Forum

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BLOGGERS ROUNDTABLE WITH TAD DAVIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, VIA TELECONFERENCE SUBJECT: ARMY
SUSTAINABILITY TIME: 10:30 A.M. EST DATE: FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500 1000 Vermont Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not
affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be
copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News
Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work
prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that
person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet
Service, please visit http://www.fednews.com or call(202)347-1400
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Please refer to www.dod.mil for more information.)
LINDY KYZER (Army Public Affairs): Again, this is Lindy Kyzer with
Army Public Affairs. We'll go ahead and get started.
We're very pleased to have with us Tad Davis. He's the deputy
assistant secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health.
He's going to be discussing Army sustainability. And with that, I'll go ahead
and turn it directly over to him to start the call with maybe a couple minutes
about the kind of questions he'd like to take today and his overall topic.
MR. DAVIS: Sure. Thanks very much, Lindy.
And welcome, everybody, to our session this morning. It's great to be
with you. And what I thought I would do is just highlight a little bit of
our sustainability efforts with you and then, you know, tee up a couple of other
projects we've got in the hopper and then hopefully get into some good Q&A and
some discussion.
First and foremost, we began the Army sustainability program about
eight years ago at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where we stood up the first
installation-level sustainability program. We've now delivered that program out
to about 30 installations, to include overseas in Hawaii and Germany. And we're
also developing an operational sustainability concept that we hope to deploy
Army-wide for both installations and operational forces involved in contingency
operations.
Sustainability obviously in the private sector, probably outside the
context of DOD, is a widely known and understood concept. And so one of the
challenges that we've had is to define and articulate sustainability in a way
that it really resonates with those people here within the confines of the
Pentagon and the military.
In some very simplistic terms, what we're really trying to do is look
to the future, you know, look down the road 25 or 30 years from now and
determine, hey, what are those critical things that we need to be concerned
about today, so that we can start determining what actions we need to take, what
programs and things we need to put in motion now so that 25, 30 years or more
down the road we're going to have the resources that we need to sustain a
trained and ready force for future generations, you know, of Americans in which to participate and also to preserve the national defense, you know, of the
nation.
And so we embarked on sustainability, again, probably about eight years
ago, you know, at Fort Bragg and it's kind of blossomed since then.
We've developed kind of a construct of a triple bottom line, which
consists of mission, environment and community, the mission obviously being
extremely important to us. Whatever we do needs to revolve around supporting
the mission, taking care of our soldiers, civilians and their families.
The second component is the environment, and a lot of our
sustainability effort is grounded in the traditional air-water- hazardous solid
waste disposal-recycling efforts, if you will.
The third component is the community, and for us, it's really twofold:
the military community within the fence line of our military installations. And
when you look at what we can do within the fence line, there's a tremendous
amount that we're able to accomplish, because guess what. When we tell people
to turn off their lights at night, when we tell people to stop using the water
to wash your cars when you're in the middle of a drought, they do it.
And so that's a benefit that I think we have, but we also have got a
tremendous amount of programs on our installations where we're embracing new
technology and new processes that are really helping us, you know, conserve,
minimize what we're using and then use those resources we have much, much better
than we ever have before.
The other aspect, the community, is the community outside the
military installation. And in many respects, you know, we can work as hard as
we can to have the cleanest air, water, best recycling program of anyone on the
installation, but guess what? If the people north, south, east and west of us
and the folks, you know, upwind, downstream, upstream aren't doing the things
that they should be doing in the same light than we're not going to be
successful. And so in many respects, we've reached out to local communities.
And, again, we started the first program at Fort Bragg followed two
years later by Sustainable Sandhills, which sought to engage the eight
surrounding counties and other municipalities to come together to really focus
on issues of joint importance, you know, such as air quality issues, water
quantity and water quality issues, looking at joint efforts for recycling and
reuse programs.
And so, again, the triple bottom line is mission, environment and
community. They're truly important for us. We've also kind of modified it to
the triple bottom line plus, and that "plus" being an opportunity shine the
economic benefit light on sustainability, because we believe that consistent
with all the good things that we're doing and the tremendous impact it will have
on the environment, the ecosystem's natural resources and other resources that
we have been given to use by the United States government, at the same time
there's economic benefits as well.
And if we do things properly, then we're going to be able to save money
or reduce spending and then use those precious dollars for other projects to
further enhance, you know, our operations. And so there's a tremendous amount
of economic benefit that we're attempting to accrue from this process as well. In simplistic terms, you know, the Army -- you know, our Army, your
Army -- it is building green, we're buying green and we're going green. And
starting in 2008, every building that we build in the United States Army is
going to be at minimum LEED Silver. We've got a tremendous program under way to
develop sustainable ranges and training areas. And hopefully these are things
that we can come back to a little bit later on.
Fifty percent or more of every building that we deconstruct to make way
for new construction is going to be recycled, reused or diverted from a
landfill. In our concept of buying green, we are really, you know, attempting
to take the lead in purchasing green products, products that are recyclable,
reusable. At the end of the day, when we're done using them -- like a green
computer, for instance -- that manufacturer's going to take that product back,
reuse it or recycle it and then we'll get a new product to use, we hope, from
there on out.
Again, we've spent a lot of time looking into green chemistry and green
engineering to enhance systems and things like ammunition. And again, maybe
that's something we can come back to in our discussion period.
Going green is obviously huge, you know, for us. And we look at
everything from, you know, how we, you know, provide power to our installations
and to our overseas deployed forces, looking at new ways in which we can better
integrate renewable energy sources both on our installation and both through,
you know, purchased energy, you know, but also through partnerships with local
communities as well.
We've got what we call a non-tactical vehicle fleet. These are
sedans, small trucks and other vehicles that are used by our civilians to help
run our installations. We've got 68,000 of those vehicles in our inventory,
40,000 of which are alternative-fuel vehicles -- which is great, but less than
50 percent of those are actually using alternative fuel, because the fuel is not
available, like E-85. And so again, we've got a challenge in terms of, you
know, maybe that's where we can partner with somebody locally, where they could
use E-85 as well as us from the same pumping station.
So looking also at our tactical vehicles -- and again, we can come back
to that probably during our discussions -- but again, as I said at the
beginning, what we're really trying to do is to make this not just an
installation program at our fixed installations around the world, but also take
some of these concepts and principles and apply them to contingency operations -
- whether it's peacekeeping, peacemaking, humanitarian assistance or combat
operations -- and finding out ways in which we can better sustain our forces and
reduce the amount of supplies that they're required to have at forward deployed
locations around the world.
A couple of projects we're working on right now. One is a greenhouse
gas project, to determine what we call the Army's carbon bootprint, as opposed
to a footprint. We made some significant strides in that area. And again, why
are we doing it? Well, we want to be part of the effort to reduce greenhouse
gases, just like other members of the federal government and the private sector.
And we want to be postured so that when specifics come down through legislation
and other directives, that we're prepared to execute our part of that.
We've also embarked on a tremendous effort to look at water at all of
our installations, both what our requirements are today and then at five-year
increments over the next 30 years. Finally, in many respects, we've tried to apply a couple of principles
that we have gleaned from, among others, Tom Friedman, Pulitzer prize-winning
author. And these are two things that are extremely important to our efforts.
One is what Tom calls changing the DNA of an organization. And
essentially, what we're really trying to do is to get into our systems, whether
it's how we construct buildings and neighborhoods, let's say, to how we design
vehicles and equipment, to how we develop procurement processes and procedures -
- to really get in there and rearrange the DNA of how we do it in a way that
what comes out the other end is going to be inherently green, is going to become
inherently probably, you know, more economically beneficial to us as well. And
so that's one of the things we're really trying to do in terms of this.
Second thing that we got from Tom was this concept of size and volume.
And you know, we're -- we are a, you know, global corporation, for all intents
and purposes, with tremendous economic throw-weight.
And so if we go out there and we write a contract that specifies,
you know, that we want a product that is, you know, recyclable or reusable, or
has, you know, low toxicity or, you know, relatively low impact on health and
human safety, then, you know, there's a good chance we're going to be able to
buy it, because somebody's going to want to do business with ,government and
they're going to come up with the product that we think is needed to fulfill our
needs.
And so, again, two important concepts: DNA and this concept of size or
scale, extremely important, you know, for our efforts as well.
And so again, our Army, your Army, you know, building green, buying
green, going green -- we've embraced sustainability. But we're -- still got a
long ways to go. So I look forward to your questions and our discussions at
this point in time. So thank you very much.
MS. KYZER: Okay. Sondra (sp), did you have a question?
Q Yes. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Davis, about the GAO report --
recent report that said that the military right now does not have a strategy --
or a coherent strategy for how to address the energy demands for forwarddeployed locations. And I was just wondering if that's something you're looking
at in the Army, that is being looked at, and what's potentially going to be
happening as far as trying to address some of those issues.
MR. DAVIS: Yeah. Thanks, Sondra (sp). We actually -- the Army did
publish -- number one, the secretary of the Army probably eight months ago
established an Army senior energy council here in the Pentagon to address the
issues of Army energy security. And as part of that effort, a number of
different projects were identified for implementation throughout the Army. But
also, the Army's energy security implementation strategy was developed that
really, you know, gets at energy strategy from a holistic perspective Army-wide.
With regard to what we're trying to do, you know, in theatre, obviously
we are looking at ways in which we can reduce the need for, you know, petroleum
products and fossil fuels, you know, by reducing the requirements in theatre.
And one of the things that we've done to address that up front was to
do surveys at our facilities in Kuwait, Iraq, some of the facilities in Afghanistan and in Djibouti to determine, you know, where's all this energy at
these bases and installations being used? And what can we do to come up with
ways to reduce it? Well, quite honestly, in many of those locations -- and
primarily Kuwait, Afghanistan -- or -- correction: Kuwait, Iraq and Djibouti,
we found that a tremendous amount of the energy was being used to provide, you
know, air conditioning for a combination of command posts that have a lot of
electronics and communications gear and computers, and also our administrative
areas that have the same thing, as well as, you know, sleeping areas for the
soldiers, you know, so they get a good night's sleep for the few hours that they
do get to sleep at night.
And so as a result of those surveys, we found that there was a --
because most of the facilities are either in tents or a temporary facility,
there's not a tremendous amount of insulation, and so you actually lose a lot of
the energy that's being used to produce, you know, the air conditioning. And so
through the rapid equipping force we have that really looks at kind of off-theshelf technology that can be applied to contingency operations, we came up with
this concept of spray foaming the tents over there.
And a pilot program was run, and essentially through spray foaming and
increasing the insulation of the tents and the temporary structures, instead of
losing about -- you know, we were actually losing about 80 percent of the
efficiency from lack of insulation, and that was cut in half, in some cases more
than half, through this insulation process. And so now there's an effort under
way in theater to go in and put the spray foaming on the tents to reduce the
consumption of fuel by the generators to produce electricity.
The other thing that we found during the survey is that we weren't
using the generated electricity efficiently, because in many cases we had, you
know, a generator outside of a building and then we had, you know, five or six
of these generators outside buildings in one compound, and it was where you had
five generators but you only really needed two and a half. And so we're looking
at establishing micro-grids so that we're basically trying to match up the power
generated to the power that's required on these installations. And then if you
have, let's say, a requirement for a surge or whatever, then you can use the
additional generators as backup.
The third thing that is being looked at is the use of renewable energy
-- solar, wind and hydro. Some hydro and some wind is being used in
Afghanistan, and we're looking at different variations of possible solar in
places like Iraq, Kuwait and Djibouti. But those have not been fully vetted, I
would say, and actually deployed out to the field, you know, for these
contingency operations.
But our thought is, is that if we can reduce the requirements for fuel
by coming up with efficiencies through better insulation and these microgrids,
that's going to be decrease the amount of fuel that needs to be brought forward
to these locations and also reduce, you know, soldier fatalities from, you know,
IEDs and other explosives that might be set up to ambush these convoys that are
moving forward.
Q The -- I'm sorry -- the advanced generator, this new advanced
generator that the Army is developing, what's special and unique about it
compared to current generators?
MR. DAVIS: I'm not sure I'm the one that can answer that question for
you. I mean, we -- I might have to defer to the technology folks on that one. I mean, the generator that I'm familiar with is just -- is more
efficient in terms of what it can produce, you know, from an energy- output
standpoint. And then we also, when we're looking at the future combat systems,
which is going to be the next generation of Army vehicles -- we're looking at a
number of systems, to include some heavy trucks that have a hybrid electric
drive system on board that will simultaneously produce energy that can be stored
and then used to operate things like, you know, communications equipment and
computers, so it can provide yet another source of power for soldiers that are
forward-deployed.
But, you know, we'd be more than happy to take your question, if you've
got something specific, only a particular generator. But other than the fact
that we're trying to come up with ones that are more, you know, energy
efficient, I'm not sure what else I can tell you about that one.
Q Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Sure.
MS. KYZER: Brian, did you have a question?
Q Yes. It -- part of it's been answered, but with reference to
temporary structures, you can do the -- what is the -- what's the look being
given at thermal mass? Okay -- I live in -- I grew up in North Dakota. We have
extremes of temperature and grow potatoes. Back in the old days, it was routine
practice to make a potato cellar, sort of a hut, and then you'd dig a trench
around it, put dirt on it, and it stays around 65 or so year round.
MR. DAVIS: Right.
Q It -- you know, 19th-century farmers could do it; it takes no
energy after the -- after the initial thing. And I've seen bulldozers that
should be able to do the job. Is this being considered? MR. DAVIS: Yeah,
we're actually doing that, something similar to that -- this kind of thermal
exchange or heat-exchange process -- at several of our installations here in the
continental United States. Fort Knox in particular has a number of buildings
where we're -- where we actually -- you know, water is piped down x amount of
feet below the surface where you have a constant temperature that's used to
offset the heat or the cool, depending upon what time of year it is.
And it's -- some people will refer to it as geothermal. It's actually,
you know, more of a thermal exchange or heat-exchange process. We're actually
using that extensively in (six ?) buildings at Fort Knox. It's probably the
largest concentrations of buildings we have like that. And then we have it also
at several other installations as well.
Q Okay. That's a -- now that's an active system. What I was
trying to describe was a passive system, something, well, like the Southwest
U.S. stucco or the kind of heavy mortar structures that are common in the Middle
East.
MR. DAVIS: Ones that kind of have an inherent insulation to them and
provide -- Q Well, it's not so much insulation. It's just there's so much
mass there that it takes an awful lot of energy to either heat it up or cool it
off, and it achieves a stable temperature after, well, a few days.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. I mean, I'm not sure that we're employing that
anywhere widely. I know that, for instance, in Afghanistan, in some of the
construction efforts that are going on there, mostly focused on construction for
Afghanis, if you will, that some of that sort of stucco-type construction is
being used because it's essentially the native style architecture that they have
over -- you know, native to the country style architecture that they have over
there. But I'm not aware of us using that concept anywhere widespread either at
our fixed installations or during contingency operations. But I would think it
would certainly be something that we should look at. And basically just, like
you said, it can be done with a bulldozer very easily, if the -- if you're in
the right part of the world to do that.
Q Yeah. Well, you couldn't do it with tents, obviously.
MR. DAVIS: Right.
Q -- not more than once.
Okay. Last, another -- last one for me. You touched on economic
benefit.
MR. DAVIS: Right.
Q Could you elaborate on that?
MR. DAVIS: Yeah, I mean --
Q I mean, you already have. I'm just -- I -- this is -- this,
given what I do, I'd love to have some words about how this makes sense,
dollars-wise, as well as being kind of groovy. MR. DAVIS: Sure. No, exactly.
I got to say that, you know, when I -- I'm actually the guy that started this
effort down at Fort Bragg back in 2001. And you know, folks came to me. I was,
you know, very supportive and have been, you know, pretty much my whole life
focused on, you know, conservation and natural resources-related activities.
But when we first started kicking around sustainability, it seemed like
it was something that was worthwhile. But the way in which we were really able
to start selling it was through economics, because we had bills to pay. You
know, I had, you know, a couple million dollars' worth of a bill to pay for the
installation each month for, you know, electricity. And you know, we had a
tremendous bill to pay for water.
And so, you know, by developing, you know, procedures; coming up with
different processes, if you will, we were able to, you know, reduce our
consumption of water and electricity, you know, tremendously, so that we
actually were able to, you know, cut the bill, if you will, on what we had to
pay. And we were able to use that money for other projects, you know, on the
installation that were needed, as far as, you know, recapitalization, if you
will.
The other thing that we've done a lot of throughout the entire Army
has been a program called Energy Savings Performance Contracts, where we
basically will partner with either an energy provider or with someone with a lot of experience in the energy field. They'll come in, do a survey, if you will,
of our facilities, and then come up with recommendations for enhancements -- you
know, whether it's more energy-efficient lighting, better control mechanisms,
upgraded boiler systems and things like that. And they come in through this
partnership and actually provide the capital that goes into the buildings and
goes into the power-generation facilities to pay for these enhancements and --
which allows us then to, you know, decrease our energy consumption.
And then the delta from that consumption, in terms of what we had
projected for our energy bill for that month and for that quarter, is then --
you know, ends up being the profit, if you will, that they make off of the
contract. And so in this case, we're reducing our utilization, using other
people's money for, you know, the enhancements there. And so, you know, it's
just another example of, you know, some of the things we're able to do.
Another -- another kind of humorous story I would tell you, that's
actually true, in our installations -- and this is something we really didn't
touch on at the beginning, but the Army is going through a tremendous
transformation right now. I mean, we're bringing people back from Germany and
Korea, stationing them in the United States. We're bringing -- we're moving
people around. We're increasing the size of the Army by about 75,000. And
we're restructuring the way in which our combat units are organized.
And so there's a lot going on right now. But we're not increasing the
size of our installations, and so they're becoming even, you know, more crowded
maybe than they ever were before. And so in many cases, if we want to put up a
new building, we have to demolition an existing building and go in, you know,
clear that area, and put in a new one.
And so this was going on down at Fort Bragg. And what happened was, is
as they were clearing the buildings and they would take the -- you know, the
cinder blocks and the debris out to the construction debris landfill, where we
have a rock crusher that would crush up the concrete -- and we'd reuse that.
The wood would be recycled and reused. But then we had all this fill dirt that
was coming out of the excavation site, because we have to reset the foundation.
And so dump truck after dump truck was coming out there with this clean-fill
dirt. And one of the fellows out there put two and two together, and he started
directing all these dump trucks over into one area, and it became a clean-fill
site. And then, as we needed dirt for compaction and preparation for new
construction, well, then the folks would go out there and get it.
This individual is affectionately referred to as a "dirt dude" and --
but again, individual initiative on the ground there. But that saved us a
tremendous amount of money that we would have had to pay for, you know, cleanfill dirt.
So there's a lot of elements that, you know, you kind of take into
account here, in terms of how we're able to save money and, you know, use the
money that we have been provided for other things.
Now, does that --
Q Oh, yes. Oh, yes. You guys are sounding more and more like the
old North Dakota farmers all the time. That's a good thing, by the way.
MR. DAVIS: Thanks. I appreciate that. MS. KYZER: Lance, did you have a question?
Q Yes, I do have a couple.
Well, Mr. Davis, you touched a little bit on the savings by the Army
sustainability efforts. Are you able to put a dollar-tag on that at all, either
-- (inaudible) -- or, if not, you know, as a -- on a particular project?
MR. DAVIS: Yeah. I mean, we're trying to -- we're trying to do that,
I think, right now. And that's actually part of our strategy, to help get
leaders, you know, throughout the Army, both civilians, you know, business-suitwearing leaders and green-suit-wearing, you know, military leaders to, you know,
better understand and embrace sustainability.
So we're actually working more deliberately on that right now. But I
mean, you know, for instance, this energy savings performance contract
mechanism, as I mentioned before, two years ago at West Point, it basically
reduced their energy consumption by just under $1 million, like $950,000. And
that's at one installation.
It's a very small installation as just kind of one example, you know,
that I would give you in terms of, you know, the money that we're talking about.
A lot of these projects are done somewhat decentralized, at different
installations, based on the circumstances that are there.
And so we're again trying to go back now and to maybe do some macrolevel calculations, such that if we were able to reduce our energy consumption
Army-wide by, you know, 3 percent and average out what the kilowatt-hour costs
are across the country, because they're different, you know, everywhere you go,
then that would give us a factor.
The same thing goes with our solid-waste reduction and water
conservation programs, where we've significantly reduced, you know, the
amounts of, you know, consumables in each one of those areas. So we're kind of
in the middle of doing that right now. But I don't really have a full-up, you
know, number to give you.
Q Okay.
The West Point project you mentioned, was that a $1-million savings
over a calendar or a fiscal year or over a number of years?
MR. DAVIS: That was a fiscal year. That was a fiscal year.
Q My other question kind of goes to the battlefield. You talked a
little bit about spraying the foam inside the temporary installations and tents.
Can you give me an example more at the soldier level? What are soldiers
learning or doing differently that makes them more sustainable?
MR. DAVIS: That -- I mean, that's -- I think that's one of the --
of the challenges that we're faced with right now. In terms of -- well, there's
really two pieces of that. I think one is what sort of, you know, training and
education can we provide to the soldiers that will allow them, you know, to be
more sustainable, if you will? And then on the other hand, what are we as the
Army providing that will inherently allow them to be, you know, more
sustainable? And at each one of our different installations, our soldiers are given
instruction and training on, well, basic concerns that we have. And a lot of it
focuses on our training areas -- you know, how do you act when you go out into
the training area as far as, you know, waste- disposal procedures, procedures in
the event you have a fuel spill or an oil spill or something like that,
considerations with threatened and endangered species, considerations for
wetlands and things of that nature in the field environment.
And then in the garrison environment, if you will, really work hard on
our recycling programs and on programs, you know, geared toward, you know,
individual responsibility from a recycling and, you know, reduction program, in
terms of reducing, you know, the amount of energy an individual consumes and
reducing, you know, water consumption and things like that. It's everything
from taking showers to, you know, washing cars and things of that nature.
The other thing that we're trying to do to basically help the soldiers
in many cases is -- for instance, in our new barracks that we're building, we're
-- and again, I mentioned the, you know, Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design, the LEED standard for green buildings, where all of our buildings -- and
actually, before 2008, we were constructing green buildings, but we established
the Silver LEED standard starting in 2008.
But the buildings themselves we provide for the soldiers to work and
live in will be inherently more sustainable. They'll be better insulated;
they'll have more energy-efficient heating, ventilation and cooling systems;
they'll have low-flow, you know, toilets and, you know, better-designed
plumbing, if you will. We'll look at low-impact development such that we'll
minimize surface-water runoff that may, you know, impact on stream and river
conditions and groundwater in a nearby area.
And so all of those things will inherently enhance the ability of the
soldier -- civilians and our military families, you know, to actually, you know,
be more sustainable. And so I think it's a combination of us, through training
and educational programs on one hand -- and then on the other hand providing
folks the resources that allow them to be more sustainable as well.
Q Okay. Well, thank you. I don't have any further questions.
MR. DAVIS: Okay.
Q Can I ask one more question?
MR. DAVIS: Sure.
Q The stimulus package that was just passed has some additional
funding for Army energy initiatives. Can you talk about any specific projects
that may be -- that may be funded with that?
MR. DAVIS: (Inaudible) -- I haven't seen the actual list yet of what
the energy projects for the stimulus are going to be, but we are working on at
least two projects that we had already put in motion before the stimulus went
through -- was a project to have -- convert a portion of our vehicle fleet,
again, this non-tactical vehicle fleet -- 4,000 of those vehicles are going to
be a plug-in hybrid-type vehicle. So that's one of the things that we're doing.
The other thing that we're in the process of establishing right now is
a 500-megawatt solar array out at Fort Irwin, California, which will provide both the necessary energy for the installation out there at Fort Irwin but that
will also provide energy back into the grid as well. So those are just examples
of a couple of the projects that we had already teed up beforehand.
And the stimulus package projects are still being worked. I would
anticipate within the next couple of weeks, you know, maybe that would be --
maybe a cause for follow-up or maybe a subsequent blogging session to talk about
the energy-specific issues coming out of the stimulus package.
Q Is there any particular project that you'd think -- or initiative
that you'd think you would like to see more funding, as the negotiations go
forward?
MR. DAVIS: Well, I -- like I said, I think that we had already teed up
several projects which I think are going to be very promising. I would, at this
point in time, just see what we're able to do with the stimulus package and then
kind of make a determination there on what else is -- what else we think is
going to be required.
Q Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. My pleasure.
MS. KYZER: You had a question, Sondra (sp)?
Q Well, maybe I'll just throw one more -- I was going to ask Mr.
Davis if you have any insights into when possibly there would be a director of
operational energy for DOD. That's being discussed right now. Do you have any
sense of the timing of that, the timeline?
MR. DAVIS: As far as the directed energy project?
Q No, a director of operational energy for DOD. That's the new --
a new organization within DOD.
MR. DAVIS: No, I sure don't -- do not know.
Q No. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Sure.
MS. KYZER: Okay. If those are all the questions we have, I'll turn it
over to Mr. Davis, if he has any closing remarks or anything we didn't touch on
that he wanted to address.
MR. DAVIS: Great. Thanks, Lindy.
I guess -- you know, I mentioned two of the projects that we're
involved in: one, our greenhouse gas project, and the other one, the water
project. And essentially what we did is we started off with pilot programs at
two installations, Fort Carson in Colorado and Fort Benning in Georgia, kind of
two different geographical settings and locations, and basically went into both
of them and looked at both the -- it depends on how you want to refer to it --
but Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions at each one of those locations to
determine what, you know, the approximate, you know, CO2 equivalents were that
were being produced at those two locations. We also at Fort Benning, which has got about 150,000 acres of
forested area, looked at what sequestration might be available there in terms of
the potential for carbon credits.
And so we started off with those two pilots. We then took the
procedures that we applied to those two installations and went to 10 other Army
installations for proof of concept. And so now we're out there working to
determine what the Army's carbon bootprint is for all the installations within
the Continental United -- actually, within the 50 states and territories.
And then we'll do a follow-on effort to determine what sort of
sequestration we're able to gain credit for as well and then work that into the
overall energy strategy and our sustainability strategy, so that we can
determine, you know, what are the best ways in which we can not only, you know,
reduce energy consumption, maximize the use of renewables, but at the same time
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
Q Thanks.
MS. KYZER: Thank you so much, Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: Sure.
MS. KYZER: Thank you, everyone who joined us on the line. A
transcript should be available later today. Thank you, everyone.
Q Thank you very much.
Q Thank you.
MR. DAVIS: Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Q Bye.
MR. DAVIS: Bye-bye.
END.