next on "this week in defense news," a roundtable discussion about the future of u.s. military energy use with welcome to "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian. the u.s. military is the world's largest user of energy. last year consuming some 5 billion gallons of fuel at a cost of nearly $13 billion, 255% more than it spent in 1997. equally important is that protecting that fuel has cost lives. in afghanistan alone, the defense logistics agency is moving 40 million gallons of fuel each month in convoys that have to be defended against attacks. between 2003 and 2007 alone, 3,000 soldiers and contractors were killed or wounded

protecting fuel supply lines in iraq and afghanistan. those casualties spurred a major pentagon tribe to develop alternative energy sources while also improving the energy efficiency from everything from future weapons. culminating in the first-ever d.o.d. strategy aim at changing how the department thinks and uses energy. october is energy awareness month and we figured this would be a good idea to get some of the pentagon's top energy minds together to talk about the efforts to date and what's ahead. joining us today are casper hammock, the assistant secretary of the army for installations, energy and environment. terry yonkers, the assistant secretary of the air force for environment and logistics, thomas hicks, the deputy secretary of the navy for energy and dorothy robien, the undersecretary of defense for the environment. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> dorothy, i'd like to start with you. for generations -- and then have all of you guys take a

crack at the same question. for generations the u.s. has looked at the energy as a limitless limitless commodity. general martin dempsey said that has to change, there is an imperative greater need for the fuel and martin dempsey hosted an energy roundtable where you guys all participated to focus the department's attention on this issue. what are some of the concrete steps that have been taken over the past couple of years to change the energy and how the department thinks about energy? >> i think the first thing has been a recognition that it is critical to our ability to fight wars effectively, to be more energy efficient, so the change in the culture has been fundamental and that's really, i think, been driven largely by the recognition that the most -- we are at our most vulnerable when we are

transporting fuel to the tactical edge and convoys traveling through the mountains of pakistan are very vulnerable and we're losing lives trying to get that fuel to forward operating bases. so trying to make ourselves more efficient, reduce our demand for fuel in theater. but that realization is extended to our installations which i oversee. we consume $4 billion worth of electricity on our permanent installations. >> on an annual basis? >> on an annual basis, right, electricity to power 300,000 buildings 200,000 fleet vehicles, so broadly speaking, and i'll let my colleagues talk specifics, but broadly speaking, we are trying to above all reduce our

demand for fuel, energy, both fuel and electricity through conservation, through pricing, having people actually face the cost of what they are using by making our weapons systems more fuel efficient, by taking into account what we call the fully burdened cost of fuel, not just what it costs to get the fuel for a weapons system. >> not at the pump, but how much it costs to actually get that gallon of gas over to afghanistan? >> exactly. >> do you have a percentage figure you guys have already started to save or target goal that you're looking at in terms of installation? >> on the installation side, -- we have certain statutory and regulatory goals that we're trying to meet. for example, by 2025, 25% of our electricity consumption needs to come from renewable energy. we're trying to reduce our greenhouses by 34% by 2020. but those goals are not what's driving us. what's driving us is the

recognition that our dependence on fossil fuels makes us a less effective war fighters. >> katherine. what's the army doing? >> i think for us it's cost and capability. over the last 10 years the cost of energy increasing, but at the same time we've increased our capabilities by adding in more electronic devices, whether they're unmanned aviation resources -- >> or remotely operated, or remotely piloted in the air force? >> absolutely. or what a soldier carries. when our soldiers go into theater in the battlefield, they're carrying up to 70 different kinds of batteries, ranging from something the size of an aracer to -- eraser to something the size of a brick and that's weight. it's also capability and we don't want to reduce that capability, but we have to increase the efficiency of those devices, we have to look at lighter weight, we have to look at networked batteries, we have to look at operational energy in a whole lot of different ways. but on our installations, the second highest cost after

manpower is energy. so when an installation is looking at the economic viability of that installation, they have to address reducing their energy consumption as a priority. >> tom. >> well, for us, you know, we look at it, energy security is national security, and so in many ways, you know, what we're focusing on with this is really enhancing our war-fighting capability and focusing on energy allows us to do that. i think as we look at this, the best unit of energy, whether that's a kilowatt hour or a barrel of oil is the one we don't use, so we're putting in place the strategies on our shore to make sure that we're taking out all energy that we can and also looking at our new weapons systems and platforms to make them as efficient as we can as well, and i think those are key areas for us to continue to focus on, to deliver the results that continue to enhance our war- fighting capability. >> terry, what about the air force? >> i think along with my comrades here from the other

services in the department, we're looking at it all very similarly. it is capability, and the cost or the 3z#'dollars that we spen for energy in our installations and on our weapons systems equate to capability. so where you can save a buck on energy, you can buy another airplane or whatever it is that goes to the war fighter. so i do think it's recognition. i mean, in the past, as you say, it's been sort of a limitless. a lot of this was produced domestically, so we weren't dependent on foreign oil like we are today. that equation has changed, so we are more dependent today than we have been in the past. so the recognition of how we achieve energy security, economic security and national security all come together. >> but there are those who say that if you can't really measure it, you can't really control it at the end of the day or you can't accurately measure it. there's a question of what that burden of fuel costs. there are various figures on how much it costs to get fuel

to iraq and afghanistan, for example, or exactly how we're using that energy. does it matter for us to know that information, for us to start making good decisions? >> the cost depends upon where we're delivering it, so we've seen costs range from $6 a gallon up to $40 a gallon, and the $40 is that furthest outpost on a mountaintop, the $6 might be at a base with support. so depending on the points of view, that's the cost factor. what we're really looking at it in the operations and contingency operations is a logistical tale, is it is a burden, and so if we're able to equip the war fighter with equipment that uses less energy than we've increased their capabilities, just like you talked about, increased their resilience so they can do more. tbl in the 30 or so -- >> in the 30 or so seconds left in terms of requirements, what's happening on the concrete requirements side at this point because any change in the pentagon is driven by

requirements change. >> one on our acquisition side, we have put out guidance that requires energy be part of any future acquisitions, and to that end, we have the loading dock ship that we think is the first time any major platform has put energy as a requirement into the selection -- >> landing dock ship? >> right, landing dock shipment. >> more with our energy roundtable in just a minute.

we're back with our roundtable of top pentagon energy officials.

terry, i want to start with you on this one and then hear everybody's take. when it comes to solving the problem, what are some of the most promising technologies for your service, whether it's biofuels, solar panels, nuclear for bases or smaller ships, whether we're talking about converting trash to power, all that stuff, what's the most important stuff? >> last year the united states air force spent $2.2 billion on energy, about $6.8 billion was spent on fuel to fly our jets. so that's our area of focus. and with regards to the technologies that embellish that supply chain, things like biofuels and alternative fuels. so we are are focusing a lot on finding aircraft to be able to fly on virtually any of those kinds of fuels that are produced primarily domestically from biofuels and from liquid and so forth. i think probably one of the most promising technologies is this thing called alcohol to jet. virtually any plant that has a

cellulose base can be converted into a useable fuel that's a drop-in replacement for jp-8 and that's where we're headed with regards to capturing the big rock for the air force. >> tom. >> i think that's another exciting area for the navy as well. we work closely together with the navy and air force. we're working -- we're also working with usda and d.o.e. to accelerate the alternative fuels industry in this country, really aligning for that first- time kind of farmer to producer to consumer and driving toward a market where these fuels are not only available at scale, but also at a price point we can all absorb and use. so that's a big area for us. >> katherine. >> the s&ríarmy is a ground-ba land-based platform, not jets or ships, but the land in which our soldiers are basedded, and so we are looking -- >> more geographically

disbursed? >> alternative energy and renewable energy resources whether they be wind and we've seen the cost for those kind of technologies being driven down by the adaptation in the united states. so we're really excited about the renewable energy potential, and we've got the land and then we've got the demand for energy. so we're looking to the private sector to help us put in large- scale renewable energy. >> i'd like to talk about that in a second. dorothy, what about, for example, we burn lots of trash in iraq and afghanistan. what about trash conversion or even nuclear power? >> let me speak to buildings because buildings account for most of our energy consumption, 40% of our consumption as a country and most of our $4 billion. reducing the energy consumption in buildings requires a lot of different technologies, lighting control technologies, technologies that allow you to continue annually fine tune the operation of the building,

electro chromatic windows that tint automatically and allow you to have a smaller heating system. there's a lot of wonderful technology out there that faces impediments to commercialization. as the owner of 300,000 buildings, it is in our interest to be a test bed for some of that next generation technology, help overcome the risks to commercialization and then as an early customer jump start the market for that technology. >> so then that sort of cycle that guys have set that we've got to get on, for example, one of the reasons folks say the army should develop the delay of more vehicles is to allow hybrids to get more commercialized in the commercial space and get back into vehicles. before we get to incentive structures and the like and how you guys pick to invest in, a lot of this is also changing operating procedures. i remember the air force not doing engine running operations, for example, and shut the airplane down, navy running different parts of the

plan. how much of this is common sense stuff we can apply across the board and net a lot of savings? >> i think it is common sense. we're looking at idling certainly not in only our aircraft and in the aging equipment, but in our vehicles as well. we are looking at any number of operational praments, changing the weight load and distribution in the aircraft, looking at just cleaning the engines which give us a 5% to 10% greater efficiency as we fly around the world. there's any number of kind of common sense things that are not terrifically expensive to do, and then we're also looking at the expensive like reengining aircraft which has a payback over a longer period of time, but it's billions of dollars of payback. >> i think one of the things we're doing on our ships, for example, in san diego is as they plug into shore, looking to kind of power down that ship as much as we can, and then providing that information out to that entire class of ships so it's not just that ship that plugs into san diego, it's wherever that class of ship

plugs in, they know how far they can power down. >> money is getting increasingly tight. how do you guys pick the right investments to make over the long term? dorothy? >> in general i think we are making direct investments in those things that will pay back in the near future, in between one and five years. if the payback is longer than that, we typically look to the private sector to fund it. so most of our large-scale renewable, solar, wind, we're financing that through the developer as opposed to directly and the same is true for a lot of our building improvements. >> what's the right way, though, to incentivize the commercial sector to make some of these investments to reduce their bill because obviously if you're a defense contractor, there's pass-along costs that go over to the government, to government programs. to ge the entire organism incentivized to save energy? >> i think it's demand and certainly how you put the contract in place so that the commercial activity can get a

return on investment with as little risk as possible. so i think it's us making that commitment up front that, in fact, we are going to stay with this venture for the length of time that it's going to take to return on the investment. but it's the business case analysis that informs the decisions, and as we look at the austere funding environment, it's coming down to nickels and dimes. >> it's also making sure that everyone understands that energy is a key performance factor. so when we're looking at new drop-in helicopter engines -- >> for example, what you guys are looking at? >> that's right. we have a requirement that you w have a 25% reduction in energy consumption, yet we want a doubling of the lift and torque in the engine. right now it gives that's a win all. >> coming up more with our

we're back with our roundtable of top pentagon energy officials from the army,

katherine hammock, thomas hicks from the navy, from the air force terry yonkers and dorothy robien from d.o.d. katherine, let me start with you. i'd like to get everybody's take on this, right now investment is a bit of a dirty word in washington. everybody is looking at cutting spending. how do you make effectively the case that actually spending money on this is something that's worthwhile in terms of reaping long-term benefits? >> because energy costs have risen over the last several years. i think we're all aware that if we save energy we reduce costs. so in an era of declining budgets, we have to be more efficient, we have to be more effective. i think people recognize that investing in energy efficiency, energy technology is the right thing to do. >> tom. >> and i would just say, you look at what we've done and put into our fy '12 budget, we put in over $1 billion in energy investment. that's going to pay for itself in five to six years but that will accrue in years six through 20 and maybe beyond and that's what we can use in our declining budget to fund and

pay for other things. energy really is key to going forward. >> terry. g2air force has invested over $700 million this year. i suspect as we go down this path that's going to increase, but for the same reasons. smart investments are going to give us savings and it's not just in a one year, it is across the spectrum of our budgets from here on out. >> dorothy. >> the department of defense at the end of the day is a technology agency investing in r and d, very high leverage. we have a very strong track record and i think we'll continue to make those sort of investments in energy. so r and d is critical. and the other area, recognizing it is a tough budget environment, draw on the private sector, use third-party financing as much as possible to build the large-scale renewable projects to improve our buildings. there's a lot of opportunity to take advantage of third-party funding. >> and folks have a very good financial interest to actually get involved in it. >> question, absolutely.

>> and -- yes, absolutely. >> and depending on how the government structures it, you could end up making money which is how you have structured some capital projects, haven't you? >> yes. >> in the 1970s we had the save- a-watt, every light switch had a turn off, turn on to save a watt. there was not necessarily i think the kind of buy-in that's required. has everybody in the u.s. military pretty much bought in at every level that this is something that's an operational imperative to do? >> we're talking about right now saving energy saving lives, especially when you talk about in theater right now. one in every 46 convoys suffers a casualty and 70% to 80% of our convoys are carrying water or fuel. so i think our military, especially even at the entry level understands that when you're saving energy you are helping your fellow soldier. >> you're getting combat capability out of that too. as we've been taking in and putting in to our environment, we've taken out 90% of the energy making that expeditionary for us, the most

lethal force its ever been and it's because they're not as connected to, tethered to energy. >> i think there's a complete buy-in here and i think it's because of the changing culture and thought process of how we look at energy and how we're going to manage energy in the future. >> dorothy, full buy-in? >> i agree generally. >> tom, we've got less than a minute left, let me ask you about the naifiest's new warship, it's supposed to be very, very fast, you want to buy 55 of them. critics say because of its speed, it's a huge fuel burner. how do you respond to critics who say this might not be the right ship for the navy's future given that energy is an issue. >> let me talk to you what we are doing with respect to energy and our platforms. we do have a policy in place that all acquisitions going forward will look at energy as the key performance criteria. we also -- and that's true of the loading dock ship that we have as well as some other activities we have and some other procurements. but we also have -- we can

point towards the u.s.s. macon island, the hybrid drive performance portfolio is under its power and from i understand maiden voyage from mississippi to san diego saved over $2 million and over the course of its lifetime will save quarter a billion dollars. that's the direction the department of navy ;x)[÷is head >> guys, thanks very much for joining us. best of luck to your carls for their progress. thank you. >> coming up in my notebook, why it

as fiscal austerity descends on washington, investment is becoming a dirty word to cut the u.s. debt. historically america has done well when invested in its future, that's certainly the case when its to increasing

energy and dependence on fossil fuels. this isn't just an environmental issue. the nation's top military commanders rightly see this as an operational issue. dependence on oil means convoys of tanker trucks that are subject to attack. our enemies know how dependent we are on fuel to fight and america has lost many brave troops guarding these supplies. the solution is to diversifying the sources of energy that power everything from bases at home to combat outposts abroad. in fact, the nation's current fiscal woas offer an ideal argument to investment in the long-term, given many efficiency projects over a decade can yield savings of 30% or more and rapid advancements in alternative energy sources like solar, win, battery and hybrid technologies, combined with improvements to make existing and future buildings more energy efficient promise even greater savings while improving national security. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. you can watch this program online at thisweekindefensenewstv.com or you can e-mail me at

vago@defensenewstv.com. i'll be back next week at ♪ [ male announcer ] when we unveil the all-new 2012 m-class, we're actually introducing a vehicle built upon 125 years of engineering excellence. which is why, no matter what is happening in the world outside,