not yet been addressed, but it is not precluded. One problem is that the meters are of different types and they talk to different proprietary systems, so in some cases it is necessary to pull data from alternative sources.

Col Steven Wood, Vice Commander, 72nd Air Base Wing, Tinker Air Force Base

Col Steven Wood was asked to comment on relevant activity at Tinker AFB, which is a joint Air Force and Navy base with good cooperation between the two. The Navy pays for its electricity based on its usage. From the perspective of the Air Force,, electricity use at Tinker AFB is reported as the fenceline electricity minus amounts attributed to other customers and tenants. In 2009, Tinker AFB took over an old GM plant that was only lightly used, and so the energy-intensity metric dropped (due to the increase in the denominator square footage). Tinker AFB has purchased meters to monitor electricity, gas, and water usage, although they are not all installed. Current energy projects do not yet address industrial process energy, but Tinker AFB is ramping up a team to focus on process energy, as are Hill AFB, Utah, and Robins AFB, Georgia.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012

Col Gregory Ottoman, Chief, Environment and Energy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support

Col Gregory Ottoman, Chief of the Environment and Energy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support, noted that the progress of the Air Force in reducing facility energy intensity (16.8 percent since 2003) leads the other services. The Air Force has three reasons to invest in energy projects: (1) It must try to meet congressional and presidential mandates; (2) the savings in utility costs are considerable, with about $2 dollars saved for every dollar invested; and (3) reducing energy use contributes to national security (although there is no price tag on this benefit). It all boils down to funding, Ottoman said, and finding the dollars to invest will get harder in the future. Restoration and maintenance (R&M) funds for retrofitting facilities that are currently being set aside for energy projects will no longer be set aside in FY 2016, and so energy projects will have to compete with all other projects. These funds can’t be used for improving industrial processes or for laboratories. There are no excess dollars in the infrastructure budget; about $1 billion is available, but the backlog is around $33 billion.

Leadership needs to decide to dedicate funding to energy projects. There is an oversight and resourcing council chaired by Terry Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, that has energy as part of its purview. The focus of federal mandates and EOs on the relatively small fraction of Air Force energy consumed in facilities rather than the much larger fraction used in aviation appears to be skewed, but this is changing. One stated goal was to reduce aviation fuel



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement