special disdain for the idea that someone might win after coming second in an early round. will he, therefore, stand aside in favor of the right honorable member who beat him in the post in 2005? >> i seem to remember in my leadership it ended up with the two of us touring the country. it was a popular vote and i'm pleased to say, unlike some parties around here, the person who won actually won. >> mr. ben bradshaw. >> given -- given -- given the this hour of recovery has since stalled since he became prime minister, does he stand by after his first budget last june, that and i quote unemployment will fall every year in this parliament? >> what i was quoting was the office of budget responsibility. but the fact is -- the fact is this, since -- since 12 months

ago, there are 390,000 more people in private sector jobs than there were a year ago. i would have thought with the economy growing, with exports up, with manufacturing up, with more people in work, he should be welcoming that instead of joining the do mongers on his front bench who can only talk the economy down. >> will the prime minister join me for moving for an independent national review after the u.n. report after the crimes committed after a sri lankan -- >> the forces in afghanistan and elsewhere deserves to be recognized at the highest level and all the times the prime minister has often said, why on earth, therefore, of the royal irish regiment and the irish guards been denied a homecoming period in belfast? will the prime minister intervene and talk to colleagues to ensure this process of

recognition for our troops and the appreciation by the citizens of northern ireland can rightly take place as soon as possible? >> well, first of all, let me thank the honorable gentleman for raising this issue because the bravery of the royal irish and the irish guards in afghanistan has been outstanding and sadly both regiments have suffered loss of life during their recent deployments. as i understand it, a number of homecoming events will be taking place across northern ireland. we're discussing this issue with belfast, city council and others about how we can give recognition to their tremendous bravery. no decision has been made. i'll make sure he's fully involved in those discussions but it is also worth noting because they're actually stationed up north and i'm sure they will -- >> will the prime minister join with me in congratulating on the council on freezing its council taxes this year and committee say how many local authorities across the country have frozen

their council tax against the advice of the party opposite which described that policy as a gimmick? ..

>> now from the energy department a discussion on energy policy. we will hear from environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson and the head of shell oil. they stopped show oil from drilling off the northern coast of alaska. this is 90 minutes. >> thank you very much, and i'd like to introduce brooke anderson who is the chief of staff and counselor to the national security staff.

>> welcome to the white house energy security forum. thank you very much for coming here today. as businesses across the country, american families are feeling the impact of higher gasoline prices. in an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising gas prices affect everyone, workers and farmers, truck drivers and restaurant owners, and businesses see it impact their bottom line. families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. we've known about the dangers of our dependence on oil for decades. president richard nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence but that promise has so far gone unmet. since day one, president obama has pursued a comprehensive national energy policy because he believes the united states of america cannot afford to bet our

long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out, will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground. we are proud of the historic progress that we have made, but at the same time we do run into the same political gridlock, same inertia that's held us back for decades. in his march 30 address on energy security, president obama made clear why we can't repeat this mistake, why we can't keep going from shock to trend on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. the folks on today's program and panel know this very well and we are eager to have them join us today to discuss the national security application of america's oil dependency. securing our energy future is critical to our military.

we must transition away from a department of defense that relies too much on fossil fuels, which can create a strategic, operational, and tactical vulnerability for our forces. to solve this critical problem the people in this room are working together to reduce our military's dependence on oil, to better support america's security, and our armed forces. by developing clean energy technologies, and getting them into the field. i'm happy to welcome you here to hear about these efforts by the department of energy, and for discussion with leading thinkers in this arena. to start the discussion i had the pleasure of introducing a deputy secretary of defense, bill lynn, bill dudley understands energy security through his long experience on defense issues in both the private sector and at the department of defense. i will turn things over to bill. thank you.

>> thanks very much, brooke. and it's a pleasure to be at the white house with brooke and daniel poneman for event that doesn't involve a crisis but we usually meet in the situation room where the lighting is much worse, it's a much more restricted to a lot of coffee as i think one proof that might be major. i also want to suck it broke in welcoming some of the leading experts in washington and around the country in the area of energy security. john deutch and jane harman and john podesta are all leaders in national security and energy security, in particular. you may, if you haven't seen, you should look at john deutch, john podesta's 2008 article authored for the center of american progress which really lays out a lot of the challenges, and are way ahead. also with us today are the two

leaders and the department of defense on energy security, schoenberg and i'm just going to be marking up with the very low retail, their ideas. but what i would like to talk about is the connection between innovation in energy technology and the projection of military power. this linkage has spent history. just as the shift from wind to call revolutionize naval power in the 19th century, so today the introduction of nuclear energy on submarines and aircraft carriers transform the global balance of power in the late 20th century. our mastery of energy technologies then, both enable our nation to emerge as a great power, give us a strategic edge in the cold war. today, energy technology remains a critical element of our military superiority. addressing energy needs must be a fundamental part of our military planning.

our department is operating in over 100 countries around the world. we have troops fighting in afghanistan, and crews flying over libya, and relief operations underway in japan. everything we do, every mission we perform, requires significant amounts of energy. three quarters of the energy that the department consumes and calls military operations. so in sharing our forces have access to that energy is not easy. our forces in afghanistan and iraq have long logistical details. more than 70% of the convoys in afghanistan are used just for fuel or water. we hold these supplies on roads laced with ieds, and on roads that are prone to ambush. more than 3000 troops and contractors have been killed or wounded protecting those convoys. this threat to our supply line reflects how the nature of war

is changing. rather than confronting our forces head-on, our adversaries are increasingly employing asymmetric tactics, and in those tactics energy can be a soft target. whether using ieds against supply convoys or cyber attacks aimed at our critical infrastructure, we face a wide range of threats and must be prepared to defend against all of them. the nature of war is also change in a second way. conflict is evolving from a focus on intense but short periods of combat that in decisively to longer, more drawnout engagements. and as conflicts become longer in duration and more expeditionary in nature, the amount of fuel it takes to keep our forces in the field represents a significant of vulnerability. we must change how we manage energy on the battlefield, and strive to reduce demand at all levels of our forces. to minimize our future energy footprint, we are building

energy performance parameters into our requirements process. this includes calculating the fully burdened cost of fuel use by potential weapon systems. a new generation of military technologies that use and store energy more effectively will only emerge if we change how we do business. when it comes to the future, the navy is leading the way. secretary mabus has made energy performance a priority. the navy is not only incorporating more efficient propulsion technologies including hybrid drive, is also experiment with biofuels and other sources of alternative energy. our push the highly efficient systems also extends to the individual soldier. over the past decade our ground forces increase the use of radios by 250%, and the use of overall information technology by over 300%. the demand for batteries is nearly double. today soldiers on a 72 hour patrol in afghanistan may be

carrying 18 pounds of batteries. all this extra gear means more capable forces, but it increase our reliance on energy in the theater. so in afghanistan we are finding that clean energy technology is one way to lighten the load and give our troops more capability. in the 1990s, the engineers at the center develop flexible solar panels that could power a range of devices. marines decided to deploy these panels afghanistan last fall. marines being marines, they sent this new equivalent right to the heart of the fighter the regiment selected to try out the solar panels deployed one of the most violent district and helmand province. the operational gains were in the. marines ran to patrol base is completely on solar power, and cut diesel fuel consumption at a third base by over 90%.

on one, three-week for patrol, flexible solar panels a limited battery resupply needs entirely. in the supply drops that previously required, were required every 48 hours. this and other pilot programs show, our initiatives to develop new technologies provide material advantages to our troops in the theater entrance of energy consumption. especially at the tactical edge, new energy technology makes our warfighters more agile, allowing them to focus on the mission rather than their logistics chain. it is important to note that energy on the battlefield is not only vulnerable in the last mile when convoys come under attack. military installation here in the u.s. provide direct operational support to troops in theater. today, the front line extend to uav operators in the united states. if the facilities that drucker support combat operations are

heavily dependent on the civilian electrical grid. as result, energy security here at home is becoming increasingly important to operations abroad. disrupting energy supply at any point along our logistics network undercuts our ability to project force. so we are taking steps to enhance the energy resilience he of art installation. the power grid most of our installations is no more sophisticated than a large off on switch. when the grid is under strain, everything loses power. at 29 palms, the marine base in the mojave desert and we're demonstrate new micro-grid technology. a system of self generated electricity and intelligent control that can be operated independently if the commercial grid goes down. micro grids improve energy efficiency, make it easier to incorporate solar and wind power, and ensure our can be

directed to facilities that need it most. but most importantly, they reduce the vulnerability of our power supply to disruption. energy is also important to the department as a budget item that our military consumes more energy than is used by two-thirds of all the nations on earth. we account for 80% of the federal government energy use, and about 1% of consumption nationwide. our energy bills are already in the tens of billions of dollars. with increasing volatility in energy markets and tightening of global supply, our expenditures on gasoline alone are up 225% from just a decade ago. so any step that we can take to lower our energy use will bring immediate benefit to the resources that we able to provide for other were fighting priorities. in short, dod needs to address energy as a military planning

challenge. supply is limited, cost is increasing, and with the changing nature of war, our current energy technology is not optimized for the battlefield of today or tomorrow. to remedy this we are renewing our partnership with the department of energy. we have signed a memorandum of understanding. this memorandum launched a committee of leaders from both departments to steer investments to specific technologies. already we are working on micro grids, alternative fuels, batteries and energy storage. in the coming years, our collaboration will grow targeting both energy reliability at installations, and strike capability in operations. the key to this partnership is focusing d.o.e.'s unique knowledge on meeting defense requirements. by taking technologies from labs to the battlefield, the department of energy can't enroll its scientific ingenuity

in the service of our nation's most important national mission, national security. innovative energy technology can increase the operational effectiveness of our forces, and our department can use its size to leverage technological development of different energy technology. by serving a sophisticated first user an early customer for innovative energy technologies, the military can jumpstart their broader commercial adoption just as we have done with jet engines, high-performance computing, and the internet. by combining d.o.e. technologi technologies, dod innovation, we can achieve a payoff that extends well beyond the defense sector. under the continued leadership from president obama, and with industry's help, our partnership can transform how this nation develops and uses clean technology laying the foundation for a future that is both cleaner and more secure.

i've now decided to yield the floor to my good friend and colleague, deputy secretary of energy, dan poneman. [applause] >> thank you very much, bill, for that kind introduction. and i'm also delighted to be here and to join my old friend and colleague, brooke anderson. thank you for organizing the sit there. and i'm honored to be joined by to say which america's of ari contribute so much, john deutch i think in the first carter administration by the department did she was newly formed, had a single there. and, of course, there should imposition that bill lynn, deputy secretary live in now and commerce. and jane harman, both in the house of representatives and now newly installed at the wilson center. and, of course, john podesta at the white house and with incredible that leadership at the center for american progress. it's about to be with you.

our national economic and environmental security obviously deeply depends on the energy resources that power econ and our own forces. and as we are all aware and as deputy secretary live has made very clear in his opening remarks, our economy and our military are deeply dependent on petroleum and petroleum derivative product making our country vulnerable, to vulnerable to price spikes in the global oil market. the crisis in libya is only the latest of a series of reminders that offer a vivid picture of how our own energy security can be affected by political events and forces outside of our control. and while as the president has made very clear, there is no silver bullet to free ourselves from excessive oil dependence or even to bring down the cost and the short term. there are a number of important steps that we can take that we must take, indeed that we are

already taking that will help protect our armed forces, help protect america's families and businesses from price spikes in the future. as president obama has made clear, our long-term energy security demand that we take aggressive action to reduce our dependence on imported oil. this means increasing our domestic energy resources, improve the efficiency of our vehicles, ships and aircraft, and finding new ways to power them. the department of energy and the department of defense have both been at the forefront of this country's efforts to develop advanced energy technologies that would be essential in meeting our energy challenges. in fact, under the leadership of secretary gates and deputy secretary lynn, the military has already taken a number of unprecedented steps to diversify its fuel supply and to reduce its energy use, including of course secretary mabus is visionary goal of requiring the navy, marine corps to obtain 50% of the energy from nonfossil sources by 2020, $500 million in

savings that the air force has achieved by reducing fuel consumption within the air mobility command, and denounce but just last week by the army that more than 20 installations nationwide will be piloting net zero facilities, meaning that they will consume only as much energy or water as they produce, and to eliminate solid waste going to landfills. the strategic partnership deputy secretary lynn and i launched last year between the two departments build on the progress already underway in our armed forces and our laboratories. that has been a robust engagement and one i think that both departments have put full shoulder to the wheel. it leverages each agency's strength to accelerate clean energy innovation, and help meet the presidents energy goals. as you may know, the department of energy is already the nation's largest funder of physical sciences in terms of

basic science in research and development. through our national laboratory system, department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear across the whole portfolio of national energy and scientific priority. coupled with the skill of defense departments operations, and potential to act as a test bed for innovative technologies, this partnership is a crucial difficult to strengthen our national security and to build a clean energy economy for america. today, joint projects under the memorandum of understanding have been primarily focused on three areas. first, advancing mobility and strike a building which includes reducing the military dependence on oil. second come increasing energy reliability and efficiency on duty fixed and forward operating bases. and third, further institutional cooperation between the departments which includes stationing department of energy advisers among the combatant

commands to deploy their experience implementing education and training programs to develop energy education programs through each service. in order to help reduce the department of defense's dependence on oil we're working together to develop next-generation drop in biofuels and advanced fleet technologies like electric vehicles that will help diversify our fuel supply options, cut pollution, and enable us to power our vehicles, ships and aircraft without requiring the dangers fuel convoys that transit just described to drive through war zones to reach the war-fight that these technology will create new jobs here in the united states, help reduce oil imports and enable our military to power our vehicles and aircraft with homegrown resources. commercializing these technologies to skip over remains a major challenge. for the vast biofuels industry. by the government cannot and should not be responsible for

single-handedly driving product demand, it can act as an important catalyst for the market. as deputy secretary lynn mentioned, the size and broad scope of the defense department operations provide significant opportunities to test new innovative technology, and to jumpstart their commercial deployment. for example, in 2009 the defense department accounted for 2% of all u.s. petroleum use. while that may not sound like much for a small bio refinery looking to commercialize its technology, the market pull it comes with 300,000 barrels of oil consumed per day can be a game changer. it is this type of ongoing partnership between our two departments, leveraging the we innovation to meet dod operational requirements that will grow america's clean energy economy and strengthen our national security. the second focus of our partnership, centers on improving the energy efficiency of our military bases and

installations. you are deputy secretary lynn discussed the importance of the military attaches to new micro-grid and grid technologies. to help advance these projects, doe and dod are jointly funding three great demonstration projects known as spiders, or smart power infrastructure demonstration for energy reliability and security. we are really good at acronyms apparently. these projects from one under each of the major services, will demonstrate smart, secure micro-grids that can be replicated throughout the military. anybody who's been reading the news recently about vulnerability, not just traditional military terms but our national infrastructure, no so important this must be. the department of defense also has over 370,000 buildings with over 2.2 billion square feet of space under rough. that's more than 12 times the square footage of all of gsa's

buildings for the rest of the federal government combined. there are enormous opportunities to achieve energy and cost savings at the facility. under the recovery act, for instance, the department of energy provide technical assistance and energy audits for nearly 70 military projects nationwide. through these projects our teams identified more than 200 energy conservation measures that could be implemented to save more than 3 trillion british thermal units of energy per year and cut the department energy bills by $50 million per year. this isn't just efficiency for efficiency sake. rather, by reducing energy waste in our facilities, we can improve the ratio for armed forces. instead of putting more money into powering our facilities, we will be able to put more of our limited resources into the sharp end of the spear. and we'll be able to build the thing is, meanest most energy efficient fighting machine in the world. we all know that our nation is

facing significant energy security challenges, brooke anderson indicated in her opening comments. but to the kind of partnerships that we're discussing today, and the government of the president, our secretaries and efforts of so many of you here who are joining us today, we will be able to achieve a clean energy goals, strengthen our national security, and to america's economy in the years and decades ahead. 90. [applause] >> and with that, i would like to invite our distinguished guests to join us up at the table.

>> okay. i'd now like to turn things over to our panelists to make some brief remarks come and then we will open it up for questions. and a discussion. our first panelists to speak has a unique and deep experience in energy and also national security issues, and at the places where the to me. it is woodrow wilson international center for scholars president jane harman. thank you, jane. >> thank you, brooke. good morning, everyone. i think i was invited here because i am a survivor. i served 17 years and the diocese congress which indulges, 119 years, and i'm still alive. but that does give me some insight perhaps into congress, and congress and fortunate

inability to be a major player on energy conservation and efficiency. if ever there was a time, both bill and dan have said, this is the time to fulfill the promise of every president since richard nixon to help us with energy independence it and let me just make several points. first, about congress. i served on the energy subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee for some years. i helped author the landmark legislation on light bulb efficiency. you would think that what we need in this congress is bipartisan, bicameral legislation to retire the 100 year old incandescent light bulbs that sheds more heat than light. 90% he got 10% like, just like congress. you would think -- [laughter] -- that we want to transition to

modern lightbulbs and other flavors of lightbulbs and save tons and tons of energy. well, we do that. we passed that in 2007. george bush signed a bill into law at the energy department, as i recall. and now the mantra of the keyboard is to repeal that law because it is big brother somehow forcing industry which supported the law to change to something that will somehow cut american jobs, not true. it will build american jobs. is a small example of congress networking. to be brief, what do i think our opportunities now, and especially in light of this m.o.u. between dod and doe, and the major efforts described by both dan and bill to move to a much more efficient fighting force, more efficient installations, and the promotion. i think, one, people in light of high gas prices are going to change their own behavior.

finally, again, there is political will to do things differently. and so i do think, regardless of congress, there will be popular support for initiatives that will be taken either by the executive branch or by state government to make us more energy-efficient. so let's answer that, upon that on npr this market and just can i do support federal funding for npr. there was a piece about how ford has remade itself into a modern productive company, and people are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles in droves. but the other opportunities for dod to lead once more. let's remember that dod has been at the forefront of all the, i would call, major cultural change in our country. dod was at the forefront of racial integration, force all of it by harry truman, and duty was at the forefront recently of the

repeal, finally come of the unconstitutional don't ask, don't tell law. so it's at the forefront and led by president obama. the forefront of moving past one of the obstacles to true equality in our society. so i think given those two achievements, it should be a lot easier for dod to lead on this issue. and i just suggest that all of the reforms going on are appropriate. i would urge just one more. i assume that dod has the largest fleet of vehicles by one single owner in the country, perhaps in the world, and wouldn't it be nice if, by some form of administrative action, every single vehicle over some short period of time had to be a fuel-efficient vehicle. just imagine how much difference

that would make. and we don't have to pick one winner, bill. i agree with you, but so do electric vehicles, those that would run on any form of biofuel, hybrid vehicles, pick a number of them, dod can drive innovation for those vehicles. and it can also be as a mass producer, the place that drives efficient production which makes all those vehicles more available at an affordable cost for the public, which now wants to buy those vehicles. so all this i think it's a win-win. the only loser, sadly, is the united states congress, which is at the back of the line. and hopefully, soon the public will also be involved in demanding appropriate bipartisanship out of our congress, a place like wilson center is trying, and i think other of these major thoughtful

outfits in this town are trying to urge that to happen. thank you. >> thank you, jane. [applause] >> i would now like to turn things over to mit professor john deutch who has a long and distinguished career working on energy and security issues. thank you. >> thank you very much, brooke. energy security is a word that reminds us that important domestic energy developments have international consequences. and important international events have domestic consequences. nuclear accident in japan, affects the outlook for nuclear power everywhere in the world. dependent on oil imports, constraints our foreign policy options of the united states and its allies.

shell gas presents a problem by increasing the supply of natural gas throughout the world. and, of course, climate change remains the subject which is the greatest tension between the north and south in the years ahead. so there's a reason to salute bill lynn and dan poneman for their actions to support the energies, the president energy security initiative. and we should all, the public should welcome the places where different executive branch agencies cooperate. and here's an excellent example. the overriding objective of this effort, in my view, should be to reduce the cost and the logistic burden of providing energy to u.s. military forces in peacetime and in conflict situations. success in the enterprise has a potential of having big benefits

for the private and commercial sector. i just want to mention a couple of places where i think the opportunities are great in the near term, and where we in the public should be measuring the progress that dod and d.o.e. and is very exciting venture. it's been mentioned many of these have been mentioned by previous speakers. energy management for dod facilities and operations is a tremendous place to save money and to reduce logistics burden of our activities. the department of energies efficiency and renewable programs can be used here for more efficient building design and operation, integrating buildings in places and managing that energy, management for those spaces is one way, one integrated manner. experimenting with plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles to

replace natural gas fleet and the department of defense basis. it's very important that these activities get document because it in that way the value will be spread to the private sector. we've also heard opportunities from bill lynn to support deployed operations in the projects that have taken place but in doing that we have to remember that the principal force deployed operations, the principal concern has to remain the security of our forces, self protection of our forces, and the fact that individual in the field are men, women in the field are heavily heavily worked of overwork and there will be little opportunity to experiment with different things, so we have to be selective. fortunately, the department of defense has to very able officials in cherbourg and dorothy to pursue these activities. and i am optimistic about.

let me say something about the longer-term opportunities here for cooperation which remain in technology area. here i would highlight the areas of batteries, a place where technical advance has tremendous positive effect of both the military and for the private sector. i don't carry 18 pounds of batteries, but i carry a lot of them around their candidate for to have a less. [inaudible] >> fuel cells is another place, and i were also mentioned alternative fuels here at the research and development on alternative fuels, whether it is fuels from cellulose and biomass, whether it is gas, natural gas converted to liquid, or whether it is fuels from algae or other sources. it's very important that department working with the d.o.e., department of defense working with d.o.e., have

enabled people doing this. the head of our biggie -- our biggie in pushing the -- they issue should be on focus. let me close with one remark. i'm a big person on managing these sorts of enterprise. if it hasn't been done, i think a joint project for this initiative should be established by the department of that and department of energy. i believe that project office should have a budget set by the distinguished deputy secretaries of these different departments, and put into place a process for selecting them on very many different options that are available here so that one doesn't spread the effort to thin. and i believe milestone should be set for this project so we

the public can see how well they are making progress. i close by saying that i know that u.s. industry, and certainly u.s. universities, are eager to participate in support this venture and it is a privilege to be here with you this morning. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, john. i'd now like to turn to one of our leading thinkers and instigators for a creative approaches to energy security, the president of the center for american progress, john podesta. >> thanks, brooke. and it's good to be here and appreciate the invitation. lots been said by both secretary -- i just want to add a couple of points to after secured that the country faces. i think secretary lynn went through in detail from the perspective of the department of defense, the 30 challenge, but

think economic security challenge ask it has national security applications as well. were spending a billion dollars a day importing oil. that's no half of our trade deficit, probably will be more than half our trade deficit by the time we're done this year with the runt of in the price of oil. before libya, 20% of our oil was coming from states, countries that the state department classified as either dangerous or unstable. so should it come as no particular shock that in one of those places events would happen that would likely cause the price of oil to spike. secretary lynn laid out in detail the operational tactical security questions on the warfighters. and i think it bears repeating. john deutch mention as well, the fact that our warfighters are lugging around 18 to 30 pounds

of batteries in afghanistan for 72 hours has its own operational effect. and it is something that i think that obvious he needs to be attended to. i, therefore, would really commend the secretary's for this program of trying to answer the challenge. and i think particularly secretary hahnemann noted lending the expertise of the two departments, the innovation and the emphasis on new technology that comes from the department of energy and the operational requirements of the department of defense, the ability in a sense to be able to be a first purchaser of some of these technologies that would never get off the market in the commercial land. by the operational requirements that dod has provided a place that the high-performance new

technology i think can really find the place in and find their market. i would like to just add a couple of points to what has already been said about how to think about this and have this program can be even ramped up to a higher level. at the center for american progress we've been thinking about the energy security challenge, and have focused on a mantra of the fact that we need to build markets, we need to give companies access to financing, and we need to expand the u.s. clean energy infrastructure. and i think this program applies in all three ways. with respect to building markets, i think there's been a good deal of discussion already this morning about the ability to its advance purchase to be able to kick in new technologies, particularly in the biofuels arena. i've been spending some of my

time on other kinds of advanced technologies at the direct expression of hydrocarbons from microorganisms. but i think there are a suite of investments that are being made by d.o.e. that have applicability that dod. and i think thinking those programs up between arpa-e as secretary mabus has done with d.o.e., as i think it's a promising aspect. so one thing i think that i would note is that the defense logistics agency can only divide five your awarded contracts. and one of the places there's legislation on they would need to extend the to a ten-year period, which i think would give the potential to develop new markets, particularly for these new technologies. and i think that's something that is worth looking at in gaining the support of the administration. with respect to financing, i think, again, d.o.e. has a lions

share of the role in terms of providing the companies that are trying to come up with breakthrough products. there are issues inside, in the law about whether companies with loan guarantees can then use those loan guarantees to essentially service government contractor that provision was the limit in the recovery act, but i think going forward it needs to be considered, because i think access to do the programs gives the opportunity for companies to find stable financing in the private sector and can bring not just government money and taxpayer money to the table, but a good deal of private sector money as well. and then with respect to expanding u.s. clean energy infrastructure, a good deal, again, sr even said about particularly in the built in if i'm using the best, and most new

efficient technology in the dod, you know, building in that area. and building efficiency. one place that my colleagues at the center have focused on that has gotten perhaps some less attention is at the air force and with respect to using airplane hangars as now going on in the private sector as a source of installation first solar technology. and i recommend now to you we found that there can be tremendous savings from retrofitting u.s. air force airplane hangars to provide savings in that area. the other thing that i think is important is to think about the energy infrastructure, i will close with this, as an opportunity to essentially the way dod thinks about, thinks about, bill, it's need to invest

in the defense bases. when you think about energy in that context, taking the lessons from the program creating the workforce and technology and innovation flows in manufacturing, and applying those and energy arena would be i think a very useful place for the collaboration between sharon and her team, and the d.o.e. team. so let me finish without. [applause] >> okay, now would like to open it up for your questions or comments. i heard a rumor that would be microphones. yes, we have been. so just raise your hand if you have a question or comment, and will bring a microphone to you.

>> and please identify yourself. >> i am court and davidson with davidson energy group. what question we have, sort of a website on the commercial side, the possibly of loan guarantees for private companies. on the early stage side we have arpa-e, darpa and so on. there's that gap in their, and i would be interested, you know, some people call the cash flow value death. the point is getting technologies into pilot demonstration size, which are pretty costly in and of themselves if you're talking about production technology, just be interested in the panel's thoughts on how to bridge that gap. >> i'm sure others will have comments. week, i think, often think of two valleys of death. traditionally, the department of energy has invested very, very early stage when there are so many dozens of supporters of unexpected earnings lying out in

front of you. it's not reasonable to expect any shareholder to be that nation. and for me, the classic example of we've been looking at live with what we're now seeing in shale gas in the late '70s and early '80s we invested $169 million in look at some of these horizontal drilling and tracking techniques, looking at coal bed methane, and a point where the industry has zero interest and, of course, now out of a 22 trillion cubic foot market, annual in the u.s., about one-fifth of that comes from one convention. what happened is after those initial investment, then you can get investors and second and private at the coming. but then we do have much to acknowledge with your questions, loan guarantee space, you had second valley of death we have demonstrated technologies, but you have been able to bring it to a scale that you can get the kind of market that would then allow them the company to grow and prosper. and this is rendered even more

acute by two factors. one is in the case that we've been promoting an hour, some of our phone programs, such as a 1703 program. without a price on carbon it's been very hard for a lot of those projects to get fined if they can secondly, following the big credit crunch in 2008, the loans to get a payback, 20, 25 years, that's been hard to get. so we had used that program in that gap. so we really do it as too gaps that the very early stage plays, that we have made some of our crucial proposals, indeed is more on the front end and a great innovation of arpa-e has come looking for this transformation breakthroughs was really rather modest investment in changing the whole metaphor, or the kind of paradigm that we're using, john podesta refer to our electric fuels program, looking at ways with

microorganisms to get away from petroleum-based fuels. some of these things are still way out there. so we're using all your traditional grants programs, but arpa-e and similar energy research and centers to address some of those challenges. just one of the word i would put on that one is, some of these issues where you have a big energy problem that has crosscutting trends, and it's not always easy to break through the stovepipes. that's what the secretary of energy, steve chew gum has put his focus on building these hubs are building efficiency, grid level storage we think it's more of the bell labs of manhattan project interdistrict team of a grayscale and a clear direction. that is where between those two different bags of death. >> two things to what dan said to first is the problem of transferring, the research ideas into programs of record is not unique to the energy areas there is a challenge for everything we

do. and the path i think in the energy area is probably stronger than in most other areas. and it derives what i talked about, the operational utility of improve energy efficiency in the field in afghanistan is being demonstrated, and that generates a huge bowl from the operational forces into the requirements process. and that tends to jump that air gap between research and production. the other pole is the potential to save large amounts of money. we already spend $15 billion a year on energy to the extent that we can reduce the growth in that area. there's a very real return on that. the resources can be better spent in other areas. so again, that generates a strong pull that tends to pull

across that gap from the duty perspective. but that gap is definitely there and you have to manage it. >> can't i just say something on that? i agree with that, and from my expense representing a district that i call the satellite center of the universe, i have seen the gaps you're talking about. but i also think we already have done a lot of the major work on some of the energy savers that have immediate and demonstrated application, like solar. the defense makers have come perfected the use of solar power in space. and applying it commercially is both a profit center for them and something they know how to do well. and i'm not saying they're the only people who know how to do this, but i thought it was very interesting to hear bills of stories about how it's being applied on a mobile bases in of the. i just remember helping to get a little bit of money in the

defense budget for an effort in kandahar to provide additional redundant cell towers to make sure that cell phones worked at night, a big security move there. and those cell towers were powered i solar power. and so we already know how to do this, to some extent, and creating a mass market that is necessary to help a lot of those of you in the private sector to produce this stuff at an efficient cost will get, not only the defense department and government in this game, but get more private sector in again. so i think we're very close if we can just work together and make sensible moves right now. to crossing a threshold here that will save money, save lives, reduce the deficit. let's remember that.

we're going to cut defense spending hopefully nyc ways, and if we can cut energy use that would be a very wise way. >> well, we don't all need to answer every question but let me just say a couple of things. one is that there are bipartisan proposals on the hill to provide greater financing support through the form of multi-windows green financing facilities. i think that would help indirect answer to your question. but i think that particularly with perspective of this summer you i would come back to something john deutch said, which is the joint management of this program and i think give a strategic direction to the investments that dod will make, based on their requirements that will provide the platform for companies to go out and face the private sector funding, through advanced procurement and other

demonstrations. and across the field that we have been discussing, across the field of technologies and a suite of technologies where been discussing. i think duty has a very important role to play in thing essentially ending a consumer that can provide the basis to give those companies the ability to raise private sector capital. and again, in the market and make a place on the commercial side as well. >> other questions? in the front. >> harry goodman. thank you, bill and dan, for your leadership in dod and d.o.e. and congresswoman harman, thank you for your many years of leadership, and john, john deutch, thank you for your leadership.

both of you, and you know, this is a critical area where i think we have unique opportunity now, and that can build on work that is already, that we've talked about today has already been well put in place. john, you recall when you were at dod, were to extend into the demonstration face, energy environment and energy technology programs that even established act by senator nunn in the strategic and private research and develop program. you help create a program which is funding some of the work we're talking about today. dan, you have talked about a funding mechanism in d.o.e. i think there's an opportunity here in m.o.u. perhaps better to rely perhaps anderson joined program office or some funny, the later stage funding getting to the early our and the stage which could also then have support from the congressional

bipartisan efforts that's working its way through congress now. senator udall, jeffords and others. there are some republican cosponsors, who would support in changing these efforts there to align this to me defense needs. as the demand signal perhaps more for the energy and fuel declines with the pressures on our budget and on troop withdrawal would be important i think to help sustain this effort in an increasingly challenging market. that might be what opportunity. >> thank you. that was an important comment. we probably have time for two more questions. right there in the back. >> hi. okay, thank you. in industry we talk about how this conversation all the time, and i think we have raised a

couple of points about industry can contribute to clean energy, but i'd like to just hear a few other ideas of what the expectations are for industry moving forward as we grow together towards clean energy. i tend to think what does it measure, what isn't measured, what doesn't get measured doesn't get done. and i know that sometimes we put into our competitive bidding process or dod does, requirements for clean energy. but our just like a few more words on that and what your expectations are. anti. ..

>> smaller companies around the room to come up with ideas that will be breakthrough in nature in breaking our back of independence and energy and costs that that carries with it. >> i would just make two kinds of comments. one of my former mentors also appear on the stage, john deutsche, used to always tell me if you don't measure it and you don't manage it and some of it has to do with measuring things. so we have done a lot of work, for example, and it applies equally well with our work in pentagon because they have over 300,000 buildings.

energy audits when you sell a house you get a termite inspection so if you have an energy audit inspection that will tell you what you're losing, for example, by various inefficiencies, particularly important in this country whereas china and india are building 250 million instructors for people who do not exist in the next quarter century we have tremendous existing stock so if we can start to build in those kinds of measurement tools, now i've got a predicate upon which i can finance a pretty modest investment and a home energy whetherization efficiency and it's a couple thousand books who's looking at a very stuff economicizati economicization -- e-connelly. i think it's still important for us to put goals out there. i think the president is very, very articulate at the state of the union. if we could double the amount of

energy we get from clean resources from our electricity power generation between now and 2035, get it up to 80%, that's a driver and to the extent that it's expressed through legislation and senators bingaman and murkowski put out a questionnaire on ces and they are taking data in, that can give us an achievable yet ambitious goal that will help drive us and help drive investmen investments. things like the cafe standards have been phenomenally successful in getting us to be more efficient in a way that does bring in support from industry and most recently the georgetown speech when the president asked for us to lower our oil import bills by a third by 2025, all of these things by setting a target then have a cascading effect on other things that can be done to make sure that we're making the kinds of investments in energy and that we're having policy and regulatory tools employed to support those overarching

objectives that can help us achieve that goal. >> any other comments or should we move on? >> one of our competitors northup grummond also located in my former district has made a huge deal about reducing the energy footprint of its facilities. i'm not saying raytheon has not but with gigantic satellite bases and other energy consuming facilities you have opportunity to change the way you like them and hate them and how they're insulated, et cetera, et cetera. and you can be a good neighbor or a better neighbor, wherever you are located, which is in many parts of this country in the world, and if you do that, you reduce your own costs which presumably increases your competitiveness. and so i would just put that out there as athing you might

consider. >> i would just follow-up, i think what bill says is building at the front end of the procurement process, the requirements for the full lifecycle of the system is really critical. that's really what's going to make a huge difference. i think to the point of setting goals, i think the very aggressive goals particularly set by all the services but by particularly by secretary ma-bas in the navy that those people working in the procure environments what the navy is likely to look like in 2016 and 2020 and how do you meet those extremely aggressive requirements to back out so much dependence particularly on oil. and think about that from a development perspective. so i think that's a very exciting development. and it just needs to be pushed

through, i think, to -- to conclusion and fruition under your leadership. so i commend you for that. >> okay. let's take a question here. yes, and then we'll go there and then we'll go here. >> i'm jay and i'm on assignment at the u.s. state department at the moment as a jefferson fellow. thank you, professor for moti mentioning their role. my question is for state and local government all around the world and not just in the states. they are made in many state and local levels in many parts of the world and how can dod and doe encourage the local governments, governments from maybe 20-plus states now in

terms of local and state communities that have overall consumption? >> there are a couple of things. we had a recent experience in this field under the recovery act which -- under which the department of energy was entrusted with over $30 billion of taxpayer money. significant portions of that went directly to the states to support state energy programs. we also had community block grants. and these were for precisely the kinds of investments you would want to make in weatherization and so forth that would help give, frankly, a strong incentive for communities to do that. that's point 1. point 2, if you look at the kinds of programs that we continue out of our continuing efforts competitions we've had under aarpa many have state

participants. so for the government at the level of presidential policy and secretary chu to sort of set the goal on the opposite shore and then have specific programs where those participants who can come up to spec -- i had the opportunity to travel with senator shaheen up to new hampshire, and it was like a scene out of "it's a wonderful life." they had a high school out of solar panels on it and it was supported under the local bank so you can actually build these microcosms but my last point is, because the president has said who wins the energy revolution will win the world, there actually is a, i think, quite robust self-interest that can drive states in localities to make the kinds of public policy choices and such catalytic efforts that a state and local government can make so that their private sectors can get

involved so i don't wish to sound like it's a straight state-dominated washington-centric model. i think it can really be much more diverse than that. i think dod's role with state and local governments will be indirectly in the overall underlying process the document that dan and i signed was develop a partnership between doe's technology and dod's operational needs. the result of that as i describe can be microgrid, solar panels, breakthroughs in fuel cell technology. all of that can be imported in the commercial market including state and local governments. the benefits of using dod is that because of the scale we essentially come with our own market and so if we can pioneer these things, they can then be transferred to commercial use,

and then that starts to address the broader national security issues that john podesta raised about reducing the deficit, reducing our reliance on suppliers who don't have our best interests in mind and so on. [inaudible] >> national guard -- [inaudible] >> absolutely. >> why don't we take a question in the third row. >> michael moynihan director of the 2.0 initiative. with the goal of increasing the resilience of communications, the defense department undertook investments in the internet which ended up achieving those goals and also yielding a very substantial benefits economically, domestically as well as what was intended originally on the communication side. and u.s. companies have gone on to be leaders and the internet has probably played a major role in u.s. leadership in the information technologies.

in the case of electricity, we have a situation today where the structure of the industry probably resembles to some extent the old communication system. its centralized attempts to be top-down and it doesn't have that distributional resilience built in. i wonder if anyone could comment on perhaps the parallels of whether it might make sense through these microgrids that the secretary has alluded to and other innovative technologies -- how resilience on the electricity side could end up having economic benefits for u.s. clean energy companies and others? thanks. >> well, that's, of course, the promise. and i think that the other thing that characterized telecommunications system of the 1960s and through the -- almost through the breakup of at&t was the limited r & d that was going in the lifecycle of new products

that were coming into the market. and that rapidly changed when the system opened up, if you will; created an open architecture and you saw the dynamism of the -- of the ability of having that cascading effect of new innovation, new information, opening up the communications grid to innovation, if you will, at the edge of the cloud. that's what has to happen, i think, in energy. and can happen. but that will probably take policy at both the national and the -- and particularly at the state level to open the opportunity up for innovation to be fully integrated into that sort of grid but i think that's the promise of a revolution in energy technology. >> okay. why don't we go here to the fron

front. >> my name is fred julander i run an exploration company in the rockies. the energy secretary pointed out that in the early '80s there was a lot of work being done and research, methane originally on horizonal drilling and fracturing. i participated in that with y'all. it had wonderful results. in fact, i had results so wonderful that many people -- and i'm afraid maybe most people here do not recognize -- you've won the war. you have -- you talk about who secures the energy will win the war. you secured the energy. shale gas -- the amount of shale gas that we discovered is immense. i can't tell you how much there is. i believe, and i'm sure john deutch will disagree to some

extent. i'm not sure about mr. podesta. you can run the world with gas. you can do away with nuclear and coal and you can run the world off gas in emerging renewables. renewables and gas are complementary. they are complementary not antithetical and we can drill gas and produce it with new technology so the leaks are held to one-tenth of 1% which means -- with the systems, you can win the carbon war. you can beat climate change and keep the count down to 250 by 2050. you've won the war. my proposition -- i ask you to say if you have an element unlimited amount of gas, what are you going to do with it? how much are you going to use it and how much redundancy of other types of fuels do we need? but this is a transformational event and it needs to be

recognized. >> okay. >> i think everybody is going to want to chime in so i will be brief. first of all, it is transformational and the opening remarks that john made how the domestic affects the international vice versa rings true. think about how many winters we read in the press how pipeline issues were causing all kinds of security issues across central europe. so your premise we broadly agree with, point 1. point 2, as our energy information administration has just shown, the kind of discoveries of the resource internationally are now also adding another 600 pcf or something on that order of magnitude. so point 1, the opportunity is great. >> point 2, as i made very clear at georgetown, at the same time we have to be very smart and careful about how we develop the resource and, of course, john deutch will be speaking more to that because the secretary's energy advisory board together

with the department, department of energy and epa are going to be working on that aspect. third point i would just note is a point about energy security to me in many respects is talking about diversification. and i think we still believe in a need of a broad portfolio approach to the future, not putting our eggs in any one basket and, therefore, we do see the continued need to look to for power generation of low carbon, the nuclear option taking full account of the lessons we're drawing from the fukushima experience. and indeed coal -- if you look at india and china is going to be with us and, therefore, carbon capture sequestration will continue to be important and i know others want to speak so i'm not going to -- >> i would -- i would add just a couple of words which is that there still needs to be -- this is still an area where the problems are not solved.

innovation needs to happen. and in part, i think, that is on the set of questions that dan raised about the careful development of those supplies. but in part it's on the end use on the side of natural gas. so if it's actually going to be a replacement fuel for oil, there's still a tremendous amount of capacity. i think we're focused on this to some extent, of thinking about where those innovations can take place, whether that's in -- using the actual gas as a precursor to chemicals, whether it's in using natural gas as a -- as a substitute for liquid fuel or using natural gas as essentially a feed stock for liquid fuel. so there's still work that needs to be done and i think both these departments have an important role to play in that. >> i want to be clear -- there's enough gas to convert the liquids to supply the chemistry

and to do base load generation. the other thing is the oil and gas industry -- my industry needs to change its culture, enhance the standards and become the most noble, trustworthy, friendly acceptable industry on earth and we've got a long way to do that. [inaudible] >> we have one more question in the back. >> you know, i mean, you still have to deal with the fact that it is a fossil fuel and you have a c02 issue. >> okay, this will be the last question, yes, right there. >> paul with boeing energy. i'd like to thank the white house for hosting this event today. i appreciate the opportunity to have this leadership in front of us. there's a lot of challenges facing the military, and i think that if the pots of money that are considered for the funding of these projects, which don't exist now, and the fact that the investment comes from a source

that doesn't then realize the savings, then you have a discontent. and that's where i think the white house and the leadership and osd can weigh in and create a situation that recognizes this so that the investment that may not come back in two or three years but comes back in five or ten years for a building that's going to exist for fifty years can get implemented. and right now you have the services implementing net zero bases and no funding. no funding. it's all totally reliant on the private sector. and the private sector has to go to market to get those funds and yet the military is prohibited right now from building installations for power because, number one, there's no priority given in the funding for security at all. none. for energy efficiency, reducing

greenhouse gases, yes. but security, no. and that funding is reliant on the ability to sign long-term contracts with the military. and omb scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that. if there's one thing this administration could fix is the policy issue regarding scoring of energy -- renewable energy products on military installations to allow the military to lead like the energy leadership here in this room -- they're all here. they will do it. and the industry is ready to come back and help do it. but you've got to get rid of this impediment or it can't be done. we just can't do it. we could power the government just by burning the federal laws, regulations and executive orders for at least a year.

[laughter] >> on energy. so last but not least, mr. podesta, if you come down to charleston, south carolina, you'll get to see the largest thin film solar on boeing's new 787 plant that will provide most of the power for the plant. thank you. >> i'll take that as an invitation. bill, i think a question for you? >> let me say a couple things. if you can solve for me the two issues you mentioned in the omb scoring and i think the other was congressional restrictions on what kind of power we're allowed to do in the power industry, that would be terrific. that would certainly ease our lives. what we are trying to do is put in a mix of centralized funding and component-level funding so that, for instance, we funded at a centralized level the installation energy test bed to

test out these various technologies. no individual component is going to make the multiyear investment that it takes to develop these technologies and then test them, but once you have them, the return is quite -- it comes quite quickly and so the incentives for a component to be more energy efficient in its installations, in its buildings pays back very quickly. and so what we're trying to do is get the centralized funding in a position where it primes the pump for the components to then utilize those technologies to reduce their costs, reduce their energy consumption. the broader issues that you mention are substantial and they have to be -- they have to be tackled, but it's beyond one department to do that. >> any other comments? okay. we will close with a question that came in via facebook.

eric says transport is the biggest use of fossil fuels products in the u.s. and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that? >> i missed the opening. >> transport. i'll read it again. it's from eric and it came from facebook. he said transport is the biggest use of fossil fuel products in the united states and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that? so a broad question that we can end on, dan? >> a number of things and again, the president has spoken very clearly to this. number one, by dropping our imports by a third and making room for hopefully ultimately a drop in biofuels, that's going to be a very important part of the equation and indeed this

partnership we hope can provide some of the driving force in that direction. number two, the electricification of our vehicle fleet. we have already taken a very diversified approach that through our loan guarantee program, we invested $5.9 billion in a full suite of vehicles for incremental improvements on their engine on the theory that a modest improvement across a large market segment would have a large effect as jane has noted all the way to the full electric vehicles of test line, the nissan leaf and a plug-in hybrid in between with fisker. the president wants a million of those on the road by 2015. a whole suite of what we're doing in terms of everything from enhancing domestic production, responsibly, of course, of oil and gas resources that will reduce the import use on that. the increasing use of biofuels

and the research that you've heard described earlier today, whether it's in terms of the fuels and the whole suite is directed to shifting the transportation fleet of the united states off of its current path of excessive dependence on imported oil. the last thing i will say to think about and i agree with the points john podesta was making earlier, the need to think in an overall systems approach as we electrify the fleet, obviously, the critical issue shifts to how you're powering the fleet with stationary sources and that's why you need to have this broad portfolio approach so that we're, obviously, no longer relying on oil as we used to decades ago. but in time, we're going to have to reduce the reliance on things that have -- as high a green house gas portfolio starting with the goal but again as john podesta indicated, even as we move to gas combined cycle

plants for peaking that, too. in time we'll have to get the carbon capture piece going as well. >> bill lynn, any final words? >> well, clearly, transportation is a critical part of our efforts to reduce our dependence on energy, whether it's the direct operations of the -- of our military forces or probably even more importantly, it's the transportation of the fuel from its source to the operations in afghanistan exposes the forces to enormous vulnerability so every step we can take to reduce that is a critical step in the plan. >> i want to endorse that and the comment that john podesta made about energy security being a huge piece of our national security. let's keep that in mind. on transportation, not just the dod-centric. my former district has four major refineries in it.

one of them is a chevron refinery, el segundo where much of the aerospace in california is based it's same el segundo and everything on cars goes in the neighborhood which has one driver in them and no passengers so let's understand the way america moves is as energy inefficient and as energy insecure as it possibly could be. and so a goal -- and we have apparently more vehicles in this country than we have people with driver's licenses. so if we could focus on that a bit and think about the advantages to our country, of things like high-speed rail, which was zeroed in the c.r. that congress just passed for this fiscal year -- i would hope that high gas prices would fuel popular outrage at some of these -- some of this inaction and we would change the way we

fund and the amount that we fund mass transit in this country and just finally my point about the dod transportation fleet is, it can change the culture in this country. it can be a mass driver, pun intended, of the people in our military but it also can create the mass markets necessary to lower the cost of more efficient vehicles for everybody else who hopefully will drive in -- you know, in the same vehicle on hov lanes and contribute to energy security. >> thank you. john podesta? >> well, on the transportation issues specifically, i think the two most important things are vehicle efficiency and completing the rules that are now in the planning phase on the next phase, the president has already done one and completing the rules and getting 60 mile per gallon and getting fleet vehicles standards in place for the early 2020s is probably the

most critical, followed by the new truck rules to provide more efficiency in truck engines. fuels, we already talked about that. shifting to electricity in the passenger vehicle sector and to -- and perhaps natural gas in the fleet sector. and then to follow up on what jane said, southern california is probably is not the -- the model for land use planning but i think if we could make better investments in the new surface transportation bill on public transport that, i think, is another place where there's tremendous capacity in the midterm to save fuel, to reduce the price that consumers are paying to move from one place to another. and to improve budgets