DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT

Steps Taken to Better 

Manage Fuel Demand 

but Additional 

Information Sharing 

Mechanisms Are 

Needed

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Armed Services, U.S. Senate

June 2012

GAO-12-619

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-619, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

U.S. Senate 

June 2012 

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Steps Taken to Better Manage Fuel Demand but 

Additional Information Sharing Mechanisms Are Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOD, the U.S. military’s 

dependence on liquid fuel in countries 

like Afghanistan creates an enormous 

logistics burden that exposes forces to 

enemy attack and diverts operational 

resources from other mission areas to 

support delivery of this critical 

resource. In 2011, DOD consumed 

almost 5 billion gallons of fuel in 

military operations worldwide, at a cost 

of approximately $17.3 billion. GAO 

was asked to (1) assess DOD’s 

approach for fuel demand 

management, including at forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan, (2) 

determine the extent to which DOD 

has initiatives to promote fuel efficiency

at forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan and efforts to coordinate 

and collaborate on such initiatives, and

(3) assess efforts to measure the 

results of its fuel demand management 

initiatives and establish a baseline 

measure of fuel consumption in

Afghanistan. To conduct this review, 

GAO analyzed DOD and service 

guidance and strategies related to fuel 

demand management and fuel 

demand management initiatives, 

visited locations in Afghanistan, and 

met with DOD officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD finalize 

and implement a systematic approach 

that includes establishing a mechanism 

to identify and track fuel demand 

management initiatives that have been 

fielded, or are in the research and 

development phase. DOD partially 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation, citing ongoing efforts 

to identify and track initiatives. Until 

fully implemented, GAO is unable to 

assess whether these efforts fully 

address the recommendation.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to establish an approach for 

managing DOD’s overall fuel demand, but is still developing comprehensive 

guidance to address fuel demand management, including at forward-deployed 

locations in countries such as Afghanistan. In 2009, GAO reported that DOD 

lacked (1) visibility and accountability for achieving fuel reduction, (2) incentives 

and a viable funding mechanism to invest in the implementation of fuel demand 

reduction projects, and (3) guidance and policies that addressed fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations. In response to GAO recommendations, DOD has 

taken steps since 2009 to increase its visibility and accountability for fuel demand 

management at forward-deployed locations, including those located in 

Afghanistan. In addition, with an increased focus on fuel demand management, 

DOD has also provided funding and incentives to implement fuel demand 

management projects. Further, DOD has issued some guidance on fuel demand 

management at forward-deployed locations since 2009 and is developing more 

comprehensive guidance on how DOD will incorporate energy efficiency 

considerations into operations, planning, and training decisions for current 

military operations in Afghanistan and for future military operations. DOD’s 2012 

Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan acknowledges the need for 

additional comprehensive guidance and directs the Joint Staff and military 

departments to report, by the end of fiscal year 2012, on how operational energy 

considerations will be reflected in policy, doctrine, and professional military 

education. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 requires DOD to report to Congress annually on its progress in 

implementing its operational energy strategy. DOD has yet to submit its first 

report.

Multiple DOD organizations are developing initiatives to decrease fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations, including in Afghanistan, and the department has 

worked to facilitate some coordination and collaboration among the services on

fuel demand management efforts. However, it is still developing an approach to

systematically identify and track all of the fuel demand management initiatives 

that have been fielded, or are in the research and development phase throughout 

DOD. GAO’s prior work found that utilizing a mechanism such as a database can

help organizations enhance their visibility and oversight of DOD programs. Until 

DOD finalizes its approach to systematically identify and track fuel demand 

management initiatives, it may be limited in its ability to foster collaboration, 

achieve efficiencies, and avoid unintended duplication or overlap of activities.

DOD has started to measure the results of some of the fuel demand 

management initiatives used in Afghanistan, but is still in the process of 

collecting and assessing comprehensive baseline data needed to measure

current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. The Army and Marine 

Corps have begun collecting data on the amount of fuel consumed by their 

current assets in Afghanistan. Recognizing the need for additional information, 

DOD’s 2012 Implementation Plan has tasked the services with developing and 

refining their fuel consumption baselines by mid-2012 and DOD has provided 

funding for this purpose. Once collected, these data should enhance DOD’s 

planning, programming, and operational decisions and help DOD assess 

progress toward meeting its operational energy goals. 

View GAO-12-619. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or 

merrittz@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Letter 1 

Background 4

DOD Has Taken Steps to Establish an Approach for Fuel Demand 

Management, but Is Still Developing Comprehensive Guidance 7

DOD has Efforts Underway to Promote Fuel Efficiency, 

Coordination, and Collaboration but Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance Efforts to Identify and Track All Fuel Demand 

Management Initiatives 22

DOD Has Measured the Results of Some Fuel Demand 

Management Initiatives, and Is Developing Baseline Data to 

Assess Progress Toward Achieving Operational Energy Goals 33

Conclusions 41

Recommendation for Executive Action 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 45

Appendix II Key Tasks and Milestones Included in DOD’s Operational Energy 

Strategy Implementation Plan 50

Appendix III Fuel Demand Management Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD 52

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 56

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58

Related GAO Products 59

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Table

Table 1: DOD Organizations Involved In Fuel Demand Management 

Efforts for Forward-deployed Locations 25

Figures

Figure 1: Forward-Deployed Locations in Afghanistan Visited 

during GAO’s Review of DOD’s Fuel Demand 

Management Efforts 5

Figure 2: Timeline of Key Events in OEP&P’s Efforts to Manage 

Operational Energy Issues 9

Figure 3: Inefficient and Unnecessary Use of Multiple 60-kilowatt 

Generator Sets at Camp Sabalu-Harrison 18

Figure 4: Expeditionary Living Facilities at Camp Leatherneck 

without DOD-recommended Solar Shading 19

Figure 5: Entry Control Point at Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed 

Using a More Powerful than Necessary 60-kilowatt 

Generator 20

Figure 6: Advanced Medium Mobile Power Source (AMMPS) 35

Figure 7: 1-megawatt Microgrid at Bagram Airfield 36

Figure 8: Aerial shot of the Base Camp Integration Laboratory at 

Fort Devens, MA 37

Figure 9: Tactical Fuels Manager Defense System 39

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

June 28, 2012

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Department of Defense (DOD) depends heavily on petroleum-based 

fuel to sustain its forward-deployed locations1 around the world—

particularly at remote locations that are not connected to local power grids 

and must rely on fuel-consuming generators for heating, cooling, lighting, 

and other base support activities. According to DOD, the U.S. military’s 

dependence on liquid fuel in countries like Afghanistan creates an 

enormous logistics burden that exposes forces to enemy attack and 

diverts operational resources from other mission areas to support delivery 

of this critical resource. In addition, global oil supply routes flow through 

unstable regions, which can pose supply vulnerabilities, and sharp rises 

in fuel prices have increased DOD’s operating costs at a time when the 

department faces mandated reductions to defense spending. In 2011, 

DOD consumed almost 5 billion gallons of fuel in military operations 

worldwide, at a cost of approximately $17.3 billion. To help reduce its 

demand for fuel in military activities abroad, the services expect to spend 

approximately $4 billion over the next 5 years on operational energy 

initiatives.2

Over the past several years, we and others have reported on the 

challenges DOD faces in managing fuel use at forward-deployed 

locations, and Congress has required action by DOD on this issue. In 

February 2008, the Defense Science Board3

 

1

For the purposes of this report, we will use the term “forward-deployed locations” to refer 

to forward operating bases, combat outposts, and other contingency bases occupied by 

U.S military units.

reported that the high 

2

These initiatives include efforts to reduce the demand for fuel, expand or diversify fuel 

supplies, and incorporate energy security into the future force. Approximately 58 percent 

of DOD’s funding for operational energy efforts is budgeted for science and technology. 

3

The Defense Science Board is a federal advisory committee established to provide 

independent advice to the Secretary of Defense.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

demand for fuel in-theater degrades operational capabilities, exposes 

support operations to greater risk than necessary, and increases life-cycle 

costs.4 In 2009, we reported that each of the services had efforts planned 

or underway to reduce fuel demand, but these efforts were not well 

coordinated and DOD lacked an effective approach for implementing its 

fuel demand management initiatives and maintaining sustained attention 

to fuel demand management at its forward-deployed locations.5 The 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

established a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs 

(OEP&P) and developed an operational energy strategy, providing the 

department with an opportunity to increase attention on improving fuel 

demand management.6 As defined in that act, operational energy is 

energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and 

weapons platforms for military operations, including tactical power 

systems, generators, and weapons platforms.7

Interested in DOD’s progress in addressing these issues since our 2009 

report, you asked us to examine DOD’s efforts to reduce the demand for 

and promote the efficient use of fuel by the U.S. military at forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan. Specifically, this report addresses (1) 

DOD’s approach for fuel demand management, including at forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan; (2) the extent to which DOD has 

initiatives to promote fuel efficiency at forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan and efforts to coordinate and collaborate on such initiatives; 

and (3) DOD’s efforts to measure the results of its fuel demand 

management initiatives and establish a baseline measure of fuel 

consumption in Afghanistan.

To address our objectives, we analyzed DOD and military service 

guidance, relevant legislation, and other documents, and discussed fuel 

demand issues with agency officials to gain their perspectives on DOD’s 

fuel demand management efforts and challenges. We focused our review 

 

4

Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, More Fight—Less Fuel 

(February 2008). 

5

GAO, Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations, GAO-09-300 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 

2009).

6

Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 902 (2008).

7

Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 331 (2008). 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

on efforts to manage fuel demand to include forward-deployed locations 

within the Central Command’s area of responsibility in Afghanistan.8

Our review focused on fuel demand management initiatives

Based on discussions with DOD officials and site visits to forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan, we analyzed the extent to which DOD 

had established an approach for managing fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations and a means to facilitate coordination and 

collaboration among the services on these initiatives since our 2009 

report. Additionally, based on data provided by the services, we identified 

key fuel demand management initiatives that are currently fielded or are 

in development and expected to address fuel demand issues at forwarddeployed locations. Furthermore, we reviewed strategies the services 

have in place to measure the results of their fuel demand management 

initiatives, cost savings data, and the extent to which DOD uses 

measures to track and assess the results of its initiatives in Afghanistan.

9

 

8

There are six geographic combatant commands: Africa Command, Central Command, 

European Command, Northern Command, Pacific Command, and Southern Command.

planned for 

or underway for use in Afghanistan at contingency bases, referred to as 

forward-deployed locations throughout our report. Initiatives we reviewed 

included items such as power generation equipment, soldier systems, 

and energy efficiency improvements used at land-based forwarddeployed locations. To identify fuel demand management initiatives 

planned for or currently in use in Afghanistan, we queried OEP&P, the 

services, and DOD organizations involved in operational energy research 

and development. Based on the information provided, we identified over 

30 fuel demand management initiatives. After consultation with Central 

Command and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan officials, we selected and visited 

the following forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan to gain a firsthand 

understanding of fuel demand reduction efforts and any implementation 

challenges: Bagram Airfield, Camp Leatherneck, Camp Phoenix, Camp 

Sabalu-Harrison, Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed, the New Kabul 

Compound, and Patrol Base Boldak. We chose to visit these locations 

because they were using energy-efficient technologies that were included 

9

For the purposes of this report, the term fuel demand management initiatives includes 

nonmateriel and materiel solutions to assist DOD in reducing its reliance on fuel 

consumed at forward-deployed locations. Nonmateriel solutions include efforts such as 

changes to policies and procedures, or modifications to staffing to perform fuel demand 

management functions. Materiel solutions include developing equipment such as more 

efficient generators or environmental control units.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

in our review and/or are illustrative of DOD’s fuel demand management 

initiatives and challenges. We concentrated our review on the steps the 

Army and Marine Corps have taken to reduce fuel demand because 

these two services have the responsibility for managing forward-deployed 

locations in Afghanistan.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Details about our scope and 

methodology are contained in appendix I.

At any given time, the United States has military personnel serving 

abroad in forward-deployed locations to support U.S. strategic interests. 

The number of personnel and locations vary with the frequency and type 

of military operations and deployment demands. In general, operational 

control of U.S. military forces at forward-deployed locations is assigned to 

the nation’s six geographic, unified overseas regional commands, 

including Central Command.10 Central Command’s area of responsibility 

includes Afghanistan, where military operations have led to the creation of 

several hundred locations that vary in size and structure to meet mission 

requirements, and the military service components have been responsible 

for establishing and maintaining these locations. Some forward operating 

bases such as Bagram Air Field support thousands of personnel and are 

large consumers of energy. Forward operating bases generally support a 

brigade11

 

10U.S. Transportation Command and U.S. Special Operations Command frequently retain 

operational control over their respective forces when deployed. 

or larger population and are typically composed of temporary or 

semi-permanent structures that require energy for lighting, heating, and

air conditioning; electrical power grids; water and sewage systems; and 

11A brigade ranges in size from about 1,500-3,200 military personnel. A company 

generally consists of 60-200 personnel. 

Background

DOD’s Forward-Deployed 

Locations in Afghanistan
 

Page 5 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

force protection systems. At the other end of the spectrum, small units at 

the company level and below have established combat outposts to 

enhance local operations. These outposts have a short life-cycle and 

unique configurations. Since these forward-deployed locations can be 

constructed in a variety of ways, the amount of fuel they consume can 

vary. Figure 1 shows the forward-deployed locations we visited during the 

course of our review.

Figure 1: Forward-Deployed Locations in Afghanistan Visited during GAO’s Review 

of DOD’s Fuel Demand Management Efforts

Military deployments generally rely on petroleum-based fuels, which 

power communication equipment, expeditionary bases, tactical vehicles, 

aircraft, some naval vessels, and other platforms. According to DOD 

DOD Fuel Demand, 

Delivery Responsibilities, 

and Costs
 

Page 6 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

officials, more than 43 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied 

each month to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2011.12

In Afghanistan, the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-Energy) 

delivers fuel to multiple points of delivery throughout the country via 

contracted trucking assets, depending on the location of the bases. DLAEnergy tracks the aggregate amount of fuel the services consume based 

on sales receipts, and the U.S. government pays for fuel that is delivered 

to each of these designated delivery points. The North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization delivers fuel in the southern part of Afghanistan.

Equipment 

such as generators provides power for base support activities such as air 

conditioning, heating, lighting, and communications, and consumes a 

significant amount of fuel

While the cost of fuel represents only about 2 percent of DOD’s total 

budget,13 it can have a significant impact on the department’s operating 

costs. Since the military services prepare their annual budgets based on 

the approved fuel price projections in the President’s budget, market 

volatility in the year of execution can result in out-of-cycle fuel price 

increases that are difficult for the services to absorb. A prior DOD report 

has estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, 

DOD’s operating costs increase by approximately $1.3 billion.14

Moreover, the total cost of delivering fuel to a consumer on the 

battlefield—which includes the aggregate cost of buying, moving, and 

protecting fuel during combat operations—can be much greater than the 

cost of the fuel itself. A 2008 Defense Science Board task force report 

noted that preliminary estimates by the OSD Program Analysis and 

The 

department has received supplemental appropriations from Congress in 

prior years to cover budget shortages associated with rising fuel prices.

 

12This figure includes the quantity of fuel supplied to U.S. forces by DOD and North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Joint Forces Command-Brunssum in its area of operations.

13The defense budget in fiscal year 2012 was approximately $646 billion, of which $14.8 

billion was requested to fund DOD’s fuel requirements. 

14Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, More Fight—Less Fuel

(February 2008).
 

Page 7 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Evaluation office15 and the Institute for Defense Analyses showed that the 

fully burdened cost16 of a $2.50 gallon of fuel (DLA’s standard price for 

fuel in 2008) 17 begins at about $15, not including force protection 

requirements for supply convoys. In addition, fuel delivered in-flight was 

estimated to cost about $42 a gallon at that time. However, the report 

notes that these figures were considered low when the report was 

published in 2008 and, according to DOD officials, in 2011, the cost of a 

gallon of this fuel had risen to $3.95 (DLA standard price in 2011), making 

the fully burdened cost of fuel even higher than previously reported. In 

fiscal year 2009 Congress required the Secretary of Defense to 

incorporate the fully burdened cost of fuel into its cost analyses, including 

acquisition analyses of alternatives and program design trade decisions.18

At the time of our review, DOD officials stated the department was in the 

process of analyzing the fully burdened cost of fuel and how it will be 

applied throughout DOD’s acquisition process.

DOD has taken steps since our 2009 report to establish an approach for 

managing overall fuel demand, but is still developing comprehensive 

guidance to address fuel demand management. In 2009, we reported that 

DOD faced difficulty in reducing its reliance on fuel at forward-deployed 

locations because managing fuel demand had not been a departmental 

priority and its fuel reduction efforts had not been well coordinated or 

comprehensive. As such, we recommended that DOD develop 

requirements for managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations, 

and DOD concurred with this recommendation. Since that time, DOD has 

taken several steps to increase its visibility and accountability for fuel 

demand management, and is developing comprehensive guidance on 

how DOD will incorporate energy efficiency considerations into 

 

15The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-23, established a 

Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation, who is responsible for ensuring 

that cost estimates are fair, reliable, and unbiased, and for performing the program 

analysis and evaluation functions previously performed by the Director of Program 

Analysis and Evaluation.

16Fully burdened cost is defined as the commodity price for fuel plus the total cost of all 

personnel and assets required to move and, when necessary, protect the fuel from the 

point at which the fuel is received from the commercial supplier to the point of use.

17This is the standard price for JP-8, a fuel used in U.S. military aircraft, vehicles, and 

other equipment.

18Pub. L. 110-417, § 332(c).

DOD Has Taken Steps 

to Establish an 

Approach for Fuel 

Demand Management, 

but Is Still Developing 

Comprehensive 

Guidance
 

Page 8 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

operations, planning, and training decisions for current and future military 

operations.

DOD has made progress in establishing visibility and accountability for 

fuel demand management since our 2009 report by making organizational 

changes and issuing an Operational Energy Strategy (operational energy 

strategy)19 and related Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan

(implementation plan)20

Congress and DOD have taken multiple steps to address this issue. For 

instance, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 established a Director of Operational Energy Plans and 

Programs (OEP&P)

to provide direction for DOD’s overall fuel 

demand management efforts, including efforts at forward-deployed 

locations in Afghanistan. Specifically, in our prior report we noted that 

DOD’s organizational framework did not provide the department with 

visibility or accountability over fuel demand management issues at 

forward-deployed locations because there was no one office or official 

specifically responsible for these issues. We also found that fuel demand 

reduction efforts were not consistently shared across DOD. Our prior 

work has shown that visibility and accountability for results are 

established by assigning roles and responsibilities, establishing goals and 

metrics, and monitoring performance.

21

 

19DOD Operational Energy Strategy, Energy for the Warfighter, May 2011.

responsible for serving as the principal advisor to 

the Secretary of Defense for operational energy plans and programs, 

which includes, among other responsibilities, monitoring and reviewing all 

operational energy initiatives in DOD. Since its establishment, OEP&P 

has worked in conjunction with all of the services’ energy offices to 

provide visibility and accountability for operational energy issues, 

including fuel demand management issues. For example, with input from 

the services, OEP&P published the Operational Energy Strategy 

Implementation Plan in March 2012 that assigns responsibilities for key 

tasks and specifies milestones and reporting requirements that will 

provide accountability for implementing the operational energy strategy

20Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan, Department of Defense, March 2012.

21In 2011, Congress redesignated the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs 

as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. Pub. 

L. No. 111-383, § 901(a)(1)(B).

Progress in Establishing 

Visibility and 

Accountability for Overall 

DOD Fuel Demand 

Management
 

Page 9 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

(see appendix II). Also, in March 2012, DOD established a Defense 

Operational Energy Board to help provide visibility and accountability over 

operational energy efforts that included fuel demand management. The 

board will be cochaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs and the Joint Staff’s Director of 

Logistics. According to OEP&P officials, the board will help review, 

synchronize, and support departmentwide operational energy policies, 

plans, and programs. In addition, the board will monitor and, where 

necessary, recommend revisions to DOD policies, plans, and programs 

needed to implement the operational energy strategy. DOD’s operational 

energy strategy, the implementation plan, and the Defense Operational 

Energy Board are intended to support departmentwide operational energy 

efforts while also having a direct impact on DOD’s efforts to manage fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. Figure 2 provides a 

timeline of key events in OEP&P’s efforts to manage operational energy 

issues.

Figure 2: Timeline of Key Events in OEP&P’s Efforts to Manage Operational Energy Issues

To further enhance DOD’s operational energy efforts, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 required the Chairman of 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff to designate a senior official under the jurisdiction 

of the Chairman to be responsible for operational energy plans and 

programs.22

• providing recommendations to better integrate operational energy into 

current and future materiel and nonmateriel solutions to improve 

operational capabilities, and

In August 2011, the Chairman appointed the Joint Staff’s 

Director of Logistics to this position with responsibility for coordinating 

with OEP&P and implementing initiatives pursuant to the operational 

energy strategy. According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Staff is 

committed to addressing operational energy capability gaps and in April 

2012 formed a Joint Capabilities Task Group to identify and address fuel 

demand management issues. The task group’s mission includes:

• supporting evaluation of the operational energy requirements process, 

and providing recommendations through the requisite Functional 

Capabilities Boards and the Joint Logistics Board to the Joint 

Capabilities Board or Joint Requirements Oversight Council for 

validation/decision.

According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Capabilities Task Group will 

focus on developing a framework for analysis that supports service and 

DOD efforts to inform leaders such as commanders in Afghanistan about 

operational energy vulnerabilities. The group will also propose guidance 

to support the combatant commands in assessing logistics plans and 

evaluating energy assumptions that will influence the execution of 

operational plans. OEP&P officials told us that the Joint Staff plays a key 

role in collaborating with OSD to create policy, develop joint doctrine, and 

advocate for combatant commander requirements. Joint Staff officials told 

us their goal is to incorporate energy efficiency guidance into existing joint 

publications when such documents are up for review.23

 

22Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 311.

As part of this 

process the Joint Staff’s Joint Capabilities Task Group will prioritize which 

guidance documents will be revised first, then work toward updating other 

applicable guidance documents. According to DOD officials, when these 

guidance documents are updated, operational energy issues, including 

priorities for addressing fuel demand management, should be included in 

the services’ and combatant commanders’ mission planning activities.

23According to Joint Staff officials, guidance documents such as Joint Publications should 

be reviewed and updated every 3 years.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Our prior work on government performance and management also notes 

the importance of establishing goals and metrics to assess progress and 

provide accountability.24 DOD’s operational energy strategy established 

three overarching operational energy goals to: (1) reduce demand for 

energy in military operations, (2) expand and secure energy supplies, and 

(3) build energy security into the future force, and DOD has begun to take 

steps to establish metrics to measure progress toward these goals.

OEP&P officials told us that the Defense Operational Energy Board will 

develop departmental operational energy performance metrics to promote 

the energy efficiency of military operations by the end of fiscal year 2012.

The board will also monitor and, as needed, recommend revisions to 

DOD policies needed to implement the operational energy strategy and 

monitor progress to ensure DOD is meeting its operational energy goals.

OEP&P officials stated that establishing such strategies, goals, and 

metrics will not only provide DOD with the direction and tools needed to 

assess progress towards meeting fuel demand management goals at 

forward-deployed locations, including those in Afghanistan, but will 

enhance DOD’s efforts to achieve its overall fuel demand management 

objectives worldwide.

Since our 2009 report, DOD has taken action to fund fuel demand 

management initiatives and restructure maintenance contract task orders 

to include energy efficiency considerations and incentives. In our 2009 

report on fuel demand management, we found that DOD had not 

established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for fuel reduction 

projects at forward-deployed locations and commanders were not 

encouraged to identify fuel reduction projects as a priority. Specifically, 

we found that much of the funding provided to support military operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan was provided through supplemental funding 

measures,25

 

24GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, 

making it difficult to plan for and fund costly projects such as 

fuel demand management initiatives. As such, we recommended that 

DOD establish incentives for commanders of forward-deployed locations 

to promote fuel demand reduction at their locations, as well as identify a 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 

25Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority for unanticipated 

activities or requirements too urgent to be delayed until the regular appropriation is 

enacted.

DOD Funding and 

Incentives for Fuel 

Demand Management at 

Forward-deployed 

Locations
 

Page 12 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

viable funding mechanism for the department and commanders of 

forward-deployed locations to pursue fuel reduction initiatives. DOD 

partially concurred with our recommendation and said it was not 

convinced that financial incentives represent the best fuel reduction 

strategy for forward-deployed locations, but stated that it will seek to 

incorporate fuel reduction incentives while recognizing the primacy of 

mission accomplishment. Since the release of our 2009 report, DOD’s 

increased focus on fuel demand management at forward-deployed 

locations, and the establishment of OEP&P and the U.S. ForcesAfghanistan Operational Energy Division, increased priority has been 

given to fuel demand management initiatives at forward-deployed 

locations in Afghanistan. For example, DOD has undertaken a 

widespread initiative to replace spot generation with centralized power 

and the U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Operational Energy Division secured 

$108 million in fiscal year 2011 from the Army to invest in more efficient 

power production and distribution equipment for the Afghanistan area of 

operations. According to DOD’s analysis, this investment will remove as 

many as 545 spot generators saving an estimated 17.5 million gallons of 

fuel per year, the equivalent of removing over 7,000 fuel trucks from the 

roads in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Marine Corps committed fiscal 

year 2011 funds to support the accelerated procurement of a suite of 

more efficient tactical energy systems. Also, in 2011, DOD completed the 

Afghanistan Micro-Grid Project,26 which was an effort at Bagram Airfield 

to replace less efficient generator sets with a smart, more energy-efficient 

power source. DOD provided over $2 million to fund this project.

Furthermore, to reinforce DOD’s commitment to reducing its reliance on 

fuel at forward-deployed locations, in September 2011 the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics issued a 

memorandum to support reprogramming overseas contingency 

operations funds to expedite the deployment of more efficient generators, 

centralized power projects, and shelter modification kits to forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan.27

 

26A microgrid is a power distribution system that includes multiple energy storage 

components, such as solar power components, or generators, which can be managed by 

controls depending on the power source and energy load.

27The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

Memorandum for Commanders, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan; 

Subject: Operational Energy Requirements for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan; Sept.14, 2011. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

With the establishment of OEP&P, DOD also has increased its efforts to 

obtain visibility over funding for initiatives aimed at reducing fuel 

consumption at forward-deployed locations. For example, to help ensure 

the services’ budgets support the implementation of DOD’s operational 

energy strategy, OEP&P is now required by law to publish an annual 

operational energy budget certification report. This report certifies that the 

proposed services’ budgets are adequate for the implementation of the 

operational energy aspects of their respective energy strategies.

According to OEP&P’s fiscal year 2012 budget certification report, the 

services anticipate spending approximately $4 billion on operational 

energy initiatives over the next 5 years. Although the operational energy 

initiatives identified through OEP&P’s budget certification process are not 

specifically targeted for use at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan, 

many of them have been tested and fielded there, and will be applicable 

to DOD’s fuel demand management efforts both in Afghanistan and 

elsewhere. To improve the energy efficiency of DOD’s operational forces, 

the fiscal year 2012 President’s Budget also included an additional $19 

million in funding for an Operational Energy Capabilities Improvement 

Fund. Its mission is to fund innovation to improve operational 

effectiveness by investing in research and development for operational 

energy innovation. These funds are intended as “seed money” to 

consolidate or initiate promising operational energy programs. The initial 

funding for these efforts will be administered by OEP&P, but the 

programs will be ultimately sustained by the services. According to DOD, 

the initiatives funded by this program will support efforts to develop and 

rapidly transition energy technologies for the combat force, resulting in 

improved military capabilities, fewer energy-related casualties, and lower 

costs for the taxpayer. As part of this fund, in January 2012 DOD allotted 

funds to begin developing six new operational energy initiatives. Although 

these initiatives are not finalized and are still being developed, DOD 

expects these efforts to play a role in reducing fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations. Initiatives such as the development of new energyefficient containerized living units used in expeditionary bases around the 

world, energy-efficient heating and air conditioning systems, and newly 

designed shelter systems used to decrease fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations are some of the products being developed under this 

program.

In addition to the initiatives mentioned above, DOD has placed a higher 

priority on ensuring contractors responsible for executing operations and 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

maintenance contracts are addressing energy efficiency issues at 

forward-deployed locations. For instance, the U.S. Army Materiel 

Command28 has taken steps to enforce the existing language included in 

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program ( LOGCAP)29 contracts to require 

more attention be given to increasing energy efficiency at forwarddeployed locations. To address power generation concerns, a June 2011 

LOGCAP policy letter indicates that contractors should complete 

assessments for the more than 4,000 generators located on over 130 

bases in Afghanistan to assess power load demand and energy 

efficiency. The U.S. Army Materiel Command and U.S. ForcesAfghanistan also plan to include energy efficiency standards in the 

technical specifications for new and refurbished facilities maintained by 

support contractors. Further, contractors will also now be required to 

provide energy assessments and make recommendations for improved 

efficiency to supported units. According to DOD and LOGCAP officials, 

these and other efforts are ongoing and are expected to assist DOD in 

reducing its fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. Officials also 

told us that by increasing efforts to reduce fuel demand, U.S. forces will 

both reduce operational costs associated with high fuel consumption and 

increase combat capability by freeing up forces used to protect fuel 

convoys and reduce forces’ exposure to hostile action.

DOD has issued guidance for fuel demand management and is 

developing comprehensive guidance for its operational, planning, and 

training decisions. Since our 2009 report on fuel demand management, 

various DOD organizations have issued guidance for fuel demand 

management and the department is still developing more comprehensive 

guidance on how to incorporate energy efficiency considerations into 

DOD’s operational, planning, and training decisions. In our 2009 report, 

we found that DOD had not developed overarching fuel demand 

management guidance to require commanders to manage and reduce 

fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. In addition, we found that 

 

28The U.S. Army Materiel Command is the Army’s provider of materiel readiness—

technology, acquisition support, materiel development, logistics power projection, and 

sustainment—to the total force, across the spectrum of joint military operations. 

29The Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) is an Army program that plans for 

the use of a private-sector contractor to support worldwide contingency operations. 

Examples of the types of support that may be provided under these contracts include: 

laundry and bath, food service, sanitation, billeting, maintenance, and power generation.

DOD Guidance for Fuel 

Demand Management
 

Page 15 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

there was little or no written guidance that addressed fuel demand 

management or energy efficiency for base camp construction or for other 

business decisions such as maintenance or procurement actions. We 

recommended that multiple organizations within DOD develop specific 

guidance on fuel demand management in their areas of responsibility. 

DOD has since issued overarching, theater-level, and base camp 

construction and development guidance, but is still developing policy and 

doctrine to provide guidance on how energy efficiency considerations will 

be included in operational decisions that affect fuel demand management 

at forward-deployed locations, such as those in Afghanistan.

To provide overarching guidance to DOD’s operational energy efforts, 

including reducing its reliance on fuel at forward-deployed locations, DOD 

published its 2011 operational energy strategy and its 2012 

implementation plan. As noted above, the implementation plan provides 

DOD stakeholders involved in fuel demand management with a roadmap 

for accomplishing key tasks to reduce fuel demand. However, because 

OEP&P is a new organization and in the early stages of working within 

DOD to develop guidance and policies, DOD has yet to address how 

energy efficiency considerations will be incorporated into its joint 

doctrine,30

 

30Joint doctrine includes the fundamental principles that guide the employment of U.S. 

military forces in coordinated action toward a common objective and may include terms, 

tactics, techniques, and procedures. Doctrine is the fundamental principles by which the 

military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. 

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 

(As Amended Through 15 April 2012)

which provides the principles that guide the employment of 

U.S. military forces in an operational environment and is essential to 

organizing, training, and equipping its units. DOD’s Operational Energy 

Strategy Implementation Plan also acknowledges the need for additional 

comprehensive guidance and directs the Joint Staff and military 

departments to report to the Defense Operational Energy Board by the 

fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012 on how the strategy’s goals will be 

reflected in policy, doctrine, and professional military education. The plan 

further states that the scope of this task includes examining departmental 

directives, instructions, field manuals, doctrine, professional military 

education curricula, and other relevant guidance in order to include 

energy efficiency considerations in its operational, planning, and training 

decisions.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Central Command has updated its guidance for construction and base 

camp development to place more emphasis on energy efficiency for 

contingency and permanent base camps that support missions in its area 

of responsibility.31

 

31U.S. Central Command Regulation 415-1, Construction and Base Camp Development in 

the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), “The Sandbook” Headquarters United 

States Central Command (Oct. 17, 2011). 

Specifically, in 2009 we noted that some of DOD’s 

combatant commands and military services had developed construction 

standards for forward-deployed locations, but our analysis showed that 

this existing guidance was largely silent with regard to fuel demand 

management and energy efficiency. Pertinent Central Command 

guidance in 2009 included only one reference to energy efficiency 

requiring that semi-permanent facilities—those facilities with a life 

expectancy of more than 2 years, but less than 25 years—be designed 

and constructed with finishes, materials, and systems selected for 

moderate energy efficiency. According to the guidance in effect at that 

time, semi-permanent construction standards were to be considered for 

operations expected to last more than 2 years. In 2009, we found that the 

temporary status of many forward-deployed locations, combined with a 

focus on quickly establishing the locations rather than on sustaining them, 

limited DOD’s emphasis on constructing energy-efficient facilities. We 

recommended that DOD develop specific guidelines that address energy 

efficiency considerations in base construction. In October 2011, Central 

Command revised its policy for base camp construction standards to 

include a greater emphasis on energy efficiency. For example, the 

revised policy now calls for energy conservation best practices to be 

incorporated into all new construction that is to be environmentally 

controlled. Also, in an effort to reduce fuel consumption at forwarddeployed locations, the policy requires all bases receiving power 

generation support from contingency contracting programs, such as 

LOGCAP, to conduct an electrical infrastructure assessment. According 

to Central Command officials, conducting electrical infrastructure 

assessments will allow base planners and commanders to determine 

areas where energy efficiency shortfalls may be occurring, and identify 

areas where energy generation and distribution adjustments should be 

made in order to save fuel. The policy also includes other notable 

provisions to promote energy efficiency such as encouraging the 

insulation of temporary facilities when funds and time allow. Central 

Command and OEP&P officials told us that revisions to this policy 

encourage commanders to consider incorporating energy efficiency 

Guidance for Construction and 

Base Camp Development Has 

Been Updated to Include 

Energy Efficiency Standards 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

standards into base camp construction and development, which may not 

have otherwise been an area of concern.

In addition, in April 2012, the Commander of Bagram Airfield, one of the 

major U.S. logistics bases in Afghanistan, issued additional guidance to 

direct the use of energy efficiency design and construction standards for 

all new and renovation construction projects on Bagram Airfield. For 

example, the guidance requires new or renovated projects to use energysaving equipment such as fluorescent or Light-Emitting Diodes (LED) 

lighting, energy-efficient motors, and that windows, ceilings, walls, and 

roofs be insulated, among other things. According to an OEP&P official, 

all requests for approval to build or alter facilities must be reviewed by 

Bagram’s Joint Facilities Utilization Board, which provides a way to 

enforce efficiency standards throughout this location.

In 2011 and 2012, commanders in Afghanistan issued theater-level fuel 

demand management guidance regarding maintenance and procurement 

decisions for forward-deployed locations. In our 2009 report on fuel 

demand management we found a lack of attention to fuel demand 

management in guidance, including an absence of fuel usage guidelines 

and metrics to evaluate progress of reduction efforts, as forward-deployed 

locations are maintained and sustained over time. We also found the 

procurement of products for forward-deployed locations presents 

opportunities for DOD to consider making purchases that take into 

account fuel demand or energy efficiencies when practical. Since that 

time, commanders in Afghanistan have issued general policy memoranda 

on repairing, maintaining, and procuring equipment to help reduce fuel 

consumption at forward-deployed locations. Specifically, in June and 

December of 2011 the Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, issued 

operational energy guidance in the form of policy memoranda32

 

32Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan policy memo, Subject: Supporting the mission 

with operational energy, June 7, 2011; Commander, U.S. Forces- Afghanistan policy 

memo, Subject: Supporting the mission with operational energy, Dec. 11, 2011 

to 

soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians of U.S. ForcesAfghanistan located at forward-deployed locations. These memoranda 

stated that commanders are expected to take ownership of fuel demand 

management issues and explore methods for reducing fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations. For example, commanders are to ensure 

personnel take action to repair faulty equipment, avoid using heating and 

air conditioning in unoccupied buildings, and work with support 

Commanders in Afghanistan 

Have Recently Issued Theaterlevel Fuel Demand

Management Guidance to 

Influence Maintenance and 

Procurement Decisions
 

Page 18 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

contractors, suppliers, and the services to improve inefficient facilities and 

devices such as generators and air conditioning units. In addition, 

commanders should push for rapid fielding of new fuel savings methods, 

where appropriate, and pursue existing, proven alternative energy options 

that reduce the use and transport of fuel. During our visit to forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan in October 2011, however, many of the 

commanders and personnel we spoke with were unaware of this 

guidance or commented that it did not provide specific direction on how to 

implement needed fuel demand management actions. As such, many of

the commanders with whom we spoke had not establish specific 

guidance or protocols to address day-to-day fuel use, such as 

establishing a base policy on turning off lights in unoccupied buildings or 

immediately repairing faulty equipment. In addition, we found that some of 

the commanders we spoke with in Afghanistan were not using available 

energy efficient equipment and/or had not fixed faulty equipment. For 

example, at Camp Sabalu-Harrison we observed inefficient generator 

configurations in which multiple generators were used to power individual 

tents when one generator could have provided adequate power for 

multiple tents (see fig. 3). At Camp Leatherneck we observed, and were 

told that available tent shading used to provide cover from the sun was 

not being used consistently throughout the base (see fig. 4).

Figure 3: Inefficient and Unnecessary Use of Multiple 60-kilowatt Generator Sets at 

Camp Sabalu-Harrison
 

Page 19 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 4: Expeditionary Living Facilities at Camp Leatherneck without DODrecommended Solar Shading

Additionally, at Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed, we observed an entry 

control checkpoint powered by a 60-kilowatt generator when, according to 

the commander in charge of this outpost, a smaller more energy-efficient 

5- or 10-kilowatt generator would have provided adequate power (see fig. 

5). Army officials at this location told us that the previous generator used 

to power this entry control checkpoint had failed and had not been 

replaced because it was considered a lower priority. According to officials 

at the outpost, these types of equipment breakdowns happen frequently, 

and due to the lack of adequately trained personnel and other mission 

requirements, may take weeks to be repaired or replaced.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 5: Entry Control Point at Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed Using a More 

Powerful than Necessary 60-kilowatt Generator

After our visit to Afghanistan, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan developed and 

issued a fragmentary order33 to provide specific guidance on fuel demand 

management procedures, and specific operational energy practices 

needed to comply with the policy memoranda. The April 2012 operational 

energy fragmentary order34

 

33A fragmentary order is an abbreviated form of an operation order issued as needed after 

an operation order to change or modify that order or to execute a branch or sequel to that 

order. When we use “order” in this section, we are referring to the fragmentary order.

established milestone dates for accomplishing 

tasks for reducing fuel demand at select forward-deployed locations. 

According to DOD officials, this type of guidance provides U.S. ForcesAfghanistan’s subordinate commands with the specific direction 

necessary to begin reducing fuel demand at its forward-deployed 

locations. The order requires commanders located at forward-deployed 

locations in Afghanistan to distribute the December 2011 operational 

energy policy memo so that personnel will be aware of fuel demand 

management goals and objectives for forward-deployed locations. In 

34USFOR-A FRAGO 12-122: Directs Energy Guidance IAW USFOR-A Policy, April 2012. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

addition, the order requires commanders to develop, distribute, and 

implement policies that will complement the operational energy policy 

memorandum no later than 30 days after the order was published.

Furthermore, the guidance requires that fuel accountability metrics be 

established and made available by U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Joint Staff 

(J-4) by the end of May 2012.

Further, service officials acknowledged the need for additional training 

throughout the department on fuel demand management, and told us the 

services are developing various curricula and training programs to make 

sure personnel deployed to forward-deployed locations know how to 

operate relevant equipment and understand the importance of reducing 

fuel demand. For example, U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education 

Command has begun developing and adding operational energy courses 

to its expeditionary warfighting school curricula and, according to officials, 

has begun working with other services to further educate military 

personnel on the importance of energy conservation.

OEP&P officials stated that DOD’s focus on operational energy issues 

and the organizations supporting this effort are new, and expect these 

efforts to have an impact on fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations as they are implemented. OEP&P officials added they 

are monitoring progress and will report to the congressional defense 

committees on operational energy management and the implementation 

of the operational energy strategy as required by the 2009 National 

Defense Authorization Act.35

 

35 Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 331 (2008).
 

Page 22 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

DOD has several ongoing initiatives to promote fuel efficiency at forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan and has established various methods 

to facilitate some coordination and collaboration among the services. 

However, it is still in the process of developing a systematic approach to 

identify and track the numerous fuel demand management initiatives that 

have been fielded, or are in the research and development phase 

throughout DOD. Without a systematic approach, DOD may be limited in 

its ability to provide full visibility over all of its fuel demand management 

initiatives, achieve efficiencies, and avoid unintended duplication or 

overlap of activities.36

We found that DOD, the services, and Central Command have numerous 

efforts underway to develop and test various fuel demand management 

initiatives. The Army and the Marine Corps have each established 

facilities to test fuel demand management initiatives being pursued by

their respective service for potential use at forward-deployed locations.

For a list of fuel demand management initiatives being evaluated by the 

services for possible use in Afghanistan see appendix III.

The services are engaged in several fuel demand management initiatives 

that can be applied to forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. In 2011, 

the Army’s Base Camp Integration Laboratory located at Fort Devens, 

Massachusetts, began assessing new systems and technology that may 

help increase energy efficiency and reduce fuel usage at base camp 

operations. The Base Camp Integration Laboratory seeks to integrate and 

verify new technology concepts and allows product testing before field 

evaluation by soldiers. According to Army officials, by conducting 

laboratory, systems, and interoperability testing on the items at the lab, 

 

36Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same 

activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. Overlap occurs when 

programs that have similar goals, devise similar strategies and activities to achieve those 

goals, or target similar users.

DOD has Efforts 

Underway to Promote 

Fuel Efficiency, 

Coordination, and 

Collaboration but 

Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance Efforts to 

Identify and Track All 

Fuel Demand 

Management 

Initiatives

Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives
 

Page 23 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

the Army can improve survivability, and sustainability, and reduce the 

risks that may occur after new technology is deployed to the field.

Some of the specific initiatives currently being tested at the Base Camp 

Integration Laboratory are:

• Energy-efficient shelter testing to determine the energy efficiencies of 

various tent shelter alternatives.

• Soft Wall Shelter/Environmental Control Unit/Insulated Liner/Solar 

Shade testing to determine the effects of solar shades and insulated 

liners in reducing the solar load and temperature differential in softsided shelters. Additionally, these tests will determine if downsizing 

the environmental control unit can sustain interior temperatures in 

soft-sided shelters, thereby reducing power consumption.

• Force Provider Micro Grid testing to determine the efficiency and 

energy savings from replacing six generators with a microgrid within a 

150-man base camp environment.

In a separate initiative to evaluate Marine Corps-specific equipment, the 

Marine Corps Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) was 

established to provide industry with an opportunity to demonstrate their 

latest capabilities to enhance the Marine Corps’ self-sufficiency and 

reduce its need for bulk fuel and water at forward-deployed locations such 

as those in Afghanistan. To date there have been four iterations of the 

ExFOB. The first was conducted at Quantico, Virginia in March 2010 and 

involved the evaluation of, among other things, tent liners, Light-Emitting 

Diodes (LED) lights, soldier-portable solar recharging power devices, and 

a solar power energy collection and storage device. Those technologies 

were determined to have the potential to increase combat effectiveness 

by reducing the requirements for fuel and batteries, and were deployed to 

Afghanistan for further evaluation. The second was conducted at 

Twentynine Palms, California in August 2010 and evaluated hybrid solar 

systems, direct-current-powered efficient air conditioners, and solar 

power refrigerators. As a result of this ExFOB demonstration, the Marine 

Corps has finalized its evaluation of four items, which are now ready for 

use at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. The third ExFOB was 

conducted in Twentynine Palms, California in August 2011 and included 

an evaluation of the fuel efficiency of tactical vehicles. The fourth ExFOB 

was conducted at Camp Lejune, North Carolina in April and May 2012 

and included an evaluation of wearable electronic power systems, 

lightweight, man-portable, water purification systems.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

In addition, in fiscal year 2008 the U.S. Central Command and the OSD 

Energy Task Force cosponsored an initiative called the NetZeroPlus Joint 

Capabilities Technology Demonstration, an initiative used to determine 

fuel demand reduction solutions for forward-deployed locations.37 This 

demonstration assessed technologies for reducing fuel demand and 

improving infrastructure and alternative energy supply for the warfighter. 

According to DOD officials, this demonstration used research and 

development efforts from military research development and engineering 

centers, federal and private labs, and commercial and government offthe-shelf technology. DOD plans to use the combined capabilities 

developed from these tests to establish more energy-efficient forward 

operating base blueprints for use by operational commanders, theater 

planners, and interagency organizations. The emphasis for this initiative 

was on improving or replacing current facilities with more energy-efficient 

structures and integrating renewable energy technologies with improved 

energy generation solutions to power those structures. Some of the 

initiatives tested as part of the technology demonstration included: air 

beam energy-efficient tents; power shades; solar shades; insulation 

liners; and flexible lighting surfaces. See appendix III for an overview of 

these initiatives.

DOD has taken some steps to foster coordination and collaboration on 

the department’s fuel demand management initiatives, but because there 

are multiple organizations within DOD engaged in developing these 

initiatives, challenges remain. Our prior work has shown that leading 

practices for collaborating to meet modern national security challenges 

include,38

 

37A NetZero installation, over the course of a fiscal year, matches or exceeds the total 

electrical energy it consumes with alternative energy generated from nonfossil fuel 

sources. 

developing and implementing overarching strategies, creating 

collaborative organizations, and sharing and integrating information 

across agencies via a comprehensive database to track initiatives. DOD 

has multiple organizations—including some engaged in coordination and 

collaboration—in the area of energy efficiency, but it currently lacks a 

38GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, GAO-09-904SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2009) and Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve 

Visibility and Coordination of DOD’s Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts,

GAO-10-95 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2009). 

Efforts Underway to 

Foster Coordination and 

Collaboration but 

Challenges Remain
 

Page 25 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

formal means of sharing and integrating information across various 

offices engaged in these efforts.

Numerous organizations within each of the services and DOD have a role 

in managing, researching, and developing energy efficient technologies. 

See table 1 below for a list of the DOD organizations involved in fuel 

demand management efforts. While these organizations have different 

responsibilities and missions, they are each involved in fuel demand 

management efforts.

Table 1: DOD Organizations Involved In Fuel Demand Management Efforts for Forward-deployed Locations

Organization Roles 

Office of the Secretary of Defense

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASD 

(OEP&P)) 

ASD (OEP&P) provides oversight of DOD’s operational energy plans and programs, 

and is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the operational energy planning

and program activities of DOD and the services, and coordinating research and 

development efforts related to operational energy demand and supply technologies, 

and monitoring and reviewing all operational energy initiatives in DOD.

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering (ASD (R&E))

ASD(R&E) provides science and technology leadership throughout DOD shaping 

strategic direction and strengthening the research and engineering coordination 

efforts within the DOD community.

Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency’s (DARPA)

DARPA applies multi-disciplinary approaches to both advance knowledge through 

basic research and create innovative technologies to address current practical 

problems.

Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters 

(JOCOTAS) 

The role of the Committee is to eliminate duplication of tactical shelter research and 

development; maximize usage of DOD standard family of tactical shelters; and share 

technical & program information.

Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power (PMMEP) PM-MEP provides modernized, technologically advanced, tactical, diesel fueled, 

lightweight, portable, reliable, rugged, power generating systems in a variety of sizes.

Joint Staff

Joint Staff for Engineering (J-4) J-4 integrates logistics planning and execution in support of joint operations and 

advises the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on logistics matters. The J-4 also 

serves as the primary agent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all bulk 

petroleum matters. 

Unified and Combatant Commands

U. S. Transportation Command TRANSCOM provides air, land, and sea transportation for the Department of 

Defense, during peace and in times of war. TRANSCOM is tasked with the 

coordination of people and transportation assets to allow the United States to project 

and sustain forces, whenever and wherever they are needed. TRANSCOM also 

develops long-range plans for petroleum support of the inter-theater mission and 

contingency operations worldwide. 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Organization Roles 

U. S. Central Command U.S. Central Command promotes cooperation among nations, responds to crises, 

and deters or defeats aggression, and supports development and, when necessary, 

reconstruction in order to establish the conditions for regional security, stability, and 

prosperity. CENTCOM also ensures fuel support is provided to combat forces to 

accomplish those missions assigned by the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

Defense Agencies

Defense Logistics Agency Energy DLA Energy’s mission is to provide the Department of Defense and other 

government agencies with comprehensive energy solutions in the most effective and 

efficient manner possible. DLA meets the petroleum support requirements of the 

combatant commands and the military services. 

Army

U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, 

Development and Engineering Center

The U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, located in Natick, Massachusetts, 

researches, develops, fields, and manages food, clothing, shelters, airdrop systems, 

and soldier support items.

Army Base Camp Integration Laboratory

(BCIL) 

The BCIL is a dedicated, open architecture laboratory environment for the rapid 

design, development, and evaluation of advanced prototype soldier systems. The 

BCIL facilitates the technology maturation assessment of new technology concepts 

related to soldiers and allows more extensive testing than is currently possible prior 

to soldier field evaluation. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides engineering, construction, real estate, 

stability operations, and environmental management products and services for the 

Army, Air Force, other assigned U.S. Government agencies, and foreign 

governments. They create and shape policy and perform strategic planning, 

direction, and oversight of research and development for the Corps Military and Civil 

Works programs, and for the warfighter. Additionally, they advise the Chief of 

Engineers on matters of science and technology.

The 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) Prime Power provides advice and technical assistance in all aspects of electrical 

power and distribution systems; and generates and distributes prime electrical power 

in support of Army operations worldwide. 

Army Rapid Equipping Force (REF) The REF equips operational commanders with commercial off-the-shelf and 

government off-the-shelf solutions to increase effectiveness and reduce risk; inserts 

future force technologies and surrogates to validate concepts and speed capabilities 

to the soldiers; and assesses Army business practices, desired capabilities, and 

acquisition techniques to effect institutional Army change.

U.S. Army Capabilities Integration Center 

(ARCIC)

The ARCIC supports the Commanding General, U. S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command in the design, development, and integration of force capability 

requirements for the Army. The ARCIC uses wargaming, experimentation, and 

concepts to develop and integrate capability requirements from a comprehensive 

perspective of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). The ARCIC also provides the management 

structure for identifying capability gaps and directing analytical support of DOTMLPF 

developments. This includes validation of research and development priorities for key 

Army science and technology needs, and the development and validation of 

integrated operational architectures depicting warfighting capabilities.

Marine Corps

Deputy Commandant for Combat Development 

and Integration (DC CD&I) 

The Logistics Integration Division, within DC CD&I coordinates support for combat 

development and requirements, and coordinates with E2O on expeditionary energy. 

DC/CD&I also leads training, through Training and Education Command, and 

doctrine development.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Organization Roles 

Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) MCSC is the Commandant of the Marine Corps’s agent for acquisition and 

sustainment of systems and equipment used to accomplish their warfighting mission.

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory Marine Corps Warfighting Lab chairs the Experimental Forward Operating Base 

(ExFOB) Executive Integrated Process Team. 

Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office 

(E2O) 

The USMC E2O analyzes, develops, and directs the Marine Corps’ energy strategy 

in order to optimize expeditionary capabilities across all warfighting functions.

Experimental Forward Operating Base Office 

(ExFOB) 

ExFOB identifies, evaluates, and accelerates the Marine Corps’ ability to increase 

energy efficiency as established in the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Energy Strategy 

and Implementation Plan. 

Navy

Navy Energy Coordination Office (NECO) The NECO supports Task Force Energy and coordinates the overall Navy Energy 

strategy. Specifically, the NECO supports energy efficiency, conservation, and 

alternative energy investments for Navy tactical (maritime, aviation, and 

expeditionary) and shore forces, developing a comprehensive Navy energy strategy, 

and coordinating with Naval Systems Commands to ensure programs are effectively 

implemented.

Navy Research Laboratory (NRL) NRL is the corporate research laboratory for the Navy and Marine Corps and 

conducts a broad program of scientific research, technology, and advanced 

development. 

Air Force

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Installations, Environment, and Logistics 

(SAF/IE) 

SAF/IE shapes policy direction, conducts oversight and liaison with the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Congress, federal agencies, and external organizations. 

SAF/IE also provides guidance, direction, and oversight on all matters pertaining to 

the formulation, review, and execution of plans, policies, programs, and budgets 

relative to specific functional responsibilities.

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) AFRL develops and integrates affordable warfighting technologies for aerospace 

forces. It is a full-spectrum laboratory, responsible for planning and executing the Air 

Force’ science and technology program. AFRL leads a worldwide government, 

industry and academia partnership in the discovery, development and delivery of a 

wide range of technology. The laboratory provides leading-edge warfighting 

capabilities to preserve U.S. advantages in air, space and cyberspace.

Source: DOD.

Since our 2009 report on fuel demand management, DOD has taken 

steps to facilitate collaboration and coordinate among the services’ fuel 

demand management efforts. In that report, we found that each of the 

services had efforts planned or underway to reduce fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations, but lacked a systematic approach to share 

this information among the services. In addition, officials also reported 

that forward-deployed locations often pursued different initiatives, and the 

department, other services, or other forward-deployed locations were 

often unaware of these different initiatives. To address these concerns, 

we recommended that the services assign senior energy officials to 

identify and promote sharing of fuel reduction best practices and solutions 

to identified challenges and communicate those practices and solutions to 

Some Collaboration and 

Coordination on Fuel Demand 

Management Initiatives Is 

Taking Place
 

Page 28 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

the DOD Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (since 

renamed to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy 

Plans and Programs) for potential use across the department.39

Since 2009 DOD has taken several steps to promote and facilitate 

coordination and collaboration in order to improve information sharing 

among various DOD organizations involved in fuel demand management 

efforts at forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan. Some 

of these steps include the following activities:

• DOD published DOD Directive 5134.15 specifying OEP&P’s 

responsibilities which include: coordinating and overseeing the 

operational energy planning and program activities of DOD and the 

services related to implementation of the operational energy strategy; 

coordinating R&D investments related to operational energy demand 

and supply technologies, and monitoring and reviewing all operational 

energy initiatives in DOD.

• DOD established some organizations such as the Defense 

Operational Energy Board cochaired by the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (OEP&P) and the Joint Staff Director for Logistics to serve as 

a collaborative organization to promote operational energy security, 

oversee implementation of the operational energy strategy, and 

measure the department’s success. This board will provide a forum 

for DOD components to share information and provide 

recommendations on fuel demand management initiatives.

• OEP&P in collaboration with Central Command and other DOD 

stakeholders sponsored an operational energy conference in May 

2011 to identify operational energy problem areas and solutions.

OEP&P and the Pacific Command repeated this effort in March 2012 

and held an Operational Energy Summit targeting energy efficiency 

applications in the Pacific.

• U.S. Forces-Afghanistan established an Operational Energy Division 

within U.S. Forces- Afghanistan. The Operational Energy Division will 

assist commanders located in Afghanistan to improve operational 

capabilities by reducing the military’s reliance on petroleum fuels.

According to its charter, the Operational Energy Division will work with 

 

39GAO, Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations, GAO-09-300 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 

2009).
 

Page 29 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

commanders develop, coordinate, and implement materiel and 

nonmateriel energy solutions.

• Central Command established a formal coordination body for 

operational energy in its area of responsibility. This organization will 

focus on maintaining mission effectiveness while reducing energy 

demand, expanding and securing energy supply, and changing the 

culture through energy awareness. Membership and supporting 

agencies include a wide range of leaders throughout DOD and the 

service components assigned to Central Command’s area of 

responsibility.

In addition, the services continue to use several collaborative 

organizations that predate the establishment of OEP&P to coordinate and 

collaborate on their fuel demand reduction efforts including those that are 

applicable to forward-deployed locations. For example:

• Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power. This program, 

established in 1967, was created to consolidate research and 

development efforts, establish common military operational 

requirements, and prevent duplication in the development of 

equipment such as generators that are used to supply power at 

forward-deployed locations. This effort has resulted in the 

development of a new energy-efficient family of generators called 

Advanced Medium Mobile Power Source (AMMPS) to be used by 

both Army and Marine Corps units. AMMPS includes Army and 

Marine Corps specifications and according to DOD officials, is a good 

example of how coordination and collaboration can help DOD 

accomplish its goals in a more cost-effective manner while still 

meeting the unique needs of each service.

• The Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters. This committee was 

created in 1975 to prevent the duplication of tactical shelter research 

and development efforts. According to DOD, since its establishment, 

this committee has reduced the number of shelter types from 100 to 

21 easing the logistics burden among the four services. Collaboration 

through this committee has allowed DOD to limit the number of shelter 

systems developed to decrease fuel consumption at forward-deployed 

locations.

• Other collaborative forums. The USMC-SOCOM board, Army-Marine 

Corps board, and the Power Source Technical Working Group, all 

provide a means to coordinate and communicate on initiatives such 

as fuel demand management efforts. According to DOD officials, 

these collaborative forums take place at least twice a year and help 

the services discuss and share information related to issues such as 

fuel demand management and other programs of mutual interest.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

DOD has established multiple organizations and forums to facilitate 

coordination and collaboration, but does not have a mechanism to 

systematically identify and track information on the numerous fuel 

demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the 

research and development phase throughout DOD. For instance, in an 

attempt to identify a list of fuel demand management initiatives, we sent a 

request to OEP&P asking for a comprehensive list of initiatives that had 

been fielded or were expected to be fielded to forward-deployed locations 

in Afghanistan within the next 12 months. 40

Both DOD’s experience and our prior work have shown the benefits of 

enhanced information sharing for increasing coordination and 

collaboration, especially when multiple entities are involved in similar 

efforts.

OEP&P officials could not 

provide us with a comprehensive list of initiatives at the time of our 

request, and told us they did not have a mechanism in place to track or 

catalog all ongoing fuel demand management initiatives. In order for us to 

obtain a comprehensive list of initiatives an OEP&P official told us they 

would have to query all of the services and agencies involved to obtain 

this type of information.

41

The Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters and the Program Manager for 

Mobile Electric Power demonstrate how increased collaboration on fuel 

demand management initiatives can improve interoperability among 

systems, consolidate research and development efforts, save life-cycle 

costs, all while meeting the unique needs of each service. In addition, our 

prior work on other DOD management issues found that establishing a 

database to identify and track information could enhance DOD’s ability to 

For example, our prior work has shown that identifying and 

tracking specific detailed program information can enhance visibility and 

oversight efforts, and provide decision makers with timely and 

comprehensive information needed to determine management priorities.

Moreover, OEP&P’s directive outlining its roles and responsibilities states 

that OEP&P will recommend appropriate funding levels for operational 

energy programs relating to the operational energy strategy.

 

40Information requested from OEP&P was asked for in November 2011;12 months from 

the time of the request would be November 2012.

41GAO, Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve Visibility and Coordination of 

DOD’s Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts, GAO-10-95 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

29, 2009); and Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exists to Improve DOD’s Oversight of 

Power Source Investments, GAO-11-113 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 2010). 

DOD Lacks Information 

Sharing Mechanisms for 

Systematically Identifying and 

Tracking Fuel Demand 

Management Initiatives
 

Page 31 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

improve program management, visibility, and avoid investing in 

duplicative efforts. According to an OEP&P official, the number of 

initiatives and organizations involved in DOD’s efforts to reduce its 

reliance on fuel has increased, and oversight and continued efforts to 

coordinate and collaborate across DOD are necessary. During our visit to 

forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan, Army officials also reiterated 

that frequently the various DOD organizations involved in developing fuel 

demand management solutions are unaware of ongoing efforts and 

establishing a mechanism to increase DOD’s visibility to identify all 

ongoing fuel demand management efforts would be useful.

Since OEP&P did not have a mechanism in place to catalog fuel demand 

management initiatives underway within DOD, we queried the services 

and various DOD organizations to collect data on the initiatives being 

pursued within DOD.42 Based on the information they provided, we 

identified over 30 initiatives being developed by the services and other 

DOD organizations to reduce DOD’s fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations. (See app. III for the list of initiatives). Additionally, during our 

visit to the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Massachusetts,43

officials told us that although our review was limited to fuel demand 

management initiatives for base camps at forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan, DOD had numerous projects aimed at reducing fuel demand 

at forward-deployed locations around the world, but at the time of our visit 

no office or organization was tracking all of these initiatives.44

 

42These operational energy initiatives include those being developed to reduce fuel 

consumption in expeditionary environments, including at forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan.

An official 

with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering ASD(R&E) involved in identifying operational energy 

investments and initiatives confirmed that ASD(R&E) was not tracking 

43The U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, located in Natick, Massachusetts researches, 

develops, fields, and manages food, clothing, shelters, airdrop systems, and soldier 

support items.

44Initiatives mentioned by Natick officials, include efforts such as developing alternative 

fuel types, redesigning aircraft to achieve greater fuel efficiency, and developing electric 

powered tanks and trucks.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

such initiatives and relied upon the services to coordinate and manage 

these issues.45

According to DOD officials, at the time of our request, OEP&P did not 

have a mechanism in place to systematically track initiatives because its 

responsibilities are to develop and influence policy and provide guidance, 

oversight, and coordination of DOD’s operational energy efforts and they 

are not involved in the services’ decisions about how to equip the forces 

with specific energy efficiency technologies. As such, officials told us that 

they had not developed a systematic approach for identifying and tracking 

fuel demand management initiatives. Since our request, officials told us 

that OEP&P has started working with DOD’s Office of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation to develop an automated budget exhibit that 

captures detailed program and funding data on operational energy 

initiatives included in DOD and the component’s budgets. OEP&P is in 

the process of refining this exhibit to capture improvements suggested by 

the components. This budget exhibit with consolidated information on 

operational energy initiatives funded in the fiscal year 2013 President’s 

Budget submission will help the office in its oversight and coordination 

role, but OEP&P officials acknowledge that its effort has a knowledge 

gap. For example, it does not include information on initiatives that are 

the subject of rapid fielding efforts or are locally procured. OEP&P 

officials stated that the Operational Energy Division in Afghanistan has 

started to collect information on ongoing operational energy activities in 

theater. However, these efforts have just begun and it is unclear to what 

extent they will provide a comprehensive list of all operational energy 

initiatives underway within DOD. As mentioned earlier, over the next 5 

years, the services plan to spend approximately $4 billion dollars on 

operational energy initiatives, and without an established mechanism to 

identify and track fuel demand management initiatives, DOD may miss 

opportunities to improve its return on investment, reduce life-cycle costs, 

consolidate efforts, and increase interoperability among fuel demand 

management technologies.

 

45Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering ASD(R&E) 

has been tasked in the implementation plan with assessing current science and 

technology investments and initiatives across the department, operational energy needs 

and requirements, and new technical opportunities, including from outside DOD. 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

DOD has measured the results of some of the fuel demand management 

initiatives used in Afghanistan, but only recently has focused on collecting 

and assessing the data needed to develop a comprehensive baseline 

measure of its current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations.

Recognizing the need for information to manage fuel demand effectively, 

DOD has tasked the services with establishing baselines for operational 

energy consumption in all activities (air, sea, land) in its March 2012 

implementation plan and provided funding for this purpose. Once 

collected, this baseline data will provide information across DOD’s 

operational activities, including those conducted in Afghanistan, and help 

the department better understand how specific assets consume fuel in an 

operational environment.

As noted above, DOD has developed fuel demand management 

initiatives, and has begun, in some cases to measure their results. 

However, the services are still in the process of collecting and analyzing 

comprehensive baseline data for all activities—to include fuel 

consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan—and have 

encountered some implementation challenges. In 2011, DOD issued 

guidance that emphasizes the importance of collecting data to assess 

progress and program effectiveness. Both DOD’s strategic management 

plan and its operational energy strategy highlight the importance of 

collecting and analyzing data for use in assessing and managing 

performance of its initiatives. Specifically, DOD’s strategic management 

plan states that one of its business goals is to increase operational 

energy efficiency in order to lower risks to warfighters, reduce costs, and 

improve energy security. To help achieve this goal, the plan calls for 

establishing an operational energy baseline for the department that is 

based on credible, verifiable fuel usage data. Furthermore, the 

operational energy strategy states that a greater understanding of how 

energy is used will allow DOD to target investments to improve energy 

efficiency in places such as Afghanistan. Recognizing the lack of 

sufficient data to manage fuel demand effectively, the Army and Marine 

Corps, which have the largest presence at forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan, have begun to collect fuel use and behavior data to 

DOD Has Measured 

the Results of Some 

Fuel Demand 

Management 

Initiatives, and Is 

Developing Baseline 

Data to Assess 

Progress Toward 

Achieving Operational 

Energy Goals

Service Efforts to Measure 

the Results of Some Fuel 

Demand Management 

Initiatives Are in the Early 

Stages and Face Some 

Challenges
 

Page 34 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

understand how equipment is being used in combat to inform decision 

making on how to best employ equipment in the future.46

At the time of our report, the Army had begun collecting and analyzing 

data on particular fuel demand management initiatives and on its current 

fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. However, 

its data collection efforts face some continuing challenges. Among its 

ongoing fuel demand management initiatives, the Army has collected 

preliminary fuel consumption data on its new Advanced Medium Mobile 

Power Source (AMMPS) generators (see fig. 6). According to Army 

officials, replacing 273 Tactical Quiet Generators in Afghanistan with 

AMMPS generators is estimated to save about 1,100 gallons of fuel per 

day.47 Furthermore, in August 2011, the Army installed a 1-megawatt 

microgrid at Bagram Airfield that replaced 13 60-kilowatt Tactical Quiet 

Generators (see fig. 7). The Army collected data from the microgrid to 

analyze its fuel consumption and identified a savings of 7,344 gallons of 

fuel (17 percent), over the test period.48

 

46Forward operating bases in Afghanistan are managed by the ground component, which 

consists largely of Army and Marine Corps forces. Although outside the scope of our 

review, the Air Force and Navy also have efforts underway to measure fuel consumption.

The Army’s February 2012 report 

of the microgrid concluded that producing energy can be done more 

efficiently if the Army understands how the energy will be used. It stated 

that without these types of data, the Army is currently running generators 

inefficiently in the field, which places a burden on logistical operations. 

According to the report, by using information such as forecasted

scenarios and energy demand, the department can weigh the trade-offs 

and implement a system with optimum efficiency.

47Army officials provided these data based on preliminary testing of AMMPS generators 

that were run on full-load conditions and assumes the generators were run 24 hours per 

day. 

48The U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity office collected data from the 

microgrid from August-November 2011 to independently analyze its fuel consumption and 

compared it to the baseline data they collected on the 13 Tactical Quiet Generators that 

the microgrid replaced. 

The Army Has Begun Efforts to 

Measure Fuel Consumption
 

Page 35 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 6: Advanced Medium Mobile Power Source (AMMPS)
 

Page 36 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 7: 1-megawatt Microgrid at Bagram Airfield

The Army has also begun measuring fuel consumption by testing 

initiatives at its Base Camp Integration Laboratory at Fort Devens, 

Massachusetts, an initiative mentioned earlier to test and evaluate fuel 

demand management equipment (see fig. 8). The goal of the Base Camp 

Integration Lab is also to assess fuel consumption of equipment 

traditionally used at forward operating bases such as those in 

Afghanistan, and fuel consumed by new technology concepts and 

prototypes.
 

Page 37 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 8: Aerial shot of the Base Camp Integration Laboratory at Fort Devens, MA

As of October 2011, Army officials stated that the Base Camp Integration 

Laboratory had completed baseline testing and had begun testing the 

energy efficiency of various shelters, as well as a microgrid. Army officials 

stated that future testing will be conducted on insulated tent liners, a 

photovoltaic system incorporated in a microgrid, and a solar-powered 

water heater.

As discussed above, the Marine Corps has developed operational energy 

initiatives, including those to decrease fuel demand, and also has begun 

measuring the results of some of these initiatives, primarily those that 

serve battalion-sized units. As noted above, the Marine Corps established 

the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) in 2009 to bring 

stakeholders together across the service’s requirements, acquisitions, 

and technology communities to inform requirements and rapidly evaluate 

new technologies for potential deployment. The four ExFOB 

demonstrations conducted thus far have evaluated initiatives such as 

renewable energy power generation, tent liners, hybrid solar systems, 

more efficient air conditioners, and solar-powered refrigerators. After 

evaluation, infantry battalions deployed to Afghanistan with selected 

The Marine Corps Has Begun 

Efforts to Measure Fuel 

Consumption
 

Page 38 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

equipment items to further assess their performance. A Marine Corps’ 

assessment49

• two platoon positions were able to run completely on renewable 

energy for 1 month,

found that during deployment:

• one patrol base was able to save 175 gallons of fuel in a 1-month 

period by utilizing the ExFOB initiatives,

• the Green Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System 

(GREENS) provided full power for a platoon guard station, and

• Marines were able to reduce the number of batteries they had to carry 

by using the Solar Portable Alternatives Communications Energy 

System (SPACES) to recharge tactical batteries.

The Army and Marine Corps face challenges in collecting information on 

current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. 

Until recently, information related to fuel demand in-theater has been 

available only in the form of sales receipts and fuel delivery summaries, 

since DOD only tracks the movement and delivery of fuel up to the point 

that a forward-deployed location receives it, and as indicated above, 

efforts to collect current fuel consumption data face challenges. As a 

result, DOD lacks comprehensive data on how much fuel specific assets 

such as generators and air conditioning units consume in an operational 

environment. The Army and Marine Corps have begun collecting 

information on fuel consumption at their forward-deployed locations in 

Afghanistan. For this effort Army and Marine Corps officials told us that 

both services are using the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense system 

technology (see fig. 9). To date, the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense 

system has been deployed to 36 locations in Afghanistan. Army officials 

stated that the information gathered by this system can assist a base 

commander in making decisions regarding energy use on the base, but 

they indicated that this technology is not yet being used at all forwarddeployed locations and cited several difficulties they face.

 

49The Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity Forward Operations 

Afghanistan team deployed to Afghanistan to assess the use of various initiatives by a 

battalion in-theater after being evaluated at the ExFOB. This assessment of the initiatives 

used in theater did not include an evaluation of transport vehicles such as trucks, tanks, 

and humvees used for military operations in Afghanistan. 

Challenges Remain in 

Measuring Current Fuel 

Consumption
 

Page 39 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 9: Tactical Fuels Manager Defense System

For instance, additional funding will be required to extend the Tactical 

Fuels Manager Defense system to the majority of locations in 

Afghanistan. In addition, during our site visit to forward-deployed locations 

in Afghanistan, officials reported that they had experienced difficulty in 

connecting to the system’s website, which resulted in an inability to load 

fuel data points, receipts, and stock levels into the system. In addition to 

these technical challenges, the program manager stated that additional 

training and oversight procedures were needed to ensure soldiers and 

Marines use this system and are held accountable for importing data. For 

example, the program manager told us that some bases are not entering 

fuel consumption data into the system and from September 2011 to 

March 2012, the data captured had declined by 50 percent making it 

more difficult for DOD to meet its goal in obtaining baseline fuel data. In 

response, the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command 
 

Page 40 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

issued a fragmentary order in April 2012 specifically to ensure all bases 

follow existing accountability and reporting procedures, including using 

the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense system to capture fuel data. While 

the system is providing improved data on fuel consumption at forwarddeployed locations, Army officials also recognize that continued 

evaluation and improvements will be needed before deciding whether this 

should be an Army-wide system.

While the services have efforts underway to obtain a better understanding 

of how specific assets consume fuel in-theater, DOD has limited ability to 

assess the effectiveness of its fuel demand management initiatives 

because it has only recently begun efforts to collect comprehensive 

baseline data across the services. DOD recognizes the need for baseline 

data on fuel consumption in an operational environment and has taken 

several steps to address this issue. Specifically, OEP&P’s implementation 

plan tasks the services with establishing operational energy consumption 

baselines and projecting consumption for fiscal years 2012—201750

 

50According to the implementation plan, the data collected for fiscal year 2011 will account 

for consumption by military forces as well as consumption by contractors. The estimated 

consumption for fiscal years 2012-2017 will use assumptions about inventory, equipment, 

and operations tempo using agreed-upon scenarios. 

by 

the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. DOD’s implementation plan states 

that these projections will inform required reports to Congress on current 

and future energy needs. In addition, the implementation plan calls for the 

services to report to the Defense Operational Energy Board by the third 

quarter of fiscal year 2012 on any actions taken or needed to improve 

these baselines. The plan states that this effort may not necessarily entail 

the real-time measurement of energy consumption by individual pieces of 

equipment. Instead, the military departments and defense agencies may 

evaluate a range of options—including new systems, improvements to 

current and related systems, and/or application of sampling and 

extrapolation to existing data—to improve the department’s 

understanding of the location, purpose, and end use of operational 

energy consumption. This implementation plan is an important step 

towards improving the department’s management of its energy 

consumption at forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan; 

however, the focus on establishing a baseline of fuel consumption is 

relatively recent.

DOD Has Begun Collecting 

Baseline Data to Assess 

Effectiveness of Its Fuel 

Demand Management 

Efforts
 

Page 41 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

In addition, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan is in the process of improving their 

visibility and accountability over fuel consumption at forward-deployed 

locations. To help with this task, OSD officials informed us that DLAEnergy sent an analyst to Afghanistan in March 2012 to work with the 

U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Operational Energy Division to capture a better 

picture of fuel consumption.51

Further, to support fuel demand management efforts at forward-deployed 

locations, OEP&P provided additional funding for a demonstration effort 

to evaluate the operational benefits of fuel demand management. 

Specifically, DOD provided $1.4 million to fund the Operation Enduring 

Freedom Energy Initiative Proving Ground to evaluate initiatives including 

heat and air conditioning units, tent liners, solar tent shades, and hybridsolar electrical power technology, and analyze the effect these initiatives 

have on fuel consumption and identify opportunities to deploy them in 

Afghanistan to achieve the greatest impact and return on investment. The 

group in charge of this effort has already begun to take inventory of the 

power and energy used at some forward-deployed locations and to 

monitor areas where there are opportunities for potential energy efficiency 

improvements.

Officials stated that with improved visibility, 

they expect that the Operational Energy Division will be able to articulate 

to combatant commanders or service officials the costs associated with 

certain operational decisions and leverage this improved picture of fuel 

consumption to target areas for improvement.

In its extended war in Afghanistan, DOD reports that its heavy reliance on 

petroleum-based fuel at forward-deployed locations continues to create 

risk for the warfighters, pose difficult logistical challenges for military 

planners, and increase the department’s operating costs. With consistent 

and heightened visibility from Congress and OSD, DOD has made 

progress in its efforts to develop an approach for managing its fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations since the time of our 2009 report 

on this issue. The creation of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs and the services’ operational 

energy offices, OEP&P’s publication of its operational energy strategy 

and implementation plan, the services’ strategies, and the ongoing fuel 

 

51DLA-Energy is the integrated materiel manager for class III bulk fuels and shares 

responsibility over Afghanistan with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Joint Forces 

Command. 

Conclusions
 

Page 42 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

demand management initiatives the services have deployed or are 

developing all represent positive steps toward reducing the department’s 

reliance on petroleum-based fuel at forward-deployed locations such as 

those in Afghanistan. DOD’s efforts to develop specific guidance on how 

military forces should factor operational energy considerations into its 

operational, planning, and training decisions are important steps toward 

minimizing key problems identified by DOD—risk to warfighters, logisticalrelated disruptions, and high operating costs—associated with heavy 

reliance on petroleum-based fuel. However, without a mechanism for 

systematically collecting and sharing information across the services on 

the fuel demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in 

the research and development phase, DOD may forgo an opportunity to 

improve interoperability of new technologies, consolidate research and 

development efforts, and save costs. Lastly, DOD’s recent efforts to begin 

collecting accurate baseline data on fuel demand at the individual asset 

level at forward-deployed locations should enhance its planning, 

programming, and operational decisions, and help measure the impact of 

its fuel demand management efforts as well as progress toward meeting 

its overall operational energy goals. At a time when the federal 

government faces increasing fiscal challenges and competition across the 

government for discretionary funds, these efforts by DOD could help

maximize the benefits of its energy efficiency investments for forwarddeployed locations and better position the department for future missions.

To further enhance DOD’s approach for managing fuel demand, including 

at forward deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs, in consultation 

with the Joint Staff, combatant commanders, and military service 

components, to finalize and implement a systematic approach that 

includes establishing a mechanism to identify and track fuel demand 

management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and 

development phase to ensure information concerning these efforts is 

effectively shared across the services.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In its written 

comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DOD partially concurred with our 

recommendation to finalize and implement a systematic approach that 

includes establishing a mechanism to identify and track fuel demand 

management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and 

development phase to ensure information concerning these efforts is 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 43 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

effectively shared across the services. DOD also provided technical 

comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.

DOD stated that it signed the DOD Operational Energy Strategy 

Implementation Plan in March 2012 and established the Defense 

Operational Energy Board with the purpose of providing a mechanism for 

reviewing, synchronizing, and supporting departmentwide operational 

energy policies, plans, and programs. DOD also stated that the Defense 

Operational Energy Board’s membership ensures departmentwide 

coordination. Furthermore, DOD stated that the Operational Energy 

Implementation Plan addresses energy improvements in current 

operations, and the Board will oversee the tracking and sharing of 

information on fuel demand improvements. Lastly, DOD stated that the 

department conducts an annual review of the components’ budgets and 

activities to determine their adequacy for implementing the Operational 

Energy Strategy, and this review also encompasses fuel demand 

management initiatives that are being developed, fielded, or supported by 

the budget. As such, DOD stated that while our recommendation has 

merit, further action by the Secretary of Defense is unnecessary.

We acknowledge the intended actions described in DOD’s Operational 

Energy Strategy Implementation Plan, the function and scope of the 

Defense Operational Energy Board, and DOD’s annual review process, 

which may eventually provide DOD with an approach and mechanism for 

identifying and tracking fuel demand management initiatives that have 

been fielded, or are in the research and development phase. However, 

until these initiatives are fully implemented, we are unable to assess the 

extent to which they will address our recommendation. During the course 

of our review, DOD officials explained that many of the initiatives included 

in its Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan, such as 

identifying investment gaps in the department’s science and technology 

portfolio necessary to reduce fuel demand, would be completed at the 

end of fiscal year 2012 or beyond. DOD officials also told us they were in 

the process of finalizing the department’s annual review of the 

components’ budgets and activities to include fuel demand management 

initiatives that were being developed or fielded. However, at the 

conclusion of our review, this budget review process had not been 

finalized and the department acknowledges that its annual budget review 

efforts do not include initiatives that are part of rapid fielding or are locally 

procured. We continue to believe that a comprehensive mechanism for 

sharing information on all initiatives underway within the department, 

including those that are part of rapid fielding or are locally procured, 

would further enhance DOD’s approach for managing fuel demand at 
 

Page 44 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan, and help 

ensure information concerning these efforts is effectively shared across 

the services.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

merrittz@gao.gov or (202) 512-5257. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Zina D. Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Our objectives were to assess the extent to which DOD has (1) 

established an approach to provide visibility and accountability for fuel 

demand management at forward-deployed locations, (2) initiatives 

underway to promote fuel efficiency across the services in Afghanistan 

and has facilitated coordination and collaboration among the services on 

the development and fielding of these initiatives, and (3) measured the 

results of its fuel demand management initiatives at forward-deployed 

locations. To gather information for these objectives, we reviewed 

documentation and interviewed officials from:

Office of the Secretary of Defense

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy 

Plans and Programs

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering

Joint Staff

• J-4 Logistics Directorate, Engineering Division

U.S. Army

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Energy and Sustainability 

Office)

• Army G-4 

• Army Corps of Engineers

• 249th Prime Power Battalion

• Army Rapid Equipping Force

• Army Petroleum Center

• Program Manager Mobile Electric Power

• Green Warrior Initiative; Contingency Basing & Operational Energy

• Natick Solider Research, Development, Engineering Command

• Logistics Civil Augmentation Program

U.S. Navy

• Deputy Assistant of Secretary of the Navy, Energy Office

• Navy Energy Coordination Office

U.S. Air Force

• Air Force Office of the Assistant Secretary, Installation, Environment, 

and Logistics

• Air Mobility Command Fuel Efficiency Office

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 46 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

U.S. Marine Corps

• Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office

• Marine Corps Systems Command

• Marine Corps Training and Education Command

U.S. Central Command

• U.S. Forces Afghanistan-Operational Energy Division

• New Kabul Compound

• Camp Phoenix

• Camp Sabalu-Harrison 

• Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed

• Camp Leatherneck,

• Patrol Base Boldak,

• Bagram Airfield.

Defense Agencies

• Defense Logistics Agency – Energy

We concentrated our review on the steps the Army and Marine Corps 

have taken to reduce fuel demand because these two services have the 

responsibility for managing forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan.

Our review focused on fuel demand management initiatives planned for 

or underway at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. For the 

purposes of our review, we defined fuel demand management initiatives 

to include nonmateriel and materiel solutions to assist DOD in reducing its 

reliance on fuel consumed at forward-deployed locations. We did not 

examine energy efficiency initiatives for naval vessels, aircraft, or combat 

vehicles. We asked officials to identify key initiatives planned or under 

way to reduce fuel demand. After consultation with U.S. Central 

Command and U.S. Forces Afghanistan officials, we selected and visited 

forward-deployed locations because they were using energy-efficient 

technologies that were included in our review and/or are illustrative of 

DOD’s fuel demand management initiatives and challenges. The 

locations chosen are illustrative case studies in our report and information 

obtained from these locations is not generalizable to all forward-deployed 

locations. We also reviewed DOD guidance related to energy reduction 

for the department’s permanent or U.S. facilities.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 47 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

To address the first objective, we identified DOD’s approach for fuel 

demand management from our prior work examining DOD’s fuel demand 

management efforts at forward-deployed locations.1

To determine the extent to which DOD has initiatives underway to 

manage fuel demand across the services in Afghanistan and has 

facilitated coordination and collaboration, we queried OEP&P, the 

services, and various DOD organizations involved in operational energy 

research and development to collect data on the initiatives to reduce fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations. These initiatives included ones 

that had been fielded or were expected to be fielded within 12 months of 

our data request.

These elements 

include: (1) establishing visibility and accountability for achieving fuel 

reduction by assigning roles and responsibilities, establishing metrics, 

and monitoring performance; (2) issuing guidance and policies that 

address fuel demand at forward-deployed locations; and (3) establishing 

incentives and a viable funding mechanism to support the implementation 

of fuel demand reduction projects. We reviewed DOD and Service 

guidance, operational energy strategies and plans, OEP&P’s budget 

certification report, project status reports, and briefings to identify DOD’s 

approach for fuel demand management. We also interviewed OSD, Joint 

Staff, service, and U.S. Central Command officials at the headquarters 

and operational level to discuss DOD’s fuel demand management 

approach, and to determine the extent to which DOD has implemented 

the initiatives contained in its operational energy strategy. We also met 

with officials responsible for administering the Logistics Civil 

Augmentation Program contracts to discuss how energy efficiency 

guidance and requirements were being incorporated into contracts to 

incentivize fuel demand management efforts. Furthermore, we met with 

OEP&P, Joint Staff, and service officials to discuss the processes and 

steps needed to ensure an effective approach was established to provide 

oversight and accountability for fuel demand management and the 

anticipated time frames for accomplishing fuel demand management 

goals.

2

 

1

GAO, Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations, 

Based on the information provided and the scope of 

GAO-09-300 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 

2009).

2

Information was requested in November 2011; 12 months from the time of the request 

would have been November 2012.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

our review, we identified over 30 fuel demand management initiatives 

already fielded or being developed by the services and other DOD 

organizations to reduce DOD’s fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations. We also reviewed data on the current status of initiatives that 

were identified in our 2009 report.3 In addition, we met with Army and 

Marine Corps officials located at the headquarters level and at forwarddeployed locations to discuss the purpose and function of these 

initiatives, as well as any opportunities for greater coordination and 

collaboration. To determine the extent to which the department has efforts 

underway to facilitate coordination and collaboration among the services, 

we conducted an analysis of DOD energy strategies and plans, reviewed 

DOD energy conference summary reports, attended DOD energy 

symposia, and interviewed DOD and service officials. Additionally, we 

reviewed relevant DOD, Joint, and service policies and guidance, and 

assessed the extent to which the policies and guidance were consistent 

with leading practices for coordination and collaboration identified in our 

prior work.4

To determine the extent to which DOD has efforts in place to accurately 

capture the results of its fuel demand management initiatives in forwarddeployed locations, we assessed DOD and the services’ strategies that 

detail their goals and methods for measuring the results of their fuel 

demand management initiatives, and determined whether these plans 

addressed key elements from leading practices for measuring results 

(e.g. goals, milestones, quantifiable metrics, evaluation of benefits, etc.).

We also met with DOD and research and development 

officials to discuss the challenges, if any, that they faced to coordinate 

and collaborate on fuel demand management initiatives.

5

 

3

GAO, Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations,

In addition, we interviewed DOD and service officials regarding the extent 

to which fuel demand management initiatives are being measured at 

forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. The Army and Marine Corps 

have the largest presence at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan, 

and therefore have been testing most of the initiatives. As such, we relied 

GAO-09-300 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 

2009). 

4

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

5

Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance” (Oct. 5, 2009). 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 49 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

on documents provided to us by DOD and the services regarding the 

initiatives and the results from testing their performance. We reviewed 

select DOD studies that assessed various initiatives being used in 

Afghanistan with the goal of reducing fuel use at forward-deployed 

locations. We concluded that the studies clearly describe the 

methodology and assumptions behind the study results, and they do not 

attempt to generalize the results beyond the context of the studies. 

Although the results of these studies cannot be generalized to all fuel 

demand management initiatives, they provide examples of how DOD is 

assessing the results of these initiatives. We also conducted interviews 

with DOD and service officials to obtain information regarding DOD’s 

progress in collecting fuel data on fuel demand management initiatives 

and establishing a baseline on fuel demand at forward-deployed locations 

in Afghanistan.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through June 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Key Tasks and Milestones 

Included in DOD’s Operational Energy Strategy 

Implementation Plan

Page 50 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Milestone Task Description 

2nd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Develop a Charter that Outlines the 

Organization, Governance, Membership, 

Functions, and Responsibilities of the 

Defense Operational Energy Board

ASD(OEPP), in consultation with relevant offices within OSD, the 

Military Departments,

Defense agencies, and the Joint Staff, will present the charter at 

the meeting of the Board.

2nd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Establish Operational Energy Consumption 

Baselines 

The Military Departments and Defense agencies will report to the 

Defense Operational Energy Board an operational energy baseline, 

using all available data on actual energy consumption in support of 

military operations in fiscal year 2011 and projected consumption in 

fiscal year 2012 – 2017.

3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Support Current Operations with Energy 

Improvements

Combatant Commands will report to the Defense Operational 

Energy Board on how they guide their forces to improve energy 

performance and efficiency in operations and the effectiveness of 

this guidance.

3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Improve the Operational Energy Efficiency 

of the Military Departments

The Military Departments will report to the Defense Operational 

Energy Board progress against their own current or updated 

energy performance goals and metrics and demonstrate how such 

progress supports the Operational Energy Strategy priority to 

reduce the demand for fuel and increase capability in military 

operations.

3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Include Operational Energy in the 

Requirements Process

In accordance with forthcoming Joint Staff policy, the Joint Staff, 

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and the Military 

Departments will meet the congressional intent of an energy 

performance attribute in the requirements development process. 

Through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) will oversee 

implementation of this effort in individual programs. The Joint Staff, 

USSOCOM, and the Military Departments will report overall 

progress in implementing an energy performance attribute to the 

Defense Operational Energy Board.

3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Apply Operational Energy Analyses to 

Defense Acquisitions

In accordance with forthcoming policy from the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), 

the Military Departments will develop and apply Fully Burdened 

Cost of Energy (FBCE) analyses throughout the acquisition 

process. The Military Departments will report overall progress on 

implementing FBCE to the Defense Operational Energy Board.

Appendix II: Key Tasks and Milestones 

Included in DOD’s Operational Energy 

Strategy Implementation Plan
Appendix II: Key Tasks and Milestones 

Included in DOD’s Operational Energy Strategy 

Implementation Plan

Page 51 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Milestone Task Description 

3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2012 & 

recurring 

Identify Operational Energy Security Risks 

at Fixed Installations

The Military Departments and other asset owners will brief the 

Defense Operational Energy Board on energy-related risks to fixed 

installations that directly support military operations, to include 

those identified through Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs’ 

(ASD(HD&ASA)) Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP).

4th Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Assess Departmental Energy Science and 

Technology Gaps and Recommend 

Options

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

(ASD(R&E)) will identify investment gaps in the Department’s 

science and technology portfolio necessary to reduce demand, 

improve system efficiency, and expand supply alternatives, as 

articulated in the Operational Energy Strategy. ASD(R&E) will 

provide the final report to the Defense Operational Energy Board 

and include recommendations on possible options for filling the 

gaps.

4th Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Adapt and Adopt Policy, Doctrine, and 

Professional Military Education for 

Operational Energy

The Joint Staff and Military Departments will report to the Defense 

Operational Energy Board on how policy, doctrine, and 

professional military education (PME) will support reduced energy 

demand, expanded energy supply, and future force development.

4th Quarter fiscal 

year 2012

Incorporate Operational Energy into 

Combatant Command Activities

As appropriate and consistent with annual classified guidance to 

the Combatant Commands, the Joint Staff and Combatant 

Commands will report to the Defense Operational Energy Board on 

command measures to incorporate Operational Energy Strategy 

goals into theater campaign plans, security cooperation initiatives, 

joint and combined exercises, and other activities designed to 

achieve theater and country objectives.

Source: DOD Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan
Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD 

Page 52 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

The list of fuel demand management initiatives included below provides 

an overview of the materiel initiatives identified by DOD organizations 

during the course of our review. This list does not include the nonmateriel 

initiatives underway such as those to change policies and procedures, or 

modify staffing to perform fuel demand management functions. The list 

also provides a status update on the initiatives discussed in our 2009 

report on fuel demand management. The first nine initiatives listed below 

were identified in our 2009 report.

Description/Status update

Initiatives identified in GAO’s 2009 

report 

1. Eskimo Spray Foam Insulation An application of foam insulation on tent structures to decrease fuel demand. According to 

Army officials, spray foam reduces power use for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

CURRENT STATUS: The effort to insulate tents with spray polyurethane foam has been 

suspended. Even though the tent insulation effort was demonstrated in-theater with 

successful results, the Army is no longer moving forward with a large- scale effort to install 

foam insulation in all tents and portable structures while it examines the environmental 

implications of disposal of the solidified tent foam when the life span of the tent is 

complete. 

2. Advanced Medium Mobile Electric 

Power (AMMPS)

The AMMPS, a replacement for the Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs). It takes advantage 

of current technology to provide power generation capabilities that are more fuel efficient 

and reduce overall costs.

CURRENT STATUS: The Army is currently procuring AMMPS generators and will field 

them throughout the service. Some Army units will take the AMMPS with them when they 

deploy to Afghanistan in the future. Also, Program Manager-Mobile Electric Power is 

fielding approximately 200 AMMPS to Afghanistan starting in 2012 to replace legacy 

tactical quiet generators (TQGs). Once in place, the DOD expects AMMPS can save as 

much as 300,000 gallons of fuel per month over the TQGs they are replacing. 

3. Improved-Environmental Control Unit 

(I-ECU)

The I-ECU is a replacement of military standard environmental control units. It is designed 

for military environments, with reduced power consumption and weight, and increased 

reliability over current environmental control units.

CURRENT STATUS: Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power (PM-MEP) begins lowrate initial production of the I-ECU in fiscal year 2012. 

4. Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery 

(TGER) 

An experimental device that converts trash (paper, plastic, cardboard, and food waste) 

into energy for forward-deployed locations, reducing the need for convoys to deliver fuel 

and haul away trash.

CURRENT STATUS: TGER has been successfully tested and full system integration is 

underway. The Army is now targeting a field demonstration starting in mid-June for 90 

days. The original destination was Bagram, but now more likely will be Camp Virginia, 

Kuwait.

5. Scrap Tire Recycling Process The scrap tire recycling process produces diesel, gas, carbon char, and steel—byproducts

that can either be used to power generators, boilers, and other items or recycled into 

products such as asphalt and paint.

CURRENT STATUS: This effort no longer has research investment, and is not a product 

being further developed.

Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD
Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD 

Page 53 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Description/Status update

6. Hybrid Electric Power Station A hybrid generator system that uses wind and solar energy to supplement diesel 

generators.

CURRENT STATUS: Due to issues regarding usability the system was dismantled and 

disposed of in early fiscal year 2011.

7. Transportable Hybrid Electric Power 

Stations (THEPS)

The THEPS are mobile generators with solar panels, wind turbine, diesel generator, and 

storage batteries.

CURRENT STATUS: The Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Station was not successful 

but spurred the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to allocate $30 million to 

the Army to develop the Hybrid Intelligent Power (HIPower) system, a micro grid system.

8. Monolithic Dome This is a concrete, dome-shaped structure that is designed to be energy efficient with 

energy supplied by a combination of solar panels and windmills.

CURRENT STATUS: Although successful, using domes in-theater would require some 

changes in current operations, as domes would be considered permanent structures and 

thus subject to MILCON constraints.

9. Renewable Tent City A collection of various deployable shelters powered by solar and fuel cell generators.

CURRENT STATUS: There have been no Renewable Energy Tent Cities fielded in 

Afghanistan by the Air Force, but Air Force Central has fielded a number of sets 

elsewhere in-theater. The Air Force purchased and shipped a total of 920 units (flys and 

inserts) for the CENTCOM AOR, for Air Force training sites, and for storage at Holloman 

Air Force Base. Air Force Central received a total of 575 units and the majority are in use 

at Manas and Ali Al Salem. Units were also sent to Air Force sites for training.

Initiatives identified after 2009 

10. Deployable Renewable Energy 

Alternative Module

This module is intended to be towed by a vehicle and is designed to be used at combat 

posts in forward-deployed locations to power equipment via solar, wind turbine, battery, 

and generator technologies.

11. Smart and Green Energy (SAGE) SAGE is an integrated effort to develop design specifications for base camp infrastructure 

that when employed will reduce the quantity of petroleum fuel required for electrical power 

generation for expeditionary camps by employing smart Micro-grid technologies and 

energy efficient modular structures.

12. Rucksack-Enhanced Portable Power 

System (REPPS)

The REPPS is a lightweight, portable power system capable of recharging batteries 

and/or acting as a continuous power source. 

13. Afghanistan Microgrid Project (AMP) The AMP initiative involves the operation of load sensing monitors and fuel consumption 

logs, which are being captured by the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity team and 

will be analyzed to quantify the impact of the microgrid on fuel consumption against the 

baseline of 13 TQGs that the system is replacing. 

14. Solar Portable Alternative 

Communication Energy System 

(SPACES) 

SPACES is a lightweight man-portable lightweight device with tailorable adaptors that can 

energize equipment such as radios, laptop computers, and rechargeable batteries.

15. Ground Renewable Expeditionary 

Energy Network System (GREENS)

GREENS is a man-transportable device with renewable energy collection and storage that 

can energize communications equipment, sensors, and radios.

16. Energy at Remote Locations 

(EARLCON)

EARLCON is hybrid power system, using solar, traditional generators, and battery 

storage, with an energy management system. It is designed to improve efficiency and 

reduce demand for fuel.

17. SunDanzer Direct Current powered 

Air-Conditioners (DCAC)

The SunDanzer direct current powered air cooler is an air conditioning system that 

features a variable speed compressor. This design allows for low energy consumption and 

the ability to connect directly to a photovoltaic array without the need for batteries.
Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD 

Page 54 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Description/Status update

18. Integrated Trailer Environmental 

Control Units (ECU) Generator 

The Integrated Trailer-ECU-Generator II is a self-contained, highly mobile power 

generation and environmental control system. It is a second generation system of the 

current Integrated Trailer ECU Generator.

19. Solar Stik Hybrid Energy SystemEnergy to the Edge Energy to the Edge focuses on meeting energy and water requirements at locations that 

are hard to support logistically, while simultaneously reducing dependence on ground and 

aerial resupply operations. This is a 30-kilowatt hybrid energy system designed to 

integrate renewable energy with the Army’s currently fielded Tactical Quiet Generators. 

20. Tent, Extendable, Modular, Personnel 

(TEMPER) Photovoltaic Fly

The TEMPER air-supported tent photovoltaic fly provides supplemental power generation 

without increasing the operational footprint of the base camp.

21. Solar Shade Tent Fly with Integral 

Photovoltaic Power

This solar shade tent fly has integrated photovoltaic power and can reduce solar load up 

to 80-90 percent.

22. ZeroBase H-Series ReGenerator The ZeroBase H-Series ReGenerator is a hybrid system that has solar generation, battery 

storage, and a 5-kilowatt generator. The system maximizes generator efficiency by 

operating the generator at peak efficiencies by capturing excess power through the 

battery bank. 

23. Mobile Max Pure System Mobile Max Pure System is a commercial, off-the-shelf system that provides over 3 

kilowatts of photovoltaic power but also integrates water pumping and purification systems 

as options.

24. Reusing Existing Natural Energy Wind 

and Solar (RENEWS)

The RENEWS system consists of wind turbines, flexible solar panels, a battery module, 

and output adapter plugs/connectors.

25. Insulating Liners The Insulating Liner is a lightweight, radiant, reflective insulating liner. It is installed behind 

the existing liner to enhance the radiant and insulating capability, which reduces both 

heating and cooling requirements / needs. The Insulating liner has zippered doors and 

sealable openings for ducts and electrical cords to enter the shelter. These liners fit 

different shelter systems and provide varying levels of insulation.

26. SunDanzer Refrigerators SunDanzer refrigerators and freezers have exceptionally low energy consumption and 

require smaller, less expensive power systems and low operating expense. This 

technology allows refrigeration in remote locations where it was previously unavailable or 

prohibitively expensive.

27. Battlefield Renewable Integrated 

Tactical Energy System (BRITES)

BRITES is an Air Force power system that stores energy and serves as a power 

management distribution system.

28. Alaska Small Shelter System The Alaska Small Shelter System is the official Air Force shelter system and the only 

shelter successfully tested to meet all the requirements, such as wind and snow load, of 

the U.S. Air Force’s 1999 Operational Requirements Document.

29. Utilis Thermal Fly The Utilis Thermal Fly is an external solar shade used to reduce the severe radiant heat 

transfer from the outside environment to the inside of the shelter. 

30. Atomic Force Photovoltaic Microscopy 

(Flexible Solar Cells Technique) 

Flexible Solar Cells Technique works by scanning a nanoscale stylus across an array of 

microscopic solar cells which causes them to illuminate with simulated light so that they 

function. These flexible solar cells are plastic-based, and work via photovoltaic properties 

of the plastic, which convert a portion of the light that hits the solar cells into electricity.

31. Alternative Energy Fuel Cell 

Generator 

This generator is in development and will be designed to be a portable, integrated, and 

ruggedized, polymer electrolyte membrane-based fuel cell, power generator, capable of 

operating on certain raw fuel. This generator will produce 10 kilowatts peak power output 

that is suitable for deployment to forward operating locations.

32. Solar Integrated Power Shelter 

System 

This shelter system uses lightweight, flexible solar panels to cool a tent shelter. It is 

currently undergoing field testing and will be deployed initially in Kuwait in fiscal year 

2013.
Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management 

Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations 

Identified by DOD 

Page 55 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Description/Status update

33. Rigid Wall Energy Efficient Shelters These are lightweight, deployable, rigid-wall, and thermally insulated shelters that can be 

used as part of various fielding options.

34. L’Garde Cell Insulation This cellular insulation project leverages NASA’s multilayer film insulation concept 

resulting in flat panels that when mechanically deployed provide energy.

35. Balance of Systems Balance of Systems is designed for multiple applications, including Quadrant, Temper Fly, 

and PowerShade. This system consists of a charge controller, power monitor, AC inverter, 

and two storage batteries. The power is generated by the photovoltaics flows to the 

charge controller, which then uses that power to charge the batteries if they are depleted.

36. Shower Water Reuse System This shower system is designed to improve the energy, water, and waste efficiency and 

reduce environmental risks of life support areas.

37. Skycam power (alternative power for 

senor)

This initiative is an extended solar-power solution to operate a wireless surveillance 

system for combat outpost force protection.

38. Pinwheel (generator and solar PV) This is an energy and power initiative that includes a generator and solar photovoltaics.

39. Hunter Defense Technologies (HDT) 

Heat Shield Radiant Blanket

The HDT Heat Shield Radiant Blanket is a 114-pound liner designed to help thermally 

insulate a Base-X tent. The HDT liner fits inside of the tent by attaching the liner to the 

walls and ceiling.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 56 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 57 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 58 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Zina D. Merritt, (202) 512- 5257 or merrittz@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne Wren (Assistant 

Director), Virginia Chanley, Carole Coffey, Mark Dowling, Jason Jackson, 

Tamiya Lunsford, Christopher Mulkins, Charles Perdue, Amie Steele, Erik 

Wilkins-McKee, and Delia P. Zee made major contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 59 GAO-12-619 Defense Energy Management 

Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Improve DOD’s Oversight of 

Power Source Investments. GAO-11-113. Washington, D.C.: December 

30, 2010.

Defense Management: Increased Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at DOD’s Forward-Deployed Locations Could Reduce 

Operational Risks and Costs. GAO-09-388T. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 

2009.

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel 

Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Location. GAO-09-300. 

Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2009.

Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Needed 

to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations.

GAO-08-426. Washington, D.C: March 13, 2008. 

Related GAO Products

(351613)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.