DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation Programs Fiscal Year 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation Programs Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation Programs Fiscal Year 2001 February 4, 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program Washington, DC 20585 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1 I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 9 A. Overview of Federal Energy Management Policy and Legislative Mandates .. 9 B. Overall Federal Energy Consumption, Costs, and Carbon Emissions ....... 12 C. Energy Management Infrastructure and Tools ......................... 22 1. Federal Coordination ...................................... 22 2. Training ................................................ 23 3. Awards and Recognition ................................... 25 4. Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities ...................... 30 5. Energy Awareness ........................................ 32 6. Public Education Programs ................................. 32 D. Financing Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Federal Facilities ............................................... 36 1. Direct Appropriations ..................................... 36 2. Federal Energy Efficiency Fund .............................. 40 3. Energy Savings Performance Contracting ...................... 40 4. Utility Energy Service Contracts ............................. 45 5. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) .................................. 46 E. ENERGY STAR® and Energy Efficient Product Procurement .............. 47 F. Integrated Whole Building Efficiency ............................... 49 1. Federal Building Energy Performance Standards ................ 49 2. ENERGY STAR® Buildings .................................. 49 3. Sustainable Building Design ................................ 50 4. Highly Efficient Systems ................................... 52 5. Water Conservation ....................................... 53 G. Renewable Energy .............................................. 54 II. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN STANDARD BUILDINGS ................. 56 A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Standard Buildings ................. 56 B. Progress Toward the Mandated Goals for Standard Buildings ............ 64 III. INDUSTRIAL, LABORATORY, AND OTHER ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITIES ....................................................... 69 A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Energy Intensive Facilities ........... 69 B. Statutory Background and Progress Toward Goals for Energy Intensive Facilities .............................................. 72 IV. EXEMPT FACILITIES .............................................. 75 A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Exempt Facilities .................. 75 i V. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ............ 79 A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Vehicles and Equipment ............. 79 VI. FEDERAL AGENCY ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ........... 83 A. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 83 B. Department of Commerce ........................................ 87 C. Department of Defense .......................................... 89 D. Department of Energy ........................................... 95 E. Department of Health and Human Services .......................... 101 F. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..................... 105 G. Department of the Interior ....................................... 107 H. Department of Justice .......................................... 111 I. Department of Labor ........................................... 113 J. Department of State ............................................ 115 K. Department of Transportation .................................... 117 L. Department of the Treasury ...................................... 120 M. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................... 123 N. Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 125 O. General Services Administration .................................. 132 P. National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................... 136 Q. National Archives and Records Administration ...................... 141 R. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................. 142 S. Railroad Retirement Board ...................................... 143 T. Social Security Administration ................................... 144 U. Tennessee Valley Authority ...................................... 146 V. United States Postal Service ..................................... 149 TABLES Table 1-A Total Primary Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies ................ 13 Table 1-B Total Site-Delivered Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies .......... 14 Table 2 Federal Petroleum Usage in FY 2001 ............................... 18 Table 3 Carbon Emissions from Federal Agency Facility Energy Use ............. 21 Table 4-A Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 2001 (Thousands of Nominal Dollars) .. 37 Table 4-B Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 2001 (Thousands of Constant 2001 Dollars) ................................................. 38 Table 5-A Federal Primary Energy Consumption in Standard Buildings ............. 57 Table 5-B Federal Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Standard Buildings ........ 58 Table 6 Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Standard Buildings .............. 61 Table 7-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Buildings Energy in FY 2001 ...... 62 Table 7-B Consumption and Costs of Federal Buildings Energy by Fuel Type in FY 2001, FY 2000, and FY 1985 .................... 63 ii Table 8-A Federal Standard Buildings Site-Delivered Energy Use Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 2001 ....................... 66 Table 8-B Federal Standard Buildings Primary Energy Use Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 2001 ....................... 67 Table 9 Federal Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Energy Intensive Facilities .. 70 Table 10 Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Energy Intensive Facilities in FY 2001 ................................................... 71 Table 11 Energy Consumption, Costs, and Gross Square Footage of Federal Exempt Facilities, FY 2001 ................................ 76 Table 12 Consumption and Costs of Federal Exempt Facility Energy By Fuel Type in FY 2001 ......................................... 76 Table 13 Federal Energy Consumption in Vehicle and Equipment Operations ....... 80 Table 14-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Vehicle and Equipment Energy in FY 2001 ............................................. 81 Table 14-B Consumption and Costs of Vehicle and Equipment Energy by Fuel Type in FY 2001, FY 2000, and FY 1985 .................... 82 Table C Federal Energy Expenditures, FY 1985 through FY 2001 ............... C-2 FIGURES Figure ES-1 Decrease in Btu per Gross Square Foot in Federal Standard Buildings from FY 1985 ......................................... 5 Figure ES-2 Federal Consumption of Petroleum-Based Fuels FY 1985 through FY 2001 ........................................ 6 Figure 1 Federal Energy Consumption, FY 2001 .............................. 16 Figure 2 Federal Energy Costs, FY 2001 .................................... 17 Figure 3 Carbon Emissions from Federal Energy Consumption, FY 1990 to FY 2001 ............................................ 19 Figure 4 Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits ................ 39 Figure 5 Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption in Standard Buildings by Fuel Type, FY 2001 ........................ 56 Figure 6 Consumption of Electricity and Other Fuels in Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2001 .................... 59 Figure 7 Progress Toward the Energy Reduction Goals for Federal Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2001 ....................... 64 Figure 8 Progress of Individual Agencies Toward the Federal Reduction Goal for Standard Buildings, FY 2001 ................................... 68 Figure 9 Defense and Civilian Federal Energy Consumption in Vehicles and Equipment by Fuel Type, FY 2001 .................... 81 iii APPENDICES Appendix A List of Authorities ............................................. A-1 Appendix B Data Collection ............................................... B-1 Appendix C Federal Energy Expenditures FY 1985 through FY 2001 ............... C-1 Appendix D Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy Intensive Facilities in FY 2001 ................................................... D-1 Appendix E Exempt Facilities in FY 2001 .................................... E-1 Appendix F Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee ....................... F-1 Appendix G Personnel of the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program ................................... G-1 iv AGENCY ACRONYMS Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC Central Intelligence Agency CIA Department of Agriculture USDA Department of Commerce DOC Department of Defense DOD Department of Energy DOE Department of Health and Human Services HHS Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Department of the Interior DOI Department of Justice DOJ Department of Labor DOL Department of State ST Department of Transportation DOT Department of the Treasury TRSY Department of Veterans Affairs VA Environmental Protection Agency EPA Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC Federal Communications Commission FCC Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Federal Energy Regulatory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VT-9 Trained Aviators First F-35C Pilots to Graduate from TOPGUN
    Volume 58, Number 13 https://www.cnic.navy.mil/meridian ~ www.facebook.com/NASMeridian ~ Twitter: @nasmeridianms June 25, 2020 VT-9 trained aviators first F-35C pilots to graduate from TOPGUN By Gidget Fuentes ing them the tactics, techniques and USNI News procedures that are required for them to successfully employ their aircraft, inte- Two F-35C pilots are the first naval grated into a larger force,” Cmdr. Timo- aviators to graduate from the TOPGUN thy Myers, TOPGUN department head, course flying the fifth-generation Joint said in the release. “We are also in the Strike Fighter, the Navy announced. business of teaching our graduates how Marine Maj. Derek Heinz and Navy to instruct other students, so that when Lt. William Goodwin are among the lat- they go back to the fleet, they are able to est graduates of the Navy Strike Fighter instruct at a very high level.” Tactics Instructor course, run at Naval While TOPGUN had previously grad- Aviation Warfighting Development Cen- uated students who trained to F-35C tac- ter at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev. tics and procedures, Heinz and Goodwin Heinz is a member of the “Rough Raid- are the first fleet pilots already flying the ers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) jet to graduate the course, which used a 125, and Goodwin is a member of the syllabus developed from the ground up “Argonauts” of VFA-147, both F-35C specifically for F-35C integrated opera- Lightning II squadrons based at NAS tions, the Navy said. NAWDC has gradu- Lemoore, Calif. ally incorporated F-35C tactics into the Both Heinz and Goodwin trained and training curriculum as the advanced jet earned their “Wings of Gold” at Naval continues to enter the fleet and replace Air Station Meridian through Training aging Navy and Marine Corps fighter air- Squadron 9 (VT-9).
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Air Station Fallon : Nevada
    Military Asset List 2016 U.S. Navy NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON : NEVADA Established in 1942, Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon is located in the Lahontan Valley of west-central Nevada in the remnants of an ancient lake bed. Because of the arid climate, much of the local area around NAS Fallon is irrigated farmland. NAS Fallon was originally designed as a fallback airstrip to defend against a Japanese strike on the West Coast during World War II. Today it is the Navy’s premier tactical air warfare Above: The Van Voorhis Airfield at NAS Fallon is named after Lieutenant training center, Commander Bruce Avery Van Voorhis, Nevada's only native-born Medal of specializing in air-to-air and air-to-ground training. Fully 80% of all Honor recipient. munitions dropped from Navy aircraft in training land on the Fallon Left: Members of the ground crew at Range Training Complex (FRTC). NAS Fallon is also the Navy’s only NAS Fallon prepare F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters for the final phase of training of a air station capable of supporting an entire carrier air wing at one carrier air wing. (U.S. Navy photo) time. MISSION & VISION STATEMENT To provide the most realistic integrated NAS Fallon's total economic impact is $573 million. air warfare training support available to carrier air wings, tenant commands and individual units participating in training FAST FACTS events, including joint and multinational exercises, while remaining committed to » Location: Churchill County, NV (near Fallon) its assigned personnel. In support of these critical training and personnel » Land Area: 8,600 acres (+ 240,000 acres of FRTC/BLM) requirements, NAS Fallon continually upgrades and maintains the Fallon range » Special Use Airspace: 13,000 square miles complex, the airfield, aviation support facilities and base living/recreation » Sorties/Operations: 51,000 per year accommodations, ensuring deployed unit training and a local quality of life second » Military Personnel: 930 active duty to none.
    [Show full text]
  • 89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94Th Congress an Act Uct
    89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94th Congress An Act Uct. /, 1975^ rpQ authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. [S. 1247] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assenibled^ construction and guard and reserve TITLE I—ARMY forces facilities authorization acts, 1976. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili­ Military tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Construction rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, Authorization including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, Act, 1976. and equipment for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building), Boston, Massachu­ setts, $8,000,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina. $13,214,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $13,680,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,732,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $46,281,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $31,861,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,892,000. Fort Ord, California, $32,209,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $54,361,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,685,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $14,879,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, $39,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Benning, Georgia, $44,212,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $633,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $6,945,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $14,546,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $42,898,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $719,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $41,090,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Ninth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/03/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-04692, and on FDsys.gov 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL- 9943-17-OLEM] Twenty-Ninth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (“Docket”) under Section 120(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section 120(c) requires EPA to establish a Docket that contains certain information reported to EPA by Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which a reportable quantity of hazardous substances has been released. As explained further below, the Docket is used to identify Federal facilities that should be evaluated to determine if they pose a threat to public health or welfare and the environment and to provide a mechanism to make this information available to the public. This notice includes the complete list of Federal facilities on the Docket and also identifies Federal facilities reported to EPA since the last update of the Docket on August17, 2015. In addition to the list of additions to the Docket, this notice includes a section with revisions of the previous Docket list. Thus, the revisions in this update include 7 additions, 22 corrections, and 42 deletions to the Docket since the previous update. At the time of publication of this notice, the new total number of Federal facilities listed on the Docket is 2,326.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental
    7.0 List of Preparers Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement January 2020 Environmental Impact Statement Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 GOVERNMENT PREPARERS ............................................................................................................7-1 7.2 CONTRACTOR PREPARERS .............................................................................................................7-4 List of Figures There are no figures in this chapter. List of Tables There are no tables in this chapter. i Table of Contents Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement January 2020 This page intentionally left blank. ii Table of Contents Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement January 2020 7 List of Preparers 7.1 Government Preparers CDR Michael Albrecht, Operations Officer Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center N3 Nathan Arcoraci, Environmental Planner Naval Air Station Fallon Mike Baskerville, Archaeologist Naval Air Station Fallon Gene Beale, Real Estate Naval Air Station Fallon Alex Bethke, Cultural Resources Program Lead Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Commander Scott Beyer, Public Works Officer Naval Air Station Fallon Steve Bonaker, Environmental Engineer Naval Air Station Fallon Geoff Buckner, Geologist Naval Facilities
    [Show full text]
  • The F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning Ii Program
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–79] THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER LIGHTNING II PROGRAM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 7, 2018 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 29–417 WASHINGTON : 2019 SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEPHEN KNIGHT, California RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MATT GAETZ, Florida SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DON BACON, Nebraska ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JIM BANKS, Indiana TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York ROB BISHOP, Utah JIMMY PANETTA, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia MO BROOKS, Alabama JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 3 Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommit- tee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .................................................................. 1 WITNESSES Conn, RADM Scott D., USN, Director, Air Warfare (OPNAV N98), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations ........................................................................ 11 Harris, Lt Gen Jerry D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force .............................................. 12 Rudder, LtGen Steven R., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Head- quarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 42/Thursday, March 3, 2016
    11212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices TABLE 2—CONCENTRATION LIMITS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE HAZARDOUS AT LESS THAN 0.001 Mg/L— Continued Concentration Concentration Health based limit at the reduction Chemical constituent Waste code limit wellhead factor (mg/L) (mg/L) ) (Note 2) (C/C0 2-Methylpyridine ............................................. U191 ............................................................... 2.0 × 10¥3 1,000 2.0 × 10¥6 3-Methylpyridine ............................................. Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nickel .............................................................. F006 ............................................................... 0.001 100 1.0 × 10¥5 Nicotinonitrile .................................................. Note 2 ............................................................. 6.0 × 10¥6 6,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nitrilotiracetonitrile .......................................... Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nitrobenzene .................................................. U169 ............................................................... 1.8 × 10¥2 100 1.8 × 10¥4 Oleic acid ........................................................ Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Oleoylsarconsinate ......................................... Note 2 ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98Th Congress an Act
    PUBLIC LAW 98-115—OCT. 11, 1983 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1984, and for Oct. 11, 1983 other purposes. [H.R. 2972] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Military be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984'\ Au'thorizSn Act, 1984. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $31,100,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $15,300,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $17,760,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $3,000,000. Fort Douglas, Utah, $910,000. Fort Drum, New York, $1,500,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $76,050,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $1,000,000. Fort Irwin, California, $34,850,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $35,310,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $5,150,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,150,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $16,180,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $940,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $76,600,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $29,720,000. Presidio of Monterey, California, $1,300,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $31,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $5,900,000.
    [Show full text]
  • April 1,1995
    DCN 1043 AVIATION-TROOP SUPPORT COMMAND, MO APRIL 1,1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB 1. ITINERARY 2. BASE SUMMARY SHEET 3. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RECOMMENDATION 4. CATEGORY CHART 5. INSTALLATION REVIEW 6. STATE MAP - DOD INSTALLATIONS AND STATISTICAL DATA 7. STATE CLOSURE HISTORY LIST -1 sr 8. PRESSARTICLES 9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION '. COMMISSION BASE VISIT \ AVIATION-TROOP COMMAND (ATCOM), MO Saturday, April 1,1995 SSIONERS ATTENDING: Alan J. Dixon Lee KIing STAFF ATTENDING: Ed Brown Mike Kennedy David Lyles I3lNuuw Friday. March 31 2:30PM MT Lee Kling and David Lyles depart Malmstrom AFB en route St. Louis, MO: MILAIR C-2 1. -\-. ' 6:30PM CT Lee Kling and David Lyles anive St. Louis, MO from Malmstrom. * Lee Kling and David Lyles drive to Lee Kling's residence for overnight. lO:09AM ET Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy depart DC National en route St. Louis, MO: TWA flight 123. 11:26AM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy arrive St. Louis, MO airport fkom DC National. * Rental car (Kennedy): National Confirmation#: 1046585036 Days: April 1 Phone#: 1800-227-7368 11 :30AM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy depart St. Louis airport by car to pick up Lee Kling and David Lyles at Lee Kling's residence. 12:30PM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy pick up Lee Kling and David Lyles and depart en route ATCOM. 1 :00PM CT Alan J. Dixon departs personal residence en route ATCOM. 1:45PM CT Alan J. Dixon, Lee Kling, Ed Brown, Mike Kennedy and David Lyles arrive ATCOM. 2:00PM to ATCOM base visit. ) 5:OOPM 5:OOPM CT Alan J.
    [Show full text]
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), Public Law 111-5, Is an Unprecedented Effort to Revitalize the U.S
    AmericanAmerican RecoveryRecovery andand ReinvestmentReinvestment ActAct ofof 20092009 DepartmentDepartment ofof DefenseDefense ExpenditureExpenditure PlansPlans MarchMarch 20,20, 20092009 Executive Summary Background The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), Public Law 111-5, is an unprecedented effort to revitalize the U.S. economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. With much at stake, the Act provides for unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability so that the public will be able to know how, when, and where tax dollars are being spent. Department of Defense (DoD) Implementation The Recovery Act includes approximately $7.4 billion in Defense-related appropriations, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the total $787 billion stimulus package signed on February 17, 2009, by President Obama. The Department intends to spend this funding with unprecedented full transparency and accountability. A website, www.Recovery.gov, is the main vehicle to provide every citizen with the ability to monitor the progress of the recovery. The DoD also has a website: http://www.defenselink.mil/recovery, which links to Recovery.gov. As stated on www.Recovery.gov, the purpose of the Recovery Act is to create and save jobs, jumpstart our economy, address unfunded facility requirements, and build the foundation for long-term economic growth. In order to fulfill these objectives, the DoD intends to spend its funds
    [Show full text]
  • Better to Give Than Throw Away Commissaries Pass 21M-Pound Mark in Donations to Local Food Banks by Deca Corporate Communications
    NEWS RELEASE Defense Commissary Agency Corporate Communications 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800 Tel: (804) 734-8000, Ext. 8-6105 DSN: 687-8000, Ext. 8-6105 FAX: (804) 734-8248 DSN: 687-8248 www.commissaries.com Release Number: 09-20 Date: January 23, 2020 Media Contact: Kevin L. Robinson, public affairs specialist Tel.: (804) 734-8000, Ext. 4-8773 E-mail: [email protected] Better to give than throw away Commissaries pass 21M-pound mark in donations to local food banks By DeCA Corporate Communications Note: Go to the DeCA website to view this news release online. FORT LEE, Va. – Military commissaries would rather fill a food bank than a landfill. That’s the mindset of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) as it announces a new milestone in donations – 21 million pounds plus – to local food banks. DeCA reached this mark in donations over a five-year period; 5 million pounds of it coming in 2019 alone. The donated items are certified by food inspectors as being edible but unsellable, said Randy Eller, director of the agency’s logistics directorate. “Instead of edible food being discarded in trash bins, we’re using it to help feed the hungry,” Eller said. “I’m proud that we can connect with food banks to make that happen.” Although DeCA always had limited authority to request food bank approval to donate edible but unsaleable products, the agency’s formal food donation program emerged after the 2013 government shutdown. As the agency prepared to close its stateside commissaries on Oct. 2 of that year, they requested temporary approval from the Department of Defense (DOD) to donate edible food, especially perishables, to local food banks to avoid dumping it in the trash.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Air Station Fallon Update
    18E Naval Air Station Fallon Update Rob Rule Community Plans and Liaison Officer Naval Air Station Fallon “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” Naval Air Station Fallon and Fallon Range Training Complex “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” 2 Naval Air Station Fallon • Aviation Integrated Training • Air Wing • Strike Fighter Advanced Readiness Program • Aviation Graduate Level Schools • Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) • Naval Strike Warfare Center (Strike University) • Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School • Rotary Wing Weapons School • Electronic Reconnaissance Weapons School • Joint Close Air Support School • Naval Special Warfare Tactical Mobility Course • Growler Weapons School • Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Cell • Special Warfare • Tactical Ground Mobility • Close Air Support • Sniper Sustainment “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” 3 Fallon Range Training Complex “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” 4 Fallon Summary ⚫ Home to the Naval Aviation Center of Excellence for tactical, pre-deployment combat training ⚫ Training 100% of carrier-based Naval Aviation Strike Warfare units ⚫ Training 100% of Naval Special Warfare TGM units ⚫ Not easily or affordably replicated anywhere else in the United States or Overseas ⚫ Critical contribution to the Department of Defense as a Joint National Training Capability certified site “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization “Nevada’s Carrier in the Desert” 6 Weapons Technology Evolution ⚫ Cumulative advances in weapons technology in response to threat ⚫ Fallon Ranges
    [Show full text]