• Research, development, test, and evaluation (“3600”) funds, controlled by A3 (Operations) of which approximately $300 million is to sustain the test program infrastructure. It does not appear that energy-and water-conservation projects have received support from this community. Also, energy and water conservation are not included as part of the discussion in test infrastructure/equipment construction, restoration/modernization, sustainment and demolition.
• Milcon (“3300”) funds for new construction and major renovation and Working Capital Fund Capital Investment Program (WCF CIP), controlled by A4 (Installations and Logistics). The U.S. Army Materiel Command has designated 6 percent of its CIP for infrastructure renewal projects, in compliance with guidance from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (Public Law No. 109-364). The Air Force does not appear to have interpreted this as a “hard and fast” requirement. Although there are recent successes of including energy and water conservation in some infrastructure/equipment upgrades, the concept is not fully integrated into the Depot Maintenance Activity Group framework—which consists of infrastructure/equipment construction, restoration/modernization, and sustainment and demolition.
• Third-party funding, a financial contract in which a company saves the Air Force energy and/or water over a period of years, and for payment over the term, keeps the savings. These include Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Savings Contracts. The Air Force expects to rely more heavily on third-party funding for energy projects in the future as internal funding sources shrink.
No Air Force budget line is specifically devoted to energy. Several workshop participants expressed the idea that these diverse sources tend to lead to a fragmented, ad hoc approach to energy projects that lacks a long-term vision, is suboptimized, and can lead to “color-of-money” constraints. Most participants felt that the Air Force’s use of ESPCs, as required by presidential order, is a good mechanism for providing funding for infrastructure and efficiency improvements in the absence of other funding sources. ESPCs accomplish the goal of reducing energy usage (intensity), although they do not result in cost savings to the Air Force over the near term and may actually result in cost increases if a contract needs to be “bought out” due to base closure or shifting priorities. Nonetheless, absent other funding sources, they appear to be a valid mechanism and worth implementing.
Several workshop participants noted that Air Force personnel should look for opportunities to identify the processes that offer the largest potential ROI for energy-reduction