a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittee on 

Readiness, Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives

February 2009 DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT

DOD Needs to 

Increase Attention on 

Fuel Demand 

Management at 

Forward-Deployed 

Locations

GAO-09-300
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2009

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations

Highlights of GAO-09-300, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee 

on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 

relies heavily on petroleum-based 

fuel to sustain its forward-deployed 

locations—particularly those that 

are not connected to local power 

grids. While weapon platforms 

require large amounts of fuel, DOD 

reports that the single largest 

battlefield fuel consumer is 

generators, which provide power 

for base support activities such as 

cooling, heating, and lighting. 

Transporting fuel to forwarddeployed locations presents an 

enormous logistics burden and 

risk, including exposing fuel truck 

convoys to attack. GAO was asked 

to address DOD’s (1) efforts to 

reduce fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations and (2) 

approach to managing fuel demand 

at these locations. This review 

focused on locations within Central 

Command’s area of responsibility. 

GAO visited DOD locations in 

Kuwait and Djibouti to learn about 

fuel reduction efforts and 

challenges facing these locations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD 

establish an effective approach to 

managing fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations by developing 

fuel demand management 

requirements; designating the new 

director of operational energy as 

the lead proponent of fuel demand 

management at forward-deployed 

locations; addressing demand 

management shortcomings in 

DOD’s energy strategy; and 

establishing military department 

oversight of fuel demand issues. 

DOD generally concurred with the 

recommendations. 

DOD components have some efforts under way or planned to reduce fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations. Many of these efforts are in a research 

and development phase, and the extent to which they will be fielded and 

under what time frame is uncertain. Notable efforts include the application of 

foam insulation to tent structures (see fig.), the development of more fuelefficient generators and environmental control units, and research on 

alternative and renewable energy sources for potential use at forwarddeployed locations. In addition, during visits to Kuwait and Djibouti, GAO met 

with officials about local camp efforts aimed at reducing fuel demand. 

Figure: Tent before Application of Foam Insulation and Tent after Application of Foam 

Insulation 

 

Source: DOD Power Surety Task Force. 

DOD lacks an effective approach for implementing fuel reduction initiatives 

and maintaining sustained attention to fuel demand management at its 

forward-deployed locations. Moreover, DOD faces difficulty achieving its 

goals to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuel and its logistics 

“footprint,” as well as operating costs associated with high fuel usage, because 

managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations has not been a 

departmental priority and fuel reduction efforts have not been well 

coordinated or comprehensive. GAO found that DOD’s current approach to 

managing fuel demand lacks (1) guidance directing locations to address fuel 

demand, (2) incentives and a viable funding mechanism to invest in fuel 

reduction projects, and (3) visibility and accountability for achieving fuel 

reduction. Although it may not be practical for DOD to decrease fuel usage at 

every forward-deployed location and base commanders must place their 

highest priority on meeting mission requirements, fuel demand is likely to 

remain high until the department gives systematic consideration to 

incorporating fuel demand in construction, maintenance, procurement, and 

other policy decisions for forward-deployed locations. The 2009 defense 

authorization act requires DOD to establish a director of operational energy 

and an energy strategy, providing the department with an opportunity to 

increase attention on improving fuel demand management. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-09-300. 

For more information, contact William M. Solis 

at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

DOD Components Have Initiated Efforts to Reduce Fuel Demand 

at Forward-Deployed Locations 12 

DOD Does Not Have an Effective Approach for Managing Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 19 

Conclusions 34 

Recommendations for Executive Action 35 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36 

Appendix I Fuel Demand at Selected DOD Forward-Deployed 

Locations during June 2008 40 

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 48 

Appendix III Selected Initiatives of the DOD Power Surety 

Task Force to Reduce Fuel Demand at ForwardDeployed Locations 51 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 55 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58 

Tables 

Table 1: Responsibilities for Bulk Petroleum in Support of Military 

Operations 33 

Table 2: Fuel Consumption Reported by Selected ForwardDeployed Locations for June 2008 41 

Contents 
Figures 

Figure 1: Fuel Storage and Delivery for Military Operations 8 

Figure 2: Tent before Application of Foam Insulation and Tent after 

Application of Foam Insulation 13 

Figure 3: Improved Environmental Control Unit 15 

Figure 4: Renewable Energy Tent City at Tyndall Air Force Base, 

Florida 16 

Figure 5: Deployable Renewable Energy Alternative Module 

Prototype 17 

Figure 6: Byproducts of Scrap Tire Recycling Process 18 

Figure 7: Proportion of Fuel Consumption Reported for Base 

Support Activities and for Air and Ground Operations by 

Selected Forward-Deployed Locations for June 2008 42 

Figure 8: Camp Lemonier 43 

Figure 9: Q-West Air Base 44 

Figure 10: Camp Arifjan 45 

Figure 11: Contingency Operating Base Adder 46 

Figure 12: Bagram Air Field 47 

Figure 13: Eskimo Spray Foam Insulation 51 

Figure 14: Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Stations (THEPS) 51 

Figure 15: Net Zero Plus Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstration 52 

Figure 16: Monolithic Dome 52 

Figure 17: Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery (TGER) 53 

Figure 18: Hybrid Electric Power Station 53 

Figure 19: Power Surety Feasibility Assessment 54 

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 ii GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Page 1 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

February 20, 2009 

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz 

Chairman 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Readiness 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

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

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

particularly those 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.1

 Each day, over 2 million gallons of jet 

fuel alone are supplied to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.2

Transporting large quantities of fuel to forward-deployed locations 

presents an enormous logistics burden and risk. In 2006, a senior U.S. 

commander in Iraq submitted an urgent request to DOD for renewable 

energy systems in order to reduce supply line vulnerabilities associated 

with the military’s dependence on fuel for power generation at forwarddeployed locations. Furthermore, global oil supply routes are vulnerable 

because they flow through unstable regions. High fuel demand, coupled 

with the recent volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications 

for DOD’s operating costs. With the ongoing Global War on Terrorism, 

which DOD officials have referred to as “the longer war,” the department 

may need to sustain many of its forward-deployed locations supporting 

current operations for longer than initially anticipated. 

This report is the third in a series of studies requested by the 

Subcommittee on Readiness of the House Committee on Armed Services 

examining DOD’s energy usage for military operations. Our March 2008 

 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

1

DOD distinguishes between mobility energy—the energy required for moving and 

sustaining forces and weapons platforms for military operations—and facility energy—the 

energy consumed at fixed installations. Mobility energy, also known as operational energy, 

includes the energy used to sustain forward-deployed locations and constitutes about 75 

percent of DOD’s total energy use. 

2

DOD uses jet fuel (such as JP8) for a wide range of fuel needs, not just for aircraft. DOD 

also uses diesel fuel and other types of petroleum-based fuel at its forward-deployed 

locations. 
 

report found that while DOD and the military services have several efforts 

under way to reduce energy used for military operations, the department 

lacks key elements of an overarching organizational framework to manage 

mobility energy matters across the department.3

 We also testified last 

March on the need for DOD to establish an overarching organizational 

framework, including an executive-level Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) official who is accountable for mobility energy.4

 This report 

addresses DOD’s (1) efforts to reduce fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations and (2) approach to managing fuel demand at these locations. 

We are also providing information on DOD’s fuel demand at selected 

forward-deployed locations (see app. I). We focused our review on 

forward-deployed locations within Central Command’s area of 

responsibility.5

 Central Command has more than 400 forward-deployed 

locations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as locations in other countries. 

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. Our review 

focused on forward-deployed locations—DOD installations or base camps 

situated outside of the United States that support current operations—that 

relied primarily on fuel-based generators, as opposed to local power 

grids.6

 We asked officials to identify for us key efforts planned or under 

way to reduce fuel demand. After consultation with Central Command 

officials, we selected and visited two forward-deployed locations—Camp 

Arifjan, an Army facility in Kuwait and Camp Lemonier, a Navy facility in 

Djibouti—to gain a firsthand understanding of fuel demand reduction 

efforts and challenges facing these locations.7

 We chose to visit these 

 

3

GAO, Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to Guide 

and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations, GAO-08-426 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 13, 2008). 

4

GAO, Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Could Improve 

DOD’s Management of Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations, GAO-08-523T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2008). 

5

Central Command, one of DOD’s six geographic combatant commands, has an area of 

responsibility that encompasses over 25 countries including locations in the Middle East, 

South Asia, and Central Asia.

6

We excluded Navy vessels from the scope of our review. 

7

At the time of our visit in June 2008, both camps were under Central Command’s area of 

responsibility. On October 1, 2008, DOD transferred Camp Lemonier under its newly 

established Africa Command. 

Page 2 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

Page 3 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

locations because they relied heavily on fuel-based generators to carry out 

very different missions—the former directly supported operations in Iraq 

while the latter provided diplomatic, development, and counterterrorism 

support within the Horn of Africa. In assessing DOD’s approach to 

managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations, we reviewed 

documents and held discussions with agency officials on issues including 

forward-deployed location construction and maintenance, procurement, 

and funding procedures. For comparison purposes, we reviewed DOD 

guidance related to energy reduction for the department’s permanent or 

U.S. facilities. 

We conducted our review from March 2008 through February 2009 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 II. 

DOD components have efforts under way or planned to reduce fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations. Many of these efforts are in a 

research and development phase, and the extent to which they will be 

fielded and under what time frame is uncertain. For example, one mission 

of the DOD Power Surety Task Force, created in 2006, is to identify and 

demonstrate emerging or commercial off-the-shelf technology that can 

reduce DOD’s fuel demand. Power Surety Task Force officials told us that, 

based on results from a recent demonstration, the department decided to 

pursue a large-scale effort to apply foam insulation to temporary 

structures, such as military tents, in Iraq to reduce the number of fuelbased generators needed to power these structures at forward-deployed 

locations. Another DOD office is developing a new generation of fuelefficient generators and environmental control units for use at forwarddeployed locations. The military services are also researching the use of 

alternative and renewable energy sources for power generation. Moreover, 

during our visits to two forward-deployed locations, we observed local 

efforts to reduce fuel demand. At Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, for example, 

Army officials shared plans to consolidate the loads on small individual 

generators by creating groupings of larger generators, which could 

improve the overall efficiency of generator usage and reduce the number 

of generators that must operate during most times of the year. At Camp 

Lemonier, Djibouti, foam insulation had been applied to the tent exterior 

Results in Brief 
 

of the camp’s gymnasium, which Navy officials told us reduced by 40 

percent the number of fuel-based generators needed to power the facility. 

While these efforts show potential for achieving greater fuel efficiency, 

DOD lacks an effective approach to managing fuel demand that could 

enable the widespread implementation of fuel reduction initiatives and 

sustained attention to fuel demand issues at its forward-deployed 

locations. DOD has stated that it needs to reduce its reliance on 

petroleum-based fuel and minimize the logistics "footprint" of military 

forces. However, DOD faces difficulty in achieving these goals because 

managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations has not been a 

departmental priority and its fuel reduction efforts have not been well 

coordinated or comprehensive. More specifically, we found that DOD 

lacked guidance directing forward-deployed locations to address fuel 

demand, incentives and a viable funding mechanism for locations to invest 

in fuel reduction initiatives, and visibility and accountability within the 

chain of command for achieving fuel reduction. 

• Lack of guidance: DOD generally lacks guidance that directs forwarddeployed locations to manage and reduce their fuel demand—at the 

department level, combatant command level, and military service level. 

DOD is driven to address energy issues—such as incorporating energy 

efficiency into repair and construction projects, procuring energy-efficient 

products when cost effective, and tracking and measuring its progress and 

energy efficiency improvement—at its U.S. installations largely by federal 

mandates and DOD guidance. However, agency officials were unable to 

identify similar guidance for forward-deployed locations, and they told us 

that reducing fuel use has been a low priority compared with other 

mission requirements. Our analysis of combatant command and military 

service guidance related to forward-deployed location construction 

showed that the existing guidance is largely silent with respect to fuel 

demand management and energy efficiency. The Joint Staff has begun an 

effort to develop common living standards (e.g., square footage for living 

space per person, duration of showers) for military servicemembers at 

forward-deployed locations that presents an opportunity to make 

decisions that take into account fuel demand considerations, but Joint 

Staff officials told us that fuel reduction has not been considered in this 

effort to date. 

• Lack of incentives and viable funding mechanism: DOD encourages 

fuel reduction projects at its permanent installations but has not 

established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for investing in such 

projects at its forward-deployed locations. Officials at Camp Lemonier, for 

example, have identified several projects that would reduce the camp’s 

Page 4 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

fuel demand but told us they saw little “return on investment” for them to 

undertake such projects because they would not receive the associated 

savings for use toward other camp improvements. Moreover, many of 

DOD’s forward-deployed locations rely heavily on funding from 

supplemental appropriations related to the Global War on Terrorism, and 

delays in receiving this funding can present challenges in covering existing 

costs, making it difficult for commanders to fund more expensive fuel 

reduction projects. Funding mechanisms exist to promote energy 

reduction projects at permanent DOD installations, including an energy 

conservation program and energy-performance saving contracts with 

private sector firms. Without incentives and a viable funding mechanism, 

commanding officials at DOD’s forward-deployed locations are unlikely to 

identify fuel reduction as a priority for making a significant investment of 

resources. 

• Lack of visibility and accountability: DOD’s current organizational 

framework does not provide the department visibility for fuel demand 

issues at its forward-deployed locations. We found that information on fuel 

demand management strategies and reduction efforts is not shared among 

locations, military services, and across the department in a consistent 

manner. Moreover, DOD guidance does not designate any DOD office or 

official as being responsible for fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations, and we could not identify anyone who is specifically 

accountable for this function through our interviews with various DOD 

and military service offices. The Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires DOD to establish a 

Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, an operational energy 

strategy for DOD, and military department-level energy officials.8

 DOD has 

not yet established a director or strategy for operational energy. In 

meeting the requirements, DOD has an opportunity to improve visibility 

and accountability for fuel demand management at forward-deployed 

locations. 

Until DOD makes fuel demand management a higher priority and 

establishes a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to managing 

forward-deployed location fuel demand—with guidance, incentives, a 

viable funding mechanism, visibility, and accountability—the department 

cannot be assured that good fuel reduction practices are identified, 

 

8

The act defines operational energy as the energy required for training, moving, and 

sustaining military forces and weapon platforms for military operations; it includes energy 

used by tactical power systems, generators, and weapon platforms. 

Page 5 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

shared, prioritized, resourced, implemented, and institutionalized across 

locations. Establishing such an approach could enable the department to 

reduce the amount of fuel that must be delivered to forward-deployed 

locations, decrease the department’s reliance on petroleum-based fuel and 

the logistics footprint, and save on fuel costs. 

We are making recommendations that DOD components develop 

requirements and guidelines on fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations. In addition, we are recommending that DOD designate 

the new, congressionally-mandated director of operational energy as the 

department’s lead proponent of fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations and that the director, in establishing a departmentwide 

operational energy strategy, address the shortcomings related to managing 

fuel demand at forward-deployed locations that we have identified in this 

report. Finally, we are recommending that the military departments’ senior 

energy officials be assigned, among their other duties, responsibility for 

overseeing fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations within 

their respective services. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD 

generally concurred with our recommendations. DOD’s comments are 

reprinted in appendix IV. 

At any given time, the United States has a large portion of its military 

personnel serving abroad in forward-deployed locations. The forward 

presence of military forces at overseas locations is critical to supporting 

U.S. strategic interests. Forward-deployed forces provide the basic 

building blocks with which to project military power in crises and 

strengthen U.S. military access. While the numbers of personnel and 

locations vary with the frequency and types of military operations and 

deployment demands, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have led 

to the creation of several hundred new locations.9

 Operational control of 

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

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

include Central Command. For current operations, Central Command has 

identified the need for forward-deployed locations within its area of 

 

9

According to Central Command, as of November 2008, there were more than 300 forwarddeployed locations in Iraq and more than 100 in Afghanistan, in addition to locations in 

other countries. 

Background 

DOD’s Forward-Deployed 

Locations 

Page 6 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

Page 7 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

responsibility to meet mission requirements, and its military service 

components have been responsible for establishing and maintaining the 

locations. 

DOD is likely to continue its use of forward-deployed locations in support 

of future U.S. defense strategy. In recent years, DOD has been undergoing 

a transformation to develop a defense strategy and force structure capable 

of meeting changing global threats. As part of its transformation, DOD has 

been reexamining overseas basing requirements to allow for greater U.S. 

military flexibility to combat conventional and asymmetric threats 

worldwide. U.S. military presence overseas has been converting from a 

posture established on familiar terrain to counter a known threat to one 

that is intended to be capable of projecting forces from strategic locations 

into relatively unknown areas in an uncertain threat environment. 

DOD each month to support U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. While 

DOD’s weapon systems require large amounts of fuel—a B-52H, for 

example, burns approximately 3,500 gallons per flight hour—the 

department reports that the single largest battlefield fuel consumer is 

generators. Generators provide power for base support activities such as 

air conditioning/heating, lighting, refrigeration, and communications. A 

2008 Defense Science Board Task Force report noted that Army 

generators alone consume about 26 million gallons of fuel annually during 

peacetime and 357 million gallons annually during wartime.10 Fuel is 

delivered to forward-deployed locations in Iraq via three main routes—

from Kuwait in the south, Jordan in the west, and Turkey in the north—

and to forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan via two main routes—

from Central Asian states in the north and from Pakistan in the east. 

According to the Defense Energy Support Center, an organization within 

the Defense Logistics Agency that manages contracts for the department’s 

fuel acquisitions and distribution, approximately 1.7 million gallons of jet 

fuel are delivered into Iraq and approximately 300,000 gallons of jet fuel 

are delivered into Afghanistan each day, in addition to other types of fuel, 

such as diesel, motor gasoline, and aviation gasoline. At one truck fill 

 

DOD Fuel Demand and In 2008, more than 68 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied by 

10Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, More Fight—Less Fuel

(February 2008). These figures were based on data and estimates collected by the DOD 

Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office and the assumption that 50 percent of the 

total generator fleet would be utilized in wartime. The figures can vary greatly depending 

on the operational environment and other factors. 

Delivery for Current 

Operations 
 

Page 8 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

stand that we visited in Kuwait in June 2008, about 125 trucks, each 

holding 9,000 gallons of fuel, were loaded daily for delivery to forwarddeployed locations in Kuwait and Iraq. 

High fuel requirements on the battlefield can place a significant logistics 

burden on military forces, exposing supply convoys to risk. For example, 

long truck convoys moving fuel to forward-deployed locations have 

encountered enemy attacks, severe weather, traffic accidents, and 

pilferage. Army officials have estimated that about 70 percent of the 

tonnage required to position its forces for battle consists of fuel and water. 

le, 

y, 

el 

to the camp. 

Figure 1: Fuel Storage and Delivery for Military Operations 

Most fuel deliveries to forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan are 

made by commercial contractors, and there is no military-provided 

protection for the supply convoys other than the protection contractors 

provide themselves. DOD officials reported that in June 2008, for examp

44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other 

events. While fuel delivery issues have not been as severe in Iraq recentl

the U.S. military provides force protection to supply convoys in Iraq, 

increasing the logistics burden. Fuel delivery to locations outside of Iraq 

and Afghanistan may not be subject to battlefield conditions but is also 

logistically complex. For example, Camp Lemonier receives its fuel 

through the Djiboutian port. Fuel is loaded from the port into the storage 

tanks as it arrives, and trucks also make daily runs to the port to bring fu

 Fuel Storage in Kuwait Fuel Convoy

Sources: GAO (left) and Headquarters, Marine Corps (right).
 

Page 9 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

and spent $9.5 billion in fiscal year 2007, in addition to its costs for fuel 

consumed at fixed U.S. installations. While fuel costs represent less than 3 

percent of DOD’s total budget, they can have a significant impact on the 

department’s operating costs. DOD 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. DOD organizations pay a standard price for 

fuel that differs from the market price. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) establishes for DOD the price the department will use when 

constructing its budget for upcoming fiscal years. DOD in turn uses OMB's 

price in establishing the standard price to be used for a barrel of fuel for 

budgeting purposes by DOD's customers, such as the military services. 

Because of the volatility of world petroleum prices, the standard price for 

a barrel of fuel included in the President's annual budget request for DOD 

may be lower or higher than the actual price established by the world 

market at any point in time after DOD's budget request is submitted to the 

Congress. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget assumed a standard fuel 

price of $115.50 per barrel. At the time of this report, the price DOD 

charged its customers was $104.58, or $2.49 per gallon of jet fuel (JP8). In 

the past, DOD's standard fuel price was typically adjusted annually. 

However, with rising fuel costs in recent years, the price has been adjusted 

more frequently. Effective July 1, 2008, for example, DOD raised the 

standard fuel price per barrel from $127.68 to $170.94; and effective 

December 1, 2008, DOD lowered the standard fuel price per barrel from 

$170.94 to $104.58. Because the military services prepare their annual 

budgets based on the approved fuel price in the President's budget, market 

volatility resulting in out-of-cycle fuel price increases can be difficult for 

the services to absorb. DOD has received supplemental appropriations 

from the Congress in recent years to cover budget shortages associated 

with rising fuel prices. 

Moreover, the fully burdened cost of fuel—that is, the total ownership cost 

of buying, moving, and protecting fuel in systems during combat—can be 

much greater than the cost of fuel itself. A 2008 Defense Science Board 

Task Force report noted that preliminary estimates by the OSD Program 

Analysis and Evaluation office and the Institute of Defense Analyses 

indicate that the fully burdened cost of a $2.50 gallon of fuel could begin at 

about $15, assuming no force protection requirements for supply convoys, 

and increases as the fuel moves further onto the battlefield. Fuel delivered 

in-flight has been estimated at about $42 gallon, though the report notes 

that these figures are low. OSD has initiated a pilot program to determine 

the fully burdened cost of fuel for three mobile defense systems. 

DOD Mobility Fuel Costs DOD reported that it consumed almost 4.8 billion gallons of mobility fuel 
 

Page 10 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Concerns about future fuel costs, price volatility, and fuel availability have 

led the Air Force to undertake an effort to certify its entire aircraft fleet to 

run on a synthetic blend of alternative and jet fuels by early 2011. The Air 

Force has established a goal to acquire 50 percent of the aviation fuels it 

uses within the United States from domestic sources by 2016. 

Fuel distribution is a complex process involving several DOD offices. Joint 

Publication 4-03 sets forth principles and establishes doctrine for bulk 

petroleum and water in support of U.S. military operations. The combatant 

commander has the predominant responsibility for fuel within a theater, 

and this responsibility is discharged by its Joint Petroleum Office. The 

Joint Petroleum Office is responsible for the overall planning of petroleum 

for operations, and it may establish sub-area petroleum offices as needed 

to support specific petroleum requirements. The Director, Defense 

Logistics Agency, as the integrated materiel manager for bulk petroleum, is 

responsible for meeting the petroleum support requirements of the 

combatant commands and military services. These functional 

responsibilities have been delegated to the Director, Defense Energy 

Support Center, which is responsible for procurement, transportation, 

ownership, accountability, budgeting, quality assurance, and quality 

surveillance. It also plans and budgets for the construction and repair of 

fuel storage and distribution facilities, monitors the petroleum market, and 

negotiates international agreements for energy commodities. 

Each military service has responsibilities for providing petroleum support. 

The Army normally provides management of petroleum support to U.S. 

land-based forces of all DOD components. However, actual movement of 

bulk petroleum may include the use of commercial vehicles and 

associated infrastructure. The Air Force provides distribution of bulk 

petroleum products by air within a theater where immediate support is 

needed at remote locations. The Navy provides bulk petroleum products 

for U.S. sea- and land-based forces. The Marine Corps maintains a 

capability to provide bulk petroleum support to Marine Corps units. Within 

Central Command’s area of responsibility, military units communicate 

their fuel requirements, which are based on historical usage and planned 

rotations, to the sub-area petroleum offices. The sub-area petroleum 

offices in turn provide these requirements to Central Command’s Joint 

Petroleum Office for validation. Once the requirements are validated, the 

Defense Energy Support Center determines the most appropriate means to 

support the requirements and provides for the distribution of the fuel up to 

the “point of sale.” The point of sale is the point at which the customer 

takes possession of the fuel. The Defense Energy Support Center owns 

DOD Fuel Distribution 

Roles and Responsibilities 
 

Page 11 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

and tracks the fuel up until this point, at which time the fuel may be placed 

directly into a weapons system or battlefield storage unit or handed off to 

the customer to move to a forward-deployed location. 

Section 902 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 requires that DOD establish a Director of Operational 

Energy Plans and Programs, who shall be appointed by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate, to provide leadership and facilitate 

communication and conduct oversight of operational energy plans and 

programs within the department and military services.11 Among other 

responsibilities the director shall establish and maintain an operational 

energy strategy for the department; serve as the principal adviser to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense on operational 

energy plans and programs; and consider operational energy demands in 

defense planning, requirements, and acquisition processes. In addition, the 

act requires that, within 90 days of the director’s appointment, the 

secretaries of the military departments each designate a senior official to 

be responsible for operational energy plans and programs for his 

respective service. These senior service officials shall be responsible for 

coordinating with the director and implementing operational energy 

initiatives. The act further requires DOD to consider fuel logistics support 

requirements in the department’s planning, requirements development, 

and acquisition processes—including the consideration of the fully 

burdened cost of fuel when analyzing fuel-consuming system 

alternatives.12 The act also includes other energy requirements, including 

that DOD conduct a study on the feasibility of using solar and wind energy 

to provide electricity to deployed forces and the extent to which the use of 

such alternative energy sources could reduce the risk of casualties 

associated with convoys supplying fuel to forward-deployed locations.13

The Secretary of Defense, acting through the director, must also submit, 

on an annual basis, a report to the congressional defense committees on 

operational energy management and the implementation of the 

operational energy strategy.14

 

11Pub. L. No. 110-417, Sec. 902 (a) (2008). 

12Pub. L. No. 110-417, Sec. 332 (2008). 

13Pub. L. No. 110-417, Sec. 333 (2008). 

14Pub. L. No. 110-417, Sec. 331 (2008). 

Congressional 

Requirements for 

Operational Energy 
 

Page 12 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

DOD components have efforts under way or planned for reducing fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations. Many of these efforts are in a 

research and development phase, and the extent to which they will be 

fielded and under what time frame is uncertain. Notable efforts include the 

application of foam insulation to tent structures, the development of more 

fuel-efficient generators and environmental control units, and research on 

alternative and renewable energy sources for potential use at forwarddeployed locations. In addition, during our visits to Kuwait and Djibouti, 

we found local camp efforts aimed at reducing fuel demand. 

deployed locations to reduce energy demand for powering these 

structures. In 2006, the DOD Power Surety Task Force was created in 

response to a joint urgent operational needs statement from a senior U.S. 

commander in Iraq calling for alternative energy sources to reduce the 

amount of fuel transported to forward-deployed locations for power 

generation. A mission of the task force is to identify and demonstrate 

emerging or commercial off-the-shelf technology that can reduce DOD’s 

fuel demand. As one of several initiatives, the task force has demonstrated 

the benefits of applying foam insulation on temporary structures such as 

military tents. According to task force officials, tests show that the 

application of foam insulation reduces dust, heat, cold, noise, and air 

conditioning requirements, which in turn reduces generator-powered fuel 

demand.15 For example, the officials said that military tents insulated with 

foam at Fort Benning, Georgia, used half the climate control units and 

required 75 to 90 percent less power than non-insulated tents. (See fig. 2.) 

 

DOD is beginning to apply foam insulation on tents at some forward15Army Corps of Engineers officials told us that there are some concerns about a lack of 

ventilation associated with the foam-insulated tents. In response, a task force official said 

that tests indicated that internal air quality standards could be met with the addition of a 

ventilation system that could be installed using commercially-available products and 

conventional tools. 

DOD Components 

Have Initiated Efforts 

to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at ForwardDeployed Locations 

Demonstrated EnergySaving Benefits of 

Applying Foam Insulation 

to Tents 

Power Surety Task Force 
 

Figure 2: Tent before Application of Foam Insulation and Tent after Application of 

Foam Insulation 

The Power Surety Task Force first demonstrated this technology at Fort 

Benning in January 2007, and later at some forward-deployed locations in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Djibouti. According to task force officials, 

based on the results of a recent demonstration of this technology, DOD 

decided to pursue a large-scale effort to apply foam insulation to 

temporary structures, such as military tents, in Iraq to reduce the number 

of generators needed to power those structures. According to a Central 

Command official, the tent foaming initiative could reduce energy 

consumption by approximately 50 percent, potentially reducing the 

number of convoys needed to supply fuel to locations in Iraq, although 

metrics had not yet been established to systemically measure efficiency.16

However, the contract for this initiative was terminated prior to 

completion, effective December 16, 2008. According to another Central 

Command official, the contract was terminated early due to contractor 

performance as well as support issues. At the time the contract was 

terminated, a DOD contractor noted that foam insulation had been applied 

to about 900 temporary structures (3.8 million square feet) at 10 forwarddeployed locations in Iraq. According to a senior Army official, DOD has 

also issued a $29 million contract to apply foam insulation to tent 

structures in Afghanistan, though he did not expect foaming to proceed 

until after the winter weather in Afghanistan subsided. 

In addition to foam insulation, the DOD Power Surety Task Force is 

demonstrating other potential energy-saving technologies for use at 

forward-deployed locations. The Power Surety Task Force initiated a 3-

 

Source: DOD Power Surety Task Force.

16According to a Central Command official, the 50 percent fuel savings estimate was based 

on feedback from military servicemembers. 

Page 13 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

Page 14 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

year demonstration project—called the Net-Zero Plus Joint Capability 

Technology Demonstration—at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, 

California, to demonstrate some of these technologies and solicit feedback 

from visiting military personnel. (App. III provides additional information 

on task force initiatives.) 

efficient generators and environmental control units. A DOD joint program 

organization, the Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office, is 

responsible for providing a modernized standard family of mobile electric 

power generators to the military services. According to the office, many of 

DOD’s generators have been in use for about three decades, exceeding 

their expected life cycle of 15 years. The office is developing a next 

generation of generators, called the Advanced Medium Mobile Power 

Sources, which employ advanced technologies to achieve greater fuel 

efficiency and other improvements over current military generators. When 

fully fielded, the new generators are expected to consume approximately 

28 million gallons less fuel per year than the tactical quiet generators 

currently in use by the Army.17 According to a Project Manager-Mobile 

Electric Power official, DOD plans to begin procuring these new 

generators in 2010 at a weighted average cost of about $18,000 per 

generator. In addition, officials said that the Project Manager-Mobile 

Electric Power office intends to replace its current environmental control 

units with improved environmental control units to provide cooling, 

heating, and dehumidifying for servicemembers and material systems. The 

improved units are expected to reduce energy consumption by up to 25 

percent over current units. (See fig. 3.) An official told us that one version 

of the improved units is currently in low-rate initial production and a 

contract for another version is expected to be awarded in February 2009. 

 

Joint Program Office Is Another DOD effort to reduce fuel demand is the development of new fuel17The fuel savings estimate is based on tactical electric power operational requirements and 

takes into account the Army Force Generation model, which assumes that one-third of 

Army generators are used at wartime rates and two-thirds are used at peacetime rates in 

any given year. 

Developing More FuelEfficient Generators 
 

Page 15 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 3: Improved Environmental Control Unit 

Source: DOD Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power.

The Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office also has initiatives 

under way to improve the efficiency of power generation. For example, 

the office has fielded a more fuel-efficient method of generating power, 

called Central Power, at tactical operations centers (command posts) for 

the Army’s 4th Infantry Division. Previously, power for these operations 

centers was provided by many small generator sets that had a large 

logistics footprint; required considerable fuel, maintenance, and personnel 

to operate; and were subject to disruptions in continuous power. The 

Central Power concept uses fewer, larger generators to provide 

independent “islands” of power generation, decreasing fuel consumption 

and the logistics footprint. According to Project-Manager Mobile Electric 

Power officials, Central Power saved the 4th Infantry Division roughly 

$384,000 during its first year in use. The officials said that they have plans 

to field Central Power to all active Army components by the end of fiscal 

year 2009 but noted that the Army had not yet updated its equipment 

requirements list for units to include Central Power as a requirement. 

Finally, the Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office is pursuing a $30 

million, 6-year program to develop a future generation intelligent 

management grid architecture, called Hybrid Intelligent Power (HIPower). HI-Power is intended to provide a flexible, grid-based architecture 

that enables “plug-and-play” power generation using a variety of power 

sources, including military and commercial generators, vehicles, and 

renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. According to the 

officials, HI-Power will automatically start and stop generators to match 

demand and store energy for transient power requirements. The intended 

benefits include reduced fuel consumption (by 17 to 40 percent depending 
 

Page 16 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

on the scenario), maintenance, personnel requirements, and power 

interruptions. The officials are planning for HI-Power to go into 

production during fiscal year 2013. 

alternative and renewable energy technologies. 

Figure 4: Renewable Energy Tent City at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 

renewable energy technologies to generate power at forward-deployed 

locations and reduce the demand for petroleum-based fuel. The Air 

Force’s Air Force Research Laboratory created the Renewable Energy 

Tent City—a collection of various deployable shelters powered by solar 

and fuel cell generators situated at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. (See 

fig. 4.) The purpose of this research is to evaluate renewable energy 

technologies for use at forward-deployed locations, according to an Air 

Force Research Laboratory official. The official told us that the laboratory 

is assessing, among other technologies, a solar-integrated cover that it 

developed to generate power for small shelter systems using a form of 

solar cell technology. The Air Force is also engaged in other research and 

development projects involving the use of fuel cell, biofuel, and other 

Military Services Are Several military services are exploring the use of alternative and 

The Marine Corps has several research initiatives under way to develop 

alternative energy systems for forward-deployed locations. For example, 

the Marine Corps Systems Command is working on the Deployable 

Renewable Energy Alternative Module. This module is intended to be 

towed by a vehicle and is designed to be used at forward-deployed 

locations to temporarily power radios or computers until fuel can be 

Researching Alternative 

and Renewable Energy 

Technologies 

Source: Air Force Research Laboratory.
 

Page 17 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

resupplied to the locations by employing solar, wind turbine, battery, and 

generator technologies. (See fig. 5.) A Marine Corps Systems Command 

official told us that three prototypes have been designed using variations 

of these alternative technologies and that two have been tested. The 

official noted, however, that the technologies used for the modules have 

limitations. For example, vendors for this project developed solar cells 

that either required large surface areas—equal to the size of a tennis 

court—to recharge batteries or were too fragile for use in an austere 

environment. Furthermore, according to the official, the prototypes were 

not cost effective, since comparable diesel-powered generators with a 30-

day supply of fuel could be procured and transported for considerably 

less. For these reasons, the modules are not likely to be deployed in the 

field, but the official said that lessons learned from this project could be 

used to inform the development of future energy systems. 

Figure 5: Deployable Renewable Energy Alternative Module Prototype 

Source: Marine Corps Systems Command.

The Army is also investigating ways of reducing fuel demand at forwarddeployed locations through various research initiatives. For example, the 

Army Research Laboratory is working with universities and private sector 

firms to develop a processor that converts tires into energy and recyclable 

products that can be used at forward-deployed locations. (See fig. 6.) The 

scrap tire recycling process produces diesel, gas, carbon char, and steel—

byproducts that can either be used to power generators, boilers, and other 
 

Page 18 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

items or recycled into products such as asphalt and paint. Project partners 

estimated that 2.7 million gallons of diesel fuel per year could be produced 

from a tire recycling facility operating at a forward-deployed location in 

Iraq, thereby reducing the number of trucks needed to deliver fuel. The 

fuel produced from this process is currently being tested to determine if it 

meets Army standards. In addition, the Army is providing support to the 

Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office for the development of the 

Hi-Power program, and to the Power Surety Task Force for the 

development of a refinery system designed to convert trash into energy. 

Using a similar form of technology, the Army, working with the Defense 

Energy Support Center, intends to demonstrate six waste-to-fuel (diesel 

fuel) plants at six U.S. Army locations over the next year, according to a 

senior Army official. 

Figure 6: Byproducts of Scrap Tire Recycling Process 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

found some local efforts by camp officials to reduce fuel demand. In 

Kuwait, an official at Camp Arifjan shared plans to consolidate loads on 

small generators by creating groupings—or networks—of multiple 

generators, which could improve overall efficiency and reduce the number 

of generators that operate at most times of the year. Camp officials said 

Deployed Locations Have 

Efforts Under Way or 

Planned to Reduce Fuel 

Demand 

Specific Forward- During our visits to forward-deployed locations in Kuwait and Djibouti, we 
 

Page 19 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

that they would like to build a centralized power plant for the location’s 

communication complex by 2010. An Army official also told us that foam 

insulation was being used to cool tent structures in Kuwait, where outside 

temperatures can exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the 

official, insulated facilities require fewer ventilation and air conditioning 

units to maintain cooler temperatures, thereby providing 20 to 40 percent 

in energy savings and reducing the wear and tear on the camp’s generator 

fleet. As of June 2008, the Army was in the process of insulating tents with 

foam at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, and had plans to insulate tents at Camp 

Virginia, Kuwait. The official also told us that other alternatives to increase 

cooling efficiency, such as the use of special ceramic paints, were being 

explored. 

During our visit to Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, Navy officials told us that 

they allowed the Power Surety Task Force to apply foam insulation on the 

tent exterior of the camp’s gymnasium in August 2007. According to camp 

officials, the temperature inside the air-conditioned tent decreased from 

95-100 degrees Fahrenheit to about 72 degrees after the foam insulation 

was applied. The officials also said that they were able to remove two of 

the five air conditioning units used to cool the facility, resulting in an 

estimated fuel savings of 40 percent. The officials were pleased with the 

reduced fuel demand and improved quality of life that were produced as a 

result of the demonstration. However, they noted that the disadvantages of 

the foam include more material to dispose of when the tent is 

disassembled and difficulty in moving or rearranging the tent after the 

foam was applied. In addition to the foaming, Camp Lemonier officials had 

also posted signs aimed at modifying the behavior of personnel to 

conserve energy. The signs included tips on taking shorter showers, using 

less air conditioning, and unplugging transformers when not in use. Camp 

officials had also developed an energy savings plan to reduce electrical 

consumption. 

Although DOD is undertaking a number of initiatives focused on reducing 

fuel consumption, it lacks an effective approach for implementing fuel 

reduction initiatives and maintaining sustained attention to fuel demand 

management at its forward-deployed locations. DOD has stated that it 

needs to reduce its dependence on petroleum-based fuel and the logistics 

“footprint” of its military forces, as well as reduce operating costs 

associated with high fuel usage. In 2008, the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics reported to Congress that fuel 

demand for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher than any war in 

history and that protecting large fuel convoys imposes a high burden on 

DOD Does Not Have 

an Effective Approach 

for Managing Fuel 

Demand at ForwardDeployed Locations 
 

Page 20 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

combat forces.18 The Under Secretary’s report noted that reducing fuel 

demand would move the department toward a more efficient force 

structure by enabling more combat forces to be supported by fewer 

logistics assets, reducing operating costs, and mitigating the budget effects 

caused by fuel price volatility. However, we found that DOD’s current 

approach to managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations is not 

effective because it lacks (1) guidance directing locations to address fuel 

demand, (2) incentives and a viable funding mechanism to invest in fuel 

reduction initiatives, and (3) visibility and accountability within the chain 

of command for achieving fuel reduction. Until DOD addresses these 

shortcomings and makes fuel demand management a higher priority, DOD 

will face difficulty achieving its goals of reducing its reliance on 

petroleum-based fuel, the associated logistics burden, and fuel costs. 

DOD generally lacks guidance that directs forward-deployed locations to 

manage and reduce fuel demand and thus cannot ensure that base 

commanders and their staffs will give sustained attention to this issue 

among their many other mission requirements. In contrast, DOD is driven 

to reduce energy consumption at its U.S. installations largely by federal 

mandates and DOD guidance. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

Executive Order 13423, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 set energy reduction goals for federal buildings within the United 

States. Moreover, in November 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics issued an instruction that provided 

guidance, assigned responsibilities, and prescribed procedures for energy 

management at its U.S. installations.19 The instruction addresses topics 

such as ensuring sufficient funds to meet energy goals, tracking and 

measuring progress and energy efficiency improvement, reporting energy 

use and accomplishments, and training facility managers on the energy 

efficient operation of facilities. Among other responsibilities, it requires 

the heads of DOD components to develop programs that result in facilities 

that are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to maximize 

energy efficiency. However, DOD, Central Command, and military service 

officials we met with could not identify similar DOD policies, directives, or 

other documents that specifically require attention to fuel demand 

 

18Department of Defense Report to Congress on Energy Efficiency in Weapons Platforms, 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (Feb. 2008). 

19DOD Instruction 4170.11, Installation Energy Management, Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (Nov. 22, 2005). 

DOD Generally Lacks 

Guidance That Requires 

Attention to Fuel Demand 
 

management at forward-deployed locations, and we were told that it is not 

a key consideration. In responding to a draft of this report, DOD stated 

that the Army had issued an energy security implementation strategy in 

January 2009 that provides overarching guidance for reducing energy 

consumption at forward locations.20 Our analysis of the Army’s new 

strategy found that it emphasizes the need to reduce energy consumption, 

including at forward-deployed locations, but it does not provide specific 

guidance that directs forward-deployed locations to manage and reduce 

fuel demand. Instead, the strategy tasks offices of primary responsibility to 

develop and execute implementation plans that include activities to 

achieve the Army’s energy security goals. 

While some of DOD’s combatant commands and military services have 

developed construction standards for forward-deployed locations, our 

analysis showed that this existing guidance is largely silent with regard to 

fuel demand management and energy efficiency. Pertinent guidance for 

Central Command, as well as Army guidance used by Central Command 

and European Command, revealed only one reference to energy 

efficiency—that is, semipermanent locations are to be designed and 

constructed with finishes, materials, and systems selected for moderate 

energy efficiency.21 According to the guidance, semipermanent 

construction standards will be considered for operations that are expected 

to last more than 2 years. Army construction guidance that Southern 

Command uses for its forward-deployed locations does not address fuel 

demand management or energy efficiency.22 A Southern Command official 

told us that the command is in the process of developing new guidance on 

construction standards similar to Central Command’s guidance. Pacific 

Command officials told us that they were unaware of guidance on 

 

20Army Senior Energy Council and Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Energy and Partnerships, Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy, Department of 

the Army (Jan. 8, 2009). 

21U.S. Central Command Regulation 451-1, Construction and Base Camp Development in 

the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), "The Sand Book," Headquarters, United 

States Central Command (Dec. 17, 2007); United States Army Central Pamphlet 415-1, 

Military Operations: Contingency Base Camp Handbook, Headquarters, United States 

Army Central (Apr. 25, 2008); and Army in Europe Pamphlet 420-100, Facilities 

Engineering: Standards for Forward Operating Sites, Headquarters United States Army 

Europe and Seventh Army, United States Army Installation Management Command Europe 

Region (Apr. 21, 2008). 

22United States Army South Regulation 415-1, Construction: Engineer Exercises in Latin 

America and the Caribbean, Headquarters, U.S. Army South (June 2001). 

Construction 

Page 21 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

constructing and maintaining forward-deployed locations within their area 

of responsibility.23 

Within Central Command, the temporary status of many forward-deployed 

locations has limited the emphasis on energy efficiency. Army Corps of 

Engineers officials said that the concern about maintaining a temporary 

presence, particularly in Iraq, limits the type of materials and equipment 

they are authorized to bring to forward-deployed locations and presents a 

challenge for creating energy efficiencies. The officials noted that, in 

practice, the Army—which has the most expertise in establishing forwarddeployed locations in austere environments—does not typically use 

materials designed for operations lasting longer than 6 months at locations 

supporting current operations. Similarly, when we visited Camp Lemonier 

in June 2008, Navy officials told us that their camp’s “expeditionary” status 

hindered their ability to make construction upgrades to the camp, though 

we observed that Camp Lemonier had been under DOD’s control for about 

6 years at that time. 

In addition, the expedited nature of setting up forward-deployed locations 

limits emphasis on energy efficiency. For example, Army Corps of 

Engineers officials said that the approach to establishing forwarddeployed locations in support of current military operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan has been to start out with an austere set-up and build up the 

locations as needed. Because it is unknown how long a location might be 

in existence, the Army’s initial focus is on establishment, not on 

sustainment. In general, after the combatant commander determines a 

need for a forward-deployed location and the requirement is relayed to the 

Army, the Army moves quickly to deploy with prepackaged kits of 

equipment. According to the officials, energy efficiency is not a 

consideration at this point, and in fact, because the goal is to set up a 

location quickly, establishing a forward-deployed location can be energy 

intensive. 

Though the process may vary depending on military service and the 

specific circumstances, including mission requirements, officials from the 

other military services described a similar process for how they establish 

forward-deployed locations. An Air Force official told us that because its 

service guidance does not explicitly address energy efficiency, it allows a 

 

23Army Corps of Engineers officials told us that Pacific Command consults portions of 

other combatant command guidance as needed. 

Page 22 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

certain amount of freedom and flexibility for the engineers, who 

“implicitly” incorporate energy efficiency into their planning.24 A Marine 

Corps headquarters official told us that it is difficult to address fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations because, as an expeditionary force, 

the Marine Corps does not expect to maintain a long-term presence at 

forward-deployed locations. Our review of the Navy’s guidance on 

advanced basing also revealed no mention of fuel demand management.25

A Navy official involved with equipment logistics told us that his service 

has not been directed to examine energy efficiency while outfitting or 

procuring products for forward-deployed locations and that the Navy often 

resides at locations operated by other military services. 

Similarly, we found a lack of attention to fuel demand in guidance, 

including an absence of fuel usage guidelines and metrics to evaluate 

progress of reduction efforts, as forward-deployed locations are sustained 

over time. The guidance officials identified for us generally does not 

address fuel demand management in sustaining locations even after they 

have been in existence for a certain period of time. For example, while the 

Air Force has issued guidance on vehicle management, which includes a 

goal to replace 30 percent or more of all applicable light duty vehicles with 

more fuel-efficient, low-speed vehicles by fiscal year 2010, Air Force 

officials did not provide us specific guidance on overall fuel demand 

management at forward-deployed locations. 26 The general lack of military 

service guidance on this issue makes it difficult to ensure the continuity of 

fuel reduction efforts at individual locations. For example, during our visit 

to Camp Arifjan, an official told us that the camp’s public works 

department was considering efficiency ratings, when possible, during the 

installation of heating and cooling systems in new or upgraded facilities in 

Kuwait, but he was unaware of DOD guidance requiring forward-deployed 

locations to address fuel demand. Moreover, officials we spoke with at 

Camp Lemonier said that they intended to implement a Navy instruction 

on energy management at their location even though it only applies to non-

 

24Air Force Headquarters AFMC/A5C, Agile Combat Support CONOPS (Nov. 15, 2007), and 

Air Force Handbook 10-222, Guide to Bare Base Development, Department of the Air Force 

(Feb. 1, 2006). 

25Department of the Navy Instruction 4040.39B, Navy Advanced Base Functional 

Components (ABFC) Planning and Programming System, Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations (Aug. 23, 1996). 

26Air Force Instruction 23-302, Material Management: Vehicle Management, Secretary of 

the Air Force (Oct. 29, 2007). 

Maintenance 

Page 23 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
nuclear ships, aircraft, vehicles, and shore installations.27 While we found 

that both camps we visited were pursuing efforts to reduce fuel demand, 

the efforts were driven largely by individual officers with short tours of 

duty (typically 12 months or less). Without guidance and metrics that 

require forward-deployed locations to address fuel demand, DOD cannot 

ensure that fuel reduction actions taken at specific locations will be 

continued over time, as personnel and mission requirements change. 

In addition to construction and maintenance, 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. DOD’s guidance for its U.S. or permanent 

installations requires the selection of energy-efficient products when they 

are life-cycle cost effective, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has established the DOD Green 

Procurement Program that strives to meet the requirements of federal 

green procurement preference programs. However, we did not find a 

similar emphasis on procuring energy-efficient products at DOD’s forwarddeployed locations. Moreover, while the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

requires federal agencies to procure Energy Star products or Federal 

Energy Management Program-designated products, except in cases when 

they are not life-cycle cost effective or reasonably available to meet 

agency requirements, the law does not apply to any energy-consuming 

product or system designed or procured for combat or combat-related 

missions.28 Officials from each of the military services indicated that there 

were unaware of efforts to procure energy-efficient products for forwarddeployed locations. Instead, they told us that other factors, such as 

mission requirements, availability from local economies, or cost played a 

larger role in procurement decisions. Moreover, military services often 

gather together available equipment for forward-deployed locations from 

prepackaged sets, units, or the region, with little attention to energy 

efficiency. For example, Army Corps of Engineers officials told us that the 

Army often deploys with disparate generators that may be old and energy 

inefficient. While DOD guidance requires components to obtain approval 

to procure nonstandard generators, an official from DOD’s Project 

Manager-Mobile Electric Power office admitted that it is difficult to 

 

27Department of the Navy Instruction 4100.5D, Energy Management, Office of the Chief of 

Naval Operations (Apr. 12, 1994). 

28Pub. L. No. 109-58, Sec. 104 (2005) (42 U.S.C. § 8259b (a)(5) (2008)). 

Procurement 

Page 24 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

enforce the requirement at forward-deployed locations.29 He also noted 

that the military services’ lists of required equipment may not contain 

enough power generation and distribution equipment to support current 

operations. Thus, we found that the military services turn to a variety of 

sources to find enough generators and other products to meet mission 

requirements, often without regard to energy efficiency. 

There are some difficulties with procuring energy-efficient products for 

forward-deployed locations. From the Defense Logistics Agency’s 

perspective, for example, these include limited product availability, 

logistics associated with transport to remote locations, and the 

compatibility of products with locally available energy sources, if used; or 

in the case of a solar-powered system, for instance, availability of on-site 

technical expertise for installing such a system. However, given DOD’s 

high fuel demand for base support activities at its forward-deployed 

locations, without guidance in place to incorporate energy efficiency 

considerations into procurement decisions when practical, DOD may be 

missing opportunities to make significant reductions in demand without 

affecting operational capabilities. 

In a separate effort, the Joint Staff is in the process of developing common 

living standards (referred to as “joint standards of life support”) for 

military servicemembers at forward-deployed locations, which could 

provide another opportunity to make decisions that take into account fuel 

demand considerations. Joint Staff officials said that the effort is intended 

to create a consistent level of habitability for servicemembers through the 

establishment of standard square footage requirements for living space, 

duration of showers, and so forth that would be applied at forwarddeployed locations after 45 days of establishment. The officials described 

the effort as a long-term initiative intended to inform acquisitions. Once 

initial standards are approved by the department, a DOD memorandum 

would require the acquisition of common items, such as military tents, 

based on the standards. 

At the time we completed our audit work, the Joint Staff had proposed an 

initial set of six standards—pertaining to field billeting, showers, laundry 

facilities, latrines, ice, and feeding—and had requested that a Senior 

Warfighting Forum be convened within DOD to review the initial 

 

Joint Living Standards 

29DOD Directive 4120.11, Standardization of Mobile Electric Power (MEP) Generating 

Sources (Apr. 13, 2004). 

Page 25 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Page 26 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

standards.30 While officials told us that the Joint Staff has not included fuel 

demand considerations to date, we found that the types of standards the 

Joint Staff is developing have implications for fuel demand. For example, 

the duration of showers relates to how much fuel is required for hot water 

heaters. Moreover, the officials said that there may be opportunities in the 

future to develop standards for items such as military tents, generators, 

and other equipment used at forward-deployed locations. Thus, the effort 

provides an opportunity to integrate fuel demand considerations that 

could lead to long-term, departmentwide energy efficiencies. 

reduction projects at its forward-deployed locations, which does not 

encourage commanders to identify fuel demand management as a priority. 

DOD does not provide incentives to commanders to encourage fuel 

demand reduction at forward-deployed locations. By contrast, DOD 

emphasizes and encourages energy reduction efforts at its U.S. 

installations. A November 2005 instruction issued by the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics requires the heads of 

DOD components to develop internal energy awareness programs to 

publicize energy conservation goals, disseminate information on energy 

matters and energy conservation techniques, emphasize energy 

conservation at all command levels and relate energy conservation to 

operational readiness, and promote energy efficiency awards and 

recognition through the use of incentives.31 The instruction also requires 

training and education for achieving and sustaining energy-efficient 

operations at the installation level through venues such as technical 

courses, seminars, conferences, software, videos, and certifications. The 

Navy has also established an energy conservation program, which has an 

award component, to encourage ships to reduce energy consumption. 

Awards are given quarterly to ships that use less than the Navy’s 

 

DOD Lacks Incentives and DOD has not established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for fuel 

30A Senior Warfighter Forum is a forum directed by the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council, a four-star panel consisting of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff and a 

four-star officer designated by each of the military services that makes recommendations 

to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, on requirements, programs, and budgets. The Forum 

organizes, analyzes, prioritizes, and frames complex warfighter resource and requirements 

issues for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council’s approval. 

31DOD Instruction 4170.11. 

a Viable Funding 

Mechanism for Fuel 

Reduction Projects 

DOD Has Not Established Fuel 

Reduction Incentives for 

Forward-Deployed Locations 
established baseline amount of fuel, and fuel savings achieved during the 

quarter are reallocated to ships for the purchase of items such as paint, 

coveralls, and firefighting gear. We previously reported that the ship 

energy conservation program receives $4 million in funding annually, and 

Navy officials told us that they achieved $124.6 million in cost avoidance in 

fiscal year 2006. They said that some other benefits of the ship energy 

conservation program include more available steaming hours, additional 

training for ships, improved ship performance, reduced ship maintenance, 

and conservation of resources. 

However, neither the Navy nor the other military services have established 

similar incentive programs for their forward-deployed locations. Instead, 

officials throughout the department consistently said that the amount of 

fuel forward-deployed locations consumed was related to mission 

requirements. We found that the lack of incentives tends to discourage 

commanders from pursuing projects that could reduce fuel demand. 

During our visit to Camp Lemonier, for example, we noted that officials 

had identified several projects that could reduce the camp’s fuel usage, 

including a proposal to right-size air conditioning units in living units by 

replacing the current 2-ton units (24,000 BTUs) with 1-ton units and 

applying foam insulation to the rooftops of several buildings. However, 

camp officials questioned whether the upfront costs of these projects 

made them worth undertaking because there was no apparent “return on 

investment” for the camp, which would not see the associated savings to 

invest in other camp projects. Similarly, while officials at Camp Arifjan 

provided several examples of projects that could increase fuel efficiency at 

Kuwait locations, without incentives to pursue these projects, it is unclear 

whether they would take priority over other initiatives. 

While DOD is driven to reduce energy consumption at its U.S. installations 

largely by federal mandates and DOD guidance, encouraging fuel demand 

reduction at forward-deployed locations will likely require a culture 

change for DOD. According to OSD and DOD Power Surety Task Force 

officials, the department has viewed fuel as a commodity necessary to 

meet its mission requirements because, historically, fuel has been 

inexpensive and free flowing for the department. However, from the 

perspective of the Power Surety Task Force, if commanders could 

reallocate funds saved through fuel reduction to other initiatives, DOD 

could be in a position to significantly reduce fuel demand at their 

locations. 

Given DOD’s view of the Global War on Terrorism as a “longer war,” 

forward-deployed locations such as Camp Lemonier, Camp Arifjan, and 

Page 27 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
others could remain in existence for the foreseeable future and future 

conflicts will likely require the department to establish new locations. 

DOD recognizes the risks associated with its heavy fuel burden, but 

without incentives, commanding officials at DOD’s forward-deployed 

locations are unlikely to identify fuel reduction as a priority in which to 

invest their resources. 

DOD also has not developed a viable funding mechanism for fuel 

reduction projects at its forward-deployed locations. This makes it 

difficult for commanders to pursue projects that would reduce fuel 

demand, even though such projects could lower costs and, in some cases, 

risks associated with fuel delivery. A lack of a viable funding mechanism is 

an obstacle for locations supporting current operations, which are largely 

dependent on supplemental congressional appropriations. Since 

September 2001, a large portion of funding for military operations in 

support of the Global War on Terrorism has come through supplemental 

appropriations, which are requested by the department and approved by 

Congress separately from DOD’s annual appropriation. At the time of our 

visit, Camp Lemonier relied completely on supplemental appropriations 

for its base support activities, and officials told us delays in receiving these 

funds presented challenges in covering existing costs, making it 

particularly difficult to pursue more expensive fuel demand reduction 

projects. Camp Arifjan was also heavily reliant on supplemental 

appropriations associated with the Global War on Terrorism. However, 

because about 40 percent of the camp was funded through a defense 

cooperative agreement with Kuwait, it also depended on the host country 

for resources. 

We have previously reported that past DOD emergency funding requests 

have generally been used to support the initial or unexpected costs of 

contingency operations.32 Once a limited and partial projection of costs 

could be made, past administrations have generally requested further 

funding in DOD’s base budget requests. We have encouraged DOD to 

include known or likely projected costs of ongoing operations related to 

the Global War on Terrorism with DOD’s base budget requests. However, 

current administration policy is that the costs of ongoing military 

operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism, such as Operation 

 

32GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Take Action to Encourage Fiscal 

Discipline and Optimize the Use of Tools Intended to Improve GWOT Cost Reporting, 

GAO-08-68 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2007). 

DOD Has Not Established a 

Viable Funding Mechanism for 

Fuel Reduction Projects 

Page 28 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, should be requested as 

emergency funding. A senior Air Force official noted that, from his 

perspective, forward-deployed locations dependent on this type of 

emergency funding do not have to worry about reducing energy costs as 

DOD’s permanent installations do because the commanders of forwarddeployed locations know they will receive supplemental appropriations to 

cover their costs. 

Our discussions with Army and DOD Power Surety Task Force officials 

about construction and maintenance of forward-deployed locations 

revealed that, from their perspectives, other funding restrictions also pose 

challenges in addressing fuel demands. DOD is appropriated funds for 

certain activities such as operation and maintenance, military 

construction, and other procurement. Operation and maintenance funds 

are used for minor construction spending, and such projects are limited to 

$750,000 or less. In using operation and maintenance funds, the 

department and military services are also restricted by law from 

purchasing any investment item that has a unit cost greater than 

$250,000.33 The officials told us that, from their perspective, this restriction 

can result in energy inefficiencies. For example, the Army typically 

deploys with several smaller, less expensive and energy-inefficient 

generators. The officials said that, ideally, the Army would like to deploy 

with a larger, energy-efficient generator that exceeds the funding limit but 

could produce savings over the long term. The military services can seek 

approval for projects in excess of the limit, but projects compete with 

other priorities. An official with DOD’s Power Surety Task Force told us 

that officials at Camp Victory in Iraq recently requested funding to 

consolidate generators, which would result in greater fuel efficiency, but 

were denied due to other priorities. 

The department manages an Energy Conservation Investment Program 

that provides congressionally-appropriated military construction funds for 

projects that save energy or reduce defense energy costs for its existing 

installations but has no similar program specifically for forward-deployed 

locations. Through the program, the military services and defense agencies 

may submit projects for funding consideration based on a 10-year or less 

savings payback. Funds accrued through project savings may be used on 

projects that have experienced cost growth, for the design of energy 

conservation investment program projects, to supplement the funding of 

 

3310 U.S.C. § 2245a (2008). 

Page 29 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
future or prior-year program projects, or for additional program projects. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Energy Conservation Investment Program provided 

over $54 million for 48 projects. Projects at all but five locations—Naval 

Support Activity Souda Bay, Greece; Kadena Air Base, Japan; Fort 

Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Ramstein Air Base, Germany; and a Defense 

Commissary project in Guam—were located within the United States. 

DOD also uses energy savings performance contracts (ESPC) at several of 

its U.S. installations. Under an ESPC, DOD enters into a long-term contract 

(up to 25 years) with a private energy services company whereby the 

company makes energy-efficiency improvements financed from private 

funds. DOD then repays the company over a specified period of time until 

the improvements have been completely paid off. We previously reported 

that DOD had undertaken 153 ESPCs to finance about $1.8 million in costs 

at about 100 military installations from fiscal years 1999 through 2003.34

Moreover, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that from 1998 to March 

2008, its Huntsville Center had awarded ESPC contracts that have resulted 

in $420 million in contractor-financed infrastructure improvements on 

Army installations and a total projected energy cost savings to the 

government of $100 million. 

At the time of our review, the DOD Power Surety Task Force was 

investigating the feasibility of establishing an energy dividend 

reinvestment program to fund DOD energy projects across the 

department. According to the officials, the program would be structured 

similarly to an ESPC whereby an installation commander or program 

manager could submit a project for funding consideration. If, after analysis 

and review, funding was provided to pursue the project, the installation or 

program would then repay the program using savings achieved by the 

resulting energy efficiencies. While an initial briefing prepared for DOD’s 

Energy Security Task Force and other department stakeholders noted all 

energy projects within DOD could be eligible under the program, including 

those at forward-deployed locations, the officials told us that this is 

unlikely because, like ESPCs, the program would rely on long-term 

contracts. DOD’s forward-deployed locations might not be in existence for 

long periods of time, and therefore, the program might not be able to 

recoup savings for projects funded at these locations. Moreover, the 

officials expressed concern that if an installation or program incurred 

 

34GAO, Energy Savings: Performance Contracts Offer Benefits, but Vigilance Is Needed to 

Protect Government Interests, GAO-05-340 (Washington D.C.: June 22, 2005). 

Page 30 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Page 31 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

higher energy costs than anticipated, it might not achieve its projected 

savings and might not be in a position to repay DOD. 

DOD’s Power Surety Task Force found that the source of funding for large 

fuel demand reduction projects, such as foaming tents at forwarddeployed locations in Afghanistan, has been a challenge for the 

department, noting that energy efficiency does not fit neatly into the 

military services’ budget processes. While the military services’ budget 

processes allow them to budget for operation and maintenance costs, 

research and development efforts, and so forth, the processes prevent 

DOD from making quick, upfront investments in energy-efficiency 

projects. Conversely, the officials told us that DOD’s budget process in 

effect discourages commanders from generating savings by reducing their 

future budgets—a limitation also cited by officials during our visit to Camp 

Lemonier. In 2003, our work highlighted a similar funding problem 

concerning corrosion mitigation projects. 35 We found that DOD and the 

military services gave corrosion mitigation projects, whose benefits may 

not be apparent for many years, a lower priority than other requirements 

that showed immediate results. In response to a subsequent Senate Armed 

Services Committee report, DOD established a specific, separate budget 

line for corrosion prevention activities to help ensure that sustained and 

adequate funding is available for the corrosion control projects that have 

the best potential to provide maximum benefit across the department.36

This serves as one example for the department in considering how best to 

fund fuel reduction projects at forward-deployed locations. Without 

establishing a viable funding mechanism for these projects, DOD is not 

well-positioned to achieve fuel savings at its forward-deployed locations. 

demand at forward-deployed locations, DOD’s current organizational 

framework does not provide the department visibility or accountability 

over fuel demand issues at its forward-deployed locations. We found that 

fuel reduction efforts are not consistently shared among locations, military 

services, or across the department and that there is no one office or 

official specifically responsible for fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations. 

 

DOD Lacks Visibility and While DOD and the military services have efforts under way to reduce fuel 

35GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase 

Readiness, GAO-03-753 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003). 

36S. Rep. No. 108-260, at 319 (2004). 

Accountability over Fuel 

Demand Reduction 
Officials we spoke with from each of the military services told us that fuel 

demand reduction practices at forward-deployed locations were not 

consistently shared. For example, Army Corps of Engineers officials said 

that no formal system is in place specifically designed to share fuel 

demand reduction practices. Informal conversations occur, though on an 

ad hoc basis. They acknowledged that forward-deployed locations often 

pursue different initiatives; and the department, other military services, or 

other Army forward-deployed locations are often unaware of these 

different initiatives. Air Force officials also said that their service does not 

have visibility over fuel demand reduction practices that may occur at 

forward-deployed locations, noting that with joint operations and Air 

Force forces embedded with the Army, fuel consumption is not 

systemically recorded. Officials from the Navy and Marine Corps were also 

unable to provide examples where fuel demand reduction practices were 

shared across locations. 

Moreover, while DOD guidance sets forth principles and establishes 

doctrine for bulk petroleum and water in support of military operations, it 

does not designate any DOD office or official as being responsible for fuel 

demand management at forward-deployed locations.37 As table 1 shows, 

several different offices have responsibility for petroleum management, 

but none is specifically accountable for fuel demand management at 

forward-deployed locations. 

 

37Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 4-03, Joint Bulk Petroleum and Water Doctrine (May 23, 

2003). 

Page 32 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Table 1: Responsibilities for Bulk Petroleum in Support of Military Operations 

Office Responsibilities 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics 

Establish policies for management of bulk petroleum stocks and facilities and provide 

guidance to other DOD agencies, the Joint Staff, and the military services. 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Logistics and Materiel Readiness) 

Serve as the central administrator for energy management and has integrated materiel 

management oversight responsibility for fuel products.a

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) In coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics, establish financial policies and guidance for management of bulk petroleum 

products. 

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Primarily focuses on wartime support; coordinate with DOD, the military services, and 

the combatant commands to resolve petroleum issues. 

Joint Staff J-4 Act as primary agent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all bulk petroleum 

matters. 

Commander, U.S. Transportation 

Command 

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

contingency operations worldwide. 

Combatant Commanders Ensure fuel support is provided to combat forces to accomplish those missions assigned 

by the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

Director, Defense Logistics Agency Meet the petroleum support requirements of the combatant commands and the military 

services. 

Director, Defense Energy Support Center Carry out functional responsibilities of the Director, Defense Logistics Agency to include 

procurement, ownership, quality surveillance, accountability, budgeting, and non-tactical 

distribution of bulk petroleum stocks to the point-of-sale. 

Military Services Provide petroleum support to its service and other services; is responsible for further 

distribution and management of fuel once it has been delivered to the service. 

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 4-03. 

a We previously reported that although this office plays an active role in maintaining DOD 

policy on energy supply issues and participates in other department-level fuel-related 

activities, its primary focus has not been on departmentwide fuel reduction efforts. 

In addition, we could not identify anyone who is specifically accountable 

for fuel demand management through our interviews with various DOD 

and military service offices. While the DOD Power Surety Task Force has 

been serving as a liaison on energy issues between the combatant 

commands and military services, its temporary status and resources limit 

its effectiveness. Moreover, because the Power Surety Task Force staff is 

made up of contactors, OSD recognizes that the Power Surety Task Force 

cannot represent the department. Defense Energy Support Center officials 

told us that DOD needs to create an energy office to oversee fuel demand 

reduction efforts and develop policy for the department. 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 requires DOD to establish a Director of Operational Energy Plans and 

Programs, an operational energy strategy for DOD, and military 

department-level energy officials. The military departments have 

Page 33 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
 

Page 34 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

established senior energy officials, but DOD has not yet established a 

director or strategy for operational energy. In meeting these requirements, 

DOD has an opportunity to improve visibility and accountability by 

assigning responsibility and emphasize fuel demand management at 

forward-deployed locations at both the department and military service 

levels. An OSD official involved with the DOD Energy Security Task Force 

noted that operational energy options should be a high priority of the new 

director. Without establishing visibility and accountability over fuel 

demand management at forward-deployed locations, DOD is not well 

positioned to address the shortcomings we have identified in this report—

including the lack of fuel reduction guidance, incentives, and a viable 

funding mechanism for initiatives to decrease demand. Thus, DOD cannot 

be assured that good fuel reduction practices are identified, shared, 

prioritized, resourced, implemented, and institutionalized across locations 

in order to reduce the costs and risks associated with high fuel demand. 

DOD faces high costs, operational vulnerabilities, and logistical burdens in 

sustaining forward-deployed locations that depend heavily on fuel-based 

generators. Moreover, current operations have resulted in DOD 

maintaining some forward-deployed locations for longer than initially 

anticipated and generally without regard to fuel demand. While DOD’s 

future operations may be unknown, the department’s goals to reduce its 

reliance on petroleum-based fuel and minimize its logistics footprint—

coupled with its reexamination of its overseas posture to better respond to 

the changing threat environment—underscore the importance of 

increasing attention on fuel demand management at overseas locations 

where U.S. forces are stationed. Although base commanders must place 

their highest priority on meeting mission requirements and it may not be 

practical for DOD to decrease fuel usage at every forward-deployed 

location, particularly at those that might not be in existence for very long, 

fuel demand is likely to remain high until the department gives systematic 

consideration to incorporating fuel demand in construction, maintenance, 

procurement, and other policy decisions for forward-deployed locations. 

In addition, the department will not be in a position to effectively identify, 

share, prioritize, resource, implement, or institutionalize good fuel 

reduction practices across locations that may exist for longer periods of 

time. By placing a higher priority on fuel reduction at forward-deployed 

locations and developing a comprehensive and coordinated approach to 

managing fuel demand, one that includes specific guidelines, incentives, a 

viable funding mechanism, visibility, and accountability, DOD would be 

more likely to achieve its goals of reducing its reliance on petroleum-based 

fuel, the vulnerabilities and logistics burden associated with transporting 

Conclusions 
Page 35 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

large amounts of fuel to forward-deployed locations, and operational 

costs. 

To establish an effective approach to managing fuel demand that would 

facilitate the widespread implementation of fuel reduction initiatives and 

sustained attention to fuel demand issues at its forward-deployed 

locations, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following 

five actions. 

1. Direct the combatant commanders, in consultation with their military 

service component commands, to establish requirements for managing 

fuel demand at forward-deployed locations within their areas of 

responsibility and provide specific guidelines as appropriate. Officials 

may wish to consider identifying a triggering mechanism in the 

guidance, such as a specific length of time after a location is 

established, when fuel demand management should become a 

consideration in forward-deployed location sustainability. In 

establishing requirements, the combatant commanders should 

coordinate their efforts with the new DOD Director of Operational 

Energy Plans and Programs to ensure departmentwide communication 

and consistency, where appropriate. 

2. Direct the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop guidance that 

implements combatant command requirements for managing fuel 

demand at forward-deployed locations. The guidance should include 

specific guidelines that address energy-efficiency considerations in 

base construction, maintenance, procurement, and policies regarding 

fuel usage at a location. In establishing guidance, the military services 

should coordinate their efforts with the new DOD Director of 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs to ensure departmentwide 

communication and consistency, where appropriate. 

3. Direct the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to require that fuel demand 

considerations be incorporated into the Joint Staff’s initiative to 

develop joint standards of life support at DOD’s forward-deployed 

locations. 

4. Designate the new, congressionally-mandated DOD Director of 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs as the department’s lead 

proponent of fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations, 

and through this designation, require that the director develop action 

plans as part of the congressionally-mandated DOD energy strategy. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
 

Page 36 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Specifically, the strategy should incorporate the department’s action 

plans for 

• facilitating departmentwide communication and consistency, when 

appropriate, in the development or revision of combatant command 

and military service guidance that establishes requirements and 

provides guidelines for managing fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations; 

• establishing incentives for commanders of forward-deployed 

locations to promote fuel demand reduction at their locations, as 

well as identifying a viable funding mechanism for the department 

and commanders of forward-deployed locations to pursue fuel 

reduction initiatives; 

• establishing visibility over fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations, including plans for sharing good fuel reduction 

practices and solutions to identified challenges; and 

• establishing accountability for fuel demand management at 

appropriate levels across the department. 

5. Direct the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to assign 

their senior energy officials, among their other duties, responsibility 

for overseeing fuel demand management at forward-deployed 

locations operated by their military department components. In 

carrying out this responsibility, the officials should identify and 

promote sharing of good fuel reduction practices and solutions to 

identified fuel demand challenges at their component’s forwarddeployed locations and communicate those practices and solutions to 

the DOD Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs for 

potential use across the department. 

In its written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred 

with all of our recommendations. Technical comments were provided 

separately and incorporated as appropriate. The department’s written 

comments are reprinted in appendix IV. 

In response to our recommendation that DOD direct the combatant 

commanders to establish requirements for managing fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations in coordination with the new DOD Director of 

Operational Energy Plans and Programs, DOD partially concurred, stating 

that it believes the combatant commanders must be the decision 

authorities for when reduction efforts should begin to be tracked and what 

conservation measures are employed, in order to avoid distraction from 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
 

tactical operations. While we agree that the combatant commanders 

should be responsible for establishing requirements for managing fuel 

demand at their forward-deployed locations, it is important that this effort 

be coordinated with the new DOD director of operational energy as well 

as with the service component commands. Our report recommends that 

DOD designate the new director of operational energy as the lead 

proponent of fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations, and 

through this designation, facilitate departmentwide communication and 

consistency of requirements and guidelines for managing fuel demand, as 

well as establish visibility and accountability for fuel demand 

management. DOD generally concurred with our recommendations 

pertaining to the new director’s responsibilities. In order to effectively 

carry out these responsibilities, attain visibility over fuel demand issues 

across the department, and serve as the DOD official accountable for such 

issues, the director of operational energy should be consulted by the 

combatant commanders in establishing fuel demand management 

requirements to ensure departmentwide communication and consistency 

occurs where appropriate. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the secretaries of the 

military services develop guidance that implements the combatant 

command requirements for managing fuel demand and include specific 

guidelines that address energy efficiency considerations. In its response, 

the department stated that guidelines on policy will be general in nature 

and allow combatant commands flexibility. While we believe that forwarddeployed locations within different regions could require different 

guidelines, our audit work revealed that current guidance for Central 

Command and Army guidance used in Central Command and European 

Command contain only a general reference to energy efficiency—that 

semipermanent locations are to be designed and constructed with finishes, 

materials, and systems selected for moderate energy efficiency—and that 

this guidance is not effective in implementing fuel demand considerations 

at forward-deployed locations. Our report concludes that fuel demand is 

likely to remain high until DOD gives systematic consideration to 

incorporating fuel demand management into construction, maintenance, 

procurement, and other policy decisions for forward-deployed locations. 

Therefore, we continue to believe that the military service guidelines on 

fuel demand management should provide enough specificity to 

appropriately address these issues so that DOD can achieve its goals of 

reducing its fuel demand, logistics burden, and operational costs. 

As noted, DOD generally concurred with our recommendations on the 

responsibilities of the new director of operational energy. However, 

regarding the need to establish a viable funding mechanism for fuel 

Page 37 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Page 38 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

reduction projects at forward-deployed locations, the department stated 

that it is not convinced that financial incentives represent the best fuel 

reduction strategy for forward-deployed locations. We recognize that DOD 

has various options for providing incentives to commanders at forwarddeployed locations to reduce fuel demand but continue to believe that, 

based on our audit work, the availability of funding for such projects is a 

concern that needs to be addressed. 

DOD concurred with our other recommendations that the Joint Staff 

incorporate fuel demand considerations into its initiative to develop joint 

standards for life support at DOD’s forward-deployed locations and that 

the military department senior operational energy officials be assigned 

responsibility for oversight of fuel demand management at forwarddeployed locations operated by their military service component 

commands. 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days 

from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report 

to the Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Under Secretary of Defense for 

and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This report will 

also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 
 

Page 39 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to the report are listed in 

appendix V. 

William M. Solis 

Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 40 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Selected ForwardDeployed Locations 

Reported Consuming 

Large Amounts of Fuel for 

Base Support Activities 

and Air and Ground 

Operations in June 2008 

This appendix illustrates the Department of Defense’s (DOD) fuel demand 

at selected forward-deployed locations for a 1-month period during 2008. 

We obtained and analyzed fuel receipts and consumption information, by 

fuel type (jet fuel, diesel, and mobility gasoline), for each day in June 2008 

from five forward-deployed locations that were in Central Command’s 

area of responsibility and heavily reliant on fuel-consuming generators for 

power. The locations, which were selected in consultation with Central 

Command officials, were: 

• Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, 

• Qayyarah West (Q-West) Air Base, Iraq, 

• Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, 

• Contingency Operating Base (COB) Adder, Iraq, and 

• Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan 

The information presents a snapshot in time and cannot be generalized to 

other time periods or forward-deployed locations. One limitation of the 

data involves how locations classified fuel consumed for either base 

support activities (defined as power, heating/cooling, facilities, 

communications) or air and ground operations (the later defined as 

vehicles). Although we provided the locations with examples of base 

support activities and air and ground operations, these categories can 

encompass a wide range of interrelated or overlapping activities. 

Therefore, we deferred to the discretion of location officials in how they 

classified their fuel use activities. Another limitation involves how the data 

were collected. Data collection procedures and systems varied by military 

service component and location; however, we found that each location 

used a quality assurance process to ensure that the data were accurate and 

complete. Therefore, we concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for descriptive purposes. For more information on our scope and 

methodology, see appendix II. 

The locations we reviewed reported consuming a total of approximately 

11.67 million gallons during June 2008 for base support activities, 

including power for heating/cooling units, machinery, and lighting; and for 

air and ground operations, including aircraft, armored vehicles, and other 

forms of transport. Table 2 and figure 7 summarize these fuel consumption 

data. 
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Table 2: Fuel Consumption Reported by Selected Forward-Deployed Locations for 

June 2008 

Gallons of fuel consumed 

Location

Fuel for base 

support 

activities

Fuel for air 

and ground 

operations

Total fuel 

consumed

Camp Lemonier 333,191 460,555 793,746 

Q-West Air Base 731,449 278,769 1,010,218

Camp Arifjan 930,472 266,154 1,196,626

COB Adder 1,171,618 430,395 1,602,013

Bagram Air Field 916,911 6,155,225 7,072,136

Total 4,083,641 7,591,098 11,674,739

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: Bagram Air Field and Camp Lemonier reported fuel for aerospace ground 

equipment (equipment used in servicing, handling, and maintaining weapon systems) as 

fuel for air or ground operations, while Q-West reported fuel for aerospace ground 

equipment as fuel for base support activities. The other two locations, COB Adder and 

Camp Arifjan, do not have flying missions. 

Page 41 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Figure 7: Proportion of Fuel Consumption Reported for Base Support Activities and 

for Air and Ground Operations by Selected Forward-Deployed Locations for June 

2008 

Note: Bagram Air Field and Camp Lemonier reported fuel for aerospace ground 

equipment as fuel for air or ground operations, while Q-West reported fuel for aerospace 

ground equipment as fuel for base support activities. 

As shown in table 2, of the overall amount of fuel consumed by the five 

locations during this 1-month period, more than 4 million gallons (35 

percent) were consumed for base support activities. In comparison, the 

same amount of fuel could be used to fill 71 Boeing 747 jet airliners.1

 Base 

support activities accounted for over 70 percent of total fuel consumption 

for three of the locations in our review—Q-West Air Base, Camp Arifjan, 

and COB Adder. COB Adder consumed the largest amount of fuel for base 

support activities in June at 1.17 million gallons. Bagram Air Field reported 

that 13 percent of its fuel consumption in this month was for base support 

activities—a proportion that was lower than that of the other bases. 

 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Base Support Activities (percentage)

Air and Ground Operations

Camp Lemonier Q-West Air Base Camp Arifjan COB Adder Bagram Air Field

Gallons of Fuel consumed 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Forward-deployed locations

(42%) (72%) (78%)

(73%)

(13%)

1

Calculated using specifications from the Boeing Company’s web site. 

Page 42 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 43 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

However, the 6.16 million gallons that Bagram Air Field consumed for air 

and ground operations in June was more than four times the amount of 

fuel consumed for air and ground operations by the other four locations 

combined. 

Fuel Demand Profiles of Figures 8 through 12 provide a brief description of the mission, power 

structure, and June 2008 fuel demand for each of the five forwarddeployed locations. Each profile also includes a chart showing the 

proportion of total fuel consumed for base support activities and air and 

ground operations. 

Figure 8: Camp Lemonier 

a

According to a DOD Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power official, prime power refers to 

mobile, but large, generators that operate off of higher voltages than spot generators and 

provide large amounts of continuous power. 

Individual Locations 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data (pie chart).

460,555

(58%)

333,191

(42%)

Mission overview and power structure

Camp Lemonier provides counterterrorism, diplomatic, and 

development support within the Horn of Africa. It was a

former French Foreign Legion base that dates back to 

World War II. The U.S. Marine Corps took over the camp in 

2003, and it was transferred to the U.S. Navy in 2006. 

Formerly under Central Command, Camp Lemonier is now 

under Africa Command and is home to Joint Task Force 

Horn of Africa. It houses about 2,000 U.S. military and 

civilian personnel, including DOD contractors. The base 

relies on generators for its electrical power. 

Summary of fuel consumption for June 2008

In June 2008, Camp Lemonier consumed nearly 800,000 gallons of fuel, and base support activities accounted for nearly 

42 percent of the total consumption. According to camp officials, much of the power generated by the prime power system 

provided cooling for living quarters.

a The balance of fuel consumption was primarily for air operations, but fuel consumption for 

June 2008 also included ground vehicles.

Proportion of total fuel consumption (in gallons) reported 

for base support activities and air and ground operations

in June 2008

Air and Ground Operations

(percentage)

Base Support Activities (percentage)
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 44 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 9: Q-West Air Base 

a

Iraq is divided into major areas of responsibility referred to as major subordinate 

commands. These include (1) Multinational Division-Baghdad, (2) Multinational DivisionNorth, (3) Multinational Force-West, (4) Multinational Division-Central South, and (5) 

Multinational Division-Southeast. 

b

Spot generation, or distributed power, generally refers to generators that operate at lower 

voltages and produce less power than prime power units. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data (pie chart).

731,449

(72%)

278,769

(28%)

Mission overview and power structure

Qayyarah West Air Base, also called Q-West, was built in the 

late 1970s and was an important Iraqi airfield. The primary 

mission of the base now is to provide logistics for 

Multi-National Division-North.a The base relies on generators

for its electrical power. Prime power provides 40 percent of 

the power, and the remainder is provided by spot generation.b

Plans call for expanding the use of prime power. 

Summary of fuel consumption for June 2008

More than 70 percent of Q-West’s fuel consumption was used for base support activities. The officials stated that mine-resistant, 

ambush-protected vehicles generally consumed the most fuel for ground operations during the time period we reviewed, but that 

the type of equipment consuming the most fuel could vary on a daily basis.

Proportion of total fuel consumption (in gallons) reported 

for base support activities and air and ground operations in 

June 2008

Air and Ground Operations

(percentage)

Base Support Activities (percentage)
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 45 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 10: Camp Arifjan 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data (pie chart).

930,472

(78%)

266,154

(22%)

Mission overview and power structure

Camp Arifjan, through contractors, provides logistics

support for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The location 

receives approximately 40 percent of its electrical power 

from a local utility provide with the remainder supplied by 

generators.

Summary of fuel consumption for June 2008

In addition to electrical power provided through the Kuwait government, Camp Arifjan consumed 930,472 gallons of fuel for base 

support activities, constituting 78 percent of its total fuel consumption for that month. The fuel was used to provide power to heat 

and cool facilities and to power machinery and buildings. The greatest users of fuel for ground operations were forklifts, cars, 

buses and other non-tactical vehicles.

Proportion of total fuel consumption (in gallons) reported 

for base support activities and air and ground operations

in June 2008

Air and Ground Operations

(percentage)

Base Support Activities (percentage)
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 46 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 11: Contingency Operating Base Adder 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data (pie chart).

1,171,618

(73%)

430,395

(27%)

Mission overview and power structure

COB Adder, located southeast of Baghdad, was established 

during the initial invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003. The 

location relies entirely on spot generation for electrical 

power. According to a location official, COB Adder’s

generators are old, past their life cycle, and are in need of 

upgrade or repair. This has resulted in repeated power 

outages to the location’s tactical operation centers and 

living areas.

Summary of fuel consumption for June 2008

During June 2008, COB Adder consumed more than 1.6 million gallons of fuel, 73 percent of which were for base support activities. 

The fuel consumed for base support activities was used to provide heating and cooling for structures, field new equipment to units, 

construct concrete barriers, and support the majority of base operations. The remainder of the fuel consumed at the location was

used for ground operations, which include vehicles. 

Proportion of total fuel consumption (in gallons) reported 

for base support activities and air and ground operations

in June 2008

Air and Ground Operations

(percentage)

Base Support Activities (percentage)
Appendix I: Fuel Demand at Selected DOD 

Forward-Deployed Locations during June 

2008 

Page 47 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 12: Bagram Air Field 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data (pie chart). 

6,155,225

(87%)

916,911

(13%)

Mission overview and power structure

Bagram Air Field, established in 2001, serves as a logistical 

hub and air base supporting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The 

455th Air Expeditionary Wing has approximately 3,400 

personnel stationed at Bagram. The location relies on 

generators for its electrical power.

Summary of fuel consumption for June 2008

During June 2008, base support activities accounted for approximately 13 percent of Bagram Air Field’s overall fuel consumption. 

Most of the fuel consumed in June 2008 was jet fuel for air operations. The fuel used for ground operations constituted 3 percent 

of the total fuel consumed and was primarily used for vehicles. Officials told us that the fuel consumed at Bagram Air Field during 

June 2008 exceeded the amount of fuel received during the same month due to delays and losses during delivery. During that 

month, officials said that 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events.

Proportion of total fuel consumption (in gallons) reported 

for base support activities and air and ground operations in 

June 2008

Air and Ground Operations

(percentage)

Base Support Activities (percentage)
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

Page 48 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); 

the Joint Staff; the headquarters and select components of the Army, Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps; the Defense Logistics Agency, including 

the Defense Energy Support Center; and the Power Surety Task Force. 

To review DOD efforts to reduce fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations, we reviewed DOD component documents describing efforts and 

met with DOD and military service officials to identify and discuss the 

intent, scope, and status of these efforts. Our review focused on forwarddeployed locations—installations or base camps situated outside of the 

United States that support current operations—that rely primarily on fuelbased generators, as opposed to local power grids.1

 We supplemented our 

analysis with visits to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, and Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, 

where we observed efforts made at the locations and discussed them with 

cognizant officials. After consultation with Central Command officials, we 

selected and visited these two forward-deployed locations to gain a 

firsthand understanding of fuel demand issues at these locations. We 

chose to visit these locations because servicemembers at each location 

relied heavily on fuel-based generators, as opposed to local power grids, to 

carry out very different missions—the former directly supported 

operations in Iraq while the latter provided diplomatic, development, and 

counterterrorism support within the Horn of Africa.2

 We also chose these 

locations because officials told us that the camps were pursuing fuel 

demand reduction efforts; for example, Camp Lemonier had applied foam 

insulation to a facility to reduce fuel demand. We treated these two 

locations as illustrative case studies in our report and information 

obtained from these locations is not generalizable to other forwarddeployed locations. 

To review DOD’s approach to managing fuel demand at forward-deployed 

locations, we analyzed department documents and held discussions with 

DOD and military service officials to gain their perspectives on issues 

including forward-deployed location construction and maintenance; 

procurement; funding procedures; and applicable DOD guidance and laws 

related to energy reduction, procurement, and military construction. To 

provide context for understanding the challenges associated with 

 

1

We excluded Navy vessels from the scope of our review. 

2

At the time of our visit in June 2008, both camps were under Central Command’s area of 

responsibility. On October 1, 2008, DOD established Africa Command and transferred 

Camp Lemonier under this command. 
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations, we obtained 

information on fuel distribution and delivery processes and challenges in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, and for the two forward-deployed locations we visited. 

For comparison purposes, we reviewed policies and programs related to 

energy awareness and reduction for DOD’s permanent or U.S. facilities. In 

identifying opportunities for DOD to increase visibility and accountability 

of fuel demand management at its forward-deployed locations, we 

reviewed sections of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 that require DOD to, among other things, establish 

a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs and an operational 

energy strategy and that require the secretaries of the military departments 

to designate senior officials for operational energy. 

To provide information on DOD’s fuel demand at selected forwarddeployed locations (app. I), we asked Central Command officials to 

identify and collect fuel receipts and consumption data from June 1 

through 30, 2008, at several forward-deployed locations in Iraq and in 

Afghanistan that rely heavily on generators, as opposed to commercial 

power supplied by the host country. The data collected only represent a 

snapshot in time of fuel demand at selected locations and cannot be 

generalized to other time periods or other forward-deployed locations. In 

total, Central Command collected fuel receipts and consumption data for 

us on two locations in Iraq (Q-West and Contingency Operating Base 

Adder) and one location in Afghanistan (Bagram Air Field). In addition, we 

collected fuel receipts and consumption data for the same time period at 

Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, and Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, the two locations 

from our case-study analysis. The missions of these locations ranged from 

providing logistics support to U.S. forces to supporting development and 

diplomacy within the region. Central Command officials told us that 

different military services and locations have different methods for 

collecting and reporting data. Therefore, to attempt to collect as similar 

data as possible among the various locations, we agreed that Central 

Command would develop a standard data collection spreadsheet for the 

locations to record the following information by day in June 2008: 

• the quantity of fuel in gallons received by fuel type—JP8 jet fuel, diesel, 

or mobility gasoline, 

• the quantity of fuel in gallons consumed for base support (defined as 

power, heating/cooling, facilities, or communications), 

• the quantity of fuel in gallons consumed for air mobility, 

• the quantity of fuel in gallons consumed for ground mobility (vehicles), 

• the largest consumer of base support fuel (for example, 

heating/cooling) and 

Page 49 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

• the largest consumer of ground mobility fuel by day (for example, Mine 

Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle). 

This spreadsheet was used to collect fuel receipt and consumption data 

from all five of the locations we reviewed. We agreed with Central 

Command officials to use this spreadsheet to increase the likelihood that 

the locations would categorize fuel consumed for base support activities 

and ground and air operations similarly; however, some of the locations 

categorized fuel used for aerospace ground equipment differently.3

 In an 

attempt to reconcile these differences, we subsequently requested that 

officials provide us separate data pertaining to aerospace ground 

equipment, but officials stated that the data were not collected in a way 

that could enable them to do so. Therefore, in appendix I we have noted 

this difference in the data illustrating fuel used by the locations for base 

support and ground and air operations. To determine whether the data 

were reliable and valid, we sent follow-up questionnaires to each of the 

locations reviewed, asking how the locations recorded and maintained the 

data provided to us and what quality assurance process they used to 

ensure that the data were accurate and complete. Although data collection 

procedures and systems varied by military service component and 

location, we found that the data underwent a quality review. Therefore, we 

concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for descriptive purposes. 

We conducted our review from March 2008 through February 2009 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. 

 

3

Aerospace ground equipment refers to equipment used in servicing, handling, and 

maintaining weapon systems. Bagram Air Field and Camp Lemonier reported fuel for 

aerospace ground equipment as fuel consumed for air or ground operations, while Q-West 

reported fuel for aerospace ground equipment as fuel consumed for base support activities. 

The other two locations, COB Adder and Camp Arifjan, do not have flying missions. 

Page 50 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix III: Selected Initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 

Page 51 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix III: Selected Initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 

This appendix provides an overview of selected initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force that are aimed at reducing fuel demand at 

forward-deployed locations. It also provides information on the status of 

each initiative at the time we conducted our review. 

Figure 13: Eskimo Spray Foam Insulation 

Source: GAO (photograph).

Description:

Application of foam insulation on tent structures to decrease fuel demand. According to Power 

Surety Task Force officials, Eskimo has demonstrated a 40 to 75 percent reduction in power 

use for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and is expected to recoup costs within 4 

months of deployment. 

Status: 

Has been tested in four countries. Currently being applied to tents in Iraq. DOD plans to apply 

foam on tents in Afghanistan and Kuwait. 

Figure 14: Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Stations (THEPS) 

Description:

Mobile generators with solar panels, wind turbine, diesel generator, and storage batteries. DOD 

Power Surety Task officials expect THEPS to recoup costs within 14 months of deployment.

Status: 

Four prototypes have been assessed at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California. 

Results have been shared with the HI-Power program. Task force officials said that improvements

for THEPS have been identified, and that a few issues had been addressed. However, they 

believe that THEPS is not ready for deployment to Iraq.

Source: DOD Power Surety Task Force (photograph).
Appendix III: Selected Initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 

Page 52 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 15: Net Zero Plus Joint Capability Technology Demonstration 

Source: GAO (photograph).

Description:

Intended to demonstrate energy saving strategies that can be employed at forward-deployed 

locations. The emphasis will be on replacing temporary living, office, and operational facilities with 

enduring energy efficient structures and integrating renewable energy technologies with improved 

energy generation to power those structures.

Status:

Intended to be demonstrated over 3 years in three phases, beginning in fiscal year 2008. 

Figure 16: Monolithic Dome 

Description:

Concrete, dome-shaped structure that is designed to be energy efficient with energy 

supplied by a combination of solar panels and windmills. According to a Power Surety Task 

Force official, the dome is 75 percent more energy efficient than a comparable structure of 

traditional design and technology. 

Status: 

Three domes were built and tested at the National Training Center.

Source: GAO (photograph).
Appendix III: Selected Initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 

Page 53 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 17: Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery (TGER) 

Description:

An experimental device that converts trash (paper, plastic, cardboard, and food slop) into 

energy for forward-deployed locations, reducing the need for convoys to deliver fuel and haul 

away trash. According to Power Surety Task Force officials, a production model TGER is

expected to recoup costs within 18-24 months of deployment.

Status: 

Two units have been tested in Iraq.

Source: Army (photograph).

Figure 18: Hybrid Electric Power Station 

Description:

A hybrid generator system that uses wind and solar energy to supplement diesel 

generators. 

Status: 

Power Surety Task Force officials worked with the Army to test this initiative in 

Kuwait in late 2008. 

Source: DOD Power Surety Task Force (photograph).
Appendix III: Selected Initiatives of the DOD 

Power Surety Task Force to Reduce Fuel 

Demand at Forward-Deployed Locations 

Page 54 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Figure 19: Power Surety Feasibility Assessment 

Description:

Power Surety Task Force has performed or is in the process of performing energy 

surveys to better understand fuel burdens at forward-deployed locations and to provide 

suggested actions on how to save fuel.

Status:

Ongoing 

Source: GAO (photograph).
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 55 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 56 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 57 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 58 GAOAppendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

William M. Solis, (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant 

Director; Karyn Angulo; Alissa Czyz; Gilbert Kim; James Lawson; Marie 

Mak; and Ryan Olden made major contributions to this report. 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 58 GAO-09-300 Defense Energy Management 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

William M. Solis, (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant 

Director; Karyn Angulo; Alissa Czyz; Gilbert Kim; James Lawson; Marie 

Mak; and Ryan Olden made major contributions to this report. 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(351172) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site 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.” 

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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

To Report Fraud, 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs