Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-886

November 2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest 

Service Facilities: a Multiregion 

Review

Rachelle S. Meyer, David L. Nicholls, Trista M. Patterson, 

and Rachel E. White
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Authors

Rachelle S. Meyer is a technical information specialist, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fire Science Laboratory, 5775 US HWY 10 W, Missoula, MT 59808; 

David L. Nicholls is a forest products technologist, and Trista M. Patterson is an 

ecological economist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wood Utilization Center, 

204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835; Rachel E. White is a science writer/editor, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main 

St., Ste. 400, Portland, OR 97205. 

Cover Photographs

Clockwise from top left: (1) Workers install energy-efficient windows at the U.S. 

Forest Service Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Olympia, Washington. Photo by 

Rob Avila. (2) Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Sitka, Alaska. Photo 

by Dave Nicholls. (3) In 2011, the Tongass National Forest equipped its Steelhead 

Barge, which it uses as a floating bunkhouse, with solar arrays. Photo by Michele 

Parker. (4) The Forest Service’s Southeast Alaska Discovery Center in Ketchikan, 

Alaska, switched to this new biomass boiler. Photo by Michele Parker.
Abstract

Meyer, Rachelle S.; Nicholls, David L.; Patterson, Trista M.; White, Rachel E. 

2013. Energy efficiency in U.S. Forest Service facilities: a multiregion review. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-886. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

We reviewed energy efficiency measures in facilities across the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, examining opportunities and obstacles, and identifying 

factors of project success. The adoption of energy efficiency measures at Forest 

Service sites was seen to be most likely when decision control was local to the 

site and when budget timing and structures were familiar to decisionmakers and 

planned for in advance. The role of information diffusion is an important factor in 

both the planning and demonstration phases of energy efficient projects. The findings presented can help other Forest Service units and other governmental agencies 

reach the ambitious energy reduction goals stated in Executive Orders 13423 and 

13514. Higher returns on investment and more informed decisionmaking can be 

supported by better data documentation (pre- and postinvestment) and research into 

life-cycle analyses of project benefits. Much of the work summarized in this paper 

addresses minor purchasing decisions and energy saving equipment; however, 

future developments will likely include larger-scale projects, including new construction of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified buildings 

and new renewable energy projects. Resources to aid Forest Service personnel in 

making energy use decisions are summarized. 

Keywords: Energy efficiency, federal government, energy conservation, lifecycle analysis, carbon emission reductions.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Greening Up Government

3 Research Objectives

4 Getting to an Energy-Efficient Forest Service

5 Other Studies of Energy Efficiency Projects

6 Methods

7 Findings

14 Interviewee Observations

18 Future Research Directions 

19 Resources

23 Acknowledgments

23 English Equivalents

23 Literature Cited 

27 Appendix 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Discussions With Forest

 Service Employees 

28 Appendix 2: Energy Efficiency Discussion Questions
1

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Introduction

Greening Up Government

American taxpayers have more than just their own utility bills to worry about. 

Energy use by the federal government, the single largest consumer of energy 

products and services in the United States, carries a substantial price tag. Collectively, federal agencies purchase more than 10 percent of all energy-using products 

nationwide (Gillingham et al. 2006). Efforts by the federal government to increase 

energy efficiency therefore benefit the whole Nation by lowering costs, minimizing 

the government’s carbon footprint, and reducing resource depletion.

To encourage effective energy management, the U.S. Department of Energy 

established the Federal Energy Management Program in 1973 to provide technical assistance and oversee energy efficiency investments and energy audits. Since 

then, significant strides have been made, as energy use in government buildings 

has decreased by 23 percent between fiscal years 1985 and 2001 (Gillingham et 

al. 2006). Total federal government energy use—which includes electricity, fuel 

oil, propane, gasoline, and diesel—dropped from 1,565,000 billion site-delivered 

British thermal units (Btu) in 1975 to 1,085,000 in 2007 (US DOE 2010). However, 

by using more energy-efficient products, federal agencies could still save more 

than $200 million per year (US DOE 2008) and reduce carbon emissions by up 

to 8.6 million metric tons per year (Gillingham et al. 2006). To increase the pace 

of progress, President George W. Bush signed two federal policies that mandate 

curbing costs and resource use. Executive Orders 13423 (E. O. 13423 2007) and 

13514 (E. O. 13514 2009) have necessitated large-scale changes to the status quo. 

Executive Order 13423 requires all federal agencies to lead by example in reducing 

energy consumption by 30 percent (from a baseline year of 2003) by the year 2015, 

while Executive Order 13514 has longer term and more stringent ramifications for 

buildings starting in 2020. 

It is particularly appropriate for federal agencies with a natural resource conservation mission to demonstrate environmental leadership by not wasting energy. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service mission is to “sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the 

needs of present and future generations” (USDA FS 2012a). As part of its mission, 

the Forest Service has set goals for resolving energy resource challenges through its 

Strategic Energy Framework. The framework defines the key Forest Service energy 

role as follows:
2

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

...to effectively contribute to the sustainable development and use of energy 

resources for present and future generations through land management, 

technical and financial assistance, research and development, and energy 

conservation (USDA FS 2011).

Strategy goals relate to supporting renewable energy production, facilitating a 

low fossil-fuel energy future, and reducing the Forest Service footprint via reduced 

energy consumption in agency buildings, operations, and infrastructure. Specific 

targets for energy reductions include office facilities, the motor vehicle fleet, water 

use, green purchasing, and recycling (USDA Forest Service 2012b). 

Many savings can accrue from very simple behavioral or low-cost infrastructure changes (e.g., shifting from incandescent to fluorescent lighting, installing 

powerstrips, powering down computers, and installing insulation). Federal agencies 

are required to purchase either ENERGY STAR1

 products, or if ENERGY STAR 

labels do not apply, to purchase products in the upper 25-percent range of energy 

efficiency (Gillingham et al. 2006). These policies can directly influence markets 

for these products, as the scale of federal expenditure is so large. For example, in 

2007, the USDA invested $9.67 million in energy efficiency and renewable energy 

projects (US DOE 2010).

The Forest Service also aims to proactively mitigate climate change impacts, 

which led the agency to create its Climate Change Performance Scorecard (USDA 

FS 2010). Using the scorecard approach, all national forests work toward attainment measures in 10 different elements within four broader themes (see sidebar). 

Performance areas include integrating climate change into program work, assessing 

vulnerability of key resources, performing a baseline assessment of carbon stocks 

and flows, and making progress toward targeted reductions in resource use. The 

agency anticipates that the performance scorecard will inform a broader range of 

planning decisions as familiarity with the scorecard grows, because it includes elements for carbon assessment and management as well as sustainable operations.

In coming decades, energy efficiency measures within the Forest Service will 

reap benefits far beyond cost savings. Nonmonetary benefits will be high, and as 

certain ecosystem services enter the marketplace, these may also receive financial translation. For example, the environmental benefits associated with carbon 

footprint reductions, although having little value in today’s carbon markets, could 

someday yield significant economic benefits if and when carbon is valued higher. 

1

 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service of any product 

or service.
3

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Sidebar

Ten elements of the Forest Service Climate Change Performance 

Scorecard (2010)

Organizational Capacity

1. Employee education

2. Designated climate change coordinators

3. Guidance, training, and plans of work 

Partnerships, Engagement and Education

4. Integrate science and management

5. External partnerships

Adaptation

6. Vulnerability assessment

7. Adaptation activities

8. Monitoring

Mitigation and Sustainable Consumption

9. Carbon assessment and management

10. Sustainable operations

In many locations, the low-hanging fruit of simple and immediate behavioral 

changes (e.g., light bulbs and recycling) is already being implemented (table 1). Longer term measures (and those which account for the life cycle of products) include 

purchasing energy efficient hardware and whole-building installation of renewable 

energy systems. These types of changes are more challenging, and may require 

better coordination and development of supportive policy and institutional changes. 

As the Forest Service explores potential avenues toward broader long-term energy 

efficiency goals, it is working to create an organizational structure that facilitates 

coordination and sharing of lessons learned and benefits from these efforts. 

Research Objectives

This study focused on eliciting and synthesizing insights from managers who are 

closely involved with energy efficiency measures. Specific objectives of this report 

include:

• Identification of barriers common to energy efficiency investment. If a specific logistical barrier was not easily identified, we looked for underlying 

patterns and root causes that might hinder projects. 
4

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

• Identification of a strategy for success. We wanted to find out what 

approaches and actions have worked well for specific projects, particularly 

if they could be replicated in other locations. We used these success factors 

to identify a set of recommendations for future energy efficiency projects.

Getting to an Energy-Efficient Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service has worked to transform its agency culture in the face of 

several large and persistent organizational challenges, such as safety, diversity, and, 

currently, sustainable operations (Apple 2000, Dialogos International 2007, JonesCrabtree et al. 2010). These changes will need to occur at all levels of the agency for 

it to truly chart a new course. Cultural transformation will also be more meaningful 

and likely to succeed when communication is clear and based on adequate information. For example, understanding the dynamics of the various processes, personnel, 

and institutional structures involved in decisionmaking about energy efficiency can 

help the Forest Service become more aware of barriers and missed opportunities. 

Table 1—Energy efficiency measures implemented on western national forests

Project title Region - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footprint areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

New heater for 

helibase shop

Intermountain Energy Green purchasing

Hand-crank flashlights Intermountain Energy Green purchasing Fleet and transportation

Energy-efficient office

improvements

Intermountain Energy Green purchasing

Camp can crusher Intermountain Energy Green purchasing Waste reduction

Rechargeable lithium 

batteries

Intermountain Energy Green purchasing Fleet and transportation

Green transportation Intermountain Energy Fleet and transportation

Water bottle reduction Intermountain Energy Water Waste reduction

Solar upgrade Rocky Mountain Energy Green purchasing Sustainability leadership

“Kiwi” project Pacific Northwest Green purchasing Fleet and transportation Waste reduction

Air compressor 

installations

Intermountain Fleet and transportation

Battery recycling 

program

Intermountain Green purchasing Waste reduction

Waterwise landscaping Intermountain Green purchasing Water Waste reduction

Recycling bins Intermountain Waste reduction

Recycling at 

remote sites

Alaska Waste reduction

Source: USDA FS 2012c. 
5

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

By pointing out the bottlenecks in our approach to implementing energy efficiency 

projects, we help advance the goal of becoming a learning organization, where an 

agency self-assesses its management practices, policies, and mission, and continually adapts them as new challenges arise. 

As we view energy conservation and efficiency through this lens, we hope to 

identify behaviors or planning processes where small changes could produce big 

improvements. Through doing so, we anticipate that the Forest Service will realize 

broad-based energy and environmental benefits, underscoring its leadership and 

fiscal accountability. Here, we first review available literature and policy relevant to 

improvement of energy efficiency in federal agencies. 

Other Studies of Energy Efficiency Projects

Although energy efficiency policies can be wide ranging, they may be generally 

categorized into four areas: appliance standards, financial incentive programs, 

voluntary conservation programs, and government energy management programs 

(Gillingham et al. 2006). Nearly 200 energy conservation provisions across many 

sectors, including government buildings, were outlined in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Dixon et al. 2010). 

Despite an extensive body of literature on energy efficiency and green building 

practices, relatively little research has been done specifically on government buildings. Proper insulation, materials, and building design are widely recognized as 

important determinants of energy efficiency. However, accurately modeling energy 

efficiency in buildings can be complex because numerous variables can influence 

energy use. For example, Buck and Young (2007) modeled energy efficiency for 

commercial buildings in Canada using a stochastic approach. They evaluated 23 

variables, including year of construction, number of floors, heating and cooling 

degree-days per year; presence of insulation retrofits; presence of lighting retrofits, 

presence of reflective glass on windows; building area; and the heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning maintenance and repair schedule. 

Alternatively, energy efficiency can be modeled less precisely by recognizing 

basic and immediate actions that can affect energy use. Escrivá-Escrivá (2011) 

identified seven easily implemented changes that could reduce energy in commercial buildings. Among them are automatically monitoring energy consumption, 

making one or more individuals responsible for energy use within their building, 

and improving communications between managers and users. Other researchers 

(Tzikopoulos et al. 2005) have considered bioclimatic principles, including environmental conditions, building characteristics, and use of renewable energy to model 

energy efficiency. 
6

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

New building construction has been identified as a prime opportunity to 

improve energy efficiency. Often, energy-efficient designs can be included in the 

initial construction much less expensively than retrofitting existing buildings. Kneifel (2010) simulated energy consumption for 12 prototypical buildings, and found 

that, even when conventional energy technologies are used, energy consumption 

can be decreased 20 to 30 percent through new building construction. 

These studies and others demonstrate some of the approaches possible for 

energy conservation and successful applications in the private sector. Forest Service 

energy efficiency planning motivations can differ from those of the commercial or 

residential sectors, which tend to be more profit oriented. The Forest Service’s challenge will be to develop effective strategies that work within the federal government 

system and also meet mandated energy conservation requirements.

Methods

Resources and strategies for implementing energy efficiency measures at Forest 

Service locations were evaluated by conducting 22 open-ended interviews with 

employees involved with energy-improvement projects or knowledgeable of other 

local and regional initiatives (apps. 1 and 2). Interviewees spanned a broad range of 

job descriptions, and their projects varied in timing (currently in progress, recently 

completed, or far in the past); extent (one or several small projects to large construction projects); and technological diversity (numerous efficiency measures and green 

technologies versus a specific one). 

All nine Forest Service regions (fig. 1) and two research stations were represented. Of these, the Northern Region and Rocky Mountain Region were represented more than other regions, with five employees each. Employees included 

engineers, facility managers, building managers, architects, and green team members. The range of responsibilities represented suggests that their viewpoints were 

close to the “front-lines,” but their insights might complement that of upper level 

management, where budgetary or investment decisions are often otherwise made. 

The discussions were conducted by phone and ranged from 20 to 120 minutes 

in length, with most lasting about an hour. Discussions focused on the nature of 

energy efficiency measures, funding sources, obstacles encountered, decisionmaking processes, key motivations, and success strategies (app. 2). The energy efficiency measures covered ranged from multimillion dollar Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) building construction to the installation of several 

“vending misers” (external devices that reduce power consumption of vending 
7

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

machines) in an employee break room. The interviews were evaluated against prior 

respondent answers, which helped to accurately record and discern certain relationships, timing, and feedbacks among elements that promoted or presented a barrier 

to the proposed energy efficiency measure. 

Findings

This section presents a synthesis of insights from respondents. The path varied, 

but most respondents identified a series of steps in conceiving, funding, implementing, and reflecting upon each project. Improvements can be made in each step of 

the cycle. 

Forest Service employees want to save energy— 

The desire to lead by example or to “walk the talk” was a nearly universal sentiment among those interviewed. Many felt that, as employees of a conservation 

agency, their day-to-day activities should reflect the Forest Service’s motto of “caring for the land and serving people.” The most common phrase encapsulating this 

vision was that “it’s just the right thing to do.” The root of this desire may differ; for 

some interviewees, it was about reducing carbon emissions, while for many more it 

was motivated by efficient use of available funds. Either way, this suggests a shared 

vision of the Forest Service conserving resources and leading by example.

Figure 1—Map indicating the 9 regions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service National Forest System.
8

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Institutional barriers present challenges to adoption of energy efficiency

measures—

Our interviews revealed three institutional barriers to implementation of energy 

efficiency projects: (1) site-specific information on energy use is not easily accessible, (2) centralized funding allocation does not incentivize energy saving, and (3) 

annual budgeting leads to short-sighted decisions. 

Site-specific information on energy use is not easily accessible—

Employees at most Forest Service sites are likely unaware of how much energy they 

use. The creation of a feedback loop that provides timely information on resource 

use could provide motivation for reductions in use (Meadows 2008). In residential 

settings, immediate feedback on energy use typically results in savings of 5 to 15 

percent (Darby 2006). Thus, a centralized clearinghouse for information on energy 

efficiency and use could provide the feedback needed to streamline the planning 

process, better inform local decisionmakers, and reduce the likelihood of confusing or contradictory records. If every site reviewed and reconciled their own billing 

statements, errors would be found much more quickly, and true energy use could be 

verified. Further, up-to-date utility records will be essential for local managers to 

gauge progress in reaching agencywide energy use mandates.

Figure 2—Forest Service nursery at Coeur D’Alene, Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest. By modernizing refrigeration, lighting, and heating, ventilation, and cooling systems, the nursery cut energy usage by 80 percent. 

Corrine Kegel
9

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Although the Telephone, Utilities, and Maintenance System (TUMS) used by 

the Forest Sevice was mentioned as a resource for obtaining this information, it is 

not often used, possibly because getting access can be difficult. When TUMS is not 

accessible, there are other ways to get this information. For example, one employee 

learned accidentally that it was possible for workers in Forest Service Region 1 to 

get copies of utility bills through the Administrative Center of Excellence. Others 

mentioned getting a copy of the bill by speaking with their utility providers. However, another employee found that their utility would not mail bills to two separate 

addresses. Currently, most Forest Service utility bills are sent to the National 

Finance Center (NFC). 

Centralized funding allocation does not incentivize energy saving—In most

regions and stations, at least some utilities are paid through the NFC, meaning that 

these funds come from centralized (and not local) sources. In these cases, savings 

generated by an individual unit are not retained locally, often leading to counterproductive decisionmaking. For example, one engineer reported that a greenhouse was 

currently running on electricity, yet could be more cost-effective if run on natural 

gas. Because electricity bills were paid through the NFC, and natural gas was paid 

by the unit, the decision was made to stay with electricity. That is, because this unit 

did not want to pay the bill out of their own budget, they went with a more expensive, less efficient option (using centralized funding). 

Figure 3—A new “smart” meter at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. Advanced meters like this one make real-time electrical usage 

readings available on a website, making them extremely useful for 

tracking energy use. Before installing these meters, staff at the Missoula lab had no way to determine energy usage in their buildings. 

Rachelle Meyer 
10

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

The inability of Forest Service units to take local ownership for local energy 

use is perhaps one of the most important barriers we identified. If all units were 

given the funds to pay their own utilities with any savings being retained for the 

unit or project, this could provide a strong local motivation for increased energy 

efficiency. However, this change is unlikely under the current finance structure, 

and would require a high-level policy solution. 

There is hope, however, that local units can devise creative strategies that 

allow for new budgeting structures. At least one research station has taken steps 

to address this issue. Also, in at least one lab, money saved from utilities and other 

operating costs was made available for deferred maintenance or research. This 

policy was shown to motivate staff to reduce energy consumption and become 

amenable to policy changes. As a specific example, two or more programs may 

decide to share a freezer, so the money saved could be used to purchase other 

equipment. A potential downside of this arrangement is the additional time needed 

to track payments and to ensure that payments are applied to the correct accounts. 

Annual budgeting leads to short-sighted decisions—

Currently, the operating and maintenance costs over the course of a Forest Service 

building’s lifetime are not included in the design process. Incorporating long-term 

costs into the planning process could clarify the differences between available options, justify higher initial construction costs, save money over the long term, and 

improve the durability and efficiency of Forest Service buildings. Several quantitative methods have been developed to address these and other resource use questions including life-cycle analysis, carbon footprinting, and greenhouse gas inventories. Obtaining such information specific to Forest Service projects is difficult. 

Even more discouraging is that such information is then unavailable to help inform 

spending decisions. Incorporating this type of information into purchasing decisions would result in better support for proposed actions as well as accounting for 

short- and long-term impacts and benefits.

Annual budgeting also creates the “end-of-year” spending phenomenon. The 

desire to spend all allocated money stems from the potential loss of at least a 

portion of remaining money and the perception that unit budgets may be reduced 

if they do not use the money they are allocated. Because it can incentivize wasteful 

spending and restrict the ability to save money across fiscal years, many interviewees viewed this structure negatively, despite its use for funding many energyefficiency measures. 
11

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Incorporating long-term costs will require a major cultural shift and a 

budgeting structure in which decisionmakers can respond to this information. 

This could extend to high levels of government. For example, mechanisms for 

saving money between fiscal years would create a monetary incentive for further 

cost savings and efficiency improvements, but would literally require an act of 

Congress. Meanwhile, there are mechanisms already used in the Forest Service 

that allow for saving money and long-term budgets. Programs such as the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act (FSFREA) is a notable 

example. Providing information to decisionmakers in the Forest Service has been 

addressed by the Western Collective Sustainability Science team, whose efforts 

help managers use the most relevant research information to make science-based 

decisions on their units. 

Key people can make or break a project—

The interviews revealed several cases of changes occurring because of a specific 

person having the motivation and power to make a change. This includes the sustainable operations coordinator, who was largely responsible for the creation of 

the Western Collective, and the individuals who have set up microgrants in their 

regions, providing a previously unavailable funding source. The effect a motivated 

individual (or “project champion”) can exert on the success of a project can be 

substantial.

Conversely, a single person (or small group of vocal opponents) strongly 

opposed to a given project can also exert strong influence on the outcome. For 

example, one respondent indicated that a proposed wind turbine that had received 

categorical exclusion status through the National Environmental Policy Act, and 

seemed to have broad-based public support, was stalled by one local citizen making 

objections to the city council. All these individuals are examples of “the law of the 

few” described by Gladwell (2002), where the actions of a handful of people have 

large effects on the spread of an epidemic, be it an illness, a fashion trend, or the 

adoption of a new technology. 

Also important is the effect of individual hires, retirements, and transfers on 

implementing energy efficiency measures. For instance, Region 6 seemed uninterested in joining Region 1 in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration 

until a new architect was hired. In another case, a Utility Energy Service Contract 

was stalled because important project work remained uncompleted after someone 

retired. In yet another case, the favored biomass heating project of a district ranger 

fell out of favor after his departure, because no one else was interested in maintaining the system. This factor can be especially important in multiyear projects 
12

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

because the continued presence of a project champion, familiar with a specific 

project, is usually essential. Incorporating these projects into the facilities’ Environmental Management System could help ensure that a project continues even if a key 

team member or project champion leaves. 

Nearly all of the respondents had generally favorable remarks about the role of 

leadership in the success of their project. Although it may be a coincidence, two of 

three interviewees who had unsuccessful projects were the only ones who listed 

leadership as an obstacle. In the third case, high cost was a barrier. This suggests 

that the level of motivation by decisionmakers in leadership positions may be a key 

factor in the success or failure of projects. This makes intuitive sense, as it would 

be quite difficult for a project to move forward without the support of supervisors, 

even if all other factors were favorable. Leadership has a critical role in facilitating the change from the status quo to meeting mandated and desired energy goals 

(Jones-Crabtree et al. 2010). 

People learn by example—

We found that energy-efficiency measures and funding mechanisms, when successful at one location, can often be replicated at other locations. A notable example is 

the microgrant program in Region 1. It provides $100,000 a year (with a $25,000 

project maximum) for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects (table 2).

This program came about because the regional engineer learned of a similar, successful microgrant program in Region 2 at a Sustainable Operations Summit. 

Table 2—Available Forest Service “green” microgrant

Annual microgrant 

Region or station amount Years offered

Dollars

Region 1 100,000 2009–2011

Region 2 50,000 2005–2009, 2011

Region 3 55,000 2009, 2010

Region 4 25,000–35,000 2008–2011

Region 5 20,000–28,500 2007, 2008, 2011

Region 6 50,000 2011

Region 10 5,000 2010

Rocky Mountain 5,000 2010–2011 

Research Station
13

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Seeing the potential for a similar program in his region, he successfully presented 

the idea to his station leadership. The new Region 1 program has resulted in many 

energy-saving projects, leveraging over $100,000 in matching funds from utilities 

and other sources. Several of these projects have achieved outstanding payback 

periods, as short as one to two years. Only one of the five employees from Region 

1 listed budget constraints as an obstacle to implementing energy efficiency measures, and that individual mentioned a need to prioritize available funds, not a lack 

of funding. 

Interviewees noted that several other project successes were based on effective 

information diffusion. These examples include the adoption of vending misers and 

smart power strips on the Tongass National Forest, cooperation between regions 

to participate in common Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and successful 

LEED designation for a building on the White Mountain National Forest in New 

Hampshire. Lessons learned from other, non-Forest Service LEED building projects 

in New Hampshire were incorporated into designing and constructing the White 

Mountain LEED building. In addition, tours of the LEED facilities help communicate their success within and outside the Forest Service, furthering information 

diffusion while demonstrating successful agency projects.

Figure 4—A new energy-efficient furnace at the Forest Service’s Coeur D’Alene 

nursery was part of an Energy Savings Performance Contract with Honeywell. 

The success of this project led to inquiries from the Eldorado National Forest 

about energy upgrades for its Placerville nursery.

Corrine Kegel
14

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Interviewee Observations

The interviews revealed several tactics for getting energy efficiency measures in 

place, which can be summarized as: 

• Be ready

• Try it in pieces

• Get and give information

Most facilities managers are already aware of the benefits of being prepared, 

especially with regard to purchasing new equipment. 

Be prepared for opportunities—

Thoroughly research energy efficiency choices in advance, and make sure that 

purchase sources and locations are well known, even if funding is not yet available. 

Maintain relationships with key partners, including local cooperators and utility 

company personnel, to help them be prepared when opportunities arise. Until systemic changes are made regarding funding across multiple fiscal years, employees 

attempting energy efficiency measures at their locations can improve their chances 

of success by being ready to mobilize efforts quickly once a funding opportunity 

arises. In addition to having the information to justify the expense of some of these 

options, a mechanism for paying for them would likely be necessary. 

Take a piece-meal approach— 

If necessary, do things piece-meal. In many circumstances, this may be the only 

way to successfully complete projects. For example, the LEED building on the 

White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire was completed in four phases 

(Mainville 2012). Because it was an expensive project, full funding could not be 

 provided in a single fiscal year. Completion took 4 years and four contracts, but

the result was a well-built, energy-efficient building. On a smaller scale, when 

completing projects in existing buildings (e.g., upgrading office lights), a piece-meal 

approach can also lead to successful results while building the support of cooperators. For example, if one floor of a building is completed and the successful results 

are demonstrated, this may pave the way for future support to complete other floors. 

The measurement and verification of energy savings could themselves become success strategies. 

Be patient and persistent— 

Overcoming bureaucratic hurdles and delays is one of the key elements of successful energy efficiency measures. Full funding for projects can often take several 

years to secure, followed by years of purchasing and construction. Managing 

multiyear projects can become even more challenging when key personnel retire 
15

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

or move to new positions. Over shorter timeframes, focusing on local, easily 

implemented changes requiring little or no funding can produce tangible results. 

Examples include promoting alternative transportation for commuting to work, 

turning off computers, and reducing office lighting. These examples not only can 

reduce energy use, but can improve employee morale, which in turn can encourage 

participation in future projects. The role of local Forest Service “green teams” in 

similar activities should not be overlooked.

Adopt a slogan—

Despite having a simple motto that is likely to resonate with the majority of 

Forest Service employees, there has been no organized attempt to use it to mobilize 

the agency to increase efficiency. A slogan or motto that captures Forest Service 

goals and plans for reaching energy efficiency objectives could help connect the 

personal convictions of all employees, not just those involved in sustainable operations, to these large-scale efforts. Use of the word “save” in this catch phrase would 

be congruent with all interviewees’ responses, as it addresses all aspects of the 

issue including monetary, natural resources, and mitigating the impacts of climate 

change. 

Adapt energy projects to end-users—

Models for energy efficiency measures across sectors have shown that policies including both mandatory and voluntary components can be effective (Lee and Yik 

2004). Although many of these elements could be transferrable to national forest 

Figure 5—A bulletin board at the Helena Ranger District office, Helena 

National Forest, helps keep employees inspired to reach sustainability 

objectives. This study found that even without an organized, agencywide 

effort to increase efficiency, most employees want to save energy.

Jamey Lowdermilk
16

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

units, successful private sector models may need to be modified before being used 

at government facilities. For example, as a natural resource management agency, 

the Forest Service has some unique considerations to deal with, including remote, 

fragmented districts and forests, the safety needs of field-going employees, the need 

to address urgent issues (such as wildfire suppression), and other concerns that 

may supersede energy efficiency. Ultimately, however, the motivation of individual 

Forest Service employees and their attitudes regarding cost savings, environmental 

awareness, and other factors could play a determining role in how agencywide energy efficiency benefits are realized.

Take the “low-hanging fruit”—

These projects require little effort to implement, yet bring about tangible benefits 

quickly. Examples include turning off computers at night, recycling, and using 

energy-efficient light bulbs. A key element in moving forward will be the need 

to distinguish between the motivation needed to tackle simple measures versus 

the complexity of implementing larger scale projects. For example, new building 

construction with LEED certification represents a complex, expensive, and timeconsuming project that could require a phased approach (in contrast to simple 

projects where benefits can usually be quickly realized). It is important to distinguish between the scale of these two types of projects, and the financial returns. For 

example, large-scale projects can sometimes have very attractive economic returns, 

yet not be undertaken because of administrative, logistical, or other barriers.

Strive for clear information flow and diffusion— 

Easy access to good-quality information, including quantitative estimates of reductions in resource use and cost savings, improves decisionmaking ability, increases 

opportunities, and can create positive incentives for change. Encouraging pilot 

projects and spreading information regarding their results would likely be an effective strategy to implement new technologies. This was the case with vending misers 

and smart power strips and the Region 1 microgrant program. Results of these 

“experiments” should be widely distributed. Similarly, pilot programs can justify 

further action. If replacing a small sample of lights in a building with more efficient 

bulbs results in noticeable reductions, this could pave the way toward replacing the 

remaining bulbs and realizing these added benefits. A structural change that could 

streamline this process would be to provide stronger linkages between the planning 

decisions and their economic outcomes. The recent development of the Leadership 
17

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

in Sustainable Operations website addresses this by providing a searchable repository of sustainable operations projects. By ensuring that all employees are aware of 

this resource, Forest Service managers can help facilitate the spread of information 

between regions and stations. 

Support project champions— 

Having motivated people with vested interests in project outcomes can provide substantial contributions to energy efficiency measures. Educating supervisors on the 

critical nature of the project champion’s leadership role may also assist in increasing successful project outcomes. The ability for project champions to provide local 

oversight in monitoring and controlling routine expenses (rather than a centralized 

spending authority) will further help managers to become true stakeholders in their 

projects. 

Figure 6—The Leadership in Sustainable Operations webpage is a great resource for assessing our 

progress toward becoming more energy efficient. Users can share information about energy consumption, access the Climate Change Scorecard, and learn about successful sustainability measures 

across the Forest Service. 
18

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Embrace technological change— 

New technologies will drive implementation of many energy efficiency measures in 

the years to come. One only has to consider how quickly new light bulb technologies, smart grids, and other integrated energy management strategies are reducing 

energy consumption. As technological innovation changes the range of energy efficiency measures available, the Forest Service will need to be responsive and proactive in adopting these new products. 

Future Research Directions 

The potential for increased energy efficiency throughout the Forest Service is 

substantial, and the associated environmental and economic benefits great. The 

barriers associated with implementing new practices and procedures across a large 

agency will also need to be addressed. These barriers are already being overcome 

as learning experiences within the Forest Service provide feedback into the most 

effective and appropriate energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency measures 

in Forest Service buildings will require ongoing monitoring, documentation, and 

analysis in order to provide feedback for future efforts. 

In addition to energy efficiency measures, future work could include evaluations of renewable energy projects. For example, several wood energy facilities 

have recently come online at Forest Service buildings (Groom and Elder 2009, 

SitNews 2012) and are making positive contributions toward energy savings. Thus, 

the combined effect of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy generation 

could paint a more complete picture of the Forest Service’s commitment to environmental measures such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Combined, these 

actions will help assess progress toward reaching the goals from Executive Orders 

13423 and 13514. 

A key part of successful monitoring efforts will be for common measurement 

and analysis procedures to be established to ensure consistency across Forest Service units and regions. Forest Service research units could address topics as diverse 

as energy-use modeling, greenhouse gas emissions analysis, economic analysis, 

or life-cycle inventory and assessment. For example, the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) has built a 222,000 square foot (20 239 square meters) 

“net-zero” facility in Golden, Colorado (Raabe 2010). Life-cycle analysis research 

on this building and others could help document energy-saving innovations. New 

research on federal buildings could complement similar research already completed 

for private-sector buildings. As more and more LEED-certified Forest Service 

buildings are constructed, research could also play a role in shaping these decisions 

and feedback loops. Ultimately, the Forest Service’s actions and success stories 

could serve as an example to catalyze projects at other federal facilities. 
19

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Resources

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)— 

The CIP is a national-level funding mechanism for construction, in which funding selection is based on several criteria including health and safety. Federal agencies across the Nation compete for a common funding pool, allocated annually 

by Congress. Criteria for the CIP are developed by different administrative levels 

within the Forest Service, and there is typically strong competition among the many 

applicants for these funds. This is the primary, and, in many circumstances, the 

only mechanism for funding new construction.

Project maintenance—

Energy efficiency measures in Forest Service facilities can often be intertwined 

with maintenance programs and budgets. This funding source is often used to implement site-level energy efficiency measures. Several managers gave the impression that the true cost of maintaining buildings is not adequately reflected in their 

budgets, thus limiting their efforts to secure funding for energy efficiency measures. Because resources are often spent on reactive issues and emergency repairs 

to other types of infrastructure, it is not uncommon for these funds to be used on 

Figure 7—In 2011, the Tongass National Forest equipped its Steelhead Barge, which it uses as 

a floating bunkhouse, with solar arrays. The solar panels eliminate the use of 4,000 gallons 

(15,141 liters) of fuel oil a year, saving $60,000 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Michele Parker
20

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

crisis abatement items rather than on projects or equipment having longer benefits 

for improving energy efficiency. Nonetheless, incorporation of energy efficiency 

into maintenance planning and budgets represents a viable avenue for energy 

efficiency measures. 

End-of-year dollars— 

Opportunities for energy efficiency measures can sometimes appear unexpectedly 

in the form of “end-of-year dollars” (i.e., funding allocated in a given fiscal year that 

will be lost if not spent by the end of the fiscal year). Employees planning to implement energy efficiency measures often take advantage of funds remaining near the 

end of the fiscal year. However, the window of opportunity can be narrow and planning must occur quickly or funds will be lost. Thus it is helpful for units to have 

projects “shelved” and ready to implement, especially when considering that other 

projects deemed higher priorities could outcompete energy efficiency measures for 

funding.

Rental income from Forest Service residences (quarters funds)— 

Many Forest Service locations maintain temporary residences for seasonal employees and for employees who are starting new assignments. Often, a portion of these 

receipts can be used for energy efficiency measures. So-called “quarters funds” can 

be used on upgrades to Forest Service residences and cannot be spent for other purposes. An advantage of using these funds is that they do not need to be spent by the 

end of the fiscal year. 

Conveyance funds— 

Conveyance funds are funds from the sale of Forest Service land. The Forest 

Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 allows forests to save 

proceeds from sales of Forest Service properties through September 2011; the funds 

can be designated for other uses. Forests are given budget authority on a certain 

funding amount every year, based on their property sales (USDA FS 2005). About 

160 forests have conveyance funds available through this program. However, the 

White River National Forest near Aspen, Colorado, holds about half of all conveyance funds, owing to the high value of their land sales. 

Regional “green” microgrant programs— 

Forest Service “green” microgrants are modest funds that are awarded to help 

stimulate grassroots sustainable efforts having local impacts for units (table 2). 

Typically, microgrants are less than $2,000 and enable employees to take local actions to promote sustainability. Here, projects are selected based on criteria that 
21

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

differ among programs, but all include requirements for reduced resource use, and 

for reporting following the project to share lessons learned and resources saved. 

More than 19 successful sustainability efforts have been funded by microgrants in 

western national forests alone. 

Western Collective— 

The Western Collective is an organization within the Forest Service dedicated to 

sustainable management practices in Western regions. It is designed to “facilitate 

overall coordination and collaboration of Sustainable Operations practices throughout Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and the Rocky Mountain Research Station while providing the management and leadership climate to ensure such activities and practices are successful” (USDA FS 2012b). Funds from each Western region and the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station are pooled every year for projects having strong 

potential to reduce energy consumption along with other sustainability initiatives. 

Several avenues are considered, including effective information exchange and technology transfer, reducing duplication of efforts, and sustainable operations training 

for Forest Service employees. 

Mass conservation purchases— 

Bulk purchases of smaller, lower budget energy efficiency measures can often allow for cost savings versus purchasing individually. Some examples include lights, 

recycling bins, vending misers, smart power strips, occupancy sensors, and faucet 

aerators. Often, these items can be assembled into kits and sent to all units within a 

national forest or research station. Because many items are purchased at once, bulk 

purchase and shipping discounts can help reduce unit costs.

Energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs)— 

Third-party financers and contractors collaborate with the Forest Service to develop 

large-scale (greater than $1 million) energy efficiency measures. Savings are guaranteed, and more than one utility may be involved. The U.S. Department of Energy 

provides information on these contracts (NREL 2010, US DOE 2012a), while the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR 2012: Part 41) includes rules regarding acquisition of utility services for federal facilities. 

Because Forest Service facilities are often at remote locations, and can include 

many smaller buildings, energy efficiency economics are often unfavorable. This 

generally reduces the incentive for private-sector involvement. To help remedy this, 

many locations, including more than one region or station, can be combined into 

one ESPC. It is important to set up ESPCs so that monthly cashflows to the financer 

come out of the same funds normally used to pay utility bills. 
22

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Agreements with utilities— 

There are several opportunities to work with local utilities on energy efficiency 

measures. Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs) are similar to ESPCs as funding mechanisms but are administered through a single utility. Here, a third-party 

financer may or may not be involved. General information on this topic is available 

at the Department of Energy’s UESCs website (USDOE 2012b) and detailed information regarding implementation is provided by an NREL (2009) publication. In 

addition, utilities often offer rebates and other incentives that can reduce costs and 

streamline funding. These incentives can be used concurrently with other financing 

mechanisms, including UESCs and ESPCs (NREL 2010). 

Figure 8—The Forest Service’s Southeast Alaska Discovery Center in 

Ketchikan, Alaska, switched to this new biomass boiler for heating, eliminating the use of 12,000 gallons of fuel oil a year. Eventually, all remote sites on 

the Tongass National Forest could be powered through a combination of energy 

conservation and renewable energy systems, freeing them from reliance on 

expensive fuel oil.

Michele Parker
23

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Acknowledgments 

We thank all the Forest Service employees who took time out of their busy schedules to be interviewed. We are grateful for their support and valuable information. 

We thank the Western Collective Professional Development Team for the funding 

that allowed the lead author to attend the course that was the impetus of this project. 

In addition, several reviewers contributed to the final version including Anna Jones 

Crabtree, Jennifer Bakken, and Marie Zanowick.

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Metric tons or tonnes 1.102 Tons or short tons

British thermal units (BTU) 1,050 Joules (J)

Literature Cited

Apple, D.D. 2000. Evolution of the Forest Service toward a learning organization. White paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/fs_learning.html. 

(30 November 2012).

Buck, J.; Young, D. 2007. The potential for energy efficiency gains in the 

Canadian commercial building sector: a stochastic frontier study. Energy. 

32: 1769–1780.

Darby, S. 2006. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption: a review for 

DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing, and direct displays. Oxford, United 

Kingdom: University of Oxford, Environmental Change Institute. 24 p.

Dialogos International. 2007. Integrating mission accomplishment with safety at 

the U.S. Forest Service. Diagnostic Memo. 46 p. http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/

am/dialogos_report_fs_nlt_v8_5.pdf. (30 November 2012).

Dixon, R.K.; McGowan, E.; Onysko, G.; Scheer, R.M. 2010. U.S. energy 

conservation and efficiency policies: challenges and opportunities. Energy 

Policy. 38: 6398–6408.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf. (5 June 2013).

Energy Policy Act of 2005. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/

PLAW-109publ58.pdf (5 June 2013).
24

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Escrivá- Escrivá, G. 2011. Basic actions to improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings in operation. Energy and Buildings. 43: 3106–3111.

Executive Order 13423 [E.O. 13423]. 2007. Strengthening Federal Environmental, 

Energy, and Transportation Management. Federal Register. 72(17). Sec 2 a-b. 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-374.pdf. (5 July 2012).

Executive Order 13514 [E.O. 13514]. 2009. Federal Leadership in Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Performance. Federal Register. 74(194). Sec 2 a. ii, Sec 2 

g. i. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/eo13514.pdf. (5 July 2012).

Federal Acquisition Regulations [FAR]. 2012. http://www.acquisition.gov/far/.

(15 December 2012).

Forest Service Facilities Realignment And Enhancement Act Of 2005.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5288804.pdf.

(5 June 2013).

Gillingham, K.; Newell, R.; Palmer, K. 2006. Energy efficiency policies: a 

retrospective examination. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 

31: 161–192.

Gladwell, M. 2002. The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. 

New York, NY: Bay Back Books. 279 p.

Groom, L.; Elder, T. 2009. Biomax gasification project: bioenergy from wood 

[Presentation]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/usfr/Gasification_Unit_Overview_

Presentation.pdf. (15 December 2012).

Jones-Crabtree, A.; Patterson, T.; Zanowick, M.; Baker, S.; McWilliams, 

R. 2010. Leadership for sustainability: 10 guiding principles. Forest 

Service Sustainable Operations Western Collective. http://www.fs.fed.us/

sustainableoperations/documents/leadership_principles.pdf. (30 November 2012).

Kneifel, J. 2010. Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures 

in new commercial buildings. Energy and Buildings. 42: 333–340.

Lee, W.L.; Yik, F.W.H. 2004. Regulatory and voluntary approaches for enhancing building energy efficiency. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science.

30: 477–499. 

Mainville, C. 2012. New White Mountain National Forest headquarters achieves 

LEED Gold. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ssrs/story?id=6538. (5 July 2012).
25

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Meadows, D. 2008. Thinking in systems. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea 

Green Publishing Company. 218 p.

National Environmental Policy Act. 1970. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ (6 June 2013).

National Renewable Energy Lab [NREL]. 2009. Utility energy service contracts: 

enabling documents. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. DOE/GO102009-2588. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43016.pdf. (15 December 2012).

National Renewable Energy Lab [NREL]. 2010. Alternative financing for

federal energy and water projects [Brochure]. U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management 

Program. DOE/GO-102010-3033.

Raabe, S. 2010. National energy lab in Golden a model of super efficiency.

The Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_15444526.

(15 December 2012).

SitNews. 2012. Biomass boiler installation complete in Ketchikan federal 

building. http://www.sitnews.us/0312News/031612/031612_fed_building.html.

(15 December 2012).

Tzikopoulos, A.F.; Karatza, M.C.; Paravantis, J.A. 2005. Modeling energy 

efficiency of bioclimatic buildings. Energy and Buildings. 37: 529–544.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005. Forest 

Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (FSFREA). 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5288804.pdf.

(15 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS].2009. Asset 

Financial Management Handbook 6509.19 Chap. 10 General Fund Personal 

Property. Sec. 18.1 Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010. A 

performance scorecard for implementing the Forest Service climate change 

strategy. Washington, DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/performance_

scorecard_final.pdf. (15 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [USDA FS]. 2011. Strategic 

energy framework. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System. http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/Signed_StrategicEnergy_

Framework_01_14_11.doc. (17 December 2012).
26

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [USDA FS]. 2012a. Mission, 

motto, vision, and guiding principles. http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.

shtml. (30 November 2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [USDA FS]. 2012b. Sustainable 

operations: Western Collective. http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/

western-collective.shtml. (15 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [USDA FS ]. 2012c. Leadership in Sustainable Operations. http://liso.dv.r5.fs.fed.us:8080/liso/index.do. 

(17 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy [US DOE]. 2008. Selling energy-efficient products 

to the federal government. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/selling_

eeproducts_to_gov.pdf. (17 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy [US DOE]. 2010. Annual report to Congress on 

federal government energy management and conservation programs: fiscal year 

2007. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/annrep07.pdf. (17 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy [US DOE]. 2012a. Energy savings performance 

contracts. Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Federal Energy Management Program. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

financing/espcs.html. (15 December 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy [US DOE]. 2012b. Utility energy services contracts. 

Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal 

Energy Management Program. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/

uescs.html. (15 December 2012).
27

Energy Efficiency in U.S. Forest Service Facilities: a Multiregion Review

Appendix 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Discussions With Forest 

Service Employees

Table 1—Region, employees, title, and primary discussion topic

Forest Service

region or station Name Title Primary discussion topic

Northern Steve Oravetz Engineer Microgrant implementation; local facilities 

work

Jane Kipp Architect ESPC

Bruce Crockett Architect Local facilities work

Mark Libby District ranger Photovoltaic installation

Frank Castillo Facility manager Lighting, new appliances, solar hot 

water heater

Rocky Mountain Anna Jones-Crabtree Sustainable Operations Creation of the Western Collective 

Mike Ross Civil engineer Aspen construction project

Lexie Carroll INFRA database Microgrants, mass energy purchase

Todd Michael Engineer ESPC

Jerry Stevenson Forest engineer Multiple 

Southwest 

Intermountain

Pat Leyba Facilities manager ESPC

Shelly Worthington Architect ESPC

Pacific Southwest Jeff Sheahan Building manager Maintenance updates, lighting

Renee Jewell Commercial program 

management

ESPC and UESC

Pacific Northwest Tim Dedrick Engineer UESC

Southern Randy Warbington Engineer Ground-source heat pumps, local facilities 

work

Eastern Bill Dauer Forest engineer LEED-certified building

Alaska Michelle Putz Tongass National Forest, 

green team member

Vending misers

Jason Anderson Tongass National Forest, 

Thorne Bay district 

ranger

Renewable energy/wood pellets

Rocky Mountain 

Research Station

John Howard Facilities manager Boiler/new windows/general

Frank McArthur Facilities manager Local facilities work

Northern Research 

Station

Jean Holland Facilities operations 

manager

Local facilities work

ESPC = Energy Savings Performance Contract, UESC = United Energy Savings Contract, LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
28

general technical report pnw-gtr-886

Appendix 2: Energy Efficiency Discussion Questions

Part I: Classification information 

1. Interviewee name 

2. Forest Service region

Part II: Energy efficiency questions

1. What energy efficiency upgrade(s) have you considered/attempted?

2. Who or what got you inspired to do this?

3. Why did you want to implement this change?

4. Did you have references or mandates for these changes?

5. What criteria are commonly considered in the decisionmaking process for energy

efficiency upgrades? 

6. What criteria did you use for making this change (time to payback, environmental 

concerns, etc.)?

7. What other indicators would you like to use?

8. How did you obtain funding?

9. What other funding options were you aware of?

10. Why did you select the option you did?

11. What obstacles did you face?

12. Why do you think the energy efficiency project was successful? (Why was it

not successful?)

13. What savings have you or do you expect to realize ($, emissions, etc.)? at local, regional, 

national scales short term, long term)?

14. Do you feel you inspired spin-off benefits or actions outside this effort?

15. Who or what inspired you to get started?
Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is 

derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or 

in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will 

apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 

To File an Employment Complaint 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor 

(PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a 

personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA

Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You 

may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office 

of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 

690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons with Disabilities 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either 

an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 

877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on 

how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

For any other information dealing with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

issues, persons should either contact the USDA SNAP Hotline Number at (800) 221-5689, 

which is also in Spanish or call the State Information/Hotline Numbers. 

All Other Inquiries

For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the USDA 

Agencies and Offices for specific agency information. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300