Powering the Armed Forces Book

7/28/2019 Powering the Armed Forces Book

1/81


2/81

Powering the Armed Forces


3/81

The Hoover Institution grateully acknowledges

THOMAS AND BARBARA STEPHENSON

or their signicant support o the

Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy

and this publication.


4/81

Powering the Armed ForcesMEETING THE MILITARYS ENERGY CHALLENGES

Foreword by

George P. Shultz

Introduction by

Sharon E. Burke

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret)

Jeremy Carl, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution

Lieutenant Commander Manuel Hernandez, USN

H O O V E R I N S T I T U T I O N P R E S S

STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA


5/81

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, ounded at Stanord

University in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, who went on to become the thirty-rst

president o the United States, is an interdisciplinary research center or advancedstudy on domestic and international aairs. The views expressed in its publications

are entirely those o the authors and do not necessarily refect the views o the

sta, ocers, or Board o Overseers o the Hoover Institution.

www.hoover.org

Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 628

Hoover Institution at Leland Stanord Junior University,

Stanord, Caliornia 94305-6010

Copyright 2012 by the Board o Trustees o the

Leland Stanord Junior University

All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission

o the publisher and copyright holders.

For permission to reuse material rom Powering the Armed Forces: Meeting

the Militarys Energy Challenges, ISBN 978-0-8179-1545-2, please accesswww.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC),

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-or-prot organization that provides licenses and registration or a variety o uses.

Hoover Institution Press assumes no responsibility or the persistence oraccuracy o URLs or external or third-party Internet websites reerred to in this

publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or willremain, accurate or appropriate.

First printing 201218 17 16 15 14 13 12 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Manuactured in the United States o America

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum Requirements o the

American National Standard or Inormation SciencesPermanence o Paper orPrinted Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available rom the Library o Congress.

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-1545-2 (pbk. : alk. paper)ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-1546-9 (e-book)


6/81

CONTENTS

Forewordby George P. Shultz viiPreace ix

Acknowledgments xiii

Introductionby Sharon E. Burke 1

Overview o Current Military Energy Strategy 3

Deense Department Operational Energy Strategy 5

U.S. Army Energy Vision 9

U.S. Navy Energy Vision 11

U.S. Marine Corps Energy Vision 15

U.S. Air Force Energy Vision 17

Summary o Recommendations 19

The Electric Grid and Distributed Generation 23

Sustained R&D and Technological Innovations 29Process Improvements 35

Appendix 1: Members o the Shultz-Stephenson

Task Force on Energy Policy 47

Appendix 2: Conerence Agenda 53

Appendix 3: Conerence Participants 57

Notes 59About the Authors 63

About the Hoover Institutions

Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy 65

v


7/81


8/81

vii

FOREWORD

George P. ShultzChair, Shultz-Stephenson Task Force

on Energy Policy

AMONG OUR NATIONS TOP CHALLENGES is this one: can wemuster the national consensus and the political will necessary

to solve our energy problems? These problems include our

excessive dependence on imported oil, an energy-distribution

system vulnerable to disruption, the volatility o energy prices,

and the vulnerability on the battleeld and elsewhere created

by the distance between where energy is generated and where

it is consumed.

Energy is so embedded in our everyday lie that the attackon the problem must be broad based, refecting the size and

diversity o the country and the complexity o the issues. The

American economic system and our system o governance are

well suited to deal with that kind o situation.

Local, state, and ederal governments each can address di-

erent aspects o the energy problem. For example, energy e-

ciency can be achieved through new codes or buildings,

enacted at the local level. States, as Caliornia has shown, can

lead the way in improved uel-eciency standards.


9/81

viii | FOREWORD

The military services have led the ederal governments

energy eort as they have reduced their dependence on oil, asthey increasingly understand the monetary and human costs o

supplying uel to remote combat zones, and as they deal with

the danger o relying on expensive and volatile commodities to

uel American air power. New research programs launched by

the Department o Energy and private organizations show signs

o yielding results. Our ree markets can rapidly adapt to

changing economic conditions and to new technologies i theyare allowed to do so.

Broadly, across the country, energy security and national

security are increasingly being seen as one and the same. For

example, policies that encourage the use in cars o uels with

a lower carbon ootprint enhance the nations national security

because this diminishes the need or imported oil. New meth-

ods o extracting natural gas rom shale promise to deliver

cleaner energy at lower prices on a sustained basis. Sustained

research and development in the energy eld can be key to our

energy security, our national security, and our economic well-

being. And we are just at the beginning o game-changing new

technologies in several elds, ranging rom improved solar

technologies to higher-eciency combustion.So we have energy problems and many opportunities to

work on these problems eectively. Eorts can and do come

rom the private sector and rom all levels o government. In

this report, we see the impressive work now under way in the

U.S. military orces.

For all this to succeed, we need leadership, and that is what

our military is providing.


10/81

ix

PREFACE

THE HOOVER INSTITUTIONS Shultz-Stephenson Task Force onEnergy Policy and senior Department o Deense leadership

on energy held a conerence on December 12, 2011, at the

Hoover Institution. The conerence was an opportunity to dis-

cuss energy security and the Deense Departments contribu-

tion to energy issues rom the strategic level to the operational

and tactical battleeld environment. The agenda included an

overview o the Department o Deense energy policy and

U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Army

experience in converting that policy into operational orm. In

the wake o the March 2012 release o the Deense Departments

plan or implementing its operational energy strategy (a planthat echoed many o the conerence themes), we believe it use-

ul through these proceedings to highlight the key debates,

challenges, and themes o the Deense Department plan. This

perspective on how the Department o Deense is addressing

energy challenges is inormative and helpul to all who are

committed to energy security.

Secretary George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford

Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the

conerence.


11/81

x | PREFACE

The conerence brought together senior deense ocials

rom the Oce o the Secretary o Deense, Departments o theArmy, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as represen-

tatives rom the National Deense University and Naval Post-

graduate School.

The presenters, in order o appearance, were

7 Dr. Richard B. Andres, Chair, Energy & Environmental

Security Policy, National Deense University7 The Honorable Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretary o

Deense or Operational Energy Plans and Programs

7 The Honorable Jackalyne Pannenstiel, Assistant

Secretary o the Navy (Energy, Installations and

Environment)

7 The Honorable Terry A. Yonkers, Assistant Secretary o

the Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics)7 The Honorable Katherine G. Hammack, Assistant

Secretary o the Army (Installations, Energy and

Environment)

7 Dr. Karl van Bibber, Vice President & Dean o Research,

Naval Postgraduate School

7 Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, USN, Director, Energy

and Environmental Readiness Division

7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr., Director, Marine Corps

Expeditionary Energy Oce

Participants in the conerence included energy experts,

entrepreneurs, scientists, economists, and military ellows in-

residence, all sharing the conviction that ormulating good

energy policy is one o the nations most important priorities.

During the conerence, it became apparent how energy crit-

ically relates to our national security mission and to determin-


12/81

PREFACE | xi

ing the eectiveness and saety o our men and women ghting

on land, at sea, and in the air. The Deense Department clearlyis committed to improving our nations energy position and to

demonstrating its ability to infuence events through its com-

mitment to sound policies and tangible contributions across

the spectrum o energy security.

Throughout the conerence, participants feshed out ideas

and recommendations that might improve the perormance o

the U.S. military in responding to the energy challenge.Following an introduction by Assistant Secretary o Deense

or Operational Energy Plans and Programs Sharon Burke, we

present an overview o current Department o Deense energy

policies and strategies.1 We ollow with a summary o recom-

mendations or continuing to develop these strategies and

highlights o the conerence proceedings. These are summa-

rized in dialogue ormat, edited and condensed or the sake o

brevity and introduced with explanatory material on each sub-

ject covered. A ull transcript o the conerence is available at

www.poweringthearmedorces.com.


13/81


14/81

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE AUTHORS WOULD LIKE TO acknowledge the support andparticipation o the leadership o the U.S. Army, Navy, Air

Force, and Marine Corps, as well as the Department o Deense,

National Deense University, and the Naval Postgraduate

School. Each o these institutions generously provided partici-

pants at the highest levels o their organizations to attend our

conerence. These leaders helped spur our thinking on this crit-

ical issue.


15/81


16/81

1

INTRODUCTION

Sharon E. BurkeAssistant Secretary o Deense or

Operational Energy Plans and Programs

FOR THE NATION, OUR ENERGY SECURITY, economic well-being, and national security are inextricably linked. For the

Department o Deense, better energy security means a more

eective military orceone that is more agile, lethal, and

adaptable, and one that can better ulll its mission to protect

the nation.

At the same time, several trends, rom the rising global

demand or energy to changing geopolitics, as well as new

threats, mean that the cost and availability o energy orAmericans and our troops will be less certain in the uture. By

being smarter about our energy use, we can make a military

and nation built to last.

Whether at our xed installations or in operations, Deense

Department energy initiatives are about meeting the deense

mission, today and or the uture. Our challenge is to ensure

that U.S. orces can meet any threat, anywhere in the world. To

ensure this, we must improve the eciency o our energy use,

diversiy our energy sources, and ultimately build a military


17/81

2 | POWERING THE ARMED FORCES

orce that uses energy as a strategic advantage rather than as a

burden.As General John Allen, commander o U.S. orces in Aghan-

istan, wrote in a recent memorandum to our men and women

there: How we use energy in the battlespace can provide a

strategic and tactical advantage. . . . This is about combat eec-

tiveness. Indeed, General Allens observations are as impor-

tant or rebalancing our orce in the Asia-Pacic region as they

are or conducting our mission in Aghanistan.There is another important benet to our energy security ini-

tiatives. The Department o Deense spent more than $15 bil-

lion on energy or military operations last year. However, this

is one area where we really can get more with less: we can get

more military capability and better inrastructure with less

energy and lower bills or American taxpayers. That is yet

another reason why the department will continue to be a leader

in harnessing energy innovation to enhance our operational

eectiveness. And as we promote innovations in eciency,

renewable energy, and other technologies to make us a better

military, we will also lead the way or the nation.


18/81

3

OVERVIEW OF CURRENTMILITARY ENERGY STRATEGY

WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, the armed orces are the lead-ing user o ossil uels, which is reason enough or the price

and source o energy to be o particular concern to military

planners. According to the Department o Deense, in 2010,

U.S. armed orces consumed nearly 5 billion gallons o petro-

leum in military operations, at a total cost o $13.2 billion, rep-

resenting a 255 percent increase over the amount paid in 1997.

The Air Force accounts or 57 percent o total petroleum con-

sumption, the Navy accounts or 34 percent, and the Army,

9 percent.

Unsurprisingly, given the current budget constraints and thediculties o maintaining challenging uel supply lines in the-

ater, our armed orces have taken a particular interest in energy

policy as o late. As a result o this, each branch o service has

developed an energy policy, strategy, and goals, attempting to

harmonize with the Deense Departments overall energy

vision. As a preace to our own discussion and recommenda-

tions, we present in the ollowing subsections the current state

o these policies, strategies, and goals or the Department o

Deense as a whole and or each branch o service.1


19/81


20/81

5

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTOPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY

Any president is going to want a military thats ready, right now,

or a global missionthat can deploy anywhere in the world

rapidly or a big range . . . o missions, whether its humanitarian

and disaster relie, which the Department now considers to be

core missions, or whether its conventional combat, or irregular

combat, or cyber war. We need to be ready or a ull range o

contingencies everywhere around the world. And that inherently

requires a great deal o energy.

Secretary SHARON BURKE

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS OPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGYguides how to better use energy resources to support the

Departments strategic goals and the Nations energy security

goals, while allowing lowering risks to our warghters, shit

resources to other warghting priorities, and save money or

American taxpayers.1 The goal o the operational energy

strategy is to develop energy security or the warghter

to ensure that U.S. orces have a reliable supply o energy or


21/81


21st-century military missions. To achieve this goal, the strat-

egy outlines a threeold approach:

7 More Fight, Less Fuel: Reduce Demand or Energy in

Military Operations. Todays military missions require

large and growing amounts o energy with supply lines

that can be costly, vulnerable to disruption, and a bur-

den on warghters. Strategic Goal: The department will

reduce the overall demand or operational energy andimprove the eciency o military energy use in order to

enhance combat eectiveness and reduce risks and costs

or military missions.

7 More Options, Less Risk: Expand and Secure Energy

Supplies or Military Operations. Reliance on a single

energy sourcepetroleumhas economic, strategic,

and environmental drawbacks. In addition, the secu-

rity o energy-supply inrastructure or critical missions

at xed installations is not always robust. Strategic Goal:

The department will diversiy and secure military energy

supplies in order to improve the ability o U.S. orces to

obtain the energy required to perorm their missions.

7 More Capability, Less Cost: Build Energy Security intothe Future Force. While the orces energy require-

ments entail tactical, operational, and strategic risks,

the departments institutions and processes or build-

ing uture military orces do not systematically consider

such risks and costs. Strategic Goal: The department will

consider energy security in strategic planning and orce

development in order to provide energy security and

enhanced warghting capability or U.S. orces in the

uture.


22/81

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY | 7

Indeed, the department has been making progress in using

less energy

more ght or less uel. According to SecretarySharon Burke:

Soldiers and Marines have reduced their energy consumption in

Aghanistan by using solar rechargeable batteries, solar microgrids,

more ecient tents, and better xed shelters. The Army is using

generators at its orward operating bases that are 20 percent more

ecient, and become even more ecient by being wired together.The Navy, too, has made good progress by incorporating energy

considerations into its operations and its acquisitions process.


23/81


24/81

9

U.S. ARMY ENERGY VISION

[O]ur primary platorm is the soldier, the dismounted soldier.

A lot o the uel is what theyre carrying on their back. And a lot

o that is batteries. So thats where our ocus is. We know we need

to increase energy eciency and so that is certainly a huge ocus

or us in many ways.

Secretary KATHERINE HAMMACK

An eective and innovative Army energy posture, which enhances

and ensures mission success and quality o lie or our Soldiers, their

Families, and Civilians through Leadership, Partnership, and Ownership,

and also serves as a model or the nation.

U.S. Armys ENERGY VISION

THE U.S. ARMY HAS BOTH installation and operational energyrequirements. The Army has the largest energy consumption in

its acilities o any government agency (more than 80 billion

BTUs at a cost o $1.2 billion in FY 2010). In its operations,

the Army spent $2.5 billion on uel purchases in FY 2010.1 The


25/81


Armys energy vision is supported by its energy security mis-

sion to reduce demand, increase eciency, and increase usageo alternative sources o energy while enhancing operational

capacity.2

The U.S. Army identies Surety, Survivability, Supply,

Suciency, and Sustainability as the core characteristics den-

ing the energy security necessary or the ull range o Army

missions. Energy security or the Army means preventing loss

o access to power and uel sources (surety), ensuring resil-ience in energy systems (survivability), accessing alternative

and renewable energy sources available on installations (sup-

ply), providing adequate power or critical missions (su-

ciency), and promoting support or the Armys mission, its

community, and the environment (sustainability).3

Armys Strategic Energy Security Goals

7 Reduce energy consumption.

7 Increase energy eciency across platorms and

acilities.

7 Increase use o renewable and alternative energy.

7 Ensure access to sucient energy supplies.

7 Reduce adverse impacts on the environment.


26/81

11

U.S. NAVY ENERGY VISION

A Navy that values energy as a strategic resource; a Navy that

understands how energy security is undamental to executing

our mission afoat and ashore; and a Navy that is resilient to any

potential energy uture.

Navy ENERGY VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, October 2010

Is this time dierent?

Secretary JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL

Changing energy usage in the Navy is really all about culture and

whether or not you can transorm the ethos o a service.

Vice Admiral PHILIP CULLOM

THE NAVYS ENERGY STRATEGY is centered on increasing energysecurity, eciency, and environmental stewardship while

maintaining Americas role as the worlds preeminent maritime

power.1 The secretary o the navy has set two priorities or naval

energy reorm: energy security and energy independence.


27/81


7 Energy security is achieved by using sustainable sources

that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operationalrequirements and orce sustainment unctions, and by

having the ability to protect and deliver sucient energy

to meet operational needs.

7 Energy independence is achieved when naval orces rely

only on energy resources that are not subject to inten-

tional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority,

energy independence increases operational eective-ness by making naval orces more energy sel-sucient

and less dependent on vulnerable energy production and

supply lines.

The Navy intends to increase both strategic and tactical

warghting capability with its energy policy. From a strategic

perspective, the objective is to reduce reliance on ossil uels.Tactically, the objective is to use energy sources available on

location and increase energy eciency to reduce the volatility

that is oten associated with long uel supply transport lines.2

Secretary of Navys Energy Goals

7 Energy-Ecient Acquisition: Evaluation o energy ac-tors will be mandatory when awarding Department o

the Navy contracts or systems and buildings.

7 Sail the Great Green Fleet: DoN will demonstrate a

Green Strike Group in local operations by 2012 and

sail it by 2016.

7 Reduce Non-Tactical Petroleum Use: By 2015, DoN

will reduce petroleum use in the commercial feet by

50 percent.


28/81

U.S. NAVY ENERGY VISION | 13

7 Increase Alternative Energy Ashore: By 2020, DoN

will produce at least 50 percent o shore-based energyrequirements rom alternative sources; 50 percent o

Navy and Marine Corps installations will be net-zero

energy consumers.

7 Increase Alternative-Energy Use DoN-Wide: By 2020,

50 percent o total energy consumption will come rom

alternative sources.


29/81


30/81

15

U.S. MARINE CORPS ENERGY VISION

To be the premier sel-sucient expeditionary orce, instilled with

a warrior ethos that equates the ecient use o vital resources with

increased combat eectiveness.

Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan

BASES-TO-BATTLEFIELD, March 2011

[A] resource-ecient Marine is a more combat-eective Marine.

Colonel ROBERT CHARETTE, USMC

THE U.S. MARINE CORPS expeditionary energy strategy cen-ters on altering the way the Marines think about energy to

understand that more eicient usage o energy and water

resources must be part o the warrior ethos.1 The strategy

says that by 2025 the Marines will have expeditionary orces

capable o maneuvering rom the sea and sustaining C4I

(command, control, communications, computers, and intel-

ligence) and lie-support systems in place. Also, the strategy

says that the only liquid uel needed will be or mobility


31/81


systems, which will be more energy eicient than systems

are today.In order to do this, the Marines have set a 2025 goal o

increasing their energy eciency by 50 percent, using a 2010

baseline o our orce in Aghanistan. Achieving these goals will

allow Marines to travel lighterwith lessand move aster

by reducing the size and amount o equipment and depen-

dence o bulk supplies.

The Marine Corps identies three key elements or success:(1) to aggressively pursue innovative solutions to increase

energy eciency in our platorms and systems, (2) to increase

our use o renewable energy, and (3) to change our ethosto

train each Marine that a resource-ecient Marine is a more

combat-eective Marine.2


32/81

17

U.S. AIR FORCE ENERGY VISION

Make energy a consideration in all we do.

Air Force ENERGY PLAN, 2010

The Air Force ghts rom xed locations, our installations. . . .

We have a signicant dependence on the commercial grid or the

energy that we use day-to-day on our installations. We all know

that introduces a certain amount o risk, and certainly jeopardizes

our eectiveness to do our critical missions even i a power

outage is only or a couple o hours. So or us, we think in terms o

installation security as one o our primary concerns.

Secretary TERRY YONKERS

THE U.S. AIR FORCE is the largest energy consumer in the ed-eral government, using more uel than the Navy, Army, and

Marine Corps combined. Thereore addressing its energy needs

is a particularly critical portion o our armed orces energy

strategy.


33/81


The Air Force energy plan is built upon three pillars (see

below) that guide energy management within the Air Force.The plan provides guidance to Airmen to help reduce demand,

increase supplythrough a variety o alternative and renew-

able types o energyand change the culture.

Air Force Energy Plan Pillars

7

Reduce Demand: The Air Force is committed to reduc-ing aviation, ground operations, and installation energy

demand. The goals and objectives developed to reduce

demand cover each o these areas and provide the

ramework or each executing organization.

7 Increase Supply: The Air Force is committed to increas-

ing the amount o energy supplies available to enhance

our nations energy security. Where possible, the AirForce will develop and use renewable and alterna-

tive energy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The

goals and objectives to increase supply target these

three areas: aviation uel, ground uels, and installation

energy.

7 Change Culture: Changing the Air Force culture is crit-

ical to achieving the Air Forces energy vision. As the

culture changes and the Air Force increases its energy

awareness, new ideas and methodologies or operating

more eciently will emerge as airmen consider energy

in their day-to-day duties.


34/81

19

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

IN MARCH 2012, the Department o Deense released its oper-ational energy implementation plan, which outlined the path

orward regarding energy. Many o the statements in the plan

echo concerns and deliberations raised by the participants in

the Hoover Institutions conerence. The operational plan is an

excellent adjunct to this report, which builds on several o the

implementation recommendations rom the plan while also

oering possible alternative paths orward.

Research opportunities and process recommendations

emerged rom the presentations and discussions at the coner-

ence. In addition, the ollowing notable themes emerged:

First, energy is a necessary and critical warfghting enabler.Why, how, when, where, and how much the Deense Depart-

ment uses energy are important issues and have vital implica-

tions or the men and women in uniorm. What the department

does must rst and oremost serve the core military mission.

Those technologies and policies most likely to succeed in a

military environment will be those that maintain a relentless

ocus on serving that mission.

The initiatives and eorts by the Deense Department, in

support o combat missions, oten eventually nd their way


35/81


into the commercial marketplace: energy eciency, supply,

and storage are just some o the areas in which technologieshave migrated rom the military to civilian use.

Second, energy policy can be and is partisan, but the

[deense] mission should not be. The men and women, mili-

tary and civilian, o the Deense Department are perhaps our

only remaining honest brokers who, as numerous independent

surveys have shown, retain the ull condence and trust o the

American people. As a result, they are uniquely able to workacross multiple interest and partisan groups in pursuit o the

well-being o the United States. The Deense Department is

also uniquely capable o bringing its scale and demand pull to

eect commercial-scale, economically benecial innovations

and developments that normally require decades and billions

o dollars to complete.

Third, the country has a genuine and serious energy prob-

lem, whose signifcance is not always ully evident to the

American people. Political leaders have ailed to eectively

communicate this imperative, and have ailed to ignite the

innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that has been the hall-

mark o our country.

Throughout the conerence, participants reerred to manyways in which the Deense Department welcomed assistance

on energy issues. These ell into three primary areas:

One area was the need to lessen the militarys dependence

on the electric grid. Participants highlighted the countrys

extreme dependence on the electric grid and its signicant vul-

nerabilities, such as the potential or terrorist disruptions, tech-

nical breakdowns, or weather-related disasters. Participants

discussed various distributed-energy and smart-grid solutions

that could be used to address this issue.


36/81

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS | 21

A second area was the need to support basic research on

energy on a generous, sustained basis. The United Statesrequires steady support or a broad scientic and technical

base that encourages transormative, breakthrough scientic

discoveries with a comprehensive, practical, and interdisci-

plinary approach.

A third area was the need or the Deense Department to

make meaningul and signifcant process improvements, high-

lighting the need or organizational culture shits at all levels,in support o the warfghter.

We discuss these areas urther in the ollowing subsections

o the conerence report.


37/81


38/81

23

THE ELECTRIC GRID ANDDISTRIBUTED GENERATION

AN EXCESSIVE RELIANCE on the electric grid poses a danger toour national security and our militarys operational eective-

ness. The military should place less reliance on the electric

grid. The existing grid should be strengthened to minimize the

eects when disruptions do occur. However, the military

should explore options such as distributed-power systems as

an alternative both at home and in the combat theater.

For the purposes o this paper, threats to the grid are ound

in our primary categories: physical, cyber, electromagnetic

pulse (EMP), and regulatory.

As Dr. Richard Andres noted during the conerence:

We have become utterly dependent on the electric grid over the

last ty to seventy years. Given our dependence on the grid, i it

were to suddenly go away, it could have catastrophic results to our

way o lie. The problem is that its becoming increasingly ragile

and extremely vulnerable.

Given that the U.S. militarys role is very much to deend

against these sorts o security vulnerabilities, strengthening the


39/81


grid to limit its vulnerability to disruption, while also adding

the fexibility to reduce our exclusive reliance on the grid orelectricity is a national-security imperative. Dr. Andres laid out

the case or concern:

[I] the electric grid were to suddenly go away, the odds are we

would have millions or tens o millions o deaths very quickly.

Dr. Andres added that military and law-enorcement ocialsare well aware o the problems with the grid and outlined a

worst-case scenario o a sudden and prolonged grid ailure:

Because were now on electronic commerce, you cant buy or sell.

Most people have about three days worth o ood at the house.

And stores stop unctioning immediately. So people begin to look

or ood. We had a lot o olks rom the National Guard and policeenorcement come in, and they said that they expected within two

or three days there would no longer be National Guard or police

enorcement because people would go home to take care o their

amilies. These are guardsmen and police talking.

Secretary Terry Yonkers noted the biggest threats to the grid

may not be physical, but cyberattacks:

Nobody likes to talk about cyber. Ninety-nine times out o a hun-

dred, i there is a cyber crisis, it is denied. But I think it is a seri-

ous problem.

Another threat to the grid discussed by many participants

was the potential or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) taking out

the grid, while acknowledging the subject was shrouded in

mystery. Such an EMP is a low-probability event, but would


40/81

THE ELECTRIC GRID AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION | 25

have high consequences i it took place. Secretary Sharon Burke

identied this as a potential problem or the Deense Depart-ment, observing:

[W]e havent really characterized well what the eects o an elec-

tromagnetic pulse would be on [electricity production and trans-

mission] systems on the ground. It really hasnt been very well

characterized, so thats part o the problem.

In addition to these technical problems, Dr. Andres observed

that the regulatory problems remain challenging:

I cant tell you how many commanders o bases have called me

up and said, Hey, what are we going to do? We have these great

ideas or distributed power. We have the land. We have the oppor-

tunities. But we cant get through the local political inrastructureto make this happen.

Furthermore, challenges to implementing distributed energy

go beyond the political and logistical and enter into issues o

site security. As Secretary Burke observed:

Can you have micro-grids and renewable energy sources or even

small modular nuclear reactors that would give you a stando capa-

bility that lasts more than orty-eight hours or seventy-two hours?

Other problems relate to the unctionality o some types o

distributed power systems in high-consequence environments.

As Secretary Katherine Hammack said:

One o the challenges with the micro-grids, you have wires all

over. A soldier running or protectionyou dont want him tripping


41/81


over a wire. I you have one generator per tent, theres not a lot o

wires there and as much to trip over. Its a simpler system. So we

have to try and work solutions that are enablers to the mission.

Ultimately, to address these problems, and to reduce the

Deense Departments reliance on the grid, we reiterate the

recommendations o the previous Hoover-Brookings joint

study on distributed power, published in November 2011.1

Recommendations

With respect to the grid and deployment o distributed-power

systems (DPS), we believe the Deense Department should

7 Partner with private-sector and academic institutions to

research the impacts o DPS on reliability and security.

We recommend the Deense Department thoroughly

assess the reliability-related costs and benets o DPS

or the departments operations. The assessment should

include the ollowing priorities: (a) study distributed-

energy resources, including storage and the smart grid,

versus centralized energy generation; (b) acceleratedevelopment and deployment o high-eciency technol-

ogy options; (c) accelerate plug-and-play eatures o dis-

tributed-generation appliances; and (d) deploy a pilot to

demonstrate costs and benets to the grid and society.

Much work has been done on the cybersecurity o the

smart grid, notably by the National Institute o Standards

and Technologys (NIST) Cyber Security Working Group

(CSWG) o the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. We

recommend the Deense Department work with other


42/81

THE ELECTRIC GRID AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION | 27

branches o the ederal government to adopt the CSWGs

guidelines.

7 Support DPS through military procurement and

deployment.

Through large-scale procurement, the military can help

to drive down the unit costs o renewable DPS tech-

nologies, and serve as a pioneer or other sectors o theeconomy that want to gain expertise in the installation,

operation, and maintenance o DPS. For expeditionary

operations, we recommend that the military expand pro-

grams, such as the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power

System (REPPS), that use DPS technologies. The purposes

o these programs are to reduce the use o liquid uels

on the ront lines, as well as increase the operationaleciency o personnel in theater by extending patrol

lengths without needing to reuel, reducing the need or

long supply lines, and providing other tactical advan-

tages. The ocus should continue to be on deploying DPS

technologies that will most enhance the core ghting

eectiveness o these expeditionary orces.

We recommend the U.S. military develop a more or-

mal scheme or systematizing and quantiying DPS risks

and benets. Such a scheme should include a means

o allowing the armed orces to accurately internalize

the ully burdened cost o uel or expeditionary energy

on the battleeld as recommended by Deense Science

Board in 2001 and 2008.2 These costs include the com-

modity costs o uel and the logistics and orce protec-

tion costs required to move and protect it.


43/81


7 Make DPS and micro-grids an essential component o

base inrastructure.

The United States has more than 1,000 bases and mili-

tary installations in 63 countries. O these, 209 bases are

oten connected in dierent ways to power inrastruc-

tures with varying reliability. To maximize the reliabil-

ity and security o operating environments both in the

United States and overseas, the U.S. military should con-sider distributed generation and micro-grids as an essen-

tial part o its strategy or generating and consuming

power.


44/81

29

SUSTAINED R&DAND TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATIONS

SUSTAINED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT o new energy tech-nologies is critical and is addressed in the militarys operational

strategy implementation plan. The plan lists improving opera-

tional energy innovation as one o three key targets to meet the

overall goal o reducing the energy demand or military

operations.

The plan calls or the assistant secretary o deense or

research and engineering to identiy investment gaps in the

Deense Departments science and technology portolio by Q4

2012 and include recommendations or closing those gaps.Sustained investments in research and development was

most requently identied as key or the military to address.

Many participants mentioned storage, lightweight materials,

ecient heating and cooling, and alternative uels as critical

areas or investment in research and development.

Perhaps the most critical o these areas is biouels, which is

particularly important or the Navys energy strategy. The oper-

ational strategy implementation plan has called or creating a


45/81


drat alternative-uels policy or the Department o Deense by

Q2 2012, along with a drat alternative-uels investment port-olio to be developed by Q4 2012. The strategy document

noted that while the Air Force and Navy, in particular, have

moved orward aggressively with biouels, there is no depart-

ment-wide biouels strategy in place.

In August 2011, the Departments o the Navy, Energy, and

Agriculture announced a three-year, $510 million joint venture

with the private sector to develop advanced biouels compati-ble with existing military inrastructure. But a number o sci-

ence and engineering challenges remain. One o these is

getting to sucient scale or the militarys needs. As Secretary

Terry Yonkers noted:

Fuels, all the dierent kinds o uelscamelina, switch grass, di-

erent plants rom the southwest desert

theres all sorts o things

that can grow on marginal land that are interesting and potentially

viable alternatives. Cellulosic reduction has the potential to really

be able to drive oil prices down. The challenge remains the ability

to bypass through the plant stage.

And as Dr. Richard Andres observed:

The militarys experimentation with alternative uelscertiying

U.S. aircrat to fy on any number o alternative uels, the Great

Green Fleet, and biouels have the potential to set the stage so that

when oil prices become high enough, alternative uels look really

good in comparison.

According to Secretary Jackalyne Pannenstiel, the military

must play a critical role in building out such an industry, but


46/81

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS | 31

these uels must meet several stringent requirements that are ar

rom being met:

For the Navy to meet this goal, it is critical to stimulate a biouels

industry. Weve been spending considerable eort on the properties

o the requisite biouel. I can say that were agnostic about the eed-

stock, but the uel that we use must be a drop-in uel. It cant have a

worse carbon ootprint than our current uels. It must be able to

be technologically and commercially viable quite soon. We must beable to get it in sucient quantities to meet our needs. And it has to

have a price point that is acceptable to those in the Department o

Deense who buy our uels or us. We arent looking at a subsidy.

The military is thereore accelerating its eorts in biouels

development. According to Secretary Pannenstiel:

We have the opportunity between 2012 and 2016 to work with

the biouels industry, to develop the prices, to develop the prod-

ucts, to develop the reneries that will get us to the quantities we

need by 2016.

Dr. Lucy Shapiro noted that there are multiple dimensions

to the scalability problem:

The scale-up is on two levels. One is scaling the basic biological

process. And that is basic research, because whatever weve got out

there now, its not the actory, its not the big system, its making the

basic biological process scalable.

Another major technical challenge to overcome is in battery

storage, where orces remain too heavy, oten due to the


47/81


requirement o excessive numbers o batteries to equip the

modern warrior. As Secretary Katherine Hammack said:

The dismounted soldier carries as many as seventy batteries o a

dozen dierent types. We are in need o rechargeable batteries and

energy storage or a variety o applications.

Further emphasizing the necessity o a more mobile and

fexible orce, another key area or innovation that SecretaryHammack stressed was lightweight materials:

In the battles were in, with the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

(MRAP) vehicles and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), we have

an increased number o amputees and our soldiers are losing limbs.

We are up-armoring MRAPs, and that is adding in a layer o oam

and another plate. The oam acts as a cushioning, and weve rede-

signed the seats. Weve done that to about 2,000 MRAPs now.

Eighty IED hits on those, and the worst injuries are a broken wrist

and a sprained ankle. Thats good news, but that adds 2,500 pounds

to the MRAP and that means its uel eciency goes down. I we

had materials that could have the same resilience against impact,

but would not add weight, we could add capability. Were up-

armoring the soldier and up-armoring the vehicle and thats adding

weight. And that means that we need help in materials.

Colonel Robert Charette, responding rom his position as a

eld ocer in theater, stressed the importance o innovation in

portable heating and cooling technologies:

We need electronics that can operate without coolant, because one

o the big things on the battleeld thats giving us problems is cool-

ant and the ecient heating and cooling o personnel.


48/81

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS | 33

Recommendations

We believe that the Department o Deense should

7 Continue ocusing on research and development in sus-

tained energy, with a particular emphasis on storage,

lightweight materials, ecient heating and cooling, and

alternative uels. Progress in each o these areas would

do a great deal to enable increased operational eective-

ness o the warghter.7 Devote research eorts to biouels and other alternative

liquid uels, while paying careul attention to proceed

only to the extent that such uels can provide the mili-

tary with critical energy security benets at a meaningul

scale and at an aordable cost, or or particular tactical

benets.

7 Focus on other technologies that will add combat capa-

bility or the warghter. Continue to reach out to private

industry regarding promising technologies that, while

not yet market competitive or civilian use, may oer

the military with key tactical benets that can easily jus-

tiy a higher price. An example o this can be seen in

the Armys Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System(REPPS) program, which was successully deployed in

Aghanistan.


49/81


50/81

35

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

THROUGHOUT THE CONFERENCE, participants made explicitand implied reerences to areas where the Deense Department

needed to make meaningul and signicant process improve-

ments, highlighting the need or organizational culture shits,

at all levels, in support o the warghter. The department

can make signicant gains in achieving its stated energy-

security objectives by implementing and institutionalizing

process improvements beyond the individual warghter and

toward systemic, organizational levels, particularly in strate-

gic and operational planning and acquisition processes and

methods.

Dr. Jim Sweeney raised three issues concerning the e-ciency o the tools provided to the warghter and the incen-

tives or motivating energy-ecient behavior on the eld:

One issue is that the technology you supply is not as energy e-

cient as it could be. The vehicles you give the troops, or exam-

ple, are less uel ecient. Second, the organizations and incentives

dont give the people in the eld a reason to pay attention to the

consequences or the supply line. And the third is culture and

attitudesenergy eciency is or wimps as an attitude.


51/81


Secretary Sharon Burke described the challenges associated

with driving cultural change in the Deense Department andhighlighting the responsibility to provide the warghter with

the tools necessary or the mission:

Culture change is a slippery beast in that youve got to give peo-

ple the tools in order or them to change the culture. I would say

that the uture orce building and getting into the acquisition pro-

cess is one o the hardest aspects o this process. How do yougive people the tools and understanding and the rame o reer-

ence they need in order to change their culture? The incentive

system may not line up here. Pulling that apart and guring out

how exactly to change it is not easy and its something that we

all do a lot.

I think the burdens on us to put the tools and the rationale in the

hands o people in the eld. The burden is on us who work on this

issue to make this work or our orces. I would say that one o the

places where I think its harder is in the acquisitions community,

or a variety o reasons. By the time youve got a major system thats

in the hands o someone orward, theres not a lot they can do to

change the basic nature o that system.

Secretary Burke urther described the practical problems

acing the warghter in Aghanistan:

Lets take a orward operating base in Aghanistan. You have a unit

there and, depending on its size and its circumstances, it may be

that this is a group o a ew hundred soldiers rom mixed services

whove moved into a position. Now they may or may not have

had engineering help in building that base. They may be on their

own to gure it out and they may be ordering things o a table o


52/81

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS | 37

equipment or theater-provided equipment. Theyre going to say,

We need shelters. So theyll just order that and they get tents. . . .

So theyre going to get whatever they have on their list, theyre

going to get tents, theyre going to get generators to provide power

to those tents where they may have lights, communications gear,

heating, and cooling. Theyre going to have some kind o latrine

system. Theyre going to have a eld kitchen. Theyre probably

going to have some kind o laundry, because again, youve got to

keep these people healthy and working in these circumstances. You

will probably have a generator mechanic, who knows how to run

the generator, but he just knows how to run the generator. So you

may have them putting a generator on every tent and that generator

may be working at 10 percent eciency, but they may not have the

tools or the knowledge to run it in a dierent way necessarily. The

tenti its new, it probably is going to have some kind o a liner,

but the thermal eciency is low. It is what it is. Theyre ghting a

war and theyre ordering the equipment that they can.

Theres no reason why they would know that theyre using energy

ineciently and theyre creating a demand pull thats going to

cause somebody to fy or truck energy to them. They would have

no way o knowing that. Their ocus is on, Okay, heres our mis-

sion and this is what we have to do. Theyre not thinking aboutThe stu I ordered is really inecient.

Dr. Sweeney suggested the problem o implementing

energy-responsible culture change resided at the organiza-

tional level:

[I]t sounds to me that the problem has nothing to do with the men

and women in the eld. The problem has to do with the way the

system is organized.


53/81


I think theres a lot o parallels to energy use and energy eciency

in the overall economy, where the goals not to reduce the use o

energy in itsel, because ater all, theres a good reason we have

energy. We want it there, so were trying to look at ailures. But at

our center [Precourt], I spent a lot o time at the beginning, try-

ing to ask where the nature o the problem is and concluded that

the nature o the problem was mostly in individual behavior and

behavior in companies and so orth. I hear the comments rom you

that say, no, thats probably not where the problem is in the mili-

tary. Your structure is where the problems are. Its probably not in

the individual person in the eld. One o the things that Id like to

be able to do is maybe sit in and suggest, or example, maybe in

that area its not so parallel to the residential issues, but rather its

an issue o how you designed the systems? Or maybe its just the

reality o your situation and you have to live with it? Personally

I dont think we should see behavioral change as the key issue.

From what I hear, its probably systems analysis that has more to

do with it.

Strategy planning and end-states need to inorm and drive

programs, particularly energy and related acquisitions.

Secretary Burke highlighted the need to deliberately consider

energy security, requirements, and implications to strategic and

operational planning processes and methods:

The combatant commanders do operational plans. Whatever sce-

nario they think they may have to get involved in as a orce, they

have a plan or it. Wed really like to look at the energy implica-

tions o those plans and let that help drive the innovation. What do

we need to be able to do and how might the ull range o energy

technology help us do it? One o the challenges we have is to g-

ure out how to use those planning tools that the department already


54/81


engages in, which is how we justiy every other kind o purchase.

How do we tie that planning better to the ull range o whats pos-

sible in the energy eld?

Admiral Philip Cullom added:

On the service side o the house, there are milestone points and

gate reviews through which every acquisition project must pass. I

at the very beginning o the process, the rst gate review, a servicecommits to mandatorily considering energy as a Key Perormance

Parameter or a Key Success Attribute, it will dramatically improve

a platorm or weapon systems energy eciency. No longer a nice

to do, its now a must do. That orces change.

Strengthening this link between strategic objectives and

acquisitions will provide the warghter with the tools neces-

sary to accomplish the mission and support organizational cul-

tural changes on energy. Energy considerations in strategic

planning and end-states can help inorm total ully burdened

costs, to include energy in uture orce development and war-

ghter requirements.

According to Secretary Burke:

We have an acquisition process that is byzantine. There are some

good reasons or that, which is when youre buying a system that

costs billions o dollars that you want to be able to use ty years

rom now, you want to make sure you get it right. But changing

that system is not easy. You have to get in rom the very begin-

ning in the war gaming and the strategic planning and then in

the requirements generation. So when you look at the threat envi-

ronment youre anticipating, you ask, What do you think you

need to be able to meet that? And then start building it. Weve


55/81


got to get energy considerations in at every step o the way, which

is what were doing and everyone here today is working on this

together, getting into these processes and making sure that ener-

gys considered.

Dr. Richard Andres highlighted the ailure o markets to take

externalities into consideration:

Markets dont take into account externalities and obviously every-one can talk about how markets do not take into account pollu-

tion but rom a DoD perspective, they also dont do very well at

taking into account the military requirements or supporting mar-

kets, such as, or instance, global oil markets. And were spend-

ing trillions o dollars and thousands o lives abroad protecting

oil routes.

Secretary Burke noted the nonmonetary aspects in value

propositions:

[T]he closer you get to the ght, the more our value proposition

changes. Some o the returns were looking or are going to be non-

monetaryor example, military capability.

Secretary Katherine Hammack echoed Secretary Burkes

comment:

Our costs in theater or uel ranges rom $7 per gallon up to $40 per

gallon, which, as Secretary Burke said, means that some o these

strategies, which might not have a great return on investment in the

continental United States, may have a much better return on invest-

ment in theater. But then when you actor in lives, risks, and vul-

nerabilities, it certainly is a great return.


56/81


Secretary George P. Shultz highlighted the Deense Depart-

ments ability to conceptualize total cost:

Thats an interesting example o how the military has an ability

to conceptualize the total cost. Thats harder to do in the civilian

economy because you look at a gallon o gas and thats it. So this

is a very impressive, interesting, contribution.

Secretary Terry Yonkers highlighted the costs, time valuation,and payback period o Deense Department investments:

The other dimension o this is the payback. And so we think in

terms o ve years and some o the discussions were having across

the board is, i we make smart investments, it will take about ten or

eleven years to hit the breakeven point. But ater that point in time,

well save a billion and a hal or more dollars, once we get into sort

o the ull production and the modication. Well, because were

ocused on the ve-year time rame, most people hardly ever play

into the overall organizational decision to und them. So weve got

to break that paradigm as well as these other things that Secretary

Sharon Burke was talking aboutthe color o money and authori-

ties and all the other kinds o things going on.

Admiral Cullom added:

[T]here are a lot o dierent ways you can evaluate how your

investments are doing. Do you look at it in terms o the specic

return on investment? The payback period? Clearly, those are essen-

tial criteria or every initiative. But much o Secretary Terry Yonkers

point is, as you do that, youve also got to think about the long

haulthe total long-term impact the investment has over the lie-

cycle o asset or platorm ownership. Thats true or all the military


57/81


servicesassessed value depends on how you look at and value

the output o your investment. And I think all the services believe

you need a ully calculated valuation o what the investment eort

could end up yielding.

Ensuring sustainable progress and institutional support or

energy security requires two critical actors: Identiying and

implementing adequate energy-perormance metrics to sup-

port energy security initiatives and objectives, and institution-

alizing these eorts throughout the department. As Secretary

Burke said:

I think one thing we need is better metrics or measuring how we

use energy in the ght and in our systems. I you start throwing out

goals but you dont really understand how you consume energy,

then you cant be sure that youre heading or the right outcomes.

[W]e do need to nd ways to use less energy or everything that

we need, to get more military output or every unit o energy input.

Talk about metrics. Thats one Id like to seeeectiveness metric.

A systemic cultural change in the strategic planning andacquisition processes and methods, i it is to be long-lasting,

needs to be institutionalized throughout the department.

Secretary Burke highlighted the need to restructure the acqui-

sition process so that we are task organized. That is, the same

people who buy are ultimately responsible or how we are

going to pay or the purchases in the long term:

Id say that its also in the way were structured in that major sys-

tems have a program manager and executive ocers, who are


58/81


responsible or developing that program and getting it to lie and

getting it as an actual system. But theyre not the ones that operate

it over time. So their incentive is to get it built and to get it in the

arsenal, because this is what our olks need. Like a ground combat

vehicle, the amphibious vehicle, these are things that the Marines

and the Army have dened as they have to have it in the orce. And

the program managers job is to get them what they need. So some-

times theres a split-incentive problem there and who pays the bills

or certain kinds o things is not who buys the system. We have that

problem, just like the rest o the economy does, all over the place,

including even in theater. Who pays the bill or the uel is not the

same as the person who uses it. The demand signal thats being

created on the ground is being met by air. Those bills are all paid

by dierent people. So it is part o our challengenot that easy to

solve this problem.

Secretary Jackalyne Pannenstiel added:

The other question is, what is the uture or expeditionary war-

are technologies? The solar backpacks, or example. Even i we

pull out o Aghanistan shortly, were going to continue devel-

oping our technology. But how do we proceed with these tech-

nologies when theyre not being shipped over to theater withinsix months? Theyre going to be important or the uture o the

Marine Corps and the Army and the Air Force and the Navy. We

dont want to slow our progress. We have to anticipate our war-

ghters needs and be ready, not be scrambling ater the act.

It needs to be institutionalized. It needs to be part o what the

Department o Deense does.

Admiral Cullom concluded by emphasizing institution-

alization inside the Pentagon in order to help move the


59/81


American economy in ways that will help our desired energy

position:

Were at war, we have a lot o needs, and we have a way to enable

energy to make a dierence in the warghtsaving lives, giving us

more combat capability in the process, and being more Spartan in

the use o our resources at this challenging time. We need to insti-

tutionalize it within the Pentagon, yes. But we cant do it alone.

We need to work outside o the Department o Deense to makesure these programs are sustainable and institutionalizedacross

departments and agencies but also across all o American Society.

Our eorts must move the American economy to help our energy

position in the long term, not just in the next several years or the

next administration.

Recommendations

We believe the Department o Deense should

7 Focus culture-change initiatives beyond the individ-

ual warghter and on the broader organizational level,

particularly in the strategy and policy and acquisitionworkorce. Without broader organizational change and

buy-in, plans developed by energy-specic personnel

are unlikely to be eective.

7 Incorporate energy security into strategic and opera-

tional planning and Deense Department acquisition. I

energy security is not a component o the ormal bud-

geting and acquisition process, the military will con-tinue to sub-optimally allocate its money, purchasing


60/81


items with lower up-ront costs but crippling long-term

energy costs.7 Identiy and implement energy-perormance metrics

to support energy security initiatives and objectives,

and institutionalize use o these metrics throughout the

department. As the organizational theorist Peter Drucker

amously observed decades ago, What gets measured,

gets managed.


61/81


62/81

47

APPENDIX 1

MEMBERS OF THESHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE

ON ENERGY POLICY

Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. is chairman retired and a director

o Bechtel Group.Gary S. Becker, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in

Economic Sciences in 1992, is the Rose-Marie and

Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

and proessor o economics and sociology at the

University o Chicago.

Paul Berg is currently the Cahill Proessor o Biochemistry

emeritus at Stanord University.

Samuel W. Bodman is the ormer U.S. secretary o energy

rom 2005 to 2009, having previously served as dep-

uty secretary o the treasury and deputy secretary o

commerce.

Michael J. Boskin is a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution

and the T. M. Friedman Proessor o Economics atStanord University.


63/81

48 | APPENDIX 1

Jeremy Carl is a research ellow at the Hoover Institution

and a member and director o research or the Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy.

John F. Cogan is the Leonard and Shirley Ely Senior Fellow at

the Hoover Institution and a proessor in the Public Policy

Program at Stanord University.

Sidney D. Drell is a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution and

proessor o theoretical physics (emeritus) at the SLAC

National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanord University.James E. Goodby is a research ellow at the Hoover Institution

and a senior ellow with the Center or Northeast Asian

Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Lawrence H. Goulder is a proessor and chair o the Depart-

ment o Economics at Stanord University, where he is

also a Kennedy-Grossman Fellow in human biology and a

senior ellow at the Institute or Economic Policy Research.

Kenneth L. Judd is the Paul H. Bauer Senior Fellow at the

Hoover Institution.

Alexander A. Karsner was assistant secretary or energy e-

ciency and renewable energy rom 2005 to 2008.

Howard H. Leach serves as president o Leach Capital, LLC,

and Foley Timber & Land Company.Kevin M. Murphy is the George J. Stigler Distinguished

Service Proessor o Economics at the University o

Chicago Booth School o Business.

Jens K. Nrskov is proessor o chemical engineering and o

photon science at Stanord University and at the SLAC

National Accelerator Laboratory.

William J. Perry, a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution, is

the Michael and Barbara Berberian Proessor at Stanord


64/81

APPENDIX 1 | 49

University, with a joint appointment in the School o

Engineering and the Institute or International Studies,where he is co-director o the Preventive Deense

Project, a research collaboration o Stanord and Harvard

Universities. Perry was the nineteenth United States sec-

retary o deense, serving rom February 1994 to January

1997. His previous government experience was as dep-

uty secretary o deense (199394) and undersecretary o

deense or research and engineering (1997

81).John Raisian, the Tad and Dianne Taube Director o the

Hoover Institution and a senior ellow, is a labor econ-

omist whose current interests include the application o

economic principles to public-policy ormation and the

appropriate role o government in society.

William K. Reilly is the ormer administrator o the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); ounding part-

ner o Aqua International Partners, a private-equity und

invested in water and renewable energy companies; and

senior adviser to TPG Capital, an international investment

partnership.

Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson

Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institutionand proessor o political science at Stanord University.

From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the sixty-sixth

secretary o state o the United States.

Burton Richter is a Nobel laureate (physics, 1976); the

Paul Pigott Proessor in the Physical Sciences emeri-

tus, Stanord University; ormer director, SLAC National

Accelerator Laboratory; and a member o the National

Academy o Sciences.


65/81

50 | APPENDIX 1

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret.) is currently the

Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the HooverInstitution. From September 2007 to September 2011,

he served as the twenty-ninth chie o naval operations.

Henry S. Rowen, a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution,

is a proessor o public policy and management

emeritus at Stanord Universitys Graduate School o

Business and a member o Stanords Asia-Pacic

Research Center.Lucy Shapiro is a proessor in the Department o

Developmental Biology at Stanord Universitys School

o Medicine, where she holds the Virginia and D. K.

Ludwig Chair in Cancer Research.

George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford

Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was

sworn in on July 16, 1982, as the sixtieth U.S. secretary

o state and served until January 20, 1989.

Kiron K. Skinner is the W. Glenn Campbell Research Fellow

at the Hoover Institution at Stanord University.

Abraham D. Soaer, who served as legal adviser to the

U.S. Department o State rom 1985 to 1990, was

appointed the rst George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholarand senior ellow at the Hoover Institution in 1994.

Thomas F. Stephenson, who joined Sequoia Capital in 1988,

ocuses on inormation technology and health-care com-

panies. He is a ormer U.S. ambassador to the Portuguese

Republic and spent twenty-two years with Fidelity

Investments.

James L. Sweeney is a proessor o management science and

engineering at Stanord University.


66/81

APPENDIX 1 | 51

John B. Taylor is the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in

Economics at the Hoover Institution and the Mary andRobert Raymond Proessor o Economics at Stanord

University.

David G. Victor is a proessor at the University o Caliornia,

San Diego, in the School o International Relations

and Pacic Studies and director o the Laboratory on

International Law and Regulation.

R. James Woolsey was the Annenberg Distinguished VisitingFellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanord University,

and served as director o the Central Intelligence Agency

rom 1993 to 1995.


67/81


68/81

53

APPENDIX 2

CONFERENCE AGENDA

ENERGY TASK FORCE MEETING

DECEMBER 12, 2011

HOOVER INSTITUTION

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Monday, December 12, 2011

8:30 a.m.8:45 a.m.

Welcoming Remarks

7 The Honorable George P. Shultz

8:45 a.m.9:30 a.m.

DoDs Contribution to Strategic Energy Issues

Presenter:

7 Dr. Richard B. Andres, Chair, Energy &

Environmental Security Policy, National Deense

University

9:30 a.m.

10:15 a.m.

Pioneering Eorts in Energy: Department o Deense

Energy Policy


69/81

54 | APPENDIX 2

Presenter:

7

The Honorable Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretaryo Deense or Operational Energy Plans and Programs

10:15 a.m.12:00 p.m.

Implementing DoDs Energy PolicyThe Navy/Marine

Corps, Air Force, and Army Experience: Programs,

Technology, and Applications

Presenters:7 The Honorable Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Assistant

Secretary o the Navy (Energy, Installations and

Environment)

7 The Honorable Terry A. Yonkers, Assistant Secretary

o the Air Force (Installations, Environment and

Logistics)

7 The Honorable Katherine G. Hammack, Assistant

Secretary o the Army (Installations, Energy and

Environment)

12:00 p.m.1:00 p.m.

Working Lunch and Presentation: Operationalizing

DoDs Energy Policy: The Department o the NavyExperience

Presenters:

7 Dr. Karl van Bibber, Vice President & Dean o

Research, Naval Postgraduate School

7 Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, USN, Director, Energy

and Environmental Readiness Division

7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr., USMC, Director, Marine

Corps Expeditionary Energy Oce


70/81

APPENDIX 2 | 55

1:00 p.m.1:45 p.m.

Discussion on the U.S. Military and the Future oEnergy: Challenges and Opportunities

1:45 p.m.2:00 p.m.

Concluding Remarks

The Honorable George P. Shultz


71/81


72/81

57

APPENDIX 3

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

Speakers (in order o appearance):

Richard B. Andres is the Energy & Environmental Security

Policy Chair at National Deense Universitys Institute or

National Strategic Studies.Sharon E. Burke is assistant secretary o deense or

operational energy plans and programs.

Jackalyne Pannenstiel is assistant secretary o the Navy

(energy, installations and environment).

Terry Yonkers is assistant secretary o the Air Force (instal-

lations, environment and logistics).

Katherine Hammack is assistant secretary o the Army

(installations, energy and environment).

Karl van Bibber is vice president and dean o research,

Naval Postgraduate School.

Philip H. Cullom, Vice Admiral, USN, is director o energy

and environmental readiness and is deputy chie o naval

operations or feet readiness and logistics.Robert J. Charette Jr., Colonel, USMC, is director o the

Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Oce.


73/81


74/81

59

NOTES

Preface

1. The details o these energy strategies can be ound at http://energy

.deense.gov (DoD strategy), http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon

.mil (Army strategy), http://marines.mil/community/Pages

/ExpeditionaryEnergy.aspx (Marine Corps strategy), http://www

.sae.hq.a.mil/energy/index.asp (Air Force strategy), and http://greenfeet.dodlive.mil/home (Navy strategy).

Overview of Current

Military Energy Strategy

1. All boxed text in this chapter is taken directly rom the ollowing

sources, which provide urther details on the Deense Departments

and service branches strategies: http://energy.deense.gov, http://

army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil, http://marines.mil/community

/Pages/ExpeditionaryEnergy.aspx, http://www.sae.hq.a.mil/energy

/index.asp, and http://greenfeet.dodlive.mil/home.

Defense DepartmentOperational Energy Strategy

1. http://energy.deense.gov/OES_report_to_congress.pd.


75/81

60 | NOTES TO PAGES 916

U.S. Army Energy Vision

1. Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary o the Army or Energy and

Sustainability, Army Power and Energy, GreenGov Symposium,

November 1, 2011, http://www.greengov2011.org/presentations

/CleanEnergy/GreenGov-2011-CleanEnergy-S5-RichardKidd.pd.

2. Army Senior Energy Council, Army Energy Security Implementation

Strategy, January 3, 2009, http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/

Partnerships/doc/AESIS_13JAN09_Approved%204-03-09.pd.

3. 2012 Army Posture Statement: The Nations Force o Decisive Action,

Addendum JArmy Energy Security Enterprise, https://secureweb2

.hqda.pentagon.mil/VDAS_ArmyPostureStatement/2012/addenda

/addenda_j.aspx.

U.S. Navy Energy Vision

1. Department o Deense, Assistant Secretary o Deense or

Operational Energy Plans and Programs, Fiscal Year 2012

Operational Energy Budget Certication Report, January 2001, http://

energy.deense.gov/FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certication

_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pd.

2. http://greenfeet.dodlive.mil/energy (DoD energy strategy).

U.S Marine Corps

Energy Vision

1. http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/USMC%20

Expeditionary%20Energy%20Strategy.pd (United States Marine

Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan).

2. http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/USMC%20Expeditionary%20Energy%20Strategy.pd.


76/81

NOTES TO PAGES 2627 | 61

The Electric Grid

and Distributed Generation

1. Hoover Institution/Brookings Institution, Assessing the Role o

Distributed Power Systems in the U.S. Power Sector, October 2011,

http://media.hoover.org/sites/deault/les/documents

/Distributed-Energy.pd.

2. http://media.hoover.org/sites/deault/les/documents

/Distributed-Energy.pd.


77/81


78/81

63

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (ret.), is an Annenberg Dis-

tinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution who grad-

uated rom the US Naval Academy in 1973. In September 2007,

he became the twenty-ninth chie o naval operations ater

holding six operational commands; he is one o only two o-

cers in the navys history to have commanded both the Atlan-

tic and Pacic Fleets. Ashore he served as the commandant o

the US Naval Academy, during which time he led the strategic

planning eorts that underpinned that institutions rst capital

campaign. He was also the navys chie o legislative aairs,

responsible or the Department o the Navys interactions with

Congress, and the deputy commander o the US Pacic Com-mand during the massive relie eort ollowing the 2004 tsu-

nami in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean.

Jeremy Carl is a research ellow at the Hoover Institution

and a member o the Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy

Policy. His work ocuses on energy and environmental policy,

with an emphasis on energy security and global ossil uel mar-

kets. Beore coming to Hoover, Carl was a research ellow

at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at

Stanord and a visiting ellow in resource and development


79/81

64 | ABOUT THE AUTHORS

economics at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi,

India. Most recently, he was Hoovers lead author oAssessingthe Role o Distributed Power Systems in the U.S. Power Sector,

a major study Hoover conducted jointly with the Brookings

Institution. His work has appeared in numerous books and

journals in the energy and environmental elds. His writing

and expertise have been eatured in the New York Times, Wall

Street Journal, Newsweek, and many other publications.

Jeremy holds degrees in history and public policy rom Yaleand Harvard Universities.

Lieutenant Commander Manuel Hernandez is a national

security aairs ellow at the Hoover Institution. At sea, he

served as engineering ocer on the USS Thach (FFG 43), aux-

iliaries ocer on the USS Reuben James (FFG 57), communi-

cations ocer on the USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and

machinist mate on the USS Shasta (AE 33). Ashore, he served

as engineering assessor or Pacic Fleet ships, Afoat Training

Group Pacic; executive ocer, US Central Command J5

Coalition Coordination Center; congressional liaison or strat-

egy and policy, DON Oce o Legislative Aairs; and strate-

gic planner in the International Engagements Directorate

(OPNAV N52) on the sta o the chie o naval operations inWashington, DC. Hernandez holds degrees in economics,

nance, and public policy rom Old Dominion and Harvard

Universities.


80/81

65

About the Hoover Institutions

SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE

ON ENERGY POLICY

The Hoover Institutions Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on

Energy Policy addresses energy policy in the United States and

its eects on our domestic and international political priorities,

particularly our national security.

As a result o volatile and rising energy prices and increas-

ing global concern about climate change, two related and

compelling issuesthreats to national security and adverse

eects o energy usage on global climatehave emerged as

key adjuncts to Americas energy policy; the task orce will

explore these subjects in detail. The task orces goals are to

gather comprehensive inormation on current scientic andtechnological developments, survey the contingent policy

actions, and oer a range o prescriptive policies to address our

varied energy challenges. The task orce will ocus on public

policy at all levels, rom individual to global. It will then recom-

mend policy initiatives, large and small, that can be undertaken

to the advantage o both private enterprises and governments

acting individually and in concert.

The core membership o this task orce includes Stephen

D. Bechtel Jr., Gary S. Becker, Paul Berg, Samuel Bodman,


81/81

66 | SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCE ON ENERGY POLICY

Michael J. Boskin, Jeremy Carl, John F. Cogan, Sidney D. Drell,

James E. Goodby, Lawrence H. Goulder, Kenneth L. Judd,Alexander A. Karsner, Howard H. Leach, Kevin M. Murphy,

Jens Nrskov, William J. Perry, John Raisian, William K. Reilly,

Condoleezza Rice, Burton Richter, Admiral Gary Roughead,

Henry S. Rowen, Lucy Shapiro, George P. Shultz (chair), Kiron

K. Skinner, Abraham D. Soaer, Thomas F. Stephenson, James

L. Sweeney, John B. Taylor, David G. Victor, and James Woolsey.