Use of renewable energy. Energy-remote installations in Alaska and Hawaii face some unique  differences from the installations located in the 48 contiguous states. DOD Met Some Reporting Requirements and Correctly Reflected the Military Services’ and Defense Agencies’ Data and Other Inputs in Its Fiscal Year 2013 Energy Report, but the Data Are Unreliable

		DOD’s Fiscal Year 2013 Energy Report Met Some but Not All Reporting Requirements

Of the 12 reporting requirements for DOD’s Energy Report, our analysis  showed that the department fully addressed 6, partially addressed 4, and  did not address 2. The requirements fully addressed included describing  actions taken to implement the energy performance master plan and  energy savings realized from such actions, among other requirements. DOD Reported Data in Its Energy Report That Was Captured and Reported Using Different Methods, Rendering It Unreliable

We found that the military services and defense agencies captured and  reported data using different methods in three areas of the Energy  Report: energy consumption of tenants and hosts, energy projects, and  end-of-fiscal-year data. Military Services Are Helping to Ensure Energy Security at U.S. Energy-Remote Installations, but Areas of Risk Remain

		Military Services Are Helping to Ensure Energy Security

The military services are helping to ensure energy security at all  installations in Alaska and Hawaii by installing multiple power sources,  which can be utilized in the event of an outage, at their remote facilities. However, across the military services, officials told us that energy security  projects do not compete well for funding because there is no clarity  regarding the role that energy security plays in military service processes  when evaluating a project for funding. Officials at six of the nine locations we visited or contacted cited difficulty  obtaining funding for energy security or would like to see dedicated  funding for energy security projects. For example, officials overseeing the  Air Force’s Alaska Radar System stated that they have sought military  construction funding since 2002 to build a networked system of multiple  fuel tanks, referred to as a tank farm, at three off-grid locations that each  has only one large fuel tank. However, the officials said they are having  difficulties obtaining funding because energy security projects do not  compete well against other military construction projects, such as those  for new facilities or mission-critical activities. For example, they said that energy security projects—which have  significant infrastructure costs—do not compete well for funding against  energy conservation efforts based on return on investment. As a result, military service officials told us that  they had difficulty incorporating energy security into funding decisions. Without clarification of the  processes the military services use to compare and prioritize projects for  funding to include consideration of energy security, it will be difficult for  decision makers to have sufficient information to adequately prioritize  energy security projects for funding when appropriate and thus address  energy security issues. Fort Greely officials  stated that the Army hired a contractor to conduct a study to identify  alternative energy solutions to lower costs and still provide energy  security. Without reexamining the  process for producing the Energy Report to help ensure it fully complies  with statutory requirements, providing more consistent guidance to the  installations, and identifying in the Energy Report instances in which data  may not be comparable among the military services and defense  agencies and the reasons why, it will be difficult for decision makers in  DOD to plan effectively for steps to reach energy goals, and Congress will  have limited oversight of the department’s energy consumption and  difficulty in comparing energy projects among those reporting. In order to improve the consistency of certain data submitted by the  military services and defense agencies to the Office of the Secretary of  Defense and reported in the Energy Report, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense direct the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air  Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the heads of the defense  agencies, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations  and Environment to work together to provide more consistent guidance to the installations, including clearly  stating the energy reporting requirements for tenant and host facilities,  energy projects, and end-of-fiscal-year data, and  identify in the Energy Report instances in which data may not be  comparable among the military services and defense agencies and  the reasons why. In  written comments, DOD concurred with all recommendations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to examine the extent to which (1) the  Department of Defense (DOD) addressed the 12 required reporting  elements and reliably reported data in its fiscal year 2013 Annual Energy  Management Report (Energy Report) and (2) the military services helped  ensure energy security at energy-remote military installations in the  United States. Moreover, the electrical systems in Alaska and Hawaii are not  connected to each other. However, the report did not describe the types and amounts of financial incentives received, if  any, as indicated in the required reporting element.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD is the largest energy consumer in the federal government, spending about $4.1 billion on facilities' energy at more than 500 permanent military installations throughout the world in fiscal year 2013. To help ensure oversight of DOD's fulfillment of energy performance goals, Congress requires that DOD track energy savings, investments, and projects in its annual Energy Report. The Energy Report also details DOD's activities to enhance energy security.
Congress included a provision for GAO to review DOD's fiscal year 2013 Energy Report and energy security at energy-remote military installations—that is, those installations located in areas with limited connectivity and without significant infrastructure of power plants, transmission lines, or distribution lines.
GAO assessed the extent to which (1) DOD addressed the 12 required reporting elements and reliably reported data in its fiscal year 2013 Energy Report and (2) the military services help ensure energy security at energy-remote military installations in the United States. GAO analyzed DOD's Energy Report and interviewed officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, military services, defense agencies, and all installations in Alaska and Hawaii because they were identified as energy remote.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal year 2013 Annual Energy Management Report (Energy Report) addressed some of the required reporting elements and correctly incorporated data from the military services and defense agencies. However, the report is not fully reliable because the data were captured and reported using different methods, hindering comparability across the department. Specifically, the Energy Report addressed six, partially addressed four, and did not address two reporting requirements. For example, the Energy Report addressed the requirement to describe actions taken to implement DOD's energy performance master plan, partially addressed the requirement to describe progress to meet various energy goals (it described progress for three of five required goals), and did not address the requirement to describe the types and amount of financial incentives received. The Energy Report correctly reflected data provided by the military services and defense agencies. However, the military services and defense agencies used different methods for capturing and reporting on data in the Energy Report such as on energy consumption and projects. These inconsistencies resulted from guidance that was either unclear or lacking. For example, DOD did not provide guidance on reporting end-of-fiscal-year energy data; thus, the military services and defense agencies used different reporting methods. Without clear guidance for reporting data consistently, it will be difficult for DOD to have reliable data to plan effectively to reach energy goals, and Congress will have limited oversight of DOD's energy consumption and difficulty in comparing energy projects.
The military services generally help ensure energy security (the ability to continue missions in the event of a power outage) at their energy-remote military installations in Alaska and Hawaii by providing access to multiple power sources. However, GAO identified areas of risk to energy security regarding installation electricity systems, high energy costs, and funding. GAO found that the military services addressed some risks by conducting studies on integrating renewable energy into electricity systems and identifying alternative energy solutions to lower costs. However, military service efforts to incorporate energy security into funding decisions have been limited. The processes to evaluate projects for funding generally do not consider energy security in prioritizing those to receive funding, and officials from all four military services stated that there is no military service or DOD guidance related to evaluating projects for funding that focuses on energy security. As a result, six of the nine locations GAO visited in Alaska and Hawaii cited difficulty obtaining funding for energy security projects. For example, officials at the Air Force's Alaska Radar System said they have sought funding since 2002 to build a networked system of multiple fuel tanks at three off-grid locations that each have only one fuel tank, but they said energy security projects do not compete well against other projects, such as those for new facilities. Navy officials similarly stated that energy security projects—which have significant infrastructure costs—do not compete well for funding against energy conservation efforts based on return on investment. Without clarification of the processes used to compare and prioritize projects for funding to include consideration of energy security, it will be difficult for decision makers to have sufficient information to adequately prioritize energy security projects for funding when appropriate and thus address energy security issues.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that DOD revise its guidance for producing the Energy Report and clarify funding processes to include consideration of energy security. DOD concurred with all recommendations.