U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–184 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–389 

THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY’S ENERGY PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON SPECIFIC ENERGY AND WATER POLICIES AND 

PROGRAMS THAT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY IS IMPLEMENTING 

AS IT PERTAINS TO ITS OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

NORFOLK, VA, MARCH 12, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Alexander, Rear Admiral Townsend, Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Department of the Navy ...................................................................................... 30 

Charette, Colonel Robert, Director, Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, Marine Corps ................................................................................................ 33 

Cullom, Vice Admiral Philip, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness and Logistics, Department of the Navy ..................................................... 29 

Hicks, Thomas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy, Department 

of the Navy ........................................................................................................... 27 

Kessler, Major General James, Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command, Marine Corps ............................................................................................ 32 

Mabus, Hon. Raymond E., Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy ..... 5 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire .............................. 1 

Warner, Hon. Mark R., U.S Senator From Virginia ............................................. 3 

Warner, Hon. John, Senator (R–VA), Ret. ............................................................. 19 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 39 

(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY’S 

ENERGY PROGRAM 

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Norfolk, Virginia. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. at the 

U.S. Naval Station aboard the USS Kearsarge in Norfolk, Virginia, 

Hon. Jeanne Shaheen presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good afternoon, everyone. I will not bang the 

gavel because we don’t know what that will mean. But I would like 

to welcome all of you to this hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. 

I’m Jeanne Shaheen. I’m the Senator from New Hampshire. I 

chair that subcommittee. 

We’re delighted to be here aboard the USS Kearsarge at Naval 

Station Norfolk to discuss the Department of the Navy’s ongoing 

work in energy efficiency and alternative energy. I think it’s important to point out that the Senate historian has told us that this will 

be the first Senate Committee hearing on a U.S. Navy ship since 

1960. So we’re making a little modern history today. 

I’m pleased to be joined by my good friend from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Senator Mark Warner and our very distinguished panel of experts. 

We have 2 Senator Warners here. So we’re very pleased about 

that. We also have Senator John Warner, who will be joining us 

as a panelist. 

I want to give special thanks to Secretary Mabus, Secretary of 

the Navy, for joining us today and for being here to testify and for 

all of your leadership in addressing the issues that we’re here to 

talk about today. 

I also want to thank Captain Jones and Rear Admiral Ann Phillips for hosting us as well. 

We’re really pleased, I’m particularly pleased to be aboard the 

USS Kearsarge because it is the forth ship in the history of the 

Navy to be named after Mount Kearsarge which is in New Hampshire. I’m not quite sure how that happened, but I’m going to have 

to go back in history and find out which Senator made it possible 

to have 4 ships named after Mount Kearsarge. 
2 

But we’re delighted to be here today because this ship really exemplifies many of the policy initiatives that we’re going to be discussing. We had a very impressive briefing earlier this morning 

with so many of the initiatives that you’re using on board here described in a way that we really need to get the word out. That’s 

part of what we hoped to do with this hearing today. 

By embracing a comprehensive approach to energy conservation 

the Kearsarge has successfully reduced its energy usage and recently received a 2011 SECNAV Energy Conservation Award. 

I know we’re all part of the choir here but energy efficiency is 

the cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs in this country. The benefits of energy efficient technologies to our domestic 

economy are obvious. 

They lower energy costs. 

They ultimately free up capital that allows businesses to expand 

and our economies to grow. 

It also has the potential to create thousands of new jobs and help 

protect our environment. 

I was pleased last year to work with Senator Rob Portman from 

Ohio on an inter-comprehensive energy efficiency legislation. We’re 

still hoping we can get that to the floor. 

One of the things that I learned as part of that effort, again, that 

I know everyone here knows is that government is the biggest user 

of energy in America. The military is the biggest user of energy 

within the Federal Government. That’s demonstrated by this middle circle on this chart. You can really see how energy use breaks 

down. 

Today’s hearing is going to focus on the impact of energy efficiency and renewable energy on our national security. The Department of Defense has long been interested in harnessing new forms 

of power to improve our Nation’s combat readiness. However, the 

proliferation of advanced technology on the battlefield has dramatically increased our military’s energy needs. 

Today’s service member requires an average of 22 gallons of fuel 

per day, an increase of 175 percent since the Vietnam War. Operations in Afghanistan alone require 20 million to 50 million gallons 

of fuel per month. The total cost to secure and transport fuel to the 

battlefield, also known as the fully burdened cost of energy, is estimated to be as high as $40 a gallon. 

Most important in 2010 there were 1,100 attacks on fuel convoys. 

So as you all explained to me so eloquently this morning, this is 

not just about cost in resources. This is about also costs in lives. 

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have illustrated the clear 

need for reform of DOD energy policies. 

Since 2008 the Department has made notable progress toward 

that goal. 

For example, the Department of the Navy, under the leadership 

of Secretary Mabus, has committed itself to securing 50 percent of 

its energy from alternative sources, reducing 50 percent of its nontactical petroleum use and ensuring 50 percent of all Navy and Marine Corps installations produce as much energy as they consume 

by 2020. 

The Navy is also increasingly making use of alternative energy, 

particularly advanced biofuels. Using alternatives to petroleum in-
3 

cluding algae, switch grass and camelina, again, we had a very interesting demonstration of that this morning. 

The Navy has already powered an F/A Team Green Hornet, a 

riverine command boat and several components of the first green 

carrier strike group, dubbed the ‘‘Great Green Fleet’’. 

The Navy’s development of advanced biofuels has the potential to 

dramatically improve our energy security and could lay the groundwork for wider utilization in our civilian economy. 

The Marine Corps has also committed itself to reducing energy 

demand particularly on the battlefield. 

For example, through the work of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, a marine unit in Afghanistan, recently conducted a 3 week, foot patrol without resupplying batteries, saving 

them 700 pounds of battery weight over the course of the mission. 

Again, we got a very effective demonstration of that earlier this 

morning. 

Now I first had my introduction to some of the work that the 

Navy is doing with Senator John Warner last summer, when we 

had the opportunity to tour the Portsmouth Naval shipyard. You 

know I couldn’t be in Norfolk without mentioning Portsmouth, 

which is between New Hampshire and Maine and obviously very 

important to us in Maine and New Hampshire. We were able to 

see, firsthand, the potential to reduce operating costs and improve 

mission performance through more effective energy management. 

Again, I was pleased to present Portsmouth Naval Shipyards 

with the 2011 SECNAV Energy and Water Management Award for 

outstanding achievement in the industrial category. So this is a 

continuation of learning more about those efforts that you all have 

underway in the Navy and throughout the military. 

I look forward to further exploring many of these issues today as 

well as additional ways that Congress can be helpful on this important issue. I think, as I said at the outset, one of the most important things we need to do is to get the word out about the great 

work that is going on here. So again, thank you very much to everyone who’s been involved in this visit, to the Energy Committee 

staff in the Senate, who helped set it up. 

Now I would like to ask Senator Warner if he would like to make 

some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, U.S SENATOR 

FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator MARK WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you Senator Shaheen for holding this hearing. 

I am not a member of this subcommittee. But when Senator 

Shaheen mentioned that she was coming to Norfolk and was going 

to focus on some of the innovation and exciting opportunities going 

on in the Navy and Marines, I wanted to be here. 

I wanted to also commend Senator Shaheen for her leadership in 

this field. She made brief mention of some legislation that she and 

Senator Portman put together last year. I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of as well. In terms of energy conservation, which is really the 

lowest hanging fruit in terms of how we can save resources, save 

money and lessen our dependence, particularly upon foreign oil 

sources. 
4 

So I want to again, thank you for your work on that piece of legislation that actually got out of committee, 18 to 3. You’d think at 

that kind of vote it might actually get a chance to get a vote on 

the floor at some point. So we’re hopeful that that may come to 

pass at some point soon. 

I also want to commend Secretary Mabus for, once again, being 

here in Virginia. We appreciate your leadership, your wisdom and 

reaffirming Norfolk as the home of our carriers on the East Coast 

of the United States. Something that is critically important, as you 

have to make the very, very tough choices as Secretary to make 

sure how, in these fiscally constrained times, we can do more with 

less. 

I think your commitment to energy efficiency and the commitment Senator Shaheen mentioned in terms of trying to see if we 

can move the Navy’s usage to 50 percent alternative fuel over the 

next few years is a very appropriate and worthy goal. I don’t understand how some Members of Congress just don’t seem to get it, 

that this initiative is about saving money. It’s about saving lives 

as we’ve seen some of the data shown particularly from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the amount of harm that befalls 

some of our troops as we have to convoy up fuels to those front 

lines. 

So this truly is, these efforts, are about saving lives. It’s, once 

again, about having the Navy be an innovator. There are things 

that you can do in terms of forward purchasing and I want to get 

to this in some questions coming up that really can spur innovation, not just for DOD, but across the whole energy field. 

Let me also make one comment. That, Madame Chair, it’s a bit 

intimidating to me and any member of the Virginia Congressional 

Delegation to be on one of our great Navy vessels when we have 

Senator John Warner in the audience. It was nearly 70 years ago 

that Senator Warner first signed up as a member of the Navy, volunteered to serve our Nation and has served our Nation in so many 

ways over those last, close to, 70 years both in the Navy and the 

Marines, as Secretary of Navy, in the U.S. Senate. 

I personally am looking forward to the second panel when I’m 

going to get a chance to really grill him on a number of issues that 

I’ve, you know, I’ve been on the other side of the podium, of the 

grilling, from John Warner in the past. So I’m looking forward to 

that turn about, fair play. But it is a real, real wonderful opportunity for me. There’s no one that I respect more than John Warner. His presence here today is special for all of us. 

Let me simply again, we got to get on to the testimony. But I 

want to thank all of the sailors and the Marines, who do so much 

to keep us safe. God Bless you for what you do. Thank you again, 

for your work on this important effort as well showing again, how 

we can save dollars, save lives and play an incredibly important 

role in terms of bringing greater innovation to the very, very important field of energy. 

With that, Madame Chairman, I yield back. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Just to reassure Senator Warner. I have the gavel. So fear not. 

If he gets too difficult, we’ll shut him down. 

We have 3 panels this afternoon. 
5 

The first panel really needs no introduction, obviously. It’s the 

Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus. Thank you very much, again, 

for being us, Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS, SECRETARY OF 

THE NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, thank you so much. 

Senator Shaheen, Senator Mark Warner, I particularly am glad 

to be here on the Kearsarge, named for, as you pointed out, the 

mountain in your home State. I’m also particularly glad to be here 

with another Ol’Miss graduate, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Warner, you pointed out about our carriers. I’d like to 

make one other point. Everybody thinks we have 11 carriers in the 

Navy. 

This is living proof that we’ve got 22, that our big deck amphibs 

perform the incredibly wide range of missions, that our other conventional carriers perform. So our carrier force is larger and more 

dispersed than almost anything else we have. Projects our power 

and protects this country in unique ways. 

So first I want to thank the 2 members here and the members 

of your subcommittee and of the Senate for the support that you 

give our sailors and marines, the men and women in uniform, their 

families, who help us, have the best military the world has ever 

seen. Protecting our national interest is exactly what our efforts on 

reforming how we use, produce and procure energy are all about. 

Before I get into just a few specifics about what we’re doing I 

think it’s important for us to understand the environment we work 

in. The pride that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General 

Amos and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert and I 

take in leading the Navy and Marine Corps is exceeded only by the 

accomplishments of the brave and selfless sailors, marines and civilians that we lead. Whatever is asked of them by the American 

people through their Commander in Chief from Afghanistan to 

Libya, from assisting the stricken people of Japan to assuring open 

sea lanes around the world, from bringing Osama Bin Laden to 

final justice, to rescuing hostages wherever they may be hidden by 

either terrorist or pirates, they answer the call. They get the job 

done. 

As we pivot out of 2 long ground wars it became essential to review our basic strategic posture. The new guidance developed 

under the leadership of the President and the Secretary of Defense 

and with the full cooperation of all the service secretaries and the 

service chiefs, responds to a very dynamic and complex, global security environment. Out of that strategy we developed a budget 

which is now in front of you to ensure the Navy and Marine Corps 

can execute this strategy while staying within the limits placed by 

the Budget Control Act. 

The CNO, the Commandant and I are absolutely confident that 

the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps are 

well prepared to maintain their status as the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known. No one should 

ever doubt the ability, the capability or the superiority of the Navy 

and Marine Corps. 
6 

This new strategy focusing on the Western Pacific, the Arabian 

Gulf, while maintaining our global presence clearly increases demand on maritime capability. It requires the Navy and Marine 

Corps team that is built and ready for any eventuality. Land, 

under the sea, in the air, on the sea or in the vast cyber seas, and 

operated forward to protect American interest, to deter crisis and 

if necessary, to fight and win wars. 

Understandably this has drawn a lot of attention to the size of 

our fleet. I’d like to talk about that with some, few basic facts. On 

9/11 the United States Navy had 316 ships in our battle fleet. That 

number dropped by 33 ships over the next 7 years. Reversing that 

trend and rebuilding our fleet has been one of the top priorities of 

this Administration. 

We have stabilized acquisition programs for our most important 

platforms, increased competition, use many more fixed price contracts, insisted on better performance and taken tougher stands 

against fraud, abuse and mismanagement. Despite the fiscal challenges and despite decommissioning 7 cruisers early, our ship 

building plan will enable us to maintain the same size fleet at the 

end of this 5-year period that we have today. Before the end of this 

decade in 2019, we will again have 300 ships in our battle fleet. 

I must also point out that that fleet of 2019 will have far greater 

capabilities than the fleet of today. 

As I said the CNO, the Commandant and I are very confident 

that we can meet the demands of our new strategy today. But the 

threats we face are not static and neither is our defense strategy 

nor our plans to continue to build our capabilities and capacities 

to meet the strategy and whatever threats or requirements come 

over the horizon. It’s exactly because we live in this ever changing, 

very dynamic security situation we can’t be complacent about how 

the Navy and Marine Corps use, produce and procure energy. 

Here again, regarding these efforts it’s important to talk about 

a few facts. 

Resources have always been a potential source of conflict 

throughout human history. Those who have abundant energy resources sometimes use that as a weapon against others. While 

those who lack energy supplies or have to depend on others to fulfill their needs, recognize just how vulnerable that makes them. 

Today the United States controls just 2 percent of known global 

oil reserves. But we consume over 20 percent of all the world’s oil. 

President Obama’s, ‘‘All of the Above’’ energy strategy, clearly advocates doing a better job of increasing domestic oil production as 

much as possible. But the math is very clear. Even if we used every 

possible source of oil available to us, it wouldn’t be enough to supply our needs. 

That’s why we rely so much on foreign sources of oil. Even 

though many of those sources of which we are absolutely dependent are in volatile or potentially volatile places on Earth. Some of 

those oil suppliers probably don’t have our best interests at heart. 

We would never depend on those oil suppliers to build our ships, 

our aircraft, our ground equipment, but we give them a say in 

whether the ships sail, the aircraft fly or the ground vehicles operate because we depend on them for fuel. 
7 

Supply shocks are a real strategic vulnerability for us. Price 

shocks make us equally vulnerable. For every dollar increase in the 

price in a barrel of oil the United States Navy gets an additional 

$31 million fuel bill. 

Oil prices are a global commodity. Set globally in a market that’s 

often driven by rumor and speculation which can cause price spikes 

that make budgeting absolutely impossible. When the Libya unrest 

broke out last year about this time, the price of a barrel of oil increased $38 which increased the Navy’s fuel bill by over a billion 

dollars. 

There was only one place for us to go get that and that was out 

of our operations accounts which meant that we steamed less. We 

flew less. We trained less. 

As you pointed out, Senator Shaheen, in theater fuel is also a 

tactical and operational vulnerability. Fuel and water are the 2 

things we import the most into Afghanistan. For every 50 convoys 

of fuel and water a Marine is killed or wounded. That is simply too 

high a price to pay. 

Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have to use energy more 

efficiently. We must lead in the development of alternative energies. If we don’t we put our military readiness, we put our national 

security and we put the lives of our sailors and Marines at risk. 

Again, as you pointed out, nearly 3 years ago, I set 5 ambitious 

energy goals for the Department. We’re making real progress on all 

5. Our efforts are already making us a lot better war fighters. 

Let me give you a few examples of that progress. Some of which 

I know you saw earlier today. 

By deploying to Afghanistan with solar blankets to charge radios 

and some of their other small electrical equipment the Marine patrol dropped 700 pounds of batteries from their packs and didn’t 

have to be resupplied as often. 

Less efficient generators run all the time making noise that No. 

1, makes it hard for our Marines to hear things going on outside 

the wire. 

Number 2 makes them easy for the enemy to target. 

More efficient generations run less often, make less noise and are 

less easy to target. 

More efficient means of powering our ships helps save money 

leaving more money for other program platforms. 

Just on the Kearsarge, stern flaps, other energy saving devices, 

save about $2 million a year in fuel costs. 

Its sister ship, the USS Makin Island, has a hybrid electric drive 

which on its initial voyage from Pascagoula, Mississippi, in my 

home State around South America to California to San Diego, its 

home port, saved $2 million in fuel at 2010 prices. That ship’s ability over the—to use electric power when it’s cruising at lower 

speeds which is most of the time for war ships, will mean over its 

life expectancy that in 2010 dollars it will save $250 million in fuel 

costs. That’s why we’re testing the same hybrid technology on our 

guided missile destroyers. 

Representatives of both the Navy and Marine Corps will follow 

me and will talk about specifics on what we’re doing to secure 

greater independence, save money and save lives through our comprehensive effort to reduce energy demand and provide alternative 
8 

forms of energy ashore, afloat, in the air and on the ground. But 

before I finish let me mention 2 other significant initiatives undertaken by Navy at the direction of our Commander in Chief to advance the goals that I just outlined. 

The first is procuring one gigawatt of renewable energy generation on or near our installations without any net cost to taxpayers 

by using existing third party financing mechanisms. So it’s just a 

power purchase agreement. Joint ventures enhance use leases. 

While we are a sea going service Navy and Marine Corps has 3.3 

million acres and 72,500 buildings. We believe leveraging these assets to promote renewable alternatives will help advantage our energy goals as well as increase clean energy jobs in America. 

The second initiative symbolizes about what you both discussed, 

our effort to demonstrate the ‘‘Great Green Fleet’’ has drawn some 

skepticism. Although I believe that a lot of that is based on either 

misunderstandings or inaccuracies. Last year the Navy bought 

what we think is the largest purchase of biofuel ever in America 

to mix in a 50/50 blend with either diesel fuel or AB gas to power 

a demonstration of how our ships and planes can operate on alternative, liquid fuels during the largest maritime exercises on Earth, 

the rim of the Pacific this summer. During this exercise alternative 

fuel blends will be used in operational activities such as refueling 

aircraft on the deck of our carrier or underway replenishments. 

We obviously dubbed this the ‘‘Great Green Fleet’’ as a reminder 

of Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘‘Great White Fleet’’ which helped usher in 

America as a global power at the beginning of the 20th century. 

The ‘‘Great Green Fleet’’ doesn’t have an environmental agenda. 

It’s about maintaining America’s military and economic leadership 

across the goal in the 21 century. 

Now it’s true that biofuel blend costs us more than conventional 

diesel and aviation fuels would have. But the simple economics explains why. Alternative fuels can’t become competitive with oil unless there’s a demand for them. But demand at commercial scale 

will never be possible unless there’s a supply to meet that demand. 

While our purchase was the largest single purchase ever, it represents just a fraction of what Navy will need. But even purchases 

of small amounts for our R and D efforts have shown dramatic results by lowering the cost of biofuels which cost as much today as 

they did 2 years ago. 

One of the advantages that Navy has is our ability to help stimulate both demand and supply. That’s why the President directed us 

to work with the Department of Agriculture and Energy to develop 

a plan to create a domestic, commercially viable, biofuels industry. 

We’re making real progress on that plan which calls for a government commitment of up to $510 million and a matching commitment at least one to one from the private sector to help build this 

industry to provide energy independence and American jobs. 

When they were introduced, computers cost more than the typewriters they replaced. In fact, the first Apple cost in today’s dollars 

about $2,440. The iPad just introduced is $499. 

Smart phones, which Senator Warner knows a lot about, cost 

more than rotary dial landlines when they were introduced. But 

once the market got large enough the cost of these new tech-
9 

nologies came down dramatically. The capabilities increased dramatically. 

When anyone says we can’t afford to invest in developing alternative sources of energy, my reply is we can’t afford not to. We 

can’t afford to wait until price shocks or supply shocks leave us no 

alternative. We can’t afford to wait while other Nations get far 

ahead of us on energy reform. I don’t want to trade one source of 

foreign power for another. 

We can’t afford to be distracted by those who offer the absolutely 

false choice of investing in ships or planes or investing in more secure means of powering ships and planes. If we don’t have or cannot afford the energy to power those platforms, the platforms themselves may be of little value. If we develop a domestic fuel source 

that’s less vulnerable to price shocks we’ll be able to afford more 

ships and planes that we need. 

This is not about choosing either ships or alternative fuels. This 

is about building ships and using alternative fuels. 

To those who question why Navy would be a leader in energy innovation are that its efforts are either outside or obstructing its 

real mission. I would simply remind them of our history. 

In the middle of the 19th century we moved from sail to coal. 

Nearly 20th century we move from coal to oil. 

In the 1950s we pioneered the use of nuclear. 

At every one of those transitions, every single one of them, there 

were people who questioned the need, who challenged the cost or 

who simply opposed change of any kind. Those folks were wrong 

then. The people who question the need for change now, I believe, 

will be equally wrong. 

For 236 years from sail to steam to nuclear, from the USS Constitution to the USS Carl Vincent, from Tripoli to Tripoli, our maritime warriors have upheld a proud heritage, protected our Nation, 

protected our power and provided freedom of the seas. Then, as 

now, our Navy and Marine Corps continue to adapt, to innovate, 

to assure that America comes out on top. 

Thank you all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DE- PARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AND JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF THE NAVY, ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT

Chairman Shaheen, Senator Warner, and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to appear before you today to provide an overview of the Department of 

Navy’s investment in its energy programs. 

It is critically important that we reform how the Navy and Marine Corps use, 

produce, and procure energy, especially in this fiscally constrained environment. We 

must use energy more efficiently and we must lead in the development of alternative energy; otherwise, we allow our military readiness to remain at risk. 

In theater, fuel is a tactical and operational vulnerability. Guarding fuel convoys 

puts our Sailors’ and Marines’ lives at risk and takes them away from what we sent 

them there to do: to fight and prevail, to engage and rebuild. For every 50 fuel convoys in theater, there is one Marine casualty. This is simply too high a price to pay. 

President Obama’s ‘‘All of the above’’ strategy toward sources of energy recognizes 

a fundamental math problem: while the United States consumes 22 percent of the 

world’s oil, we possess just two percent of known oil reserves. 

Oil prices are set on a global market often driven by speculation and rumor, leaving the Department exposed to price shocks in the global market. 

Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar, it costs the Department 

an additional $30 million in fuel costs. In FY12, in large part due to political unrest 
10 

in oil producing regions, the price per barrel of oil has risen $38 over what was 

budgeted, raising Navy’s fuel bill by over $1 billion. These price spikes must be paid 

for out of operations, meaning our Sailors and Marines are forced to steam less, fly 

less, and train less. 

Strategically, we are at risk because much of the fuel we use comes from volatile 

regions of the world. We would never buy aircraft or ships from many of the places 

that supply us oil because some are unstable and some do not necessarily have our 

best interests at heart. 

The Department of the Navy is committed to implementing an energy program 

that enhances our national security and our military readiness by reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Energy security is national security. Our energy 

program is comprehensive—it involves both Services and contains initiatives to reduce energy demand and provide alternative forms of energy supplies on shore, 

afloat, in the air, and on the ground. 

Navy’s leadership on energy innovation is nothing new. It was the Navy that 

shifted from sail to steam in the middle of the 19th Century, steam to oil in the 

early 20th Century, and pioneered nuclear power in the middle of the 20th Century. 

At each of those transitions, there were those who questioned the need, challenged 

the cost or simply opposed change of any kind. 

DEPARTMENT OF NAVY GOALS AND INITIATIVES

Congress and previous administrations have recognized the imperative of energy 

security as demonstrated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 and 

2010, and several executive orders. This administration has built on those actions, 

but the program proposed for FY13 and beyond will exceed the goals set in those 

previous laws because we must. 

As Secretary of the Navy, I set five aggressive department-wide goals to reduce 

the Department’s overall consumption of energy, decrease its reliance on petroleum, 

and increase its use of alternative energy. 

The goals are: 

• By 2020, at least 50% of total DON energy will come from alternative energy 

resources, 

• By 2020, DON will produce at least 50% of shore based energy requirements 

from alternative resources and 50% of Department installations will be net-zero, 

• DON will demonstrate a Green Strike Group in local operations by 2012 and 

sail the Great Green Fleet by 2016, 

• By 2015, DON will reduce petroleum use in non-tactical vehicles by 50%, 

• Evaluation of energy factors will be used when awarding contracts for systems 

and buildings. 

Meeting these goals requires that the Navy and Marine Corps value energy as 

a critical resource across maritime, aviation, expeditionary, and shore missions and 

myriad investments and activities. They will all foster behaviors that will reduce the 

Navy and Marine Corps’ overall energy requirements and technologies that can provide adequate substitutes for fossil-based energy. Two significant initiatives that 

will be advanced in pursuit of the goals are: 

• The development of alternative liquid fuels for our ships and planes.—To meet 

the goal of 50% of total DON energy from alternative sources, the DON has 

partnered with the DOE and USDA to collectively pool $510M to jump start 

commercial development of the advanced alternative fuels industry. The DON 

intends to use the Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III for its contribution. 

This effort will help to obtain the 8 million barrels of biofuel needed by 2016 

to sail the ‘‘Great Green Fleet.’’ The alternative fuel that the DON will purchase 

must be available at prices competitive with the conventional petroleum fuels 

being replaced; it must not have negative consequences for the food supplies; 

and it must be a ‘‘drop-in’’, that is, not requiring infrastructure or operational 

changes. 

• Fostering the production of one gigawatt of renewable energy generation on 

DON installations.—To help meet the 50% shore alternative energy goal, the 

Department will, by the end of this year, design a strategy to facilitate the production and/or consumption of large-scale renewable power projects on or near 

Naval installations. These projects will be developed without added cost to taxpayers by using existing third-party financing mechanisms such as power purchase agreements, joint ventures and enhanced use leases. The energy from the 

projects will cost less or at least no more than that from conventional energy 

sources over their life. 
11 

FUNDING

The Department has budgeted $1.0 billion in FY13 and approximately $4.0 billion 

across the FDYP for operational and shore energy initiatives. The funding sources 

are almost entirely Navy and Marine Corps O&M funds and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) dollars. 

ACHIEVEMENTS

The Department is on track to meet its goals. 

Since flying the F/A18, dubbed ‘The Green Hornet’, at MACH 1.7 in 2010 as part 

of the test and certification process using a 50-50 blend of Camelina based JP-5, the 

Department has successfully conducted test and certification on the MH-60 

Seahawk helicopter, AV-8B Harrier, E-A6B Prowler, MQ-8B Fire Scout, T-45C Goshawk, MV-22 Osprey. We also ran a Riverine Command Boat, Landing Craft Air 

Cushion (LCAC), Landing Craft Utility (LCU), 7m Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat 

(RHIB), the ex-USS Paul F Foster, and an Allison 501K turbine generator. The 

DON partnered with Maersk to run a large merchant ship on renewable biofuel. 

These tests represent real milestones that are necessary to support the use of alternative fuels to meet the goal of sailing the Great Green Fleet in 2016. 

Throughout 2011 we demonstrated progress through an assortment of programs, 

partnerships, and initiatives. Last summer, the Blue Angels flew all six planes on 

biofuels during their 2-day air-show at NAS Patuxent River. The USS MAKIN ISLAND, which is currently deployed to the Pacific region, can use its electric drive 

75% of the time it is operating, needing its gas turbines only when it requires top 

speeds. On its maiden voyage she saved $2M over predecessor steam ships and is 

estimated to provide a cost avoidance of nearly $250M over her service life. The 

Navy is continuing to move forward with installation of a similar system on new 

construction DDGs and to look at the feasibility of retrofitting the entire non-nuclear fleet with these systems in the course of routine shipyard availabilities. 

Additional energy initiatives, such as propeller and hull coatings, were undertaken to make the existing inventory of ships more energy efficient. Stern flaps will 

reduce energy consumption, as will some combustor modifications and systems to 

monitor ship-wide energy use. Energy conservation programs were put in place for 

both ships and aircraft to educate and incentivize the Fleets to reduce energy consumption and identify inefficient activities. The future Navy will use advanced materials on propellers, energy storage and power management systems, and advanced 

propulsion technology to make warships more efficient while allowing them to meet 

their combat capability. 

Last year, the Marines tested equipment that could be deployed on battlefields 

at their Experimental Forward Operating Bases (ExFOB) at Twenty-Nine Palms. 

The Third Battalion, Fifth Marines (the 3/5), deployed in Afghanistan, managed to 

cut fuel use and logistical support requirements by 25 percent at main operating 

bases and up to 90 percent at combat outposts by relying on alternative energy 

sources such as solar power generators and hybrid power. One three-week patrol reduced weight by 700 lbs and saved $40,000 due to not requiring a battery resupply. 

The PV-powered battery recharging technology has allowed Marine Patrols, which 

would normally require a battery re-supply every 2-3 days, to go three weeks without a battery re-supply, enhancing the expeditionary nature of their missions and 

reducing the number of dangerous re-supply missions needed. 

Currently, the four most successful technologies used by the 3/5 are being deployed across all Marine Battalions in Afghanistan at a cost of $25 million. These 

technologies will save more than $50 million per year; paying for themselves in 

roughly six months and then continue to return a $50 million annual savings over 

what we had been doing. More importantly, this equates to a reduction in the number of resupply flights by 450 or taking a total of 180 trucks off the road, reducing 

the number of young men and young women put in harm’s way. Again, because we 

lose one Marine for every 50 convoys, these energy measures are not just saving 

money, they are saving lives. 

Recently, the next phase of ExFOB deployed with the Marines from 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines. They brought renewable and energy efficient equipment that 

was identified during the ExFOB conducted during August 2010. The equipment 

targets a major battlefield power user: battalion-level command and control systems. 

Its capabilities include hybrid power systems and efficient air conditioning, which 

demonstrated an 83% savings in fuel compared to the conventional capabilities. 

The Marine Corps continues to aggressively pursue technologies that will increase 

combat effectiveness and reduce the need for fuel, water, and battery logistics. The 

Marine Corps is committed to conducting two ExFOBs per year (one in 29 Palms 
12 

and one in Camp Lejeune) for the foreseeable future. The upcoming ExFOB will concentrate on wearable electric power systems and lightweight man-portable water purification systems. 

Through investments in expeditionary energy the Marine Corps will stay longer, 

go further, at reduced risk. In 2017 the Marines will be able to operate one month 

longer on the same amount of fuel they use today, and they will need 208 fewer 

fuel trucks, thereby saving seven million pounds of fuel per year. This translates 

into a lighter, more agile and capable Marine Corps 

In addition to these tactical applications, the DON is pursuing energy efficiency 

and renewable energy projects at our facilities ashore. As noted above, we are on 

track to secure half of our shore energy from alternative sources. Effective programs 

to reduce overall consumption will be necessary to manage the denominator. But, 

in addition, we’ll need about a gigawatt of renewable power at the bases. 

Currently our bases support about 300 MW of renewable energy, 270 MW of 

which is from a geothermal power plant at China Lake. We are actively exploring 

for additional geothermal resources. 

We have awarded three solar projects under our Solar Multiple Award Contracts 

(MAC) in the Southwest (SW) and are finalizing a similar solar MAC for Hawaii. 

The three solar power purchase agreements (PPAs) at China Lake, 29 Palms, and 

Barstow will save the Department $20 million in total over the 20 year life of those 

contracts. And, in all three of these cases, we’ll be paying less per kW-hour than 

conventional power. These projects have the added benefit of providing a measure 

of security from electric grid outages. The Hawaii solar MAC will install 28 MW of 

solar PV on DON installations, including covering the runway on Ford Island with 

PV, recreating the look of the runway as seen from the air. 

At Marine Corps bases in Albany, GA and Miramar, CA we have partnered with 

the local communities to harness landfill gas to power generators. This important 

technology is providing 25% of the electric load in Albany and will provide up to 

50% of the electric load at Miramar when done. This is one of the most effective 

forms of waste-to-energy and we are exploring other applicable technologies. 

Where the development of wind resources would be compatible with an installation’s missions, we would favor that technology. We are watching with great interest 

the potential exploitation of the enormous wind resource off the Atlantic coastline. 

As long as the wind turbines can be placed at mission-compatible sites and the electricity can be delivered to our facilities at a price competitive with the local utility 

source, we could be a customer. 

In order to support a wide range of facility energy efficiency measures, we are aggressively conducting facility energy audits and completing installation of ‘‘smart’’ 

electric metering. By the end of this year, the over 27,000 meters installed or under 

contract to be installed in our existing facilities will begin providing the capability 

to monitor and control the amount of energy we are consuming. This will allow our 

energy managers to provide real-time feedback to the users and the installations’ 

commands. 

The Department continues to promote behavior and culture change through education and training, to ensure that energy management is understood to be a priority in tactical, expeditionary, and shore missions. Awareness campaigns are used 

to encourage personal actions that show commitment to energy program goals. The 

Naval Postgraduate School has added an energy program to its curriculum targeting 

both the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ most promising young Sailors and Marines as 

well as an executive series targeting senior civilians and flag officers. We have collaborated with the National Defense University to pilot two culture change demonstrations—at MCB Camp Lejeune and NAVSTA Mayport—to focus on raising energy awareness in civilian and military personnel. 

The Department will continue to cultivate strategic partnerships to leverage our 

energy opportunities. By partnering with federal agencies, such as the Department 

of Energy, the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the 

Small Business Administration, we are broadening the scope of our programs. In addition, we are working with academic institutions and private industry to bring innovative ideas and approaches to the forefront. 

CONCLUSION

Our Nation’s Sea Services continue to operate in an increasingly dispersed environment to support the maritime strategy and ensure the freedom of the seas. We 

must continue to transform the way we procure and consume energy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to working with you to sustain the war fighting readiness and quality of life for the most 

formidable expeditionary fighting force in the world. 
13 

For 236 years, from sail to steam to nuclear; from USS Constitution to USS Carl 

Vinson; from Tripoli to Tripoli; you have upheld a proud heritage, protected our nation, projected our power, and provided freedom of the seas. In the coming years, 

this new strategy and our plans to execute that strategy will ultimately depend on 

your skills, your talents and your well-being that will assure that our that our Navy 

and Marine Corps not only perseveres but continues to prevail. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I wonder if you could begin, if we could begin the questioning. 

You talked about the goals, the 5 goals that you’ve laid out for energy efficiency. Can you update us on where the Navy is in meeting 

those goals? 

Mr. MABUS. The goals that you refer to, the broadest one is by 

2020 at least half of all our energy will come from non-fossil fuel 

sources. 

The other goals that we will have at least half our bases will be 

net zero to the grid. The fact that our non-combat, non-tactical vehicles, will reduce their fuel consumption in half by 2015. In these 

goals we are just in changing the kind of vehicles we buy. 

We are very close to reducing that usage in half. We’re beginning 

to build fueling stations for flex fuel vehicles for electric vehicles, 

for the hybrid vehicles. That while they start on our bases, we 

found technology then spreads to the surrounding communities and 

then commercially. 

We’ve gotten one base already to net zero to the grid. In fact it’s 

net positive to the grid. China Lake in California. 

We have 120 megawatts of solar either being installed or on the 

drawing board and ready to be installed. We have identified things 

such as wind or wave action, geothermal, hydrothermal. We have 

tested all our aircraft now on biofuels, on 50/50 blend of biofuels. 

The only reason we still have to do 50/50 bio blends are that 

biofuels simply don’t provide the lubrication yet that petroleum 

does. Although that’s a science project issue and one that I think 

we’ll be able to solve in the future. 

We have also tested, as you pointed out, our riverine craft. We 

are now testing our large surface combatants on these. We have to 

have a drop in fuel. We’re not going to change the engines on a 

ship like the Makin Island or on our aircraft. 

But so far, the F–18 Green Hornet flew at 1.7 times the speed 

of sound. The Blue Angels all flew on biofuels at one of their air 

shows. The aircraft, the ships, have not noticed a difference. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator Warner, since we have no timer, we’ll just go back and 

forth. I’ll do a question and Senator Warner will do one. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madame Chair. Let me also, again, 

thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your comments and concur with you 

about the need for innovation. 

I, as someone who managed to eke out a living in cell phones, 

I think this notion of the Navy being an innovator is very important. I think you rightfully pointed out when the Navy, back in the 

1950s, decided, Admiral Rickover, decided to move to a nuclear 

Navy. I’m sure there were naysayers. Thank God he had the vision 

and the political support at that point to kind of make that kind 

of that transition. 

It’s my hope as well that you’ll continue to push on this. I personally believe that, and it pains me to say this a little bit as a 
14 

telecom guy, that over the next 25 years they’ll be more jobs created and wealth created in the energy field than any other sector 

in the world. Quite candidly America in so many areas around energy is not the leader that we should be. 

One of the things that you pointed out, for example here on the 

Kearsarge, that the stern flaps. I was anxious. I was pleased to see 

that the payback was literally less than a year. One of the things 

that I think you would be helpful for both of us and for our colleagues is as we add these innovations, if you can show us the kind 

of payback terms in 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, whatever payback 

term it would take. 

I do want to get to one particular question here. One of the challenges I know we’ve got is when, as you look at the area around 

biofuels you made the mention of the point that some of the purchases, at least in the short term, were incrementally more expensive. However, if you were able to do a 5-year contract at a fixed 

price particularly based upon the potential volatility of oil pricing 

over the next number of years, I believe that could both spur innovation, give predictability to a market and help drive toward your 

goals. 

Obviously one of the challenges in making those choices right 

now is the way CBO scores those kind of forward purchases. Do 

you have any suggestions to us on how or ideas that you may be 

kicking around about how we can allow you the flexibility to do future contracting, particularly on fuel purchases in a way that 

might be based upon more normal and traditional accounting methods? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, thank you. 

To go back to what you said at first. Most of the things that 

we’re putting on have a very short payback, particularly those in 

the fleet. Onshore, our projects have an average 6-year payback. 

But after that initial investment the energy just keeps coming at 

much, much reduced prices for years and years after that. 

We can, today, as you pointed out, we can do fuel contracts for 

5 years. But they are stored by the Congressional Budget Office as 

though we were paying all the money up front. We could use help 

in 2 areas. 

One is to allow us to sign longer contracts than just 5 years. We 

can sign energy contracts for up to 30 years with a waiver from the 

Secretary of Defense. But fuel contracts are limited to 5 years. 

Lengthening that to give investors a longer window to get a return 

on their investment, to give businesses a more certain market, 

more stability would be a great help. 

The other one is the scoring that you mentioned. We don’t use 

this energy, all in the first year. So if it could be scored over the 

length of that contract instead of all at the first of that contract. 

That actually fits into normal commercial accounting rules. It’s 

a different rule that is used for the government which I know 

comes as a surprise to you. But that’s used for the government 

then would be used in private industry. 

So those 2 things would be a vast help in terms of meeting some 

of these goals. 

Senator WARNER. Maybe look at fuel contracts beyond a 5-year 

window and again, revisiting with our friends at CBO, the scoring 
15 

process that puts all those costs in that first year rather than timing them out when you actually draw down and use the fuel. Both 

would be helpful tools, right? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I want to just follow up on that a little bit because certainly I think we would agree that getting CBO to look 

at its scoring is very important as we think about how we can better encourage more energy efficient activities. But how do you, 

given the volatility of fuel costs, how do you ensure to taxpayers 

and to Congress that those longer term contracts are not going to 

lock in place increased fuel costs that are happening over time. 

Mr. MABUS. You could make them variable price contracts to follow the market instead of a firm, fixed price forever. We, today, Defense Logistics Agency, which buys our fuel sets prices for that fuel 

yearly and sometimes more often depending on the volatility. So 

volatility can be provided there just like you would do in any fuel 

source or long term purchase that’s being made today both inside 

the government, but particularly outside. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator WARNER. So again, you could use hedging techniques 

that any other major purchaser would use. 

Is there any way? Let me ask you one thing whether there has 

been any analysis done. As we saw in the aftermath of the Japanese nuclear accident, their increase then dependence upon more 

imported oil as their energy mix changed. 

With the critical role that the United States Navy plays in keeping shipping lanes open virtually around the world. There’s been 

lots of talk and reports sometimes out there in the popular press. 

Talking about, in effect, what added additional, in effect, fuel tax 

we all play or oil tax we all pay that basically American taxpayers 

bear for the whole rest of the world. Since we, in effect, our great 

Navy, keeps shipping lanes free and open for, in effect, the benefit 

of the whole world. 

Is there any kind of corollary where you could actually draw a 

line of increased amounts of, particularly oil coming out of the Middle East, increased shipping amounts of that oil correlating to increasing costs in terms of keeping those shipping lanes free, open 

and safe? 

Mr. MABUS. I know there have been a couple of looks at various 

ways to slice it. But one of the easiest ways is simply to look at 

what happened when Iran simply threatened to close the Straits of 

Hormuz, what happened to oil prices. They spiked. 

It’s estimated that if Iran ever followed through on that threat 

that regardless of how fast we cleared it, the price of oil could go 

up by 40, 50 percent immediately, overnight. That would have a 

huge impact on our economy. It would have a huge impact on the 

world. 

One of the things you pointed out is the American Navy, almost 

alone in history, when we have had naval dominance in the world, 

which we have since World War II, we have keep the sea lanes 

open for everyone. It is no accident, I think, that the economies of 

the world have done as well as they have because of this. Because 

even with the new technologies, 90 percent of all trade still goes 
16 

by sea. Ninetyfive percent of all telecommunication still go under 

the sea. 

So keeping these sea lanes open helps not only our economy, but 

the entire world. What we do devote a large number of ships and 

assets to keeping, particularly straits where oil or large quantities 

of oil, like the Straits of Hormuz, open. That is simply for that commodity. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You know, one of the things that I was really 

excited about in getting ready for today’s hearing was to be able 

to learn more about the collaboration that’s going on around the 

work that Navy and the military is doing with energy efficiency. I 

think one of the challenges we often have within government is 

that too much of our work is in silos and not enough of it crosses 

agencies because there is, in fact, so much overlap between what 

we do. You and the Navy have been able to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to collaborate in the development of advanced biofuels, 

which as you pointed out, has been so much an important part of 

the work that’s going on here. 

Can you talk about how that’s working? Whether there are lessons from what you’ve learned that you think should be shared 

across government? 

Mr. MABUS. What is happening on that is, and I think this is a 

lesson that can be shared across government, is we each brought 

something different to the table. 

No. 1, we brought sources of funds from different areas to this. 

Agriculture used commodity credit corporation funds, for example. 

Navy is using Defense Production Act. 

Defense Production Act has been in existence since the early 

1950s. Basically what it says is if there’s an industry that defense 

needs that the American—in order to defend America we need that 

industry, that defense can invest in creating that industry. So 

that’s one area that I think we can do. 

A second area is that we each bring a different expertise. We 

bring operations, but we also bring the market. You know, we 

bring the demand side of the equation and not simply the supply 

side. 

Agriculture brings the supply side because virtually all the 

biofuels, in one way or another, would affect American farmers for 

the better. 

Energy, obviously, brings its research and development, its incredible expertise in how energy is developed. 

One of the other things that I think we’ve learned, Senator, is 

that we can also collaborate with some of our private partners. The 

airline industry, for example, is looking at biofuels very closely. 

They’re particularly looking now that Europe has said that planes 

flying from the U.S. or from anywhere into Europe will have to pay 

a tax on the amount of carbon that they emit on the flight. 

But airlines like Federal Express, like United, have already done 

test flights on biofuels. They know it will work. What they are looking for is a way to get it at a commercially viable price and scale. 

That’s one of the things that Navy can bring into this equation. 
17 

So I do think there are some attributes that this Memorandum 

of Understanding, that was directed by the President as Commander in Chief, can bring us. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I want to follow up on that a little bit. I know 

Senator Warner only has one more question. I think you’ve raised 

something that is really important particularly right now. Because 

in the Senate we’re talking about whether we’re going to extend 

some of the tax credits to alternative energy sources like biofuels 

that are important to the private sector and to creating a market 

for these technologies. 

Can you talk a little bit more about the role that you think, not 

only Navy, but the military can play in encouraging that private 

sector market for many of these technologies? 

Mr. MABUS. A couple of things. 

One is your chart that the Federal Government uses 2 percent 

of all the energy used by the United States, all the fossil fuel energy. That DOD is 90 percent of that. So we’re by far the largest 

user of fossil fuels in the country. That’s something. 

A second thing is the military has long led in new technological 

advances. You can look at the Internet. You can look at GPS. You 

can even look at flat screen TVs. All started out as a military application and then migrated to the broader commercial area. 

The last thing, I do think history can teach us some things. In 

the 1880s the American Navy was building its ships out of steel 

from Europe mainly from Germany and England. That steel was 

costing between $150 and $200 a ton. 

The Navy decided that that was a vulnerability to be dependent 

on an outside source of steel. So they went to American 

steelmakers. They offered them $250 a ton for their steel. They got 

no takers. 

They offered $300. They got no takers. They kept upping the 

offer until they got to $486 a ton when they got takers to produce 

the steel. 

Now that’s almost 3 times what they were paying from Europe. 

But 20 years later on the eve of World War I, we were not only 

completely independent in terms of the steel that we were getting 

at very competitive prices. But second we had the greatest steel industry in the world. The military had spurred that using, at first, 

some above market prices. But those very quickly came down to 

market and made us independent in that. 

I think that is a lesson there for the future. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Secretary, I just want to, again, close with 

a thanks for your willingness to be bold in this field. To my mind 

it is not only the business right thing to do, not only short term 

in terms of brave men and women in the field of combat right now 

in terms of the lifesavings on these convoys, as we’ve mentioned. 

But I look at the fact that, as you pointed out, we consume 20 percent of the world’s oil. 

We have about 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. 

We’ve seen the kind of volatility in oil pricing with some of the 

actions around Libya and more recently with some of the potential 

threats that may or may not, God willing, not arise around Iran. 
18 

Even for us and I didn’t want to echo building. I’m with Senator 

Webb, building on work that Senator John Warner started that 

said, we do need to discover and take advantage of additional domestic oil and gas reserves. We have even said, I would personally 

even be willing to look off the coast of Virginia as long as we get 

a share of the revenue. 

But to exploit all those domestic assets even going full bore right 

now, you know, short end 6 to 10 years before we saw that additional production. Again, I keep coming back to that 2 percent of 

the reserves versus 20 percent of the world’s usage. So I absolutely 

believe that it is important to set these kind of bold goals of 50 percent alternative fuels, the notion of the kind of aspirational goal of 

a green fleet in terms of 2016. 

At least this Senator, and I know Senator Shaheen has been a 

true leader, we want to be your ally on this. So whether it is on 

the CBO scoring, on trying to give you more of those out year purchasing ability, these are the kind of tools that we want to provide 

to make sure we’ve got the best Navy. But also the Navy that’s 

going to be least subject to the kind of volatility that might take 

place if we continue our dependence upon foreign oil, particularly 

foreign oil from the Middle East. 

So I thank you for those actions. Look forward to working with 

you. 

Mr. MABUS. Thank you very much. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I don’t think that was a question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MABUS. No, but I appreciated it very much. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes, I’m sure. 

I do have a final question for you because in your testimony you 

talk about the education and training effort to change the culture 

around how energy is viewed within the Navy and the military. I 

wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you do that. I heard 

this morning at the briefing some discussion about that. A recognition that we are talking about doing things differently and often 

there’s resistance to that. 

So how do you begin to change that culture in a way that makes 

people engage and support these efforts? 

Mr. MABUS. I think the main way you do it is the way Kearsarge 

has done it. That is to show how well it works. To show how much 

better we can do our jobs by this. 

The service that has embraced alternative energy with a greater 

enthusiasm than anybody else is the United States Marine Corps. 

I don’t think when people think of the Marine Corps, the first thing 

they think of is ardent environmentalist. 

So the Marines have seen that it saves lives. 

The Marines have seen that it makes them better war fighters. 

The Marines have seen that it helps them do their job better. 

I think you change the culture just by showing that. 

That Senator John Warner was a previous, incredibly distinguished, Secretary of the Navy. One of, both of our predecessors in 

the 1840s said that he would never turn the fleet into fire belching 

monsters by going away from sail. I think that the military has always shown an ability to change, an ability to adapt, an ability to 

innovate, that ought to be the envy of a lot of other organizations. 
19 

Particularly today in this budget constrained environment we have 

to show that ability. 

I’m very proud, as I am of everything that the Navy and Marine 

Corps do, of how readily and how well they have embraced this. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. I, as you pointed out, 

the Naval Post Graduate School, the National Defense University, 

are all including the importance of energy and energy efficiency in 

their curriculum. Is it time to do that for the Naval Academy as 

well? 

Mr. MABUS. Thank you for reminding me of that. We started 

with the Naval Post Graduate School, which is one of the crown 

jewels in our military education or any education. We’re not only 

offering a graduate degree now in energy, but we’re also doing 2 

week seminars for leadership and things like that. 

I think the Naval Academy is well on board in terms of showing 

the importance in terms of showing how it will affect the people 

going through there, how it will affect their careers, their lives in 

the time that they serve the United States. But it is a whole of 

service approach. It’s not just shipboard or just bases. It’s also our 

educational institutions. It’s everybody. 

I think, again, the military has shown a willingness and an ability to be innovative and to lead. As I finish, I just want to thank 

you, not only for holding this hearing and for what the work that 

you’re doing and what you’ve said, but also for the support that 

you’ve given to our sailors and our Marines over the years. They 

and their families protect us and we deserve—we owe them no less. 

Thanks to the work of the 2 of you. Thanks to the work of Senator John Warner, earlier. I think that we’re going a long way toward meeting the commitment that we need to lead to the people 

who wear the uniform of this country and keep us safe. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank 

you for that compelling message about the confluence of energy and 

national security. It’s a message that we hope we can continue to 

get out, not just to all of our members of the military, but to the 

entire Federal Government, to Congress and to the public as a 

whole. 

So again, thank you for being with you. 

Mr. MABUS. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. We will now switch out Secretary Mabus for 

former Navy Secretary and Senator John Warner. 

Senator Warner, as I will not go into a greater introduction because I think current Senator Warner did a very nice job of that 

that we are just so pleased that you’re here. I will turn it over to 

you for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, SENATOR (R-VA), RET. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman and 

my dear and good friend, Mark Warner, who succeeded me in the 

Senate. Saved a lot of money, didn’t have to change the name on 

the door. There it was. What a coincidence. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Or the ballot either. 

Senator WARNER. But may I commend both of you for the manner in which you’ve conducted this hearing and the questions that 
20 

you propounded to your witnesses because having, for 30 years, 

been in the U.S. Senate and sitting where you’ve been sitting and 

questioning witnesses and holding hearings. Let me tell you, you’ve 

got the art in total control. Don’t make any changes, the way to do 

it. 

So I thank both of you very much for this opportunity. To my 

good friend, the Secretary of the Navy, we have quite a relationship 

between former Secretaries. It didn’t make a difference which party 

you’re from, we all basically agree it’s the best job we ever had, 

ever will have. I feel that way about the Navy. I’ll have a few 

words at the end to speak of the Navy. 

But I’ve had the opportunity for the past few years to work with 

the—when I left the Senate, to go to the Pew Trust. It’s one of a 

number of organizations, private sector organizations, charitable 

sponsored and so forth that are working on the question of energy. 

I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to access their work. 

Many foundations such as the Pew Trust, but the Pew took a 

leadership. They brought me onboard to help them put together a 

program which simply was to take the spotlight and shine it on 

what men and women of the Armed Forces. Be they Army, Navy, 

Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard what they have done to turn 

2, as we say in the military and snap 2, to help America deal with 

its energy problems. 

There’s a clear nexus between our national security and our energy security. Day by day that message is being brought home. 

This hearing is a perfect example. 

I have to tell you, Madame Chairman, I sat here astounded when 

I heard you say that this was that first hearing about a ship of the 

Senate. There I was for 30 years and 5 before that as Secretary of 

the Navy I never had a hearing on a ship. Now, I ought to be reprimanded for that. But I’m glad to exceed to your record for doing 

that. 

The Pew Trust have provided the opportunity for me and members of their staff and others to travel to the bases and installations across our country. To see exactly what the men and women 

in the Armed Forces are doing, want to do. It’s unlimited. 

There’s an old saying in the Navy. Give them the tools and leave 

them alone and they’ll solve the problem. We saw that today as we 

walked through the exhibits of what the fine work that they’re 

doing here. 

So I’ll finish up with a few thank yous to the sailors aboard this 

ship and ships all across the world tonight, tomorrow and the days 

to come, what they’re doing. 

Senator Warner, I want to say something. In one of your questions you hit on an issue which I’ve been dealing with but as yet 

we haven’t brought it into clear focus in the minds of the American 

public. Right now gas is somewhere, what, where we are, $3.85, 

maybe a little below $4 in some areas? 

You shell that out per gallon. But at the same time you don’t realize that you’re shelling out through payment of taxes. Not that 

tax assesses some at the gas pump that go into the Federal system, 

but that’s into the highways mostly. 

But your income taxes, they’re going to support the overall budget of the men and women of the Armed Forces. They, collectively, 
21 

largely the Navy, but collectively, they are keeping, I call it the energy lanes of transportation, primarily the sea lanes, but there are 

land carters, some air carters. They’re keeping them open at their 

expense for the benefit of the economies of the free world. 

If I could be presumptuous enough to encourage you to perhaps 

get the GAO to see if you can’t write up a report. The 2 of you ask 

for it. Have it the clear facts so that we can explain it to the American public. 

I looked at gas prices today in England, Norway. They range in 

between $8 and $11 a gallon. They’re paying a very heavy tax 

there. We’re paying, if you add up what we’re paying to keep the 

sea lane, we’re paying roughly, the equivalent of those Nations per 

gallon. 

So the country ought to have an awakening on that issue. Your 

question, I thought, prompted excellent responses from the Secretary. I think he covered it. 

Now I do want to make a little history today. That is it will be 

the shortest speech I’ve ever given since I was a Senator for 30 

years in this State. Do it for 2 reasons. 

I like to put my testimony in the record and so shape my remarks, as we say in the Senate floor, Senator, with those of the 

Secretary of the Navy. I thought he laid it out very well. I read his 

full statement beforehand. I’d like to associate myself with his excellent remarks and add the few of my own by putting it in the 

record. 

Being brief because coming up behind me are individuals that I 

have been working with for these near, going on 3 years now, with 

the Pew foundations at endless conferences and speeches and forums and so forth across America. You, Madame Chairman, and 

your members of your staff very wisely chose the brightest and best 

minds on this subject, certainly within the Navy to come here 

today. So the less I say, the more time they have to say it. 

Now I want to emphasize also the questions of biofuels. The Secretary received a question from the press over here which is on the 

minds of the Americans today. Look this defense budget is to buy 

more ships, more guns, more planes. Why should you be pressing 

forward to explore this issue of say, the advanced biofuels? 

The Secretary gave a clear answer. Essentially that’s been the 

tradition of the Department of Defense since its very beginning. We 

structure all of our future planning of the Department of Defense 

on today’s technology and such technology as we can develop within the Department to show how best to improve and modernize our 

weapons for the future. 

So this has been the role of the Department since its inception. 

I commend this Secretary and the Service Secretaries of the Army 

and the Air Force. I’ve worked with all of them, for the initiatives 

that they’re taking to incentivize their respective uniform members 

of the Armed Services to explore innovation. Biofuels is a major innovation. 

The Secretary very accurately discussed how we’ve got to eventually get the price of the biofuels down where they’re market competitive. The airlines at which, incidentally testified before the Pew 

Foundation this week, had a hearing, explained that they’re mov-
22 

ing in that direction. They realize that they need to get the volume 

of that fuel at a cost that’s market competitive. 

If we join together with the private sector, military cannot do it 

alone. We have to join in these private agreements. The Secretary 

has structured this with the MOU. I do hope that Congress will 

work its way to supporting that MOU and perhaps others to follow. 

He mentioned the Defense Production Act. That’s what he’s relying on. You also have the Defense Logistic Administration over 

here. Their limit of 5 years on basic contracts, that should be addressed. 

I say these things most respectfully to the 2 of you, the active 

members of the Senate. Again, and I say, I know the institution of 

that Senate and I’m confident that with the leadership the 2 of 

you’ve shown and others of your colleagues. I know very well your 

Chairman of your Committee and your Ranking Member. They are 

Senate leaders. 

You’ve got to help bridge this gap. It’s called the Valley of Death. 

Where you invent something, prove that it works. The military 

proved the viability of drop in fuels, for example. 

If you could just cross that Valley until the private sector picks 

up those production needs and costs. Then it’s competitive. Then 

the military can pursue, I think, to a greater extent, its utilization 

of these alternative fuels. 

Because the Secretary pointed it out. I’ve been to the Straits of 

Hormuz. I urge both of you to try and visit it someday. 

There’s a 2 mile strip in there between Oman and Iran. Now 

Oman is a very stable country compared to the others. But if that 

were shut down, it would be catastrophic, economic to all the Nations of the world, not just the United States. So I hope that you 

can achieve that. 

I also want to point out in section 526. You’re familiar with that. 

That was a part of a law in 2007. 

I was there, voted for it, worked on it. That set certain standards 

for the utilization of fuel to achieve greater efficiency standards. 

Also to let the new innovations be developed in such a way that 

they do not increase the pollution that we’re now experiencing, I 

think, at levels which are becoming more and more significant and 

concern to all of us in terms of our health and otherwise. 

So with those brief remarks I would simply like to close by expressing my profound thanks to the Navy and the Marine Corps. 

Because I had the option, although it’s of little consequence to wear 

both uniforms, the Navy in World War II, the last year and the 

Marine Corps during the war in Vietnam. The foundation in my 

life was laid by those organizations and the training and the education that they gave me. 

To those young sailors out there, who may be listening to what 

I’m saying, I hope a few are. I say to you, you hopefully will never 

regret the opportunity that you’ve had to wear proudly the uniform 

of this country. 

The last piece of legislation that I did as a United States Senator 

was team up with our colleague, Jim Webb, Senator Warner, and 

Frank Lautenberg and Chuck Hagel, the 4 of us, all 4 veterans, to 

write the new GI bill. I received my basic education from the GI 

bill of World War II and then a second one that I got for modest 
23 

service in Korea. That got me an engineering degree and a law degree. 

Now today we broadened it so if the uniform member doesn’t 

wish to use it, his spouse can use it. If that isn’t used, then one 

of the children can use it because they have earned it and I just 

want to express my gratitude to this great Nation for the opportunities it gave me. That was a modest innovation on my part to do 

something for this generation and future generations. 

With that I say in the Senate, I yield the floor so as you can get 

the real experts up there and hear them. 

Now if you ask me questions, I can remain here and you can fire 

them to the whole panel and maybe I’ll chip in or what’s your 

pleasure. 

[The prepared statement of Senator John Warner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, SENATOR (R-VA), RET. 

I am honored to be here in my home state at a base I know so well from the days 

I had the honor to serve the considerable number of military installations and private sector industrial infrastructure throughout Virginia, first as Secretary of the 

Navy and then, for 30 years a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

Senator Shaheen, you were a well-informed host as we toured Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard together last summer studying their energy plans, and I am pleased that 

you wisely selected a naval vessel as the site of this important Senate hearing. The 

Navy is making critical advancements in the area of energy innovation. We are very 

honored to have Secretary of Navy Mabus, a very committed leader, testify today. 

When I completed my 5th Senate term, I was desirous of continuing my service 

with the men and women of the Armed Forces. As such, I have been proud to work 

with the Pew Charitable Trusts. Together as we launched the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, a project to highlight the critical link between 

national security and energy security. 

Whether in my role as Secretary of the Navy or on the Armed Services Committee, I have seen first-hand the ingenuity and commitment of our uniformed men 

and women, and their civilian counterparts working with them, to meet America’s 

toughest challenges. The armed services’ approach to energy innovation is clearly 

at the forefront of initiatives across America. 

The American public needs to learn more about the great advancements being 

made in energy by the Department of Defense. Pew is proud to highlight their work 

to the American public. 

One of the Pew Project’s initial endeavors we worked on together was to assemble 

the four branches of the military, active and retired, with expertise in energy for 

an event we hosted in September 2009. This event spurred the first Pew report on 

DoD, Reenergizing America’s Defense, published in April 2010. More recently, as a 

follow up, in September 2011 Pew issued a second report, From Barracks to the Battlefield, Clean Energy Innovation and America’s Armed Forces. These reports were 

widely disseminated. 

In preparation for our second report, the Pew Project team and I visited several 

military installations that are very active in adopting clean energy technologies, improving energy efficiency, saving taxpayer dollars and lessening risks to our troops. 

All in all, we have logged more than 30,000 miles, visiting more than 20 states 

As the Chairwoman knows, at the historic Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, uniformed 

and civilian personnel are working to increase the base’s energy security by building 

LEED certified buildings, using cogeneration technology, and using solar power as 

backup for communications systems. At Fort Bragg, we toured the actual implementation of the initiatives that are part of an Army-wide ‘‘Net Zero’’ goal to reduce energy consumption, increase energy efficiency, and increase the use of renewable and 

alternative energy sources. Various initiatives across the four branches of the military are resulting in financial savings and serve as a model for other military 

bases—and in some instances, adjacent civilian communities. 

I also had the greatest pleasure in visiting Quantico, where I had served many 

years ago. I saw first-hand some of the technologies they have innovated in order 

to make the Marines more energy efficient in forward deployed missions. 

Our nation is heavily dependent on imported foreign oil. The consequences of that 

dependence are experienced not only here at home, but by the brave men and 
24 

1 $1.1B / $15.361 B. $15.361 B taken from DLA Energy FY10 Fact Book, page 24. Internet 

WWW at URL: http://www.desc.dla.mil/dcm/files/Fact%20Book%20FY10%20Final%20Web.pdf. 

Accessed 7 October 2011. 

women in uniform serving on their bases and stations and particularly those serving 

on foreign deployments. 

Under the strong leadership of former secretary of defense Robert Gates, and now 

Secretary Leon Panetta and the three Service Secretaries, the Department of Defense is exercising effective internal policies and practices, especially setting aggressive energy-efficiency goals to lessen our dependence and to enhance our nation’s 

energy security. 

The bottom line is that the four branches of the military need our nation’s full 

support to continue to innovate. American’s military preparation, for the present 

and the future, is predicated on innovation. 

Since we are here to talk specifically about the Navy though, I would like to note 

that the Navy is on the leading edge across all initiatives, especially when it comes 

to the development and use of biofuels. Navy scientists and engineers have developed great expertise in assessing both the advantages—and even the limitations— 

of biofuels. Their research and development has proven the concepts of ‘‘drop in 

fuels’’ in aircraft and ships. 

There are two policy issues that I would like to address that pertain to biofuels. 

The first is the policy referred to as ‘‘Section 526’’ a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Under Section 526, the Department of Defense 

and other federal agencies are not permitted to purchase fuels that are less efficient 

than conventional petroleum fuels. 

DoD is the largest U.S. consumer of energy, and Section 526 has been an important catalyst in its efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and find alternatives 

such as advanced biofuels to increase energy independence and security. 

Last year, there were numerous attempts in both the appropriations and authorization process to repeal Section 526. DoD rightfully opposed revisions to 526. Let 

the current law remain intact; it’s working as Congress intended. 

Another issue of critical importance to the continued advancement of biofuels is 

allowing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Navy, the Department of 

Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to go forward. Under this MOU, 

DoE and USDA can co-invest with industry in the construction or retrofit of multiple commercial facilities in order to promote the private sector production of biobased jet fuel at a viable commercial level. Such a partnership on biofuels between 

these agencies allows the strengths of each to be realized in a more efficient and 

effective manner and sends a strong market signal to future private investors that 

biofuels will play a pivotal role in our nation’s energy security through the 21st Century. 

The importance of advanced biofuels to the Navy cannot be underestimated. Some 

facts that I would like to share: 

• Since October 2009, oil prices have risen on average from $76 to $89 per barrel, 

but over that time have fluctuated between $74 and $110 per barrel, in part 

due to political unrest in unstable regions. As I have been told by the Department of Defense, this variability creates $1.1 B budgeting uncertainty for the 

Navy, representing 7% of net FY10 DLA Energy fuel sales.1

• Based on Department of Energy projections, this volatility will be an ongoing 

problem. In any budget climate, this level of uncertainty creates instability with 

the operating and training budgets. 

• In addition to lessening volatility concerns, alternative fuels can provide a longterm cost advantage. A recent analysis shows that the DoD and commercial airline industry combined could potentially avoid approximately $39 billion to $165 

billion in total fuel costs by 2030 if commercial scale alternate fuel production 

becomes available at market prices competitive with other fuels. 

Madame Chairman, I applaud the Naval personnel in Tidewater for making advances in energy innovation and for appearing here today to share their findings, 

their priorities and their policy needs in order to continue down the path they are 

on. I yield now to your questions and look forward to hearing the perspectives of 

the next panel of witnesses. 

Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I actually would like to ask you one question. 

Senator WARNER. Fire at will, Gridley. 
25 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Warner will ask one question. We will 

certainly include your full testimony for the record. 

Senator WARNER. Good. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Then we will release you and get the third 

panel up. 

Senator WARNER. That’s fine. But I’m going to sit here and listen 

to them just like you will. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Great. 

I wonder if you would just expand a little bit on your comments 

about section 526 because as you point out, it is that section of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which says that the 

alternative fuels that we purchase should be at least as clean as 

conventional fuels derived from petroleum. 

Senator WARNER. Right. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I think it’s that, at least as clean, that is 

maybe getting some questions and some criticism right now. 

So I wonder if you could talk about why you think that piece is 

important that it should be at least as clean? 

Senator WARNER. First and foremost it was passed in 2007 and 

industry, the private sector, primarily have relied on that as being 

the law of the land. Made investments and moved ahead in accordance with the goals of that law. 

If you pull the plug on it now, they’ll have lost what they’ve in 

some instances have invested. Now I know the pressures from 

where it’s coming to change that. I respect that. 

Senator Warner and I are proud to represent a State which is 

referred to one of the major States in the country for production 

of coal. There is a process by which you can take coal and possibly 

render it in a manner in which it can be incorporated. But I think 

if you look at the cost of it and perhaps an affluent that may come 

as a consequence of the process and utilization, it would bump up 

against those regulations. 

But we have an obligation, the Congress, when we pass a law, 

when the private sector invests and relies upon it, leave it alone. 

Give it a chance to prove itself. So I urge you most strongly to 

leave it as is. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Senator. I totally agree 

with you. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER, Madame Chairman, let me first of all, again, 

thank you one more time because, you know, by holding this hearing on this ship, first such hearing held since 19? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sixty. 

Senator WARNER. Yes, 1960. The new Senator Warner has now 

done something that the 30-year veteran Senator Warner never 

did. So I’m glad I’ve got that to lord over you finally. 

Senator WARNER. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. That’s good. You 

earned it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I guess you owe me. 

Senator WARNER You’re a man of courage and you take on the 

tough jobs in that Congress and do the very best you can to achieve 

working relationships. 

Senator WARNER. I won’t even remind all of our listeners here 

that you were actually an electrician’s mate as you first started. 
26 

Senator WARNER. That’s right, third class. 

Senator WARNER. Third class. 

Senator WARNER. The most important promotion I’ve ever received in my life was that one red stripe. I still have it and it’s 

right in my library, that little red stripe. May it ever be. 

Senator WARNER. I also thought it was extraordinarily important 

you pointed out that just as it is incumbent upon our military to 

continue to develop next generation weapons that it’s been the legacy of our military forces to always be about innovation. The activities that Secretary Mabus has been advocating. You’ve been advocating. You know, is that next step in innovation. 

One thing, just as an aside, as someone who spent a career helping companies grow, this question of so called, Valley of Death. 

How we move from that innovative idea to the point where it becomes fully commercial. There’s legislation that actually Senator 

Shaheen and I are working on now that’s got broad bipartisan support in terms of capital formation helping these startup companies 

which over the last 20 years have been at where about 80 percent 

of the job growth has come in this country. Hopefully since neither 

one of us got the memo that we’re supposed to take Presidential 

election years off in the Congress. So we actually hope to move that 

legislation shortly. 

One of the things I’d hope you’d just spend a moment more on 

is that this really is about national security, energy efficiency, making our Navy be more innovative about its use and conservation of 

energy. You know, how can we do a better job of driving that point 

home that you don’t even have to get to the whole environmental 

issues? You just need to do this purely in terms of making our Nation safer. 

How can we do a better job of convincing our colleagues that this 

is an area where we should be able to come together? 

Senator WARNER. Senator, that’s the key question. The answers 

I wish were clearer. But my answer would be if we accept the assumption that’s there a linkage. 

The Secretary made the case. I think I’ve made my case between 

national security and energy than why shouldn’t our budget put 

that emphasis that energy requires to move ahead with innovation 

and sets legislation as needed. I remember 19—wait a minute, 

2008, Joe Lieberman, Senator Lieberman and I put in that one 

combined energy climate bill. It’s the only bill that has gotten 

through the Senate structure of committee, adopted by the committee, got to the floor and was debated for 4 or 5 days. 

The leadership, in a respectful way, came and said, look, you’re 

going to have to have 60 votes. Can you show them? We could not 

show at that time the 60 votes. 

So I’m hopeful someday Congress will pass a, one of those words, 

comprehensive bill on a whole range of energy directives because 

our country is waiting desperately for it. The other world, if you 

look at the say, 20 strongest economic Nations in the world, you 

will find that two-thirds of them have in place a legislative or governmental process to foster energy. Notably, China and India and 

I can go on and explain the other countries. 

If America doesn’t have it our industrial base has to sort of sit 

on the sidelines and not make those investments that are nec-
27 

essary because there is not a legislative direction that Congress 

will do this, but won’t do that. Will do this, but won’t do that. At 

least they know what the ball field looks like if they had a comprehensive plan. 

So I say it respectfully to where I was privileged to work those 

many years. You can do it. You will do it eventually. I hope soon. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. Very well said. We appreciate your being here. 

Senator WARNER. I think I made a record of a short speech. 

That’s true. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. We will now call on our third panel. While 

they’re coming up to their seats I will just introduce them. 

We have on the third panel, Tom Hicks, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy. 

We have Vice Admiral Phillip Cullom, who is the Deputy Chief 

of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics. 

We have Colonel Bob Charette, who is the Director of the U.S. 

Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. 

Major General Kessler, the Commander of the Marine Corps Installations Command. 

Rear Admiral Townsend Alexander, who is the Commander of 

the Navy, Mid-Atlantic Region. 

So again, thank you very much to all of you for joining us this 

afternoon. I know we are going to have a few minutes of brief testimony from each of you before we open it up for questions. So I will 

actually begin I think with Colonel Charette. We’ll move down the 

panel in order. 

They’re telling me that protocol says Mr. Hicks should go first. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS HICKS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

NAVY 

Mr. HICKS. OK. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You know, I’m not big on protocol. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. I have to say which is so, but I’m learning. So 

forgive me. 

Mr. HICKS. No worries. Thank you. 

Having lived in your fine State for 3 years and been a resident 

of the Commonwealth of Virginia the last 20, I just wanted to say 

I have a special infinity for the leadership that both of you provided. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. HICKS. Continue to support the DOD, the Navy and indeed, 

our energy efforts that we are very pleased to be able to talk to you 

about today. 

Also I’d like to recognize your leadership on the Alliance to Save 

Energy, Chair. Senator Warner, I realize that you’re the incoming 

Chair of that. I don’t know if we have a continuity of operations 

issue, but I think we’ve got it underway. 
28 

Also, thank you, Senator Warner, for your provisions that you 

put into the 2012 NDAA. I think that’s certainly things that are 

very well timed and very supportive of where we’re going. 

I’m pleased to appear before you today and to provide an overview of the Department of Navy’s investment in the operational 

and shore energy. The Department of the Navy’s FY 2013 budget 

request includes $1 billion and $4 billion across the Future Years 

Defense plan for these energy initiatives. We’re on track and intend 

to meet the energy goals set forth by Congress and the Secretary 

of the Navy. 

We understand that energy is an essential resource for our Navy 

and Marine Corps requirements. Our use of new energy technologies and resources will allow us to reduce our dependency on 

fossil fuels that negatively impact our economy, harm the environment and reduce our vulnerability to price volatility. In efforts to 

meet Congress’s renewable energy goals and the Department of 

Navy’s goal of producing 50 percent of our shore energy from alternative sources, we are developing a strategy to identify and execute 

large scale renewable projects. We will use existing third party financing mechanisms to avoid any cost to taxpayers over the life of 

those contracts. 

Our base or our installations support over 300 megawatts of renewable energy. We have awarded contracts recently for 3 solar 

projects in the southwest, power purchase agreements. These 

power purchase agreements in China Lake, 29 Palms and Barstow 

will save the government $20 million over the course of those contracts. From Day 1 when we produce—when we received power 

from each of those power purchase agreements it will be cheaper 

than conventional power. Over the life of those contracts it will be 

cheaper than the rate of escalation for conventional power. 

Operationally we are in the final stages of testing all of our ships 

and aircraft on ready drop in fuels, 50/50 blends and in fact, we 

have tested all of our manned and unmanned aircraft. Our Marine 

Corps tested equipment that could be deployed in theater at their 

experimental fort operating base at 29 Palms. These technologies 

and many that you have seen here on display today have cut their 

fuel use requirements by 25 to as much 90 percent at outposts by 

relying on alternative energy sources like solar power, generators 

and hybrid power. 

As we implement these initiatives, we are working with NPS and 

the National Defense University, as you noted Senator Shaheen, on 

a study to reduce energy consumption across the Navy and the Marine Corps installations by changing behavioral attitudes toward 

energy consumption. The goal of all of these efforts is to get every 

sailor, every Marine, every civilian, every dependent to really value 

energy and energy efficiency and to be more efficient and more effective in using the energy. 

In closing your support of the Department’s FY 2013 budget will 

ensure we have the best resources to provide our Navy and Marine 

Corps to meet the challenges of the future. In closing I’d just say, 

thank you for the opportunity to talk before here today. I look forward to answering the questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 
29 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. My staff has now got 

me in protocol order. So hopefully I will do this right. 

Vice Admiral Cullom. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL PHILIP CULLOM, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Vice Admiral CULLOM. Chairman Shaheen, Senator Warner, and 

members of the Committee staff, it’s an honor to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Navy’s energy program. A program aimed at enhancing our energy security and sustaining our naval readiness for the long haul. Both ashore and 

afloat our plan is to have more secure sources of energy to do our 

mission and to be more Spartan or frugal in what we use. 

Make no mistake. It’s from the combination of both alternatives 

and efficiency that our use of energy can be turned from a vulnerability that the likes of al Qaeda attempt to exploit into a combat 

capability multiplier. Having been at the tip of the spear as both 

an engineer and a war fighter for over 30 years I understand all 

too well that energy is a critical enabler of war fighting capability. 

During the Kosovo conflict in 1998 as Commanding Officer of the 

USS Destroyer Mitscher, I conducted combat operations in the 

Adriatic Sea. Mitscher was the only asset in the area with Tomahawk strike capability needed for the mission at hand. At the outset, we had to refuel every 4 to 5 days which took me off station 

for 8 to 12 hours for every refuel. 

During that time the required capability was simply not available to the combatant commander and the President. Working with 

my crew to operate as efficiently as possible, we were eventually 

able to stretch this period to city by a couple of days. But we lacked 

technology investments that could have markedly increased our 

time in the launch box, the true measure of our combat effectiveness. 

Maximizing the combat capability of our platforms through energy efficiency and energy innovation is what Navy’s energy program is about. Our fiscal year 2013 budget reflects this focus with 

95 percent of operational energy investment devoted to efficiency. 

Importantly in this fiscally constrained environment energy efficient technologies and practices also reduce operating costs over 

the life cycle of our ships and aircraft. 

Some initiatives pay back within 5 years or even in the first 

year. Others will take longer to pay back. But we are committed 

to making smart investments now that reduce total ownership 

costs in the decades ahead. 

The President’s budget 2013 supports implementation and refit 

of several technologies on existing surface combatants, amphibious 

ships and logistic ships just as we see here. As we pursue solutions 

for existing systems we are also injecting efficiency into acquisition 

of new systems for new ships and aircraft. As well as funding R 

and D to support midterm gains for ships and aircraft. 

I’d like to thank the Commanding Officer and crew of the Kearsarge for showing a dedication to energy conservation during their 

recent deployment and support of operations Enduring Freedom 

and Odyssey Dawn. Being the first large deck amphibious ship to 
30 

be retrofitted with a stern flap and one of the first to receive the 

modification for improved boiler burn combustion, Kearsarge 

served as an early adopter of new technologies, technologies that 

combined to save nearly 8,000 barrels of fuel per year, the fourth 

fuel. That amounts to real increases in endurance, range as well 

as a sizable reduction in life cycle costs. 

The details Secretary Mabus and Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Hicks provided regarding the progress of alternative fuels reflects 

our clear belief that it is a primary responsibility of the service to 

execute a risk mitigation strategy against the real and growing 

danger posed by over reliance on a single source of liquid fuels at 

sea or a traditionally sourced grid ashore. Both jeopardize our ability to complete critical missions during peacetime as well as during 

contingency operations. We must have an off ramp from petroleum 

and a more secure grid. Alternative ensure mission resilience, mitigate cost risk and today in remote expeditionary environments 

saves the lives of sailors and Marines. 

In closing I’ll say that the most important part of our program 

won’t necessarily show up in a budget. Much like my Kosovo sea 

story changing the way we think about and consume energy, our 

energy ethos, is still profoundly important. We are and must continue aggressively developing a generation of warriors who take a 

Spartan approach to energy consumption. 

We are driving this change through formal education, in the 

training pipeline and on the deck plate. Naval post graduate school 

has its first Master’s candidates half way through their first year. 

A fleet wide message was sent to all ships early this year announcing that energy would be a part of their annual battle efficiency 

award. 

Our fleet and Force Master Chiefs under the Master Chief Petty 

Officer of the Navy have formed a Senior Enlisted Executive Steering Committee to advise taskforce energy. Our special operators, 

the Navy Seals, are deploying forces, who are working toward a 

goal of Net zero water and Net zero energy. With contributions 

from every sailor, at every level we will achieve our energy vision 

so that we remain partisil potents, ready and able. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look 

forward to your questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Vice Admiral Cullom. 

I should point out that we are on a tight time table. If we were 

on Senate time we’d be fine, but since we’re on military time, we 

don’t have a lot of leeway. So we have only about 20 minutes left. 

I will ask Rear Admiral Townsend—or Rear Admiral Alexander if 

you could go next. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL TOWNSEND ALEXANDER, 

COMMANDER, NAVY REGION MID–ATLANTIC, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY 

Rear Admiral ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madame Chair Shaheen, 

Senator Warner, members of the Committee staff. It’s my pleasure 

to speak to you regarding the Navy’s installations energy program. 

I serve as Commander of the Navy’s Mid-Atlantic region with responsibility for shore installation management within a 13 State 
31 

area that stretches from North Carolina to the Canadian border. 

My responsibility as Regional Commander is to operate the Navy’s 

shore installations and ensure that our fleet, our sailors and our 

families have the quality, support and services ashore that they deserve. Every day the Navy consumes approximately 20,000 megawatt hours of electricity. 

Beyond the strategic significance the energy demands of the 

Navy create constraints both at the operational and at the ashore 

levels. Vulnerabilities associated with the commercial grid present 

a growing risk to shore support for operational forces particularly 

during the same emergencies that would call upon our full range 

of capabilities. The Navy is dedicated to ensuring that mission critical assets ashore remain resilient to outages. Energy efficiency, 

viable alternative energy sources and smart grid technology for use 

on base are key to securing critical infrastructure. 

The Navy has long been an adopter of new energy practices and 

technologies. We continue that transformation today. Since the establishment of the Shore Energy Office in the early 1980s to administer efficiency and conservation efforts in response to Federal 

and Department of Defense mandates energy intensity ashore, that 

is the amount of energy consumed per square foot, has been reduced significantly. 

The Navy is the largest producer of alternative energy in the 

Federal Government where geothermal production commenced at 

Naval Air Weapon Station China Lake in 1987. This plant with a 

full capacity of 270 megawatts provides reliable, renewable power 

to 300,000 households in California. Other investments include 

wind turbines and solar arrays at Navy bases across the country. 

The Navy is also investing in leading edge technologies such as 

ocean thermal energy conversion and waste to energy. Energy efficiency combined with the right alternative energy technologies will 

enable some of our installations to eliminate reliance on grid power 

that is become net zero energy consumers. Such investments along 

with the advanced grid in energy shore technologies will further 

enhance our energy security. 

In pursuing distributed renewable generation opportunities, the 

Navy faces many of the same challenges that all organizations face 

to include transmission capacity limits, local economic impacts, environmental compatibility and power storage technology. An investment in advanced monitoring ashore will enable greater energy efficiency and wider adoption of alternative energy. Efforts in these 

areas must ultimately be measured against a strategic imperative 

of improving critical infrastructure protection. 

The loss of critical asset to shore, even temporarily, would seriously hinder Navy operations. We are vulnerable to the commercial 

electric grid which may experience outages from natural disasters, 

accidents and physical and cyber attack. Navy installations are 

working to ensure maximum resiliency with comprehensive contingency planning. We are working to protect our infrastructure from 

attack and we are exploring viable alternative energy solutions for 

back up and base power generation systems to protect our critical 

infrastructure. 

Finally the success of our ashore energy policy requires the dedication of all members of the Navy to contribute to a culture that 
32 

understands and values energy as a strategic resource. Thank you. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

General Kessler. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL JAMES KESSLER, COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS COMMAND, U.S. 

MARINE CORPS 

Major General KESSLER. Madam Chair, Senator Warner, it’s my 

pleasure to be able to speak to you today regarding the Marine 

Corps Installations Energy program. The Marine Corps has taken 

significant action to reduce energy and water consumption and expand the use of renewable energy on our installations. Although we 

have made solid progress we have more to accomplish to fully comply with legislative mandates to drive down energy costs, to increase energy security and to best support Marine Corps readiness. 

The Commandant has declared energy a top priority for the Marine Corps. This is reflected in our bases to battlefield energy strategy which provides the Commandant’s vision for both expeditionary 

and installation energy management. As it applies to installations, 

the Commandant’s intent is to ensure a secure, reliable and affordable energy supply, reduce life cycle operating costs of Marine 

Corps installations and support our Nation’s efforts to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, environmental impacts and dependence 

on foreign oil. 

For energy intensity or consumption per square foot, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires all Federal agencies to reduce 3 percent per year. For the Marine Corps that’s the 

equivalent to turning off Marine Corps air station Miramar California every year. To make it even more challenging, the mandate 

doesn’t account for the Marine Corps extremely lean, efficient starting point or baseline. 

For new construction the Marine Corps has adopted the U.S. 

Green Building Council’s LEED ratings system. By following 

LEED’s integrated process for sustainable design we have recently 

brought online the most energy efficient buildings the Marine 

Corps has ever had. 

For existing facilities we are making an unprecedented level of 

investment including our PB’13 budget request of $161 million to 

improve energy efficiency on Marine Corps installations. This funding will specifically be targeted to installed more efficient heating, 

cooling and ventilation systems, improve the thermal envelopes of 

our buildings with better insulation, windows and reflective roofing 

and implement energy management systems to automatically adjust temperatures, shed loads and adjust lighting. Our focused approach to energy efficiency will bring the Marine Corps into compliance, reduce utility costs and improve energy security. 

Turning our attention to renewable energy. When the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 became law the Marine Corps really didn’t have 

any renewable energy on our installations. Since then we have 

made a concerted effort to apply both appropriated and third party 

funding to develop renewable energy sources. We now have a growing portfolio of solar electric, solar thermal, landfill gas and wind 

energy. In all of our renewable energy projects we consistently 
33 

sought the most cost effective technologies available in the market 

at the time. As a result of these efforts the Marine Corps will comply with the EPACT 2005 requirements for renewable energy by 

the end of this year. 

While we have enjoyed limited success, meeting the more aggressive renewable energy goals established in NDAA 2007 will require 

a much more comprehensive approach. We will need to execute 

larger scale projects requiring a level of investment that will readily exceed our budgetary limits. Accordingly we plan to partner 

with the private sector for third party financing for cost effective 

renewable energy. 

We have a number of diverse planning efforts underway including landfill gas as well as waste to energy, geothermal and biomass 

projects. With all of these large scale renewable projects, we will 

carefully evaluate the impact on readiness, cost effectiveness, energy security and legislative compliance to make smart decisions 

for the Marine Corps. Since we cannot manage what we do not 

measure, energy meter projects have been a high priority for the 

past several years. 

The Marine Corps is on track to complete metering for electricity 

by October 2012. Knowing when and where energy is consumed is 

critical for effective energy management. This metered data will be 

provided to all installation and unit leaders to establish clear accountability for energy use. 

Reducing petroleum consumption is another critical component of 

the Marine Corps energy strategy. Each year we continue to increase the number of alternative fueled vehicles in our fleet, reducing our use of traditional petroleum products. We have a diverse 

vehicle fleet including a significant number of E85 electric hybrid 

and compressed natural gas vehicles as well as a couple of 

demonstrationsites for hydrogen fueled vehicles. 

Energy and water use directly affects readiness and the quality 

of life on Marine Corps installations. The Marine Corps has an all 

inclusive approach to energy. We are making energy a priority for 

everyone and cultivating an energy ethos for all hands. 

I thank you for your shared interest in this very important matter. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Colonel Charette. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT CHARETTE, DIRECTOR, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS EXPEDITIONARY ENERGY OFFICE, U.S. 

MARINE CORPS 

Colonel CHARETTE. Yes, Madame Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator Warner. Thank you for having us in the Committee. 

It sounds like everything has been said from all our talking 

points. So I’m going to yield back. I will just say that I would recommend, take a look at our expeditionary energy strategy, bases to 

battlefield. It says exactly where we intend to go. Why we’re going 

there. 

I will yield back and I’d like to hear your questions to get to 

what’s on your mind. 

Thank you. 
34 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. Thank you especially, 

for the briefing earlier today. It was very impressive to see what 

the Marines are doing out in the field on operations. 

Mr. Hicks, I’m going to begin with you. The Federal Tax Code 

provides really important incentives to try and encourage the development of clean energy. They’ve been referenced already. 

Senator Warner talked about it. 

Secretary Mabus talked about it. 

Those credits are about to expire. While I realize that the military and the Federal Government can’t take direct advantage of 

those renewable energy tax credits. The fact is they do go a long 

way toward incentivizing private sector businesses to do the kind 

of work that the Navy and other branches in the military benefit 

from. 

So can you talk about what concerns you might have if these tax 

credits expire and the businesses that they encourage are affected 

by that? 

Mr. HICKS. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Those credits, I think, go right toward our ultimate competitiveness. I think the 3 power purchase agreements that I referenced 

before where we’re receiving benefits and $20 million over the 

course of those 20-year contracts, would have all been upside down 

and would not have been returning that value to the government 

were those production tax credits not exist. 

So I think their value cannot be underestimated. As you look at 

certain technologies whether it’s solar or wind, where there’s more 

and more emphasis on buy America. To couple that with production tax credits, I think, is something that can really help and grow 

and sustain an industry here. Hopefully avoid some of the things 

we’ve seen in the past where industries have moved offshore, 

moved to Europe, moved to Germany, where we can actually build 

these industries here in the United States. 

So I think it goes right to our ultimate competitiveness and ultimate bottom line. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator WARNER. Admiral Cullom, you’ve got obviously one of 

the most important jobs in the Navy, the question of readiness. I 

just want to ask you straight out. Can we achieve our readiness 

goals while implementing an energy efficiency strategy? 

Vice Admiral CULLOM. Senator, absolutely. In fact, I think we 

need it to be able to keep ourselves ready. We’re oftentimes tempted, I think, to look to the very short term, quarterly profit and loss 

or an annual statement. But I think in the—for us in the military, 

we are charged with looking for the long haul, the long term. 

To be able to be ready for the long term, in the long haul, we 

have to look to an energy program that prepares us for that day. 

The volatility will eat us alive. Eventually we will have no readiness. We will not be able to get our ships underway if we are continually buffeted and subject to the volatility that we clearly, I 

think, anticipate. 

Senator WARNER. I think that’s a really significant answer since 

the question of readiness clearly one of the most strategically important issues you have to deal with. We have to try to assess and 

obviously I concur with your answer. But appreciate it. 
35 

Senator SHAHEEN. Colonel Charette, can you talk a little bit 

about the procurement process? One of the things that I was really 

interested in when you were showing me the various new energy 

sources that are being used out in the field was who’s making 

those. One of the questions we get a lot from businesses in our 

States is an opportunity to bid on government procurement, to go 

through the procurement process to bid on contracts. 

So can you talk about how that’s working as you’re looking at 

these energy efficiency efforts? How you look at small and medium 

sized businesses and how they participate in this contracting process? 

Colonel CHARETTE. Ma’am, I’m not an acquisitions professional. 

I mean, so the intricacies sometimes I don’t have that. So I’d be 

remiss. I do know that we have some small set asides for small 

business. 

As far as what we do, everything has to be fully advertised on 

Federal Biz Ops. When we do talk to smaller companies we get 

quite a bit and larger companies. Monitoring Fed Biz Ops and engage with our offices. 

We’re easy to get a hold off. We’re on the Internet. Our Marine 

Corps systems command has a very proactive small business organization where they promote small businesses. It’s just really, some 

of it is just getting in contact with somebody. 

A lot of times that’s what our office facilitates is putting those 

companies in touch with the right people inside the Marine Corps, 

the Office of Naval Resource or another service that we may not 

be working on a project, but maybe the other services are. So we’re 

happy to talk to whoever you have or to somebody that needs to 

get in touch with, we’ll facilitate that, Ma’am. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Would anybody else like to add anything? 

Vice Admiral CULLOM. I’ll just add a few thoughts. 

One, as it relates to small businesses. One of the things we heard 

quite clearly a few years ago from small businesses was being able 

to find those opportunities that Colonel Charette mentioned in Fed 

Biz Ops. It’s a very voluminous exercise for folks and very cost intensive for small businesses. 

So what the Navy did, initiated more than a year ago, was a program called Green Biz Ops. We went through and filtered out the 

opportunities, the energy and green opportunities and sustainable 

opportunities and made those available on our website. We since, 

through an MOU with the Small Business Administration, have 

worked with them. 

They have actually stood up their green portal to apply that 

same idea in a much more elegant and better way throughout the 

whole of government with the Navy being the first user of that, if 

you will. So that’s one of the great areas. 

We also have contracts like our $50 million contract out in Hawaii. 100 percent set aside for small businesses and annually I 

think $370 million through our Navy SBIR program focused on 

small, clean tech companies. 

Senator SHAHEEN. OK. Thank you. 
36 

Senator WARNER. Let me ask. I think this will be for you, Mr. 

Hicks, but maybe somebody else wants to jump in. It really builds 

upon Senator Shaheen’s question. 

You know, one of the things we got into the recent DOD reauthorization bill was a requirement that DOD work with DOE to 

make sure that there’s kind of, in effect a list of the most current 

energy saving products so that MIL–CON can look at that list in 

an active way. Sense the private sector is constantly moving forward in this area. How do we make sure that list is going to be 

constantly updated as we look at MIL–CON projects that they are 

taking advantage of what’s out there in the marketplace? 

Mr. HICKS. I think one of the great areas would be to continue 

to work with DOE and in fact, U.S. EPA on their Energy Star designation. That’s something that we apply and put in all of our contracts that, you know, we’re applicable. Where we can get those 

technologies with that designation we go out and search for those. 

I think there’s other things that we can do. Perhaps Admiral 

Cullom could shed some light on how we can look at more efficient, 

not just within MIL–CONs, but also outside in our broader acquisitions of ships and aircraft. 

Vice Admiral CULLOM. Senator, what I would add to that is that 

we have worked very hard with ARPA–E. Because they have some 

just amazing projects underway that are taking things from nascent ideas to take it up to that point of prototyping. But oftentimes 

they find themselves not able to necessarily have an industry partner at the other end that can be able to take it. 

Yet we can oftentimes find that there’s a military capability for 

one or more of the projects that they have. So we kind of serve to 

help bring them across that Valley of Death. So that’s a perfect 

way that we can latch up with Department of Energy’s ARPA–E 

projects. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you. 

Didn’t I also hear General Kessler that you’ve said that you actually were using LEED certification on certain—— 

Major General KESSLER. We are, yes, Senator. I would address 

that probably in 2 different ways. 

One, of course, is with MIL–CON as we pursue the efficiencies 

that come with LEED certification but also as we look to improve 

the energy envelope of existing facilities where we work on HVAC 

systems or replacing windows and the ability to respond to those 

innovations that are out in the market today. 

Senator WARNER, I just would hope that we would have, I mean, 

you may have some ideas you could share with us on how we make 

sure that that list. This is such a fluid area where things are 

changing so quickly that you guys have got the most current stuff, 

most current processes and procedures on that list. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I want to follow up a little bit on that, the 

LEED certification and the actual efficiencies within buildings. I 

think, General Kessler, you talked about this. Rear Admiral Alexander, I know you’ve also been involved in this. 

Am I correct that we’re not doing anything around military housing at this point in terms of energy efficiencies? Can you talk about 

what the priority is as you think about how you determine what 

we should be looking at for those building efficiencies? 
37 

Major General KESSLER. I’ll start first, I guess. The vast majority 

of our housing today is through our public/private venture or PPV. 

So in all of those that is up to our partner as they construct those 

houses. 

However, one of the initiatives we have pursued and we’re pursuing this alongside with the Navy is what’s called a resit program 

where we actually meter each of those houses. In that process what 

we do is we go through a very long strategic communications plan 

with the family members that live in the housing and then a mock 

billing period. So much like we all experience out in town where 

you’re responsible for your energy consumption, we are now instituting a program where our families living aboard bases in PPV 

housing are also responsible for their energy consumption. 

We establish a band about the mean where if they’re within that 

band, they either don’t get a rebate nor do they receive a bill. However, if they’re above that mean, above 10 percent above the mean, 

they get a bill for that difference. But if they’re conservative in 

their use of energy and they’re 10 percent below the mean, they get 

a rebate. 

What this does is it helps to build, once again, that energy ethos 

and helps all of our Marines and sailors and their families realize 

that the consumption of energy is of strategic interest to us all. So 

we are, in fact, doing some things within our housing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. How has that been received by your families? 

Major General KESSLER. We’ve done 2 pilot sites so far. We did 

a pilot site with the Navy in Hawaii. The Marine Corps also did 

a separate pilot site in Beaufort. There was some initial questions, 

perhaps some consternation initially. 

But what we have found is that for those families that participated in those 2 pilots, very well received. Which is why that strategic communication piece up front is so important. Once they understand the process, to date, have all come on board completely. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Did you want to add to that? 

Rear Admiral ALEXANDER. Ma’am, I would only second what 

General Kessler said. But also from the Navy perspective, as he 

said, the vast majority of our homes are done through a public/private venture. It’s certainly in our partnership’s best interest in the 

new construction to incorporate to the maximum extent possible, 

energy efficiencies in the design and the construction. 

We’ve seen that. I saw that personally in new homes that were 

built in Hawaii where solar hot water systems were incorporated 

into the design of each home. So where environmentally it makes 

sense to do that, our partners are certainly doing that. 

You know the rent that our residents pay in those partnerships 

also pays their utility bills. Then the partnership pays the provider. 

So it’s certainly in the partnership’s interest from a financial standpoint to reduce the cost of utilities as much as possible. 

We’re very engaged. I am a little familiar with the pilot program 

in Hawaii. I would echo the comments that I think initially there 

was, perhaps, a little skepticism. But we went to great efforts to 

not only educate our families up front and to be honest with them 

about what we were doing and why we were doing it. 
38 

I think once our families became educated and aware of the challenges that the partnership was facing, by and large they’re fully 

on board and support the program. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That’s great. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Admiral Alexander and I actually worked on 

some of these housing issues and appreciate the progress we’re 

making on that hearing in the Norfolk area. 

I guess I would simply just add, I know our time is running 

about up. But that the more we can really measure as I think one 

of the folks testified. We need these metrics. We need to demonstrate this kind of return on investments. 

I mean, you bring an enormous amount of credibility. As we see 

these actions that you all take whether it’s on the corsage of in 

terms of the military families across the board all of the various 

ways we’re trying to become more energy efficient to utilize some 

of these new alternative fuels. Utilize some of these new alternative energy sources. 

You really help us build the case because you can bring the 

credibility on these return on investment that really is unparalleled. That helps us with some of our colleagues who still need 

some convincing. 

So again, Madame Chair, I really appreciate the opportunity to 

be here and yield back. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Colonel Charette, I tried to give you the first 

word, now I’m going to give you the last word because I want you 

to—we had a conversation earlier today where I asked you about 

the Marines who are out in the field and how they felt about using 

renewable energy as they were in combat. You gave me, what I 

thought, was a great response to that. So maybe you could, again, 

talk about what you’ve heard from folks out in the war theater 

about what—how they feel about new renewable energy sources. 

Colonel CHARETTE. It’s, I think one of the neatest things that we 

were talking about, Ma’am, was the fact that the Marines like the 

fact that they don’t have to call higher headquarters for batteries 

or fuel anymore. You know, at this remote petrol bases it’s more 

about that self sufficiency and having to rely on that line of, you 

know, that sustainment line. So if you’re more self sufficient on the 

battlefield and you don’t have to call higher headquarters for batteries, now you can spend more time focusing on the enemy. You 

can actually focus on the job at hand vice worrying about if you’re 

going to have enough power to power the systems you need. 

So it’s pretty fascinating. It goes back to the point before about 

changing behaviors. Some of this is we just haven’t done it for 236 

years. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank 

you to all of you who have attended today. 

To Captain Jones, who is hosting us and the men and women of 

the USS Kearsarge, we thank you for your service to the country. 

We look forward to continuing to support you in your mission. 

Thank you all very much. 

The hearing is closed. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(39) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

MILITARY BIOFUELS MOU—NAVY FUNDING

In August 2011, the Administration announced a $510 million Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the Secretaries of Energy, Navy, and Agriculture to 

assist the deployment of advanced drop-in hydrocarbon biofuels that can meet Department of Defense specifications and power both military and commercial transportation sectors. 

Question 1. Why are advanced, drop-in biofuels well-suited to meet military requirements? 

Answer. Drop-in, advanced alternative fuels are well-suited to meet military demands because they can be handled and used in the exact same manner as the conventional petroleum-derived fuels that they replace. No modifications or additions 

to infrastructure or tactical platforms are needed and no changes in operational procedures or platform performance occur. Therefore, the operator is free to conduct the 

mission with no concern of special characteristics or considerations that must be 

given to the fuel used, and the Navy does not have to spend additional efforts and 

funds on new or different infrastructure to handle these fuels. 

The need to find cost competitive alternative fuels has never been greater. Unrest 

in Libya, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East drove up the price of a barrel of 

oil by $38, which increases Navy’s fuel bill by over $1 billion. Because every $1 rise 

in a barrel of oil is effectively a $30M unbudgeted bill to the Navy, in FY12 the 

Navy is facing a greater than $900M additional fuel cost because the price has risen 

faster than that estimated when the budget was passed. These price increases force 

us to cut our training and readiness budget, meaning our Sailors and Marines 

steam less, fly less and train less. 

Question 2. Last year, the Department put out a Request for Information (RFI) 

around this initiative, seeking detail from industry about its ability to deliver safe, 

effective, and cost-competitive advanced biofuels for military use. I understand that 

the Department received over 100 responses to this RFI. What has the Department 

learned from these responses? Do the responses indicate that the initiative is likely 

to be a success in deploying advanced biofuels plants and refineries? 

Answer. The DON received over 100 responses to the RFI. Navy learned the extent of the options available in terms of regional feedstocks and various pathways 

(i.e., thermochemical, biochemical, hybrid) that are ready to be placed into commercial-scale production across the US and all US territories and protectorates. There 

are certainly more viable, commercial-scale approaches than the effort will have 

funding to see to fruition. The DON expects that following the implementation of 

DPA Title III effort there will be multiple integrated biorefineries that will produce 

fuels for the DON at commercial scale at prices competitive with petroleum. 

Question 3. In FY12, Congress added $150 million above the budget request for 

Defense Production Act Title III activities. When and how will the Department determine how this funding will be allocated? 

Answer. The Navy’s FY13 budget request includes $70 million for the DPA initiative. In FY12, Navy has a commitment from DOD and DPA to use $100 million of 

the $150 million added to the budget to complete Navy’s commitment to the MOU. 

Question 4. The FY13 budget request includes $70 million in DPA funding for advanced drop-in biofuels production. Does the Department believe this request, in addition to funding that may be available in FY12, will fully meet the DoD’s portion 

of funding under the MOU or will additional funding be requested in subsequent 

years? 

Answer. If the Department of Navy receives $100 million for the advanced dropin biofuels production project as a part of the DPA Title III initiative, and an 
40 

additional$70 million is appropriated in the FY13 DON budget, this would comprise 

the full DON commitment of $170 million to the DPA Title III program. 

Question 5. Does the Department intend to release a Broad Agency Announcement or a Request for a Proposal for this initiative in FY12, and if so, when can 

we anticipate that will occur? 

Answer. An industry roundtable is tentatively planned for May 18, 2012. A special 

notice for a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) has been released, and a formal 

BAA should be released during the summer of 2012. 

Question 6. Switching to biofuels may help to advance the Navy’s objectives of becoming energy secure and independent, however, producing biofuels requires orders 

of magnitude more water to produce that traditional fossil fuels. Have you done an 

analysis of the water usage and how biofuels will impact supplies of water? How 

about impacts on food stocks? Are trade-offs required and how does the Navy 

prioritize natural resource management in these cases if trade-offs are required? 

Answer. The Navy has not conducted independent analyses of the water-and foodrelated impacts of biofuel production. However, the Navy approach to alternative 

fuels is informed by expert assessments of these issues, such as the findings from 

the National Research Council colloquium ‘‘Water Implications of Biofuel Production 

in the United States’’ (2008) and various Department of Energy studies. 

Water use is a genuine environmental consideration to weigh, in determining a 

given biofuel technologies suitability for a given site in question. For Fischer 

Tropsch-based processes using nonrenewable feedstocks, water is used in three 

major phases of the operation: process water, boiler feed water, and cooling water 

as well as any water used in cultivation of the feedstocks. For biorefineries, water 

is utilized in irrigation of feedstocks and in processing and conversion of the feedstocks into finished products. 

The majority of the water consumption in the biofuel development is within irrigation of feedstocks. However, according to findings from a NRC Colloquium ‘‘Water 

Implications of Biofuel Production in the United States (2008),’’ water consumption 

is poorly characterized and highly variable. Factors that play into feedstock water 

consumption include: location of feedstock agriculture activities, current water availability in a particular location, type of crop being grown and what crop is being displaced, whether the impact of energy feedstocks in overall agricultural production, 

and irrigation practices vs. feedstock needs met through rainfall. 

There is more to the discussion on water consumption than a simple metric which 

will follow, but coal to liquids through Fischer Tropsch processes consumed in a 

range of 5:1 to 7:1 in gallons of water compared to Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) fuel output. 

Cellulosic biofuel from switchgrass and forest wood residue using no irrigation water 

and only precipitation can be optimized to operate between 1.9:1 to 9.8:1 consumptive water to fuel produced. Algal oil has widely varying water consumption values. 

Cultivating algae in open ponds can lead to high water usage, driven by atmospheric evaporation. Total process water use would vary based on the pathway used 

to refine the algal oil into a finished fuel product. It is important to note that most 

algal processes assume the use of saltwater or waste water (i.e. non-potable water) 

for algal growth, so that algal oil production water usage will not compete with irrigation. Using a closed photobioreactor or simply placing a greenhouse enclosure on 

the pond would greatly reduce evaporative losses and lower process water consumption. 

In a DOE/NETL 2006 study, the researchers evaluated CTL plant placement by 

analyzing maps of coal rich areas and their proximity to water sources and also 

evaluated associated water demands in those regions. Water usage issues must include constraints that are often region-specific. Surface and groundwater withdrawals in the Western U.S. will compete with crop and livestock irrigation. CTL 

plants in the Illinois Basin and Pennsylvania/West Virginia regions will compete 

with thermoelectric power generation and public supply requirements for water. All 

of these regions have both surface water resources and active coal mining operations. 

For biofuels, the NRC concluded that increased agricultural production will probably not alter the national landscape of water use. However, depending on the crops 

utilized, where they are grown, and associated increase in agricultural production 

could stress local and regional water resources. The Navy continues to monitor this 

issue and seeks to minimize water-related impacts of its efforts. According to an Argonne National Lab 2009 study, California, Idaho, Colorado, and Nebraska account 

for half of U.S. irrigation withdrawals. These are also likely areas that are have 

highly stressed water resources. Consideration of impacts on water usage is a critical point for evaluation of projections considered under this effort. The exact decision matrix for considering tradeoffs required 
41 

The Navy also has a goal that feedstocks cannot impact food production. Any effort in our program must have a transition plan if they use food-related feedstocks 

(e.g. soy oil, corn starch, sugarcane), to ultimately use feedstocks that have no impact on food production. In this area, there are no tradeoffs to be made. A process 

or pathway that permanently competes with and/or impacts food production will not 

be considered for long term use by the Navy. 

LONG-TERM CONTRACTING

In recent years, Members on both sides of the aisle have been working on legislative authority for the Department of Defense to enter into long-term contracts for 

alternative fuel purchases. However, each of the legislative proposals brought forward has hit a roadblock because of the way the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

calculates the score. Specifically, CBO believes that such a contract must be fully 

budgeted in the first year to account for the government’s commitment over the life 

of the contract. 

Question 7. The FY12 NDAA requires the Department to submit to Congress a 

report on its current authority for multiyear contracts and additional authorities 

needed. Do you believe additional authority is needed for the Department to enter 

into long-term contracts for alternative fuels? 

Answer. The Department of the Navy supports longer-term contract authority 

than the current 5-year limit allows. The responses to our 2011 Request for Information (RFI) for the Defense Production Act Title III advanced biofuels effort reveal 

that 10-15 year authority would encourage private investment in advanced biofuels 

and bring costs per gallon down. The current CBO and OMB interpretation that 

biofuels contracts be fully budgeted in the first year of the contract also needs to 

be revised. Budgeting for 10-15 years worth of fuel, especially given the 2020 goal 

of 8 million barrels of biofuels to be used by the Navy each year, is unrealistic in 

any fiscal environment. It is more practical, and in keeping with other energy efforts, that the first year’s budget incur only the cost of the first year of fuel deliveries, plus termination liabilities (if any). Each subsequent year would need only the 

incremental amount of fuel budgeted. 

Question 8. Do you believe that a long-term contract mechanism will help address 

not just military requirements for fuel but also fuel price volatility and the upward 

trajectory of the price of oil? 

Answer. Long-term contract mechanisms can be used to lock in pricing conditions 

that do not correlate directly with oil prices, so that the prices paid under these 

long-term contracts would not have the same volatility as oil prices in the spot markets. The Navy has received proposals from multiple companies positioned in different areas of the biofuels supply chain for long-term pricing formulas for biofuels 

that are not pegged directly to petroleum prices. These pricing formulas could potentially be affected by rises in petroleum prices; albeit not at a 1:1 ratio. Therefore, 

the Navy has reason to believe that with proper contract structuring, biofuels delivered under long-term contracts can be less volatile than petroleum bought in the 

spot market. 

DON/DOD efforts that lead to a nationwide adoption of advanced biofuels may 

exert some relief from the vagaries of oil prices, and is a step in the right direction 

for the nation as a whole in terms of price instability and oil price trajectory. Domestically produced advanced biofuels will offer a measure of energy security not 

currently available to petroleum supplies, because the supply of domestically produced biofuels would not be affected by the closure of foreign supply chokepoints, 

such as the Strait of Hormuz. 

Question 9. In May 2010, the Department submitted language to Congress addressing long-term contract authority for alternative fuels for inclusion in the FY11 

NDAA. Does the Department still support authorization of long-term contract authority for alternative fuels in the NDAA? Is there a reason that no request for longterm contract authority was made in the FY13 budget? Does the Department plan 

to send to Congress additional proposals for the FY13 NDAA? If so, when? 

Answer. The Department supports long-term contracting authority for alternative 

fuels and feels that long-term contracting authority needs to be structured to provide for an individual year’s payment obligations to be appropriated in that same 

year’s budget. 

The DOD has submitted a legislative proposal which is under consideration at the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DOD is working with OMB to ensure the 

proposal is consistent with overall administration priorities. 

Question 10. It is my understanding that long-term authority for renewable energy projects exists for the DoD. Why is this different from biofuel purchasing? Can 

you provide some examples of where long-term contracting has been used and suc-
42 

ceeded? Are there instances of long-term contracting that have not worked to the 

Navy’s benefit? 

Answer. The Navy really needs long-term authority for renewable energy projects, 

it has been crucial to the Navy’s ability to meet its renewable energy goals while 

simultaneously providing energy savings to the Navy. A long-term contract allows 

an energy services provider to ensure the value of his/her project and obtain financing to undertake the project; it also gives the Navy some surety on future energy 

prices, ideally at a discount to existing rates. 

Renewable energy projects are conducted under 10 USC § 2922(a); this authority 

does not extend to fuels for tactical use. Also, CBO and OMB currently interpret 

renewable energy projects as operating leases, which can be paid for on a yearly 

basis. These agencies view biofuels contracts as capital leases, which must be fully 

budgeted in the first year. Navy awarded a 20-year power purchase authority (PPA) 

contract for installing 13.8MW of solar arrays at NAWS China Lake under 10 USC 

2922a. The project will save the Navy $13M as compared to electric power purchased from the grid over the contract term. A similar PPA is being developed for 

DON and Army bases on Oahu. For these renewable projects long term authority 

(within the life of the equipment) is essential to achieve a reasonable payback period. The Navy has reaped savings and achieved renewable goals through the use 

of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs), Utility Energy Service Contracts 

(UESC), and Base Operations Support (BOS) contracts. These typically extend for 

the life of the equipment in question or up to 20 years. 

The Navy does not have examples of long-term alternative energy contracts that 

have not benefited the Navy. 

ONSHORE ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY EFFORTS

Question 11. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced that 

the Department of Defense will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history. The Department of the Navy will purchase 1 Gigawatt of renewable 

energy, or as the Navy has stated, ‘‘the equivalent of powering a quarter of a million 

homes’’, from available technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, ocean energy, 

and waste-to-energy. How does the Navy propose to achieve this goal and what is 

the timeline? 

Answer. Following the State of the Union Address, the Secretary of the Navy 

chartered the 1 Gigawatt Task Force (1GW TF), with the expressed mandate of developing a strategy by which the Department of the Navy (DON) can develop 1GW 

of renewable energy, in support of the broader DON energy goal of 50% of all shore 

power coming from alternative resources by 2020. The 1GW TF will focus on largescale renewable energy projects that use existing third-party financing mechanisms 

such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), joint ventures (JVs), enhanced use 

leases (EULs), utility energy service contracts (UESCs), and energy saving performance contracts (ESPCs). 

The 1GW TF strategy is due to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) by the end of fiscal year 2012. The 1GW TF will examine all Navy and Marine Corps installations for their potential to support large 

(multi-megawatt) renewable energy projects, identify obstacles or constraints—regulatory, technical; and determine which projects are most technically feasible and 

economically viable. 

Question 12. Cost savings can be achieved by implementing energy and water efficiency upgrades to new and existing buildings and facilities. Is the Navy actively 

installing smart meters to monitor energy use and/or implementing existing ‘‘green 

plumbing codes’’ to achieve water savings? Are there any other examples of onshore 

efficiency upgrades that the Navy would like to highlight here? 

Answer. Yes, the Navy is currently deploying an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), which is also referred to as Smart Meters that will capture up to 95 

percent of the electrical consumption and 75 percent of the water consumption at 

DoN Installations worldwide. At its completion, Navy and Marine Corps will have 

installed more than 28,000 smart meters on its facilities. 

• The Navy continuously focuses on increasing efficiency and reducing consumption by conducting energy audits, which result in development of project proposals for energy reduction and increased efficiency. The Navy projects planned 

for FY12, FY13 and FY14 are expected to maintain the Navy’s downward trend 

in energy consumption. 

• The lists below are sample of projects submitted for funding in FY12 and FY13 

using the energy Return On Investment tool (eROI). In FY12, 147 projects were 

funded, which will save the Navy 1,200,176 MBtu annually with an average 
43 

Payback of 4.46 years. In FY13, the Navy plans to fund 196 projects, this will 

save the Navy a total of 2,633,404 MBtu with an average Payback of 3.2 years. 

• Examples of projects planned for funding in FY12 and FY13: 

—Energy recycle filter backwash water and water plan at NAS Lemoore 

—Replace plumbing fixtures in 12 buildings at NAVSTA Pearl Harbor 

—Installation of high efficiency plumbing fittings and fixtures in several buildings at NAS Fallon 

—Installation of a transpired solar wall (uses solar energy to heat and ventilate 

indoor spaces) at NAS Oceana 

—HVAC and lighting improvements at CBC Gulfport 

—Building optimization and retro commissioning in NAS Kingsville 

—Centralized irrigation at NAVSTA Pearl Harbor 

Question 13. What steps is the Navy taking to conserve/recycle/reuse water on its 

bases? For example, are there any large-scale grey water collection and reuse facilities on any of the onshore permanent bases? 

Answer. The Navy implements Department Of Energy’s (DOE) Water best management practices. We strive to include water conservation in as many projects as 

we can. In addition, we set aside Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) 

funding each year to implement water conservation projects. 

The Navy has no grey water collection systems, but we do have several reuse facilities at NAS Jacksonville, FL and Dam Neck, VA. The system uses recycled grey 

water for cooling purposes among other things. 

RESPONSES OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

BUY AMERICAN PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS

Question 14. Many military facilities that are installing renewable energy capacity 

are using foreign manufactured technologies, such as Chinese solar panels, rather 

than seizing the opportunity to support technologies manufactured in America. This 

raises the concern that while rightly seeking to reduce the United States’ reliance 

on foreign oil, the Department of Defense might be encouraging a shift towards an 

undue reliance on foreign sourced renewable technologies. The Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act imposes obligations on the Department of Defense 

to meet Buy American requirements when buying solar panels. What is the Department of the Navy doing to implement these requirements in its purchasing practices? 

Answer. The Department of the Navy is committed to ensuring Buy American Act 

(BAA) requirements are met for renewable energy procurement. Based upon contract level compliance with BAA and a sampling of projects at the time of this question, all solar panels purchased by the Navy have met BAA requirements. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation clause requiring compliance with the BAA is 

placed in all applicable Navy contracts. Contract awardees provide product submittals during the design and construction phase to certify compliance with the provisions of the Act. 

NON-DIRECT PURCHASES

Question 15. What further steps is the Department of the Navy taking to ensure 

that other non-direct purchases of renewable energy technologies, including power 

purchase agreements, comply with the spirit of the Buy American requirements, 

and support American manufactured renewable energy technologies? 

Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring Buy American requirements 

for renewable energy procurement are met by the Navy and Marine Corps. Within 

the Secretariat, The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and 

the Environment has established a Shore Energy Policy Board tasked with coordinating development of policy and guidance for DON energy related matters, ensuring the services comply with all applicable federal laws and policies. 

Æ