House Republican Opposition to DOD Clean Energy Technology Is Misguided

This year’s $886 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has become the latest front in a partisan battle over cultural issues such as abortion access and efforts to promote diversity in the U.S. military. Far less visibly, a group of House members, including defense appropriators, have questioned Pentagon spending on energy technology seen as “green,” including electric vehicles (EVs), solar photovoltaics (PV), and energy storage technology.

Congressional concern is perhaps understandable at a time when the federal budget is tight and our military capabilities are stretched. However, this reflexive opposition to clean tech at the Department of Defense (DOD) is misguided. As we reported in 2019, DOD is electrifying the battlefield—not to be green, but to improve combat performance, which increasingly turns on technology that runs on electricity. And while military bases here at home are transitioning to renewable energy and EVs for non-combat reasons, clean energy technology is enhancing the ability of these bases, which provide direct support to the warfighter, to operate during extended power outages.

House Republicans’ Sorties on Clean Energy Technology

House Freedom Caucus members proposed an array of amendments to the NDAA that would impede DOD plans to use innovative energy technologies both on and off the battlefield. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) offered an amendment that would prohibit DOD from funding any research and development (R&D) on EVs, EV charging infrastructure, or solar PV technology. Another amendment from Representative Perry would bar the Biden administration from using the Defense Production Act to boost the manufacture of EVs and related technology, including batteries, charging infrastructure, and critical minerals. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) proposed that DOD terminate any contracts for non-combat EVs, and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) sought authority for soldiers at the Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona to use non-electric vehicles.

While none of these provisions made it into the NDAA bill passed by the House in mid-July, the corresponding defense appropriations bill that was recently approved in committee included several more surgical attacks on R&D viewed as green. Among other things, the bill slashed a key component of DOD’s research budget to advance hybrid and electric tactical vehicles (vehicles used in military operations) and cut funds to demonstrate pre-commercial energy storage technology for use on military bases.

Electrification of the Battlefield

DOD spends more than $2.5 billion a year on energy R&D, and a major focus of this spending is on technologies to electrify the battlefield. While military aircraft, particularly fighter jets, are unlikely to transition to electric propulsion in the foreseeable future because of the irreplaceably high energy density of liquid fuel, DOD is preparing for a future in which most ships and vehicles (known collectively as “platforms”) will rely on hybrid-electric or electric propulsion.

The key reason for this shift is Moore’s Law: military dominance is increasingly determined by electronic devices and equipment, which are powered by electricity. Today’s standard Army tactical vehicle includes an array of onboard radios, computers, and sensors that require ten times the alternator-provided power used to support the comparable systems twenty years ago. On Navy ships, the proportion of energy consumed by onboard systems is approaching that used to propel the ship. A hybrid or electric motor can power these systems more efficiently and it can support “energy-elastic” radars and weapons that have greater range when given more power.

In addition to supporting more onboard systems more efficiently, hybrid and electric tactical vehicles simply perform better than their diesel counterparts: they have more torque, faster acceleration, and greater agility in off-road environments. Electric propulsion will also provide enhanced capabilities. Because it can operate without running a noisy combustion engine, a tactical EV will be able to move undetected (“silent mobility”) and carry out surveillance in close proximity to the enemy (“silent watch”). Once DOD has developed the technology to rapidly recharge tactical EVs, they will be able to function as a mobile power source—for example, by using the vehicle battery to help power a forward operating base (FOB) or refugee camp. Finally, hybrid and electric vehicles consume less fuel, a resource that can be extremely costly—in human lives as well as dollars—to obtain in combat settings.

DOD is electrifying its unmanned vehicles as well in large part because of the promise of longer-duration operations without the need for refueling. As with tactical vehicles, the technology is still being developed. For example, DOD is supporting R&D to extend the flight duration of smaller, electric drones. Larger drones such as the Predator, which use aircraft engines to stay aloft for up to 40 hours, face an increasingly contested environment. The technology for DOD’s unmanned ground and underwater vehicle systems is at an even earlier stage of development.

Solar PV and energy storage technologies, which some House Republicans have also targeted, are key to the improved performance of a host of military assets, including vehicles. DOD is supporting the development of solar PV materials that are lighter weight and more flexible than today’s silicon panels, to enable longer missions for foot soldiers, increase flight duration for drones, and reduce the fuel needs of FOBs. The Air Force is even exploring the potential to transmit solar energy from space. Long-duration energy storage technology would be a game-changer for tactical vehicles and remote contingency bases, where electrical power needs are growing rapidly.

Fixed Military Installations

Energy storage technology is no less critical to military bases here at home. DOD has 500 bases—known as “fixed installations” to distinguish them from mobile FOBs—and they account for a third of the military’s energy consumption. Long responsible for maintaining the readiness of troops and weapon systems, fixed installations increasingly provide direct support for combat operations. For example, unmanned aircraft operating in theater are piloted from air bases in the United States, and many bases have intelligence and surveillance capabilities that support critical missions.

Because bases rely almost entirely on the commercial grid for their electricity, the vulnerability of the grid is a serious concern. Major electric power outages are increasing in number and severity in the United States—due largely to severe weather—and military bases experience more frequent and longer outages than typical utility customers. Bases currently rely on emergency diesel generators to provide backup power; but backup generators are unreliable and inflexible, environmentally dirty, and dependent on limited fuel supplies.

DOD has actively promoted the development of advanced microgrids and large-scale energy storage systems because of their ability to maintain power to fixed installations during an outage of weeks and months, not just days. Since 2010, DOD’s Energy Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) has funded more than three dozen formal projects in which vendors demonstrate and validate their pre-commercial systems on military bases in what amounts to a distributed testbed. Some of these systems are now commercially available, and military bases are deploying them. House Republican cuts in “green” technology investments, including ESTCP energy storage demonstrations, would slow this virtuous process.

Non-Tactical EVs

Much of the Freedom Caucus’s opposition is aimed at efforts on DOD’s fixed installations to transition their vehicle fleets to EVs. Military bases are home to 170,000 non-tactical vehicles, and President Biden has called for most federal vehicle acquisitions to be net-zero emission vehicles by 2035. In contrast to tactical EVs, DOD’s transition to non-tactical EVs is not driven by combat considerations. Nevertheless, fleet electrification makes sense for several reasons.

First, electrification of vehicles is where the market is going. With major automakers setting deadlines by which they will sell only zero-emission vehicles, the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered.

Second, fleet electrification can enhance the energy security of military bases. The electrical infrastructure at many bases is old and under-maintained, and it will need to be upgraded to support the added electricity load—a plus. Moreover, the vehicle batteries, alone or in conjunction with the base’s microgrid and energy storage system, can provide backup power to buildings on the base in the event of a grid outage.

EVs can be an especially effective source of backup power at smaller national guard bases and stations. There are well over a thousand guard bases nationwide, and the vast majority of them consist of only one or two buildings. If a region experiences a major natural disaster, the local guard base often serves as the locus of response activity. The combination of roof solar PV and an EV or two can allow a small guard base to function in the absence of grid power.

Third, the EVs on a base may be able to provide grid stabilization services. A decade ago, the Air Force led a DOD-wide effort to explore the potential for plug-in hybrid EVs on a military base to generate revenue by discharging energy into the grid during high-demand periods. Working with local utilities and the State of California, the Air Force tested the vehicle-to-grid (V2G) concept at Los Angeles Air Force Base, which had electrified its general service vehicle fleet. While the multi-year demonstration project cast doubt on the ability of V2G to pay for itself, it lent some credence to the notion that the EVs on a base could help stabilize the grid.

The Air Force V2G demonstration project illustrates the military’s tendency to serve as an early adopter of new technology. Representative Gosar’s amendment preserving nonelectric vehicles at Yuma Proving Ground is ironic in this respect. Gosar told the Washington Post, “the military is no place to experiment with untested technology,” which, in the case of electric vehicles, he believes would jeopardize the readiness and training of soldiers and equipment. To the contrary. The Yuma Proving Ground is part of the Army’s Test and Evaluation Command, whose very mission is to test new technology. More broadly, DOD has a deep culture of technology demonstration (“dem-val,” short for demonstration and validation, is common parlance in the Pentagon), because of the crucial role demonstrations play in the military’s development and early adoption of mission-essential technology, including commercial technology.

Embrace OD Green

The military relies on energy for everything it does. It consumes much of that energy in combat settings, where it is extremely costly in lives and treasure to obtain. Realistically, future military platforms and capabilities will require more, not less, energy.

DOD energy needs are changing as well as growing. Most significantly, the dramatic increase in electrical systems onboard military platforms is driving electrification of the battlefield. That and the need to reduce the logistics footprint are creating requirements for distributed and portable power generation, smart energy networks, improved energy storage, and wireless power transmission. Concern that a vulnerable power grid could “disarm” bases here at home is driving investments in renewable energy, microgrids, and energy storage. That process now includes the transition to non-tactical EVs—a step many in the military have long wanted to take.

In short, the military is pursuing clean energy technology not at the expense of mission capability, but to enhance it. To many DOD personnel, “green” is short for “OD green”—as in the traditional olive drab color of military uniforms. Skeptics in the House should embrace OD green and declare victory.