sources of energy, and enhance or expand the capa-
bilities of our operations (DA G3/5/7 2010b, 9).The APGM is part III of the TAP and further de-
fines the senior leader guidance for the programming
activities of the senior staffs. The APGM is drafted by
the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8 Program Analysis and
Execution (PA&E). All justifications for requirements
must align themselves with the APGM to be competi-
tive for validation and then actual funding. This is the
key document in the POM cycle for resource manag-
ers to focus their efforts as they analyze their data and
translate their funding requests in terms of the priori-
ties it highlights. If a requirement cannot be related to
the guidance in the APGM, it stands little chance of
getting recognized in the validation process. Annex
A of the APGM is “Guidance to Program Evaluation
Groups (PEGs) and Commands.” Obviously this is
a golden opportunity to insert language requiring
sustainability considerations be a priority. The draft
APGM 12-17 contained the following reference to sus-
tainability in Annex A:
Review and determine critical requirements for the
Army Energy Security program ensuring the program
provides the total cost of the proposal, the benefits that
will result, and the proposed resource strategy (DA G8
2010a, A-4).This language is not as strong as the verbiage in the
ASPG and the APPG. Since it is the focus for the PEGs,
it would be much more effective in the programming
and budget process to have this verbiage in Annex A
of the APGM clearly articulate the active role the PEGs
should take in their reviews for ensuring sustainable