able to see all this,
knowing that I was part of this logistical nightmare that the
military is dealing with made me really want to be involved
in making change and letting people know about it.
And, you know, being able to be on this panel is so great,
and to hear from these other leaders,
really letting the public know, because I think one of the
questions that had came up was about climate change
really isn't, you know, being demonstrated as it is a threat.
And it is, you know, it's going to be causing the
conflicts of the future.
And a lot of people don't realize that.
And, you know, when we go to -- you know,
I've been doing this bus tour and been going to several
different places all over the country,
doing roundtable discussions, town halls,
letting people know about the national security implications,
and when we talk about the Department of Defense,
the fact that climate change was in the quadrennial defense
review, you know, they looked very shocked.
Because, you know, we know that the DOD and the Pentagon are
known as a budge of tree huggers.
You know, they are known for national defense, you know,
for keeping our national security.
And so when they find out that it's not, you know,
these liberals that are saying this message,
there's nothing wrong with that, but that it's a bigger problem,
that it's not a left issue, it's not a right issue,
it's an American issue that we secure energy future.
It really broadens the subject and really brings a lot of
people to understand how important this is.
And I definitely say as a troop I'm just one single person,
but even though I took off my uniform in 2007,
I continue my service to my country by educating people
about this, letting them know from the perspective of troops
on the ground that reducing our carbon boot print is extremely
important, and moving towards securing our energy future so
that truck drivers in the future do not have to go through what I
did, do not have to possibly be one out of 24, to produce that.
Because that's just not the way our country should function.
And with that, I would just like to also say that I really have a
lot of hope for the future.
I know that we can continue to make progress and that,
you know, soon, very soon, Harry Reid is going to be pushing for
some energy legislation, and it's going to be a
starting point for us.
But what we're really looking forward in the future is we're
going to continue the pressure, because this small step,
it's not letting anybody off the hook.
We're going to continue pushing congress to move forward for
comprehensive clean energy reform.
Thank you.
Sr. Vice President Goodman: Robin, you are the best evidence that our nation
has of the commitment to create the new energy
future and the new energy economy that will enable
the U.S. to continue its global leadership in the 21st century.
Thank you and all of the men and women who serve in our Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps,
as well as Coast Guard and other services,
for your dedicated service every day.
You're the reason, much of the reason;
we formed in 2006 the CNA Military Advisory Board.
And I'm privileged to be here today with our Chairman,
General Sullivan.
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn is in the audience with us today.
And many of those who have worked with us and collaborated
with us or worked directly with us are here in this room.
It's been part of a journey to integrate fully into the
mainstream of our national security efforts in this nation
the importance of energy security and climate change.
And you've heard already from others today some of the work
that we've done.
And I'm very pleased today that we are releasing our third paper
which is available to all of you here today and all of -- anyone
who might be listening online or read this later as well --
Powering America's Economy; Energy Innovation at the
Crossroads of National Security Challenges.
And this really is the third chapter in our work.
And it's about energy innovation powering America's future.
And as you all have heard already or know from your own
experience, the great extent of energy used by The United States
military and the opportunity that presents,
the challenge in terms of the logistics of our convoys,
of getting fuel to the front, why our leader,
why Robin and others are so passionate about changing in
that which is critically important to our national
security but critically important also to our
future and our nation.
And because of the innovation potential inherent in our
military and the history that we have of that,
a long tradition of being innovators,
of moving from sell to coal, from coal to oil,
and oil adding nuclear, and of developing jet engines and solid
state electronics and the global positioning system.
All were technology innovations that emerged from our military
and all have provided us great national benefits and fueled
America's competitiveness globally.
We can do that again.
Today, we are still leaders in innovation,
but we are not always leaders in the deployment of those new
technologies, those new renewable technologies.
But we can recapture that.
We can recapture that by the collaboration that is coming
together today through the Department of Energy and the
Department of Defense.
And, in fact, the report that we've release today really
celebrates that collaboration.
I'll tell you, I served in the Department of Defense in the
1990's, at a time when we were working with many of you here
on some of our nation's greatest environmental challenges of the
day, which at that time were air, water and waste.
And so we formed very significant partners
with the EPA and other agencies to help us do that work better.
And we tried and we worked also -- we did a lot of work with the
Department of Energy, but not at this level.
And so I think the significance of this partnership and this MOU
that's signed here today is to enable the two agencies
to bust through the bureaucratic barriers.
That's what it's really all about,
break down those barriers to being able to get to that
innovation, being able to understand where the users'
needs are, who's going to be able to deploy that new
technology when, and how quickly so that we can free ourselves
from the tether of fuel, as General Mattis says,
and move us to the clean energy economy.
So, I think there's great opportunities ahead,
and all of us here who are committed to working on this
need to stay with this task and to keep the energy going to so
that we can develop those new clean sources.
So now I would like to introduce General Sullivan who has served
twice now as the chairman of our Military Advisory Board
and served also as the chief of the United States Army,
provided long and dedicated service to our nation.
And we're very privileged that you could join us.
General Sullivan: Thanks a lot, Sherri.
Thanks for your service.
You know, much of what I have to say has been said before,
and much more elegantly than I'm going to say it, I suppose.
First of all, I want to thank Robin and her colleagues who
are here from operation free for their service.
And just for the heck of it, I would like to ask the younger
members, those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
to stand up and let people see you.
General Sullivan: I think what Robin did was put a face -- and
what these folks have done -- is put a face on the power of the
United States of America.
And I will spring off something Sherri said about it.
It's the hope for the future.
And we really appreciate your willingness to serve.
And Robin, just getting up each and every day and climbing into
the front seat of a truck or a HMMWV or an MRAP or a helicopter
or going out on patrol separates you from virtually the bulk of
the United States of America.
I can't tell you how proud we are of all of you.
You're terrific.
General Sullivan: Now, look -- go ahead.
Give it to them.
General Sullivan: Look, look, we not talking about amateur sport here.
We're talking about the security of the United States of America.
And frankly, we have mortgaged ourselves to other countries.
And it is a security and economic issue
of profound proportions.
Profound proportions.
And what has happened here today is very, very important.
The relationship between -- a strengthened relationship --
a legitimate relationship announced here in Washington
today, between the DOE and the DOD is very, very important.
And you are not the only one here from a private corporation.
I know it is public/private partnership and innovation
in America that has been our strength into the future.
And a lot of what we are talking about here will relate to
activities on our installations and activities out on fire bases
around the world and on ships at see and on aircraft in the air.
And we must become more sufficient,
and we must stop mortgaging ourselves to other countries.
Now, as Sherri said, you picked up a copy -- I hope you picked
up a copy of our study.
And this is the summary.
Now, there are 15 general flag officers involved in this study.
And the Honorable Sherri Goodman is our guide, I guess.
We need help.
And Sherri has been a strong guide for us
through all of our studies.
She is, in fact, the executive director.
She's the general counsel of CNA.
Let me give you the recommendations.
It's been said before, but I want to give it to you.
There's 500 years of service represented in this group of 15
admirals and generals -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine,
and Coast Guard.
And we are all retired, and we feel very strongly about
the issues we have been involved with.
Recommendation one, that United States Government should take
bold and aggressive action to support clean
technology innovation and rapidly decrease the nation's dependence
on fossil fuels.
And what you heard today is that the Department of Defense and
energy will partner in a legitimate way to closely
align their energy related activities, funding priority,
and intellectual capitol.
It's profound what is going on here today.
Third, the Department of Defense should partner with private
sector innovators folks and establish operation energy
innovation center, and the DOD should require
widespread sharing of energy information in its research
and development enterprises.
That goes on all the time anyway,
as was represented by Mr. Conger with the study.
They're presently -- the ongoing to study,
which was directed by the Congress actually,
which is significant, that was sort of a throwaway line,
but it isn't a throwaway line.
It's in the Defense Act that the Department of Defense will look
at nuclear energy on its bases.
It's a huge issue.
By the way, it went on in the 50's, 60's, and 70's,
was killed after Vietnam.
So this is not new news.
What goes around comes around.
Recommendation five, the DOD should include acquiring clean
energy technologies as a priority in its installation
acquisition activities.
All of this is not to get smaller; it's not to be cheaper.
Better is better. Better is better.
What we're talking about is more efficient uses of our assets to
accomplish our mission, as was mentioned earlier.
And by the way, take care of the environment.
We are stewards of the environment,
and all of us know that environmental damage is
a threat multiplier.
And it's another security issue of major proportions.
So at any rate, thanks to all of you,
those who came and those who stayed.
General Sullivan: Showing up and staying is big in my book. Thank you.
Robin, thanks a lot.
We're proud of you.
Over to you, Holmes.
Ms. Hummel: The Department of Energy,
at the same time that the Military Advisory Board
members were formulating their own recommendations,
were very busy trying to figure out how best to support the
visionary leadership emerging from each of the armed services
and the Department of Defense as we saw one after another of the
energy strategies coming out of the Department of
Defense declaring bold objectives with very,
very strong levels of ambition to drive clean energy technology
solutions that fundamentally were not available in the
commercial market for the challenges that were being faced
in the operational environment.
The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense together
can accelerate the innovation pipeline for new technologies.
And that is a primary motivation for the
partnership between the two.
In addition to accelerating innovation,
these two important agencies can accelerate deployment into
the marketplace by leveraging the procurement power of the
Department of Defense and some of the programming at
the Department of Energy that has always been
focused on the commercial markets or commercializing
new technologies.
I wanted to pull one sentence out of the Quadrennial Defense
Review that the Deputy Assistant Dory did not pull out,
so I'll just read it to you from the Quadrennial Defense Review.
"Solving military challenges through innovations -- through
such innovations -- as more efficient generator,
better battery, lighter materials,
and tactically deployed energy sources has the potential to
yield spin-off technologies that benefit the civilian
community as well."
And that is the economic multiplier of the military's
leadership role in the clean energy economy that the
President has challenged us to attain as a quest
for global leadership.
For those of you who did come today to learn more about the
memorandum of understanding between the Department of Energy
and the Department of Defense as announced,
I wanted to make sure that you had some clarity on
what was agreed.
And so I will briefly -- in my remarks,
after listing for you the areas of cooperation would be of
interest, and you could help us all stay to account that
we accomplish as much as we can in these areas.
First and foremost among the objectives is to develop energy
technologies that meet Department of Defense energy
requirements, making the Department of Energy a
participant in the quest for mission success at the
Department of Defense.
Second, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy
will cooperate in the deployment and pilot testing of emerging
energy technologies.
That allow us to take energy technology that are already in
the pipeline through ARPA-E, which was mentioned earlier
today, and other innovative technology programs that have
been making benchmark, new benchmarks of performance
in the clean energy performance area and then test them in the
Department of Defense installations and
operations environment.
Third, the two agencies will continue to cooperate on energy
management practices, primarily through the Federal Energy
Management Program, but even moving beyond that to
incorporate more of the new technology that are available
to support the ambitious goals from the Department of Defense.
Already the Department Of Defense is the largest customer
of the Federal Energy Management Program,
which is a program of the Department of Energy designed to
support the federal government's goals in energy management and
Greenhouse Gas reductions.
Number four, the two agencies will synchronize research and
development in the agendas that they share in science
and technology.
And number five, the two will develop joint initiatives for
major energy technology research, development,
and demonstration programs of mutual interest to the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
Those may include pilot and demonstration facilities which
address military needs but may also address national security
needs that transcend military requirements.
The Department of Defense installations may serve
as test beds for such technical demonstrations.
Sr. Vice President Goodman: That's an important point right there, that caveat.
Say that again so people hear that.
Ms. Hummel: I'll indulge the request to repeat that last sentence,
that the two agencies will develop joint initiatives
from major energy technology research development and
demonstration programs of mutual interests to DOD and DOE,
such as pilot or demonstration facilities which address
military needs and also may address national security
needs that transcend military requirements.
And the Department of Defense installations may serve as
test beds for such technical demonstrations.
The two agencies have agreed to collaborate once again on issues
regarding nuclear power beyond the long-standing naval nuclear
propulsion program.
And the two agencies recognizing the level of expertise available
in each of their agencies as valuable and complementary in
the quest for a clean energy future have pledged this
memorandum of understanding to integrate energy training and
knowledge exchange practices as well as to encourage
professional exchanges that will allow the fluency in the energy
technology that are available to be improved in the armed
services where people are solving real-life problems on a
day-to-day and urgent basis and vice versa so the Department of
Energy and its energy innovation programs can understand the real
performance requirements and urgent needs from the Department
of Defense and the armed services.
I hope that all of you who have participated today find this to
be an exciting announcement where you can find a way to
participate and support the achievement of some of these
goals as the two agencies try to find the best way forward to
mutually reinforce the visionary leadership that
each of them has offered us.
I want to turn the panel back to Glenn to encourage Q&A,
but this MOU should be available publicly as a
result of the announcement today.
Speaker: Thank you. So now we're open for questions. And yes?
Rob Levinson: Hi. I'm Rob Levinson. I'm with Operation Free,
a twenty year Air Force veteran.
I guess the question I have -- notwithstanding, you know,
the cost that people like Robin paid or, you know,
oil rig workers out in the gulf or coal miners.
We use oil and we use fossil fuels because they're cheap.
That's why America uses it.
That's why it's going to continue to use it,
because it's cheap.
And it seems to me the innovation is all great but do
we really expect that we're going to innovate our way to a
new economy, or are there other things that we need to do to --
ultimately, we've got to either raise the cost of the fossil
fuels or really get the costs of these alternatives down below
where the market forces are the things that really transform us.
I mean, you mentioned the transition from sale to coal,
you know, and oil.
We got off of wood at one point and we went to coal.
Those were economic reasons that we transformed,
because those things provide a lot more energy for a lot
less money than a previous technology.
So you see those kinds of things happening. Thanks.
Ms. Hummel: I'm happy to take that. Thanks.
Earlier today, this audience benefited from a recap of the
study from the Defense Science Board's energy task force,
which helped illuminate the true cost of energy to the military
and the armed services, and armed services and
operations in particular.
And one of the most illuminating aspects of that report is that
many of the things that the Department of Energy
is struggling to commercialize today,
in a mature and competitive market for domestic
applications, are actually basement bargains in the
Department of Defense operational environment.
So things that we think are noncompetitive,
have premium prices, are too expensive to penetrate the
market today in a commercial environment ultimately make not
only economic sense but national military strategy sense to be
taken up, and rapidly, through the Department of Defense.
So I would -- you know, raise your curiosity and encourage you
to investigate the true cost of energy consumption in the
military and then what alternatives are available
through the energy pipeline, energy technology pipelines
the Department of Energy has.
Speaker: (inaudible) This really is to Holmes as more of a
suggestion or an idea than a question regarding the MOU and
the very last tenant with regard to collaboration of workforces
between the Department of Energy and Department of Defense.
One suggestion that I might suggest,
having just finished a relatively extensive tour of
looking at each of the national laboratories would create a
scientific panel that would go from the Department of Energy
labs to a series of DOD installations to see,
say in a week, very specifically what goes on in an installation
and then several weeks later reverse it and take a series of
DOD individuals, both at the enlisted level and the officer
level, to several of the DOD labs and spend a week looking
at how the labs look at scientific issues.
And so it's a suggestion of how to implement that last
recommendation and the comment.
Speaker: Very good. Questions? Sharon?
Director Burke: Amanda, I think, certainly for the audience watching,
it might be very helpful if you say something about
the significance of the Quadrennial Defense Review and
what it means for the department to have some of the language
that was in there, sort of what happens next with it,
so what kind of guidance it provides.
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: Thank you for the leading question, the opportunity to
talk a little bit more about the Quadrennial Defense Review.
The Quadrennial Defense Review is a report to Congress required
by Congress and the National Defense Authorization Act and
has some things that the department has done now five
times, an a quadrennial basis.
It's timed with the political cycle.
But its importance, really, is in setting the national defense
strategy and then talking about what the fore structure is
required to accomplish the strategy,
what capabilities are required, and, essentially,
serving as a vehicle for the secretary of defense to make
decisions that he could take in the context of the review.
For the first time in 2010, based on an update to the
legislation that was shepherded by Senator John Warner and then
Senator Hillary Clinton, the Department was required to look
at the impact of climate change for the first time on roles,
missions, and installations and, in doing so,
realized the need to look at energy,
hand in glove with the issue of climate change.
And so the significance in this 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
is that you have a treatment of climate change and energy in one
of the Department's strategic level documents in some detail
for the first time.
And the decisions and the policy guidance and the strategy that's
reflected in the QDR is then followed up through a series of
internal guidance documents that guide what the services
for example and defense agencies do,
as well as the combatant commanders.
So it truly sets a demand signal for the department as a whole.
The Quadrennial Defense Review is nested underneath the
national security strategy that comes out of the White House and
provides the overarching strategy for all instruments of
national security and then the work that the Defense Department
does focuses primarily on the defense instrument, so to speak.
Ms. Eckstein: If I could just add to that, just for like us,
some of the veterans that have been on Operation Free,
Homeport, and the Quadrennial Defense Review is,
it really shows how -- to the American people,
how this is not a left or right issue.
It really demonstrates that because, if I'm not mistaken,
it spans two Presidents and two Secretaries of Defense.
So it goes across party lines and really puts down that the
strategic plan for the future dealing with climate change
and that it is real.
And whenever I talk to people, I let them know that, you know,
when my chain of command says that climate change is real and
that it is a threat, I listen to them.
Speaker: All the way in the back?
Jennifer Taylor: Thanks very much. I'm Jennifer Taylor.
I work for Amanda Dory, so I'll ask that everyone else answer.
No, I'm kidding.
Robin, specifically for you, I would like to hear a bit more of
the specific programs or problems that you encountered
in the field and what potential solutions do you think would be
applicable so that we can begin to develop programs
that might help.
Ms. Eckstein: Sure. I think -- you know, as my experience in Iraq,
it definitely -- one of the things I always wondered was
why the vehicles weren't more fuel efficient.
That's a really simple and easy fix.
Obviously, it creates, you know, less emissions,
which is less risk to American lives.
One of the other things -- and I know that I've talked to some of
the other generals in Fort Leonard Wood,
where they are having new vehicles tested,
that they are looking at hybrids.
So that is being addressed.
One of the other things too is why don't they have solar
generators, you know.
That's a big huge one, because some of the major fuel that's
being used is for those generators.
I know that definitely they were talking about insulating
of the tents.
Granted, I didn't have air conditioning when I was there,
but for those troops who luckily have it now, you know,
that's just a great way because the cheapest and the, you know,
safest energy is energy we don't use at all.
So to be able to make those small changes,
but definitely looking toward the bio fuels,
looking at like the solar generators,
looking at making the FOBs, the Forward Operating Bases,
be self reliant.
You know, if they don't need even convoys to go out there
and bring them, you know, some of these things,
because a lot of Forward Operating Bases,
they did have sources of water.
They did have -- they still could get their own food.
So the only thing that we were really bringing them was parts,
which was not very much.
And then the big thing was fuel.
So if they could operate themselves, you know,
with solar generator, with wind, you know,
any other kind of source of energy,
they could be completely self-reliant.
And I know that there's a lot of testing on local bases around,
making them self reliant.
And that's going to be huge, I think, in the future.
Speaker: Does anyone else want to --
Sr. Vice President Goodman: I also might add, reducing battery weight and size would
make a big difference for our soldiers in the field who often
are carrying very, very heavy loads on their backs.
And as we are better able to power the soldiers and marines
today with more electronic, we haven't yet figured out how to
reduce the weight.
There's a lot of work going on in that area,
but that could also be accelerated to make your
job and those of others easier.
But this is -- I also want to thank Amanda and your team for
the leadership that you all have shown on the work on the
QDR because it has been very important.
And I am now serving on the independent panel that's
reviewing that QDR whose report will be out later this week.
And it's really, I think, moved it a long way to see it
mainstreamed into national security policy and enabled,
you know, the wheels of the Defense Department and enabled
the whole Defense community and the National Security community
to integrate this into policy and planning for the future.
And it's going to make -- it's already making a big difference.
General Douglas: General Douglas, Retired Air Force General.
And I served on the Defense Science Board study on energy
for the military.
One thing I haven't heard anything about -- I would be
interested in your comment today is if you think of the national
goals that we've talked about today in energy,
you can think of sort of where we all live and how
we get to work.
And that's fairly obvious.
We can think about business and their consumption of energy.
But there's another sector that you haven't talked about which
is, in many ways, the sector that is most similar to the
Department of Defense's energy needs, and that's rural America,
the farmers and agricultural production.
Using heavy equipment, far away from any sources of energy is
really what the Department of Defense does.
And I'm just curious whether Homes or Glenn or anybody,
are you coordinating all of this with the Department of
Agriculture and that part of our national community?
Ms. Hummel: That is an interesting point,
and something I want to actually look into because the form of
our cooperation with the military and the U.S.D.A.
is actually more focused on the provision of feedstock for bio
fuels as opposed to optimizing industrial
equipment for agriculture.
I take your point, and I will remain curious about it.
But I would acknowledge that the Department of Agriculture
has already been assertive about establishing a relationship with
the Department of Defense on bio fuels development.
And the Department of Energy is joining them to support the
partnership beyond just growing feed stocks and testing feed
stocks to actually seeing how rural America could benefit
from the development of biofuels to meet some of the targets that
you've heard described earlier today.
Speaker: In addition, there's the climate change,
the land use and cultivation that is an important part of
what the Department of Agriculture does too,
more with the climate change than the energy use.
General Douglas: Glenn. In your comments about this customer and so on,
just don't forget all those people out there that are,
that have the same problems.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be out in the middle of
a field with a (inaudible) and it breaks and your battery has
just run out on your drill so you've got to walk all the way
back to the barn, which could be a lot to do.
So I'm very sympathetic.
Larry Goldenhersh: Yes. I'm Larry Goldenhersh.
I'm the CEO of a company called Enviance,
which is cloud-based computing that automates environmental
health and safety and greenhouse gas tracking in 45 countries
around the world.
My question is this.
There's been a lot of focus today on sort of
the national policies.
And out in California where my company is,
we have something called AB 32, Assembly Bill 32,
which has plans, unless it's derailed or delayed by the
proposition process, to put cap and trade into
California by 2012.
There's a proposition on the ballot where 37 million
Californians are going to vote on it in November.
And my question is, is that type of state initiative is something
that is of concern to the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy in so far as it might dictate cap and
trade in the eighth largest economy in the world in advance
of a federal cap and trade program?
Ms. Hummel: I don't mind taking that at all.
The Department of Energy actually works with all 50
states to innovate a whole host of energy and climate policies.
This administration and our department leadership has been
working with states and the federal government on developing
policies that would establish a price on carbon for the market
so that private sector investors and consumers could take that
into account as they make their decisions.
The California Western Climate Initiative or the California
program is actually not first to market with the
Cap and Trade Program.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has been operating
for a couple of years now among 10 or 11 New England states.
And the Department of Energy has been attentive to their
implementation and supportive of the energy efficiency programs
funded by it.
So I think that we will continue to look to state
leadership for innovation in the energy and climate policy.
Sr. Vice President Goodman: From my own experience in DOD in the 90's,
when states had differing environmental regulations,
the military has to comply with all those state laws.
If some states have different regulations,
it can drive innovation and better compliance
in certain areas.
In the long-term, it's easier just like it is for any industry
to have one national set of regulations
with which to comply.
But there's also a question of where do you start and how do
you get better and how do you get to the next level.
So I have no doubt that the Department of Defense will
determine how to stay in compliance and make the
most of it and create opportunity from it,
particularly in a state like California where there's a large
presence and there's a military necessity to continue that
presence as a gateway to the Pacific.
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: Could I add on to that?
And my colleague, John Conger, may wish to as well.
But the challenge is associated when you look at the DOD
installations across The United States and you're coming at it
from an energy perspective.
But if you kind of shift and think about it from a climate
change perspective as well and adaptation requirements and for
all of the different DOD facilities across The United
States, each one of those residing within this state,
and each one needing to work within that context to develop
adaptation approaches in the specific context,
it's going to be a tremendous challenge if you take, you know,
500 installations, and 50 different states, you know,
and all coming up with their own approaches to adaptation.
Not saying that all 500 will face the same challenges.
They'll all be based on geography and terrain.
But we will have that challenge facing us.
I don't know if you want to add anything else.
Larry Goldenhersh: Not to answer questions from the audience, but --
-- we do actually work with all 50 different regulatory
environments all the type.
And we have folks out in the field,
the regional environmental coordinators,
who work with the different state governments on different
environmental regulations.
This is -- you know, it's not optimal to have wide swings in
that, but we do deal with all the state environmental agencies
on a regular basis.
And we'll continue to do so.
If they have different carbon rules, we'll deal with that too.
Adam Seigel: Adam Seigel, Northrop Grumman Analysis Center.
Holmes, and then for the others on the panel,
you suggested that because of cost reasons there are things
that DOE has, in essence, on the shelf that is hard to sell into
the commercial market that you see have great financial and
operational value for DOD.
You know, we think about just like electricity
costs in Afghanistan.
It might be $4 kilowatt hour.
Aboard ship, we may be talking 50 cents,
70 cents per kilowatt hour for forward deployed ship.
Guam or Diego Garcia, 30, 40 cents.
What are examples?
I mean, we have places wherein the military operates wherein
the expense for the energy is far higher,
plus the operational value.
What examples can you provide us that are, in your mind,
on the shelf, that DOD should be taking advantage of?
Ms. Hummel: Most of them are in the Energy Efficiency Department,
the Building Technologies Program of the Department
of Energy.
That has actually always been a source of support
for installations.
But the memorandum of understanding that was signed
today will allow us to focus more on the operational energy
side of things where we can use super efficient glass or super
efficient insulation or LED fixtures of different types and
makes and control systems for different environments that
will make financial sense in a Forward Operating Base context
where they're still not ready for the commercial markets here.
The Pacific command has also provided a lot of leadership for
both the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense
in the deployment of energy technologies in its realm.
And I would point out that the state of Hawaii and the Pacific
Command together have taken advantage of the high cost of
electricity in Hawaii to make the deployment of renewable
energy technologies and other types of solutions viable and
compelling in that environment whereas they might not be in
places that are in the continental United States.
We look forward to actually exploring and discovering more
of these opportunities.
And I'll point out that the marines had taken an assertive
role in this late last year by sending an energy audit team to
Afghanistan to identify more opportunities for the use of
technologies that were available to our national labs in the
Forward Operating Base context.
General Sullivan: I think that's a difficult question to answer when you
get out there, in, let's say Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Army is the executive agents for moving fuel and water,
which is 70-something percent of the weight that's carried
on to the battlefield.
It's huge, a huge number.
The real question is, to get that number down,
all of the activities we talked about here,
hydroelectric cars or whatever, or hydroelectric energy to
reenergize electrical vehicles, hybrid vehicles which the
government is developing -- but even that,
it comes down to the file base out there in
the middle of nowhere.
And it takes helicopters to get them food and fuel.
And it takes fuel to move the helicopters.
And until we get into that kind of stuff,
we're a long way from becoming very efficient
out on the cutting edge.
But I can tell you this, if you can come up with a different
battery, anybody in this room who can come up with a different
battery to lower the weight that the soldiers and marines and
seals are carrying on the battlefield is going to
make a ton of money.
I mean a ton.
And some of the technology that's being used though is
explosive, in itself.
So we are right on the edge of being too dangerous for
them to carry.
John Powers: Sir. John Powers, I'm with Operation Free.
And as Robin and our vets have been traveling across the
country talking to folks, we've been coming across a lot of
great companies, a lot of great technology that are in the Golf
Coast in Silicon Valley.
So say I'm a technology company that's developed
this new great battery.
I see the military or the Department of
Energy as Washington.
I don't know how to break into it,
but I know that my technology can make a difference.
What can DOD be doing -- for instance,
the marines have launched their expeditionary Forward
Operating Base.
When you go to it, a lot of the solar powered generators and the
wind powered generators that are set up there literally look like
they were built in someone's garage.
One guy I met had dragged it all the way from Arizona to
Quantico, Virginia.
What can we go to get out of the box that we're in and reach out
to some of these organizations and some of these small
technologies to help incubate them and move out to the next
level so that we can implement them on the battlefield?
General Sullivan: I'm not qualified to answer that question,
but I'll give you a start.
The Army Materiel Command has an ombudsman.
His name happens to be Lew Ashley.
And I'm
If you send me an e-mail and repeat it, you know,
repeat your question, I'll send you his telephone number.
And I believe there are ways that the Department of Defense
-- and I am not in the Department of Defense
any longer -- but I believe there are ways that the DOD
helps entrepreneurs who have promising technologies --
Amanda, am I on thin ice here?
Dep. Asst. Secretary Dory: I don't think you're on thin ice,
but do either of you want to speak to it?
On DefenseLink, there's a whole going green portion of
DefenseLink that has the names of some of the programs that
are the technology related programs and has points of
contact in the various offices that are exploring
the different technologies.
General Sullivan: Send me a note.
Send me an e-mail.
I'll get you an answer.
That's a start, okay.
By the way, the body armor, the body armor the troops are
wearing today, we didn't even know it existed until we were
in Somalia on some of the up-armored HMMWV
and all of that.
And that stuff was developed in a garage in Florida.
So it's done.
The question is, can you get to the right person.
It's hard. It's not easy.
Speaker: Okay. Last question.
Gueta Mezzetti: Hi. I've been holding myself back. I'm Gueta Mezzetti.
I was also involved, as were many others in this room,
on the Defense Science Board.
And we've been looking at technologies for a long time,
renewable energy efficiency.
And we all want to do the right thing.
But I just heard so many things; tying together your comment
about solar and your comment about how do you get the little
guys in the room.
You know, you have to do a business case analysis,
and you have to get to the experts.
And we were talking earlier outside that the Congress
de-funded the Office of Technology Assessment.
Part of the struggle at installations and with the
combatant commands and the guys in the field is that they're
triaging through all of these technologies.
They've got 100 companies coming to them on a weekly basis
saying, mine is the best one since sliced bread.
And there has to be -- if you want to go fast,
there has to be a central place to triage through those
technologies to let the combatant commands and the
installation commanders and the people in the field know what's
going to last, what's going to work.
I listen to you talk about solar.
There was a guy that took -- he probably should remain nameless
-- small windmills, solar panels,
and a little tiny micro grid with computers and put it in a
small shipping container, and they tried to drop-ship
it into --.
But the solar technology didn't have the proper breakthrough.
It didn't last.
It didn't have the performance.
So there's a lot of people sort of dancing around the edges
trying to do the right thing.
When you're growing technology -- I mean,
some people have made fun of me because I sound
like Admiral Rickover.
You have to centralize.
And you basically have to come in and provide single-stop
shopping so that you can help all these people get to where
they want to go.
You have a bunch of different people talking about technology
and nobody knows how to triage through them and put them in
order, which ones belong at R & D,
which ones belong in the testing,
which ones are ready for deployment,
which ones are going to be leapfrogged by the time you
pay down your stranded cost.
There has to be a central place to do that.
Now, I would just like to associate myself with Mike
Jimenez's remarks, because he has a lot of experience on this,
and he's just toured the labs.
My experience has been that putting the people with the
demand that need the questions answered directly in touch with
the people that have the supply in the national labs at the
technical level, including the engineers in both communities,
is the straightest distance between two points,
rather than having a lot of top level meetings.
Because my experience has been that when the technical
information needs to get to the people that have the demand,
it loses a lot in translation, as you come through the middle.
And you don't get that momentum going and learning between the
two types of technical experts that is so great when you get
them in the room together.
So that's just a suggestion.
But, I've just been listening, and it ties together so many
things that you're trying to do; for what it's worth.
Speaker: Thank you.
Ms. Hummel: Keep in mind, the last of the activities that I
described, agreed between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy were exactly those kinds of knowledge
exchanges and professional exchanges that we have
envisioned that would involve the labs directly.
And we appreciate your insight on what it takes to
expeditiously get results.
We agree.
Sr. Vice President Goodman: The MOU, I believe, calls for more information sharing.
And our report that we've released today calls for better
information sharing across the department to do just that,
Guen, which is to align the technology needs with
user requirements.
And we have to -- we also have to -- I think DOD and DOE should
ensure that in the process of better centralizing we
don't slow down.
So those two things have to work dynamically together
and not at odds.
Speaker: Okay. Well, thank you very much.
As General Sullivan said, thank you for staying.
And please join me in thanking the panelists here.