S. HRG. 111–1187 

OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–029 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1187 

OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 22, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 130 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 131 

WITNESSES 

Prouty, Paul F., Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, Accompanied by: Tony Costa, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service; 

Bill Guerin, Recovery Executive, Recovery Program Management Office, 

Public Buildings Service; and Kevin Kampschroer, Acting Director, Office 

of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings .................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 10 

Response to an additional question from Senator Lautenberg ..................... 20 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 21 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 24 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 26 

Gatlin, Doug, Vice President, Market Development, U.S. Green Building 

Council .................................................................................................................. 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 72 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 72 

Burt, Lane, Energy Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council ........... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 91 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 91 

Bryan, Harvey, Professor, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University ........................................... 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 114 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 114 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Testimony of Associated Builders and Contractors .............................................. 133 

Statement from the American Forest & Paper Association ................................. 142 

An Analysis of the Financial Performance of Green Office Buildings in the 

USA ....................................................................................................................... 148 

Statement from Independent Electrical Contractors ............................................ 190 

Testimony of the National Association of Home Builders .................................... 193 

Testimony of the National Energy Management Institute .................................. 200 

Information from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative .......................................... 208 

Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy 

Sources .................................................................................................................. 214 

Research paper on Green Jobs Myths .................................................................... 263 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE GSA AND ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Klobuchar, Udall, 

and Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. Happy Earth Day to all. 

We are going to skip opening statements because we want to get 

right to our panel. We have two purposes this morning. One is to 

see how we are doing on the Recovery Act, because there was a 

good chunk of money that we provided to GSA to convert their facilities to high-performance green buildings. We want to know how 

that is coming. That is the first thing. 

The second panel, we will hear from building and energy efficiency experts from outside of Government regarding the progress 

that has been made to date and the barriers to further improvement. We are working across the aisle to write some legislation to 

see if we can do more to move even faster and further on our GSA 

efficiency efforts. 

So with that, I am very happy to open it up and glad to have 

those of you here. There is a lot going on today. I think Al Gore 

is over on the other side of the building talking about global warming, and John Kerry, I just left a hearing, he is talking about the 

progress on the international side, of the treaty that we are working on global warming. 

So Mr. Prouty, why don’t you go ahead and proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL F. PROUTY, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: 

TONY COSTA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

SERVICE; BILL GUERIN, RECOVERY EXECUTIVE, RECOVERY 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE; AND KEVIN KAMPSCHROER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF FEDERAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS 

Mr. PROUTY. Thank you very much. 
2 

Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of this Committee. My name is Paul Prouty and I am the Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you on Earth Day. 

It is a fantastic opportunity for us to talk to you about the things 

we are doing to make our Federal buildings more energy efficient. 

I am pleased to discuss GSA’s contribution to our Nation’s economic recovery through green building modernization and construction. The funds Congress provided GSA through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are a sound investment in many respects. First, the money will help GSA reduce energy consumption 

and improve the environmental performance of our inventory. 

Second, the funds in large part will be invested in existing infrastructure. This will help reduce our backlog of repair and alteration 

needs and increase asset value, prolonging their useful life and ultimately further conserving our Country’s resources. 

Third, the money will lessen our reliance on costly operating 

leases by providing more Government-owned solutions for longterm client requirements. 

Finally, we will stimulate job growth in the construction and real 

estate sectors and prompt long-term improvements in alternative 

energy solutions and green building and energy-efficient technologies. 

Today, I will describe the steps we have taken to carry out the 

public buildings services portion of the Recovery Act. With me 

today are Tony Costa, Acting Commissioner of the Public Buildings 

Service; Bill Guerin, the recovery executive in our newly established Recovery Program Management Office; and Kevin 

Kampschroer, our Acting Director of the Office of Federal HighPerformance Green Buildings. 

It is not business as usual at GSA. We are moving forward with 

speed, tempered by careful consideration of our procurement responsibilities and our ultimate accountability to the citizens. To 

streamline business processes and provide tools and resources to 

assist GSA’s regional recovery project delivery, we have established 

a nationally managed, regionally executed Project Management Office. The PMO works closely with counterparts in the core PBS organization to leverage resources and expertise. 

The PMO office develops and maintains consistent processes, 

policies and guidelines, manages customer requirements and expectations at the national level, drives successful project oversight and 

management, ensures accurate tracking and reporting of the Recovery Act funds, manages cross-agency resources, and enables 

PBS to adopt leading practices. 

PBS and the Program Management Office have moved forward 

quickly. On March 31, GSA on behalf of the Administration, delivered to Congress a list of 254 projects in all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and two U.S. territories to be completed with funds 

provided by the Recovery Act. These projects fall in the following 

categories: new Federal construction, full or partial building modernizations, and limited scope, high-performance green building 

projects. 

In the new Federal construction category, we will invest $1 billion in 17 projects. In the building modernization category, we will 
3 

invest $3.2 billion in 43 projects. And in the limited scope green 

buildings category, we will invest $806 million in 194 projects. 

GSA selected the best projects for accomplishing the goals of the 

Recovery Act, based on a detailed analysis of a number of factors. 

Our goals in developing the list were to put people back to work 

quickly and to dramatically increase the sustainability of our buildings. 

Many of the projects in the new Federal construction and building modernization categories have previously received partial funding. We can start construction quickly on these projects, while also 

identifying ways that existing designs can be improved. 

These categories include projects such as the Bishop Henry 

Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, a multi-tenant office building project where heating, ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing, electrical and life safety improvements are expected to deliver a 23.6 percent energy savings. This is over and 

above the 20 percent in energy savings we have achieved in this 

building in recent years. 

Examples of the ways in which we will improve new construction 

and major modernization projects we have selected include thicker 

insulation than required by the newest energy codes in climates 

where it makes sense; installing variable frequency drives to reduce energy and extend the life of mechanical equipment; converting parking structure lighting to light emitting diode LED, 

which dramatically lowers energy consumption, improves safety 

and visibility, and reduces maintenance; retrofitting or replacing 

less efficient windows; and specifying dual flush toilets and waterless or low water urinals to save water and reduce demand on 

aging city sewer systems. 

An example of the innovative improvements we will be making 

in some of the construction and modernization projects is the Edith 

Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Oregon. As 

part of this project, GSA will install a new high-performance double glass enclosure over the entire building, which will dramatically 

enhance energy performance and blast resistance. On the west facade, vegetative fins will provide shade, and reduce the load of the 

new high-efficiency heating, ventilation and air conditioning system 

that will be installed. 

These are just some of the green improvements that GSA will 

make as part of this project. We expect the building to attain a 

LEED gold rating. 

By using well-established contracting techniques, we can start 

work quickly and make simultaneous improvements on existing designs. 

In the limited scope category, we have identified a number of 

basic projects that can rapidly be deployed in many buildings at 

once, buildings as varied as Oklahoma City Federal Building, the 

Burlington Federal Building, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, and 

the J. Caleb Boggs Courthouse and Federal Buildings in Wilmington, Delaware. 

Through these basic projects, we can make significant improvement to the energy performance of a building and also improve the 

working conditions for the people in them. 
4 

Three examples of these improvements are installing intelligent 

lighting systems that provide daylight and controls for occupants to 

adjust for ambient light versus task light; replacing flat roofs with 

ENERGY STAR membranes, integrated photovoltaic panels bonded 

to the membrane or planted roofs; accelerating the installation of 

advanced meters, which is required to be completed by 2012 under 

the Energy Policy Act. Advanced meters enable us to better manage buildings by instantaneously providing information on buildings’ energy use and encouraging immediate operational changes. 

For these projects, we have developed standard national scopes 

of work, some of which were provided by the national laboratories 

run by the Department of Energy. DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program, in conjunction with the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory has provided specifications for the four most common 

types of solar installation. The Commercial Buildings Program at 

DOE and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have provided 

specifications for three classes of lighting and control strategies. 

We have also developed standards using GSA’s past projects as 

models. 

Today, I have described the unprecedented and exciting opportunity that lies before us to contribute to our Nation’s economic recovery by investing in green technologies and reinvesting in our 

public buildings. 

Greening our buildings will be an ongoing process. As the Committee knows, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

and other laws require GSA, among other things, to reduce its energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015; reduce fossil fuel generated energy consumption in our new buildings by increasing 

amounts from 55 percent in 2010 to 100 percent in 2030; and to 

green an even greater portion of our inventory. Although the Recovery Act will accelerate our progress in these areas, it alone will 

not enable us to meet these goals. 

We look forward to working with you and Members of this Committee as we engage in this important work. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, this concludes my prepared statement. We will be pleased to answer any questions that 

you or any other members of this Committee may have. I would 

like to request that Messrs. Costa, Guerin, and Kampschroer join 

me for the questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prouty follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Prouty, I just want to say I am very 

excited about your presentation. Would you like to introduce the 

people you brought with you? 

Mr. PROUTY. I would very much like to do so. 

This is Tony Costa. He is the Acting Commissioner of the Public 

Buildings Service. This is Bill Guerin, who is running our recovery 

work for the Public Buildings Service. And Kevin Kampschroer, 

who is head of our Green Program. 

Senator BOXER. Wonderful. 

I am so happy we have been joined by Senator Lautenberg, who 

is such a leader in the whole area of green buildings and worked 

so hard to get some of those laws passed that you talked about. 

I want to just say people don’t realize, and Senator Lautenberg, 

you and I know this, buildings are 39 percent of the problem when 

it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. So when we make a building 

green, we are not only saving money, we are not only improving 

air quality, but we are absolutely confronting head on the issue of 

greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. 

I have long believed, and you have, Senator, and I am sure you 

have all out there believed that the Federal Government ought to 

be a model when it comes to the environment. And today is Earth 

Day, and the reason I held this hearing is I want to make sure that 

you are on track with this stimulus bill. It sounds very good. And 

Senator, I am going to make available to you a list of all their 

projects that they have already decided they are going to do under 

the Stimulus Act. 

And what I also wanted to say just for the record is that GSA 

is the lessee or owner of over 354 million square feet of space in 

8,600 buildings located in more than 2,200 communities nationwide. And you know, frankly, we have lost this opportunity before, 

but now this new President and this Congress believe that we can 

make a real difference if we take the lead here, not only in the actual improvements that will be made to the buildings, our buildings, the people’s buildings, but also showing that yes, there is a 

model for everyone else to follow. I want us to be that model. 

So I will make sure that everybody has this list. I am looking to 

see what is going on in New Jersey. Yes, the Paterson, the Robert 

A. Roe Federal Building in Paterson, New Jersey is getting a big 

hunk of the stimulus money to make it energy efficient. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The fact that I was born in Paterson has 

nothing to do with it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am sure it is just a coincidence here, but 

you know, there is so much room for improvement. 

So I have just a couple of questions. Is there anything in particular, and I would ask all of you if you have a point, that this 

Committee can do to ensure the successful execution of the stimulus bill, otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Are you experiencing any problems, issues? And in your 

answer, could you tell me if most of these improvements are being 

done in-house or are they contracted out to the outside work force? 

And how is the new National Recovery Executive Office operating 

to ensure that all these projects are on track? Have you had any 
52 

interaction with them, because this Committee needs to oversee 

GSA. 

We want to make sure, A, any problems you are having on execution, how this National Recovery Executive Office is working, and 

are you contracting out for most of these things or doing them inhouse? 

Mr. PROUTY. First of all, as far as any help we might need, we 

at this point think that we quite frankly have all the help that we 

need in all regards. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. PROUTY. This is a massive amount of funding and it is a 

huge opportunity and we are up for the task. 

As far as who is going to be doing the work, it is primarily contracted out. Obviously, we have a staff that manages the contracts 

for that. 

Senator BOXER. So this is a boon to a lot of our businesses across 

this Country. Is that correct? Out of all the contracts—and I know 

I am interrupting you, but I am sorry—out of all the contracts you 

will be letting, how many have been let already, do you think? 

Probably a small percent, I would think at this point. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, our plans are to award over $1 billion 

worth of project contracts by August, and so far—— 

Senator BOXER. A billion of the 4 billion? 

Mr. COSTS. A billion of the $5.5 billion. 

Senator BOXER. OK. By August? And the rest? 

Mr. COSTA. The rest throughout the 18 months that we have to 

spend the rest of the money. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just say to you, and I know our 

President has said this, the point of the stimulus bill is to be a 

stimulus to this economy. In my State, I can only tell you, 11.2 percent, the fifth worst unemployment. So we need these funds to get 

out there, and we are going to be working. I know that President 

Obama’s team also believes that. 

So that leads me to his National Recovery Executive Office. Tell 

me, how is that working? Are they working in a good way with 

you? 

Mr. COSTA. From the standpoint of outside of GSA, the recovery? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. They have provided great support. We work closely 

with them in two basic areas. As you know, there is a lot of reporting that goes beyond anything we are used to that we are going 

to be responding to. We think that is a great thing because it will 

be not only better for us to manage our own work, but letting the 

public and our stakeholders know how we are doing actually is a 

great continuing check for us. So we are looking forward to that 

and we have been working closely with the recovery folks on doing 

that. 

GSA is actually helping to manage recovery.gov, the mechanism 

that is being used to pull all that information together. So we are 

both involved. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just say as Chairman of this Committee, and I know I speak for Senator Inhofe on this, if you run 

into any difficulties making this happen in any way, you need to 
53 

let us know. We want to encourage you to move quickly, of course 

carefully, but quickly because the point of the stimulus is just that. 

You know, to get a billion out by August is good, but that leaves 

you with the bulk of the funds, so we encourage you. 

I guess my last question to Mr. Prouty at this point is, do you 

have enough staff to get this done? I trust you are using some of 

this to staff up. Is that correct? 

Mr. PROUTY. That particular money is not going to be what we 

use for staffing, but we do have funding for additional staff. We 

have been working with the Office of Personnel Management to 

look for opportunities. We are going to bring back people who previously worked for us. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. PROUTY. Obviously, there are some contracting vehicles. We 

don’t expect a large increase in permanent staff, but temporary 

staff we do expect. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is key, because otherwise, the funds 

won’t get there. 

Now, I will tell you that I am working on a bill now with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do even more with GSA. I 

know our staff has been in close touch with you, and we are just 

about ready to get that bill done. Is that correct, Bettina? And so 

we will run it by you to make sure that it is right where you want 

it to be and it is a reasonable bill. But you know, my view is very 

strongly felt that we can be the model, and that is what we should 

be. 

We can’t talk the game and not, you know, really walk the walk. 

So I am very happy with what you have said today. I am very 

happy at the spirit that I feel. I feel this is a new time, new challenges. Everything you do will be marked. As Chairman, I intend 

to go to visit some of these programs as they get down the road 

a bit just to make the point of what we are doing. 

So with that, let me call on Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Prouty and your team, for doing the work that 

you are. We are very encouraged by the early signs, I must tell 

you. It is not the most glamorous part of assignments in the Government. On the other hand, it is because there is a question of believability in the public’s minds whether or not green can be that 

good for you. When a person has lost a job or the economy is so 

shaky in front of us, it is a little hard to say, OK, we are going 

to swap that kind of reality for a green mission, one that will make 

our Country healthier, our families. 

As a matter of fact, I think Earth Day ought to have been perhaps called something like Good Health Day, or Save the Children 

Day, something that connotes a little more directness and serious 

tone to things. 

So I was happy, Madam Chairman, that the legislation that I 

wrote in 2007 established the targets, established the mission, established the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings 

at GSA. 

What kind of a role, Mr. Prouty, has that office taken on to help 

get the reductions that are already there? We are using 26 percent 
54 

less energy than we did just few years ago. That is a major victory, 

or a major step forward. What did that office have to do with it? 

Mr. PROUTY. Excuse me, if I may. That office obviously has a 

large role Government-wide and also a large role in GSA. Kevin 

Kampschroer is leading that office. If I might, I would like to have 

him answer that question. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. For the last year when the office was created 

by the Energy Independence and Security Act, and then by the Administrator of General Services shortly thereafter, we have been 

working with other Federal agencies to make sure that the work 

of every agency is in concert with the others, both in energy reductions and the improvement of high-performance green buildings 

across the Government. 

With regard to the application of those things, the work that we 

did for the year enabled us to be poised when the Recovery Act was 

passed to be able to make some very good judgments very quickly 

on the projects that would be most likely to yield the greatest returns in high-performance improvements in the buildings. And 

those were the sets of criteria that we were able to use. 

We made use of the national labs, as the Administrator mentioned in his statement, to help us analyze these data, and also 

yield the limited scope, high-performance green building projects 

that comprise the bulk of the number of projects on the list, which 

are really focused on making the highest return improvements both 

in the areas of building tune-up, building mechanical systems improvements, and the lighting. Lighting in particular because the 

technology has changed so significantly over the last decade in 

lighting that we can make significant improvements even in the 

case of a retrofit that might have been done 10 or 15 years ago, 

which many were in our buildings. 

And last, we are using in the case of roof replacement sort of the 

judicious application of every form of renewable energy generation 

that is appropriate both for the geographical location and the physical configuration of the roof. So we have some 20-odd projects 

where photovoltaic, for example, generation will be included at the 

same time as dealing with a significant infrastructure problem 

within our inventory, that is to say leaking roofs and about 40 or 

so leaking roofs across the Country. As a part of the Recovery Act, 

we will be repairing every major leaking roof in our entire inventory. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am sure that would be good news to lots 

of people around the Country. 

How many jobs might you think were created as a result of that 

effort, this reduction in energy use? Were these jobs that were handled within it sounds like a relatively simple program because of 

the changes in technology in light bulbs and so forth? How much 

of that was responsible for the reduction? And did we have any significant job gain out there as a result of this? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Senator, we estimate based on a couple of 

different studies that we researched, and we are not economists, 

but based on the models that we have read about, we believe that 

for every billion dollars of Recovery Act funding in the construction 

arena, there will be 28,000 jobs created across the Country in all 

different categories. They might be construction jobs. They might 
55 

also be design jobs in many different professions. And that is a 

rough estimate. It is maybe not the world’s best economic model, 

but it is what we were able to find. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So that is a future expectation. I am really 

struck by this reduction in energy use of 26 percent. That is over 

a period of a couple of years. Is that right? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Nearly 30, yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Nearly 30 years? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, so we are going back a lot further 

than I thought. Did we start in a serious way 30 years ago trying 

to install less energy, lower energy projects? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Between 1985 and 2005, in GSA’s inventory 

we reduced the overall energy consumption compared to the baseline by 30 percent, and the Government as a whole by 26 percent 

during that same period. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. So this wasn’t induced by the legislation that was passed in these last couple of years. This was a continuation of programs that were begun before. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. That is correct. And since the legislation was 

passed in the last several years, beginning with the Energy Policy 

Act in 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, the goals were increased first double and then triple what 

they had been in previous laws. So now whereas we reduced by 30 

percent in 30 years under the old laws, our goal today is 30 percent 

in 10 years. And GSA is currently on track to meet that goal as 

well. So we have significantly increased our efforts in energy reduction even before the Recovery Act was passed. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Because one of the things that we see 

in the testimony is that GSA, among other things to reduce energy 

consumption, the goal is 30 percent by 2015. Now, is that a goal 

that was established based on the energy consumption of 2007? Are 

we looking at a 2-year reduction? I am sorry, in the 8-year period 

a reduction of 30 percent in fossil fuel use? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. There are two interrelated goals in the law. 

First of all is to reduce by 30 percent in 10 years with a baseline 

of 2003 consumption in the buildings. So we reset the baseline in 

2003. As a part of that resetting the baseline, we also increased the 

number of buildings that are being measured. 

And second, we have a goal of reducing compared to private sector the fossil fuel consumption of our buildings by 55 percent for 

those buildings that are under design today, either new construction or major modernization, and then that number between 2015 

and 2030 ratchets up from 55 percent below to 100 percent below. 

So by 2030, our goal will be to design and deliver buildings that 

consume no fossil fuel energy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is a terrific target. We hope you don’t 

miss it. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Every project on the major modernization list 

is being designed to use 55 percent less fossil fuel than the commercial equivalents. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And one last thing. You talk about releas- ing $1 billion by August for projects. What would you say would 

be the principal programs that would help you achieve your goal 
56 

that this $1 billion will foster? And how long might it be before we 

see that return on the $1 billion that we can talk about? 

Mr. GUERIN. Senator, we have a series of things that we are 

working on. We have several large projects that we are getting 

ready to award that were designed and on the shelf ready to go. 

An example of that would be the Austin Courthouse. We have a series of programmatic activities, as Kevin was describing. The single 

system projects in buildings that we will be pursuing in the short 

term to get those awarded as well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What are the single system projects? 

Mr. GUERIN. Like photovoltaics or the new roofs that Kevin was 

referring to earlier. Those types of projects that can be installed 

fairly quickly into buildings, we are going to design and get those 

awarded as quickly as we can. 

And then finally, we have a series of additional phases and completions of projects that were waiting for funds, and we are awarding those very quickly as well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And this $1 billion will respond to the formulas as we heard. How many jobs are created with each $1 billion 

expended? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Roughly 28,000, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. You have gone almost 5 minutes over. I am trying to get to the next panel because of their time constraints. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Fine. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. And Senator Lautenberg, I think pressing on 

this is important because we are going to see job creation, green 

job creation right here. 

So we want to thank all of you. 

And Kevin, will you do me a favor and just put into the record 

your recommendations of what more we can do as a Committee to 

give you even more resources for more green in our buildings, as 

we write our new legislation? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. I would be happy to do so. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And thank you all. We are very proud of the work you are doing. 

We love this attitude of yes we can. Who said that? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Who says, yes we can? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. [Phrase in Spanish]. 

Senator BOXER. [Phrase in Spanish]. It sounds even better in 

Spanish. 

Will our next panel come up? Very happy to have you here. 

And now we are going to have a vote, Senator Lautenberg, on 

our global warming legislation. 

I move it. Is there a second? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I second. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I don’t see Senator Inhofe here. What a 

shame. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. OK. Just have to have a little sense of humor as 

we move forward. Thank you. 
57 

Our second panel: Doug Gatlin, Vice President, Market Development, U.S. Green Building Council; Lane Burt, Energy Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council; Harvey Bryan, Ph.D., 

School of Architecture and Landscape, School of Sustainability at 

Arizona State. 

Are all three of our folks here? Yes, good. And we are very happy 

to have you here. What we really want is to follow your leadership 

on what more do you think we can do to make the Government a 

real model of green. If we do that, I know I speak for Senator Lautenberg and myself, we think this is a great way to not only make 

measurable progress on greenhouse gas emission reductions, but 

also to be a model. 

So Mr. Gatlin, would you like to start off? U.S. Green Building 

Council, Market Development, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG GATLIN, VICE PRESIDENT, MARKET 

DEVELOPMENT, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL 

Mr. GATLIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, on behalf of the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

20,000 organizational members and 78 local chapters. We would 

very much like to thank you and the Committee for the opportunity 

to testify about the role that the U.S. General Services Administration can play in improving the energy efficiency and sustainability 

of Federal buildings. 

My name is Doug Gatlin and I am the Vice President of Market 

Development for the U.S. Green Building Council. 

We have an opportunity before us as a Nation, an opportunity to 

reach out and grab from an enormous pool of untapped resources 

lying virtually under our noses. I am referring to the flows of energy, water and materials that are consumed in our buildings and 

homes each day. By marshaling a combination of new efficiency 

technologies, integrated design, and targeted building management 

practices, we can tap into these flows and collectively achieve a 30 

percent or greater reduction in energy consumption and even more 

substantial reductions in water consumption and solid waste generation. 

As you know, buildings are responsible for 38 percent of U.S. 

greenhouse emissions every year and consumer 13.6 percent of all 

fresh drinking water, as well as 40 percent of raw materials globally. Recognizing this impact, green buildings are an essential element of both an energy security strategy and a climate change response. 

The potential returns are tremendous. According to a 2007 report 

by McKinsey and Company, improvements in the efficiency of 

buildings and appliances could generate $160 billion in cumulative 

savings by the year 2030. Now, tune-ups to building systems and 

equipment known as existing building commissioning present opportunities for greater savings without any new capital investment. 

Commissioning of existing buildings can improve energy efficiency 

by roughly 15 percent additional at a median cost of only 27 cents 

per square foot. This offers an attractive payback of roughly 6 

months. 

In the Federal sector, this could translate into some $650 million 

in annual savings if the entire Federal stock were simply to be re-
58 

commissioned or tuned up. Again, that is for roughly 25 cents per 

square foot in buildings that typically costs hundreds of dollars to 

build, and three to five dollars a square foot just to operate. And 

this will create thousands of new highly skilled jobs in the buildings trades and in particular in the mechanical service contracting 

arena because it is a virtually new service. 

With an inventory of more than 1,500 Government-owned buildings and 7,000 leased spaces, GSA is a critical partner in the effort 

to reduce the environmental impact of our buildings. GSA has already taken several significant steps to improve its stock, including 

requiring that all new capital projects and major renovation 

projects earn LEED certification. These projects are yielding significant results. A 2008 GSA study of 12 green buildings in its 

portfolio found that the buildings achieved a 30 percent reduction 

in energy usage and a 13 percent decline in average maintenance 

costs. 

And last month, USGBC certified the world’s first LEED platinum-level building under our new existing buildings operations 

and maintenance rating system. It is occupied by the FBI in Chicago and it is leased through GSA. Numerous other Federal 

projects have made similarly impressive strides. 

Green building efforts stand to become an even greater focus of 

GSA through the work of GSA’s Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, coupled with the $5.5 billion received by 

GSA through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Importantly, the bulk of GSA’s Recovery Act funds are dedicated to a mix 

of new construction and major renovation efforts in approximately 

60 key projects. 

The remaining funds for limited scope upgrades can be augmented even further to greater ends through public-private partnerships in the form of energy saving and green performance contracts, and we recommend an increased adoption of these measures 

by GSA. This is crucial, as the average age of the Federal building 

stock is now currently right at 50 years on average. So significant 

opportunities exist. 

Green performance contracting draws upon an integrated approach to encompassing energy and water-saving measures, as well 

as features designed to improve the indoor health and environmental quality of the buildings. Combining this model with third 

party verifications such as that provided by the LEED system can 

ensure that the buildings are both sustainable and achieve optimal 

cost reductions. Expanding GSA’s authority to enter longer renewable power purchase agreements presents similar opportunities for 

greening the Federal sector. 

On Monday, April 27, the U.S. Green Building Council will be 

launching our newest version of the LEED rating system. We call 

is Version 2009, and we will also be adding a new customer data 

entry platform which can accommodate up to one million registered 

building projects. All told, this is for our organization a more than 

1,000 percent increase in our current system capacity and we are 

doing this because of the enormous exponential growth in demand 

for green building certification. 

In sum, green building improvements to our existing stock are so 

good that we really just can’t afford not to do them. They are 
59 

cheap. In fact, they are profitable. They are good for the planet and 

they are available immediately. 

Thank you for your time and I would be happy to take any further questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gatlin follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Burt. 

STATEMENT OF LANE BURT, ENERGY POLICY ANALYST, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. BURT. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on energy efficiency in public buildings. My name is Lane Burt and I am 

an Energy Policy Analyst with the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. I am NRDC’s principal advocate for Federal policies that 

promote building and equipment efficiency. 

The topic of discussion today is extremely timely as we continue 

to discuss how to reduce global warming pollution while contributing to our economic recovery. Energy efficiency can do both of 

these things. Energy efficiency is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest 

energy resource that we have and it can help us fight global climate change and reduce our addiction to oil and revitalize our 

economy. 

The opportunity for energy efficiency in our buildings is tremendous. U.S. buildings are the largest single source of global warming 

pollution in the United States and the site of countless opportunities for efficiency improvements. 

I would like to call your attention to this chart on the left—your 

right, excuse me—that NRDC has developed from the 2007 study 

by McKinsey and Company, detailing the cost and scope of reducing global warming pollution. The column on the far left, highlighted in red, represents building efficiency. The building efficiency measures not only have the largest potential emission reductions of any option, but they also have net negative costs, making 

money over time. 

The conclusion is clear: building efficiency makes sense no matter when or why it is being considered. In the context of global climate change, building efficiency is imperative. 

As the owner of a huge portfolio of buildings, the Federal Government has a vital role to play in reducing emissions from the 

buildings sector. We can cut emissions and keep future taxpayer 

dollars from being unnecessarily wasted on energy if we pursue efficiency opportunities. The GSA, as the Federal Government’s landlord, should lead the charge for all Federal agencies on increasing 

energy efficiency. 

Improving commercial buildings is faster and results in larger 

savings per building than retrofits in the residential sector, making 

this sector ideal for near-term investment. Federal facilities are 

nearly three times the size of the average commercial building, 

making the opportunity even greater. 

Reducing costs to taxpayers is important, however there are additional benefits to be had as the GSA is an ideal laboratory for 

cutting edge building improvements that could generate even 

greater savings in the private sector. Agencies can utilize emerging 

technologies and design strategies, thereby increasing their market 

penetration and helping to bring down the price. 

Water efficiency is also vital, as the economic consequences of 

shortages demonstrate that water is more than an environmental 

issue. To maximize energy and water savings in the Federal facili-
78 

ties and lead the private sector, the GSA and all Federal agencies 

should prioritize efficiency improvements with their recovery funds. 

GSA has already demonstrated impressive improvements in complying with the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and they should continue this progress with the 

use of ARRA funds. 

Specifically, we suggest that GSA release savings targets for energy, water and emissions in each project and document their success in meeting those targets. Documenting the savings in every 

building is the best way to oversee the progress of the agency, identify problems, and demonstrate success. 

The GSA should also create a strategy for attaining all the remaining cost-effective energy efficiencies in their facilities, share 

best practices with State and local governments and the private 

sector, and share its most effective building energy management 

strategies across agencies to encourage further improvements. 

There are also opportunities for GSA to lead by utilizing new 

tools. NRDC has developed, with stakeholders from all aspects of 

commercial real estate, an energy efficiency lease that seeks to 

properly allocate the costs and benefits of efficiency improvements 

between owners, tenants and brokers. This is intended to address 

the market barrier of split incentives where the owner cannot profit from efficiency improvements because the tenants pay the energy 

bills. The GSA and other agencies should offer this lease structure 

to its building tenants, while requesting this structure of building 

owners in spaces it leases. 

The Federal tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings can also be utilized by Federal facilities because it contains an 

option to assign the deduction to the designer or engineer responsible for the improvements. GSA should consider utilizing the deduction in all projects. 

In conclusion, Federal facilities should lead by pursuing all costeffective energy efficiency measures to reduce the energy costs of 

these facilities. We welcome the Committee’s leadership on Federal 

building energy efficiency and I thank you for allowing me to 

present these views. 

This concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burt follows:] 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Burt. 

Dr. Bryan. 

STATEMENT OF HARVEY BRYAN, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, SCHOOL OF 

SUSTAINABILITY, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BRYAN. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to honor 

Earth Day by participating in this hearing on behalf of the Green 

Building Initiative or GBI, and the Green Globes rating system. 

I am a founding member of the GBI Board and Chairman of the 

Energy Committee. My background is included in the written submittal. 

I am a specialist in energy issues and served on the ASHRAE 

Committee responsible for developing the 90.1 national energy 

standard. While currently active in the development of Green 

Globes, I have also been active in the U.S. Green Building Council. 

I am a LEED-accredited professional, and helped shepherd several 

buildings through the LEED process, and was founding member 

and was board member of the Arizona USGBC chapter. 

As an active member of the Green Buildings community, I chose 

to support the development of the Green Globes system in the 

United States because I believe strongly that the marketplace 

needs multiple tools and approaches to achieve high-performance 

buildings. 

GBI commends the Committee for creating this opportunity to 

testify about GSA and energy efficient issues, and we are honored 

to be on this panel. 

GSA has certainly been a leader in applying green building practices and has made considerable progress. There are many lessons 

to be gained from this experience. We also understand that the 

Committee is interested in ensuring that dollars spent on energy 

efficiency through the stimulus package results in measured savings. To this end, we would like to address two primary topics. 

First, one of our greatest challenges is that many buildings designed to be energy efficient fall short once operational. GSA has 

many successes to its credit, but it is not immune to this fact. A 

key to solving this problem will be to shift the mind set of people 

who design, construct and operate buildings so that form follows 

function and performance, and become fundamental considerations 

from initial concept through design, construction and operations. 

The second issue is measuring and specifically the fact of measuring buildings before and after they undergo renovations must be 

a priority. To this end, the Green Globes system is a good example 

of how practical and affordable tools can play that important role. 

Regarding the first issue of performance shortfalls, the answer is 

better information, tools and education. Whether planning for a 

new or major retrofit, decisions should be based on the best performance data available. This is the area where we as an industry 

have fallen short. We rely too heavily on benchmarking to code. For 

instance, GSA has, as I understand, an arsenal of data available 

on the energy performance of its standard building pipes and has 

conducted baseline research on occupant comfort in many of the 
98 

buildings. And so this should be used as the primary data base, 

rather than building better than code. 

It is worthwhile to note that innovative States such as California 

have created new building performance data bases to facilitate 

more accurate prediction because it is important to have accurate 

historical performance data. In fact, the Department of Energy’s 

commercial building energy consumption survey should receive 

more funds for investment. 

With regard to education and training, portfolio managers need 

tools to create baselines and interpret these results and prioritize 

improvements. For many building managers, this type of evaluation requires new tools. 

Unfortunately, GSA has, in conjunction with DOE, has recently 

written a policy that calls for the use of only one rating system, 

LEED, for all Federal buildings that seek green building certification for either major retrofit or new construction. This approach 

not only supports a federally mandated sole source contract with 

one organization, the USGBC, the owner of the LEED system, but 

also stifles benefits and competition, which there are many. 

Because of the affordability and ease of use, Green Globes has 

been used to evaluate a number of public and private sector buildings. Federal agencies such as DHHS, Interior, Veterans Affairs 

and State Department have used Green Globes. 

In conclusion, GBI applauds GSA’s leadership in applying green 

building technology and practices. We hope that the important part 

of the agency’s plan will be to measure before and after performance of buildings. We encourage Congress to examine public policy 

in regards to new laws encouraging benchmarking tools such as 

CBECS data base. 

Last, we ask the Committee to give direction to GSA to support 

the use of multiple rating systems and private sector solutions to 

encourage competition in the marketplace. 

Thank you for this opportunity today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryan follows:] 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to say, of course we need to measure. That is absolutely essential. We want to make sure that when we spend a dollar, we get more than that over time, and that is something that 

I think everyone agrees with. Otherwise, we are wasting our time 

and money. 

I wanted to announce here, and Senator Lautenberg you would 

be interested in this, Wal-Mart just put out a press release just 

now that to broaden their sustainability efforts, they are expanding 

their solar power program in California over the next 18 months 

at 10 to 20 additional Wal-Mart facilities. It is very exciting because we know the jobs that will go with this. They say increasing 

the use of solar is the right thing to do for the environment and 

makes tremendous business sense, especially in these economic 

conditions. 

I think it is important to note a lot of my colleagues are saying 

this isn’t the time to do anything. It is the opposite. When you 

move toward energy savings, it is going to be better for the economy, for job creation. And they say that they are committed to expanding their solar presence in California. I would say it is because 

California’s laws are so incentivizing to putting in solar, wind and 

geothermal. 

Mr. Gatlin, you mention in your testimony that GSA has adopted 

your organization’s green building rating system, which I support. 

And it has set a goal for each project to receive at least the silver 

certification. Now, there are two higher certifications. 

Is there any reason, and I would ask Mr. Burt the same, why we 

shouldn’t shoot higher for a platinum or a gold? 

Mr. GATLIN. Well, I will just say that the USGBC has attempted 

to set a benchmark target for green performance without being prescriptive in any way about what measures or pathways that organizations have to take. So we actually have four certification levels, 

including basic, silver, gold and platinum. 

In a post-occupancy study that the New Buildings Institute conducted for us 2 years ago, they found almost a lockstep correlation 

of energy savings and the increased certification levels on LEED, 

with platinum buildings achieving typically 40 percent energy savings. 

So given the principle that the savings will actually pay for the 

up-front investment, it in many cases is a good investment. I think 

that GSA is simply setting a target that they think is achievable, 

given that platinum buildings in many cases require an all-out effort to use all available new technologies and practices. So I think 

they would rather go broad and achievable, rather than set a target 

that may be only for a subset of their portfolio. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Burt, what is your feeling? If you are retrofitting, is it really too hard to get to the platinum, but we should 

have that for our new buildings? What is your feeling? 

Mr. BURT. I think it is important to document which part of the 

different LEED categories we are emphasizing. So if we have an 

overall target of LEED silver, but a very aggressive target for energy and water savings, then you may find that eventually in constructing a new building or renovating a new building, you actually 

may certify higher than silver to a gold or platinum level, and you 
120 

have prioritized those measures which will provide the most return 

on investment. 

Senator BOXER. That is not my question. Do you think that we 

should shoot for higher than silver in our efforts? 

Mr. BURT. Yes. I think it is possible to shoot for higher than silver. I think there are precedents across the Country where different cities have pointed to LEED silver as a possible code target, 

which means that the enhanced performance should be above this 

bar. 

Senator BOXER. And am I right in saying it is obviously easier 

to get to platinum if you are building a new building, because then 

you could—you don’t have to go backward? 

Mr. GATLIN. That is not necessarily the case. I would also just 

like to comment that we hope that GSA will embrace the LEED 

system for operations and maintenance. It is a benchmarking system for green operations and maintenance just as aggressively as 

they have embraced our system for design and construction. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is good. 

Mr. GATLIN. There are just so many different paths to get there. 

We did have a case study of a building in California owned by the 

Adobe Company that was built to Title 24 California energy efficiency standards, had utility rebates, and yet they were still able 

to identify an additional $1 million in green investments. They 

have made that existing building platinum. It paid for itself in 10 

months. 

Senator BOXER. Wow. That is a fabulous, I know Adobe Systems. 

Well, what I am going to do is hand the gavel to Senator Lautenberg. If he has to go, leave, then he can hand the gavel to Senator 

Merkley. And if Senator Merkley promises me, if another colleague 

comes, he stays for that, and then close it down. I don’t know how 

long Senator Lautenberg can stay. 

So I am going to hand the gavel over to you, Senator. 

I want to thank this panel very much, all of you, for your sage 

words. We are going to move further. We are going to have a bill 

here ready for mark up on the 7th of next month. We are going 

to move even further because this is energy saving. This is savings 

in the pockets of taxpayers. So thank you very much. 

Senator, here is the gavel. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [presiding]. Thank you. I take the gavel 

without ceremony, Madam Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you for this awesome responsibility. 

One of the things that I see happening is that as we talk about 

product reductions in energy use, cleaner air emissions, et cetera, 

we still I think fail to have the public understand exactly what our 

mission is. When we talk about saving lives or saving quality of 

life, or permitting those who may be impaired with a respiratory 

disease, what it means. 

I come on this sort of full boat because one of my grandchildren 

is asthmatic, and I know the trials that my daughter goes through 

to make sure that Alexander has, that she knows where the nearest clinic is when they go to emergency clinic, when they go for him 

to participate in an athletic event. And she is conscious of his 
121 

wheezing and the sensitivity of his ability to deal with these 

things. 

I lost a sister to asthma in a sudden attack when she was 53 

years old. Yes. And so I think the picture has to be even more 

clearly presented, that we are talking about, again, saving lives. 

And even as we talk about saving money, saving quality of life that 

permits people to go about the things they must do or enjoy doing. 

And so I commend you all. I think you are on a mission of great 

importance to the human race. I believe that climate change is 

something compared to a plague, perhaps the 11th plague. The Old 

Testament lists 10 plagues. This is a plague if we don’t take care 

of this, that could overcome mankind, humankind. And again, you 

are acting as good soldiers in this, and I really respect that your 

organizations are on the right track. 

Isn’t there a way of examining the emissions coming from the 

buildings that go beyond simply energy efficiency? How about the 

products that are used in building materials, more the kind of 

boards that are used so commonly—pressboard and other materials 

that in themselves, we talk about saving kids from materials that 

are plastics, that have a different metabolism when they are mixed 

with certain food products, et cetera. 

So is there a concern about that? Mr. Burt, does your organization look to these things as well? 

Mr. BURT. Certainly, that is an extremely important concern. I 

would say that in an existing building when you take a look at the 

materials that are in there, you need to make sure that all the materials and everything in the building is up to health and safety 

standards, and is a healthy environment for the occupants, and 

then go and invest in the energy efficiency and the water efficiency 

measures. 

I would also point out that in the LEED rating system, there is 

a category for indoor environmental quality, which covers the offgassing of chemicals and toxins from the products and also makes 

sure that there is adequate ventilation in the building. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And is there an official recognition of products now, an examination of these things, and perhaps a label that 

says yes, this meets a green standard? What do you think, Mr. 

Bryan? 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. There are several organizations that are now 

testing all products in the building industry for emissions. Green 

Seal and Green Guard are two organizations that are doing that. 

Both the Green Globes system and LEED also acknowledges those 

as protocols for use within the indoor air quality section. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is the Green Globes, is that a lighting? 

Mr. BRYAN. No. Green Globes is a system that I have been talking about which is sort of a parallel system to some of the other 

rating systems like LEED and other systems that are out there 

that are in the marketplace today. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I see. No, because immediately when you 

think of globe, you think of—— 

Mr. BRYAN. I understand. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. BRYAN. But again, Green Seal and Green Guard are two protocols, both systems used to acknowledge material impact. The 
122 

Green Globes system also does a material life cycle assessment calculation that actually does comparisons between products on both 

embedded energy, as well as impact to the air, water and disposal 

landfill. And so it is a very robust calculator that gives designers 

that information about the impact those materials have on the occupants of those buildings. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is there interest in those using products— 

this is stepping outside the building opportunities—products that 

have to be dealt within trash disposal and so forth? All of these 

things combine to make a threatening environment. In this case, 

we are talking about something where we see an ability to control 

it. The Government, there is a lot of might that is included in the 

suggestion that the Government has a standard. 

But when we look around, again I see this as the perhaps most 

important problem that mankind faces, and that is protecting an 

environment, protecting nature and its being when we see all of 

the—I am a tree hugger and have been for a long time. When you 

see what is happening with the disappearance of species, with 

things in the sea that are changing, and their ability to afford sea 

life nutrition and nourishment. 

So we have a war on our hands that we must win. And so, once 

again I thank you for being here. The fact that we are light in attendance doesn’t mean that we are light in interest. The record will 

be kept open for questions that will be conveyed to you, and please 

if you get these questions, answer as thoroughly and as quickly as 

you can. 

With that, I go to the fact that Senator Merkley is in the last 

seat doesn’t mean that his views or his knowledge is any different 

than those who are sitting up in the front. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I wanted to ask a question about carbon sequestration. It has 

been pointed out at various times that when you build buildings 

with wood, you are taking a significant amount of carbon and taking it out of cycle, if you will. I was just wondering if any of you 

from the LEED system or the Green Globes system can comment 

on how that calculates, or if it is a factor in how you evaluate 

buildings. 

Mr. GATLIN. I am not sure that I can give you a specific estimate 

of the carbon sequestration of wood in buildings. We can certainly 

research that and provide that in follow up. But I would just mention that the committee that oversees our LEED rating system— 

again our products are all member-driven, consensus-based, and it 

is an open transparent system in the market—has spent the last 

year aligning the credit categories within the LEED rating system 

to the known environmental impacts and sort of the weighting between those environmental impacts. 

So carbon emissions comes up as the most significant aspect of 

the certification simply because of the magnitude of the climate 

change. We are looking at not only the energy associated with operations of the building, but the energy that it took to create the materials in the buildings, life cycle assessment if you will. 

So I do not have the specific figure on the carbon sequestration 

of wood, but it is within our Scientific Advisory Committee’s goal 
123 

of aligning the credits as much as possible with the ultimate environmental impacts. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Burt or Bryan. 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. The Intergovernmental Climate on Climate 

Change has determined a 100-year life cycle for dealing with products. If wood products in a building has less than a 100-year life 

cycle, it is considered to be a closed loop. That means in its growth 

or absorption of CO2, and its eventual decay, that it will be a closed 

system. If it has longer than 100 years, it has to be accounted for, 

at least in their system, and I think most of the environmental rating systems and system systems are assuming that protocol. 

Wood looks very good generally when we do comparisons with 

other material for this reason. However, there are in larger buildings, you are dealing with structural issues and wood tends to have 

problems when you deal with multiple-story buildings because of 

the structural issues. Like for small buildings, wood is a very, very 

appropriate product. While we don’t encourage any one material, 

when you go through the process very often those better materials 

from a carbon sequestering standpoint will shine. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK. Second, and thank you for your answers. 

A second question I wanted to ask about is in terms of GSA and 

the enormous number of buildings and enormous number of rooftops that they have, is the GSA fully engaged in perhaps the type 

of contracts energy—savings contracts where, subcontracts, if you 

will, out the installation of the solar panels, and then you basically 

get them installed for free, if you will, and over time come to own 

them. 

Has the GSA been proactive? Is there a tremendous amount 

more they can do? What is your sense of that? 

Mr. GATLIN. I will take a quick crack at that. I believe that GSA 

has been proactive, especially using its construction funding and its 

modernization funding to expand the adoption of green roofs, either 

light-colored roofs or vegetative roof systems which not only have 

heat island reduction benefits, but also stormwater mitigation benefits. 

I believe that with its existing stock, it has not moved aggressively yet to tap into the types of performance contracting vehicles 

that would allow them to take the savings stream from their utility 

bill payments and essentially front load them to some capital improvement efforts that could very well include those green roof upgrades. 

I believe the Department of Energy has handled the Federal energy performance contracting specifications and has vehicles that 

are more than available to do that within GSA stock. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, great. Any other comments? 

Mr. BURT. GSA has prioritized the rooftop photovoltaics with 

some of the limited scope projects that they have released for the 

recovery funding, but I wouldn’t be able to speak to the financial 

vehicle for making that happen. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK. 

Mr. BRYAN. I think they are doing a very good job. I think on 

a couple of issues, I think all buildings should be what I call solar 

ready, even though they may not be putting on the system right 
124 

now; that they keep the stairwells, elevator shafts, things like that, 

from protruding into the, let’s say, unobstructed portions of the 

roof; try to gang them along the northern side of the building. Also 

vents and other types of things, we have a lot of problems with our 

air filters and ventilation fume hoods, things like that. 

Again, some buildings on my campus I know are completely inappropriate for solar, even though we have wonderful access in Arizona for solar energy, because of the design of the rooftop. And so 

I think we can develop some protocols to actually be solar ready 

and be available for solar in a few years if we can’t do it right now. 

Senator MERKLEY. I think my time is up, but Senator 

Whitehouse has arrived. No wait, Senator Udall has arrived. Sorry, 

looking right past you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you to the panel, and great having all of you here today. 

I believe that one of the most productive things that the GSA 

could do to promote renewable energy would be to expand its efforts to install photovoltaic solar systems on the roofs of Federal 

buildings. 

In regards to solar power, we have great technology and manufacturing ability in the U.S., but we need to expand the demand 

for it in order to bring down the cost. What should Congress and 

GSA do to encourage solar installation on Federal buildings? 

Mr. GATLIN. One of the things that I mentioned in my testimony 

was extending the lifetime of renewable power contracts. Now, 

much of that will be for green-certified power through the grid, but 

there also are arrangements where the owner of the buildings can 

actually lease out the rooftop to the utility for the application of 

those. 

I don’t know specifically within the acquisitions legislation what, 

if anything, needs to be changed, but I do know that there was 

some discussion on the House side about extending the time of 

those power purchase agreements to go beyond the current 10-year 

cap and that will actually allow for more dedicated development of 

green energy resources for Federal buyers. 

Mr. BURT. I think the extension of the power contracts period 

and the development of solar-ready buildings are both excellent 

ideas. I would also point out that it is important for GSA to make 

sure that they are doing the efficiency in the building as well so 

that a greater portion of the building’s power can be provided by 

solar, either right away or eventually if they are solar-ready. 

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, on my campus at Arizona State University, we 

put in only in about 9 months almost two megawatts of 

photovoltaics, and this year we are planning about eight more, so 

we will possibly by the end of the year 10 megawatts of installed 

power. 

And we did notice a lot of the problems. We had some limitations 

on our State constitution about public-private contracts that we 

had to get around to extend our period to deal with some of these 

power purchasing requirements. And so we had to take some sort 

of creative, or creative sort of cuts at that. And as I was saying, 

I would assume the same kinds of restrictions and inertia that exists within some Federal laws that I would like to think could be 
125 

reviewed so we can take advantage of this third-party financing because it is very hard to get capital, particularly in State government, for any of these types of projects. 

Senator UDALL. The GSA has decided to use LEED certification 

for its green building branding efforts, but we have been told that 

there are other significant green building certification standards. 

Should GSA choose one standard to allow a Federal building to be 

called green, to the exclusion of other equivalent standard-setting 

organizations? 

Mr. GATLIN. Since both of us on either side of Mr. Burt represent 

the two standards, we will look to him to be an objective arbiter. 

But I would just say that within our LEED system, we have set 

up a new organization called the Green Building Certification Institute which will be equipped to scale up the certification to tens of 

thousands or even hundreds of thousands of buildings. 

The demand for primarily LEED certification in the commercial 

building marketplace, both private and publicly owned, has grown 

exponentially since 2006, I think due to the realization not only of 

the cost savings and health benefits, but in many cases private 

buildings are simply worth more as an asset that are green-certified. 

So I would say that our system, I believe our third party certification system is the most robust. It is the furthest along and most 

established, and now through the Green Building Certification Institute, we have 10 global certification bodies that will be expanding our capacity many-fold. All of them are very familiar with the 

ISO requirements for certification—International Standards Organization. 

So through those partnerships, I think our certification institute 

is very well equipped to handle the market demand. 

Mr. BRYAN. Much of my testimony addressed or sort of countered 

that with the attributes of the Green Globes system. However, 

there are I think about last time I counted, there are seven other 

systems in operation and three in the works. So why do we go with 

one? I don’t understand that. A government should not be giving 

any system, no NGO, a sort of leg up on any other system until 

we really go to the market and really shake these systems down. 

I think it is very important to take advantage of all the building 

inspectors out there. Over 100,000 building inspectors work for municipal governments. The International Code Council, which is a 

major body that develops building codes, have just completed the 

ICC 7000, which is the national green building standard. It is a 

residentially oriented standard, but that process is going to allow 

the training of building officials to do this inspection process in the 

field where they are in their own local jurisdictions. 

Green building is not rocket science. You don’t need any very 

highly specialized persons to do it. A well-trained building inspector who knows the industry, has been working in the industry for 

some time, can do these inspections. 

Also, the State of California is developing their own green building standard. The ASHRAE 189 is developing a standard that will 

probably be introduced into the International Code Council process 

and be codified, so it actually could be then administered by building inspectors. 
126 

And the other aspect, Green Globes is web-based and all we need 

to expand is adding more service. We do have the third-party 

verification system in place, and that is being administered by the 

CSA America, which is an ISO certification organization. 

So we have a third-party hands-off process of certifying the 

verifies for the Green Globes system. I just want to underline the 

need to incorporate many stakeholders that are already doing a 

very effective job in building the industry, try to bring them into 

the system, particular the building inspectors. 

In doing green buildings, we are talking about thousands and 

thousands of buildings that we have to go through this process. We 

have to scale that up at a very high level of certification and 

verification, and we cannot do that by developing new organizations. We should use the existing manpower we have in the field. 

Mr. BURT. The most important thing here is saving the energy 

and saving the water in the buildings, and verifying that this is 

done correctly. So it shouldn’t be necessarily a question of which 

tool or this tool or that tool. We need to make sure that the tools 

we are using are actually resulting in the savings that we need to 

have. 

I am not nearly as familiar with Green Globes as I am with 

LEED, and I can see that LEED does a very good job of that. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Senator MERKLEY. I wanted to follow up on Senator Udall’s question. Why are so many organizations forming? The LEED organization existed and Green Globes has jumped in, and you mentioned 

that there are seven, and that there are three more forming. What 

is the impetus behind so many different groups jumping into this 

conversation about how to identify a green building, if you will? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, I think there is tremendous demand out there, 

and again, organizations like ASHRAE have been in place for a 

number of years. The International Code Council has been in place 

for a number of years. They know the industry very well, and they 

want to make sure they are positioned as sort of the ramp-up is 

happening, which I think is happening now, especially with the 

stimulus money and the various other activities going on nationally. 

So these organizations I don’t think have a hidden agenda. These 

are working. Both ASHRAE and ICC and Green Globes are working with the ANSI, the American National Standards Institute, 

consensus process. So these are open committee meetings that decide the various protocols for these documents. These are not closed 

activities being done by a member-only organization. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me frame the question a little bit differently. Is it primarily differences in ideology as you balance different environmental components that drive the proliferation of organizations? Or the issue of how you ramp up to meet the demand, 

if you will, to get certification through the pipeline, if you will? I 

will just expand that to anyone. 

Mr. BURT. I think it is important to note that not all of the programs mentioned are actually direct competitors. They have arisen 

to occupy different niches in the green building industry. ASHRAE 

and ICC are putting things out in code language, which is slightly 

different from what LEED does, where it is an exceptional label, 
127 

basically. You are documenting that you are far above the code 

level. 

There are also different systems that are focused on existing 

buildings and operations than are focused on new construction. So 

they are not all direct competitors. 

Also, for example, EPA’s portfolio manager is directly tied into 

many of the other programs, so there is a lot of communication 

going on across all the borders as well. 

Mr. GATLIN. Senator, USGBC was set up as a member organization. Our members are companies, governments and institutional 

owners and managers of buildings. And we have been absolutely 

astonished that even while the construction market and other industries have had a significant downturn, that the growth in our 

membership has actually continued at a pace in excess of what it 

was in 2006 and 2007. 

The fastest-growing source of our members is building contracting professionals. I just want to add that it has always been 

in our foundations and our bylaws to have a completely open, 

transparent process. The rating system is developed by the industry experts who populate our membership, the 20,000 companies 

and organizations, and also has to be balloted—any of those 

changes to the rating system have to be balloted by our membership and approved. 

So we do not have a staff-driven rating system. We do not have 

a lobby interest-driven rating system. There is true balance across 

all sectors of the building industry. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Merkley. 

As you all know, the Congress put in place the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which has specific targets in it that 

we have been talking about today, this 55 percent in 2010 and then 

100 percent in 2030. I would be interested in your opinions that we 

could accelerate those targets. I mean, the way we are proceeding 

at this point and from your vantage point, do you think those could 

be accelerated or moved up? 

Mr. GATLIN. It is our opinion that more can be done in the existing buildings arena from a green building perspective. The broad 

scope measures called I believe in Mr. Prouty’s testimony, some of 

the generic measures that they are installing in buildings, are really the ticket there on the existing building side. 

Through every financing means necessary, whether it is through 

appropriations or whether it is through third-party financing vehicles such as performance contracting, there is a significant amount 

of opportunity in the Federal sector. 

And as was mentioned before, even when there has been a lighting or HVAC system upgrade within the last 10 years, there has 

been such technology innovation even within the last 5 to 10 years 

that there will be many more cost-effective upgrades to go back to 

some of those buildings that were upgraded as recently as 10 years 

ago. 

Mr. BURT. I agree with what was just said. We can’t necessarily 

predict when the technological innovations will happen. We are 

very confident that it will happen. So we have to be careful about 
128 

setting hard goals and deadlines too far out in the future because 

we don’t know the exact timing. 

That said, one thing I talked about in my testimony is the need 

for GSA to identify all the remaining cost-effective energy efficiency 

in the rest of the facilities and strategize how do we go about getting that. And I think if they did that, we would have a lot better 

sense of when it can be done, how it can be done, and how soon, 

and how much we can accelerate the process. 

Mr. BRYAN. I also agree. However, I have seen in the industry 

in the past, from the private sector, is the first couple of years 

there seems to be a fairly good downward sloping that they are on 

a trajectory, beating the trajectory. That is because they are going 

at the low-hanging fruit, the easy things. Lighting, variable speed 

motors, things like that are easy things to do and retrofit. The 

harder things are re-glazing, reinsulation, large fit-out of large mechanical air conditioning systems. Those are the big ticket items. 

So my recommendation is that we have to be diligent. We have 

to look to the long term. We have to have the resources there for 

the long term, the heavy lifting, and going beyond the low-hanging 

fruit as far as the conservation and efficiency efforts are concerned. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, and thank you, Chairman 

Merkley. I see we have been joined by Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. We are doing a lot of work with 

green buildings in my State, the State of Minnesota. People don’t 

always think of it as a solar State given how cold it is, but we are 

doing a lot with that, as well as wind and other things. 

I just want to talk in more detail about the LEED certification 

process. I know you just mentioned that, Dr. Bryan. I have heard 

a lot about that from our people, the cost associated with it and potential improvements to it. Could you talk about the costs associated with it? How much you estimate it is? And what we could do 

to improve it? 

Mr. BRYAN. Well, again, I was sort of countering the LEED system with another system that I felt is actually more cost effective 

because it is a much lower first entry cost into the system. It is 

web-based. It is very low cost, with ability to interact with the system. Documentation is minimum because we have onsite 

verification of a third party verifier. 

So this reduces the cost. Much of the LEED cost is not the direct 

cost as far as paying for the system. It is the indirect cost of the 

documentation and a lot of the stuff you need to collect for submittal to get your certification. 

And as I mentioned, the Green Globes system has an onsite third 

party reviewer that basically helps alleviate a lot of that stuff. The 

material still has to be there, but it is done onsite in a kind of a 

day-long walk through the building. When you see something you 

know it is in there, rather than just something in a specification 

that is submitted as a submittal. 

So that is one of the major differences. So I think it is a little 

bit more cost effective for that reason. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Anyone want to add anything? 

Mr. GATLIN. Senator, if I may, representing the U.S. Green 

Building Council. We have had to make enhancements to our sys-
129 

tem and also expand our contractor pool substantially, as there are 

now over 20,000 buildings in the pipeline. So that 20,000 buildings 

has scaled up dramatically from just fewer than 5,000 about 4 

years ago. 

Our fees for providing the certification essentially are just directly to cover the review expenses. It comes in at 3.5 cents per 

square foot, where typically the green building improvements yield 

a dollar or more per square foot in direct operating savings, and 

even indirect savings in many cases, as GSA showed in its postoccupancy study, a 13 percent reduction in maintenance costs down 

the line. 

So they are fairly small. I think extremely small relative to the 

benefits. And I think what you don’t get by simply referencing the 

rating system as opposed to pursuing certification is the added impetus to do it right once you know you are going to go through a 

third party review. And that has in many cases sort of flushed out 

some mistakes in the process that can go back and be corrected. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know, I hear it over and over again 

that they are not doing LEED because it is just too expensive. 

Maybe when you described it as three cents, that is probably the 

best way to describe it. For them, they are looking at how much 

of a cost it would be when they are trying to do the environmentally right thing, so on the margin it is maybe more expensive 

to build, and then they look at this LEED thing, so they don’t do 

it. They go to ENERGY STAR or some other thing. 

So that is what I am trying to grapple with here, because I think 

nearly every building that I have been to, except the few that did 

the LEEDs in our State, say we are not going to do it. 

So I just think it is an issue. I have been surprised at how much 

it has come up when I have been out and about, really all over the 

Country. 

The other thing I am trying to figure out as we try to push for 

more green buildings, more energy efficient buildings, what the factors are that make some metropolitan areas have more of them. I 

am asking this question very openly, not because I know the answer, but is it State laws? What is it, like Portland is No. 1; Minneapolis-St. Paul is number 25; Atlanta is No. 3. You know, what 

is the thing that makes incentives for more green buildings? 

Mr. GATLIN. I think in Portland, in Chicago, and several cities 

around the Country, almost 50 cities—I am sorry, in almost 35 

States and over 100 jurisdictions there are incentives. And those 

certainly helped in the early days. The early adopters were either 

in cities with incentives or where governments through their own 

took on an executive order mandate to have green buildings. 

In Atlanta and in other cities, we have seen a really robust commercial market embrace LEED. There is increasing empirical studies, as well as evidence through broker transactions that green 

buildings, LEED-certified buildings, sell at higher transaction 

costs, actually have more attractive rental rates. So there is a market demand as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Burt. 

Mr. BURT. I think the incentives are very helpful, especially 

when they are structured in a way that they set a performance target and tell the industry to go do it, because then the industry re-
130 

sponds. They learn how to do it, and they learn how to do it well. 

They bring the costs of doing it down so that we get a nice feedback 

cycle where we continue to learn about how to do the buildings. 

I think it is also very helpful once the process has happened that 

the market then values those buildings greater because they realize this is a better building, it is a better space, and it is much better across the board. And that is how you get a continuing cycle 

of green building. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. BRYAN. As an educator, I think education is a major force. 

I know I am training the next generation of students who will be 

architects and engineers. They are really hungry for this information, and I know they are going to go out and do a good job because 

they are getting well trained. I think all our universities have 

courses on green buildings now, among all the architectural and 

construction schools and many of the engineering schools across the 

country. It is an exciting area. 

I think also on the local level, again education by again professional organizations or their membership, the American Institute of 

Architects, ASHRAE, National Association of—all these organizations I think are doing a much more effective job than they did a 

few years ago on educating their membership to these issues. 

As I mentioned before, it is not rocket science, but there is some 

good preparation and understanding, especially in the use of computer modeling, computer simulation. We have gotten in a lot of 

trouble, a number of people have been using tools, predicting performance and we have not seen that performance in reality, and 

that has given, I think, some of the systems a questionable—some 

of the systems have been put into question because of some poor 

consultants using some tools that they shouldn’t have even had a 

driver’s license before using a computer program like DOE–2 or 

one of those other programs out there. 

So there is a lot we have to do in education to ramp up 

everybody’s level of expertise. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. 

All right. Well, that is a good end. I want to thank all of you for 

being here, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you. 

Over the last 2 years we have heard testimony from a number of individuals. A 

little over a year ago, for example, we heard from Dr. Pachauri, and we are grateful 

that he has come back to provide us with a further update on the science of global 

warming. 

I want to thank Chairman Boxer for her work in keeping the focus on sound 

science as this debate continues. 

While the list of witnesses has included the occasional obligatory nay-sayer, we 

have seen a steady stream of scientists who have provided a remarkably consistent 

set of facts regarding: 

• the state of the global climate system, 

• projections on how the climate system is changing, and 

• the likely impacts these changes will have on health and human welfare, agriculture, transportation systems, and important ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. 
131 

Much of the testimony has been informed by the latest, peer-reviewed science and 

represents a consensus of the scientific community on the nature of the climate system’s warming, the causes for that warming, and the degree to which this warming 

will continue. 

Climate change will likely have an impact on our Nation’s treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Possible impacts for the Chesapeake include increased sea-levels, lower 

dissolved oxygen levels, more precipitation, and changes in various species’ abundance and migration patterns. Many species will deal with the interaction of several 

climate change effects, which could impact their ability to survive in the Bay region. 

It is not only wildlife that are threatened by climate change—the EPA has found 

that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations pose a threat to human health due 

to a number of factors including more deaths attributed to heat and the increase 

in vector-borne diseases. In Baltimore, the EPA projects that a 3 degree Fahrenheit 

overall increase in air temperature could increase the heat-related death toll by 50 

percent from 85 to 130 people annually. 

The research upon which these findings are based is rooted in an extensive, careful analysis of past and present observations of the atmosphere and ocean coupled 

with advanced numerical predictive models. 

The science record is remarkable in another key aspect. Time is not on our side. 

The scientific community consistently warns us that the longer we wait to take aggressive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the steeper the climb will be to 

meet our targets. 

Thankfully, today we have not simply a strong scientific consensus on the issue. 

We also have an increasing body of evidence that our efforts to address climate 

change will result in a number of net positives for America and the world. 

• Our national security is enhanced as we reduce our reliance on foreign sources 

of oil. 

• Our economy will be recharged as we move to a sustainable energy system and 

the thousands of green jobs it will produce in solar, wind and bio-energy development and energy efficiency projects. 

• And, lowering greenhouse gas pollution will almost certainly also result in a 

lowering of other air pollutants, meaning our citizens will be breathing cleaner air. 

Thankfully, today we have both an Administration in the White House as well 

as the congressional leadership we will need to tackle this extraordinary challenge. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and learning more about the latest climate science research. 

And I look forward to using this hearing as a strong springboard for us as we 

confront one of the greatest challenges of our age. With your strong leadership, I 

look forward to drafting and passing a climate change bill this year. Let’s get started. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. I am pleased to have the 

opportunity once again to discuss energy efficiency within our committee. 

Using less to do more is a fundamental economic principle that American industry 

has practiced with great success. Its application has helped the United States rise 

in prosperity and, I believe, will be a key element of our economic recovery. Moreover, increased productivity in the form of energy efficiency and innovation—along 

with developing new domestic sources of energy and ensuring a diverse energy supply—are essential to strengthening our Nation’s energy and financial security. For 

these reasons, it is important to pursue opportunities for energy efficiency and innovation in our public buildings. 

While I was not a supporter of the Stimulus bill, it did contain some productive 

elements. For example, it provides an unprecedented opportunity for GSA to make 

investments in the existing stock of Federal buildings. It is extremely important 

that GSA’s decisions make these buildings more energy efficient and that such improvements are cost-effective. It is also important that the choices GSA and other 

Federal agencies make to ‘‘go green’’ deliver measurable performance results. 

It’s my understanding that so-called ‘‘green’’ buildings don’t always perform as intended. This raises serious concerns for me, and it also raises fundamental questions: What research still needs to be done on the actual benefits of green buildings? 

What standards and benchmarks are currently being used for various aspects of 

building design and certification? How can the Government make sure that we are 

spending money on the efforts that ensure we are meeting our energy goals and not 

creating unintended burdens on our taxpayers and communities? 
132 

I am concerned that GSA selected LEED as its only category of ‘‘green’’ building 

for new construction. I believe that the increased interest in green buildings and advances in technology in recent years have and are creating new building rating systems. These systems should be allowed to compete in the market and Government 

agencies should be able to determine which system meets their performance requirements. I do not think that GSA should be in the business of selecting one system 

over another. Additionally, we need to practice careful oversight to ensure that the 

best rating systems are being used in Government decisions. 

I am pleased to have Dr. Harvey Bryan, Professor at the Arizona State University 

School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture with us today on behalf of the 

Green Building Initiative. He will share his expertise with us today and update us 

on what GBI has been doing since our last hearing. I am also looking forward to 

hearing from Acting Administrator Paul F. Prouty as well. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 

Æ