Energy security: Important to budget, national defense

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee heard from General David Petraeus on operations in Afghanistan. While the context of the hearing focused generally on the overall operations on the ground, there is one area in particular that often gets overlooked in the larger debate on national security efforts abroad – energy security.

Energy efficiency is often framed as an environmental issue, but it is first and foremost a national security issue. The Department of Defense (DoD) is the world’s largest consumer of energy. Not only does petroleum-based fuel impact military budgets, the DoD’s reliance on fossil fuel creates great risks to troops involved in refueling operations in conflict areas like Afghanistan. DoD officials reported that in June 2008, 220,000 gallons of fuel, and the trucks carrying it, were lost due to attacks or other events. There is nearly one American casualty for every 24 fuel convoys that resupply troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Energy security is one of the greatest challenges facing the DoD, but it is also an area for enormous potential. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which frames the DoD's overall vision of strategy for the next four years, has named energy security as a key issue in shaping future national security efforts.

It is essential that Congress approach DoD energy efforts in that light. If one of Congress’ core objectives is to be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, decisions on DoD energy efforts should be made based on energy security and reducing costs, not simply for the sake of “being green.”

Going forward, Congress must practice prudence in terms of funding energy projects and holding the DoD’s feet to the fire on cost-benefit. Adhering to simple defense criteria would help: first, there must be demonstrable savings showing a strong return on investment over a reasonable amount of time; second, the project must contribute to increased national security, especially in terms of the direct safety of our troops and sustainability of missions.

Unfortunately, many current “green” energy projects at the DoD are missing the mark both in terms of security and savings. Consider the Navy Recovery Act Project for Solar and Lighting at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. The cost of the energy project? Almost a million dollars. The payback period? 447 years. That is a savings to investment ratio of $.03. It is not responsible spending and it is certainly not improving our national security. Yet as the project came to light, the DoD still refused to cancel it.

This criteria is not difficult and, if implemented, could make great impact. In fact, we are seeing success stories from energy projects under General Petraeus’ command in Afghanistan that are unofficially following this defense criteria.

The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a unit to Afghanistan called the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB), which is leveraging a combination of renewable energy technologies to reduce risks to Marines and increase combat effectiveness. The Ex FOB has employed energy sources like:

•    A flexible solar panel that Marines carry with them on patrol, which allows them to go three weeks without battery resupply.
•    LED lighting and a larger solar tarp that covers a standard tent and can provide enough energy to run four computers at a time.
•    A ZeroBase Regenerator, which has six outsized solar panels that funnel energy into a battery that can power more than 20 lighting systems and 15 computers at once.
•    A Ground Renewable Energy Expeditionary System that has enabled two patrol bases to operate entirely off the grid.

Overall, the ExFOB’s initial results have been remarkable and include two patrol bases operating entirely on renewable energy, 90 percent reduction in fuel required at a third base, and a three-week foot patrol executed without battery resupply, reducing load on Marines by 700 lbs. Based on current requirements and approximately a $6 million investment, the Marine Corps anticipates that in three years, the ExFOB will take 390 trucks off the road, saving more than $60 million in taxpayer dollars and the lives of our service men and women currently working to resupply our troops in harm’s way.

These are projects we can take into future strategic defense plans, and General Petraeus and the U.S. Marine Corps ought to be praised for their leadership on this issue.

This test may be simple, but we face one key challenge moving forward. Congress must receive an accurate assessment of what we are currently doing from the DoD and transparency into their energy investments. We cannot afford to wait for the DoD Inspector General to identify all the wasteful projects that offer no opportunity, in the next 400 years, to see any real security or financial return.

Once we receive this assessment, we can begin to apply these simple defense criteria, establish clear leadership on energy issues, and provide our troops with the resources that will improve our energy security both in contingency operations and on our military installations.

The result will be decreased demand for fossil fuel, dollars saved, and most importantly, lives saved.