U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–617PDF 2010

OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

ONSITE RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2010

Serial No. 111–113

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

November 15, 2010

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Acting Chairman, Committee 

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8

Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Acting Minority Ranking Member, 

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Witnesses:

Mr. Joseph Ostafi IV, Regional Leader, Science and Technology Division, 

Group Vice President, HOK 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 15

Mr. Michael Lopez, Director of Facility Operations, Bolingbrook High School, 

Romeoville, Illinois 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Biography .......................................................................................................... 20

Mr. Daniel Cheifetz, Chief Executive Officer, Indie Energy Systems Company, 

LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, Department Head, Electrochemical Energy Storage Research, Energy Storage Initiative Leader, Chemical Sciences and 

Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 37

Ms. Martha G. VanGeem, Principal Engineer and Group Manager, Building 

Science and Sustainability, CTL Group 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39

Biography .......................................................................................................... 43

Discussion 

Economic Considerations and Job Creation ....................................................... 44

Technology Demonstration to Commercialization ............................................. 45

Public Education and Community Engagement ................................................ 47

Renewable-Ready Building Standard ................................................................. 48

Renewable-Ready Buildings ................................................................................ 50

The Most Effective Measures Toward Efficient Schools ................................... 50

Social-Behavioral Factors .................................................................................... 51

Curtain Wall Systems and Exterior Glass ......................................................... 52

Next Steps for Policy Makers .............................................................................. 54
Page

IV

Geothermal Power and DOE Buildings Technology Program .......................... 55

Vehicle and Stationary Battery Storage Programs at DOE ............................. 56

Siting Energy Storage R&D in Federal Agencies .............................................. 59

Research Prioritization ........................................................................................ 60

Encouraging Market Development ..................................................................... 60

American Competitiveness and Job Creation .................................................... 63

Closing .................................................................................................................. 65
(1)

OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ONSITE 

RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Chicago, IL.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., Dirksen Federal Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, Ceremonial Court Room 2525, Hon. Russ Carnahan presiding.
2
3

FIELD HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Options and Opportunities for

Onsite Renewable Energy Integration 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

9:30 A.M.–11 A.M. CENTRAL STANDARD TIME

DIRKSEN FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

219 S. DEARBORN STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

CEREMONIAL COURT ROOM 2525

Purpose 

On Monday, November 15, 2010 the House Committee on Science & Technology 

will hold a field hearing entitled ‘‘Options and Opportunities for On-site Renewable 

Energy Integration.’’

The hearing will examine the integration of renewable energy systems in the built 

environment. Witnesses will discuss the state of the building industry and how federal research programs can help continue the industry’s efforts to adopt renewable 

energy into their designs and practices. Opportunities for the adoption of simulation-driven design, storage integration, and measurement and verification technologies will also be discussed. Furthermore, the hearing will consider research, development, and demonstration needs that are not currently being adequately addressed by the industry or the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Witnesses

• Mr. Joseph Ostafi IV is the Regional Leader for the Science and Technology 

Division and also Group Vice President of HOK a global architectural firm 

that specializes in planning, design, and delivery solutions for buildings and 

communities. Mr. Ostafi will provide a broad overview of what it means to 

integrate renewable energy into buildings and discuss some technical issues 

which need additional research to ease integration.

• Mr. Michael Lopez is the Director of Facility Operations for Bolingbrook 

High School, the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) Certified School in Illinois and the third high school in the United 

States. Mr. Lopez will discuss the environmental and energy efficient initiatives of the Valley View School District.

• Mr. Daniel Cheifetz is the Chief Executive Officer of Indie Energy Systems 

Company, which is a global leader in smart geothermal technology for heating 

and cooling both existing and new buildings. Mr. Cheifetz will discuss the incorporation of geothermal energy and related system integration technologies 

into the built environment.

• Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain is the Department Head for Electrochemical 

Energy Storage and is also the Energy Storage Major Initiative Leader of the 

Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division at Argonne National Laboratory. 

Dr. Chamberlain will discuss how research in vehicle storage technologies relate to stationary storage technologies used in buildings.

• Ms. Martha G. VanGeem, PE, Principal Engineer & Group Manager of 

Building Science and Sustainability of CTL Group a industry leader in engineering and scientific services. Ms. VanGeem will discuss the role of industry 

and federal research programs in developing technologies and standards to integrate renewable energy into buildings.

Background 

In 2009 the Department of Energy (DOE) reported that buildings accounted for 

80 percent (or $238 billion) of total U.S. electricity expenditures. From 1980 to 2006, 

total building energy consumption in the United States increased more than 46 percent, and is expected to continue to grow at a rate of more than 1 percent per year 
4

1Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M. (NREL); Crawley, D. (U.S. DOE). (2006). Zero Energy 

Buildings (ZEB): A Critical Look at the Definition. NREL/CP–550–39833. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

over the next two decades. Carbon emissions from buildings in the U.S. approximately equal the combined carbon emissions of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom. This is about 38 percent of the emissions emitted in the country. Tackling public concerns about the high costs of energy, the looming threat of global climate 

change, and the nation’s economic wellbeing requires continual assessment of federal building technology programs. 

The importance of energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings has been recognized in various federal laws, executive orders, and other policy instruments in 

recent years. Among these are the energy policy acts (EPAct) of 1992 and 2005 (P.L. 

102–486 and P.L. 109–58), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA, P.L. 110–140), and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(P.L. 111–5). Through these laws the DOE is authorized to carry out a range of activities to increase energy efficiency in a number of economic sectors. 

While these programs continue to demonstrate success in developing technologies 

and practices for high-performance buildings, advancing the state of technology far 

beyond what is currently available will require the programs to incorporate entirely 

new technologies and approaches into their R&D agendas. 

Steps to first reduce total energy consumption, and then to use the remaining energy more efficiently, have been and continue to be the country’s first line of defense 

to reduce the cost of energy and to cut carbon emissions in the building sector. As 

the country has become more effective in using these techniques, new approaches 

to drastically reduce traditional energy consumption by integrating on-site renewable energy into the built environment have garnered more attention and have been 

incorporated into public law and into practice. 

Modern practices of using energy efficient technologies and addressing other environmental concerns have generally been termed ‘‘green building design.’’ While the 

concept has existed for a long time, the practices did not really emerge until the 

1990s. Since then terms such as ‘‘green building,’’ ‘‘high-performance building,’’ and 

‘‘high-performance green building’’ have been defined in public law, both by several 

different Federal agencies and by stakeholders in the building community. For example, a ‘‘high-performance building’’ is defined by EISA as a building that integrates and optimizes, on a life cycle basis, all major high performance attributes, 

including energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality and operational considerations. To move beyond energy efficiency and into integrating renewable energy 

into building design, new terms have been developed, such as ‘‘net-zero energy,’’ 

which also has been defined in many ways.

Net-Zero Energy 

In general, a net-zero energy building produces as much energy as it uses over 

the course of a year. Some building scientists intended for these buildings to have 

no net environmental impact or even a ‘‘minus-impact’’ which would mean the building would provide a net environmental benefit. The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) has studied four different definitions including: net-zero site energy, net-zero source energy, net-zero energy costs, and net-zero energy emissions 

(Box.1). The diversity in these definitions illustrates that these are fairly new concepts still under discussion by the building community.

Box.1 NREL Zero-Energy Buildings: Definitions.1
5

DOE’s Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative aims to realize marketable net-zero energy commercial buildings by 2025. The program brings architects, 

engineers, builders, contractors, owners, and occupants together to optimize building 

performance, comfort, and savings through a whole-building approach to design and 

construction. The program is divided into three interrelated strategic areas designed 

to overcome technical and market barriers: research and development, equipment 

standards and analysis, and technology validation and market introduction. Key research areas include: commercial lighting solutions; indoor environmental quality; 

building controls and diagnostics; and space conditioning. These types of research 

will help decrease the cost of integrating renewable energy in the built environment. 

Federal programs to deploy renewable technologies have helped owners incorporate renewable energy systems into their buildings. For example, financing the 

cost of a residential photovoltaic (PV) system through home equity loans, mortgage 

loans, or cash in combination with state and utility incentives has helped reduce the 

cost of systems. Nevertheless, right now not every owner is ready to make the necessary up-front financial investment in a renewable energy system.

Renewable Ready Buildings 

One concept which may help ease the adoption of renewable energy systems for 

building owners who are not ready to make the up-front investment is the idea of 

‘‘renewable ready’’ buildings. As with many of the approaches in the green building 

sector, ‘‘renewable ready’’ is not well defined, but some builders are beginning to 

take this approach into consideration as they look toward ‘‘greening’’ their building 

designs. In general, this means that the construction of new buildings or renovations of buildings should be constructed ‘‘ready’’ for future renewable energy installations. Advocates of this approach believe that planning ahead for a renewable energy system maximizes the potential of that renewable energy source in the future. 

It is in the planning for a renewable energy system where there is a wide variety 

of elements that could be considered to make a building ‘‘renewable ready.’’ The variety of elements is highly dependent on the kind of renewable energy system to be 

installed in the future. The design and element differences between making a building ready for solar panels versus a geothermal energy system may be very different. 

Moreover, there are building codes which may impede the ability to design and 

adopt renewable energy systems for buildings. For example, codes pertaining to roof 

heights and slopes could be barriers to the adoption of PV. In contrast, some building codes could also be used to encourage the adoption of ‘‘renewable ready’’ designs. 

For instance, in March of 2010 the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) released Standard 189.1—Standard for the 

Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings. This new standard includes a provision for ‘‘renewable energy ready’’ elements and is the first set of model codes and 

standards for green building in the U.S. 

Finally, another barrier to the adoption of ‘‘renewable ready’’ buildings is the 

siting of the building. For example, the orientation and location of a building’s axes 

and surfaces, and the building’s proximity to trees and other plantings, affect its 

heating and cooling requirements. Siting may also impact the ability to incorporate 

renewable energy generation on the building or on-site.

Community Planning 

Consequently, renewable energy experts including scientists at NREL have been 

working on ‘‘net zero-energy communities’’ which are defined as ‘‘one that has greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy 

for vehicles, thermal, and electrical energy within the community is met by renewable energy.’’ In some cases, planning a community where the renewable energy systems can be sited in a variety of ways may ease the adoption of renewable energy 

systems. For example, NREL has explored siting renewable energy system within 

the built environment (rooftop), on-site (parking structure, along roadways, etc.) or 

on unbuildable areas such as brownfield sites. This flexibility could also allow for 

the adoption of a variety of integrated renewable energy systems such as solar PV 

and a wood biomass boiler.

Systems Integration 

Even after building completion, systems are rarely optimized together to improve 

overall energy efficiency and environmental performance. A typical building is comprised of a complex array of components (wood, metals, glass, concrete, coatings, 

flooring, sheet rock, insulation, etc.) and subsystems (lighting, heating, ventilation 

and air conditioning, appliances, landscape maintenance, IT equipment, electrical 

grid connection, etc.), all of which are developed individually by independent firms 
6

that do not often design and test their performance in conjunction with other components and systems. Adding renewable energy generation as well as storage capacity 

to these systems is complicated, yet is already being done. But the inefficiencies attributable to this fragmentation of the building components and systems, and the 

lack of monitoring and verification of a building performance, point to a critical need 

for a more integrated approach to building design, operation, and technology development. An approach that couples buildings sciences, architecture, and information 

technologies could lead to entirely new buildings with subsystems that are able to 

continuously communicate with each other and respond to a range of factors including renewable energy generation. Wide-scale deployment of these types of net-zero 

energy high performance buildings may require federal programs to play a larger 

coordinating role in the development of the common technologies, codes, and standards.
7

Mr. CARNAHAN. Good morning. I think we’ll get started. Just by 

way of introduction, my name is Russ Carnahan. I am a Member 

of Congress from St. Louis, Missouri, and I serve on the Science 

and Technology Committee with my colleague, Mrs. Biggert, who’s 

here in her hometown. So I’m glad to join her here this morning 

and, really, to kick off this field hearing on Options and Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy Integration. Thanks for joining 

us. I’d also like to thank the staff here at the Dirksen Federal 

Courthouse for hosting today’s hearing. 

As many of you know, our nation’s buildings have a surprisingly 

large environmental footprint, consuming about 70 percent of all 

electricity off the grid, emitting almost 40 percent of all carbon 

emissions, and using roughly 60 percent of all raw materials in the 

U.S. However, with these challenges also come, I believe, great opportunities. 

According to a recent U.S. Green Building Council report, greater 

building efficiency can be about 85 percent of our future U.S. demand for energy. And a national commitment to green building has 

the potential to generate two and-a-half million American jobs. 

These opportunities and a desire to bring a greater awareness to 

these issues are what led Congresswoman Biggert and I to found 

the Bipartisan High-Performance Buildings Caucus in 2007. To 

date, the Caucus has over 30 Members of Congress and works with 

over 150 building trade associations, private companies, and design 

firms to heighten awareness and inform policymakers and their 

staffs about major impacts buildings have on our economy, our environment, our energy future, and companies’ bottom line. 

I want to thank Congresswoman for her strong leadership and 

support over the past years on these issues that are so important 

to both of us, to Members on the Science Committee, on the HighPerformance Buildings Caucus, but also to our constituents. I look 

forward to working with her and all of our other colleagues in the 

new Congress to continue these issues. 

As our nation continues on the road to recovery, we have a real 

opportunity to make lasting investments in our nation’s future by 

rethinking our built environment and investing in high-performance buildings. In April of last year, this Committee held a hearing 

focused on building and industrial energy efficiency. This was a 

very informative hearing, and reconfirmed for everyone who attended energy efficiency is the number one priority when it comes 

to addressing our energy crisis. That being said, we’re here today 

to talk about another vital part of the solution; integrating renewables into our built environment. 

As our witnesses will explain, we are already integrating renewables into our built environment, yet there are far too many barriers to integration that can be overcome through better technology. However, we cannot rely on improved technology alone to 

solve these problems. We must have a combination of technology, 

smart federal policy, and targeted investments for us to reach our 

goals. I look forward to hearing suggestions and ideas on what specific research and development needs exist to help overcome these 

barriers and what the federal government’s proper role is in encouraging these activities in the private sector and academia. 
8

I also want to thank today’s witnesses for taking time out of 

their busy schedules to be here to join us today, this week in Chicago, during the big GreenBuild Conference going on. I look forward to seeing that successful conference, and you know we have 

a big delegation from St. Louis here, from my home city. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RUSS CARNAHAN

Thank you all for joining us at today’s hearing on ‘‘Options and Opportunities for 

Onsite Renewable Energy Integration.’’ I would also like to thank the staff of the 

Dirksen Federal Courthouse for hosting today’s hearing. 

As many of you know, our nation’s buildings have a surprisingly large environmental footprint consuming 70 percent of all electricity off the grid, emitting almost 

40 percent of all carbon emissions and using roughly 60 percent of all raw material 

in the U.S. However, with these challenges also comes great opportunity. According 

to a recent U.S. Green Building Council report, greater building efficiency can meet 

85% of future U.S. demand for energy, and a national commitment to green building 

has the potential to generate 2.5 million American jobs. 

These opportunities and a desire to bring greater awareness to these issues led 

Congresswoman Biggert and I to found the bipartisan High-Performance Buildings 

Caucus in 2007. The Caucus has over 30 Members of Congress and works with over 

150 building trade associations, private companies and design firms to heighten 

awareness and inform policymakers about the major impact buildings have on our 

economy, the environment and our energy future. 

I want to thank the Congresswoman for her strong leadership and support over 

the past years on these issues that are so important to the both of us and I look 

forward to continuing our efforts here today and in the future. 

As our nation and continues on the road to recovery we have a real opportunity 

to make lasting investments in our nation’s future by rethinking our built environment and investing in high-performance buildings. 

In April of last year, this Committee held a hearing focused on building and industrial energy efficiency. This was a very informative hearing and re-confirmed for 

everyone who attended that energy efficiency is the number one priority when it 

comes to addressing our energy crisis. That being said, we are here today to talk 

about another part of the solution: integrating renewables into out built environment. 

As our witnesses will explain, we are already integrating renewables into the 

built environment. Yet, there are many barriers to integration that can be overcome 

through better technology. However, we cannot rely on improved technology alone 

to solve these problems—we must have a combination of technology, smart federal 

policy and targeted investments for us to reach our goals. I look forward to hearing 

suggestions on what specific research and development needs exist to help overcome 

these barriers and what the federal government can do to better encourage these 

activities. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to 

join us here today and I look forward to hearing how we can best proceed in these 

endeavors.

Mr. CARNAHAN. And I want to recognize Congresswoman Biggert 

now for five minutes for her opening statement. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of 

our witnesses. We appreciate your efforts to be here and participate 

in today’s important hearing. I am also particularly pleased that 

my good friend and colleague, Russ Carnahan, was able to be here 

today to chair this hearing and kick off the festivities for the U.S. 

Green Building Council’s annual international conference expo. As 

Congressman Carnahan just mentioned, we have the distinct honor 

of leading, I think, the most exciting Caucus in the House of Representatives. 

Officially known as the High-Performance Building Caucus, we 

have hosted over 50 lunch meetings in the last two years on every 

subject important to the definition of a high-performance building. 
9

So, today’s hearing isn’t just a twist in our usual Caucus collaborations, but it is just a way to—another way to take our show on the 

road and raise awareness for the importance of high-performance 

buildings, and nowhere is the concept of high-performance buildings more important and more evident than right here in my own 

backyard. I don’t live right in Chicago, but I’m part of the metropolitan suburban area. 

But Chicago is the home to many high-performing building firsts, 

like the Chicago Center For Green Technology, the first rehabilitated municipal building in the nation to achieve the LEED platinum status. And, in 2007, the Exelon Headquarters and Chase 

Tower became the largest office space to earn the LEED platinum 

rating for commercial integrators. Another great example, and one 

that you will soon hear more about, is Bolingbrook High School, located in the suburban district. Bolingbrook High School is among 

the first of new construction LEED-certified high schools in the nation. 

So, what do these building project examples have in common, 

and how is renewable energy integration important to them? Well, 

these building projects have been constructed with a comprehensive building efficiency program. Once in place, an efficiency program can help reduce energy demand and the need for new energy 

capacity over the life of the project, improve building efficiency, 

begin coordinating design and construction to accommodate 

changes in technology and building function. 

As the demand for electricity, costs, and materials rise over the 

next two decades, the building projects I previously mentioned have 

the foundation in place to utilize existing renewable technologies or 

incorporate technologies that have yet to be deployed. Such an advantage can save homeowners, building managers, or school districts precious time and resources. The existing applications of renewable technology, LEED-certified buildings are already paying 

off. Some case studies show solar panels with geothermal heating 

systems will lead to a 15 to 20 percent savings in energy costs with 

payback occurring two to five years earlier than anticipated. 

So the long-term renewable technology options, however, hold 

great promise, but need more work. An energy storage solution, 

such as solar thermal heating or on and off-site stationary batteries 

can offer a significant savings for both the end users and generation of electricity. So this technology has been demonstrated in limited amounts that need more development before deployment on 

any broad scale. 

While successful at policy, some renewable technologies still encounter other challenges that prevent more widespread implementation. State laws or outdated local statutes have not been updated 

to accommodate neighborhood planning or renewable energy site 

planning. So, in order to enjoy the fruits of renewable energy integration, we need to cultivate a culture of adoption for those technologies. So we’re going to have some really interesting testimony 

today. 

And, with that, I want to thank you all for being here this morning, and look forward to your testimony, to working with you to advance renewable energy integration in buildings when Congress returns to the energy issues in the coming year. I again thank the 
10

Chairman for being here and for all his work on the Caucus, for 

all that has been accomplished and will be accomplished. I hand it 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, welcome to each of our witnesses. We appreciate 

your efforts to be here and participate in today’s important hearing. I am also particularly pleased that my good friend and colleague, Russ Carnahan, is able to join 

me to chair today’s hearing and kick off the festivities for the U.S. Green Building 

Council’s annual International Conference and Expo. 

As Russ just mentioned, we have the distinct honor of leading the most exciting 

Caucus in the House of Representatives. Known officially as the High Performance 

Building Caucus, we have hosted over fifty lunch briefings in the last two years on 

every subject important to the definition of a high performing building. So, today’s 

hearing isn’t just a twist in our usual caucus collaboration—it is another way to 

take our show on the road and raise awareness for the importance of high performance buildings. 

No where is the concept of high performance buildings more important—and more 

evident—than right here in my own backyard. Chicago is home to many high performing building ‘‘firsts’’, like: 

The Chicago Center for Green Technology, the first rehabilitated municipal building in the nation to achieve LEED Platinum status. 

And, in 2007, the Exelon headquarters in Chase Tower became the largest office 

space to earn a LEED Platinum rating for Commercial Interiors. 

Another great example—and one we will soon hear more about—is Bolingbrook 

High School, located in my suburban district. Bolingbrook High School is among the 

first of new construction LEED certified high schools in the nation. 

So, what do these building project examples have in common—and how is renewable energy integration important to them? 

These building projects have been constructed with a comprehensive building efficiency program. Once in place, an efficiency program can help reduce energy demand and the need for new energy capacity over the life of the project. 

Improved building efficiency begins with a coordinated design and construction 

plan to accommodate changes in technology and building function. As the demand 

for electricity—and cost of materials—rise over the next two decades, the building 

projects I previously mentioned have the foundation in place to utilize existing renewable technologies, or incorporate technologies that have yet to be deployed. Such 

an advantage can save homeowners, building managers, or school districts precious 

time and resources. 

Existing applications of renewable technologies in LEED certified buildings are already paying off. Some case studies using solar panels or geothermal heating systems report a fifteen to twenty percent savings in energy costs, with payback occurring two to five years earlier than anticipated. 

Long-term renewable technology options, however, hold great promise but need 

more work. Energy storage solutions, such as solar thermal heating or, on and offsite stationary batteries can offer significant savings for both the end-users and generators of electricity. These technologies have been demonstrated in limited amounts 

and need more development before deployed on any broad scale. 

While successful, or promising, some renewable technologies still encounter other 

challenges that prevent more widespread implementation. State laws or outdated 

local statutes have not been updated to accommodate neighborhood planning or renewable energy site planning. In order to enjoy the fruits of renewable energy integration, we need to cultivate a culture of adoption for those technologies. 

With that, I would like to thank you all for being here this morning. I look forward to your testimony and to working with you to advance renewable energy integration in buildings when Congress returns to energy issues next year.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

It’s my pleasure, now, to introduce our panel. Really, we have a 

great, excellent, and accomplished, and diverse group that’s here 

today, so we appreciate you being here. I want to start with Mr. 

Joseph Ostafi. He’s the regional leader for Science and Technology 

Division and the group vice president for HOK, which is 

headquartered in my home city of St. Louis. Welcome. 
11

Mr. OSTAFI. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And, next, Mr. Daniel Cheifetz is the CEO for 

Indie Energy Systems Company. Welcome. 

Next, Dr. Jeffrey Chamberlain. He is the department head of 

Electrochemical Energy Storage and the Energy Storage Maker Initiative Leader of the Chemical Services and Engineering Division 

at Argonne National Lab. That is one long title. Welcome. 

And, next, Ms. Martha VanGeem. She is the Principal Engineer 

and Group Manager for Building Science and Sustainability at CTL 

Group. 

And, for our last introduction, I want to recognize Congresswoman Biggert to introduce our last panelist. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce Michael Lopez, director of Facility Operations for Bolingbrook High School and the Valley View 

School District. Just a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of touring 

the Bolingbrook High School with Mr. Lopez and Principal 

Mitchem. I think we had a very informative behind-the-scenes tour 

of the school building and its high-performing attributes. I’d like to 

point out that their use of water-condensed recovery system and 

the excellent implementation of day-lighting throughout the school 

is so impressive as sustainable solutions. Mr. Lopez has worked in 

the construction, academic, and architectural field, and is presently 

responsible for the comprehensive energy management of 20 

schools in the Valley View School District. 

So, welcome, Mr. Lopez. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Welcome all. 

We will start with Mr. Ostafi. Pleased, and I want to recognize 

you. And, just to remind the witness, we’ll recognize you for five 

minutes. Your full written testimony will be placed in the record, 

and we’ll follow that up with questions from myself and Mrs. 

Biggert. 

So, Mr. Ostafi. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH OSTAFI IV, REGIONAL LEADER, 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, HOK 

Mr. OSTAFI. Thank you. Good morning. And I thank you, Chairman Carnahan and Congresswoman Biggert, for the opportunity to 

discuss innovations and opportunities for on-site renewable energy 

integration. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. 

Architects, engineers, and planners are implicitly center stage in 

the design, construction, commissioning, and validation processes. 

We actively engage and coordinate with building owners and occupants, as well as operators and maintenance staff, to apply their 

goals to collectively forge environments which meet their current 

and future needs. We not only have the ability to influence the incorporation of a renewable energy system into the built environment, but also the social obligation to design high-performance 

buildings for today and net-zero buildings for the future. 

Perhaps, surprisingly, one of the most frequent obstacles that impede integration of renewables into the built environment remains 

political and financial. Even though the federal government and 
12

many states have chosen to lead by example, there still remain 

many states and privately funded organizations which have fewer 

mandates and incentives to comply. Without continued and increasing governmental mandates and subsidies or drastic breakthroughs 

in efficiencies, the equation will remain lopsided. The clear solution 

in this case includes measures which make renewables more costcompetitive compared with traditional fossil-based energy sources. 

This could be eased by continued advancements in renewable manufacturing processes or through significant advancements of their 

efficiency. Until these technological advancements are in place, continued federal and state subsidies, as well as policy mandates 

which encourage their integration, shall remain in place. 

On a more applied level, on-site renewable energy sources are ultimately directly tied into complex building and management systems. Real-time monitoring and optimization controls which constantly measure and communicate information from vast mechanical, electrical and information-based technology systems to its operators and users with the anticipation of aggregation will ultimately optimize performance results. 

The environmental and energy modeling technologies available to 

the design community rarely can account for the human condition 

with accurate results. We find that with high-performance buildings, many incorporated renewable technologies do not perform the 

way they were intended to. To this end, additional applied research 

and better computational modeling tools could enhance our understanding of the physiological human needs and the complex interplay of measurement verification and control systems which ultimately moderate high-performing building outcomes. 

Three additional areas, briefly, in which applied research could 

further enhance renewable integration and overall building performance include on-site renewable systems which specifically address dense urban environments, including solar wind and solar 

thermal. As the majority of commercial and office buildings are located in urban environments, it’s difficult to repeatedly and reliably harness renewable energy sources on-site. 

Secondly, most buildings and infrastructure do not run on DC 

power, which is the predominant output of renewables. Control systems, micro inverters, and meters need to better adopt to swing between DC and AC power voltages in a more efficient and real-time, 

cost-effective way. This, coupled with the ability to store solar energy, could drastically contribute to better all efficiency integration. 

An importance is placed on natural daylight in the built environment today. Oftentimes, this increases the demand for glass facades while reducing the artificial interior lighting loads. Exterior 

glazing systems are traditionally the worst-performing elements in 

the building’s exterior envelope system, and artificial light loads 

consume a significant amount of building energy load. 

More research needs to address higher thermal-performing curtain wall systems, to include face change or self-regulating systems 

in which the ability to store heat when needed, reflect solar gain 

and glare when not, and are thermally resistant to harsh exterior 

temperatures, which can, in turn, ultimately mitigate energy use 

for interior lighting consumption. To this end, more reliable, qualitative research can be applied to interior renewable lighting con-
13

cepts, such as solar fiberoptic systems, which use daylight and 

fiberoptic technology to naturally light spaces. 

In summary, to take renewable energy technology integration to 

the next level, we must apply research which looks at each system 

as more than just a part of the whole. 

We need multi-disciplinary research that applies optimization to 

renewables which can benefit the entire infrastructure of a building, a campus, and even a municipality. Finally, we need research 

with comprehensive and scaleable results which encompass all 

sciences, from political, economic, and behavioral to the core physical sciences and engineering. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Ostafi. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostafi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH OSTAFI IV 

Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation 

to discuss ‘‘Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy Integration.’’ I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today at this important hearing. 

Many of you are probably aware that buildings account for 40% of energy use and 

emissions in the US. Without stepped-up renewable integration this trend is expected to outpace that of any sector. To curtail this, it is essential that buildings’ 

energy use be significantly reduced. What I would like to outline today are significant challenges and obstacles which hinder the design community’s ability to integrate innovative renewable energy technologies into the built environment. 

Architects, engineers and planners are implicitly center stage in the design and 

building process. We actively engage and coordinate with building owners and occupants, as well as operations and maintenance staff to apply their goals to collectively forge environments which meet their current and future needs. At a minimum, compliance with building and energy codes is necessary, though the preference is to exceed those minimum standards. Buildings, as well as campuses and 

communities, are a dynamic interplay of complex cybernetic systems. It is through 

this interaction of society and technology that the ultimate outcome of how a building or environment performs is demonstrated. Often times, design consultants have 

not only the ability to influence the incorporation of renewable energy systems into 

the built environment, but also the social obligation to design high-performance 

buildings, ultimately reducing the demand the built environment has on our natural 

resources as well as our dependency on foreign resources. With that responsibility 

also comes accountability when buildings do not perform as originally intended. 

At the onset of building design, the opportunities to produce ‘‘greener’’ buildings 

are rarely hindered by the ability to incorporate higher-performing technologies, but 

rather are often challenged by financial and political issues. Even when renewable 

energy systems are incorporated the positive net effect is sometimes compromised 

by the building location, user behavior, or by the overall building operational subsystems not effectively communicating amongst themselves and the occupants. All 

of these factors contribute to marginalize design intent and ultimately building performance. I would like to articulate those inherent issues and provide some insights 

into additional areas which could provide enhanced building performance benefits 

through further technological innovation and applied research.

Challenge: Financial/Political 

One of the most obvious and frequent obstacles which impede the integration of 

renewables into the built environment remain political and financial. Though many 

States and the Federal government have chosen to lead by example, requiring new 

and renovated government buildings to meet stricter energy standards, there still 

remain many State and privately funded organizations which have fewer mandates 

and incentives to comply. As of September, 2010 there are seven US States which 

do not have simple energy standards or executive orders to develop or encourage 

high performing buildings beyond basic energy codes such as the 2004 or 2007 

ASHRE 90.1. Likewise, only about half of the US States and Territories have tax 

credits, rebates, grants, or even local utility involvement to incentivize and offset 

the initial costs of incorporating renewable technologies. Even government-mandated policies like the Federal Energy Management Plan which is designed to en-
14

courage the use of on-site renewables on Federal projects, often establish conditional 

requirements tied to life-cycle cost analysis. Too often the first cost decisions outweigh simple payback durations which lead to short-sighted fiduciary decisions outweighing long-term performance issues. 

Today, many renewable technologies including solar, wind, and solar thermal are 

much more expensive to utilize and employ than conventional fossil-based utility 

sources, and many current building project stakeholders are quickly overlooking the 

long-term benefit. Without governmental mandates or forms of continued subsidy 

the equation is lopsided. The clear solution in this case includes measures which 

make renewables more affordable and cost competitive compared with traditional 

energy sources at the outset of a buildings conceptualization. This imbalance could 

be eased by continued advancements in their manufacturing costs and overall efficiency of performance, and further reinforced by continued Federal and State subsidies, as well as policy mandates requiring their integration.

Challenge: Technology and the Inability to Predict Unpredictable Human 

Behavior 

As Americans forge ahead in their quest for more sustainable built environments, 

there are fewer technical limitations when conceptualizing better performing buildings. Downstream from the design concepts and design intents are some of the technical challenges which do not allow them to operate or perform to their best ability. 

One of those challenges is related to the interface between people and technology; 

essentially the behavior of its occupants. 

On-site renewable energy sources are ultimately directly tied into complex building management systems. As a result, a higher dependence is placed on integrated 

building management and energy systems technologies. Real-time monitoring and 

optimization controls are constantly measuring and communicating information 

from vast mechanical, electrical, and information-based technology systems of a 

building to its operators and users with the anticipation that they will produce highly optimized and reliable results. Unfortunately, the measurement science of predicting the outcome is lacking, and hardware and software compatibility of these 

components and systems are not designed to interact with themselves or the end 

users. 

To this end, two areas which would have compounding benefits from increased research are enhanced computational environmental and energy modeling tools and 

more open sourced building management systems architecture. Environmental and 

energy modeling technologies rarely can account for the human condition; that is, 

how users really behave in their environments when complex indoor-outdoor and 

mixed-mode strategies interact with more capricious factors such as day-light, natural ventilation, and building occupancy utilization. For example, we can make predictions that might account for a building occupant opening a window to let in a 

breeze, but it would be difficult to determine very specifically when he/she might 

do that, under what temperature conditions, or that on the same day, someone else 

might have turned on all the lights on a building floor during daylight hours on a 

sunny day.

Challenge: Lack of Integration Among Building Modeling Systems 

What furthers this lack of predictable modeling is a deficiency in the inability of 

complex heating, cooling, ventilation, IT, and electrical systems of effectively and efficiently interacting amongst themselves when factoring in the human condition. 

This whole building systems and occupant science could be enhanced by creating 

more open-source measurement and verification technologies which are designed to 

interact and predict with whole building systems complexities. And as we look toward achieving net zero milestones, these enhanced technology needs should also incorporate emissions measurements of their source energy. 

From a more direct technological standpoint, some additional areas in which research could further enhance efficiencies and overall building performance include:

1. On-site renewable systems which specifically address dense urban environments including solar, wind, solar thermal

As a majority of commercial and office buildings are located in urban environments often times it is difficult not only to harness renewable energy 

sources at the site, it is sometimes impossible to predict the long-term viability of its utilization on a site-by-site basis. Currently, most zoning regulations do not directly preserve solar access rights which would contribute to 

the implementation of renewables. Also, current efficiency rates of solar 

panel technology do not enable taller buildings with limited real estate foot 
15

prints enough space to utilize and implement on-site solar applications at 

ratio which has dramatic increases in energy performance.

2. Solar power

Most buildings and their infrastructure do not run on DC power, which is 

the predominate output of renewables. Control systems, micro inverters, and 

meters need to better adapt to swing between DC and AC power voltages 

in a more efficient, real-time and cost effective way. Better efficiency of conversion and storage of solar energy, including DC to AC power inverters, 

could contribute toward better efficacy and integration with other building 

power needs and times of occupancy.

3. Daylighting, views and the curtain wall

With the increased importance placed on day-light and views in built environments, often times this increases the demands for curtain wall systems 

(glass fac ̧ade), the exterior glass system which are traditionally the worst 

performing elements in building envelop systems. More research needs to 

address higher performing curtain wall systems, even including phase 

change or self-regulating systems which have the ability to store solar heat 

when needed, reflect solar gain when not, and are more thermally resistant 

to harsh exterior environments which ultimately reduce energy and interior 

lighting consumption.

4. Supply side technologies

Finally, we cannot look at renewable energy technologies exclusively from 

the demand side. On the supply side, water, is often overlooked as a renewable energy as well as a resource. Additional research and technological innovation which can safely and effectively reuse grey water into a buildings 

overall water demand needs could benefit from reduced off site municipal 

management demands by enabling on-site purification for non-potable or 

even ideally potable use.

While technology has been and will continue to be a critical component of the success of renewable energy integration, technical solutions alone are not sufficient to 

reach the goals of optimization which lie ahead of us. It is important to understand 

the complex relationship between technological sustainable development, the behavioral impacts of occupants and building owners, and the policy and financial costs 

of implementation; but more importantly, that future solutions must encompass the 

multitude of these challenges if we are to achieve optimal results. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOSEPH OSTAFI IV 

Mr. Ostafi has more than 14 years of architectural experience with science and 

technology focused clients for the clean energy, biotech, pharmaceutical, and light 

industrial research and development for both private and publicly funded entities. 

He currently serves as a managing principal and Vice President for HOK (Hellmuth, 

Obata + Kassabaum), a full service architecture, engineering and planning design 

firm headquartered in St. Louis, MO. As a regional leader of the architecture 

Science and Technology practice, his focus surrounds fully integrated thinking of design, planning, sustainability of research laboratories of all kinds for Federal, State, 

Higher education and corporate clients. The experience of serving this variety of clients in US and international markets has equipped him to work at the center of 

multidisciplinary teams and carry complex projects to a successful and timely completion. Joseph is a frequent speaker at various industry and technology conferences 

on topics related to alternative energy research and renewable energy design, planning and technology integration, including Tradeline, Labs21, CleanTech, and is a 

member of the AIA and USGBC.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Next, I want to recognize Mr. Lopez for five minutes. 
16

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF FACILITY OPERATIONS, BOLINGBROOK HIGH SCHOOL, ROMEOVILLE, ILLINOIS 

Mr. LOPEZ. Thank you. First, I want to thank Congresswoman 

Biggert for inviting me, and for Chairman Carnahan and this Committee allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony at this 

morning’s hearing. 

The perspective I would like to share with you today is the relevance and importance of integrating renewable energy systems 

on-site into our living environments and, in particular, the K 

through 12 segment of education. Sixty million people, 20 percent 

of our population, go to school each day as students, teachers, staff, 

or administrators. Collectively, they attend over 100,000 public and 

private schools throughout the country. These learners and educators spend a substantial amount of their daily lives interacting 

within a manmade environment, an environment that has a significant impact on their well-being, performance, and achievement. 

More than just providing comfort and protection from inclement 

weather, these structures create a learning environment that can 

either support or detract from the mission of our educational system. The relevance of the renewable energy systems on-site for 

schools is significant in many respects. First, schools, represented 

as a market segment, are significant consumers of non-renewable 

energy; gas, electricity, and water. Leveraging this market has the 

potential to influence policy and decision-making at all levels. As 

an example, I mentioned in my written testimony recent legislation 

allowing school districts to provide energy consortiums for wind 

production. This is a direction that school districts have shown an 

interest in. 

Secondly, reducing our reliance on non-renewable resource production and distribution can result in a reduction of capital investment needs for the utility providers. Utility companies currently 

are challenged to provide uninterrupted service during peak demands. As an example, our district currently participates in a voluntary load response program offered by our electric company, 

which is designed to curtail electric usage at peak times and reduce 

demand on the utility companies’ transmission systems. 

Thirdly, the reduction of school utility bill costs can result in redirecting funds into the classroom. In reference to this point, our 

school district spends $3.2 million annually on gas and electricity. 

This represents over 20 percent of our facility operation budget and 

almost two percent of our entire district budget. Like all school systems, we continue to be challenged by both budgets and taxpayers 

to find ways to reduce operation of costs in our district. 

And, fourth, reducing our reliance on utility rates and ongoing 

rate increases, trying to reduce the tax impact on local communities. As utility costs increase over the long term, school districts, 

the largest taxing body in most communities, can realize budget reductions as they migrate towards renewable energy systems as the 

primary means of their energy sources. 

These bullet points speak to the need for long-term vision regarding how we approach our reliance on energy sources, obviously, not 

just in our educational market, but all market segments. From the 

perspective of the educational market, I have witnessed the grow-
17

ing pledge by educational leaders to better understand and implement sustainability in school communities. As I discuss sustainability with my colleagues in various school districts and related industries, a common theme emerges: ‘‘Green is good.’’ Our commitment to invest in technologies and systems that have a beneficial 

impact to our environment are evident in what we in the school industry have achieved to date. 

I share with you in this testimony some positive green initiatives 

we have implemented in our school district. Collectively, they have 

produced significant financial savings and continue to reduce our 

usage of gas, electricity, and water. However, these initiatives continue to rely on the consumption of non-renewable resources. We 

are charged with continuing to optimize efficiencies in our building 

system and operations, but we recognize that, long term, we will 

begin to see diminishing returns on our investments into non-renewables. 

In the case of our LEED-certified high school, which was designed in early 2000, the district explored opportunities for incorporating renewable energy systems, such as solar panels. However, 

the return on investment at first cost, as well as physical constraints, met us when incorporating this technology into the 

project. Our desire to continue to explore other renewable opportunities in current and future projects is encouraged by dialogue such 

as that in today’s hearing. For example, renewable rate design concepts supplied large scale to demonstration of employment problems in the educational market can positively impact price points 

on the rate of technologies and systems. 

The time for renewable resource wide-scale applications is no 

longer futuristic thinking. It is a technology knocking on our front 

doors. I would be remiss if I did not point out the myriad of other 

benefits that result in creating a long-term, green-schooled environment. There is substantial research that supports the correlation 

into the green schools, and improves student health, decreased absenteeism, improved student performance, and operating cost savings. 

Additionally, evidence points to green schools increasing teacher 

retention, increasing property values, and, in general, providing a 

conduit for collaborative ventures within the community. 

These benefits underscore the significance that the emerging 

green technologies play in our learning environments. We thought 

about what this Committee is charged with, and feel that your continued advocacy for renewable resource technology development 

and market deployment can have real impact for the 60 million 

children and adults that enter school buildings every day. Articulating the vision that would bring these technologies into the educational community demonstrates a commitment to our future generations. 

I want to thank this Committee again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LOPEZ

Sustainability is the balance of economic, environmental and social objectives in 

ways most likely to create long term value, without taxing the resources on which 

we depend. 

This report discusses the implementation of a long range strategic initiative for 

sustainability in the secondary learning environment. In general, it focuses on the 

opportunities available for those in educational leadership positions to influence and 

shape policy and decision making at a local level, while relying on resources made 

available through a broad array of funding and R&D sources. 

Three key components that define the success of a comprehensive initiative for 

sustainability include:

1. Educating decision makers and stakeholders on the relevance of sustainability.

2. Developing a strategic approach to creating healthy learning environments 

with available resources.

3. Defining a long range plan to reduce the dependency on non-renewable resources.

Educating decision makers and stakeholders on the relevance of sustainability 

There are many factors that can impact the success (or failure) of a school district 

wide initiative, not the least of which is the means by which the message is communicated. Without the awareness and support of the senior leadership in a school organization, the program will not generate the impetus necessary to initiate the steps 

to succeed. In the case of sustainability, the factors to be communicated include an 

acknowledgment of global impact, budgetary impact, impact to the learning environment, and educational opportunities in the classroom. 

The Global Impact of our decisions on how we build, renovate and operate facilities is tremendous: Buildings consume over 40 percent of the energy used in our 

country, and account for 38 percent of carbon emissions. 70 percent of electricity in 

the United States is consumed by buildings. As a nation, we use 5 billion gallons 

of water per day to flush toilets. The air pollution created from burning fossil fuels 

used to heat and generate electricity for buildings has an enormous negative impact 

on our health, environment and property. Recognizing the direct correlation between 

decisions we make at the local level (gas, electric and water consumption), and the 

global impact of these decisions, demands one to reflect on the value we can create 

through environmental stewardship. Our decisions relating to facilities in the school 

community share these consequences to the environment. 

As reported in Kats’ study (2006), a green school could lead to the following annual emission reductions per school:

• 1,200 pounds of nitrogen oxides, a principal component of smog.

• 1,300 pounds of sulfur dioxide, a principal cause of acid rain.

• 585,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas.

• 150 pounds of coarse particulate matter (PM10), a principal cause of respiratory illness and a contributor to smog.

By choosing to build, renovate and operate green schools, we assert our commitment to being conscientious leaders in our communities. 

The Budgetary Impact to a school district on how they build, renovate and operate 

their facilities is equally impressive: The United States will see nearly $90 billion 

in K–12 school construction between 2010 and 2012, according to estimates by 

McGraw-Hill Construction, a leading national construction forecaster. Many school 

decision makers across the country will weigh the cost and value of implementing 

sustainable features in their projects. According to the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC), school districts can save 30 to 40 percent on utility costs each 

year for new schools and 20 to 30 percent on renovated schools by applying sustainable, high performance design and construction concepts. Using less energy than 

conventionally designed schools, sustainable schools not only have lower utility bills, 

they also have the potential to lower market-wide energy costs by reducing demand 

(Kats, 2006). Additionally, the potential payback to the nation’s power grid is enormous if schools invest in upgrading the energy performance of their new and existing facilities. 

When considering implementing sustainable features in the design of new and 

renovated facilities, evidence suggests that there is a first cost premium to going 

green. This is the result of specifying higher quality materials and construction, and 
19

more efficient building systems. However, over time, these systems demonstrate a 

favorable return on investment, both in terms of healthier indoor environments and 

savings in energy and water. A 2006 study of 30 green schools nationwide showed 

that a 2 percent increase in first cost, about $3 per square foot, paid back $10 per 

square foot in energy and water savings over the course of the buildings’ service 

lives (Kats, 2006). 

Probably the most relevant information to communicate regarding sustainability 

in a learning institution is the Impact to the Learning Environment. A significant 

amount of research has been published correlating student performance and health 

benefits to the learning environment. Healthy schools have been shown to improve 

student focus, retention, and test scores; enhance teacher performance; and lower 

absenteeism among students and teachers. 

Among these studies, a report published by Air Quality Sciences titled ‘‘Green, 

High Performance Schools’’ (2009) cites the following examples of school specific 

studies relating positive impacts from improving the indoor environment:

‘‘An analysis of two school districts in Illinois found that student attendance 

rose by 5 percent after incorporating cost-effective indoor air quality improvements’’ (Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign 2000).

‘‘A study of Chicago and Washington D.C. schools found that better school facilities can add three to four percentage points to a school’s standardized test 

scores, even after controlling for demographic factors’’ (Schneider 2002).

‘‘A recent study of the cost and benefits of green schools for Washington State 

estimated a 15 percent reduction in absenteeism and a 5 percent increase in 

student test scores’’ (Paladino & Company 2005).

Many other studies supporting the positive correlation between student performance and the environmental condition of school facilities can be found in publications from the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities and the United 

States Green Building Council. 

Incorporating Educational Opportunities in the Classroom can further underscore 

the relevance of sustainability; by integrating our sustainable strategies in an educational forum, we pass on our commitment to environmental stewardship to future 

generations. The important point to make here is that sustainable education needs 

to be an integral part of the curriculum, not an amendment to it. Teachers face a 

myriad of challenges educating students on a standard curriculum, on a daily basis; 

adding to their course load may not improve the overall learning experience of the 

students. So a successful approach should weave sustainable elements into a well 

balanced curriculum.

Developing a strategic approach to creating healthy learning environments 

with available resources 

One of the greatest challenges facing school districts today is balancing diminishing financial resources with the operational needs to run the district. Staff salaries and benefits, curriculum, transportation, food service, and facility operations all 

compete for dwindling funds from taxing bodies. The challenge for many school districts has been to develop creative approaches to providing educational support services while trying to minimize the impact to the classroom. When it comes to facility 

management and other support services, making wise investments and decisions in 

the infrastructure and capital improvements helps the district mitigate its operational costs. 

In the case of Valley View School District (in a collar county of Chicago), developing a comprehensive approach to energy and environmental management was key 

to alleviating the rising costs associated with the operation of an expanding school 

district. Faced with a growing population in the late 1990’s, the district embarked 

on an extensive expansion program, resulting in the construction of several new 

schools and renovations to existing facilities. The construction of a new high school 

in early 2000 enabled the district to apply sustainable features to a flagship project 

for the district, resulting in the first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified school in Illinois, and the fourth certified high school in 

North America. Bolingbrook High School opened its doors to students in August 

2004, and has served as a catalyst for subsequent sustainable development in the 

district. 

In 2009, the school district gave definition to its sustainable program by terming 

it the Comprehensive Energy and Environmental Management Initiative (CEEMI). 

Through the CEEMI program, the district has developed a road map for implementing sustainable projects and initiatives that have resulted in substantial savings and improvements to the district. 
20

The attached presentation has been used as a tool to share with various stakeholders and communities, the positive impact sustainable measures have had on the 

Valley View School District. [see attachment].

Defining a long range plan to reduce the dependency on non-renewable resources 

The ultimate goal of a comprehensive energy and environmental management 

program should be to reduce the reliance on non-renewable energy sources. The 

aforementioned ‘‘strategic approach to creating healthy learning environments with 

available resources’’ is a viable measure to mitigate energy consumption, but as a 

long term permanent plan, it has its limitations. As indicated in a report to the 

110th Congress, ‘‘economic and environmental concerns—namely energy security, 

international competitiveness, high energy prices, air pollution and climate 

change—are now driving policy proposals to support renewable energy R&D and 

market deployment’’. 

Given the daily challenges school districts face in educating our children, it is difficult for school leaders to focus on long term strategic energy initiatives which rely 

on promising technologies, such as wind, solar and biomass. Nonetheless, as major 

consumers of energy in our country, school districts throughout the nation can have 

a positive influence in efforts to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. The 

benefits that can be derived from leveraging the school communities’ assets are tremendous:

• Reduction of carbon emissions on a national scale

• Reduction of capital investment needs for utility companies, by reducing the 

load on utility grids

• Reduction of school utility bill costs, which can redirect funds towards the 

classroom

• Reduction of need for local tax increases associated with utility costs for 

school systems

Many states have recognized the benefits of green design in public facilities by 

legislating new school construction to be LEED certified. Using this concept as momentum for long term planning, educational leaders should partner with current 

and future energy research programs that lead to innovative applications of renewable resources on a large scale. For example, Illinois recently passed legislation that 

allows school districts to form consortiums to build wind turbines to generate power 

off site, and receive credit from utility companies at current costs of electricity. 

Strategies such as this save taxpayers’ dollars, preserve educational spending for 

the classroom, benefit the global environment, and demonstrate to children and families the importance of environmental stewardship. A continuation of this type of 

legislation, based on on-going research and development of emerging technologies, 

is vital to achieving long term initiatives in the school environment. 

The opportunity for educational leaders to participate in the discussion and application of renewable energy technologies has immeasurable value, and will allow 

learning environments to share in a legacy of sustainability.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL LOPEZ

Mr. Lopez is a licensed architect with 26 years experience in the design and construction of educational, institutional, commercial, and residential buildings. He 

graduated with a professional degree in Architecture from the University of Notre 

Dame in 1984, and has worked for several architectural and corporate firms over 

the course of his career. Additionally, he served as an adjunct instructor for Purdue 

University Calumet for several years, teaching courses in their Department of Construction Technology. 

Prior to his current position, Mr. Lopez was a Senior Project Manager with Wight 

& Company, a multi-disciplined architectural and construction management firm. 

While at Wight, he was involved in the design and construction of Bolingbrook High 

School, the first LEED certified school in Illinois. 

In 2008, he became Director of Facility Operations for Illinois’ Valley View Community Unit School District, a district comprised of 20 schools from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, with a student population of 18,000, and a staff of 2,500. 

Mr. Lopez is responsible for the school district’s ‘‘Comprehensive Energy and Environmental Management Initiative’’, or CEEMI, a comprehensive approach for creating a sustainable environment for the district’s 2.5 million square feet of facilities 

and 463 acres of green space. 
21

Mr. Lopez is a member of the International Association of School Business Officials, a member of the United States Green Building Council, and a member of Rotary. He is a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited 

Professional. He is registered with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, and is licensed to practice architecture in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. 

Mr. Lopez is married to his wife of 25 years, and has three children, including 

one college graduate. He resides in Munster, Indiana.

Mr. CARNAHAN. I next want to recognize Mr. Cheifetz for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL CHEIFETZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, INDIE ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY, LLC 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carnahan, 

Representative Biggert, staff, guests, other panelists. My name is 

Daniel Cheifetz. I’m the CEO of Indie Energy Systems Company. 

We’re a leading developer of smart geothermal technology systems 

for heating and cooling buildings by integrating them with their 

on-site geothermal energy resource in a way that decreases the cost 

of adoption and radically increases energy efficiency. We are a private company headquartered in Evanston, Illinois. Forty percent of 

our staff is in R&D and engineering, while another 40 percent is 

in our high-tech geothermal energy field construction division. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on a subject that is important, hopeful, and exciting. How can we realistically integrate our built environment with on-site renewable energy? I hope that, in the written testimony, I’ve given enough detail 

for you. I’d like to summarize. 

Our goal, as a company, is to develop technologies to change the 

price performance curve so that on-site renewables can become de 

facto standard in our built environment. We have created a set of 

technologies for on-site geothermal energy systems for buildings: 

building-ground simulation technology, a real-time data network 

for measurement and verification, smart servers that use real 

world, rich data for ongoing dynamic control and extreme energy 

optimization, and technology to lower the construction costs of geothermal energy fields while improving quality and feasibility. 

We have focused on defining and improving the applications of 

on-site geothermal to national retail, multi-unit residential, educational, and corporate campuses, health care, and a number of 

other market segments, both new and retrofit, standalone, and district. Some of them perhaps you’re familiar with. North Central 

College in Napierville. There’s a Walgreen’s that just opened in 

Oak Park, Illinois. There is a wonderful, senior, affordable, multiunit facility in Pilsen, all of which are great examples of how geothermal can feasibly and practically be applied in a wide range of 

buildings. 

They are replicated across the country. Each of these applications represents billions of square feet of buildings that will generate returns on investment of billions of dollars a year while creating thousands of jobs. This is an integrating technology since no 

one company can, or should, try to do this themselves. So we’ve created a technology that can be embedded in the practices and products and services of other organizations; architecture, engineering, 
22

construction firms, building automation systems, as well as national research initiatives. 

While the technology can be applied domestically and can be exported internationally, one of the interesting things about geothermal as a renewable technology is that it must be built on site. 

Energy fields cannot be built somewhere else and shipped here; 

they need to be built where the buildings are. As we grow this industry, it cannot be outsourced or off-shored. Local workers will 

build local geothermal properties in their own communities. 

To bring this about, we need applied R&D focused on delivering 

incremental breakthroughs in the short term. They would attract 

capital to projects and products, and have an almost immediate effect on job creation. One of the areas of this R&D that’s really 

needed is in the construction of the geothermal energy field itself. 

Because no matter how much additional efficiency we can squeeze 

out of the system, and no matter how much we are able to reduce 

costs with hybrid systems and new materials, the physical construction of a geothermal energy field will remain the largest barrier to adoption, since that is where the greatest incremental cost 

is incurred. 

The R&D required to produce semi-automated, high-speed production drilling equipment are based on, actually, things that already exist. It would be quickly amortized over the billions of dollars of value that they would generate. There’s no doubt that this 

equipment will be developed and manufactured somewhere. Our 

question is, ‘‘Why can’t we do it?’’ In a sense, that’s the whole idea 

of our hope, amongst these panelists, and what we can do together. 

The foundation’s been built. More work will be done by ourselves 

and other companies, but this is a great opportunity to pool our efforts and get some things done. Science is needed, for sure, but not 

rocket science. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cheifetz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL CHEIFETZ

Good morning Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member Biggert and Members of 

the Subcommittee, staff, and guests. 

My name is Daniel Cheifetz. I am the CEO of Indie Energy Systems Company. 

Indie Energy is a leading developer of smart geothermal technology systems for 

heating and cooling buildings by integrating them with their on-site renewable geothermal energy resource in a way that decreases the cost of adoption while radically 

increasing energy efficiencies. We are a private company headquartered in Evanston, Illinois. Forty percent (40%) of our employees are in R&D and engineering, 

while 40% are in our high-tech energy field construction division. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on a subject that is important, hopeful, and exciting. 

I have been asked to address four areas:

1. Examples of geothermal integration projects, including the demonstration 

project that was a recipient of a U.S. Department of Energy competitive 

funding award

2. The Smart Geothermal technology Indie Energy has developed to enable 

widespread adoption of geothermal-based heating and cooling systems for the 

built environment

3. The state of the market and the need for innovation
23

4. R&D recommendations for the Committee to consider related to the adoption 

of integrated geothermal systems in individual buildings as well as campus 

and district systems

Selected current projects
24

Selected current projects

Smart Geothermal TM Technologies 

The following breakthrough technologies have driven Indie Energy’s market leadership in the Chicago metropolitan area:

1) RightSize TM energy field and hybrid mechanical system designs that deliver 

the lowest build cost with the highest energy efficiency.

2) ProvenGround TM turnkey energy fields utilize the Company’s exclusive drilling technology, which provides a dramatically higher standard for quality, 

speed, and cost of construction.
25

3) GeoPod TM measurement and verification systems monitor the Smart Geothermal system remotely, in real-time, and provide cost and carbon savings 

information, dashboard displays for owners and public, and maintenance 

alerts.

4) EnergyLoop TM controls and adaptive optimization systems provide ongoing 

improvements in cost savings and energy efficiency by controlling the dynamic interactions between the building, ground and grid.

The Potential of Onsite Geothermal and the Need for Innovation 

For decades, we have known a lot about geothermal for heating and cooling buildings. 

We have known that geothermal energy exchange is an effective, renewable way 

to significantly reduce heating and cooling costs and greenhouse gas emissions. 

We have known that anything that can be done with an HVAC/R (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration) system can be done with a geothermal system—a mechanical system that couples the building with the ground. 

We have known that geothermal-based heating and cooling has been successfully 

used in every climate, and in every building type. In fact, a DOE report at the end 

of 2008 stated that these systems ‘‘. . . use the only renewable energy resource that 

is available at every building’s point of use, on-demand, that cannot be depleted (assuming proper design), and is potentially affordable in all 50 states.’’

However, what we know is not always consistent with what we do. Less than onetenth of one percent of buildings make use of their onsite earth resource for heating 

and cooling. It is as if our rooms are still illuminated by kerosene lamps because 

we have not been able to deploy a technology for electric lighting. 

This is due to technical, financial, and educational gaps. Innovation is the key to 

bridging those gaps, and Indie Energy’s mission is to develop and deliver the technology innovations needed to enable a widespread transformation of our built environment to one much more healthy economically and environmentally through the 

use of smart geothermal technology systems.

Beyond First Generation Geothermal 

Compared to conventional, first generation geothermal, Indie Energy Smart Geothermal TM technology provides substantial economic benefits on two fronts: lower 

build cost, and radically higher operating efficiencies. Indie Energy has developed 

high-resolution state-of-the-art technology for understanding the dynamic thermal 

exchange between the building, its use, and the earth (the geothermal energy field). 
26

1Galst, Liz, NY Times, With Energy in Focus, Heat Pumps Win Fans, August 13, 2008 2 Hughes, Patrick, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Geothermal (Ground-Source) Heat 

Pumps:Market Status, Barriers to Adoption, and Actions to Overcome Barriers, December, 2008 3http://elpc.org/2010/10/19/report-of-the-clean-and-renewable-energy-working-group-released

This has allowed Indie Energy to develop and prove a range of innovative products 

and solutions for simulation, measurement, verification, control and optimization 

which are currently powering Indie Energy’s turnkey systems and which can also 

be embedded by channel partners in third-party-built systems. 

These innovative technologies enable extremely energy efficient geothermal heating and cooling systems whose performance can be proven. Even more importantly, 

these technologies overcome the most significant barrier to adoption 2—the high first 

cost of the system with inadequate return on investment. 

Indie Energy has proven its enabling, embeddable technologies for integrating onsite renewable geothermal energy in millions of square feet of commercial, public, 

and institutional geothermal building systems, both new and existing, in the Chicago metropolitan area. 

A number of R&D initiatives have been undertaken: 

Indie Energy has been awarded a $2.45 million matching competitive grant by 

DOE to demonstrate what the DOE called its ‘‘transformative technologies’’ at a retrofit of a 166,000 square foot, three-building campus. Some of the technologies demonstrated are a district system (in which one geothermal energy field is shared by 

three buildings), Indie Energy’s GeoPod TM for real-time measurement and 

verification utilizing a moving baseline, and Indie Energy’s Smart Geothermal Network TM and EnergyLoop TM Controls. 

In order to help develop standards for smart geothermal system technology, Indie 

Energy has engaged the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to evaluate its GeoPod TM

technology. 

In order to assist in the development of shared research databases, Indie Energy 

is working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to make Indie Energy’s 

Smart Geothermal Network TM available to researchers and projects nationwide. 

In order to push the envelope in materials science to develop breakthroughs in 

thermal transfer and storage media, Indie Energy has entered into an R&D relationship with the University of Illinois at Chicago. 

In order to advance the state of the art in geothermal energy field construction, 

Indie Energy has entered into a multi-year joint R&D agreement with GeaWelltech, 

the Swedish manufacturer of the specialized geothermal drilling equipment used by 

Indie Energy.

Is There a Market? 

There is no well-defined onsite geothermal heating and cooling industry in 2010. 

Rather, it is a fragmented landscape populated by engineering and architecture 

firms, drillers, HVAC installers, and equipment manufacturers with occasional 

ESCO and utility companies making appearances. 

There are many data points and trend lines that point to the possible emergence 

of an industry that could drive large scale growth of an onsite geothermal industry 

for renewable heating and cooling: 

In 2005 the geothermal heat pump market was a $2.5 billion industry 1 in the 

United States. Since then, there has been significant growth driven in large part 

by rising energy costs, policy changes for greenhouse gas curtailment, and federal 

tax incentives passed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Manufacturers of geothermal heat pumps shipped 36,439 units in the U.S. in 2003, and 63,683 

units in 2006. Data posted in 2005 show more than 600,000 geothermal heat pumps 

in operation in the U.S. alone. 

A market report published by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008 suggests 

that geothermal technology for heating and cooling buildings could become a major 

contributor to the national energy policy movement, with the potential to save $38 

billion annually in energy costs 2. The report identifies key technologies required for 

this to take place. (These are the technologies that Indie Energy has developed and 

proven.) 

The City of Chicago Climate Action Plan has recently (September 2010) published 

recommendations of the Environmental Law and Policy Center’s Clean and Renewable Energy Working Group 3 that the City undertake geothermal projects for one 

hundred million square feet of existing buildings over the next ten years to reduce 

0.271 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. While Indie Energy discounts these 

figures in its own projections of near-term market size, they suggest that the poten-
27

tial market in the top ten metropolitan areas in the U.S. is approximately $4 billion 

for its Smart Geothermal TM technology alone. 

A Way Forward through Applied R&D 

I come out of the software industry. We bet our futures on exponentially accelerating price performance ratios. We saw the power of DARPA and the resultant 

Internet. It’s the technology wave my company rode, and if you have ridden a wave 

like that, you get to feel its characteristics in your bones. Renewable energy and 

clean technology is such a wave. 

As Ray Kurzweil has pointed out in his Law of Accelerating Returns, ‘‘. . . technology, particularly the pace of technological change, advances (at least) exponentially, not linearly, and has been doing so since the advent of technology, indeed 

since the advent of evolution on Earth.’’ And that rate of exponential growth itself 

grows exponentially. 

About half of the growth in the U.S. GDP since World War II is related to the 

development and adoption of new technologies. That fact has not been lost on the 

rest of the world. So, it’s not a question of whether there will be technological 

change in onsite renewable energy technology, or even when it will start. It has 

started in earnest in many places around the world that are starting to ride up the 

exponential innovation curve. The only question is whether we in the U.S. will participate before the curve gets too steep for us to earn our place as technology pioneers once again. 

In addition to longer term, very high dollar ‘‘pure’’ research, we can achieve exponential improvements with a combination of additive steps as long as we think and 

design with a whole systems approach, and as long as we are not driven so much 

by the competition of others as by the prospect of a competing, unhappy, alternate 

future. 

To bring this about we need a significant portion of our nation’s R&D to be applied R&D, focused on delivering incremental breakthroughs in the short term. 

These are breakthroughs that could be market-ready Of not ‘‘shovel-ready’’) and 

quickly move into the supply chain. They would attract capital to products and 

projects and have an almost immediate effect on job creation. 

Here are some of the things that are opportunities for onsite renewable energy 

integration: 

We would like to see low-grade-heat combined heat and power engines that we 

can plug into our systems to make them more energy efficient and the grid smarter. 

We would like to see variable speed compressors; better heat exchangers; and low 

temperature (140F and below) heating systems standards so that systems can be 

incrementally more efficient and feasible for demanding applications. 

We expect more—in fact we are planning on seeing more—in-building wireless 

sensor and actuator networks from companies such as EnOcean so that we can implement more affordable systems and healthier, more productive, ground-coupled 

buildings. 

Even relatively simple things like infrared smarter ‘‘thermostats’’ that can measure more than just dry bulb temperature would help us and our engineering and 

architecture partners create more comfortable and efficient micro zones in buildings 

that we could then interactively balance with all the other energy flows in the building and between the building and ground. 

All these things will further enrich our building/energy simulation technology, 

populate our Smart Geothermal Network with real-time data for measurement and 

verification while providing our EnergyLoop TM Engine with rich data for ongoing 

dynamic control and extreme energy optimization. 

Additional investments need to be made in technology to lower the construction 

cost of geothermal energy fields while improving quality. No matter how much additional efficiency we can squeeze out of a system, and no matter how much we are 

able to reduce costs with hybrid designs and new materials, the physical construction of the geothermal energy field will remain the largest barrier to adoption since 

that is where the greatest incremental cost is incurred. It is indicative of the underdeveloped state of onsite geothermal that almost without exception the equipment 

(drill rigs and compressors) used to construct the geothermal energy field has not 

seen a significant technological breakthrough. The R&D required to produce semiautomated high-speed production drilling equipment would be quickly amortized 

over the billions of dollars of value that they would generate. There is no doubt that 

this equipment will be developed and manufactured somewhere. Why not here?
28

Wherefore Art We? 

It is not clear at this point if onsite renewable energy for buildings has found its 

real home in Washington D.C.. ARPA–E is a terrific new entity, but it may be more 

oriented to the ‘‘pure and big’’ than the ‘‘small, distributed, and now’’. Onsite geothermal has had an identity crisis vis-a`-vis geothermal power, but it is not clear 

how well its relocation to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s 

(EERE) Building Technologies Program is working. Wherever the program ends up, 

it should lose the ‘‘Geothermal Heat Pump Program’’ tag. As instrumental as some 

of the equipment manufacturers have been in getting incentives for ‘‘GHP systems’’, 

developing a real science and industry to integrate buildings with onsite renewable 

geothermal energy will not get the support it needs if it continues to be thought of 

as a collection of ‘‘heat pumps’’, ‘‘wells’’, and ‘‘loops’’.

Conclusion 

It used to take twenty years for a new technology to really become ubiquitous. 

We don’t have twenty years for this new technology to become the standard for how 

we build our new buildings and fix our existing ones. Fortunately, this is not the 

kind of disruptive innovation that requires a whole new delivery mechanism, or the 

unseating of historical incumbents. This new energy infrastructure plugs into almost all the engineering, architectural, and construction channels that exist. These 

are channels that are actually motivated by, and have a hunger for, breakthroughs 

that can be effectively and pragmatically designed and delivered to their clients 

with lower risk than the status quo. This is not a technology where we have to create the need in order to build demand. The need is recognized, and there is a huge 

pent-up demand. 

Indie Energy has created a set of technologies that enable the widespread adoption of onsite geothermal renewable energy systems for buildings. It is an 

embeddable technology that can work with the offerings and practices of engineering and architectural firms. In fact, that kind of collaboration is how many of our 

projects came about in the Chicago area. While the technology can travel, geothermal energy fields must be built onsite, where the buildings are—they cannot be 

built somewhere else and then shipped here. As we grow this industry, it cannot 

be outsourced or off-shored. Local workers will build local geothermal properties in 

their own communities. It will take a number of decades for us to fix our existing 

building stock; by then, we will be building new buildings again, and the standard 

for their mechanical systems will be based on onsite renewable smart geothermal. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you here today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DANIEL CHEIFETZ

Daniel Cheifetz, CEO and Founder, Indie Energy Systems Company

Mr. Cheifetz is an experienced technology entrepreneur, whose achievements include a leadership role in the successful IPO of Open Text (Nasdaq: OTEX) in 1996. 

With more than 30 years of executive leadership in technology companies, he brings 

an extensive track record to the growing clean energy industry.

Experience 

Indie Energy Systems Company, CEO 2006–present 

Open Text (OTEX), Exec. VP, Development, Board member 

Odesta Systems Corporation, Founder and CEO

Education 

Grinnell College, BA

Mr. CARNAHAN. And next, Dr. Chamberlain. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. CHAMBERLAIN, DEPARTMENT 

HEAD, ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH, 

ENERGY STORAGE INITIATIVE LEADER, CHEMICAL 

SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thanks. Good morning, Chairman Carnahan, 

Congresswoman Biggert, and Committee staff. My name’s Jeff 

Chamberlain. I am the Department Head for Electrochemical En-
29

ergy Storage and Energy Storage major initiative leader at Argonne National Laboratory. I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry 

from the Georgia Institute of Technology. And, before I came to Argonne, I worked as a researcher, developing products for private industry at Cabot Microelectronics, now Oak Chemical, and Angus 

Chemical Company, now owned by the Dow Chemical Company. 

I’m honored to be here to talk with you today about the need for 

energy storage technology for renewable energy systems for on-site 

generation, both for individual buildings and small communitybased systems. Thank you for inviting me to this hearing to offer 

my testimony. Thank you, also, for holding this particular hearing. 

The questions you are asking are critically important. A portfolio 

of renewable energy balanced with nuclear and coal-generated 

power, combined with the electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet, 

will ultimately enable a new era of energy security for the citizens 

of the United States, as well as have an enormous impact on America’s economic prosperity and our environment. 

I’ll first answer your query directly now, then supply some more 

background with the remainder of my time. There is, indeed, a gap 

in the research portfolio in the U.S. and the need for energy storage technology for on-site renewable energy generation. This gap 

could be filled by a coordinated research effort across the national 

labs, and connected directly to industry. The research that is being 

performed in the U.S. and around the world for this application is 

essentially aimed at testing existing technologies that were developed for other applications. Specifically, for example, batteries that 

are used in automobiles may be repurposed, at the end of their useful life, for transportation as stationary batteries. 

The second example is that modules from large, megawatt systems that are being developed with a grid are also being tested for 

the smaller scale applications in question. But it is vital to perform 

research to develop technology directly for a given application. For 

example, small, light-weight, lithium ion batteries have been developed for portable application, such as for cars and electronics. 

While the implications and technology needs for the stationary systems are different, size and weight are not nearly as important for 

stationary applications. Here, efficiency, durability, and cost are 

the main drivers. 

Some energy storage solutions for stationary applications include 

large tanks of chemicals, called flow batteries, where we see the 

pumping of entire lakes where the water inclines for later electricity generation as it is passed, using gravity, through a turbine. 

The point is, not all energy storage technologies are the same, and 

it is not sufficient to hope that a technology developed for one application might fill the need of another. 

Right now, the U.S. is a world leader in developing energy storage technologies for vehicles, thanks to our investment in energy 

technology research at the Department of Energy’s national laboratories. At Argonne, Lawrence Berkley, and other national labs, we 

invent new materials using both theory and experiment scaled at 

their useful level, put them in battery cells, and test them. The 

battery technologies developed at Argonne are being used by industry to power electric cars that will soon be on the road. BASF, Toy-
30

ota America, and the Silicon Valley start-up Columbia systems are 

already basing to commercialized materials developed at Argonne. 

Looking forward, we expect our technology to power millions of 

cars in the coming years, and expect our continuing research to 

bring down the price of those cars while increasing their range in 

power. However, the United States has not made the same continued investment in larger battery technologies intended for both 

grid scale and on-site stationary applications. We do perform worldclass research developing systems that generate electricity from 

wind and solar sources, but we do not currently have the technology to save that electricity to light, heat, and cool the buildings 

at the times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. 

The work we’ve done on transportation scale batteries is useful 

in creating larger energy-scaled storage systems, to a point. We’re 

working to validate battery technologies that have been developed 

for other applications. For example, car batteries that reach the 

end of their useful life in a vehicle might still be useful for stationary applications. But that approach, although it may yield 

some useful results, is not as effective as full-scale research and development addressed in energy storage as a whole, from cell phone 

batteries all the way up to grid storage. 

Right now, we have real gaps in our storage research portfolio, 

and we cannot fill those gaps without large-scale, long-term, wellfunded, and well-coordinated research programs that bring together the best and most innovative scientists and engineers in 

academia, industry, and the national laboratories. The good news 

is that, at present, no other countries have succeeded in creating 

large-scale energy storage technology. Japan, Korea, and China are 

ahead of the U.S. in developing large, coordinated R&D efforts to 

address the stationary energy storage need. Even so, we have a 

real opportunity to take international leadership in this field, 

which has been identified as a $200 billion opportunity, as I noted 

in my written testimony. But we must act swiftly and efficiently to 

create a nationwide, fully coordinated effort to address energy storage at every level, with a portfolio that’s balanced across need and 

across laboratories and universities, and coordinated with industry. 

And the funding for this research must reflect the scope of our mission and the potential value of this technology to our national security, our economic future, and our environment. 

Lastly, we already have a model of success through DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program and EERE. A variety of research projects 

have been funded across the laboratory complex and coordinated 

with industry in a way that is resulting in commercialization of enabling storage technology for transportation applications. A comparable program can be and should be developed throughout the 

Department of Energy, with a focus on stationary energy storage 

systems. The seeds for such an effort are already coordinated 

through the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

Ultimately, success will require fully funded, long-term, national 

vision of a fully integrated system at every scale. 

I’d be pleased to answer any questions from the Committee. 

Again, thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chamberlain follows:]
31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. CHAMBERLAIN

It is widely recognized that the continued and increasing reliance on fossil fuels 

by the citizens, businesses, and government organizations in the U.S. is not sustainable over the long term. One concept that is gaining popularity among scientists and 

engineers, businessmen, and policymakers is that of integrating renewable energy 

generation into a distributed use model, in which sun and wind energy is converted 

into electricity and used locally, at scales from individual buildings up to and including communities that include both buildings for residential and business or government use. 

There are a wide variety of technologies and business models that are being considered to enable the adoption of an integrated, on-site energy generation and use 

model. Energy must be harnessed, either by solar cells and arrays, or by wind turbines, and then either inverted from DC to AC for immediate use, or stored for later 

inversion and use. ‘‘Smart grid’’ technologies are also capable of being used to ensure efficient use of energy, and the individual buildings and communities must still 

be integrated effectively into the larger regional grid. Although there are significant 

complexities regarding the integration of the various required technologies, the attractive prospect of reducing overall energy consumption as well as significantly reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is driving both policy makers and businesses 

around the world to carefully examine and develop both the technologies and the 

business models needed to make on-site renewable energy generation and use a reality. 

Below is a simple diagram (figure 1), illustrating the essence of a Cornell project, 

‘‘CU Green,’’ (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May08/cugreen.hawaii.aj.html) 

developed for an experimental setup in Hawaii in June 2008. Even in this simplistic 

illustration, one can see the importance both for new technology development, as 

well as the importance of integrating the technologies across the system.

This testimony focuses on one aspect of the variety of technologies needed to enable the adoption of on-site renewable energy integration: Energy Storage. In figure 1, outside of the battery in the PHEV, there is a notable lack of energy storage 

listed as a requirement for this microgrid environment. Taken from the European 

Union Microgrid Project, figure 2, below, shows in great detail the complexity and 

variety of energy storage technologies that can be used in on-site renewable energy 

generation. Note the wind and solar indicators in the lower left-hand corner, and 

how the energy can flow into various storage devices for end use. Of course, no single system will have this great number of energy storage devices, but this particular 
32

European project was set up to test the various technologies available on the market 

today.

The role of Energy Storage in on-site renewable energy generation. 

At its essence, the main role of energy storage in on-site renewable energy generation is to mitigate the intermittent nature of electricity generated by conversion of 

sun or wind energy. Power generated by coal-burning or nuclear plants is ramped 

up and down according to consumer demand. Such is not the case for either wind 

or solar energy conversion, and, in the case of on-site renewable energy generation 

without the ability to store energy, the consumer would be left only having useful 

electricity when there is either substantial wind or sun to convert to electricity. 

When an effective energy storage technology is integrated into the on-site generation system, electricity generated by the solar or wind conversion can be stored and 

used when the demands warrants its use. 

As storage technologies are adopted for on-site renewable generation, they will be 

used for other applications as well, thereby increasing the total value of both the 

investment into the systems’ development and the value of the systems themselves. 

Energy storage systems that will be of use to the microgrid application can also be 

used for grid load management and as back-up power supplies for communities. If 

integrated to the grid properly, utilities will be able to use battery systems to store 

electricity generated during off-peak periods to supplement demand during highpeak usage. Likewise, such energy storage systems can also be used during power 

outages or during natural disasters to supply electricity when grid operation is interrupted. 

The table in figure 3, below, shows in detail the relative value of storage technologies in grid applications. This table is from an article by John Peterson, of Alt 

Energy Stocks, entitled ‘‘Grid-Based Energy Storage; a $200B Opportunity.’’ Peterson’s estimates are based in great part on the 2010 Sandia report, entitled ‘‘Energy 

Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential Assessment Guide; 

a Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program,’’ by Jim Eyer and Garth 

Corey, of Sandia.
33

The information presented in the table, and the extensive study by Eyer and 

Corey, show both the tremendous economic value of storage for the grid, and the 

wide array of valuable applications in the grid. The salient take-home points of the 

information in figure 3 are:

1) assuming adoption of energy storage technology onto the future grid, the economic value of such technology is over $200B

2) the value of storage technology for on-site renewable generation (contained 

in rows 15, 16, and 17) are relatively modest, but still in the billions of dollars

3) most research in the area of storage for the grid focuses on on-grid applications, not off-grid (or tangent-grid) applications as would be the case for storage for on-site renewable energy generation.

Energy Storage R&D for transportation applications: useful for the grid? 

As the automotive industry moves from purely internal combustion propulsion to 

hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and pure electric vehicles, businesses are 

commercializing new battery technologies that go beyond the standard lead-acid 

technology used by consumers today. OEMs have successfully integrated nickelmetal hydride (NiMH) battery systems into HEVs (e.g. Toyota Prius or Ford Escape 

Hybrid), and are beginning to integrate lithium ion batteries into some HEV applications as well (e.g. Johnson Controls-Saft lithium ion batteries for Mercedes’ S400 

hybrid). For PHEV and EV applications, OEMs are adopting a wide variety of lithium ion battery technologies. Notable and timely examples include the Chevy Volt 

and the Nissan Leaf, both of which are entering the market at the end of 2010. Both 

cars contain advanced lithium ion battery packs for propulsion. 

Research at the DOE National Laboratories, and around the world, is ongoing in 

a race to develop the best performing lithium ion battery technology, to enable full 

penetration of PHEV and EV automobiles into the consumer market by decreasing 

cost and improving the performance of the battery systems, in terms of how much 

energy can be safely stored and retrieved in a given battery. 

For over 40 years, Argonne has been a leader in performing research into electrochemical energy storage systems. Notably, this research has focused in the last 10–

14 years on lithium ion battery systems, including basic materials research and development, systems and cost modeling, diagnostics of materials and systems, and 

performance testing of electrochemical cells and complete systems. Argonne also 

evaluates the performance of hybrid electric systems in vehicles as a complete system. 

DOE’s battery research programs managed by the Office of Vehicle Technologies 

in EERE span multiple national laboratories as well as universities and industry. 

Through DOE’s programs, Argonne works in concert with Lawrence Berkeley Na-
34

tional Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as the Army Research Laboratory, NASA, 

and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Likewise, the National Laboratories involved in 

DOE’s battery research programs interact directly with industry, from materials 

suppliers like Dow Chemical, DuPont, 3M and BASF, to battery manufacturers such 

as Johnson Controls, A123 and Ener1, to the OEMs (GM, Ford, Chrysler), through 

the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC). 

The work performed by the group above has a primary focus on developing and 

testing new materials for advanced battery systems for use in transportation applications. Separately, DOE, though the Office of Electricity, has a variety of funded 

programs focused on enabling known technologies for use in a variety of stationary 

applications, mostly at megawatt scale. 

Many businesses are now working to determine the technical and financial potential for aftermarket use of these large car batteries, particularly for grid storage. 

The concept is that, 1) at the end of useful life in an automobile, a lithium ion battery still has the capability of storing energy, but not in a useful way for automobile 

propulsion, and 2) by extracting further value from the expensive battery system 

(currently between $5000 and $15,000), the upfront cost of the battery system can 

be offset, and in a way subsidized by the extraction of value at the end of its useful 

life in a car. 

A pertinent example (figure 4) of such an effort is being made by General Motors. 

GM has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with ABB Group, a 

Swiss-Swedish consortium, to investigate and quantify the value of a ‘‘used’’ Chevy 

Volt battery system for application on the grid (Energy Matters, September 22, 

2010).

This serves merely as one example of how the automotive and battery industries 

are rapidly moving to determine if their automotive batteries can cross over for effective use in grid applications. In the U.S., A123 Systems (an MIT startup), Johnson Controls (world’s largest battery maker), and Ener1 (an Indianapolis battery 

maker) are all working quickly to adapt their battery technologies either for direct 

use on the grid, or for after-market use, when the effective life in an automobile 

ends. Outside the U.S., Panasonic-Sanyo, GS Yuasa, and NEC in Japan, and LG 

Chem, Samsung, and SK in Korea, as well as Lishen and ATL in China are all 

working quickly toward adapting their vehicle-use batteries for grid application. 

In all likelihood, advanced batteries intended originally for use in automotive applications will have use and value in grid applications, including for individual 

buildings. However, this current focus by advance battery manufacturers and OEMs 

exposes the primary weakness in the U.S.’s R&D portfolio aimed at filling the energy storage need for on-site renewable electricity generation: the PHEV and EV 

battery systems were developed specifically for transportation applications, where a 

primary driver in the technology development is energy density, both gravimetric 

and volumetric. Batteries for electric cars must be as lightweight and small as pos-
35

sible. However, for on-site, stationary applications, the size and weight of the battery system is of significantly less importance. Instead, efficiency and cost are the 

primary drivers for stationary applications.

Energy Storage research for stationary applications is primarily focused on 

demonstration projects 

As the U.S. endeavors toward net-zero communities, including on-site renewable 

energy generation and energy storage, the question arises: what is the best technology for storing energy locally, for individual buildings or small communities? 

To answer this question, DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

and DOE’s Office of Electricity have sponsored multiple projects across the laboratory complex and directly with industry. For example, as a result of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, DOE formed the National Laboratory Collaborative on Building Technologies, in which Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, NREL, Oak 

Ridge, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are to work together on building 

efficiency improvements, including investigating energy storage as part of the answer. A more direct example is the case in which DOE has funded American Electric Power in Ohio, to install at test a 25-kW lithium ion ‘‘neighborhood’’ battery to 

reduce strain on the grid during peak load demands. Likewise NEDO in Japan has 

sponsored similar demonstration projects that utilize known lithium ion and flow 

battery technologies for microgrid applications. Separately, DOE’s Office of Electricity actively participates in the international cooperation known as Energy Conservation through Energy Storage, or ECES. European, North American, and Asian 

governmental offices participate in the activity. 

Figure 5 below (Gil Weigand, Oak Ridge, in Green Car Congress, May 5, 2010) 

illustrates how on-site renewables generation will fit into an overall net-zero neighborhood architecture. Note that there are several places and needs for energy storage technology. One technology alone will not fill each of these needs.

In every example project described above, the primary objective seems to be to determine whether a known technology can be utilized for grid and microgrid applications. Technologies being tested and validated include lithium ion, lead acid, sodium 

sulfur thermal systems, pumped hydro, flywheel, ultra capacitor, sodium metal halide, and flow batteries. Until very recently, the primary focus around the world in 

energy storage for stationary applications has been an attempt to apply or adapt 

known energy storage technologies for these emerging applications. During the last 
36

several years, efforts have begun, to enable fundamental research on new materials 

and systems aimed specifically for use in stationary applications. These efforts are 

relatively small; this is where the largest gap exists that would prevent the most 

effective adoption of storage technology for on-site renewable energy generation. 

DOE’s Office of Electricity has begun to fund small materials research projects at 

Sandia National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and DOE’s 

ARPA–E has funded over 10 new high-risk, high-reward materials-based projects 

aimed specifically at stationary storage applications. One example is 24M technologies, a spin-out from A123, with Professor Yet-Ming Chiang, MIT, as a founding 

partner. This project aims to develop entire new battery systems for both transportation and grid applications, starting from fundamentally new developments in materials physics and chemistry.

Coordinated Research and Development can address the existing gap 

The opportunity before us today is to perform groundbreaking research to develop 

innovative, efficient, and low-cost energy storage technologies that will enable the 

most effective use of on-site renewables generation. The clear gap in our research 

in the U.S., and even across the globe, is that almost all materials research has 

been aimed either at transportation applications, or at megawatt-sized stationary 

applications. 

State of research in U.S. for stationary storage for buildings and small communities:

- there are already multiple programs

- focus is on adapting automotive technologies, and integrating megawatt-scale 

technologies (e.g. pumped hydro)

- focus exists on integration technologies, modeling, ‘‘smart’’ grid creation

- Lacking: direct work on new energy storage technologies

Europe’s programs—same gap as U.S. 

Asian programs—same gap as U.S.

In both Europe and Asia, though, it appears there is a more advanced strategy 

for coordinating the effort with respect to storage. 

It is the opinion of the author that the best method for addressing the gaps described above is to combine a new strategic investment by DOE in research and development in the U.S. focused directly at the development of energy storage systems 

for buildings and small communities, and, importantly, to coordinate the research 

effort effectively with the resources already available to DOE. Specifically, the talent 

and skills needed to develop advanced energy storage technologies, from inception, 

to modeling and theory, through materials and systems development, and performance and full utilization testing, already reside in the DOE National Laboratory system. Also, there a both startups and large-cap businesses ready to commercialize 

any technology developed in the laboratories. If developed and managed properly, 

R&D funds could be utilized with great efficiency, if the various organizations 

worked in concert, collaborating toward a singular, well-defined mission. Further, 

a particular project on energy storage for on-site small-scale stationary applications 

could be incorporated into a larger, coordinated national effort at developing knowledge and technology for energy storage across a large variety of both stationary and 

portable applications.
37

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY P. CHAMBERLAIN

Department Head, Electrochemical Energy Storage 

Energy Storage Major Initiative Leader

Jeffrey Chamberlain is the Manager of the Battery Research Department in Argonne National Laboratory’s Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. The work 

in the battery department at Argonne spans from the basic materials science for discovering and designing new materials, to modeling new electrochemical systems, to 

engineering operating test cells, all the way to testing of materials, cells, and entire 

energy storage systems. The battery testing facilities are world-class, and serve as 

a lead lab for DOE in performance analysis for advanced batteries. 

Jeff also is the leader of the laboratory-wide Energy Storage Initiative. The work 

involved is coordinated into four research areas: Advanced Battery R&D, Process 

Engineering for pilot-scale studies of battery materials, Energy Storage studies for 

power grid management, and Energy Storage R&D in advanced power train systems. 

Prior to joining Argonne, Dr. Chamberlain performed industrial research at several companies, notably Cabot Microelectronics, Nalco, and Angus (purchased by 

Dow), focusing his work on the chemistry at the interface between suspended metaloxide particles and their surrounding solutions. Products developed from Jeff’s work 

in industry have been applied in semiconductor processing, coatings manufacture, 

and mineral processing. 

Dr. Chamberlain studied vacuum-based surface chemistry at the Georgia Institute 

of Technology, and received his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. Prior to his graduate 

studies at Georgia Tech, Jeff received his Bachelors of Science in Chemistry from 

Wake Forest University.

Mr. CARNAHAN. And, finally, Ms. VanGeem. 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA G. VANGEEM, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER 

AND GROUP MANAGER, BUILDING SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY, CTL GROUP 

Ms. VANGEEM. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before 

you today. I will be speaking to you on the genesis of the renewable-ready requirements and their advantages and disadvantages 

in the ASHRAE USGBC/IES Standard 189.1, the standard for the 

design of high-performance green buildings. I’ve been a member of 

this committee, responsible for drafting the language in the Standard, since its inception in 2006. 

However, today, I’m speaking for myself and not for ASHRAE or 

the Counsel. 

The intention of the renewable-ready provision in the Standard 

is to assure that building design includes a plan to accommodate 
38

future installations of common renewable energy systems, such as 

PV, solar, thermal, and wind. The renewable- ready requirements 

were appealing to the Committee because renewable energy is expensive and, therefore, less cost- effective when compared to other 

energy-saving measures required by the Standard. While cost-effectiveness was not a criteria for requirements in the Standard, the 

future usability of the Standard is somewhat dependent on practicality and economics. 

The Committee Members and the public had a spectrum of views 

on this issue, from not having a mandatory requirement, due to 

their cost, to mandating a portion of energy from all buildings be 

renewable. Those in favor of renewable energy requirements said 

they were in place in some European countries, and that the way 

to drive down cost is to mandate it. Furthermore, in order to meet 

the goal of net-zero energy buildings, on-site renewable energy will 

be necessary. 

Requiring a small amount now will cause designers to start incorporating on-site renewable energy systems, and experience will 

be gained. The renewable-ready requirements were included as a 

compromise provision. The basis of this was that, once a building 

is constructed, the future installation of renewable systems could 

be prohibitively expensive, even if the costs of the renewable systems decrease. 

Installation of these systems as a retrofit is more expensive if the 

initial building design did not account for the additional structural 

loads or did not provide readily available space for the renewable 

system, its pathways, conduit, and piping. 

In addition, the structure of the Standard lent itself to the renewable-ready requirement compared to a rating system such as 

LEED. In a rating system, it’s straightforward to have a point that 

requires on-site renewable energy. The user of the rating system 

can then decide whether or not to implement on-site renewable energy. It’s the user’s choice. 

In a standard written in mandatory language, such as 189.1, if 

on-site renewable energy is in the mandatory section, it’s required 

for all buildings and is not a choice. Although the requirement was 

based on PV arrays on the roof, other methods of meeting the requirement include PV arrays within fenestration and on opaque 

walls, PV arrays on racks above parking or on window shades, 

solar-thermal hot water systems located on roofs or elsewhere on 

the site, or wind turbines designed for use on roofs or on the 

ground. 

Recognizing that some building projects do not have sufficient access to solar resources, an exception was added for buildings located in areas without a certain amount of annual solar energy for 

buildings or for buildings shaded by other buildings or structures, 

by hills, by mountains, or by trees. This exempts portions of Western Oregon and Washington, the upper Midwest, New England, 

and buildings on shaded sites. 

Some of the advantages or disadvantages of renewable- ready 

have been discussed. It is also challenging to design for a renewable energy system before that system is chosen. 
39

1The SPC became a Standing Standards Project Committee (SSPC) after the standard was 

published in early 2010. I was a member of SPC 189.1 and am now a member of SSPC 189.1.

The requirement will encourage the least expensive renewableready pathways in infrastructure, and not necessarily the method 

that is most appropriate or cost-effective for that building. 

Another disadvantage is that the term ‘‘associated infrastructure’’ in the Standard is not specifically defined. It’s not clear how 

much detail needs to be included in the design or on the design 

drawings. 

Renewable-ready can be viewed as an interim solution. The 189.1 

Committee made a consensus decision on how far they could reach 

with a green building standard given the current state of renewable energy technologies, including their costs and designer awareness. 

The country’s goal should be that the entire sunlit surface of all 

future buildings be a converter of sunlight to electricity or hot 

water. 

In summary, the renewable-ready portion in ASHRAE 189.1 is a 

compromise position between cost effectiveness and the ultimate 

goal of having on-site renewable energy in all buildings. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. VanGeem follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA G. VANGEEM

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I will be speaking to 

you on the subject of ‘‘renewable ready.’’ I will discuss the genesis of renewableready requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1–2009, Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings, as well as its advantages 

and disadvantages. 

I have been a member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and Standards Project Committee (SPC) 1 189.1 

(the committee responsible for drafting the language in the standard) since its inception in 2006. I have been a member of ASHRAE since 1984 and have been involved in standards project committee work at ASHRAE since 1987. However, today 

I am speaking for myself and not for ASHRAE nor the SPC 189.1. 

Renewable ready—What does this mean? 

‘‘Renewable ready’’ in ASHRAE 189.1–2009 requires that the building site include 

provision for future installation of renewable energy systems. Specifically, the language from ASHRAE 189.1–2009 states:

7.3.2 On-Site Renewable Energy Systems. Building projects shall provide for 

the future installation of on-site renewable energy systems with a minimum 

rating of 3.7 W/ft2 or 13 Btu/h ·ft2 (40 W/m2) multiplied by the total roof area 

in ft2 (m2). Building projects design shall show allocated space and pathways 

for installation of on-site renewable energy systems and associated infrastructure.

Exception: Building projects that have an annual daily average incident solar 

radiation available to a flat plate collector oriented due south at an angle from 

horizontal equal to the latitude of the collector location less than 4.0 kWh/

m2 · day, accounting for existing buildings, permanent infrastructure that is not 

part of the building project, topography, or trees, are not required to provide 

for future on-site renewable energy systems. 

© ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1–2009, Standard for the Design of 

High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 

Inc. (www.ashrae.org).

The intent of this provision is to assure that the building design includes a plan 

to accommodate future installations of common renewable energy systems such as 
40

2The committee before publication had up to 34 members with some being added and removed 

at various times. The meetings of the committee were open to the public. Four public review 

drafts of the standard received over 2800 comments from interested parties. 3 It is not a guide or guideline, which often contain advice, considerations, or background information. ASHRAE will soon publish a user’s manual for ASHRAE 189.1–2009 with this type 

of guidance. 4www.iccsafe.org

5www.usgbc.org

photovoltaic, solar thermal, or wind. By definition in ASHRAE 189.1–2009, on-site 

renewable energy systems also include geothermal energy but not the energy associated with ground-source heat pumps. The requirement is for the building design 

documents to indicate the space, pathways, conduit, and piping for the planned future renewable energy system.

Why a requirement for renewable ready and not a renewable energy requirement? 

The Compromise. The renewable ready requirements were appealing to the 

committee because renewable energy is expensive and therefore less cost effective 

when compared to other energy-saving measures required by the standard. While 

cost-effectiveness was not a criteria for requirements in the standard, the future 

usability of the standard is somewhat dependent on practicality and economics. The 

committee members and the participating public2 had a spectrum of views on this 

issue—from mandating that a portion of energy from all buildings be renewable to 

not having a mandatory requirement due to the cost of these systems. The renewable-ready requirements were included as a compromise position. 

The basis of this compromise position was that once a building is constructed, the 

future installation of such systems could be prohibitively expensive even if the costs 

of the systems themselves decrease. Installation of these systems as a retrofit in an 

existing building is more expensive if the initial building design did not account for 

additional structural loads or did not provide readily available space for the renewable system and its pathways, conduit, and piping. Accounting for structural loads 

and providing space for these systems in initial building design reduces the cost 

compared to adding them to the building in the future. In addition, the capital costs 

of renewable systems are expected to decline as their use increases. Costs are anticipated to decrease due to production on a larger scale and technological improvements that are gained from mass scale production. 

Mandatory provisions versus a rating system. In addition, the structure of 

the standard, with mandatory, prescriptive, and performance requirements, lent 

itself to the renewable-ready requirement compared to a rating system such as 

LEED–NC©. 

ASHRAE 189.1–2009 is written in mandatory language3 so that the requirements 

are clear and it can be adopted by building codes and used in design specifications. 

ASHRAE 189.1–2009 is currently a jurisdictional compliance option of the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) TM, which is a model code under development by the International Code Council (ICC) 4. As a document in mandatory language, ASHRAE 189.1–2009 differs significantly from the LEED© 5 family of pointbased rating systems wherein one or more points are achieved for implementing a 

measure. In point-based rating systems, any particular measure generally does not 

need to be implemented. Historically, the least expensive measures are implemented 

and more expensive measures are ignored. 

Conversely, codes or standards written in mandatory language generally have two 

paths. All projects must comply with either (1) all mandatory plus all prescriptive 

requirements (the prescriptive path), or (2) all mandatory plus all performance requirements (the performance path). The prescriptive path generally offers a simpler 

method of compliance with little or no calculations whereas the performance path 

often involves complex calculations. 

In a rating system, it is straightforward to have a point that requires on-site renewable energy requirements. The user of the rating system can then decide whether or not to implement on-site renewable energy; it is the user’s choice. 

In a standard written in mandatory language, such as ASHRAE 189.1–2009, the 

implications are different than in a rating system. If on-site renewable energy is in 

the mandatory section of the standard, it is then required for all buildings complying with the standard and is not a choice. ASHRAE 189.1–2009 has a requirement in the prescriptive section 7.4.1.1 for on-site renewable energy systems (with 

an exception for shaded buildings) but no such requirement in the mandatory or 

performance sections. 
41

Previous unpublished versions. The 189.1 committee through ASHRAE released four drafts for public review. The 2nd public review draft included a mandatory requirement for on-site renewable energy power systems:

7.3.2 On-site Renewable Energy Power Systems. Building projects shall 

contain on-site renewable energy power systems with an electrical rating not 

less than 1.0% of the service overcurrent protection device rating. The rating 

of the on-site renewable energy power system shall be the nameplate rating in 

kVA (dc).

Exceptions to 7.3.2:

(a) Building projects with an on-site solar water heating system that provides 100% of the domestic hot water needs or has a peak capacity 

equivalent to not less than 2.5% of the service overcurrent protection 

device rating for the building project. The system shall be certified in 

accordance with SRCC OG–100.

(b) Building projects that demonstrate compliance using the Performance 

Option in 7.5 and provide any combination of energy cost and CO2e sav- ings achieving a minimum of 10.0% total. 

© ASHRAE Proposed Standard 189.1P, Standard for the Design of 

High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Second Public Review, February 2008, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

(www.ashrae.org).

This required that (1) approximately 1% of the energy use of the building be renewable, (2) as an exception, approximately 2.5% of the energy use be solar-thermal 

(at the solar-thermal peak) or solar-thermal provide all of the hot water needs, or 

(3) as an exception, the building had to save additional energy. In response to comments from the public reviews and a change in some of the members of the committee, the committee changed the language to the current language in the 2009 

standard, previously cited. 

Although it must be recognized that each member of a committee votes yes or no 

for a particular reason that is generally not documented, the issues with the mandatory language from the 2nd public review were threefold. 

First, to many on the committee, the requirement for on-site renewable energy 

was a severe cost burden. These members expressed opinions that each dollar that 

could be invested in on-site renewable could be invested in other energy-saving 

measures that were much more cost-effective. Those in favor of mandatory renewable energy requirements expressed opinions that mandatory on-site renewable energy requirements were in place in some European countries and that the way to 

drive down costs of renewable energy is to mandate it. Once mandated, costs would 

come down due to volume efficiencies and technological gains as demand increased. 

Furthermore, in order to meet the goal of net-zero energy buildings, on-site renewable energy will be necessary. Therefore, requiring a small amount now will cause 

designers to start incorporating on-site renewable energy systems and experience 

will be gained. 

Second, the alternative requirement for 2.5% solar-thermal in the first exception 

seemed like a large amount for some buildings. Also, the requirement for 100% of 

the hot water demand seemed problematic for times when and locations where the 

solar-thermal has traditionally been required to have conventional back-up hot 

water. 

Third, the alternate requirement for increased energy savings in the second exception meant that a whole building energy analysis would need to be performed. Without this provision, the standard allowed a prescriptive path that did not require a 

whole building energy analysis. These analyses generally cost at least $30,000 and 

often considerably more. It also seemed burdensome to require these analyses for 

building projects that did not have adequate access to solar or wind resources—the 

most common sources of renewable energy. 

As a result, the committee developed the renewable-ready text in the mandatory 

section as a less-expensive, compromise position. Since the prescriptive section has 

requirements for on-site renewable energy (with an exception for shaded buildings), 

the only way to avoid using on-site renewable energy generation when using 

ASHRAE 189.1–2009 is to use the more complicated energy performance path.

More on what renewable ready requires 

The phrase ‘‘renewable ready’’ does not occur in the mandatory requirements in 

section 7.3.2 of ASHRAE 189.1–2009. To meet the mandatory requirement, provided 

above, the building design drawings must show allocated space, pathways, and asso-
42

ciated infrastructure for generating electricity or solar-thermal of 3.7 W/ft2, as a 

minimum rating, multiplied by the roof area. 

Whereas the 2nd public review draft considered approximately 1% generation of 

energy from on-site renewables as sufficient, the requirement in ASHRAE 189.1–

2009 is based on how many photovoltaic arrays could reasonably be placed on a roof. 

This was calculated by assuming that photovoltaic arrays generate approximately 

8 to 10 W/ft2, and that slightly less than 50% of the roof area is available for photovoltaic arrays, assuming the other 50% of the roof space is for pathways and mechanical equipment. Although the calculation is based on photovoltaic arrays on a 

roof, the renewable energy source can be placed anywhere on the site. For a onestory building, the 3.7 W/ft2 requirement can be 30% or more of the energy use of 

the building. For some one-story buildings, the renewable-ready requirement is 

three times more than that required in the prescriptive path. ASHRAE is currently 

in the process of changing the renewable-ready requirement so that it does not exceed the requirement in the prescriptive path in section 7.4.1.1 of ASHRAE 189.1–

2009. 

Although the requirement was calculated based on photovoltaic arrays on the roof, 

other methods of meeting the renewable-ready requirement include provisions for:

• Photovoltaic arrays within fenestration and on opaque walls, although these 

systems are generally not as efficient as optimally oriented systems on a roof

• Arrays on racks above parking or on window shades

• Solar thermal hot water systems located on roofs or elsewhere on the site

• Wind turbines designed for use on roofs or on the ground

The renewable-ready design for photovoltaic arrays, solar thermal hot water systems, and wind turbines must account for the additional structural loads of these 

systems. Solar-thermal systems require the design of associated tank(s) and piping 

between the collectors and the tanks. Wind turbines on roofs require the structural 

design of the building accommodate the appropriate loads and serviceability requirements, including lateral loads, torsion, and vibration. 

Pathways from the energy source to the electrical panel (or to the point of hot 

water use for solar-thermal) are required. For photovoltaic arrays, this requires 

identifying pathways for the conduits from the arrays to the inverter, and then from 

the inverter to the electrical panel. Shading of one portion of an array can lead to 

significant losses in power generation from other arrays when they are connected 

in series. Therefore, shade is an important consideration when designing a photovoltaic system.

Exception to the renewable-ready requirement 

Recognizing that some buildings projects do not have sufficient access to solar resources, an exception was added for buildings located in areas without specified 

amounts of annual solar energy and for buildings shaded by other buildings or 

structures, hills or mountains (topography), or trees. Specifically, it exempts building projects that have an annual daily average incident solar radiation, measured 

a specific way, of less than 4.0 kWh/m2 · day. This exempts portions of western Oregon and Washington, the upper Midwest, and New England, as shown below.

Additional advantages and disadvantages 

In addition to the advantages and disadvantages of renewable-ready previously 

discussed, it is challenging to design for a renewable energy system before that system is chosen. The renewable-ready requirement will encourage the least expensive 

‘‘renewable ready’’ pathways and infrastructure and not necessarily the renewable 

energy method that is most appropriate or cost effective for that building. Another 

disadvantage is that the term ‘‘associated infrastructure’’ in the standard is not specifically defined. It is not clear how much detail needs to be included in the design 

or on the design drawings. 

Renewable ready can be viewed as an interim solution. The 189.1 committee made 

a determination on how far they could reach with a green building standard given 

the current state of renewable energy technologies—their costs, designer awareness, 

existing laws, and financial incentives. To meet the longer term objective of on-site 

energy generation, the U.S. government could support greater research in photovoltaic cells that can be applied/installed as the surface for all building materials, 

with the possible exception of vision glazing. The country’s goal should be that the 

entire sunlit surface of all future buildings should be converting sunlight and daylight in general to power (e.g. electricity) or thermal energy (e.g. domestic water 

heating or swimming pool heating). 
43

The U.S. government could also require that all new federal buildings, as well as 

substantial remodels to existing buildings, have on-site renewable energy power 

generation. This percentage could be steadily increasing over time. 

In summary, the renewable-ready option in ASHRAE Standard 189.1–2009 is a 

compromise between cost-effectiveness and the ultimate goal of having on-site renewable energy in all buildings.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARTHA G. VANGEEM

Martha VanGeem is a principal engineer and manager of CTLGroup’s Building 

Science and Sustainability Group. She serves as a project principal investigator and 

specialized in-house consultant in the areas of green buildings and infrastructure, 

energy efficiency, energy codes, thermal mass, mass concrete, and moisture migration. Since joining CTLGroup in 1982, her experience has included over 500 large 

and small consulting, testing, and research projects. Ms. VanGeem has investigated 

moisture problems and performed energy analyses for numerous concrete, steel and 

wood framed buildings. In the area of sustainability, Ms. VanGeem serves as principal investigator on LEED TM projects and others, and has developed environmental 

life-cycle inventories (LCIs) and life-cycle assessments (LCAs) of cement, concrete, 

and other construction products. Ms. VanGeem is a licensed professional engineer, 

a LEED TM Accredited Professional, and a Registered Energy Professional for the 

city of Chicago. She received her bachelor’s degree of civil engineering from the University of Illinois–Urbana and her MBA from the University of Chicago. She is a 

member of many energy and green building standards committees including 

ASHRAE energy standards (SSPC 90.1 and SSPC 90.2), ASHRAE/USGBC/IES High 

Performance Green Building Standard (SSPC 189.1), the GBI Green Building 

Standards Energy and Resources Subcommittees, ACI 130, and ASTM E60. She presents on various aspects of green buildings on a regular basis, and has authored 

93 articles and published reports. Two of her articles have won awards—the Charles 

C. Zollman Award from the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute in 2006 and the 

F. Ross Brown Award from Construction Canada in 2005.
44

DISCUSSION

Mr. CARNAHAN. And I want to start. I’ll recognize myself for five 

minutes to start, and then we’ll switch back and forth between myself and Congresswoman Biggert. 

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND JOB CREATION

I guess I want to focus a little bit on what Mr. Cheifetz’s talked 

about with regard to impact and the economy. I think it’s important. We all talk about so many benefits. We’ve heard about benefits to the kids in school, to the environment, the bottom line of 

companies. I guess the thing I want to ask—and I’ll start with Mr. 

Cheifetz, since you make the point so well—the impact on the economy and jobs and local firms. We’ve seen lots of statistics about so 

many of the technologies and equipment that have been put in 

these high-performance buildings and pilots that are made by U.S. 

small companies. And the more we’re encouraging the use of these 

products, the more telling those small companies are in their creating of jobs, and the multiplier effect of that. But I guess I want 

to ask every one of you to just focus on the job creation possibilities 

that are involved with many of these technologies, and how we’d 

be best to run that. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Thank you. Our view of it, and our experience, 

has been that these systems drive a lot of jobs in a lot of different 

areas. They drive direct construction jobs. What we’re doing is that 

we’re taking people who are now, let’s say, underemployed in the 

construction sector, and whether it’s retraining water well drillers 

to do geothermal, whether it’s getting construction people back in 

the field to do work, these projects get people back to work and create new jobs, because we’re talking about a new kind of energy infrastructure, and new skills and jobs are required. We’ve seen that 

with our own experience here in the Chicago area. 

At the same time, it pulls a lot of work from existing trades. The 

folks who do HVAC work are doing retrofits. All these things have 

an additive effect that is significant in terms of job creation. In addition, we create jobs in engineering and technology, as well, because as you heard, we invest a lot in our own folks to develop the 

instrumentation and systems that are needed. And then, as we enable other firms that we work with to get back to work and do 

more work, that just brings more people to the table. It seems that 

there’s no question that we want and need these technologies. 

We’ve just been waiting to see how we can do it. As we unlock that 

door, we’re going to see thousands, we think tens and tens of thousands of jobs, being created in rather short order. 

We’re not talking about a new infrastructure that has to be put 

in place to transmit energy. We’re not talking about something that 

has to be created over five or ten years. And we’re not talking 

about systems that require long payback periods. The payback periods of the systems, especially with the American Recovery and Investment Act incentives, are now under five years. So, even the 

most risk-averse and capital-constrained firms, whether public or 

private, see their way to make this investment in a very short 

term. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Start with Mr. Ostafi. 
45

Mr. OSTAFI. I think one of the interesting things about renewable 

energy is that many of these systems are manufactured all over the 

world, I think the least of which is here in the United States. I 

mentioned, and other people on the panel here have mentioned, the 

manufacturing process of renewable energy. Let’s take PV, for an 

example. If it could be optimized and made more efficient, could we 

possibly be manufacturing more solar panels here in the United 

States as opposed to being manufactured in China or elsewhere? 

I think the manufacturing process of PV is one of the reasons it 

makes it so expensive. So, if there are some technological breakthroughs that can allow us to make that process less expensive, 

bring more of those panel manufacturers here in the United States, 

I think that’s an opportunity to create more jobs. I think you can 

take that argument and apply it towards wind turbines, curtain 

wall system facades, and many other things mentioned here today. 

But that’s certainly an opportunity to bring more jobs here. 

On the installation and maintenance side, a lot of these systems 

require people with skills that don’t necessarily translate from traditional mechanical and electrical and ventilation system opportunities. So, is there a way to train new workforce that specifically 

has knowledge for portable tanks or for wind turbines for solar 

thermal applications? So that they can verify commission and install those different systems here in the U.S. and create new jobs 

for our diverse new use of componentry? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I see my time is up, so I’m going to recognize 

Congresswoman Biggert for five minutes. 

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION TO COMMERCIALIZATION

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just thinking back, and having been on the Science Committee 

since 1999, it’s taken a while to get to this point where you’re all 

here and we’re hearing so much about the environment and the 

high-performance building, which is great. But, again, I’d like to 

know—well, I know we did the EPAct in 2000—that was a bill in 

2005, which really was looking at the alternatives of alternative energy and how we were going to do this. And I can remember having 

a meeting at Argonne with the then-Secretary Bodman and looking 

at the fuel cells and how big they were and saying, ‘‘How soon can 

you get them small enough to, you know, fit in a car?’’ And I think 

talking about the fuel cells and the stationary fuel cells was kind 

of like maybe we skipped that and we went right to vehicles and 

how to do that. 

And this is off story, but what can we do now to really move forward with this in this economy to really—what’s happening why 

we aren’t—you know, this is so important now that people, I think, 

realize in the school districts and people that are, you know, building a home are realizing they can do more, and the commercial 

buildings. But how do we get from the demonstration technology? 

You know, we always talk about, in the—so many of the companies 

that are starting, and they’ve got their research labs and universities or are developing themselves, but then they get to what we 

call the value gap. You know, the demonstration, but they can’t 

quite push over to the commercialization of these technologies, and 

some of them go under because of lack of capital. So, how do we 
46

move from that to—and I don’t know who wants to try and get into 

that, but——

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. I’ll take a stab at that. That’s a very big question. I think that’s why we’re all hesitating here. Thanks for that 

question. 

Coming from industry into the laboratory, I notice that same 

gap, and several of us notice that same gap; that valley of death 

that exists, particularly for high-technology products like the ones 

in this field, and also particularly when you look at the difficulty 

of the economy that we’re in currently. 

My personal belief is, the answer is investing in a way that’s sensible. And by that, what I mean, particularly coming from a laboratory perspective, is if Congress, through the Department of Energy, 

continues to invest in technologies like the ones described in the 

panel today, it can be done in a way that directly engages industry 

to shorten that gap, to bridge that valley of death, to encourage the 

collaboration directly with industry and the performance of R&D. 

That, in short, would be my answer to a number of ideas that are 

methods and vehicles that are contractual vehicles that are demonstrated to move high-tech R&D at Argonne and other labs and 

universities directly to industry through one-on-one collaborations. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. It was interesting what you said in your testimony, that we’re really trying to use technology that was developed 

for something else to make it apply to something rather than starting with an idea and carrying it through for that particular need. 

How can we change that? I—you know, we’ve had the America 

COMPETES Act, and we passed that out of our Committee and out 

of the House, but it hasn’t gone through the Senate, and probably 

will not this year as we start over again. That’s, you know, where 

we really are looking at; the innovation and creativity that we need 

to do this. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. If I may give it a shot. 

A few things, frankly, is that, whether you’re public or private, 

decision-makers don’t like risk and they don’t like uncertainty. So 

I think it’s great that this Committee and Subcommittee is developing a shared language and a shared vision, that people can start 

having confidence in going forward. And that’s very important, because I hate to put it this way, but when it comes to business or 

the public, when mommy and daddy are fighting, everybody’s paralyzed. 

So we need to know, as soon as possible, that we have enough 

of a consensus and a shared vision and the will to go forward year 

over year and decade after decade, if possible, to get us from here 

to there. It would help us with things like access to capital because, 

as you know, that’s frozen up right now, and it’s for that reason. 

So if we could develop a shared language that we could commit 

to that still allowed us to be faithful to our own principles, I don’t 

see why that’s not possible. If we could give the finance community 

an understanding that these are investments that we’re serious 

about and that are safe and have good returns, and if we could 

identify some specific and realistic, pragmatic things that we can 

do in common to get things done and prove them out in short term 

to build our confidence, that would bring more capital to the market in, I think, a whole new way. 
47

So it’s not a one-answer-fits-all, but I think it’s a set of small 

things that we can do. We’re in a dynamic now that’s not moving, 

and sometimes very subtle things can make a very big difference. 

If you look at this panel, you’ve got a world-class architectural 

firm, you have a true user representing schools across the country, 

you have people talking about storage technology—and we know 

that the ground is a leaky storage battery—and we have the evolution of standards right here at this one table. You have a microcosm of how we can make a difference and go forward. I think 

that’s going to be required to really, kind of, crack the door open. 

And then, with your help, I’m sure we can go forward. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Okay. Ms. VanGeem. 

Ms. VANGEEM. Well, coming from the codes and standards arena, 

I would say that you could continue to help push renewable requirements and energy codes and standards. All high-performance 

building requirements take methods that are available and not 

common and push them to be more common. 

And, as we heard, energy saved over the life of the school or the 

company can then be used to help that school do other investments, 

or help the company hire more people or do more research itself. 

So, the only other thing I could think of would be some sort of 

tax incentives or financial incentives for the buildings that do go 

ahead and do this large, initial cost; this would be helpful. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. It’s interesting that, in 2005, there were those, 

but people didn’t use them. 

Mr. Lopez. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Just from the applications that I’ve said, educating 

the end user is a key component, particularly when you’re talking 

about—you know, speaking from the school segment. They represent a large segment of our community, and then I think as they 

become educated in the benefits to renewable resources in research 

and technology, by leveraging their combined power/buying power, 

will have an influence on R&D. 

You know, just small examples, I know the Illinois Department 

of Energy currently has a LEED for Schools project, and I think 

having that component, which combines energy efficiency with the 

educational segment, I think that also tends to drive our need, recognizing that schools want to be part of that, and the industry sees 

that, and they develop based on those needs. 

But just building on a small scale. We get to our high school, we 

were interested in using highly recycled content in our products, 

and the manufacturer that produced the brick block for our building didn’t have that available at the time, but he went ahead and 

retooled his manufacturing process to incorporate a higher recycled 

content in his product, and we forwarded that and marketed that 

as part of his product. 

So I think end users, with their ability to leverage their combined resources, can make a difference on the R&D side, as well. 

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Just one follow-up to that, if I might. 

I would assume that you had a referendum. The school district? 

Mr. LOPEZ. Yes, we did. 
48

Mrs. BIGGERT. And that passed. 

Mr. LOPEZ. It did pass. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. The first time. 

Mr. LOPEZ. It passed the first time, with the highest margin the 

second time. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So you educated—the end user would be the 

homeowners. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Correct. Again, as we went through the process, it 

was an educational component for everybody involved, because it 

was early 2000, and we were fairly new, as far as the community 

and the public. And, so, a big process of implementing green technology was to educate the public to a greener use, as well as the 

senior leadership administration. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, you’re very good at it. We were at your 

school. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I know firsthand. 

I hand it back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I want to follow up on that. So, when this was sold to the voters, 

part of that incorporated the new technologies in that campaign? 

Mr. LOPEZ. It was a component—or, I mean, there was a multifaceted campaign. It was obviously new in the area to build new. 

Part of that, though, was to demonstrate how we could develop new 

efficiently and effectively. And, again, the whole challenge brought 

about through the Design Committee—at the time, I was involved 

in the design end. We brought that to the owners of the community, that we were interested in pursuing something that was cutting edge in terms of applying technologies. And, so, it was a component of the entire cell of the referendum. I think maybe it was 

not very much aware, at all, of green technology like most communities at the time, and, so, there was an opportunity there to raise 

that awareness during the course of the design process. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And I bet there are a lot of other communities 

that are thinking about this that would like to know how you did 

that. I know because, certainly, that can be the important part of 

getting community volume, which can make a big difference. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Absolutely. And, you know, you look at the—we continue to sell energy efficiency to our community. As I go around, 

I talk to the financial benefits and savings to the taxpayers. Essentially, they look at us as a consumer of their tax money, and the 

things we point out are actually savings. We have a sheet from 

year to year. Just simply last year, from 2009 to the fiscal year 

2010, we’ve seen a 30 percent savings in electric bills by employing 

new technology in our school district, and that sells well to our taxpayers. 

RENEWABLE-READY BUILDING STANDARD

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to ask the—Ms. VanGeem laid out the 

case for the renewable-ready standards, and I want to get the other 

panel members thoughts about that. 

Ms. VANGEEM. So, actually, the renewable-ready is in the mandatory part of the standard. In the prescriptive part, you’re actually required to use renewables, unless you’re in one of these 
49

shaded areas or darker areas, areas with less solar—and then you 

have to use it, unless you’re going to do the performance path, 

which requires a lot of calculations. And the same thing is in the 

IECC that just passed—the hearings were a week or so ago. The 

next version of that’s going to require either renewable or more efficient equipment or some other options. And there’s other state 

codes and municipal codes that do the same thing; that you either 

have to be renewable or do something else; such as save a lot more 

energy in the building. 

And, so, as we make those things in the options harder, renewable will become the easier choice, and I think that’s where it’s 

going. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Other panel members on that? 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Yeah. I think it’s important, from our experience, 

that the standards and regulations be driven at least as much by 

the market than by other places. We’ve seen, even with things like 

LEED, that when there’s a disconnection between the desire to 

come up with the right kind of prescriptive solution and the actual 

things, like energy efficiency in buildings, there can be a disconnect. They can also confuse the market, and what we need in 

the market is confidence, we need capacity, and we need to fix a 

fee affordable in terms of cost. And that’s where I think we need 

to be more creative about how to develop these standards in a way 

that can instill that confidence and help create that capacity. 

One thing that we can do better, for instance, is we could utilize 

the national labs, I think, in a more effective way from the private 

sector, not only in terms of using and commercializing what they 

develop on the science side, but also getting them—having them 

help us vet and educate the world about—what are the real-world 

working solutions, and how they do work. So, instead of it being 

theoretical, take it down to practical applications, where the national labs would have a lot of authority and are believed as such 

by lots of people. 

If they could look at situations where these technologies have 

been deployed, evaluate them qualitatively, and then give their objective report on ‘‘What has saved money? What’s accessible? 

What’s renewable-ready?’’ Without having to re-invent the whole 

world, we probably could start getting case studies in the marketplace rather quickly, and they won’t have to be one size fits all. We 

could have many things, but the national labs, if they could, could, 

I think, help us a lot to educate and inform the market, and help 

companies like ours quite a bit. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. Obviously, the last part I agree with, but the 

first part of your point I would strongly agree with. If the standards and needs in the long term teach the users and our government the long-term financial benefit, then there’s a real purpose for 

the standards. Even though you know I’m a scientist, I would say 

I’m a capitalist at heart. So as long as it’s correctly crafted to benefit the business, not only directly from the standards themselves, 

or policy, but also that it’s recognized and put together in a way 

that, in the long term, it really does educate the user as to the 

long-term benefit financially. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Just to the point of some standards—we’ll need 

standards as the basis for introducing the rules. I agree with the 
50

statements that it’s important to have the standards reflect the use 

of renewable technologies. I do think they shouldn’t be too prescriptive. I like the concept of where states are going towards requiring, 

let’s say, a LEED silver certification for new construction in new 

schools, and I think, again, that reflects on the interest of having 

public funds going towards something that’s a very sustainable investment. 

But being too prescriptive, saying exactly what needs to be done, 

doesn’t allow the flexibility for the design committee to come up 

with different alternatives, and sometimes even more creative alternatives, to what can be applied to a particular situation. 

RENEWABLE-READY BUILDINGS

Mr. OSTAFI. I would just like to add, I think, from a design community perspective, to this day, we still have many clients that 

want renewable energy systems integrated into their buildings, 

and, for a myriad of reasons that we have discussed today, they 

don’t get incorporated today, but they still want that ability to plug 

into renewable energy later. And I think providing renewable-ready 

standards for projects built today makes a tremendous amount of 

sense, because the last thing we want ten years from now, when 

renewable energy systems become less expensive to manufacture, 

less expensive to install, the last thing we want are a bunch of 

buildings which are obsolete, that cannot incorporate them into 

their existing infrastructure. 

So I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense, as we think 

ahead towards net-zero buildings, which there’s a big push towards 

their greenhouse gas emission inventories. I think we need buildings built today that are renewable-ready for tomorrow. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you all. I’ll go back to Mrs. Biggert. 

THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEASURES TOWARD EFFICIENT

SCHOOLS

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lopez, you are, I think, very fortunate to have such a community and be able to build a school like that, but there’s an awful 

lot of school districts that don’t have the resources to institute a 

complete range of sustainable building measures and practices. But 

they must be able to do some things to lend them to becoming 

green. How can they do that? What are some of the highest leverage or lowest cost measures that we can take to improve building 

energy use and efficiency that somebody in the building could do. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Sure. So, with regards to non-renewables, those are 

more, ‘‘Turn your lights off.’’ Simple as that. I think a lot of what 

we encounter are behavioral issues, like how people go to work and 

expectations of having a room being more comfortable than they 

might have their own house. I think when they’re home, they turn 

the heat down or they turn the lights off, but I think that behavior 

is not always prevalent in the public places or places of employment. 

And, so, kind of reteaching that or making people aware of the 

impact of that in the workforce and in the community is well met. 

Again, that’s something we’ve done recently as part of our savings. 
51

I mentioned that we saw a 30 percent reduction in our utility bills 

this last year, and a large part was just behavioral change. Telling 

2,500 employees that, you know, ‘‘We’re going to make the building 

a little cooler in the winter, a little warmer in the summer. And, 

you know, we’re going to ask that you—we’re going to start turning 

lights off for you at certain times of the day. We’re going to turn 

the computers off.’’

You know, some of these things, it’s just change in behavior. So 

there’s low or no cost to some of these implementations. And, as 

we go forward, part of this program that we have is to take those 

low-end group type of elements, try to find a substantial savings 

where we can adopt little cost, and I think, for a lot of school districts and a lot of municipalities, the employees are given initiatives such as that without a lot of cost upfront. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What would be some obstacles to these measures? 

Mr. LOPEZ. Buy-in of the senior leadership. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Uh-huh. 

Mr. LOPEZ. That’s a key component. I’m sure a lot of school districts, municipalities, a lot of commercial buildings, a lot employ 

these types of things, but if you don’t have a senior leadership or 

the senior administration on board with that, it’s difficult to implement some of these features. 

And, so, that’s sort of a process that’s part of the—what’s important to the processes is, backing the education component, is making the senior leadership or senior administration aware of some 

of the advantages of these types of elements. And I think money 

speaks when people start to hear the benefits that we derive from 

energy efficiency. It gets their attention. 

We’ve taken the show on the road, so to speak, with identifying 

energy opportunities as part of that written packet that you have. 

And you can see there’s a lot of different areas where we’re able 

to save money; simple things, like putting frequency drives on motors, looking at more efficient mechanical equipment. All these 

things behind us really save a substantial amount of money, and 

they don’t always cost a lot of money upfront. There’s a lot of room 

out there to do things before large capital investments, and that’s 

part of the message we’re trying to get out, is to know how to do 

things at low cost or no cost. 

SOCIAL-BEHAVIORAL FACTORS

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Ostafi, you emphasized in your testimony the 

human factor, the behavioral factors in a building design such as 

the use of lights and windows or opening windows. Somebody like 

the big buildings here in Chicago or wherever, you can’t open them. 

Will that change, or what are those kind of factors? 

Mr. OSTAFI. I would like to think that that will change. The reason why many high-rise buildings, for example, do not have operable windows is because the building itself is heated and cooled 

through a central system that takes care of the whole building at 

once and tries to maintain a sort of even-keel temperature and humidity in the building at all times. 

There’s also a pressure differential issue that comes into play in 

high-rise buildings that sometimes prohibits the use of opening 
52

windows, because the pressure differential between the outside atmosphere and the inside atmosphere become very different. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I think that there is a new building in Chicago, 

The Legacy, that’s being built that will have windows that open. 

Mr. OSTAFI. I think that there are ways to make it happen. You 

have to rethink the way we heat and cool large buildings. We need 

more sophisticated sensors and measurements and verification systems throughout buildings that can constantly take the pressure 

and the humidity levels and temperature at all times in the building in various locations. 

If we apply more of a zone or a systems type of look at the way 

we heat and cool individual spaces, that could introduce natural 

ventilation into buildings more. But I think, to get to your earlier 

point of the human factor, when we design buildings—engineers 

and architects—we rely on a lot of information that, quite frankly, 

is outdated. We think that people will open windows when it’s 70 

to 72 degrees outside and 60 percent humidity—you know, the perfect, ideal, human temperature conditions—and what we’re learning, as I articulated earlier—is that people open windows in much 

more extremes than that. In fact, at night, when it’s cool. 

So I think what I was getting to earlier was a lot of more current 

research needs to be done about what is truly comfortable for humans and in today’s standards and in different environments and 

different regions across the U.S., because I think that the window 

of opportunity, no pun intended, is open. Ventilated buildings are 

much broader than what we’re currently using today. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I give back. 

CURTAIN WALL SYSTEMS AND EXTERIOR GLASS

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I wanted to go back to Mr. Ostafi. You had mentioned in your 

written testimony, and oral, as well, the need for research in the 

area of curtain wall systems or exterior glass for buildings. Who is 

really doing the cutting-edge research in that right now, and can 

you describe some of those technologies? 

Mr. OSTAFI. Much to our own chagrin, the Swiss are doing the 

most innovative products in that regard, and Europe, and I would 

say that’s true for a lot of the systems that we’re talking about 

today. A lot of renewable energy systems are much more efficient 

than what we’re utilizing here in the United States exists in Europe, and they’ve been used for decades, since the ’80s. What is 

causing that leap of that technology to be incorporated into the 

United States manufacturing and our own products? I don’t have 

the answer to that. Maybe some other panelists do. 

What I was articulating about curtain wall systems earlier is a 

product that is available in Europe, and my point was that curtain 

wall systems, glass facades are the worst violator of thermal conductivity in a building, yet we like glass because it allows us to 

view and brings in natural light; all the qualitative aspects of being 

in spaces. 

So some of the innovative technologies that I see happening in 

other countries are curtain wall systems which are able to, through 

phase-change properties, absorb solar gain when it’s not needed 

and able to transmit so they’re gaining through a glass wall when 
53

it is needed. And there are ways to sort of regulate how that transfer of energy happens through a window system. There are solaroptic window systems that mitigate direct light coming into buildings which cause glare, which, again, is an uncomfortable human 

factor. 

So there are these technologies and systems that certainly exist 

and are in use, but just not cost-effective to incorporate in the 

United States. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I know, even, there’s a St. Louis-based, small 

company that has actual window shades to do some of that in 

maybe a more low-tech——

Mr. OSTAFI. Yes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. —way, but I’d be interested to hear from any of 

the other panel members about their experience or knowledge 

about those kinds of systems. 

Ms. VANGEEM. I think——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Ms. VanGeem. 

Ms. VANGEEM. Yes. I think that, as you travel abroad, or as I’ve 

traveled abroad, I notice that in Europe and in China and other 

places, each person really takes this whole concept of saving energy 

personally, and I don’t know if it’s because their disposable income 

is lower or what, but I agree that we’ve seen studies that 50 percent of energy use is behavioral, as he stated. 

And I do want to emphasize that these all-glass facades are some 

of the biggest energy hogs. And, before you asked the question, I 

was going to say that, you know, we can control the day-lighting 

just by opening and shutting the curtains and different things that 

are behavioral that we don’t do in this country. 

And, so, you can limit the amount of glazing to 20 to 30 percent 

of the window-to-wall ratio and still get enough daylight harvest 

area where you can use controls to reduce your lighting. So you 

don’t need this hundred percent glass facade; you can use 20 to 30 

percent glass, and then get enough day-lighting that you can turn 

off the lights. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Any others? 

Mr. OSTAFI. I would just add, you mentioned sort of what we 

would call passive strategies, Congressman Carnahan, and that are 

low-tech solutions to some of these problems. And we’re looking at 

ways to incorporate portable panes as solar shading devices on the 

exterior of buildings. 

So we’re constantly looking for ways for renewable energy 

sources to perform, sort of, double-duty. Can they harness energy 

and provide shading at the same time? Yes, they can, and we can 

do that. I think that’s the challenge for us as scientists, engineers, 

planners, administrators, is to look at ways for renewable energy 

systems to perform double-duty, to perform capabilities of doing 

more than just what their face value is. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. But we have to work on the double engine of market force and some regulation, because I think we’ve all had the experience of designing a beautifully efficient and also lovely building 

and have that all be value-engineered out when it comes down to 

the budget and getting the building built. And it often comes down 

to that issue, at the end, of people shaving money, and they’re 

shaving, really, the wrong thing. 
54

We have to change their perception of what they are allowed and 

not allowed to do by their tenants, by their owners, by their purchasers, by their investors, to know that they’re not allowed to do 

that anymore. Whether it’s, you know, bad glass or inefficient heating systems or poor design, cutting corners is just unacceptable. 

And now that it’s more difficult to build lower-quality things in a 

more demanding environment, that’s helping, but it’s just one of 

the things that we have to keep attention on, because, by itself, 

things sink down to the lowest common denominator in the market. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Biggert. 

NEXT STEPS FOR POLICY MAKERS

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

I guess that reminds me of just like prevention. You have prevention in health, where you’re not going to get sick or delay something if you know you have a genetic disposition to something. So 

it’s the same thing with prevention, is how you show, you know, 

the real, true savings that you’re going to have after you put the 

money in upfront, and how long will it take, I think. 

What can we do, as policymakers, to move forward faster? 

I know Congressman Carnahan and I have a bill that has been 

introduced to really showcase the federal buildings, to show energy 

efficiency, and, of course, that’s turning off the lights, but that can 

lead to a lot more than that. And we have a bill for the Personnel 

Training Act, which was to provide federal workers with the knowhow to maintain and to really sustain high-performance buildings. 

I don’t know whether it’s going to go, but hopefully. It’s also in the 

Senate, so I think that the Senate has—it’s passed the Senate, so 

hopefully we will be able to move that forward. 

But I don’t know if you know anything about the bill; if it’s a 

good policy or what other policies—there’s, you know, a few other 

bills that are out there that we’re working on. But how can we 

move forward, or what would you see that as? 

Mr. LOPEZ. Well, I mean, speaking from an engineer’s point of 

view, the market deployment is important to cost. I think making 

these technologies readily available in the market is important, because I think the community is ready to implement these. As I 

mentioned and you’ve heard up here before, cost is preventing a lot 

of us from doing that. 

We recently took advantage of a lot of grant opportunities, and 

the State of Illinois has offered a lot of nice grants, matching 

grants for funding these type of programs. And it’s actually allowing us to do things that we would not otherwise be able to do. 

For example, we’re going to put up a new chiller plant at one of 

our schools with a 50 percent match grant from the state, and 

that’s also allowed us to do a little bit more than just put in a chiller plant. We’re looking at ice generation/ice storage technology as 

a part of that. 

So, by reducing our cost by maybe 50 percent, and these other 

grant components, too, as we brought it to the CEO, reducing our 

upfront cost allows us to maybe explore some even more innovative 

approaches to what we want to do. Helping us get our costs down 

has a significant impact to how we move forward. 
55

Mrs. BIGGERT. Glad to see the State of Illinois is funding some 

of that right now. 

Mr. LOPEZ. Yeah. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Ms. VANGEEM. So, as I said in my written statement, that, as far 

as federal policy, one thing that the government could do would be 

to mandate that all federal buildings—new federal buildings or 

major retrofits—use renewable energy. 

And the concept is just to use a small percentage; you’d get one 

percent, or something like that, so that we can see what systems 

work best and are most cost effective. It doesn’t have to be, something like ten percent, which is actually what the 189 standard 

comes out to for most buildings. 

So that’s what I would recommend. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. From a policy perspective, it would be interesting 

to see you try to help the utilities stay or become more responsive 

to these issues instead of saying one thing and doing another. It 

would be useful to look at basic regulations when it comes to building and environmental safety issues, including water safety, across 

the board so it’s not different every time you step into another 

county or jurisdiction. 

It would be interesting to see you develop a more clear conversation about things like federal guarantees. Everything from the 

SBA, who, although they try to do the right thing, have problems 

at the local level. The banks not knowing exactly if they are in conformance and not knowing if they can lend more. So there are 

many small things. Take as an example the education sector, 

which, by itself, if a non-profit’s going to take advantage of the 

ARRA incentives, that suggests that one could put together power 

purchase agreements and energy supply agreements similar to 

what’s been done in other sectors already and make those systems 

available on an energy savings basis to institutions of learning. 

That’s still an area where that’s not enough understanding, even 

among large financial institutions, and they don’t have the appetite 

for looking at things on a pooled basis, project to project. 

So, again, if we could develop a set of qualitative standards 

working in concert with the labs and other people—I don’t know if, 

from a policy perspective, you can do anything to short-circuit what 

sometimes happens when we’re trying to do the right thing—but 

we have a bureaucratic situation where it has trouble doing it. So 

policy, and you create teams that try to break through those issues. 

But those are the types of things we’d like to see. 

GEOTHERMAL POWER AND DOE BUILDINGS TECHNOLOGY

PROGRAM

Mrs. BIGGERT. You said in your testimony that you weren’t clear 

how—it wasn’t clear how well the relocation of the geothermal 

R&D activities to the DOE Buildings Technology Programs. Could 

you expound on that? 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Sure. I’m sure we’re not the only renewable energy that has problems finding a home. Ours is particularly interesting because geothermal is often thought of as being geothermal 

power producing electricity, a hot-rock geothermal. And a groundsource geothermal hasn’t gotten the same attention in the place 
56

where the Geothermal Program was. Now it’s in Buildings, which 

pays a lot of attention to buildings themselves. 

So, if you’re talking, for instance, about developing breakthroughs, specialized building equipment to make it less expensive 

to get this infrastructure built in this country, it would make sense 

to have that in the Geothermal program. However, when it comes 

to what we really do, which is design a system that combines the 

building with the ground, that would probably more properly be in 

Buildings, but Buildings is interested now singularly in emerging 

technologies and not so much in things that they think of as heat 

pumps, which I think I also mentioned. As long as we keep thinking of this renewable technology as wells, heat pumps, and loops, 

it’s going to be doomed to get understanding of what its potential 

is. 

So I’m not saying we have to form something new. I think that 

the onus is more on us to reach out to those departments and have 

more conversations and try to begin some more kinds of initiatives 

so they can understand what we’re doing and what’s possible. It 

may be helpful for you to help that dialogue go forward as a result 

of some of the hearings we’re doing. I think that would be very useful. So we’re caught in a funny place, but, certainly, there’s a way 

to get something done with something as straightforward, pragmatic, obvious, and needed as our little technology that can be deployed everywhere at a very good return on investment according 

to the DOE itself. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I give back. 

VEHICLE AND STATIONARY BATTERY STORAGE PROGRAMS AT

DOE 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I want to turn to Dr. Chamberlain, to ask you to expand on your 

vision as what the stationary battery storage R&D program ought 

to look like. We, by most counts, have a pretty successful vehicle 

battery program. What part of that Vehicle Technologies Program 

could be incorporated, or are they so different that they really 

should just be standalone entities? Can you kind of give us your 

vision of what that ought to ideally look like? You know, take advantage of what advancements have already been in the vehicle 

arena, but we could really kick off the stationary research. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. I can comment on that. Thank you for the 

question. In the area of vehicle technologies, energy storage for 

transportation purposes, the research across the Argonne laboratory complex and our international laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, 

are the two heat labs in this area. Their work runs across the spectrum from very basic research from theoretical physics of solid 

state materials up through inventing new materials—understanding and inventing new materials in the lab scale with gram 

quantities, to incorporating those in the small cells and testing 

them, to working directly with industry to make larger quality and 

quantity materials—or, improved quality and larger quantity materials for actual testing in true devices. 

And, at Argonne, Argonne is the DOE lab for testing for performance of vehicle batteries from around the world—the technology 

from around the world. Similarly, Sandia does abuse testing, so 
57

they have the kind of bunkers available for actually destroying and 

exploding batteries and seeing what happens during the most catastrophic type of event. And, at Idaho National Laboratory, they actually do in-vehicle seat testing. 

So the comparison I would make is, in the Vehicle Technologies 

Program, energy storage research across the labs and at universities, we do span the entire spectrum from the very basic to the 

full-out, applied, and testing full systems. By comparison, with regards to stationary storage, right now, we’re only focused on that 

far end of the spectrum, this testing validation. As a country, we’re 

relying almost wholly on companies to develop new technologies or 

to implement existing technology for stationary storage. 

So, the very fundamental studies, the very basic studies of how 

to store energy, whether that’s electrochemical or geothermal, Congresswoman Biggert mentioned earlier that all the work that went 

into hydrogen energy storage from the Vehicle Technology’s perspective were last at A+. You could also store energy in the form 

of hydrogen. You could convert energy from wind and solar back 

into converting water to hydrogen for use in generating electricity 

to charge a car in your home or to charge your home. 

So, the point is, that entire spectrum of research from basic to 

applied in stationary energy storage does not exist today in the 

scope of what’s funded out of the Department of Energy. For the 

most part, it’s focused, because it’s a small program, on implementation. So that’s a lack. 

And, to your other part of your question, What could we capitalize on in the other vehicle technologies programs around the 

country to enable, say, a more expedited beginning of a new program in stationary storage? The answer is that the brains already 

exist. The electrochemists and the physicists that think a lot about 

charge transfer and how to structure a nano material to get an ion 

and an electron in and out of a material, that brain power already 

exists in the lab. The ability to test and validate technology already 

exists in the lab. The only gates that need to be opened are to open 

those minds in a way of actively funding and having the wherewithal in the political will for long-term investment, to fund the 

kind of research dedicated toward looking at new systems that 

would absolutely not work for a transportation-related application, 

but may be highly effective for a stationary one. 

Does that answer the question that you were asking? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mostly. I guess what I’m looking for—And that’s 

good that, sort of, the brains and labs and conceptual part of that 

exists. And, I guess, as a practical matter, does it make sense to 

have those be two separate entities, or is that something that could 

continue in the same program; really looking at those two different 

models, the stationary and the vehicle——

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yeah, that’s a good——

Mr. CARNAHAN. —implementation. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is a good question. I don’t speak for my 

friends at DOE, but the way I phrase it often is that the folks in 

the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability would love 

to fund the basic research, in my opinion. They just don’t have the 

funding, as compared to the folks in the Office of Vehicle Technologies, who have a very healthy program, but it’s not in the scope 
58

of their mission to worry about any technology that can’t be used 

for transportation-related research. 

So, coming from the funding perspective, I think it has to come 

from separate sources. But, in terms of the actual work, I would 

say, on the basic side, it does make sense to have the same physicists, chemists, and engineers looking at it from a charged transport perspective. But, from the technology development side, it may 

or may not reside in the same pocket. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Because I think we all see the promise of the 

science, but, you know, we’re dealing with limited funding sources, 

and does it make sense to expand their mission to look beyond the 

Vehicle Program when we’re in the era of limited resources? And 

would that be the more cost-effective way for us to do that. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. Well, that is a good question. I’ll offer my personal opinion. I think that’s why we’re here, I guess. I can’t represent all of Argonne, but I believe the answer is, yes, it does make 

sense. Almost all of the questions, I think, center around one central theme, in my opinion, at a higher level, and that is, ‘‘Does Congress, as a whole unit, or the federal government, as a unit, have 

the political will to make a long-term investment.’’

We’ve heard a lot of versions of what I’m saying here now, both 

in your questions and on the panel. And I guess my advice or plea 

would be that now is absolutely the right time to do that. Even in 

the time of economic difficulty we’re facing, if you look carefully at 

what’s happening in Japan, Korea, China, and Europe, and the investments being made there, it’s a little frightening, when you consider the automotive industry and the electronics industry; how all 

of our manufacturing jobs have moved to Asia. Right now, there 

happens to be a perfect storm brewing for us to actually manufacture these technologies on American soil. And, rather than talk 

about the possible negatives of not jumping on the opportunity 

early—and, again, I’m speaking strictly from an energy storage 

perspective—even though energy storage is an ancillary need of 

this overall on-site renewables question that you’re asking, the estimations of the value, just from a gross domestic product perspective of energy storage for stationary, range in the low tens to high 

tens of billions of dollars, and that’s strictly for making and selling 

batteries. It doesn’t even include the overall efficiency gains an average consumer or a business would achieve by having a green 

building that would put storage as a piece of it. 

And then, if you come at the calculation from a different perspective and look at kilowatt hours generated in a plant, say in making 

batteries, or you could also look at it from overall sales revenue of 

a given company, there are public companies out there where you 

could do these calculations. The market possibilities are in the tens 

of billions. Already there are examples, like MicroSun Technologies 

here in Lisle, Illinois, which is a tens-of-millions-of-dollar revenue 

company versus the Johnson Controls staff, which is a multi-billion 

dollar, multi-national company. 

You can see that companies that earn, like A123 in Massachusetts, in the tens of millions—low tens of millions already employ 

hundreds and low thousands of both factory workers and high-end 

engineering- and scientist-type jobs; high, million-dollar jobs. Because you’ve just projected, on the back of the envelope, to the po-
59

tential for the market, you’re looking at an enormous infrastructure for jobs being created in this country. 

I’ve gone off tangent a little bit from your question. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. That’s okay. And I’ve gone over time, and I just 

want to—I’d like to be able to follow up this kind of information 

that I think my colleague and I would love to have in hand to be 

able to continue this conversation with our colleagues, to help 

make the case for some of this continued research, and do we need 

to do a separate program or expand the mission of some of these 

existing programs. 

And I give it to you. 

SITING ENERGY STORAGE R&D IN FEDERAL AGENCIES

Mrs. BIGGERT. I guess, following up on that, if there were funding, and we don’t know which on-site storage technology has the 

most potential to be deployed, maybe you know that, but would 

this type of work be best suited for the Office of Science in the Department of Energy, or are you talking about, from those two to the 

electricity or transportation performance arena? I’m not sure 

whether, you know, you would divide it that way or whether there 

should be something set up in DOE just for this. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. That’s a very good question. As you both already know, there are energy storage technologies and research 

being funded out of a variety of offices in the Department of Energy, from ARPA–E to the Office of Science to the EFRCs, from 

EERE and Vehicle Technologies group, and OE. So there’s a wide 

variety of established funding vehicles. 

My personal belief is, it is a combination of those varieties of 

funding vehicles wherein the value of the overall program is identified. And I think it’s up to the laboratories to actually integrate 

those programs, to have healthy relationships with industry, 

whether it’s the power grid operators or the OEMs that make vehicles in Michigan. It is up to the labs to pull together the variety 

of sources of funding and make sense of them in a way that we can 

deliver it quickly and efficiently in the industry. 

Now, obviously, I’ve dodged your question, but——

Mrs. BIGGERT. A lot of people do. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. —in this particular case, I’ll go ahead and go 

out on a limb and say that the opportunity is now to deliver technologies. Coming from industry, I can tell you that there is enough 

research and knowledge out there now to focus on the more applied 

side. 

From industry, I can tell you, stepping into the National Lab, everything we do—we say we’re variants on the laboratory from basic 

to applied. In industry, research would tell you it’s all basic. Compared to what they do in industry, what we do in the Lab is basic, 

and that’s as it should be. 

But my real point is, the opportunity for us today is to focus on 

the applied work that would be required to very rapidly deliver 

technologies to industries, say, in the next three to ten years as opposed to the next ten to twenty years. But I would still say the corporate balance, across the Office of Science and in the applied offices, would be a valuable thing. 
60

RESEARCH PRIORITIZATION

Mrs. BIGGERT. The batteries and the energy storage is, I think, 

in focus right now. So I think you’re right; the opportunity, you 

know, is there. We need to seize it. But so many times it comes 

back to, well, do we need a DOE or an outside organization or 

somebody to do a systemic assessment and prioritize the research? 

Now, this happened with nuclear, and I—to me—I was really working on that, and we had the opportunity to look at Ginna, and all 

of a sudden, ‘‘Well, there has to be this systemic assessment.’’ And 

then everything folded, and there’s not—nothing is moving forward 

right now, which I think is a tragedy. This is something long-term 

we need to do, too. 

But is a systemic assessment necessary, or should it be? 

I mean, I hope that we can do it in theory and get it done, but 

everybody brings this up. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. I think, yes, but I also think that our department’s been moving very quickly in the last six months to do some 

of those assessments. Some reports already exist. 

I refer to some in my written testimony, but I think I would say 

yes, but let’s start with the reports that have already been written 

by those that are tightly wound with the grid operators and the 

idea of smart grid and what it means to the energy storage question with regard to where we’re heading; grid both for on-site renewables and overall grid storage. 

I think a lot of the information already exists, and I would start 

there before we even think about putting a panel together to answer those questions. 

Ms. VANGEEM. I would tend to agree with Dr. Chamberlain. 

There are a lot of NREL and EPA and DOE reports out about the 

concern of lessons learned with different case studies and things. 

And I do want to emphasize the need for the storage. One of the 

NREL reports said that one of the times we need renewable energy 

most is when, on the hot days, the sun goes behind the clouds. 

And, so, we need the storage. 

And then, the other thing we need is this whole concept of renewables, especially if the PVs are DC-powered. And, so, you know, 

how do we get that to AC? And I think there are enough reports 

out there that we know those needs, and you can just follow 

through with them. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I guess I was just considering, well, you know, we 

need somebody to bring all those together. 

Ms. VANGEEM. Yeah. But it’s—right. We may just need someone 

to bring it together, but I don’t think you need to start over. Right. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I give back. 

[Discussion held off the record.] 

ENCOURAGING MARKET DEVELOPMENT

Mr. CARNAHAN. I wanted to get back to, I guess, what the federal 

government’s role could be in moving forward as the largest owner 

of office space, renter, operator, using the size and the capacity to 

really help building the market. And I think some of that can be 

done with our practices, whether it’s the way we look at building 

new buildings, looking at the life-cycle costs upfront so we’re not 
61

just, you know, finding a building that costs X. When we know if 

we’re looking at the life-cycle cost, that’s always going to come out 

better, and it’s going to help our technologies. 

I guess other things that I want to just kind of open to the panel, 

things that you think that we can do in terms of how we operate 

our federal government building inventory. It could help, really, 

build the marketplace and drive this market, but it will also help 

grow the private sector in what they’re doing. And I’ll just start 

from this end, and we’ll go across. 

Mr. OSTAFI. Sure. Thank you for that question. 

Actually, I believe the reality is the federal government is doing 

a lot right now, actually. Their requirements and mandates exceed 

ASHRAE standards by, I think, 20 percent or so, in terms of the 

energy performance of GSA office buildings. In fact, our firm is 

working on an office building in Denver for the federal courthouse, 

the Byron Rogers Building, and that group of constituents—the 

owners, and operators, and maintenance folks of that building—

want that building to work towards being a net-zero building. And 

we’re seeing this across other GSA office buildings, as well. And 

the reality is, it doesn’t cost a lot more money to make a building 

perform 30 percent better than the current ASHRAE standards. It 

doesn’t. And our bigger clients are figuring that out, finding that 

out, and pushing the design community to take it to the next level. 

So I actually applaud what the federal government is doing, but 

I would say there are still loopholes in some of the federal energy 

management plans that say to constituents and operators of a 

building, ‘‘If it doesn’t make financial sense, don’t do it.’’ I think we 

just have to mandate that they do it, and I love the idea proposed 

earlier that we mandate a certain percentage of renewable-energy 

integration into those buildings, because that doesn’t exist today. 

I think one percent is too low. I think it should be three to four 

to five percent. Because, for office buildings, solar energy, for example, can produce a lot of artificial lighting, can help a lot of those 

systems in a building operate more efficiently at a simple payback 

time period. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Lopez. 

Mr. LOPEZ. I like your question to the extent that it seems to be 

similar to the argument I’m making, that we can take a public entity, like our school systems now in the country, which represent—

and I don’t know the number, but it’s got to be several billion 

square feet of space of buildings throughout the country, but take 

that and leverage it. 

Also, I’m hearing that the research community seems to be advanced to a point where they’re willing to deploy a lot of these technologies, and are able to deploy them. I think connecting that to 

the actual marketplace, I think, from the design community and 

from the end user, there’s a willingness there to start to implement 

these technologies. 

The biggest obstacle I do see is still the cost of some of these, and 

applying them, particularly dealing with the taxing bodies and 

funds of that sort, where people do look at first cost versus longterm cost. And, unfortunately, that’s part of the education; showing 

people what the return on investment is on anything that we purchase. But part of what helps that return investment is, a lot of 
62

times, being able to tap into public money grants, funds. When we 

look at solar opportunities and wind opportunities, they’re just not 

there in terms of the financial. But to see that, you know, an entity 

could, whether state or federal, make available funds to reduce 

those first costs, then the return on investment would be much 

more desirable, and it makes a project a go as opposed to a notgo. 

So I see the financial need to provide the financing or the granting of funds for marketplace projects as significant. It would have 

significant impact. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I know a lot of school districts are 

going to be looking at yours as an example——

Mr. LOPEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. —in this evolution. 

Mr. Cheifetz. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Yes. And thanks for the question. First, I’d say set 

the bar very high. In keeping with what you’ve heard, let’s not do 

something that we’ll only have one chance to do, and it’s not as 

good as it can be. In fact, set the bar so high that it forces all your 

supply chain to look at more innovative, smaller companies, ways 

of doing business differently than we usually do in that sector, because, typically, when you present something like this, it’s the bigger companies, the established players that will do the work, and, 

usually, they’re not the most innovative or cost-effective providers, 

if the truth be told. 

So I’d say, in addition to the basic mandate, mandate a higher 

quality of outcome. In fact, make the whole thing outcomes-based 

from the top to the bottom. Higher standards, but also outcomes in 

terms of payback, in terms of quality, in terms of accountability, 

in terms of long-term life-cycle reporting so that it doesn’t happen, 

and then it goes away. And let’s use this as a laboratory to figure 

out how to improve everything beyond the federal governments’ 

buildings and use it as a great example of how to do it. 

I think, often, we don’t achieve that as a goal. In fact, it’s sometimes the example of doing things in a less cost-effective, more bureaucratic way. So I’d say very high standards forces the kind of 

tough work, forces your supply chain to do things a little differently, be more innovative, be more accountable, and be more 

outcome-based. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Chamberlain. 

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. I guess I would answer the question with a 

question that may be embarrassingly naive. We have standards for 

efficiency for vehicles, and we set goals for those, for the automotive companies. Is it too simplistic to try do that for new or retrofitted buildings? I know it’s a significantly more complex question, but I would think, thinking locally, we’re building buildings 

and retrofitting buildings at Argonne; federal buildings. Why isn’t 

there—maybe there already is—a standard measurement of efficiency that needs to be achieved? So, I guess what I’m talking 

about is something simple, just setting a target and mandating 

that target. 

Ms. VANGEEM. So I think that there are targets. They’re either 

in the form of a prescriptive requirement or an energy use impacts-
63

type thing, so your question is exactly where I’m coming from. You 

could mandate that all federal buildings have one percent renewables or up to ten percent or even higher. If it’s one or two stories, 

you could probably go to 20 to 30 percent. 

And the goal should be that the entire sunlit portion of the building, except maybe some windows used for day-lighting, should be 

either PV or solar thermal so that you’re using the whole building 

shell to generate energy, and I need to figure out a way to work 

the geothermal in there. But I think that everything’s out there 

that you need. And, so, just by using federal buildings as an example, you could do this. 

Mr. LOPEZ. I think that——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LOPEZ. —part of the answer is that the mindset is on nonrenewable technology right now. I think the standards in the other 

departments—designers, users—try to achieve that through non-renewables. We say, ‘‘How can we put in more efficient equipment? 

How can we slow down the motors on equipment?’’

So it’s still—but it’s still relying on non-renewables. I think the 

mindset needs to change as to how you make that jump from doing 

what we do every day to looking at a solar-panel infrastructure and 

wind-generated landscapes and things like that. 

Ms. VANGEEM. Well, we need both, and the standards are getting—the standards are 30 to 40 percent more efficient than they 

were in 2004. But you need both; you need the jump in the nonrenewables and the renewables to ever begin to approach net zero, 

which is the goal. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Okay. Very good. Thank you all. I’m going to—

do you have another round? 

AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS AND JOB CREATION

Mrs. BIGGERT. I don’t really have a question. I think just to close, 

unless a question comes out of it. 

Going back to, we were talking about, you know, public policy 

and America competing with other countries, and it is something 

that we really have to focus on; you know, the gathering storm 

with a national heading that Dr. Augustine talks so much about, 

and how there’s a renewable energy council, and he’s on the board, 

as well as Bill Gates and them. I think this is something that—

and I’ve been to one of their meetings, and I think that this is 

something that we really have to face, is that we have to have the 

creativity and innovation to compete in the global economy. And 

this is—I wanted to talk about why the other countries are moving 

forward. And the timing is really bad, obviously, with the economy 

as such, and I know that it’s going to be very, very difficult for 

funding for some of this. And, to me, the creativity and innovation 

sciences is the most important thing next to national defense, because this is the only way that we’re going to be able to create new 

jobs. You know, we’re no longer just a manufacturing country. We 

have a lot of technology, but we have to have the technology to stay 

ahead of other countries, and our labs do a great job, our universities and industry, yet we face so many barriers that maybe we’ve 

created, as well as just, you know, the actual economy. So this is 

something. 
64

I want to go out and write up about that—about this hearing 

that we’ve had today, because I think you’ve all brought up so 

many points of importance of what you’re doing and how that benefits our country, but it also benefits, you know, the economy and 

what we’re really working on right now. So, if you have any ideas, 

be sure, you know, to let us know, because what we’ve—for years, 

I would go into schools and talk to kids. I started where I asked, 

you know, what did they want to do when they grew up. And, for 

a while, it was, ‘‘Be Michael Jordan.’’ So that dates me, as far as—

but that was it. But then it was the president, and, now, so many 

of the kids really want to be engineers and scientists. And, so, we 

really have to tap into that, because our science and math is not 

at all good, and we’re having reverse grade ranges. We’ve had, you 

know, the foreign students coming here. Now they’re going home 

instead of staying here, too. 

So there’s so much to be done, and we’re running ahead of opportunity for job creation and also, you know, helping so much with 

the environment. So I really applaud all of you. I just hope we can, 

you know, find the means to make this happen faster, and we 

won’t if we don’t participate. So, thank you all for coming. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. How would it be best to let you know, as we say? 

Because a little bit of encouragement goes a long way. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. In both directions. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, maybe we’ll have some more hearings on 

that, you know, to the Committee itself, in Washington. But, also, 

just if you have some ideas of what we should be looking at or 

ideas for more legislation or for whatever, I’ll give you my card. 

Mr. CHEIFETZ. Very good. Thank you. I’ll be glad to. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think you can see why I enjoy so much working 

with my colleague, Congresswoman Biggert. She not only knows 

the issues well, she has a great passion that she brings to this. 

And, so, again, just thank you. 

And to all the panelists, you really have given us some additional 

good ideas and inspiration. To me, it’s one of the best Committees 

in Congress, to serve on Science and Technology, because it’s the 

place where America has made such a difference historically; in 

science and technology. It’s also the place where most of our economic growth has come from in this country. And we’re in a place 

now, at kind of the crossroads, where we have an edge in some of 

these technologies, but we won’t for long. 

And, so, it’s an opportunity, I really think, we have to grasp, but 

it’s more than that; it’s a race that I think we can win. But it’s also 

strategically important to competing globally and being able to 

make things here at home and to be self-sufficient. It just ties into 

so many things. And a lot of this does—not all of it. Not certain 

a lot of this is driven in the private sector, but I think our public 

policy has to be in line with this, has to work closely with the private sector, but it’s also an opportunity where, frankly, there’s been 

a good deal of bipartisan cooperation. We’ve seen, you know, far too 

much political bickering in Washington. This is an area where I 

think there’s some good basis for bipartisan to work together, and 

something I think we can actually get done. 
65

CLOSING

So, again, just thanks to all of you. You’ve given us some good 

ideas. We welcome others, and we’ll be sure you have our contact 

information. And we look forward to working with you in the 

months ahead. Thanks. And I just want to also thank Larry Collins 

and the Dirksen Courthouse for offering the courtroom here today. 

We’re going to keep the Committee record open for two weeks for 

any additional statements from the members or to answer any follow-up questions we may ask of the witnesses. 

So, with that, we’re going to wrap up the hearing, and we will 

be in touch. 

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

Æ