options were part of the analysis, particularly since it
can impact multiple programs. The role of the PEGs
is pivotal in the development of recommendations for
Senior Leader budget decisions so it is paramount that
the guidance they receive adequately reflects empha-
sis on sustainability.
Guidance to the PEGs is further defined in Appen-
dix C of the APGM which is the “Technical Guidance
Memorandum” (TGM). The TGM “outlines program
intent and provides specific guidance to the Program
Evaluation Groups with respect to resource alloca-
tion” (DA G8 2010a, C-1). The first draft of the POM
12-16 TGM addresses a 50% increase in Energy Secu-
rity Resource Allocation from FY12 to FY16 of $60M
(DA G-8 2010a, C-5). This is a positive step of course.
However, in the “General Guidance” portion of the
TGM the only reference to “Energy Initiatives” de-
scribed the following two points:
- Complete all metering required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Indepen-
dence and Security Act of 2007 by 2012 within
existing resources. - Any new utilities privatization requirement
must have a favorable, DASA-CE certified,
Cost-Benefit Analysis and gain approval of
Three-Star BRP prior to incurring any commit-
ments (DA G8 2010a, C-20).
Certainly these efforts are important, but unfortu-
nately this verbiage was significantly diluted from the
emphasis on the drive for renewable energy or sustain-
able alternatives that were voiced in both the ASPG
and the APPG. This illustrates a very important and
critical opportunity that exists with the drafting of the
APGM and TGM to influence the work of the PEGs.
Language consistent with the intent of the ASPG and