Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

January 2007 ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY 

Long-standing 

Problems with DOE’s 

Program for Setting 

Efficiency Standards 

Continue to Result in 

Forgone Energy 

Savings 

GAO-07-42 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2007

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Long-standing Problems with DOE's 

Program for Setting Efficiency Standards 

Continue to Result in Forgone Energy 

Savings 

Highlights of GAO-07-42, a report to 

congressional requesters 

The Department of Energy (DOE)

sets energy efficiency standards 

through the rulemaking process for 

certain consumer product 

categories, such as kitchen ranges, 

and industrial equipment, such as

distribution transformers. Congress

reported in 2005 that DOE was late

in setting standards and required

DOE to report every 6 months on 

the status of the backlog.

GAO examined (1) the extent to 

which DOE has met its obligations

to issue rules on minimum energy

efficiency standards for consumer

products and industrial equipment 

and (2) whether DOE’s plan for 

clearing the backlog will be 

effective or can be improved.

Among other things, GAO 

convened an expert panel on 

energy efficiency standards to

identify causes and effects of 

delays and assess DOE’s plans. 

DOE has missed all 34 congressional deadlines for setting energy efficiency

standards for the 20 product categories with statutory deadlines that have

passed. DOE’s delays ranged from less than a year to 15 years. Rulemakings 

have been completed for only (1) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers; (2) small furnaces; and (3) clothes washers. DOE has yet to finish 

17 categories of such consumer products as kitchen ranges and ovens, 

dishwashers, and water heaters, and such industrial equipment as 

distribution transformers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates 

that delays in setting standards for the four consumer product categories 

that consume the most energy––refrigerators and freezers, central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, and clothes washers––will cost 

at least $28 billion in forgone energy savings by 2030. DOE’s January 2006 

report to Congress attributes delays to several causes, including an overly 

ambitious statutory rulemaking schedule and a lengthy internal review 

process. In interviews, however, DOE officials could not agree on the 

causes of delays. GAO’s panel of widely recognized, knowledgeable 

stakeholders said, among other things, that the General Counsel review 

process was too lengthy and that DOE did not allot sufficient resources or 

make the standards a priority. However, GAO could not more conclusively 

determine the root causes of delay because DOE lacks the program 

management data needed to identify bottlenecks in the rulemaking process. 

In January 2006, DOE presented to Congress its plan to bring the standards 

up to date by 2011. It is unclear whether this plan will effectively clear DOE’s 

backlog because DOE does not have the necessary program management 

data to be certain the plan addresses the root causes. The plan also lacks

critical elements of an effective project management plan, such as a way to 

ensure management accountability for meeting the deadlines. Finally, the 

plan calls for a sixfold increase in workload with only a small increase in 

resources. DOE plans to manage the workload through improved 

productivity. 

Timeliness of DOE Rulemakings That Have Come Due 

Timeliness of rulemaking

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

10 years to 15 years

5

12

8

2

1

4

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

5 years to <10 years

1 year to < 5 years

< 1 year

On time 0

Late

Completed rules Incomplete rules

Number of rules

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOE adopt

elements of effective project

management in its standards 

rulemaking, such as using a more

transparent process and allocating

adequate resources within its 

appropriation. In commenting on 

this report, DOE did not respond to 

the recommendations but said it 

was incorrect to single out any 

official or office for the delays and 

that the report did not reflect many

of its standards-setting activities 

since EPAct 2005. GAO reported 

several causes of delays; activities 

since EPAct 2005 were outside this 

report’s scope. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-42.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and method, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jim Wells at 

(202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 6

DOE Has Missed All Rulemaking Deadlines at a Cost of Billions in 

Forgone Energy Savings 9 

Effectiveness of DOE’s Catch-Up Plan Is Uncertain 13 

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 20 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20 

Appendix I Status of the Department of Energy’s Model 

Building Code Determinations 23 

DOE Has Completed One of Three Commercial Building Code 

Determinations 25

DOE Has Completed Four of Five Residential Building Code 

Determinations 26

DOE Tracks States’ Building Codes 27 

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Method 29 

Appendix III Rulemakings and Delays for Consumer Products 

and Industrial Equipment with Deadlines That 

Have Passed 31 

Appendix IV Participants in Energy Efficiency Standards 

Delphi Panel 33 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Energy 36 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40 

Page i GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Tables 

Table 1: Actions DOE Is Required to Take for Consumer Product 

and Industrial Equipment Categories with Rulemaking 

Deadlines 8

Table 2: Timeliness of DOE Rulemakings That Have Come Due 9 

Table 3: Status of Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products and 

Industrial Equipment with Rulemaking Deadlines That 

Have Passed 10 

Table 4: Status of Required Industrial Equipment Standards 

Revisions without Deadlines 11 

Table 5: Status of DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

Revisions 26

Table 6: Status of DOE’s Review of MEC and IECC Revisions 26 

Abbreviations 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- 

 Conditioning Engineers 

Btu British thermal unit 

CABO Council of American Building Officials 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

ICC International Code Council 

IECC International Energy Conservation Code 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

MEC Model Energy Code 

PMF Presidential Management Fellows 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-42 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

January 31, 2007 

The Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Rick Boucher 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

House of Representatives 

Recent energy cost increases and concerns about global warming are 

leading to a new national focus on reducing U.S. energy consumption. 

Household and commercial products that are regulated by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) will account for about 30 percent of 

estimated total U.S. energy consumed in 2006, according to DOE’s 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Increasing the energy efficiency 

of these kinds of products could produce significant energy savings. Not 

surprisingly, therefore, Congress has long been interested in improving 

energy efficiency. In 1975, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA), Congress required DOE to set target minimum energy efficiency

standards for manufacturers of specified categories of consumer products 

such as refrigerators, dishwashers, furnaces, and hot water heaters. 

Congress has amended the statute to include additional consumer product 

categories such as fluorescent lamps and plumbing products, as well as 

industrial equipment categories such as steam boilers and electric motors. 

Minimum efficiency standards for consumer product and industrial 

equipment categories are designed to eliminate the least efficient products

from the market.1

Energy Efficiency Standards 

 1

DOE’s energy efficiency standards program is separate from the Energy Star program,

which is a joint DOE-Environmental Protection Agency voluntary labeling program that 

identifies and promotes the products that meet the most efficient energy conservation 

standards. 

Page 1 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

EPCA, as amended, also reflects manufacturers’ and states’ interest in 

having uniform federal standards for energy-efficient products, rather than

a patchwork of state standards. It prohibits states and localities from 

setting more stringent standards than the federal standards for covered 

products unless the states obtain waivers from DOE. When the act was 

passed, several states were setting their own energy efficiency standards, 

and stakeholders, including states and manufacturers, generally believed 

that uniform federal standards would result in lower costs for 

manufacturing and, hence, lower prices for consumers, as well as saving 

energy overall. 

Under EPCA amendments, Congress mandated deadlines for DOE to issue 

rules that set minimum energy efficiency standards for most consumer 

product categories. Congress also made manufacturers’ compliance with 

the standards mandatory. The statute also requires DOE to set and revise 

standards through the federal rulemaking process. This process calls for 

analyzing the technical and economic issues associated with setting 

energy efficiency standards for each category, proposing a standard 

through public notification, soliciting comments on the standard, revising 

the rule, and issuing the final rule. DOE program staff in Washington 

develop these rules, using analysis by experts—such as staff at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and other contractors––on the 

technical and economic aspects. The rules undergo legal and policy 

reviews within the department before they are issued. 

Most of the categories with deadlines require at least two rules—either to 

set an initial standard and later update it or to update a congressionally set 

standard and then update it again about 5 years after the first deadline. For 

categories without deadlines, DOE must first review revisions that 

nongovernmental standard-setting entities make to their model standards 

and, generally, issue a rule announcing whether it will adopt these revised 

model standards or reject them and issue its own standards. 

In 1993, we reported that while DOE had issued rules for some of the 

product categories with passed deadlines, these had always been issued 

late, and the others had not been issued yet. We cited inadequate 

resources as a major reason for delays.2

 Congressional action in 2005 

reflected continuing concerns about DOE’s ability to issue rules for 

 2

GAO, Energy Conservation: Appliance Standards and Labeling Programs Can Be 

Improved, GAO/RCED-93-102 (Washington, D.C.: March 1993).

Page 2 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

energy-efficient consumer products and industrial equipment. The Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) required DOE to report to Congress by 

February 8, 2006, and again every 6 months following the submission of 

that report, on its plans to clear its backlog of standards that need to be set 

or considered for revision. In its first report, submitted in January 2006,3

DOE reported a backlog of required rulemakings for many consumer 

product and industrial equipment categories but made a commitment, 

from the Secretary on down, to take a number of steps to clear the backlog 

by 2011.4

 Twenty of these consumer product and industrial equipment 

categories have statutory deadlines that have passed and involve 34

different product rules.5

The requirement for reports to Congress every 6 months highlights the 

importance Congress places on setting energy efficiency standards for 

specific consumer products and industrial equipment. The missed 

deadlines have meant missed opportunities to reduce (1) consumers’ 

energy costs, (2) the need for new power facilities, and (3) the level of 

polluting emissions such as carbon dioxide, among other things. While 

some consumers may choose to buy products that are more efficient 

without waiting for federal standards, others may not do so for a number 

of reasons––because the more efficient products may cost more at the 

time of purchase, for example. If, however, all models in a category have 

to meet certain minimum energy efficiency standards, then the potential

for savings over the life of the product, due to lower energy bills, can be 

significant. For example, by 2030, for the minimum energy efficiency

standards for consumer products that DOE has set thus far, DOE projects 

that consumers will save nearly $125 billion. Enough energy would be 

saved to operate all U.S. homes for over 2 years, based on 2006 estimated

energy consumption. 

As requested, this report examines (1) the extent to which DOE has met its 

statutory obligations to issue rules on minimum energy efficiency 

 3

Department of Energy, Energy Conservation Standards Activities. (Washington, D.C.:

Jan. 31, 2006). 

4

The second report, released in August 2006, reiterated the catch-up plan and reported on

DOE’s actions toward clearing the backlog. These actions include making progress on and 

issuing rules related to the standards-setting process, but none established new standards

for the products and equipment included in the scope of this report. 

5

This reported backlog did not include an additional 17 product categories added by EPAct 

2005 to DOE’s mandate for setting energy efficiency standards, 9 of which have deadlines 

for DOE rulemakings. These additional responsibilities were not part of our review.

Page 3 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

standards for consumer products and industrial equipment and (2) 

whether DOE’s plans are likely to clear the backlog of required

rulemakings and whether these plans could be improved. In addition, you 

asked us to assess whether DOE has met statutory deadlines for building 

code determinations (see app. I). In future work, GAO plans to evaluate 

federal agencies’ efforts to provide household consumers with information 

about energy savings opportunities for purchases of appliances, lighting,

and other energy consuming products. 

We reviewed statutes and regulations regarding the requirements and 

deadlines for minimum energy efficiency standards for consumer products 

and industrial equipment. We interviewed relevant officials from, and 

analyzed documentation provided by, DOE, a DOE contractor, energy

organizations, and nongovernmental standard-setting entities; an expert on 

regulatory efficiency; and government officials from Canada and 

California––governments that are known for their exemplary standardssetting programs.6

 In addition, we convened a Web-based panel of 33 

energy efficiency standards stakeholders from federal and state 

governments, industry, nonprofit organizations, and utilities who are both 

widely recognized as knowledgeable about key aspects of energy 

efficiency standards and are involved with DOE’s standards rulemaking 

process. We obtained panel members’ views using a modified, Web-based 

version of the Delphi method, a systematic process for obtaining 

individuals’ views and obtaining group members’ consensus, if possible, on 

a problem of interest. A more detailed description of our objectives, scope, 

and method is presented in appendix II. We did not examine the merits of 

the standards DOE has set. Although DOE is required to issue rules 

regarding standards for plumbing products, we excluded them from this 

report because they primarily involve conserving water, rather than 

energy. In addition, we did not consider deadlines for the purposes of this 

report set in EPAct 2005; nor did we examine DOE’s activities undertaken 

since EPAct 2005 that did not result in a completed standard. We 

conducted our review from June 2005 through January 2007 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 6

California has set standards for products not covered under federal law, such as

commercial clothes washers and external power supplies for electronic devices such as 

laptop computers, mobile phones, printers, and digital cameras. 

Page 4 GAO-07-42 
DOE has missed all 34 of the deadlines for rulemaking that have come due 

for the 20 consumer products and industrial equipment categories with 

deadlines that have passed. In addition, it has not revised standards for 

one of the six industrial equipment categories that have no deadlines but 

for which DOE is obligated to issue new rules. Of the 34 rules with missed 

deadlines, 11 were issued late, and the other 23 have not been issued at all. 

Delays in meeting deadlines range from about 2 months to 15 years. 

Overall, all required rulemakings have been set for only three product 

categories with deadlines: (1) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers; (2) small furnaces; and (3) clothes washers. DOE has yet to set all 

required rulemakings for 17 additional categories such as—for consumer 

products—kitchen ranges and ovens, dishwashers, clothes dryers, hot 

water heaters, and—for industrial equipment––various electric motors and 

electric distribution transformers, which reduce the voltage of an electric

utility’s power distribution line to the lower voltages suitable for most 

equipment, lighting, and appliances. In addition, standards are up to date 

for five of the six industrial equipment categories that have no deadlines 

but which must have standards set: (1) warm air furnaces, (2) packaged 

boilers, (3) storage water heaters, (4) instantaneous water heaters, and (5) 

unfired water storage tanks (that store water and have an external source 

for heating it). The sixth category—a particular type of large air 

conditioner and heat pump—has not had standards set. Our panel 

members cited increased energy consumption as one of the most 

significant effects of the delays. In fact, according to LBNL, the delays for 

the four consumer product categories with the greatest energy savings 

potential will cost the nation an estimated $28 billion in forgone savings by 

2030. Our panel also pointed to other potential effects of delays, such as 

states attempting to set their own efficiency standards and manufacturers’ 

and utilities’ difficulties in making business plans. Standards that differ 

from state to state would be likely to cause higher manufacturer costs than 

a single federal standard and, hence, higher costs for consumers. 

Results in Brief 

It is unclear whether DOE’s latest plan for clearing its backlog of 

rulemakings will effectively bring its minimum energy efficiency standards

up to date, primarily because DOE cannot be certain it knows the root 

causes of the delays, and its catch-up plan lacks critical elements of an 

effective project management plan. Specifically: 

• Root causes are uncertain. Neither DOE nor our panel could agree on, 

and we could not definitively determine, the root causes of the delays. 

DOE has not developed the program management data it needs to identify

bottlenecks in the rulemaking process and develop solutions. As a result, 

we could not determine if the corrective actions DOE has proposed will 

Page 5 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

alleviate delays. In developing the catch-up plan, the managers relied 

primarily on anecdotal information from program staff to determine the 

causes of delays. In the absence of management information, such as the 

length of each stage of DOE’s rulemaking process, we were not able to 

determine which of these causes or combinations of causes account for 

the delays. Some of our panelists raised concerns that DOE may not be 

addressing what they believe are the most relevant reasons for delays; for 

example, DOE may not have allocated sufficient funding or assigned 

adequate technical staff. Unless the causes of the delays are known, it is 

difficult to know whether problems have been addressed. But, most of the 

panelists rated the components of DOE’s plan highly and expect that it will 

help DOE meet the deadlines of its catch-up schedule if these actions are 

implemented. 

• The plan lacks critical project management elements. According to 

leading project management practices, effective project plans have two 

key components that are lacking in DOE’s plan. First, plans should hold 

officials and staff accountable for meeting interim and final deadlines. If

the officials do not meet these deadlines, they should provide legitimate 

reasons for the delays. Second, the plan should include provisions for 

adequate resources. Instead, DOE’s plan increases the workload sixfold 

over that in recent years without increasing proportionately the resources 

it will devote to the program. DOE officials told us they plan to rely on 

increased productivity, with only a marginal increase in resources, to bring 

the standards up to date. Furthermore, DOE’s plan does not include a 

means of ensuring that staff and reviewers are accountable for meeting 

deadlines. 

To help ensure that DOE reduces or eliminates the backlog, we are making 

recommendations to the Secretary of Energy that DOE revise its catch-up 

plan to incorporate leading management practices. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, DOE did not provide views on our recommendations. 

DOE said it was incorrect to single out any official or office for the delays

and that the report did not reflect many of its standards-setting activities 

undertaken since EPAct 2005. We disagree with DOE’s characterization of

our analysis. We reported several causes of delays in the standards-setting 

process; also, the activities DOE has taken since EPAct 2005 that did not 

result in completed standards are outside of the scope of this report. 

Under EPCA, as amended, covered product and equipment categories may 

need one or two rulemakings for the following reasons: Background 

Page 6 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

• Most often, if Congress established a standard in the law, DOE must 

publish a rule revising the standard or explaining why a revision is not 

justified. Generally, such statutes require two rulemakings: an initial 

revision and then a second revision, usually 5 years later. This type of 

rulemaking is associated with most categories. 

• For several consumer products for which Congress did not set a standard 

in law, DOE must issue two rules—one rule to create a standard and a 

later rule to update the standard. 

• For several industrial equipment categories for which Congress 

established a standard in law, DOE must review amendments to model 

standards set by a specified nongovernmental standard-setting entity.

Based on DOE’s review, it must either publish a rule updating the statutory 

standards to reflect the amended model standards, or publish a rule 

demonstrating that a more stringent standard is justified. The statute 

specifically requires DOE to consider the standards set by the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE). 

• For three other industrial equipment categories, DOE must first publish a 

determination of whether a standard is needed. If DOE determines the 

need for a standard, it must then publish a rule setting such a standard 18 

months after publishing the determination. However, DOE does not have a 

deadline for making a determination. 

Overall, DOE is required to determine that revisions to standards achieve

the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is “technologically

feasible and economically justified.” In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, DOE must consider the economic impacts of the 

revision on manufacturers and consumers, the savings in operating costs 

throughout the life of the product, the total projected amount of energy 

savings likely to result from the standard, and whether the standard would 

result in a product that is less useful or does not perform as well. Table 1 

shows the number of deadlines and types of actions required for consumer 

product and industrial equipment categories with deadlines that have 

passed. In addition, DOE is obligated to issue rules adopting revised 

standards for another six industrial equipment categories: packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air 

furnaces; packaged boilers; storage water heaters; instantaneous water 

heaters; unfired water storage tanks. DOE has no mandated deadlines for 

issuing these rules. 

Page 7 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Table 1: Actions DOE Is Required to Take for Consumer Product and Industrial Equipment Categories with Rulemaking 

Deadlines 

Action required for consumer product or

industrial equipment categories

Number of rulemaking deadlines 

that have come due

Consumer products

Issue a rule revising a standard or explaining why a revision is not justified

1 Clothes washers 2

2 Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 2

3 Small furnaces 1

4 Central air conditioners and heat pumps 2

5 Clothes dryers 2

6 Dishwashers 2

7 Fluorescent lamp ballasts 2

8 Room air conditioners 2

9 Water heaters 2

10 Direct heating equipment 2

11 Furnaces 1

12 General service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps 2

13 Additional general service fluorescent and general service incandescent lamps 1

14 Kitchen ranges and ovens 2

15 Mobile home furnaces 1

16 Pool heaters 2

Subtotal—number of consumer product rules required 28

Industrial equipment 

Issue a rule revising a standard or explaining why a revision is not justified

17 Electric motors not requiring national certification 2

18 Electric motors requiring national certification 2

Issue a determination of whether a revision is justified, and, if so, issue a rule 

setting the standard

19 Distribution transformers 1

20 Small electric motors 1

Subtotal—number of industrial equipment rules required 6

Total—number of rules required for consumer products and industrial equipment 34

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

Note: The numbers in the column on the left represent the number of product categories. 

Page 8 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

DOE has missed all 34 of the rulemaking deadlines that have come due for 

the 20 product categories with deadlines, completing 11 of these rules late 

and not yet completing the remaining 23. DOE has also not revised 

standards for one of the six industrial equipment categories that require 

updates but have no deadlines. LBNL estimates that delays in setting 

minimum energy efficiency standards for four categories of consumer 

products that DOE believes use the most energy will cost the nation at 

least $28 billion in forgone energy savings by 2030. Our panel members 

identified two additional significant effects of the delays: states attempting 

to set their own standards and businesses and utilities having difficulty in 

making business decisions and planning for the future. 

As table 2 shows, none of the 34 rules with passed deadlines was 

completed on time. For rules that have been completed, delays ranged 

from less than 1 year to about 10 years; and incomplete rules are as much

as 15 years late. 

DOE Has Missed All 

Rulemaking Deadlines 

at a Cost of Billions in 

Forgone Energy 

Savings

DOE Has Not Met Any of 

Its Rulemaking Obligations 

on Time 

Table 2: Timeliness of DOE Rulemakings That Have Come Due 

Status 

Completed 

rulemakings

Incomplete 

rulemakings

On time 0 0

Less than 1 year late 2 1

1 year to less than 5 years late 4 2

5 years to less than 10 years late 5 8

10 years to 15 years late 0 12

Total 11 23

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

Table 3 shows the status of rules completed for consumer product and 

industrial equipment categories with deadlines that have passed. As the 

table shows, only three product or equipment categories—clothes 

washers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and small 

furnaces—have had all their rules completed. As the table also shows, 

some categories have had one of two required rules completed, and others

have had no rules completed. 

Page 9 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Table 3: Status of Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products and Industrial Equipment with Rulemaking Deadlines That 

Have Passed

Consumer product or industrial equipment category

Number of rulemaking

deadlines that have 

come due

Status and number of completed 

rules (in parentheses) 

Consumer products

1 Clothes washers 2 All rules completed (2). 

2 Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 2 All rules completed (2). 

3 Small furnacesa1 All rules completed (1). 

4 Central air conditioners and heat pumps 2 First rule completed (1). 

5 Clothes dryers 2 First rule completed (1). 

6 Dishwashers 2 First rule completed (1). 

7 Fluorescent lamp ballasts 2 First rule completed (1). 

8 Room air conditioners 2 First rule completed (1). 

9 Water heaters 2 First rule completed (1). 

10 Direct heating equipment 2 No rules completed. 

11 Furnaces 1 No rules completed. 

12 General service fluorescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps

2 No rules completed. 

13 Additional general service fluorescent and general 

service incandescent lampsa

1 No rules completed. 

14 Kitchen ranges and ovens 2 No rules completed. 

15 Mobile home furnacesa1 No rules completed. 

16 Pool heaters 2 No rules completed. 

Industrial equipment 

17 Electric motors–not requiring national certification 2 No rules completed. 

18 Electric motors–requiring national certification 2 No rules completed. 

19 Distribution transformersa1 No rules completed. 

20 Small electric motorsa1 No rules completed. 

Total 34 (11) 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

Note: The numbers in the column on the left represent the number of product categories. 

a

Only one rulemaking required. 

Appendix III provides additional information on the deadlines for these 

product and equipment categories. 

Furthermore, for the six industrial equipment categories that do not have 

deadlines, DOE has completed rules for five and has begun, but not 

Page 10 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

completed, the rulemaking process for the remaining category, as table 4 

shows. 

Table 4: Status of Required Industrial Equipment Standards Revisions without Deadlines

Industrial equipment category Date of ASHRAE revision DOE action 

Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps 1999 Rule not completed. 

Warm air furnaces 1999 Rule completed. 

Packaged boilers 1999 Rule completed. 

Storage water heaters 1999 Rule completed. 

Instantaneous water heaters 1999 Rule completed. 

Unfired water storage tanks 1999 Rule completed. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

Delays Resulted in 

Forgone Energy Savings of 

at Least $28 Billion and 

Create Problems in Other 

Areas 

DOE does not have estimates of the energy savings lost because of delays 

in completing rules. However, LBNL staff provided us with estimates of 

delays for the four categories of consumer products that DOE believes use 

the most energy—refrigerators and freezers, central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, water heaters, and clothes washers. According to these 

estimates, the nation would have saved at least $28 billion in energy costs, 

even after paying higher equipment costs, by 2030 if these standards had 

been put in place when required—that is, 2.1 quadrillion British thermal 

units (Btu) of natural gas and 1.4 quadrillion Btus of electricity. 

Historically, LBNL, under contract to DOE, has performed most of the 

technical and economic analyses for proposed standards rulemakings. To 

estimate the cost of delays, LBNL staff used the estimates of savings they 

developed to support proposed standards for the four consumer products. 

According to our analysis, LBNL took steps to ensure the estimates were 

reasonably accurate by considering such factors as whether the 

technologies used for the analysis would have been available at the time of 

the deadlines for setting standards. The total forgone energy savings is 

equal to the annual primary energy consumption of approximately 20 

million U.S. households. In addition, the delays will also result in 53 

million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount equivalent to about 1 

percent of total estimated U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2004. Our 

panelists noted that they consider increased energy consumption to be 

one of the two most significant effects of DOE’s delays in revising 

efficiency standards. 

Similarly, delays for one type of industrial equipment, electric distribution 

transformers, have resulted in significant forgone energy savings. 

Page 11 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Distribution transformers reduce the voltage of an electric utility’s power 

distribution line to the lower voltages suitable for most equipment, 

lighting, and appliances. Nine years ago, DOE determined that standards 

for distribution transformers were warranted as technologically feasible

and economically justified and were likely to result in significant savings. 

However, DOE did not publish proposed standards for distribution 

transformers in the Federal Register until August 2006.

7

 According to DOE, 

the energy savings from the proposed distribution transformer standards 

would eliminate the need for approximately 11 new 400-megawatt power 

plants by 2038, enough to provide a sufficient flow of electricity to about 3 

million homes.8

These estimates account for only a portion of the forgone savings from the 

lack of timely rules for consumer products and industrial equipment; 

however, no estimates of the forgone savings are available for the 

remaining product and equipment categories. Equally important, because 

many energy-using products and equipment have long service lives, delays

in setting standards lead to years of using the products and equipment that 

are less energy efficient than they could be, compounding the loss of the 

energy efficiency. For example, electric distribution transformers have a 

typical service life of about 30 years. With about 50 million transformers in 

the United States, each year of delay until a rule setting standard is 

completed means that more of these transformers will be replaced at the 

present energy efficiencies, rather than the proposed level, leading to 

many additional years of forgone savings. 

Other, nonquantifiable effects have also resulted, or can result, from 

delays in issuing energy efficiency rules. Our panel members noted the 

possibility that states would attempt to set their own appliance efficiency 

standards as the other most significant effect of delays. Indeed, states are 

dissatisfied with DOE’s delays. In 2005, 15 states and New York City sued 

DOE for “foot-dragging [that] results in greater —–and avoidable—energy 

use.” The states cited, among other effects, high energy costs, increased 

environmental harm, and burdens on the electricity grid from DOE’s 

 7

Before DOE published proposed distribution transformer standards, the Energy Policy Act

of 2005 established energy conservation standards for low-voltage, dry-type distribution 

transformers. Pub. L. No. 109-58 §135(c)(3) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6295(v)). Consequently, 

DOE’s proposed standards do not apply to these types. 71 Fed. Reg. 44,356, 44,357 (Aug. 4,

2006). 

8

A megawatt is a measure of a flow of electricity; 1,000 megawatts is a sufficient flow of

electricity to power about 750,000 homes. 

Page 12 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

delays as justification for their actions. The suit was settled recently, with 

DOE agreeing to eliminate its backlog by 2011, the same date set in its 

report to Congress. According to officials from the California Energy 

Commission, California has begun to press Congress to lift the preemption 

that prevents the states from readily setting their own standards. While 

states had expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of rulemaking and 

before 1987 had petitioned DOE for waivers, the 1987 amendment to EPCA 

made it considerably more difficult to obtain a waiver, according to DOE 

officials. Since then, DOE has received only one petition for a waiver. 

Panel members commented that if states obtain waivers and pass 

individual standards, the result could be a patchwork of state standards, 

preventing economies of scale in manufacturing and raising costs for both 

consumers and manufacturers. 

Panel members also pointed out that delays make business planning 

difficult for manufacturers and utilities, which could also increase their 

costs and, therefore, costs to consumers. As one panel member noted, 

“Product manufacturers don’t know when new standards will take effect 

in advance, making it difficult to plan product redesigns and thereby 

increasing cost of compliance.” According to another panelist, “An 

uncertain future regulatory environment makes it very difficult for 

appliance and equipment manufacturers to make investment decisions.” 

For example, a manufacturer may be reluctant to invest large sums in a 

new technology if the new technology may be made obsolete by new 

federal efficiency standards or if new standards might not allow the 

manufacturer to gain a hoped-for competitive advantage via new 

technology. To minimize such uncertainty and its attendant risks, 

manufacturers want DOE to make regulatory decisions on time.” 

DOE has developed a catch-up plan to resolve the backlog of delayed 

energy efficiency standards. However, since DOE has not completely 

identified the root causes for the delays and because the plan lacks critical 

elements of an effective management approach, the likelihood of success 

is not clear.

Effectiveness of 

DOE’s Catch-Up Plan 

Is Uncertain 

Page 13 GAO-07-42 
According to DOE’s January 2006 report to Congress, the department has 

identified four causes of delays in its efficiency standards rulemaking: (1) 

an overly ambitious schedule set in statute; (2) the sequential nature of the 

rulemaking process; (3) the consequences of the Process Rule, which the 

report states that DOE adopted in 1996 to address concerns about its 

analyses and stakeholder involvement; and (4) DOE’s internal document 

review and clearance process. Specifically: 

DOE’s Plan Lays Out an 

Approach to Clearing the 

Backlog, but It Is Unclear 

Whether the Plan Is 

Addressing Root Causes of 

Delays 

• An ambitious statutory schedule. According to the report, Congress’s 

rulemaking schedule was “rigorous.” As a result, the program staff were 

unable to meet the deadlines from the beginning. These delays were 

exacerbated when Congress increased the number of products that 

required rulemakings. In 1994, DOE attempted to address the backlog by 

proposing standards for eight products in one rulemaking. However, 

according to DOE, this rulemaking effort met with strong opposition from 

industry, drawing over 5,000 responses during the comment period, and 

DOE withdrew the proposal. Following this experience, Congress imposed 

a 1-year moratorium on new or amended standards. The moratorium 

further exacerbated the backlog, according to DOE. 

• Sequential nature of the rulemaking process. The elements of a 

rulemaking must occur sequentially, and, according to DOE, “this 

sequence-dependent nature of the analyses makes it vulnerable to unrecoverable delays.” The standards rulemaking process includes many 

overlapping requirements from EPCA, as amended; Executive Orders; and 

the Process Rule, which create a complex analytical and procedural 

challenge, according to the report. The standards rulemaking process 

typically consists of three stages––an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, a notice of proposed rulemaking, and a final rule––and each of

these stages includes internal and external review and comment periods, 

as well as technical analyses that build on previous analyses. Most of these 

tasks cannot be done concurrently, so when delays occur, often the time 

lost cannot be made up because of these rigid requirements. 

• Consequences of the Process Rule. Under DOE’s 1996 “Process Rule,”9 the 

potential energy savings, rather than statutory deadlines, determine which 

standards should be set first. Consequently, DOE reported to Congress, it 

analyzed the likely impacts of all pending energy efficiency rulemakings 

and used this analysis to categorize each rulemaking as high-, medium-, or 

 9

Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Products, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 36,973 (July 15, 1996). 

Page 14 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

low-priority, depending on energy-savings potential. Regardless of 

deadlines, high-priority rules received the bulk of the resources, mediumpriority rules received some resources, and low-priority rules were not 

addressed at all. The Process Rule also called for increased stakeholder 

input and expert review, which added time to the rulemaking, according to

DOE’s report. Finally, according to DOE’s 2006 report, the Process Rule 

increased the complexity of the technical analysis required, adding more 

time. 

• Internal document review and clearance process. The quality of draft 

rulemaking documents was inconsistent, according to DOE’s 2006 report, 

which made the internal review process time consuming. In addition, 

reviews by the Office of General Counsel, Office of Policy and 

International Affairs, and other internal reviewers were not always 

managed effectively, according to the report. Consequently, issues were 

not identified and resolved early in the process, and draft rules often did 

not receive the timely reviews needed to approve them for issuance. 

While DOE identified these causes for rulemaking delays in its January 

2006 report, DOE staff we spoke with did not agree on the causes. 

Program staff told us General Counsel’s legal reviews were excessively 

long, while General Counsel officials attributed their lengthy review to the 

poor quality of documents, which required extensive non-legal editing. 

DOE lacks program management data that would enable it to identify with 

specificity where in the agency’s internal review process delays are 

occurring. In addition, LBNL staff disagreed with the report’s contention

that the Process Rule required more time for technical analysis. Rather, 

they said, the Process Rule’s requirement for more complex analysis and

for more systematic stakeholder involvement addressed those parts of the 

rulemaking process earlier than before but took about the same amount of 

time. 

Our panel members, based on their past involvement or familiarity with 

standards rulemaking, agreed that the internal review process was 

problematic. Specifically, the most frequently cited cause for delays in 

developing energy efficiency standards were delays in the General Counsel 

review process. One panel member stated that the General Counsel review 

process was “one of the lengthiest and most opaque elements of the 

standards process.” In addition, about half of our panelists said the low 

priority historically given to the program, not only by DOE but by the 

Administration and Congress as well, was a great cause of delay in issuing

the standards. Finally, panel members identified two additional major 

Page 15 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

causes of delay that DOE did not, namely inadequate budget and 

insufficient technical staff. 

While some of these identified causes are beyond DOE’s control, such as 

the statutory deadlines, DOE reported that it could take actions to clear 

the backlog by 2011. DOE plans to do the following to ensure that 

rulemakings are more timely: 

• Make the rulemaking process more efficient. DOE plans to stagger the 

start of rulemakings in order to make the best use of staff time and 

resources. In the past, DOE staff worked on one rule at a time. Under 

DOE’s plan, staff will work on several rules simultaneously, which should 

enable the staff to make better use of their time when drafts are out for 

review. In addition, DOE plans to combine several products with related 

technical and policy characteristics—such as water heaters, pool heaters, 

and direct heating equipment—into a single rulemaking, which should 

expedite the rulemaking process. 

• Adhere to the deadline for closing public comments. DOE reported that it

will only consider comments received before their deadlines in its current 

analysis. In the past, DOE continued to consider comments after the 

closing date stated in the Federal Register and responded to those 

comments with additional analysis, which delayed the issuance of the final

rulemaking. 

• Simplify the analysis for each rulemaking. Senior management officials 

are expected to approve the staff’s analytical approach and scope of effort 

earlier in the rulemaking process. In the past, rulemaking staff conducted

their analysis for a product category without ensuring that senior 

management approved of their approach. As a result, according to the 

plan, management often called for a different approach when reviewing a 

draft analysis, which required significantly more time. In addition, DOE 

plans to conduct less exhaustive analysis for some rules, rather than 

conducting the same level of analysis for all rules. If all the stakeholders 

agree that a product category does not require DOE’s usual complex 

analysis, which would be the case when the key issues are clearly 

understood, DOE will perform less extensive analysis. DOE expects this 

change to shorten rulemaking times. 

• Better ensure the quality of the proposed rulemaking and accountability 

of all staff and reviewers. DOE plans to take four actions toward this goal: 

(1) train staff in how to meet all regulatory procedural requirements and 

provide readily available comprehensive guidance in order to avoid 

procedural mistakes that lead to delays, (2) contract with a national 

Page 16 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

laboratory to maintain a data management system for tracking rulemaking 

progress and use the resulting data to identify problems for quicker 

resolution, (3) match skill levels with tasks so that resources are used 

most efficiently, and (4) encourage stakeholders to negotiate a proposed 

standard in return for an expedited rulemaking process. 

• Improve the document review and clearance process. DOE plans to 

emphasize better document quality so that reviewers can focus their 

efforts on legal and policy issues rather than on basic editorial issues. In 

the past, formats, styles, and approaches of documents were not 

consistent, which slowed down the review process. DOE has issued a style 

guide and a template for documents to better ensure consistency. In 

addition, DOE plans to have different reviewers examine the proposed 

rulemaking concurrently, rather than sequentially, throughout the 

rulemaking process. 

• Adhere to a 36-month timetable for completing a rule. DOE will allocate 

approximately 16 months for analysis, 6 months for public review and 

comment, 8 months for its internal review, and 6 months for review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. In the past, while DOE had a 3-year 

limit for rulemaking, it virtually never issued rules within that period. 

Most panelists rated the components of DOE’s catch-up plan highly and 

expect that, if followed, it will likely help DOE meet its schedule for 

completing rules. The panelists particularly favored the parts of DOE’s 

catch-up plan to reform its internal review process, use an expedited 

process when stakeholders recommend standards on which they have 

reached consensus, and stagger rulemakings. They also emphasized the 

importance of having the Secretary of Energy and the administration 

provide more management attention and priority to the program. Finally, 

most agreed that certain aspects of DOE’s current rulemaking process 

should not be changed. Specifically, DOE should continue to perform 

complete technical and economic analyses and explain its justification for 

the standards it selects, include the public and stakeholders throughout 

the rulemaking process, and ensure that the process and analyses are 

transparent. 

Despite these favorable views, some panelists expressed concern that 

DOE might not have addressed what they consider the most relevant 

causes of delay. For example, according to one panelist’s observations, 

“the delays are an internal management problem at DOE, and the 

department’s internal procedures are a black box. It is hard to know with

any assurance what the real problem is and whether the issue is budget or 

Page 17 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

staffing or bureaucratic procedures.” According to another panelist’s 

review of DOE’s plan, the plan “focused too much on reducing analytical

complexity and controlling stakeholder participation––neither of which 

were major contributors to delays––and too little on internal process 

improvements, without which delays will continue.” 

Although many of DOE’s actions appear reasonable, we agree that DOE 

may not have identified the root causes of its rulemaking delays. 

Consequently, DOE risks expending resources on the wrong factors or 

emphasizing minor or irrelevant causes. DOE has not developed the 

program management data it needs to identify bottlenecks in the 

rulemaking process. Even though DOE has work logs that compile limited 

data on some parts of the rulemaking process, such as the amount of time 

taken for internal reviews, the data are not detailed enough to identify the 

source of delays. Furthermore, DOE does not have data on the length of 

all stages of its rulemaking process. Because DOE managers lacked data 

to determine causes, they said they compiled information about possible 

causes during discussions with staff. Despite the problems with their data, 

managers told us that they believe that they have identified the root causes 

of delay. 

According to our work on leading performance management practices and 

the work of a government regulatory process expert, management plans 

should contain specific strategies to resolve problems and help 

congressional decision makers understand how the agency plans to 

improve its performance.10 Such plans also provide a basis for 

accountability. While DOE’s plan includes elements intended to make the 

rulemaking process more efficient, it lacks two critical elements to help 

ensure success of the plan—assurance of accountability and 

management’s allocation of adequate resources. Specifically:

DOE’s Plan Lacks Critical 

Elements of Effective 

Project Management 

• Assurance of accountability. While DOE has laid out a schedule for 

clearing its rulemaking backlog for standards, its past poor performance 

calls into question whether it is likely to be accountable to the schedule in

the catch-up plan. According to an Assistant General Counsel who 

manages and tracks the regulatory process for the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), an agency with very extensive and effective 

 10GAO, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act, GAO/GGD/AIMD10.1.18 (Washington, D.C.: February 1998). 

Page 18 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

electronic regulatory management, a successful rulemaking process holds 

its management and staff accountable to interim and final deadlines. For 

example, DOT publishes its deadlines on its Web site, making the agency’s 

actions to meet the deadlines transparent to all stakeholders. While DOT’s 

deadlines are target dates only, this transparency puts pressure on each 

participant to carry out his or her responsibilities on time or to provide 

legitimate reasons for any delays. DOE publishes a schedule of deadlines 

for some standard-setting rulemaking, including the interim deadlines, in

its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.

11 However, when DOE misses these 

deadlines, it generally does not explain why, or how it plans to make up 

the lost time when it publishes revised deadlines. The catch-up plan does 

not ensure that the pattern of missing deadlines will be broken. 

• Adequate resources. As far back as 1993 we reported that insufficient 

resources were a primary cause of DOE’s delays in updating energy 

efficiency standards. This may still be the case. While the DOE plan calls

for a sixfold increase in workload, it does not increase program staffing 

and contractor budgets in the same proportion. Program managers told us 

they generally have had 7 to 14 staff working on energy efficiency rules, 

with 7 on the job as of fiscal year 2006. They plan to add 2 full-time staff 

and 1 from the Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) program, a 

nonpermanent position, for an increase to 10 staff in fiscal year 2007.12

Similarly, from fiscal years 2000 through 2006, DOE’s budget for 

contractor staff has averaged about $10 million per year. For fiscal year 

2007, DOE requested $12 million for contractors, a 20 percent resource 

increase. DOE expects these limited resource increases to cover a 600

percent increase in workload. In the absence of further increasing 

resources, DOE said in its January 2006 report it plans to meet the 

increased workload by improving productivity. 

DOE’s program for energy efficiency standards has been plagued by delays

for decades. Although many steps in DOE’s most recent January 2006 plan 

to address these delays appear to be reasonable, DOE does not definitively 

know whether the plan will address root causes and clear the backlog. 

Conclusions 

 11The Unified Agenda (also known as the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda), published twice 

a year in the Federal Register, summarizes the rules and proposed rules that each federal 

agency expects to issue during the next 6 months. 

12The PMF program is a 2-year paid government fellowship sponsored by the Office of 

Personnel Management for recent graduate students who seek a professional experience in

the U.S. government. 

Page 19 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Furthermore, DOE’s plan lacks important elements of effective 

management practices that would help assure success. Consequently, it is 

unclear whether DOE can carry out the ambitious schedule it has set for 

itself to update energy efficiency standards. If DOE does not succeed in

clearing its backlog, the nation and consumers will continue to forgo the 

benefits of more energy-efficient consumer products and industrial 

equipment. The loss of such benefits will make the nation depend even 

more on imported energy. The continuing commitment of DOE’s top 

management to make standards rulemaking a top organizational priority is 

essential to DOE’s success in completing all energy efficiency rules. 

To increase the likelihood that DOE’s plan for updating minimum energy 

efficiency standards is successfully implemented, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Energy take the following actions: 

• Employ the elements of leading management practices, including 

• expediting the efforts DOE has begun to establish a tracking system to 

gather data that may be used to identify and address causes of delays 

to more effectively manage the rulemaking process; 

• ensuring that the interim goals and time frames are transparent to all 

stakeholders, and that all internal stakeholders, including reviewers 

and program staff, are held accountable to the time frames; and 

• allocating adequate resources within DOE’s appropriation. 

We provided the Department of Energy with a draft of this report for 

review and comment. Although DOE did not provide views on our 

recommendations, it expressed concerns in two areas. First, regarding 

our discussion of the causes of delays in setting standards, DOE stated 

that it is incorrect to assign blame for delays to any one office, official, 

decision, or process—and specifically to the Office of the General 

Counsel. DOE stated that doing so reflects a simplistic and largely 

incorrect understanding of the program’s complexity. DOE noted that the 

delays in setting standards have spanned administrations of both parties,

several Secretaries of Energy, and various DOE offices and personnel; 

also, although DOE work logs may indicate that a specific office has a 

document for a certain period of time, during that time multiple 

individuals from different offices may have been working together on the 

document. We disagree with DOE’s characterization of our analysis. In 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 20 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

establishing the context for our findings, we pointed out that the energy 

efficiency standards-setting process was complex and that there were 

multiple reasons for delays. To provide more definitive information on the 

root causes of the extensive delays that have been experienced, we sought 

data from DOE and the opinions of cognizant DOE staff. However, 

because DOE management could not provide data to conclusively 

document the reasons for the substantial delays, or the data provided by 

DOE as contained in internal work logs were inadequate to determine 

causality, and because representatives of the various DOE offices could 

not agree on the root causes, we turned to a well-recognized process for 

identifying causes in complex situations—a Delphi panel. Panel members 

were carefully, objectively selected individuals who have been closely 

involved in DOE’s rulemaking process for setting standards over an 

extensive period of time. They most frequently cited delays in the General 

Counsel review process as cause for delays in developing energy 

efficiency standards. We believe that our use of this method provided a 

clearer understanding of the causes of delays than DOE has been able to 

provide. As we noted earlier, in DOE’s January 2006 report to Congress 

and in our interviews with representatives of the offices involved in the 

standard-setting process, those associated with the program generally 

acknowledged that they could have done more but pointed to others as the 

cause of the delays and therefore have not fully accepted responsibility for 

the program’s failures. Second, DOE stated that our report did not capture 

many of the recent standards-setting activities undertaken since 

enactment of EPAct 2005. We agree that there has been a flurry of 

standards-related activity, as expressed by DOE in its letter commenting 

on our report, and we have noted this in our report. Although we 

recognize that DOE has taken a number of steps that should move the 

program forward, it has not yet published any additional final standards 

for the product and equipment categories included in the scope of our 

work and our report’s findings have not changed. DOE’s letter 

commenting on our report is presented in appendix V. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Energy and other interested parties. We will also make copies available 

to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or members of your staff have questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Page 21 GAO-07-42 
Energy Efficiency Standards 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI.

Jim Wells 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 22 GAO-07-42 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of Appendix I: Status of the Department of Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

Energy’s Model Building Code 

Determinations 

States and their subdivisions, such as counties and cities, adopt building 

codes that establish minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and 

construction of commercial and residential buildings. The building codes 

regulate components that affect the amount of energy that a building will 

use, such as the building envelope, electrical power, and lighting. These 

codes vary from one state to another and sometimes within a state. They

may be mandatory or voluntary codes, either requiring builder compliance 

or serving as guidelines. States and local jurisdictions may adopt model 

building codes developed by nonprofit organizations, such as the 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers’ (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 and the International Code Council’s

(ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Both ASHRAE and 

ICC publish codes for commercial and residential buildings. 

ASHRAE uses a consensus and public hearing process to develop its 

model building codes. It involves the design community, including 

architects and lighting and mechanical designers; the code enforcement 

community, including building code officials and state regulatory agencies; 

building owners and operators; manufacturers and utility companies; and 

representatives from the Department of Energy (DOE), energy 

organizations, and the academic community. ICC uses a different process 

to develop its model building codes. Under its process, anyone can 

propose a code, and the IECC code development committee, which 

includes mostly building code officials, votes on the proposals. According 

to staff at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), which 

monitors state building codes for DOE, although ASHRAE and ICC use 

different processes to develop their model building codes, the two 

organizations incorporate each other’s codes into their own when they

revise them. As a result, ASHRAE and ICC codes that are revised at about

the same time generally have similar energy efficiency provisions. 

The Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (the Act), 

directs DOE to evaluate revisions to these model building codes and 

publish its determinations of whether the revision would improve energy

efficiency. For commercial buildings, defined by DOE to include buildings 

other than low-rise residential buildings, the Act directs DOE to evaluate 

ASHRAE’s revisions to its Standard 90.1. Each time ASHRAE revises 

Standard 90.1, DOE has 12 months to determine whether the revision will 

improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings and publish a notice of

that determination in the Federal Register. For residential buildings, 

defined by DOE as low-rise residential buildings, the Act directs DOE to 

evaluate revisions the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 

makes to its Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor to that code. In

Page 23 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of 

Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

Energy Efficiency Standards 

1995, the ICC succeeded CABO and, as such, the IECC replaced the MEC. 

Each time the ICC revises the IECC, DOE has 12 months to determine 

whether the revision will improve energy efficiency in residential buildings 

and publish a notice of that determination in the Federal Register. The Act 

does not specify what type of revision triggers the start of the 12-month 

period for either commercial or residential determinations; but, according 

to DOE officials, the 12-month period is triggered by ASHRAE’s and ICC’s 

publication of revised codes. 

The Act provides that if the Secretary determines that a revision to 

ASHRAE’s or ICC’s model building code will improve energy efficiency––

called a positive determination––states “shall” review their building codes. 

For commercial model building codes, each state has 2 years after DOE 

publishes a positive determination on a revised ASHRAE model building 

code to certify to DOE that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of 

its commercial building code in accordance with the revised code. For 

residential model building codes, each state also has 2 years after a 

positive determination for certification, but it must certify to DOE that it 

has reviewed the provisions of its residential building code and 

determined whether it is appropriate to update them to meet or exceed the 

revised code. Subsequent to enactment of these provisions, the Supreme 

Court ruled that the constitution does not allow Congress to require states 

to regulate a matter.1

 DOE program managers told us that DOE does not 

require states to review their codes following a positive determination.2

Instead, the managers told us, DOE facilitates states’ efforts to adopt 

revised codes. PNNL officials told us they assist DOE on all aspects of the 

building code determinations and provide training and technical 

assistance to state and local officials responsible for building codes. 

As of August 2006, ASHRAE and ICC have published a combined total of 

nine revisions to their model building codes for DOE to evaluate. ASHRAE 

revised Standard 90.1 three times, and CABO revised the MEC twice 

before it was incorporated into ICC in 1995. The ICC issued its first version 

 1

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (holding that a provision of the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act, requiring states to take ownership of waste or regulate 

according to instructions of Congress, was invalid). The court also stated that Congress

may hold out incentives to the states as a means of encouraging them to adopt suggested 

regulatory schemes and offer states the choice of regulating an activity according to federal 

standards or having state law preempted by federal regulation. 

2

A DOE staff member noted that the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended,

does not contain a provision authorizing DOE to enforce these provisions. 

Page 24 GAO-07-42 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of 

Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

Energy Efficiency Standards 

of the IECC in 1998 and has since revised it three times. Deadlines for 

DOE’s determinations have come due on all these revisions, except the 

2006 IECC revision, which will be due in January 2007. 

We were asked to report on (1) whether DOE has met its statutory 

deadlines for determining if states should adopt revised commercial model 

building codes, (2) whether DOE has met its statutory deadlines for 

determining if states should consider adopting revisions to the residential

model building code, and (3) whether and, if so, to what extent DOE 

tracks states’ building codes. This appendix contains information about 

these objectives. 

To address the commercial and residential building code determinations 

DOE has completed, we reviewed the requirements and deadlines for 

building code determinations contained in statute and DOE 

determinations published in the Federal Register. We also interviewed and 

obtained documents from officials at DOE, PNNL, ASHRAE, ICC, and the 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Since DOE program 

officials use ASHRAE’s and ICC’s revision publication dates as the trigger 

date for DOE’s deadlines for making determinations, we used these dates 

for our analysis. We did not attempt to determine why DOE might miss 

deadlines for determinations or why individual states adopt building 

codes. 

DOE has completed only one of three commercial model building code

determinations that have come due. DOE issued a positive determination 

for the first of three revisions to ASHRAE’s Standard 90.1 about 17 months 

after the deadline. As of December 2006, DOE had not completed 

determinations for either of the remaining revisions and has decided to

combine them. Table 5 provides details about the revisions’ publication 

dates, the deadlines for the determinations, and the status of DOE’s 

reviews. 

DOE Has Completed 

One of Three 

Commercial Building 

Code Determinations 

Page 25 GAO-07-42 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of 

Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

Energy Efficiency Standards 

Table 5: Status of DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Revisions 

ASHRAE revision 

Revision

publication date

DOE determination

 due date

DOE determination

issue date 

DOE determination

status

State certification

due date

ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-1999 

January 28, 2000 January 28, 2001 July 15, 2002 Completed over 

17 months late. 

July 15, 2004 

ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-2001 

November 7, 2001 November 7, 2002 None Incomplete and over 

4 years late. 

2 years after DOE 

issues the 

determination. 

ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-2004 

December 21, 2004 December, 21, 2005 None Incomplete and over 

1 year late. 

2 years after DOE 

issues the 

determination. 

Sources: GAO analysis of ASHRAE, DOE, and Federal Register data. 

DOE has completed four of five residential building code determinations 

that have come due. DOE issued determinations for all of these four 

CABO/ICC revisions to the MEC/IECC and said the revisions would 

improve energy efficiency. DOE completed its first determination on time 

and completed the next three from 1 month to over 1 year late. As of 

December 2006, DOE had not yet completed the determination for the fifth 

IECC revision. Table 6 provides details about the revisions’ publication 

dates, the due dates for the determinations, and the status of DOE’s 

reviews. 

DOE Has Completed 

Four of Five 

Residential Building 

Code Determinations 

Table 6: Status of DOE’s Review of MEC and IECC Revisions

CABO/ICC 

revision

Revision

publication date

DOE determination

due date

DOE determination

issue date 

DOE determination

status

State certification due

date

1993 MEC October 21, 1993 October 21, 1994 July 15, 1994 Completed over 

3 months early. 

July 15, 1996 

1995 MEC April 12, 1995 April 12, 1996 December 6, 1996 Completed over 

7 months late.

December 6, 1998 

1998 IECC May 13, 1998 May13, 1999 January 10, 2001 Completed over 

1 year late. 

January 10, 2003 

2000 IECC December 30, 

1999 

December 30, 2000 January 10, 2001 Completed less than 

1 month late. 

January 10, 2003 

2003 IECC January 27, 2003 January 27, 2004 None Incomplete, 2 years and 

11 months late. 

2 years after DOE 

issues the 

determination. 

2006 IECC January 15, 2006 January 15, 2007 None Not yet due. 2 years after DOE 

issues the 

determination. 

Sources: GAO analysis of ASHRAE, DOE, and Federal Register data. 

Page 26 GAO-07-42 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of 

Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

DOE and PNNL staff track states’ commercial and residential building 

codes and publish information about them on DOE’s Web site. PNNL staff 

told us they e-mail state officials twice a year to confirm that DOE has the 

most current information about the states’ commercial and residential 

building codes and to obtain any updated information. Additionally, they 

are in frequent contact with the states and continually update their 

information on states’ building codes. DOE’s Web site reports the type of 

code adopted by each state and whether builder compliance with the code

is voluntary or mandatory, and provides limited information about the 

stringency of the code, which PNNL staff determines by analyzing the 

state-provided information. For example, DOE’s Web site reports that 

Florida has adopted mandatory codes for both commercial and residential 

buildings and that the commercial building code is more stringent than the 

ASHRAE 90.1 2001, and the residential building code is more stringent 

than the 2000 IECC. The complete list of state commercial and residential

building codes for energy efficiency is available at

http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/state_status_full.php. 

DOE Tracks States’ 

Building Codes 

Although the information published on DOE’s Web site compares the 

stringency of state codes with ASHRAE’s and ICC’s model building codes, 

PNNL staff told us the information should not be used to judge the 

stringency of state codes relative to the ASHRAE’s and ICC codes for 

which DOE has made a determination. The staff explained that while more 

recent state codes are generally more energy efficient than older state 

codes, there are other factors that affect their stringency. For example, 

states may adopt DOE’s latest determination on ASHRAE’s and ICC’s 

codes as their state building codes, but may amend them to be weaker or 

stronger. For example, according to PNNL staff, Georgia adopted the 

latest DOE residential determination but amended to it to be more similar 

to prior DOE determinations. In other cases, the changes to a revised code 

may not affect all states equally; therefore, while a state may not have

adopted the most recent revision, the changes in that revision may not 

have applied to that state anyway. For example, PNNL staff told us that, 

although Massachusetts did not adopt the 2000 IECC, the differences 

between the 2000 IECC and the 1995 MEC, which Massachusetts did 

adopt, did not apply to that state. Therefore, PNNL staff consider 

Massachusetts’s code to be as stringent as the 2000 IECC. Furthermore, 

PNNL staff told us that, while some states have adopted model building 

codes that are more recent than those for which DOE has issued a 

determination, these codes should not be assumed to be more stringent 

than those for which DOE has made a determination until PNNL makes a 

comparable technical analysis. PNNL staff told us that they have the 

information and technical capability to compare the stringency of all the 

Page 27 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix I: Status of the Department of 

Energy’s Model Building Code Determinations

Energy Efficiency Standards 

state codes with those for which DOE has made a determination. 

However, they said they typically analyze building codes on a state-bystate basis only at DOE’s request and that they do not currently have a 

comprehensive analysis of how all states’ codes compare to DOE’s latest 

determinations. As of September 2006, DOE had not directed PNNL to 

complete a comprehensive analysis. DOE officials told us that DOE 

focuses on facilitating states’ efforts to adopt building codes rather than 

penalizing them for not meeting DOE building code determinations and, as 

such, they do not believe a comprehensive analysis of which states’ 

building codes are as stringent as those for which DOE has made a 

positive determination justifies the resources it would require. 

Page 28 GAO-07-42 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Method Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Method 

Our objectives were to examine (1) the extent to which DOE has met its 

statutory obligations to issue rules on minimum energy efficiency 

standards for consumer products and industrial equipment and (2) 

whether DOE’s plans are likely to clear the backlog of required

rulemakings and whether these plans could be improved. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed the statutory requirements and 

deadlines for developing energy efficiency standards for consumer 

products and industrial equipment, program information available on

DOE’s Web site, information provided by program staff, and DOE’s 

January 2006 and August 2006 reports to Congress. For the purposes of 

our review, we did not include the 17 additional product categories that 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 added to DOE’s responsibilities, including 

the one that came due in August 2006. Although DOE is also required to 

issue rules regarding standards for plumbing products, we excluded them

from this report because they primarily involve conserving water, rather 

than energy. Furthermore, we did not evaluate the merit of the standards 

DOE has issued. 

We conducted interviews with DOE program officials; officials of the 

Office of General Counsel; officials at Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology; and a regulatory process expert at

the Department of Transportation. We also interviewed officials at the 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project; the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; the California Energy 

Commission; Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and Natural Resources 

Canada; and obtained documentation as needed. We analyzed data on 

DOE’s rulemaking process, estimates of national energy savings from 

energy efficiency standards, and program resources. 

In addition, we used a Web-based, modified Delphi method to obtain views 

from a panel of 33 stakeholders on the causes and effects of delays in 

setting standards and on proposed solutions to these delays. The Delphi 

method is a systematic process for obtaining individuals’ views on a 

question or problem of interest and, if possible, obtaining consensus. Our 

modified Delphi method had two phases. Phase 1 consisted of a series of 

open-ended questions concerning DOE’s delays. In Phase 2, panel 

members rated the significance or priority of the causes of delays, effects 

of delays, and solutions to delays that they had identified in phase 1. 

Page 29 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Method 

Energy Efficiency Standards 

We selected the panel members from a group of stakeholders who were 

both widely recognized as knowledgeable about one or more key aspects 

of energy efficiency standards, and who were involved or familiar with 

DOE’s rulemaking process. The group included officials from federal and

state agencies, manufacturers, trade associations, energy efficiency

advocacy groups, consumer interest groups, utilities, and utility 

associations, some of whom were previously employed by DOE as 

participants in the rulemaking process. We used a variety of methods to 

determine that the panelists we selected had the expertise necessary to 

participate in the panel. A list of the 33 panel members is included in 

appendix IV. To report panel results, when two-thirds or more of the panel

agreed, we use the term “most.” When one-half of more of the panel 

agreed, we use the term “the majority.” 

We conducted our review from June 2005 through January 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 30 GAO-07-42 
Appendix III: Rulemakings and Delays for 

Consumer Products and Industrial Equipment Appendix III: Rulemakings and Delays for with Deadlines That Have Passed 

Consumer Products and Industrial 

Equipment with Deadlines That Have Passed 

First rule Second rule

Consumer product or

industrial equipment 

category Due date Actual date 

Years 

delayeda

Due date Actual date 

Years 

delayeda

Consumer products

Clothes washers 01/01/90 05/14/91 1.4 01/01/95 01/12/01 6.0

Refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers 07/01/89 11/17/89 0.4 07/01/94 04/28/97 2.8

Small furnaces 01/01/89 11/17/89 0.9 Included in “Furnaces” 

deadlineb

N/A N/A

Central air conditioners and 

heat pumps 

01/01/94 01/22/01 7.1 01/01/01 Overdue 6.0

Clothes dryers 01/01/90 05/14/91 1.4 01/01/95 Overdue 12.0

Dishwashers 01/01/90 05/14/91 1.4 01/01/95 Overdue 12.0

Fluorescent lamp ballasts 01/01/92 09/19/00 8.7 01/01/97 Overdue 10.0

Room air conditioners 01/01/92 09/24/97 5.7 01/01/97 Overdue 10.0

Water heaters 01/01/92 01/17/01 9.0 01/01/00 Overdue 7.0

Direct heating equipment 01/01/92 Overdue 15.0 01/01/00 Overdue 7.0

Furnaces 01/01/94 Overdue 13.0 01/01/07 Not due Not due 

General service fluorescent 

lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps

04/24/97 Overdue 9.7 04/24/02 Overdue 4.7

Additional general service

fluorescent and general 

service incandescent lamps 

11/15/98 Overdue 8.1 Included in general 

service fluorescent lamps 

and incandescent reflector 

lamps deadlinec

N/A N/A

Kitchen ranges and ovens 01/01/92 Overdue 15.0 01/01/97 Overdue 10.0

Mobile home furnaces 01/01/92 Overdue 15.0 Included in Furnaces 

deadlineb

N/A N/A

Pool heaters 01/01/92 Overdue 15.0 01/01/00 Overdue 7.0

Industrial equipment 

Electric motors–not requiring 

national certification 

10/24/99 Overdue 7.2 10/24/04 Overdue 2.2

Electric motors– requiring 

national certification 

10/24/01 Overdue 5.2 10/24/06 Overdue 0.2

Distribution transformers 10/24/96dOverdue 10.2 N/A N/A N/A

Small electric motors 10/24/96dOverdue 10.2 N/A N/A N/A

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

a

Calculations for years delayed for overdue rules are as of December 31, 2006.

b

Subsequent updates to standards for the category called Furnaces are intended to cover updates for 

mobile home furnaces and small furnaces and are included in the Furnaces deadlines. 

Page 31 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix III: Rulemakings and Delays for 

Consumer Products and Industrial Equipment 

with Deadlines That Have Passed 

Energy Efficiency Standards 

c

Subsequent updates to standards for the category called “General service fluorescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps” are intended to cover updates for “Additional general service

fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps” and are included in the Furnaces deadlines. 

d

Deadline for setting initial standard following determination of feasibility (18 months after publication 

of testing requirements.) 

Page 32 GAO-07-42 
Appendix IV: Participants in Energy

Appendix IV Efficiency Standards Delphi Panel : Participants in Energy 

Efficiency Standards Delphi Panel 

Karim Amrane 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

Donald Brundage 

Southern Company 

David Calabrese 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Thomas Catania 

Whirlpool Corporation 

Sue Coakley 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

James Crawford 

Trane and American Standard 

Andrew deLaski 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

Thomas Eckman 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

Andrew Fanara 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Gary Fernstrom 

Pacific Gas and Electric

David Goldstein 

Natural Resources Defense Council

Mel Hall-Crawford 

Consumer Federation of America 

Carl Hiller 

Applied Energy Technology 

John Holt 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

Page 33 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix IV: Participants in Energy

Efficiency Standards Delphi Panel 

Energy Efficiency Standards 

Earl Jones 

GE Consumer & Industrial 

Joseph Mattingly 

Association of Appliance & Equipment Manufacturers 

James McMahon 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Deborah Miller 

ICF Consulting 

Harry Misuriello 

Alliance to Save Energy 

Jim Mullen 

Lennox International Inc. 

Steven Nadel 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

Kyle Pitsor 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

James Ranfone 

American Gas Association 

Priscilla Richards 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

Michael Rivest 

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Steve Rosenstock 

Edison Electric Institute 

Michael Sherman 

Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources 

Doug Smith 

Van Ness Feldman 

Page 34 GAO-07-42 
Appendix IV: Participants in Energy

Efficiency Standards Delphi Panel 

Energy Efficiency Standards 

Sriram Somasundaram 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

David Steiner 

Maytag Corporation 

Charlie Stephens 

Oregon Department of Energy 

Tim Stout 

National Grid USA 

John Wilson 

California Energy Commission 

Page 35 GAO-07-42 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V of Energy : Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 36 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 37 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 38 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 39 GAO-07-42 Energy Efficiency Standards 
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-07-42 andards 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Jim Wells, (202) 512-3841, wellsj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Karla Springer, Assistant 

Director; Tim Bober; Kevin Bray; Valerie Colaiaco; Janelle Knox; Megan 

McNeely; Lynn Musser; Alison O’Neill; Don Pless; Bill Roach; Frank Rusco; 

Ilga Semeiks; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to 

this report. 

Energy Efficiency St

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360605) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER