Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Needed  
to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military	 
Operations (13-MAR-08, GAO-08-426).				 
                                                                 
The Department of Defense (DOD) relies heavily on petroleum-based
fuel for mobility energy--the energy required for moving and	 
sustaining its forces and weapons platforms for military	 
operations. Dependence on foreign oil, projected increases in	 
worldwide demand, and rising oil costs, as well as the		 
significant logistics burden associated with moving fuel on the  
battlefield, will likely require DOD to address its mobility	 
energy demand. GAO was asked to (1) identify key efforts under	 
way to reduce mobility energy demand and (2) assess the extent to
which DOD has established an overarching organizational framework
to guide and oversee these efforts. GAO reviewed DOD documents,  
policies, and studies, and interviewed agency officials.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-426 					        
    ACCNO:   A81291						        
  TITLE:     Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework 
Needed to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military
Operations							 
     DATE:   03/13/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Alternative energy sources 			 
	     Alternative fuels					 
	     Defense capabilities				 
	     Energy conservation				 
	     Energy demand					 
	     Energy efficiency					 
	     Energy management					 
	     Energy planning					 
	     Fuel conservation					 
	     Fuel consumption					 
	     Logistics						 
	     Military forces					 
	     Military operations				 
	     Military research and development			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Petroleum products 				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Weapons						 
	     Weapons systems					 
	     Energy sources					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Standards (energy efficiency)			 
	     Supply and demand					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-426

   

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

March 2008: 

Defense Management: 

Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to Guide and Oversee Energy 
Reduction Efforts for Military Operations: 

Defense Energy Management: 

GAO-08-426: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-426, a report to the Subcommittee on Readiness, 
Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) relies heavily on petroleum-based fuel 
for mobility energyï¿½the energy required for moving and sustaining its 
forces and weapons platforms for military operations. Dependence on 
foreign oil, projected increases in worldwide demand, and rising oil 
costs, as well as the significant logistics burden associated with 
moving fuel on the battlefield, will likely require DOD to address its 
mobility energy demand. GAO was asked to (1) identify key efforts under 
way to reduce mobility energy demand and (2) assess the extent to which 
DOD has established an overarching organizational framework to guide 
and oversee these efforts. GAO reviewed DOD documents, policies, and 
studies, and interviewed agency officials. 

What GAO Found: 

OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services have undertaken efforts 
to reduce mobility energy demand in weapons platforms and other mobile 
defense systems. For example, OSD created a departmentwide Energy 
Security Task Force in 2006 that is monitoring the progress of selected 
energy-related research and development projects. The Joint Staff 
updated its policy governing the development of capability requirements 
for new weapons systems to selectively consider energy efficiency as a 
key performance parameterï¿½a characteristic of a system that is 
considered critical to the development of an effective military 
capability. The Army is addressing fuel consumption at forward-deployed 
locations by developing foam-insulated tents and temporary dome 
structures that are more efficient to heat and cool, reducing the 
demand for fuel-powered generators. The Navy has established an energy 
conservation program to encourage ships to reduce energy consumption. 
The Air Force has developed an energy strategy and undertaken 
initiatives to determine fuel-efficient flight routes, reduce the 
weight on aircraft, optimize air refueling, and improve the efficiency 
of ground operations. The Marine Corps has initiated research and 
development efforts to develop alternative power sources and improve 
fuel management. 

While these and other efforts are under way and DOD has identified 
energy as one of its transformational priorities, DOD lacks elements of 
an overarching organizational framework to guide and oversee mobility 
energy reduction efforts. In the absence of an overarching 
organizational framework for mobility energy, DOD cannot be assured 
that its current efforts will be fully implemented and will 
significantly reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuel. GAO found 
that DODï¿½s current approach to mobility energy lacks (1) a single 
executive-level OSD official who is accountable for mobility energy 
matters; sets the direction, pace, and tone to reduce mobility energy 
demand across DOD; and can serve as a mobility energy focal point 
within the department and with Congress and interagency partners; (2) a 
comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy that aligns individual 
efforts with DOD-wide goals and priorities, establishes time frames for 
implementation, and uses performance metrics to evaluate progress; and 
(3) an effective mechanism to provide for communication and 
coordination of mobility energy efforts among OSD and the military 
services as well as leadership and accountability over each military 
serviceï¿½s efforts. GAO also found that DOD has made limited progress in 
incorporating fuel efficiency as a consideration in its key business 
processesï¿½which include developing requirements for and acquiring new 
weapons systems. DOD has established new organizational frameworks to 
address other crosscutting issues, such as business systems 
modernization and corrosion control and prevention. Establishing an 
overarching organizational framework for mobility energy could provide 
greater assurance that DODï¿½s efforts to reduce its reliance on 
petroleum-based fuel will succeed and that DOD is better positioned to 
address future mobility energy challengesï¿½both within the department 
and as a stakeholder in national energy security dialogues. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that DOD establish an overarching organizational 
framework for mobility energy to improve the departmentï¿½s ability to 
guide and oversee mobility energy reduction efforts. To establish such 
a framework, DOD should designate an executive-level Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) official to be accountable for mobility 
energy matters, develop a comprehensive strategic plan, and improve 
DODï¿½s business processes. In addition, the military services should 
designate executive-level focal points to establish effective 
communication and coordination among OSD and the military services. DOD 
partially concurred with the recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-426]. For more information, contact 
William M. Solis at (202) 512-8365 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Departmental and Military Service Efforts Are Under Way to Reduce 
Mobility Energy Demand: 

DOD Has Not Established an Overarching Organizational Framework to 
Guide and Oversee Mobility Energy Reduction Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Select Recommendations from DOD-Sponsored Studies on 
Mobility Energy Reduction: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Selected Energy-Related Research and Development Projects 
Being Monitored by DOD's Energy Security Task Force: 

Table 2: DOD Energy/Fuel Roles and Responsibilities: 

Table 3: Actions DOD Has Taken to Address Selected Recommendations from 
DOD-Sponsored Studies on Mobility Energy Reduction: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Three-Mile Backup of Fuel Delivery Trucks and Other Supply 
Vehicles Inside Afghanistan along the Northern Passage from Pakistan 
(February 2007): 

Figure 2: A Line of Tanker Trucks Loading Fuel in Kuwait: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

March 13, 2008: 

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable J. Randy Forbes: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Readiness: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is the nation's single largest consumer 
of energy and relies heavily on petroleum-based fuel for mobility 
energy--that is, the energy required for moving and sustaining its 
forces and weapons platforms for military operations. U.S. military 
forces, for example, require vast quantities of fuel to operate combat 
and support vehicles; generate power at forward-deployed locations; and 
move troops, equipment, and supplies. In 2007, more than 55 million 
gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied by DOD each month to support 
the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mobility energy accounts for 
about three-fourths of DOD's total energy consumption.[Footnote 1] DOD 
incurs billions of dollars each year in fuel costs, and these costs 
have been rising in recent years as oil prices have increased. 
Moreover, high fuel requirements on the battlefield can place a 
significant logistics burden on military forces; limit the range and 
pace of operations; and add to mission risks, including exposing 
convoys to attack. 

This report responds to a request by the Subcommittee on Readiness, 
House Committee on Armed Services, that we assess DOD's efforts to 
reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuel. Specifically, the 
objectives of this review were to (1) identify key departmental and 
military service efforts that have been undertaken to reduce demand for 
mobility energy and (2) assess the extent to which DOD has established 
an overarching organizational framework to guide and oversee these 
efforts. 

We conducted work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the 
Joint Staff; the headquarters of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine 
Corps; and the Defense Logistics Agency. To identify key departmental 
and military service efforts to reduce mobility energy demand, we 
reviewed documentation on the objectives and status of ongoing 
initiatives. In assessing the extent to which DOD has established an 
overarching organizational framework for mobility energy, we analyzed 
DOD and military service policies and other documents and reviewed 
relevant DOD-sponsored studies. We also discussed mobility energy 
issues with agency officials to gain their perspectives. We conducted 
our review from September 2007 through March 2008 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Details on our scope 
and methodology are contained in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services have undertaken a 
number of efforts to reduce mobility energy demand. For example: 

* OSD established a departmentwide Energy Security Task Force that, 
among other things, is monitoring the progress of selected energy- 
related research and development projects. OSD also has begun a pilot 
program for assessing the full energy costs of new weapons systems 
rather than just the cost of the fuel itself as part of the acquisition 
process.[Footnote 2] Moreover, in 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
included energy in DOD's list of the top 25 transformational priorities 
for the department, as part of its initiative to pursue targeted 
acquisition reforms. 

* The Joint Staff updated its policy governing the development of 
capability requirements for new weapons systems to require that energy 
efficiency be selectively considered as a key performance 
parameter.[Footnote 3] 

* The Army is addressing fuel consumption at forward-deployed locations 
by developing foam-insulated tents and temporary dome structures that 
are more efficient to heat and cool and therefore could reduce the 
demand for fuel-powered generators at these locations. 

* The Navy has established an energy conservation program aimed at 
encouraging ships to reduce energy consumption. It has also made ship 
design alterations to reduce fuel demand. 

* The Air Force has developed an energy strategy and undertaken 
initiatives to determine fuel-efficient flight routes, reduce the 
weight on aircraft, optimize air refueling, and improve the efficiency 
of ground operations. In addition, it is testing synthetic fuels in its 
aircraft that could partly displace the use of petroleum-based fuel. 

* The Marine Corps has initiated efforts to develop alternative power 
sources and improve fuel management. For example, it is testing the use 
of hybrid power--by combining solar panel, generator, and battery 
energy sources--at remote sites to lessen its fuel transportation 
demands to forward-deployed locations. 

While these and other individual efforts are under way to reduce 
mobility energy demand and DOD has identified energy as one of its 
transformational priorities, DOD lacks key elements of an overarching 
organizational framework to guide and oversee these efforts. Our prior 
work has shown that such a framework is critical to successful 
transformation in both public and private organizations. In the absence 
of an overarching organizational framework for mobility energy, DOD 
cannot be assured that its current efforts will be fully implemented 
and will significantly reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuel. 
More specifically, we found that DOD's current approach to mobility 
energy lacks (1) top leadership, with a single executive-level OSD 
official--supported by an implementation team--who is accountable for 
mobility energy matters; (2) a comprehensive strategic plan for 
mobility energy that aligns individual efforts with DOD-wide goals and 
priorities, establishes approaches or strategies to achieve goals, and 
evaluates progress through performance metrics; and (3) an effective 
mechanism to provide for communication and coordination of mobility 
energy efforts among OSD and the military services as well as 
leadership and accountability over each military service's efforts. We 
also found that DOD has made limited progress in incorporating fuel 
efficiency as a consideration in key business processes--which include 
developing requirements for and acquiring new weapons systems. 
According to OSD and military service officials, DOD has not 
established an overarching organizational framework for mobility energy 
in part because of concerns regarding how such a framework would be 
implemented, how it would integrate with other existing organizational 
responsibilities, and how it would affect ongoing efforts to reduce 
mobility energy demand. However, DOD has created a management framework 
to oversee facility energy, which accounts for about 25 percent of the 
department's energy use, and has established new organizational 
frameworks to address other crosscutting issues, such as business 
systems modernization, corrosion control and prevention, contractors on 
the battlefield, and the defeat of improvised explosive devices. The 
establishment of such a framework for mobility energy could provide 
greater assurance that DOD's efforts to reduce its reliance on 
petroleum-based fuel will succeed without degrading its operational 
capabilities and that DOD is better positioned to address future 
mobility energy challenges--both within the department and as a 
stakeholder in national energy security dialogues. 

We are recommending that DOD establish an overarching organizational 
framework for mobility energy to improve the department's ability to 
guide and oversee mobility energy reduction efforts. To establish such 
a framework, DOD should designate an executive-level OSD official--with 
an implementation team--who is accountable for mobility energy matters; 
develop a comprehensive, departmentwide strategic plan; and improve 
DOD's business processes to fully incorporate energy efficiency 
considerations. In addition, we are recommending that the military 
services designate executive-level focal points to establish effective 
communication and coordination among OSD and the military services on 
departmentwide mobility energy efforts as well as provide leadership 
and accountability over their own efforts. In commenting on a draft of 
this report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendations. DOD's 
comments are reprinted in appendix III. 

Background: 

Energy, and specifically petroleum-based fuel, will be a key issue 
facing the nation during the 21st century. The United States accounts 
for only 5 percent of the world's population but about 25 percent of 
the world's oil demand. The Department of Energy projects that 
worldwide oil demand will continue to grow, reaching 118 million 
barrels per day in 2030, up from 84 million barrels per day in 2005. 
Although countries such as China and India will generate much of this 
increased demand, the United States will remain the world's largest oil 
consumer. World oil production has been running at near capacity in 
recent years to meet rising consumption, putting upward pressure on oil 
prices. The potential for disruptions in key oil-producing regions of 
the world, such as the Middle East, and the yearly threat of hurricanes 
in the Gulf of Mexico have also exerted upward pressure on oil prices. 
Crude oil prices almost tripled from 2003 through the beginning of 
2008, rising from $36 a barrel to as high as $100 a barrel. 

In 2007, about 67 percent of the oil consumed in the United States was 
imported, and the increased energy dependence on other countries raises 
concern about international turmoil in the Middle East and 
elsewhere.[Footnote 4] In addition, worldwide supplies of oil from 
conventional sources remain uncertain. U.S. oil production peaked 
around 1970, and worldwide production could peak and begin to decline, 
although there is great uncertainty about when this might 
happen.[Footnote 5] Moreover, there are differences of opinion as to 
how long the nation can rely on petroleum-based fuel to meet the 
majority of its energy needs. As a result, we have previously reported 
that, in addition to expanding production, the United States may need 
to place more emphasis on demand reduction strategies as well as 
developing alternative or renewable energy supplies and 
technologies.[Footnote 6] 

DOD is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, and it 
consumes about 90 percent of the petroleum-based fuel used by the U.S. 
government. Jet fuel constitutes more than half of DOD's total energy 
consumption. Other types of petroleum-based fuels used by DOD include 
marine and auto diesel. According to the Department of Defense Annual 
Energy Management Report for fiscal year 2006, DOD consumed 
approximately 4.6 billion gallons of mobility fuels in fiscal year 
2006, down from 5.17 billion gallons in fiscal year 2005. However, 
spending on mobility fuels increased 26.5 percent, from $7.95 billion 
in fiscal year 2005 to $10.06 billion in fiscal year 2006. DOD 
attributed this cost increase to the rise in fuel prices. For example, 
the price of jet fuel increased from $1.70 per gallon in fiscal year 
2005 to $2.34 per gallon in fiscal year 2006. Congress, in fiscal year 
2006, provided DOD more than $2 billion in supplemental funds to cover 
increased fuel costs. In fiscal year 2007, DOD reported that the 
department consumed almost 4.8 billion gallons of mobility fuel and 
spent $9.5 billion. Although fuel costs represent less than 3 percent 
of the total DOD budget, they have a significant impact on the 
department's operating costs. DOD has estimated that for every $10 
increase in the price of a barrel of oil, DOD's operating costs 
increase by approximately $1.3 billion. 

Fuel presents an enormous logistical burden for DOD when planning and 
conducting military combat operations. For current operations, the fuel 
logistics infrastructure requires, among other things, long truck 
convoys that move fuel to forward-deployed locations while exposed to 
the vulnerabilities of operations, such as enemy attacks (see figs. 1 
and 2). Army officials have estimated that about 70 percent of the 
tonnage required to position its forces for battle consists of fuel and 
water. An armored division can use 600,000 gallons of fuel a day, and 
an air assault division can use 300,000 gallons a day. In addition, 
combat support units consume more than half of the fuel the Army uses 
on the battlefield. Aircraft also burn through fuel at rapid rates; a 
B- 52H, for example, burns approximately 3,500 gallons per flight hour. 
Of the four military services, the Air Force consumes the greatest 
amount of petroleum-based fuels. 

Figure 1: Three-Mile Backup of Fuel Delivery Trucks and Other Supply 
Vehicles Inside Afghanistan along the Northern Passage from Pakistan 
(February 2007): 

This figure is a photograph of a three-mile backup of fuel delivery 
trucks and other supply vehicles inside Afghanistan along the northern 
passage from Pakistan. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Headquarters, Marine Corps. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: A Line of Tanker Trucks Loading Fuel in Kuwait: 

This figure is a photograph of a line of tanker trucks loading fuel in 
Kuwait. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOD. 

[End of figure] 

DOD has existing policies and organizational responsibilities for 
managing energy commodities, including petroleum, natural gas, coal, 
and electricity, to support peacetime and wartime missions and to 
permit successful and efficient deployment and employment of forces. 
Its overarching policy directive on managing energy commodities and 
related services establishes policy on standardizing fuels, minimizing 
inventory levels, maximizing use of alternative fuel sources from host 
nations and commercial sources, and privatizing energy infrastructure 
at military installations.[Footnote 7] The Defense Energy Support 
Center, within the Defense Logistics Agency, finances fuel purchases 
through a defense working capital fund. The military services purchase 
fuel from the Defense Energy Support Center using funds appropriated 
for their operation and maintenance accounts. Various DOD components 
have a role in planning for fuel demand and managing fuel storage and 
delivery. 

DOD has been exploring issues surrounding its reliance on petroleum 
through a number of studies sponsored by various offices within OSD. In 
2001, the Defense Science Board issued the results of its study on 
improving the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms, in response to a 
tasking from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics.[Footnote 8] In 2006, the Office of the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering, sponsored a study by The 
JASONs, an independent defense advisory group under The MITRE 
Corporation, to assess ways to reduce DOD's dependence on fossil 
fuels.[Footnote 9] Under the sponsorship of the Office of Force 
Transformation and Resources, within the Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy, LMI issued a 2007 report on an approach to 
establishing a DOD energy strategy.[Footnote 10] During the period in 
which we were conducting our review, the Defense Science Board, at the 
direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, issued a new report on DOD's energy 
strategy.[Footnote 11] These studies have been supplemented by internal 
DOD reviews and other efforts, such as informational forums at the 
National Defense University, to explore fuel reduction strategies. 

Departmental and Military Service Efforts Are Under Way to Reduce 
Mobility Energy Demand: 

OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services have made efforts to 
reduce mobility energy demand for DOD's forces and in weapons 
platforms. At the department level, OSD and the Joint Staff have 
several efforts under way to begin to incorporate fuel efficiency 
considerations in DOD's requirements development and acquisition 
processes. In addition, each of the military services has its own 
initiatives under way to reduce mobility energy demand. The discussion 
that follows highlights several key efforts and is not intended to be a 
comprehensive listing of all fuel reduction efforts. 

OSD and the Joint Staff Have Begun to Address Mobility Energy Demand: 

Department officials from several offices within OSD and the Joint 
Staff have initiated efforts to address mobility energy demand. In 
2006, OSD created the DOD Energy Security Task Force to address energy 
security concerns. The task force's integrated product team, which 
includes representatives from the military services; defense agencies; 
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics; the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy; the Office of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller); the Joint Staff; and OSD's Program Analysis and 
Evaluation office, typically meets each month and has formed several 
working groups to share information and ideas on efforts to reduce fuel 
demand in current and future weapons platforms. The integrated product 
team reports to a senior steering group, consisting of principal deputy 
secretaries of defense and service under secretaries and assistant 
secretaries. Among other activities, the task force recommended funding 
in fiscal year 2008 for several military service-led energy-related 
research and development projects, and it is monitoring their progress 
(see table 1). 

Table 1: Selected Energy-Related Research and Development Projects 
Being Monitored by DOD's Energy Security Task Force: 

Category: Air platforms; 
Project name: Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine; Description: 
Develop a variable core engine to reduce fuel consumption in unmanned 
aerial vehicles, transport aircraft, and other aircraft. 

Category: Air platforms; 
Project name: Category: Small Heavy Fueled Engine; Description: 
Category: Extend the duration of unmanned aerial vehicle engines from 3-
4 to 6-8 hours to increase fuel efficiency and reduce the logistics 
tail by using a single battlefield fuel; plan to apply to mobile ground 
power generators. 

Category: Ground vehicles; 
Project name: Long-Range Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; Description: Extend 
flight time of unmanned aerial vehicles for up to 6- 7 days for 
increased fuel efficiency and savings over conventional surveillance 
and reconnaissance platforms. 

Category: Ground vehicles; 
Project name: Fuel-Efficient Ground Vehicle Demonstrator; Description: 
Identify opportunities in fuel-efficient technologies to build a 
virtual vehicle that will demonstrate decreased fuel consumption in a 
tactical vehicle without decreasing performance or capability. 

Category: Power systems; 
Project name: Fuel Cell Research; 
Description: Develop and demonstrate compact and mobile fuel cell 
systems to provide onboard power generation for increasing power 
demands and to reduce battery weight. 

Category: Power systems; 
Project name: Transportable Hybrid Electric Power Supply; Description: 
Provide hybrid electric power generators to reduce diesel fuel usage 
and resupply requirements. 

Category: Power systems; 
Project name: Hybrid Intelligent Power; Description: Automate 
generators on the battlefield to turn on and off as needed to minimize 
fuel use and reduce maintenance needs, personnel requirements, and 
power interruptions. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

In addition to focusing on research and development initiatives, DOD 
has recognized a need to factor energy efficiency considerations into 
its acquisition process. In 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
included energy in DOD's list of the top 25 transformational priorities 
for the department, as part of its initiative to pursue targeted 
acquisition reforms. Also, in April 2007, the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
established a DOD policy to include the fully burdened cost of fuel-- 
that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving, and protecting 
fuel in systems during combat--for the acquisition of all tactical 
systems that create a demand for energy.[Footnote 12] To incorporate 
the fully burdened cost of energy into acquisition decisions, OSD 
initiated a pilot program that includes three systems: the Army and 
Marine Corps' Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Navy's new CG(X) 
cruiser, and the Air Force's Next-Generation Long-Range Strike 
aircraft. To further facilitate the implementation of this policy, 
OSD's Program Analysis and Evaluation office developed a methodology 
for assessing the fully burdened cost of fuel and completed its initial 
analyses of the first system, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, last 
fall. According to the DOD policy, the results of the pilot program are 
expected to be used as the basis for implementation across all relevant 
acquisition programs. 

In another initiative, the Joint Staff added language to its guidance 
in May 2007 requiring that an energy efficiency key performance 
parameter be selectively considered in the development of capability 
requirements for new systems.[Footnote 13] The guidance defines a key 
performance parameter as an attribute or characteristic of a system 
that is considered critical or essential to the development of an 
effective military capability. For example, a survivability key 
performance parameter is applicable for manned systems designed to 
enhance personnel survival when employed in an asymmetric threat 
environment. In general, a key performance parameter represents a 
system attribute that is so significant that failure to meet its 
minimum threshold could be a reason for DOD or the military services to 
reevaluate the concept or system or terminate the program. 

In response to the work conducted by the DOD Energy Security Task 
Force, the Joint Staff has also been directed to lead an assessment of 
simulator capability and capacity across the department. This effort is 
expected to analyze whether the increased use of simulators could 
substitute for live training without degrading operational capability. 
The study will also identify barriers to implementation and needed 
policy changes. 

Army Is Examining Ways to Reduce In-Theater Fuel Demand: 

The Army has begun a number of efforts to reduce mobility energy 
demand. These activities include undertaking initiatives to reduce fuel 
consumption in theater, determining the total costs of delivering fuel, 
and developing an Army energy strategy. The Army, through the office of 
the Army Rapid Equipping Force, created the Power Surety Task Force in 
2006 to address a joint urgent operational needs statement from a U.S. 
commander in Iraq that called for alternative energy sources to reduce 
the amount of fuel transported to supply power generation systems at 
forward-deployed locations. The Power Surety Task Force aims to foster 
the development of projects and programs that are deployable within 18 
months. Two of the Power Surety Task Force's initiatives--foam- 
insulated tents and temporary biodegradable dome structures that are 
more efficient to heat and cool--are expected to reduce the number of 
generators required to produce power at forward-deployed locations. 
Another initiative is the development of a transportable hybrid 
electric power station, which uses wind, solar energy, a diesel 
generator, and storage batteries to provide reliable power with fewer 
fuel requirements. According to Army Rapid Equipping Force officials, 
the power station could potentially replace about half of the current 
generators at forward-deployed locations. Moreover, they estimated that 
annual savings in Iraq from some of these initiatives could be at least 
$1.7 billion, and that other benefits could include a reduction in the 
number of trucks required in supply convoys, potentially saving lives 
and reducing vehicle maintenance requirements. We did not validate the 
Army Rapid Equipping Force's cost savings estimate. 

Another ongoing Army activity is its effort to determine the total 
costs of delivered energy for Army systems. The Army's "Sustain the 
Mission Project" was started in 2004 to institutionalize a fully 
burdened cost methodology in the Army. The methodology uses existing 
Army and DOD databases, metrics, and processes to calculate the fully 
burdened cost of fuel and to facilitate "what if" analyses for 
different assumptions and scenarios. It is also aimed at enabling 
decision makers to perform cost-benefit analyses of investments in 
alternative energy and weapons systems technologies. The Army has 
scheduled a demonstration of this tool in late March 2008. 

The Army will also sponsor a study that officials expect will lead to 
the development of a tactical fuel and energy strategy for the future 
modular force. The contract for the 1-year study was expected to be 
awarded in 2008. Army officials told us that they plan to update the 
Army's energy regulation following completion of the study. The current 
regulation focuses on facility energy, but according to Army officials, 
the updated version is expected to include mobility fuel as well. 

Navy Has Established an Energy Conservation Program and Other Mobility 
Energy Reduction Initiatives: 

The Navy has established a shipboard energy conservation program and 
has undertaken other initiatives to save fuel on ships. The energy 
conservation program has both training and award components to 
encourage ships to reduce energy consumption. Training materials and 
activities include a shipboard energy conservation manual, a pocket 
guide to assist commanders with energy-saving activities, energy audits 
of ships to show commanders how energy can be saved, and energy 
conservation seminars and workshops. Awards are given quarterly to 
ships that use less than the Navy's established baseline amount of 
fuel, and fuel savings achieved during the quarter are reallocated to 
the ship for the purchase of items such as paint, coveralls, and 
firefighting gear. The ship energy conservation program receives $4 
million in funding annually, and Navy officials told us that they 
achieved $124.6 million in cost avoidance in fiscal year 2006. They 
said that some other benefits of this program include more available 
steaming hours, additional training for ships, improved ship 
performance, reduced ship maintenance, and conservation of resources. 

The Navy has undertaken other mobility energy reduction efforts as part 
of its ship energy conservation program, such as ship alterations. Two 
key ship alterations are the use of stern flaps and the modification of 
boiler boxes. A stern flap alters the water flow at the stern to reduce 
a ship's resistance and increase fuel efficiency. According to Navy 
officials, preliminary tests of stern flaps on guided missile 
destroyers showed an annual fuel reduction of 3,800 to 4,700 barrels, 
or about 6 to 7.5 percent per ship, which DOD estimated would result in 
potential savings of almost $195,000 per year per ship. Boiler box 
modifications for amphibious assault ships, one of the Navy's largest 
fuel-consuming ships, are expected to decrease the amount of fuel 
expended by 2 percent per ship. Navy officials told us that this 
alteration has been approved and that most alterations would be 
completed in fiscal year 2009. According to Navy officials, once all 
alterations are completed in fiscal year 2011, this effort could 
potentially save approximately $30 million per year, depending on the 
price of fuel. We did not validate these potential savings. 

Air Force Has Implemented an Energy Strategy and Begun Mobility Energy 
Reduction Initiatives: 

In 2005, the Air Force implemented an energy strategy that consists of 
three components: reducing demand, increasing supply, and changing the 
culture. At the time of our report, the Air Force was in the process of 
updating its instructions and directives to reflect its energy strategy 
and to establish an overarching Air Force energy policy. In addition, 
the Air Force has identified and begun to implement initiatives aimed 
at reducing mobility energy demand and increasing fuel efficiency, 
aligning these initiatives with its energy strategy. Four key 
initiatives are as follows: 

* Direct routing. This initiative intends to reduce flight time and 
fuel consumption by flying the most fuel-efficient flight routes and 
altitudes. 

* Weight reduction. This initiative intends to decrease excess weight 
on an aircraft without adversely affecting mission capability. Three 
categories that are being considered are taking unused items off the 
aircraft, taking fewer of the items that are needed, and looking at 
mission-critical items that could be designed differently, for example, 
with lighter materials. According to Air Force officials, every 100 
pounds of weight equate to 1.6 million pounds of fuel, or $686,000 per 
year across its fleet of mobility aircraft. 

* Air refueling optimization. With this initiative, the Air Force 
intends to change the flight planning process to limit air refueling to 
only when it is mission essential. 

* Efficient ground operations. This initiative intends to reduce fuel 
burn during ground operations. Some actions include reducing warm-up 
time and taxiing on fewer engines. 

In addition to these demand-reduction initiatives, the Air Force is 
pursuing efforts to increase supply through the research and testing of 
new technologies, as well as renewable and sustainable resources. 
Through the Air Force's synthetic fuel initiative, jet fuels made from 
alternative energy sources, such as coal, natural gas, and biomass, are 
being evaluated for use in military aircraft with the goal of reducing 
future fuel costs and ensuring fuel availability. The Air Force 
completed initial testing of a synthetic blend of fuel in the B-52H 
bomber and certified the use of this fuel blend for this aircraft in 
August 2007. The service has begun testing on the C-17 cargo aircraft, 
the B-1 bomber, and the F-22 fighter, with certification expected in 
2008. Air Force officials said that they expect the entire fleet to be 
certified to fly on the synthetic blend of fuel by 2011. However, our 
prior work has highlighted challenges associated with the development 
and adoption of alternative energy sources.[Footnote 14] 

Finally, the Air Force aims to create a culture that emphasizes energy 
considerations in all of its operations. Air Force officials told us 
that this component of their strategy has multiple elements, including 
focused leadership, training, educational curricula, and communication. 

Marine Corps Is Studying Technologies to Reduce Fuel Consumption: 

The Marine Corps has taken steps to reduce its fuel usage by initiating 
research and development efforts to develop alternative power sources 
and improve fuel management. For example, it is testing the use of 
additional alternators in certain vehicles to provide onboard power 
capabilities, which could reduce the use of petroleum-based fuel and 
the number of generators needed on the battlefield. Another initiative 
involves providing hybrid power--by combining solar panel, generator, 
and battery energy sources--at remote sites to lessen fuel 
transportation demands to forward-deployed locations. The Marine Corps 
expects to begin testing this initiative in October 2008. 

In addition, the Office of Naval Research is leading efforts for the 
Marine Corps to develop decision support tools that process and analyze 
data and improve fuel management in combat. Examples include sensors 
for fuel containers to measure the amount of remaining fuel and onboard 
vehicle sensors that automatically generate a requirement when 
additional fuel is needed. 

DOD Has Not Established an Overarching Organizational Framework to 
Guide and Oversee Mobility Energy Reduction Efforts: 

While DOD and the military services have several efforts under way to 
reduce mobility energy demand, DOD lacks key elements of an overarching 
organizational framework to guide and oversee these efforts. As a 
result, DOD cannot be assured that its current efforts will be fully 
implemented and will significantly reduce its reliance on petroleum- 
based fuel. While DOD has identified energy as one of its 
transformational priorities, DOD's current approach to mobility energy 
lacks (1) top leadership, with a single executive-level OSD official-- 
supported by an implementation team with dedicated resources and 
funding--who is accountable for mobility energy matters; (2) a 
comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy; and (3) an effective 
mechanism to provide for communication and coordination of mobility 
energy efforts among OSD and the military services as well as 
leadership and accountability over each military service's efforts. In 
the absence of a framework for mobility energy that includes these 
elements, DOD has made limited progress in incorporating fuel 
efficiency as a consideration in its key business processes--which 
include developing requirements for and acquiring new weapons systems-
-and in implementing recommendations made in department-sponsored 
studies. 

DOD's Current Management Approach to Mobility Energy Lacks Key Elements 
of an Overarching Organizational Framework: 

DOD's current approach to mobility energy is decentralized, with fuel 
oversight and management responsibilities diffused among several OSD 
and military service offices as well as working groups. More 
specifically, we found its approach lacks key elements of an 
overarching organizational framework, including a single executive- 
level OSD official--supported by an implementation team--who is 
accountable for mobility energy matters, a comprehensive strategic 
plan, and an effective mechanism for departmentwide communication and 
coordination. Our prior work on organizational transformations has 
found such a framework to be critical to successful transformation in 
both public and private organizations.[Footnote 15] In addition, it is 
important to note that DOD has a history of creating organizational 
frameworks to address other crosscutting issues. 

Responsibilities for Fuel Oversight and Management Are Diffused 
throughout Various DOD Offices and Working Groups: 

DOD's policies for energy management assign oversight and management 
responsibilities to several different offices without providing a 
single focal point with total visibility of, or accountability for, 
mobility energy reduction efforts across the department. Table 2 
outlines various roles and responsibilities for fuel management and 
oversight. 

Table 2: DOD Energy/Fuel Roles and Responsibilities: 

Office: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics; 
Responsibilities: Serve as the DOD senior energy official. Establish 
policies, grant waivers, and approve changes in the management of 
energy commodities. 

Office: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness); 
Responsibilities: Serve as the DOD central administrator for mobility 
energy policy with overall management responsibility for petroleum and 
other commodities. 

Office: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment); 
Responsibilities: Serve as the DOD central manager for facility energy 
policy on DOD installations. 

Office: Director, Defense Research and Engineering; Responsibilities: 
Lead the DOD Energy Security Task Force. 

Office: DOD Comptroller; 
Responsibilities: Establish financial policies and guidance for the 
management of energy commodities and related services, in coordination 
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics. 

Office: Defense Logistics Agency/Defense Energy Support Center; 
Responsibilities: Serve as the executive agent for bulk petroleum and 
execute fuel-related materiel management responsibilities. 

Office: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Responsibilities: Review 
operations plans and contingency plans to ensure that fuel requirements 
are addressed; identify fuel reporting requirements and other 
information for theater contingency requirements. 

Office: Combatant commanders' joint petroleum offices; 
Responsibilities: Carry out combatant commander responsibilities for 
fuel distribution within a theater of operations. 

Office: Secretaries of the military departments; Responsibilities: 
Operate the petroleum facilities under their cognizance, control fuel 
stocks in coordination with the Defense Logistics Agency, compute 
wartime fuel demands based on combatant commanders' operational and 
contingency plans. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD policies. 

[End of table] 

As table 2 shows, DOD policies do not assign responsibility for fuel 
reduction considerations--either singly or jointly--to any of the 
various offices involved in fuel management. While DOD directives 
designate the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics as the department's senior energy official, with 
responsibility for establishing policies, granting waivers, and 
approving changes in the management of energy commodities, including 
petroleum, the extent to which this official provides comprehensive 
guidance and oversight of fuel reduction efforts across the department 
is unclear.[Footnote 16] Moreover, DOD has charged the Office of the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) to 
serve as the DOD central administrator for mobility energy policy with 
overall management responsibility for petroleum and other commodities. 
We found that although this office plays an active role in maintaining 
DOD policy on energy supply issues and participates in other 
department- level fuel-related activities, its primary focus has not 
been on departmentwide fuel reduction efforts. 

At the military service level, we found that the Air Force and the Army 
have established working groups to address fuel reduction and other 
energy issues. For example, the Air Force has established a senior 
focus group of high-level Air Force officials to address both mobility 
and facility energy issues. The senior focus group has created several 
working groups to address specific energy issues, such as aviation 
operations, acquisitions and technology, and synthetic fuels, as well 
as advisory groups on strategic communication, critical infrastructure 
protection, and financing. The Army also has established an energy 
working group to facilitate the discussion of energy issues across the 
service, including how to address rising fuel costs. The group meets 
each month to share information and identify issues across the Army. At 
the time of our review, the Army was in the process of establishing a 
senior steering group of high-level Army officials that would meet to 
discuss mutual energy concerns. While the Navy and Marine Corps have 
not established similar formal working groups, officials from both 
military services told us that they participate in internal meetings on 
fuel reduction issues. 

DOD Has Not Designated a Single Executive-Level Official for Mobility 
Energy: 

While DOD has begun to increase management attention and has identified 
energy as a transformational priority, it has not designated a single 
executive-level OSD official--supported by an implementation team--who 
is accountable for mobility energy matters across the department. Our 
prior work has shown that top-level leadership and an implementation 
team with dedicated resources and funding are key elements of an 
overarching organizational framework. Furthermore, leadership must set 
the direction, pace, and tone and provide a clear, consistent rationale 
that brings everyone together behind a single mission.[Footnote 17] The 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 
as the senior DOD energy official, is responsible for management of 
energy commodities, but this individual also has a broad range of other 
responsibilities that include, among other things, matters relating to 
the DOD acquisition system, research and development, systems 
engineering, logistics, installation management, and business 
management modernization. Therefore, this individual's primary focus 
has not been on the management of mobility energy efforts. Moreover, 
from a broader perspective, the extent to which the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has set a direction 
for the various OSD and military service offices involved in mobility 
energy is unclear. 

In addition, DOD's Energy Security Task Force was formed in 2006 to 
address long-term departmental energy security requirements, such as 
DOD's reliance on fossil fuels, but we found that the task force has 
been unable to develop policy or provide guidance and oversight of 
mobility energy issues across the department. As indicated in its 
charter, the task force's integrated product team is required to 
develop a comprehensive DOD energy strategy and an implementation plan. 
Among other deliverables, the team's charter also requires it to define 
DOD's energy challenge, create a compendium of energy-related works, 
and perform a strategic assessment of energy. While the task force has 
taken steps to identify and monitor the progress of selected mobility 
energy reduction projects across the department, it has not yet 
completed an energy strategy or implementation plan, as well as other 
responsibilities. Furthermore, OSD officials told us that while the 
task force has briefed the Deputy Secretary of Defense's advisory group 
on its recommended projects, it does not have a "seat at the table" in 
departmental discussions at the Deputy Secretary of Defense level or at 
other executive levels, such as the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council, the Defense Acquisition Boards, or the 3-Star Group within 
DOD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process.[Footnote 
18] 

DOD also does not have an implementation team in place, with dedicated 
resources and funding, for mobility energy issues. For example, the 
officials who lead DOD's Energy Security Task Force's integrated 
product team do so as an extra responsibility outside of their normal 
work duties. Other DOD officials said that the task force provides a 
good forum for sharing energy ideas across the department, but lacks 
adequate staff to carry out specific actions. Furthermore, a task force 
participant told us that it can be difficult to find time to attend 
meetings while balancing other duties. The task force also does not 
receive any dedicated funding to pursue department-level energy 
priorities. Our prior work on the Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 (GPRA)[Footnote 19] emphasizes the importance of relating 
funding to performance goals. The establishment of a dedicated funding 
mechanism for corrosion, for example, enabled DOD to fund high-priority 
corrosion reduction projects, which resulted in savings of more than 
$753 million during a 5-year period.[Footnote 20] Without a long-term 
funding mechanism, DOD may not be able to ensure that mobility energy 
reduction efforts receive sustained funding over a period of years. 

Moreover, DOD may not be well positioned to serve as a focal point on 
mobility energy within the department, with Congress, and with the 
Department of Energy or other interagency partners. During a military 
energy security forum held at the National Defense University in 
November 2007, representatives from various DOD offices presented 
energy as an area that is significant to a breadth of issues ranging 
from force protection to global stability to the security of DOD's 
critical infrastructure. They also noted that DOD has the potential to 
play multiple roles with respect to energy, including consumer, market 
leader, educator/motivator, oil infrastructure protector, and 
warfighter supporter. These concerns, coupled with an increased 
national and congressional interest in reducing fossil fuel dependence 
and exploring alternative energies, will likely necessitate an 
increased leadership focus on long-term energy issues, both within DOD 
and in its role as a stakeholder in interagency and national dialogues. 
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,[Footnote 21] for 
example, requires a variety of national-level actions, including that 
the President submit to Congress an annual report on the national 
energy security of the United States. It also requires DOD to examine 
energy and cost savings in nonbuilding applications, including an 
examination of savings associated with reducing the need for fuel 
delivery and logistical support. In addition, the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 directs DOD to improve 
the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms.[Footnote 22] 

DOD Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive Mobility Energy Strategic 
Plan: 

DOD has not yet developed a comprehensive strategic plan for mobility 
energy. Our prior work has found that strategic planning is a key 
element of an overarching organizational framework.[Footnote 23] 
According to GPRA, key elements of a strategic plan include a 
comprehensive mission statement, goals and objectives, approaches or 
strategies to achieve those goals and objectives, and methods and 
timelines for evaluating progress. In addition, we have previously 
identified other elements that would enhance the usefulness of a 
strategic plan, including the development of outcome-oriented 
performance metrics and an alignment of activities, core processes, and 
resources to support mission-related outcomes. 

DOD has taken some steps to lay the foundation for mobility energy 
strategic planning. According to OSD officials, DOD has begun to 
incorporate mobility energy issues into its Guidance on the Development 
of the Force, a department-level strategic planning document. In 
addition, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Policy Planning, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy, is analyzing future energy concerns for the United States 
and the international security environment and highlighting their 
implications for the department. DOD officials said that the analysis 
is expected to provide information for consideration in the development 
of future strategic planning documents. We also observed that the DOD 
Energy Security Task Force has begun efforts to define goals that 
eventually may be incorporated into a DOD energy security strategic 
plan. OSD officials told us that the task force's intent is to complete 
this strategic plan by May 2008. However, current DOD strategic 
planning documents, such as the National Military Strategy and the most 
recent Quadrennial Defense Review,[Footnote 24] do not address mobility 
energy reduction. Furthermore, until DOD fully develops and implements 
a comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy, it cannot be 
certain that mobility energy reduction efforts align with the 
department's energy mission or strategic goals to ensure that they are 
appropriately prioritized, or know whether critical gaps or duplication 
of efforts exist. 

DOD Does Not Have an Effective Mechanism for Communication and Cross- 
Service Coordination of Mobility Energy Reduction Efforts: 

DOD does not have an effective mechanism to facilitate communication 
and coordination of mobility energy reduction efforts among OSD and the 
military services. Our prior work has shown that a communication 
strategy involves creating shared expectations and reporting related 
progress.[Footnote 25] While DOD's Energy Security Task Force aims to 
identify key players within the energy field, its current structure 
does not ensure departmentwide communication of fuel reduction efforts, 
particularly among the military services, which are responsible for 
most of these efforts. More specifically, during our observation of a 
task force monthly meeting, we found that although this venue provides 
for some sharing of information, the generally less than 2 hours 
allotted for each monthly meeting does not allow for effective coverage 
of the spectrum of DOD's mobility energy issues. Moreover, we noted 
that although the task force's senior steering group includes, among 
others, the service under secretaries and assistant secretaries; the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering; and several principal 
deputy under secretaries of defense, it only meets two to three times a 
year. Furthermore, with the exception of the Air Force, none of the 
other military service members on the senior steering group have 
primary responsibility for mobility energy reduction efforts within 
their services. Without executive-level focal points, the military 
services may not be well positioned to effectively coordinate on 
mobility energy reduction efforts across the department or provide 
leadership or accountability for efforts within their services. 

In addition, we found a lack of cross-service coordination concerning 
mobility energy reduction initiatives. Army officials told us that they 
were unaware of Navy research on fuel reduction metrics, while Air 
Force officials said that they do not routinely discuss aviation fuel 
reduction initiatives with their Army counterparts, even though both 
military services are concerned about aircraft fuel consumption. OSD 
officials said that while several separate groups are making efforts to 
reduce fuel consumption, the efforts are often not shared or 
integrated. Moreover, OSD officials told us that DOD generally lacks 
incentives to reward the military services for reducing fuel 
consumption and faces challenges in addressing departmental cultural 
barriers--such as the traditional view that fuel is simply a commodity 
and that energy efficiency is not an important consideration for 
warfighting. Without an effective mechanism to facilitate communication 
of mobility energy reduction efforts between OSD and the military 
services, DOD cannot be certain that these efforts are effectively 
coordinated throughout the department or consistent with DOD's energy 
priorities and goals. On a broader level, DOD may not be well 
positioned to respond to congressional or other agencies' requests for 
information on mobility energy. 

DOD Has a History of Creating Organizational Frameworks to Address 
Other Crosscutting Issues: 

Many OSD, military service, and other DOD officials with whom we spoke 
expressed the need for an overarching organizational framework to 
address mobility energy throughout the department. Some officials from 
OSD suggested that an ideal organizational framework would bring 
together the various offices within OSD and the military services 
involved in fuel reduction efforts and establish business practices, 
analytic methods, and technology investments that take into account 
strategic risks associated with energy. Some military service officials 
acknowledged that departmental oversight is needed but told us that 
they fear such oversight might take resources away from their own 
mobility energy reduction initiatives. Similarly, some OSD officials 
said they are concerned that establishing a permanent mobility energy 
office or similar framework could impose additional bureaucratic layers 
and slow progress on mobility energy reduction initiatives. 

We noted that DOD has established new organizational frameworks to 
address other crosscutting issues, such as business systems 
modernization, corrosion control and prevention, contractors on the 
battlefield, and the defeat of improvised explosive devices. While we 
did not evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of these organizational 
frameworks as part of this review, they nonetheless provide DOD 
examples to consider in determining how best to establish an 
overarching organizational framework for mobility energy. For example, 
the Business Transformation Agency, which addresses business systems 
modernization, involves top DOD leadership by operating under the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics but reporting directly to the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Business Transformation. DOD has also created a management 
framework to oversee facility energy, which accounts for about 25 
percent of the department's energy use. Specifically, it has designated 
a senior agency official, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Installations and Environment, with the responsibilities for meeting 
federal mandates regarding energy reduction at installations. The 
department has also created a working group charged with implementing 
the mandates. 

In addition, DOD established an Energy Policy Council in 1985 to 
provide coordinated review of DOD energy policies, issues, systems, and 
programs.[Footnote 26] In the instruction outlining the requirements of 
this council, DOD assigned responsibilities to various departmental 
offices and designated the then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Logistics and Materiel Management) as council chair. DOD also called 
for clearly identified focal points to address energy matters within 
each military department. When we asked about the status of the 
council, OSD officials said that they did not believe it still existed. 
This now-defunct Energy Policy Council could also serve as an example 
of an organizational framework for mobility energy that provides for 
sharing of information among the military services. 

Absence of an Overarching Organizational Framework Does Not Position 
DOD to Effectively Address Mobility Energy: 

In the absence of an overarching organizational framework, DOD is not 
well positioned to fully incorporate fuel efficiency considerations 
into its key business processes or to fully implement recommendations 
from DOD-sponsored studies on fuel reduction. 

DOD Has Not Yet Fully Incorporated Fuel Efficiency Considerations into 
Its Key Business Processes: 

DOD has not yet fully incorporated fuel efficiency considerations into 
key departmental business processes, such as its requirements 
development and acquisition processes for new weapons platforms and 
other mobile defense systems. DOD's process to develop requirements, 
known as the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, is 
a multistep process that involves identifying what military 
capabilities the department needs to accomplish its tasks. Once the 
capabilities are identified, DOD's acquisition process produces 
equipment that can meet those requirements. DOD-sponsored studies on 
fuel reduction, such as the 2007 LMI report, note that the requirements 
development and acquisition processes provide opportunities for DOD to 
consider energy efficiencies while considering capabilities. Moreover, 
the 2001 Defense Science Board report noted that fuel efficiency 
benefits are not currently valued or emphasized in DOD's requirements 
development and acquisition processes. While DOD has recently begun to 
take some steps to integrate fuel considerations into these processes, 
these considerations are not factored in a systematic manner and cannot 
be fully applied. 

For example, DOD's requirements development process does not 
systematically include energy efficiency considerations, and the 
capability gap assessments associated with the process do not include 
fuel-related logistics, thus leaving these types of issues to be 
resolved after systems are fielded. As described earlier, in May 2007, 
the Joint Staff established an energy efficiency key performance 
parameter that would require fuel considerations during capabilities 
development. However, because DOD has not developed a methodology to 
determine how best to employ the energy efficiency key performance 
parameter, implementation of this key performance parameter remains 
uncertain. 

DOD has also taken steps to inform its acquisition process with its 
pilot program to determine the fully burdened cost of fuel for three 
mobile defense systems. While the pilot program represents a step 
toward providing visibility over the total logistics costs associated 
with delivered fuel and DOD has set a fall 2008 deadline to issue 
guidance for applying the fully burdened cost of fuel in acquisition 
programs, DOD has not yet developed an approach for determining how it 
would incorporate this information into its acquisition decision-making 
process. Moreover, the 2008 Defense Science Board report presented some 
concerns about how fully burdened costs are being calculated. 
Specifically, the report cited a concern that the analysis focused on 
peacetime costs and did not adequately consider wartime costs, even 
though the fully burdened cost analysis is intended to be a wartime 
capability planning factor. Until the pilot program is completed and 
the results are assessed, DOD is not in a position to apply a fully 
burdened cost analysis to its acquisition process. Thus, the department 
is unable to promote greater visibility over its acquisition decisions 
or more fully consider the operational and cost consequences of the 
fuel burden on the logistics infrastructure. 

Other key DOD business processes, such as those that address repair, 
recapitalization, and replacement of mobile defense systems also 
present opportunities to incorporate fuel efficiency measures during 
system upgrades. However, OSD officials told us that the department 
generally makes decisions about system upgrades without regard to fuel 
efficiency, including the fully burdened cost, in part because such 
decisions require greater up-front costs. Although DOD recognizes that 
by reducing energy demand it can provide its forces greater flexibility 
and reduce their dependence on the logistics infrastructure, some OSD 
officials told us that DOD's budget process promotes a short-term 
outlook and does not encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient systems 
or upgrades that may initially cost more but could reduce life cycle 
and logistics costs over the long term. Moreover, the 2008 Defense 
Science Board report noted that DOD's lack of tools to assess the 
operational and economic benefits of fuel efficiency technologies is a 
major reason why DOD underinvests in the development and deployment of 
these technologies. In addition, OSD officials told us that DOD does 
not systematically assess how making fuel efficiency upgrades to 
systems would affect other logistics issues--for example, how reducing 
the weight of an Army vehicle would affect the amount of fuel the Air 
Force transports to the battlefield for that vehicle. Such assessments, 
they said, may reveal further enhancements in warfighting capabilities. 

DOD Has Been Slow to Implement Recommendations from Department- 
Sponsored Studies on Fuel Reduction: 

In the absence of an overarching organizational framework, DOD has made 
limited progress in implementing recommendations from department- 
sponsored studies by organizations such as the Defense Science Board, 
The JASONs, and LMI that have urged an expansion of efforts to reduce 
dependency on petroleum-based fuel. These studies confirmed that, for 
many reasons, continued heavy reliance on petroleum-based fuel poses a 
significant problem for DOD. For example, LMI reported that DOD's 
increasing fuel demand furthers the nation's reliance on foreign energy 
sources and limits the department's ability to establish a more mobile 
and agile force. The studies found a need to focus more DOD management 
attention on mobility energy matters and recommended actions aimed at, 
among other things, improving the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms, 
eliminating institutional barriers that bear upon the department's 
decisions regarding fuel efficiency, and developing a long-term 
mobility energy strategy that would lead to reduced consumption of 
petroleum-based fuel. 

DOD has not taken a formal position on these recommendations, and 
implementation, in some cases, would require significant changes 
throughout the department that could generate institutional resistance. 
One study, for example, called for creating a unified energy governance 
structure in order to alter DOD's "energy culture." During our review, 
we found that DOD had taken some steps toward implementing some of the 
recommendations, such as initiating a pilot program for determining the 
fully burdened cost of delivered fuel and adding a requirement for an 
energy efficiency key performance parameter in its Joint Staff policy 
manual. However, other recommendations, such as establishing a 
governance structure for mobility energy, have not been implemented 
(see app. II for our summary of the recommendations in DOD-sponsored 
studies and the actions DOD has taken on those recommendations). The 
2008 Defense Science Board report noted that the recommendations made 
by the 2001 Defense Science Board report are still open and remain 
viable. An overarching organizational framework could better position 
DOD to address these and other fuel reduction recommendations in a more 
timely and effective manner. Moreover, a framework for mobility energy 
could provide greater assurance that DOD's efforts to reduce its 
reliance on petroleum-based fuel will succeed without degrading its 
operational capabilities and that DOD is better positioned to address 
future mobility energy challenges. 

Conclusions: 

DOD continues to face rapidly increasing fuel costs and high fuel 
requirements that have placed a significant logistics burden on its 
forces. In light of these and other challenges associated with mobility 
energy, DOD has begun to increase its management attention on reducing 
its reliance on petroleum-based fuel. Increased national focus on the 
United States' dependence on foreign oil, projected increases in the 
worldwide demand for oil, and uncertainties about world oil supplies 
will likely require DOD to further increase its focus on long-term 
energy issues, both within the department and as a stakeholder in 
interagency and national dialogues. However, DOD will have difficulty 
addressing mobility energy challenges in the absence of an overarching 
organizational framework. Without such a framework, DOD is not well 
positioned to effectively guide and oversee mobility energy reduction 
efforts from a departmentwide perspective to ensure that efforts are 
appropriately prioritized; identify critical gaps or duplication of 
efforts; and address long-term, large-scale energy issues. In 
particular, no individual at the executive level within OSD has been 
designated to be accountable for mobility energy and set the direction, 
pace, and tone to reduce mobility energy demand across the department. 
Other elements of an overarching organizational framework include a 
comprehensive strategic plan and executive-level focal points at the 
military services to provide for effective coordination. In addition, 
until DOD takes steps to further incorporate energy efficiency 
considerations into its business processes, the department is unable to 
promote greater visibility in its decision making or fully consider the 
effects of fuel on the logistics infrastructure. With a mobility energy 
overarching organizational framework in place, DOD would be better 
positioned to reduce its significant reliance on petroleum-based fuel 
and to address the energy challenges of the 21st century. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve DOD's ability to guide and oversee mobility energy reduction 
efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense to establish an overarching organizational 
framework by taking the following three actions: 

* Designate an executive-level OSD official who is accountable for 
mobility energy matters and sets the direction, pace, and tone to 
reduce mobility energy demand across the department; improve business 
processes to incorporate energy efficiency considerations as a factor 
in DOD decision making; coordinate on energy issues with facility 
energy officials; act as DOD's focal point in interagency deliberations 
about national energy concerns; and lead the department's potential 
transition from petroleum-based fuel to alternative fuel sources. This 
official should be supported by an implementation team with dedicated 
resources and funding. 

* Direct the executive-level mobility energy official to lead the 
development and implementation of a comprehensive departmentwide 
strategic plan for mobility energy. At a minimum, this strategic plan 
should set forth mobility energy goals and objectives, time frames for 
implementation, and performance metrics to track and evaluate progress. 

* Ensure that OSD takes the following steps to fully incorporate energy 
efficiency considerations into DOD's requirements development and 
acquisition processes: 

- Develop a methodology to enable the full implementation of an energy 
efficiency key performance parameter in DOD's requirements development 
process. 

- As part of its efforts to complete DOD's fully burdened cost of fuel 
pilot program, develop an approach for incorporating this cost 
information into the acquisition decision making process. 

Furthermore, to establish effective communication and coordination 
among the executive-level OSD mobility energy official and the military 
services, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps to designate an executive-level official within each of 
their military services to act as a focal point on departmentwide 
mobility energy efforts as well as provide leadership and 
accountability over their own efforts. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In its written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially 
concurred with all of our recommendations. Based on DOD's comments to 
our draft report, we made minor modifications to our report, including 
our first recommendation. Technical comments were provided separately 
and incorporated as appropriate. The department's written comments are 
reprinted in appendix III. 

In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense to designate an executive-level OSD 
official who is accountable for mobility energy matters across the 
department, DOD acknowledged that there is a need to view and manage 
its energy challenges in a new, more systematic manner. DOD's response 
stated that DOD Directive 5134.01 (Dec. 9, 2005) provides the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
oversight and policy-making authority on DOD energy matters. However, 
it is clear from our review, including discussions with department 
officials, that neither the Under Secretary nor any official from this 
office is providing comprehensive oversight and policy guidance for 
mobility energy across the department. Instead, we found that DOD's 
current approach to mobility energy is decentralized, with fuel 
oversight and management responsibilities diffused among several OSD 
and military service offices (see table 2 of this report) as well as 
working groups. DOD does not assign responsibility for fuel reduction 
considerations--either singly or jointly--to any of the various offices 
involved in fuel management. DOD's response stated that its authorities 
and responsibilities are consistent with those used for overseeing 
other significant crosscutting issues. However, as we noted in our 
report, DOD has established new organizational frameworks to address 
other crosscutting issues, such as business systems modernization, 
corrosion control and prevention, contractors on the battlefield, and 
the defeat of improvised explosive devices. Moreover, DOD has 
established a focal point for facility energy, the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, within the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics, even though facility energy accounts for about 25 
percent of DOD's total energy consumption. Mobility energy accounts for 
about three-fourths of its total energy consumption, but there is not 
an equivalent focal point. Key energy issues--including rising fuel 
costs, worldwide energy demand, and the high fuel burden during 
operations--underscore the importance of energy to DOD and will likely 
require sustained top leadership attention. DOD stated that significant 
mobility energy efforts are currently under way that will provide for 
better management of mobility energy. While we acknowledge that DOD has 
begun to increase management attention on mobility energy issues by 
creating the DOD Energy Security Task Force, the department does not 
have an implementation team, with dedicated resources and funding, for 
mobility energy issues. As we noted in our report, the task force's 
current structure does not ensure departmentwide communication of fuel- 
reduction efforts, particularly among the military services, which are 
responsible for most of these efforts. Based on DOD's response to our 
first recommendation, we made minor modifications to the recommendation 
to emphasize that DOD should designate an executive-level OSD mobility 
energy official--supported by an implementation team--who is 
accountable for mobility energy matters and who sets the direction, 
pace, and tone to reduce mobility energy demand across the department. 
This official should also improve business practices to incorporate 
energy considerations as a factor in DOD decision making; coordinate on 
energy issues with facility energy officials; act as DOD's focal point 
in interagency deliberations about national energy concerns; and lead 
the department's potential transition from petroleum-based fuel to 
alternative fuel sources. Without such an official to provide this 
leadership, DOD is not well positioned to address mobility energy 
challenges. 

In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense to direct the executive-level mobility 
energy official to lead the development and implementation of a 
comprehensive departmentwide strategic plan for mobility energy, DOD 
indicated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics is overseeing the development of a DOD energy 
security strategic plan which will be reported to the Deputy's Advisory 
Working Group in May 2008. We believe that this is a step in the right 
direction. As we noted in this report, until DOD fully develops and 
implements a comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy--that 
sets forth mobility energy goals and objectives, time frames for 
implementation, and performance metrics to track and evaluate progress-
-DOD will not be able to ensure that mobility energy reduction efforts 
align with the department's energy mission or strategic goals to ensure 
that they are appropriately prioritized, or to know whether critical 
gaps or duplication of efforts exist. 

In response to our recommendation that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
ensure that OSD takes steps to fully incorporate energy efficiency 
considerations into DOD's requirements development process by 
developing a methodology to enable the full implementation of an energy 
efficiency key performance parameter, DOD stated that it plans to 
address how and when it will implement such a methodology in its 
forthcoming DOD energy security strategic plan. However, this plan does 
not yet exist. Because DOD is linking the development of a methodology 
for an energy efficiency key performance parameter to this plan, the 
implementation of the key performance parameter remains uncertain. Thus 
DOD cannot ensure that energy efficiency considerations are factored 
into its requirements development process in a systematic manner. In 
addition, in response to our recommendation that DOD develop an 
approach for incorporating the information from its fully burdened cost 
of fuel pilot program into its acquisition process, DOD stated that it 
is developing a plan on how best to assess fuel efficiency relative to 
the costs and operational capabilities of its weapons systems. Again, 
until this plan is completed, DOD is not in a position to apply a fully 
burdened cost analysis to its acquisition process. Thus, the department 
is unable to promote greater visibility over its acquisition decisions 
or more fully consider the operational and cost consequences of the 
fuel burden on the logistics infrastructure. 

In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct 
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps to designate an executive-level official within each 
of their military services to act as a focal point on departmentwide 
mobility energy efforts as well as provide leadership and 
accountability over their own efforts, DOD stated that it will address 
this issue after it has briefed the DOD energy security strategic plan 
to DOD senior leaders in May 2008. However, as we noted in this report, 
a lack of cross-service coordination concerning mobility energy 
reduction initiatives currently exists. By waiting to address this 
issue, the department cannot be certain that the mobility energy 
efforts of the military services are consistent with the department's 
energy priorities and goals. Designating executive-level military 
service focal points would provide improved leadership and 
accountability over their own efforts as well as increased coordination 
across the department. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the 
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies 
available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-8365 or [email protected]. Contact points 
for our: 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

William M. Solis: 

Director Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address our objectives, we focused our work on the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) mobility energy issues related to fuel demand for 
operations. We did not address supply issues, fuel for nontactical 
vehicles, or DOD facility energy management, except to briefly describe 
the organizational structure DOD employs to manage energy issues at its 
fixed installations. 

To identify key departmental and military service efforts that have 
been undertaken to reduce demand for mobility energy, we obtained and 
reviewed documentation from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD), the Joint Staff, and the military services on their key mobility 
energy reduction efforts. These documents included briefings, policies, 
directives, military service studies, and associated paperwork on the 
specific efforts. We also interviewed cognizant departmental and 
military service officials who identified and provided the 
documentation for key efforts. At the department level, we spoke with 
officials involved with the DOD Energy Security Task Force, including 
members of the integrated product team and working groups, to obtain 
information about the task force's goals, accomplishments, and 
challenges as well as the specific service mobility energy initiatives 
it has chosen to monitor. We also interviewed OSD and Joint Staff 
officials to obtain information on their efforts to incorporate energy 
efficiency considerations into DOD's requirements development and 
acquisition processes. At the military service level, we interviewed 
officials to determine how each military service is approaching its 
specific mobility energy reduction efforts, its progress to date, and 
what challenges it faces in reducing mobility energy demand. We did not 
validate the cost estimates provided by the services for their 
initiatives. To obtain a broad perspective of the energy issues, we 
attended two defense-related conferences that focused on national 
security energy concerns and their potential implications for DOD. 

To assess the extent to which DOD has established an overarching 
organizational framework to guide and oversee mobility energy efforts, 
we reviewed and analyzed DOD documentation, such as policies and 
directives, DOD-sponsored fuel-related studies, and legislation, and 
interviewed officials from OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military 
services. In doing so, we examined DOD's key business processes, such 
as its requirements development and acquisition processes, and 
determined the extent to which fuel efficiency is systematically 
considered in these processes. We also identified key elements of an 
overarching organizational framework based on our prior work and the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to determine the extent 
to which DOD's current structure incorporated or lacked these key 
elements. We interviewed officials at OSD and the military services to 
obtain their perspectives on DOD's current approach to mobility energy, 
including the extent to which the DOD Energy Security Task Force is 
developing policy and providing guidance and oversight of mobility 
energy issues across DOD. We also attended a meeting of the Energy 
Security Task Force's integrated product team to observe the format, 
content, participants, and dialogue of a typical meeting. In addition, 
we asked the officials about what benefits and consequences they saw 
with the existing department-level involvement (or lack thereof) in 
mobility energy issues. We also identified management frameworks DOD 
has created to address other crosscutting issues, such as business 
systems modernization, corrosion control and prevention, contractors on 
the battlefield, the defeat of improvised explosive devices, and 
facility energy. We did not evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of 
these organizational frameworks or their specific applicability to 
mobility energy. We also reviewed DOD-sponsored studies published since 
2000 on reducing fuel demand in DOD's mobile defense systems, focusing 
on studies that made recommendations specific to departmentwide 
mobility energy issues. After an initial literature search and 
discussions with DOD officials and other researchers, independent of 
DOD, we ultimately selected four studies to include in our review. We 
interviewed coauthors from each of these studies to gain a better 
understanding of their objectives, scopes, and methodologies and their 
perspectives on the issues covered in their reports as well as other 
department-level mobility energy concerns. Two team members 
consolidated the recommendations related to mobility energy from these 
studies and analyzed them for similarities. They combined those that 
were similar, rephrased the wording while keeping the intent, and 
categorized the recommendations into common themes. Through their 
review of documentation and interviews with DOD officials, they then 
summarized the actions taken on each of the recommendations. A third 
team member independently reviewed the results, and discussed any 
discrepancies with the other team members to reach agreement on the 
appropriate themes and actions taken. 

We coordinated our work at the following DOD offices: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics: 

- Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation: 

- Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering: 

- Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Logistics and 
Materiel Readiness: 

* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller/Chief Financial 
Officer: 

* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: 

- Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy 
Planning: 

- Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces 
Transformation and Resources: 

* Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation: 

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

* Logistics (J4): 

* Operational Plans and Joint Force Development (J7): 

* Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment (J8): 

Department of the Army: 

* Army Deputy Chief of Staff (G4): 

* Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
Technology: 

* U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command: 

* Army Rapid Equipping Force: 

Department of the Navy: 

* Office of the Chief of Naval Operations: 

* Naval Sea Systems Command: 

* Office of Naval Research: 

* Headquarters, Marine Corps: 

Department of the Air Force: 

* Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: 

* Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (A4/7): 

* Strategic Plans and Programs (A8): 

* Conduct Air, Space, and Cyber Operations: 

Other DOD Components: 

* United States Joint Forces Command: 

* Defense Logistics Agency/Defense Energy Support Center: 

We conducted our review from September 2007 through March 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Select Recommendations from DOD-Sponsored Studies on 
Mobility Energy Reduction: 

Over the past 7 years, DOD has commissioned several studies to explore 
ways to reduce its fuel consumption. We reviewed recommendations 
applicable to mobility energy in the following three DOD-sponsored 
studies: 

* Defense Science Board, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel 
Burden, January 2001: 

* The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation, Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence, September 2006: 

* LMI, Transforming the Way DOD Looks at Energy: An Approach to 
Establishing an Energy Strategy, April 2007: 

We also reviewed the recommendations from the 2008 Defense Science 
Board report on DOD's energy strategy. However, we did not include 
those recommendations in our analysis because the report was issued in 
February 2008, and the department could not be expected to have taken 
action on the recommendations at the time we issued this report. 

We summarized the recommendations, grouped them into common topics, and 
obtained information on DOD actions taken on each of them. Table 3 
presents a summary of our analysis. 

Table 3: Actions DOD Has Taken to Address Selected Recommendations from 
DOD-Sponsored Studies on Mobility Energy Reduction: 

Topic/recommendation: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Consider 
fuel efficiency when making science and technology and system design 
investments; 
Source: Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: More Capable Warfighting 
Through Reduced Fuel Burden by the Defense Science Board; DOD action 
taken: Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: The Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
initiated a pilot program to assess the fully burdened cost of fuel in 
three mobile defense systems, and the Joint Staff established an energy 
efficiency key performance parameter. Full implementation of both 
efforts could provide insight on how to include energy considerations 
in system design. Moreover, according to OSD officials, DOD's 
acquisition process currently undervalues energy efficiencies. Thus, 
investments may not be adequate. 

Topic/recommendation: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Upgrade the 
engines of the M1-Abrams tank, the B- 52 bomber, and other applicable 
systems with modern fuel-efficient engine technology; Source: 
Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Technology upgrades/system redesigns: DOD provided recommendations to 
the military services for consideration and implementation. 

Topic/recommendation: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Reduce 
weight of armored and tactical vehicles, with modern vehicle designs, 
structures, and materials; 
Source: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Technology upgrades/system redesigns: The Ground Fuel- Efficient 
Vehicle Demonstrator, an initiative funded in fiscal year 2008, will 
examine fuel-efficient technologies and equipment for ground vehicle 
programs. 

Topic/recommendation: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Develop a 
DOD-wide system to track vehicle and fuel use patterns. Use the data to 
develop DOD-wide fuel efficiency metrics in decisions to upgrade system 
designs; 
Source: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: The military services have some 
systems or reporting mechanisms for capturing fuel consumption. 
However, as a department, DOD has not developed metrics for fuel 
consumption. 

Topic/recommendation: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Assess 
options for expanding the use of unmanned vehicles by considering more 
fuel-efficient designs; 
Source: Technology upgrades/system redesigns: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Technology upgrades/system redesigns: In fiscal year 2007, the Office 
of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, initiated the Long 
Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program, which is intended to 
increase the amount of time an unmanned aerial vehicle could stay in 
the air without refueling. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Develop tools to track and 
account for the total costs of fuel, including delivery and logistics 
costs; 
Source: Strategic planning: More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced 
Fuel Burden by the Defense Science Board; Reducing DOD Fossil- Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Strategic planning: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics initiated a pilot program to 
assess the fully burdened cost of fuel in three mobile defense systems. 
However, the program has not been implemented for all systems. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Increase simulator use; 
Source: Strategic planning: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence by The 
JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; 
DOD action taken: Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: In August 
2007, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics directed a study to assess whether the 
increased use of simulators could substitute for live training without 
degrading operational capability. An implementation plan has been 
drafted and a working group has been established. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Integrate the military 
services' fuel requirements into logistics war games and analytic tools 
instead of assuming that fuel supplies will be adequate; Source: 
Strategic planning: More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel 
Burden by the Defense Science Board; Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel 
Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; DOD action taken: 
Strategic planning: DOD incorporated energy considerations into the 
annual Unified Engagement exercise, but it is not a standard 
consideration in DOD's war-gaming processes. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Include fuel efficiency as a 
key performance parameter in DOD's requirements process; Source: 
Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: More Capable Warfighting Through 
Reduced Fuel Burden by the Defense Science Board; DOD action taken: 
Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: The Joint Staff has established 
an energy efficiency key performance parameter. However, DOD has not 
developed a methodology to fully implement this requirement. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Engage in long-term planning 
for future fuel sources, production, and use; Source: Strategic 
planning: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence by The JASONs/The MITRE 
Corporation; 
DOD action taken: Strategic planning: DOD has not developed a 
comprehensive strategic plan for mobility energy. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Increase the use of 
commercial aviation fuels; consider the local production of military 
fuels from commercial aviation fuels outside of the United States; 
Source: Strategic planning: Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence by The 
JASONs/The MITRE Corporation; 
DOD action taken: Technology upgrades/ system redesigns: The Air Force 
has conducted one study examining this issue, and the Defense Energy 
Support Center is proposing an additional study to better understand 
the logistical impacts of using commercial aviation fuels. 

Topic/recommendation: Strategic planning: Incorporate energy 
considerations (use and logistics requirements) into DOD's key 
corporate decision making processes: strategic planning; analytic 
agenda; joint concept and joint capability development; acquisition; 
and planning, programming, budgeting, and execution; Source: Strategic 
planning: Transforming the Way DOD Looks at Energy: An Approach to 
Establishing an Energy Strategy by LMI; DOD action taken: Strategic 
planning: While DOD has made some efforts to address energy efficiency 
in its requirements development and acquisition processes, these 
efforts are in the early stages. 

Topic/recommendation: Leadership and oversight: Adopt a new framework 
to promote energy efficiency, including alternate energy sources, to 
those areas (1) consuming the most fuel (aviation forces), (2) 
requiring the most logistics support, or (3) having the most negative 
effect on the warfighter; 
Source: Leadership and oversight: Transforming the Way DOD Looks at 
Energy: An Approach to Establishing an Energy Strategy by LMI; DOD 
action taken: Leadership and oversight: The DOD Energy Security Task 
Force has selected military service initiatives to monitor that address 
energy efficiency in selected areas, but DOD has not developed an 
overarching organizational framework for mobility energy. 

Topic/recommendation: Provide leadership that incentivizes fuel 
efficiency throughout DOD; 
Source: Leadership and oversight: More Capable Warfighting Through 
Reduced Fuel Burden by the Defense Science Board; DOD action taken: 
Leadership and oversight: OSD officials told us that DOD generally 
lacks incentives to reward the military services for reducing fuel 
consumption and faces challenges in addressing departmental cultural 
barriers--such as the traditional view that fuel is simply a commodity 
and that energy efficiency is not important to warfighting. 

Topic/recommendation: Establish a governance structure with policy and 
resource oversight to focus DOD's energy efforts; Source: Leadership 
and oversight: Transforming the Way DOD Looks at Energy: An Approach to 
Establishing an Energy Strategy by LMI; DOD action taken: Leadership 
and oversight: DOD has not established an overarching organizational 
framework to provide oversight for mobility energy. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

February 20, 2008: 

Mr. William M. Solis: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Solis: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, GAO-08- 426, "Defense Management: Overarching Organizational 
Framework Needed to Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for 
Military Operations," dated February 5, 2008 (GAO Code 351082). 
Detailed comments on the report recommendations are enclosed. 

The Department of Defense partially concurs on the GAO's findings and 
recommendations. In principle, the Department agrees there is a need to 
view and manage DoD energy supply and demand challenges in a new, more 
systemic manner. However, current DoD Directives are clear on where the 
authority and responsibility lie on the issues surrounding mobility 
energy. DoD Directive 5134.01 (Dec 9, 2005) puts oversight and 
policymaking authority on the DoD energy matters the GAO raised under 
the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics. The Under Secretary's staff is leading a 
Department-wide effort to develop a comprehensive DoD Energy Security 
Strategic Plan ready to be delivered to senior DoD leaders this May. 
Further, the Department has dedicated resources and senior-level 
attention to implementing an Energy Efficiency Key Performance 
Parameter, underpinned by maturing and applying the Fully Burdened Cost 
of Fuel construct to its requirements and acquisition tradespace 
analysis and decision-making. 

The Department appreciates this opportunity to comment on this draft 
report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Kristen J. Baldwin: 
Acting Director: 
Systems and Software Engineering: 

Enclosure: 
As stated: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated February 5, 2008 GAO Code 351082/GAO-08-426: 

"Defense Management: Overarching Organizational Framework Needed to 
Guide and Oversee Energy Reduction Efforts for Military Operations":  

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense to establish an overarching 
organizational framework by designating an executive-level OSD official 
with the responsibility and authority to guide and oversee efforts and 
develop policy, among other things, to reduce mobility energy demand 
across the Department; improve business processes to incorporate energy 
considerations as a factor in DoD decision making; coordinate on energy 
issues with facility energy officials; act as DoD's focal point in 
interagency deliberations about national energy concerns; and lead the 
Department's potential transition from petroleum-based fuel sources to 
alternative fuel sources. This official should be supported by an 
implementation team with dedicated resources and funding. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. In principle, the Department concurs 
that there is a need to view and manage DoD energy supply and demand 
challenges in a new, more systematic manner. The direct cost of 
mobility fuels, the indirect (yet substantial) cost of our fuel 
delivery logistics, the operational vulnerability of our logistics 
forces to insurgent forces and other threats, and our prioritization of 
science and technology (S&T) and acquisition investments seeking 
greater energy efficiency are issues of increasing importance. However, 
significant efforts are currently underway that will provide the 
Department's senior leaders new analytic tools, business process 
changes and S&T energy efficiency investments recommendations for 
better managing DoD mobility energy across the enterprise. 

These efforts, particularly those of the DoD Energy Security Task Force 
(ESTF), which is now developing a comprehensive Energy Security 
Strategic Plan for the DoD, will be delivered to the Deputy Secretary's 
Advisory Working Group in May 2008. The work of the ESTF will provide 
new insights and recommendations to DoD's decision-makers for the 
governance of mobility energy issues across the Department. This work 
is informed by operational experience in the field, including from 
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as the 
independent analysis and perspective of the 2008 Defense Science Board 
(DSB) Task Force on Energy Security. This task force, which contained a 
strong balance of seasoned former national security leaders, including 
a former Secretary of Defense and of Energy, a former CIA Director, and 
retired senior flag officers, as well as professional energy and energy 
efficiency experts, took a hard look at DoD risks and possible 
solutions related to energy. The 2008 DSB Task Force on Energy Security 
was a consensus document and identified the many and difficult 
challenges the Department must now take on. In this case, consensus was 
not the result of watering down the findings, but rather, solid 
agreement on the risks and underappreciated factors that go into 
planning for DoD energy supply and demand. Further, addressing the 
governance issues the GAO report raises, current DoD Directives are 
clear on where the authority and responsibility lie on the issues 
surrounding mobility energy. DoD Directive 5134.01 (Dec 9, 2005) puts 
oversight and policymaking authority on DoD energy matters under the 
authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics, particularly in sections 3, 3.24, 3.26, E2.1.1.7, 
E2.1.1.8, E2.1.1.28, E2.1.1.29 and E2.1.1.30. These authorities and 
responsibilities are consistent with those used for overseeing many 
other significant cross-cutting DoD capability development and 
management issues. 

The Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L) oversees three senior executives 
with policy-making and oversight roles on different aspects of mobility 
energy. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology (DUSD (A&T)) oversees the system acquisition process, and 
has the authority to provide guidance, as needed, to the Components on 
how the acquisition tradespace is considered, both from a platform and 
capability perspective. The DUSD (A&T) organization is working within 
the OSD staff, Joint Staff and Service force planning and requirements 
communities to ensure fuel demand, fuel logistics and all related 
matters are given more appropriate consideration in the acquisition 
tradespace to reduce energy demand. This includes maturing a construct 
known as the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF)" and applying the FBCF 
principles and methodology to the current Energy Efficiency Key 
Performance Parameter (KPP) in the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
Development System. This is the process by which materiel and non-
materiel solutions to documented capability gaps are identified and 
framed for the acquisition and other communities to solve. This work 
will serve as a basis for the Department's senior leaders to assess DoD 
mobility fuel demand from a portfolio perspective (force application, 
force protection, etc.) and not just from a platform perspective. This 
approach is consistent with and supportive of the Deputy Secretary's 
management agenda. Taking a portfolio perspective will better inform 
risk analysis within the Defense program and raise the understanding of 
the value of energy efficiency investments relative to DoD mission 
success. 

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness (DUSD (L&MR), has the authority to serve as the central 
administrator of the policies that govern how fuel is supplied to our 
operational forces, as well as the planning and purchase of all 
varieties of operational fuel, through the Defense Energy Support 
Center, a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) field activity. The DUSD 
(L&MR) and DLA are beginning to look at the defense logistics 
implications of biofuels and other synfuels to the force on behalf of 
the Under Secretary. 

The Director, Defense Research and Engineering has responsibility for 
managing the entire defense science and technology budget and its 
priorities, including the oversight of Service investments. Significant 
basic science and applied science work is going into mobile power 
generation, more efficient materials and engines, light-weight 
structural materials and alternative operational fuels. While these 
investments are focused on their potential benefits to DoD operational 
capability, there is strong historical precedent for DoD science and 
technology investments advancing the state of the art and sparking 
commercial innovation. 

Finally, the Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L) chairs the DoD Energy 
Security Task Force. This broadly based group is supported from 
membership from across the DoD. While this group initially focused on 
sharing energy-related information within the Department, it's mandate 
has expanded as its staff and members craft the DoD Energy Security 
Strategic Plan that has been directed through Deputy Secretary-level 
guidance for May 2008 completion. Consistent with the Department's own 
assessments and the DSB Task Force findings, the ESTF is leading and 
building the proper teams of OSD, Joint staff and Component 
stakeholders to address DoD processes and practice shortfalls that have 
created some gaps cited by the GAO. Energy-related technology 
priorities are also considered by the group and given additional 
resources based on the ESTF endorsement. Through monthly meetings, the 
ESTF website and a monthly speaker series, the group has widened the 
circle of interest in energy issues in DoD and its related interagency, 
industry and policy communities. The leadership of the ESTF also 
coordinates its efforts with the wider DoD Installation and Environment 
community implementing Executive Order 13423, "Strengthening Federal 
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management". At the current 
state of understanding of DoD's mobility fuel challenges, this outreach 
approach is adequate for fostering the right discussions and 
identification of solutions to DoD leaders and staff. 

As relevant technology ideas, needed process changes, operational 
vulnerability concerns or commercial fuel price growth arise from our 
on-going analysis and interaction, the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense (AT&L) will serve as both a clearinghouse for addressing the 
issues, and as the Departmental leader in implementing actionable 
solutions. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense to establish an overarching 
organizational framework by directing the executive-level mobility 
energy official to lead the development and implementation of a 
comprehensive Department-wide strategic plan for mobility energy. At a 
minimum, this strategic plan should set forth mobility energy goals and 
objectives, time frames for implementation, and performance metrics to 
track and evaluate progress. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. The USD (AT&L), as the DoD executive 
lead for energy and as supported by the DoD Energy Security Task Force, 
is overseeing development of a DoD Energy Security Strategic Plan which 
will be reported out to the Deputy's Advisory Working Group in May of 
2008. This plan will provide a DoD-wide strategic construct for 
considering mobility energy challenges and inefficiencies, as well as 
for setting goals, objectives, analytic frameworks, actionable metrics 
and implementation timing for further assessments and execution. The 
plan is described in context to the management framework described in 
the DoD Response to Recommendation 1. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense to establish an overarching 
organizational framework by ensuring that OSD develop a methodology to 
enable the full implementation of an energy efficiency key performance 
parameter in DoD's requirements development process. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. The Department agrees that further 
clarification of roles and targets may be needed, but the authorities 
and responsibility to do so already exist under the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) explained in the DoD 
response to Recommendation 1. Further, the Department will address the 
pace and required steps for maturing and then implementing the fully 
burdened cost of fuel analytic methodology currently under development, 
within the DoD Energy Security Strategic Plan. This foundational 
analytic work has received significantly more attention over the past 
six months, and its broader inclusion within the major strategic 
processes of the Department is indeed a Top 25 Transformational 
priority for the Department. By taking this methodology through the 
standard DoD vetting processes, we can ensure the rigor needed to 
formally implement this is present. After this vetting, it will 
underpin the Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter within the 
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. RECOMMENDATION 
4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense to establish an overarching organizational 
framework by ensuring that, as part of its efforts to complete DoD's 
fully burdened costs of fuel, pilot program, OSD develop an approach 
for incorporating this cost information into the acquisition decision 
making process. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. As the report states, efforts are 
underway to look at the implications of the fully burdened cost of fuel 
and the logistics implications of delivering fuel for DoD operations in 
the force planning, requirements generation and acquisition processes. 
It is ill-advised to focus on the acquisition process alone, as the 
force planning and requirements processes inform the acquisition 
process on the value of various qualities desired, which add up to 
provide, along with well trained personnel, a capability. This 
capability is provided at an agreed cost and within a certain schedule. 
Hence, a prioritization towards fuel efficiency must be addressed 
within certain constraints. Lacking a clearer demand signal, there is 
little analytical basis for making trades between various qualities, 
technologies or design options at the acquisition phase. As it is 
stated in the Department's response to Recommendations 1, a work plan 
is in development on how best to assess the value of greater fuel 
efficiency from the operational capability and cost perspectives in DoD 
equipment and platforms. 

That said, significant science and technology investments have also 
been made, partially directed from the inputs of the Energy Security 
Task Force, to address the energy efficiency of platforms and hence, 
operational units. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps to designate an executive-level official 
within each of their Services to act as a focal point on Department-
wide mobility energy efforts as well as provide leadership and 
accountability over their own efforts. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. The issue of governance and oversight 
of energy matters within the Military Departments will be raised once 
the DoD Energy Security Strategic Plan is briefed to DoD senior leaders 
in May 2008. Until that time, it is inappropriate to pre-judge the 
deliberative work currently going into that Plan.

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

William M. Solis, (202) 512-8365 or [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant 
Director; Karyn Angulo; Alissa Czyz; and Marie Mak made major 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Energy consumed at fixed installations, referred to as facility 
energy, accounts for most of DOD's remaining energy use. 

[2] This concept is known as fully burdened cost, which DOD defines as 
the total ownership cost of buying, moving, and protecting fuel in 
systems during combat. 

[3] A key performance parameter is an attribute or characteristic of a 
system that is considered critical or essential to the development of 
an effective military capability. 

[4] GAO, Department of Energy: Oil and Natural Gas Research and 
Development Activities, GAO-08-190R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2007). 

[5] For a discussion of issues surrounding peak oil production, see 
GAO, Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important 
to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil 
Production, GAO-07-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007). 

[6] For a more complete overview of U.S. energy challenges, see GAO, 
21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal 
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005), and Meeting 
Energy Demand in the 21st Century: Many Challenges and Key Questions, 
GAO-05-414T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005). 

[7] DOD Directive 4140.25, DOD Management Policy for Energy Commodities 
and Related Services (Apr. 12, 2004). Other fuel-related policy 
documents include DOD Directive 5101.8, DOD Executive Agent for Bulk 
Petroleum (Aug. 11, 2004); DOD Manual 4140.25-M, DOD Management of Bulk 
Petroleum Products, Natural Gas and Coal (Jun. 12, 2002); and Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 4-03, Joint Bulk Petroleum and Water 
Doctrine (May 23, 2003). 

[8] Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of 
Weapons Platforms, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden 
(January 2001). 

[9] The JASONs, Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, JSR-06-135 
(September 2006). 

[10] LMI, Transforming the Way DOD Looks at Energy: An Approach to 
Establishing an Energy Strategy, Report FT602T1 (April 2007). 

[11] Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, More 
Fight--Less Fuel (February 2008). 

[12] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics Memorandum, "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel 
Pilot Program," April 10, 2007. 

[13] Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01F, Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System (May 1, 2007), and Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Manual 3170.01C, Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration 
and Development System (May 1, 2007). 

[14] GAO-07-283. 

[15] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

[16] DOD Directive 4140.25, and DOD Directive 5134.01, Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (Dec. 9, 2005). 

[17] GAO-03-669. 

[18] The 3-Star Group within DOD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 
and Execution process includes members from OSD's Director of Program 
Analysis and Evaluation; OSD's under secretaries of defense; the Joint 
Staff Director for Structure, Resources, and Assessment; and the 
military services' 3-Star programmers. This group addresses major 
issues and presents decision options to the Secretary of Defense. 

[19] GPRA (Pub. L. No. 103-62, (1993)) is the centerpiece of a 
statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help 
resolve the long-standing management problems that have undermined the 
federal government's efficiency and effectiveness and to provide 
greater accountability for results. For additional information, see 
GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve 
Usefulness to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 26, 1999). 

[20] GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Implementation of DOD's Long-Term Corrosion Strategy, GAO-04-640 
(Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004). 

[21] Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 
ï¿½ 933 (2007). 

[22] Pub. L. No. 109-364, ï¿½ 360 (2006), states that it shall be DOD's 
policy to improve fuel efficiency of weapons platforms, consistent with 
mission requirements, in order to enhance platform performance, reduce 
the size of fuel logistics systems, reduce the burden high consumption 
places on agility, reduce operating costs, and dampen the financial 
impact of volatile oil prices. 

[23] GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-l0.l.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 
1997). 

[24] The National Military Strategy, signed by the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, is guided by the goals and objectives contained 
in the present National Security Strategy and serves to implement the 
Secretary of Defense's National Defense Strategy. The Quadrennial 
Defense Review, prepared by the Secretary of Defense every 4 years, 
assesses the nature and magnitude of the political, strategic, and 
military risks associated with executing the missions called for under 
the National Defense Strategy. 

[25] GAO-03-669. 

[26] DOD Instruction 5126.47, Department of Defense Energy Policy 
Council, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (Dec. 2, 1985). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-
mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: (202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: (202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***