[Senate Hearing 112-965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-965
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EPA'S WORK WITH OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES TO REDUCE
POLLUTION AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS
AND THE NEW ECONOMY
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-025PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
Subcommittee on Oversight
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 27, 2012
OPENING STATEMENTS
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 8
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 9
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 111
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
prepared statement............................................. 130
WITNESSES
Gillespie-Marthaler, Leslie, Senior Advisor, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.......... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 16
Senator Sessions......................................... 20
Senator Crapo............................................ 22
Kidd, Richard G. IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and
Sustainability, U.S. Army...................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 35
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 38
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 40
Senator Sessions......................................... 43
Hicks, Thomas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 58
Senator Carper........................................... 61
Senator Inhofe........................................... 63
Senator Sessions......................................... 67
Geiss, Kevin T., Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy,
U.S. Air Force................................................. 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Response to an additional question from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 93
Senator Carper........................................... 94
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 95
Senator Sessions......................................... 98
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EPA'S WORK WITH OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES TO REDUCE
POLLUTION AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Sanders, Carper, Whitehouse, Inhofe, and
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Sanders. The Committee will come to order.
Thank you for being with us for what I think is going to be
an extraordinarily interesting and important hearing. This
hearing is a product of two Subcommittees, Senator Whitehouse's
Subcommittee and mine, and we thought it made sense to do a
joint hearing. We are delighted that Senator Boozman and
Senator Inhofe are here as well. Perhaps other members will be
coming.
As I think our panelists know, we thank them very much not
only for the work they are doing but for being here this
morning.
There is somewhat of a debate in the U.S. Congress and in
the U.S. Senate which I expect you may hear of today about the
nature of global warming. There are some who believe that
global warming is not real; there are some who believe that
global warming is not significantly caused by human activity;
and there are some of us who very strongly disagree with those
who think not only that global warming is real, but we believe
that global warming is causing very significant problems to our
planet today and is costing us huge amounts of money in terms
of dealing with extreme weather disturbances.
Senator Whitehouse and I just last month had a very
interesting hearing with representatives of the insurance
industry, of all people. These are not card carrying members of
the environmental community. They simply have to pay the bills
when we have floods, droughts, tornadoes, and hurricanes. They
say these things are erupting far more than they were in the
past; they are costing us a lot of money, and Congress is going
to have to deal with the issue.
Today, we are focusing on the role of the United States
military in terms of dealing with global warming. Let me simply
say that assessments from our own intelligence community--CIA
and others--show ``A climate change could have significant
geopolitical impacts around the world contributing to poverty,
environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile
governments.'' In other words, if you have more droughts, if
you have more floods, if people don't have enough food to eat,
if you are seeing migrations of people, this causes
international instability which is of some concern, to say the
least, to the U.S. military.
Furthermore, the military investing in energy efficiency
and sustainable energy is not just about reducing greenhouse
gas emission. This is a very important point to make. It is
about military strategy as well. It is about protecting our
soldiers in the field.
According to the Army Environmental Policy Institute 1 out
of every 24 fuel resupply convoys in Afghanistan resulted in a
casualty--1 out of every 24. In Iraq estimates show that 1 of
every 8 soldiers killed was protecting a fuel convoy, moving
fuel in hostile regions resulting in casualties. These fuel
convoys are by definition targets for our enemies, and that is
why the marines have developed innovative solar powered
operating bases that can store energy with battery technology.
In Afghanistan two fuel bases ran on solar energy exclusively
for a 7-month period.
While some here may put down solar or sustainable energy,
some in the Congress, we know that for the military solar is
about reducing risks to our troops. It is about saving lives.
Sustainable energy investments by the military also benefit
the taxpayer. The Department of Defense is the largest consumer
of energy in America and I believe in the entire world with a
fuel bill for petroleum alone of over $17 billion in 2011. It
is no wonder that the military sees reducing reliance on costly
fossil fuels--imported in some cases from hostile, unstable
nations--as a priority. That is why it is good news, in my
view, when the Air Force tested a 50 percent biofuel blend for
jet fuel and the Navy tested a 50 percent algae blend in a
destroyer. I congratulate them for moving forward in these
areas.
There is also huge potential for savings at bases. DOD
manages facilities with total square footage three times larger
than Walmart. In Vermont I worked with our National Guard to
fund the installation of over 1.45 megawatts of solar
photovoltaic energy which is saving the National Guard about
$250,000 a year in energy costs.
We know we can do that on more bases around the country.
Some years ago I went to Nellis Air Force Base, and they have a
huge PV system there which is working as I understand very well
in Nevada. Also, we know the Army is working with the EPA to
develop bases that are net zero energy consumers by increasing
efficiency and generating renewable energy onsite.
I commend the U.S. military for taking a leadership role in
sustainable energy. It is right for our soldiers, for our
national security, and for our environment.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to defer to our Ranking Member who is running back
and forth between here and Armed Services.
Senator Sanders. Without objection.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
I may have a way, Mr. Chairman, for you to just get rid of
me.
Senator Sanders. Not at all, Jim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Inhofe. If you will allow me to do something rather
unusual, to go ahead and have time for an opening statement and
then make a comment I was going to make. During his opening
statement he can respond to it, and I can go back down to Armed
Services. That would kind of double my time then I am out of
here.
I have a great deal of respect for the Chairman. He and I
disagree on this whole idea, and I have looked at it, and in
fact I even wrote a book about it which I hope you will read at
some point, that it may be that you and others believe that all
this global warming stuff is taking place, and the world is
coming to an end. If you just look in the last 100 years, 1895
to 1925, it was a cooling period, and everyone said another ice
age was coming. Then from 1925 to 1945 it was another global
warming and everyone got hysterical. From 1945 to 1975 there
was another cooling spell. Then it went into the current one,
and now it is cycling around, and it is getting cooler. We all
understand that.
Here is the interesting thing. The largest surge in
emissions of CO2 took place after World War II in
1945. That precipitated not another 30 years of warming but of
cooling. It is kind of interesting.
The comment I would make and just drop the subject of
global warming is the vast majority of the members of the House
and the Senate, talking about the House and the Senate even
back when the majority were Democrats, don't agree with that.
They don't agree with the position stated by the Chairman
because we have had a chance to vote on this several times. The
most votes they can get in the U.S. Senate right now might be
25 out of 100.
I would like to comment because something happened I
noticed this morning, a news report that Obama and the EPA are
going to be announcing today the global warming regulations at
new power plants. This is at a time when everyone is all
concerned about the price of gas at the pumps. It is alarming
they would put forward more costly global warming regulations
that will, as the President had promised, in his words,
``ensure energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.''
Specifically, these new rules will have a devastating
impact on coal-fired power plants, political rights that this
rule promises to change the way the U.S. gets its power. The
Sierra Club hopes that it will mean we will never have another
coal-fired power plant built. That may happen because this only
talks about new coal plants.
The rule is proof that President Obama's latest rhetoric on
an all of the above approach to energy is simply lip service to
helping his reelection chances as gas prices skyrocket. Yet
this rule clearly shows that the Administration remains
committed to a war on affordable energy that has been
happening, and it is happening now.
I want to serve notice that we had to do the same thing on
Utility MACT, that if this rule is finalized, it is written in
the Federal Registry, I will do a CRA, Congressional Review Act
on this. I think if nothing more--particularly right now when
everyone is concerned about the high price of gas, you can't
take energy and divide it. Energy is energy, and it competes.
Fuel switching causes an increase in gas prices. I think it is
important for everyone to be on record on this. I think the
Chairman would agree with this.
The one thing I was going to point out was the Chairman
mentioned the Air Force started this program of 50-50. That
happened to be with Fischer Tropsch which was a Tulsa,
Oklahoma, operation. I was very much involved in that. We
started using that, first of all, I say to you, Mr. Chairman,
in B-52s, and we ended up with all of our fleet. It worked very
well.
However, when they had the 526 come in, saying you could
not exceed the footprint of fossil fuels, the cost is just
incredible. I would say that perhaps the Under Secretary of the
Navy might want to respond to this, if you decided the cost
would be, and I have the breakdown here, under the great green
fleet, it needs 8 million barrels of biofuel by 2020. That is
336 million gallons. EIA just last month said the kerosene type
fuel's spot price was $3.26 a gallon, the cost of recent algae
fuel procurement project, a biofuel, is $15 a gallon. You take
the difference between conventional and biofuel blend, the
difference is $3.9 billion.
I would just ask that you look at what you can do with $3.9
billion at a time we are making cuts that amount to half a
trillion dollars over the next decade. If sequestration comes
in it is going to be even worse. I don't know if anyone doesn't
agree it adds disaster to our military.
With the same amount of money you could buy 19 more F-35s,
buy 46 more SM-3 Block 1B interceptors at $2 billion apiece. I
have a long list that I am going to ask be made a part of the
record during these comments.
I say this to Mr. Hicks--as you are responding to this,
maybe talk about the alternatives, what you could do to better
defend America for this amount of money. You might have some
comments. If you can't do it without having time to look at it,
do it for the record. If we could do that, Mr. Chairman, I
would appreciate it very much.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Sanders, thank you for holding this important
hearing today. I believe one of the primary reasons for this
hearing is to highlight the Obama administration's efforts to
impose its green energy agenda on our military. I have long
been outspoken in my opposition to their use of the military to
promote a green agenda at the expense of affordable energy. Gas
prices today are skyrocketing, yet here we are today talking
about an alternative energy agenda that will force our military
to spend even more on energy resources at a time when the Obama
administration is gutting our military budget.
Now let me be clear: I have always supported efforts to
make more efficient use of our natural resources and taxpayer
dollars. For instance, EPA's WaterSense program, a voluntary
public-private partnership, is a great example of a cost-
effective conservation program geared toward saving money and
protecting water resources. What I don't support, however, are
policies that are designed to raise the price of traditional
energy to make alternatives more competitive, especially at a
time when our military and American families can least afford
it.
I'm glad to welcome witnesses from the Department of
Defense (DoD) at the table because I will have a number of
questions for you. As I pointed out last week in an Armed
Services hearing, I am deeply disappointed that DoD is
expending increasing amounts of its scarce resources on
expensive alternative energy when your budget is being slashed
by a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years. DoD is
already drastically cutting its personnel, the number of
brigade combat teams, tactical fighters, and airlift aircraft.
It is cutting or postponing programs such as the C-27, Global
Hawk Block 30, C-130 avionics modernization, the F-35, the
littoral combat ship, the next generation ballistic missile
submarine, and the ground combat vehicles. Forcing DoD to
expend more money on expensive alternative fuels further
exacerbates its budget issues. For example, the Secretary of
the Navy has pledged taxpayer funds of $170 million as their
share of a $510 million effort to construct or retrofit biofuel
refineries in order to create a commercially viable market and
recently purchased $26 per gallon fuel. And as if the Services
are not already stressed by serious budget cutbacks, the
Secretary directed the Navy and Marine Corps to produce or
consume 1 gigawatt of new, renewable energy to power naval
installations across the country. I frankly do not believe you
should be using defense funds to develop private sector
alternative energy capability especially when we're delaying
and canceling the important projects mentioned above. With a
range of domestic alternatives already commercially viable and
in use such as CNG or LNG, taxpayer funds do not need to be
used to pick winners and losers.
Make no mistake, this Administration's policies are killing
jobs, undermining the economy, and threatening America's long-
term security. I don't share the opinions of Senator Boxer and
Al Gore that global warming will be the leading cause of
conflict in our world over the next 20 years or that it is more
of a threat than terrorism. Forcing our military to take money
away from core programs in order to invest in unproven
technologies as part of a failed cap-and-trade agenda is not
only wrong, it's reckless. Any discussion of ``EPA's work with
other Federal entities to reduce pollution and improve
environmental performance,'' as this hearing is titled, must
include a discussion of policies that restore balance between
policies that protect the environment and those that kill jobs
and weaken our national security. I hope that the Senate will
soon act to restore that balance.
Senator Sanders. Yes.
Jim, what did you want to say?
Senator Inhofe. I was saying it would be very difficult for
him to provide it now. I do apologize. It seemed like back when
Republicans were majority, and I chaired this Committee, we
were going to be able to do something about these conflicting
committees. We were able to do it; you are not able to do it;
so I have to go to the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Sanders. OK. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
I am very happy to co-chair this hearing today with my
colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, regarding EPA's role
in the military's efforts to become more efficient, more energy
independent, and more sustainable.
A quiet transformation is taking place in our Armed
Services, a clean energy transformation. Our men and women in
uniform are working to reduce demand for fuel convoys through
enemy territory, make our military bases less dependent on the
grid, and test alternative jet fuels so as to lessen our
dependence on Middle East oil. They are also looking for
innovative ways to cut water use and waste.
Some of these efforts grew out of the grim realities of a
decade at war. Last summer the Department of Defense reported
that over 3,000 soldiers or contractors have been killed in
fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in the Iraq and
Afghanistan; 80 percent of all supply trucks operating in those
zones of conflict are fuel trucks. Over-dependence on oil costs
us lives and dollars.
Secretary of the Navy Mabus has calculated that for every
$1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil the Navy's energy
costs rise by $31 million. The Wall Street Journal reported
recently on Pentagon information showing that if we think that
$4 per gallon gasoline is expensive here at home, the all in
cost for a gallon of gasoline delivered in Afghanistan was $400
a gallon.
The U.S. military understands that greenhouse gas pollution
from these fuels is driving global climate change and that this
change in our oceans and atmosphere has made security
implications. The White House has provided key leadership to
the military's efforts to deploy renewable energy and reduce
energy use.
In 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13514
setting sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals for
the Federal Government. This Executive Order built on a
Sustainability Executive Order signed by President George Bush
in 2007. President Obama's Executive Order called for energy
efficiency efforts that would result in a 28 percent cut in the
Government's 2009 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 for a cost
savings of $8 billion to $11 billion.
When each Federal agency set energy efficiency targets for
this framework, the Department of Defense rose to the
challenge, pledging the most ambitious reductions of any
agency. The military has been aggressive in meeting these
targets. Just last week, the Army announced it will work with
industry to deploy up to $7 billion in renewable energy
resources--wind, solar, and geothermal--on its bases. This
announcement is the Army's latest effort to meet its goal of
producing 25 percent of its energy needs through renewable
energy by 2025.
The U.S. Air Force is an award winning member of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Green Power Partnerships
Program. In fiscal year 2011, this military branch had about
194 renewable energy projects on 71 sites either in operation
or under construction. The U.S. Navy has set a goal of
producing at least 50 percent of its onshore energy from
alternative sources by 2020.
In my home State of Rhode Island, Naval Station Newport has
proposed a wind installation to provide much of its power. In
2008 Naval Station Newport was recognized by the Navy for
having reduced its energy use from a 2003 baseline by 28
percent through a base-wide energy efficiency program. The
military is moving toward a cleaner energy future.
I am grateful that our witnesses from the military branches
are here: Richard Kidd, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy and Sustainability, U.S. Army; Thomas Hicks, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Energy, U.S. Navy, and he will be
representing both the Navy and the United States Marine Corps
at this hearing; and Dr. Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy, U.S. Air Force.
These men have strong military backgrounds as well as
energy expertise, and it speaks volumes that they hold these
positions and that our military branches have these positions.
For many Federal agencies, the Sustainability Executive
Order marks the first time they attempted to incorporate
sustainability into their operations. The EPA, however, has
always had sustainability as its core mission. That is why
Federal agencies and entities look to the EPA as a leader in
the Governmentwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution
and energy use.
Over the past several years, EPA has worked with the
military on a number of sustainability efforts citing renewable
energy installations on military brownfields, funding biofuels
research, and reducing military use of pesticides and other
chemicals. However, only very recently are these relationships
being formalized.
Last November the Army and EPA entered an MOU formalizing
EPA's support of the Army's net zero-based initiative. Their
work will begin by focusing on wastewater and stormwater
management at two Army bases. Last month EPA's Office of
Research and Development and the Department of Defense entered
into a second MOU pledging to work together to deploy cutting
edge technologies that make military operations more
sustainable.
I look forward to learning more in this hearing about the
plans to execute these MOUs and how we can help. I also look
forward to hearing from EPA's witness, Leslie Gillespie, who is
herself a West Point graduate, a former active duty member of
the U.S. Army and one of the point persons at EPA for
cooperative efforts with the military.
These are exactly the type of strategic partnerships we
need to push forward in the clean energy and energy efficiency
fields. I thank everyone for their participation in this
hearing.
I yield to Senator Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and
Chairman Sanders, for having the hearing today and looking into
the collaboration between the EPA and the Department of Defense
on pollution reduction and environmental performance issues.
These are valuable, worthwhile efforts.
At the same time, we must keep our priorities straight. The
mission of the military must be to have the best trained, most
well equipped and capable fighting force on the planet. The
Department can and should fulfill this mission and maintain
appropriate environmental safeguards. However, if we find that
minor improvements come at the expense of the core mission of
the Department of Defense, we should reexamine our priorities.
Please understand that I know helping the war fighter and
achieving environmental goals can be complementary to each
other. We simply need to know what are the benefits, what are
the costs, what are the highest priorities when we have limited
resources and tremendous needs. There is no doubt that smart
energy efficiency improvements can provide benefits to the men
and women in uniform and provide long-term savings to the
taxpayer.
Ultimately, this may not be the most exciting hearing we
are going to have in Congress today or in the near future, but
it is very, very important. I sit on both the Subcommittees
represented here today, and I am glad to see the Oversight
Subcommittee holding one of its first hearings, and I hope that
in the future we have many more.
I served in the House of Representatives at the time in the
majority and at the time in the minority. I served during both
the Bush and Obama administrations. During that experience, I
found that strict oversight was--though sometimes painful--
ultimately beneficial to the Administration and helps to
prevent minor problems from growing into big problems.
Again, I know that we are all interested in doing all that
we can to help you all in your efforts and hope to play a
continued role as we go forth this year.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening the hearing.
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
Now we will hear from our panelists. Senator Whitehouse has
already introduced the panelists. I don't think you need a
second introduction. Why don't we begin with Leslie Gillespie-
Marthaler.
Thank you very much for being with us, and we would love to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE GILLESPIE-MARTHALER, SENIOR ADVISOR, OFFICE
OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler. Good morning, Chairman Sanders,
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Boozman, and other members
of the Subcommittees.
My name is Leslie Gillespie-Marthaler, and I am the Senior
Advisor in the Office of Research and Development at the
Environmental Protection Agency. I am happy to be here today to
talk to you about our partnership with the U.S. military to
conduct research and technology demonstrations on innovative
water treatment and infrastructure technologies.
Let me start by saying that EPA is very proud to be
partners with the Department of Defense as they develop and
deliver water technology solutions by leveraging EPA's
expertise. EPA has two Memorandums of Understanding with the
Department of Defense, specifically with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment
and with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment.
On November 28, 2011, the EPA and the Army signed an MOU to
partner on mutual and interrelated interests in the areas of
water, energy, and waste through joint development and
demonstration of new applications and technologies. These can
be used on Army installations in order to achieve net zero
goals.
The Army's net zero goal is to move installations closer to
consuming only as much energy or water as they produce and
eliminating solid waste sent to landfills. The goal of the MOU
is to partner on the development of integrated solutions to
environmental challenges such as water quality, conservation,
and reuse and to create innovative approaches toward addressing
challenges of urban stormwater management and energy efficiency
within water infrastructure systems. EPA is also collaborating
with the Department of Energy in order to better understand the
water-energy nexus.
We will use the remainder of fiscal year 2012 as a period
for planning our research for the months and years ahead.
Implementation will begin in fiscal year 2013. EPA seeks to
leverage existing resources to achieve mutual goals that
initially benefit Army communities and eventually benefit
communities across the country.
Our efforts are focused on helping Army installations.
Together as partners, we chose to begin our initial
collaboration at two installations, Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
Washington, and Fort Riley, Kansas. On February 7, 2012, the
EPA and DOD signed an MOU to jointly promote and demonstrate
innovative technologies on DOD bases. This not only complements
the partnership with the Army but expands opportunities to
promote and transfer technology successes across the board to
military bases and surrounding communities. We are in the
initial stages of discussion with DOD at this time.
In conclusion, our partnership with DOD supports EPA's
mission of protecting public health and the environment within
military communities through shared solutions, technology, and
innovation. This partnership demonstrates how Federal agencies
are creatively advancing one another's expertise and mission
through science-based technologies and approaches. To maximize
the opportunity of this partnership, we look forward to
collaborating with other Federal agencies, stakeholders, and
most importantly with surrounding communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
and will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Tom Carper of Delaware.
Our next panelist is Richard G. Kidd, IV, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy and Sustainability, U.S. Army.
Thanks very much for being with us.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. KIDD, IV, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY, U.S. ARMY
Mr. Kidd. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Boozman and other members
of the Subcommittees for having me here today. It is a pleasure
to be here and to discuss the Army's energy security and
sustainability efforts.
The Army is addressing energy security through development
of force-wide energy doctrine and operating principles,
technological investments, operational training, education,
facilities management which are all critical aspects of
instilling a mindset of conservation, efficiency, and
sustainability.
While these efforts will have many intended benefits, you
should be clear that the Army does this for the simple reason
that we believe energy security is essential for the Army to
meet mission requirements now and in the future. Reducing
energy use across the Army is mission critical, operationally
necessary, and financially prudent.
The Army recognizes the value of collaboration and we are
working closely with several public and private organizations
to meet our energy security requirements. These include the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, other military services,
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Energy.
In particular, we entered a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Environmental Protection Agency last year for water
programs to identify and demonstrate new applications and
technologies. The Army is the largest facilities energy user of
electricity in the Federal Government representing just over 20
percent of the Federal Government's electric energy bill.
Since 2003 the Army has been able to reduce the consumption
of electricity on installations by over 13 percent despite the
fact that the total number of active soldiers and civilians has
gone up by 20 percent. Operationally, the Army spends 40
percent of its liquid fuel to reduce electricity in generators.
To meet statutory requirements and Army energy security
goals, the Army plans on using a variety of appropriated funds
as well as third party financing. The Army is currently the
largest user of energy performance contracts in the Federal
Government. Going forward, assuming that the fiscal year 2013
budget is approved by Congress, we plan to execute $393 million
in appropriated energy projects, $400 million in energy savings
performance contracts, and up to $700 million in renewable
energy projects. The answer to questions posed by the
committee, if all of these funds go forth, that represents at
least 15,000 jobs created.
Army investments in energy projects throughout all of these
mechanisms are subject to thorough cost-benefit analysis to
ensure that the life cycle costs of these projects will be
positive and beneficial to the Army. Additionally, integral to
all of our efforts is cultural change and the requirement to
implement a holistic, integrated design approach to our
installations and to our operations in the field.
In this regard, we have announced the Army Net Zero
Initiative. Net Zero Initiatives will move closer to the
objective of consuming only as much energy and water as they
produce and eliminate solid wastes to landfills. When fully
implemented, Net Zero installations will establish model
communities for energy security, sustainability, value, and
quality of life. Seventeen installations have been identified
to pilot this effort.
As mentioned earlier, last November we signed a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development for water intensity
reduction to maximize the Army's Net Zero Water Initiative. The
Army and the EPA are working jointly to advance the development
of new, science-based applications and technologies that can be
implemented to achieve Net Zero energy, water, and waste goals.
The Army-EPA MOU complements the DOD-EPA Memorandum of
Understanding signed February 7, 2012. In addition, the Army's
Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering
Center, TARDEC, has an MOU with the Department of Energy, and
the Army participates as part of the Department of Defense's
broader MOU with the Department of Energy.
In regard to renewable energy, to streamline the process of
developing large scale renewable energy projects on Army lands,
last September we established the Energy Initiatives Task Force
known as the EITF. The Energy Initiatives Task Force serves as
the central management and negotiation office to augment
installation staff for the development of renewable energy
projects greater than 10 megawatts.
They are currently reviewing 15 projects and have a further
81 that they are modeling and under development. Of these 81,
they are at or below grid parity costs for like sources of
electricity.
In conclusion, the Army is working diligently to improve
our energy security posture. I did not prepare remarks on
operational energy, but just to reflect the comments made
earlier, this year the Army will be deploying two entire
Airborne Brigade combat teams to Afghanistan equipped with new
soldier power solutions to include renewable power systems to
recharge soldier batteries lightening their load in combat.
Improved energy security means increased mobility by not
being tethered to supply lines, foreign suppliers, or volatile
energy markets. Investment in energy capabilities including
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies will help
ensure that the Army can meet mission requirements today and
into the future.
Not only is it the smart thing to do, it is the right to do
from both an operational and financial standpoint.
I thank you for your attention and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kidd follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Kidd.
Mr. Thomas W. Hicks is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy, United States Navy.
Mr. Hicks, thanks very much for being with us.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. HICKS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ENERGY, U.S. NAVY
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Boozman,
Senator Carper, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here before you today to provide an overview of the Department
of Navy's energy investments.
Time permitting, I would like to address the questions
posed by Senator Inhofe rather than taking those for the
record.
The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2013 budget
request includes $1 billion and $4 billion across the future
years' defense plan for operational and shore energy
initiatives. Our energy investments are not about advancing an
environmental agenda or to be green. Our energy investments are
about improving our combat capabilities, increasing our mission
effectiveness, and reducing our vulnerabilities to foreign
sources of fossil fuel, and for those brave sailors and marines
deployed overseas, it is about bring more of them home safely
to their families.
We are on track and intend to meet the energy goal set
forth by Congress and the Secretary of the Navy. We understand
that energy is an essential resource for the Navy and the
Marine Corps requirement. Our use of new energy technologies
and resources will allow us to reduce our dependency on fuels
that negatively impact our economy and reduce our vulnerability
to price volatility.
Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up $1, it costs
the Department in excess of $30 million in fuel costs. In
fiscal year 2012, in large part due to political unrest in oil
producing regions, the price per barrel of oil has risen $38
over what was originally, raising the Navy's fuel bill in
fiscal year 2012, the year of execution, by more than $1
billion. These price spikes must be paid for out of our
operations, meaning our sailors and marines are forced to sail
less, fly less, and in short, train less.
In efforts to meet Congress' renewable energy goals and the
Department of Navy's goal of procuring 50 percent of our
offshore energy from alternative sources, we are developing a
strategy to identify and execute large scale renewable
projects. We will use existing third party financing mechanisms
to avoid adding cost to the taxpayers.
Under the direction of Congress and our Commander in Chief,
and in partnership with other Federal agencies, we have two
major initiatives underway. The first is advancing the
consumption of 1 gigawatt of renewable energy generation on or
near our installations. While a seagoing service, we own more
than 3 million acres of land and over 72,500 buildings. We will
facilitate the production of large scale renewable power
projects on naval installations, we will use third party
financing mechanisms such as power purchase agreements, joint
ventures, and enhanced use leases to avoid adding costs to the
taxpayers.
Currently our bases support over 350 megawatts of renewable
energy through a variety of sources such as solar, wind, and
geothermal. Recently, we have awarded contracts for three solar
projects in the southwest and are finalizing a similar contract
in Hawaii. The three awarded power purchase agreements at China
Lake, Twenty-Nine Palms and Barstow will save the Department
$20 million over 20 years, and in all three cases we will be
paying less per kilowatt hour than we would be for conventional
power.
Operationally, we are undertaking numerous initiatives such
as hybrid electric drives, stern flaps, propeller coatings,
paint coatings to make our fleet of 285 ships and 3,700
aircraft more efficient. This results in greater combat
capability while potentially saving many millions of dollars.
The Marine Corps Experimental Forward Operating Base
Initiative has reduced fuel supply vulnerability and has also
delivered greater combat capability by deploying renewable
energy technologies throughout the Afghanistan theater. In
addition to these efforts, a second major initiative is being
undertaken in conjunction with the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and Energy to accelerate a domestic biofuels market
capable of delivering advanced biofuel blends that meet or
exceed all commercial and military specifications that do not
require any modifications to our ships, aircraft, or
infrastructure, that do not compete for food, and that do not
cost any more than conventional fuel.
To date, we have tested all of our manned and unmanned
aircraft and a majority of service combatants. Later this
summer at the rim of the Pacific, 2012, at the world's largest
naval exercise, we will sail a carrier strike group on 50-50
biofuel blends.
As we implement these initiatives, the Department continues
to deploy methods to promote behavioral and cultural change
through education and training to ensure that the energy is
understood to be a strategic and tactical capability that
enables us to conduct our tactical and expeditionary shore
missions.
In closing, your support of the Department's fiscal year
2013 budget request ensures we can build and maintain
facilities and an operational fleet that enables our Navy and
Marine Corps to meet the diverse challenges of tomorrow.
Thank you for the opportunity speak before you today, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Mr. Hicks, thank you very much.
Our next panelist is Dr. Kevin T. Geiss, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy, U.S. Air Force.
Dr. Geiss, thanks for being here.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN T. GEISS, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR ENERGY, U.S. AIR FORCE
Mr. Geiss. Chairman Sanders, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking
Member Boozman, Senator Carper, distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify and provide an
overview of how the United States Air Force is working to
improve its energy security through conservation in pursuit of
clean energy sources.
From aviation operations to installation infrastructure
within the homeland and abroad, energy enables the dynamic and
unique defense capabilities of global vigilance, global reach,
and global power that our Air Force needs to fly, fight, and
win in air, space, and cyberspace. Our focus will continue to
be on improving our energy security to ensure we have the
energy when and where we need it to conduct our national
security missions.
As the largest single consumer of energy in the Federal
Government, the Air Force spent $9.7 billion on fuel and
electricity last year. That is $1.5 billion more than we spent
in 2010. This increase occurred even as we decreased our
overall consumption 17 percent since 2003. With the price of
energy increasing and our budget decreasing, energy is becoming
a larger share of the Air Force budget, going from 3 percent in
2003 to over 8 percent for fiscal year 2011. Reducing our
energy footprint is one way we can avoid these increases.
There is more to energy than saving money. There are global
security risks from depending solely upon traditional energy
supplies as access and costs are impacted by natural disasters,
terrorism, and political or economic instability. We are taking
steps to assure our energy supplies and to improve our
resiliency while reducing energy demand while expanding the use
of clean energy sources.
From the standpoint of reducing demand, we first look to
our biggest fuel user, aircraft. Our goal is to reduce to
consumption of aviation fuel 10 percent by 2015 as compared to
2006. To date, consumption is down 4 percent by optimizing
aviation operation through policy and investment, developing
partnerships with the commercial transportation industry, and
working with the Department of Defense and our sister Services.
Eighty-four percent of our energy costs come from aviation,
and one of the biggest consumers is the Air Mobility Command.
AMC provides airlift, aerial refueling, disaster response, and
aero medical evacuation. They fly some of our largest aircraft
and send over 900 flights a day all around the world.
By streamlining operations and promoting operational
efficiencies, AMC's cost to move 1 ton of cargo 1 mile is down
21 percent since 2006. While the Mobility Air Force's fuel
consumption increased 3 percent from 2006, they are hauling 27
percent more cargo.
While we work hard to reduce demand, we are also focused on
diversifying our energy supplies. We set an ambitious goal to
be prepared by 2016 to meet half of our domestic jet fuel needs
through alternative blends. These blends must be replacements
that are cost competitive with traditional petroleum fuels and
meet our environmental and technical specifications.
To get there, we are certifying our aircraft to fly on
three different alternative fuel blends that are half petroleum
JP-8 and half alternative fuel. To date, the Air Force has
certified our entire fleet on synthetic fuel and expects to
have full fleet certification on biofuel by the end of this
year. We have sent a strong message to industry that we are
ready when they are ready.
The Air Force and EPA have worked closely over the past few
years as part of interagency working groups looking at the
environmental aspects of those fuels including calculating
greenhouse gas footprints. From a facilities perspective, Air
Force has a goal to develop significant amounts of on-base
clean energy sources. We have been a green power partner with
the EPA since 2003, and we are currently the second largest
user of such power in the Federal Government. That accounts for
only 6 percent of our total facility energy usage.
During our partnership, we have received multiple awards
for leadership in clean energy. While those accolades are
appreciated, they are not what drives us. We are developing
these projects for the same reason we take on all of our energy
initiatives: to improve energy security. Ultimately, a more
robust, resilient, and ready energy security posture enables
our war fighters, expands operational effectiveness, and
enhances overall national security.
This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for
providing this opportunity, and I appreciate your support of
our airmen, their families, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Geiss follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Dr. Geiss, thanks very much.
Senator Carper, did you want to make an opening statement?
Senator Carper. I would appreciate maybe when I ask my
questions, if I could use a couple minutes before I ask
questions to do that.
Thanks so much.
Senator Sanders. Let me begin. I will throw it out to
anyone who wants to jump in.
To give you some examples, I come from a cold weather
State, or it used to be a cold weather State. We have had a
very warm spring, and we found that when we weatherize older
homes, we can cut fuel consumption by 30 or 40 percent just by
doing that.
Let me ask anyone who wants to jump in, if this country
were aggressive in trying to deal with what many of you discuss
as one of your missions of military which is to save lives
while trying to make this country more secure, in terms of
energy efficiency and sustainable energy, whether biofuels,
solar, wind, geothermal, what do you see as the potential in
terms of the role the United States military can be playing,
and where they can eventually move?
Dr. Geiss, you began to talk about the use of biofuels. Why
don't you start it off? Where can we go? Where is the potential
here?
Mr. Geiss. Senator, I will answer the question on biofuels
first. I think what we are looking at in diversity and supply
is resiliency. As we look at our Air Force, and I mentioned
those 900 flights a day we fly all around the world, plus our
combat aircraft, we are looking for opportunities to use other
sources of fuel, not only domestically or as we operate around
the world. Having a singular source of petroleum provides some
challenges as we operate, and we believe that alternative fuels
will give us more freedom of action and greater resiliency and
diversity.
Senator Sanders. Let me ask you this. As somebody who may
be watching this would think, do you have any concerns about
the safety of this fuel? Are our aircraft any less safe using
this fuel than just petroleum?
Mr. Geiss. I don't have any concerns but you might better
speak to a pilot, and I have done so. Just about a year ago, I
had the privilege of being at Joint Base Andrews, and our
Thunderbirds flew on that 50-50 blend of a hydro-treated
renewable jet. I can say it was a moment of pride for me to see
that happen. As soon as those planes landed, I went over and
spoke to those pilots. My first question was, did you feel a
difference, did you see a difference, and they said no.
As we look at the speed and precision by which our
Thunderbirds and the Navy Blue Angels have done it as well, if
they can perform, and they don't see any difference, I think
that it starts to allay some of the fears of our pilots that
there is no impact.
We have also done the robust testing and analysis in the
laboratory and certification of those aircraft, so technically
and from an engineering perspective there is no impact. From a
personal perspective of individuals who have flown with that,
they see no difference.
Senator Sanders. Let me throw out a tougher question. That
is, some will say that is all very well and good, but it is
more expensive. Biofuels may be more expensive today than
buying petroleum. We have a series budget crisis in America.
How can you justify that? What is your response to that?
Mr. Geiss. My colleague, Mr. Hicks, is dying to jump in.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Hicks, why don't you respond to that?
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Kevin.
I think what we are seeing today, and as Senator Inhofe
pointed out, we did pay $15 a gallon for fuel, a very small
quantity. That quantity represents .03 percent of the Navy's
fuel spend and really is important that we purchase that so
that we can do the proper research, testing, and evaluation to
make sure there are ships and aircraft, that those fuels are
transparent to them.
I am not sure where the $3.9 billion figure comes from, but
I think it probably stems from that $15 per gallon figure. We
have no intention of paying a cost premium for these fuels and
certainly no intention of paying $3.9 billion for premium in
the future. Our efforts and where we see the market today, if
you look at reports whether it is from Group SEC LMI,
Institutions like MIT, Bloomberg, New Energy Finance, all
suggest that these alternative fuels will be competitive
without any additional outside forcing function such as
Government investment in the 2018-2025 timeframe. We believe if
we take an active role in that, we can drive down those fuels
to parity in a much shorter timeframe.
Senator Sanders. I would assume that for the mission of the
United States military of defending our country, it would be
preferable to be producing these biofuels on farms in the
United States of America rather than importing from Saudi
Arabia or other countries who are not necessarily friendly to
us. Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. Hicks. It would, Senator. From our view, this is an
opportunity to produce the fuels domestically. It is also an
opportunity for us to trade where we get those fuels, if you
will, from countries that don't necessarily represent our
values and interests with those that do. As a globally deployed
force, we are going to need those fuels wherever and whenever
we find ourselves.
That said, if we cannot only produce more of those fuels
ourselves and have more of our allies produce those fuels, I
think it can make for some interesting strategic implication
for us.
Senator Sanders. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Following up on the Chairman's
questioning, by 2025 DOD says it is going to generate 25
percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Again, there
is the fuel component to this also. Do we know when we are
going to have a cost even break, or maybe we are not going to
achieve a cost even break but we feel the advantages are worthy
of some increase? Have we graphed that out? Do we know how much
this is going to cost us?
Mr. Hicks. This may be a question for everyone on the
panel. I will say as I mentioned in my remarks, the three most
recent power purchase agreements, which are solar, photovoltaic
arrays in China Lake, Barstow, and Twenty-Nine Palms, the day
those begin producing that power will be cheaper than what we
pay today and will be cheaper over the life of those 20-year
contracts. We will save on those three contracts $20 million.
That necessarily is not always going to be the case, but
that is the ethos that we are bringing in this.
Senator Boozman. In regard to 25 percent being generated by
2025, not those contracts but the big picture, what is that
going to cost us? How much more is our electricity bill going
to be then? Because it is important. I think in your testimony,
Mr. Hicks, you said that increased oil is costing us $1
billion, that means less flying, less training, less at sea, so
there is a finite amount of money so that is an important
question. How much more is our electricity bill going to be in
2025 than it is now?
Mr. Hicks. I would like to see if my colleagues would like
to respond to that, but I will say what we are doing and what
we are pursuing is that it doesn't necessarily have to cost any
more. What we are finding most recently is in fact that it
doesn't. If we structure these contracts in the correct way, if
we do our due diligence and use our mission compatible lands
for these resources, we have an ability to produce power in
specific locations, not necessarily around the country, that
are below market rate.
Mr. Kidd. I would just like to align my comments with
Deputy Assistant Secretary Hicks. Because the Army is the
largest electric consumer in the Federal Government, we also
have to by the mandate produce that much more renewable energy
to get to our 25 percent goal. As indicated in my opening
remarks, we have created the Energy Initiatives Task Force,
which is modeled to think and act like a private sector,
project development entity that has to compete and attract
capital to viable energy projects.
Right now we believe that we have 81 projects across the
Army that, according to models and preliminary analysis, could
produce power for the Army at or below grid parity. These
projects would more than exceed that 25 percent goal. The
dramatic reduction in the cost of wind and solar power coupled
with better building design and more efficient use of energy
makes this goal attainable at little to no additional cost.
Senator Boozman. The other thing is, and you are welcome to
comment, there is just so much law. We are at these hearings
all the time. The energy efficiency of the old motors that are
all over the place compared to the new motors, things like
that. I hope that we are looking at those kinds of things.
Dr. Geiss.
Mr. Geiss. Senator, some very good examples from the Air
Force, one of the projects we are doing at Massachusetts
Military Reservation in partnership with the Army is where the
Air Force has the responsibility for environmental clean up.
That environmental clean up requires quite a bit of
electricity.
As you may know, there is quite a bit of wind potential in
that arena, and we have now constructed three wind towers that
are powering that environmental clean up. It has an expected
rate of return of 7 years, so after 7 years those turbines will
be providing free power to MMR. That is a renewable example.
Another example, Senator, you mentioned low hanging fruit.
We have a project at Little Rock where we are replacing some of
the water storage tanks up there. We are spending about $2.7
million to replace those to reduce loss of water and reduce our
power costs to do that.
Another good example, at Dover, we are decentralizing the
heat plant from an old 1950s era structure to brand new natural
gas powered boilers. We expect that will reduce our energy use
at Dover by 15 percent and save the Air Force $2 million a
year.
As my colleagues have said, we are looking very closely at
the business cases, whether it incorporates renewable or not,
but what makes sense at that particular location for the
mission that we have and for the types of facilities and needs
that we have at those installations.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sanders. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
The suggestion was raised at the beginning of the hearing
in one of the opening statements that this energy effort by our
military might compromise the core priorities of the Department
of Defense. As I recall, I was scribbling quickly so I may not
have it exactly right, the military witness' testimony, Mr.
Kidd said the energy program was mission critical,
operationally necessary, and fiscally prudent and Mr. Hicks
said that it provided greater combat capability to our military
forces. Dr. Geiss said that it enables our war fighters,
improves operational effectiveness, and enhances national
security. Do I have that correctly?
Mr. Kidd. Yes.
Mr. Hicks. Yes.
Mr. Geiss. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me go on to another point about the
cost issues. I ask unanimous consent to put in a statement by a
veterans group called Operation Free which includes the
following paragraph: ``America's oil dependence leaves us
dangerously vulnerable. America spends over $1 billion per day
overseas for oil. Our veracious demand for the single source of
fuel ensures high oil prices in a global market draining our
economy and enabling our enemies. Every time the price of a
barrel of oil goes up $5, Iran makes an additional $7.9 billion
annually.''
When we are looking to use--Senator Sanders' example--home
grown, American industry produced let us say algae fuel,
because we have a wonderful algae company in Rhode Island that
bioprocesses H2O that is doing this right now, and
we compare that with foreign imported oil, the market price
does not necessarily take into account the collateral
considerations.
For instance, the algae fuel is jobs in America, it is
domestic supply, it contributes to energy independence. If it
is exactly dollar for dollar, the same dollar sent overseas
adds to say the government of Iran's revenues, makes us more
vulnerable to the Straits of Hormuz, good luck blocking algae
fuel from Kansas to fuel plants in the United States, it is a
lot less vulnerable than Hormuz, how is it that the military
takes into account those factors that are directly relevant to
the true cost of imported oil versus the market cost as it
bears on the military's own responsibility to care for the
troops and try to reduce unnecessary conflict, save lives and
operate effectively in the global environment?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, in terms of domestic energy prices, I think
I would associate myself with the comments that the market
price does not reflect all the externalities. For the military,
that is something we cannot control. When we make our
investments, we have to use the rules and standards given to us
by Congress and OMB. We can do that, and as I said, we can
justify energy efficiency investment, renewable energy
investments right now purely on a cost basis.
Senator Whitehouse. Without considering externalities, but
you would agree that the externalities are an added bonus that
are good for our national security, our national interests, and
the interests of the U.S. military?
Mr. Kidd. Yes, sir. Operationally, many of those
externalities are borne within the force. In other words, the
casualty figures, the amount of resources that are diverted to
protect convoys, the full burdened cost of delivered energy, we
can start to calculate those. In the Army, we have deployed a
Tactical Field Manager Defense System in Afghanistan so that we
can now track the end use of all the fuel used.
We are developing modeling tools that will allow us to
better understand the true cost of our military, our Army, when
we use fuels in combat, and this is being reflected in the
Army's doctrine. The Army is a doctrinally driven organization
and our operational energy doctrine will be emerging this
spring and summer which over time will change almost everything
the Army does, how we train, how we operate, what goes on in
our schoolhouses, and what requirements we put into our future
acquisition of equipment.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has virtually expired, so as it
expires, let me just thank all of you for what you are doing.
It is work that, according to your own testimony, expands the
resources available to our fighters and makes more effective in
the field and protects our national interests by working toward
domestically produced fuels.
Although we haven't had a chance to, in my questioning,
hear much from Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler, I wanted to thank you
for both your service to our country and also for helping to
coordinate this effort.
Again, I would ask unanimous consent that the Operation
Free statement go into the record.
Senator Sanders. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. The article about Solar Generator
training to troops headed off to Afghanistan where Colonel
Peter Newell, who is the Director of the Army's Rapid Equipping
Force, says, ``This initiative is not just about saving fuel,
it is about saving lives.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to just give an abbreviated statement, and when
I come back, the first question I have is for you Ms.
Gillespie-Marthaler. The question will be, do you want to
comment on any of the things you have heard these guys say,
correct, add to, take away, or whatever you might want to do.
Just be ready for that.
One of my top priorities this year, which I share with
President Obama and many of our colleagues, is to continue to
support initiatives that spur job growth, initiatives that help
create what I call a nurturing environment where communities in
Delaware and beyond can generate jobs and prosperity.
One of the best examples of this is through the Federal
Government's actions to help advance development of clean,
sustainable, and domestic energy. As many of you know, our
country's dependence on fossil fuels exacts a huge cost on our
economy. Our country sends, I am told, over $250 billion a year
overseas to pay for our oil imports, roughly one-third of our
trade deficit. Often this money goes to countries that frankly
don't like us a whole lot, and some actually use our money to I
think hurt us. This dependence also has an enormous public
health cost for our Nation.
The Federal Government can help level the playing field
between fossil fuels and clean energy and be a catalyst for the
creation and use of clean energy technologies including wind,
solar, nuclear, and advanced vehicles.
Having said that, simple common sense solutions should not
be overlooked. As I have learned through my Subcommittee in the
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee,
among other things, the Federal Government is the single
largest energy user in our country. The Federal Government can
lead by example by embracing new clean energy technologies.
Just by changing our Federal Government's energy consumption,
our Government can send a strong signal to marketplaces to
encourage private investment in these new energy sources.
Encouraging energy investments in new technologies like the
development of offshore wind off the coast of States like
Delaware, from North Carolina up to Maine, will nurture further
economic development and job creation.
Changing our Federal Government's energy consumption also
will save money in the long run. We mentioned that here today.
That is money that can be put toward job creation and debt
reduction instead.
Last year, in order to help agencies meet the fiscal and
environmental challenges they had, I introduced something
called the Reducing Federal Energy Dollars Act of 2011. This
legislation is really a comprehensive set of proposals to,
among other things, make it easier for Federal agencies to use
private financing to pay for energy efficient retrofits at
little or no cost to taxpayers.
I believe this legislation will help the Federal Government
lead by example and demonstrate to the American people that
energy efficiency efforts are a gateway to job growth and can
pay real dividends in saving both money and our environment.
Thank you for letting me give that abbreviated statement,
Mr. Chairman. If I could just ask some questions now, I would
be grateful.
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler--the moment we have been waiting
for--do you want to critique what these guys have been saying?
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler. Thank you for the question,
Senator Carper.
I have nothing to add nor to detract or contradict
anything.
Senator Carper. Don't pull your punches.
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler. Again, the EPA is very proud to
partner where we can align our missions to bring better
solutions to military bases. We look forward to that continuing
cooperation.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
For our Air Force friends--we have a big Air Force base we
are real proud of in Dover, as you know, a big airlift base. We
are changing out C-5Bs for C-5Ms. One of them set I think 41 or
42 records last fall in flying nonstop from Dover to I think
Turkey. One of the things the C-5M, which is really the C-5B
with a lot of new engines, new hydraulics, and a lot of other
systems, does is it is a little more energy efficient. Would
you just talk about the energy efficiency of large aircraft
like the C-5M and how that is going to help us in this effort
to use less energy?
Mr. Geiss. Senator, you hit on my favorite topic.
Senator Carper. Good; it is mine too.
Mr. Geiss. From fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the initiatives
that we put in place, we estimate we are saving about $165
million in aviation fuel by basically changing how we fly and
incorporating best practices from the commercial industry,
improving aircraft like the C-5 where we talk a lot about the
energy efficiency of that aircraft but the other benefits
accrue in decreased sustainment costs, and we see that in some
of the other engine improvement programs. We are looking at
improving the KC-135 tanker and that will get us a few percent
better in efficiency, but it will also save us about $1.5
billion in life cycle costs.
As we talk about attendant benefits beyond energy,
sustainment cost is one of the significant things we see as we
modify those aircraft.
Using better scheduling techniques so that we can ensure
when an aircraft lands at Dover, we are maximizing the amounts
of cargo that can be loaded onto that aircraft. That is where
that number came from I mentioned earlier, 3 percent more fuel
and 27 percent more cargo is because we are getting better at
how we plan those cargo flights.
The Air Force will always respond to that demand on the
ground. We will always have those 900 flights a day or expect
to have every single day because we will continue to have
disasters, humanitarian assistance, VIP transport, other
airlift and tanker missions that we have and we see the biggest
opportunity in decreasing our fuel bill and focusing on our
mobility aircraft.
Senator Carper. Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm.
May I ask maybe one more question, Mr. Chairman, if you
don't mind?
The Department of Defense is unique--this is for the whole
panel--among Federal agencies in its ability to enter long-term
power purchase agreements which are essential to support long-
term project financing such as needed for offshore wind farms.
Based on conversations we have had with industry, I believe the
Department of Defense's participation in procuring offshore
wind power could help launch the industry at scale in the U.S.
fostering economic growth along our coastlines, especially from
North Carolina to Maine.
Could you each briefly describe your branch's efforts to
purchase renewable energy off your bases and facilities?
Specifically, I want to know about efforts involving offshore
wind; are there major hindrances to long-term power purchase
agreements by the DOD for offshore wind power? If any of these
issues are statutory, have there been any discussions about
identifying solutions?
Mr. Kidd. Sir, obviously the Army doesn't have as much
potential to talk about offshore wind as our sister Service,
the Navy. They have all the good ocean view installations.
Simply put, the power purchase agreement authority for 30
years is a great asset for the Department, and that is the
premise that we used in creating the Energy Initiatives Task
Force, to maximize the Army's potential to take advantage of
that authority that we have.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Let us hear from the Navy.
Mr. Hicks. As I mentioned before, we have done three power
purchase agreements very recently and are pursuing several
others where we have a very good understanding of the unique
power that authority allows us to use. We have used it to good
effect in projects in California for solar, delivering power to
the Navy at a below market rate over the life of those 20-year
contracts.
As it relates to offshore wind, specifically I think you
mentioned North Carolina to Maine, we certainly have been
engaged at the State level with the energy offices and the
Governors' offices in every State looking to do that. Power
purchase agreements appear to be an excellent way to look at
wind.
One of the challenges we have with that is when it relates
to power purchase agreements, that power either has to be
produced on an installation or directly connected to it. That
becomes kind of the rub as it relates to offshore wind and
power purchase agreements. We can look at--and are looking at--
our standard utility contracts, but those are limited to 10
years. For these major types of efforts, typically we require
more than a 10-year contract to really make the economics work.
That said, we are working with a variety of interests along
the Eastern Seaboard, working with the State energy offices and
Governors' offices trying to come up with some way we can use
that energy. We are very interested to do that. We are
interested to do that where we have mission compatible wind, we
are interested to be a customer.
Senator Carper. Maybe one more quick comment, and if I
could one last comment from the Air Force on this, offshore
wind?
Mr. Geiss. Senator, we have a robust portfolio of clean
energy projects. I am not currently aware of any we are working
on as far as offshore wind and would voice similarly the
comments that my colleagues have made.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sanders. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Can I jump in for 1 minute?
Senator Sanders. Yes, Senator Whitehouse.,
Senator Whitehouse. I wanted to jump here for a minute with
the Chairman's permission because I have a group of visitors in
the room here from Rhode Island from the Cooley Group. They
make, among other things, Cool-Flex, which is a flexible solar
material that can go on the edge of a tent and be deployed in
the field and provide power and help support cooling within.
It was a coincidence they happened to come today and that I
happened to be in this hearing while they came but it is a very
tangible demonstration of how pursuing these initiatives
creates jobs right here in Rhode Island in the United States of
America that would otherwise have been spent on oil and much of
it foreign oil.
I just wanted to a take a moment and thank the people from
Cooley Group who are here and thank all of you again.
Senator Sanders. Senator Whitehouse, a moment ago you used
the fancy word externalities. I think Mr. Kidd appropriately
responded by saying that for him and the military, they are
looking at the bottom line, can the fuel they are buying now be
seen as cost effective with other fuels.
I think, Mr. Hicks, you gave us some examples where today
the contracts you are signing for sustainable energy are
competitive with the more mature fuels.
When we talk about externalities, let us not forget that
may not be within your jurisdiction, but externalities have a
lot to do with whether or not we should have been in Iraq in
the first place, a war many thought might be a war for oil, or
Afghanistan, or our foreign policy in the Middle East. This is
a huge, huge issue.
Externalities means thousands of people who died in that
war, tens of thousands who came home with PTSD or TBI. When we
talk about externalities, it is not only creating jobs in
Vermont or Rhode Island, it is dealing with issues of whether
or not we have to fight wars for oil or whether we can grow our
energy in the United States and become energy independent,
whether or not we can create perhaps hundreds and hundreds of
thousands of jobs creating that energy. It is an enormously
important issue.
Let me get to Mr. Hicks. In Vermont, I worked with the
Vermont National Guard, as you know, to install a significant
PV panel installation there. It is now producing 1.45 megawatts
of solar; it is providing 40 percent of the installation's
needs for the National Guard at that location, saving the
National Guard over $240,000 a year.
Do projects like this make sense? Are we seeing projects
like this taking place in other areas of the country?
Mr. Hicks. The answer is yes, and it will depend on the
local market conditions, the local availability of resources.
In the case of solar, for example, is there enough solar
capacity; in the case of wind, is the wind blowing at the right
speeds and right heights; and what is the local cost of power?
All of those are factors as well as other factors such as
environmental assessments and siting that come into play and
ultimately determine the economics of a project. That said, we
are seeing projects across the country from Hawaii and southern
California.
Senator Sanders. Go into depth a little, if you can. I know
you mentioned this. Exactly what are we talking about across
the country where sustainable energy is now cost effective with
the more mature industry?
Mr. Hicks. I think what we are seeing in California with
the cost of power, in addition to the production tax credits
which do have an impact on that, we are seeing solar being
competitive in those markets. We are also seeing other
technologies whether it is waste to energy, geothermal is
another we see, and that is more related to the southwest where
we see geothermal as an opportunity to use those resources. The
Navy has a plant that is rated at 270 megawatts of power, the
largest plant in the Navy.
Senator Sanders. We have talked to people in the geothermal
industry who think there is huge potential in geothermal. Do
you agree with that?
Mr. Hicks. I do. There is enormous potential. We have seen
this from our own experience in running a plant or having a
plant on our base for the past 25 years at China Lake rated at
270 megawatts. It is not quite producing that today, but that
is the nature of geothermal over time. That said, there are
many other opportunities in the southwest not only at the Navy
installations but also at the Army and the Air Force for
geothermal.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Geiss, why don't you jump in. What do
you see as the potential of solar with the significant
declining price of PV in this country for the military?
Mr. Geiss. From my experience, one of the most impactful
elements in making those things pencil out or be economic, what
is the State environment, what is the utility experiencing? If
there are renewable energy credits for that State, if there is
a renewable portfolio standard, what is the utility price; all
of those things determine whether it is actually going to be
financially viable.
I may have said we are not pursuing energy for the sake of
energy, we are pursuing it for what it does for us and we have
to consider what that cost is. As we look at the opportunities,
where it makes sense, where the costs work out, those are the
areas we are targeting for these renewables.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Kidd, do you want to jump into that
discussion?
Mr. Kidd. Sure, I am happy to. Again, what Dr. Geiss said
is very important. The Army has 155 installations across
America. We have over 200 utilities, a fact I am still trying
to get my brain around, but certainly the local conditions at
the State as well as the local utility level are big factors in
whether or not renewable energy projects will pencil out and go
forward.
In White Sands Missile Range, the Army just signed an
energy savings performance contract to install solar panels.
What makes these panels so attractive is the new peak pricing
charge that has gone into effect so that the panels will
actually be producing at the time of day when the electricity
rates are the highest.
In many places right now, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other
areas in the country, solar panel is the cheapest power you can
bring online at this point in time, so that is very attractive
to the Army.
In your opening comments, you mentioned the National Guard,
and if Senator Merkley were here from my home State I would
have talked a great deal about one of the Army's net zero
efforts which is with the Oregon National Guard with the intent
to make all of Fortress Oregon, as they call it, Fort Oregon,
net zero. One of the things that is attractive to the Governor
and the Adjutant General in Oregon is the Adjutant General also
wears the hat of Director for Emergency Response for the State,
which is the same case in 34 States across America.
With that, the Oregon Guard is planning that they will have
energy secure and reliable installations for the National Guard
so they can respond to the Governor in the time of crisis. It
is very interesting working in Oregon with the Department of
Energy and EPA on helping move those efforts forward.
Senator Sanders. Thanks very much.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I appreciate your comment, Dr. Geiss, about where it
makes sense in the areas that it does work because again, it
doesn't matter if the increase is due to a surge in oil prices
or a surge in switching over to some new technology, the
reality is, I think we would all agree, that means less money,
as you said, Mr. Hicks, for training, less money for the things
that it takes for our core mission. That is what I was really
referring to, Senator Whitehouse.
I understand the statements that it is this way or that
way, but that is the purpose of the hearing, to really make
sure it is this way or that way.
One of the things I am also looking at, some of the fuels
we are using now don't have as much bang for the buck in the
sense they don't have as much energy. In other words, you might
have to have more quantity for a gallon of gasoline, you might
have to have more quantity for it. Is that true, as in the case
of ethanol?
Mr. Hicks. That is true for ethanol, the power density
isn't as great. To be clear, the fuels that we are all pursuing
are the advanced biofuels, second and third generation fuels
where that is not an issue. For us, we are not going to
sacrifice any decrease to a range of our ships or our aircraft.
Senator Boozman. So the power density would be same or
greater?
Mr. Hicks. That is correct.
Senator Boozman. Again, one of the problems you guys know
much better than I, and Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler coming through
the Academy, transport is a huge deal on the field, putting
people at risk in hauling more fuel. These are the kinds of
things that I think we really need to be looking at.
Again, I appreciate your testimony, and I think one of the
good things about your testimony is you are reassuring me that
you really are looking at this in the way I would like for you
to look at it in the sense that not only do we have limited
resources in the energy department in the sense of natural
resources, we have limited resources in the financial ability
we have as we are seeing the significant cuts.
Mr. Hicks, in your testimony you mentioned strategically we
are at risk because much of the fuel we use comes from volatile
regions of the world. Canada wouldn't be one of those, would
it?
Mr. Hicks. No, Senator.
Senator Boozman. That might be a reason we might look to
Canada for some of our needs in the future?
Mr. Hicks. I don't have the figures myself, but that said,
we do purchase fuel from about 600 places around the world
wherever and whenever we need it. That fuel is ultimately
sourced from whatever makes the most sense logistically, so a
lot of that fuel comes from places such as the Middle East.
Senator Boozman. I agree with you totally. That is
certainly a consideration.
We appreciate your being here, appreciate your testimony,
appreciate all of your hard work. I might ask you one last
thing. Tell me why the EPA is such that in using renewables in
our military, why we cannot use national forest wood?
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler. Senator Boozman, I appreciate the
question. It falls outside of my realm of expertise, so I would
be happy to take that back to the EPA to provide additional
information if you would like.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you. I think it has fallen out
of the realm of a lot of people when the question is asked. It
seems it would make sense that the forests we manage as a
country would be eligible to be used by another agency of our
Government.
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler. I think additionally it is outside
of the EPA's jurisdiction with respect to the national Forest
system but again, I will be happy to take that back.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
Senator Whitehouse. All set.
Senator Sanders. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Gillespie-Marthaler, I have no more questions for you.
Rest easy. At ease, as we say.
I do have a question for Mr. Kidd. I might just add my
grandmother was a Kidd; we are probably related somewhere. She
turned out pretty well, and I am sure you have, too.
Mr. Kidd. My grandmother would agree with that.
Senator Carper. That is good.
How many of the Army's total, non-tactical vehicles are
powered at least partially by non-petroleum fuel sources? Do
you have any idea?
Mr. Kidd. Senator, non-tactical vehicles or tactical
vehicles?
Senator Carper. Non-tactical vehicles powered at least
partially by non-petroleum fuel sources. If you have some idea,
let me have it, and if you don't, just answer for the record.
Mr. Kidd. Senator, I will get an answer back to you for the
record on the exact number. I would like to say that the Army
does have the largest non-tactical vehicle fleet in the Federal
Government. We reduced our petroleum consumption last year by 8
percent in 1 year, and we are on track to meet or exceed all
Federal mandates for petroleum reduction, alternative fuel use,
and alternate vehicle use.
I will get you the exact breakdown, but we have a large
number of electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and E85 vehicles
in the non-tactical fleet. On the tactical fleet side, we are
qualifying our biofuels for use and certifying our vehicles and
generators to use that fuel when it is available at the market
in a price competitive manner and the quantities that we need.
Senator Carper. You partially answered my next question,
but I am going to ask it anyway, and maybe you can work around
what you have just said. How will the Army pursue its goal of
reducing petroleum use in tactical vehicles by 20 percent by
2015? Will the Army just largely replace its inefficient
clunkers with newer, more efficient petroleum fuel vehicles, or
will the Army be seeking to replace some of their vehicles with
hybrids or hydrogen-powered vehicles?
Mr. Kidd. The Federal goals apply to the non-tactical
vehicle fleet, and we are using a variety of mechanisms. We are
downsizing the fleet, reducing the number; we are right sizing
the fleet, using a more fuel efficient vehicle to do the
required job; and we are transitioning to alternate fuel and
alternate powered vehicles as warranted.
At Fort Carson, Colorado, the Army will soon deploy the
largest vehicle to grid charging capacity in the United States,
and we are looking to model whether large electric powered
delivery vans and delivery trucks can provide energy storage on
the installation to help provide some energy security.
Senator Carper. A question, if I could, for Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks, I am curious about how the Department of the
Navy tracks energy consumption. Does the Navy conduct regular
energy consumption and efficiency audits? Does the Navy have
the ability to precisely know where its forces are the most
energy inefficient? Have these audits ever led to changes in
missions or to the assets used in these missions?
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Senator.
The Navy, with respect to our installations, we audit 25
percent of our buildings or square footage per year, so every 4
years, all of our installations will have gone through
comprehensive energy audits. Those audits create energy
projects that we either fund or seek third party financing on
for those that make sense.
We are also installing 27,000 advanced meters. We are more
than halfway through that process of installing those meters.
That is around the globe at all of our installations, our
roughly 100 installations around the globe, Navy and Marine
Corps. Those advanced meters will provide us data at a level of
granularity that we have not had before.
On top of that, we are adding an energy management system
using some commercial, off the shelf software modified just
slightly for the use of the Navy that will be able to take in
that data and be able to better understand how our energy is
being used, and we will also be better customers of the
utilities in the sense of being able to more promptly pay our
bills in the future.
Senator Carper. I have a question for the record. I am
going to ask a question about something called Bloom Boxes. I
don't know if you have heard of Bloom Boxes, but they are
developed by a company in California. The fellow who runs the
company used to work on NASA projects. The idea was to create
all sorts of electricity in outer space using fuel cells I
guess with hydrogen and natural gas. I think they have the
ability to also use biofuels for creating electricity as well.
Is that something you have ever heard of or thought of?
Mr. Hicks. I certainly have head of them. I met with the
folks from Bloom Energy, and I believe we actually have at
least one, perhaps two, of those boxes in Hawaii, I want to
say, but we can take that for the record and provide more
information on that and let you know how those projects are
going as well.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Mr. Kidd. Senator, the Army is interested in exploring fuel
cell technology, and we are doing at a variety of scale that
two Airborne Brigade combat teams I mentioned earlier will be
taking portable fuel cells with them as part of their new
equipment for the recharging of batteries. Referring to the
earlier comment on power density, the most important power
density in the Army is the power that is stored in the
batteries that our soldiers carry into combat. We have been
investing a great deal on battery technology as well as
renewable systems to charge those batteries.
Last year, the Army spent, for the first time, 52 percent
of our battery buy for rechargeable batteries. At the start of
the war it was 2 percent. We do that because that gives some
tactical flexibility to our soldiers to recharge on the move
either with renewables or with the fuel cells.
On the fuel cell and installation side, in terms of
partnerships, the Army is partnered with the Department of
Energy; we are testing fuel cells at 8 different installations,
and we can give you some more details on that, a variety of
shapes and sizes from different manufacturers.
Going back to the cost competitive nature, we have to make
sure the business case works, and we are not quite there yet.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would just observe a couple of months ago
driving to the train station I was listening to NPR, and they
were reporting on an international study where they asked
thousands of people around the world what they liked about
their work. Some people said they liked getting paid; some
people said they liked the benefits, vacations, health care,
pension; some people said they liked the folks they worked with
or the environment in which they worked. But most said the
thing they really liked about their work was they thought what
they were doing was important, and they were making progress.
I would just observe that what you are doing in your
respective branches of the Armed Services is important and we
are making progress. As we say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu, go get
'em.
Thank you.
Senator Sanders. I think we all concur with that. Thank
you, Senator Carper.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Let me add one final document to the record and ask Mr.
Hicks a question about it. It relates to the Navy specifically.
It is a document by Kathleen Paulson at Navy Facilities
Engineering Service Center. It is entitled U.S. Naval
Facilities Engineering Service Center Environmental Program on
Climate Change.
There are no trick questions here. Let me just tell you
what it says. ``The Navy is now beginning to appreciate the
potentially devastating potential of a new set of environmental
issues related to climate change. There is a growing
recognition that the Navy will need to perform its national
security mission in a changing global environment characterized
by,'' and then there are three bullet points: ``One, rising sea
levels that threaten the viability of Navy coastal
institutions; two, increasing extreme weather events that
threaten Navy shore installations and air and sea operations;
and third, climatic shifts in temperature and precipitation
with attendant problems such as disruption in water resources,
reductions in food supply and increase in disease vectors.''
Making it more specific, the report goes on to point out
that ``The Navy owns over 500 piers and wharves where certain
regions of the world might experience as much as 3 meters of
sea level change with combined land substance and sea level
rise with, as a result, waterside facilities potentially
becoming unusable.''
I come from Rhode Island. We are the Ocean State and have a
lot of coastline in addition to the wonderful Newport Naval
Station that is there. I wonder if you could just give us a few
comments. It sounds to me as if there is no doubt in the Navy's
mind that carbon pollution is causing very significant climate
and oceans impacts; that they include sea level rise; that they
include worse storms and include environmental changes that
impact Navy operations.
Is that an accurate statement? Does the Navy have any
hesitation that manmade carbon pollution is creating changes in
our atmosphere and in our oceans that having these effects?
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Senator.
I guess I would like to start by saying the Navy's
investments in this, what we have in our fiscal year 2013
budget, and what we have across the future years' defense plan,
is really on energy. It is not about an environmental agenda.
Let me start there.
It is about combat capability. That said, we do take our
direction, if you will, and look toward touchstone documents
such as the Quadrennial Defense Review which looks at climate
change as an accelerant to future challenges. From that, our
investments take their cues and we invest accordingly.
I am not familiar with the document you mentioned, would be
happy to review that and to the extent that represents the
Navy's perspective, but those are certainly impacts that are
being felt. There are also others that we know of over the next
20 to 30 years where we may see the Northwest Passage open for
the first time, and that has other strategic implications for
us as the Service charged with protecting the global commons of
the sea lanes, so that is something that provides future
challenges for us.
I would like to have some opportunity to review that
document and be able to provide a more full response to you.
For us, this is about enhancing our combat capabilities. We
recognize that there are additional benefits that come with
that. I think that document may speak to those.
Senator Whitehouse. Is it fair to say that each one of our
military services neither doubts nor denies the reality of
climate changes caused by carbon pollution, and indeed, you are
spending significant resources in order to anticipate and deal
with those effects, correct?
Mr. Kidd.
Mr. Kidd. Senator, it is clear that there is a policy
position and a considered opinion of the scientific bodies of
the Federal Government that what you said is true. The Army
follows that position.
Senator Whitehouse. You neither doubt nor deny it?
Mr. Kidd. It is not my job to have doubt or deny or to
ascertain. It is my job to follow the policy.
Senator Whitehouse. I mean the organization.
Mr. Kidd. We follow the policy that is established in the
Quadrennial Defense Review and other documents put out by the
Department of Defense and the scientific advice we get from the
Department of Energy, NOAA, and others. Also, we live and work
in the real world, and our soldiers, on a day to day basis, are
first line observers of the changes that our world is going
through right now.
Senator Whitehouse. There is nothing in the Quadrennial
Review that doubts or denies the science behind climate change,
correct?
Mr. Kidd. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Hicks, same answer?
Mr. Hicks. I would concur with those comments. Again, our
views will come from that doctrine, the Quadrennial Defense
Review, which recognizes the challenges that climate change can
propose.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Geiss.
Mr. Geiss. As well, I agree with the Quadrennial Defense
Review perspective.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Let me direct a question, if I could, to Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks, as I understand it, Section 526 of the 2007
energy bill prohibits the use of high carbon fuels including
oil from tar sands for the United States military. Is the Navy
comfortable with that?
Mr. Hicks. I am quite familiar with the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, Section 526. I will make two
comments. One, we feel it is an effective policy. From what we
have seen across this Nation of the companies that are looking
to provide alternative fuels, that does not seem to be a
barrier to their ultimate success. In fact, many and most of
those companies are able to produce fuels that have half the
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum.
As relates to tar sands, my understanding is that has been
already ruled upon and that those fuels from tar sands are able
to be used and are kind of excluded from that definition within
Section 526. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is the
case.
Senator Sanders. I think Senator Boozman is going to say a
word in a minute, but let me make my final remarks by saying
this. Willie Sutton famously said that the reason he robs banks
is because that is where the money is. The reason we are doing
an energy hearing with the military is you guys are the largest
consumers of energy in the United States of America and I think
the largest single entity in the world.
If we are serious about energy, we have to be serious about
what the United States military is doing. I think I concur with
what Senator Carper said a moment ago. We think you guys are
doing really some extraordinarily good work, both in terms of
energy efficiency and trying to move this country and the
military to safer, more sustainable energies.
In particular with the military, it is not just a dollars
and cents issue. It is an issue of fulfilling your mission of
defending this country. If we can, through sustainable energy,
keep our troops safe in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other field
of battle by developing and expanding these new technologies,
we have performed a huge service.
If as a result of your work in sustainable energy you help
bring down, as a major consumer, these energies, you help bring
down the cost of solar, you help us develop new technologies in
wind, utilization of geothermal, create breakthroughs in energy
efficiency. What you have also done is above and beyond the
military; you have implemented important national goals.
I want to thank you very much for what you are doing, and I
see some really exciting progress being made in the United
States military in that area.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Very quickly, again, I do appreciate your
testimony. I appreciate the service of all of you to our
country and your being in uniform.
In regard to climate change, I think we all agree that the
climate is changing. The question is what is causing that, so
that is really the sticking point. I think, Mr. Kidd, that you
are trying to avoid the reason or whatever.
When I was in school many years ago, I was told that we
would have a 20-year supply of natural gas, and we would run
out. I was told we were on the verge of an ice age. Again, as I
said, the idea that you are planning based on climate change,
we are having that in rising seas and whatever unrest.
You mentioned for the first time having perhaps a new route
to get around. There are going to be pros and cons. It is good
you all are thinking about that.
Like I said, we do appreciate your testimony. The other
thing is, I would agree with the Senator, in the sense these
are things that when they work, we need to be exploiting. It
does seem the attitude you are using in regard to if it is cost
effective, if it is good for our troops, it is good for the
mission, those are the things we are going to be doing and not
just be doing things just to be doing them to meet some goal.
Again, I think that is a concern, and yet I think you have done
a good job today of basically tamping that down, which is real
important.
We appreciate your testimony and service to our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. We thank the
panelists very much for being with us.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Sanders and Chairman
Whitehouse, for holding this oversight hearing concerning EPA's
work with the Defense Department and other agencies to reduce
energy consumption and environmental impacts.
In fiscal year 2013, under the President's proposal, our
Government will run the 5th consecutive trillion dollar
deficit. That is not sustainable, and if our debt course is not
corrected will lead our Nation straight to the most predictable
economic crisis in history. We have to act now to ensure that
all Federal agencies are operating as efficiently as possible;
that means at the lowest possible cost, and yes, it can also
mean with minimal adverse impacts to the environment.
I am pleased that we have the Deputy Assistant Secretaries
of Energy for the Army, Navy, and Air Force here today. The
Defense Department (DoD) is the Nation's single largest energy
consumer. DoD comprises about 80 percent of Federal sector
energy consumption. In fiscal year 2010 DoD spent almost $4
billion on energy consumption at its various facilities. It is
fiscally and environmentally smart for the Defense Department
to reduce energy consumption to the extent possible. In fact,
DoD has already reduced its facility energy consumption more
than 10 percent since 2003. That is substantial progress.
However, I am concerned about some areas where DoD is being
forced by politicians to make green energy commitments for
reasons other than cost savings to the Government. Importantly,
in 2009 President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, which
told all Federal agencies, including the Defense Department, to
take the `'lead'' on ``creat[ing] a clean energy economy.'' He
said the Federal agencies must ``reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions,'' make greater use of ``renewable energy'' such as
solar power, and consider the purchase of ``alternative fuel
vehicles.'' This was an ambitious and costly directive. One may
wonder whether he was looking to ensure a customer base for his
other social engineering experiments--Solyndra and the like,
which have wasted billions. When our Nation is facing
substantial cuts to the Defense budget, we simply cannot afford
to impose unwarranted green energy mandates on DOD, especially
if they will increase the cost taxpayers pay to run these
facilities.
I am also concerned about some of the requirements that
have become part of Federal agency building standards. The
President's Executive Order told agencies to use
``environmentally preferable materials.'' That, apparently,
does not include many kinds of American lumber. Why would
renewable materials like trees grown in the United States not
be considered ``environmentally preferable materials''? I think
that is something that needs to be looked at closely.
Finally, we cannot have a discussion about DoD's energy
consumption issues without also talking about the importance of
energy independence in our Nation. If the United States becomes
energy independent, our Nation's warfighter will be energy
independent and better able to complete the missions asked of
them. So what can we do to become more energy independent?
Conservation has an important role to play. And so does
development of new energy technologies. But most significantly,
the U.S. has the ability to become the world's largest supplier
of energy. If the Administration would just get serious about a
pro-American energy policy, we can produce more oil here at
home, where it can be refined into gasoline by American
refineries. We can obtain massive amounts of oil shale from
Canada and move it to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast via
the Keystone XL pipeline. We can continue to produce our
abundant sources of coal and natural gas. And we can finally
start building new nuclear reactors in the U.S.
If we use more of our affordable, reliable, clean U.S.
energy sources, the Defense Department will benefit, the
environment will benefit, the economy will benefit, the
security of our Nation will benefit, and the hardworking people
of this country will benefit.
Thank you.
[all]