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

i 

57–834 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–125] 

ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES 

ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 
(II) 

READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

ERYN ROBINSON, Professional Staff Member 

LYNN WILLIAMS, Professional Staff Member 

KATY BLOOMBERG, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, February 24, 2010, Energy Management and Initiatives on Military Installations .................................................................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 .............................................................................. 27 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES ON MILITARY 

INSTALLATIONS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, 

Readiness Subcommittee ..................................................................................... 3 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Readiness 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Hansen, L. Jerry, Army Senior Energy Executive, Senior Official Performing 

Duties as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of the Army ............................................................. 7 

Natsuhara, Roger M., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations, Environment and Logistics, U.S. Department of the Navy .................... 9 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 

and Environment, U.S. Department of Defense ................................................ 4 

Tune, Debra K., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, U.S. Department of 

the Air Force ......................................................................................................... 11 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy ...................................................................................... 38 

Hansen, L. Jerry ............................................................................................... 51 

Natsuhara, Roger M. ........................................................................................ 67 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P. ..................................................................................... 31 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy ........................................................................................... 42 

Tune, Debra K. ................................................................................................. 82 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Shea-Porter ................................................................................................ 95 

Mr. Taylor ......................................................................................................... 95 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 100 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 101 

Mr. Marshall ..................................................................................................... 99 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 99 
(1) 

ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND INITIATIVES ON MILITARY 

INSTALLATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 24, 2010. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. ORTIZ. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to order. I 

thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before this subcommittee today to discuss energy management and initiatives on 

military installations. 

Today’s hearing is one of several held by this Subcommittee relating to the Department of Defense (DOD) energy posture. We 

have heard from the Defense Science Board’s Energy Security Task 

Force, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics on a broad range of energy issues. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the many energy initiatives underway on military installations and the overarching strategies that 

guide these initiatives. 

In many ways, through these strategies and initiatives, the Department has assumed a leadership role in addressing our Nation’s 

energy challenges. Each of the military services and the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) have worked to develop energy 

strategies and goals. Capping these efforts off, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) identifies energy and its sister issue, 

climate change, as two key agents that will play a significant role 

in shaping the future of national security and the environment. 

The military services have demonstrated a willingness to be 

early adopters of new technologies and enablers of renewable and 

alternative energy projects. They have started to lease electrical vehicles and they work towards net zero installations, adopt advanced metering technologies, investigate microgrid technologies, 

and partner with the private sector to develop wind, solar, geothermal and waste-to-energy systems, just to name a few. 

Initiatives are accelerating not only in variety but in size. When 

it was completed in 2010, the 14.2 megawatt solar array at Nellis 

Air Force Base was the largest such array in the Americas. Today, 

another military installation is contemplating partnering on a solar 
2 

project 35 times larger. This project would encompass as much as 

14,000 acres and provide 500 megawatts of solar energy to the installation and to the grid. 

Now, this is an exciting prospect. However, in a recent report 

conducted at this Subcommittee’s request, the Government Accountability Office recognized that development of renewable energy projects is not always compatible with the primary mission of 

a DOD installation. I would like to hear what steps the Department has taken to ensure that large-scale energy projects on military installations don’t eventually impede a base’s primary mission 

or result in another form of encroachment. 

While the Department’s initiatives have been accelerating at 

military installations, outside defense private-sector initiatives 

have been, too. The number of domestic renewable energy projects 

such as wind farms, solar power and arrays has been increasing 

significantly in recent years. These projects have great potential to 

enhance our energy security. 

At the same time, I am concerned to learn that some of these energy projects, particularly large wind farms and solar towers, may 

have the potential to impair military readiness. Recent tests conducted by the Department of Defense and recent experiences at 

some military installations show that windmills can significantly 

affect radar performance, can obstruct military training routes, and 

can interfere with military systems designed to operate in the electromagnetic spectrum. These are significant challenges that we 

must address. It is important that we understand how to balance 

energy security and military readiness because our Nation needs 

both. 

I look forward to hearing the perspective of our distinguished 

witnesses today on these and other issues of interest to the Subcommittee. 

But before I recognize my good friend, Mr. Forbes, the distinguished Ranking Member, I would like to speak for one brief moment on a topic that we will not focus on today, but that is important and related, and that is operational energy. 

Now, this Subcommittee created a new office for a Director for 

Operational Energy to advise the Secretary of Defense and oversee 

energy the Department uses for military operations. Now, I believe 

that a nominee has been selected and I am hopeful that her Senate 

confirmation will happen quickly. It is imperative that we round 

out the Department’s energy team with this key official dedicated 

to operational energy oversight. 

With that said, I look forward to the thoughtful testimony on installation energy management and initiatives from the distinguished witnesses we have here today. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, Mr. Forbes, for any remarks he may like to 

make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you, as always, for your service for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for their time and sharing their expertise with us today. The timing of this hearing is certainly excellent. 

Whatever your views are on global warming and the benefits of 

clean energy, there are certainly a few things that are clear: 

One, that the cost and risk of an exclusive reliance on petroleum 

energy sources grows with each passing year. 

Two, we should use renewable sources when it is cost-competitive 

and when it enhances or, at a minimum, does not detract from our 

military readiness. 

Lastly, renewable resources can greatly increase the energy security of our national military installations. 

My primary interest today, however, is not only to learn about 

goals to expand green energy in the military, but also to understand how realistic and achievable each of the goals are. 

For instance, net zero energy consuming installations is a laudable goal from a cost savings and energy security viewpoint. But 

the question is: Is it achievable? What will we have to give up in 

the short run or the long run to reach this goal? 

I believe it is critical to address two serious flaws in the rush to 

push green energy on military installations: 

First, there seems to be no shortage of good ideas and mandates 

that are placed on the Department of Defense by both the White 

House and Congress without either an integrated plan or an evaluation system to ensure we are meeting the stated objectives. The 

list of mandates includes specific substantial goals for hybrid vehicles, greenhouse gas emissions, solar energy use and reduction 

goals for petroleum use and overall reductions in energy use. Meeting just a few of the goals would be daunting. Before we add more 

mandates, we should agree on our key objectives. Is it total energy 

security for each installation so that our energy sources are not 

ever in question? Is the goal to ensure at least 50 percent of our 

energy comes from renewable energy sources? To my knowledge, 

there is no comprehensive Departmental plan beyond saving what 

we can, where we can. 

My second concern is the impact renewable energy products have 

on military training. Solar projects can spread across vast areas of 

valuable military training land and limit military training, particularly military aviation. Even more troubling are wind turbines. 

These giant devices not only present hazards near military airfields, but they also alter military aviation training routes across 

the country and can adversely affect military training and air defense radars. 

Despite these acknowledged drawbacks, wind farms are being 

funded at breakneck speed by stimulus funding within a porous 

regulatory oversight structure. Any large undertaking that substantially alters land, sea or airspace, must undergo thorough scrutiny for military training impacts as well as other environmental 

concerns. Military training land and airspace is extraordinarily difficult to acquire, so we must preserve and protect what we have. 
4 

Mr. Chairman, I also believe we must expand our use of renewable energy, and I have introduced legislation and supported legislation that moves us in this direction. But like any laudable goal, 

the marginal cost of any approach must be considered. We must be 

careful that our national enthusiasm for clean energy does not negatively affect military readiness. We must do a better job of fully 

considering the long-term consequences of our actions. In my view, 

the Pentagon’s energy goals must be realistic, compatible with military training, advance the goal of energy security, and be a part 

of a comprehensive Department-wide plan. 

I would like to hear how our witnesses intend to achieve those 

objectives. And, once again, thank you all for taking your time and 

being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Today we are fortunate to have a panel of witnesses 

representing the Department of Defense, the Departments of the 

Army, the Navy and Air Force. We have with us Dr. Dorothy 

Robyn. Doctor, good to see you again and welcome. She is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. 

Mr. L. Jerry Hansen, Army Senior Energy Executive and senior 

official performing duties as the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Installations and Environment. 

Mr. Roger Natsuhara, good to see you again, sir. Good to see you 

yesterday and see you back again. He is the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment and Logistics. 

Mrs. Debra K. Tune, performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ prepared testimony will be accepted for the record. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Dr. Robyn, welcome. You may proceed with your 

opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. ROBYN. Thank you very much, Chairman Ortiz, Congressman 

Forbes, and other distinguished members. It is a real pleasure to 

testify today on the Department of Defense’s strategy for improving 

energy management at military installations. 

As you know, the Department operates more than 500 permanent installations overseas and in the United States. They contain 

more than 300,000 buildings and 2 billion square feet of space. 

That means our footprint is 4 times that of Wal-Mart and 10 times 

that of the General Services Administration (GSA). 

I want to make three key points today. The first is that management of installation energy is an extremely important issue, and 

we are all grateful to you for having this hearing and giving us an 

opportunity to talk about it and talk to you. Facilities energy rep-
5 

resents a significant cost. That is the first reason it is such an important issue. In 2009, we spent close to $4 billion as a Department to power 

our facilities. That is about 30 percent of our total energy bill, and 

that percentage is higher during peacetime when our operational 

energy bill is lower. Moreover, our installation energy needs will 

increase over the next several years as we grow the Army and the 

Marine Corps and reduce our presence overseas and bring troops 

and equipment back. 

In addition to the cost of installation energy, it matters because 

of its importance to mission assurance, as your opening statements 

have discussed. Many experts believe that the commercial power 

grid is vulnerable to disruption from cyber attacks, natural disasters and sheer overload, and since our installations rely on this 

grid, critical missions may be at risk. 

The second key point I want to make is that there are impediments to improving the way we manage energy on our installations. The key impediment is flawed economic incentives. 

Let me mention two examples. Mr. Chairman, you referred to the 

Defense Science Board Report. I am taking those examples right 

out of that. What I got was an outstanding report. 

One incentive problem is referred to as split incentives. This 

arises because energy efficiency typically requires an increase in 

capital investment, but it yields savings over time in operation and 

maintenance. That leads to under-investment in energy efficiency 

when one organization or individual within the Department of Defense is in charge of investment and capital and another is in 

charge of operation and maintenance. So there is a divergence between the incentives that they face. 

A second example of flawed incentives is the commander who 

succeeds in reducing energy consumption but cannot keep the savings, which is typical. In fact, his or her budget is typically reduced 

as a result of the good behavior. The military departments have developed mechanisms to offset this disincentive to energy conservation, but they are limited in scope. 

Now, despite these impediments, the Department has noticeably 

improved its energy performance over the last five years, largely in 

response to statutory and regulatory goals. However, in the last 

year, the Department has stepped up the level of effort even beyond what it has been, and that is my third key point. And I want 

to talk about just the key elements of what we are doing. 

The first key element is commitment from the top. Secretary 

Gates himself has made energy security a priority, and that is reflected in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Consistent with the 

legislation from this committee, the Secretary has created the Office of Director for Operational Energy Plans and Programs in the 

Office of the Secretary, and the President has nominated Sharon 

Burke to head this new directorate. Thank you, Chairman Ortiz, 

for the plug for her confirmation. We hope that comes soon. 

Second, the Department is investing more to improve the energy 

profile of our fixed installations. Our basic strategy is twofold: One, 

reduce the demand for traditional energy through conservation and 

energy efficiency; and, two, increase the supply of renewable and 

other alternative energy resources. 
6 

Investments that curb demand are the most cost-effective way to 

improve an installation’s energy profile. We know that from work 

done by McKenzie and others. As Energy Secretary Chu has observed, energy efficiency is not just the low-hanging fruit, it is the 

fruit lying on the ground. 

Investment designed to expand the supply of renewable energy 

sources on base is also an important complement to the demandside investment. Although the payback period is significantly 

longer than that for energy efficiency projects, renewable energy is 

key to energy security on our installations. 

A third element, in addition to commitment from the top and increased investment, we are taking advantage of the Department’s 

strength in research and development (R&D). The military, as you 

know, has a long history of stimulating through new technology, 

through R&D. When it comes to military installations, our most 

valuable role will be as a test bed for next-generation technologies 

coming out of laboratories in industry, universities, and the Department of Energy (DOE). 

Our built infrastructure, these 300,000 buildings, are unique 

both for their size and variety, and they capture the diversity of 

building types and climates in the country at large. For a wide 

range of energy technologies for which deployment decisions must 

be made at a local level, DOD can play a crucial role by filling the 

gap between research and deployment, the so-called ‘‘valley of 

death.’’ 

Specifically, as both a real and a virtual test bed, our facilities 

can serve two key roles in which the military has historically excelled. One is as a sophisticated first user, and the other is for 

technologies that are effective to serve as the first customer, an 

early customer, thereby helping to create a market, as the Department did with everything from aircraft to electronics to the Internet. This will allow the military in turn to leverage the cost savings 

and technology advances that private-sector involvement will yield. 

We are pursuing the energy test bed approach on a small scale, 

and we hope to expand this effort working with the Department of 

Energy and others. 

Finally, let me say that we are pursuing a couple of initiatives 

to address specific challenges or impediments, the incentives problem that I talked about. Let me just briefly mention three of them. 

First, we are addressing DOD’s lack of an enterprise-wide energy 

information management system for its global assets. Large commercial enterprises manage their energy portfolio using such systems. The Department needs one as well, one that can provide the 

appropriate information on energy consumption at various levels of 

aggregation, everything from an individual building all the way up 

to an entire military department. 

Second, we have begun what will likely be a major effort to address the risks to our installations from potential disruptions to the 

commercial electricity grid, and we will be getting you a report that 

you requested in the authorization bill that lays out our strategy 

for that. 

Then, finally, we are devoting considerable time and effort to a 

growing challenge to which you both alluded in your opening statements, ensuring that proposals for domestic energy projects, includ-
7 

ing renewable energy, are compatible with military requirements 

for land and airspace. 

We are working that problem at two levels. First—and this is in 

the Office of the Secretary, and you will hear from the services as 

well about this—there is a DOD product team, which I co-chair, devoted to sustaining our test and training ranges. We are working 

through that group to come up with a better process for evaluating 

proposals from energy developers who want to site a renewable 

project on or near an installation. 

The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, very time-consuming and ad hoc. I don’t believe 

we are going to come up with a one-stop shop for this, but I think 

we can go a long way toward improving that process from the 

standpoint of developers and the Department. 

Second, we are looking at the role of research and development. 

Better technology can help us in two key ways. One is to better 

measure the potential impact of a proposed wind turbine project or 

solar tower on military operations in that area. Second, new technology can help to mitigate the impact. The technology is getting 

better. There are press reports recently about stealth technology 

going a long way towards solving the problem between wind turbines and ground radar, though not air-based radar. 

In sum, we have steadily improved our profile at installations in 

terms of energy in recent years in response to regulatory and statutory goals. While continuing on that very positive trend, I think it 

is time for us to adapt our approach to installation energy management from one that is primarily focused on compliance to one focused on long-term cost avoidance and mission assurance. 

We have made energy security a priority. We are investing more 

to achieve it. In addition to investing military construction and 

sustainment dollars, we will need to leverage the Department’s 

strength in research and development, particularly by using our installations as a test bed for next-generation technologies. 

Finally, we will need to address the impediments to improved energy management, including the flawed incentives. 

I very much look forward to working with you all to address the 

challenges and opportunities we face in this very, very exciting and 

important area. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Hansen, you may proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF L. JERRY HANSEN, ARMY SENIOR ENERGY EXECUTIVE, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING DUTIES AS THE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS 

AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Army’s energy security program. This Subcommittee’s ongoing support, coupled with 

the President’s vision for energy security and sustainability, will 

result in assured access to reliable supplies of energy, to reduce 
8 

risks, meet our operational needs, and build the clean energy future that will benefit the Nation. 

We recognize that disruption of critical power and fuel supplies 

can harm our readiness, our ability to accomplish vital missions, 

and exposes us to a vulnerability that must be addressed by a more 

secure energy posture. 

Among the most immediate, significant and systemic risks we 

face is dependence on the commercial power grid. In developing the 

Army program, we considered operational mission priorities foremost in planning energy security projects. We are committed to enhancing energy security and mission assurance without degrading 

those tests, training, and operational areas essential for mission 

readiness, areas secured at some expense with your assistance and 

support. 

Sustaining Army mission capabilities and global operations requires a tremendous amount of energy, as we all appreciate. In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Army spent approximately $1.2 billion for 

more than 80 trillion British thermal units of energy to operate installations and facilities, and more than $1.7 billion for the operational energy requirements worldwide. 

To ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to energy 

security, the Secretary of the Army created a Senior Energy Council in 2008 to facilitate a cohesive Army-wide approach to energy 

security. The comprehensive Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy (AESIS) was developed with the active participation 

of all Army major commands and was approved in January of 2009. 

This strategy requires energy to be a key consideration in all 

Army activities, with emphasis on reducing demand, increasing efficiency, seeking alternative sources, and creating a culture of energy accountability while sustaining or enhancing our operational 

capabilities. The strategy requires energy activities across the 

Army and tracks progress of more than 20 objectives and more 

than 50 metrics for meeting established energy efficiency goals. 

The Army is actively supporting advanced technologies and is 

taking immediate action to implement innovative energy initiatives 

to include solar, wind and geothermal power, electric and hybrid 

vehicles, and improve facility energy performance, to name but a 

few. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Army had 67 active renewable energy 

projects, 42 of which generated electricity that qualified for credit 

toward the Energy Policy Act’s 2005 renewable energy goal. 

The Army is making significant investments in implementing energy projects. The 2009 Army Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 

research included over $600 million for more than 300 energy-related projects, such as energy efficiency, facility improvements, and 

projects under the Energy Conservation Investment Program 

(ECIP). 

Some specific examples include at Fort Irwin, California, where 

the Army, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is working with a developer to design a plan for the largest solar project within DOD, 

featuring phased construction of about 500 megawatts of solar 

power. This plant, which will be constructed with approximately $2 

billion of private capital, will reduce the Army’s utility costs by an 
9 

estimated $20.8 million over 25 years and will provide secure electricity to Fort Irwin, even if the commercial grid were to go down. 

At Fort Bliss, we are experiencing the largest DOD facility 

growth and the installation’s position to become an Army center for 

renewable energy. Fort Bliss has begun to utilize renewable energy 

to provide secure electric power for the installation. Also in partnership with the local community, an inland desalination was developed to create a new supply of fresh water, which enables many 

of the other projects. 

At Fort Detrick, Maryland, the installation has entered into an 

enhanced use lease for a central utilities plant in support of the 

National Interagency Biodefense Campus to provide an efficient, 

cost-effective, reliable and secure utility asset. It is an excellent example of a public-private partnership. 

In the area of vehicle consumption, the Army is leasing 4,000 

low-speed electrical vehicles to replace petroleum-fueled non-tactical vehicles, and in 2009 the Army acquired more than 700 hybrid 

vehicles. These initiatives significantly reduce our dependence on 

and consumption of fossil fuels while lowering the greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Army completed installation of 2,690 advanced electric meters and 575 advanced natural gas meters that 

will be networked to a central metered data management system 

to assist the energy management review and analysis throughout 

the Army. 

In light of the strategic threats to the commercial energy infrastructure, the Army acknowledges and accepts that in some cases 

there will be a cost premium associated with achieving energy security. Future energy cost-benefit analysis must go beyond shortterm economic considerations and include a determination of how 

much risk national leadership is willing to accept to ensure continued operation of our critical military installations, missions and 

functions. 

Without power and energy, the Army lies silent. The Army’s energy security program addresses some of the great challenges of 

our time: confronting our dependence on foreign oil; addressing the 

moral, economic, security and environmental challenge of global climate change; and building a clean energy future to benefit all 

Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your 

questions. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

Mr ORTIZ. Mr. Natsuhara. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER M. NATSUHARA, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Chairman Ortiz, Representative Forbes, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present 

you with an overview of the Department of Navy installation energy program. 
10 

The Department is a recognized leader in energy management, 

research and development, and environmental stewardship, receiving 28 percent of all of the Presidential awards and 30 percent of 

all of the Federal energy awards in the last nine years. But we cannot rest on our accolades. 

The United States relies far too much on fossil fuel, a finite resource imported, to a large extent, from volatile areas of the world. 

To set us on the path toward greater energy security, Secretary 

Mabus has committed us to a very ambitious set of goals that goes 

beyond meeting legislative mandates. 

For the shore establishment, he directed that 50 percent of our 

energy will come from alternative sources, and by 2015 the Department will reduce fleet vehicle petroleum uses by greater than 50 

percent. Based on these ambitious goals, we are developing a strategic roadmap and set of energy directives that will provide guidance to the Navy and Marine Corps. We are making investments, 

allocating resources, developing possible legislation, institutionalizing policy changes, creating public-private partnerships, and pursuing technology development required to meet these goals. 

Renewable energy is a key component of our comprehensive energy program. Currently, almost 19 percent of the energy produced 

or consumed on our installations comes from alternative sources 

such as wind, solar and geothermal power, and we are leading the 

way in the development of new technologies. With Army Research 

Office (ARO) funds, we are advancing technology to convert the 

ocean’s thermal gradients to electricity and potable water. We 

partnered with industry to further develop the design and concept 

of an Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) power plant that 

we plan to test near Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in the 

coming years. 

With investments hybrids, flex fuel and electric vehicles, we can 

retire many of our petroleum-intensive vehicles currently in use. In 

fact, we have already replaced 30 percent of our non-tactical fleet 

with alternative fuel counterparts. 

Vital to the readiness of our fleet is unencumbered access to critical water and space adjacent to our facilities and ranges. An example is the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), where the vast majority 

of our training evolutions occur. The Department realizes that energy exploration and offshore wind development play a crucial role 

in our Nation’s security and are not necessarily mutually exclusive 

endeavors. However, we must ensure that obstructions to freedom 

of maneuver or restrictions to tactical action in critical range space 

do not measurably degrade the ability of the naval forces to achieve 

the highest value in training and testing. 

The Department of Navy is committed to expanding interagency 

partnerships in order to develop the United States renewable energy economy. On January 21, 2010, Secretary Mabus and the Secretary of Agriculture signed a memorandum of understanding. 

Under this agreement, we will explore and develop advanced 

biofuels, which will be a major component in the solutions to meet 

our aggressive goals. 

We have begun a major effort to address the risk to our installations from potential disruptions to the commercial electric grid. The 

Department is participating in interagency discussions on the mag-
11 

nitude of the threat and how best to mitigate it. Developing more 

renewable and alternative energy sources on our stations will be 

one element of this effort. When combined with smart grid or 

microgrid technologies, investments that reduce demand and 

produce renewable energy will enable installations to sustain mission-critical activities during grid disruptions. 

I take pride in the Department of Navy’s energy program with 

its proven track record of saving energy and making the Nation 

more secure. We know we cannot meet the threats of tomorrow by 

simply maintaining today’s readiness and capabilities. We will continue to lead the way through our efforts to develop renewable energy sources, and I am confident that the Navy and the Marine 

Corps will excel in meeting the energy challenge of the 21st century. 

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have, sir. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsuhara can be found in the 

Appendix on page 67.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Tune, you may proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF DEBRA K. TUNE, PERFORMING THE DUTIES 

OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE AIR FORCE 

Mrs. TUNE. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes, and distinguished members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here to 

address the Air Force’s efforts regarding installation energy efficiency and security. I would like to thank the Committee for its 

continued support of America’s Air Force and the many brave and 

dedicated airmen who serve around the globe to protect our Nation 

and its interests. 

From aviation operations to installation infrastructure within the 

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

Force needs to ‘‘fly, fight, and win’’ in airspace and cyberspace. We 

are proud to be a leader in America’s ongoing quest to use energy 

more efficiently and effectively through improved processes, better 

operational procedures, and new technologies, including the use of 

alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy. 

Sustaining the Air Force’s mission-execution capabilities in its 

global operations requires a tremendous amount of energy. In fiscal 

year 2009, the Air Force spent approximately $6.7 billion on energy 

to conduct our operations. Of that, $1.1 billion went to operate Air 

Force installations around the world. 

We also spent over $350 million last year for installation energy 

projects, with the majority of the funds slated for energy conservation initiatives that will make our bases more energy efficient. 

The case for action to reduce our energy consumption and diversify our energy sources is compelling. Military forces will always be 

dependent on energy, but we must reduce the risk to national security associated with our current energy posture. Our fragile energy 

infrastructure, such as the national electrical grid, may hinder our 

ability to reliably deliver energy during times of crisis. 
12 

Several years ago, we recognized the need to develop a purposeful campaign that builds upon our long history of energy conservation and leadership to create an enduring and viable energy strategy that meets conservation mandates, establishes energy independence, and provides the pathway to acquire the resources necessary to make our installations energy efficient. Accordingly, the 

Air Force developed a comprehensive energy strategy to improve 

our ability to manage supply and demand in a way that enhances 

mission capability and readiness. 

A realistic assessment of the current energy situation and environment shows the necessity to develop flexible options and make 

choices and investments that will yield a balanced energy implementation plan. It is within this context that we developed the Air 

Force energy strategy. 

Under this strategy, our approach to installation energy is built 

on four pillars: improve our current infrastructure; improve our future infrastructure; expand renewables; and manage costs. 

At the core of this approach is the recognition that it is critical 

to reduce energy consumption and increase the available supply of 

energy. From installing energy-efficient lighting systems, to investing in the state-of-the-art energy meters, we are continually improving the energy conservation of our facilities and reengineering 

our processes. We are expanding the use of renewable energy on 

our bases to enhance energy supplies and advance energy security. 

We are also collaborating with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, our sister services, other Federal agencies, research institutions, and private industry to help us meet or exceed our goals. By 

sharing our ideas and best practices, we can improve our energy 

security and reduce our greenhouse emissions through the use of 

renewable energy and robust energy management practices. 

The Air Force has a solid record of successes and strengths in energy management, and we will continue to make gains through our 

strategy. The key to a successful execution is aligning our resources 

to the goals and creating accountability through effective governance. Our approach will sustain our leadership in energy conservation and alternative energy. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes, this concludes my remarks. 

I thank you and the Committee again for your continued support 

of our airmen and their families. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Tune can be found in the Appendix on page 82.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Now I would like to ask unanimous consent that nonsubcommittee members be allowed to participate in today’s hearing 

after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity to ask 

questions. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I am going to start off with one of the questions that 

I mentioned earlier in my testimony. 

The number of domestic renewable energy projects has been increasing significantly in recent years. Since 2006, the Department 

of Energy and the American Wind Energy Association have been 

investigating means to enable wind energy to contribute at least 20 

percent of our Nation’s electricity, by 2030 at least, an initiative 
13 

that will require thousands of new wind turbine generators. Yet, 

wind fields can significantly affect radar performance and can 

cause obstructions and hazards along military training routes, and 

not only for military training, but I understand for Homeland Security as well. 

The burden of coordinating with local communities on proposed 

wind farm projects currently falls on individual commanders, and 

I know, because we are going through some of those problems right 

now. 

I just wonder what efforts are being made to engage proactively 

at the service at the Department level to mitigate impact of new 

wind turbines on military training routes and air defense radars. 

I am just wondering, has this been established, have studies been 

made that they do impact training and radar? 

This is a very interesting subject, and I know that we are right 

in the middle of them, my district, right in the middle of two military training bases. So any of you that would like to tackle this, 

go right ahead. 

Dr. ROBYN. Sure, I will take a stab at it. 

It is a serious issue. I spent the better part of a week touring 

test and training ranges in Southern California in part to get a better feel for this issue. 

I don’t believe that any project has gone forward that creates any 

sort of a problem. I think there are a lot of checks in this system 

now to keep that from happening. But it is an opaque process and 

one that can take a long time. Often the base commanders don’t 

find out about a project until the project is pretty far along, and 

that is because the energy developers have an incentive to keep 

that information to themselves. They don’t want their competitors 

to know about it. And the developers say, well, they often don’t 

know that there is a problem until late in the process. So we hear 

complaints from both sides about it. 

Obviously, our concern is with making sure that these crown jewels that we have in the form of test and training ranges, and bases 

more generally, can continue to operate. 

I think that the Air Force—and Deb can talk more about this, 

but to illustrate, probably the most difficult case is one with Solar 

Reserve Company. It was a solar tower at Nellis Air Force Base, 

so a different project than the one that you talked about in your 

opening statement. 

Nellis had concerns about it. The Air Force brought in the Air 

Force Scientific Advisory Board. They brought in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) radar experts. They spent six months 

studying it and determined that it would be okay if it were moved 

a mile away. 

So I think for the time being, when there are contentious 

projects, that is going to be—that is how it is going to have to be 

handled. There is going to have to be a lot of scrutiny and study 

to determine whether it is okay to go ahead. 

What we would like to do and what we are trying to do is to 

come up with a process that can provide a more streamlined approach for projects that aren’t as controversial as that, so that developers have some sense and can get an early read on whether a 

project is going to create a problem. And one way we have talked 
14 

with WIA, the wind power folks, about is if we create a process 

that allows developers to share confidential information with us, 

would that be helpful? The Federal Government has done that in 

other cases with cell tower siting, for example. So I think that 

would help to get information earlier. 

It is, of course, an interagency process, so we have brought the 

Department of Energy, the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy as well. 

Number one, we are trying to come up with a better process so 

that developers can get an answer sooner, more predictably. Second, to push the envelope in terms of R&D, because I think there 

will be mitigation techniques that can be developed. And as the opportunities become more valuable, it will become in the industry’s 

interest to put more money in that, and it is in our interests as 

well. 

Mr. ORTIZ. See, what happens is that most of the time this land 

is outside the city’s jurisdiction, there is no ordinances that they 

have to follow, and people go out and they buy thousands of acres, 

and this is what they want to build. But there is nobody that they 

can go and file, like you say, what they are going to build, and then 

all of a sudden, we say my God, it is going to be in the path of 

some of these helicopter and aircraft training. 

But you are right, I hope that somebody is looking into this, and 

maybe we can tighten up the rules a little bit. We really appreciate 

the young men and women who go through this training, and we 

want to keep them away from harm’s way. 

Anybody else that would like to answer? 

Mrs. TUNE. Sir, I would like to add, I agree with everything that 

Dr. Robyn said. For the Air Force, we have dealt with this at Travis Air Force Base with multiple wind turbine sitings there, and we 

have come up with a protocol, a siting protocol that we can work 

in conjunction with. If it is Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

land, you are exactly right; we have a little more opportunity to engage with BLM and to develop the siting protocols. That has 

worked very well. 

We have a good working relationship with industry and the developers. And our experience is the developers want it to be a cooperative situation, so they do want to work with the Air Force installations, provided we share information very early in the project. 

They don’t make a lot of investments too early. So I think we are 

working through that. 

I would say another agency that does get involved in private 

lands is Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). So we have been 

partnering with FAA as well, if you are looking at a flight obstruction, some type of obstruction that may impact us. 

We too believe that there needs to be some centralized process 

that allows the private developers to access the information they 

need and to have a collaborative environment, and we can have a 

standard process to ensure—because we do not and the Air Force’s 

position is we will not trade off operational mission capabilities for 

renewables. So we need to partner, we need to work together, it 

needs to be collaborative. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Hansen, would you like to add something? 
15 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It probably hasn’t been as big 

an issue in the Army as it might have been at some of our sister 

services, but we did have a recent example at Massachusetts Military Reservation where the Army coordinated with the State, the 

Air Force, Coast Guard, FAA, all through the National Guard, and 

wind does appear to be the reasonable solution for renewable energy at that particular site. 

But overall, we are ensuring that there will be no adverse impact 

to missions as well, and we do have a work group reviewing the 

process to make sure we have the requisite visibility and oversight 

and we are working closely with the other services and OSD on 

that. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. For the Navy, for the encroachments around the 

bases, we have good liaison. The Marine Corps uses their community plans and liaison offices and the Navy uses their regional offices. So we have a pretty good handle on what goes around the 

bases. 

Our concern that we have been working with OSD and the other 

agencies are those in the flight paths, and we will continue to coordinate with DOD and the other services. 

The Outer Continental Shelf is an issue that we are very concerned with. As I mentioned in my statement, the Department of 

Interior has established a process and we are working with OSD 

on that. 

So on the land, the local, we think we have a workable process. 

It can be streamlined. On the Outer Continental Shelf/ocean, we 

are still working with Interior and OSD to streamline that one. 

Our concern is the ones that we don’t know about outside. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. We are going to have votes in the next 

few minutes, and I know what happens when this happens to be 

the last votes of the day. I am going to yield to my good friend Mr. 

Forbes for any questions that he might have. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I thank all 

of you. I am going to be very brief and try to articulate this the 

best I can. I will take one shot at it. 

But if you look at a college football coach or a high school football 

coach when they are drawing up pass plays and all, they spend 

quantities of time trying to intersect those and make sure they are 

working against the defenses and they are all planned out. Before 

that, when you are playing street ball, people get together and they 

just say, just go deep, we are going to throw it to you. 

My worry when we are looking at some of the alternative energy 

stuff that we are dealing with is we are just kind of saying, just 

go deep. You know, just get as much out there as you can. Just get 

it as fast as you can. 

But I kind of, in a follow-up to what the Chairman just raised, 

whether it is looking at impacts on our training, or whether it is 

looking on whether we have an overall plan, it seems like we got 

a lot of stuff out there. And when we hear at hearings like this, 

we have got all of these projects and all these kinds of things going, 

do we have and will we be better served with kind of a comprehensive coming together and saying here are our objectives? It might 

not be 700 different things. It might be 50 things. But we have 
16 

some quantifiable measuring standards to see if we are reaching 

those. 

Mr. Hansen, you talked about 700 hybrid vehicles, and Mr. 

Natsuhara has talked about 30 percent of the fleet being alternative energy. But I know when I even talk to some of my automobile dealers, they are saying the jury is kind of out on some of 

the hybrid stuff as to whether or not it makes sense to have it. 

So I would like to just have your thoughts about how we can 

kind of get our arms around a more—or should we even do it—a 

more comprehensive set of goals, set of objectives, how we measure 

those and how we look at that together, including the impacts on 

training and other things. 

That will be my only question to you. I hope I have been clear 

enough on the question. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, you have been very 

clear on that, and I think I can see how that impression would be 

given that we might be just going deep. But as a couple of examples we have in the Army, at Fort Bliss we did a Tiger Team that 

looked at the overall energy security needs of that installation and 

had wide participation from other Federal agencies as well as from 

the Army, and developed really a hybrid solution to what is most 

appropriate based on the business case, based on a lot of factors, 

State and regulatory factors, and what is the potential there for 

geothermal, for wind, for solar and so forth, and really designed a 

hybrid solution for that installation that would allow it to become 

eventually a net zero type of installation. 

We are doing a similar process for other installations, where we 

are doing an overall study now looking at all the installations and 

the climates in each of the States and the potentials that exist in 

all of them. I really do believe that the solution for each installation will be a hybrid that will include a lot of components and 

won’t just be whoever is available the quickest and biggest. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. In the Department of Navy, and particularly 

our Geothermal Office has been around for a couple of decades, so 

we feel pretty good that we have a lot of experience, we have been 

very methodical about looking at different areas for the geothermal. So because of our experience, they have been around for 

a couple of decades. 

We think at least on our geothermal, we have done a very methodical job of looking at these things. And off of that, we have 

been very methodical looking at not only the bases, but the regions 

for the bases on energy, the types where it makes sense. 

We have stood up a couple of task forces in the Department of 

Energy. We have a task force of energy in the Marine Corps; they 

have stood up an expeditionary group that looks at energy. So we 

are starting to look at it in a much more methodical method. Within the Secretary’s Office we are standing up a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy that will help with this coordination also. 

So we are very concerned about that also. And we are looking at 

that with establishing metrics also. 

Mrs. TUNE. Congressman Forbes, I am aiming to answer your 

question a little bit differently. First, let me just say I think the 

Air Force has a very aggressive infrastructure plan, that we have 

looked at all of our bases and decided what makes sense from a re-
17 

newable perspective, what is the best value, you have got to have 

some return, you have got to ensure you have mission assurance 

and security. And so we really have a robust plan that takes us out 

to 2025. 

But I think your point really is with the mandates that we have 

out there: Are they just mandates or are they smart things to do? 

And obviously we are going to comply with the law. But I would 

agree with you, we are, for example, on vehicles, we are looking at 

some of the low-speed vehicles and what return we are getting on 

that. And I think that we will work in conjunction with OSD and 

with the administration if we need to make some changes that are 

really not providing the value that we think should be there. 

So we are tracking that. We are seeing what makes sense. We 

are going where the money is and where the payback is going to 

be, from either, we think, a big payback from a greenhouse gas perspective, from a security perspective, or from a financial perspective. 

And so obviously we are following mandates as well. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. And Doctor, I would just like to have 

your idea, too. But one of the other things I would just throw out 

to you for your thoughts is, are we able to use modeling and simulation very well on this? Because we are no longer just in a situation to go do it and let’s get our data in, but really we have become 

pretty sophisticated on how we can do that to give us the kind of 

jointness we need across the services, but also so we take at least 

some of the guesswork out of that: Is that helping and how can we 

utilize that more to perhaps make sure we are getting the goals 

that we want to reach? 

Dr. ROBYN. I am not sure—well, we are certainly using modeling 

and simulation to determine if a potential wind farm project is 

going to have an impact on radar, other activity. So in that sense, 

that has been absolutely critical. I think that technology can get 

better, but that is critical. 

And one point, I just wanted to reiterate what the others said, 

that with respect to that issue of renewable siting and potential incompatibility, there are a lot of checks in the system now and none 

of the services are making any trade-off between their operational 

needs and renewable energy. So are you talking about modeling 

more generally to—— 

Mr. FORBES. I am talking about our capability now of bringing 

modeling and simulation to advance all of our projections and help 

our decision making in a much more coordinated fashion than we 

have ever been able to do it before, with limited resources and 

where we need to go. 

I just think that is something I put on the table for you and 

would love to chat more. I don’t want to take up more time. But 

I just think it affords us some great opportunities now to do some 

things we couldn’t do a decade ago to maximize our resources and 

make sure we are hitting the goals that we want to reach. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back my time. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I yield to my good friend, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I realize this is 

probably a little bit out of any of your leagues, but I’m going to ask 

the question anyway. It is my understanding that the gallon for a 
18 

burdened cost of fuel in Afghanistan, the cost, which is the real 

cost of actually delivering it to one of those forward operating 

bases, is about $400 per gallon by the time—— 

Dr. ROBYN. No. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, what is it ma’am? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think General Conway put that number out there 

and that there has since been—there are scenarios where one could 

construct a scenario where the fully burdened cost of fuel would be 

$400. But the Marine Corps has done the most recent analysis and 

it is—I mean it is definitely bigger than the commodity price 

maybe by an order of magnitude. It is scenario-dependent. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Let’s average it off over the cost. 

Dr. ROBYN. The Marines’ numbers are in the vicinity of $9 to $16 

a gallon as I recall. But I don’t want to—I think the argument that 

there isn’t a—the fully burdened cost is larger than the commodity 

price, that is a powerful, powerful argument, and I am fond of 

making it. So I don’t want to. I just wanted to take issue with the 

$400. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The reason I put that out there is my question is, 

I want to, let me start by saying I want our troops to be warm in 

the winter, cool in the summer, have what creature comforts they 

can, understanding that they are in a war zone. But my concern 

is I think the contractors who provide those things are paid on a 

cost-plus basis, which, whether it is $400 a gallon or $40 a gallon, 

provides them with no incentive to try to be energy conscious. 

Now, from a taxpayer point of view that is wrong. But also considering that someone is risking their life to drive that fuel truck, 

whether it is a U.S. Government contractor or someone’s child serving in the military. So if we can encourage those contractors to be 

more energy efficient, then we ought to be doing that. 

Now, one technology that I don’t see being used that is commonly 

used on commercial vessels is to take the warm water that is cooling the propulsion unit, run that through a heat exchanger, which 

in turn creates the warm water for the ship’s crew. It is my understanding that about 10 percent of all the fuel we use is just trying 

to warm water. So let’s say we saved half. Five percent of the hundreds of thousands of gallons that are shipped to Afghanistan at 

$40 a gallon or $400 a gallon is a significant savings. 

I am curious if you have looked into that at all because, again, 

it is very common technology used by people for their recreational 

boats, used by commercial vessels, but I do not see it being used 

in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And the one thing if you visit those 

installations, the one thing that strikes you is the constant drone 

of the diesel generators at every one of those installations, providing every bit of electricity on almost every one of those installations. Have you looked into it? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. The Marine Corps has established what they 

call an experimental forward operating base at Quantico, where 

they are bringing in industry to demonstrate those types of technologies that are mature enough. And if they work—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. They do work, sir, I can assure you. The question 

is, since we know it is proven technology, it is used by average 

Joes, it is used by commercial vessels, who is pushing the DOD to 

use it? 
19 

Mr. NATSUHARA. I know that the Marine Corps is very aggressively trying to validate these technologies. And if they work, if the 

companies can demonstrate that it meets their requirement, their 

plan is to buy those immediately and ship them off to Afghanistan. 

And I know we have—I believe we have some solar-powered desalination type units that have been recently shipped out there. So 

they are looked at; the Marine Corps is very much looking at those 

types technologies. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you get back to me on this specific thing? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 95.] 

Mr. TAYLOR. Second thing, and if the Chairman will pardon me, 

having been through a pretty catastrophic event in my congressional district four years ago, seeing people living without electricity, and contrasting the difference between what happened in 

south Mississippi and what happened in south Louisiana, one of 

the huge differences for things going better in Mississippi was the 

availability of our military installations to ride to the rescue. One 

of the things that helped them was being able to prepare hot meals 

in the case of the Navy construction battalion the day after the 

storm, but almost every one of those installations, after putting in 

a hard day’s work, at almost every one of those installations they 

could take a shower at the end of the day, which the average Mississippian was not doing; they had a hot meal; and the reason they 

could do that was almost every one of these installations had their 

own water well, had their own sewage treatment plant, had their 

own generators. 

And again, I realize that multiple Presidents and multiple Secretaries of Defense have been pushing you to buy it on the private 

sector. But there will be other hurricanes, there will be other manmade and natural disasters, and other communities will be looking 

for their nearby military installations to ride to the rescue. 

In your deliberations, to what extent do you weigh at least having an auxiliary plan of having that base be self-sufficient for that 

scenario if the local grid is out for whatever reason? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Would the gentleman yield? I might as well go 

ahead and ask what I was going to ask you all, because it is essentially along these lines, but it takes it a little further. I will start 

out, I guess, by saying that Ms. Tune, Mrs. Tune as she calls herself, is a superstar in middle Georgia. I bet the other three of you 

did not know that, but she truly is adored and extremely effective 

when she was at Robins Air Force Base, and I’m glad you are kind 

of stuck up there so you don’t come back here and run against me 

or something terrible like that, because you are very, very highly 

thought of. 

Now, Ms. Tune in her comments mentioned that the Air Force 

had gone about the business of serving all of its facilities and deciding what it could do as far as independent energy sources is concerned. My guess is that survey did not adequately take into account the possibility of installing in all of these places small nukes 

that are hardened against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, 

that are large enough that they can serve the local population in 

the event that we do have a major problem. 
20 

In the last bill, following along the lines of the question from Mr. 

Taylor, we had language asking the Secretary to do a study. I 

imagine you all are involved in that study. But it seems to me in 

all likelihood we should be thinking about slowing down a little bit 

on the energy initiatives that we have begun thus far. If, in fact, 

what we ought to be doing is putting in small nukes so that we are 

completely self-sufficient, hardened against EMP attacks, ready to 

provide power—not just services but power—to the communities 

that are involved in such an attack, then we are just going to be— 

we are wasting money on other projects, wind turbine, solar, et 

cetera, if in fact we wind up heading in that direction. So that 

elaborates a little bit more on what Mr. Taylor’s question is. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Again I appreciate, if I may, I appreciate the gentleman’s question. But in an ideal world I am in total agreement with 

Mr. Marshall. So let’s start with the basics. 

Are you at least keeping an eye towards having those bases have 

the ability to deliver their own water, to treat their own waste, 

since that does become a huge problem; sufficient generators for 

each installation to take care of itself should the local grid go down. 

Because those installations will be counted on by whatever nearby 

community to ride to the rescue. 

Do you keep that as a part of your master plan is what I would 

like to know? 

Mrs. TUNE. Sir, for the Air Force, that is part of our plan. I 

would not say that we are completely capable of doing that. We do 

have backup generators and capability for that. The first thing we 

do is look at the vulnerability of the grid and assess what our 

threats are and how we can address those so we can mitigate any 

risk that we may have. 

But if you are looking at independent security for the base, we 

do have two installations in the Air Force currently that do have 

that scenario, that is at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and 

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. And we were able to get that because the local utility needed it for peak loads. And so they built 

that plant generation on the bases at their expense. And we are 

able to, if we lost power to the grid, we would be able to field the 

generator to kick-start this plant. At Robins Air Force Base, for example, only one-third of that generation would power the entire 

base and the other two-thirds could go back out to the community. 

And we have the same type of scenario at Tinker Air Force Base. 

Whether we are going to be able to do that across our installations, that is going to require a lot of joint work with the utilities, 

with the local communities. It could be expensive. We are going to 

have to decide where we best do that. But you are absolutely right. 

And the contingency plans, we do have that from a perspective 

of backup generators and how we will provide that support to the 

community in a national emergency type situation. But we do not 

have that across the board. But we are looking at that because that 

is something we would like to be able to do. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Please, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Congressman, I would second Mrs. Tune’s comments and just emphasize the fact that energy security for the Department really hits at the heart of what you describe, because it 

means having assured—this is just the QDR definition—having as-
21 

sured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect 

and deliver sufficient energy to meet our operational needs. And 

hand in hand with our energy management programs, our energy 

security programs, we also have the defense critical infrastructure 

protection program and we are coordinating very closely with them 

to make sure that we meet those key needs that you have described. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. For the Department of the Navy, as the Air 

Force and the Army, for our critical loads we do have emergency 

backup generators today. Secretary Mabus has for our goal to have 

50 percent of our bases at net zero by 2020, and so we are actively 

working very hard to have many of our bases, and we have some 

that are very close right now with different variety of technologies 

from wind, solar, we have geothermal, those types of alternate energies on our bases. So we are shooting for—our goal is to be 50 

percent net zero by 2020. 

Water and wastewater, we have not addressed that yet. Most of 

our bases’ water and wastewater is—we do get that service from 

outside the fence, and we have not looked at those in depth yet. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Like I stated in the beginning, we are going to have 

some votes. So let’s see if we can stick to the five-minute rule so 

everybody has a chance to ask questions. 

Ms. Giffords, go ahead. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 

panelists for being here today. It is exceptional, the work that you 

are doing, not just keeping our military safe and keeping them able 

to fight hard, but actually transforming energy in America and energy on the planet and reducing our dependency from foreign energy. It is very exciting. 

As we all know, the DOD is the largest user of energy in the 

world. On our installations, we spend nearly $4 billion a year and 

about $16 billion on fuel. That is a lot. But the Department is also 

the largest purchaser of renewable energy now in the country, and 

I think also maybe even around the planet. So there are a lot of 

really good success stories. 

In a recent meeting that we had with you, Mr. Chairman, and 

with Dr. Robyn and Assistant Secretary Dory, we spoke in great 

length about installation energy issues and legislation that we 

have been working with to reduce the Department’s energy consumption, increase efficiencies, and continue the development of renewable energy on DOD installations. So we have spent, a lot of 

us in this room, a significant amount of time together. 

But a couple of the points that I want to make sure we bring out 

for the public, each of the services have expressed an interest, and 

according to the branch, it is not a one-size-fits-all. But I look at 

the Navy’s China Lake geothermal plant and, of course, Nellis’ facility for the Air Force. These are the first major large-scale 

projects of their type that have brought forward. We had a recent 

ribbon cutting at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in southern Arizona. 

I am curious whether or not—or, specifically, do the services continue to plan constructing the similar large-scale solar arrays as a 

viable means of achieving the net zero installations? 
22 

Mrs. TUNE. Well, I definitely believe it has been a success for us 

and will continue to do so. As you probably know, many of those 

larger solar arrays are third-party providers, and so we probably 

will. We like that model. It is their money. And so, yes. I would 

say the short answer is yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for asking, Madam Congresswoman. We 

don’t, as you say, consider that one size fits all, so we look at each 

installation individually as to what makes the most sense there. 

And as I said earlier, I think that we are finding that the hybrid 

solution is pretty much what we are going to find at most installations. It might include a mix of solar and wind, and photovoltaics 

(PV), geothermal, biomass. Fort Knox, for instance, geothermal is 

working well because they have good dirt. But in the Southwest 

there is a lot of good sun so we are looking more closely at it in 

those areas just based on the potentials there. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. For the Department of the Navy, since we do 

have a lot of facilities in the Southwest, where it is very advantageous, we are pursuing those in our 2011 budget. The Marine 

Corps has about $30 million of photovoltaic plan for Military Construction (MILCON) with three projects. And at the Air Force and 

Army, we do like to leverage the private sector for the 

photovoltaics. And we are also pursuing, as I mentioned, geothermal in Miramar. We are also trying to get off the landfill there, 

the methane gas off the landfill, to do a cogeneration plant there 

through a private venture. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. That is good to know. Talking about the grid and 

the dependency on the grid, that is another area of concern that 

we have in this country. And I think about the ability to sustain 

bases in the case that there is an attack on the grid. Blackouts and 

natural disasters, of course, are unfortunately inevitable. 

I am curious whether the Department has revisited the idea of 

islanding its bases, allowing each facility to maintain an independence from the grid, and whether or not any sort of initiatives have 

really been explored in this means. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. For the Department of the Navy, we are very 

concerned about islanding. We don’t want to be perceived as just 

taking care of ourselves. And we are part of the community. We are 

very concerned. We are looking at making sure critical loads are, 

but we don’t want to be perceived as an island within the community. 

Dr. ROBYN. I think maybe the word ‘‘islanding’’ was used in the 

Defense Science Board report. I’m not sure if that was the source 

of it. And I think it is an unfortunate choice of word, because it 

does conjure up images of the way the Defense Department has in 

the past done things when they tended to create their own, do it 

solo, and that is not always good. In recent years they have moved 

much toward leveraging the broader commercial market, and that 

is a very positive thing. 

I think the key is there is a lot of—we are focusing heavily on 

this. I think it is more on critical missions as opposed to entire 

bases. So identifying at any installation are there critical missions 

there that we would need to maintain in the event of grid disruption and, if so, how do we do that? Is the backup diesel capability, 

or whatever that we now have, sufficient? Do we need to do more 
23 

than that? And renewable can be helpful. Nuclear could be very 

helpful. I don’t see renewable and nuclear as either/or. It could be 

both. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Just real quick, part of it is that the new smartgrid technologies, where you are able to isolate those critical loads 

so you don’t have this islanding—and that is what we are working 

with, with the research agencies in the Department of Energy, on 

those smart-grid technologies. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but to piggyback on Mr. Taylor’s point by figuring this out here in the United 

States, where it is a safer and more stable environment, we can 

transform a lot of that technology from some of our forward operating bases into theater. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. I was under the impression that my good 

friend, Mr. Marshall, was finished; but he is not finished with his 

question. And we have two more members and I hope that we 

can—we hate to keep you here until we finish the voting. I know 

you have other things to do. But now let me yield to my good 

friend, Mr. Marshall, for his question. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Because of the fact that there are two others 

here, and we are under 15 minutes right now, I am going to be 

very, very brief and just make the observation that there may be 

no inconsistency between other forms of renewable power and nuclear, we don’t know. It depends largely upon whether or not you 

are hardening the other stuff. I suspect we are not. I suspect we 

didn’t even look into what it would cost, for example, with Warner 

Robins working with the private utility to add whatever should be 

added in order to have a hardened facility that would survive an 

EMP attack. It is, frankly, the attack that we are most vulnerable 

to here in the United States and it is something that would be absolutely dreadful if we are not able to get up and get running fairly 

quickly. 

So I would just simply ask that you brief me on the Department’s 

current process for making decisions concerning renewables, or others where power is concerned. 

Do you take into account hardening? 

I know we have gamed the consequences of EMP attacks. I know 

we want to be able to produce electricity fairly quickly after an 

EMP attack. We wouldn’t want to do it simply for ourselves. We 

would want to do it for the populations we are serving, just like 

we did where Katrina was concerned. I will just let it go at that 

so that the others can ask their questions. You need not comment 

at this point. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Shea-Porter, she is a member of the Subcommittee. And then we will give to Mr. Murphy. And we don’t 

want to keep you here longer than you have to be here. Thank you. 

Go ahead, Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. I have been concerned about the 

burn pits. I had an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization that prohibited disposing of medical and hazardous 

wastes and plastics in burn pits. Unfortunately in conference, they 

took out the part about the plastics. 

I received a safety newsletter from Iraq recently and it focused 

on burn pits. Their two incinerators can handle 70 of the 110 tons 
24 

of trash a day generated by the base, and the remainder, about 40 

tons a day, is burned in the open pit. Their safety department 

knows of the health dangers, exposure to dioxins and other toxic 

chemicals released by the burning of these plastics, a practice prohibited in the U.S. for health reasons. Most of the plastics are from 

the dining hall and the newsletter notes the importance of recycling the plastics. 

I would also add there are alternatives to using plastic utensils. 

We use them right here in the House. What are you doing, please, 

to reduce the quantity of plastics that are burned in these pits, and 

are you open to purchasing the renewables that would be much 

safer for the troops? Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Madam Congresswoman, I am not sure the status 

of alternatives to the plastic utility ware, I mean to plastic ware, 

but I know that we have put out some directives on burn pits; and 

we are certainly moving to eliminate those because we recognize 

the hazard and potential hazard is serious, and a serious threat to 

our soldiers as well as the locals. And we can get you an answer 

on the specifics on that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 95.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would appreciate that. Again, I would repeat 

that most of the plastics are from the dining hall. So it seems a 

pretty simple solution. And I do believe that it is essential to protecting these soldiers’ lungs and their bodies from some unnecessary exposure. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions today. Thank you. And to the panel, thank 

you so much for your continued service to our country and to our 

military. 

My question today is mostly focused on facility energy, and the 

Department of Defense, as we all know and as you testified today, 

is the single largest energy consumer in the United States. In 2008 

alone, the Department of Defense spent $4 billion on facility energy. And I think that we can all acknowledge that the Department 

needs to do much more work on utilizing renewable energy sources. 

But outside the sheer dollar value, I also know that the Department itself has highlighted how intertwined energy security is with 

installation security. 

Two months ago, I read that the December 2009 GAO study on 

renewable energy in our defense infrastructure clearly raised concerns about the current challenges in ensuring installation energy 

security, specifically noting—and I quote—‘‘technical and safety 

challenges required to integrate the onsite renewable energy generation with the installation’s existing electrical infrastructure and 

operating the renewable technology safety during a power supply 

disruption.’’ 

Additionally, the QDR noted ‘‘to address energy security while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic facilities, 

the Department is focused on making them more resilient’’ as well 

as focusing on the need to ensure that critical installations are ade-
25 

quately prepared for prolonged outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, and attacks. 

So I am sure each of the services are executing their own plans 

in this area, but would each of you comment on the GAO findings 

in the QDR and discuss what more we need to do in terms of research, development, integration and implementing a strategy to 

ensure installation security through energy security? 

And I will start off with you, Mr. Hansen. You are a West Point 

graduate; I had an opportunity to teach at your alma mater. You 

can lead off. How does that sound, sir? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. We, as part of our 

Army energy security implementation strategy, are trying to pull 

together all aspects of that, the R&D part, the integration part. We 

haven’t fully implemented all that. I am not saying we are where 

we need to be yet, but we are well on the way with the metrics to 

achieve that integrated approach that you are describing. 

I know that the Air Force at Robins has done some exercise on 

this. There are good news stories, and we are certainly learning 

from each other. So I think that we appreciate the assistance that 

the Congress has given us in a number of these areas with programs like the energy conservation improvement program. And we 

try to use those smartly to improve those security elements at both 

the installation level and through energy security. That is a fairly 

general answer, but we are working hard in just the areas that you 

identified. 

Mr. MURPHY. Before I go to the others, because I know my 

time—if I could, just one other thing real quick. How about as far 

as coordinating—I know, obviously all of you in your individual departments and Dr. Robyn with the Department of Defense itself, 

but how about the coordination with outside agencies, outside the 

Department of Defense, on installation energy issues? 

For example, we all know about the historic investments this 

Congress has made in smart-grid technology that has been utilized 

by the Department of Energy. So is there any coordination with the 

Department of Energy, with DOD, et cetera, in regards to that? 

I will turn to Dr. Robyn and anyone else that wants to touch 

base. 

Mr. NATSUHARA. For the Department of the Navy, we just started four working groups with the Department of Energy and 

through the Department of Defense. And one of those working 

groups is on the smart grid, and energy security is one of the big 

topics that we have just kicked off. Through our research, our own 

naval research labs, and the Department of Energy, we really 

wanted to leverage that technology. We do see that as a big area, 

and so we are going across the other agencies with that. 

Dr. ROBYN. We meet early and often with the Department of Energy. There is the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and there is a division of that devoted to buildings and 

overseen by a former colleague of mine, and we are working with 

them. 

As you note, Department of Energy has a new program called 

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E) modeled 

after our Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

program, and we are hoping to partner with them on the test bed 
26 

idea. The National Renewable Energy Lab—I mean there are 

many, many parts of the Department of Energy that we work with 

on the issue of compatibility of renewables with our air and land 

requirements. They are a critical player on that as well. 

Mrs. TUNE. As I stated earlier, the Air Force is completing both 

physical and cyber vulnerability threats, and there are things that 

are short, mid, and long-term, and we are engaged, along with the 

other services, in OSD, with the Department of Homeland Security, 

and DOE, because we are all aggressively working this to mitigate 

the risk. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. I think that all of us have a huge 

responsibility not only to those that serve in the military, but our 

taxpayers, to come up with the new ideas, new concepts, new research that will save the taxpayers money as well. 

I think that this has been a very interesting hearing. And we 

hate to keep you here because we have a series of votes. But any 

member who is here, who may not be here, who might like to ask 

questions, we will give them the opportunity to submit written 

questions to you so you can respond. 

And thank you so much. This has been very interesting testimony, and we will work with you and stay in contact with you. The 

hearing stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

(95) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. TAYLOR 

Mr. NATSUHARA. On Jan 19, 2010, the Under Secretary of the Navy Mr. Robert 

O. Work accepted eight solar-powered water purifiers, on behalf of the Navy, from 

Quercus Trust. All eight purifers were sent to Afghanistan and employed by the Marines operating in the Helmand Province. Feedback from the Marines and Afghanis 

is very positive. We look forward to employing other similar renewable solutions 

that simplify the logistics chain and improve our combat effectiveness. [See page 

19.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER 

Mr. HANSEN. Theater guidelines contained in U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) Regulation 200–2 applicable to both Iraq and Afghanistan prohibit the 

burning of plastics in burn pits. The recent assessment conducted in response to a 

Department of the Army execution order (EXORD), found that plastic is being separated and recycled in theater when possible but that there is room for improvement, 

particularly in segregating trash from the dining facilities. The guidelines also require that we continue to improve solid waste disposal methods and move away 

from open burn pits, to include installing incinerators. 

Currently, there are 28 Solid Waste incinerators installed in Iraq and 2 more 

being installed. In Afghanistan there are 4 incinerators already operational, 17 containerized incinerators (3 Ton) being installed, and 45 smaller (1 Ton) containerized 

incinerators on the way. In addition, 15 larger (5 Ton) mobile incinerators are 

awarded and plans for $80M in military construction (MILCON) for 23 incinerators 

for future installation in Afghanistan. 

CENTCOM and the Department of the Army are very open to employing ecofriendly and renewable technologies when doing so is not cost prohibitive and otherwise makes sense in the contingency environment. Utensils made from renewable 

materials are cost prohibitive as the least expensive available costs 400% more than 

the plastic utensils currently being used. In addition, the alternative of reusing 

table utensils is limited by cost associated with the limited potable water supply and 

other sanitary conditions at sites in theater. [See page 24.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

(99) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided significant 

funding within operation and maintenance, military construction, and research and 

development accounts for energy projects. Just considering the operation and maintenance funding, the Department of Defense identified 1,473 energy-related projects 

with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion to be executed with Recovery Act dollars. Æ Can you quantify the energy savings or energy security benefits to the Department of Defense from these investments? Æ Are these or other similar energy investments correlated with a Departmentwide energy security plan? 

Dr. ROBYN. DOD currently has 63% of its buildings metered and is working aggressively to fully meter all buildings by 2012. Until this effort is complete, we are 

very limited in our ability to quantify savings on these individual projects. We use 

engineering estimates to project energy savings for individual projects. Also the 

Services collect energy performance data by installation. 

The recently released Quadrennial Defense Review makes clear that crafting a 

strategic approach to energy and climate change is a high priority for the Department. Since 2003, the Department has reduced energy consumption per square foot 

by 10% at our permanent installations. DOD’s strategy for energy security starts 

with establishing an enterprise-wide energy data management system to assist us 

with monitoring, measuring, managing and maintaining our installations at optimal 

performance levels. You can’t manage what you can’t measure. The DOD strategy 

for our energy investment is twofold. First we invest in making our infrastructure 

more energy efficient to reduce demand. We require new construction to meet LEED 

Silver design and all construction to be 30% better than ASHRAE standards. Secondly we are investing in renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence on 

fossil fuels and make us more secure from possible interruption of the U.S electric 

grid. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MARSHALL 

Mr. MARSHALL. Please detail the extent to which the Department, in developing 

a strategic approach to energy efficiency and independence on military installations 

both here and abroad, took into account the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) 

attacks, major weather calamities, and other major threats. 

Additionally, the FY10 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Department of Defense to develop specifications for ‘‘installation-wide, unified energy monitoring and utility control systems.’’ Although the bill envisioned an installation-byinstallation approach, in your written testimony you stated that one of the Department’s key initiatives is to implement an ‘‘enterprise-wide’’ system. 

1. Please provide an update on the Department’s efforts to comply with Sec. 2481 

of the FY10 NDAA. 

2. Are you envisioning a different approach than installation-by-installation? 

3. Please explain how an ‘‘enterprise-wide’’ approach will integrate with ‘‘installation-wide’’ systems. 

4. Please detail any delays or additional costs that will be incurred by focusing 

on an ‘‘enterprise-wide’’ approach. 

SEC. 2841. ADOPTION OF UNIFIED ENERGY MONITORING AND UTILITY 

CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING ACTIVITIES. 

(a) Adoption Required.— 

(1) In general.—Subchapter III of chapter 169 of title 10, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2866 

the following new section: 

‘‘Sec. 2867. Energy monitoring and utility control system specification for military construction and military family housing activities 

‘‘(a) Adoption of Department-wide, Open Protocol, Energy Monitoring and Utility Control System Specification.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall adopt an open 

protocol energy monitoring and utility control system specification for use through-
100 

out the Department of Defense in connection with a military construction project, 

military family housing activity, or other activity under this chapter for the purpose 

of monitoring and controlling, with respect to the project or activity, the items specified in paragraph (2) with the goal of establishing installation-wide energy monitoring and utility control systems. 

‘‘(2) The energy monitoring and utility control system specification required by 

paragraph (1) shall cover the following: 

‘‘(A) Utilities and energy usage, including electricity, gas, steam, and water 

usage. 

‘‘(B) Indoor environments, including temperature and humidity levels. 

‘‘(C) Heating, ventilation, and cooling components. 

‘‘(D) Central plant equipment. 

‘‘(E) Renewable energy generation systems. 

‘‘(F) Lighting systems. 

‘‘(G) Power distribution networks. 

Dr. ROBYN. Every installation has an installation disaster response and recovery 

plan that identifies critical missions and the energy and resources to recover missions interrupted by natural disaster, physical attack and a variety of other threats. 

Threats and responses due to electromagnetic pulses for some critical assets are 

known. Annual exercises are required at each installation to determine the proficiency of the installation’s people and infrastructure to respond to an attack. 

DOD recognizes that installation energy data is not collected, analyzed and reported in the same manner across the Department. We are working to develop an 

energy monitoring and utility control system specification as required by the 2010 

National Defense Authorization Act. Currently we are reviewing concerns from the 

individual Military Departments that the specification be consistent with existing 

systems currently in use. Following this review we will produce an open-protocol 

specification to be approved by a Tri-Service Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) Board. 

Our efforts to develop an enterprise-wide energy data management system will not 

slow implementation of this specification. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. The recently released Quadrennial Defense Review stated that climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment, that climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably 

linked, and that the National Intelligence Council has judged that more than 30 

military installations, including those on Guam, are already facing elevated levels 

of risk from rising sea levels. It also notes that one of the reasons the Department 

is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives. 

How important is the shift by DOD to renewable energy, including energy produced on DOD lands, to your overall strategy to address climate change? 

I am concerned about whether DOD is really taking the serious steps, and programming the resources, necessary to successfully adapt to the impacts of climate 

change in terms of both U.S. military installations like those on Guam and in terms 

of working with U.S. and international partners to help fragile states, especially 

coastal states, adapt to those changes. 

In addition to your efforts regarding renewable energy, what are the other steps 

DOD is taking both domestically and internationally with regard to climate change 

adaptation, and what is your sense of the level of resource commitment that will 

take over the FYDP? 

Dr. ROBYN. Although other U.S. government agencies have the lead on responding 

to climate change, DOD has an opportunity to exhibit leadership on the issue. To 

this end, under Executive Order 13514, DOD recently established an aggressive 34% 

reduction target from facilities greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2020. Meeting this target will require a concerted effort to both decrease energy demand and 

increase the supply of renewable energy. DOD has been investing in renewable energy on its facilities for decades and to both meet the EO target as well as comply 

with statute, DOD is increasing its development of renewable energy resources. 

As to climate change adaptation, DOD is making significant investments in research and development to quantify the potential impacts to DOD installations and 

their missions and to identify adaptation options and strategies. These activities, as 

indicated in the Quadrenial Defense Review, are led by the Department’s Strategic 

Environmental Research and Development Program. In addition, the Department’s 

Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program will allow Combatant 

Commanders to cooperate on adaptation strategies with foreign militaries. 
101 

Ms. BORDALLO. For FY2010, the Department received more funding for the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) than was originally requested in the 

Administration’s budget. Could you please explain how DOD plans to use the additional funding? 

Dr. ROBYN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS 

Ms. GIFFORDS. When we discuss the prospects of net-zero facilities, does the department intend to continue investing in credits or will it expand its efforts to organically produce renewable energy solutions? 

Dr. ROBYN. Currently, Renewable Energy Credits or Certificates (RECs) help 

DOD achieve federal renewable energy mandates under EPAct 2005, EO 13423, 

EISA 2007 and 10 USC 2911 (e) for the percentage of renewable energy DOD produces or procures. DOD uses DOE guidance for how the Department accounts for 

the RECs in the Annual Energy Management Report to Congress. However, RECs 

do not create real, measurable energy security at DOD installations since a REC 

is an environmental attribute that can be purchased in a REC tradable market as 

an ‘‘unbundled’’ attribute of the actual renewable energy produced at one location 

and sold to another purchaser at another location. 

The DOD plan is to reduce energy demand through conservation and efficiency 

and increase the use and consumption of alternative energy and renewable energy 

from on-site or near-site generation sources in order to retain our ability to operate 

during prolonged grid outages. Under this plan, we will be reducing our purchases 

of RECs. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. On-site energy generation has proven effective in offsetting energy 

use. Previous systems, for example fuel cells like those installed at Fort Huachuca 

in my District have a track record for creating serious cost savings that in previous 

years has averaged more than $65,000 annually. 

What kind of savings could we assume if we expanded on-site generation programs to all new facilities on installations? 

How could additional on-site generation be leveraged alongside LEED standards 

to achieve greater overall savings? 

Dr. ROBYN. Given current technology, demand reduction provides a much quicker 

pay-back than on-site generation. We have therefore focused our efforts on designing 

and constructing to a goal of 100% LEED Silver. Nonetheless, we are making a significant investment in on-site renewable projects. We have also created a test bed 

initiative, leveraging our unique building portfolio to more quickly develop renewable technologies. As an initial customer we can then put these technologies to use 

on our bases. 

Æ