Defense Management: Steps Taken to Better Manage Fuel Demand but Additional Information Sharing Mechanisms Are Needed
Published: 2012-06-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: According to DOD, the U.S. militarys dependence on liquid fuel in countries like Afghanistan creates an enormous logistics burden that exposes forces to enemy attack and diverts operational resources from other mission areas to support delivery of this critical resource. In 2011, DOD consumed almost 5 billion gallons of fuel in military operations worldwide, at a cost of approximately $17.3 billion. GAO was asked to (1) assess DODs approach for fuel demand management, including at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan, (2) determine the extent to which DOD has initiatives to promote fuel efficiency at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan and efforts to coordinate and collaborate on such initiatives, and (3) assess efforts to measure the results of its fuel demand management initiatives and establish a baseline measure of fuel consumption in Afghanistan. To conduct this review, GAO analyzed DOD and service guidance and strategies related to fuel demand management and fuel demand management initiatives, visited locations in Afghanistan, and met with DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to establish an approach for managing DODs overall fuel demand, but is still developing comprehensive guidance to address fuel demand management, including at forward-deployed locations in countries such as Afghanistan. In 2009, GAO reported that DOD lacked (1) visibility and accountability for achieving fuel reduction, (2) incentives and a viable funding mechanism to invest in the implementation of fuel demand reduction projects, and (3) guidance and policies that addressed fuel demand at forward-deployed locations. In response to GAO recommendations, DOD has taken steps since 2009 to increase its visibility and accountability for fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations, including those located in Afghanistan. In addition, with an increased focus on fuel demand management, DOD has also provided funding and incentives to implement fuel demand management projects. Further, DOD has issued some guidance on fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations since 2009 and is developing more comprehensive guidance on how DOD will incorporate energy efficiency considerations into operations, planning, and training decisions for current military operations in Afghanistan and for future military operations. DODs 2012 Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan acknowledges the need for additional comprehensive guidance and directs the Joint Staff and military departments to report, by the end of fiscal year 2012, on how operational energy considerations will be reflected in policy, doctrine, and professional military education. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires DOD to report to Congress annually on its progress in implementing its operational energy strategy. DOD has yet to submit its first report.
Multiple DOD organizations are developing initiatives to decrease fuel demand at forward-deployed locations, including in Afghanistan, and the department has worked to facilitate some coordination and collaboration among the services on fuel demand management efforts. However, it is still developing an approach to systematically identify and track all of the fuel demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and development phase throughout DOD. GAOs prior work found that utilizing a mechanism such as a database can help organizations enhance their visibility and oversight of DOD programs. Until DOD finalizes its approach to systematically identify and track fuel demand management initiatives, it may be limited in its ability to foster collaboration, achieve efficiencies, and avoid unintended duplication or overlap of activities.
DOD has started to measure the results of some of the fuel demand management initiatives used in Afghanistan, but is still in the process of collecting and assessing comprehensive baseline data needed to measure current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. The Army and Marine Corps have begun collecting data on the amount of fuel consumed by their current assets in Afghanistan. Recognizing the need for additional information, DODs 2012 Implementation Plan has tasked the services with developing and refining their fuel consumption baselines by mid-2012 and DOD has provided funding for this purpose. Once collected, these data should enhance DODs planning, programming, and operational decisions and help DOD assess progress toward meeting its operational energy goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD finalize and implement a systematic approach that includes establishing a mechanism to identify and track fuel demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and development phase. DOD partially concurred with GAOs recommendation, citing ongoing efforts to identify and track initiatives. Until fully implemented, GAO is unable to assess whether these efforts fully address the recommendation

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) depends heavily on petroleum-based  fuel to sustain its forward-deployed locations around the world— particularly at remote locations that are not connected to local power grids  and must rely on fuel-consuming generators for heating, cooling, lighting,  and other base support activities. According to DOD, the U.S. military’s  dependence on liquid fuel in countries like Afghanistan creates an  enormous logistics burden that exposes forces to enemy attack and  diverts operational resources from other mission areas to support delivery  of this critical resource. In addition, global oil supply routes flow through  unstable regions, which can pose supply vulnerabilities, and sharp rises  in fuel prices have increased DOD’s operating costs at a time when the  department faces mandated reductions to defense spending. In 2011,  DOD consumed almost 5 billion gallons of fuel in military operations  worldwide, at a cost of approximately $17.3 billion. To help reduce its  demand for fuel in military activities abroad, the services expect to spend  approximately $4 billion over the next 5 years on operational energy  initiatives.
Over the past several years, we and others have reported on the  challenges DOD faces in managing fuel use at forward-deployed  locations, and Congress has required action by DOD on this issue. In  February 2008, the Defense Science Board reported that the high demand for fuel in-theater degrades operational capabilities, exposes  support operations to greater risk than necessary, and increases life-cycle  costs. In 2009, we reported that each of the services had efforts planned  or underway to reduce fuel demand, but these efforts were not well  coordinated and DOD lacked an effective approach for implementing its  fuel demand management initiatives and maintaining sustained attention  to fuel demand management at its forward-deployed locations. The  Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009  established a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs  (OEP&P) and developed an operational energy strategy, providing the  department with an opportunity to increase attention on improving fuel  demand management. As defined in that act, operational energy is  energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and  weapons platforms for military operations, including tactical power  systems, generators, and weapons platforms.
Interested in DOD’s progress in addressing these issues since our 2009  report, you asked us to examine DOD’s efforts to reduce the demand for  and promote the efficient use of fuel by the U.S. military at forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan. Specifically, this report addresses (1)  DOD’s approach for fuel demand management, including at forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan; (2) the extent to which DOD has  initiatives to promote fuel efficiency at forward-deployed locations in  Afghanistan and efforts to coordinate and collaborate on such initiatives;  and (3) DOD’s efforts to measure the results of its fuel demand  management initiatives and establish a baseline measure of fuel  consumption in Afghanistan.
To address our objectives, we analyzed DOD and military service  guidance, relevant legislation, and other documents, and discussed fuel  demand issues with agency officials to gain their perspectives on DOD’s  fuel demand management efforts and challenges. We focused our review  on efforts to manage fuel demand to include forward-deployed locations  within the Central Command’s area of responsibility in Afghanistan.  Based on discussions with DOD officials and site visits to forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan, we analyzed the extent to which DOD  had established an approach for managing fuel demand at forward- deployed locations and a means to facilitate coordination and  collaboration among the services on these initiatives since our 2009  report. Additionally, based on data provided by the services, we identified  key fuel demand management initiatives that are currently fielded or are  in development and expected to address fuel demand issues at forward- deployed locations. Furthermore, we reviewed strategies the services  have in place to measure the results of their fuel demand management  initiatives, cost savings data, and the extent to which DOD uses  measures to track and assess the results of its initiatives in Afghanistan.
For the purposes of this report, the term fuel demand management initiatives includes  nonmateriel and materiel solutions to assist DOD in reducing its reliance on fuel  consumed at forward-deployed locations. Nonmateriel solutions include efforts such as  changes to policies and procedures, or modifications to staffing to perform fuel demand  management functions. Materiel solutions include developing equipment such as more  efficient generators or environmental control units. in our review and/or are illustrative of DOD’s fuel demand management  initiatives and challenges. We concentrated our review on the steps the  Army and Marine Corps have taken to reduce fuel demand because  these two services have the responsibility for managing forward-deployed  locations in Afghanistan.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to June 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Details about our scope and  methodology are contained in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Forward-Deployed Locations in Afghanistan
paragraphs: At any given time, the United States has military personnel serving  abroad in forward-deployed locations to support U.S. strategic interests.  The number of personnel and locations vary with the frequency and type  of military operations and deployment demands. In general, operational  control of U.S. military forces at forward-deployed locations is assigned to  the nation’s six geographic, unified overseas regional commands,  including Central Command. Central Command’s area of responsibility  includes Afghanistan, where military operations have led to the creation of  several hundred locations that vary in size and structure to meet mission  requirements, and the military service components have been responsible  for establishing and maintaining these locations. Some forward operating  bases such as Bagram Air Field support thousands of personnel and are  large consumers of energy. Forward operating bases generally support a  brigade or larger population and are typically composed of temporary or  semi-permanent structures that require energy for lighting, heating, and  air conditioning; electrical power grids; water and sewage systems; and  force protection systems. At the other end of the spectrum, small units at  the company level and below have established combat outposts to  enhance local operations. These outposts have a short life-cycle and  unique configurations. Since these forward-deployed locations can be  constructed in a variety of ways, the amount of fuel they consume can  vary. Figure 1 shows the forward-deployed locations we visited during the  course of our review.
Military deployments generally rely on petroleum-based fuels, which  power communication equipment, expeditionary bases, tactical vehicles,  aircraft, some naval vessels, and other platforms. According to DOD  officials, more than 43 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied  each month to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2011. Equipment  such as generators provides power for base support activities such as air  conditioning, heating, lighting, and communications, and consumes a  significant amount of fuel  In Afghanistan, the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-Energy)  delivers fuel to multiple points of delivery throughout the country via  contracted trucking assets, depending on the location of the bases. DLA- Energy tracks the aggregate amount of fuel the services consume based  on sales receipts, and the U.S. government pays for fuel that is delivered  to each of these designated delivery points. The North Atlantic Treaty  Organization delivers fuel in the southern part of Afghanistan.
While the cost of fuel represents only about 2 percent of DOD’s total  budget, it can have a significant impact on the department’s operating  costs. Since the military services prepare their annual budgets based on  the approved fuel price projections in the President’s budget, market  volatility in the year of execution can result in out-of-cycle fuel price  increases that are difficult for the services to absorb. A prior DOD report  has estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil,  DOD’s operating costs increase by approximately $1.3 billion. The  department has received supplemental appropriations from Congress in  prior years to cover budget shortages associated with rising fuel prices.
Moreover, the total cost of delivering fuel to a consumer on the  battlefield—which includes the aggregate cost of buying, moving, and  protecting fuel during combat operations—can be much greater than the  cost of the fuel itself. A 2008 Defense Science Board task force report  noted that preliminary estimates by the OSD Program Analysis and  Evaluation office and the Institute for Defense Analyses showed that the  fully burdened cost of a $2.50 gallon of fuel (DLA’s standard price for  fuel in 2008)  begins at about $15, not including force protection  requirements for supply convoys. In addition, fuel delivered in-flight was  estimated to cost about $42 a gallon at that time. However, the report  notes that these figures were considered low when the report was  published in 2008 and, according to DOD officials, in 2011, the cost of a  gallon of this fuel had risen to $3.95 (DLA standard price in 2011), making  the fully burdened cost of fuel even higher than previously reported. In  fiscal year 2009 Congress required the Secretary of Defense to  incorporate the fully burdened cost of fuel into its cost analyses, including  acquisition analyses of alternatives and program design trade decisions.At the time of our review, DOD officials stated the department was in the  process of analyzing the fully burdened cost of fuel and how it will be  applied throughout DOD’s acquisition process.
section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Establish an Approach for Fuel Demand Management, but Is Still Developing Comprehensive Guidance
paragraphs: DOD has taken steps since our 2009 report to establish an approach for  managing overall fuel demand, but is still developing comprehensive  guidance to address fuel demand management. In 2009, we reported that  DOD faced difficulty in reducing its reliance on fuel at forward-deployed  locations because managing fuel demand had not been a departmental  priority and its fuel reduction efforts had not been well coordinated or  comprehensive. As such, we recommended that DOD develop  requirements for managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations,  and DOD concurred with this recommendation. Since that time, DOD has  taken several steps to increase its visibility and accountability for fuel  demand management, and is developing comprehensive guidance on  how DOD will incorporate energy efficiency considerations into  operations, planning, and training decisions for current and future military  operations.
subsections: section_title: Progress in Establishing Visibility and Accountability for Overall DOD Fuel Demand Management
paragraphs: DOD has made progress in establishing visibility and accountability for  fuel demand management since our 2009 report by making organizational  changes and issuing an Operational Energy Strategy (operational energy  strategy) and related Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan  (implementation plan) to provide direction for DOD’s overall fuel  demand management efforts, including efforts at forward-deployed  locations in Afghanistan. Specifically, in our prior report we noted that  DOD’s organizational framework did not provide the department with  visibility or accountability over fuel demand management issues at  forward-deployed locations because there was no one office or official  specifically responsible for these issues. We also found that fuel demand  reduction efforts were not consistently shared across DOD. Our prior  work has shown that visibility and accountability for results are  established by assigning roles and responsibilities, establishing goals and  metrics, and monitoring performance.
Congress and DOD have taken multiple steps to address this issue. For  instance, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2009 established a Director of Operational Energy Plans and  Programs (OEP&P) responsible for serving as the principal advisor to  the Secretary of Defense for operational energy plans and programs,  which includes, among other responsibilities, monitoring and reviewing all  operational energy initiatives in DOD. Since its establishment, OEP&P  has worked in conjunction with all of the services’ energy offices to  provide visibility and accountability for operational energy issues,  including fuel demand management issues. For example, with input from  the services, OEP&P published the Operational Energy Strategy  Implementation Plan in March 2012 that assigns responsibilities for key  tasks and specifies milestones and reporting requirements that will  provide accountability for implementing the operational energy strategy  (see appendix II). Also, in March 2012, DOD established a Defense  Operational Energy Board to help provide visibility and accountability over  operational energy efforts that included fuel demand management. The  board will be cochaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Operational Energy Plans and Programs and the Joint Staff’s Director of  Logistics. According to OEP&P officials, the board will help review,  synchronize, and support departmentwide operational energy policies,  plans, and programs. In addition, the board will monitor and, where  necessary, recommend revisions to DOD policies, plans, and programs  needed to implement the operational energy strategy. DOD’s operational  energy strategy, the implementation plan, and the Defense Operational  Energy Board are intended to support departmentwide operational energy  efforts while also having a direct impact on DOD’s efforts to manage fuel  demand at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. Figure 2 provides a  timeline of key events in OEP&P’s efforts to manage operational energy  issues.
To further enhance DOD’s operational energy efforts, the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 required the Chairman of  the Joint Chiefs of Staff to designate a senior official under the jurisdiction  of the Chairman to be responsible for operational energy plans and  programs. In August 2011, the Chairman appointed the Joint Staff’s  Director of Logistics to this position with responsibility for coordinating  with OEP&P and implementing initiatives pursuant to the operational  energy strategy. According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Staff is  committed to addressing operational energy capability gaps and in April  2012 formed a Joint Capabilities Task Group to identify and address fuel  demand management issues. The task group’s mission includes: providing recommendations to better integrate operational energy into  current and future materiel and nonmateriel solutions to improve  operational capabilities, and  supporting evaluation of the operational energy requirements process,  and providing recommendations through the requisite Functional  Capabilities Boards and the Joint Logistics Board to the Joint  Capabilities Board or Joint Requirements Oversight Council for  validation/decision.
According to Joint Staff officials, the Joint Capabilities Task Group will  focus on developing a framework for analysis that supports service and  DOD efforts to inform leaders such as commanders in Afghanistan about  operational energy vulnerabilities. The group will also propose guidance  to support the combatant commands in assessing logistics plans and  evaluating energy assumptions that will influence the execution of  operational plans. OEP&P officials told us that the Joint Staff plays a key  role in collaborating with OSD to create policy, develop joint doctrine, and  advocate for combatant commander requirements. Joint Staff officials told  us their goal is to incorporate energy efficiency guidance into existing joint  publications when such documents are up for review. As part of this  process the Joint Staff’s Joint Capabilities Task Group will prioritize which  guidance documents will be revised first, then work toward updating other  applicable guidance documents. According to DOD officials, when these  guidance documents are updated, operational energy issues, including  priorities for addressing fuel demand management, should be included in  the services’ and combatant commanders’ mission planning activities.
Our prior work on government performance and management also notes  the importance of establishing goals and metrics to assess progress and  provide accountability. DOD’s operational energy strategy established  three overarching operational energy goals to: (1) reduce demand for  energy in military operations, (2) expand and secure energy supplies, and  (3) build energy security into the future force, and DOD has begun to take  steps to establish metrics to measure progress toward these goals.  OEP&P officials told us that the Defense Operational Energy Board will  develop departmental operational energy performance metrics to promote  the energy efficiency of military operations by the end of fiscal year 2012.  The board will also monitor and, as needed, recommend revisions to  DOD policies needed to implement the operational energy strategy and  monitor progress to ensure DOD is meeting its operational energy goals.  OEP&P officials stated that establishing such strategies, goals, and  metrics will not only provide DOD with the direction and tools needed to  assess progress towards meeting fuel demand management goals at  forward-deployed locations, including those in Afghanistan, but will  enhance DOD’s efforts to achieve its overall fuel demand management  objectives worldwide.
section_title: DOD Funding and Incentives for Fuel Demand Management at Forward-deployed Locations
paragraphs: Since our 2009 report, DOD has taken action to fund fuel demand  management initiatives and restructure maintenance contract task orders  to include energy efficiency considerations and incentives. In our 2009  report on fuel demand management, we found that DOD had not  established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for fuel reduction  projects at forward-deployed locations and commanders were not  encouraged to identify fuel reduction projects as a priority. Specifically,  we found that much of the funding provided to support military operations  in Iraq and Afghanistan was provided through supplemental funding  measures,fuel demand management initiatives. As such, we recommended that  DOD establish incentives for commanders of forward-deployed locations  to promote fuel demand reduction at their locations, as well as identify a   making it difficult to plan for and fund costly projects such as  viable funding mechanism for the department and commanders of  forward-deployed locations to pursue fuel reduction initiatives. DOD  partially concurred with our recommendation and said it was not  convinced that financial incentives represent the best fuel reduction  strategy for forward-deployed locations, but stated that it will seek to  incorporate fuel reduction incentives while recognizing the primacy of  mission accomplishment. Since the release of our 2009 report, DOD’s  increased focus on fuel demand management at forward-deployed  locations, and the establishment of OEP&P and the U.S. Forces- Afghanistan Operational Energy Division, increased priority has been  given to fuel demand management initiatives at forward-deployed  locations in Afghanistan. For example, DOD has undertaken a  widespread initiative to replace spot generation with centralized power  and the U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Operational Energy Division secured  $108 million in fiscal year 2011 from the Army to invest in more efficient  power production and distribution equipment for the Afghanistan area of  operations. According to DOD’s analysis, this investment will remove as  many as 545 spot generators saving an estimated 17.5 million gallons of  fuel per year, the equivalent of removing over 7,000 fuel trucks from the  roads in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Marine Corps committed fiscal  year 2011 funds to support the accelerated procurement of a suite of  more efficient tactical energy systems. Also, in 2011, DOD completed the  Afghanistan Micro-Grid Project, which was an effort at Bagram Airfield  to replace less efficient generator sets with a smart, more energy-efficient  power source. DOD provided over $2 million to fund this project.  Furthermore, to reinforce DOD’s commitment to reducing its reliance on  fuel at forward-deployed locations, in September 2011 the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics issued a  memorandum to support reprogramming overseas contingency  operations funds to expedite the deployment of more efficient generators,  centralized power projects, and shelter modification kits to forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan.
With the establishment of OEP&P, DOD also has increased its efforts to  obtain visibility over funding for initiatives aimed at reducing fuel  consumption at forward-deployed locations. For example, to help ensure  the services’ budgets support the implementation of DOD’s operational  energy strategy, OEP&P is now required by law to publish an annual  operational energy budget certification report. This report certifies that the  proposed services’ budgets are adequate for the implementation of the  operational energy aspects of their respective energy strategies.  According to OEP&P’s fiscal year 2012 budget certification report, the  services anticipate spending approximately $4 billion on operational  energy initiatives over the next 5 years. Although the operational energy  initiatives identified through OEP&P’s budget certification process are not  specifically targeted for use at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan,  many of them have been tested and fielded there, and will be applicable  to DOD’s fuel demand management efforts both in Afghanistan and  elsewhere. To improve the energy efficiency of DOD’s operational forces,  the fiscal year 2012 President’s Budget also included an additional $19  million in funding for an Operational Energy Capabilities Improvement  Fund. Its mission is to fund innovation to improve operational  effectiveness by investing in research and development for operational  energy innovation. These funds are intended as “seed money” to  consolidate or initiate promising operational energy programs. The initial  funding for these efforts will be administered by OEP&P, but the  programs will be ultimately sustained by the services. According to DOD,  the initiatives funded by this program will support efforts to develop and  rapidly transition energy technologies for the combat force, resulting in  improved military capabilities, fewer energy-related casualties, and lower  costs for the taxpayer. As part of this fund, in January 2012 DOD allotted  funds to begin developing six new operational energy initiatives. Although  these initiatives are not finalized and are still being developed, DOD  expects these efforts to play a role in reducing fuel demand at forward- deployed locations. Initiatives such as the development of new energy- efficient containerized living units used in expeditionary bases around the  world, energy-efficient heating and air conditioning systems, and newly  designed shelter systems used to decrease fuel demand at forward- deployed locations are some of the products being developed under this  program.
In addition to the initiatives mentioned above, DOD has placed a higher  priority on ensuring contractors responsible for executing operations and  maintenance contracts are addressing energy efficiency issues at  forward-deployed locations. For instance, the U.S. Army Materiel  Command has taken steps to enforce the existing language included in  Logistics Civil Augmentation Program ( LOGCAP) contracts to require  more attention be given to increasing energy efficiency at forward- deployed locations. To address power generation concerns, a June 2011  LOGCAP policy letter indicates that contractors should complete  assessments for the more than 4,000 generators located on over 130  bases in Afghanistan to assess power load demand and energy  efficiency. The U.S. Army Materiel Command and U.S. Forces- Afghanistan also plan to include energy efficiency standards in the  technical specifications for new and refurbished facilities maintained by  support contractors. Further, contractors will also now be required to  provide energy assessments and make recommendations for improved  efficiency to supported units. According to DOD and LOGCAP officials,  these and other efforts are ongoing and are expected to assist DOD in  reducing its fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. Officials also  told us that by increasing efforts to reduce fuel demand, U.S. forces will  both reduce operational costs associated with high fuel consumption and  increase combat capability by freeing up forces used to protect fuel  convoys and reduce forces’ exposure to hostile action.
section_title: DOD Guidance for Fuel Demand Management
paragraphs: DOD has issued guidance for fuel demand management and is  developing comprehensive guidance for its operational, planning, and  training decisions. Since our 2009 report on fuel demand management,  various DOD organizations have issued guidance for fuel demand  management and the department is still developing more comprehensive  guidance on how to incorporate energy efficiency considerations into  DOD’s operational, planning, and training decisions. In our 2009 report,  we found that DOD had not developed overarching fuel demand  management guidance to require commanders to manage and reduce  fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations. In addition, we found that  there was little or no written guidance that addressed fuel demand  management or energy efficiency for base camp construction or for other  business decisions such as maintenance or procurement actions. We  recommended that multiple organizations within DOD develop specific  guidance on fuel demand management in their areas of responsibility.  DOD has since issued overarching, theater-level, and base camp  construction and development guidance, but is still developing policy and  doctrine to provide guidance on how energy efficiency considerations will  be included in operational decisions that affect fuel demand management  at forward-deployed locations, such as those in Afghanistan.
To provide overarching guidance to DOD’s operational energy efforts,  including reducing its reliance on fuel at forward-deployed locations, DOD  published its 2011 operational energy strategy and its 2012  implementation plan. As noted above, the implementation plan provides  DOD stakeholders involved in fuel demand management with a roadmap  for accomplishing key tasks to reduce fuel demand. However, because  OEP&P is a new organization and in the early stages of working within  DOD to develop guidance and policies, DOD has yet to address how  energy efficiency considerations will be incorporated into its joint  doctrine, which provides the principles that guide the employment of  U.S. military forces in an operational environment and is essential to  organizing, training, and equipping its units. DOD’s Operational Energy  Strategy Implementation Plan also acknowledges the need for additional  comprehensive guidance and directs the Joint Staff and military  departments to report to the Defense Operational Energy Board by the  fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012 on how the strategy’s goals will be  reflected in policy, doctrine, and professional military education. The plan  further states that the scope of this task includes examining departmental  directives, instructions, field manuals, doctrine, professional military  education curricula, and other relevant guidance in order to include  energy efficiency considerations in its operational, planning, and training  decisions.
Central Command has updated its guidance for construction and base  camp development to place more emphasis on energy efficiency for  contingency and permanent base camps that support missions in its area  of responsibility. Specifically, in 2009 we noted that some of DOD’s  combatant commands and military services had developed construction  standards for forward-deployed locations, but our analysis showed that  this existing guidance was largely silent with regard to fuel demand  management and energy efficiency. Pertinent Central Command  guidance in 2009 included only one reference to energy efficiency  requiring that semi-permanent facilities—those facilities with a life  expectancy of more than 2 years, but less than 25 years—be designed  and constructed with finishes, materials, and systems selected for  moderate energy efficiency. According to the guidance in effect at that  time, semi-permanent construction standards were to be considered for  operations expected to last more than 2 years. In 2009, we found that the  temporary status of many forward-deployed locations, combined with a  focus on quickly establishing the locations rather than on sustaining them,  limited DOD’s emphasis on constructing energy-efficient facilities. We  recommended that DOD develop specific guidelines that address energy  efficiency considerations in base construction. In October 2011, Central  Command revised its policy for base camp construction standards to  include a greater emphasis on energy efficiency. For example, the  revised policy now calls for energy conservation best practices to be  incorporated into all new construction that is to be environmentally  controlled. Also, in an effort to reduce fuel consumption at forward- deployed locations, the policy requires all bases receiving power  generation support from contingency contracting programs, such as  LOGCAP, to conduct an electrical infrastructure assessment. According  to Central Command officials, conducting electrical infrastructure  assessments will allow base planners and commanders to determine  areas where energy efficiency shortfalls may be occurring, and identify  areas where energy generation and distribution adjustments should be  made in order to save fuel. The policy also includes other notable  provisions to promote energy efficiency such as encouraging the  insulation of temporary facilities when funds and time allow. Central  Command and OEP&P officials told us that revisions to this policy  encourage commanders to consider incorporating energy efficiency  standards into base camp construction and development, which may not  have otherwise been an area of concern.
In addition, in April 2012, the Commander of Bagram Airfield, one of the  major U.S. logistics bases in Afghanistan, issued additional guidance to  direct the use of energy efficiency design and construction standards for  all new and renovation construction projects on Bagram Airfield. For  example, the guidance requires new or renovated projects to use energy- saving equipment such as fluorescent or Light-Emitting Diodes (LED)  lighting, energy-efficient motors, and that windows, ceilings, walls, and  roofs be insulated, among other things. According to an OEP&P official,  all requests for approval to build or alter facilities must be reviewed by  Bagram’s Joint Facilities Utilization Board, which provides a way to  enforce efficiency standards throughout this location.
In 2011 and 2012, commanders in Afghanistan issued theater-level fuel  demand management guidance regarding maintenance and procurement  decisions for forward-deployed locations. In our 2009 report on fuel  demand management we found a lack of attention to fuel demand  management in guidance, including an absence of fuel usage guidelines  and metrics to evaluate progress of reduction efforts, as forward-deployed  locations are maintained and sustained over time. We also found the  procurement of products for forward-deployed locations presents  opportunities for DOD to consider making purchases that take into  account fuel demand or energy efficiencies when practical. Since that  time, commanders in Afghanistan have issued general policy memoranda  on repairing, maintaining, and procuring equipment to help reduce fuel  consumption at forward-deployed locations. Specifically, in June and  December of 2011 the Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, issued  operational energy guidance in the form of policy memoranda to  soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians of U.S. Forces- Afghanistan located at forward-deployed locations. These memoranda  stated that commanders are expected to take ownership of fuel demand  management issues and explore methods for reducing fuel demand at  forward-deployed locations. For example, commanders are to ensure  personnel take action to repair faulty equipment, avoid using heating and  air conditioning in unoccupied buildings, and work with support  contractors, suppliers, and the services to improve inefficient facilities and  devices such as generators and air conditioning units. In addition,  commanders should push for rapid fielding of new fuel savings methods,  where appropriate, and pursue existing, proven alternative energy options  that reduce the use and transport of fuel. During our visit to forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan in October 2011, however, many of the  commanders and personnel we spoke with were unaware of this  guidance or commented that it did not provide specific direction on how to  implement needed fuel demand management actions. As such, many of  the commanders with whom we spoke had not establish specific  guidance or protocols to address day-to-day fuel use, such as  establishing a base policy on turning off lights in unoccupied buildings or  immediately repairing faulty equipment. In addition, we found that some of  the commanders we spoke with in Afghanistan were not using available  energy efficient equipment and/or had not fixed faulty equipment. For  example, at Camp Sabalu-Harrison we observed inefficient generator  configurations in which multiple generators were used to power individual  tents when one generator could have provided adequate power for  multiple tents (see fig. 3). At Camp Leatherneck we observed, and were  told that available tent shading used to provide cover from the sun was  not being used consistently throughout the base (see fig. 4).
Additionally, at Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed, we observed an entry  control checkpoint powered by a 60-kilowatt generator when, according to  the commander in charge of this outpost, a smaller more energy-efficient  5- or 10-kilowatt generator would have provided adequate power (see fig.  5). Army officials at this location told us that the previous generator used  to power this entry control checkpoint had failed and had not been  replaced because it was considered a lower priority. According to officials  at the outpost, these types of equipment breakdowns happen frequently,  and due to the lack of adequately trained personnel and other mission  requirements, may take weeks to be repaired or replaced.
After our visit to Afghanistan, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan developed and  issued a fragmentary order to provide specific guidance on fuel demand  management procedures, and specific operational energy practices  needed to comply with the policy memoranda. The April 2012 operational  energy fragmentary order established milestone dates for accomplishing  tasks for reducing fuel demand at select forward-deployed locations.  According to DOD officials, this type of guidance provides U.S. Forces- Afghanistan’s subordinate commands with the specific direction  necessary to begin reducing fuel demand at its forward-deployed  locations. The order requires commanders located at forward-deployed  locations in Afghanistan to distribute the December 2011 operational  energy policy memo so that personnel will be aware of fuel demand  management goals and objectives for forward-deployed locations. In  addition, the order requires commanders to develop, distribute, and  implement policies that will complement the operational energy policy  memorandum no later than 30 days after the order was published.  Furthermore, the guidance requires that fuel accountability metrics be  established and made available by U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Joint Staff  (J-4) by the end of May 2012.
Further, service officials acknowledged the need for additional training  throughout the department on fuel demand management, and told us the  services are developing various curricula and training programs to make  sure personnel deployed to forward-deployed locations know how to  operate relevant equipment and understand the importance of reducing  fuel demand. For example, U.S. Marine Corps Training and Education  Command has begun developing and adding operational energy courses  to its expeditionary warfighting school curricula and, according to officials,  has begun working with other services to further educate military  personnel on the importance of energy conservation.
OEP&P officials stated that DOD’s focus on operational energy issues  and the organizations supporting this effort are new, and expect these  efforts to have an impact on fuel demand management at forward- deployed locations as they are implemented. OEP&P officials added they  are monitoring progress and will report to the congressional defense  committees on operational energy management and the implementation  of the operational energy strategy as required by the 2009 National  Defense Authorization Act.
section_title: DOD has Efforts Underway to Promote Fuel Efficiency, Coordination, and Collaboration but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Efforts to Identify and Track All Fuel Demand Management Initiatives
paragraphs: DOD has several ongoing initiatives to promote fuel efficiency at forward- deployed locations in Afghanistan and has established various methods  to facilitate some coordination and collaboration among the services.  However, it is still in the process of developing a systematic approach to  identify and track the numerous fuel demand management initiatives that  have been fielded, or are in the research and development phase  throughout DOD. Without a systematic approach, DOD may be limited in  its ability to provide full visibility over all of its fuel demand management  initiatives, achieve efficiencies, and avoid unintended duplication or  overlap of activities.
subsections: section_title: Fuel Demand Management Initiatives
paragraphs: We found that DOD, the services, and Central Command have numerous  efforts underway to develop and test various fuel demand management  initiatives. The Army and the Marine Corps have each established  facilities to test fuel demand management initiatives being pursued by  their respective service for potential use at forward-deployed locations.  For a list of fuel demand management initiatives being evaluated by the  services for possible use in Afghanistan see appendix III.
The services are engaged in several fuel demand management initiatives  that can be applied to forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. In 2011,  the Army’s Base Camp Integration Laboratory located at Fort Devens,  Massachusetts, began assessing new systems and technology that may  help increase energy efficiency and reduce fuel usage at base camp  operations. The Base Camp Integration Laboratory seeks to integrate and  verify new technology concepts and allows product testing before field  evaluation by soldiers. According to Army officials, by conducting  laboratory, systems, and interoperability testing on the items at the lab,  the Army can improve survivability, and sustainability, and reduce the  risks that may occur after new technology is deployed to the field.
Some of the specific initiatives currently being tested at the Base Camp  Integration Laboratory are:
Energy-efficient shelter testing to determine the energy efficiencies of  various tent shelter alternatives.
Soft Wall Shelter/Environmental Control Unit/Insulated Liner/Solar  Shade testing to determine the effects of solar shades and insulated  liners in reducing the solar load and temperature differential in soft- sided shelters. Additionally, these tests will determine if downsizing  the environmental control unit can sustain interior temperatures in  soft-sided shelters, thereby reducing power consumption.
Force Provider Micro Grid testing to determine the efficiency and  energy savings from replacing six generators with a microgrid within a  150-man base camp environment.
In a separate initiative to evaluate Marine Corps-specific equipment, the  Marine Corps Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) was  established to provide industry with an opportunity to demonstrate their  latest capabilities to enhance the Marine Corps’ self-sufficiency and  reduce its need for bulk fuel and water at forward-deployed locations such  as those in Afghanistan. To date there have been four iterations of the  ExFOB. The first was conducted at Quantico, Virginia in March 2010 and  involved the evaluation of, among other things, tent liners, Light-Emitting  Diodes (LED) lights, soldier-portable solar recharging power devices, and  a solar power energy collection and storage device. Those technologies  were determined to have the potential to increase combat effectiveness  by reducing the requirements for fuel and batteries, and were deployed to  Afghanistan for further evaluation. The second was conducted at  Twentynine Palms, California in August 2010 and evaluated hybrid solar  systems, direct-current-powered efficient air conditioners, and solar  power refrigerators. As a result of this ExFOB demonstration, the Marine  Corps has finalized its evaluation of four items, which are now ready for  use at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. The third ExFOB was  conducted in Twentynine Palms, California in August 2011 and included  an evaluation of the fuel efficiency of tactical vehicles. The fourth ExFOB  was conducted at Camp Lejune, North Carolina in April and May 2012  and included an evaluation of wearable electronic power systems,  lightweight, man-portable, water purification systems.
In addition, in fiscal year 2008 the U.S. Central Command and the OSD  Energy Task Force cosponsored an initiative called the NetZeroPlus Joint  Capabilities Technology Demonstration, an initiative used to determine  fuel demand reduction solutions for forward-deployed locations. This  demonstration assessed technologies for reducing fuel demand and  improving infrastructure and alternative energy supply for the warfighter.  According to DOD officials, this demonstration used research and  development efforts from military research development and engineering  centers, federal and private labs, and commercial and government off- the-shelf technology. DOD plans to use the combined capabilities  developed from these tests to establish more energy-efficient forward  operating base blueprints for use by operational commanders, theater  planners, and interagency organizations. The emphasis for this initiative  was on improving or replacing current facilities with more energy-efficient  structures and integrating renewable energy technologies with improved  energy generation solutions to power those structures. Some of the  initiatives tested as part of the technology demonstration included: air  beam energy-efficient tents; power shades; solar shades; insulation  liners; and flexible lighting surfaces. See appendix III for an overview of  these initiatives.
section_title: Efforts Underway to Foster Coordination and Collaboration but Challenges Remain
paragraphs: DOD has taken some steps to foster coordination and collaboration on  the department’s fuel demand management initiatives, but because there  are multiple organizations within DOD engaged in developing these  initiatives, challenges remain. Our prior work has shown that leading  practices for collaborating to meet modern national security challenges  include,collaborative organizations, and sharing and integrating information  across agencies via a comprehensive database to track initiatives. DOD  has multiple organizations—including some engaged in coordination and  collaboration—in the area of energy efficiency, but it currently lacks a   developing and implementing overarching strategies, creating  formal means of sharing and integrating information across various  offices engaged in these efforts.
Numerous organizations within each of the services and DOD have a role  in managing, researching, and developing energy efficient technologies.  See table 1 below for a list of the DOD organizations involved in fuel  demand management efforts. While these organizations have different  responsibilities and missions, they are each involved in fuel demand  management efforts.
Since our 2009 report on fuel demand management, DOD has taken  steps to facilitate collaboration and coordinate among the services’ fuel  demand management efforts. In that report, we found that each of the  services had efforts planned or underway to reduce fuel demand at  forward-deployed locations, but lacked a systematic approach to share  this information among the services. In addition, officials also reported  that forward-deployed locations often pursued different initiatives, and the  department, other services, or other forward-deployed locations were  often unaware of these different initiatives. To address these concerns,  we recommended that the services assign senior energy officials to  identify and promote sharing of fuel reduction best practices and solutions  to identified challenges and communicate those practices and solutions to  the DOD Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (since  renamed to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy  Plans and Programs) for potential use across the department.
Since 2009 DOD has taken several steps to promote and facilitate  coordination and collaboration in order to improve information sharing  among various DOD organizations involved in fuel demand management  efforts at forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan. Some  of these steps include the following activities:
DOD published DOD Directive 5134.15 specifying OEP&P’s  responsibilities which include: coordinating and overseeing the  operational energy planning and program activities of DOD and the  services related to implementation of the operational energy strategy;  coordinating R&D investments related to operational energy demand  and supply technologies, and monitoring and reviewing all operational  energy initiatives in DOD.
DOD established some organizations such as the Defense  Operational Energy Board cochaired by the Assistant Secretary of  Defense (OEP&P) and the Joint Staff Director for Logistics to serve as  a collaborative organization to promote operational energy security,  oversee implementation of the operational energy strategy, and  measure the department’s success. This board will provide a forum  for DOD components to share information and provide  recommendations on fuel demand management initiatives.
OEP&P in collaboration with Central Command and other DOD  stakeholders sponsored an operational energy conference in May  2011 to identify operational energy problem areas and solutions.  OEP&P and the Pacific Command repeated this effort in March 2012  and held an Operational Energy Summit targeting energy efficiency  applications in the Pacific.
U.S. Forces-Afghanistan established an Operational Energy Division  within U.S. Forces- Afghanistan. The Operational Energy Division will  assist commanders located in Afghanistan to improve operational  capabilities by reducing the military’s reliance on petroleum fuels.  According to its charter, the Operational Energy Division will work with  commanders develop, coordinate, and implement materiel and  nonmateriel energy solutions.
Central Command established a formal coordination body for  operational energy in its area of responsibility. This organization will  focus on maintaining mission effectiveness while reducing energy  demand, expanding and securing energy supply, and changing the  culture through energy awareness. Membership and supporting  agencies include a wide range of leaders throughout DOD and the  service components assigned to Central Command’s area of  responsibility.
In addition, the services continue to use several collaborative  organizations that predate the establishment of OEP&P to coordinate and  collaborate on their fuel demand reduction efforts including those that are  applicable to forward-deployed locations. For example:
Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power. This program,  established in 1967, was created to consolidate research and  development efforts, establish common military operational  requirements, and prevent duplication in the development of  equipment such as generators that are used to supply power at  forward-deployed locations. This effort has resulted in the  development of a new energy-efficient family of generators called  Advanced Medium Mobile Power Source (AMMPS) to be used by  both Army and Marine Corps units. AMMPS includes Army and  Marine Corps specifications and according to DOD officials, is a good  example of how coordination and collaboration can help DOD  accomplish its goals in a more cost-effective manner while still  meeting the unique needs of each service.
The Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters. This committee was  created in 1975 to prevent the duplication of tactical shelter research  and development efforts. According to DOD, since its establishment,  this committee has reduced the number of shelter types from 100 to  21 easing the logistics burden among the four services. Collaboration  through this committee has allowed DOD to limit the number of shelter  systems developed to decrease fuel consumption at forward-deployed  locations.
Other collaborative forums. The USMC-SOCOM board, Army-Marine  Corps board, and the Power Source Technical Working Group, all  provide a means to coordinate and communicate on initiatives such  as fuel demand management efforts. According to DOD officials,  these collaborative forums take place at least twice a year and help  the services discuss and share information related to issues such as  fuel demand management and other programs of mutual interest.
DOD has established multiple organizations and forums to facilitate  coordination and collaboration, but does not have a mechanism to  systematically identify and track information on the numerous fuel  demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the  research and development phase throughout DOD. For instance, in an  attempt to identify a list of fuel demand management initiatives, we sent a  request to OEP&P asking for a comprehensive list of initiatives that had  been fielded or were expected to be fielded to forward-deployed locations  in Afghanistan within the next 12 months.  OEP&P officials could not  provide us with a comprehensive list of initiatives at the time of our  request, and told us they did not have a mechanism in place to track or  catalog all ongoing fuel demand management initiatives. In order for us to  obtain a comprehensive list of initiatives an OEP&P official told us they  would have to query all of the services and agencies involved to obtain  this type of information.
Both DOD’s experience and our prior work have shown the benefits of  enhanced information sharing for increasing coordination and  collaboration, especially when multiple entities are involved in similar  efforts. tracking specific detailed program information can enhance visibility and  oversight efforts, and provide decision makers with timely and  comprehensive information needed to determine management priorities.  Moreover, OEP&P’s directive outlining its roles and responsibilities states  that OEP&P will recommend appropriate funding levels for operational  energy programs relating to the operational energy strategy.
GAO, Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve Visibility and Coordination of  DOD’s Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts, GAO-10-95 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.  29, 2009); and Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exists to Improve DOD’s Oversight of  Power Source Investments, GAO-11-113 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 2010). improve program management, visibility, and avoid investing in  duplicative efforts. According to an OEP&P official, the number of  initiatives and organizations involved in DOD’s efforts to reduce its  reliance on fuel has increased, and oversight and continued efforts to  coordinate and collaborate across DOD are necessary. During our visit to  forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan, Army officials also reiterated  that frequently the various DOD organizations involved in developing fuel  demand management solutions are unaware of ongoing efforts and  establishing a mechanism to increase DOD’s visibility to identify all  ongoing fuel demand management efforts would be useful.
Since OEP&P did not have a mechanism in place to catalog fuel demand  management initiatives underway within DOD, we queried the services  and various DOD organizations to collect data on the initiatives being  pursued within DOD. Based on the information they provided, we  identified over 30 initiatives being developed by the services and other  DOD organizations to reduce DOD’s fuel demand at forward-deployed  locations. (See app. III for the list of initiatives). Additionally, during our  visit to the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Massachusetts,  officials told us that although our review was limited to fuel demand  management initiatives for base camps at forward-deployed locations in  Afghanistan, DOD had numerous projects aimed at reducing fuel demand  at forward-deployed locations around the world, but at the time of our visit  no office or organization was tracking all of these initiatives. An official  with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and  Engineering ASD(R&E) involved in identifying operational energy  investments and initiatives confirmed that ASD(R&E) was not tracking  such initiatives and relied upon the services to coordinate and manage  these issues.
According to DOD officials, at the time of our request, OEP&P did not  have a mechanism in place to systematically track initiatives because its  responsibilities are to develop and influence policy and provide guidance,  oversight, and coordination of DOD’s operational energy efforts and they  are not involved in the services’ decisions about how to equip the forces  with specific energy efficiency technologies. As such, officials told us that  they had not developed a systematic approach for identifying and tracking  fuel demand management initiatives. Since our request, officials told us  that OEP&P has started working with DOD’s Office of Cost Assessment  and Program Evaluation to develop an automated budget exhibit that  captures detailed program and funding data on operational energy  initiatives included in DOD and the component’s budgets. OEP&P is in  the process of refining this exhibit to capture improvements suggested by  the components. This budget exhibit with consolidated information on  operational energy initiatives funded in the fiscal year 2013 President’s  Budget submission will help the office in its oversight and coordination  role, but OEP&P officials acknowledge that its effort has a knowledge  gap. For example, it does not include information on initiatives that are  the subject of rapid fielding efforts or are locally procured. OEP&P  officials stated that the Operational Energy Division in Afghanistan has  started to collect information on ongoing operational energy activities in  theater. However, these efforts have just begun and it is unclear to what  extent they will provide a comprehensive list of all operational energy  initiatives underway within DOD. As mentioned earlier, over the next 5  years, the services plan to spend approximately $4 billion dollars on  operational energy initiatives, and without an established mechanism to  identify and track fuel demand management initiatives, DOD may miss  opportunities to improve its return on investment, reduce life-cycle costs,  consolidate efforts, and increase interoperability among fuel demand  management technologies.
section_title: DOD Has Measured the Results of Some Fuel Demand Management Initiatives, and Is Developing Baseline Data to Assess Progress Toward Achieving Operational Energy Goals
paragraphs: DOD has measured the results of some of the fuel demand management  initiatives used in Afghanistan, but only recently has focused on collecting  and assessing the data needed to develop a comprehensive baseline  measure of its current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations.  Recognizing the need for information to manage fuel demand effectively,  DOD has tasked the services with establishing baselines for operational  energy consumption in all activities (air, sea, land) in its March 2012  implementation plan and provided funding for this purpose. Once  collected, this baseline data will provide information across DOD’s  operational activities, including those conducted in Afghanistan, and help  the department better understand how specific assets consume fuel in an  operational environment.
subsections: section_title: Service Efforts to Measure the Results of Some Fuel Demand Management Initiatives Are in the Early Stages and Face Some Challenges
paragraphs: As noted above, DOD has developed fuel demand management  initiatives, and has begun, in some cases to measure their results.  However, the services are still in the process of collecting and analyzing  comprehensive baseline data for all activities—to include fuel  consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan—and have  encountered some implementation challenges. In 2011, DOD issued  guidance that emphasizes the importance of collecting data to assess  progress and program effectiveness. Both DOD’s strategic management  plan and its operational energy strategy highlight the importance of  collecting and analyzing data for use in assessing and managing  performance of its initiatives. Specifically, DOD’s strategic management  plan states that one of its business goals is to increase operational  energy efficiency in order to lower risks to warfighters, reduce costs, and  improve energy security. To help achieve this goal, the plan calls for  establishing an operational energy baseline for the department that is  based on credible, verifiable fuel usage data. Furthermore, the  operational energy strategy states that a greater understanding of how  energy is used will allow DOD to target investments to improve energy  efficiency in places such as Afghanistan. Recognizing the lack of  sufficient data to manage fuel demand effectively, the Army and Marine  Corps, which have the largest presence at forward-deployed locations in  Afghanistan, have begun to collect fuel use and behavior data to  understand how equipment is being used in combat to inform decision  making on how to best employ equipment in the future.
At the time of our report, the Army had begun collecting and analyzing  data on particular fuel demand management initiatives and on its current  fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. However,  its data collection efforts face some continuing challenges. Among its  ongoing fuel demand management initiatives, the Army has collected  preliminary fuel consumption data on its new Advanced Medium Mobile  Power Source (AMMPS) generators (see fig. 6). According to Army  officials, replacing 273 Tactical Quiet Generators in Afghanistan with  AMMPS generators is estimated to save about 1,100 gallons of fuel per  day. microgrid at Bagram Airfield that replaced 13 60-kilowatt Tactical Quiet  Generators (see fig. 7). The Army collected data from the microgrid to  analyze its fuel consumption and identified a savings of 7,344 gallons of  fuel (17 percent), over the test period. The Army’s February 2012 report  of the microgrid concluded that producing energy can be done more  efficiently if the Army understands how the energy will be used. It stated  that without these types of data, the Army is currently running generators  inefficiently in the field, which places a burden on logistical operations.  According to the report, by using information such as forecasted  scenarios and energy demand, the department can weigh the trade-offs  and implement a system with optimum efficiency.
Army officials provided these data based on preliminary testing of AMMPS generators  that were run on full-load conditions and assumes the generators were run 24 hours per  day.
subsections: section_title: The Marine Corps Has Begun Efforts to Measure Fuel Consumption
paragraphs: As discussed above, the Marine Corps has developed operational energy  initiatives, including those to decrease fuel demand, and also has begun  measuring the results of some of these initiatives, primarily those that  serve battalion-sized units. As noted above, the Marine Corps established  the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) in 2009 to bring  stakeholders together across the service’s requirements, acquisitions,  and technology communities to inform requirements and rapidly evaluate  new technologies for potential deployment. The four ExFOB  demonstrations conducted thus far have evaluated initiatives such as  renewable energy power generation, tent liners, hybrid solar systems,  more efficient air conditioners, and solar-powered refrigerators. After  evaluation, infantry battalions deployed to Afghanistan with selected  equipment items to further assess their performance. A Marine Corps’  assessment found that during deployment:  two platoon positions were able to run completely on renewable  energy for 1 month, one patrol base was able to save 175 gallons of fuel in a 1-month  period by utilizing the ExFOB initiatives,  the Green Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System  (GREENS) provided full power for a platoon guard station, and
Marines were able to reduce the number of batteries they had to carry  by using the Solar Portable Alternatives Communications Energy  System (SPACES) to recharge tactical batteries.
The Army and Marine Corps face challenges in collecting information on  current fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan.  Until recently, information related to fuel demand in-theater has been  available only in the form of sales receipts and fuel delivery summaries,  since DOD only tracks the movement and delivery of fuel up to the point  that a forward-deployed location receives it, and as indicated above,  efforts to collect current fuel consumption data face challenges. As a  result, DOD lacks comprehensive data on how much fuel specific assets  such as generators and air conditioning units consume in an operational  environment. The Army and Marine Corps have begun collecting  information on fuel consumption at their forward-deployed locations in  Afghanistan. For this effort Army and Marine Corps officials told us that  both services are using the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense system  technology (see fig. 9).  To date, the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense  system has been deployed to 36 locations in Afghanistan.  Army officials  stated that the information gathered by this system can assist a base  commander in making decisions regarding energy use on the base, but  they indicated that this technology is not yet being used at all forward- deployed locations and cited several difficulties they face.
For instance, additional funding will be required to extend the Tactical  Fuels Manager Defense system to the majority of locations in  Afghanistan. In addition, during our site visit to forward-deployed locations  in Afghanistan, officials reported that they had experienced difficulty in  connecting to the system’s website, which resulted in an inability to load  fuel data points, receipts, and stock levels into the system. In addition to  these technical challenges, the program manager stated that additional  training and oversight procedures were needed to ensure soldiers and  Marines use this system and are held accountable for importing data. For  example, the program manager told us that some bases are not entering  fuel consumption data into the system and from September 2011 to  March 2012, the data captured had declined by 50 percent making it  more difficult for DOD to meet its goal in obtaining baseline fuel data. In  response, the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command  issued a fragmentary order in April 2012 specifically to ensure all bases  follow existing accountability and reporting procedures, including using  the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense system to capture fuel data. While  the system is providing improved data on fuel consumption at forward- deployed locations, Army officials also recognize that continued  evaluation and improvements will be needed before deciding whether this  should be an Army-wide system.
section_title: DOD Has Begun Collecting Baseline Data to Assess Effectiveness of Its Fuel Demand Management Efforts
paragraphs: While the services have efforts underway to obtain a better understanding  of how specific assets consume fuel in-theater, DOD has limited ability to  assess the effectiveness of its fuel demand management initiatives  because it has only recently begun efforts to collect comprehensive  baseline data across the services. DOD recognizes the need for baseline  data on fuel consumption in an operational environment and has taken  several steps to address this issue. Specifically, OEP&P’s implementation  plan tasks the services with establishing operational energy consumption  baselines and projecting consumption for fiscal years 2012—2017 by  the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. DOD’s implementation plan states  that these projections will inform required reports to Congress on current  and future energy needs. In addition, the implementation plan calls for the  services to report to the Defense Operational Energy Board by the third  quarter of fiscal year 2012 on any actions taken or needed to improve  these baselines. The plan states that this effort may not necessarily entail  the real-time measurement of energy consumption by individual pieces of  equipment. Instead, the military departments and defense agencies may  evaluate a range of options—including new systems, improvements to  current and related systems, and/or application of sampling and  extrapolation to existing data—to improve the department’s  understanding of the location, purpose, and end use of operational  energy consumption. This implementation plan is an important step  towards improving the department’s management of its energy  consumption at forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan;  however, the focus on establishing a baseline of fuel consumption is  relatively recent.
In addition, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan is in the process of improving their  visibility and accountability over fuel consumption at forward-deployed  locations. To help with this task, OSD officials informed us that DLA- Energy sent an analyst to Afghanistan in March 2012 to work with the  U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Operational Energy Division to capture a better  picture of fuel consumption. Officials stated that with improved visibility,  they expect that the Operational Energy Division will be able to articulate  to combatant commanders or service officials the costs associated with  certain operational decisions and leverage this improved picture of fuel  consumption to target areas for improvement.
Further, to support fuel demand management efforts at forward-deployed  locations, OEP&P provided additional funding for a demonstration effort  to evaluate the operational benefits of fuel demand management.  Specifically, DOD provided $1.4 million to fund the Operation Enduring  Freedom Energy Initiative Proving Ground to evaluate initiatives including  heat and air conditioning units, tent liners, solar tent shades, and hybrid- solar electrical power technology, and analyze the effect these initiatives  have on fuel consumption and identify opportunities to deploy them in  Afghanistan to achieve the greatest impact and return on investment. The  group in charge of this effort has already begun to take inventory of the  power and energy used at some forward-deployed locations and to  monitor areas where there are opportunities for potential energy efficiency  improvements.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In its extended war in Afghanistan, DOD reports that its heavy reliance on  petroleum-based fuel at forward-deployed locations continues to create  risk for the warfighters, pose difficult logistical challenges for military  planners, and increase the department’s operating costs. With consistent  and heightened visibility from Congress and OSD, DOD has made  progress in its efforts to develop an approach for managing its fuel  demand at forward-deployed locations since the time of our 2009 report  on this issue. The creation of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Operational Energy Plans and Programs and the services’ operational  energy offices, OEP&P’s publication of its operational energy strategy  and implementation plan, the services’ strategies, and the ongoing fuel  demand management initiatives the services have deployed or are  developing all represent positive steps toward reducing the department’s  reliance on petroleum-based fuel at forward-deployed locations such as  those in Afghanistan. DOD’s efforts to develop specific guidance on how  military forces should factor operational energy considerations into its  operational, planning, and training decisions are important steps toward  minimizing key problems identified by DOD—risk to warfighters, logistical- related disruptions, and high operating costs—associated with heavy  reliance on petroleum-based fuel. However, without a mechanism for  systematically collecting and sharing information across the services on  the fuel demand management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in  the research and development phase, DOD may forgo an opportunity to  improve interoperability of new technologies, consolidate research and  development efforts, and save costs. Lastly, DOD’s recent efforts to begin  collecting accurate baseline data on fuel demand at the individual asset  level at forward-deployed locations should enhance its planning,  programming, and operational decisions, and help measure the impact of  its fuel demand management efforts as well as progress toward meeting  its overall operational energy goals. At a time when the federal  government faces increasing fiscal challenges and competition across the  government for discretionary funds, these efforts by DOD could help  maximize the benefits of its energy efficiency investments for forward- deployed locations and better position the department for future missions.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To further enhance DOD’s approach for managing fuel demand, including  at forward deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary  of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs, in consultation  with the Joint Staff, combatant commanders, and military service  components, to finalize and implement a systematic approach that  includes establishing a mechanism to identify and track fuel demand  management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and  development phase to ensure information concerning these efforts is  effectively shared across the services.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DOD partially concurred with our  recommendation to finalize and implement a systematic approach that  includes establishing a mechanism to identify and track fuel demand  management initiatives that have been fielded, or are in the research and  development phase to ensure information concerning these efforts is  effectively shared across the services. DOD also provided technical  comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
DOD stated that it signed the DOD Operational Energy Strategy  Implementation Plan in March 2012 and established the Defense  Operational Energy Board with the purpose of providing a mechanism for  reviewing, synchronizing, and supporting departmentwide operational  energy policies, plans, and programs. DOD also stated that the Defense  Operational Energy Board’s membership ensures departmentwide  coordination. Furthermore, DOD stated that the Operational Energy  Implementation Plan addresses energy improvements in current  operations, and the Board will oversee the tracking and sharing of  information on fuel demand improvements. Lastly, DOD stated that the  department conducts an annual review of the components’ budgets and  activities to determine their adequacy for implementing the Operational  Energy Strategy, and this review also encompasses fuel demand  management initiatives that are being developed, fielded, or supported by  the budget. As such, DOD stated that while our recommendation has  merit, further action by the Secretary of Defense is unnecessary.
We acknowledge the intended actions described in DOD’s Operational  Energy Strategy Implementation Plan, the function and scope of the  Defense Operational Energy Board, and DOD’s annual review process,  which may eventually provide DOD with an approach and mechanism for  identifying and tracking fuel demand management initiatives that have  been fielded, or are in the research and development phase. However,  until these initiatives are fully implemented, we are unable to assess the  extent to which they will address our recommendation. During the course  of our review, DOD officials explained that many of the initiatives included  in its Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan, such as  identifying investment gaps in the department’s science and technology  portfolio necessary to reduce fuel demand, would be completed at the  end of fiscal year 2012 or beyond. DOD officials also told us they were in  the process of finalizing the department’s annual review of the  components’ budgets and activities to include fuel demand management  initiatives that were being developed or fielded. However, at the  conclusion of our review, this budget review process had not been  finalized and the department acknowledges that its annual budget review  efforts do not include initiatives that are part of rapid fielding or are locally  procured. We continue to believe that a comprehensive mechanism for  sharing information on all initiatives underway within the department,  including those that are part of rapid fielding or are locally procured,  would further enhance DOD’s approach for managing fuel demand at  forward-deployed locations such as those in Afghanistan, and help  ensure information concerning these efforts is effectively shared across  the services.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  merrittz@gao.gov or (202) 512-5257. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to assess the extent to which DOD has (1)  established an approach to provide visibility and accountability for fuel  demand management at forward-deployed locations, (2) initiatives  underway to promote fuel efficiency across the services in Afghanistan  and has facilitated coordination and collaboration among the services on  the development and fielding of these initiatives, and (3) measured the  results of its fuel demand management initiatives at forward-deployed  locations. To gather information for these objectives, we reviewed  documentation and interviewed officials from:  Office of the Secretary of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and  J-4 Logistics Directorate, Engineering Division
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Energy and Sustainability  Office)
Army G-4
Army Corps of Engineers
249th Prime Power Battalion
Army Rapid Equipping Force
Army Petroleum Center
Program Manager Mobile Electric Power
Green Warrior Initiative; Contingency Basing & Operational Energy
Natick Solider Research, Development, Engineering Command
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
Deputy Assistant of Secretary of the Navy, Energy Office
Navy Energy Coordination Office
Air Force Office of the Assistant Secretary, Installation, Environment,
Air Mobility Command Fuel Efficiency Office
Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office
Marine Corps Systems Command
Marine Corps Training and Education Command
U.S. Forces Afghanistan-Operational Energy Division
New Kabul Compound
Camp Phoenix
Camp Sabalu-Harrison
Joint Combat Outpost Pul-A-Sayed
Camp Leatherneck,
Patrol Base Boldak,
Bagram Airfield.
Defense Logistics Agency – Energy  We concentrated our review on the steps the Army and Marine Corps  have taken to reduce fuel demand because these two services have the  responsibility for managing forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan.  Our review focused on fuel demand management initiatives planned for  or underway at forward-deployed locations in Afghanistan. For the  purposes of our review, we defined fuel demand management initiatives  to include nonmateriel and materiel solutions to assist DOD in reducing its  reliance on fuel consumed at forward-deployed locations. We did not  examine energy efficiency initiatives for naval vessels, aircraft, or combat  vehicles. We asked officials to identify key initiatives planned or under  way to reduce fuel demand. After consultation with U.S. Central  Command and U.S. Forces Afghanistan officials, we selected and visited  forward-deployed locations because they were using energy-efficient  technologies that were included in our review and/or are illustrative of  DOD’s fuel demand management initiatives and challenges. The  locations chosen are illustrative case studies in our report and information  obtained from these locations is not generalizable to all forward-deployed  locations. We also reviewed DOD guidance related to energy reduction  for the department’s permanent or U.S. facilities.
To address the first objective, we identified DOD’s approach for fuel  demand management from our prior work examining DOD’s fuel demand  management efforts at forward-deployed locations. These elements  include: (1) establishing visibility and accountability for achieving fuel  reduction by assigning roles and responsibilities, establishing metrics,  and monitoring performance; (2) issuing guidance and policies that  address fuel demand at forward-deployed locations; and (3) establishing  incentives and a viable funding mechanism to support the implementation  of fuel demand reduction projects. We reviewed DOD and Service  guidance, operational energy strategies and plans, OEP&P’s budget  certification report, project status reports, and briefings to identify DOD’s  approach for fuel demand management. We also interviewed OSD, Joint  Staff, service, and U.S. Central Command officials at the headquarters  and operational level to discuss DOD’s fuel demand management  approach, and to determine the extent to which DOD has implemented  the initiatives contained in its operational energy strategy. We also met  with officials responsible for administering the Logistics Civil  Augmentation Program contracts to discuss how energy efficiency  guidance and requirements were being incorporated into contracts to  incentivize fuel demand management efforts. Furthermore, we met with  OEP&P, Joint Staff, and service officials to discuss the processes and  steps needed to ensure an effective approach was established to provide  oversight and accountability for fuel demand management and the  anticipated time frames for accomplishing fuel demand management  goals.
To determine the extent to which DOD has initiatives underway to  manage fuel demand across the services in Afghanistan and has  facilitated coordination and collaboration, we queried OEP&P, the  services, and various DOD organizations involved in operational energy  research and development to collect data on the initiatives to reduce fuel  demand at forward-deployed locations. These initiatives included ones  that had been fielded or were expected to be fielded within 12 months of  our data request. Based on the information provided and the scope of our review, we identified over 30 fuel demand management initiatives  already fielded or being developed by the services and other DOD  organizations to reduce DOD’s fuel demand at forward-deployed  locations. We also reviewed data on the current status of initiatives that  were identified in our 2009 report. In addition, we met with Army and  Marine Corps officials located at the headquarters level and at forward- deployed locations to discuss the purpose and function of these  initiatives, as well as any opportunities for greater coordination and  collaboration. To determine the extent to which the department has efforts  underway to facilitate coordination and collaboration among the services,  we conducted an analysis of DOD energy strategies and plans, reviewed  DOD energy conference summary reports, attended DOD energy  symposia, and interviewed DOD and service officials. Additionally, we  reviewed relevant DOD, Joint, and service policies and guidance, and  assessed the extent to which the policies and guidance were consistent  with leading practices for coordination and collaboration identified in our  prior work. We also met with DOD and research and development  officials to discuss the challenges, if any, that they faced to coordinate  and collaborate on fuel demand management initiatives.
To determine the extent to which DOD has efforts in place to accurately  capture the results of its fuel demand management initiatives in forward- deployed locations, we assessed DOD and the services’ strategies that  detail their goals and methods for measuring the results of their fuel  demand management initiatives, and determined whether these plans  addressed key elements from leading practices for measuring results  (e.g. goals, milestones, quantifiable metrics, evaluation of benefits, etc.).
Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic  Performance” (Oct. 5, 2009). on documents provided to us by DOD and the services regarding the  initiatives and the results from testing their performance. We reviewed  select DOD studies that assessed various initiatives being used in  Afghanistan with the goal of reducing fuel use at forward-deployed  locations. We concluded that the studies clearly describe the  methodology and assumptions behind the study results, and they do not  attempt to generalize the results beyond the context of the studies.  Although the results of these studies cannot be generalized to all fuel  demand management initiatives, they provide examples of how DOD is  assessing the results of these initiatives. We also conducted interviews  with DOD and service officials to obtain information regarding DOD’s  progress in collecting fuel data on fuel demand management initiatives  and establishing a baseline on fuel demand at forward-deployed locations  in Afghanistan.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through June 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Key Tasks and Milestones Included in DOD’s Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan
paragraphs: Description   ASD(OEPP), in consultation with relevant offices within OSD, the  Military Departments,  Defense agencies, and the Joint Staff, will present the charter at  the meeting of the Board.
The Military Departments and Defense agencies will report to the  Defense Operational Energy Board an operational energy baseline,  using all available data on actual energy consumption in support of  military operations in fiscal year 2011 and projected consumption in  fiscal year 2012 – 2017.
Combatant Commands will report to the Defense Operational  Energy Board on how they guide their forces to improve energy  performance and efficiency in operations and the effectiveness of  this guidance.
The Military Departments will report to the Defense Operational  Energy Board progress against their own current or updated  energy performance goals and metrics and demonstrate how such  progress supports the Operational Energy Strategy priority to  reduce the demand for fuel and increase capability in military  operations.
In accordance with forthcoming Joint Staff policy, the Joint Staff,  U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and the Military  Departments will meet the congressional intent of an energy  performance attribute in the requirements development process.  Through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Vice  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) will oversee  implementation of this effort in individual programs. The Joint Staff,  USSOCOM, and the Military Departments will report overall  progress in implementing an energy performance attribute to the  Defense Operational Energy Board.
In accordance with forthcoming policy from the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)),  the Military Departments will develop and apply Fully Burdened  Cost of Energy (FBCE) analyses throughout the acquisition  process. The Military Departments will report overall progress on  implementing FBCE to the Defense Operational Energy Board.
Description   The Military Departments and other asset owners will brief the  Defense Operational Energy Board on energy-related risks to fixed  installations that directly support military operations, to include  those identified through Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs’  (ASD(HD&ASA)) Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP).
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering  (ASD(R&E)) will identify investment gaps in the Department’s  science and technology portfolio necessary to reduce demand,  improve system efficiency, and expand supply alternatives, as  articulated in the Operational Energy Strategy. ASD(R&E) will  provide the final report to the Defense Operational Energy Board  and include recommendations on possible options for filling the  gaps.
The Joint Staff and Military Departments will report to the Defense  Operational Energy Board on how policy, doctrine, and  professional military education (PME) will support reduced energy  demand, expanded energy supply, and future force development.
As appropriate and consistent with annual classified guidance to  the Combatant Commands, the Joint Staff and Combatant  Commands will report to the Defense Operational Energy Board on  command measures to incorporate Operational Energy Strategy  goals into theater campaign plans, security cooperation initiatives,  joint and combined exercises, and other activities designed to  achieve theater and country objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: Fuel Demand Management Initiatives for Forward-Deployed Locations Identified by DOD
paragraphs: The list of fuel demand management initiatives included below provides  an overview of the materiel initiatives identified by DOD organizations  during the course of our review. This list does not include the nonmateriel  initiatives underway such as those to change policies and procedures, or  modify staffing to perform fuel demand management functions. The list  also provides a status update on the initiatives discussed in our 2009  report on fuel demand management. The first nine initiatives listed below  were identified in our 2009 report.
An application of foam insulation on tent structures to decrease fuel demand. According to  Army officials, spray foam reduces power use for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.  CURRENT STATUS: The effort to insulate tents with spray polyurethane foam has been  suspended. Even though the tent insulation effort was demonstrated in-theater with  successful results, the Army is no longer moving forward with a large- scale effort to install  foam insulation in all tents and portable structures while it examines the environmental  implications of disposal of the solidified tent foam when the life span of the tent is  complete.
The AMMPS, a replacement for the Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs). It takes advantage  of current technology to provide power generation capabilities that are more fuel efficient  and reduce overall costs.  CURRENT STATUS: The Army is currently procuring AMMPS generators and will field  them throughout the service. Some Army units will take the AMMPS with them when they  deploy to Afghanistan in the future. Also, Program Manager-Mobile Electric Power is  fielding approximately 200 AMMPS to Afghanistan starting in 2012 to replace legacy  tactical quiet generators (TQGs). Once in place, the DOD expects AMMPS can save as  much as 300,000 gallons of fuel per month over the TQGs they are replacing.
Improved-Environmental Control Unit  (I-ECU)
The I-ECU is a replacement of military standard environmental control units. It is designed  for military environments, with reduced power consumption and weight, and increased  reliability over current environmental control units.  CURRENT STATUS: Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power (PM-MEP) begins low- rate initial production of the I-ECU in fiscal year 2012.
An experimental device that converts trash (paper, plastic, cardboard, and food waste)  into energy for forward-deployed locations, reducing the need for convoys to deliver fuel  and haul away trash.  CURRENT STATUS: TGER has been successfully tested and full system integration is  underway. The Army is now targeting a field demonstration starting in mid-June for 90  days. The original destination was Bagram, but now more likely will be Camp Virginia,  Kuwait.
The scrap tire recycling process produces diesel, gas, carbon char, and steel—byproducts  that can either be used to power generators, boilers, and other items or recycled into  products such as asphalt and paint.  CURRENT STATUS: This effort no longer has research investment, and is not a product  being further developed.
Description/Status update  A hybrid generator system that uses wind and solar energy to supplement diesel  generators.  CURRENT STATUS: Due to issues regarding usability the system was dismantled and  disposed of in early fiscal year 2011.
The THEPS are mobile generators with solar panels, wind turbine, diesel generator, and  storage batteries.  CURRENT STATUS: The Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Station was not successful  but spurred the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to allocate $30 million to  the Army to develop the Hybrid Intelligent Power (HIPower) system, a micro grid system.
This is a concrete, dome-shaped structure that is designed to be energy efficient with  energy supplied by a combination of solar panels and windmills.  CURRENT STATUS: Although successful, using domes in-theater would require some  changes in current operations, as domes would be considered permanent structures and  thus subject to MILCON constraints.
A collection of various deployable shelters powered by solar and fuel cell generators.  CURRENT STATUS: There have been no Renewable Energy Tent Cities fielded in  Afghanistan by the Air Force, but Air Force Central has fielded a number of sets  elsewhere in-theater. The Air Force purchased and shipped a total of 920 units (flys and  inserts) for the CENTCOM AOR, for Air Force training sites, and for storage at Holloman  Air Force Base. Air Force Central received a total of 575 units and the majority are in use  at Manas and Ali Al Salem. Units were also sent to Air Force sites for training.
subsections: section_title: Initiatives identified after 2009 10. Deployable Renewable Energy
paragraphs: This module is intended to be towed by a vehicle and is designed to be used at combat  posts in forward-deployed locations to power equipment via solar, wind turbine, battery,  and generator technologies.
SAGE is an integrated effort to develop design specifications for base camp infrastructure  that when employed will reduce the quantity of petroleum fuel required for electrical power  generation for expeditionary camps by employing smart Micro-grid technologies and  energy efficient modular structures.
The REPPS is a lightweight, portable power system capable of recharging batteries  and/or acting as a continuous power source.   13.  Afghanistan Microgrid Project (AMP)   The AMP initiative involves the operation of load sensing monitors and fuel consumption  logs, which are being captured by the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity team and  will be analyzed to quantify the impact of the microgrid on fuel consumption against the  baseline of 13 TQGs that the system is replacing.
SPACES is a lightweight man-portable lightweight device with tailorable adaptors that can  energize equipment such as radios, laptop computers, and rechargeable batteries.
Energy Network System (GREENS)
GREENS is a man-transportable device with renewable energy collection and storage that  can energize communications equipment, sensors, and radios.
EARLCON is hybrid power system, using solar, traditional generators, and battery  storage, with an energy management system. It is designed to improve efficiency and  reduce demand for fuel.
The SunDanzer direct current powered air cooler is an air conditioning system that  features a variable speed compressor. This design allows for low energy consumption and  the ability to connect directly to a photovoltaic array without the need for batteries.
Description/Status update  The Integrated Trailer-ECU-Generator II is a self-contained, highly mobile power  generation and environmental control system. It is a second generation system of the  current Integrated Trailer ECU Generator.
Energy to the Edge focuses on meeting energy and water requirements at locations that  are hard to support logistically, while simultaneously reducing dependence on ground and  aerial resupply operations. This is a 30-kilowatt hybrid energy system designed to  integrate renewable energy with the Army’s currently fielded Tactical Quiet Generators.
The TEMPER air-supported tent photovoltaic fly provides supplemental power generation  without increasing the operational footprint of the base camp.
This solar shade tent fly has integrated photovoltaic power and can reduce solar load up  to 80-90 percent.
The ZeroBase H-Series ReGenerator is a hybrid system that has solar generation, battery  storage, and a 5-kilowatt generator. The system maximizes generator efficiency by  operating the generator at peak efficiencies by capturing excess power through the  battery bank.
Mobile Max Pure System is a commercial, off-the-shelf system that provides over 3  kilowatts of photovoltaic power but also integrates water pumping and purification systems  as options.
The RENEWS system consists of wind turbines, flexible solar panels, a battery module,  and output adapter plugs/connectors.
The Insulating Liner is a lightweight, radiant, reflective insulating liner. It is installed behind  the existing liner to enhance the radiant and insulating capability, which reduces both  heating and cooling requirements / needs. The Insulating liner has zippered doors and  sealable openings for ducts and electrical cords to enter the shelter. These liners fit  different shelter systems and provide varying levels of insulation.
SunDanzer refrigerators and freezers have exceptionally low energy consumption and  require smaller, less expensive power systems and low operating expense. This  technology allows refrigeration in remote locations where it was previously unavailable or  prohibitively expensive.
BRITES is an Air Force power system that stores energy and serves as a power  management distribution system.
The Alaska Small Shelter System is the official Air Force shelter system and the only  shelter successfully tested to meet all the requirements, such as wind and snow load, of  the U.S. Air Force’s 1999 Operational Requirements Document.
The Utilis Thermal Fly is an external solar shade used to reduce the severe radiant heat  transfer from the outside environment to the inside of the shelter.
Flexible Solar Cells Technique works by scanning a nanoscale stylus across an array of  microscopic solar cells which causes them to illuminate with simulated light so that they  function. These flexible solar cells are plastic-based, and work via photovoltaic properties  of the plastic, which convert a portion of the light that hits the solar cells into electricity.
This generator is in development and will be designed to be a portable, integrated, and  ruggedized, polymer electrolyte membrane-based fuel cell, power generator, capable of  operating on certain raw fuel. This generator will produce 10 kilowatts peak power output  that is suitable for deployment to forward operating locations.
This shelter system uses lightweight, flexible solar panels to cool a tent shelter. It is  currently undergoing field testing and will be deployed initially in Kuwait in fiscal year  2013.
Description/Status update  These are lightweight, deployable, rigid-wall, and thermally insulated shelters that can be  used as part of various fielding options.
This cellular insulation project leverages NASA’s multilayer film insulation concept  resulting in flat panels that when mechanically deployed provide energy.
Balance of Systems is designed for multiple applications, including Quadrant, Temper Fly,  and PowerShade. This system consists of a charge controller, power monitor, AC inverter,  and two storage batteries. The power is generated by the photovoltaics flows to the  charge controller, which then uses that power to charge the batteries if they are depleted.
This shower system is designed to improve the energy, water, and waste efficiency and  reduce environmental risks of life support areas.
This initiative is an extended solar-power solution to operate a wireless surveillance  system for combat outpost force protection.
This is an energy and power initiative that includes a generator and solar photovoltaics.
39.  Hunter Defense Technologies (HDT)
The HDT Heat Shield Radiant Blanket is a 114-pound liner designed to help thermally  insulate a Base-X tent. The HDT liner fits inside of the tent by attaching the liner to the  walls and ceiling.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne Wren (Assistant  Director), Virginia Chanley, Carole Coffey, Mark Dowling, Jason Jackson,  Tamiya Lunsford, Christopher Mulkins, Charles Perdue, Amie Steele, Erik  Wilkins-McKee, and Delia P. Zee made major contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Improve DOD’s Oversight of  Power Source Investments. GAO-11-113. Washington, D.C.: December  30, 2010.
Defense Management: Increased Attention on Fuel Demand  Management at DOD’s Forward-Deployed Locations Could Reduce  Operational Risks and Costs. GAO-09-388T. Washington, D.C.: March 3,  2009.
Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel  Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Location. GAO-09-300.  Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2009.
Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Needed  to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations.  GAO-08-426. Washington, D.C: March 13, 2008.