U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–025 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–965 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EPA’S WORK WITH 

OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES TO REDUCE POLLUTION AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS 

AND THE NEW ECONOMY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 27, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 8 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 9 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 111 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 130 

WITNESSES 

Gillespie-Marthaler, Leslie, Senior Advisor, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 16 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 20 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 22 

Kidd, Richard G. IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and Sustainability, U.S. Army ................................................................................................ 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 38 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 40 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 43 

Hicks, Thomas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Navy ............. 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 58 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 61 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 63 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 67 

Geiss, Kevin T., Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Air 

Force ...................................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 93 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 94 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 95 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 98 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EPA’S WORK WITH 

OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES TO REDUCE 

POLLUTION AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders (Chairman of 

the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Sanders, Carper, Whitehouse, Inhofe, and 

Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. The Committee will come to order. 

Thank you for being with us for what I think is going to be an 

extraordinarily interesting and important hearing. This hearing is 

a product of two Subcommittees, Senator Whitehouse’s Subcommittee and mine, and we thought it made sense to do a joint 

hearing. We are delighted that Senator Boozman and Senator 

Inhofe are here as well. Perhaps other members will be coming. 

As I think our panelists know, we thank them very much not 

only for the work they are doing but for being here this morning. 

There is somewhat of a debate in the U.S. Congress and in the 

U.S. Senate which I expect you may hear of today about the nature 

of global warming. There are some who believe that global warming is not real; there are some who believe that global warming is 

not significantly caused by human activity; and there are some of 

us who very strongly disagree with those who think not only that 

global warming is real, but we believe that global warming is causing very significant problems to our planet today and is costing us 

huge amounts of money in terms of dealing with extreme weather 

disturbances. 

Senator Whitehouse and I just last month had a very interesting 

hearing with representatives of the insurance industry, of all people. These are not card carrying members of the environmental 

community. They simply have to pay the bills when we have floods, 

droughts, tornadoes, and hurricanes. They say these things are 

erupting far more than they were in the past; they are costing us 

2 

a lot of money, and Congress is going to have to deal with the 

issue. 

Today, we are focusing on the role of the United States military 

in terms of dealing with global warming. Let me simply say that 

assessments from our own intelligence community—CIA and others—show ‘‘A climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.’’ In 

other words, if you have more droughts, if you have more floods, 

if people don’t have enough food to eat, if you are seeing migrations 

of people, this causes international instability which is of some concern, to say the least, to the U.S. military. 

Furthermore, the military investing in energy efficiency and sustainable energy is not just about reducing greenhouse gas emission. 

This is a very important point to make. It is about military strategy as well. It is about protecting our soldiers in the field. 

According to the Army Environmental Policy Institute 1 out of 

every 24 fuel resupply convoys in Afghanistan resulted in a casualty—1 out of every 24. In Iraq estimates show that 1 of every 8 

soldiers killed was protecting a fuel convoy, moving fuel in hostile 

regions resulting in casualties. These fuel convoys are by definition 

targets for our enemies, and that is why the marines have developed innovative solar powered operating bases that can store energy with battery technology. In Afghanistan two fuel bases ran on 

solar energy exclusively for a 7-month period. 

While some here may put down solar or sustainable energy, some 

in the Congress, we know that for the military solar is about reducing risks to our troops. It is about saving lives. 

Sustainable energy investments by the military also benefit the 

taxpayer. The Department of Defense is the largest consumer of 

energy in America and I believe in the entire world with a fuel bill 

for petroleum alone of over $17 billion in 2011. It is no wonder that 

the military sees reducing reliance on costly fossil fuels—imported 

in some cases from hostile, unstable nations—as a priority. That is 

why it is good news, in my view, when the Air Force tested a 50 

percent biofuel blend for jet fuel and the Navy tested a 50 percent 

algae blend in a destroyer. I congratulate them for moving forward 

in these areas. 

There is also huge potential for savings at bases. DOD manages 

facilities with total square footage three times larger than 

Walmart. In Vermont I worked with our National Guard to fund 

the installation of over 1.45 megawatts of solar photovoltaic energy 

which is saving the National Guard about $250,000 a year in energy costs. 

We know we can do that on more bases around the country. 

Some years ago I went to Nellis Air Force Base, and they have a 

huge PV system there which is working as I understand very well 

in Nevada. Also, we know the Army is working with the EPA to 

develop bases that are net zero energy consumers by increasing efficiency and generating renewable energy onsite. 

I commend the U.S. military for taking a leadership role in sustainable energy. It is right for our soldiers, for our national security, and for our environment. 

Senator Boozman. 

3 

Senator BOOZMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to defer to our Ranking Member who is running back and forth 

between here and Armed Services. 

Senator SANDERS. Without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

I may have a way, Mr. Chairman, for you to just get rid of me. 

Senator SANDERS. Not at all, Jim. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. INHOFE. If you will allow me to do something rather unusual, 

to go ahead and have time for an opening statement and then 

make a comment I was going to make. During his opening statement he can respond to it, and I can go back down to Armed Services. That would kind of double my time then I am out of here. 

I have a great deal of respect for the Chairman. He and I disagree on this whole idea, and I have looked at it, and in fact I even 

wrote a book about it which I hope you will read at some point, 

that it may be that you and others believe that all this global 

warming stuff is taking place, and the world is coming to an end. 

If you just look in the last 100 years, 1895 to 1925, it was a cooling 

period, and everyone said another ice age was coming. Then from 

1925 to 1945 it was another global warming and everyone got 

hysterical. From 1945 to 1975 there was another cooling spell. 

Then it went into the current one, and now it is cycling around, 

and it is getting cooler. We all understand that. 

Here is the interesting thing. The largest surge in emissions of 

CO2 took place after World War II in 1945. That precipitated not 

another 30 years of warming but of cooling. It is kind of interesting. 

The comment I would make and just drop the subject of global 

warming is the vast majority of the members of the House and the 

Senate, talking about the House and the Senate even back when 

the majority were Democrats, don’t agree with that. They don’t 

agree with the position stated by the Chairman because we have 

had a chance to vote on this several times. The most votes they can 

get in the U.S. Senate right now might be 25 out of 100. 

I would like to comment because something happened I noticed 

this morning, a news report that Obama and the EPA are going to 

be announcing today the global warming regulations at new power 

plants. This is at a time when everyone is all concerned about the 

price of gas at the pumps. It is alarming they would put forward 

more costly global warming regulations that will, as the President 

had promised, in his words, ‘‘ensure energy costs will necessarily 

skyrocket.’’ 

Specifically, these new rules will have a devastating impact on 

coal-fired power plants, political rights that this rule promises to 

change the way the U.S. gets its power. The Sierra Club hopes that 

it will mean we will never have another coal-fired power plant 

built. That may happen because this only talks about new coal 

plants. 

The rule is proof that President Obama’s latest rhetoric on an all 

of the above approach to energy is simply lip service to helping his 

reelection chances as gas prices skyrocket. Yet this rule clearly 

4 

shows that the Administration remains committed to a war on affordable energy that has been happening, and it is happening now. 

I want to serve notice that we had to do the same thing on Utility MACT, that if this rule is finalized, it is written in the Federal 

Registry, I will do a CRA, Congressional Review Act on this. I 

think if nothing more—particularly right now when everyone is 

concerned about the high price of gas, you can’t take energy and 

divide it. Energy is energy, and it competes. Fuel switching causes 

an increase in gas prices. I think it is important for everyone to be 

on record on this. I think the Chairman would agree with this. 

The one thing I was going to point out was the Chairman mentioned the Air Force started this program of 50-50. That happened 

to be with Fischer Tropsch which was a Tulsa, Oklahoma, operation. I was very much involved in that. We started using that, 

first of all, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, in B–52s, and we ended 

up with all of our fleet. It worked very well. 

However, when they had the 526 come in, saying you could not 

exceed the footprint of fossil fuels, the cost is just incredible. I 

would say that perhaps the Under Secretary of the Navy might 

want to respond to this, if you decided the cost would be, and I 

have the breakdown here, under the great green fleet, it needs 8 

million barrels of biofuel by 2020. That is 336 million gallons. EIA 

just last month said the kerosene type fuel’s spot price was $3.26 

a gallon, the cost of recent algae fuel procurement project, a 

biofuel, is $15 a gallon. You take the difference between conventional and biofuel blend, the difference is $3.9 billion. 

I would just ask that you look at what you can do with $3.9 billion at a time we are making cuts that amount to half a trillion 

dollars over the next decade. If sequestration comes in it is going 

to be even worse. I don’t know if anyone doesn’t agree it adds disaster to our military. 

With the same amount of money you could buy 19 more F–35s, buy 46 more SM–3 Block 1B interceptors at $2 billion apiece. I 

have a long list that I am going to ask be made a part of the record 

during these comments. 

I say this to Mr. Hicks—as you are responding to this, maybe 

talk about the alternatives, what you could do to better defend 

America for this amount of money. You might have some comments. If you can’t do it without having time to look at it, do it for 

the record. If we could do that, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate 

it very much. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


25025.001
6 


25025.002
7 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Sanders, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I believe 

one of the primary reasons for this hearing is to highlight the Obama administration’s efforts to impose its green energy agenda on our military. I have long been 

outspoken in my opposition to their use of the military to promote a green agenda 

at the expense of affordable energy. Gas prices today are skyrocketing, yet here we 

are today talking about an alternative energy agenda that will force our military 

to spend even more on energy resources at a time when the Obama administration 

is gutting our military budget. 

Now let me be clear: I have always supported efforts to make more efficient use 

of our natural resources and taxpayer dollars. For instance, EPA’s WaterSense program, a voluntary public-private partnership, is a great example of a cost-effective 

conservation program geared toward saving money and protecting water resources. 

What I don’t support, however, are policies that are designed to raise the price of 

traditional energy to make alternatives more competitive, especially at a time when 

our military and American families can least afford it. 

I’m glad to welcome witnesses from the Department of Defense (DoD) at the table 

because I will have a number of questions for you. As I pointed out last week in 

an Armed Services hearing, I am deeply disappointed that DoD is expending increasing amounts of its scarce resources on expensive alternative energy when your 

budget is being slashed by a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years. DoD is already drastically cutting its personnel, the number of brigade combat teams, tactical 

fighters, and airlift aircraft. It is cutting or postponing programs such as the C–27, 

Global Hawk Block 30, C–130 avionics modernization, the F–35, the littoral combat 

ship, the next generation ballistic missile submarine, and the ground combat vehicles. Forcing DoD to expend more money on expensive alternative fuels further exacerbates its budget issues. For example, the Secretary of the Navy has pledged taxpayer funds of $170 million as their share of a $510 million effort to construct or 

retrofit biofuel refineries in order to create a commercially viable market and recently purchased $26 per gallon fuel. And as if the Services are not already stressed 

by serious budget cutbacks, the Secretary directed the Navy and Marine Corps to 

produce or consume 1 gigawatt of new, renewable energy to power naval installations across the country. I frankly do not believe you should be using defense funds 

to develop private sector alternative energy capability especially when we’re delaying and canceling the important projects mentioned above. With a range of domestic 

alternatives already commercially viable and in use such as CNG or LNG, taxpayer 

funds do not need to be used to pick winners and losers. 

Make no mistake, this Administration’s policies are killing jobs, undermining the 

economy, and threatening America’s long-term security. I don’t share the opinions 

of Senator Boxer and Al Gore that global warming will be the leading cause of conflict in our world over the next 20 years or that it is more of a threat than terrorism. Forcing our military to take money away from core programs in order to invest in unproven technologies as part of a failed cap-and-trade agenda is not only 

wrong, it’s reckless. Any discussion of ‘‘EPA’s work with other Federal entities to 

reduce pollution and improve environmental performance,’’ as this hearing is titled, 

must include a discussion of policies that restore balance between policies that protect the environment and those that kill jobs and weaken our national security. I 

hope that the Senate will soon act to restore that balance. 

Senator SANDERS. Yes. 

Jim, what did you want to say? 

Senator INHOFE. I was saying it would be very difficult for him 

to provide it now. I do apologize. It seemed like back when Republicans were majority, and I chaired this Committee, we were going 

to be able to do something about these conflicting committees. We 

were able to do it; you are not able to do it; so I have to go to the 

Armed Services Committee. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I am very happy to co-chair this hearing today with my colleague 

from Vermont, Senator Sanders, regarding EPA’s role in the military’s efforts to become more efficient, more energy independent, 

and more sustainable. 

A quiet transformation is taking place in our Armed Services, a 

clean energy transformation. Our men and women in uniform are 

working to reduce demand for fuel convoys through enemy territory, make our military bases less dependent on the grid, and test 

alternative jet fuels so as to lessen our dependence on Middle East 

oil. They are also looking for innovative ways to cut water use and 

waste. 

Some of these efforts grew out of the grim realities of a decade 

at war. Last summer the Department of Defense reported that over 

3,000 soldiers or contractors have been killed in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in the Iraq and Afghanistan; 80 percent of all supply trucks operating in those zones of conflict are fuel 

trucks. Over-dependence on oil costs us lives and dollars. Secretary of the Navy Mabus has calculated that for every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil the Navy’s energy costs rise 

by $31 million. The Wall Street Journal reported recently on Pentagon information showing that if we think that $4 per gallon gasoline is expensive here at home, the all in cost for a gallon of gasoline delivered in Afghanistan was $400 a gallon. 

The U.S. military understands that greenhouse gas pollution 

from these fuels is driving global climate change and that this 

change in our oceans and atmosphere has made security implications. The White House has provided key leadership to the military’s efforts to deploy renewable energy and reduce energy use. 

In 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 setting 

sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the Federal 

Government. This Executive Order built on a Sustainability Executive Order signed by President George Bush in 2007. President 

Obama’s Executive Order called for energy efficiency efforts that 

would result in a 28 percent cut in the Government’s 2009 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 for a cost savings of $8 billion to $11 

billion. 

When each Federal agency set energy efficiency targets for this 

framework, the Department of Defense rose to the challenge, pledging the most ambitious reductions of any agency. The military has 

been aggressive in meeting these targets. Just last week, the Army 

announced it will work with industry to deploy up to $7 billion in 

renewable energy resources—wind, solar, and geothermal—on its 

bases. This announcement is the Army’s latest effort to meet its 

goal of producing 25 percent of its energy needs through renewable 

energy by 2025. 

The U.S. Air Force is an award winning member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Power Partnerships Program. In 

fiscal year 2011, this military branch had about 194 renewable energy projects on 71 sites either in operation or under construction. 

The U.S. Navy has set a goal of producing at least 50 percent of 

its onshore energy from alternative sources by 2020. 

9 

In my home State of Rhode Island, Naval Station Newport has 

proposed a wind installation to provide much of its power. In 2008 

Naval Station Newport was recognized by the Navy for having reduced its energy use from a 2003 baseline by 28 percent through 

a base-wide energy efficiency program. The military is moving toward a cleaner energy future. 

I am grateful that our witnesses from the military branches are 

here: Richard Kidd, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and 

Sustainability, U.S. Army; Thomas Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Navy, and he will be representing both the 

Navy and the United States Marine Corps at this hearing; and Dr. 

Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Air 

Force. 

These men have strong military backgrounds as well as energy 

expertise, and it speaks volumes that they hold these positions and 

that our military branches have these positions. 

For many Federal agencies, the Sustainability Executive Order 

marks the first time they attempted to incorporate sustainability 

into their operations. The EPA, however, has always had sustainability as its core mission. That is why Federal agencies and entities look to the EPA as a leader in the Governmentwide efforts to 

reduce greenhouse gas pollution and energy use. 

Over the past several years, EPA has worked with the military 

on a number of sustainability efforts citing renewable energy installations on military brownfields, funding biofuels research, and 

reducing military use of pesticides and other chemicals. However, 

only very recently are these relationships being formalized. 

Last November the Army and EPA entered an MOU formalizing 

EPA’s support of the Army’s net zero-based initiative. Their work 

will begin by focusing on wastewater and stormwater management 

at two Army bases. Last month EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the Department of Defense entered into a second 

MOU pledging to work together to deploy cutting edge technologies 

that make military operations more sustainable. 

I look forward to learning more in this hearing about the plans 

to execute these MOUs and how we can help. I also look forward 

to hearing from EPA’s witness, Leslie Gillespie, who is herself a 

West Point graduate, a former active duty member of the U.S. 

Army and one of the point persons at EPA for cooperative efforts 

with the military. 

These are exactly the type of strategic partnerships we need to 

push forward in the clean energy and energy efficiency fields. I 

thank everyone for their participation in this hearing. 

I yield to Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and Chairman Sanders, for having the hearing today and looking into the 

collaboration between the EPA and the Department of Defense on 

pollution reduction and environmental performance issues. These 

are valuable, worthwhile efforts. 

At the same time, we must keep our priorities straight. The mission of the military must be to have the best trained, most well 

10 

equipped and capable fighting force on the planet. The Department 

can and should fulfill this mission and maintain appropriate environmental safeguards. However, if we find that minor improvements come at the expense of the core mission of the Department 

of Defense, we should reexamine our priorities. 

Please understand that I know helping the war fighter and 

achieving environmental goals can be complementary to each other. 

We simply need to know what are the benefits, what are the costs, 

what are the highest priorities when we have limited resources and 

tremendous needs. There is no doubt that smart energy efficiency 

improvements can provide benefits to the men and women in uniform and provide long-term savings to the taxpayer. 

Ultimately, this may not be the most exciting hearing we are 

going to have in Congress today or in the near future, but it is 

very, very important. I sit on both the Subcommittees represented 

here today, and I am glad to see the Oversight Subcommittee holding one of its first hearings, and I hope that in the future we have 

many more. 

I served in the House of Representatives at the time in the majority and at the time in the minority. I served during both the 

Bush and Obama administrations. During that experience, I found 

that strict oversight was—though sometimes painful—ultimately 

beneficial to the Administration and helps to prevent minor problems from growing into big problems. 

Again, I know that we are all interested in doing all that we can 

to help you all in your efforts and hope to play a continued role as 

we go forth this year. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening the hearing. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman. 

Now we will hear from our panelists. Senator Whitehouse has already introduced the panelists. I don’t think you need a second introduction. Why don’t we begin with Leslie Gillespie-Marthaler. 

Thank you very much for being with us, and we would love to 

hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE GILLESPIE-MARTHALER, SENIOR ADVISOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. GILLESPIE-MARTHALER. Good morning, Chairman Sanders, 

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Boozman, and other 

members of the Subcommittees. 

My name is Leslie Gillespie-Marthaler, and I am the Senior Advisor in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. I am happy to be here today to talk to 

you about our partnership with the U.S. military to conduct research and technology demonstrations on innovative water treatment and infrastructure technologies. 

Let me start by saying that EPA is very proud to be partners 

with the Department of Defense as they develop and deliver water 

technology solutions by leveraging EPA’s expertise. EPA has two 

Memorandums of Understanding with the Department of Defense, 

specifically with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment and with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. 

11 

On November 28, 2011, the EPA and the Army signed an MOU 

to partner on mutual and interrelated interests in the areas of 

water, energy, and waste through joint development and demonstration of new applications and technologies. These can be used 

on Army installations in order to achieve net zero goals. 

The Army’s net zero goal is to move installations closer to consuming only as much energy or water as they produce and eliminating solid waste sent to landfills. The goal of the MOU is to partner on the development of integrated solutions to environmental 

challenges such as water quality, conservation, and reuse and to 

create innovative approaches toward addressing challenges of 

urban stormwater management and energy efficiency within water 

infrastructure systems. EPA is also collaborating with the Department of Energy in order to better understand the water-energy 

nexus. 

We will use the remainder of fiscal year 2012 as a period for 

planning our research for the months and years ahead. Implementation will begin in fiscal year 2013. EPA seeks to leverage existing 

resources to achieve mutual goals that initially benefit Army communities and eventually benefit communities across the country. 

Our efforts are focused on helping Army installations. Together 

as partners, we chose to begin our initial collaboration at two installations, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and Fort 

Riley, Kansas. On February 7, 2012, the EPA and DOD signed an 

MOU to jointly promote and demonstrate innovative technologies 

on DOD bases. This not only complements the partnership with the 

Army but expands opportunities to promote and transfer technology successes across the board to military bases and surrounding communities. We are in the initial stages of discussion 

with DOD at this time. 

In conclusion, our partnership with DOD supports EPA’s mission 

of protecting public health and the environment within military 

communities through shared solutions, technology, and innovation. 

This partnership demonstrates how Federal agencies are creatively 

advancing one another’s expertise and mission through sciencebased technologies and approaches. To maximize the opportunity of 

this partnership, we look forward to collaborating with other Federal agencies, stakeholders, and most importantly with surrounding communities. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and will 

be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler follows:] 

12 


25025.003
13 


25025.004
14 


25025.005
15 


25025.006
16 


25025.007
17 


25025.008
18 


25025.009
19 


25025.010
20 


25025.011
21 


25025.012
22 


25025.013
23 


25025.014
24 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

We have been joined by Senator Tom Carper of Delaware. 

Our next panelist is Richard G. Kidd, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and Sustainability, U.S. Army. 

Thanks very much for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. KIDD, IV, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY, U.S. ARMY 

Mr. KIDD. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Boozman and other members of 

the Subcommittees for having me here today. It is a pleasure to be 

here and to discuss the Army’s energy security and sustainability 

efforts. 

The Army is addressing energy security through development of 

force-wide energy doctrine and operating principles, technological 

investments, operational training, education, facilities management 

which are all critical aspects of instilling a mindset of conservation, 

efficiency, and sustainability. 

While these efforts will have many intended benefits, you should 

be clear that the Army does this for the simple reason that we believe energy security is essential for the Army to meet mission requirements now and in the future. Reducing energy use across the 

Army is mission critical, operationally necessary, and financially 

prudent. 

The Army recognizes the value of collaboration and we are working closely with several public and private organizations to meet 

our energy security requirements. These include the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, other military services, the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. 

In particular, we entered a Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Environmental Protection Agency last year for water programs 

to identify and demonstrate new applications and technologies. The 

Army is the largest facilities energy user of electricity in the Federal Government representing just over 20 percent of the Federal 

Government’s electric energy bill. 

Since 2003 the Army has been able to reduce the consumption 

of electricity on installations by over 13 percent despite the fact 

that the total number of active soldiers and civilians has gone up 

by 20 percent. Operationally, the Army spends 40 percent of its liquid fuel to reduce electricity in generators. 

To meet statutory requirements and Army energy security goals, 

the Army plans on using a variety of appropriated funds as well 

as third party financing. The Army is currently the largest user of 

energy performance contracts in the Federal Government. Going 

forward, assuming that the fiscal year 2013 budget is approved by 

Congress, we plan to execute $393 million in appropriated energy 

projects, $400 million in energy savings performance contracts, and 

up to $700 million in renewable energy projects. The answer to 

questions posed by the committee, if all of these funds go forth, 

that represents at least 15,000 jobs created. 

Army investments in energy projects throughout all of these 

mechanisms are subject to thorough cost-benefit analysis to ensure 

that the life cycle costs of these projects will be positive and beneficial to the Army. Additionally, integral to all of our efforts is culVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25025.TXT SONYA
25 

tural change and the requirement to implement a holistic, integrated design approach to our installations and to our operations 

in the field. 

In this regard, we have announced the Army Net Zero Initiative. 

Net Zero Initiatives will move closer to the objective of consuming 

only as much energy and water as they produce and eliminate solid 

wastes to landfills. When fully implemented, Net Zero installations 

will establish model communities for energy security, sustainability, value, and quality of life. Seventeen installations have been 

identified to pilot this effort. 

As mentioned earlier, last November we signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development for water intensity reduction to maximize the Army’s Net Zero Water Initiative. The Army 

and the EPA are working jointly to advance the development of 

new, science-based applications and technologies that can be implemented to achieve Net Zero energy, water, and waste goals. 

The Army-EPA MOU complements the DOD-EPA Memorandum 

of Understanding signed February 7, 2012. In addition, the Army’s 

Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering 

Center, TARDEC, has an MOU with the Department of Energy, 

and the Army participates as part of the Department of Defense’s 

broader MOU with the Department of Energy. 

In regard to renewable energy, to streamline the process of developing large scale renewable energy projects on Army lands, last 

September we established the Energy Initiatives Task Force known 

as the EITF. The Energy Initiatives Task Force serves as the central management and negotiation office to augment installation 

staff for the development of renewable energy projects greater than 

10 megawatts. 

They are currently reviewing 15 projects and have a further 81 

that they are modeling and under development. Of these 81, they 

are at or below grid parity costs for like sources of electricity. 

In conclusion, the Army is working diligently to improve our energy security posture. I did not prepare remarks on operational energy, but just to reflect the comments made earlier, this year the 

Army will be deploying two entire Airborne Brigade combat teams 

to Afghanistan equipped with new soldier power solutions to include renewable power systems to recharge soldier batteries lightening their load in combat. 

Improved energy security means increased mobility by not being 

tethered to supply lines, foreign suppliers, or volatile energy markets. Investment in energy capabilities including renewable energy 

and energy efficient technologies will help ensure that the Army 

can meet mission requirements today and into the future. 

Not only is it the smart thing to do, it is the right to do from 

both an operational and financial standpoint. 

I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kidd follows:] 

26 


25025.015
27 


25025.016
28 


25025.017
29 


25025.018
30 


25025.019
31 


25025.020
32 


25025.021
33 


25025.022
34 


25025.023
35 


25025.024
36 


25025.025
37 


25025.026
38 


25025.027
39 


25025.028
40 


25025.029
41 


25025.030
42 


25025.031
43 


25025.032
44 


25025.033
45 


25025.034
46 


25025.035
47 


25025.036
48 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Kidd. 

Mr. Thomas W. Hicks is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, United States Navy. 

Mr. Hicks, thanks very much for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. HICKS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR ENERGY, U.S. NAVY 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Boozman, Senator Carper, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be 

here before you today to provide an overview of the Department of 

Navy’s energy investments. 

Time permitting, I would like to address the questions posed by 

Senator Inhofe rather than taking those for the record. 

The Department of the Navy’s fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $1 billion and $4 billion across the future years’ defense 

plan for operational and shore energy initiatives. Our energy investments are not about advancing an environmental agenda or to 

be green. Our energy investments are about improving our combat 

capabilities, increasing our mission effectiveness, and reducing our 

vulnerabilities to foreign sources of fossil fuel, and for those brave 

sailors and marines deployed overseas, it is about bring more of 

them home safely to their families. 

We are on track and intend to meet the energy goal set forth by 

Congress and the Secretary of the Navy. We understand that energy is an essential resource for the Navy and the Marine Corps 

requirement. Our use of new energy technologies and resources will 

allow us to reduce our dependency on fuels that negatively impact 

our economy and reduce our vulnerability to price volatility. 

Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up $1, it costs the Department in excess of $30 million in fuel costs. In fiscal year 2012, 

in large part due to political unrest in oil producing regions, the 

price per barrel of oil has risen $38 over what was originally, raising the Navy’s fuel bill in fiscal year 2012, the year of execution, 

by more than $1 billion. These price spikes must be paid for out 

of our operations, meaning our sailors and marines are forced to 

sail less, fly less, and in short, train less. 

In efforts to meet Congress’ renewable energy goals and the Department of Navy’s goal of procuring 50 percent of our offshore energy from alternative sources, we are developing a strategy to identify and execute large scale renewable projects. We will use existing third party financing mechanisms to avoid adding cost to the 

taxpayers. 

Under the direction of Congress and our Commander in Chief, 

and in partnership with other Federal agencies, we have two major 

initiatives underway. The first is advancing the consumption of 1 

gigawatt of renewable energy generation on or near our installations. While a seagoing service, we own more than 3 million acres 

of land and over 72,500 buildings. We will facilitate the production 

of large scale renewable power projects on naval installations, we 

will use third party financing mechanisms such as power purchase 

agreements, joint ventures, and enhanced use leases to avoid adding costs to the taxpayers. 

49 

Currently our bases support over 350 megawatts of renewable 

energy through a variety of sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Recently, we have awarded contracts for three solar 

projects in the southwest and are finalizing a similar contract in 

Hawaii. The three awarded power purchase agreements at China 

Lake, Twenty-Nine Palms and Barstow will save the Department 

$20 million over 20 years, and in all three cases we will be paying 

less per kilowatt hour than we would be for conventional power. 

Operationally, we are undertaking numerous initiatives such as 

hybrid electric drives, stern flaps, propeller coatings, paint coatings 

to make our fleet of 285 ships and 3,700 aircraft more efficient. 

This results in greater combat capability while potentially saving 

many millions of dollars. 

The Marine Corps Experimental Forward Operating Base Initiative has reduced fuel supply vulnerability and has also delivered 

greater combat capability by deploying renewable energy technologies throughout the Afghanistan theater. In addition to these 

efforts, a second major initiative is being undertaken in conjunction 

with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy to accelerate 

a domestic biofuels market capable of delivering advanced biofuel 

blends that meet or exceed all commercial and military specifications that do not require any modifications to our ships, aircraft, 

or infrastructure, that do not compete for food, and that do not cost 

any more than conventional fuel. 

To date, we have tested all of our manned and unmanned aircraft and a majority of service combatants. Later this summer at 

the rim of the Pacific, 2012, at the world’s largest naval exercise, 

we will sail a carrier strike group on 50-50 biofuel blends. 

As we implement these initiatives, the Department continues to 

deploy methods to promote behavioral and cultural change through 

education and training to ensure that the energy is understood to 

be a strategic and tactical capability that enables us to conduct our 

tactical and expeditionary shore missions. 

In closing, your support of the Department’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request ensures we can build and maintain facilities and an 

operational fleet that enables our Navy and Marine Corps to meet 

the diverse challenges of tomorrow. 

Thank you for the opportunity speak before you today, and I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks follows:] 

50 


25025.037
51 


25025.038
52 


25025.039
53 


25025.040
54 


25025.041
55 


25025.042
56 


25025.043
57 


25025.044
58 


25025.045
59 


25025.046
60 


25025.047
61 


25025.048
62 


25025.049
63 


25025.050
64 


25025.051
65 


25025.052
66 


25025.053
67 


25025.054
68 


25025.055
69 


25025.056
70 


25025.057
71 


25025.058
72 


25025.059
73 


25025.060
74 


25025.061
75 


25025.062
76 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Hicks, thank you very much. 

Our next panelist is Dr. Kevin T. Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Air Force. 

Dr. Geiss, thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN T. GEISS, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR ENERGY, U.S. AIR FORCE 

Mr. GEISS. Chairman Sanders, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking 

Member Boozman, Senator Carper, distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify and provide an 

overview of how the United States Air Force is working to improve 

its energy security through conservation in pursuit of clean energy 

sources. 

From aviation operations to installation infrastructure within the 

homeland and abroad, energy enables the dynamic and unique defense capabilities of global vigilance, global reach, and global power 

that our Air Force needs to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and 

cyberspace. Our focus will continue to be on improving our energy 

security to ensure we have the energy when and where we need it 

to conduct our national security missions. 

As the largest single consumer of energy in the Federal Govern- ment, the Air Force spent $9.7 billion on fuel and electricity last 

year. That is $1.5 billion more than we spent in 2010. This increase 

occurred even as we decreased our overall consumption 17 percent 

since 2003. With the price of energy increasing and our budget decreasing, energy is becoming a larger share of the Air Force budget, 

going from 3 percent in 2003 to over 8 percent for fiscal year 2011. 

Reducing our energy footprint is one way we can avoid these increases. 

There is more to energy than saving money. There are global security risks from depending solely upon traditional energy supplies 

as access and costs are impacted by natural disasters, terrorism, 

and political or economic instability. We are taking steps to assure 

our energy supplies and to improve our resiliency while reducing 

energy demand while expanding the use of clean energy sources. 

From the standpoint of reducing demand, we first look to our biggest fuel user, aircraft. Our goal is to reduce to consumption of 

aviation fuel 10 percent by 2015 as compared to 2006. To date, consumption is down 4 percent by optimizing aviation operation 

through policy and investment, developing partnerships with the 

commercial transportation industry, and working with the Department of Defense and our sister Services. 

Eighty-four percent of our energy costs come from aviation, and 

one of the biggest consumers is the Air Mobility Command. AMC 

provides airlift, aerial refueling, disaster response, and aero medical evacuation. They fly some of our largest aircraft and send over 

900 flights a day all around the world. 

By streamlining operations and promoting operational efficiencies, AMC’s cost to move 1 ton of cargo 1 mile is down 21 percent since 2006. While the Mobility Air Force’s fuel consumption increased 3 percent from 2006, they are hauling 27 percent more 

cargo. 

While we work hard to reduce demand, we are also focused on 

diversifying our energy supplies. We set an ambitious goal to be 

77 

prepared by 2016 to meet half of our domestic jet fuel needs 

through alternative blends. These blends must be replacements 

that are cost competitive with traditional petroleum fuels and meet 

our environmental and technical specifications. 

To get there, we are certifying our aircraft to fly on three different alternative fuel blends that are half petroleum JP–8 and 

half alternative fuel. To date, the Air Force has certified our entire 

fleet on synthetic fuel and expects to have full fleet certification on 

biofuel by the end of this year. We have sent a strong message to 

industry that we are ready when they are ready. 

The Air Force and EPA have worked closely over the past few 

years as part of interagency working groups looking at the environmental aspects of those fuels including calculating greenhouse gas 

footprints. From a facilities perspective, Air Force has a goal to develop significant amounts of on-base clean energy sources. We have 

been a green power partner with the EPA since 2003, and we are 

currently the second largest user of such power in the Federal Government. That accounts for only 6 percent of our total facility energy usage. 

During our partnership, we have received multiple awards for 

leadership in clean energy. While those accolades are appreciated, 

they are not what drives us. We are developing these projects for 

the same reason we take on all of our energy initiatives: to improve 

energy security. Ultimately, a more robust, resilient, and ready energy security posture enables our war fighters, expands operational 

effectiveness, and enhances overall national security. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for providing this opportunity, and I appreciate your support of our airmen, their families, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Geiss follows:] 

78 


25025.063
79 


25025.064
80 


25025.065
81 


25025.066
82 


25025.067
83 


25025.068
84 


25025.069
85 


25025.070
86 


25025.071
87 


25025.072
88 


25025.073
89 


25025.074
90 


25025.075
91 


25025.076
92 


25025.077
93 


25025.078
94 


25025.079
95 


25025.080
96 


25025.081
97 


25025.082
98 


25025.083
99 


25025.084
100 


25025.085
101 


25025.086
102 

Senator SANDERS. Dr. Geiss, thanks very much. 

Senator Carper, did you want to make an opening statement? 

Senator CARPER. I would appreciate maybe when I ask my questions, if I could use a couple minutes before I ask questions to do 

that. 

Thanks so much. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me begin. I will throw it out to anyone 

who wants to jump in. 

To give you some examples, I come from a cold weather State, 

or it used to be a cold weather State. We have had a very warm 

spring, and we found that when we weatherize older homes, we can 

cut fuel consumption by 30 or 40 percent just by doing that. 

Let me ask anyone who wants to jump in, if this country were 

aggressive in trying to deal with what many of you discuss as one 

of your missions of military which is to save lives while trying to 

make this country more secure, in terms of energy efficiency and 

sustainable energy, whether biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, what 

do you see as the potential in terms of the role the United States 

military can be playing, and where they can eventually move? 

Dr. Geiss, you began to talk about the use of biofuels. Why don’t 

you start it off? Where can we go? Where is the potential here? 

Mr. GEISS. Senator, I will answer the question on biofuels first. 

I think what we are looking at in diversity and supply is resiliency. 

As we look at our Air Force, and I mentioned those 900 flights a 

day we fly all around the world, plus our combat aircraft, we are 

looking for opportunities to use other sources of fuel, not only domestically or as we operate around the world. Having a singular 

source of petroleum provides some challenges as we operate, and 

we believe that alternative fuels will give us more freedom of action and greater resiliency and diversity. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this. As somebody who may 

be watching this would think, do you have any concerns about the 

safety of this fuel? Are our aircraft any less safe using this fuel 

than just petroleum? 

Mr. GEISS. I don’t have any concerns but you might better speak 

to a pilot, and I have done so. Just about a year ago, I had the 

privilege of being at Joint Base Andrews, and our Thunderbirds 

flew on that 50-50 blend of a hydro-treated renewable jet. I can say 

it was a moment of pride for me to see that happen. As soon as 

those planes landed, I went over and spoke to those pilots. My first 

question was, did you feel a difference, did you see a difference, 

and they said no. 

As we look at the speed and precision by which our Thunderbirds 

and the Navy Blue Angels have done it as well, if they can perform, and they don’t see any difference, I think that it starts to 

allay some of the fears of our pilots that there is no impact. 

We have also done the robust testing and analysis in the laboratory and certification of those aircraft, so technically and from an 

engineering perspective there is no impact. From a personal perspective of individuals who have flown with that, they see no difference. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me throw out a tougher question. That is, 

some will say that is all very well and good, but it is more expensive. Biofuels may be more expensive today than buying petroleum. 

103 

We have a series budget crisis in America. How can you justify 

that? What is your response to that? 

Mr. GEISS. My colleague, Mr. Hicks, is dying to jump in. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Hicks, why don’t you respond to that? 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Kevin. 

I think what we are seeing today, and as Senator Inhofe pointed out, we did pay $15 a gallon for fuel, a very small quantity. That 

quantity represents .03 percent of the Navy’s fuel spend and really 

is important that we purchase that so that we can do the proper 

research, testing, and evaluation to make sure there are ships and 

aircraft, that those fuels are transparent to them. I am not sure where the $3.9 billion figure comes from, but I think it probably stems from that $15 per gallon figure. We have 

no intention of paying a cost premium for these fuels and certainly 

no intention of paying $3.9 billion for premium in the future. Our 

efforts and where we see the market today, if you look at reports 

whether it is from Group SEC LMI, Institutions like MIT, 

Bloomberg, New Energy Finance, all suggest that these alternative 

fuels will be competitive without any additional outside forcing 

function such as Government investment in the 2018–2025 timeframe. We believe if we take an active role in that, we can drive 

down those fuels to parity in a much shorter timeframe. 

Senator SANDERS. I would assume that for the mission of the 

United States military of defending our country, it would be preferable to be producing these biofuels on farms in the United States 

of America rather than importing from Saudi Arabia or other countries who are not necessarily friendly to us. Would that be a fair 

statement? 

Mr. HICKS. It would, Senator. From our view, this is an opportunity to produce the fuels domestically. It is also an opportunity 

for us to trade where we get those fuels, if you will, from countries 

that don’t necessarily represent our values and interests with those 

that do. As a globally deployed force, we are going to need those 

fuels wherever and whenever we find ourselves. 

That said, if we cannot only produce more of those fuels ourselves and have more of our allies produce those fuels, I think it 

can make for some interesting strategic implication for us. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Following up on the Chairman’s questioning, 

by 2025 DOD says it is going to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Again, there is the fuel component 

to this also. Do we know when we are going to have a cost even 

break, or maybe we are not going to achieve a cost even break but 

we feel the advantages are worthy of some increase? Have we 

graphed that out? Do we know how much this is going to cost us? 

Mr. HICKS. This may be a question for everyone on the panel. I 

will say as I mentioned in my remarks, the three most recent 

power purchase agreements, which are solar, photovoltaic arrays in 

China Lake, Barstow, and Twenty-Nine Palms, the day those begin 

producing that power will be cheaper than what we pay today and 

will be cheaper over the life of those 20-year contracts. We will 

save on those three contracts $20 million. 

That necessarily is not always going to be the case, but that is 

the ethos that we are bringing in this. 

104 

Senator BOOZMAN. In regard to 25 percent being generated by 

2025, not those contracts but the big picture, what is that going to 

cost us? How much more is our electricity bill going to be then? Because it is important. I think in your testimony, Mr. Hicks, you 

said that increased oil is costing us $1 billion, that means less flying, less training, less at sea, so there is a finite amount of money 

so that is an important question. How much more is our electricity 

bill going to be in 2025 than it is now? 

Mr. HICKS. I would like to see if my colleagues would like to respond to that, but I will say what we are doing and what we are 

pursuing is that it doesn’t necessarily have to cost any more. What 

we are finding most recently is in fact that it doesn’t. If we structure these contracts in the correct way, if we do our due diligence 

and use our mission compatible lands for these resources, we have 

an ability to produce power in specific locations, not necessarily 

around the country, that are below market rate. 

Mr. KIDD. I would just like to align my comments with Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Hicks. Because the Army is the largest electric 

consumer in the Federal Government, we also have to by the mandate produce that much more renewable energy to get to our 25 

percent goal. As indicated in my opening remarks, we have created 

the Energy Initiatives Task Force, which is modeled to think and 

act like a private sector, project development entity that has to 

compete and attract capital to viable energy projects. 

Right now we believe that we have 81 projects across the Army 

that, according to models and preliminary analysis, could produce 

power for the Army at or below grid parity. These projects would 

more than exceed that 25 percent goal. The dramatic reduction in 

the cost of wind and solar power coupled with better building design and more efficient use of energy makes this goal attainable at 

little to no additional cost. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The other thing is, and you are welcome to 

comment, there is just so much law. We are at these hearings all 

the time. The energy efficiency of the old motors that are all over 

the place compared to the new motors, things like that. I hope that 

we are looking at those kinds of things. 

Dr. Geiss. 

Mr. GEISS. Senator, some very good examples from the Air Force, 

one of the projects we are doing at Massachusetts Military Reservation in partnership with the Army is where the Air Force has 

the responsibility for environmental clean up. That environmental 

clean up requires quite a bit of electricity. 

As you may know, there is quite a bit of wind potential in that 

arena, and we have now constructed three wind towers that are 

powering that environmental clean up. It has an expected rate of 

return of 7 years, so after 7 years those turbines will be providing 

free power to MMR. That is a renewable example. 

Another example, Senator, you mentioned low hanging fruit. We 

have a project at Little Rock where we are replacing some of the 

water storage tanks up there. We are spending about $2.7 million 

to replace those to reduce loss of water and reduce our power costs 

to do that. 

Another good example, at Dover, we are decentralizing the heat 

plant from an old 1950s era structure to brand new natural gas 

105 

powered boilers. We expect that will reduce our energy use at 

Dover by 15 percent and save the Air Force $2 million a year. 

As my colleagues have said, we are looking very closely at the 

business cases, whether it incorporates renewable or not, but what 

makes sense at that particular location for the mission that we 

have and for the types of facilities and needs that we have at those 

installations. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

The suggestion was raised at the beginning of the hearing in one 

of the opening statements that this energy effort by our military 

might compromise the core priorities of the Department of Defense. 

As I recall, I was scribbling quickly so I may not have it exactly 

right, the military witness’ testimony, Mr. Kidd said the energy 

program was mission critical, operationally necessary, and fiscally 

prudent and Mr. Hicks said that it provided greater combat capability to our military forces. Dr. Geiss said that it enables our war 

fighters, improves operational effectiveness, and enhances national 

security. Do I have that correctly? 

Mr. KIDD. Yes. 

Mr. HICKS. Yes. 

Mr. GEISS. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me go on to another point about the 

cost issues. I ask unanimous consent to put in a statement by a 

veterans group called Operation Free which includes the following 

paragraph: ‘‘America’s oil dependence leaves us dangerously vulnerable. America spends over $1 billion per day overseas for oil. 

Our veracious demand for the single source of fuel ensures high oil 

prices in a global market draining our economy and enabling our 

enemies. Every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up $5, Iran 

makes an additional $7.9 billion annually.’’ 

When we are looking to use—Senator Sanders’ example—home 

grown, American industry produced let us say algae fuel, because 

we have a wonderful algae company in Rhode Island that bioprocesses H2O that is doing this right now, and we compare that with 

foreign imported oil, the market price does not necessarily take 

into account the collateral considerations. 

For instance, the algae fuel is jobs in America, it is domestic supply, it contributes to energy independence. If it is exactly dollar for 

dollar, the same dollar sent overseas adds to say the government 

of Iran’s revenues, makes us more vulnerable to the Straits of 

Hormuz, good luck blocking algae fuel from Kansas to fuel plants 

in the United States, it is a lot less vulnerable than Hormuz, how 

is it that the military takes into account those factors that are directly relevant to the true cost of imported oil versus the market 

cost as it bears on the military’s own responsibility to care for the 

troops and try to reduce unnecessary conflict, save lives and operate effectively in the global environment? 

Mr. KIDD. Sir, in terms of domestic energy prices, I think I would 

associate myself with the comments that the market price does not 

reflect all the externalities. For the military, that is something we 

cannot control. When we make our investments, we have to use the 

rules and standards given to us by Congress and OMB. We can do 

106 

that, and as I said, we can justify energy efficiency investment, renewable energy investments right now purely on a cost basis. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without considering externalities, but you 

would agree that the externalities are an added bonus that are 

good for our national security, our national interests, and the interests of the U.S. military? 

Mr. KIDD. Yes, sir. Operationally, many of those externalities are 

borne within the force. In other words, the casualty figures, the 

amount of resources that are diverted to protect convoys, the full 

burdened cost of delivered energy, we can start to calculate those. 

In the Army, we have deployed a Tactical Field Manager Defense 

System in Afghanistan so that we can now track the end use of all 

the fuel used. 

We are developing modeling tools that will allow us to better understand the true cost of our military, our Army, when we use fuels 

in combat, and this is being reflected in the Army’s doctrine. The 

Army is a doctrinally driven organization and our operational energy doctrine will be emerging this spring and summer which over 

time will change almost everything the Army does, how we train, 

how we operate, what goes on in our schoolhouses, and what requirements we put into our future acquisition of equipment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has virtually expired, so as it expires, let me just thank all of you for what you are doing. It is work 

that, according to your own testimony, expands the resources available to our fighters and makes more effective in the field and protects our national interests by working toward domestically produced fuels. 

Although we haven’t had a chance to, in my questioning, hear 

much from Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler, I wanted to thank you for both 

your service to our country and also for helping to coordinate this 

effort. 

Again, I would ask unanimous consent that the Operation Free 

statement go into the record. 

Senator SANDERS. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

107 


25025.087
108 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The article about Solar Generator training 

to troops headed off to Afghanistan where Colonel Peter Newell, 

who is the Director of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, says, 

‘‘This initiative is not just about saving fuel, it is about saving 

lives.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced material follows:] 

109 


25025.088
110 


25025.089
111 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to just give an abbreviated statement, and when I 

come back, the first question I have is for you Ms. GillespieMarthaler. The question will be, do you want to comment on any 

of the things you have heard these guys say, correct, add to, take 

away, or whatever you might want to do. Just be ready for that. 

One of my top priorities this year, which I share with President 

Obama and many of our colleagues, is to continue to support initiatives that spur job growth, initiatives that help create what I call 

a nurturing environment where communities in Delaware and beyond can generate jobs and prosperity. 

One of the best examples of this is through the Federal Government’s actions to help advance development of clean, sustainable, 

and domestic energy. As many of you know, our country’s dependence on fossil fuels exacts a huge cost on our economy. Our country 

sends, I am told, over $250 billion a year overseas to pay for our 

oil imports, roughly one-third of our trade deficit. Often this money 

goes to countries that frankly don’t like us a whole lot, and some 

actually use our money to I think hurt us. This dependence also 

has an enormous public health cost for our Nation. 

The Federal Government can help level the playing field between 

fossil fuels and clean energy and be a catalyst for the creation and 

use of clean energy technologies including wind, solar, nuclear, and 

advanced vehicles. 

Having said that, simple common sense solutions should not be 

overlooked. As I have learned through my Subcommittee in the 

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, 

among other things, the Federal Government is the single largest 

energy user in our country. The Federal Government can lead by 

example by embracing new clean energy technologies. Just by 

changing our Federal Government’s energy consumption, our Government can send a strong signal to marketplaces to encourage private investment in these new energy sources. 

Encouraging energy investments in new technologies like the development of offshore wind off the coast of States like Delaware, 

from North Carolina up to Maine, will nurture further economic development and job creation. 

Changing our Federal Government’s energy consumption also 

will save money in the long run. We mentioned that here today. 

That is money that can be put toward job creation and debt reduction instead. 

Last year, in order to help agencies meet the fiscal and environmental challenges they had, I introduced something called the Reducing Federal Energy Dollars Act of 2011. This legislation is really a comprehensive set of proposals to, among other things, make 

it easier for Federal agencies to use private financing to pay for energy efficient retrofits at little or no cost to taxpayers. 

I believe this legislation will help the Federal Government lead 

by example and demonstrate to the American people that energy 

112 

efficiency efforts are a gateway to job growth and can pay real dividends in saving both money and our environment. 

Thank you for letting me give that abbreviated statement, Mr. 

Chairman. If I could just ask some questions now, I would be 

grateful. 

Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler—the moment we have been waiting 

for—do you want to critique what these guys have been saying? 

Ms. GILLESPIE-MARTHALER. Thank you for the question, Senator 

Carper. 

I have nothing to add nor to detract or contradict anything. 

Senator CARPER. Don’t pull your punches. 

Ms. GILLESPIE-MARTHALER. Again, the EPA is very proud to 

partner where we can align our missions to bring better solutions 

to military bases. We look forward to that continuing cooperation. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

For our Air Force friends—we have a big Air Force base we are 

real proud of in Dover, as you know, a big airlift base. We are 

changing out C–5Bs for C–5Ms. One of them set I think 41 or 42 

records last fall in flying nonstop from Dover to I think Turkey. 

One of the things the C–5M, which is really the C–5B with a lot 

of new engines, new hydraulics, and a lot of other systems, does is 

it is a little more energy efficient. Would you just talk about the 

energy efficiency of large aircraft like the C–5M and how that is 

going to help us in this effort to use less energy? 

Mr. GEISS. Senator, you hit on my favorite topic. 

Senator CARPER. Good; it is mine too. 

Mr. GEISS. From fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the initiatives that we put in place, we estimate we are saving about $165 million in 

aviation fuel by basically changing how we fly and incorporating 

best practices from the commercial industry, improving aircraft like 

the C–5 where we talk a lot about the energy efficiency of that aircraft but the other benefits accrue in decreased sustainment costs, 

and we see that in some of the other engine improvement programs. We are looking at improving the KC–135 tanker and that 

will get us a few percent better in efficiency, but it will also save 

us about $1.5 billion in life cycle costs. 

As we talk about attendant benefits beyond energy, sustainment 

cost is one of the significant things we see as we modify those aircraft. 

Using better scheduling techniques so that we can ensure when 

an aircraft lands at Dover, we are maximizing the amounts of 

cargo that can be loaded onto that aircraft. That is where that 

number came from I mentioned earlier, 3 percent more fuel and 27 

percent more cargo is because we are getting better at how we plan 

those cargo flights. 

The Air Force will always respond to that demand on the ground. 

We will always have those 900 flights a day or expect to have every 

single day because we will continue to have disasters, humanitarian assistance, VIP transport, other airlift and tanker missions 

that we have and we see the biggest opportunity in decreasing our 

fuel bill and focusing on our mobility aircraft. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm. 

May I ask maybe one more question, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t 

mind? 

113 

The Department of Defense is unique—this is for the whole 

panel—among Federal agencies in its ability to enter long-term 

power purchase agreements which are essential to support longterm project financing such as needed for offshore wind farms. 

Based on conversations we have had with industry, I believe the 

Department of Defense’s participation in procuring offshore wind 

power could help launch the industry at scale in the U.S. fostering 

economic growth along our coastlines, especially from North Carolina to Maine. 

Could you each briefly describe your branch’s efforts to purchase 

renewable energy off your bases and facilities? Specifically, I want 

to know about efforts involving offshore wind; are there major hindrances to long-term power purchase agreements by the DOD for 

offshore wind power? If any of these issues are statutory, have 

there been any discussions about identifying solutions? 

Mr. KIDD. Sir, obviously the Army doesn’t have as much potential to talk about offshore wind as our sister Service, the Navy. 

They have all the good ocean view installations. 

Simply put, the power purchase agreement authority for 30 years 

is a great asset for the Department, and that is the premise that 

we used in creating the Energy Initiatives Task Force, to maximize 

the Army’s potential to take advantage of that authority that we 

have. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Let us hear from the Navy. 

Mr. HICKS. As I mentioned before, we have done three power 

purchase agreements very recently and are pursuing several others 

where we have a very good understanding of the unique power that 

authority allows us to use. We have used it to good effect in 

projects in California for solar, delivering power to the Navy at a 

below market rate over the life of those 20-year contracts. 

As it relates to offshore wind, specifically I think you mentioned 

North Carolina to Maine, we certainly have been engaged at the 

State level with the energy offices and the Governors’ offices in 

every State looking to do that. Power purchase agreements appear 

to be an excellent way to look at wind. 

One of the challenges we have with that is when it relates to 

power purchase agreements, that power either has to be produced 

on an installation or directly connected to it. That becomes kind of 

the rub as it relates to offshore wind and power purchase agreements. We can look at—and are looking at—our standard utility 

contracts, but those are limited to 10 years. For these major types 

of efforts, typically we require more than a 10-year contract to really make the economics work. 

That said, we are working with a variety of interests along the 

Eastern Seaboard, working with the State energy offices and Governors’ offices trying to come up with some way we can use that 

energy. We are very interested to do that. We are interested to do 

that where we have mission compatible wind, we are interested to 

be a customer. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe one more quick comment, and if I could 

one last comment from the Air Force on this, offshore wind? 

114 

Mr. GEISS. Senator, we have a robust portfolio of clean energy 

projects. I am not currently aware of any we are working on as far 

as offshore wind and would voice similarly the comments that my 

colleagues have made. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Can I jump in for 1 minute? 

Senator SANDERS. Yes, Senator Whitehouse., 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I wanted to jump here for a minute with 

the Chairman’s permission because I have a group of visitors in the 

room here from Rhode Island from the Cooley Group. They make, 

among other things, Cool-Flex, which is a flexible solar material 

that can go on the edge of a tent and be deployed in the field and 

provide power and help support cooling within. 

It was a coincidence they happened to come today and that I 

happened to be in this hearing while they came but it is a very tangible demonstration of how pursuing these initiatives creates jobs 

right here in Rhode Island in the United States of America that 

would otherwise have been spent on oil and much of it foreign oil. 

I just wanted to a take a moment and thank the people from 

Cooley Group who are here and thank all of you again. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Whitehouse, a moment ago you used 

the fancy word externalities. I think Mr. Kidd appropriately responded by saying that for him and the military, they are looking 

at the bottom line, can the fuel they are buying now be seen as cost 

effective with other fuels. 

I think, Mr. Hicks, you gave us some examples where today the 

contracts you are signing for sustainable energy are competitive 

with the more mature fuels. 

When we talk about externalities, let us not forget that may not 

be within your jurisdiction, but externalities have a lot to do with 

whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place, a 

war many thought might be a war for oil, or Afghanistan, or our 

foreign policy in the Middle East. This is a huge, huge issue. 

Externalities means thousands of people who died in that war, 

tens of thousands who came home with PTSD or TBI. When we 

talk about externalities, it is not only creating jobs in Vermont or 

Rhode Island, it is dealing with issues of whether or not we have 

to fight wars for oil or whether we can grow our energy in the 

United States and become energy independent, whether or not we 

can create perhaps hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs 

creating that energy. It is an enormously important issue. 

Let me get to Mr. Hicks. In Vermont, I worked with the Vermont 

National Guard, as you know, to install a significant PV panel installation there. It is now producing 1.45 megawatts of solar; it is 

providing 40 percent of the installation’s needs for the National 

Guard at that location, saving the National Guard over $240,000 

a year. 

Do projects like this make sense? Are we seeing projects like this 

taking place in other areas of the country? 

Mr. HICKS. The answer is yes, and it will depend on the local 

market conditions, the local availability of resources. In the case of 

solar, for example, is there enough solar capacity; in the case of 

115 

wind, is the wind blowing at the right speeds and right heights; 

and what is the local cost of power? All of those are factors as well 

as other factors such as environmental assessments and siting that 

come into play and ultimately determine the economics of a project. 

That said, we are seeing projects across the country from Hawaii 

and southern California. 

Senator SANDERS. Go into depth a little, if you can. I know you 

mentioned this. Exactly what are we talking about across the country where sustainable energy is now cost effective with the more 

mature industry? 

Mr. HICKS. I think what we are seeing in California with the cost 

of power, in addition to the production tax credits which do have 

an impact on that, we are seeing solar being competitive in those 

markets. We are also seeing other technologies whether it is waste 

to energy, geothermal is another we see, and that is more related 

to the southwest where we see geothermal as an opportunity to use 

those resources. The Navy has a plant that is rated at 270 

megawatts of power, the largest plant in the Navy. 

Senator SANDERS. We have talked to people in the geothermal industry who think there is huge potential in geothermal. Do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. HICKS. I do. There is enormous potential. We have seen this 

from our own experience in running a plant or having a plant on 

our base for the past 25 years at China Lake rated at 270 

megawatts. It is not quite producing that today, but that is the nature of geothermal over time. That said, there are many other opportunities in the southwest not only at the Navy installations but 

also at the Army and the Air Force for geothermal. 

Senator SANDERS. Dr. Geiss, why don’t you jump in. What do you 

see as the potential of solar with the significant declining price of 

PV in this country for the military? 

Mr. GEISS. From my experience, one of the most impactful elements in making those things pencil out or be economic, what is 

the State environment, what is the utility experiencing? If there 

are renewable energy credits for that State, if there is a renewable 

portfolio standard, what is the utility price; all of those things determine whether it is actually going to be financially viable. 

I may have said we are not pursuing energy for the sake of energy, we are pursuing it for what it does for us and we have to consider what that cost is. As we look at the opportunities, where it 

makes sense, where the costs work out, those are the areas we are 

targeting for these renewables. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Kidd, do you want to jump into that discussion? 

Mr. KIDD. Sure, I am happy to. Again, what Dr. Geiss said is 

very important. The Army has 155 installations across America. 

We have over 200 utilities, a fact I am still trying to get my brain 

around, but certainly the local conditions at the State as well as 

the local utility level are big factors in whether or not renewable 

energy projects will pencil out and go forward. 

In White Sands Missile Range, the Army just signed an energy 

savings performance contract to install solar panels. What makes 

these panels so attractive is the new peak pricing charge that has 

116 

gone into effect so that the panels will actually be producing at the 

time of day when the electricity rates are the highest. 

In many places right now, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other areas 

in the country, solar panel is the cheapest power you can bring online at this point in time, so that is very attractive to the Army. 

In your opening comments, you mentioned the National Guard, 

and if Senator Merkley were here from my home State I would 

have talked a great deal about one of the Army’s net zero efforts 

which is with the Oregon National Guard with the intent to make 

all of Fortress Oregon, as they call it, Fort Oregon, net zero. One 

of the things that is attractive to the Governor and the Adjutant 

General in Oregon is the Adjutant General also wears the hat of 

Director for Emergency Response for the State, which is the same 

case in 34 States across America. 

With that, the Oregon Guard is planning that they will have energy secure and reliable installations for the National Guard so 

they can respond to the Governor in the time of crisis. It is very 

interesting working in Oregon with the Department of Energy and 

EPA on helping move those efforts forward. 

Senator SANDERS. Thanks very much. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I appreciate your comment, Dr. Geiss, about where it 

makes sense in the areas that it does work because again, it 

doesn’t matter if the increase is due to a surge in oil prices or a 

surge in switching over to some new technology, the reality is, I 

think we would all agree, that means less money, as you said, Mr. 

Hicks, for training, less money for the things that it takes for our 

core mission. That is what I was really referring to, Senator Whitehouse. 

I understand the statements that it is this way or that way, but 

that is the purpose of the hearing, to really make sure it is this 

way or that way. 

One of the things I am also looking at, some of the fuels we are 

using now don’t have as much bang for the buck in the sense they 

don’t have as much energy. In other words, you might have to have 

more quantity for a gallon of gasoline, you might have to have 

more quantity for it. Is that true, as in the case of ethanol? 

Mr. HICKS. That is true for ethanol, the power density isn’t as 

great. To be clear, the fuels that we are all pursuing are the advanced biofuels, second and third generation fuels where that is not 

an issue. For us, we are not going to sacrifice any decrease to a 

range of our ships or our aircraft. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So the power density would be same or greater? 

Mr. HICKS. That is correct. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Again, one of the problems you guys know 

much better than I, and Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler coming through 

the Academy, transport is a huge deal on the field, putting people 

at risk in hauling more fuel. These are the kinds of things that I 

think we really need to be looking at. 

Again, I appreciate your testimony, and I think one of the good 

things about your testimony is you are reassuring me that you 

really are looking at this in the way I would like for you to look 

117 

at it in the sense that not only do we have limited resources in the 

energy department in the sense of natural resources, we have limited resources in the financial ability we have as we are seeing the 

significant cuts. 

Mr. Hicks, in your testimony you mentioned strategically we are 

at risk because much of the fuel we use comes from volatile regions 

of the world. Canada wouldn’t be one of those, would it? 

Mr. HICKS. No, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That might be a reason we might look to Canada for some of our needs in the future? 

Mr. HICKS. I don’t have the figures myself, but that said, we do 

purchase fuel from about 600 places around the world wherever 

and whenever we need it. That fuel is ultimately sourced from 

whatever makes the most sense logistically, so a lot of that fuel 

comes from places such as the Middle East. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I agree with you totally. That is certainly a 

consideration. 

We appreciate your being here, appreciate your testimony, appreciate all of your hard work. I might ask you one last thing. Tell me 

why the EPA is such that in using renewables in our military, why 

we cannot use national forest wood? 

Ms. GILLESPIE-MARTHALER. Senator Boozman, I appreciate the 

question. It falls outside of my realm of expertise, so I would be 

happy to take that back to the EPA to provide additional information if you would like. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you. I think it has fallen out of 

the realm of a lot of people when the question is asked. It seems 

it would make sense that the forests we manage as a country 

would be eligible to be used by another agency of our Government. 

Ms. GILLESPIE-MARTHALER. I think additionally it is outside of 

the EPA’s jurisdiction with respect to the national Forest system 

but again, I will be happy to take that back. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All set. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler, I have no more questions for you. Rest 

easy. At ease, as we say. 

I do have a question for Mr. Kidd. I might just add my grandmother was a Kidd; we are probably related somewhere. She 

turned out pretty well, and I am sure you have, too. 

Mr. KIDD. My grandmother would agree with that. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. 

How many of the Army’s total, non-tactical vehicles are powered 

at least partially by non-petroleum fuel sources? Do you have any 

idea? 

Mr. KIDD. Senator, non-tactical vehicles or tactical vehicles? 

Senator CARPER. Non-tactical vehicles powered at least partially 

by non-petroleum fuel sources. If you have some idea, let me have 

it, and if you don’t, just answer for the record. 

Mr. KIDD. Senator, I will get an answer back to you for the 

record on the exact number. I would like to say that the Army does 

118 

have the largest non-tactical vehicle fleet in the Federal Government. We reduced our petroleum consumption last year by 8 percent in 1 year, and we are on track to meet or exceed all Federal 

mandates for petroleum reduction, alternative fuel use, and alternate vehicle use. 

I will get you the exact breakdown, but we have a large number 

of electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and E85 vehicles in the nontactical fleet. On the tactical fleet side, we are qualifying our 

biofuels for use and certifying our vehicles and generators to use 

that fuel when it is available at the market in a price competitive 

manner and the quantities that we need. 

Senator CARPER. You partially answered my next question, but 

I am going to ask it anyway, and maybe you can work around what 

you have just said. How will the Army pursue its goal of reducing 

petroleum use in tactical vehicles by 20 percent by 2015? Will the 

Army just largely replace its inefficient clunkers with newer, more 

efficient petroleum fuel vehicles, or will the Army be seeking to replace some of their vehicles with hybrids or hydrogen-powered vehicles? 

Mr. KIDD. The Federal goals apply to the non-tactical vehicle 

fleet, and we are using a variety of mechanisms. We are 

downsizing the fleet, reducing the number; we are right sizing the 

fleet, using a more fuel efficient vehicle to do the required job; and 

we are transitioning to alternate fuel and alternate powered vehicles as warranted. 

At Fort Carson, Colorado, the Army will soon deploy the largest 

vehicle to grid charging capacity in the United States, and we are 

looking to model whether large electric powered delivery vans and 

delivery trucks can provide energy storage on the installation to 

help provide some energy security. 

Senator CARPER. A question, if I could, for Mr. Hicks. 

Mr. Hicks, I am curious about how the Department of the Navy 

tracks energy consumption. Does the Navy conduct regular energy 

consumption and efficiency audits? Does the Navy have the ability 

to precisely know where its forces are the most energy inefficient? 

Have these audits ever led to changes in missions or to the assets 

used in these missions? 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Senator. 

The Navy, with respect to our installations, we audit 25 percent 

of our buildings or square footage per year, so every 4 years, all 

of our installations will have gone through comprehensive energy 

audits. Those audits create energy projects that we either fund or 

seek third party financing on for those that make sense. 

We are also installing 27,000 advanced meters. We are more 

than halfway through that process of installing those meters. That 

is around the globe at all of our installations, our roughly 100 installations around the globe, Navy and Marine Corps. Those advanced meters will provide us data at a level of granularity that 

we have not had before. 

On top of that, we are adding an energy management system 

using some commercial, off the shelf software modified just slightly 

for the use of the Navy that will be able to take in that data and 

be able to better understand how our energy is being used, and we 

119 

will also be better customers of the utilities in the sense of being 

able to more promptly pay our bills in the future. 

Senator CARPER. I have a question for the record. I am going to 

ask a question about something called Bloom Boxes. I don’t know 

if you have heard of Bloom Boxes, but they are developed by a company in California. The fellow who runs the company used to work 

on NASA projects. The idea was to create all sorts of electricity in 

outer space using fuel cells I guess with hydrogen and natural gas. 

I think they have the ability to also use biofuels for creating electricity as well. Is that something you have ever heard of or thought 

of? 

Mr. HICKS. I certainly have head of them. I met with the folks 

from Bloom Energy, and I believe we actually have at least one, 

perhaps two, of those boxes in Hawaii, I want to say, but we can 

take that for the record and provide more information on that and 

let you know how those projects are going as well. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Mr. KIDD. Senator, the Army is interested in exploring fuel cell 

technology, and we are doing at a variety of scale that two Airborne Brigade combat teams I mentioned earlier will be taking 

portable fuel cells with them as part of their new equipment for the 

recharging of batteries. Referring to the earlier comment on power 

density, the most important power density in the Army is the 

power that is stored in the batteries that our soldiers carry into 

combat. We have been investing a great deal on battery technology 

as well as renewable systems to charge those batteries. 

Last year, the Army spent, for the first time, 52 percent of our 

battery buy for rechargeable batteries. At the start of the war it 

was 2 percent. We do that because that gives some tactical flexibility to our soldiers to recharge on the move either with renewables or with the fuel cells. 

On the fuel cell and installation side, in terms of partnerships, 

the Army is partnered with the Department of Energy; we are testing fuel cells at 8 different installations, and we can give you some 

more details on that, a variety of shapes and sizes from different 

manufacturers. 

Going back to the cost competitive nature, we have to make sure 

the business case works, and we are not quite there yet. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just observe a couple of months ago driving to the train station I was listening to NPR, and they were reporting on an international study where they asked thousands of 

people around the world what they liked about their work. Some 

people said they liked getting paid; some people said they liked the 

benefits, vacations, health care, pension; some people said they 

liked the folks they worked with or the environment in which they 

worked. But most said the thing they really liked about their work 

was they thought what they were doing was important, and they 

were making progress. 

I would just observe that what you are doing in your respective 

branches of the Armed Services is important and we are making 

progress. As we say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu, go get ’em. 

Thank you. 

120 

Senator SANDERS. I think we all concur with that. Thank you, 

Senator Carper. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Let me add one final document to the record and ask Mr. Hicks 

a question about it. It relates to the Navy specifically. It is a document by Kathleen Paulson at Navy Facilities Engineering Service 

Center. It is entitled U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service 

Center Environmental Program on Climate Change. 

There are no trick questions here. Let me just tell you what it 

says. ‘‘The Navy is now beginning to appreciate the potentially devastating potential of a new set of environmental issues related to 

climate change. There is a growing recognition that the Navy will 

need to perform its national security mission in a changing global 

environment characterized by,’’ and then there are three bullet 

points: ‘‘One, rising sea levels that threaten the viability of Navy 

coastal institutions; two, increasing extreme weather events that 

threaten Navy shore installations and air and sea operations; and 

third, climatic shifts in temperature and precipitation with attendant problems such as disruption in water resources, reductions in 

food supply and increase in disease vectors.’’ 

Making it more specific, the report goes on to point out that ‘‘The 

Navy owns over 500 piers and wharves where certain regions of the 

world might experience as much as 3 meters of sea level change 

with combined land substance and sea level rise with, as a result, 

waterside facilities potentially becoming unusable.’’ 

I come from Rhode Island. We are the Ocean State and have a 

lot of coastline in addition to the wonderful Newport Naval Station 

that is there. I wonder if you could just give us a few comments. 

It sounds to me as if there is no doubt in the Navy’s mind that carbon pollution is causing very significant climate and oceans impacts; that they include sea level rise; that they include worse 

storms and include environmental changes that impact Navy operations. 

Is that an accurate statement? Does the Navy have any hesitation that manmade carbon pollution is creating changes in our 

atmosphere and in our oceans that having these effects? 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Senator. 

I guess I would like to start by saying the Navy’s investments 

in this, what we have in our fiscal year 2013 budget, and what we 

have across the future years’ defense plan, is really on energy. It 

is not about an environmental agenda. Let me start there. 

It is about combat capability. That said, we do take our direction, 

if you will, and look toward touchstone documents such as the 

Quadrennial Defense Review which looks at climate change as an 

accelerant to future challenges. From that, our investments take 

their cues and we invest accordingly. 

I am not familiar with the document you mentioned, would be 

happy to review that and to the extent that represents the Navy’s 

perspective, but those are certainly impacts that are being felt. 

There are also others that we know of over the next 20 to 30 years 

where we may see the Northwest Passage open for the first time, 

and that has other strategic implications for us as the Service 

121 

charged with protecting the global commons of the sea lanes, so 

that is something that provides future challenges for us. 

I would like to have some opportunity to review that document 

and be able to provide a more full response to you. For us, this is 

about enhancing our combat capabilities. We recognize that there 

are additional benefits that come with that. I think that document 

may speak to those. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is it fair to say that each one of our military services neither doubts nor denies the reality of climate 

changes caused by carbon pollution, and indeed, you are spending 

significant resources in order to anticipate and deal with those effects, correct? 

Mr. Kidd. 

Mr. KIDD. Senator, it is clear that there is a policy position and 

a considered opinion of the scientific bodies of the Federal Government that what you said is true. The Army follows that position. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You neither doubt nor deny it? 

Mr. KIDD. It is not my job to have doubt or deny or to ascertain. 

It is my job to follow the policy. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I mean the organization. 

Mr. KIDD. We follow the policy that is established in the Quadrennial Defense Review and other documents put out by the Department of Defense and the scientific advice we get from the Department of Energy, NOAA, and others. Also, we live and work in 

the real world, and our soldiers, on a day to day basis, are first line 

observers of the changes that our world is going through right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There is nothing in the Quadrennial Review that doubts or denies the science behind climate change, correct? 

Mr. KIDD. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Hicks, same answer? 

Mr. HICKS. I would concur with those comments. Again, our 

views will come from that doctrine, the Quadrennial Defense Review, which recognizes the challenges that climate change can propose. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Geiss. 

Mr. GEISS. As well, I agree with the Quadrennial Defense Review 

perspective. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

122 


25025.090
123 


25025.091
124 


25025.092
125 


25025.093
126 


25025.094
127 


25025.095
128 


25025.096
129 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Let me direct a question, if I could, to Mr. Hicks. 

Mr. Hicks, as I understand it, Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill 

prohibits the use of high carbon fuels including oil from tar sands 

for the United States military. Is the Navy comfortable with that? 

Mr. HICKS. I am quite familiar with the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, Section 526. I will make two comments. 

One, we feel it is an effective policy. From what we have seen 

across this Nation of the companies that are looking to provide alternative fuels, that does not seem to be a barrier to their ultimate 

success. In fact, many and most of those companies are able to 

produce fuels that have half the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions 

of petroleum. 

As relates to tar sands, my understanding is that has been already ruled upon and that those fuels from tar sands are able to 

be used and are kind of excluded from that definition within Section 526. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is the case. 

Senator SANDERS. I think Senator Boozman is going to say a 

word in a minute, but let me make my final remarks by saying 

this. Willie Sutton famously said that the reason he robs banks is 

because that is where the money is. The reason we are doing an 

energy hearing with the military is you guys are the largest consumers of energy in the United States of America and I think the 

largest single entity in the world. 

If we are serious about energy, we have to be serious about what 

the United States military is doing. I think I concur with what 

Senator Carper said a moment ago. We think you guys are doing 

really some extraordinarily good work, both in terms of energy efficiency and trying to move this country and the military to safer, 

more sustainable energies. 

In particular with the military, it is not just a dollars and cents 

issue. It is an issue of fulfilling your mission of defending this 

country. If we can, through sustainable energy, keep our troops 

safe in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other field of battle by developing 

and expanding these new technologies, we have performed a huge 

service. 

If as a result of your work in sustainable energy you help bring 

down, as a major consumer, these energies, you help bring down 

the cost of solar, you help us develop new technologies in wind, utilization of geothermal, create breakthroughs in energy efficiency. 

What you have also done is above and beyond the military; you 

have implemented important national goals. 

I want to thank you very much for what you are doing, and I see 

some really exciting progress being made in the United States military in that area. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very quickly, again, I do appreciate your testimony. I appreciate the service of all of you to our country and 

your being in uniform. 

In regard to climate change, I think we all agree that the climate 

is changing. The question is what is causing that, so that is really 

the sticking point. I think, Mr. Kidd, that you are trying to avoid 

the reason or whatever. 

130 

When I was in school many years ago, I was told that we would 

have a 20-year supply of natural gas, and we would run out. I was 

told we were on the verge of an ice age. Again, as I said, the idea 

that you are planning based on climate change, we are having that 

in rising seas and whatever unrest. 

You mentioned for the first time having perhaps a new route to 

get around. There are going to be pros and cons. It is good you all 

are thinking about that. 

Like I said, we do appreciate your testimony. The other thing is, 

I would agree with the Senator, in the sense these are things that 

when they work, we need to be exploiting. It does seem the attitude 

you are using in regard to if it is cost effective, if it is good for our 

troops, it is good for the mission, those are the things we are going 

to be doing and not just be doing things just to be doing them to 

meet some goal. Again, I think that is a concern, and yet I think 

you have done a good job today of basically tamping that down, 

which is real important. 

We appreciate your testimony and service to our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. We thank the panelists 

very much for being with us. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Sanders and Chairman Whitehouse, for 

holding this oversight hearing concerning EPA’s work with the Defense Department 

and other agencies to reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts. 

In fiscal year 2013, under the President’s proposal, our Government will run the 

5th consecutive trillion dollar deficit. That is not sustainable, and if our debt course 

is not corrected will lead our Nation straight to the most predictable economic crisis 

in history. We have to act now to ensure that all Federal agencies are operating 

as efficiently as possible; that means at the lowest possible cost, and yes, it can also 

mean with minimal adverse impacts to the environment. 

I am pleased that we have the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Energy for the 

Army, Navy, and Air Force here today. The Defense Department (DoD) is the Nation’s single largest energy consumer. DoD comprises about 80 percent of Federal 

sector energy consumption. In fiscal year 2010 DoD spent almost $4 billion on energy consumption at its various facilities. It is fiscally and environmentally smart 

for the Defense Department to reduce energy consumption to the extent possible. 

In fact, DoD has already reduced its facility energy consumption more than 10 percent since 2003. That is substantial progress. 

However, I am concerned about some areas where DoD is being forced by politicians to make green energy commitments for reasons other than cost savings to the 

Government. Importantly, in 2009 President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, 

which told all Federal agencies, including the Defense Department, to take the 

‘’lead’’ on ‘‘creat[ing] a clean energy economy.’’ He said the Federal agencies must 

‘‘reduce their greenhouse gas emissions,’’ make greater use of ‘‘renewable energy’’ 

such as solar power, and consider the purchase of ‘‘alternative fuel vehicles.’’ This 

was an ambitious and costly directive. One may wonder whether he was looking to 

ensure a customer base for his other social engineering experiments—Solyndra and 

the like, which have wasted billions. When our Nation is facing substantial cuts to 

the Defense budget, we simply cannot afford to impose unwarranted green energy 

mandates on DOD, especially if they will increase the cost taxpayers pay to run 

these facilities. 

I am also concerned about some of the requirements that have become part of 

Federal agency building standards. The President’s Executive Order told agencies 

to use ‘‘environmentally preferable materials.’’ That, apparently, does not include 

many kinds of American lumber. Why would renewable materials like trees grown 

131 

in the United States not be considered ‘‘environmentally preferable materials’’? I 

think that is something that needs to be looked at closely. 

Finally, we cannot have a discussion about DoD’s energy consumption issues without also talking about the importance of energy independence in our Nation. If the 

United States becomes energy independent, our Nation’s warfighter will be energy 

independent and better able to complete the missions asked of them. So what can 

we do to become more energy independent? Conservation has an important role to 

play. And so does development of new energy technologies. But most significantly, 

the U.S. has the ability to become the world’s largest supplier of energy. If the Administration would just get serious about a pro-American energy policy, we can 

produce more oil here at home, where it can be refined into gasoline by American 

refineries. We can obtain massive amounts of oil shale from Canada and move it 

to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline. We can continue to produce our abundant sources of coal and natural gas. And we can finally 

start building new nuclear reactors in the U.S. 

If we use more of our affordable, reliable, clean U.S. energy sources, the Defense 

Department will benefit, the environment will benefit, the economy will benefit, the 

security of our Nation will benefit, and the hardworking people of this country will 

benefit. 

Thank you. 

Æ