Defense Management
Increased Attention on Fuel Demand Management at DOD's Forward-Deployed Locations Could Reduce Operational Risks and Costs Gao ID: GAO-09-388T March 3, 2009This testimony discusses the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to reduce fuel demand at its forward-deployed locations, particularly those that are not connected to local power grids. In 2008, more than 68 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied by DOD each month to support U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Transporting large quantities of fuel to forward-deployed locations presents an enormous logistics burden and risk. Long truck convoys moving fuel to forward-deployed locations have encountered enemy attacks, severe weather, traffic accidents, and pilferage. For example, DOD reported that in June 2008 alone, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. High fuel demand, coupled with the recent volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications for DOD's operating costs. The fully burdened cost of fuel--that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving, and protecting fuel in systems during combat--has been reported to be many times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself. While DOD's weapon systems require large amounts of fuel, the department reports that the single largest battlefield fuel consumer is generators, which provide power for base support activities such as air conditioning/heating, lighting, refrigeration, and communications. A 2008 Defense Science Board Task Force report noted that Army generators consume about 26 million gallons of fuel annually during peacetime but 357 million gallons annually during wartime. Today, we are publicly releasing a report that addresses DOD's (1) efforts to reduce fuel demand at forward-deployed locations and (2) approach to managing fuel demand at these locations. Our review focused on locations that were in Central Command's area of responsibility.
DOD has efforts under way or planned to reduce fuel demand, but the department lacks an effective approach to enable widespread implementation and sustained attention to fuel demand issues at forward-deployed locations. Many of DOD's efforts to reduce fuel demand at forward-deployed locations are in a research and development phase, and the extent to which they will be fielded and under what time frame is uncertain. Notable efforts by DOD components include the application of foam insulation to tent structures, the development of more fuel-efficient generators and environmental control units, and research on alternative and renewable energy sources for potential use at forward-deployed locations. In addition, during our visits to Kuwait and Djibouti, we found local camp efforts aimed at reducing fuel demand. DOD generally lacks guidance that directs forward-deployed locations to manage and reduce their fuel demand--at the department level, combatant command level, and military service level. While DOD is driven to address energy issues at its U.S. installations largely by federal mandates and DOD guidance, agency officials were unable to identify similar guidance for forward-deployed locations, and they told us that fuel reduction has been a low priority compared with other mission requirements. Our analysis of combatant command and military service guidance related to forward-deployed location construction showed that the existing guidance is largely silent with respect to fuel demand management and energy efficiency. DOD has not established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for fuel reduction projects at its forward-deployed locations, which discourages commanders from identifying fuel demand management as a priority. funding from supplemental appropriations related to the Global War on Terrorism, and delays in receiving this funding can present challenges in covering existing costs, making it difficult for commanders to fund more expensive fuel reduction projects. Without incentives and a viable funding mechanism, commanding officials at DOD's forward-deployed locations are unlikely to identify fuel reduction as a priority for making a significant investment of resources. DOD's current organizational framework does not provide the department visibility for fuel demand issues at its forward-deployed locations. We found that information on fuel demand management strategies and reduction efforts is not shared among locations, military services, and across the department in a consistent manner. Moreover, DOD guidance does not designate any DOD office or official as being responsible for fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations, and we could not identify anyone who is specifically accountable for this function through our interviews with various DOD and military service offices. for DOD, and military department-level operational energy officials. DOD has not yet established a director or strategy for operational energy. In meeting the requirements, DOD has an opportunity to improve visibility and accountability for fuel demand management at forward-deployed locations.
GAO-09-388T, Defense Management: Increased Attention on Fuel Demand Management at DOD's Forward-Deployed Locations Could Reduce Operational Risks and Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-388T
entitled 'Defense Management: Increased Attention on Fuel Demand
Management at DOD's Forward-Deployed Locations Could Reduce Operational
Risks and Costs' which was released on March 3, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:00 p.m. EST:
Tuesday, March 3, 2009:
Defense Management:
Increased Attention on Fuel Demand Management at DOD's Forward-Deployed
Locations Could Reduce Operational Risks and Costs:
Statement of William M. Solis, Director: Defense Capabilities and
Management:
GAO-09-388T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense's
(DOD) efforts to reduce fuel demand at its forward-deployed locations,
particularly those that are not connected to local power grids. In
2008, more than 68 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied
by DOD each month to support U.S. military forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Transporting large quantities of fuel to forward-deployed
locations presents an enormous logistics burden and risk. Long truck
convoys moving fuel to forward-deployed locations have encountered
enemy attacks, severe weather, traffic accidents, and pilferage. For
example, DOD reported that in June 2008 alone, 44 trucks and 220,000
gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while
delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. High fuel demand,
coupled with the recent volatility of fuel prices, also have
significant implications for DOD's operating costs. The fully burdened
cost of fuel--that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving, and
protecting fuel in systems during combat--has been reported to be many
times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself. While DOD's
weapon systems require large amounts of fuel, the department reports
that the single largest battlefield fuel consumer is generators, which
provide power for base support activities such as air conditioning/
heating, lighting, refrigeration, and communications. A 2008 Defense
Science Board Task Force report noted that Army generators consume
about 26 million gallons of fuel annually during peacetime but 357
million gallons annually during wartime.[Footnote 1]
Today, we are publicly releasing a report that addresses DOD's (1)
efforts to reduce fuel demand at forward-deployed locations and (2)
approach to managing fuel demand at these locations.[Footnote 2] My
statement will highlight the key findings and recommendations of our
report. Our review focused on locations that were in Central Command's
area of responsibility. As part of this work, we analyzed DOD
documents, interviewed agency officials, and visited two forward-
deployed locations--Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, and Camp Lemonier, Djibouti-
-to gain a firsthand understanding of fuel demand reduction efforts and
challenges facing these locations.[Footnote 3] We conducted our review
from March 2008 through February 2009 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
This is the third in a series of studies that you have requested
examining DOD's energy use for military operations. In March 2008, we
issued a report and I testified before this Subcommittee on the need
for DOD to establish an overarching organizational framework to guide
and oversee energy reduction efforts for military operations.[Footnote
4] In addition, we are currently conducting work at your request on
renewable energy at U.S. military installations.
DOD Has Initiated Efforts to Reduce Fuel Demand at Forward-Deployed
Locations but Lacks an Effective Approach to Managing Demand:
DOD has efforts under way or planned to reduce fuel demand, but the
department lacks an effective approach to enable widespread
implementation and sustained attention to fuel demand issues at forward-
deployed locations. Many of DOD's efforts to reduce fuel demand at
forward-deployed locations are in a research and development phase, and
the extent to which they will be fielded and under what time frame is
uncertain. Notable efforts by DOD components include the application of
foam insulation to tent structures, the development of more fuel-
efficient generators and environmental control units, and research on
alternative and renewable energy sources for potential use at forward-
deployed locations. In addition, during our visits to Kuwait and
Djibouti, we found local camp efforts aimed at reducing fuel demand.
The following summarizes some of DOD's initiatives. Additional
initiatives are highlighted in the report that we publicly released
today.[Footnote 5]
* Foam insulation for military tents. DOD is applying foam insulation
on tents at some forward-deployed locations to reduce the amount of
fuel required by generators to provide power to these structures.
Demonstrations by DOD's Power Surety Task Force showed that the
application of foam insulation reduced dust, heat, cold, noise, and air
conditioning requirements. According to task force officials, based on
the results of a recent demonstration, DOD decided to pursue a large-
scale effort to apply the foam insulation to temporary structures, such
as military tents, in Iraq to reduce the number of generators needed to
power the structures. According to a Central Command official, the tent-
foaming initiative could reduce energy consumption by approximately 50
percent, potentially reducing the number of convoys needed to supply
fuel to locations in Iraq, although metrics had not yet been
established to systemically measure efficiency. A senior Army official
told us that DOD also has plans to apply foam insulation to tents in
Afghanistan.
* Fuel-efficient generators and environmental control units. The
Project Manager-Mobile Electric Power office, a DOD joint program
organization, is developing a next generation of generators, called the
Advanced Medium Mobile Power Sources, which employ advanced
technologies to achieve greater fuel efficiency and other improvements
over current military generators. The office plans to begin procurement
of these generators in 2010. In addition, it intends to replace its
current environmental control units with improved environmental control
units to provide cooling, heating, and dehumidifying for servicemembers
and material systems. The improved units, one version of which is
currently in low-rate production, are expected to reduce energy
consumption by up to 25 percent over current units.
* Renewable and alternative energy technology initiatives. Several
military services are exploring the use of alternative and renewable
energy technologies to generate power at forward-deployed locations and
reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. For example, the Air Force Research
Laboratory has created the Renewable Energy Tent City--a collection of
various deployable shelters powered by solar and fuel cell generators.
The Marine Corps Systems Command is developing the Deployable Renewable
Energy Alternative Module--a module towed by vehicle that would employ
solar, wind turbine, battery, and generator technologies to temporarily
power radios or computers until fuel can be resupplied to forward-
deployed locations. In addition, the Army Research Laboratory is
working with universities and private sector firms to develop a
processor that converts tires into energy and recyclable products for
potential use at forward-deployed locations.
* Initiatives at individual locations. During our visits to forward-
deployed locations in Kuwait and Djibouti, we found some local efforts
by camp officials to reduce fuel demand. In Kuwait, for example, an
official at Camp Arifjan shared plans to consolidate loads on small
generators by creating groupings--networks--of multiple generators,
which could improve overall efficiency and reduce the number of
generators that operate at most times of the year. In Djibouti,
officials at Camp Lemonier were able to remove two of the five air
conditioning units used to cool the camp's gymnasium after the
application of foam insulation to the tent exterior of the facility,
resulting in an estimated fuel savings of 40 percent and an indoor
temperature reduction from 95-100 degrees to about 72 degrees
Fahrenheit.
While these efforts show potential for achieving greater fuel
efficiency, DOD lacks an effective approach to fuel demand management
at forward-deployed locations. DOD has stated that it needs to reduce
its dependence on petroleum-based fuel and the logistics footprint of
its military forces, as well as reduce operating costs associated with
high fuel usage. However, DOD faces difficulty in achieving these goals
because managing fuel demand at forward-deployed locations has not been
a departmental priority and its fuel reduction efforts have not been
well coordinated or comprehensive. More specifically, we found that DOD
lacked (1) guidance directing forward-deployed locations to address
fuel demand, (2) incentives and a viable funding mechanism for
locations to invest in fuel reduction initiatives, and (3) visibility
and accountability within the chain of command for achieving fuel
reduction. The following summarizes these key findings. Additional
information is provided in our report.[Footnote 6]
1. Lack of guidance. DOD generally lacks guidance that directs forward-
deployed locations to manage and reduce their fuel demand--at the
department level, combatant command level, and military service level.
While DOD is driven to address energy issues at its U.S. installations
largely by federal mandates and DOD guidance, agency officials were
unable to identify similar guidance for forward-deployed locations, and
they told us that fuel reduction has been a low priority compared with
other mission requirements. Our analysis of combatant command and
military service guidance related to forward-deployed location
construction showed that the existing guidance is largely silent with
respect to fuel demand management and energy efficiency. Similarly, we
found a lack of attention to fuel demand as forward-deployed locations
are sustained and products are procured for the locations. The Joint
Staff has begun an effort to develop common living standards, referred
to as "joint standards of life support" (e.g., square footage for
living space per person, duration of showers), for military
servicemembers at forward-deployed locations, which present an
opportunity to make decisions that take into account fuel demand
considerations. However, Joint Staff officials told us that fuel
reduction has not been considered in this effort to date.
2. Lack of incentives and viable funding mechanism. DOD has not
established incentives or a viable funding mechanism for fuel reduction
projects at its forward-deployed locations, which discourages
commanders from identifying fuel demand management as a priority.
Officials at Camp Lemonier, for example, had identified several
projects that would reduce the camp's fuel demand but told us they saw
little "return on investment" for them to undertake such projects
because they would not see the associated savings for use toward other
camp improvements. Moreover, many of DOD's forward-deployed locations
rely heavily on funding from supplemental appropriations related to the
Global War on Terrorism, and delays in receiving this funding can
present challenges in covering existing costs, making it difficult for
commanders to fund more expensive fuel reduction projects. Funding
mechanisms exist to promote energy reduction projects at permanent DOD
installations, including an energy conservation program and energy-
performance saving contracts with private sector firms. In addition,
DOD encourages energy reduction efforts at U.S. installations through
energy awareness programs and energy-efficiency awards; and the Navy
has established an energy conservation program through which ships that
use less than the Navy's established baseline amount of fuel receive
the associated quarterly fuel savings toward the purchase of shipboard
items. Without incentives and a viable funding mechanism, commanding
officials at DOD's forward-deployed locations are unlikely to identify
fuel reduction as a priority for making a significant investment of
resources.
3. Lack of visibility and accountability. DOD's current organizational
framework does not provide the department visibility for fuel demand
issues at its forward-deployed locations. We found that information on
fuel demand management strategies and reduction efforts is not shared
among locations, military services, and across the department in a
consistent manner. Moreover, DOD guidance does not designate any DOD
office or official as being responsible for fuel demand management at
forward-deployed locations, and we could not identify anyone who is
specifically accountable for this function through our interviews with
various DOD and military service offices. The Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires DOD to
establish a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, an
operational energy strategy for DOD, and military department-level
operational energy officials.[Footnote 7] DOD has not yet established a
director or strategy for operational energy. In meeting the
requirements, DOD has an opportunity to improve visibility and
accountability for fuel demand management at forward-deployed
locations.
GAO Recommends That DOD Take Actions to Improve Fuel Demand Management
at Forward-Deployed Locations:
We recognize that it may not be practical for DOD to decrease fuel
usage at every forward-deployed location and that base commanders must
place their highest priority on meeting mission requirements. However,
DOD's high costs, operational vulnerabilities, and logistical burdens
in sustaining forward-deployed locations that depend heavily on fuel-
based generators underscore the importance for the department to give
systematic consideration to incorporating fuel demand into
construction, maintenance, procurement, and other policy decisions for
forward-deployed locations. In the report that we publicly released
today, we make several recommendations that would facilitate the
widespread implementation of DOD's fuel reduction initiatives and
sustained attention to fuel demand issues at its forward-deployed
locations. In summary, we recommend that:
* the combatant commanders and the military services establish
requirements and guidelines on fuel demand management at forward-
deployed locations;
* the Joint Staff incorporate fuel demand considerations into its
initiative to develop joint standards of life support at DOD's forward-
deployed locations;
* DOD designate the new, congressionally-mandated director of
operational energy as the department's lead proponent of fuel demand
management at forward-deployed locations and that the director, in
establishing a departmentwide operational energy strategy, address the
shortcomings related to managing fuel demand at forward-deployed
locations that I have highlighted in this statement; and:
* the military departments' senior energy officials be assigned, among
their other duties, responsibility for overseeing fuel demand
management at forward-deployed locations within their respective
services.
DOD generally concurred with all of our recommendations. However, in
its response to our draft report, the department did not provide
specific actions or time frames within which it would address the
issues we raised.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
William Solis at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. In addition, contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made
key contributions to this testimony are Assistant Director Thomas
Gosling and Alissa Czyz.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, More
Fight--Less Fuel (February 2008).
[2] GAO, Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel
Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-300] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20,
2009).
[3] At the time of our visit in June 2008, both camps were under
Central Command's area of responsibility. On October 1, 2008, DOD
transferred Camp Lemonier under its newly established Africa Command.
[4] GAO, Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework
Needed to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military
Operations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-426]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2008) and Defense Management: Overarching
Organizational Framework Could Improve DOD's Management of Energy
Reduction Efforts for Military Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-523T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13,
2008).
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-300], pp. 12-19.
[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-300], pp. 19-34.
[7] The act defines operational energy as the energy required for
training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms
for military operations; it includes energy used by tactical power
systems, generators, and weapons platforms.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
