powering the armed forces: meeting the military's energy challenges by gary roughead, jeremy carl,...

7/31/2019 Powering the Armed Forces: Meeting the Military's Energy Challenges by Gary Roughead, Jeremy Carl, and Manuel Hernandez

1/81


2/81

Powering the Armed Forces

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


3/81

The Hoover Institution grate ully acknowledgesTHOMAS AND BARBARA STEPHENSONor their signi cant support o theShultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy and this publication.



4/81

Powering the Armed ForcesMEETING THE MILITARYS ENERGY CHALLENGES

Foreword byGeorge P. Shultz

Introduction bySharon E. Burke

Admiral Gary Roughead , USN (ret)

Jeremy Carl , Research Fellow, Hoover InstitutionLieutenant 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 SSTANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA



5/81


6/81

CONTENTS

Foreword by George P. Shultz viiPre ace ix

Acknowledgments xiii

Introduction by Sharon E. Burke 1

Overview o Current Military Energy Strategy 3De ense Department Operational Energy Strategy 5U.S. Army Energy Vision 9U.S. Navy Energy Vision 11U.S. Marine Corps Energy Vision 15U.S. Air Force Energy Vision 17

Summary o Recommendations 19The Electric Grid and Distributed Generation 23

Sustained R&D and Technological Innovations 29Process Improvements 35

Appendix 1: Members o the Shultz-StephensonTask Force on Energy Policy 47

Appendix 2: Con erence Agenda 53 Appendix 3: Con erence Participants 57

Notes 59 About the Authors 63 About the Hoover Institutions

Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy 65

v



7/81


8/81

vii

FOREWORDGeorge P. Shultz

Chair, Shultz-Stephenson Task Forceon Energy Policy

AMONG OUR NATIONS TOP CHALLENGESis this one: can wemuster the national consensus and the political will necessaryto solve our energy problems? These problems include ourexcessive dependence on imported oil, an energy-distributionsystem vulnerable to disruption, the volatility o energy prices,and the vulnerability on the battle eld and elsewhere createdby the distance between where energy is generated and whereit is consumed.

Energy is so embedded in our everyday li e that the attackon the problem must be broad based, refecting the size anddiversity o the country and the complexity o the issues. TheAmerican economic system and our system o governance arewell 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 Cali ornia has shown, canlead the way in improved uel-e ciency standards.



9/81

viii | FOREWORD

The military services have led the ederal governments

energy e ort 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 withthe danger o relying on expensive and volatile commodities touel American air power. New research programs launched bythe Department o Energy and private organizations show signso 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 nationalsecurity are increasingly being seen as one and the same. Forexample, policies that encourage the use in cars o uels witha lower carbon ootprint enhance the nations national securitybecause this diminishes the need or imported oil. New meth-ods o extracting natural gas rom shale promise to delivercleaner energy at lower prices on a sustained basis. Sustainedresearch and development in the energy eld can be key to ourenergy security, our national security, and our economic well-being. And we are just at the beginning o game-changing newtechnologies in several elds, ranging rom improved solar

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

work on these problems e ectively. E orts can and do comerom the private sector and rom all levels o government. Inthis report, we see the impressive work now under way in theU.S. military orces.

For all this to succeed, we need leadership, and that is whatour military is providing.



10/81

ix

PREFACE

THE HOOVER INSTITUTIONSShultz-Stephenson Task Force onEnergy Policy and senior Department o De ense leadershipon energy held a con erence on December 12, 2011, at theHoover Institution. The con erence was an opportunity to dis-cuss energy security and the De ense Departments contribu-tion to energy issues rom the strategic level to the operationaland tactical battle eld environment. The agenda included anoverview o the Department o De ense energy policy andU.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Armyexperience in converting that policy into operational orm. Inthe wake o the March 2012 release o the De ense Departments

plan or implementing its operational energy strategy (a planthat echoed many o the con erence themes), we believe it use-ul through these proceedings to highlight the key debates,challenges, and themes o the De ense Department plan. Thisperspective on how the Department o De ense is addressingenergy challenges is in ormative and help ul to all who arecommitted to energy security.

Secretary George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. FordDistinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired thecon erence.



11/81

x | PREFACE

The con erence brought together senior de ense o cials

rom the O ce o the Secretary o De ense, Departments o theArmy, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as represen-tatives rom the National De ense University and Naval Post-graduate School.

The presenters, in order o appearance, were

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

Security Policy, National De ense University7 The Honorable Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretary o De ense or Operational Energy Plans and Programs

7 The Honorable Jackalyne P annenstiel, AssistantSecretary o the Navy (Energy, Installations andEnvironment)

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 andEnvironment)

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

7 Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, USN, Director, Energyand Environmental Readiness Division

7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr., Director, Marine CorpsExpeditionary Energy O ce

Participants in the con erence included energy experts,entrepreneurs, scientists, economists, and military ellows in-residence, all sharing the conviction that ormulating goodenergy policy is one o the nations most important priorities.

During the con erence, it became apparent how energy crit-ically relates to our national security mission and to determin-



12/81

PREFACE | xi

ing the e ectiveness and sa ety o our men and women ghting

on land, at sea, and in the air. The De ense Department clearlyis committed to improving our nations energy position and todemonstrating its ability to infuence events through its com-mitment to sound policies and tangible contributions acrossthe spectrum o energy security.

Throughout the con erence, participants feshed out ideasand recommendations that might improve the per ormance o

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

or Operational Energy Plans and Programs Sharon Burke, wepresent an overview o current Department o De ense energypolicies and strategies. 1 We ollow with a summary o recom-mendations or continuing to develop these strategies andhighlights o the con erence 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 con erence is available atwww.poweringthearmed orces.com.



13/81



14/81

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE AUTHORS WOULD LIKE TOacknowledge the support andparticipation o the leadership o the U.S. Army, Navy, AirForce, and Marine Corps, as well as the Department o De ense,National De ense University, and the Naval PostgraduateSchool. Each o these institutions generously provided partici-pants at the highest levels o their organizations to attend ourcon erence. These leaders helped spur our thinking on this crit-ical issue.



15/81



16/81

1

INTRODUCTIONSharon E. Burke

Assistant Secretary o De ense or Operational Energy Plans and Programs

FOR THE NATION, OUR ENERGY SECURITY, economic well-being, and national security are inextricably linked. For theDepartment o De ense, better energy security means a moree ective military orce one that is more agile, lethal, andadaptable, and one that can better ul ll its mission to protectthe nation.

At the same time, several trends, rom the rising globaldemand 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. Bybeing smarter about our energy use, we can make a militaryand nation built to last.

Whether at our xed installations or in operations, De enseDepartment energy initiatives are about meeting the de ensemission, today and or the uture. Our challenge is to ensurethat U.S. orces can meet any threat, anywhere in the world. Toensure this, we must improve the e ciency o our energy use,diversi y 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 A ghan-istan, wrote in a recent memorandum to our men and womenthere: How we use energy in the battlespace can provide astrategic and tactical advantage. . . . This is about combat e ec-tiveness. Indeed, General Allens observations are as impor-tant or rebalancing our orce in the Asia-Paci c region as they

are or conducting our mission in A ghanistan.There is another important bene t to our energy security ini-

tiatives. The Department o De ense spent more than $15 bil-lion on energy or military operations last year. However, thisis one area where we really can get more with less: we can getmore military capability and better in rastructure with lessenergy and lower bills or American taxpayers. That is yetanother reason why the department will continue to be a leaderin harnessing energy innovation to enhance our operationale ectiveness. And as we promote innovations in e ciency,renewable energy, and other technologies to make us a bettermilitary, 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 priceand source o energy to be o particular concern to militaryplanners. According to the Department o De ense, 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 thedi culties o maintaining challenging uel supply lines in the-ater, our armed orces have taken a particular interest in energypolicy as o late. As a result o this, each branch o service hasdeveloped an energy policy, strategy, and goals, attempting toharmonize with the De ense Departments overall energyvision. As a pre ace to our own discussion and recommenda-tions, we present in the ollowing subsections the current stateo these policies, strategies, and goals or the Department o De ense 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 mission that 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 STRATEGY guides how to better use energy resources to support theDepartments strategic goals and the Nations energy securitygoals, while allowing lowering risks to our war ghters, shi tresources to other war ghting priorities, and save money orAmerican taxpayers. 1 The goal o the operational energystrategy is to develop energy security or the war ghter

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

Military Operations. Todays military missions requirelarge and growing amounts o energy with supply linesthat can be costly, vulnerable to disruption, and a bur-den on war ghters. Strategic Goal : The department will

reduce the overall demand or operational energy andimprove the e ciency o military energy use in order toenhance combat e ectiveness and reduce risks and costsor military missions.

7 More Options, Less Risk: Expand and Secure EnergySupplies or Military Operations. Reliance on a singleenergy source petroleum has economic, strategic,and environmental drawbacks. In addition, the secu-rity o energy-supply in rastructure or critical missionsat xed installations is not always robust. Strategic Goal :The department will diversi y and secure military energysupplies in order to improve the ability o U.S. orces toobtain the energy required to per orm 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 considersuch risks and costs. Strategic Goal : The department willconsider energy security in strategic planning and orcedevelopment in order to provide energy security andenhanced war ghting capability or U.S. orces in theuture.



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 inA ghanistan by using solar rechargeable batteries, solar microgrids,more e cient tents, and better xed shelters. The Army is usinggenerators at its orward operating bases that are 20 percent more

e cient, and become even more e cient by being wired together.The Navy, too, has made good progress by incorporating energyconsiderations into its operations and its acquisitions process.



23/81



24/81

9

U.S. ARMY ENERGY VISION

[O]ur primary plat orm 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 e ciency and so that is certainly a huge ocus

or us in many ways.

Secretary KATHERINE HAMMACK

An e ective and innovative Army energy posture, which enhances

and ensures mission success and quality o li e 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 BOTHinstallation and operational energyrequirements. The Army has the largest energy consumption inits acilities o any government agency (more than 80 billionBTUs 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 e ciency, and increase usageo alternative sources o energy while enhancing operationalcapacity. 2

The U.S. Army identi es Surety, Survivability, Supply,Su ciency, and Sustainability as the core characteristics de n-ing the energy security necessary or the ull range o Armymissions. Energy security or the Army means preventing loss

o access to power and uel sources (surety), ensuring resil-ience in energy systems (survivability), accessing alternativeand renewable energy sources available on installations (sup-ply), providing adequate power or critical missions (su -ciency), and promoting support or the Armys mission, itscommunity, and the environment (sustainability). 3

Armys Strategic Energy Security Goals

7 Reduce energy consumption.7 Increase energy e ciency across plat orms and

acilities.7 Increase use o renewable and alternative energy.7 Ensure access to su cient 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 di erent?

Secretary JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL

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

whether or not you can trans orm the ethos o a service.

Vice Admiral PHILIP CULLOM

THE NAVYS ENERGY STRATEGYis centered on increasing energysecurity, e ciency, and environmental stewardship whilemaintaining Americas role as the worlds preeminent maritimepower. 1 The secretary o the navy has set two priorities or navalenergy re orm: 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 byhaving the ability to protect and deliver su cient energyto meet operational needs.

7 Energy independence is achieved when naval orces relyonly on energy resources that are not subject to inten-tional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority,

energy independence increases operational e ective-ness by making naval orces more energy sel -su cientand less dependent on vulnerable energy production andsupply lines.

The Navy intends to increase both strategic and tacticalwar ghting 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 onlocation and increase energy e ciency to reduce the volatilitythat is o ten associated with long uel supply transport lines. 2

Secretary of Navys Energy Goals

7 Energy-E cient 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 aGreen Strike Group in local operations by 2012 andsail it by 2016.

7 Reduce Non-Tactical Petroleum Use: By 2015, DoNwill reduce petroleum use in the commercial feet by50 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-zeroenergy consumers.

7 Increase Alternative-Energy Use DoN-Wide: By 2020,50 percent o total energy consumption will come romalternative sources.



29/81



30/81

15

U.S. MARINE CORPS ENERGY VISION

To be the premier sel -su cient expeditionary orce, instilled with

a warrior ethos that equates the e cient use o vital resources with

increased combat e ectiveness.

Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan

BASES-TO-BATTLEFIELD, March 2011

[A] resource-e cient Marine is a more combat-e ective Marine.

Colonel ROBERT CHARETTE, USMC

THE U.S. MARINE CORPSexpeditionary energy strategy cen-ters on altering the way the Marines think about energy tounderstand that more e icient usage o energy and waterresources must be part o the warrior ethos. 1 The strategysays that by 2025 the Marines will have expeditionary orcescapable o maneuvering rom the sea and sustaining C4I(command, control, communications, computers, and intel-ligence) and li e-support systems in place. Also, the strategysays that the only liquid uel needed will be or mobility



31/81


32/81

17

U.S. AIR FORCE EN ERGY 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 signi cant 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 e ectiveness 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 FORCEis the largest energy consumer in the ed-eral government, using more uel than the Navy, Army, andMarine Corps combined. There ore addressing its energy needsis a particularly critical portion o our armed orces energystrategy.



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 supply through a variety o alternative and renew-able types o energy and change the culture.

Air Force Energy Plan Pillars

7

Reduce Demand: The Air Force is committed to reduc-ing aviation, ground operations, and installation energydemand. The goals and objectives developed to reducedemand cover each o these areas and provide theramework 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. Thegoals and objectives to increase supply target thesethree areas: aviation uel, ground uels, and installationenergy.

7 Change Culture: Changing the Air Force culture is crit-ical to achieving the Air Forces energy vision. As theculture changes and the Air Force increases its energyawareness, new ideas and methodologies or operatingmore e ciently will emerge as airmen consider energyin their day-to-day duties.



34/81

19

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

IN MARCH 2012, the Department o De ense released its oper-ational energy implementation plan, which outlined the pathorward regarding energy. Many o the statements in the planecho concerns and deliberations raised by the participants inthe Hoover Institutions con erence. The operational plan is anexcellent adjunct to this report, which builds on several o theimplementation recommendations rom the plan while alsoo ering possible alternative paths orward.

Research opportunities and process recommendationsemerged rom the presentations and discussions at the con er-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 De ense Depart-ment uses energy are important issues and have vital implica-tions or the men and women in uni orm. What the departmentdoes must rst and oremost serve the core military mission.Those technologies and policies most likely to succeed in amilitary environment will be those that maintain a relentlessocus on serving that mission.

The initiatives and e orts by the De ense Department, insupport o combat missions, o ten eventually nd their way



35/81


into the commercial marketplace: energy e ciency, 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

[de ense] mission should not be. The men and women, mili-tary and civilian, o the De ense Department are perhaps ouronly remaining honest brokers who, as numerous independentsurveys have shown, retain the ull con dence and trust o the

American people. As a result, they are uniquely able to workacross multiple interest and partisan groups in pursuit o thewell-being o the United States. The De ense Department isalso uniquely capable o bringing its scale and demand pull toe ect commercial-scale, economically bene cial innovationsand developments that normally require decades and billionso 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 e ectivelycommunicate this imperative, and have ailed to ignite theinnovative and entrepreneurial spirit that has been the hall-mark o our country.

Throughout the con erence, participants re erred to manyways in which the De ense Department welcomed assistanceon energy issues. These ell into three primary areas:

One area was the need to lessen the militarys dependenceon the electric grid. Participants highlighted the countrysextreme dependence on the electric grid and its signi cant vul-nerabilities, such as the potential or terrorist disruptions, tech-nical breakdowns, or weather-related disasters. Participantsdiscussed various distributed-energy and smart-grid solutionsthat 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 scienti c and technicalbase that encourages trans ormative, breakthrough scienti cdiscoveries with a comprehensive, practical, and interdisci-plinary approach.

A third area was the need or the De ense Department tomake meaning ul and signifcant process improvements, high-

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

We discuss these areas urther in the ollowing subsectionso the con erence report.



37/81



38/81

23

THE ELECTRIC GRID ANDDISTRIBUTED GENERATION

AN EXCESSIVE RELIANCEon the electric grid poses a danger toour national security and our militarys operational e ective-ness. The military should place less reliance on the electricgrid. The existing grid should be strengthened to minimize thee ects when disruptions do occur. However, the militaryshould explore options such as distributed-power systems asan alternative both at home and in the combat theater.

For the purposes o this paper, threats to the grid are oundin our primary categories: physical, cyber, electromagneticpulse (EMP), and regulatory.

As Dr. Richard Andres noted during the con erence:

We have become utterly dependent on the electric grid over thelast ty to seventy years. Given our dependence on the grid, i itwere to suddenly go away, it could have catastrophic results to ourway o li e. The problem is that its becoming increasingly ragileand extremely vulnerable.

Given that the U.S. militarys role is very much to de endagainst 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 outthe case or concern:

[I] the electric grid were to suddenly go away, the odds are wewould have millions or tens o millions o deaths very quickly.

Dr. Andres added that military and law-en orcement o cialsare well aware o the problems with the grid and outlined aworst-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 policeen orcement come in, and they said that they expected within twoor three days there would no longer be National Guard or policeen orcement because people would go home to take care o theiramilies. These are guardsmen and police talking.

Secretary Terry Yonkers noted the biggest threats to the gridmay 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 participantswas the potential or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) taking outthe grid, while acknowledging the subject was shrouded inmystery. 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

identi ed this as a potential problem or the De ense Depart-ment, observing:

[W]e havent really characterized well what the e ects o an elec-tromagnetic pulse would be on [electricity production and trans-mission] systems on the ground. It really hasnt been very wellcharacterized, so thats part o the problem.

In addition to these technical problems, Dr. Andres observedthat the regulatory problems remain challenging:

I cant tell you how many commanders o bases have called meup and said, Hey, what are we going to do? We have these greatideas or distributed power. We have the land. We have the oppor-

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

Furthermore, challenges to implementing distributed energygo 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 evensmall 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 allover. A soldier running or protection you 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 wehave to try and work solutions that are enablers to the mission.

Ultimately, to address these problems, and to reduce theDe ense Departments reliance on the grid, we reiterate therecommendations o the previous Hoover-Brookings jointstudy on distributed power, published in November 2011. 1

Recommendations

With respect to the grid and deployment o distributed-powersystems (DPS), we believe the De ense Department should

7 Partner with private-sector and academic institutions to

research the impacts o DPS on reliability and security.

We recommend the De ense Department thoroughlyassess the reliability-related costs and bene ts o DPSor the departments operations. The assessment shouldinclude the ollowing priorities: (a) study distributed-energy resources, including storage and the smart grid,

versus centralized energy generation; (b) acceleratedevelopment and deployment o high-e ciency technol-ogy options; (c) accelerate plug-and-play eatures o dis-tributed-generation appliances; and (d) deploy a pilot todemonstrate costs and bene ts to the grid and society.Much work has been done on the cybersecurity o thesmart grid, notably by the National Institute o Standardsand Technologys (NIST) Cyber Security Working Group(CSWG) o the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. Werecommend the De ense 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 anddeployment.

Through large-scale procurement, the military can helpto 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 expeditionaryoperations, we recommend that the military expand pro-grams, such as the Rucksack Enhanced Portable PowerSystem (REPPS), that use DPS technologies. The purposeso these programs are to reduce the use o liquid uels

on the ront lines, as well as increase the operationale ciency o personnel in theater by extending patrollengths without needing to re uel, reducing the need orlong supply lines, and providing other tactical advan-tages. The ocus should continue to be on deploying DPStechnologies that will most enhance the core ghtinge ectiveness o these expeditionary orces.

We recommend the U.S. military develop a more or-mal scheme or systematizing and quanti ying DPS risksand bene ts. Such a scheme should include a meanso allowing the armed orces to accurately internalizethe ully burdened cost o uel or expeditionary energyon the battle eld as recommended by De ense ScienceBoard 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 in rastructure.The United States has more than 1,000 bases and mili-tary installations in 63 countries. O these, 209 bases areo ten connected in di erent ways to power in rastruc-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 consumingpower.



44/81


45/81


dra t alternative- uels policy or the Department o De ense by

Q2 2012, along with a dra t alternative- uels investment port-olio to be developed by Q4 2012. The strategy documentnoted that while the Air Force and Navy, in particular, havemoved orward aggressively with bio uels, there is no depart-ment-wide bio uels strategy in place.

In August 2011, the Departments o the Navy, Energy, andAgriculture announced a three-year, $510 million joint venture

with the private sector to develop advanced bio uels compati-ble with existing military in rastructure. But a number o sci-ence and engineering challenges remain. One o these isgetting to su cient scale or the militarys needs. As SecretaryTerry Yonkers noted:

Fuels, all the di erent kinds o uels camelina, switch grass, di -erent plants rom the southwest desert theres all sorts o thingsthat can grow on marginal land that are interesting and potentiallyviable alternatives. Cellulosic reduction has the potential to reallybe able to drive oil prices down. The challenge remains the abilityto bypass through the plant stage.

And as Dr. Richard Andres observed:

The militarys experimentation with alternative uels certi yingU.S. aircra t to fy on any number o alternative uels, the GreatGreen Fleet, and bio uels have the potential to set the stage so thatwhen oil prices become high enough, alternative uels look reallygood in comparison.

According to Secretary Jackalyne P annenstiel, the militarymust 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 bio uelsindustry. Weve been spending considerable e ort on the propertieso the requisite bio uel. 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 aworse 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 su cient quantities to meet our needs. And it has tohave a price point that is acceptable to those in the Department o De ense who buy our uels or us. We arent looking at a subsidy.

The military is there ore accelerating its e orts in bio uelsdevelopment. According to Secretary P annenstiel:

We have the opportunity between 2012 and 2016 to work withthe bio uels industry, to develop the prices, to develop the prod-ucts, to develop the re neries that will get us to the quantities weneed by 2016.

Dr. Lucy Shapiro noted that there are multiple dimensionsto the scalability problem:

The scale-up is on two levels. One is scaling the basic biologicalprocess. And that is basic research, because whatever weve got outthere now, its not the actory, its not the big system, its making thebasic biological process scalable.

Another major technical challenge to overcome is in batterystorage, where orces remain too heavy, o ten 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 adozen di erent types. We are in need o rechargeable batteries andenergy 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 havean 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 wristand a sprained ankle. Thats good news, but that adds 2,500 poundsto the MRAP and that means its uel e ciency goes down. I wehad 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 addingweight. And that means that we need help in materials.

Colonel Robert Charette, responding rom his position as aeld o cer in theater, stressed the importance o innovation inportable heating and cooling technologies:

We need electronics that can operate without coolant, because oneo the big things on the battle eld thats giving us problems is cool-ant and the e cient heating and cooling o personnel.



48/81

SUSTAINED R&D AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS| 33

Recommendations

We believe that the Department o De ense should

7 Continue ocusing on research and development in sus-tained energy, with a particular emphasis on storage,lightweight materials, e cient heating and cooling, andalternative uels. Progress in each o these areas woulddo a great deal to enable increased operational e ective-

ness o the war ghter.7 Devote research e orts to bio uels and other alternative

liquid uels, while paying care ul attention to proceedonly to the extent that such uels can provide the mili-tary with critical energy security bene ts at a meaning ulscale and at an a ordable cost, or or particular tacticalbene ts.

7 Focus on other technologies that will add combat capa-bility or the war ghter. Continue to reach out to privateindustry regarding promising technologies that, whilenot yet market competitive or civilian use, may o erthe military with key tactical bene ts that can easily jus-ti y a higher price. An example o this can be seen in

the Armys Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System(REPPS) program, which was success ully deployed inA ghanistan.



49/81



50/81

35

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

THROUGHOUT THE CONFERENCE, participants made explicitand implied re erences to areas where the De ense Departmentneeded to make meaning ul and signi cant process improve-ments, highlighting the need or organizational culture shi ts,at all levels, in support o the war ghter. The departmentcan make signi cant gains in achieving its stated energy-security objectives by implementing and institutionalizingprocess improvements beyond the individual war ghter andtoward systemic, organizational levels, particularly in strate-gic and operational planning and acquisition processes andmethods.

Dr. Jim Sweeney raised three issues concerning the e -ciency o the tools provided to the war ghter and the incen-tives or motivating energy-e cient 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 e cient. Second, the organizations and incentivesdont give the people in the eld a reason to pay attention to theconsequences or the supply line. And the third is culture andattitudes energy e ciency is or wimps as an attitude.



51/81


Secretary Sharon Burke described the challenges associated

with driving cultural change in the De ense Department andhighlighting the responsibility to provide the war ghter withthe 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 saythat 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 re er-ence they need in order to change their culture? The incentivesystem may not line up here. Pulling that apart and guring outhow exactly to change it is not easy and its something that weall do a lot.

I think the burdens on us to put the tools and the rationale in thehands o people in the eld. The burden is on us who work on thisissue to make this work or our orces. I would say that one o theplaces where I think its harder is in the acquisitions community,or a variety o reasons. By the time youve got a major system thatsin the hands o someone orward, theres not a lot they can do tochange the basic nature o that system.

Secretary Burke urther described the practical problemsacing the war ghter in A ghanistan:

Lets take a orward operating base in A ghanistan. You have a unitthere and, depending on its size and its circumstances, it may bethat this is a group o a ew hundred soldiers rom mixed serviceswhove moved into a position. Now they may or may not havehad engineering help in building that base. They may be on theirown 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, theyregoing to get tents, theyre going to get generators to provide powerto those tents where they may have lights, communications gear,heating, and cooling. Theyre going to have some kind o latrinesystem. Theyre going to have a eld kitchen. Theyre probablygoing to have some kind o laundry, because again, youve got tokeep these people healthy and working in these circumstances. Youwill probably have a generator mechanic, who knows how to runthe generator, but he just knows how to run the generator. So youmay have them putting a generator on every tent and that generatormay be working at 10 percent e ciency, but they may not have thetools or the knowledge to run it in a di erent way necessarily. Thetent i its new, it probably is going to have some kind o a liner,but the thermal e ciency is low. It is what it is. Theyre ghting awar and theyre ordering the equipment that they can.

Theres no reason why they would know that theyre using energyine ciently and theyre creating a demand pull thats going tocause somebody to fy or truck energy to them. They would haveno 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 ine cient.

Dr. Sweeney suggested the problem o implementingenergy-responsible culture change resided at the organiza-tional level:

[I]t sounds to me that the problem has nothing to do with the menand women in the eld. The problem has to do with the way thesystem is organized.



53/81


I think theres a lot o parallels to energy use and energy e ciencyin the overall economy, where the goals not to reduce the use o energy in itsel , because a ter all, theres a good reason we haveenergy. We want it there, so were trying to look at ailures. But atour center [Precourt], I spent a lot o time at the beginning, try-ing to ask where the nature o the problem is and concluded thatthe nature o the problem was mostly in individual behavior andbehavior in companies and so orth. I hear the comments rom youthat say, no, thats probably not where the problem is in the mili-tary. Your structure is where the problems are. Its probably not inthe individual person in the eld. One o the things that Id like tobe able to do is maybe sit in and suggest, or example, maybe inthat area its not so parallel to the residential issues, but rather itsan issue o how you designed the systems? Or maybe its just thereality o your situation and you have to live with it? PersonallyI dont think we should see behavioral change as the key issue.From what I hear, its probably systems analysis that has more todo with it.

Strategy planning and end-states need to in orm and driveprograms, particularly energy and related acquisitions.Secretary Burke highlighted the need to deliberately considerenergy security, requirements, and implications to strategic andoperational 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, theyhave 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 dowe need to be able to do and how might the ull range o energytechnology 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 justi y 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 andgate 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 Per ormanceParameter or a Key Success Attribute, it will dramatically improvea plat orm or weapon systems energy e ciency. No longer a niceto do, its now a must do. That orces change.

Strengthening this link between strategic objectives andacquisitions will provide the war ghter with the tools neces-sary to accomplish the mission and support organizational cul-tural changes on energy. Energy considerations in strategicplanning and end-states can help in orm total ully burdenedcosts, 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 somegood reasons or that, which is when youre buying a system thatcosts billions o dollars that you want to be able to use ty yearsrom now, you want to make sure you get it right. But changingthat system is not easy. You have to get in rom the very begin-ning in the war gaming and the strategic planning and then inthe requirements generation. So when you look at the threat envi-ronment youre anticipating, you ask, What do you think youneed 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, whichis what were doing and everyone here today is working on thistogether, getting into these processes and making sure that ener-gys considered.

Dr. Richard Andres highlighted the ailure o markets to takeexternalities 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 attaking 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 protectingoil routes.

Secretary Burke noted the nonmonetary aspects in valuepropositions:

[T]he closer you get to the ght, the more our value propositionchanges. Some o the returns were looking or are going to be non-monetary or example, military capability.

Secretary Katherine Hammack echoed Secretary Burkescomment:

Our costs in theater or uel ranges rom $7 per gallon up to $40 pergallon, which, as Secretary Burke said, means that some o thesestrategies, which might not have a great return on investment in thecontinental 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 De ense Depart-

ments ability to conceptualize total cost:

Thats an interesting example o how the military has an abilityto conceptualize the total cost. Thats harder to do in the civilianeconomy because you look at a gallon o gas and thats it. So thisis a very impressive, interesting, contribution.

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

The other dimension o this is the payback. And so we think interms o ve years and some o the discussions were having acrossthe board is, i we make smart investments, it will take about ten oreleven years to hit the breakeven point. But a ter that point in time,

well save a billion and a hal or more dollars, once we get into sorto the ull production and the modi cation. Well, because wereocused on the ve-year time rame, most people hardly ever playinto the overall organizational decision to und them. So weve gotto break that paradigm as well as these other things that SecretarySharon Burke was talking about the color o money and authori-ties and all the other kinds o things going on.

Admiral Cullom added:

[T]here are a lot o di erent ways you can evaluate how yourinvestments are doing. Do you look at it in terms o the speci creturn on investment? The payback period? Clearly, those are essen-tial criteria or every initiative. But much o Secretary Terry Yonkerspoint is, as you do that, youve also got to think about the longhaul the total long-term impact the investment has over the li e-cycle o asset or plat orm ownership. Thats true or all the military



57/81


services assessed value depends on how you look at and valuethe output o your investment. And I think all the services believeyou need a ully calculated valuation o what the investment e ortcould end up yielding.

Ensuring sustainable progress and institutional support orenergy security requires two critical actors: Identi ying andimplementing adequate energy-per ormance metrics to sup-port energy security initiatives and objectives, and institution-alizing these e orts throughout the department. As SecretaryBurke said:

I think one thing we need is better metrics or measuring how weuse energy in the ght and in our systems. I you start throwing outgoals 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 thatwe need, to get more military output or every unit o energy input.Talk about metrics. Thats one Id like to see e ectiveness 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 samepeople who buy are ultimately responsible or how we aregoing 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 o cers, who are



58/81


responsible or developing that program and getting it to li e andgetting it as an actual system. But theyre not the ones that operateit over time. So their incentive is to get it built and to get it in thearsenal, because this is what our olks need. Like a ground combatvehicle, the amphibious vehicle, these are things that the Marinesand the Army have de ned as they have to have it in the orce. Andthe program managers job is to get them what they need. So some-times theres a split-incentive problem there and who pays the billsor certain kinds o things is not who buys the system. We have thatproblem, 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 thesame as the person who uses it. The demand signal thats beingcreated on the ground is being met by air. Those bills are all paidby di erent people. So it is part o our challenge not that easy tosolve this problem.

Secretary Jackalyne P annenstiel added:

The other question is, what is the uture or expeditionary war-are technologies? The solar backpacks, or example. Even i wepull out o A ghanistan 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 theMarine Corps and the Army and the Air Force and the Navy. Wedont want to slow our progress. We have to anticipate our war-ghters needs and be ready, not be scrambling a ter the act.It needs to be institutionalized. It needs to be part o what theDepartment o De ense 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 enableenergy to make a di erence in the war ght saving lives, giving usmore combat capability in the process, and being more Spartan inthe 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 De ense to makesure these programs are sustainable and institutionalized acrossdepartments and agencies but also across all o American Society.Our e orts must move the American economy to help our energyposition in the long term, not just in the next several years or thenext administration.

Recommendations

We believe the Department o De ense should

7 Focus culture-change initiatives beyond the individ-ual war ghter and on the broader organizational level,

particularly in the strategy and policy and acquisitionwork orce. Without broader organizational change andbuy-in, plans developed by energy-speci c personnelare unlikely to be e ective.

7 Incorporate energy security into strategic and opera-tional planning and De ense 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 Identi y and implement energy-per ormance metrics

to support energy security initiatives and objectives,and institutionalize use o these metrics throughout thedepartment. As the organizational theorist Peter Druckeramously observed decades ago, What gets measured,gets managed.



61/81



62/81

47

APPENDIX 1MEMBERS OF THE

SHULTZ-STEPHENSON TASK FORCEON 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 Institutionand pro essor o economics and sociology at theUniversity o Chicago.

Paul Berg is currently the Cahill Pro essor o Biochemistryemeritus at Stan ord University.

Samuel W. Bodman is the ormer U.S. secretary o energyrom 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 Pro essor o Economics atStan ord 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 pro essor in the Public PolicyProgram at Stan ord University.

Sidney D. Drell is a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution andpro essor o theoretical physics (emeritus) at the SLAC

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

and a senior ellow with the Center or Northeast AsianPolicy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Lawrence H. Goulder is a pro essor and chair o the Depart-ment o Economics at Stan ord University, where he isalso a Kennedy-Grossman Fellow in human biology and asenior ellow at the Institute or Economic Policy Research.

Kenneth L. Judd is the Paul H. Bauer Senior Fellow at theHoover 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 Pro essor o Economics at the University o Chicago Booth School o Business.

Jens K. Nrskov is pro essor o chemical engineering and o photon science at Stan ord University and at the SLACNational Accelerator Laboratory.

William J. Perry , a senior ellow at the Hoover Institution, isthe Michael and Barbara Berberian Pro essor at Stan ord



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 De enseProject, a research collaboration o Stan ord and HarvardUniversities. Perry was the nineteenth United States sec-retary o de ense, serving rom February 1994 to January1997. His previous government experience was as dep-uty secretary o de ense (1993 94) and undersecretary o

de ense 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 theappropriate role o government in society.

William K. Reilly is the ormer administrator o theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA); ounding part-ner o Aqua International Partners, a private-equity undinvested in water and renewable energy companies; andsenior adviser to TPG Capital, an international investmentpartnership.

Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson

Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institutionand pro essor o political science at Stan ord University.From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the sixty-sixthsecretary o state o the United States.

Burton Richter is a Nobel laureate (physics, 1976); thePaul Pigott Pro essor in the Physical Sciences emeri-tus, Stan ord University; ormer director, SLAC NationalAccelerator Laboratory; and a member o the NationalAcademy 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 pro essor o public policy and managementemeritus at Stan ord Universitys Graduate School o Business and a member o Stan ords Asia-Paci c

Research Center.Lucy Shapiro is a pro essor in the Department o

Developmental Biology at Stan ord Universitys Schoolo Medicine, where she holds the Virginia and D. K.Ludwig Chair in Cancer Research.

George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. FordDistinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He wassworn in on July 16, 1982, as the sixtieth U.S. secretaryo state and served until January 20, 1989.

Kiron K. Skinner is the W. Glenn Campbell Research Fellowat the Hoover Institution at Stan ord University.

Abraham D. So aer , who served as legal adviser to theU.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 in ormation technology and health-care com-panies. He is a ormer U.S. ambassador to the PortugueseRepublic and spent twenty-two years with FidelityInvestments.

James L. Sweeney is a pro essor o management science andengineering at Stan ord 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 Pro essor o Economics at Stan ordUniversity.

David G. Victor is a pro essor at the University o Cali ornia,San Diego, in the School o International Relationsand Paci c Studies and director o the Laboratory onInternational Law and Regulation.

R. James Woolsey was the Annenberg Distinguished VisitingFellow at the Hoover Institution at Stan ord University,and served as director o the Central Intelligence Agencyrom 1993 to 1995.



67/81



68/81

53

APPENDIX 2CONFERENCE AGENDA

ENERGY TASK FORCE MEETINGDECEMBER 12, 2011

HOOVER INSTITUTIONSTANFORD UNIVERSITY

Monday, December 12, 2011

8:30 a . m . 8:45 a . m .Welcoming Remarks7 The Honorable George P. Shultz

8:45 a . m . 9:30 a . m .DoDs Contribution to Strategic Energy IssuesPresenter:7 Dr. Richard B. Andres , Chair, Energy &

Environmental Security Policy, National De enseUniversity

9:30 a . m . 10:15 a . m .Pioneering E orts in Energy: Department o De enseEnergy Policy



69/81

54 | APPENDIX 2

Presenter:7

The Honorable Sharon E. Burke , Assistant Secretary o De ense or Operational Energy Plans and Programs

10:15 a . m . 12:00 p . m .Implementing DoDs Energy Policy The Navy/MarineCorps, 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 NavyExperiencePresenters: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 Division7 Colonel Robert J. Charette Jr. , USMC, Director, Marine

Corps Expeditionary Energy O ce



70/81


71/81



72/81

57

APPENDIX 3CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

Speakers (in order o appearance):Richard B. Andres is the Energy & Environmental Security

Policy Chair at National De ense Universitys Institute or

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

operational energy plans and programs. Jackalyne P annenstiel 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 O ce.



73/81



74/81

59

NOTES

Preface

1. The details o these energy strategies can be ound at http://energy.de ense.gov (DoD strategy), http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil (Army strategy), http://marines.mil/community/Pages

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

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

Overview of CurrentMilitary Energy Strategy

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

sources, which provide urther details on the De ense Departmentsand service branches strategies: http://energy.de ense.gov, http:// army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil, http://marines.mil/community

/Pages/ExpeditionaryEnergy.aspx, http://www.sa e.hq.a .mil/energy /index.asp, and http://greenfeet.dodlive.mil/home.

Defense DepartmentOperational Energy Strategy

1. http://energy.de ense.gov/OES_report_to_congress.pd .



75/81

60 | NOTES TO PAGES 9 16

U.S. Army Energy Vision

1. Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary o the Army or Energy andSustainability, 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 De ense, Assistant Secretary o De ense orOperational Energy Plans and Programs, Fiscal Year 2012Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report, January 2001, http:// energy.de ense.gov/FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pd .

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

U.S Marine CorpsEnergy Vision

1. http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/USMC%20Expeditionary%20Energy%20Strategy.pd (United States MarineCorps 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 26 27 | 61

The Electric Grid

and Distributed Generation1. Hoover Institution/Brookings Institution, Assessing the Role o

Distributed Power Systems in the U.S. Power Sector, October 2011,http://media.hoover.org/sites/de ault/ les/documents

/Distributed-Energy.pd .2. http://media.hoover.org/sites/de ault/ 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 a terholding six operational commands; he is one o only two o -cers in the navys history to have commanded both the Atlan-tic and Paci c Fleets. Ashore he served as the commandant o the US Naval