Written on April 2, 2009 at 12:53 pm by

“On the Definition of Energy Security” by Mike Aimone

Filed under Air Force {4 comments}

energy security">Below is a blog post about energy security by Michael Aimone, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. In light of the upcoming Earth Day, as well as the overall ongoing news about energy concerns, Mr. Aimone wants to open up a discussion about energy security. Following this blog post, and the interest of readers, we may look for a place to keep the energy discussion going.

“On the Definition of Energy Security” by Mike Aimone

The purpose of this blog post is to open a dialogue on the definition of the term “Energy Security”. Google the term “energy security,” and you’ll get 92 million hits. Say energy security (ES) to five different people, and I bet you’ll get 10 different answers!

Is ES achieved by U.S. Naval oil tanker convoys through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf? Or the piracy concerns off the horn of Africa? Or possibly the implications of a blockade within the Strait of Malacca? You can see there is a strong tie between National Security and Energy Security.

Some say the current financial debacle is somewhat tied to the high oil prices over the past three years. Some suggest that ES is achieved by energy independence, though others will point out that crude oil prices are fungible in the worldwide economy, and even if the U.S. had significant domestic resources available to meet domestic needs, prices would have risen to the worldwide price standard. That is, there is a strong tie between Economic Security and Energy Security.

I think most people have accepted the fact that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are climbing, and with that the effect on climate change. Certainly manmade GHGs are rising as the developing nations expand their middle class expansion through industrialization. Imagine a China or India with a greatly expanded automobile sector. That is, there is a strong tie between Environmental Security and Energy Security.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is working to create an Energy Security definition for the Department of Defense. One working definition is

DoD Facilities energy security encompasses sufficiency, surety, and sustainability. Above all, energy security means having adequate power to conduct critical missions for the duration of that mission (sufficiency).

Secondarily, and leading to sufficiency, is ensuring resilient energy supplies that are accessible when needed (surety). Finally, the energy supplies must present the lowest life cycle cost, while considering all statutory and executive order requirements, as well as the impact to mission, community, and environment (sustainability).

I look forward to hearing your comments about this working definition.

Update #1

In addition to the comments we’ve received, a reader posed the following question:

Q: Does the OSD interest in the energy security definition stem from Al Shaffer?

A: (from Mike Aimone.) Energy issues, and the interest in the term “energy security” in OSD is
shared by functionally between DDR&E for weapon systems, I&E for installations & ground (non tactical) transportation, and HD&ASA for issues associated with energy systems Critical Infrastructure Protection.  All these organizations share common interest in what I am seeking by defining, for the department, the term energy security.  Mr. Shaffer is just one of those interested parties, though Mr. Lally in I&E also helped draft the definition on the blog.

  • http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ Joe Katzman

    Sufficiency. Surety. Sustainability. My sense is that you’ve boxed yourself into a “pick any 2″ trap, when the combinations aren’t simply problematic (sufficiency and sustainability).

    The core of a DoD defiintion has to be the mission. That means sufficiency, and surety. It will always pay more, in order to have those things. And it should. Which what makes the US military a natural leader/ “pre-chasm, early adopter” customer for new energy technologies.

    Embrace that. Don’t fight it.

    And start considering the other dimension of energy security/ surety. If the US military is going to perform a lot of advance regional stabilization, humanitarian, and COIN missions, what’s the big missing piece? Energy for the local populace, that uses easy to maintain technologies. A force with those kinds of technologies in its pocket will be far more effective than one without, even if those technologies are not otherwise usable by the US military for its own needs (though some may be).

    I’d drop sustainability, and substitute “distributability”. Which could also feed into resiliency at some levels, but only as a secondary effect.

  • http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ Joe Katzman

    I’ll ad that the 2005 US Army Corps of Engineers’ report “Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations” should be factoring in to these deliberations. See:

  • http://www.dodenergy.blogspot.com Andy Bochman

    Grreat stuff. Like Joe Katzman’s comments, especially about a DOD that’s handy with mobile energy making a bigger hearts and minds impact in remote places.

    Unclear why the draft OSD definition of ES begins with “DoD Facilities Energy Security”. What’s the point of inserting “facilities” … or is that just a typo?

    And lastly, for now anyway, not sure that the construct “ES is achieved” is helpful. ES is always a desirable direction; it’s not a destination that’s ever reached.

  • Brian

    Energy Surety ought to be the overarching concept of DoD and the Federal Government. Why?

    Security is one attribute of Surety. So is sustainability.

    Sufficiency, in the short term, is simply about keeping open your lines of communication. In effect, it is synonymous with security.

    Sufficiency, in the long term, is about having enough supplies to endure as a military and a nation. It is synonymous with sustainability.

    Energy Surety ought to be the overarching concept of DoD and the Federal Government. A good first attempt at defining this is by Sandia National Labs in their paper “Towards an Energy Surety Future”