Enhancing Warfighter Capability Through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management System

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL June 2015 n No. 127-2 n 69
T E C H N I C A L P A P E R
Enhancing Warfighter Capability through a Multi-
Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging
an Energy Management Information System
ABSTRACT
PP Every day, the U.S. Navy consumes
approximately 80,000 barrels of oil afloat and
20,000-megawatt hours of electricity ashore.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus stated, “each
$1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil results
in a $30 million bill for the Navy and Marine
Corps. In 2011 and 2013, price fluctuations
added an unplanned $3 billion to the
Department of Defense’s (DoD) fuel expenses.”
While fluctuating fuel costs dramatically
influence operating budgets, energy supply and
consumption have an enormous impact on the
warfighter’s readiness and capability.
Warfighter capability in respect to energy is
primarily concerned with five major variables:
budgets, supply, consumption, maintenance, and
operations. As the Navy continues to emphasize
energy security in a fiscally constrained
environment, many energy saving technologies,
tools, and procedures are being developed
and implemented. This will allow the Navy to
increase presence with less fuel while reducing
supply chain vulnerabilities.
This paper will address the impact of fluctuating
fuel prices, the supply and logistics of fuels
at-sea, and the importance of energy efficiency
as a capability to be exploited. It will introduce
means to reduce energy consumption by
energy efficient technologies, operation and
system commands planning and decisions, and
maintenance actions.
Finally, it will discuss the importance of an
integrated energy management system that can
be used to measure the effectiveness of these
efforts, provide actionable plant alignment and
equipment maintenance recommendations, and
inform future fuel budgets.
BACKGROUND
At the first Naval Energy Forum held October 2009, Sec. Mabus addressed the
importance of a long-term energy security strategy for the Navy. Along with
Sec. Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Gary Roughead outlined Navy
energy goals depicted in Figure 1.
The Navy is identifying, evaluating, and installing energy saving initiatives
and procedures to help reach the goals established by Sec. Mabus and CNO
Roughead. For the energy security strategy to be effective there must be three
major elements: operational behavior/procedural change, technology develop-
ment and implementation, and maintenance improvements. An information
management system is integral to monitoring energy success more accurately and
to leveraging innovation and operational improvements.
Richard Eckenroth CAPT Robert Hein, USN (Ret.) Thomas Martin Thomas Sullivan
CDI Engineering Solutions Brookings Institution NAVSEA Energy Office Herren Associates
Figure 1. SECNAV & CNO energy goals.

70 n June 2015 n No. 127-2 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Enhancing Warfighter Capability through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management Information System
Price Fluctuations
As the DoD FY12 Strategic Sustainability
Performance Plan stated, “Political instability
and tightening global oil supplies within some
oil-producing nations create significant price
volatility, raising DoD’s costs and making bud-
get and acquisition decisions more difficult.”
Fluctuating fuel prices create unpredictabil-
ity and large impacts on fuel budgets but more
importantly it causes risk to operational capabil-
ity. As Figure 2 depicts, there has been a high
level of volatility since 2000.
The DoD relies on West Texas Intermediate
(WTI) prices even though the Brent oil price is
more reflective of the world fuel price. A recent
Reuters news article stated, “[the] DLA buys
more than 100 million barrels of fuel each year at
a cost of $10 billion to $20 billion, according to
the GAO.”
The Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) does not hedge its exposure to fluctuat-
ing fuel prices. Rather, they are required to use
the forecasts generated by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB), U.S. Treasury, and
White House Council of Economic Advisors.
The budget cycle is a lengthy process requiring
the fuel prices to be set 18 months in advance of
the fuel purchase; however, fuel is purchased on
the open market. This lengthy time period and
inability to hedge increases the DoD’s exposure
to price risk. As the Reuters article mentions,
“On average, actual fuel costs have differed from
estimated costs by more than 20 percent in the
last five years.”
DLA uses a Working Capital Fund to absorb
any fluctuations in the market price. However, as
Figure 2 illustrates, large swings in the price of fuel
can have a major impact on this fund. By utiliz-
ing this fund to cover fluctuations, monies that
could be applied toward maintenance or weapon
upgrades are tied up. Having a better way of
monitoring fuel consumption and ship plant line-
ups in a fluctuating fuel environment would allow
for better and more efficient operating profiles.
Supply and Logistics
The DoD is the largest petroleum user in the
United States. The Navy ranks behind the Air
Force as the second largest fuel consumer
in the DoD. As a result of being a massive
consumer of fuel with a mission of achieving
a global presence, petroleum distribution net-
works present an enormous security challenge.
As the 2012 DoD Strategic Plan states, “most
petroleum products are transported by sea, and
much of this trade passes through vulnerable
chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and
the Straits of Malacca” as depicted in Figure 3.
Approximately 90% of the ships to be
included in the Navy’s 2020 fleet are in service
today. Whether on transient voyage or part of
a carrier strike group, refueling is necessary to
the mission. In 2011 Military Sealift Command
(MSC) “delivered nearly 600 million gallons of
fuel to Navy vessels underway, operating 15 fleet
replenishment oilers around the globe.”
Figure 2. Brent & WTI Crude Spot Price, EIA.
Figure 3. Straits of Malacca (top right) and
Strait of Hormuz (bottom right).
Figure 4. Refueling at sea.

Besides presenting a security issue, refueling
at sea creates logistical headaches and mini-
mizes a ship’s mission capability. Ships requiring
fuel end up spending time transiting and tied
up to the oiler and are thus not able to conduct
missions. As a result, energy-saving initiatives
are currently being designed, developed, and
implemented for the current and future fleet.
The Navy has identified potential initiatives
from various sources that have a high level of
technical readiness, either through extensive lab
testing or leveraging commercial standards.
Future Technologies
The fleet of the near future will consist of ships
already in the fleet and new designs that are
derivatives of previous ship classes. Back-fitting
technologies into the current fleet can provide
5-10% efficiency improvements per ship, but
implementation rates will be limited in today’s
financial environment.
The Navy is developing, testing, and evaluating
twenty-one (21) energy conservation concepts
(ECCs). In 2015, the Navy will test a bulbous
bow on USS Kidd (DDG-100) seen in Figure 5,
Shipboard Energy Dashboards in USS Paul Ham-
ilton (DDG-60) and USS Somerset (LPD-25),
TRITON Hull Performance Monitoring System
on USS Sampson (DDG-102), Advanced Reverse
Osmosis plant using local energy recovery in
USS Comstock (LSD-45), and revise AC plant
set points. Energy savings studies are ongoing
to identify, assess, and prioritize prime mover
modifications, hull and propeller energy efficient
appendages, the value and impact of incorporat-
ing Variable Speed Drives (VSDs) into various
shipboard systems, and finding ways to recover
and exploit non-exhaust waste streams.
While current focus is on the existing fleet, the
continued growth in energy demand from Com-
mand, Control, Communications, Computers,
and Intelligence (C4I) systems (Figure 6) requires
a shift in attention to future ship designs. Oppor-
tunities for significant energy saving technologies
in the next generation of ship designs are limited.
Designs such as the DDG-51 Flight III, LX(R),
and the Frigate program will likely be modified
versions of existing ships. Naval architects will face
enormous pressure to maintain or reduce acquisi-
tion cost, severely limiting the prospect of leaping
forward with energy efficient technologies.
In recent years we have seen a glimpse of
future technologies that will have large energy
requirements. Some of these technologies
include new electric weapon systems and Dual
Band Radar (DBR) for the DDG 1000. As a
January 2015 Forbes article, “U.S. Navy Wants
Mobile Microgrids. Meet the Energy Magazine”
stated, “Electric weapons systems include both
directed-energy weapons like lasers and electro-
magnetic launchers like railguns. Electric weap-
ons have multiple advantages over conventional
explosives, including lower engagement costs
(e.g., a single missile may cost millions of dol-
lars), multi-mission functionality, speed-of-light
response times and greater precision.”
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and
NAVSEA completed testing on USS Ponce
in December 2014 of their 30 kilowatt Laser
Weapon System (LaWS). According to U.S.
Naval Institute News, “LaWS is composed in part
of commercial laser components and proprietary
Figure 5. Bow Bulb.
Figure 6. High Energy and Power Mission
System Timelines.

Navy software that allow the weapon to achieve
up to 35 percent level of efficiency relative to the
power pumped through the system, a higher than
average rate compared to other lasers.” In 2016
and 2017 the Navy is planning on testing larger
100- to 150-kilowatt version.
Besides the LaWS, the Navy is also installing
Dual Ban Radar (DBR) (Figure 7) in the new
DDG 1000 ship class. The DBR combines the
functionality of the X-Band AN/SPY-3 Multi-
Function Radar with that of an S-Band Volume
Search Radar (VSR). This DBR will require an
estimated 2,000 KW.
Whether these new combat and C4I capa-
bilities energy requirements are constant or
intermittent, these systems will be competing
with the ship’s mobility capability for the avail-
able fuel stored (Figure 8). Future ships will have
lower transit speeds, less time on station, and
will require more frequent refueling, resulting in
overall reduced forward presence unless these
ships are designed with greater fuel capacity—
resulting in larger ships, or in significant improve-
ments to the efficiency of the hull, mechanical,
and electrical (HM&E) systems.
An Energy Information System will provide
many benefits in the development of technologies
and design of ships. This system enables the valida-
tion of the estimated energy savings of new tech-
nologies and can ensure that the most effective
technologies are prioritized for implementation
into the fleet and new designs. The energy infor-
mation system will also collect and provide abun-
dant, real world, system and component energy
consumption. This data will permit ship designers
to improve design practices and tools and update
margins and allowances policies.
Operations
The Navy continues investment in technology to
reduce fuel consumption; however, the burden
to achieve greater energy efficiency cannot rest
solely on additional investment. Operational
commanders, in addition to the system com-
mands, must assume a share of the burden if
the Navy desires a holistic approach to reduced
energy consumption. Day-to-day execution is the
predominate driver of energy consumption. How
we drive our ships can have a greater impact on
how much fuel ships burn than all the hydrody-
namic improvements, hybrid electric drives, and
LED lights attached to hulls. While operational
commitments often require less efficient speeds,
a myriad of operations could be planned more
efficiently to not require full power, all generators
online, and flank speed.
The commanding officer’s job is to assess risk,
and to determine every day what risks are worth
taking in pursuit of mission accomplishment.
Simple decisions such as balancing between
maintenance and training are routine; others,
such as whether an inbound aircraft is an enemy
or not, are less frequent. Decisions regarding
energy consumption fall into this same risk
assessment process. No commanding officer
(CO) keeps the ship at full power with all genera-
tors online all the time. Most balance the risk and
determine, for example, that operating at trail
shaft while patrolling a sector well away from
shipping lanes or shoal water is worth the risk
in order to operate in a more efficient manner.
There are additional energy savings or less fuel-
consuming options available.
1. Carrier Escort. Aircraft carriers often must
operate at high speeds to ensure safe wind
envelopes for flight operations. Escorts are
assigned a sector to provide security for
carriers. If an escort chooses to stay in the
middle of the sector, then the escort will
spend considerable time at high speeds
while the carrier looks for winds. However,
the carrier usually has a lower speed leg for
Figure 7. Dual Band Radar.
Figure 8. Struggle between Capability and
Mobility.

when it is running into the wind and, if timed
correctly, an escort can start in the back of its
assigned sector and when the carrier turns
into its high speed leg the escort can operate
at a lower speed, essentially “drifting back”
into the rear of its sector again, and when the
carrier turns to its high speed leg the escort is
automatically placed in the front of the sector
thus starting the process over again. This
evolution can be timed by being aware of the
carrier’s flight schedule and knowing when
the launch and recovery cycles begin and
end. Any fleet Officer of the Deck who has
experienced carrier escort operations would
be able to execute this strategy.
2. Exercise Planning. While participating in fleet
exercises, COs are frequently forced to transit
at high speeds for relatively long distances to
get from one event to another. Often there
are very legitimate reasons for this, however,
just as often it is a matter of where exercise
planners place an event in both time and
location. The authors propose the use of
Operational Energy Management (OEnM)
to introduce energy efficiency to the exercise
planning process. OEnM would be modeled
and executed just as Operational Risk
Management (ORM) is today. Operational
Commanders currently brief, review, and
discuss ORM prior to all major evolutions
in order to ensure the safest execution of
the mission. OEnM would also be briefed,
reviewed, and discussed as part of the exercise
planning process. It would ask questions such
as: Is there a closer OPAREA to conduct
the next event? Can the schedule be moved
back an hour or two to reduce transit speeds?
Can a transiting asset join the next event at a
later time to reduce transit speeds? The focus
of OEnM would be events such as Group
Sails, Composite Training Unit Exercises
(COMPTUEX), and Joint Task Force
Exercises (JTFEX). The key attributes of
OEnM are very similar to the ORM attribute
found in OPNAVINST 3500.39:
a. Enhance energy efficiency while still
meeting mission success.
b. Minimize energy usage to acceptable
levels commensurate with mission
accomplishment while providing a method
to effectively manage resources.
c. Enhance decision making skills based on a
systemic, reasoned and repetitive process.
d. Provide a systemic structure to enhance
energy efficiency.
e. Provide enhanced awareness throughout
the chain of command on methods and
opportunities for energy efficiency.
f. Provide an adaptive process for continuous
feedback through planning, preparation, and
execution phases of the evolution.
g. Identify feasible and effective control
measures where specific standards do not
exist.
Just as ORM seeks to avoid unnecessary
risk, OEnM seeks to avoid unnecessary fuel
consumption.
3. Know Your Environment. Simple knowledge of
global currents such as the Gulf Stream or the
California current can help a ship or reduce
drag when transits are planned correctly.
4. Keep Fuel Curves on the Bridge. Maintain
awareness of how much fuel you are burning.
Just some basic knowledge can go a long way
to show junior officers what a difference 2
knots can make, or why trail shaft may be far
more economical.
5. Request a Propeller Inspection and Cleaning.
Before a long transit, request a propeller
inspection and cleaning, if necessary.
Fouling can account for a large increase in
hull resistance, resulting in a corresponding
increase in fuel consumption.
6. Actively Participate in Energy Training.
For the past 15 years energy training was
provided by NAVSEA’s incentivized Energy
Conservation Program (i-ENCON). This
function has been transferred to the Type
Commanders and will consist of actionable
tasks ships can implement on methodologies
and best practices to monitor their own ship
energy usage and ways to integrate energy
management strategies into daily operations.
Just as damage control is every Sailor’s busi-
ness, developing a culture in which energy
conservation is a priority will allow the Navy to
meet its energy conservation goals.
An energy information system can provide the
appropriate information and recommendations
for the CO to make an informed operational
energy decision while considering the risks

associated with those actions. This includes
recommendations for machinery plant align-
ments and the number of components required
to be online to meet mission, indicating equip-
ment and hull efficiency status, generating fuel
curves based on current hull condition, and
recommending efficient transit speeds including
multi-speed if required. The information from
this system can also tailor energy training to be
ship specific.
Maintenance
Ship’s force can positively impact operational
energy through diligent equipment efficiency
monitoring and maintenance practices. The
relationship between material condition and
energy usage for major shipboard equipment
and systems provides an opportunity to impact
on equipment configurations. Selecting the
most energy efficient equipment line-ups allows
the Navy to meet mission requirements and
identify equipment and systems needing main-
tenance to improve warfighter capability.
Performance for components like filters, con-
densers, hull, propeller, AC plants, ventilation,
and air compressors, decreases over time, nega-
tively impacting energy efficiency. The ability to
monitor, measure, and assess the performance
of equipment provides critical information COs
and maintainers can use to manage equipment
and energy usage.
Assigning an energy penalty value to the per-
formance of shipboard equipment and systems
will allow operators to improve maintenance.
Assigning equipment operational capability
values associated with energy efficiency into the
material readiness process would also be effec-
tive. Figure 9 demonstrates the process.
Energy Information Management System
The relationship between shipboard energy pro-
duction and how energy is consumed on ships
provides an opportunity to make a substantial
impact on future energy strategy.
An important aspect of implementing a new
energy management system is to plan, do, check,
and act. Currently, energy use baselines for ship
classes are created using a variety of historical
data. Data are gathered hourly by examining fuel
tank levels and on-load/off-load records. These
records are difficult to tie to operational events
and are prone to error due to ships’ list and trim
and tank level indicator errors. Ship deck logs,
position logs, bell logs and engineering logs, as
well as the Voyage Management System (VMS)
record ship operating profiles, but the data held
within are not easily accessed or integrated.
Equipment monitoring such as the Integrated
Condition Assessment System (ICAS) and
Machinery Control Message Acquisition System
(MCMAS) generate large quantities of operat-
ing data. These multiple independent sources
from hundreds of ships create massive amounts
of data; however, no system existed, before now,
to efficiently process and report all of the Navy’s
energy usage data.
Global Energy Information System (GENISYS)
GENISYS is under development and will be a
system that collects, consolidates, stores, pro-
cesses, and presents energy consumption data
for any asset or group of assets along with their
environmental and mission data to provide stake-
holders the information required to make deci-
sions and answer questions with regard to energy
security, consumption, and efficiency. GENISYS
encompasses both a shore-based Energy Data
Warehouse and Analysis System (EDWAS) and
a Ship-based Energy Information System (SEIS).
Figure 9. Energy Penalty Flow Path. Figure 10. Interfaces for GENISYS.

GENISYS is currently under development by the
Navy with a planned first generation demonstra-
tion in support of the 2016 Green Fleet. Figure
10 shows GENISYS interfaces.
The Fleet Energy Conservation Dashboard
(FECD), currently under development, per-
forms the function of the shore-based EDWAS.
FECD uses a standard enterprise-level frame-
work to identify, integrate, display, compare, and
analyze different aspects of energy data from a
variety of Navy data sources and provides specific
dashboards to support different user communi-
ties. The software uses an extensible architec-
tural framework (Figure 11) to allow the addition
of ships, data sources, and analysis capabilities.
The Navy’s Shipboard Energy Dashboard
(SED) complements the SEIS and resides on
the Integrated Condition Assessment System
(ICAS), supporting real time data consolidation,
storage, processing, presentation, and recom-
mendations intended for shipboard operators.
These recommendations are intended to increase
operational availability or alignment of equip-
ment to increase efficiency of production and
consumption. SED is currently installed in
DDG-51 Flight IIA ships and is being developed
for DDG-51 Flight I/II and LPD-17. Additional
ship classes will be added as resources permit.
The ability to support the Navy in the discov-
ery, assessment, prioritization, and monitoring of
energy saving initiatives and behavior changes for
in-service ships represents a balanced approach
toward energy security.
Conclusion
While increasing the fleet’s energy efficiency and
reducing energy consumption can help insulate
planners from fluctuating fuel prices, the Navy’s
focus is to transform operational energy to a
game-changing capability by extending ships’
operational presence through improving ships’
mobility capabilities while enabling higher pow-
ered combat and C4I systems.
While energy efficient technologies are being
developed and implemented, the manner to
most effectively impact the current fleet energy
efficiency is through operations and maintenance.
With judicious risk, operational efforts are no-cost
and can be implemented quickly. Increased system
and equipment energy consumption are indica-
tions of material degradation and, if caught early,
can result in lower maintenance costs.
Future warship designs will incorporate
increasingly power hungry combat and C4I
systems. To prevent degradation of mobility
capabilities, significant efficiency improvements
will need to be developed and incorporated in
the HME systems.
All of these efforts can benefit from an energy
information system. Currently, a large amount
of data are being collected from different ship
classes and ships. The sheer quantity of this data
makes it hard for effective analysis. Energy-saving
strategies require a thorough understanding of
Navy energy use for deployed operations, local
operations, and in-port shore services in order to
make effective investment decisions.
The presence of GENISYS can improve a
ship’s combat and mission capabilities as well
as improve the Navy’s ability to track energy
consumption, provide optimal operating recom-
mendations, and reduce energy costs. Leverag-
ing energy efficiencies through technologies,
operational procedures, and information systems
increases combat capability.
Figure 11. GENISYS Architectural Framework.

REFERENCES
Kemp, John. “Pentagon Uses Wrong Oil Price and Fails to Hedge Fuel Bill.” Retrieved from Reuters.com on
9 July 2014.
LaGrone, Sam. “U.S. Navy Allowed to Use Persian Gulf Laser for Defense.” Retrieved from news.usni.org.com
on 10 Dec. 2014.
Paige, Paula. “SECNAV Outlines Five ‘Ambitious’ Energy Goals.” Retrieved from navy.mil on 16 Oct. 2009.
Pentlan, William. “U.S. Navy Wants Mobile Microgrids. Meet the Energy Magazine.” Retrieved from
Forbes.com on 11 Jan. 2015.
“Department of Defense Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan FY 2012.” Retrieved from http://www.acq.
osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/DoD%20SSPP%20FY12-FINAL.PDF on
17 Feb. 2013
“Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Annual Report.” Retrieved from http://energy.defense.gov/Portals/25/
Documents/Reports/20131015_FY12_OE_Annual_Report.pdf on 15 Oct. 2013.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Richard Eckenroth is a Senior Energy Consultant at CDI Engineering Solutions, Government Service
and supports the NAVSEA Energy and CPF Energy Manager N434 Office efforts to reduce the Navy’s fuel and
energy consumption for ships when at sea and on shore services. A retired Master Chief, he combines 30 years
military and 13 years industry experiences researching, developing, prototype testing, and analyzing energy
initiatives and developing portfolios by assisting the development and management of NAVSEA’s Fleet Research
Readiness and Development Program as part of the Maritime Energy Portfolio of Technologies.
CAPT Robert N. Hein, USN (Ret.) is a Surface Warfare Officer with 28 years of service. He commanded
USS Gettysburg (CG 64) and USS Nitze (DDG 94), where his ship earned the SECNAV energy
conservation award. He is a former co-lead of the Task Force Energy Maritime Working Group. CAPT Hein
is currently a Federal Executive Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Thomas W. Martin is presently the Technical Director for Naval Sea System Command’s (NAVSEA)
Energy Division within the Engineering Directorate. He is assigned as NAVSEA’s representative to the U.S.
Navy’s Task Force Energy, is the co-lead for the Maritime Energy Working Group, and is the Program Manager
of the Fleet Readiness RD Program (FRRDP) which identifies, develops and tests energy saving technologies.
His previous assignment was as the Technical Warrant Holder/Supervisor for Machinery Integration in the
Marine Engineering Group at NAVSEA. He has 30 years experience as a marine engineer in the area of naval
surface combatant design, acquisition, and lifecycle support. Mr. Martin holds a B.S. in physics from Ithaca
College (’87) and B.S. in mechanical engineering from Rochester Institute of Technology (’87).
Thomas R. Sullivan is an Associate at Herren Associates and supports the NAVSEA Energy Office
efforts to reduce the Navy’s fuel consumption. He combines industrial and commercial experience analyzing
energy initiatives and developing portfolios by assisting the development and management of NAVSEA’s
Maritime Energy Portfolio of Technologies. Mr. Sullivan holds a BBA in business administration from the
University of Notre Dame (2006) and an MBA in finance from Loyola University Chicago (2009).

Enhancing Warfighter Capability Through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management System

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Enhancing Warfighter Capability Through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management System

Similar to Enhancing Warfighter Capability Through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management System (20)

Enhancing Warfighter Capability Through a Multi-Faceted Operational Energy Approach Leveraging an Energy Management System