Annual Report to Congress 

on Federal Government

Energy Management and

Conservation Programs

Fiscal Year 2000

December 13, 2002

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Federal Energy Management Program

Washington, DC 20585
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1

I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 7

A. Overview of Federal Energy Management Policy and Legislative Mandates . . 7

B. Overall Federal Energy Consumption, Costs, and Carbon Emissions ....... 10

C. Energy Management Infrastructure and Tools ......................... 19

1. Federal Coordination ...................................... 19

2. Training ................................................ 21

3. Awards and Recognition ................................... 22

4. Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities ...................... 26

5. Energy Awareness ........................................ 27

6. Public Education Programs ................................. 28

D. Financing Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Improvements in

Federal Facilities ............................................... 31

1. Direct Appropriations ..................................... 31

2. Federal Energy Efficiency Fund .............................. 35

3. Energy Savings Performance Contracting ...................... 36

4. Utility Energy Service Contracts ............................. 41

5. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) .................................. 42

E. ENERGY STAR® and Energy Efficient Product Procurement .............. 43

F. Integrated Whole Building Efficiency ............................... 45

1. Federal Building Energy Performance Standards ................ 45

2. ENERGY STAR® Buildings .................................. 45

3. Sustainable Building Design ................................ 46

4. Highly Efficient Systems ................................... 47

5. Water Conservation ....................................... 48

G. Renewable Energy .............................................. 49

II. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN STANDARD BUILDINGS ................. 51

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Standard Buildings ................. 51

B. Progress Toward the Mandated Goals for Standard Buildings ............ 59

III. INDUSTRIAL, LABORATORY, AND OTHER ENERGY INTENSIVE

FACILITIES ....................................................... 65

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Energy Intensive Facilities ........... 65

B. Statutory Background and Progress Toward Goals for Energy

Intensive Facilities .............................................. 68

IV. EXEMPT FACILITIES .............................................. 72

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Exempt Facilities .................. 72

i 
V. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ............ 75

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Vehicles and Equipment ............. 75

VI. FEDERAL AGENCY ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ........... 81

A. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 81

B. Department of Commerce ........................................ 86

C. Department of Defense .......................................... 89

D. Department of Energy ........................................... 94

E. Department of Health and Human Services ........................... 99

F. Department of the Interior ....................................... 104

G. Department of Justice .......................................... 108

H. Department of Labor ........................................... 111

I. Department of State ............................................ 113

J. Department of Transportation .................................... 118

K. Department of the Treasury ...................................... 120

L. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................... 123

M. Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 126

N. General Services Administration .................................. 131

O. National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................... 135

P. National Archives and Records Administration ...................... 141

Q. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................. 142

R. Office of Personnel Management ................................. 144

S. Social Security Administration ................................... 146

T. Railroad Retirement Board ...................................... 149

U. Tennessee Valley Authority ...................................... 150

V. United States Postal Service ..................................... 154

TABLES 

Table 1-A Total Primary Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies ................ 11

Table 1-B Total Site-Delivered Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies .......... 12

Table 2 Federal Petroleum Usage in FY 2000 ............................... 15

Table 3 Carbon Emissions from Federal Agency Facility Energy Use ............. 18

Table 4-A Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital 

Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 2000 (Thousands of Nominal Dollars) . . 32

Table 4-B Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital 

Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 2000 (Thousands of Constant 

2000 Dollars) ................................................. 33

Table 5-A Federal Primary Energy Consumption in Standard Buildings ............. 52

Table 5-B Federal Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Standard Buildings ........ 53

Table 6 Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Standard Buildings .............. 56

Table 7-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Buildings Energy in FY 2000 ...... 57

Table 7-B Consumption and Costs of Federal Buildings Energy

by Fuel Type in FY 2000, FY 1999, and FY 1985 .................... 58

ii
Table 8-A Federal Standard Buildings Site-Delivered Energy Use

Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 2000 ....................... 61

Table 8-B Federal Standard Buildings Primary Energy Use

Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 2000 ....................... 62

Table 9 Federal Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Energy Intensive Facilities . . 66

Table 10 Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Energy Intensive Facilities

in FY 2000 ................................................... 67

Table 11 Energy Consumption, Costs, and Gross Square Footage of 

Federal Exempt Facilities, FY 2000 ................................ 73

Table 12 Consumption and Costs of Federal Exempt Facility Energy

By Fuel Type in FY 2000 ......................................... 73

Table 13 Federal Energy Consumption in Vehicle and Equipment Operations ....... 76

Table 14-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Vehicle and Equipment 

Energy in FY 2000 ............................................. 78

Table 14-B Consumption and Costs of Vehicle and Equipment Energy

by Fuel Type in FY 2000, FY 1999, and FY 1985 .................... 79

Table C Federal Energy Expenditures, FY 1985 through FY 2000 ............... C-2

FIGURES 

Figure ES-1 Decrease in Btu per Gross Square Foot in Federal Standard

Buildings from FY 1985 ......................................... 4

Figure ES-2 Federal Consumption of Petroleum-Based Fuels

FY 1985 through FY 2000 ........................................ 5

Figure 1 Federal Energy Consumption, FY 2000 .............................. 13

Figure 2 Federal Energy Costs, FY 2000 .................................... 14

Figure 3 Carbon Emissions from Federal Energy Consumption, 

FY 1990 to FY 2000 ............................................ 16

Figure 4 Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits ................ 34

Figure 5 Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption 

in Standard Buildings by Fuel Type, FY 2000 ........................ 51

Figure 6 Consumption of Electricity and Other Fuels

in Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2000 .................... 54

Figure 7 Energy Costs (Constant 2000 Dollars) in Standard Buildings, 

FY 1985 through FY 2000 ........................................ 55

Figure 8 Progress Toward the Energy Reduction Goals for Federal

Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2000 ....................... 59

Figure 9 Progress of Individual Agencies Toward the Federal Reduction Goal 

for Standard Buildings, FY 2000 ................................... 63

Figure 10 Defense and Civilian Federal Energy Consumption 

in Vehicles and Equipment by Fuel Type, FY 2000 .................... 77

iii 
APPENDICES 

Appendix A List of Authorities ............................................. A-1

Appendix B Data Collection ............................................... B-1

Appendix C Federal Energy Expenditures FY 1985 through FY 2000 ............... C-1

Appendix D Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy Intensive Facilities

in FY 2000 ................................................... D-1

Appendix E Exempt Facilities in FY 2000 .................................... E-1

Appendix F Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee ....................... F-1

Appendix G Personnel of the Department of Energy’s Federal

Energy Management Program ................................... G-1

iv 
AGENCY ACRONYMS 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Central Intelligence Agency

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Trade Commission

General Services Administration

International Broadcasting Bureau

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Archives and Records Administration

National Science Foundation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Panama Canal Commission

Railroad Retirement Board

Social Security Administration

Tennessee Valley Authority

United States Information Agency

United States Postal Service

CFTC 

CIA 

USDA 

DOC 

DOD 

DOE 

HHS 

HUD 

DOI 

DOJ 

DOL 

ST 

DOT 

TRSY 

VA 

EPA 

EEOC 

FCC 

FEMA 

FERC 

FTC 

GSA 

IBB 

NASA 

NARA 

NSF 

NRC 

OPM 

PCC 

RRB 

SSA 

TVA 

USIA 

USPS 

INTERNET WEB SITES CITED IN THIS REPORT 

Federal Energy Management Program www.eren.doe.gov/femp 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Clearinghouse www.eren.doe.gov 

National Energy Information Center www.eia.doe.gov 

Alternative Fuels Data Center www.afdc.nrel.gov 

Clean Cities Program www.ccities.doe.gov 

v 
This page intentionally left blank. 

vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report on Federal Energy Management for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 provides information on 

energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles and equipment, and 

documents activities conducted by Federal agencies to meet the statutory requirements of Title V, 

Part 3, of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

8251-8259, 8262, 8262b-k, and Title VIII of NECPA, 42 U.S.C. § 8287-8287c. Implementation 

activities undertaken during FY 2000 by the Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT) and Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy 

Management, are also discussed in this report. FY 2000 is the first full reporting year for 

Executive Order 13123, which was signed in June 1999. 

Based on reports submitted to the Department of Energy (DOE) by 29 Federal agencies, the total 

primary energy consumption of the Government of the United States, including energy consumed 

to produce, process, and transport energy, was 1.39 quadrillion British Thermal Units (quads) 

during FY 2000.1 These 1.39 quads consumed by the Government in buildings and operations to 

provide essential services to its citizens, including the defense of the Nation, represent 

approximately 1.4 percent of the total 99.08 quads2

 used in the United States. In total, the 

Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the Nation, although its pattern of 

consumption is widely dispersed geographically. 

The Government consumed 0.98 quads during FY 2000 when measured in terms of energy 

actually delivered to the point of use (site-delivered energy consumption). Unless otherwise 

noted, this report uses the site-measured conversion factors to convert common units for 

electricity and steam to British Thermal Units (Btu). The total site-delivered energy consumption 

in FY 2000 was 32.4 percent less than the FY 1985 base year. This reduction of 470.8 trillion 

Btu, which reflects both a drop in Government activity and the success of energy management 

efforts, could satisfy the energy needs of the State of Montana for more than one year.3 The total 

cost of the 0.98 quads was $7.4 billion in FY 2000.4 This is $3.5 billion less than the $10.5 

1

Primary energy consumption considers all energy resources used to generate and transport electricity and steam. 

Tables 1-A, 5-A, and 8-B show primary energy consumption for comparison with site-delivered consumption shown 

in Tables 1-B, 5-B, and 8-A respectively. Conversion factors of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour for electricity and 

1,390 Btu per pound of steam are used to calculate gross energy consumption. 

2

DOE/EIA-0035(2001/7), Monthly Energy Review, July 2001. 

3

Based on site-delivered energy consumption estimates for 1999 in the residential, commercial, industrial, and 

transportation sectors (312.4 trillion Btu). Source: DOE/EIA-0214(99), State Energy Data Report, 1999, Table 9; May 

2001. 

4

Unless otherwise noted, all costs cited in this report are in constant 2000 dollars, calculated using Gross 

Domestic Product implicit price deflators. See DOE/EIA-0384(99), Annual Energy Review 2000, Table E1; July 

2001). Costs noted as nominal dollars reflect the price paid at the time of the transaction and have not been adjusted 

to remove the effect of changes in the spending power of the dollar. 

1 
billion reported in FY 1985, a 30.0 percent5

 decrease in nominal costs. In constant 2000 dollars, 

this equates to a decrease of 51.8 percent from $15.3 billion in FY 1985 to $7.4 billion in FY 

2000. The Federal energy bill for FY 2000 decreased 9.3 percent from the previous year. These 

reductions in energy costs are attributable primarily to reduced energy prices and reduced 

Government activity, although they also reflect the effects of agency energy management efforts. 

Many other variables also contribute to fluctuations in annual energy consumption and costs, 

including changes in building square footage, building stock, weather, tempo of operations, fuel 

mix, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft fleet composition. 

Federal agencies report energy consumption under four categories: standard buildings; industrial, 

laboratory and other energy intensive facilities; exempt facilities; and vehicles and equipment. 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, the Federal Government used 326.8 trillion British Thermal Units (Btu) to provide 

energy to almost 3.1 billion square feet of standard buildings space. This consumption represents 

a 22.6 percent decrease compared to FY 1985 and a 2.1 percent decrease relative to FY 1999. 

These significant drops reflect the success of Federal energy management efforts in reducing 

fossil fuel use in Federal facilities. The cost of energy for buildings and facilities in FY 2000 

was $3.4 billion, a decrease of approximately $61.3 million from FY 1999 expenditures, and a 

decrease of 35.3 percent from the FY 1985 expenditure of $5.2 billion.6 These cost savings are 

attributable largely to reduced energy prices and successful energy management. 

Industrial, Laboratory and Other Energy Intensive Facilities 

Under section 543(a)(2) of NECPA, as amended by EPACT, 42 U.S.C. § 8253, buildings that 

house energy-intensive activities may be excluded from NECPA’s performance goal for 

buildings. Most energy used in these facilities is process energy. Process energy is consumed in 

industrial operations, laboratories, certain R&D activities, and in electronic-intensive facilities. 

Section 203 of Executive Order 13123 sets a goal for these facilities that requires each agency to 

reduce energy consumption per square foot, per unit of production, or per other unit as applicable 

by 20 percent by 2005 and 25 percent by 2010 relative to 1990. 

In FY 2000, the Federal Government used 67.0 trillion Btu of energy in energy intensive 

operations, approximately 6.8 percent of the total 0.98 quads consumed. Total energy 

consumption in this category decreased 10.9 percent relative to FY 1990 and increased 8.0 

percent relative to FY 1999. These changes resulted from both changes in activity levels and 

energy management efforts. 

The Federal Government spent $611.2 million on energy intensive operations energy in FY 2000, 

$60.6 million more than the FY 1999 expenditure of $550.6 million constant dollars. 

5

Calculation of percent changes in this report do not account for rounding of numbers in text. 

6

Cost and consumption figures for FY 1985 may be different from those published in last year’s Annual Report 

since Federal agencies update their files and provide revisions to their data. 

2 
Exempt Facilities 

Sec. 704 of the Executive Order 13123 defines “Exempt facility” as “a facility. . .for which an 

agency uses DOE-established criteria to determine that compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 or [Executive Order 13123] is not practical.” Five agencies, the Departments of Defense, 

Health and Human Services, and Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the General Services Administration (GSA) have chosen to exempt facilities 

from Executive Order requirements. In addition, the U.S. Postal Service has reported electricity 

consumption used in mail processing automation under this exempt category without reporting 

associated facility square footage. Energy used in exempt facilities accounts for approximately 

2.1 percent of the total 0.98 quads used by the Federal Government. Electricity constitutes 74.8 

percent of the energy used in exempt facilities, 4.8 percent is accounted for by natural gas, and 

13.7 percent by fuel oil. Small amounts of purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG)/propane, and “other” energy account for the remaining 6.7 percent. 

The energy used in exempt facilities in FY 2000 accounted for approximately 3.6 percent of the 

total Federal energy bill. The Federal Government spent approximately $264.0 million for this 

category’s energy during the fiscal year. FY 2000 was the first year agencies reported energy 

data under this category and agencies were not consistent in revising all previous years’ data. 

Therefore, comparisons of overall exempt energy use with previous years are not appropriate. 

Vehicles and Equipment 

The vehicles and equipment category includes aircraft and naval fuels, automotive gasoline, 

diesel fuel consumed by Federally-owned and leased vehicles and privately-owned vehicles used 

for official business, and the energy used in Federal construction. 

In FY 2000, the Federal Government used approximately 566.1 trillion Btu of energy in vehicles 

and equipment, 57.7 percent of the total 0.98 quads consumed. Total energy consumption in 

vehicles and equipment decreased 39.4 percent relative to FY 1985 and was 6.8 percent less than 

the FY 1999 consumption of 607.5 trillion Btu. Most of these decreases are attributable to 

declines in the operation of vehicles and aircraft by the Department of Defense. The Department 

of Defense consumed 521.7 trillion Btu or 92.2 percent of all vehicles and equipment energy 

used by the Federal Government. 

The Federal Government spent $3.1 billion on vehicles and equipment energy in FY 2000, 

$888.2 million less than the FY 1999 expenditure. 

Investments in Energy Efficiency 

During FY 2000, Federal agencies had three primary options for financing energy efficiency, 

water conservation, and renewable energy projects in buildings and facilities: direct appropriated 

funding, energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), and utility energy service contracts 

(UESCs). Known funding from the three sources totaled approximately $599 million in FY 

2000. Direct appropriations accounted for approximately $121 million. ESPC contracts awarded 

in FY 2000 resulted in approximately $287 million in estimated contractor investment ($62 

million from DOE Super ESPC delivery orders and $225 million from other agency ESPCs), and 

approximately $191 million in private sector investment came from utility energy service 

contracts. While these three categories of funding are not entirely comparable, they do indicate 

3
that ESPCs and UESCs have become the dominant source of support for efficiency investments 

throughout the Federal Government. Energy efficiency investment from ESPCs and UESCs 

increased 17.4 percent from $395.3 million in FY 1999 to $478.5 million in FY 2000. In FY 

1998, investment from these sources totaled only $142.6 million. In FY 2000, direct funding 

identified by agencies for energy conservation retrofits and capital equipment decreased 41.0 

percent to $121.1 million from $205.2 million dollars in FY 1999. 

Since 1985, The Government has invested approximately $3.8 billion in energy efficiency, $2.5 

billion of which was direct appropriations and $1.3 billion from alternative financing 

mechanisms ($0.8 billion from ESPCs and $0.5 billion from UESCs). 

Agency Progress in Meeting Energy Reduction Goals 

NECPA, as amended by EPACT, requires agencies to take the steps necessary to reduce energy 

consumption in Federal buildings by 10 percent by 1995 compared to 1985 consumption levels, 

based on Btu per gross square foot, and requires a 20 percent reduction by 2000 compared to 

1985 consumption levels. The 10 percent goal was met by the Government in FY 1995 with a 

12.7 percent reduction from FY 1985. Executive Order 12902 added a goal of reducing energy 

consumption by 30 percent by the year 2005 relative to 1985 consumption levels. Executive 

Order 13123 adds an additional goal of a 35 percent reduction by 2010, compared to FY 1985. 

During FY 2000 agencies provided data to DOE that indicated a decrease in energy consumption 

per gross square foot of 23.6 percent relative to FY 1985. The Government’s performance for 

each year since FY 1985 is illustrated in Figure ES-1. This reduction was the result of significant 

decreases in the consumption of fuel oil, natural gas, and coal. The use of non-electric fuels in 

Federal buildings has declined 

61.0 percent since 1985, while 

the consumption of electricity 

has increased by only 1.1 

percent. The installation and 

increased use of electricitydriven electronic equipment 

contributed to increases in 

electricity through the years. 

Electricity now represents about 

74.0 percent of the total energy 

costs of Federal buildings and 

accounts for 44.7 percent of 

total site-delivered energy 

consumption in buildings. This 

is compared to 31.1 percent of 

the total site-delivered energy 

consumption in buildings in FY 

1985. Agency efforts undertaken 

in FY 2000 to increase energy 

efficiency in buildings included: 

Btu per Gross Square Foot 

FIGURE ES-1

Decrease in Btu per Gross Square Foot

in Federal Standard Buildings and Facilities from FY 1985

145,000 

140,000 

135,000 

130,000 

125,000 

120,000 

115,000 

110,000 

105,000 

100,000 

95,000 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 

10% Goal - 1995 

20% Goal - 2000 

30% Goal - 2005 

Actual Energy Use 

23.6% Reduction, 2000 

FISCAL YEAR 

4
# improvement of operations and maintenance procedures; 

# implementation of no-cost, low-cost efficiency measures; 

# energy-efficient building retrofits and capital improvements; 

# energy awareness activities and employee training programs; and 

# procurement of energy-efficient goods and products. 

Reducing Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption 

Effective management of energy 

resources is of strategic importance 

to the Federal Government as well 

as the Nation. In FY 2000, 

petroleum-based fuels accounted for 

0.61 quads of the total 0.98 quads 

consumed by the Federal 

Government, with 0.56 quads used 

by the Department of Defense, 

primarily for jet fuel and 

distillate/diesel for vehicles and 

equipment. The Federal Government 

consumed 42.1 percent less 

petroleum-based fuel in FY 2000 

than in FY 1985. Figure ES-2 

illustrates the trend in the Federal 

Government’s use of petroleum 

fuels. 

TRILLI

ON BTU 

FIGURE ES-2 

Federal Consumption of Petroleum-Based Fuels FY 1985 

through FY 2000 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

702 

617 

762 732 775 

628 612 551 522 513 476 446 445 403 

348 322 367 

335 

292 290 276 

248 231 

239 222 220 236 227 206 

207 

706 710 

FISCAL YEAR 

Jet Fuel Other Fuels 

Section 205 of Executive Order 13123 directs agencies to minimize the use of petroleum-based 

fuels in buildings and facilities. Federal agencies have made significant progress in reducing 

their dependence on petroleum-based fuels in their buildings and facilities. For example, Federal 

agencies report that in FY 2000, 34.0 trillion Btu of petroleum-based fuels were used for 

buildings and facilities energy, a 65.1 percent decrease from FY 1985 and a 6.7 percent decrease 

from FY 1999. This represents 10.4 percent of total buildings and facilities energy consumption. 

Renewable Energy 

Section 204 of Executive Order 13123 restates the goal of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, 

which is 2,000 solar roof installations in the Federal Government by 2000, and 20,000 

installations by 2010. In the period from June 1997 to April 2000 the Federal Government 

installed 1,745 solar energy systems. This total included 1,682 solar hot water systems, 58 

photovoltaic power systems and 5 transpired solar thermal collectors. The U.S. Navy installed an 

additional 1000 solar hot water systems by the end of FY 2000. This brought total installations 

to just over 2,700 systems by the end of 2000, accomplishing the Federal goal. 

5
Federal Energy Management Highlights 

Progress is being made in increasing Federal energy efficiency, although there remain 

opportunities for greater efficiency and cost reduction. Several of the most important findings of 

this report are listed below: 

# The overall real cost of energy consumption in the Federal Government measured in constant 

2000 dollars has fallen from $15.3 billion in FY 1985 to $7.4 billion in FY 2000. While 

most of this drop is attributable to declining energy prices and reduced Defense-related 

activity, energy management efforts made a significant contribution.7 

# Total site-delivered energy consumption in FY 2000 decreased 32.4 percent from FY 1985; 

again, a reflection of both reduced Defense-related activity and successful energy 

management efforts.7 

# Energy consumption in buildings in FY 2000 decreased 22.6 percent from FY 1985.7 

# On a Btu-per-gross-square-foot basis, the 23.6 percent reduction in buildings site-delivered 

energy puts the Federal Government past the 20 percent reduction goal for 2000—a good 

indicator of the success of energy management efforts. 

# Nine agencies, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, 

Transportation, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority have surpassed a 20 percent reduction 

in buildings energy use per gross square foot from 1985. 

# Energy consumption in FY 2000 was used for the following purposes: 

End Use Percentage Cost 

Standard Buildings 33.3 percent $3.4 billion 

Energy Intensive Facilities 6.8 percent $0.6 billion 

Exempt Facilities 2.1 percent $0.3 billion 

Vehicles & Equipment 57.7 percent $3.1 billion 

7

Many other variables also contribute to fluctuations in annual energy consumption and costs, including changes 

in building square footage, building stock, weather, tempo of operations, fuel mix, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft 

fleet composition. 

6 
I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

A. Overview of Federal Energy Management Policy and Legislative Mandates 

This report on Federal Energy Management for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 provides information on 

energy consumption in Federal buildings and operations and documents activities conducted by 

Federal agencies to meet the statutory requirements of Title V, Part 3, of the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 8251-8259, 8262, 8262b-k and 

Title VIII of NECPA, 42 U.S.C. § 8287-8287c. Implementation activities undertaken during FY 

2000 by the Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Executive 

Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management, are also 

discussed in this report. FY 2000 is the first full reporting year for Executive Order 13123, 

which was signed in June 1999. In compliance with section 381(c) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6361c, this report also describes the energy 

conservation and management activities of the Federal Government under the authorization of 

section 381 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. § 6361. 

Requirements of National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) and 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) 

NECPA provides major policy guidance to Federal agencies to improve energy management in 

their facilities and operations. Amendments to NECPA made by the Federal Energy 

Management Improvement Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 8253 (a)(1), required each agency to 

achieve a 10 percent reduction in energy consumption in its Federal buildings by FY 1995, when 

measured against a FY 1985 baseline on a Btu-per-gross-square-foot basis. It also directed DOE 

to establish life-cycle costing methods and coordinate Federal conservation activities through the 

Interagency Energy Management Task Force. Section 152 of Subtitle F of EPACT, Federal 

Agency Energy Management, further amends NECPA and contains provisions regarding energy 

management requirements, life-cycle cost methods and procedures, budget treatment for energy 

conservation measures, incentives for Federal facility energy managers, reporting requirements, 

new technology demonstrations, and agency surveys of energy-saving potential. 

Requirements of Executive Order 13123 

On June 3, 1999, the President signed Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government 

Through Efficient Energy Management, superseding Executive Order 12902. This new 

Executive Order addresses greenhouse gas emissions from Federal facilities, and makes energyefficiency targets more stringent. 

The key requirements of the legislation and Executive Order authorities are outlined in the 

exhibit below along with current findings. 

7
KEY REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORITIES

Statute/Directive Requirement FY 2000 Findings Annual Report 

Discussion 

Section 543, NECPA, 

42 U.S.C., § 8253(a)(1) 

Executive Order 13123 

20 percent reduction (Btu/GSF) 

in Federal buildings by 2000 from 

1985. 

30 percent reduction (Btu/GSF) 

by 2005 from 1985. 

35 percent reduction by 2010 

from 1985. 

Federal agencies reported a 

23.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption in 

buildings in FY 2000, 

compared to FY 1985. 

Section II (B), 

page 59 

Section 544, NECPA, 

42 U.S.C., § 8254 

DOE to establish life-cycle cost 

methods to determine costeffectiveness of proposed energy 

efficiency projects. 

The 2000 edition of the 

energy price indices and 

discount factors for lifecycle cost analysis was 

published and distributed to 

Federal energy managers. 

Section I (D), 

page 42 

Section 545, NECPA, 

42 U.S.C., § 8255 

Transmit to Congress the amount 

of appropriations requested in 

each agency budget for electric 

and energy costs incurred in 

operating and maintaining 

facilities and for compliance with 

applicable statutes and directives. 

Approximately $121.1 

million was appropriated 

and spent on energy 

efficiency projects in 

Federal facilities. 

Section I (D), 

page 31 

Section 546, NECPA, 

42 U.S.C., § 8256(a) 

Establishment of a program of 

incentives within Federal 

agencies to expedite Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts. 

In FY 2000, 81 ESPC 

contracts and delivery 

orders were awarded under 

DOE Super ESPCs and 

other agency contracts. 

Section I (D), 

page 36 

Section 546, NECPA, 

42 U.S.C., § 8256(b) 

DOE to establish a Federal 

Energy Efficiency Fund to 

provide grants to agencies. 

There were no appropriations for the Fund in FY 

2000; FY 1995 funds were 

allocated and progress of 

the few remaining projects 

is being monitored. 

Section I (D), 

page 35 

Section 157, EPACT, 

42 U.S.C., § 8262(c) 

Federal agencies to establish and 

maintain programs to train energy 

managers and to increase the 

number of trained energy 

managers within each agency. 

DOE’s FEMP conducted 59 

training workshops and 

symposia for more than 

5,353 attendees in the 

efficient use and 

conservation of energy, 

water, and renewable 

energy in Federal facilities. 

Section I (D), 

page 21; 

Section VI, 

Agency Reports, 

page 81 

8
Statute/Directive Requirement FY 2000 Findings Annual Report 

Discussion 

Executive Order 13123 20 percent reduction for Federal 

industrial/laboratory facilities by 

2005 from 1990. 

25 percent reduction by 2010 

from 1990. 

Findings are specific to 

individual agencies. 

Section III (B), 

page 65 

Executive Order 13123 30 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions 

attributed to Federal facilities by 

2010 from 1990. 

Carbon emissions from 

energy used in non-exempt 

Federal facilities declined 

18.4 percent in FY 2000 

compared to FY 1990. 

Section I(B), 

page 16 

Executive Order 13123 Expand use of renewable energy 

by implementing renewable 

energy projects and by 

purchasing electricity from 

renewable sources. The Federal 

Government will strive to install 

20,000 solar roofs by 2010. 

Findings are specific to 

individual agencies. 

Section I(G), 

page 49 

Section VI, 

Agency Reports, 

page 81 

Executive Order 13123 Minimize petroleum use within 

Federal facilities through use of 

non-petroleum energy sources 

and eliminating unnecessary fuel 

use. 

The consumption of 

petroleum-based fuels in 

buildings during FY 2000 

decreased 65.1 percent 

compared to FY 1985 and 

6.7 percent from FY 1999. 

Section II(A), 

page 51 

Executive Order 13123 Reduce total energy use and 

greenhouse gas emissions, as 

measured at the source. Agencies 

shall undertake projects to reduce 

source energy, even if site energy 

use increases. 

Primary energy consumed 

in buildings and facilities in 

FY 2000 decreased 9.1 

percent from FY 1985 and 

0.7 percent from FY 1999. 

Measured in terms of source 

energy, Federal buildings 

show a reduction of 9.9 

percent in Btu/GSF during 

FY 2000 compared to FY 

1985. 

Section II(A), 

page 52, 54, and 

62 

Executive Order 13123 Reduce water consumption and 

associated energy use. 

Findings are specific to 

individual agencies. 

Section I(F), 

page 48 

Section VI, 

Agency Reports, 

page 75 

9
B. Overall Federal Energy Consumption, Costs, and Carbon Emissions 

As shown in Table 1-A, the total primary energy consumption of the Government of the United 

States, including energy consumed to produce, process, and transport energy, was 1.39 

quadrillion British Thermal Units (quads) or 1,385,104.8 billion Btu during FY 2000. Primary 

energy consumption considers all resources used to generate and transport electricity and steam. 

(The source conversion factors of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour for electricity and 1,390 Btu per 

pound of steam are used to calculate primary energy consumption. See Appendix B for 

conversion factors used to calculate site-delivered energy consumption.) Federal agencies 

reported a 23.1 percent decrease in total primary energy consumption compared to FY 1985, and 

a 1.0 percent decrease from FY 1999. These reductions resulted from a combination of reduced 

Federal activity and successful energy management efforts. The 1.39 quads used in FY 2000 

represent approximately 1.4 percent of the total 99.08 quads8

 used in the United States, and 

reflect Government energy consumption in buildings and operations to provide essential services 

to its citizens, including the defense of the Nation. In total, the Federal Government is the single 

largest energy consumer in the Nation, although its pattern of consumption is widely dispersed. 

Based on reports submitted to DOE by 29 Federal agencies, the Federal Government consumed 

0.98 quads during FY 2000 when measured in terms of energy actually delivered to the point of 

use. As shown in Table 1-B, Federal agencies reported a 32.4 percent decrease in total sitedelivered energy consumption compared to FY 1985, and a 3.2 percent decrease from FY 1999. 

The cost of this energy was $7.4 billion and represented approximately 0.4 percent of the total 

Federal expenditures of $1.789 trillion9

 for all purposes in FY 2000. The Federal energy bill for 

FY 2000 fell 9.3 percent from the previous year, decreasing $756.3 million in constant dollars 

compared to FY 1999.10 Many variables in addition to Federal energy management activities 

contribute to changes in annual energy use and costs, including changes in square footage, 

building stock, weather, tempo of operations, fuel mix, fuel prices, and vehicle, naval, and 

aircraft fleet composition. 

In FY 2000, the Department of Defense spent $5.0 billion for energy out of the total Federal 

energy expenditure of $7.4 billion. Overall, the Department of Defense used 38.1 percent less 

site-delivered energy in FY 2000 than in FY 1985—a reflection of reduced Defense-related 

activity and successful energy management efforts. 

Figures 1 and 2 depict the percentage of total energy used by the Federal Government in FY 2000 

and its cost. As illustrated, jet fuel and electricity account for approximately 60.9 percent of the 

total energy consumption represented in Figure 1 and approximately 74.2 percent of the total 

energy costs in Figure 2. 

8

DOE/EIA-0035(2001/7), Monthly Energy Review, July 2001. 

9

Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 

10Appendix C indicates the annual cost of energy used in Federal buildings and facilities, vehicles and equipment, 

and energy intensive operations for FY 1985 through FY 2000. The combined cost per Btu for energy in each fiscal 

year is also shown in the table. 

10 
TABLE 1-A

TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoul

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

USPS 47,439.3 54,767.8 56,017.0 57,697.8 61,629.9 63,646.5 65,828.1 67,412.9 71,636.0 71,861.1 72,898

DOE 90,591.6 82,462.0 79,414.4 82,561.6 79,588.9 78,662.9 81,131.1 80,948.9 70,016.2 64,211.0 64,034

VA 40,266.0 41,421.0 42,232.9 42,374.9 43,203.9 43,487.6 43,909.9 45,441.5 46,267.8 46,877.0 47,069

GSA 43,052.8 34,789.6 33,524.8 32,994.1 33,742.8 33,253.4 32,839.0 33,660.0 33,822.4 33,583.7 34,448

DOT 27,287.5 26,939.8 27,491.0 28,618.9 31,616.7 28,321.4 27,789.3 30,288.1 28,755.8 29,597.7 36,377

DOJ 10,595.9 10,790.3 13,230.3 12,139.6 13,964.4 15,825.8 16,133.4 19,539.4 19,077.5 23,560.3 23,451

NASA 21,581.2 25,979.3 26,865.0 27,120.9 26,857.8 27,461.4 26,648.8 24,638.8 26,049.2 25,322.1 24,682

HHS 9,692.6 12,112.2 11,073.7 11,995.7 12,806.5 13,016.8 11,110.8 11,722.2 13,699.4 13,680.5 13,233

USDA 11,576.9 13,655.1 13,830.4 13,287.1 13,650.6 13,766.7 14,108.1 13,574.8 11,755.2 12,432.5 12,197

DOI 10,933.6 10,337.7 10,368.8 10,089.3 11,167.8 11,507.0 9,810.3 7,038.3 9,608.7 9,542.0 10,611

TRSY 3,715.2 6,627.1 7,851.0 8,589.2 8,271.4 8,210.2 7,469.3 6,946.5 8,918.0 8,496.8 8,729ST1 6,224.6 6,358.0 6,347.8 747.0 1,162.4 1,248.5 1,288.9 1,830.2 7,623.4 7,572.6 7,178

TVA 2 7,432.2 6,894.8 6,845.0 6,367.7 5,866.3 6,685.6 6,737.9 6,464.1 6,282.8 6,074.4 6,737

DOL 3,688.0 3,842.5 3,923.8 3,944.2 4,050.7 4,119.3 3,992.2 4,094.5 4,123.2 4,168.6 3,337

DOC 3,804.6 6,110.9 4,261.0 4,083.2 4,287.4 5,007.0 5,173.4 4,930.3 4,866.3 4,558.3 4,777

EPA 1,621.0 1,483.3 1,635.6 1,662.7 1,845.1 1,922.8 2,108.8 2,070.5 2,113.8 2,108.0 2,341HUD 315.2 384.2 407.0 378.7 346.0 324.0 310.6 326.8 318.0 303.2 310

FCC 39.2 46.1 46.5 38.1 38.9 42.2 42.2 33.5 35.9 35.4 35

PCC 1,118.1 1,318.9 1,274.6 1,378.7 1,382.4 1,393.9 1,598.5 1,591.0 1,540.5 0.0 0

OTHER* 898.6 3,847.7 2,890.6 2,963.4 3,406.8 4,137.8 6,310.7 8,573.8 9,320.9 8,915.7 8,719

CIVILIAN AGENCIESTOTAL 341,874.1 350,168.3 349,531.2 349,032.6 358,886.6 362,041.0 364,341.1 371,126.1 375,831.1 372,900.9 381,170

DOD 1,459,945.7 1,497,346.8 1,519,110.8 1,352,815.6 1,292,793.5 1,213,755.8 1,153,527.4 1,122,862.5 1,092,230.0 1,045,560.2 1,018,045ALL AGENCIES 1,801,819.8 1,847,515.1 1,868,642.0 1,701,848.2 1,651,680.2 1,575,796.8 1,517,868.5 1,493,988.5 1,468,061.0 1,418,461.1 1,399,215

MBOE 309.3 317.2 320.8 292.2 283.6 270.5 260.6 256.5 252.0 243.5 240

Petajoules 1,900.9 1,949.1 1,971.3 1,795.4 1,742.5 1,662.4 1,601.3 1,576.1 1,548.8 1,496.4 1,476

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA/IBB, and FERC. 1In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of foreign buildings it owns 

subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates data for the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 2TVA’s increase in energy consumption beginning in FY 1994 is the result of first-time reporting of energy consumed at generation sites. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam. Agencies are listed in desc

current year. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

11
TABLE 1-B

TOTAL SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY FEDERAL AGENCIE

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoul

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 USPS 27,762.5 30,616.2 30,817.0 31,674.2 33,725.1 34,950.8 36,220.9 36,427.1 40,760.0 39,487.3 39,774DOE 52,211.6 43,465.5 42,178.6 44,300.2 43,688.5 42,279.2 47,089.7 44,424.9 33,926.3 31,450.1 30,363VA 25,144.7 24,898.4 25,050.4 25,254.9 25,741.2 25,587.8 25,428.9 26,832.9 27,261.1 27,597.2 27,472

DOT 19,568.1 18,965.2 18,971.4 17,027.3 19,360.1 19,772.6 18,652.3 19,564.1 19,125.8 18,509.9 20,508

DOJ 8,176.0 6,961.6 8,018.3 7,544.3 9,081.7 10,263.6 10,193.3 12,127.7 11,999.9 15,805.1 15,366GSA 19,256.1 15,656.6 13,985.0 13,842.0 14,149.4 13,963.0 13,671.8 14,499.2 14,364.3 14,095.0 14,359NASA 10,843.7 12,401.4 12,541.1 12,622.9 12,366.2 12,576.6 12,397.0 11,461.7 11,996.4 11,731.5 11,434

USDA 8,358.7 9,519.6 9,599.6 9,100.6 9,332.9 9,412.9 9,728.8 9,056.9 7,370.7 7,917.0 7,828HHS 5,953.5 6,968.7 6,222.5 6,794.0 7,215.5 7,519.0 6,129.7 6,628.9 7,852.7 7,400.8 7,131DOI 7,816.3 7,391.9 7,094.8 6,992.4 7,482.1 7,892.2 6,378.4 4,326.6 6,612.2 6,427.3 7,456TRSY 2,868.3 ST1 2,771.7 

TVA 2 2,851.9 

3,576.4 

2,827.4 2,605.4 

4,177.1 

2,799.0 

2,623.2 

4,628.4 

273.8 

2,380.9 

4,912.7 

390.2 

2,246.2 

4,558.2 

422.3 

2,534.9 

4,132.6 

437.3 

2,607.3 

3,764.1 

653.3 

2,547.8 

4,597.6 

3,278.0 

2,396.9 

4,816.3 

3,258.4 

2,295.9 

4,899

3,3682,510

DOL 2,385.2 2,376.0 2,446.0 2,452.4 2,514.9 2,527.9 2,385.7 2,491.5 2,490.2 2,540.4 2,048DOC 2,489.1 4,476.3 2,722.2 2,460.1 2,338.4 2,858.3 2,882.8 2,883.1 2,721.4 2,470.3 2,684EPA 904.5 747.0 822.4 839.7 994.8 1,041.3 1,120.5 1,100.0 1,149.3 1,120.4 1,290

HUD 116.9 140.3 164.9 156.7 147.8 144.2 131.3 140.8 137.6 126.4 129

FCC 23.6 23.9 22.1 19.9 20.2 20.7 20.7 17.5 19.9 19.4 19

PCC 724.2 873.1 808.1 923.5 914.9 921.0 1,108.0 1,080.8 1,021.9 0.0 0OTHER* 408.2 2,175.0 1,382.0 1,460.4 1,604.1 1,981.0 2,979.7 3,716.2 3,998.7 3,870.0 3,846CIVILIAN AGENCIES TOTAL 200,635.1 196,665.8 192,445.6 190,748.5 198,226.8 201,227.6 203,696.8 203,745.2 203,080.8 200,938.6 202,491

DOD 1,250,613.8 1,241,655.8 1,269,291.5 1,103,990.1 1,048,772.9 977,040.4 926,022.9 904,150.2 880,007.7 837,115.8 810,663ALL AGENCIES 1,451,248.9 1,438,321.7 1,461,737.1 1,294,738.6 1,246,999.8 1,178,268.0 1,129,719.7 1,107,895.4 1,083,088.5 1,038,054.4 1,013,154

MBOE 249.1 246.9 250.9 222.3 214.1 202.3 193.9 190.2 185.9 178.2 173

Petajoules 1,531.0 1,517.4 1,542.1 1,365.9 1,315.5 1,243.0 1,191.8 1,168.8 1,142.6 1,095.1 1,068

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA/IBB, and FERC. 1In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of foreign buildings it owns 

subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates data for the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 2TVA’s increase in energy consumption beginning in FY 1994 is the result of first-time reporting of energy consumed at generation sites. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,000 Btu per pound of steam. Agencies are listed in descecurrent year. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

12
FIGURE 1

Federal Energy Consumption, FY 2000

Total by Energy Type: 0.98 quads 

FUEL OIL 

4.2% OTHER 

8.8% 

DIST/DIESEL 

12.5% 

NATURAL GAS 

13.6% 

JET FUEL 

41.1% 

ELECTRICITY 

19.8% 

Standard Buildings: 0.33 quads 

OTHER 

5.8% 

COAL 

5.9% 

FUEL OIL 

9.7% 

NATURAL GAS 

33.9% 

ELECTRICITY 

44.7% 

Exempt Facilities: 0.02 quads 

NATURAL 

GAS 

4.8% 

OTHER 

6.7% 

FUEL OIL 

13.7% 

ELECTRICITY 

74.8% 

Total by Sector: 0.98 quads 

6.8% 

EXEMPT 

FACILITIES 

2.1% 

E.I. FACILITIES 

VEHICLES 

57.7% 

STANDARD 

BUILDINGS 

33.3% 

Energy Intensive Facilities: 0.07 quads 

OTHER 

3.9% 

COAL 

5.3% 

FUEL OIL 

9.9% 

NATURAL GAS 

32.4% 

ELECTRICITY 

48.4% 

Vehicles & Equipment: 0.57 quads 

OTHER 

1.6% 

GASOLINE 

5.6% 

DIST/DIESEL 

21.6% 

JET FUEL 

71.2% 

Data as of 11/30/01 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

Note: Sum of components may not equal 100 percent due to independent rounding. 

13
FIGURE 2

Federal Energy Costs, FY 2000

Total by Energy Type: $7.37 Billion 

OTHER 

7.8% 

FUEL OIL 

2.7% 

DIST/DIESEL 

7.5% 

NATURAL GAS 

7.9% 

JET FUEL 

30.6% 

ELECTRICITY 

43.6% 

Standard Buildings: $3.39 Billion 

COAL 

1.2% 

FUEL OIL 

4.6% 

OTHER 

5.8% 

NATURAL GAS 

14.5% 

ELECTRICITY 

74.0% 

Exempt Facilities: $0.26 Billion 

NATURAL 

GAS 

2.0% 

OTHER 

5.0% 

FUEL OIL 

4.7% 

ELECTRICITY 

88.3% 

Total by Sector: $7.37 Billion 

EXEMPT 

FACILITIES 

3.6% 

E.I. FACILITIES 

8.3% 

VEHICLES 

42.1% 

STANDARD 

BUILDINGS 

46.0% 

Energy Intensive Facilities: $0.61 Billion 

COAL 

1.0% 

OTHER 

3.5% 

FUEL OIL 

4.7% 

NATURAL GAS 

13.7% ELECTRICITY 

77.1% 

Vehicles & Equipment: $3.10 Billion 

OTHER 

1.0% 

AUTO GAS 

8.5% 

DIST/DIESEL 

17.8% JET FUEL

72.7% 

Data as of 11/30/00 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

Note: Sum of components may not equal 100 percent due to independent rounding. 

14
Petroleum-based fuels used by the Federal Government are shown in Table 2. In FY 2000, 

petroleum-based fuels accounted for 0.61 quads (609,830.6 billion Btu) of the total 0.98 quads 

consumed by the Federal Government. Of that, approximately 0.56 quads (556,949.9 billion 

Btu) were used by the Department of Defense primarily for jet fuel and distillate/diesel for 

vehicles and equipment energy. Only 0.03 quads (33,996.2 billion Btu) of petroleum-based fuels 

were used for Federal buildings and facilities energy. 

TABLE 2 

FEDERAL PETROLEUM USAGE IN FY 2000 

(in Thousands of Gallons, Billions of Btu, 

and Petajoules [Joule x 1015]) 

Unit Total BBTU* BBTU* BBTU* Petajoules* 

(KGal) DOD Civilian Total Total 

Buildings & Facilities 

Fuel Oil 229,351.2 26,455.3 5,355.7 31,811.0 33.56 

LPG/Propane 22,882.1 1,527.2 658.0 2,185.2 2.31 

Energy Intensive Operations 

Fuel Oil 

LPG/Propane 

Exempt Buildings 

Fuel Oil 

LPG/Propane 

Vehicles & Equipment 

Motor Gas

Dist-Diesel & Petrol.

Aviation Gas

Jet Fuel

Navy Special

LPG/Propane

Other

Total

47,991.0 4,701.7 1,954.7 6,656.4 7.02 

2,527.8 64.5 176.9 241.4 0.25 

20,247.9 2,475.4 333.0 2,808.4 2.96 

496.0 0.0 47.4 47.4 0.05 

255,091.5 9,357.9 22,528.6 31,886.4 33.64 

881,877.0 110,108.5 12,207.9 122,316.3 129.07 

1,535.9 1.6 190.4 192.0 0.20 

3,100,394.4 395,127.6 7,923.7 403,051.3 425.20 

46,336.1 6,426.6 0.2 6,426.8 6.78 

414.9 23.2 16.5 39.6 0.04 

2,168.4 680.4 1,488.0 2,168.4 2.29 

556,949.9 52,880.8 609,830.6 643.30 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

*Uses a conversion factor of: 

95,500 Btu/gallon for LPG/propane 

138,700 Btu/gallon for fuel oil, distillate-diesel & petroleum, and navy special 

125,000 Btu/gallon for motor gasoline and aviation gasoline 

130,000 Btu/gallon for jet fuel 

947.9 Billion Btu/Petajoule 

Note: FY 2000 contains estimated data for the following agencies: EEOC, NSF, OPM, IBB. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

15
Carbon emissions from Federal Government energy consumption have decreased significantly 

since FY 1990. As shown in Figure 3, the Federal Government has reduced carbon emissions 

across the three non-exempt end-use sectors by 29.7 percent from 32.8 million metric tons of 

carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in FY 1990 to 23.0 MMTCE in FY 2000.11 The largest 

contribution to this reduction is from the vehicles and equipment sector, which has seen a 

decrease in carbon emissions of 39.0 percent. This is a result of a reduction of almost 6.4 

MMTCE emissions from jet fuel, as well as smaller reductions from diesel, aviation gasoline, 

navy special (a residual fuel oil), and LPG/propane. 

Carbon emissions have decreased by 19.9 percent in the standard buildings sector since 1990. 

Contributing to this reduction was a 9.2 percent reduction in gross square footage since FY 1990 

and an 8.3 percent decrease in primary energy intensity (224,244 Btu/GSF in FY 1990, 205,657 

Btu/GSF in FY 2000). Carbon emissions from energy intensive activities in industrial, 

laboratory, and other buildings decreased 10.0 percent (0.2 million metric tons) since FY 1990. 

FIGURE 3

Carbon Emissions from Federal Energy Consumption, FY 1990 through FY 2000

(Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MMTCE])

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

2.3 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.1 

12.5 11.7 11.8 

11.7 11.0 10.6 10.3 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 

18.0 18.8 

15.1 

14.9 

13.9 13.2 12.8 12.7 12.1 11.8 11.0 

Fiscal Year 

Energy Intensive Facilities Standard Buildings Vehicles & Equipment 

Million Metric Tons 

11Carbon emissions were calculated by multiplying energy consumption for each fuel type by an associated 

carbon coefficient shown in Appendix B. 

16 
Section 201 of Executive Order 13123 establishes a greenhouse gas reduction goal for Federal 

Government facilities. This goal applies to standard buildings subject to the energy efficiency 

goals of Section 202 and industrial, laboratory, and other energy-intensive facilities subject to the 

goals of Section 203. The requirement states: 

“Through life-cycle cost-effective energy measures, each agency shall reduce its 

greenhouse gas emissions attributed to facility energy use by 30 percent by 2010 

compared to such emissions levels in 1990. In order to encourage optimal investment in 

energy improvements, agencies can count greenhouse gas reductions from improvements 

in nonfacility energy use toward this goal to the extent that these reductions are approved 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).” 

As shown in Table 3, when the carbon emissions from non-exempt facilities are combined, the 

Government shows a reduction of 18.4 percent from 14.8 MMTCE in FY 1990 to 12.0 MMTCE 

in FY 2000. 

Carbon emission calculations were adjusted in FY 2000 for eight agencies to reflect purchases of 

renewable energy. These agencies, and their corresponding credit for renewable energy 

purchases are shown below: 

Agency

Department of Defense

U.S. Postal Service

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Agriculture

General Services Administration

Department of the Interior

Department of Energy

Tennessee Valley Authority

TOTAL

MTCE 

54,230 

581 

244 

148 

122 

56 

39 

24 

55,444 

17
TABLE 3

CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FEDERAL AGENCY FACILITY ENERGY USE

(In Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 

AGENCY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

USPS 687,516 704,295 729,898 786,519 764,341 781,885 805,984 724,512 772,307 784,284 

DOE 1,121,485 1,061,910 1,085,728 1,050,971 1,053,982 1,165,049 1,128,630 1,085,002 872,272 890,693 

VA 665,288 676,624 676,063 688,980 674,610 678,289 702,452 701,307 709,187 712,775 

GSA 576,465 547,107 538,150 548,957 510,255 500,452 523,980 522,925 531,401 547,685 

DOJ 151,026 192,962 150,733 190,656 200,586 211,621 258,891 257,427 266,555 276,209 

NASA 274,477 273,938 275,950 270,484 265,557 265,204 257,278 263,394 272,023 267,788 

HHS 218,216 194,929 213,473 222,189 212,968 183,414 197,046 217,171 217,720 214,647 

ST 123,002 123,473 14,909 20,906 21,674 22,485 32,063 138,798 143,034 137,521 

USDA 140,752 137,793 131,456 138,104 130,495 129,733 133,786 127,553 135,547 128,569 

DOI 124,663 127,882 113,716 138,001 128,478 119,447 96,585 109,071 112,139 112,460 

DOT 105,548 97,026 121,017 121,993 111,813 121,939 120,961 124,863 116,034 119,772 TRSY 78,782 91,364 98,735 88,342 87,311 82,611 81,572 105,194 94,436 97,038 

TVA 96,751 95,029 89,714 81,503 96,625 96,462 91,542 90,356 88,239 98,827 

DOL 65,669 64,182 64,748 66,957 64,930 62,918 64,636 65,211 66,983 51,838 

DOC 46,893 46,471 49,502 52,605 60,615 67,454 68,680 58,832 59,906 62,301 

EPA 25,722 28,371 28,882 30,197 29,870 32,525 32,132 31,698 32,765 35,925 

NARA 3,491 3,495 3,733 10,170 17,572 20,791 17,054 18,131 18,029 18,219 USIA/IBB 32,969 22,302 21,848 21,202 19,846 20,894 22,378 26,267 24,571 22,420 

FEMA 7,623 7,245 7,358 6,698 6,107 6,107 6,106 6,107 6,368 6,609 HUD 6,347 6,072 5,629 5,229 4,677 4,415 4,768 4,540 4,544 4,680 NRC 1,861 2,891 2,559 2,607 2,575 3,408 3,648 3,791 3,934 4,007 OPM 3,221 3,377 3,461 3,727 3,491 3,491 3,490 3,491 3,654 4,357 

FTC 997 986 976 960 903 903 903 903 943 968 

RRB 1,368 1,438 1,582 1,532 1,493 1,460 1,420 1,448 1,276 1,203 FCC 586 619 483 501 521 521 426 426 441 442 

Other* 20,089 11,012 10,614 10,902 10,089 37,245 72,535 75,500 63,802 65,069 

Civilian Agencies Total 4,580,806 4,522,791 4,440,918 4,560,894 4,481,385 4,620,724 4,728,946 4,763,918 4,618,110 4,666,306 4,

DOD 10,184,471 9,788,747 10,286,884 9,312,036 8,555,023 8,091,409 7,788,012 7,481,295 7,418,175 7,394,256 7,

Total 14,765,277 14,311,539 14,727,802 13,872,930 13,036,409 12,712,133 12,516,958 12,245,213 12,036,285 12,060,562 12,

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, NSF, PCC, and SSA. †Indicates where adjustments were made to reflect purchases of renewable energy.

Note: Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding.

Source: Calculated from energy consumption data from Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports, see Appendix B.

18
C. Energy Management Infrastructure and Tools 

1. Federal Coordination 

Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee (656 Committee) 

The Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee (656 Committee) was established in 

accordance with Section 656 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91) to 

strengthen Government programs that emphasize productivity through the efficient use of energy, 

and concurrently, to encourage interagency cooperation in energy conservation. At the 

Committee’s January 24, 2000 meeting, the following items were discussed: 

• The U.S. Army’s initiative to utilize wind-generated electricity at Fort Bliss in Texas. 

• Executive Order 13123 requirements pertaining to sustainable design principles to be 

applied by agencies when siting, designing, and constructing new facilities. 

• The General Services Administration’s activities (required under Executive Order 13123) 

in developing model lease provisions for ensuring energy efficiency in space leased by the 

Federal Government. 

• The Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts in green power purchasing, including the 

purchase of 100 percent green power for its laboratory in Richmond, California. 

• The Green Energy Parks Initiative partnership between DOE and the Interior Department, 

which will present the 250 National Parks and wildlife reserves as models of efficiency 

and environmental preservation. 

• FEMP’s efforts to develop a comprehensive interagency agreement that can be used to 

access any of FEMP’s services, including ESPC and utility financing support, energy 

audits, and design assistance. 

Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force 

The Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force (Task Force) was established in 

accordance with the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988 to stimulate 

increased energy efficiency in the Federal sector. The Task Force serves as technical advisor to 

the 656 Committee by coordinating the activities of the Federal Government in promoting energy 

conservation and the efficient use of energy. 

The Director of FEMP serves as the Executive Director of the Task Force. The Task Force, 

composed of the chief energy managers of the agencies represented on the 656 Committee, 

addresses energy issues affecting Federal facilities and operations and provides the 656 

Committee with in-depth analysis and recommendations concerning current and pending 

legislation, technical issues, and implementation of coordinated Federal activities. 

The Task Force assesses the progress of agencies toward achieving energy savings, and collects 

and disseminates information on effective survey techniques, technologies that promote 

19
conservation and efficient use of energy, and innovative programs and contracting methods. To 

accomplish its mission, the Task Force establishes working groups to resolve specific technical 

or programmatic issues, to develop new initiatives for Federal implementation, and to address 

legislative requirements and topics presented by the 656 Committee, the Executive Director, or 

member agencies. 

In FY 2000, meetings of the Task Force were held on November 10, 1999; January 12, 2000; 

May 10, 2000; and July 10, 2000. Issues highlighted in the these meetings included the 

following: 

• The Federal Commercial Building Energy Standard (FEDCOM). 

• A draft Combined Heat and Power Plan developed by FEMP. 

• You Have the Power energy awareness campaign. 

• Utility metering and billing issues and how they affect Federal agencies. 

• Executive Order 13123, including numerous reports from Task Force working groups 

implementing provisions of the Order. 

• Aggregation of agency electricity purchases and green power issues. 

• Federal participation in DOE’s Wind Powering America program. 

• Executive Orders 13148, 13149, and 13150. 

• Guidance for completing annual reports, complying with Executive Order 13123, and 

water efficiency improvements at Federal facilities. 

Senior Energy Officials 

Section 304 of Executive Order 13123, states that “Each agency shall designate a senior official, 

at the Assistant Secretary level or above, to be responsible for meeting the goals and 

requirements of this order, including preparing the annual report to the President. Designated 

officials shall participate in the Interagency Energy Policy Committee. . . [and] shall 

communicate its activities to all designated officials to assure proper coordination and 

achievement of the goals and requirements of this order.” 

A meeting of the Senior Energy Officials was convened and chaired by OMB on October 13, 

2000. Energy Manager Paul Allen, Walt Disney Company, talked about how Disney manages its 

energy consumption through internal metering, competitions among its hotels and parks, and 

distributing mock bills to their facilities. The Senior Vice President for Environmental Policy 

also spoke and showed a helpful video featuring energy saving tips. The Senior Officials were 

very interested in how the private sector manages its energy consumption. 

20
2. Training 

Many agencies have their own internal training and recognition programs. These are discussed 

individually in Section VI of this report. Overall, Federal agencies reported spending $2.5 

million to train 9,220 Federal personnel in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water 

conservation subjects, including energy efficient product procurement and alterative financing 

techniques for energy and water projects. 

During FY 2000, FEMP conducted 59 training workshops and symposia for more than 5,353 

attendees in the efficient use and conservation of energy, water, and renewable energy in Federal 

facilities. 

FEMP supplemented its classroom workshops with “distance learning” training, via satellite. 

The Energy Management Teleworkshop, a 10-module survey of FEMP courses, attracted 2,836 

viewers. It included modules for life-cycle costing; buying energy efficient products; water 

resource management; operations and maintenance management; financing; and, engineering. 

Eight workshops on energy savings performance contracting were conducted in FY 2000 for 207 

participants. In each workshop, facility managers, contract specialists, and building engineers 

were instructed on the statutory provisions for this innovative contracting/financial method, and 

how to identify suitable projects. ESPCs allow energy-efficient improvements to be installed by 

private contractors with no up-front capital costs. 

FEMP’s Utility Project Financing/Utility Restructuring workshop was presented 6 times for 203 

students. 

The Designing Low Energy Buildings course was presented twice for 56 participants. The twoday course included analyses and case studies of building design using passive solar heating, 

natural ventilation and cooling, and day lighting, as well as glazing and overhangs. 

The FEMP Lights course was conducted twice for a total of 36 participants. The objective was 

to provide guidance on energy-efficient lighting consistent with other facility lighting 

considerations, quality and cost, and whole building analysis. Topics included: basic lighting 

concepts; a comprehensive process for Federal relighting project development and 

implementation; and the use of professional lighting design services. 

Two Facility Energy Decision Screening (FEDS) workshops were held during FY 2000 for 36 

attendees. This is a training course for Federal facility managers on whole-site analysis of energy 

conservation, technical, and financial opportunities utilizing the FEDS project screening software 

and the project implementation software. 

The Operations and Maintenance Management classroom course was presented once for 25 

students. 

FEMP, in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, conducted 2 

workshops on life-cycle costing and building retrofit simulation for 63 students. 

21
The Implementing Renewable Energy Projects course was presented twice for 69 students. 

FEMP continued to offer its Water Resource Management course with two workshops for 30 

attendees in FY 2000. The course is designed to assist Federal site managers and agencies in 

meeting the water conservation requirements of Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and 

Executive Order 12902. 

During FY 2000, FEMP participated in the organization and presentation of 24 panel discussions 

on Federal energy efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy topics at national energy 

management conferences around the country, attracting 1,916 attendees. 

“Energy 2000,” the energy efficiency workshop and exposition sponsored by FEMP, Department 

of Defense, and General Services Administration was held August 21-23, 2000, in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. The conference provided participants with opportunities to explore such topics as 

strategies for energy projects, selling energy projects, and alternative financing. The conference 

also had panel discussions, an exhibit hall showcasing energy technologies, and chances for 

relationship building. 

FEMP continued to offer its Training Course Locator System to assist Federal agencies in 

training energy managers and in meeting the requirements of the EPACT. The Locator System 

connects those seeking particular training courses with the sponsoring organizations for those 

courses. During FY 2000, FEMP implemented significant improvements to the Locator system. 

Locator was upgraded to a Web-based application which is readily available to through the 

Internet. During August and September 2000, more than 100 unique visitors to Locator viewed 

1,647 pages from the Locator Web site. 

3. Awards and Recognition 

Federal Energy and Water Management Awards 

Outstanding accomplishments in energy efficiency and water conservation in the Federal sector 

were recognized with the presentation of the 2000 Federal Energy and Water Management 

Awards on October 12, 2000, in Washington, D.C. The Awards Program is sponsored by the 

656 Committee and the Department of Energy. Awards were selected from outstanding Federal 

energy managers and contributors who: 

# Implemented proven energy efficiency, energy and water conservation techniques; 

# Developed and implemented energy-related training programs and employee energy 

awareness programs; 

# Succeeded in receiving utility incentives, or awarding ESPC and other Federal-approved 

performance-based energy and water contracts; 

# Made successful efforts to fulfill compliance with energy and water reduction mandates; 

# Improved energy efficiency or reduction in energy costs for Federal mobile equipment 

including aircrafts, ships, and vehicles; 

# Improved tracking of energy consumption, costs and energy efficient investments; 

22
# Provided leadership in purchasing or supplying energy-efficient, renewable energy or 

water-conserving products to one or more Federal agencies; and 

# Demonstrated cost-beneficial landscape practices which utilize techniques that seek to 

minimize the adverse effects of landscaping. 

Recipients of the 2000 awards were selected from 145 nominees submitted by 17 Federal 

agencies. Award recipients totaled 43, representing 12 different Federal agencies. Distribution 

of awards among the Federal agencies for accomplishments in FY 2000 is indicated below. 

Awards were presented to agencies in the categories shown in the exhibit below: 

Agency Individual Small Group Organization Total Energy 

Efficiency 

Alternative 

Financing 

Renewable 

Energy 

Mobility Water 

Mgmt. 

Innovative 

Tech. 

Exceptional 

Service 

Army 1 3 6 10 4 2 1 1 1 1 

Navy 2 5 7 2 2 2 1 

USAF 2 2 4 1 2 1 

AUTEC 1 1 1 

DOD 1 1 1 

DOE 2 2 2 

Interior 1 2 3 2 1 

GSA 3 4 7 2 1 1 3 

HHS 1 1 1 

NASA 2 2 1 1 

NIH 1 1 1 

USPS 1 3 4 1 2 1 

TOTAL 8 12 23 43 12 5 4 2 5 6 9 

Each category contained a wide variety of projects. Examples from each award category follow. 

Energy Efficiency Award to Organization: 

Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center. The Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation 

Center (AUTEC), on Andros Island, Bahamas, implemented a “Green Island” Program to 

conserve natural resources and reduce all forms of pollution. AUTEC installed solar water 

heaters on a new barracks equipped with energy-efficient lighting and appliances. The solar water 

heaters will save an estimated $8,000 annually. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and 

the DOE also selected AUTEC as a “Million Solar Roofs Program” site, awarding AUTEC a 

$75,000 grant to install additional state-of-the-art solar water heaters. Photovoltaic perimeter 

lighting was installed in 1999 at a cost per unit of $2,500, plus $500 for installation. Over the 12-

year projected life of each unit, annual cost savings are $500 per unit. AUTEC volunteered to 

evaluate battery-powered Chevy S-10 pickups for the Naval Facilities Engineering Service 

Center, and ordered eight of them at no cost. The eight electric pickups are projected to save 

$1,700 each year in fuel costs. In addition to the trucks, AUTEC uses a variety of batteryoperated vehicles, such as two- and four-seater golf carts. The total energy cost saved by AUTEC 

was $177,596 and more than 32 billion Btu. 

23
Energy Efficiency Award to Small Group: 

Environmental Technology Building and Energy and Environmental Sciences Building 

Recommissioning Project, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Environmental 

Technology Building (ETB) and Energy and Environmental Sciences Building (EESB) 

Recommissioning Project led to significantly improved occupant comfort and reduced energy 

costs in the ETB and the EESB Buildings on the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 

campus. Before the recommissioning, occupants complained of poor heating, cooling, and drafts. 

Also, energy use was high with ETB, which used 40 percent more energy in 1998 than in 1995. 

PNNL’s team carefully designed and implemented a 3-week controlled test of the buildings’ 

energy performance. This required returning the buildings’ energy management control systems 

to their original, “as-designed” operating strategy and set points. After adjustments were made to 

erroneous settings, the improvements in occupant comfort and building energy performance were 

significant and immediate. The cost savings in electricity was an estimated $95,000 and 11 

billion Btu. 

Alternative Financing Award: 

Dennis M. Klekar, Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. 

Klekar was the initiator and champion of the energy savings performance contract awarded at 

NASA Johnson Space Center. He has worked tenaciously since 1994 to implement an energy 

savings contract at the Center and saw the project through its evolution from an attempted shared 

energy savings contract, a combined Base Operations Support Services/ESPC contract and 

finally through to a Regional Super ESPC delivery order. The delivery order, valued at 

approximately $43 million over its 23-year term, was issued to Honeywell, Inc., through DOE’s 

Central Regional Super ESPC. It includes installing energy-efficient lighting and compressed air 

systems, variable speed pumping systems, cooling tower control systems, reducing water 

consumption and improving HVAC controls at the Johnson Space Center, the Sonny Carter 

Training Facility, and Ellington Field. Additionally, an advanced energy management system will 

be installed that will further enhance NASA’s ability to cost-effectively monitor and manage the 

site environment, and improve comfort for NASA personnel. The savings reaped from this 

project will pay for the cost of the system replacement, about $20 million, with no cost to the 

taxpayer. Once the project is completed in May 2000, Johnson Space Center is guaranteed to 

save more than $1.7 million in energy and water costs and $340,000 in maintenance savings per 

year. 

Renewable Energy Award: 

GSA New England Region, General Services Administration. The GSA New England Region 

has implemented a project that has proven to be a significant step forward in the goal to make 

renewable power sources a part of every day building operations. GSA partnered with FEMP to 

install one of the nation’s largest solar arrays at the John F. Williams Federal Building in 

downtown Boston. This project has also substantially contributed to the President’s Million Solar 

Roof Initiative. Phase I included the building integrated photovoltaics system, with 

approximately 4,000 square feet of roof surface covered by solar panels. The system will result in 

an annual estimated energy savings of 28 megawatt-hours. Phase II will include the replacement 

of two 100-ton chillers with chillers that use non-chlorofluorocarbon-based refrigerants; the 

retrofit of fans, motors, and lighting; the substitution of high-priced district steam for “in-house” 

24
gas-fired boilers; and the installation of two 75 kilowatt cogeneration units to decrease the 

facility’s utility bills. 

Mobility Energy Management Award: 

Fleet Logistics Support Squadron Fifty-Eight, Department of the Navy. Comprehensive energy 

savings measures have been undertaken in Support Squadron Fifty-Eight (VR-58). Through 

innovative ideas solicited from the entire chain of command, efficient operational planning, and 

the command’s commitment to energy conservation, the Squadron achieved a 15 percent savings 

in aircraft fuel consumption. This reduction represents more than $1 million in annual cost 

savings, compared to the FY 1995 baseline. This achievement also surpasses the Chief of Naval 

Operations goal of 5 percent reduction by FY 2000. Administrative vehicle use was reduced 25 

percent by consolidating runs, resulting in reduced fuel consumption. In addition, 30 percent of 

all Squadron spaces have been fitted with motion sensors and 10 percent of passageways are now 

using energy-efficient lighting fixtures. Through these efforts, VR-58 achieved a total energy cost 

savings of more than $1 million. 

Water Management Award: 

Mora National Fish Hatchery & Technology Center, United States Department of the Interior. 

The Mora National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center has incorporated extensive water reuse 

facilities and sophisticated water recycling systems into its hatchery design. Water savings due to 

innovative, state-of-the-art water reuse systems will be approximately 2.2 billion gallons per 

year, based on a remarkable water reuse rate of 95 percent. Cost savings for the water reuse 

system are estimated at $9.3 million annually, after operations and maintenance costs. 

Engineering design of the final phase is currently 70 percent complete and will include a visitor 

center with displays that will describe the various water conservation systems in the hatchery 

building. These displays will help to educate the public about both the environmental and 

financial benefits of water efficiency measures. The Mora National Fish Hatchery and 

Technology Center’s efforts to make water conservation a priority in its operation and 

maintenance will enhance the Department of the Interior’s reputation as a Government leader in 

innovative water conservation technologies. 

Exceptional Service Award: 

Frank Kutlak, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Mr. 

Kutlak is managing a $93 million budget to design and construct a state-of-the-art laboratory 

facility, known as Building 50, on the National Institutes of Health Bethesda Campus in 

Bethesda, Maryland. Building 50’s design employs the latest energy saving technologies and will 

consume roughly 40 percent less energy than a comparable, standard design laboratory. For 

project construction, Mr. Kutlak reviewed bids based on contractors that were of the “best value” 

to the Government, not necessarily the “lowest cost.” Even through this strategy, the standard 

appropriated budget had hardly been used and therefore, enough funding remained to build an 

additional floor to the laboratory. The project also received a $2 million utility rebate to the 

Government. To keep others up-to-date on the project developments, Mr. Kutlak developed a 

Web site on the design and construction of Building 50 and established a list serve to provide Email updates on the construction. Mr. Kutlak’s devotion to this project, from formulating the 

design team to obtaining management approval, to the creation of an energy-efficient and 

25
environmentally-sound building has resulted in the recognition of Building 50 as a state-of-theart energy-efficient laboratory.

Innovative Technology Award:

Rodeo Post Office, United States Postal Service/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Using

a new integrated lighting technology developed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

the Rodeo Post Office has achieved more than 50 percent savings in energy for lighting, while

greatly improving the lighting quality in letter sorting areas. This new unified system approach

integrated a unique high efficiency task light, a low glare ambient lighting system, and lighting

controls. Surveys of the letter carriers showed an increased level of satisfaction with the new

lighting, demonstrating the value of coupling lighting quality with energy efficiency. In FY 1999,

the installation of this integrated system resulted in a 71 percent reduction in the total load, a total

energy cost savings of $3,500, and a Btu savings of 34,000 kilowatt-hours. 

Presidential Awards for Federal Energy Management Success 

On October 20, 2000, the White House honored four Federal agency energy management teams 

and more than 30 Federal employee participants of these teams for their support, leadership, and 

efforts in promoting and improving Federal energy management, and thereby saving millions of 

dollars in energy costs. 

The Presidential Awards for Federal Energy Management Success were presented for the first 

time as required by Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy 

Management. Winners included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Department of State – Office of Foreign Building Operations, the Department of the Interior’s 

National Park Service, along with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Energy Team. 

Award recipients were recommended to the President by the Office of Management and Budget 

and FEMP. 

Award winners were as follows: 

Implementation: Environmental Protection Agency, Architecture, Engineering, and Real 

Estate Branch 

Institutionalization: Department of State, Office of Foreign Buildings Operations 

Outreach: Department of the Interior/Department of Energy, Green Parks Initiative 

Results: U.S. Army, Energy Team 

4. Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities 

To promote wise energy and water use throughout the Federal government, agencies are 

showcasing cost-effective energy efficiency, water-conserving, and renewable energy 

technologies in their facilities. 

To highlight these successful energy efficiency projects, Executive Order 13123 requires that 

agencies designate “exemplary new and existing facilities with significant public access and 

exposure as showcase facilities to highlight energy or water efficiency and renewable energy 

improvements.” The showcase program functions as a management strategy by assisting agencies 

26
in implementing the goals of EO 13123. When facilities are designated as showcases, agencies 

can receive assistance from the Federal Energy Management Program and have the advantage of 

partnering with other agencies, energy services companies, utilities, and national laboratories. 

Since 1995, FEMP has recognized more than 80 sites across the country as Federal Energy Saver 

Showcases. Each showcase site prominently displays a plaque notifying visitors that the 

Government building they are entering uses energy and water, as well as taxpayer dollars, wisely. 

A call for nominations has been distributed to urge agencies to identify and designate their best 

projects, or potential projects, so that others may benefit by example. 

5. Energy Awareness 

The Federal Government, as the largest single employer in the United States, has the 

responsibility to set an example for the nation by conducting energy awareness programs. Most 

agencies have ridesharing, carpooling, and/or public transportation programs in effect. Many 

agencies also participate in recycling programs. The following exhibit shows the employee 

awareness activities at the various Federal agencies. 

Agency 

Award 

Programs Recycling Ridesharing 

Transit 

Subsidies 

Information 

Dissemination 

USDA T T T T

DOC T T T

DOD T T T T T

DOE T T T T T

HHS T T T T T

HUD T T T T

DOI T T T T T

DOJ T T T T T

DOL T T T T T

ST T T

DOT T T T T T

TRSY T T T T

VA T

EPA T T T T T

GSA T T T

NASA T T T T T

NARA T

NRC T T T T

RRB T T

SSA T T T T T

TVA T T T

USPS T T T T

27
6. Public Education Programs 

NECPA, 42 U.S.C. § 8258(b), requires the Secretary of Energy to include in this and subsequent 

annual reports information on public education programs carried out by Federal agencies and 

previously reported under the authority of section 381 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA), 42 U.S.C. § 6361(b). EPCA requires the Secretary of Energy to establish and carry out 

public education programs to encourage energy conservation and energy efficiency and to 

promote vanpooling and carpooling arrangements. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has 

promoted ride sharing activities, while DOE has been responsible for other energy conservation 

education programs. 

Through its Federal Highway Administration, DOT obligates Federal aid funds to assist State and 

local agencies in implementing programs designed to encourage the use of car pools, van pools, 

and buses by commuters. DOT efforts have included van pool acquisition programs, fringe and 

corridor parking facilities, ride-matching projects, preferential treatments for high occupancy 

vehicles, and transit service improvement. Since 1974, more than $875 million in Federal aid 

highway funds have been spent on such projects in an effort to establish self-sufficient programs 

across the Nation. 

The Department of Transportation’s Technology Sharing Program (TSP) makes high quality 

reports in a user-friendly format available to the non-scientist or technical person to understand 

and act on transportation problems of state and local governments. This low-cost program 

disseminates technical reports on a variety of topics to this user community, thus saving them the 

time and cost of researching the information on an individual basis, or not having the information 

at all. The TSP products consist of reports, manuals, and summary documents which can be 

ordered at the following Internet site: http://www.tsp.dot.gov. Subjects include commuter issues 

and travel demand, traffic congestion, land-use development, and risk assessment. 

DOE’s public education programs encompass a wide variety of services, objectives, and 

audiences, covering all major areas of conservation and renewable energy. DOE has organized 

its technology transfer programs to meet the specific information requirements of various 

audiences. 

Three services are managed through subcontracts at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL): DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC), DOE’s 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN), and the FEMP Help Desk. 

EREC provides basic, technical, and financial information on various energy efficiency and 

renewable energy technologies and programs. The audience served by EREC includes the 

general public, business and industry, educational community, media, utility companies, and state 

and local governments. Information is provided in the form of fact sheets, DOE and National 

Laboratory books and brochures, bibliographies, and on-line computer-generated technology 

synopses. Some requests are handled completely over the phone and the caller receives no 

publications. EREC’s telephone number is 800-DOE-EREC (800-363-3732) and its Web site is 

at www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo. In FY 2000, EREC staff responded to 49,738 inquiries and 

disseminated 241,196 publications. 

28
EREN is the official Web site of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE). The audience served by EREN includes business and industry, 

the general public, the educational community, the media, and state and local governments. 

EREN’s Web address is www.eren.doe.gov. The site is a comprehensive resource for energy 

information, providing links to more than 600 energy-related Web sites, allowing keyword 

searches, and offering a full range of information on topics such as building energy efficiency, 

wind power, and alternative fuels. In addition, EERE provides its organizational chart, major 

initiatives, and budget. The site also features current press releases, consumer information, and 

lists of discussion groups on various energy-related topics. There are even forms to submit 

energy-related questions and to subscribe to the EREN Network News e-mail newsletter. 

The FEMP Help Desk provides Federal energy managers with specialized information on 

effective energy management practices, technical assistance on implementing Federal sector 

energy projects, financing information, energy modeling software, publications, and energy 

management training programs. The Help Desk responds to requests for information via a tollfree telephone service, electronic mail, and through the Internet. The Help Desk was merged into 

EREC in FY 1997. The telephone number is 800-DOE-3732. The Web site is 

www.eren.doe.gov/femp. 

The National Energy Information Center (NEIC) responds to public and private sector questions 

on energy production, consumption, prices, resource availability, and projections of supply and 

demand. It also makes available the publications produced by the DOE Energy Information 

Administration. NEIC provides information to Federal employees and the public at 

www.eia.doe.gov. Electronic inquiries may be sent to infoctr@eia.doe.gov. In FY 2000, NEIC 

staff responded to 29,000 inquiries and distributed approximately 28,900 publications. 

The Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), as part of the Office of Science, 

provides coordination and direction for the management of scientific and technical information 

resulting from the DOE’s multi-billion dollar research and development activities. As a crosscutting Headquarters office, OSTI accomplishes its mission through the Scientific and Technical 

Information Program (STIP). STIP operates in partnership with program offices, operations 

offices, and contractors to develop and implement information management “best business 

practices” to ensure that DOE maximizes the return on its $6 billion annual R&D investment. 

OSTI collects, processes, and disseminates DOE-originated research information and selected 

worldwide research literature on subjects of interest. OSTI also provides scientific and technical 

information services to, or on behalf of, DOE elements in support of DOE mandates, missions, 

and objectives. OSTI serves the public directly or indirectly through agreements with the 

National Technical Information Service, Government Printing Office, depository libraries, and 

commercial vendors. EnergyFiles is a publicly available, web-based gateway to an array of 

energy information. Included among the EnergyFiles family is the DOE Information Bridge, an 

electronic full-text collection of 81,320 documents available to the DOE research community. 

OSTI manages a comprehensive collection of approximately one million scientific and technical 

information documents, representing 50 years of energy-related activities. The organization also 

maintains the Energy Science and Technology Database (EDB), which has more than 3.5 million 

29
summaries of DOE and worldwide information. EDB is made available to the public on-line and 

on CD-ROM through commercial vendors. The majority of its users are industry, Federal and 

State officials, contractors, libraries, research institutions, and the public. In FY 2000, OSTI 

added 112,999 research summaries to the database and provided 11,582 full-text documents for 

public availability to the National Technical Information Service and the Government Printing 

Office Depository Library Program. 

FY 2000 initiatives included a strategic effort to process and disseminate information in an 

increasingly decentralized environment. As a continuing step towards a “National Library of 

Energy Science and Technology,” the effort will significantly improve DOE and public access to 

bibliographic and full-text information without major additional investment. In addition to the 

core program activities, OSTI’s other services include developing Internet-based applications for 

DOE offices, providing information management advice and consultation to the Departmental 

community, managing and disseminating DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission scientific 

and technical software, and representing the United States in multilateral and bilateral 

international information exchange agreements. 

The DOE public information mechanisms include several direct service programs designed to 

provide technical assistance to specific target groups. Some of these include: 

# The State Energy Program, a formula grant program, which provides a flexible, supportive 

framework to enable the States to address their own energy priorities, as well as focus on 

national initiatives and strengthens their capabilities to deliver energy services. This 

customer-driven program seeks to increase the extent to which Federal, State, and local 

governments work with other public and private sector entities to achieve widespread 

adoption of available energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and to 

demonstrate the use of emerging technologies which benefit the entire economy. 

# The Special Projects component of the State Energy Program offers States the opportunity to 

apply for competitively selected grants covering a wide range of activities that may expand 

upon a State’s formula grant activities or offer an opportunity to take new initiatives. These 

projects are designed to utilize the State’s skills in forming and sustaining partnerships with 

local governments, industry, utilities, and private organizations. Many of these projects 

involve the dissemination of information about, and/or the demonstration of the viability of a 

variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy applications. 

# The Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) Program provides no-cost energy, waste, and 

productivity assessments to help small and mid-sized manufacturers identify measures to 

maximize energy-efficiency, reduce waste, and improve productivity. The assessments are 

conducted by local teams of engineering faculty and students from 30 participating 

universities across the country. This program not only improves manufacturing efficiency, 

but at the same time provides valuable, hands-on technical training and experience for 

engineering students throughout the U.S. Additional information can be obtained by visiting 

the program Web site at www.oit.doe.gov. 

30
D. Financing Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Federal Facilities 

During FY 2000, Federal agencies had three primary options for financing energy efficiency, 

water conservation, and renewable energy projects in buildings and facilities: direct appropriated 

funding, ESPCs, and utility energy service contracts (UESCs). The latter two options utilize 

non-Government sources of funding and can be used to supplement Government funding. Each 

of these three sources can be combined with another. Formerly, the DOE’s Federal Energy 

Efficiency Fund grant program was a fourth option available to agencies for funding projects; 

however, there were no appropriations for the Fund in FY 2000. 

To the extent that agencies have been able to provide complete reporting, funding from the three 

sources totaled approximately $599 million in FY 2000. While these three categories of funding 

are not entirely comparable, they do indicate that ESPCs and UESCs have become the dominant 

source of support for efficiency investments throughout the Federal Government. Energy 

efficiency investment from ESPCs and UESCs increased 17.4 percent from $395.3 million in FY 

1999 to $478.5 million in FY 2000. In FY 1998, investment from these sources totaled only 

$142.6 million. 

Since 1985, The Government has invested approximately $3.8 billion in energy efficiency, $2.5 

billion of which was direct appropriations and $1.3 billion from alternative financing 

mechanisms ($0.8 billion from ESPCs and $0.5 billion from UESCs). 

1. Direct Appropriations 

The National Energy Conservation Policy Act requires each agency, in support of the President’s 

annual budget request to Congress, to specifically set forth and identify funds requested for 

energy conservation measures. Table 4-A presents agency funding (in nominal dollars) reported 

from FY 1985 through FY 2000 for energy conservation retrofits and capital equipment. Table 

4-B presents the same information in constant 2000 dollars. In constant dollars, funding for 

energy conservation declined from $375.3 million in FY 1985 to a low of $67.0 million in 

FY 1989. Reports from Federal agencies indicated that $121.1 million was spent on retrofit 

expenditures in FY 2000, compared with $209.4 million in FY 1999. In some cases, the data 

provided by the agencies include funding from operation and maintenance accounts that was 

specifically identified as contributing to energy efficiency. Figure 4 illustrates agency spending 

trends for the five largest energy-consuming agencies and the remaining group of Federal 

agencies. 

The Defense Department funded $44.4 million in expenditures for energy efficiency projects in 

FY 2000, $48.7 million less than the previous year. 

31
Table 4-A

Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipm

FY 1985 through FY 2000 (Thousands of Nominal Dollars)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199

DOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 872 0 51 0 0 NDOD 136,100 120,000 5,550 5,280 1,500 1,020 10,000 49,669 14,444 109,000 189,600 112,487 118,97

DOE 14,800 14,500 16,500 18,900 19,400 19,500 20,400 20,650 20,950 24,850 30,200 0 

DOI 3,198 5,535 0 0 4,338 0 1,272 9,800 4,859 1,662 779 891 

DOJ 0 0 0 195 484 6,100 26,400 0 N/A 1,284 994 1,559 2,09

DOL 238 31 106 142 584 17 35 16 0 0 N/A 366 

DOT 13,650 15,000 12,104 12,700 2,908 0 460 143 593 5,970 3,793 2,585 3,17

EPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 1,720 1,600 1,60

GSA 6,700 6,100 2,900 9,400 4,868 11,125 30,123 37,000 30,000 37,000 7,242 7,400 20,00HHS 0 0 0 427 427 427 427 0 1,813 1,915 1,271 2,676 2,87

HUD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 30 43 0 2,41

NASA 11,800 12,100 1,700 1,400 4,499 2,943 7,556 7,086 25,072 24,658 20,666 30,266 15,91PCC 1,274 73 1,174 600 378 361 807 249 500 608 14 23 

RRB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 13 33 0 3

SSA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 1,90

TRSY 0 0 2,977 2,393 2,823 1,134 836 0 1,344 4,826 2,810 170 2,99

TVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 844 4,277 522 1,15

USDA 2,500 0 0 500 500 1,547 1,752 7,300 7,045 7,277 2,894 5,983 3,89

USPS 55,300 9,300 5,100 3,800 4,000 4,000 4,000 2,293 1,116 1,123 10,050 9,000 16,00

VA 13,000 11,500 9,500 9,860 5,500 11,200 9,970 10,000 12,100 9,050 11,960 3,700 7,40

Total 258,560 194,139 57,611 65,597 52,209 59,374 114,038 145,078 120,870 230,228 288,346 179,228 200,43Notes: Bold indicates top five energy users in buildings and facilities (DOD, DOE, VA, USPS, GSA). In past years, DOE also included 

funds for energy surveys. Does not include energy savings performance contracts and utility demand side management incentives. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

32
Table 4-B

Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equip

FY 1985 through FY 2000 (Thousands of Constant 2000 Dollars)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199

DOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,015 0 57 0 0 DOD 197,533 170,455 7,645 7,040 1,926 1,261 11,919 57,822 16,414 121,381 206,536 120,307 124,70DOE 21,480 20,597 22,727 25,200 24,904 24,104 24,315 24,040 23,807 27,673 32,898 0 DOI 4,642 7,862 0 0 5,569 0 1,516 11,409 5,522 1,851 849 953 DOJ 0 0 0 260 621 7,540 31,466 0 0 1,430 1,083 1,667 2,19DOL 345 44 146 189 750 21 42 19 0 0 0 391 DOT 19,811 21,307 16,672 16,933 3,733 0 548 166 673 6,648 4,132 2,765 3,32EPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 568 0 1,874 1,711 1,67GSA 9,724 8,665 3,994 12,533 6,249 13,752 35,903 43,073 34,091 41,203 7,889 7,914 20,96HHS 0 0 0 569 548 528 509 0 2,060 2,133 1,385 2,862 3,01HUD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 33 47 0 2,53NASA 17,126 17,188 2,342 1,867 5,775 3,638 9,006 8,249 28,491 27,459 22,512 32,370 16,68PCC 1,849 104 1,617 800 485 446 962 290 568 677 15 25 RRB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 14 36 0 4SSA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 1,99TRSY 0 0 4,101 3,191 3,624 1,402 996 0 1,527 5,374 3,061 182 3,13TVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 540 940 4,659 558 1,21USDA 3,628 0 0 667 642 1,912 2,088 8,498 8,006 8,104 3,153 6,399 4,07USPS 80,261 13,210 7,025 5,067 5,135 4,944 4,768 2,669 1,269 1,251 10,948 9,626 16,77VA 18,868 16,335 13,085 13,147 7,060 13,844 11,883 11,641 13,750 10,078 13,028 3,957 7,75Total 375,269 275,766 79,354 87,463 67,021 73,392 135,921 168,892 137,353 256,379 314,102 191,688 210,09Notes: Bold indicates top five energy users in buildings and facilities (DOD, DOE, VA, USPS, GSA). In past years, DOE also included 

funds for energy surveys. Does not include energy savings performance contracts and utility demand side management incentives. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

33
FIGURE 4

Direct Appropriations for Energy Conservation Retrofit

(In Constant 2000 Dollars)

400,000 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Fiscal Year 

DOD DOE GSA USPS VA Other 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports Thous

ands of D

ollars 

34
2. Federal Energy Efficiency Fund 

The Federal Energy Efficiency Fund was established by section 152 of EPACT, which amended

section 546 of NECPA, to provide grants to agencies to assist them in meeting the mandated

energy efficiency and water conservation requirements. The limited spending authority available

in FY 1994 and FY 1995 was applied to those proposals which were most competitive,

considering the five following factors: 

# The cost-effectiveness of the project (saving-to-investment ratio).

# The net dollar cost savings to the Federal Government.

# The amount of energy savings to the Federal Government.

# The amount of funding committed by the agency requesting financial assistance.

# The amount of funding leveraged from non-Federal sources.

No spending authority has been provided beyond FY 1995. A total of 114 proposals were

received during FY 1994 and FY 1995 and Fund grants were provided for 37 projects. Of these,

35 projects provide energy savings of 5.8 trillion Btu and two projects result in water

conservation in the amount of 738 million cubic feet, with an estimated energy and water cost

savings of $54 million (before payback of the initial investment) over the useful lives of the

projects. The total Fund investment to realize these savings was $7.9 million, which leveraged

$3.6 million in Federal-agency funding and $0.9 million in non-Federal funding. The projects

encompass 14 states and the District of Columbia, with one project located in the Caribbean. 

35
3. Energy Savings Performance Contracting 

Section 155 of EPACT amended Title VIII of NECPA, sections 801 and 804, relating to energy 

savings contracts. Section 801, as amended, gives agencies the authority to enter into ESPCs and 

describes the methodology of contract implementation. The ESPC program was created to 

provide agencies with a quick and cost-effective way to increase the energy efficiency of Federal 

buildings. Under an ESPC, a private sector energy service company (ESCO) will assume the 

capital costs of installing energy conservation equipment and renewable energy systems. The 

ESCO guarantees the agency a fixed amount of energy cost savings throughout the life of the 

contract and is paid from those cost savings. Agencies retain the remainder of the energy cost 

savings. 

On April 10, 1995, DOE published in the Federal Register (10 CFR Part 436) a final rule that 

sets forth the regulations for energy savings performance contracting. An application process for 

a Qualified List of ESCOs was also released with the ESPC regulations. Only firms on the 

Qualified List may receive an ESPC contract award. Firms that wish to be on the Qualified List 

must submit an application to DOE and possess the required experience and expertise. The List 

is continually updated. 

On November 2, 1998, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act was signed by President 

Clinton to become Public Law 105-388. The law made several significant changes to EPACT 

and NECPA. Section 4 of Public Law 105-388 amends NECPA section 801 to extend the 

authority of Federal agencies to enter into ESPCs through September 30, 2003. Without this 

amendment, the authority would have expired on April 10, 2000. Section 4 also amends the 

definition of “Federal agency” in NECPA Section 804 to include each authority of the U.S. 

Government, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency. 

On June 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13123. Section 403(a) states that 

“Agencies shall maximize their use of available alternative financing contracting mechanisms, 

including Energy Savings Performance Contracts.” This Section goes on to state that “Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts...provide significant opportunities for making Federal facilities 

more energy efficient at no net cost to taxpayers.” 

During FY 2000, 81 ESPC contracts or delivery orders were awarded at 10 agencies. These 

include delivery orders awarded through the DOE/FEMP Regional and Tech-Specific ESPC 

programs as well as projects awarded by the Department of Defense and other agencies. Total 

contractor investment from these projects is approximately $287.0 million, providing the 

Government with an opportunity to save almost 1.7 trillion Btu each year. These ESPCs include 

58 by the Department of Defense, six by the General Services Administration and the 

Department of Veteran’s Affairs, three by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, 

two by the Departments of Labor and Agriculture, and one each by the Department of Energy, 

Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Postal Service. 

36
Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Delivery Orders Awarded 

by Federal Agencies in FY 2000 

Allocation of Project Cost Savings (Thousand $) 

Agency 

Number of 

Delivery Orders/ 

Contracts 

Contractor 

Investment 

(Thousand $) 

Guaranteed 

Total 

Cost Savings 

Less Payment 

to Contractor 

Net Savings to 

Government 

Annual 

Energy Savings 

(MMBTU) 

Agriculture 2 $7,018 $89 33,329 

Defense 58 $237,628 $56,352 1,274,866 

Energy 1 $4,450 $9,685 $716 86,713 

EPA 1 $4,276 $279 11,199 

Interior 1 $2,047 $151 10,931 

Labor 2 $1,689 $36 28,489 

GSA 6 $14,799 $189 90,571 

NASA 3 $4,073 $0 43,880 

U.S. Postal Service 1 $1,626 $2,131 $1,951 $180 13,442 

Veterans Affairs 6 $9,033 $1,062 98,286 

Total 81 $286,638 $59,053 1,691,706 

$14,134 $14,045 

$487,252 $414,563 

$10,401 

$8,967 $8,688 

$5,726 $5,575 

$3,452 $3,417 

$23,337 $23,148 

$8,910 $8,910 

$19,036 $17,974 

$583,347 $507,956 

In FY 2000, the Department of Defense through a decentralized approach, awarded the largest 

number of contracts/delivery orders with 58 ESPC projects. These contracts include many 

infrastructure upgrades and new equipment to help DOD installations reduce energy and water 

consumption. Examples include new thermal storage systems, chillers, boilers, lights, motors, 

EMCS systems and water reducing devices. Normally, cost savings are used to first pay the 

contractor, and then are used to offset other base operating support expenses. In some cases, 

however, installations decide to seek a shorter contract term and defer all Government cost 

savings until contract completion. In these cases, the savings generated by ESPCs help to reduce 

the energy consumption, but do not reduce the total cost of operation until the contracts expire. 

After contract expiration and the retrofits are paid for, the Department of Defense will be able to 

obtain full cost savings. 

In FY 2000, the Department of Defense received Congressional funding of $4 million to 

facilitate implementation of ESPC contracts. A similar $4 million Congressional appropriation 

for ESPCs was made in FY 2001. 

Awarding ESPCs on a one-by-one basis has often proven to be complex and time consuming. To 

make it easier to use ESPCs, DOE/FEMP developed Regional and Technology-Specific Super 

ESPCs. Both Regional and Technology-Specific Super ESPCs share the same general contract 

terminology and provisions with conventional ESPCs and they present several significant 

advantages to Federal agencies. 

Super ESPCs are unlike conventional ESPCs in two fundamental ways. First, a Super ESPC 

blankets a large geographic territory; a conventional ESPC is used for a specific site. Second, 

Super ESPCs substantially reduce the lead time to contract with an ESCO for energy services. 

Super ESPCs are broad area indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts that allow 

agencies to negotiate site-specific delivery orders with an ESCO without having to start the 

37
contracting process from scratch. Demand on agency resources to develop and award contracts, 

as well as lead times, will be greatly reduced, and energy savings will be realized more quickly. 

The Western Regional Super ESPC was awarded to five ESCOs in May 1997 and covered the 

states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and U.S. 

Pacific Territories. The Southeast (covering Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) 

Midwest (covering Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin), 

and Central Regional Super ESPCs (covering Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming) were 

awarded to various ESCOs during FY 1998 and FY 1999. 

The Mid-Atlantic (covering Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West 

Virginia and the District of Columbia) and Northeast Regional Super ESPCs (covering 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) 

were awarded two ESCOs during FY 2000. The Mid-Atlantic Regional ESPC was awarded to 

one ESCO (ERI Services, Inc.) Also, the Northeast Regional Super ESPC was awarded to one 

ESCO (Honeywell, Inc.). 

During FY 2000, 19 Regional Super ESPC delivery orders were awarded. Total contractor 

investment is more than $57 million, providing almost 540 billion Btu of energy savings to the 

Government. These delivery orders include six by the GSA, four by the Department of Defense, 

two by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor, and one each by the DOE, 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Also during FY 

2000, one Technology-Specific Super ESPC delivery order was awarded by the Department of 

Defense at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland. 

Technology-Specific Super ESPCs emphasize a particular advanced energy-efficiency or 

renewable energy technology to advance these proven, yet still emerging, technologies in the 

Federal marketplace. They blanket the entire nation and carry the same agency resource and time 

saving benefits as Regional Super ESPCs. ESCOs chosen for these awards have unique 

capabilities and experience in providing energy savings through installation of the technology, 

thereby greatly reducing the risks of misapplying emerging technologies. Technology-Specific 

Super ESPCs can also be comprehensive projects employing multiple energy conservation 

measures, as long as the named technology is the focus of the project. 

38
Delivery Orders Awarded with DOE Super ESPC Program Support 

Project Name/Location Project Description Contractor 

Investment 

Savings 

(MMBTU) 

Agriculture, National Animal 

Disease Center, Agricultural 

Research Services, Ames, IA 

Boilers, EMCS, HVAC, Lighting, 

Electric Motors, Electrical/Cogeneration 

Systems, Electric Distribution System, 

Rate Reduction/Audit 

$6,363,685 26,031 

Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Library, 

Beltsville, MD 

Lighting, Burner Replacement, Chiller 

Plant Automation, Building Automation 

System 

$654,100 6,298 

Defense, Presidio of 

Monterey, Monterey, CA 

Lighting $1,786,056 4,632 

Defense, National Imagery & 

Mapping Agency 

Lighting, Occupancy Sensor installation 

and PCU consolidation 

$949,114 9,328 

Defense, Fort Rucker, Fort 

Benning, Fort Gordon, Fort 

Jackson, & Fort Stewart 

Medical Commands 

Chiller, EMCS, HVAC, Lighting, 

Building Envelope Modifications, Piping 

and Distr. Systems, Motors and Drives 

$11,781,507 110,068 

Defense, Fox Army Health 

Center, Huntsville, AL 

EMCS, Chiller and Lighting 

Improvements 

$1,326,355 12,391 

Defense, Patuxent River Naval 

Air Station, Patuxent River, 

MD 

Tech-Specific Super ESPC - Geothermal 

Heat Pumps and EMCS 

$4,785,168 44,705 

Energy, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, TX 

Lighting, Chilled water and steam 

distribution piping systems, air handling 

units, solar water heaters, temperature 

controllers, ozone laundry system, 

preheat coil controls, BAS/EMS system 

$4,449,685 86,713 

Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Risk 

Management Research 

Laboratory, Ada, OK 

Renewable Energy Systems $4,275,612 24,900 

General Services 

Administration, Ft. Worth 

Office for Project in Austin, 

Ft. Worth, TX 

Chillers, EMCS, Lighting, Water $3,721,661 15,295 

General Services 

Administration, Dallas -

Ft.Worth Office for Project in 

South Texas Sites, Ft.Worth, 

TX 

Lighting, Chiller Replacements, Solar, 

EMCS, VFDs, Water 

$956,335 5,733 

General Services 

Administration, Leo O’Brien 

Federal Building, Albany, NY 

Boiler, Chiller, Building Automation, 

HVAC, Lighting, Building Envelope 

Mods., Motors and Drives 

$983,215 6,693 

39
Project Name/Location Project Description Contractor 

Investment 

Savings 

(MMBTU) 

General Services 

Administration, Denver 

Federal Center, Lakewood, 

CO 

EMCS, chillers, pump w/VFD, Variable 

volume chilled water system, Lighting, 

Irrigation system controls, Solar domestic 

hot water system repair/rehabilitation 

$2,426,454 34,201 

General Services 

Administration, Lincoln 

Courthouse and Federal 

Building, NE 

Boilers, Chillers, EMCS VAV, Lighting, 

Steam Traps and Water 

$4,120,128 20,784 

General Services 

Administration, Releigh, NC 

EMCS, Boiler and Chiller Improvements $2,591,453 24,210 

Interior, Sherman Indian High 

School, Riverside, CA 

Lighting, PV System, HVAC mods, Pool 

Cover and Ventilation Controls, Pump 

VFD and Controls 

$2,366,270 10,931 

Labor, Job Corps Centers, San 

Bernadino & Sactramento, CA 

Lighting $205,475 8,800 

Labor, Gary Job Corps 

Center, San Marcos, TX 

EMCS, HVAC, Lighting, Renewables, 

Water 

$1,483,360 19,689 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, Ames 

Research Center, San 

Francisco, CA 

EMCS, Lighting, and Renewable Energy 

Systems 

$1,916,688 24,133 

Veterans Affairs, Medical 

Center, Salt Lake City, UT 

Chiller, EMCS, HVAC, Lighting, RE 

systems, Electric distribution system, 

Rate reduction/audit 

$4,921,796 52,386 

The first Technology-Specific Super ESPC was awarded in September 1996 to provide solar hot 

water heating with parabolic troughs. The contract value was $30 million. During FY 1998, the 

photovoltaics Technology-Specific Super ESPC was awarded to two ESCOs. This contract was 

worth $50 million. In February 1999, the geothermal heat pump Technology-Specific Super 

ESPC was awarded to five ESCOs. This contract was worth $500 million. In September 2000, a 

geothermal heat pump Technology-Specific Super ESPC was awarded for a project at the U.S. 

Navy’s Patuxent River Naval Air Station. Contractor investment in this project is almost $4.4 

million. Annual energy savings include 952,466 kWh of electricity, 9,964 gallons of fuel oil, and 

121,979 thems of natural gas. In addition, the project conserves 16.5 million gallons of water per 

year. The total annual value of the energy and water savings will be approximately $330,070 per 

year over the 20 year term of the project. Savings are due primarily to lighting retrofits and 

replacement of conventional HVAC equipment with geothermal heat pumps. In addition, cooling 

requirements for a mission-critical environmental test chamber – currently met by circulating 

treated domestic water, which is then ejected to the building storm sewer – will now be met with a 

closed-loop geothermal system. 

40
Over the next several years, it is anticipated that more Technology-Specific Super ESPCs will be 

awarded covering a wide range of energy and cost saving technologies. 

4. Utility Energy Service Contracts 

Section 403(a) of Executive Order 13123 provides that Federal agencies maximize their use of 

available alternative financing contracting mechanisms, including utility energy service contracts 

(UESCs), when life-cycle cost-effective, to meet the energy reduction goals of the order. Agencies 

are encouraged to partner with the private sector to implement facility and energy improvements, 

streamline contracts, and maximize purchasing power. UESCs provide significant opportunities 

for making Federal facilities more energy efficient at no net cost to taxpayers. 

The financing mechanism offered through UESCs enables agencies to implement energy and 

water efficiency projects without obtaining direct appropriations. These energy contracts are 

designed to leverage private sector financing to pay for energy efficiency improvements. The net 

cost to the participating Federal agency remains minimal, as the projects pay for themselves from 

a share of the energy cost savings. The financing tool also helps the agency save time and 

resources by using the services provided by the utility. Utility services range from rebates on 

energy-efficient equipment to energy audits, feasibility studies, design, finance, and delivery of 

complete turn-key projects, with contract terms generally limited to 10 years. Projects typically 

begin with an energy audit and feasibility study, and proceed to engineering, design, and 

installation phases. 

FEMP helps Federal agencies and their utility companies work together to save energy and dollars 

at Federal facilities. FEMP supports agencies and their utilities by promoting Federal/utility 

partnerships through the Federal Utility Partnership Working Group and supplying alternative 

financing information. FEMP provides comprehensive assistance and services to agencies with 

the support of partners, including DOE offices, DOE national laboratories, and private sector 

contractors. Six DOE Regional Offices serve as the initial customer contact points and customer 

advocates. FEMP also sponsors utility-related training, helps remove regulatory barriers, and 

provides information on utility restructuring and its effects on Federal agencies to help agencies to 

take advantage of the partnerships. 

In FY 2000, a total of 84 UESCs were implemented by all Federal agencies. Private sector 

investment in the projects totaled $191.3 million. The estimated annual energy cost savings from 

the 84 projects is $40 million. 

Projects were undertaken by agencies to accomplish a wide variety of energy efficiency 

improvements. Of the 84 UESCs awarded in FY 2000, 41 were implemented by the Department 

of Defense. Contracts were put in place to perform infrastructure upgrades and purchase new 

equipment to help installations reduce energy and water consumption. Examples of equipment 

purchased with the UESC financing tool include: new thermal storage systems, chillers, boilers, 

lights, motors, EMCS systems and water reducing devices. 

GSA awarded three utility financed projects in FY 2000 with a total value of $9.9 million and 

expected annual energy cost savings of 11.4 billion Btu. The contracts were used to implement a 

41
large number of energy retrofits at three GSA facilities in Region 11. Combined with those 

already in progress, GSA has 13 UESC projects in place. 

In FY 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services focused its efforts on promoting and 

facilitating the use of alternative financing mechanisms to implement energy and water efficiency 

projects. NIH entered into three UESCs for a total of $38.9 million in FY 2000. These projects 

included the construction and operation of a 23-megawatt cogeneration facility, the installation of 

an energy management control system, and the upgrade of lighting and motors at the main 

campus. 

The Office of Personnel Management entered into a $2 million UESC with its Washington, D.C. 

utility provider in FY 2000. This contract led to the retrofitting of all of the lights in the Theodore 

Roosevelt Building with new energy efficient fluorescent tubes and ballasts. The contract was 

later amended and enlarged to include the air conditioning chiller plant replacement, begun in FY 

2000 and continued in FY 2001. 

5. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) 

Section 544 of NECPA, as amended in 1988, requires DOE to establish practical and effective 

methods for estimating and comparing the life-cycle costs for Federal buildings using the sum of 

all capital and operating costs for energy systems of new buildings involved over the expected life 

of such systems or during a period of 25 years, whichever is shorter, and using average fuel costs 

and a discount rate determined by the Secretary of Energy. In addition, section 544 requires that 

procedures be developed in applying and implementing the methods that are established. EPACT 

further amends NECPA to require, after January 1, 1994, agencies which lease buildings to fully 

consider the efficiency of all potential building space at the time of renewing or entering into a 

new lease. 

In the past, FEMP has published updated fuel price projections for life-cycle cost analyses on 

October 1 of each year to coincide with the beginning of the fiscal year. The FY 2000 update of 

the Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Annual Supplement 

to Handbook 135 was published and distributed to Federal energy managers in April 1999. 

42
E. ENERGY STAR® and Energy Efficient Product Procurement 

Executive Order 13123 directs Federal agencies to purchase ENERGY STAR labeled products, or, 

for those product types not covered by the EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR labeling program, products 

“in the upper 25 percent of energy efficiency as designated by FEMP.” Reinforcing the message 

is a stipulation in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR 23.704) that “Agencies shall 

implement cost-effective contracting preference programs favoring the acquisition of . . . energyefficient products. . . ., i.e., products that are in the upper 25 percent of energy-efficiency for all 

similar products.” This FAR provision was initiated in response to Executive Order 12902 

(1994), and efforts are presently under way to modify the language in accordance with E.O. 13123 

(e.g., to refer to ENERGY STAR products). 

The ENERGY STAR labeling program is a joint effort between EPA and DOE to get manufacturers 

(and some retailers) to identify efficient products with an easily recognizable logo, the ENERGY 

STAR. Since this is a nation-wide labeling program covering multiple products, it makes it very 

simple for customers to identify truly efficient models among those offered – for instance, on a 

retail floor, or among various models listed in a product catalog. In FY 2000, the program 

included a wide variety of office equipment and home heating and cooling products, as well as 

many consumer audio and video products (e.g., TVs, VCRs, and DVD players), appliances, and 

residential windows. Some commercial equipment was also covered, such as exit signs, lowvoltage distribution transformers, and roof products. 

To assist Federal agencies in meeting the requirements of the Executive Order and FAR 

directives, FEMP publishes a series of Product Energy Efficiency Recommendations, which 

delineate the efficiency levels that meet the ENERGY STAR and “upper 25%” requirements of the 

Executive Order. The Recommendations also provide cost-effectiveness examples, tips on 

important product selection parameters such as sizing and fuel choice, and information about 

buying efficient products from the Federal supply agencies: the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

and the GSA. The Recommendations, which now cover more than 30 products, are available on 

FEMP’s Web site at www.eren.doe.gov/femp/procurement, as well as in print, through a looseleaf binder called “Buying Energy Efficient Products.” The binder is available free of charge from 

FEMP’s clearinghouse (800-363-3732); subscribers receive new and updated material as it is 

printed, approximately every six months. 

To be most effective, FEMP’s product efficiency recommendations need to be incorporated into 

other purchasing guidance, such as technical specifications and agency-specific policies and 

practices. Pursuant to this concern, FEMP has made considerable progress in partnership with the 

two major Government supply agencies, DLA and GSA. During FY 2000, FEMP worked with 

GSA’s Federal Supply Service (FSS) and with DLA to identify energy-efficient equipment among 

supply offerings. As a result of FEMP’s joint effort with GSA/FSS on electronic product coding, 

GSA customers shopping on-line can, in many cases, distinguish models that are ENERGY STAR or 

FEMP-compliant. 

DLA’s customers rely heavily on the information in the Federal Logistics Information System 

(FLIS) database to procure products and equipment. The FLIS catalogs millions of items by 

“national stock numbers” (NSNs), which can be accessed by vendor name or code. 

43
DLA has established a database field within the FLIS that highlights positive environmental 

attributes, such as energy efficiency or recycled materials, using the FEMP efficiency thresholds 

to define “energy-efficient” and “water-conserving” (for plumbing fixtures such as showerheads 

and toilets). 

By the end of FY 2000, FEMP’s biggest success with its energy-efficient purchasing program was 

the incorporation by several large Federal construction agencies of FEMP-recommended product 

efficiency levels into agency master, or guide, specifications for construction and major 

renovation. When an agency writes a FEMP recommendation into a “guide spec” for a given 

product, it generally assures that virtually all the buildings constructed by that agency will use 

only models that comply with the highly efficient levels – affecting millions of dollars worth of 

product. On the vanguard of this movement are the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy. 

Products for which guide specifications incorporating FEMP’s recommended efficiency levels had 

been written by the end of fiscal year 2000 include electric chillers, fluorescent lighting, exit 

signs, distribution transformers, and roof products. 

Finally, FEMP partnered with DLA and DOE's Office of Building Technologies in FY 2000 to 

issue a solicitation for a new generation of unitary air conditioners that are significantly more 

energy-efficient than models typically purchased. This type of "packaged" unit is often found on 

rooftops of low-rise federal and commercial buildings, and is typically specified on the basis of 

lowest first-cost rather than lowest life-cycle cost, including electricity (and peak demand) costs 

which are the focus of this solicitation. The intent is to use federal buying power to help establish 

an initial market demand that reduces the risk to manufacturers of developing and marketing a 

much more efficient and cost-effective line of products. The DLA solicitation will result in a 

separate basic ordering agreement that will also allow commercial and other non-federal 

organizations to buy high-performance rooftop units from winning bidders on the same terms as 

federal agencies. 

44
F. Integrated Whole Building Efficiency 

1. Federal Building Energy Performance Standards 

The Energy Conservation and Protection Act (ECPA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 

1992, mandates that new Federal buildings must contain energy saving and renewable energy 

specifications that meet or exceed the energy saving and renewable energy specifications of the 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/ 

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-1989 and the Council 

of American Building Officials Model Energy Codes (MEC) 1992. 

A final rule on the Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise 

Residential Buildings was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2000 and became 

effective on October 8, 2001. The Energy Code revised the prior interim Federal standards to 

conform generally with the codified version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 and incorporated 

changes in the areas of lighting, mechanical ventilation, motors, building envelope, and 

fenestration rating test procedures, and test procedures for heating and cooling equipment. 

Additionally, the new lighting provisions are more stringent than those in Standard 90.1-1989 and 

reflect new information concerning energy requirements needed to achieve adequate lighting 

levels. In FY 2002, DOE initiated another update of the Federal commercial building standards 

using ASHRAE 90.1-1999 as the model, and expected to solicit public comments on this new 

proposed rule in a Federal Register notice during the latter part of 2002. 

A separate proposed rule for new Federal residential buildings was issued by DOE in the Federal 

Register in May 1997. DOE has determined that the 1997 proposed rule does not contain 

sufficient cost effective, energy efficient requirements for new Federal residential buildings. 

Therefore, DOE will propose a new rule containing updated energy efficient measures. 

2. ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

Section 403 of Executive Order 13123 calls upon agencies to strive to meet the ENERGY STAR® 

building criteria for energy performance and indoor environmental quality in their eligible 

facilities to the maximum extent practicable by the end of 2002. Agencies have the option of 

using energy savings performance contracts, utility energy-efficiency service contracts, or other 

means to conduct evaluations and make improvements to their buildings in order to meet the 

criteria. Buildings that rank in the top 25 percent in energy efficiency relative to comparable 

commercial and Federal buildings will receive the ENERGY STAR® building label. 

ENERGY STAR® is a program that was developed by EPA with DOE as a co-sponsor to promote 

energy efficiency through the use of online software that benchmarks and ranks office buildings in 

terms of energy efficiency. In FY 2000, only office buildings were able to be benchmarked by 

EPA’s benchmarking tool. Other building types will be included in future years, beginning with 

laboratories and classroom buildings. Actual ENERGY STAR® Building certification and labeling 

is based upon measured building data and a comparison with archetypes in various regions of the 

country. Many agencies are using the five-stage ENERGY STAR® implementation strategy, which 

45
consists of lighting upgrades, building tune-up, other load reductions, fan system upgrades, and

heating and cooling systems upgrades. 

The ENERGY STAR® Building program is currently being implemented and utilized by many

different agencies. To spotlight a few examples:

# Energy consumption in the TVA’s Chattanooga Office Complex was less than 50,000

Btu/GSF, which exceeds both TVA's target for facility design and the FY 2010 building 

energy reduction goal established in Executive Order 13123. 

# The USPS is working to develop specific ENERGY STAR® criteria for postal facilities. 

During FY 2000, a beta test was conducted on the criteria using data collected from 

USPS “Do It Yourself” energy surveys and financial performance data. When completed, 

this effort will provide an ENERGY STAR® benchmarking model addressing USPS 

buildings. 

# NASA analyzed 64 facilities at nine locations and as a result, two buildings will receive 

the ENERGY STAR® Label. Recommended ESPCs and UESCs were also developed to 

require pre- and post-retrofit ENERGY STAR® analyses of projects involving significant 

energy improvements in NASA office buildings. 

# GSA has earned the ENERGY STAR® Building Label for 70 of its own facilities and one of 

its leased facilities. The total square footage for the facilities is 17.4 million GSF. 

# Three EPA office buildings, either owned or leased by GSA, have been awarded the 

ENERGY STAR® label. 

3. Sustainable Building Design 

As required by Section 403(d) of Executive Order 13123, DOD and GSA, in consultation with 

DOE and EPA, have developed sustainable design principles. Agencies are required to apply such 

principles to the development, design, and construction of new facilities. Agencies shall optimize 

life-cycle costs, pollution, and other environmental and energy costs associated with the 

construction, life-cycle operation, and decommissioning of the facility. Agencies have the option 

of using ESPCs or UESCs as well, to aid them in constructing sustainably designed buildings. 

All agencies are either developing or have implemented the Whole Building Design Guide 

(WBDC) and the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environment Design 

(LEED) programs into their facilities design standards and master planning process, as well as 

applying integrated design approaches to the life-cycle of buildings and infrastructures. The 

WBDG and LEED are part of a complete Internet resource to a wide range of building-related 

design guidance, criteria and technology allowing the integrating of sustainable building design. 

The WBDG is an up-to-date, knowledge-based, creatively linked to information across disciplines 

and traditional professional boundaries, intended to encourage the “whole building approach” to 

design and construction, and used by Federal, military and private sector architects, engineers, and 

project managers. The “whole buildings” design approach asks the members of the planning, 

design and construction team to look at the materials, systems and assemblies from many different 

perspectives. The design is evaluated for cost, quality-of-life, future flexibility, efficiency, overall 

environmental impact, productivity, creativity, and how the occupants will be enlivened. 

46
Examples of criteria that have been incorporated in many facilities include the installation of high 

performance windows, direct-digital control remote control systems, high efficient electric 

lighting, new energy HVAC equipment, and increased insulation in roofs, walls and foundations. 

Many agencies are incorporating low-cost projects such as: replacing high volume water fixtures, 

purchasing solar power generation and installing solar lighting, upgrading lighting with motion 

detectors and occupancy sensors, installing or replacing insulation, replacing mechanical 

ventilation systems with natural ventilation, and installing water conserving toilets. 

Integrated sustainable building design is demonstrated at a Weather Forecast Office (WFO) built 

for the National Weather Service (NWS) in Tlyan, Guam. The facility, located in an area with 

extreme weather and environmental conditions, is required to operate 24-hours a day, 365-days a 

year. The facility houses sensitive electronic systems and complex communication equipment 

necessary to fulfill its critical mission of providing weather data for the region. The design team 

looked at opportunities to integrate sustain sustainable features as: low maintenance and energy 

efficient equipment, use of alternate energy resources, waste reduction, use of recycled materials, 

and optimizing indoor environmental quality. Using DOE 2.1 E Software, a benchmark-model of 

typical energy use in previous NWS facilities was created. This benchmark was used in analyzing 

various design and material specification options. The sustainable building design elements 

incorporated in the WFO include building siting, landscape, maintenance, daylighting, energy 

efficient sensors, alternate energy resources, indoor air quality measures, and recycled/renewable 

materials. The steps taken at the WFO facility are expected to result in annual energy cost savings 

of approximately 22 percent, compared to a typical American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers-compliant building. 

4. Highly Efficient Systems 

Under Section 403(g) of Executive Order 13123, agencies are to implement district energy 

systems and other highly efficient systems in new construction or retrofit projects. Agencies are to 

consider combined cooling, heat, and power when upgrading and assessing facility power needs 

and survey local natural resources to optimize use of available biomass, bioenergy, geothermal, or 

other naturally occurring energy sources. 

Highly efficient systems are being installed and utilized by nearly every reporting agency. In 

many cases, agencies are forming ESPCs with energy service companies to install cogeneration, 

geothermal and biomass systems. In FY 2000 the Army was in the third year of a 5-year, $300 

million central boiler plant modernization program. The goals of this program are to update the 

aging central boiler plant infrastructure that is currently found on many installations. These 

projects have resulted in upgraded or new boilers, new distribution systems, improved high 

efficiency pumps and motors, and updated system controls in all of these plants. 

Three programs at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Energy 

Management, Geothermal and Environmental Technologies, and Environmental Remediation, 

worked together to conceive, develop, evaluate, and advocate a method of extracting energy 

from an untapped renewable energy resource. This resource is the treated effluent from pollution 

prevention groundwater remediation pump-and-treat installations. LLNL has successfully 

47
demonstrated the utilization of this resource as condenser water in a nearby building’s watersource heat pumps, and, further as irrigation water. 

In FY 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the Department of Health and 

Human Services, signed a UESC with the local utility to construct a 23-megawatt cogeneration 

unit that is a prime example of a highly efficient energy system. Another example is under 

construction at the NIH Clinical Research Center (CRC), and involves the use of steam driven 

electric generating turbines as a means of conserving steam energy that would otherwise be lost in 

the normal pressure reducing process. 

5. Water Conservation 

Under Section 207 of Executive Order 13123, agencies are required to reduce water consumption

and associated energy use in their facilities to reach the goals set under section 503(f) of the order.

The water conservation goals require agencies to implement life-cycle cost-effective water

efficiency programs that include developing a comprehensive water management plan and at least

four separate Water Efficiency Improvement Best Management Practices (BMP), as defined in

DOE guidance documents. The goals include the following schedule for program implementation

in agencies’ facilities: 05 percent of facilities by 2002, 15 percent of facilities by 2004, 30 percent

of facilities by 2006, 50 percent of facilities by 2008, and 80 percent of facilities by 2010.

FY 2000 water consumption data are used by agencies as baseline usage to measure progress in

water conservation efforts. Agencies use actual data where available or develop estimates where

actual data are not available. Water usage was reported to the Department of Energy in the FY

2000 annual energy reports. Federal water usage will thereafter be reported every two years

beginning in 2002. Water conservation measures implemented and water saved on an annual basis

will also be reported. 

In FY 2000, all reporting agencies combined consumed nearly 256.4 billion gallons of water at a

cost of more than $432 million. It is likely that actual consumption is higher due to underreporting by agencies. This is the first year that agencies were asked to submit data on water

consumption and many agencies are still putting in place accurate systems for capturing this data. 

Conservation efforts undertaken by agencies in FY 2000 included the installation or

implementation of the following:

# Recycled effluent water,

# Computer control systems programmed to operate wells and pumps,

# Low-flow faucets,

# Ultra-low consumption toilets with electric flush sensors,

# Electric sensor-controlled lavatories,

# Chilled water consumption has been monitored,

# Performed leak detection on distribution systems,

# Reviewed water management operation procedures,

48
# Minimization of the amount of water used to water lawns and landscapes, and 

# Replacement of worn, booster pumps with newer variable speed system. 

Water conservation measures not only reduce water use and cost, but also reduce energy 

consumption (for pumping) and sewage treatment costs. Additionally, water conservation helps 

to reduce the quantities of wastewater treatment chemicals (most notably chlorine) being released 

into the environment, and reduces the risk of drawing down aquifers or saltwater intrusion into 

aquifers. 

G. Renewable Energy 

Section 503 of Executive Order 13123 directed the Secretary of Energy in collaboration with the 

heads of other agencies to develop a goal for increased renewable energy use in the Federal 

Government. The Renewable Energy Working Group of the Interagency Energy Management 

Task Force worked with agency and industry representatives to develop an appropriate renewable 

energy goal and guidance on how to measure progress toward the goal. In July 2000, the 

Secretary approved a goal that the equivalent of 2.5 percent of electricity consumption from 

Federal facilities should come from new renewable energy sources by 2005. Based on FY 2000 

data, the goal is the equivalent of 1,422 gigawatthours (GWh) of electricity. New renewable 

energy sources were defined as any renewable energy project installed since 1990. Renewable 

energy includes biomass, geothermal, wind and solar resources as specified in the Executive 

Order. Hydropower was purposely excluded from the definition in the Executive Order, so it was 

also excluded from counting toward the renewable energy goal. 

Although the goal is measured against Federal electricity consumption, agencies are allowed to 

substitute other forms of renewable energy; for example, the use of renewable transportation fuels 

like ethanol or solar hot water heating. FEMP has undertaken a review of Federal renewable 

energy use and is tracking new installations. The review has found 210 GWh of new renewable 

energy use in the Federal sector, approximately 15 percent of the goal amount. 

FEMP is continuing to work with agencies and the Renewable Working Group to develop 

strategies for accomplishing this goal, and the goals of the Million Solar Roofs initiative that were 

included in Section 204 of Executive Order 13123. There are three approaches FEMP is pursuing 

to meet the goal: 1) increasing the number of renewable energy projects Federal agencies 

implement, 2) increasing the use of green power from renewable energy through direct purchases 

or the purchase of “Green Tags” that pay only for the environmental attributes of renewable 

generation without purchasing the energy, and 3) encouraging agencies to facilitate renewable 

energy projects that use Federal land and resources, or serve the direct customers of agencies (for 

example Native Americans served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs). 

During FY 2000, FEMP had identified approximately 740 GWh of potential projects agencies are 

facilitating. This included a major wind power development that was being discussed at the DOE 

Nevada Test Site (260 MW), a geothermal project at Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada (30 

GW), and multiple photovoltaic and wind systems that the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture are supporting on Native American lands through loan programs and grants. 

49
Another 55 GWh of potential green power or green tag purchases have been identified, and 36 

GWh of potential on-site projects. 

In order to better track Federal renewable energy use, FEMP, with technical support from NREL, 

integrated information from the Million Solar Roofs Initiative solar system project registry, 

Sandia National Laboratory’s assessment of solar systems at U.S. Department of the Interior and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service facilities and other disparate data sources into a 

single database and Web-enabled project registry. During FY 2000, the Internet site for this 

system was in its testing phase. The database contains information on renewable energy usage at 

more than 25,000 sites, including information on green power purchases, on-site power 

generation, and thermal applications. FEMP and NREL are continuing to enter system data into 

the registry to more accurately reflect a baseline for Federal renewable energy use. 

Million Solar Roofs 

Section 204 of Executive Order 13123 restated a goal of 2,000 solar roof installations in the 

Federal Government by 2000, and 20,000 installations by 2010. The goal was first articulated in 

the 1997 announcement of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. In the period from June 1997 to 

April 2000 the Federal government installed 1,745 solar energy systems. This total included 1,682 

solar hot water systems, 58 photovoltaic power systems and 5 transpired solar thermal collectors. 

The U.S. Navy installed an additional 1,000 solar hot water systems by the end of FY 2000. This 

brought total installations to just over 2,700 systems by the end of 2000, accomplishing the 

Federal goal. 

50
 12Process energy is that energy used in buildings for operations other than standard building services. cases

where separate reporting was not possible, due to the lack of meters or estimation techniques, process energy was

reported as though it was part of the energy used for standard building services. 

 13The General Services Administration (GSA) is the primary leasing agent for the Federal Government, although

most of the other agencies do have some leasing authority. n some cases, GSA will delegate operations and

maintenance responsibility to individual agencies for leased space, requiring the agency to be responsible for paying

the utility bills and reporting energy consumption. 

 14Conversion factors of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour for electricity and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam are used to

calculate primary energy consumption. See Appendix B for conversion factors for site-delivered energy

consumption.

51

29

86

70

26

9

41

5

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Electricity Fuel Oil Natural Gas Other

TRILLION BTU

DOD Civilian Agencies

FIGURE 5

Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption in

Standard Buildings by Fuel Type, FY 2000

II. NERGY MANAGEMENT IN STANDARD BUILDINGS

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Standard Buildings

During FY 2000, the Federal Government provided energy to approximately 500,000 buildings

and facilities comprising approximately 3.4 billion square feet of floor area. Of this,

approximately 3.06 billion square feet was reported as standard building space in FY 2000. 

remaining space is reported as energy intensive facilities or exempt facilities and is discussed in

Sections III and IV respectively. The energy is used in standard buildings provides lighting,

heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and other standard building services, and is used for certain

process operations that are not reported separately.

12 Federal buildings include both Federallyowned and leased buildings. ver, in many instances the lessor pays the energy bill, and

consumption and cost data may not be available to the Government. Accordingly, Federal

agencies report data for leased space to the maximum extent practicable.

13

Table 5-A shows the total primary energy consumed in Federal buildings and facilities, including

energy resources used to generate, process, and transport electricity and steam.

14 Primary energy

consumed in buildings and facilities in FY 2000 decreased 9.1 percent from FY 1985 and 0.7

percent from FY 1999.

Table 5-B shows that agencies have decreased sitedelivered energy consumption in buildings by 22.6

percent, from 422.3 trillion Btu in FY 1985 to 326.8

trillion Btu in FY 2000. Y 1999

shows a decrease of 2.1 percent in total buildings

energy consumption.

Of the 29 agencies represented on the tables for FY

2000, 11, including DOD, consume approximately

97 percent of the reported buildings energy use. 

Energy used in buildings accounts for

approximately 33.3 percent of the total 0.98 quads

used by the Federal Government. of

Federal buildings energy use for Defense and civilian agencies is depicted in Figure 5. ctricity

In

I

E

The

Howe

A comparison to F

The mix

Ele
TABLE 5-A

FEDERAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN STANDARD BUILDINGS

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules 

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 USPS 35,915.2 42,631.6 43,820.8 45,472.7 49,064.6 50,297.9 51,256.8 53,195.9 48,869.8 50,939.9 52,058

VA 39,673.2 40,902.8 41,915.5 41,740.0 42,540.0 43,113.2 43,556.3 44,780.8 45,068.6 45,496.7 45,731

DOE 53,567.0 50,827.2 49,154.4 52,211.1 53,011.7 51,148.3 49,739.6 49,759.9 46,277.4 45,107.4 43,445

GSA 36,001.5 28,471.0 31,461.5 31,129.0 31,050.0 30,558.4 29,845.2 31,186.6 31,339.2 31,278.2 31,527

DOJ 8,531.9 8,692.4 11,106.3 8,464.4 11,128.5 10,588.5 10,996.1 13,343.0 13,678.7 14,132.4 14,696

NASA 7,995.0 9,647.3 9,770.6 9,621.1 9,716.0 9,655.0 10,189.9 10,392.7 10,252.1 10,266.3 9,959

DOT 7,857.2 6,601.8 6,104.4 7,677.4 7,954.1 7,736.2 8,377.2 8,397.2 8,691.9 7,865.2 7,808

DOI 7,879.7 6,985.2 7,160.1 6,270.2 7,660.0 7,537.0 7,028.1 5,690.7 6,665.0 6,862.1 6,949ST 1 6,209.8 6,323.1 6,347.8 747.0 119.9 212.2 230.4 706.0 6,531.3 6,532.6 6,173

USDA 4,008.4 4,937.7 5,109.3 4,855.2 4,985.2 4,785.1 4,657.8 4,831.6 4,293.5 4,538.2 4,045DOL 3,455.8 3,603.6 3,521.9 3,555.5 3,681.6 3,749.7 3,635.3 3,756.8 3,786.9 3,818.4 2,986TVA 1,180.5 1,260.5 1,270.9 1,269.4 1,308.1 1,988.7 2,202.4 2,133.7 2,007.6 1,981.0 1,959TRSY 1,560.2 672.0 3,933.6 4,350.4 3,843.4 3,936.9 3,399.3 3,287.8 4,363.8 4,126.0 4,172

DOC 1,092.9 855.4 2,945.7 1,340.6 1,499.9 1,851.9 1,231.1 1,190.5 1,175.6 1,090.5 1,125

HHS 603.9 653.9 578.6 546.9 550.1 495.9 525.2 520.0 508.9 477.9 465

HUD 315.2 384.2 374.3 345.2 314.4 293.4 285.2 301.4 289.7 279.9 286

FCC 26.7 37.0 39.3 30.6 31.7 35.5 35.5 28.8 28.8 28.8 28

PCC 80.8 86.7 98.3 91.2 98.5 95.2 96.9 98.4 102.8 0.0 0OTHER* 859.4 1,398.8 974.4 961.2 945.5 932.2 2,772.5 4,551.1 4,792.4 4,568.8 4,805

CIVILIAN AGENCIESTOTAL 216,814.1 214,972.2 225,687.9 220,679.3 229,503.3 229,011.3 230,060.9 238,152.9 238,724.1 239,390.3 238,227

DOD 475,614.7 541,109.0 487,672.6 489,972.8 486,658.5 466,182.5 441,755.4 419,879.3 405,417.0 397,287.8 395,675

ALL AGENCIES 692,428.8 756,081.2 713,360.5 710,652.1 716,161.8 695,193.8 671,816.3 658,032.2 644,141.1 636,678.1 633,902

MBOE 118.9 129.8 122.5 122.0 122.9 119.3 115.3 113.0 110.6 109.3 108Petajoules 730.5 797.6 752.6 749.7 755.5 733.4 708.7 694.2 679.5 671.7 668

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA/IBB, and FERC. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam. Contains estimated data for the 1998), FCC (1997, 1998, 1999), FTC (1997, 1998, 1999), and OPM. (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). Sum of components may not equal total due to independen

1In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of foreign buildings it owns and l

subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates werdata for the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

52
TABLE 5-B

FEDERAL SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN STANDARD BUILDING

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules 

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 VA 24,552.0 24,380.1 24,733.0 24,620.0 25,077.2 25,213.4 25,075.4 26,172.3 26,062.0 26,216.9 26,134

USPS 16,238.3 18,480.0 18,620.8 19,449.2 21,159.8 21,602.2 21,649.7 22,210.0 22,006.4 22,683.9 23,127

DOE 32,757.8 29,149.5 28,077.6 29,564.3 30,546.8 29,193.0 28,011.6 25,987.3 23,746.2 23,126.7 21,730

GSA 15,897.7 11,174.5 13,116.3 13,061.4 13,075.2 12,832.9 12,366.7 13,439.4 13,353.7 13,123.7 13,083

DOJ 6,112.0 4,863.8 5,894.3 3,869.2 6,245.8 6,143.9 6,303.9 7,490.6 8,003.7 7,783.0 8,047NASA 3,781.0 4,383.3 4,342.8 4,290.7 4,235.7 4,161.0 4,383.6 4,438.1 4,350.9 4,404.9 4,304DOI 4,762.4 4,039.4 3,886.2 3,173.4 3,974.3 3,922.1 3,596.3 2,979.1 3,668.5 3,747.4 3,794

DOT 4,561.2 3,750.4 3,297.6 3,918.0 3,886.6 3,903.0 3,912.2 3,961.1 3,870.3 3,691.4 3,735ST1 2,756.9 2,792.5 2,799.0 273.8 45.3 82.9 92.9 289.2 2,894.1 2,893.3 3,012

DOL 2,153.0 2,137.1 2,044.1 2,063.7 2,145.8 2,158.3 2,028.8 2,153.9 2,153.9 2,190.2 1,697

USDA 2,096.3 2,363.0 2,342.4 2,151.6 2,234.8 2,164.5 2,083.1 2,261.3 1,996.0 2,111.1 1,901TVA 402.4 427.8 426.6 425.6 439.8 664.0 748.5 728.4 665.6 658.4 650

TRSY 713.4 396.0 1,494.7 1,749.1 1,568.0 1,624.7 1,418.3 1,484.9 1,904.4 1,741.2 1,815

DOC 540.3 399.4 1,406.9 531.0 571.9 752.9 494.9 490.1 457.2 429.9 449

HHS 253.0 273.1 224.5 215.8 214.1 172.1 201.7 204.7 200.1 188.8 184

HUD 116.9 140.3 132.2 123.1 116.2 113.5 105.9 115.4 109.3 103.1 106

FCC 11.2 14.8 14.9 12.4 12.9 14.1 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 12

PCC 26.6 28.6 32.4 30.1 32.5 31.4 31.9 32.4 33.9 0.0 0OTHER* 369.0 616.7 421.6 429.6 426.0 403.9 1,189.7 1,884.6 1,989.1 1,898.7 1,969

CIVILIAN AGENCIESTOTAL 118,101.4 109,810.3 113,307.9 109,951.7 116,008.6 115,153.9 113,708.9 116,335.5 117,478.1 117,005.2 115,757

DOD 304,190.0 321,101.6 286,885.7 295,719.8 279,726.5 262,661.5 247,166.9 235,688.1 227,070.0 220,567.6 217,958

ALL AGENCIES 422,291.4 430,911.9 400,193.6 405,671.4 395,735.1 377,815.4 360,875.9 352,023.7 344,548.1 337,572.8 333,715

MBOE 72.5 74.0 68.7 69.6 67.9 64.9 62.0 60.4 59.1 58.0 57Petajoules 445.5 454.6 422.2 428.0 417.5 398.6 380.7 371.4 363.5 356.1 352

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA/IBB, and FERC. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Contains estimated data for the following agencies: FEMA (1997, 1

(1997, 1998, 1999), and OPM. (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

1In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of foreign buildings it owns and l

subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates werdata for the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

53
constitutes 44.7 percent (146.2 trillion Btu) of Federal buildings energy use; 33.9 percent is 

accounted for by natural gas (110.8 trillion Btu), and 9.7 percent by fuel oil (31.8 trillion Btu). 

Coal, purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)/propane, and energy reported as “other” 

(comprised mainly of chilled water), account for the remaining 11.6 percent. 

Figure 6 illustrates the proportion of energy consumption in buildings and facilities that is 

attributable to electricity for FY 1985 through FY 2000. The figure also breaks out the amount 

of Btu lost through the generation and transmission processes and amount of Btu delivered to the 

site. In FY 2000, electricity consumption, including energy used at the source of generation, 

FIGURE 6

Consumption of Electricity and Other Fuels in Standard Buildings, 

FY 1985 through FY 2000

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

294 311 324 308 288 279 253 266 247 230 216 212 206 199 195 186 

131 

139 149 

142 157 157 

152 147 155 153 150 147 144 144 145 146 

267 

283 

302 

289 319 320 

308 298 314 

312 

305 299 293 293 294 297 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 

FISCAL YEAR 

Non-Electric Fuels1 Site Electricity2 Conversion Losses3 

1

Includes Fuel Oil, Natural Gas, LPG/Propane, Coal, Purchased Steam, and Other. Uses a conversion factor for steam of 1,390 

Btu per pound (source conversion). 

2

Uses a conversion factor of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Amount of energy which reaches the site of use when generation and 

transmission losses are subtracted. 

3

Amount of energy lost through generation and transmission processes. When added to amount of energy reaching the point of 

use, the total equals amount of Btu consumed at the source. The source conversion factor is 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports TRILLIONS OF BTU 

54
accounted for approximately 70.4 percent (443,296.3 billion Btu) of the total primary Btu used in

buildings and facilities (629,670.6 billion Btu; see Table 5-A). Of this amount, 33.0 percent or

146.2 trillion Btu reached the site of use. The remaining 67.0 percent, 297.1 trillion Btu, was lost

during the generation and transmission processes. Decreases in consumption relative to FY 1999

were seen in fuel oil (7.3 percent), natural gas (5.7 percent), and purchased steam (6.5 percent). 

Increases from the previous year were seen in electricity (1.0 percent), coal (7.0 percent),

LPG/propane (4.1 percent), and in fuels reported under the category of “other” (33.3 percent).

The mix of fuels consumed by Government buildings has changed notably from FY 1985

through FY 2000. The actual consumption of electricity in FY 2000 increased 11.2 percent since

FY 1985. The proportion of energy consumed in Federal buildings and facilities that is

electricity has increased from 31.1 percent in FY 1985 to 44.7 percent in FY 2000. Over the

same period, fuel oil use decreased from 22.3 percent of the total in FY 1985 to only 9.7 percent

in FY 2000. The portion of the Federal buildings fuel mix comprised by natural gas has

increased from 30.6 percent in FY 1985 to 33.9 percent in FY 2000. The use of coal as a fuel

source, which accounted for 12.4 percent of the total energy consumed in FY 1985, has declined

to 5.9 percent of the total in FY 2000. Contributing to this has been the practice of agencies,

such as DOE, to purchase steam rather than generating their own in coal-fired plants.

As shown in Table 6 the consumption of petroleum-based fuels in buildings during FY 2000

decreased 65.1 percent compared to FY 1985 and 6.7 percent from FY 1999. Efforts by agencies

to utilize natural gas as a cost-effective substitute for petroleum-based fuels in buildings, as well

as conservation of fuel oil and LPG/propane in buildings contributed to these reductions. 

Petroleum fuel consumption in buildings during FY 2000 represented only 10.4 percent of all

energy consumed in Federal buildings. Of this amount, 93.6 percent is attributed to fuel oil and

the remaining 6.4 percent to LPG/propane.

The energy used in buildings in FY 2000 accounted for approximately 46.0 percent of the total

Federal energy bill. Tables 7-A and 7-B show that the Federal Government spent approximately

$3,390.2 million for buildings energy during the fiscal year, a decrease in constant dollars of

approximately $61.3 million from FY 1999 expenditures. The combined cost of buildings

energy in FY 2000 was $10.37 per million Btu,

up 0.3 percent from the combined cost of $10.34 FIGURE 7

reported in FY 1999. Energy Costs in Standard Buildings

FY 1985 through FY 2000 

Figure 7 illustrates energy expenditures for $6.0 

buildings and facilities from FY 1985 through FY 

$5.0

2000. In constant 2000 dollars, Federal energy 

costs for buildings and facilities decreased 35.3 $4.0 

percent from $5,240.7 million in FY 1985 to 

$3.0

$3,390.2 million in FY 2000. The combined cost 

for buildings energy in constant dollars in FY $2.0 

2000 was $10.39 per million Btu, down 16.4 $1.0

percent from $12.41 per million Btu in FY 1985. 

$0.0 

3.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 

4.2 4.4 4.2 4.5 

4.8 

4.4 

4.8 

5.2 5.3 5.3 

BILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2000 DOLLARS 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 

FISCAL YEAR 

Electricity Fuel Oil Natural Gas Other 

55
TABLE 6 

PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL* CONSUMPTION IN STANDARD BUILDINGS 

(In Billions of Btu) 

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DOD 84,366.6 69,030.1 59,451.5 65,654.1 55,585.9 50,285.7 42,939.0 42,861.7 35,214.4 32,354.5 30,506VA 2,176.7 2,219.3 1,404.9 1,506.0 1,533.9 1,827.4 1,292.9 2,098.2 1,186.3 954.6 954

USPS 1,673.2 1,502.2 1,219.4 1,195.8 988.8 983.7 813.9 595.2 819.0 1,139.4 821

DOT 2,376.9 1,524.1 1,308.4 1,426.0 854.0 1,001.6 911.7 709.2 670.5 816.8 823

ST 817.8 817.8 817.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 706.0 706.0 1,098DOE 1,650.8 1,900.5 2,063.7 2,042.7 1,943.5 1,924.4 1,973.5 1,554.1 1,394.0 1,174.5 646

DOI 1,591.6 1,273.9 1,141.1 919.1 1,181.9 1,560.6 1,574.3 1,177.7 799.6 964.7 835

DOL 437.8 331.2 258.3 263.6 276.1 277.5 210.8 220.6 254.2 226.1 188

DOJ 381.7 371.6 503.7 383.8 250.8 234.8 182.8 234.3 134.9 103.1 115

NASA 334.1 495.6 428.4 449.0 318.4 291.8 166.8 132.2 83.6 100.0 88

GSA 944.2 668.1 443.1 418.2 359.4 379.8 199.0 242.3 143.0 54.8 68

TRSY 22.5 138.4 127.7 84.2 190.5 160.8 116.6 116.2 57.0 44.8 60

CIA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.6 87.9 84.6 60.2 53

FEMA 56.7 72.3 59.1 66.9 67.6 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 30

USDA 414.2 260.0 291.3 242.9 255.6 236.3 244.1 242.5 272.2 270.6 114

DOC 130.3 22.5 13.1 9.8 23.8 52.4 10.8 33.4 9.3 8.7 6

SSA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 11.8 8.9 3TVA 4.2 3.2 0.1 1.3 2.7 3.5 3.9 4.1 0.0 3.0 2

FCC 1.7 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1

HHS 34.5 39.3 29.8 34.5 31.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.9 1.9 1EEOC 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0NSF 19.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0USIA/IBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0TOTAL 97,435.0 80,683.4 69,562.2 74,699.6 63,865.5 59,270.7 50,740.0 50,393.3 41,893.3 39,043.6 36,421

*Petroleum-based fuels include fuel oil and LPG/propane. Note: Contains estimated data for the following agencies: FEMA (1997, 1998), FCC (1997, 1998, 1999), FTC (1997, 1998, 1999), and OPM. (1997, Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 1In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of foreign buildings it owns 

subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates data for the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

56
TABLE 7-A

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR STANDARD BUILDINGS ENERGY 

IN FY 2000 

(In Millions of Dollars)

ELECTRICITY FUEL OIL NATURAL LPG/ COAL PURCHASED OTHER TOTAL 

GAS PROPANE STEAM 

DEFENSE 1,441.793 120.958 303.670 12.424 35.036 117.777 0.604 2,032.261 

CIVILIAN 1,067.849 33.734 186.258 5.188 4.199 52.832 7.844 1,357.905 

TOTAL 2,509.642 154.692 489.928 17.611 39.235 170.609 8.449 3,390.166 

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES 

ELECTRICITY = 58.57 / MWH 

FUEL OIL = 0.67 / GALLON 

NATURAL GAS = 4.56 / THOUSAND CUBIC FEET 

LPG/PROPANE = 0.77 / GALLON 

COAL = 50.36 / SHORT TON 

PURCHASED 

STEAM = 11.62 / MILLION BTU 

OTHER = 4.17 / MILLION BTU 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

Note: Contains estimated data for the following agencies: NSF and OPM. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports. 

57
TABLE 7-B

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS ENERGY 

BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2000, FY 1999, AND FY 1985 

(Constant 2000 Dollars) 

ENERGY TYPE 

FY 2000 

ELECTRICITY

FUEL OIL

NATURAL GAS

LPG/PROPANE

COAL

PURCHASED STEAM

OTHER

TOTAL

BILLIONS OF 

BTU 

146,194.4 

31,811.0 

110,787.8 

2,185.2 

19,151.8 

14,686.1 

2,024.8 

326,841.1 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $10.373 

FY 1999 

ELECTRICITY

FUEL OIL

NATURAL GAS

LPG/PROPANE

COAL

PURCHASED STEAM

OTHER

TOTAL

144,699.4 

34,322.6 

117,468.9 

2,099.4 

17,906.9 

15,700.1 

1,518.7 

333,715.9 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $10.343 

FY 1985 

ELECTRICITY

FUEL OIL

NATURAL GAS

LPG/PROPANE

COAL

PURCHASED STEAM

OTHER

TOTAL

131,475.4 

94,258.3 

129,222.5 

3,176.6 

52,397.2 

7,558.8 

4,202.6 

422,291.4 

COST PER 

MMBTU 

17.1665 

4.8628 

4.4222 

8.0593 

2.0486 

11.6171 

4.1725 

17.4684 

5.0960 

3.9714 

8.8344 

2.1151 

13.8309 

5.7884 

24.2720 

8.6595 

6.7038 

10.0444 

3.3700 

17.0447 

7.0538 

COST (IN MILLIONS 

OF DOLLARS) 

2,509.640 

154.692 

489.928 

17.611 

39.235 

170.609 

8.449 

3,390.170 

2,527.669 

174.907 

466.521 

18.547 

37.876 

217.147 

8.791 

3,451.459 

3,191.167 

816.234 

866.280 

31.907 

176.581 

128.837 

29.644 

5,240.650 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $12.411 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

Note: FY 1999 contains estimated data for: FCC, FTC, and OPM. 

FY 2000 contains estimated data for: NSF and OPM. 

This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal 

total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

58
Electricity costs of $2,509.6 million represent approximately 74.0 percent of total expenditures of 

$3,390.2 million for buildings energy in FY 2000. Natural gas costs account for approximately 

14.5 percent of the total, expenditures for fuel oil account for 4.6 percent, with the remaining 7.0 

percent attributable to expenditures for LPG/propane, coal, purchased steam, and “other.” 

In FY 2000, the cost of all energy used in Federal buildings was $1.11 per gross square foot. Of 

the $1.11 spent per square foot Government-wide, $0.82 was spent for electricity, $0.16 was 

spent for natural gas, $0.05 was spent for fuel oil, and the remaining $0.08 was spent for 

purchased steam, coal, LPG/propane, and other fuels. 

B. Progress Toward the Mandated Goals for Buildings and Facilities 

Both the magnitude of energy consumption and the potential for energy savings have prompted 

legislative and executive branch initiatives to achieve energy conservation in the Federal 

buildings sector.

15 Federal Government progress toward the 10, 20, and 30 percent energy 

reduction goals of NECPA and Executive Order 13123 is illustrated in Figure 8. 

FIGURE 8 

Progress Toward the Energy Reduction Goals for Federal Standard Buildings 

FY 1985 through FY 2000 

145,000 

140,000 

135,000 

130,000 

125,000 

120,000 

115,000 

110,000 

105,000 

100,000 

95,000 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 

10% Goal - 1995 

20% Goal - 2000 

30% Goal - 2005 

Actual Energy Use 

23.6% Reduction, 2000 

FISCAL YEAR 

Btu per Gross Square Foot 

15The legislative authorities for Federal agencies are detailed in Appendix A. 

59 
(Executive Order 13123 also establishes a 35 percent reduction goal for 2010.) Overall, the 

Federal Government reduced its site-delivered energy consumption in buildings and facilities by 

23.6 percent in FY 2000 compared to FY 1985 when measured in terms of British Thermal Units 

consumed per gross square foot (Btu/GSF) of floor area. 

Table 8-A shows the FY 2000 performance of the individual agencies in site-delivered Btu/GSF 

compared to FY 1985. Site-delivered Btu reflects the amount of energy delivered to the point of 

use and is used to measure agency performance toward the mandated goals. 

Table 8-B shows the performance of the agencies measured in terms of primary Btu/GSF. 

Primary Btu represents the average amount of energy required at the source of generation 

(primary energy) rather than the actual Btu delivered to the site. Primary Btu includes energy 

resources used to generate, process, and transport electricity and steam. Measured in terms of 

source energy, the Federal Government shows a reduction of 9.9 percent in FY 2000 compared to 

FY 1985. This large difference from the site-delivered Btu/GSF reduction of 23.6 percent 

reflects the significant declines in direct use of fossil fuels and the offsetting increases in the 

share of the fuel mix contributed by electricity. 

Contributing to the overall reduction of 23.6 percent in site-delivered Btu/GSF were the 

percentage reductions greater than 20 percent made by the following nine agencies: the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, Transportation, GSA, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The 

progress of each agency toward the goal for standard buildings is illustrated in Figure 9. 

The Social Security Administration is shown in the Figure 9 with an increase in Btu/GSF of 9.4 

percent (-9.4 percent reduction). This is based on a base year of FY 1996 rather than FY 1985, 

since SSA was not delegated control of all of its buildings until that date. (Because of this SSA’s 

data for FY 2000 is included in the “Other” line in Tables 8-A and 8-B.) SSA’s Btu/GSF rose 

from 87,367 in FY 1996 to 95,565 in FY 2000 for its 8.8 million square feet of space. 

The agencies used a variety of strategies to reduce their energy consumption. Operations and 

maintenance (O&M) procedures continued to be emphasized as a major component in the effort 

to achieve the energy reduction goals. Improvements in energy efficiency were achieved through 

improved energy systems operations and both preventive maintenance and improved 

maintenance. O&M funding, used for the replacement of boilers, HVAC equipment, windows, 

and lighting systems, continued to benefit energy conservation. 

In FY 2000, the implementation of many no-cost and low-cost energy conservation measures was 

continued, such as reducing lighting levels, lowering hot water temperatures, turning off unused 

equipment, and installing energy-efficient windows, insulation, weather stripping, and set-back 

thermometers. 

60
TABLE 8-A

FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 2000

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 2000 

GSF BTU GSF BTU %CHANGE 

(Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF (Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF 1985-2000 

VA 123,650.0 24,552.0 198,560 155,445.0 26,120.6 168,037 -15.4 

USPS 189,400.0 16,238.3 85,736 339,707.2 25,238.3 74,194 † -13.5 

DOE 73,836.1 32,757.8 443,656 82,454.0 20,611.8 249,969 † -43.7 

GSA 189,976.9 15,897.7 83,682 175,535.6 11,728.0 66,791 † -20.2 

DOJ 20,768.8 6,112.0 294,289 53,714.5 9,374.6 174,527 -40.7 

NASA 14,817.5 3,781.0 255,171 21,104.1 4,280.7 202,838 -20.5 

DOI 54,154.4 4,762.4 87,940 51,535.8 4,006.6 77,720 † -11.6 

DOT 32,312.4 4,561.2 141,158 36,160.3 3,608.8 99,800 -29.3 

ST 44,674.4 2,756.9 61,711 47,642.4 2,892.7 60,717 -1.6 

DOL 18,268.3 2,153.0 117,852 20,503.5 2,111.8 102,999 -12.6 

USDA 24,709.9 2,096.3 84,837 31,404.0 2,052.5 65,259 † -23.1 

TVA 4,886.6 402.4 82,357 10,286.9 617.7 59,995 † -27.2 

TRSY 7,182.6 713.4 99,317 6,065.4 530.0 87,384 -12.0 

DOC 4,522.6 540.3 119,476 5,545.1 437.0 78,814 -34.0 

HHS 2,649.8 253.0 95,491 2,692.8 212.3 78,829 -17.4 

HUD 1,432.0 116.9 81,668 1,432.0 106.3 74,235 -9.1 

OTHER* 3,172.0 406.8 128,249 15,692.7 1,946.3 124,025 -3.3 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

TOTAL 810,414.3 118,101.4 145,730 1,056,921.3 115,876.1 109,594 † -24.8 

DOD 2,224,527.3 304,190.0 136,744 2,004,828.5 210,965.0 104,543 † -23.5 

TOTAL 3,034,941.6 422,291.4 139,143 3,061,749.8 326,841.1 106,287 † -23.6 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

*Other includes the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, National Archives and Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Personnel Management, Panama Canal Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration, the U.S. 

Information Agency, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

†Indicates where reductions were made to Btu/GSF to reflect purchases of renewable energy. When calculating Btu/GSF, the 

following amounts were subtracted from agency energy use shown above for FY 2000: DOD, 1,373.4 BBtu; USPS, 34.1 BBtu; 

DOE, 0.9 BBtu; GSA, 3.8 BBtu; DOI, 1.2 BBtu; USDA, 3.1 BBtu; and TVA, 0.5 BBtu. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

61
TABLE 8-B

FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS PRIMARY ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 2000

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 2000 

GSF BTU GSF BTU %CHANGE 

(Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF (Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF 1985-2000 

USPS 189,400.0 35,915.2 189,626 339,707.2 58,913.2 173,423 -8.5 

VA 123,650.0 39,673.2 320,851 155,445.0 45,527.5 292,885 -8.7 

DOE 73,836.1 53,567.0 725,485 82,454.0 41,629.3 504,879 -30.4 

GSA 189,976.9 36,001.5 189,504 175,535.6 28,241.8 160,889 -15.1 

DOJ 20,768.8 8,531.9 410,805 53,714.5 16,987.3 316,253 -23.0 

NASA 14,817.5 7,995.0 539,563 21,104.1 9,848.7 466,672 -13.5 

DOT 32,312.4 7,857.2 243,165 36,160.3 7,631.1 211,036 -13.2 

DOI 54,154.4 7,879.7 145,504 51,535.8 7,457.8 144,710 -0.5 

ST 44,674.4 6,209.8 139,002 47,642.4 6,388.4 134,090 -3.5 

USDA 24,709.9 4,008.4 162,218 31,404.0 4,416.3 140,629 -13.3 

DOL 18,268.3 3,455.8 189,167 20,503.5 3,988.1 194,507 2.8 

TVA 4,886.6 1,180.5 241,575 10,286.9 1,861.4 180,951 -25.1 

TRSY 7,182.6 1,560.2 217,217 6,065.4 1,297.3 213,889 -1.5 

DOC 4,522.6 1,092.9 241,648 5,545.1 1,094.0 197,292 -18.4 

HHS 2,649.8 603.9 227,888 2,692.8 518.2 192,434 -15.6 

HUD 1,432.0 315.2 220,090 1,432.0 286.8 200,300 -9.0 

OTHER* 3,172.0 966.9 304,811 15,692.7 4,716.0 300,520 -1.4 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

TOTAL 810,414.3 216,814.1 267,535 1,056,921.3 240,803.2 227,835 -14.8 

DOD 2,224,527.3 475,614.7 213,805 2,004,828.5 388,867.4 193,965 -9.3 

TOTAL 3,034,941.6 692,428.8 228,152 3,061,749.8 629,670.6 205,657 -9.9 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

*Other includes the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, National Archives and Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Personnel Management, Panama Canal Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration, the U.S. 

Information Agency, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

1

In 1998, the State Department developed a statistical method for estimating the energy consumption in the large number of 

foreign buildings it owns and leases. This method was subsequently applied to estimate FY 1991 energy consumption and is 

now used annually to assess progress. The FY 1991 foreign building estimates were combined with domestic building data for 

the fiscal years 1985 and 1990, since these are base years for performance goals. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

62
FIGURE 9

Progress of Individual Agencies Toward the Federal Reduction Goal for Standard Buildings

FY 2000 Compared to FY 1985

A

gency 

-9.4% 

1.6% 

9.1% 

11.6% 

12.0% 

12.6% 

13.5% 

15.4% 

17.4% 

20.2% 

20.5% 

23.1% 

23.5% 

27.2% 

29.3% 

40.7% 

43.7% 

34.0% 

SSA 

ST 

HUD 

DOI 

TRSY 

DOL 

USPS 

VA 

HHS 

GSA 

NASA 

USDA 

DOD 

TVA 

DOT 

DOC 

DOJ 

DOE 

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

FY 2000 Btu/Square Foot Reduction 

Numerous energy-efficient building retrofits and energy conservation projects were undertaken to 

supplement the no-cost, low-cost measures. These initiatives can be categorized by lighting 

system replacement, HVAC equipment modernization, building envelope improvements, and 

other miscellaneous projects, such as installation of energy management control systems. Utilitysponsored demand side management programs were often pursued as supplemental sources of 

funding, as well as energy savings performance contract initiatives. Other activities include 

energy awareness programs featuring energy awareness seminars, the identification of no-cost or 

low-cost measures, the designation of building energy monitors, publication of materials 

promoting energy efficiency, the procurement of energy-efficient goods and products, increased 

maintenance training, and increased engineering assistance. 

A number of agencies began submitting energy data to DOE starting in FY 1989 in compliance 

with NECPA as amended by the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 

100-615). Among these agencies are the Department of State, the Office of Personnel 

Management, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These three agencies submitted 

historical energy data back to FY 1985. 

For FY 1990 and forward, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission energy consumption is 

reported as part of DOE and is therefore grouped under the category of “Other” for the years 

prior to FY 1990. Other agencies grouped under the category of “Other” in the tables had no 

63
buildings data to report for FY 1985. These agencies include the Federal Trade Commission, the 

National Archives and Records Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 

Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Information Agency. 

The National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Office of 

Personnel Management also are grouped under this category due to lack of reporting in more 

recent years. 

In FY 2000, GSA continued to delegate building management authority to agencies that occupy 

buildings owned and operated by GSA. As a result, several agencies reported increased gross 

square footage and energy consumption relative to FY 1985, while GSA reported decreases in 

these categories during the same period. The GSA delegation accounts for the significant interyear changes in energy consumption reported by various individual agencies. Two agencies, the 

Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Commerce, adjusted their 

baseline year consumption and GSF figures during FY 1988 to reflect GSA delegations. DOC 

added the Jeffersonville Federal Center to its data reports, which greatly increased its gross 

square footage. In addition, three Commerce Bureaus, the Bureau of Economic Affairs, the 

National Technical Information Service, and the Patent and Trademark Office, all became 

eligible for reporting in FY 1989 as a result of leasing delegation. 

64
III. INDUSTRIAL, LABORATORY, AND OTHER ENERGY INTENSIVE 

FACILITIES 

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Energy Intensive Facilities 

NECPA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 8253, allows agencies to exclude from the buildings goal, 

facilities which house energy intensive activities. The energy consumed in these facilities is 

reported under the category of “industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities.” 

The designation of these facilities is at the discretion of each agency. Currently, 16 agencies are 

excluding specific facilities from the NECPA goal and reporting them as energy intensive 

facilities under Executive Order 13123: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, State, and the Treasury, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, GSA, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, the National Archives and Records Administration, the Social Security 

Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Information Agency (now known 

as the International Broadcasting Bureau. Lists of the energy intensive facilities that have been 

identified by the agencies are included in Appendix D. 

Table 9 shows that energy consumed in industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive 

facilities have decreased 10.9 percent compared to FY 1990 and increased 8.0 percent from FY 

1999. During FY 2000, the Department of Defense consumed 32.3 trillion Btu of this category’s 

energy, 48.2 percent of all energy used by the Federal Government in energy intensive facilities. 

Some of the fluctuations in energy consumption in energy intensive facilities resulted from 

agencies changing data collection and reporting procedures. The Social Security Administration 

began reporting its energy separately from the Department of Health and Human Services in FY 

1996 and has elected to designate check processing facilities as energy intensive. The 

Department of Justice commenced reporting energy consumption in its energy intensive facilities 

during FY 1994, but has not backed out the consumption for these facilities from the standard 

buildings category for previous years. NASA began reporting energy under this category in 

FY 1989 and has revised its prior year data to reflect the removal of its energy intensive facilities 

from the standard building category. GSA began reporting energy in excluded buildings in 

FY 1990 and has backed out this energy consumption from its FY 1985 standard buildings data. 

The Departments of Agriculture and Commerce both began excluding buildings where energy 

intensive activities occur in FY 1992. USDA revised all of its prior year buildings data back to 

FY 1985 to reflect the exclusion of the Agricultural Research Service. The Commerce 

Department revised its standard buildings data for FY 1985 and FY 1999 only to reflect the 

exclusion of its energy intensive facilities. The State Department and NARA began reporting 

energy in energy intensive facilities separately in FY 1993 and have not revised data for any prior 

years. 

65
TABLE 9

FEDERAL SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN ENERGY-INTENSIVE FACI

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules 

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DOE 11,795.6 11,541.3 12,657.8 10,900.5 11,000.3 17,236.2 16,876.6 8,209.1 6,367.8 7,188.9 7HHS GSA 1 

6,695.6 4,354.0 

5,998.0 

746.2 

6,578.2 

677.6 

6,824.1 

994.6 

7,170.6 

1,060.2 

5,822.6 

1,213.8 

6,405.6 

961.0 

7,217.7 

890.7 

6,764.3 

849.2 

6,498.6 

1,150.8 

7

5

NASA 4,142.9 3,910.8 4,012.9 3,816.2 4,070.7 3,900.6 3,535.9 3,835.6 3,897.9 3,794.5 3USDA 2,204.2 2,133.3 1,966.3 2,166.9 2,119.3 2,824.0 2,140.8 2,221.6 2,416.5 2,589.0 2TRSY 1,707.2 1,026.8 814.1 923.7 771.8 941.0 928.3 1,131.8 996.5 964.2 2TVA 1,701.0 1,661.9 1,546.5 1,354.1 1,390.6 1,317.1 1,235.6 1,251.8 1,208.4 1,436.1 DOC 976.6 0.0 976.6 770.8 1,110.2 1,627.4 1,823.0 1,335.2 1,332.0 1,400.4 USIA/IBB 1,406.9 850.6 828.5 796.8 861.1 878.2 936.2 1,092.2 1,020.4 951.4 EPA 747.0 822.4 839.7 894.1 943.3 1,020.9 1,023.5 1,012.1 1,022.7 1,170.2 DOJ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 668.4 707.8 944.1 846.9 850.7 862.8 NARA 81.9 82.2 88.8 274.7 610.7 792.2 562.9 572.7 591.8 582.1 ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.4 339.4 344.4 364.1 339.1 324.2 315.5 SSA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.5 204.7 211.4 199.1 FCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PCC 190.8 197.1 193.9 197.5 201.3 209.4 218.6 221.2 0.0 0.0 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES TOTAL 36,003.5 28,970.5 31,180.9 30,251.3 32,317.7 38,835.4 38,171.9 30,382.2 27,853.9 29,103.8 34DOD 39,209.1 56,372.1 67,913.1 41,159.3 39,781.4 37,962.6 37,260.1 35,702.3 36,588.4 32,919.0 32ALL AGENCIES 75,212.6 85,342.6 99,094.0 71,410.7 72,099.1 76,798.0 75,431.9 66,084.5 64,442.3 62,022.8 67MBOE 12.9 14.7 17.0 12.3 12.4 13.2 12.9 11.3 11.1 10.6 Petajoules 79.3 90.0 104.5 75.3 76.1 81.0 79.6 69.7 68.0 65.4 

DAT

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal total due to inde

1 GSA’s large increase in energy reported under this category for FY 2000 compared to FY 1999 is a result of the agency reclassifying build

inventory for FY 1990 and FY 2000 without adjusting data for the intervening years. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

66
Energy used in energy intensive facilities accounts for approximately 6.8 percent of the total 0.98 

quads used by the Federal Government. Electricity constitutes 48.4 percent of the energy used in 

energy intensive facilities, 32.4 percent is accounted for by natural gas, 5.3 percent by coal, and 

9.9 percent by fuel oil. Small amounts of purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG)/propane, and “other” energy account for the remaining 3.9 percent. 

The energy used in energy intensive operations in FY 2000 accounted for approximately 8.3 

percent of the total Federal energy bill. Table 10 shows that the Federal Government spent 

approximately $611.2 million for this category’s energy during the fiscal year. The combined 

cost of energy intensive facility energy in FY 2000 was $9.12 per million Btu, up 2.8 percent 

from the combined cost of $8.88 reported in FY 1999 (see Appendix C). 

TABLE 10

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITIES

ENERGY IN FY 2000 

(In Millions of Dollars)

ELECTRICITY FUEL OIL NATURAL LPG/ COAL PURCHASED OTHER TOTAL 

GAS PROPANE STEAM 

DEFENSE 185.597 16.068 34.096 0.631 6.101 4.549 0.187 247.228 

CIVILIAN 285.800 12.377 49.815 1.065 0.109 13.825 0.970 363.962 

TOTAL 471.397 28.445 83.911 1.696 6.210 18.374 1.157 611.190 

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES

ELECTRICITY = 49.59 / MWH

FUEL OIL = 0.59 / GALLON

NATURAL GAS = 3.98 / THOUSAND CUBIC FEET

LPG/PROPANE = 0.67 / GALLON

COAL = 42.59 / SHORT TON

PURCHASED

STEAM = 8.25 / MILLION BTU

OTHER = 9.65 / MILLION BTU

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

Note: Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Annual energy cost data submitted to DOE by Federal agencies. 

67
B. Statutory Background and Progress Toward Goals for Energy Intensive Facilities 

Under section 543(a)(2) of NECPA, as amended by EPACT, 42 U.S.C. § 8253, buildings that 

house energy-intensive activities may be excluded from NECPA’s performance goal for 

buildings. These buildings are listed in Appendix D. Most energy used in excluded buildings is 

process energy. Process energy is consumed in industrial operations, laboratories certain R&D 

activities, and in electronic-intensive facilities. 

Executive Order 12902 expanded the scope of Federal energy management activities beyond the 

NECPA mandates by establishing goals for industrial operations. It required industrial facilities 

to increase in energy efficiency by at least 20 percent by 2005 as compared to 1990. Section 203 

of Executive Order 13123 further expands this goal by requiring each agency to reduce energy 

consumption per square foot, per unit of production, or per other unit as applicable by 20 percent 

by 2005 and 25 percent by 2010 relative to 1990. This goal covers laboratory and other energyintensive facilities in addition to industrial facilities. Measures undertaken to achieve this goal 

must be life-cycle cost-effective, and agencies are also directed to implement all cost-effective 

water conservation projects. 

During FY 1999, the Energy Intensive Facilities Working Group worked to produce a guidance 

document entitled Guidelines: Executive Order 13123, Section 203 Performance Goals for 

Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy-Intensive Facilities. The document was 

reviewed and approved by the Interagency Energy Management Task Force and issued in January 

2000. The guidelines fulfill two requirements under the Executive Order. These are that the 

Secretary of Energy shall: 

# Issue guidelines to assist agencies in measuring energy per square foot, per unit of 

production, or other applicable unit in industrial, laboratory, research, and other energyintensive facilities (Section 502(a)); and 

# Develop guidance to assist agencies in calculating appropriate energy baselines for 

previously exempt facilities and facilities occupied after 1990 in order to measure 

progress toward goals (Section 502(c)). 

The guidance presents three options for measuring performance. These are: a rate-based 

measure of annual energy consumed per number of production units; a rate-based measure of 

annual energy consumed per number of other applicable units (for example, number of 

experiments, labor hours, customers served); and Btu per gross square foot. The guidance 

provides advise on which measurement option is appropriate, depending on agency-specific 

factors. The guidance also advises agencies on the proper manner of calculating appropriate 

energy baselines for previously exempt buildings and facilities. The Executive Order contains 

strict criteria for exemption that will mean agencies having to re-examine previously exempt 

buildings and possibly reassign them to one of the goal categories. 

More detail on each agency’s approach to tracking and achieving progress toward the energy 

intensive facility goals are contained in the individual agency’s narratives in Section VI. 

68
The Department of Defense reports facilities that perform production or industrial functions 

under the energy intensive facilities category. Because the relationship between energy 

consumption and production varies widely between processes, DOD has decided to use energy 

usage per gross square foot as the performance measure for the industrial and laboratory facility 

category. Additionally, to simplify data collection, and the associated metering and reporting 

costs, DOD considers an entire base an industrial facility if 60 percent or more of the base-wide 

energy use is for industrial purposes. DOD established a FY 1990 baseline of 213,349 Btu/GSF 

for the energy intensive facilities category. During FY 2000, DOD achieved a 22.7 percent 

reduction in Btu/GSF consumption relative to the FY 1990 base year. 

DOE reports its use of metered energy in extensive experimental research and production 

processes under the energy intensive facility category. This energy is consumed in: production 

nuclear reactors, industrial-type operations for weapons and nuclear fuel production, and research 

and development facilities such as experimental nuclear reactors and linear accelerators. 

Metered process energy totaled almost 7.7 trillion Btu in FY 2000, which represents 27.1 percent 

of all facility energy consumed by DOE. The use of metered process energy by DOE in FY 2000 

was 35.1 percent less than in FY 1990, and 6.4 percent more than FY 1999. The primary 

contributor to the substantial drop beginning in FY 1997 was the sale by DOE of the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve, California, and subsequent decreases in natural gas consumption. DOE 

anticipates exempting appropriate facilities from the requirements of Executive Order 13123 

during the FY 2001 reporting period and updating its reporting system to accommodate this 

change. Most of the facilities proposed for exemption are currently reported under the metered 

process category and have been scaled back operationally to prepare for decontamination and 

decommissioning. As part of the reporting change for FY 2001, some laboratory buildings 

currently being reported under the standard buildings category may also be reclassified under the 

energy intensive facility category. 

Eighty-nine percent of the Department of Health and Human Service’s square footage is energy 

intensive facilities including laboratories, hospitals, animal centers, health clinics, and other 

related support space. The performance measure used for the HHS energy intensive facilities is 

Btu/GSF. In FY 2000, the energy consumption of HHS energy intensive facilities declined 10.4 

percent compared to FY 1990. 

At USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) facilities energy performance is measured based 

on Air-Quality-Adjusted Btu/GSF, which removes the impact of present day requirements for 

increased laboratory ventilation air for safety and health reasons. Since 1990, ARS has 

undertaken an extensive conversion program of systematically modifying space-conditioning 

systems in its laboratory facilities to use far less re-circulating air, and more fresh air from 

outside the building, in order to protect ARS and university researchers from the health and 

safety risks of hazardous chemicals and airborne pathogens. These requirements have become 

more stringent and require greater energy use than the standards that were in place in 1990, the 

base year of the goal. Removing the effect of the modernization-related increase results in a 

reduction of approximately 23 percent from the baseline consumption in FY 1990 based on 

Air-Quality Adjusted Btu/GSF. 

69
The Justice Department’s energy intensive facilities are comprised of large data centers, FBI labs, 

the FBI headquarters facility, and the training facility in Quantico, Virginia. These facilities 

operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and are not typical office buildings. DOJ did not 

report developing a baseline for FY 1990 or designate a performance indicator for these facilities. 

Treasury reports energy consumption for 3.3 million square feet of industrial space. The Bureau 

of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint occupied the majority of the space. As of FY 2000, 

Treasury’s industrial facilities have achieved a 2.9 percent reduction in consumption over their 

FY 1990 baseline on a Btu/GSF basis. 

Since 1985, the EPA has measured and reported laboratory energy and water consumption using 

its standard facility 1985 baseline and reduction requirements. Starting in FY 2000 EPA is no 

longer reporting its laboratory energy and water consumption under the standard facility 

designation and is now using the more appropriate energy intensive facility designation. EPA 

reduced energy consumption in Agency-owned laboratories from 399,907 Btu/GSF. in 1985 to 

348,401 Btu/GSF in FY 2000—a reduction of 12.9 percent. Energy use fell from 357,348 

Btu/GSF in 1990 to 348,401 Btu/GSF in FY 2000—a decrease of only 2.5 percent—because the 

Agency built seven additional facilities during those years. EPA received credit for purchases of 

7.6 billion Btu of renewable electricity. This lowered the energy intensity of its laboratories from 

351,251 Btu/GSF to 348,401 Btu/GSF. 

GSA’s energy usage in its energy intensive facilities during FY 2000 was 287,476 Btu/GSF 

compared to 432,313 Btu/GSF in FY 1990. This represents a decrease of 33.5 percent compared 

with the 1990 base year. In 2000, GSA invested $495,744 of energy program appropriations in 

its industrial and laboratory facilities. 

NASA has elected to use Btu/GSF as the agency-wide aggregate performance measure for energy 

intensive facilities. Other performance measures are utilized for individual industrial facilities, 

space flight tracking stations, and clean rooms. The average energy intensity for NASA’s energy 

intensive buildings was 256,613 Btu/GSF by the end of FY 2000, as compared to the FY 1990 

baseline value of 323,955 Btu/GSF. This represents a decrease of 20.8 percent. 

The Department of Commerce’s energy intensive buildings are operated by three of its agencies: 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Bureau of the Census. NIST installations are 

comprised of general purpose and special laboratories that require constant environmental space 

control and base electrical loads for scientific equipment and computer systems. NOAA Weather 

Service facilities operate 24 hours a day and consist of radar towers, computers, special gauges, 

meters and other sophisticated equipment. Marine Fisheries and Laboratories conduct marine 

biology research and utilize refrigerators, freezers, incubators, coolers, seawater pumps, and 

compressors that operate 24 hours a day. The Bureau of Census Charlotte Computer Center is a 

leased facility and is used solely as a computer center. The building is operated 24 hours a day. 

The International Broadcasting Bureau (formerly the U.S. Information Agency) designates 

domestic and overseas Voice of America Relay Stations as energy-intensive facilities. 

70
The State Department includes in this category unique, special-use facilities with special security 

and operational requirements including the President’s guest house, a computer facility, the 

International Chancery Center, and the Harry S. Truman Headquarters Building. 

NARA designates all 12 of its facilities as energy intensive because of stringent records storage 

requirements which demand that documents and records be maintained in a controlled 

environment 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. 

The Social Security Administration, which began reporting energy consumption this year as an 

independent agency, has designated its National Computer Center as an energy intensive facility. 

The Center contains SSA’s main database and operates 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. 

71
IV. EXEMPT FACILITIES 

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Exempt Facilities 

Sec. 704 of the Order defines “Exempt facility” as “a facility. . .for which an agency uses DOEestablished criteria to determine that compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 or 

[Executive Order 13123] is not practical.” Section 502(b) of Executive Order 13123 requires the 

Secretary of Energy, in collaboration with other agency heads, to “establish criteria for 

determining which facilities are exempt from the Order. In addition, DOE must provide guidance 

for agencies to report proposed exemptions.” This guidance was issued in December 1999. The 

following facilities may be exempted from Section 201, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal, 

Section 202, Energy Efficiency Improvement Goals for standard buildings and facilities, and the 

goals of Section 203, Industrial and Laboratory Facilities of Executive Order 13123: 

# Structures such as outside parking garages which consume essentially only lighting 

energy, yet are classed as buildings. 

# Buildings where energy usage is skewed significantly due to reasons such as: buildings 

entering or leaving the inventory during the year, buildings down-scaled operationally to 

prepare for decontamination, decommissioning and disposal, and buildings undergoing 

major renovation and/or major asbestos removal. 

# Federal ships that consume “Cold Iron Energy,” (energy used to supply power and heat to 

ships docked in port) and airplanes or other vehicles that are supplied with utilityprovided energy. 

# Buildings and facilities in which it is technically infeasible to implement energy 

efficiency measures or where conventional performance measures are rendered 

meaningless by an overwhelming proportion of process-dedicated energy. For these 

exemptions, a finding of impracticability must be approved by the DOE as outlined in 

Section 543(c) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, as amended by the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992. For buildings where exemptions are granted, agencies should 

undertake energy audits and are strongly encouraged to implement all life-cycle costeffective measures per the recommendation of the audit. 

Five agencies, the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the GSA have chosen to exempt facilities 

from Executive Order requirements. These facilities are listed in Appendix E. The U.S. Postal 

Service has reported electricity consumption used in mail processing automation under the 

exempt category without reporting associated facility square footage. Table 11 presents an 

accounting of energy use and costs in exempt facilities for FY 2000 and shows what percentage 

of each agency’s facility energy use, costs, and space is considered exempt. 

72
TABLE 11

ENERGY CONSUMPTION, COSTS, AND GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 

FEDERAL EXEMPT FACILITIES, FY 2000

Energy Consumption Energy Costs Facility Gross Square Feet 

Agency (BBtu) % of Agency's Total 

Facility Use ($ Million) % of Agency's Total Facility Costs (Thou. Sq. Ft.) % of Agency's Total Facility Space 

DOD 9,575.1 3.8% $124.102 5.2% 0.0 N/A 

DOT 6,443.4 64.1% $64.260 53.6% 16,533.2 31.4% 

USPS 2,069.6 7.6% $45.607 11.0% 0.0 N/A 

NASA 1,781.5 18.5% $18.732 18.0% 4,962.2 12.4% 

GSA 683.5 3.9% $11.112 4.4% 10,964.8 5.4% 

HHS 8.3 0.1% $0.143 0.2% 882.8 3.5% 

Total 20,561.4 $263.956 33,343.0 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

TABLE 12

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL EXEMPT FACILITY ENERGY 

BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2000

ENERGY TYPE

ELECTRICITY

FUEL OIL

NATURAL GAS

LPG/PROPANE

COAL

PURCHASED STEAM

OTHER

TOTAL

BILLIONS OF COST PER 

BTU MMBTU 

15,387.1 15.1430 

2,808.4 4.4038 

985.0 5.4490 

47.4 12.8396 

0.0 0.0000 

572.3 7.1518 

761.2 11.1838 

20,561.4 

COST (IN MILLIONS 

OF DOLLARS) 

233.007 

12.368 

5.367 

0.608 

0.000 

4.093 

8.513 

263.956 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $12.8375 

This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal 

total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

Table 12 illustrates total exempt energy consumption and costs by fuel type for FY 2000. Energy 

used in exempt facilities accounts for approximately 2.1 percent of the total 0.98 quads used by 

the Federal Government. Electricity constitutes 74.8 percent of the energy used in exempt 

facilities, 4.8 percent is accounted for by natural gas, and 13.7 percent by fuel oil. Small amounts 

of purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)/propane, and “other” energy account for the 

remaining 6.7 percent. 

The energy used in exempt facilities in FY 2000 accounted for approximately 3.6 percent of the 

total Federal energy bill. The Federal Government spent approximately $264.0 million for this 

73
category’s energy during the fiscal year. The combined cost of energy intensive facility energy in 

FY 2000 was $12.84 per million Btu. 

Under DOD, the Navy is the only Military Service to list facilities classified as exempt. The 

Navy exempts mission-critical, concentrated energy use transmitters, simulators, cold iron 

support to ships, and some privately-owned facilities. These are non-production-oriented 

facilities with little or no square footage, making conventional performance measures 

meaningless. (DOD did not report any square footage for this category.) The mission criticality 

of these end users is such that energy efficiency measures are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Within the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration excludes all 

buildings involved in implementing the National Airspace System Plan. These buildings house 

energy-intensive electronic equipment with the associated HVAC requirements to maintain an 

environment for reliable equipment operation. 

GSA exempts those buildings and facilities where energy usage is skewed significantly due to 

reasons such as: buildings entering or leaving the inventory during the year; buildings downscaled operationally to prepare for disposal; buildings undergoing major renovation and/or major 

asbestos removal; or buildings functions like that of outside parking garages which consume 

essentially only lighting energy, yet are classed as buildings. 

NASA exempts 5.0 million square feet of its mission-variable (MV) facilities or 12.4 percent of 

its total facility space. These facilities are highly specialized and energy intensive, having been 

constructed for specific space flight and research programs. Examples are wind tunnels driven 

by multi-thousand horsepower electric motors, space simulation chambers, and space 

communication facilities. Energy consumption in these facilities varies directly with the level 

and intensity of program activities. NASA provided justifications for each MV facility 

exemption to explain why it is either technically infeasible to implement energy efficiency 

measures or to apply conventional performance measures due to the overwhelming proportion of 

process-dedicated energy consumed in these facilities. 

The only exempted facilities at HHS are outdoor multilevel parking garages on the NIH Bethesda 

Campus that consume lighting energy only. These facilities are not metered separately. 

Therefore, the energy consumption of these structures has been estimated based on the number of 

lighting fixtures and the time of use. 

The Postal Service energy consumption reported under this category reflects process energy 

consumed by mail processing equipment. This consumption has been factored out of energy 

consumption of Postal Service standard buildings in order to provide a better measure of their 

energy efficiency status. 

74
V. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Vehicles and Equipment 

Vehicle and equipment energy consists of energy used by equipment ranging in size and function 

from aircraft carriers to forklifts. It includes aircraft and naval fuels, automotive fuels consumed 

by Federally-owned and leased vehicles and privately-owned vehicles used for official business, 

and the energy used in Federal construction. 

Table 13 shows that in FY 2000, the Federal Government used approximately 566.1 trillion Btu 

of energy for vehicles and equipment, a decrease of 39.4 percent relative to FY 1985. DOD’s 

vehicle and equipment energy consumption decreased 41.4 percent from FY 1985, while the 

civilian agencies increased consumption by 1.8 percent. Overall, vehicle and equipment 

consumption decreased 6.8 percent from FY 1999. Federal energy consumption in vehicles and 

equipment is at its lowest level since Federal agencies began reporting consumption in 1975. 

This is mainly attributable to decreased operations by the Department of Defense. 

Jet fuel consumption accounted for 71.2 percent of all vehicle and equipment energy in FY 2000. 

In FY 2000 compared to the previous year, jet fuel consumption decreased 9.4 percent from 

444.7 trillion Btu to 403.0 trillion Btu. 

Agencies have taken many tangible steps to keep the use of vehicle fuels to a minimum. For 

example, USPS continues to modernize its fleet, adding diesel delivery vans and long-life 

vehicles to its inventory, both of which are more fuel efficient than the older vehicles they 

replaced. DOD continues to increase the use of flight simulators, as well as the use of new 

propulsion technologies in order to lessen the growth of vehicle and equipment fuel 

consumption. 

Figure 10 depicts the vehicles and equipment fuel mix within DOD and civilian agencies. Jet 

fuel accounted for 403.0 trillion Btu or 71.2 percent of the total energy usage in the category, 

with 21.6 percent attributed to diesel and distillate fuel, 5.6 percent to auto gasoline, and 

1.6 percent to aviation gasoline, navy special, LPG/propane and other fuels, combined. 

75
TABLE 13

FEDERAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT OPERATIO

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoule

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 USPS 11,524.2 12,136.2 12,196.2 12,225.0 12,565.3 13,348.6 14,571.2 14,217.1 16,779.2 14,777.2 14,583DOT 11,957.0 12,150.8 12,350.7 8,702.6 10,769.7 12,917.0 12,193.7 12,222.9 12,347.9 10,145.0 10,870DOJ 2,064.0 2,097.9 2,124.0 3,675.1 2,835.9 3,451.3 3,181.6 3,693.0 3,149.3 7,171.4 6,456USDA 4,319.6 4,952.3 5,123.8 4,982.7 4,931.2 5,129.1 4,821.7 4,654.8 3,153.0 3,389.4 3,337DOI 3,053.9 3,352.5 3,208.6 3,819.1 3,507.8 3,970.0 2,782.2 1,347.5 2,943.7 2,679.9 3,661TRSY 2,155.0 1,473.2 1,655.7 2,065.2 2,420.9 2,161.8 1,773.4 1,350.9 1,561.4 2,078.6 2,120NASA 1,972.7 1,736.7 1,864.0 1,875.4 1,798.0 1,734.3 1,750.9 1,539.3 1,622.1 1,428.3 1,412DOE 2,882.0 2,520.4 2,559.7 2,078.1 2,241.3 2,085.9 1,841.9 1,561.0 1,971.0 1,955.6 1,444VA 592.8 518.3 317.4 634.9 663.9 374.4 353.6 660.7 1,199.1 1,380.3 1,337TVA 578.5 476.6 534.7 408.8 452.4 480.3 541.7 583.8 479.5 429.1 423

GSA 144.1 128.1 122.6 102.9 79.6 69.9 91.3 98.8 119.9 122.2 125

HHS 373.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.3 176.3 105.5 18.6 435.0 447.7 447

EPA 132.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.7 98.0 99.6 76.5 137.2 97.7 120

ST 14.8 34.9 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.7 40.9 40DOL 232.2 239.0 401.9 388.7 369.1 369.6 356.9 337.7 336.2 350.2 350

FCC 12.4 9.1 7.2 7.5 7.2 6.6 6.6 4.8 7.1 6.6 6

DOC 1,010.2 3,100.3 1,315.2 952.5 995.7 995.2 760.6 570.1 929.1 708.4 834

HUD 0.0 0.0 32.7 33.6 31.6 30.7 25.4 25.4 28.3 23.3 23PCC 530.4 653.7 578.6 699.6 684.9 688.4 866.7 829.7 766.8 0.0 0OTHER* 39.2 69.6 27.6 113.6 106.7 105.4 119.6 116.9 140.1 147.6 144

CIVILIAN AGENCIES TOTAL 43,588.5 45,649.7 44,420.7 42,765.2 44,746.7 48,193.0 46,244.1 43,909.5 48,150.6 47,379.4 47,741

DOD 890,679.9 881,345.1 926,033.6 740,357.2 727,887.1 674,597.5 640,893.4 631,202.0 617,235.4 579,959.8 559,785ALL AGENCIES 934,268.4 926,994.8 970,454.3 783,122.4 772,633.8 722,790.5 687,137.4 675,111.5 665,386.0 627,339.2 607,527MBOE 160.4 159.1 166.6 134.4 132.6 124.1 118.0 115.9 114.2 107.7 104

Petajoules 985.6 977.9 1,023.8 826.2 815.1 762.5 724.9 712.2 702.0 661.8 640

DATA AS 

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, FEMA, NSF, NRC, OPM, and USIA/IBB. Note: FY 1999 data was used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency energy consumption for FY 2000. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

76
FIGURE 10

Defense and Civilian Consumption in

Vehicles and Equipment by Fuel Type, FY 2000

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Jet Fuel Diesel Auto Gas Other* 

DOD Civilian 

*Other includes navy special, aviation gas,and LPG/propane 

As shown in Tables 14-A and 14-B, the Federal Government spent $3,099.7 million on vehicles 

and equipment energy in FY 2000, 22.3 percent less than the FY 1999 expenditure of $3,987.9 

million constant dollars. In FY 2000, the combined price for all types of vehicles and equipment 

energy was $5.48 per million Btu, down 16.6 percent from FY 1999. The average real cost of 

gasoline to the Federal Government decreased from $1.13 per gallon in FY 1999 to $1.03 in FY 

2000. The unit cost for diesel/distillate fuel declined 22.5 percent while the unit cost for jet fuel 

fell 14.8 percent. 

When compared to FY 1985 using constant 2000 dollars, energy costs for vehicles and 

equipment decreased 64.8 percent from $8,800.4 million to $3,099.7 million in FY 2000. During 

that same period, the Government’s combined cost per million Btu for vehicles and equipment 

energy fell 41.8 percent from $9.42 to $5.48 in constant dollars. 

Vehicle and equipment fuel costs in FY 2000 represent 42.1 percent of the Government’s total 

energy costs of $7.3 billion. TRILLIO

N B

T

U

77
TABLE 14-A

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT ENERGY

IN FY 2000

(In Millions of Dollars)

AUTO GAS DIST. LPG/ AVIATION JET FUEL NAVY OTHER TOTAL 

DIESEL PROPANE GAS SPECIAL 

DEFENSE 57.567 478.078 0.185 0.023 2,190.267 17.607 1.572 2,745.299 

CIVILIAN 206.427 72.972 0.299 3.181 63.241 0.003 8.284 354.407 

263.994 551.050 0.483 3.204 2,253.508 17.610 9.856 3,099.706 

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES 

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 

GASOLINE = 1.03 / GALLON 

DIST/DIESEL = 0.62 / GALLON 

LPG/PROPANE = 1.17 / GALLON 

AVIATION GAS = 2.09 / GALLON 

JET FUEL = 0.73 / GALLON 

NAVY SPECIAL = 0.38 / GALLON 

OTHER = 4.55 / MILLION BTU 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

Note: FY 1999 data was used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency energy costs for FY 2000. 

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

78
TABLE 14-B

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT

ENERGY BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2000, FY 1999, AND FY 1985 

(Constant 2000 Dollars)

ENERGY TYPE BILLIONS OF COST PER COST (IN MILLIONS 

BTU MMBTU OF DOLLARS) 

FY 2000 

AUTO GASOLINE

DIST/DIESEL

LPG/PROPANE

AVIATION GASOLINE

JET FUEL

NAVY SPECIAL

OTHER

TOTAL

31,886.4 

122,316.3 

39.6 

192.0 

403,051.3 

6,426.8 

2,168.4 

566,080.9 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $5.476 

FY 1999 

AUTO GASOLINE

DIST/DIESEL

LPG/PROPANE

AVIATION GASOLINE

JET FUEL

NAVY SPECIAL

OTHER

TOTAL

41,091.2 

116,571.7 

79.2 

132.1 

444,680.5 

4,543.9 

428.6 

607,527.2 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $6.564 

FY 1985 

AUTO GASOLINE

DIST/DIESEL

LPG/PROPANE

AVIATION GASOLINE

JET FUEL

NAVY SPECIAL

OTHER

TOTAL

50,420.1 

169,215.0 

149.2 

1,882.3 

705,675.5 

6,687.7 

238.6 

934,268.4 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $9.419 

8.2792 263.994 

4.5051 551.050 

12.1997 0.483 

16.6907 3.204 

5.5911 2,253.508 

2.7401 17.610 

4.5453 9.856 

3,099.706 

8.9785 368.936 

5.8177 678.183 

8.3359 0.660 

14.0200 1.852 

6.5634 2,918.636 

3.5318 16.048 

8.4661 3.629 

3,987.943 

10.9684 553.028 

8.7566 1,481.743 

10.1752 1.518 

16.2086 30.509 

9.4625 6,677.444 

8.1208 54.309 

7.8287 1.868 

8,800.421 

DATA AS OF 11/30/01 

Note: FY 1999 data was used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency energy costs for FY 

2000. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

79
This page intentionally left blank. 

80

VI. FEDERAL AGENCY ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

A. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) 

Management and Administration 

In the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration hasthe authority 

to implement Federal energy management policy 

related to the internal operations of the Department and 

to exercise full Department-wide contracting and 

procurement authority. As the Senior Energy Official, 

the Assistant Secretary is principally responsible for 

planning and implementing energy conservation 

programs within USDA and for coordinating with the 

Department of Energy on energy matters. 

USDA has put in place an Energy Support Technical 

Team comprised of USDA energy policy officials and 

agency energy coordinators, engineers, facilities 

managers, and procurement personnel. The three 

agencies represented on the Team – the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS), U.S. Forest Service, and 

Office of Operations – are responsible for 89 percent of 

USDA’s consumption. 

Recognition 

During FY 2000, five employees of USDA were 

recognized as energy champions under DOE’s “You 

Have the Power” energy awareness campaign: 

! Facility engineer Jerry Carlson of the Siuslaw 

National Forest who, by initiating the first energy 

savings performance contract for the USDA Forest 

Service, is helping the Pacific Northwest Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory reduce its energy costs by 

$85,000 annually; 

! Facility engineer Victor Hager of the U.S. Forest 

Service who, by implementing an ESPC with 

Johnson Controls to modernize lighting and HVAC 

systems at the RockyMountain Research Station in 

Fort Collins, CO, is helping USDA save energy 

costs of $160,000; 

! Facilities manager Dennis Jones of the National 

Animal Disease Center (NADC) who, by using an 

ESPC, is helping the ARS save more than 

$500,000 each year in energy costs; 

! Civil engineer Cathy O’Brien of the Manti-LaSal 

National Forest who, by replacing generator power 

with photovoltaics at several guard stations, is 

helping the USDA Forest Service save $500 per 

guard station in fuel costs each year; and 

! Engineer Harry Solhjoo of the ARS who, by 

retrofitting facilities with energy-efficient lighting 

and incorporating advanced HVAC free-cooling 

technology, is saving USDA hundreds of thousands of 

dollars each year. 

ARS continues to use the its existing system of 

employee incentive and awards programs to recognize 

and reward employees for energy savings contributions. 

For example, two employees at the National 

Agricultural Library (NAL) were given spot awards for 

identifying and acting on energy savings opportunities 

resulting in approximately $200,000 in savings. 

Performance Evaluations 

An energy management element continues to be 

incorporated in appropriate position descriptions and 

performance evaluation standards of ARS employees 

considered to be critical for the successful 

implementation of the energy management and 

conservation program. Each critical position employee 

at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) 

is evaluated based on the energy conservation measures 

achieved within the employee’s unit. 

Training 

All USDAagencies continue to provide relevant energy 

management training and materials to their employees. 

ARS employees are encouraged to attend energy 

management training offered by DOE’s Federal Energy 

Management Program, private or public educational 

institutions, Federal agencies, or professional 

associations. 

BARC continues to employ aggressive training that 

updates its employees with the changing equipment and 

technologies. Contracts with new technologies 

incorporate cost allowance for training of BARC 

employees. 

Showcase Facilities 

ARS evaluated newly-approved major facility 

construction or modernization projects as possible 

candidates for energy Showcase designation. 

The Office of Operations substantially completed Phase 

I of the USDA Headquarters South Building 

Modernization in FY 2000 and that will result in a 

Showcase Facility of approximately 2 million square 

feet when all eight phases are completed. 

81
Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, USDA reported a 23.1 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

USDA received credit for purchases of 3.1 billion Btu 

of renewable electricity. This lowered the energy 

intensity ofitsstandard buildings from 65,358 Btu/GSF 

to 65,259 Btu/GSF. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

The entire ARS building inventory is designated as 

“Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and Other Energy 

Intensive Facilities” for energy reporting purposes. 

The ARS building inventory includes more than 3,000 

separate buildings (average size less than 4,000 square 

feet) widely dispersed across the nation, the majority of 

which are used for research and development functions 

and laboratories. The inventory does include some 

office buildings and other facilities commonly treated 

as “Standard” or “Exempt” under the DOE reporting 

guidelines, but it is not feasible to separate those 

buildings for reporting purposes. 

! The predominant mission of ARS and of its 

facilities is research and related functions of a 

highly technical and specialized nature. Energy use 

in ARS facilities is dominated by laboratory and 

research and development buildings that are 

characterized by the greater intensity and 

variability of energy use, as well as by the more 

complex challenges of achieving energy cost 

reductions in such facilities. 

! Separating the buildings operated by ARS into 

three reporting categories is just not possible 

within reasonable cost. Utility bills for all of ARS 

are paid by a central financial processing and 

accounting unit and it is infeasible with available 

information to segregate utility costs by buildings 

or building categories. 

! A significant number of ARS facilities, most 

particularly those at the larger sites, are served by 

central heating and/or cooling plants, which are 

centrally metered without submetering by building. 

! A great many of ARS facilities are co-located 

(often on central systems) with land-grant 

university agricultural research facilities. Usage 

and occupancy of such facilities is variable and 

mixed among ARS and university functions and 

personnel, and operating costs are allocated 

through a variety of lease and cost-sharing 

practices. 

! To meet its mission objectives, ARS has changed 

the use and, therefore, the appropriate 

classification of many of its facilities. Storage 

spaces, for example, have been converted to 

research or office facilities, or other more energy 

intensive uses. 

Performance of ARS facilities is measured based on 

Air-Quality-Adjusted Btu/GSF, which removes the 

impact of present day requirements for increased 

laboratory ventilation air for safety and health reasons. 

Since 1990, ARS has undertaken an extensive 

conversion program of systematically modifying spaceconditioning systems in its laboratory facilities to use 

far less re-circulating air, and more fresh air from 

outside the building, in order to protect ARS and 

university researchers from the health and safety risks 

of hazardous chemicals and airborne pathogens. These 

requirements have become more stringent and require 

greater energy use than the standards that were in place 

in 1990, the base year of the goal. 

In 1989, ARS initiated a comprehensive nationwide 

ARS facilities modernization program to upgrade 

existing facilities to present day building code and life 

safety standards. As part of this modernization effort, a 

significant number of energy efficiency design features 

have been and continue to be incorporated into the 

facilities. ARS has completed Super ESPC agreements 

for comprehensive energy retrofits at the NAL and at 

the NADC. ARS is working with the Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory to develop additional 

opportunities for efficiency improvements in its 

laboratory facilities. The total impact of these 

energy-efficiency efforts will be reflected in ARS-wide 

energy-use reporting. These efficiency gains, however, 

will be obscured if there is no adjustment for the impact 

of essential health and safety improvements in these 

buildings. 

Based on the ARS best engineering judgement, 

laboratory and research space accounts for more than 

90 percent of ARS building energy consumption and 

modifications to existing space-conditioning systems to 

improve indoor air quality will result in an increase in 

Btu/GSF of modernized space. To eliminate the 

distorting impact of air-quality improvements and to 

allowa more accurate comparison of current energy use 

with the baseline year, ARS annually reported data will 

be adjusted accordingly to reflect actual progress of the 

ARS modernization program. 

In FY 1990, ARS consumed a total of 2,258 billion Btu 

in 12.7 million square feet of facilities (or 178,014 

Btu/GSF). In FY 2000, ARS consumption is 2,368.4 

billion Btu in 12.9 million GSF of facilities (or 183,578 

82
Btu/GSF). A total of 1.3 million GSF of laboratory 

facilities have been modernized since FY 1990, which 

more than doubled the energy intensity of this space. 

Removing the effect of the modernization-related 

increase results in an Air-Quality Adjusted Btu/GSF of 

137,012 – a reduction of about 23 percent from the 

baseline consumption in FY 1990. 

Renewable Energy 

Where possible and cost effective, the U.S. Forest 

Service endeavors to install photovoltaic-powered 

equipment at remote sites, incorporate passive solar 

technology into new facility design/construction, and 

identify/estimate energy use from renewable energy 

self-generation and renewable energy thermal projects. 

Recent examples include: 

! In FY 1999, the Missoula Technology and 

Development Center received a $44,000 grant 

from the DOE to install photovoltaic lighting 

systems at Forest Service fire camps. These were 

used extensively in FY 2000; 

! Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Region 3, 

installed photovoltaic powered pumps as part of 

the Baseline-Horsesprings Allotments 

Range/Wildlife Watering Project; 

! Red Canyon Camp Ground in the Cibola National 

Forest, Region 3, installed photovoltaic lighting 

and fan systems at three toilet buildings and a 

photovoltaic powered water pump system; 

! Douglas Ranger District, Coronado National 

Forest, Region 3 installed photovoltaic systems in 

partnership with a rancher to pump water; 

! Alto Pit on the Prescott National Forest, Region 3, 

installed photovoltaic systems to power a water 

pressure pump and alarm system for a wastewater 

holding tank at the Alto Pit; 

! The design for the new Missoula Technology and 

Development Center includes a solar preheat wall 

system for make-up air, passive solar lighting, a 

photovoltaic system to pump water for irrigation, 

and a ground-coupled heat pump; 

! Cibola National Forest, Region 3, installed a water 

pump that is powered by 16 modules and 64 watts 

of active tracking photovoltaic systems; and 

! Coronado National Forest, Region 3, installed 

three photovoltaic systems as part of 

communication repeater projects. 

During FY 2000, the Southern Plains Area of ARS 

reported a renewable electricity purchase of 165.6 

megawatt-hours at a cost of $94,604. Iowa State 

University (ISU) provides electricity, steam, and chilled 

water for the National Soil Tilth Laboratory (NSTL) in 

Ames, Iowa. ISU generates much of its own power 

using a combination of renewable resources and coal. 

The city of Ames is a back-up power source for ISU 

and Ames also used renewable energy resources in 

power generation. 

In the transportation end-use sector, the BARC 

purchased biodiesel for its vehicular fleet. To date, 

BARC has purchased approximately 100,000 gallons of 

biodiesel for a total cost of $123,000. 

Petroleum 

Since FY 1985, USDA has substantially reduced its use 

of petroleum-based fuels in its facilities. In FY 2000, 

USDA reduced consumption of fuel oil in its standard 

buildings by 87.5 percent from almost 886,500 gallons 

in FY 1985 to 110,500 gallons in FY 2000. The use of 

LPG/propane was reduced 63.1 percent during the 

period, a reduction of 1.9 million gallons. 

Similar reductions were seen in USDA’s ARS 

laboratory facilities. Fuel oil consumption in these 

facilities decreased 81.8 percent from 3.5 million 

gallons in FY 1985 to 638,900 gallons in FY 2000. 

Water Conservation 

Overall, the USDA used almost 1.6 billion gallons 

(1,579.4 million gallons) of water for all facilities 

during FY 2000 at a cost of more than $2.8 million. 

ARS reported the following water conservation 

activities undertaken during FY 2000: 

! The BARC used recycled effluent water for the 

production of steam; 

! The computer control system used at the 

BARC-East Water Treatment Plant has been 

programmed to operate wells and pumps more 

efficiently based on the needs of the facility. 

Wastewater treatment equipment, which was 

designed to operate continuously, was evaluated 

and placed on electrical timers; 

! Repackaged steam joints and expansion joints, 

replaced old steam traps and main valves, and 

replaced leaking steam lines; 

! Replaced parts in flush-o-meters to water-saver kits 

and replaced back-flow prevention devices. 

! Animal water troughs are being upgraded with 

more efficient models in Dubois, Idaho; 

! Non-recirculating de-ionized water system has 

been replaced with re-circulating reverse osmosis 

systemat the Western Regional Research Center in 

Albany, California for annual water savings of 5.8 

million gallons ($57,000); and 

! A trickle irrigation system designed to reduce 

water usage has been installed in an 1,800 square 

83
foot greenhouse in Ames, Iowa. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

ARS continued to use life-cycle cost analysis (LCC) in 

evaluating energy-consuming products, services, and 

construction. Policies and procedures are in place 

regarding use of life-cycle cost analysis for evaluating 

energy conservation opportunities and decision making. 

During FY 2000, the Office of Operations expended 

most of its resources for the modernization of Wing 3 

of the USDA Headquarters South Building and the 

design of an energy-efficient and water-conserving 

Wing 4. Capital budgeting decisions, using life-cycle 

cost analysis and considering energy efficiency features, 

were made during the concept/design phases of these 

projects. 

Energy Audits 

ARS continues to conduct energy audits at locations 

nationwide. In FY 2000, an energy audit was conducted 

at facilities in Beaumont, Texas. About 668,000 total 

square feet were audited in late FY 2000. 

The BARC and the U.S. National Arboretum were 

audited by an energy service company. After all audits 

are completed, a review of the findings will determine 

which sites can benefit from an ESPC and/or utility 

energy service contract (UESC) projects. 

The Forest Service is pursuing an approach in which 

audits are conducted on prototypical buildings so that 

an audit of one type of facility can be used to identify 

recommendations of numerous similar facilities. 

Financing Mechanisms 

During FY 2000, USDA identified almost $2.0 million 

in direct obligations for facility energy efficiency 

improvements. These funds were from the facilities 

modernization and repair and maintenance accounts of 

the ARS, Office of Operations, and Forest Service. 

USDA proceeded with programming and budgeting for 

energy efficiency measures and Executive Order 

implementation activities as a discrete line item in its 

FY 2002 budget request. 

In FY 2000, as part of the its facilities modernization 

and repair and maintenance program effort, ARS spent 

$1.8 million for related building energy 

conservation/efficiency improvement projects. 

Examples include replacement of electrical lighting 

systems, insulation systems, HVAC systems, and 

building automation control systems with the most 

up-to-date efficient equipment available. Other projects 

include replacement of steamtraps and lines throughout 

the BARC facility, replacement of antiquated chillers 

and several hundred light fixtures and ballasts with 

energy saving units. 

ARS awarded a Super ESPC delivery order on 

December 16, 1999, for energy upgrades at the NADC 

in Ames, Iowa. Work included installation of 

equipment to preheat combustion air for generators; 

installation of steam and chilled water meters in 

buildings; connection of existing metering system; 

installation of heat recovery units; boiler replacement 

with combustion turbine to generate base load steam 

and electricity; and installation of standby generator for 

less costly interruptible electrical rates. The total 

private-sector investment for this project is almost $6.4 

million. The total awarded value of this delivery order 

is $12,238,015. The annual energy savings are about 26 

billion Btu. 

ARS also awarded a second Super ESPC delivery order 

on February 1, 2000, for chiller, burner, and lighting 

replacements at the NAL in Beltsville, Maryland. Total 

value of the ESPC delivery award is $1,807,000. 

The BARC entered into an agreement with Washington 

Gas to install natural gas lines throughout its facilities 

at no initial cost to the Government. In return, BARC 

will pay reduced delivery charges. The estimated annual 

energy savings is $416,500. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

Through the USDA’s Customer Supplies Centers and 

through the General Services Administration, there are 

established procedures for the purchase of energyefficient products. During FY 2000, ARS acquired 

microcomputers which met the ENERGY STAR® 

requirements for energy efficiency. 

The procurement staff at the Plant Introduction Station 

in Ames, Iowa, has been trained in procurement of 

energy-efficient products, provided product information 

of energy-efficient products, used energy efficiency as 

a selection criteria, and strongly encouraged purchase 

of energy-efficient products when processing purchase 

requisitions and orders. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

Using the EPA benchmarking tool, the BARC identified

eight buildings at its facility as eligible for ENERGY

STAR® Building labels. 

Sustainable Building Design 

84
Appropriate considerations of the sustainable design 

principles continue to be given to the siting, design, and 

construction of new ARS facilities. These principles 

have been incorporated in the agency’s facilities design 

standards. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Energy and water efficiency considerations continue to 

be used as evaluation factors in determining the most 

beneficial offer when soliciting for new USDA leased 

space. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

The BARC embarked on an ESPC project to install a 

cogeneration system. The energy service company is 

tasked with providing information in its proposal on 

eight locally-available natural resources for 

consideration as fuel for the cogeneration system. 

Off-Grid Generation 

The U.S. Forest Service has identified more than 500 

photovoltaic systems in use. The Forest Service and 

other USDA agencies plan to continue efforts to use 

solar and other renewable technology, particularly at 

remote locations, where it competes favorably with 

traditional power systems. 

The National Soil Tilthe Laboratory uses small solar 

cell systems for several field instrumentation 

operations. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Sharon Holcombe

Office of Procurement and Property Management

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mail Stop 9302

Washington, D.C. 20250-9304

Phone: 202-720-3673

Fax: 202-690-1209

85
B. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Management and Administration 

The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for 

Administration serves as the Senior Energy Official for 

the Department of Commerce. 

Commerce includes a wide variety of individual 

bureaus. Those bureaus with responsibilities for energy 

and water management in Federal facilities are the 

Headquarters, Herbert C. Hoover Building; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 

and the Bureau of Census. 

Commerce’s Administrative Order for Federal Energy 

Management prescribes policies, assigns responsibility, 

and provides program guidelines for energy and water 

management. The plan also includes individual 

conservation plans for the Bureaus. 

Awards and Performance Evaluations 

Commerce presents awards to employees who help 

implement the agency’s energy efficiency goals, and 

includes measures of energy efficiency in employees’ 

performance evaluations. 

Training and Education 

Commerce trains managers, engineers and 

Architect/Engineering contractors in sustainable 

development, through General Services Administration 

workshops. Commerce also provides information on 

energy management programs and references such as 

the Whole Building Design Guide, the Leadership in 

Energy & Environmental Design rating system, and 

Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability. 

In FY 2000, Commerce co-sponsored the World Energy 

and Environmental Congress and Environmental 

Technology Conference hosted by the Association of 

Energy Engineers. Commerce also participated in the 

ENERGY 2000 Conference. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, Commerce reported a 34.0 percent 

decrease in energy consumption from FY 1985 for its 

standard buildings when measured in Btu per gross 

square foot. 

In FY 2000, NOAA reported energy data for sites in the 

Atlantic Marine Center, Pacific Marine Center, and 

Aircraft Operation Center along with the NOAA Motor 

Pool. The 49 Weather Forecast Offices operate 24 

hours, 7 days per week to forecast weather predictions 

and have extremely high energy usage. Presently, there 

are 36 National Weather Service Acquisition Sites 

reporting. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

NIST plans to take steps in FY2001 toward meeting the 

Executive Order 13123 goals. Energy and water 

conservation projects will be managed in the Plant and 

Technical Services Divisions. NIST in Boulder, 

Colorado, performed a DOE Facility Energy and Water 

Survey of several buildings. The results of the survey 

will help the facility plan future energy conservation 

measures. 

A design for HVAC setback and HVAC enthalpy 

controls in specific NIST Gaithersburg campus 

buildings will be completed in FY 2001 fiscal year and 

is planned as an ESPC activity. Documenting 

consumption of energy and to provide baseline 

information for building improvements, NIST has 

installed electrical meters on most Gaithersburg 

building feeders during the past year, and will continue 

to data log individual building electrical power 

consumption in FY 2001. 

NIST also has in place a design for retrofit of a 

laboratory building with Variable Air Volume (VAV) 

supply and exhausts that will be ready for FY 2001 

contracting. NIST proposes to spend up to $500,000 

and $400,000 for energy conservation projects for 

Boulder and Gaithersburg, respectively, for FY 2001 

Safety, Capacity, Maintenance and Major Repairs 

(SCMMR). Increased funding will be requested in 

future SCMMR plans through 2010 to help meet the 

Executive Order 13123 energy efficiency improvement 

goals. Other future utility reduction measures during 

maintenance work include lighting retrofit and controls, 

solar film, direct digital control building controls, high 

efficiency electric motor replacement, and VAV hood 

operation. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

NIST has in place a contract to purchase wind energy 

for its Boulder, Colorado laboratory when available 

from the local utility company. 

Million Solar Roofs 

Commerce is encouraging solarization of all sun rich 

facilities under the Million Solar Roofs initiative. Sites 

under consideration for solar power cogeneration 

include the NOAA-owned Weather Forecast Offices 

86
and National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratories. 

Water Conservation 

Chilled water consumption has been monitored in NIST 

campus buildings using two portable external pipe 

installed flow meters. A separate building chilled water 

differential temperature study will be completed by 

NIST to identify and correct chilled water low return 

water temperature problems with the goal to further 

improve the central chilled water plant efficiency and 

reduce CHW pumping power. 

NOAA operates a Tsunami Warning Center in Ewa 

Beach, Hawaii, which currently uses 8 million gallons 

of potable water per year for landscape irrigation, at a 

cost of $20,000 per year. To offset the cost and reduce 

the amount of drinkable water used for irrigation, a 

groundwater irrigation project was begun. The project 

aims to capture groundwater from at least two highly 

productive wells, or from a pond that will be excavated. 

NOAA is paying the estimated project cost of $41,000, 

which has a simple payback of less than three years. 

Implementation Strategies 

Energy Audits 

Commerce is continuing to benefit from the 

SAVEnergy audits offered through DOE’s Federal 

Energy Management program. In FY 2000, Commerce 

completed six audits and plans to complete 

approximately six more in FY 2000. These include 

audits of weather service stations, laboratories, and 

office buildings. 

NOAA’s strategy is to audit all of its facilities, as 

funding allows, to determine the most effective energy 

reduction and water conservation programs. In FY 

2000, five installa tions submitted the 

SAVEnergy/FEMP SAVEnergy Request applications to 

DOE. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2000, NOAA’s Western Regional Center 

continued implementation of a Super ESPC which 

started in FY 1998. The project involves replacing 

outdated and aging HVAC, lighting, and other energy 

consuming equipment. The Super ESPC will result in 

annual savings of $81,000 ($68,000 in energy savings, 

and $13,000 in maintenance savings). 

NOAA’s Western Administrative Support Center 

(WASC) plans to use its existing conventional energy 

financing program for solar energy incorporation. The 

existing WASC Super ESPC was first implemented in 

the DOE Western Region and the WASC Western 

Regional Center - Seattle, Washington was the third 

agency to be contracted for conventional energy 

efficiency improvements. DOE will provide feasibility 

study, design, and construction support under the Super 

ESPC. 

NOAA is also working on a Utility Energy Service 

contract with San Diego Gas and Electric to implement 

energy conservation measures at the La Jolla 

Laboratory. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Commerce is participating on the Task Force Working 

Group developing Federal guidelines for sustainable 

development and is preparing a far-reaching 

Sustainable Design policy statement to incorporate into 

its standard practices. NOAA is already incorporating 

these criteria into designs for new laboratories in 

California, Maine, Alaska, and Guam, eliminating the 

traditional mechanical ventilation systems and, instead, 

using natural ventilation. 

Through its modernization program, the National 

Weather Service (NWS) is committed to increasing the 

energy efficiency of its facilities. NWS is replacing its 

old offices with new, energy efficient facilities. 

NWS is integrating Sustainable Design into its newest 

WFO located in Tlyan, Guam. This was a formidable 

challenge because of the difficult functional and 

environmental requirements of the project. As the hub 

of the NWS in its region, the Guam facility is required 

to operate on a 24-hours a day 365-days a year 

schedule. The WFO houses sensitive electronic systems 

and complex communication equipment necessary to 

fulfill its mission of providing valuable weather data for 

the region. 

Because of its location and critical mission. the facility 

is required to withstand 194 mile-per-hour typhoon 

winds and accompanying flying debris. The facility is 

self-sufficient, with a 7,000-gallon potable water tank 

and diesel electrical generators. The design also needed 

to address high humidity and salt corrosion problems. 

The team looked at the various opportunities to provide 

sustainable features such as: low maintenance, energy 

efficiency, use of alternate energy resources, waste 

reduction, recycled materials, optimizing indoor 

environmental quality. Using DOE 2.1 E Software, a 

benchmark-model of typical energy use in previous 

NWS facilities was created. This benchmark was used 

in analyzing various design and material specification 

options. 

87
The overall strategies are expected to save 

approximately 22 percent in annual energy costs in 

comparison to a typical American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineerscompliant building. The sustainable design elements at 

the WFO Guam include building siting, landscape, 

maintenance, daylighting, building envelope. energy 

efficiency, alternate energy resources, indoor air 

quality, and recycled/renewable materials. 

NIST plans to implement the Gaithersburg Campus 

Site-Wide Energy Conservation Master Plan measures 

that collectively can reduce the Gaithersburg existing 

laboratory consumption by 20 percent relative to FY 

1990. NIST will continue to install energy and water 

conservation measures using the Gaithersburg Campus 

Site-Wide Energy Conservation Master Plan that 

identified over $10 million dollars of energy and water 

conservation measures. After FY 2005, additional 

engineering studies will be required to identify 

measures to obtain the 25 percent and 35 percent 

reductions. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. James Woods

Energy Conservation Officer

Office of the Federal Property Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1329

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20230

Phone: 202-482-0885

Fax: 202-482-1969

88
C. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Management and Administration 

The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is the DOD 

Senior Agency Official responsible for meeting the 

goals of Executive Order 13123. 

The existing DOD Installations Policy Board (IPB), 

chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations) and chartered to address a broad 

spectrum of installation issues, has been designated as 

the DOD Agency Energy Team. The membership ofthe 

IPB contains the cross-section of DOD senior 

leadership necessary to make decisions to remove 

obstacles hindering compliance with the Executive 

Order. 

Awards 

In October 2000, the Department of the Navy held its 

FY 2000 annual Secretary of the Navy awards 

ceremony in Washington, DC. Seven awards were 

presented to Navy and Marine Corps winners in the 

categories of facilities, ships, and air squadrons. The 

Services also participated in the Federal Energy and 

Water Management Awards Program. In FY 2000, 

DOD received 24 awards. In addition to DOE and 

Service energy award programs, the White House 

recognized the Army’s Energy Team with a Presidential 

Award for Federal Energy Management, and the Omaha 

Public Power District awarded the prestigious 

J.M. Harding Energy Award to Offutt Air Force Base 

(AFB), Nebraska. Additionally, the Defense 

Commissary Agency (DeCA), the National Imagery and 

Mapping Agency (NIMA), Washington Headquarters 

Service (WHS), and the National Security Agency 

(NSA) incorporate on-the-spot awards and incentive 

awards to recognize exceptional performance and 

participation in the energy management program. 

Performance Evaluations 

Energy management provisions are included in 

performance plans of the DOD energy chain of 

command, including major command, base and site 

energy managers. To ensure the inclusion of 

management provisions, action items were established 

in the FY 2001 Navy shore energy plan, while the Army 

conducts scheduled assistance visits to installations. 

Training and Education 

Awareness and training programs are a critical part of 

DOD’s efforts to achieve and sustain energy-efficient 

operations at the installation level. In FY 2000, 

2,361 DOD personnel were trained through either 

commercially-available or in-house technical courses, 

seminars, conferences, software, videos, and 

certifications. The U.S. Army Logistics Integration 

Agency, Army Corps of Engineers Huntsville 

Engineering and Support Center, Civil Engineer Corps 

Officer School, Air Force Institute of Technology Civil 

Engineering School, and DeCA sponsored in-house 

courses and seminars. The Services held installation 

energy management conferences, and DOD personnel 

attended the Energy 2000 Workshop in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. DOD was a co-sponsor of Energy 2000, 

with WHS being an active participant in the planning 

committees for both Energy 2000 and Energy 2001. 

Showcase Facilities 

In FY 2000, the U.S. Army Forces Command worked 

with DOE to designate Fort Irwin, California, as an 

energy Showcase installation. Fort Irwin has exceeded 

a 42 percent reduction in Btu/GSF through a systematic 

program to identify cost-effective energy projects, 

followed by an aggressive program of implementation 

supported by Southern California Edison. This 

Showcase installation demonstrated a variety of 

technologies including natural lighting and passive solar 

features, energy saving controls, thermal storage, solar 

photovoltaics, and gas-fired chillers. 

The following Navy locations have been identified as 

candidates for new Showcase recognition: 

! Bldg 33, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, 

D.C., is an historic administration building 

incorporating sustainable design and development. 

! Naval Air Station North Island, San Clemente 

Island, California, features wind farm electric 

generation technology. 

! Bachelor Officers Quarters, Great Lakes, Illinois, 

includes high levels of insulation, highperformance windows, high-efficiency electric 

lighting, use of existing steam system for heating, 

a direct digital control system with setback, 

variable speed drive motors, and energy-efficient 

transformers. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOD reported a 23.5 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOD received credit for purchases of 1,373.4 billion 

Btu of renewable electricity, natural gas, and thermal 

energy. This lowered the energy intensity of its standard 

buildings from 105,228 Btu/GSF to 104,543 Btu/GSF. 

89
Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

The FY 2000 DOD Scorecard established a FY 1990 

baseline of 213,349 Btu/GSF for the newly defined 

Industrial, Labs, Research and Energy Intensive 

Facilities category. For this new facilities category, 

DOD has achieved a 22.7 percent reduction in Btu/GSF 

consumption relative to the FY 1990 base year. 

Because the relationship between energy consumption 

and production varies widely between processes, DOD 

has decided to use energy usage per grosssquare foot as 

the performance measure for the industrial and 

laboratory facility category. Additionally, to simplify 

data collection, and the associated metering and 

reporting costs, DOD considers an entire base an 

industrial facility if 60 percent or more of the base-wide 

energy use is for industrial purposes. 

Exempt Facilities 

The Navy is the only component in DOD to list 

facilities classified as exempt. The Navy exempts 

mission-critical, concentrated energy use transmitters, 

simulators, cold iron support to ships, and some private 

party facilities. These are non-production-oriented 

facilities with little or no square footage, making 

conventional performance measures meaningless. The 

mission criticality of these end users is such that energy 

efficiency measures are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

Total tactical vehicle fuel use was 199,151 billion Btu 

in FY 2000, decreasing 6 percent from FY 1999, 

primarily through improved fuel efficiency of 

equipment and energy conserving operating procedures. 

Improving fuel efficiency in DOD tactical equipment 

increases vehicle range and sustainability, and reduces 

logistics support requirements. The reduction in jet fuel 

consumption (9 percent from FY 1999) was the 

significant factor in the overall reduction. The Navy has 

saved $110 million annually in fuel costs for its ship 

and aircraft fleets through technological advances and 

operational practices. 

DOD’s commitment to use alternative fuels in AFVs 

and to reduce the use of fossil fuels was underscored by 

the multi-component participation in implementing a 

bio-diesel fueling site at the Navy Exchange Service 

Station near the Pentagon. Bio-diesel may be used in 

any vehicle that uses diesel as a fuel. The B20 fuel 

(20 percent bio-diesel and 80 percent diesel fuel) 

provided at the Navy Exchange Service Station is an 

approved alternative fuel, and may be used by Federal, 

State and local government agencies. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

As these technologies have become more cost-effective, 

DOD has integrated photovoltaic power systems, solar 

water heating systems, and transpired solar collectors 

(solar walls) into its facilities. Self-generated power is 

often coupled with ground-source heat pumps, solar 

water heating systems and photovoltaic arrays to 

generate electricity at isolated locations, such as range 

targets, airfield landing strip lighting and remote water 

pumping stations. Active solar heating applications 

have included maintenance facility solar walls, 

swimming pool heating, and water heating. Projects 

installed in FY 2000 include solar domestic water 

heaters at Camp Stover, Hawaii, and Marine Corps 

Logistics Base, 29 Palms, California. Solar 

photovoltaics were used at Naval Base San Diego, CA; 

Naval Air Station, North Island, California; and Naval 

Air Warfare Center, China Lake, and Santa Cruz Island, 

California. A solar roof was constructed at Ford Island, 

Hawaii, while an outdoor warning system was installed 

using solar backup batteries at Goodfellow Air Force 

Base, Texas. Geothermal heat pumps have been 

installed at MCB Camp Lejeune, California; Tyndall 

Air Force Base, Florida; and Charleston Air Force 

Base, South Carolina. The Pentagon Heating and 

Refrigeration Plant Complex has installed a 30-kilowatt 

photovoltaic array. 

Purchase of Renewable Energy 

In FY 2000, the Army purchased 276 megawatt-hours 

of electrical power generated from renewable sources, 

the Air Force Academy purchased 45 megawatt-hours 

of wind generation from the local utility, and the Navy 

purchased 163,696 megawatt-hours of renewable 

electricity and 803.5 billion Btu of renewable thermal 

energy. The Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia, 

purchases electricity and steam from its now privatized 

waste-to-energy plant, while Naval Air Station, 

Keflavik, Iceland, purchases hot water fromgeothermal 

wells and electricity from hydroelectric plants. 

Million Solar Roofs (MSR) 

Active solar heating applications have been expanded 

at DOD to include maintenance facility solar walls, 

swimming pool heating, and water heating in family 

housing. The Army has approximately 3,000 “solar 

roofs” in use at its installations and expects to develop 

and implement other solar and solar-thermal projects in 

FY 2001. 

In addition to the projects listed under “self-generation 

renewable energy,” installations which implemented 

solar projects in FY 2000 were Fort Hood, Texas; Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Fort 

Irwin, California; Fort McPherson, Georgia; Fort 

90
Lewis, Washington; Fort Gillem, Georgia; Hickam 

AFB, Hawaii; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Kadena Air 

Base, Japan. 

Petroleum 

DOD’s petroleum-based fuel use in all of its facilities 

has decreased 65 percent from the FY 1985 baseline. 

Reductions were accomplished primarily through fuel 

switching (to natural gas), tune-ups, steam trap 

replacements and improved controls in boiler plants. A 

significant factor in the reduction is Defense Energy 

Support Center’s (DESC) Natural Gas Competitive 

Procurement Program. The objective of this program is 

to obtain cost-effective supply of natural gas for DOD 

installations while maintaining supply reliability. In 

FY 2000, DESC competitively procured 66 trillion Btu 

of natural gas (20 trillion Btu more than in FY 1999) 

for the 163 DOD installations that participated in the 

program and avoided costs of over $32 million 

($3 million more than in FY 1999). Boiler conversion 

from fuel oil to natural gas reduced petroleum usage by 

3.2 million gallons (480 billion Btu), from FY 1999. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2000, DOD consumed 207.4 billion gallons of 

potable water and spent $309 million on water related 

services. Although DOD water use has decreased 

steadily, the costs associated with its use have not come 

down proportionately, due to an increase in the unit cost 

of water in many regions. For instance, while the 

Army’s water use dropped by almost 45 percent 

between FY 1992 and FY 1999, the cost of water 

service only decreased by 13 percent. Similar trends 

exist for water disposal volumes and costs. In the same 

time period, water disposal volume dropped by 

49 percent, while costs decreased by only 8 percent. 

This reflects a unit disposal cost increase of 80 percent. 

Additionally, some installations that purchase their 

water are increasingly likely to be on rate schedules 

designed to encourage conservation, such as increasing 

block rates or summer peak-demand charges. Thus, 

water conservation efforts, in addition to being 

environmentally responsible, can help installations 

stretch dwindling Operation and Maintenance dollars. 

Also, those water conservation measures that reduce 

wastewater quantities provide an additional opportunity 

for savings. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOD facilities use life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis in 

making decisions about their investment in products, 

services, construction, and other projects to lower costs 

and reduce energy and water consumption. DOD 

considers the LCC of combining projects, and 

encourages bundling of energy efficiency projects with 

renewable energy projects, where appropriate. Projects 

are generally prioritized for capital funding and 

execution based upon the greatest life-cycle savings to 

investment ratio. The use of passive solar design and 

active solar technologies are recommended where costeffective over the life of the project. Sustainable 

development projects use LCC methodology and follow 

the Whole Building Design Guide. 

Facility Energy Audits 

Comprehensive audits were conducted on 161.6 million 

square feet (12.4 percent of facility square footage) in 

FY 2000. Since 1992, comprehensive audits were 

completed on 758.8 million square feet (55 percent of 

facility square footage). Auditing 10 percent of 

facilities annually has been cost prohibitive and many 

Defense components have been unable to fully fund the 

audit program. To make up for part of this shortfall, 

components obtain audits as part of alternative-financed 

energy savings projects whenever feasible. In addition 

to energy audits performed in conjunction with 

alternative-financed projects, the Army uses the 

“Renewables and Energy Efficiency Planning” (REEP) 

model, a headquarters-level screening tool for energy 

and water conservation opportunities that evaluates 

energy technologies based on their energy savings 

potential, financial viability, and global warming 

reduction potential. REEP is a project identification 

model that forecasts quickly and accurately the effects 

of installing a new piece of equipment or technology at 

specific installations and can provide Army-wide 

analysis for specific constraints. This program can be 

coupled with an integrated energy methodology to help 

installations prepare an energy master plan and strategy. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2000, DOD, through a decentralized approach, 

awarded 40 UESC and 58 ESPC task orders/contracts 

producing a total life-cycle savings of $782.6 million 

with the contractors’ share being $603.5 million 

(including interest charges). These contracts include 

many infrastructure upgrades and new equipment to 

help the installations reduce energy and water 

consumption. Examples include new thermal storage 

systems, chillers, boilers, lights, motors, EMCS systems 

and water reducing devices. Savings generated over 

time (estimated to be about 77 percent of total savings) 

are returned to the contractor to pay for the 

improvement measures. Normally, cost savings are used 

to first pay the contractor, and then are used to offset 

other base operating support expenses. In some cases, 

however, installations decide to seek a shorter contract 

term and defer all Government cost savings until 

91
contract completion. In these cases, the savings 

generated by UESCs and ESPCs help to reduce the 

energy consumption, but do not reduce the total costs of 

operation until the contracts expire. After contract 

expiration and the retrofits are paid for, DOD will retain 

full cost savings. 

There were no appropriations for DOD’s request for 

$50 million for the Energy Conservation Investment 

Program (ECIP) in FY 2000 and $15 million of the 

requested $33.5 million in was appropriated in 

FY 2001. However, in FY 2000, DOD received a 

Congressional add of $4 million to facilitate 

implementation of ESPCs. A similar $4 million 

Congressional add for ESPCs is in the FY 2001 

Defense Appropriations Bill. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy-Efficient Products 

When life-cycle cost-effective, the Defense components 

select ENERGY STAR® and other energy-efficient 

products when acquiring energy-consuming products. 

Guidance generated by DOE, General Services 

Administration (GSA) and DLA for energy–efficient 

products are being incorporated into the sustainable 

design and development of new and renovated facilities. 

Information technology hardware and computer and 

copying equipment are acquired under the ENERGY 

STAR® program using GSA schedules and either 

Government-wide or Service contracts. The Defense 

Commissary Agency (DeCA) requires premium 

efficiency fan motors for HVACsystems, electronically 

commuted fan motors on the refrigeration display cases, 

T-8 fluorescent light fixtures on display cases, and T-8 

lighting for sales areas. Another example of the 

program is the Pentagon Renovation Program’s use of 

ENERGY STAR®/National Fenestration Rating Council’s 

guidance for replacement windows. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

DOD currently does not have any ENERGY STAR® 

certified buildings, because the buildings generally are 

not individually metered and temporary metering 

schemes are cost prohibitive. However, a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) signed in June 1997 between 

DOD, DOE, and EPA allows military installations to 

self-certify buildings as ENERGY STAR® equivalents if 

comprehensive audits were conducted and all projects 

with a 10-year or better payback were implemented. To 

date no buildings have been certified under this MOU. 

Sustainable Building Design 

The concepts of sustainable development as applied to 

DOD installations have been incorporated into the 

master planning process of each of the Services. The 

Navy co-sponsored the development of the Whole 

Building Design Guide, and a commissioning guide, in 

cooperation with the Passive Solar Industries Council, 

which incorporates the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) criteria. The Navy is also looking at 

opportunities to apply sustainable development 

concepts to ship pier-side loads. Additionally, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has developed a 3-day 

sustainable workshop to train DOD personnel. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

DOD emphasizes energy and water conservation in 

leased facilities and each Service has issued guidance 

directing that all leased spaces comply with energy and 

water efficiency requirements. It is DOD’s intent to 

have the landlord make appropriate investments in 

energy efficiency which can be amortized in the lease, 

provided the new total cost (energy costs plus lease 

cost) does not exceed total costs without improvements. 

These leases should amortize the investments over the 

economic life of the improvements. Build-to-lease 

solicitations for DOD facilities will contain criteria 

encouraging sustainable design and development, 

energy efficiency, and verification of building 

performance. DOD relies upon GSA to ensure the 

above provisions are included in buildings that they 

lease for DOD. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

Several major initiatives for industrial facility efficiency 

improvements under way include fuel switching at 

Altus AFB, Oklahoma; waste heat usage to run 1,500 

tons of absorption chillers at Wilford Hall Medical 

Center, Lackland AFB, TX; and installing two thermal 

storage units serving seven facilities at Laughlin AFB, 

Texas. The Army used the Process Energy and 

Pollution Reduction software developed by and 

available from the Army’s Construction Engineering 

Research Laboratory (CERL) to evaluate their energy 

reduction potential in industrial facilities. 

DeCA, with a large inventory of commissary stores, 

installs dual-path air conditioning to control humidity as 

an alternative to natural gas or propane fired desiccant 

dehumidification systems. DeCA also uses and plans to 

increase the use of heat-pipe technology for 

dehumidification and heat reclaim. Domestic hot water 

heat reclaim systems are standard in most large 

commissary store systems. Remote diagnostic 

monitoring of Refrigeration Monitoring and Control 

Systems is used at approximately 175 individual 

commissaries to assure that refrigeration and lighting 

systems are being operated and maintained at their 

design specification. Discrepancies are forwarded to 

DeCA’s maintenance contractors on a daily basis for 

correction. Lighting controls were monitored and 

92
adjusted by this same method in FY 2000. This 

surveillance resulted in improved contractor 

maintenance and improved equipment operation and 

less energy consumed. The DeCA Eastern Region 

Utilities Task Force was formed in FY 2000 to identify 

potential energy savings with the objective of driving 

total operating costs down. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

DOD encourages the component agencies to combine 

cooling, heating, and power systems in new 

construction and/or retrofit projects when cost effective. 

The Army is currently in the third year of a 5-year, 

$300 million central boiler plant modernization 

program. The goals of this program are to update the 

aging central boiler plant infrastructure that are 

currently found on many installations. These projects 

have resulted in upgraded or new boilers, new 

distribution systems, improved high efficiency pumps 

and motors, and updated system controls in all of these 

plants. The Navy used an ESPC to install a 5-megawatt 

gas turbine with 70,000 lb/hour heat recovery steam 

generators at Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH. Several 

Air Force projects have included the use of geothermal 

and biomass systems. Tyndall AFB, FL, and Bolling 

AFB, DC, have installed ground source heat pumps, 

and Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, has awarded an 

ESPC to construct a 1.2-megawatt biomass unit at the 

base. 

Off-Grid Generation 

DOD is pursuing off-grid generation where it is lifecycle cost-effective. The Army’s Fort Hood is using 

two new innovative energy reduction technologies: 

solar parking lot lighting and an active daylighting 

system. Each of the 156 units of active daylighting 

installed produces the equivalent of approximately 600 

to 800 watts of flourescent light—virtually eliminating 

all daytime electric lighting—equating to more than 

1.4 billion Btu of renewable energy. The solar parking 

lot lighting system uses just two panels to produce 

800 kilowatt-hours per year. These two projects 

combined to save the installation $103,000 in FY 2000. 

The Navy also installed three 225 kilowatt wind 

generators at San Clemente Island, California, 

producing 5.2 million kilowatt hours of electricity and 

three solar photovoltaic systems (160 kilowatt total) at 

Santa Cruz Island producing 238,000 kilowatt-hours of 

electricity. 

Water Conservation 

In addition to establishing an overall water baseline to 

evaluate water usage and monitor the impact of future 

water efficiency improvements, Defense components 

concentrated on water conservation methods such as 

early leak detection and repair, installation of low-flow 

water-efficient fixtures in housing and administration 

buildings, and public awareness programs. 

Energy Management Contact 

Captain Kevin E. Mikula

Director, Energy Office

Housing and Energy Directorate

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Installations

3000 Defense Pentagon, Room 30-284

Washington, D.C. 20301-3000

Phone: 703-697-6195

Fax: 703-695-1493

93
D. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 

Management and Administration 

In FY 2000, DOE designated the Deputy Secretary of 

Energy as the senior official responsible for meeting the 

goals of Executive Order 13123, and appointed a 

technical support team. In addition, the Department’s 

Energy Management Steering Committee, comprised of 

Federal Energy Management Program and DOE 

Secretarial Officer representatives, establishes and 

implements internal policy for energy management and 

integrates these activities into DOE program operations. 

Recognition 

During FY 2000, seven Departmental Energy 

Management Awards were presented to organizations 

and individuals. Eleven DOE organizations have 

employee incentive programs to reward exceptional 

performance in energy management. 

Performance Evaluations 

Thirteen DOE sites are relating energy activities to 

employee performance evaluations and position 

descriptions. 

Training 

Technical training and energy awareness activities 

continue to be emphasized in site energy management 

programs. Sixteen DOE organizations have training 

programs in place or take advantage of training and 

education opportunities as they arise. For example, at 

Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) many staff have 

attended energy savings performance contract training, 

as well as a seminar sponsored by the Rebuild America 

program. Also, an energy programming workshop was 

held at SNL on how to integrate comprehensive energy 

efficiency design principles into a major project at the 

Laboratory. 

Showcase Facilities 

Many DOE facilities do not qualify as Showcase 

Facilities because visitation is restricted due to national 

security or safety reasons. While DOE sites have not 

designated any buildings for FY 2000, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Rocky Flats 

(RF), and Los Alamos National Laboratory have 

facilities which are considered exemplary. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOE reported a 43.7 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOE received credit for purchases of 0.9 billion Btu of 

renewable electricity. Thislowered the energy intensity 

of its standard buildings from 249,979 Btu/GSF to 

249,969 Btu/GSF. 

Reductions in DOE’s consumption in FY 2000 is 

partially due to reduced mission-related activities and 

overall downsizing of operations and facilities. As 

manpower is reduced and facilities are closed, efforts 

are ongoing to consolidate operations and minimize 

energy use in vacated buildings. Thisincludes review of 

HVAC systems, lighting, transformers, and other 

building equipment usage. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

DOE’s metered process facilities saw a reduction in 

Btu/GSF of 14.0 percent since FY 1990. This reduction 

is mainly attributable to reduced mission-related 

activities and overall downsizing of operations and 

facilities. DOE anticipates exempting appropriate 

facilities from the requirements of Executive Order 

13123 during the FY 2001 reporting period and 

updating its reporting system to accommodate this 

change. Most of the facilities proposed for exemption 

are currently reported under the metered process 

category and have been scaled back operationally to 

prepare for decontamination and decommissioning. As 

part of the reporting change for FY 2001, some 

laboratory buildings currently being reported under the 

standard buildings category may also be reclassified 

under the energy intensive facility category. 

Savannah River Site (SRS) accomplished the following 

industrial energy efficiency improvements during FY 

2000: 

! Completed design and began construction of a new 

2,200-ton central chilled water facility supporting 

the Regulatory Monitoring and Bioassay 

Laboratory project. The plant will consist of a 

three chiller arrangement and will use ozonefriendly refrigerant. It replaces 15 existing R-22 

chillers and three new chillers projected for the 

new facility. The facility is expected to save 1.7 

billion Btu annually from the current configuration 

plus the new facility; 

! Completed facility plan for four 500-ton HVAC 

chillers and two 280-ton chillers in the Defense 

Waste Processing Facility. All six new chillers will 

use ozone-friendly refrigerant and save 2.9 billion 

Btu per year; and 

! Completed design and began construction of a new 

pelletization facility for use of alternate fuels 

(paper) in site stoker-fired boilers. This project is 

94
estimated to reduce coal use by approximately 

2,200 tons per year. 

Numerous energy efficiency projects were completed 

during FY 2000 at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL). Projects addressed retrofits for 

energy efficiency in central utility systems and in 

building systems. Seventeen projects were completed, 

with a combined investment of $699,000. One of the 

most successful projects involved compressed air 

system leak surveys and repairs. Compressed air 

leakage was reduced to such a great extent that one of 

the air compressors was moved from standby use to deenergized status. 

During FY 2000 a new 100,000-pounds-per-hour, 

natural gas-fired steam boiler was put into service at 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). This project 

is part of a 10-year master plan for the ORNL central 

steam plant that allows the burning of coal and the 

handling of coal to be eliminated. This project will save 

significant energy, maintenance, operation, and 

environmental-related expenses. Condensate pumps 

were replaced and the final system checkout was 

accomplished. This project allows a portion of steam 

condensate to be returned to the main steam plant rather 

than being discharged, thus reducing the amount of 

makeup water required and reclaiming lost heat. 

SNL implemented cooling tower optimization at 

Building 858, a chilled water plant. Estimated annual 

savings are $18,000. 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Stanford 

Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), 

and RF also reported implementing improvements in 

industrial facilities. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

INEEL reported that tactical vehicle fuel use is 

dependent primarily on factors uncontrolled by fleet 

operations personnel, such as funding, weather, and 

emergency needs. Over-the-road vehicles at INEEL are 

switching from gasoline and diesel to compressed 

natural gas and LNG. ORNL is working on switching 

from pure diesel to bio-diesel for all diesel-powered 

tactical vehicles and equipment. Thirty-two ethanol 

vehicles are also in use, and ORNL is installing a 

10,000-gallon ethanol storage tank to support them. 

Renewable Energy 

The LLNL Environmental Rededication Department 

has deployed eight solar units. The units are 

photovoltaic-powered, portable groundwater 

contamination treatment units. Each unit’s array is 

capable of generating approximately 400 watts of 

electric power. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

generates a small amount, less than 1 percent of its 

electrical load, with photovoltaics and wind power. 

These applications were installed as a means of 

demonstrating the technology. 

On April 20, 2000, the Secretary of Energy directed 

DOE to purchase 3 percent of its total electricity needs 

from non-hydro renewable energy sources by 2005, and 

7.5 percent of its total electricity purchases from 

renewable by 2010. In certain cases, DOE officials may 

find that electricity produced from renewable power 

costs more than electricity produced using other energy 

sources, such as conventional fossil fuels. In those 

instances, DOE will use the incremental costs saved 

from energy projects, savings obtained through lower 

energy costs as a result of retail electric competition, 

contract negotiations with utility companies, and utility 

rate reductions. By combining the lower cost electricity 

with some portion of moderately more expensive 

renewable electricity, DOE will not increase its overall 

utility budget. 

This past year, ORNL, in signing up for the Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) “Green Power Switch” 

program, became the TVA’s first industrial green power 

participant. The TVA program presently includes three 

wind turbines atop Buffalo Mountain in the Southeast’s 

first commercial-scale use of wind power to generate 

electricity. Also, the TVA program includes four solar 

collectors at one site, with eight more sites and a 

landfill gas-to-energy facility planned in the near future. 

More specifically, in support of the Green Power 

Switch program, ORNL signed up for 675 megawatthours annually at an incremental cost of $18,000 

annually. 

NREL subscribed to purchase 28 megawatt-hours of 

wind-generated electricity during FY 2000, about 2.4 

percent of its power. The Golden Field Office (GFO) 

subscribed to purchase 72 megawatt-hours of wind 

power or 23 percent of its electricity consumption. The 

GFO occupies leased space. GFO does not normally 

pay utility bills separate from its lease payments. 

Instead, GFO will pay the premium costs for the windpower. 

95
As part of the Million Solar Roof program, INEEL 

included solar initiatives in two new building designs. 

A solar wall on the new Records Storage Facility is 

currently being constructed in Idaho Falls, and solar 

water heating is included in the design of the Site 

Operations Center facility. 

Petroleum 

Since FY 1985, DOE has substantially reduced its use 

of petroleum-based fuels in its facilities. In FY 2000, 

DOE reduced consumption of fuel oil in its standard 

buildings by 52.4 percent from 11.1 million gallons in 

FY 1985 to 5.3 million gallons in FY 2000. The use of 

LPG/propane was reduced 66.2 percent during the 

period. 

Similar reductions were seen in DOE’s energy-intensive 

metered process facilities. Fuel oil consumption in these 

facilities decreased 73.6 percent from 7.9 million 

gallons in FY 1985 to 2.1 million gallons. LPG/propane 

use in metered process facilities decreased 33.3 percent 

during the period, a reduction of more than 69,000 

gallons. 

Water Conservation 

Water conservation procedures have been practiced at 

LLNL in California for many years. In response to 

drought, irrigation procedures and planting standards 

have been modified, resulting in significant reductions 

in water use. Two water conservation projects were 

begun in FY 2000 that invest $100,000 to purchase 

sensor-type urinal flush valves and ultra-low flow 

toilets. 

ORNL’s site-wide program to improve water treatment 

identified a leaky, oversized wood-basin cooling tower 

and replaced it with an existing, surplus, properly sized 

cooling tower. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is required for all energy 

and water conservation projects that are proposed for 

implementation at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) 

by Utility Energy Services Contracts (UESC) and Super 

Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) 

contractors. LCC analysis allows the Laboratory to 

determine if the lifetime of the equipment and systems 

installed by such projects outlive the payback period of 

the project by at least 25 percent. Additionally, the 

Laboratory requires that the UESC and ESPC 

contractors screen each audited facility for the 

application of renewable energy as part of any facility 

upgrade project proposal. This allows the Laboratory to 

determine if bundling of renewable energy concepts 

with other energy conservation opportunities is cost 

effective on a life cycle basis. 

At LLNL, procedures are in place to ensure that funds 

controlled by the LLNL Energy Management Program 

use LCC analyses in making investment decisions. 

Several “Ten-Minute Trainers” were conducted during 

FY 2000 to educate maintenance coordinators, project 

managers, and administrators to promote investment 

decision-making using LCC analyses. 

At Pantex, LCC analysis is used regularly with Motor 

Master software to confirm replacements of inefficient 

motors with premium efficient versions. LCC was used 

to purchase two air-cooled screw chillers instead of 

replacing the existing chiller with another water cooled 

one. It was also used to install a steam-powered 

condensate return units with a higher first-cost instead 

of repairing continuously-broken electric pumps. LCC 

analysis was used in a capital project to upgrade 

emergency power at the steam plant to include the two 

large boilers. Pantex had a 15-year low in natural gas 

usage this year as a result. 

Energy Audits 

PNNL conducted several audits and self-assessments of 

its energy and energy-related operations and 

maintenance, including a study on the potential cost 

savings of performance-based contracts that can bring 

capital improvements and improved practices to 

utilities. PNNL also initiated a multi-year continuouscommissioning campaign that coordinates the 

implementation of traditional and alternative financed 

projects. NREL completed an energy audit of 100 

percent of its DOE-owned facilities in July 2000. The 

audit was conducted on all facilities to determine how 

well previously completed projects are operating now 

and to determine the need for future projects. 

Financing Mechanisms 

DOE received no direct appropriations for in-house 

energy management during FY 2000. No funds have 

been appropriated by Congress for DOE in-house 

energy efficiency projects since FY 1995. 

DOE requested $5 million for energy efficiency 

projects for FY 2001, of which $2 million was 

appropriated. 

Obtaining alternate financing for energy efficiency 

projects in the form of ESPCs or UESCs is considered 

vital to continued energy reductions. To date, DOE has 

awarded and completed six UESC projects with a total 

private sector investment of almost $23 million. On the 

96
ESPC front, DOE has awarded five site-specific ESPCs 

to date and two Super ESPC delivery orders. 

At the Savannah River Site (SRS), all design and 

construction activities associated with Task Order #1 of 

the site-wide ESPC were completed on schedule in 

September 2000. This task order consisted of upgrades 

in 16 administrative facilities. A total of 540,000 square 

feet of building space was audited in the development 

of this task. The capital upgrades, at a cost of 

approximately $1.7 million, included lighting 

enhancements, energy management control system 

installations, and HVAC improvements. The total 

contractual cost over 14 years is approximately $3.8 

million, with guaranteed annual energy and O&M cost 

savings totaling $268,000. 

On June 1, 2000, the DOE’s Pantex Plant, located in 

Amarillo, Texas, awarded a Super ESPCdelivery order 

to Northeast Energy Services, Inc. (NORESCO). 

NORESCO will invest $4.45 million in the Pantex 

Plant, a nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly 

facility, in order to replace and update old, inefficient, 

maintenance-intensive equipment. The delivery order 

will cover Area 12 of the facility, about 450,000 square 

feet, or about 15 percent of the total site. NORESCO 

will install several energy conservation measures, 

including: 

! Lighting retrofits; 

! Energy management and control systems;

! Chilled water and steam distribution system

upgrade; 

! Rooftop air handling unit replacements; 

! A small solar water heating system; 

! Domestic hot water temperature reset; 

! Controls for air preheat coils; and 

! Ozone laundry system. 

The energy conservation measures noted above will 

produce significant savings for the site. Annual energy 

savings will total more than 86 billion Btu, annual 

energy cost savings will total $449,000, and annual 

operations and maintenance savings will total almost 

$32,000. This means the site will save more than 

$480,000 per year during the entire 17-year contract 

term, with a project total of $8.18 million. By awarding 

such a large project, the DOE has made it clear that it 

sees the use of Super ESPCs as an excellent method of 

addressing problems of old, inefficient equipment. 

ANL has been working throughout FY 2000 to secure 

delivery orders on one UESC and three ESPCs. During 

FY 2000, the UESC project and one of the ESPC 

projects were completed through final proposal status; 

however, no delivery order had been signed. The two 

projects have a total estimated cost of approximately $2 

million and $2.5 million respectively with annual 

energy cost savings on each project at the $280,000 

level. The ESPC contractor began preliminary 

proposals on two additional projects in FY 2000. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

ANL utilizes ENERGY STAR® labeled products and 

specifications for office and construction purchases as 

an ongoing procurement policy. The Laboratory’s 

procurement organization has previously modified the 

Laboratory standard Commercial Terms and Conditions 

document to include EPA ENERGY STAR® requirements 

in the purchase and warranty provisions. 

LLNL master construction specifications have been 

modified over the past two fiscal years to encourage the 

selection of the equipment recommended in the 

ENERGY STAR® program and products included in 

FEMP’s Product Energy Efficiency Recommendations. 

SLAC has an ongoing program to procure products that 

increase energy efficiency and conservation. The most 

energy-efficient magnets and other equipment, which 

meet specifications for the accelerator, are purchased on 

an ongoing basis. 

ORNL sites routinely purchase new computers with 

ENERGY STAR® ratings. A “Green Acquisition 

Advocate” was established at Thomas Jefferson 

National Accelerator Facility to address purchases of 

ENERGY STAR® products. 

Hanford, Brookhaven, Oak Ridge Institute for Science 

and Education (ORISE), Ames, Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve, INEEL, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, RF, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), 

and Pantex also report varying levels of participation in 

the ENERGY STAR® program and the purchase of 

energy-efficient equipment and products. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

An assessment of the energy efficiency of buildings at 

ORNL led to the Buildings Technology Center 

headquarters building being officially designated as an 

ENERGY STAR® building in FY 2000. This is one of the 

first DOE buildings to achieve this rating and only the 

second building in the State of Tennessee to do so. The 

building outperforms more than 90 percent of the office 

buildings across the United States. 

Sustainable Building Design 

The SRS made significant progress in FY 2000 in 

implementing the principles of sustainable design using 

97
guidance provided in the DOE Draft Sustainable Design 

Integration Procotcol. In FY 1999 and FY 2000, the 

following projects at SRS implemented sustainable 

design principles: 

! B-Area chiller replacement project (under 

construction); 

! Super compactor project (complete); 

! Regulatory Monitoring and Bioassay Laboratory 

project (under construction); and 

! Tritium Extraction Facility (in design execution). 

Sustainable building design principles have been 

incorporated into the siting, design, and construction of 

the new Central Supply Facility at ANL. Construction 

of the new facility began in FY 2000. 

At LLNL, SLAC, PNNL, INEEL, ORNL, and Pantex, 

sustainable design principles are being implemented or 

are planned for a variety of facility types. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

PNNL included significant energy efficiency features in 

its new user housing facility to be built in FY 2001 by 

a private developer who will lease it back to PNNL. 

PNNL used FEMP’s Federal Energy Decision Support 

tool to help determine which energy technologies where 

cost effective under various lease periods (5, 10, and 15 

years). 

Highly Efficient Systems 

LLNL Energy Management, Geothermal and 

Environmental Technologies, and Environmental 

Remediation programs have combined to conceive, 

develop, evaluate, and advocate a method of extracting 

energy efficiency from an untapped renewable energy 

resource. This resource is the treated effluent from 

pollution prevention groundwater remediation pumpand-treat installations. Utilization of this resource as 

condenser water in a nearby building’s water-source 

heat-pumps, and, further as irrigation water, represents 

technological and programmatic synergism. LLNL has 

successfully demonstrated this technology application 

at its own site. 

Off-Grid Generation 

During FY 2000, a natural gas-fired micro turbine was 

installed by the ORNL Energy Division and is currently 

undergoing operational testing. The turbine is tied into 

the Tennessee Valley Authority electrical power grid 

and can generate 30 kilowatts of power. The turbine can 

be remotely monitored, started, and stopped. Although 

it is tied into the electrical power grid, the turbine is 

primarily intended for research use in the area of 

enhancing energy efficiency components and systems. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Victor P. Petrolati

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building, Room 6B-052

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-4549

Fax: 202-586-3000

Email: victor.petrolati@hq.doe.gov

98
E. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)

Management and Administration 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) has established a centralized energy program to 

coordinate the energy and water conservation efforts 

throughout the Department, facilitate alternative 

financing of energy and water projects, promote Federal 

energy programs, manage an extensive energy 

awareness campaign, and provide information and 

assistance to meet the goals of Executive Order 13123. 

In FY 2000, the HHS Energy Program was 

strengthened by developing energy scorecards for the 

Operating Divisions (OPDIVs), holding a poster contest 

for Energy Awareness Month, assisting in the hiring of 

a dedicated energy manager at the National Institutes of 

Health Bethesda Campus, analyzing the classification 

of HHS facilities, and facilitating the implementation of 

renewable energy projects. 

The six HHS OPDIVs that manage real property are the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Indian 

Health Service (IHS), the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), the Office of the Secretary (OS), and the 

Program Support Center (PSC). The HHS Senior 

Agency Official is the Assistant Secretary for 

Management and Budget. 

In FY 2000, the HHS energy team addressed the 

implementation of renewable energy projects, the 

measurement of energy and water efficiency 

performance, the publication of HHS projects in the 

Federal Energy Management Program’s FEMP Focus, 

the classification of HHS facilities, and the expanded 

use of alternative financing vehicles. 

Recognition 

In FY 2000, the annual HHS Energy and Water 

Management Awards Program presented six awards to 

individuals, small groups, and one organization for 

exceptional performance in energy efficiency/energy 

management, water conservation, and alternative 

financing. 

Also in FY 2000, Frank Kutlak, an NIH 

architect/project officer, received a Federal Energy and 

Water Management Award for managing the design and 

construction of the energy-efficient Louis Stokes 

Laboratory. 

In FY 2000, three HHS Energy Champions posters 

were recognized under the “You Have the Power” 

energy awareness campaign. 

In addition, OS used its internal awards programs in FY 

2000 to recognize three individuals for their work on 

energy awareness events and recycling. The IHS 

Portland Area used on-the-spot awards to commend 

employees who implemented and demonstrated 

successful energy management policies and practices. 

Performance Evaluations 

Several key OPDIV energy management personnel 

positions contain critical performance elements that 

address energy and water efficiency, particularly within 

OS, NIH, CDC, and PSC. 

Training 

In FY 2000, 103 HHS energy personnel received 

training in energy and water efficiency topics. This 

training included OPDIV-specific workshops, DOE or 

FEMP classes, utility or manufacturer-sponsored 

training, and the HHS Energy Seminar. 

Outreach and energy awareness programs are widely 

used throughout the OPDIVs and by the HHS Energy 

Program to highlight ENERGY STAR® products and 

programs, as well as the procurement of these and other 

energy efficient products. 

Showcase Facilities 

HHS last designated a Federal Energy Saver Showcase 

Facility in 1999—the state-of-the-art, energy efficient 

NIH Louis Stokes Laboratory, Bethesda, Maryland. 

The following candidates are being considered for FY 

2001: 

! The Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, 

D.C. - This facility is a past Showcase building. 

Current plans to implement a renewable energy 

project at the site will deem it a strong candidate 

for a renewable energy Showcase; 

! The NIH Bethesda Campus, Bethesda, Maryland -

The 850,000 square foot state-of-the-art Clinical 

Research Center, currently under construction, will 

utilize innovative energy conservation initiatives 

such as steam driven electric generating turbines as 

a means of conserving steam energy; and 

! Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland - The 

Parklawn facility management has worked 

extensively with the lessor of the building to 

incorporate energy and water efficiency measures, 

lowering the energy consumption by 19 percent as 

compared to FY 1985. 

99
Energy Efficiency Performance 

The HHS energy efficiency performance has changed 

significantly from FY 1999, due to the reclassification 

of 89 percent of the Department’s square footage to 

energy intensive facilities. 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, HHS reported a 17.4 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

As previously mentioned, 89 percent ofthe HHS square 

footage is energy intensive facilities including 

laboratories, hospitals, animal centers, health clinics, 

and other related support space. The performance 

measure used for the HHS energy intensive facilities is 

Btu/GSF. 

In FY 2000, the energy consumption of HHS energy 

intensive facilities declined 12.3 percent compared to 

FY 1990. 

Comparing equivalent energy intensive facility square 

footage, FY 2000 energy consumption was 7.9 percent 

higher than the FY 1999 usage. The change was 

primarily due to increased fuel oil usage by the NIH 

Bethesda Campus to cover heating loads when their 

contracted natural gas supply was interrupted. In FY 

2000, the campus experienced an unusually high 

number of interrupted periods to the natural gas supply. 

In addition, an influx of new construction on CDC and 

NIH campuses has caused an increase in overall energy 

consumption. 

Since the majority of HHS square footage is considered 

energy intensive, most energy projects address energy 

intensive systems such as steam systems, boiler 

operation, fuel switching, and co-generation. For 

example, the NIH Bethesda Campus has implemented 

many projects over the past eight years to improve 

energy efficiency in its buildings. These include the 

replacement of inefficient chillers with ultra efficient 

large capacity models, the retrofit of oil burning boilers 

to use natural gas as the primary fuel, the upgrade of 

boiler burners to state-of-the-art low nitrogen oxide 

units, and the replacement of the utility distribution 

system with larger capacity linesto reduce heat loss and 

overall chilled water operating pressures. In FY 2000, 

NIH executed a Utility Energy Service Contract 

(UESC) with the local utility for the construction and 

operation of a 23-megawatt cogeneration unit. 

In FY 2000, FDA replaced HVAC and central plant 

equipment with high efficiency models at the National 

Center for Toxicology Research (NCTR) in Jefferson, 

Arkansas. A UESC has also been initiated at the FDA 

Module One (MOD1) facility in Laurel, Maryland, to 

make similar energy efficiency improvements. 

The IHS Anchorage Area requires that energy audits 

include alternative analyses to identify potential energy 

savings from improvements to existing facility 

operations, environmental conditions, HVAC 

equipment, and the local utility sources of energy. The 

IHS Bemidji Area facility (serving Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin) has converted boilers from 

fuel oil to natural gas, replaced cast iron boilers with 

energy efficient staged boiler systems, continued the 

replacement of lamps and ballasts to high efficiency 

models, installed direct digital controls on HVAC 

equipment, and regulated the heating and cooling of 

supply air. 

Exempt Facilities 

The only exempted facilities at HHS are outdoor 

multilevel parking garages on the NIH Bethesda 

Campus that consume lighting energy only. These 

facilities are not metered separately. Therefore, the 

energy consumption of these structures has been 

estimated based on the number of lighting fixtures and 

the time of use. Total energy use is estimated at 8.3 

billion Btu. 

Renewable Energy 

IHS has been active in the use of self-generated 

renewable energy. For example, the IHS Santa Fe and 

Acoma-Canoncito-Laguna (ACL) Hospitals in New 

Mexico both utilize solar energy systems. Maintenance 

and performance improvements have been made to both 

systems over the past few years. The IHS ACL Hospital 

also installed solar powered outdoor lighting. The Santa 

Fe Indian Hospital was awarded a National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory grant from DOE to refurbish its 

20-year-old solar system. FY 1999 funds of $20,000 

were used to evaluate and test the existing Santa Fe 

system. Based on the recommendations of the 

evaluation, $65,000 of FY 2000 funding was provided 

for renovations. The IHS Seattle Energy Services 

Office coordinated a geothermal heat pump project that 

involved the installation of 111 residential geothermal 

heat pumps. 

Petroleum 

In FY 1990, HHS energy intensive facilities used 

2,242.7 billion Btu of fuel oil and LPG/propane. In FY 

2000, these facilities used only 751.4 billion Btu of 

petroleum products, resulting in a 66.5 percent 

reduction in consumption. However, it should be noted 

that fuel oil consumption in FY 2000 was abnormally 

100
high due to the increased usage at the NIH Bethesda 

Campus to cover the interrupted natural gas supply. 

Water Conservation 

The HHS OPDIVs reported a usage in FY 2000 of 1.3 

billion gallons at a cost of almost $6.5 million. This 

value is a low reading or estimate of the actual water 

usage for the entire agency. IHS was unable to provide 

estimated data on water consumption in the 895 

facilities they manage. Lack of manpower and data 

prohibited the completion of this task. 

In general, HHS facilities minimize the amount of water 

used to water lawns and landscapes. Many plumbing 

fixtures have been retrofitted to newer low-flow models 

and the purchase of new fixtures is specified as 

low-flow types. 

The PSC Parklawn Building completed a UESC to 

upgrade 366 toilets from 3.5 gallon models to 1.6 

gallons-per-flush models. Washroom faucets sink 

aerators were also upgraded from 2.5 gallons of water 

use per minute (gpm) to 1.0 gpm. The total water 

savings equates to 6.3 million gallons and the cost 

savings are $58,240 per year. 

NIH has implemented the following water saving 

measures: 

! Irrigation of landscape plants using otherwise 

wasted groundwater from a construction dewatering operation; 

! Elimination of lawn watering; 

! Progressive utilization of landscape plants 

requiring less water; 

! Reduced frequency of automatic animal facility 

wash downs; 

! Eliminated use of wastewater holding vaults in 

ungulate facility at NIH Animal Center; 

! Use of water conservation devices including 

low-flow faucets, toilets, and valve assemblies; and 

! Installation of boiler water polishing units to soften 

boiler return condensate that was previously 

dumped. 

Implementation Strategies 

The HHS Energy Program incorporates the following 

implementation strategies in its management, as do all 

OPDIVs and facilities nationwide. However, as 

necessary, some issues are site specific and therefore 

are addressed as needed in the OPDIV or facility. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

FDA has initiated the use of life-cycle cost (LCC) 

analysis while making investment decisions about 

construction of new laboratory buildings. An LCC 

analysis was completed for the HVAC equipment to be 

utilized in FDA’s new laboratory building at Irvine, 

California. This building is currently in the construction 

procurement process. 

OS uses LCC analysis to prioritize and justify the 

implementation of energy efficiency projects in the 

HHH Building. As an example, LCC analysis was used 

to study the replacement of large HVAC motors with 

energy efficient models. The project was implemented 

in FY 2000. 

NIH has revised its Design Policy and Guidelines to 

include the following language: “Throughout the 

development of the project, LCC analysis shall be used 

in making decisions about which construction products 

and services are used to lower the Federal 

Government’s costs and to reduce energy and water 

consumption. Inefficient systems and equipment shall 

be retired on an accelerated basis where replacement 

results in lower LCC to the greatest extent practicable. 

All project cost estimates and budget activities for 

design, construction, and renovation of facilities shall 

be based on LCC. Facilities shall be designed and 

constructed to the lowest LCC whenever possible.” 

In preparing to enter into anEnergy Savings Performing 

Contract (ESPC), the IHS Aberdeen Area hired a DOE 

contractor to investigate and analyze energy saving 

projects at the Area facilities. LCC analyses were 

performed and have been reported as part of the ESPC 

project documentation. 

At the IHS Bemidji Area, LCC analysis is required for 

all contract services and Government procurement of 

products, services, construction, and other projects to 

lower energy and water consumption.The IHS Portland 

Area performs LCC analysis on large projects to assure 

a maximum of a 10-years payback. 

Energy Audits 

In FY 2000, 2.6 million square feet, or 10.5 percent, of 

HHS facilities were audited. CDC and NIH performed 

the most comprehensive audits in conjunction with 

utility energy services contracts. To date, 54 percent of 

the HHS facility square footage has received energy and 

water efficiency audits. 

101
Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2000, the HHS Energy Program focused efforts 

on promoting and facilitating the use of alternative 

financing mechanisms to implement energy and water 

efficiency projects. Many GSA Area Wide Contracts 

and Super ESPCs have been initiated and are moving 

toward the delivery order phase. 

NIH is using UESCs to identify, evaluate, and 

implement economically feasible energy and water 

conservation measures. 

NIH entered into three UESCs for a total of $38.9 

million in FY 2000. These included the construction 

and operation of a 23-megawatt cogeneration facility, 

the installation of an energy management control 

system, and the upgrade of lighting and motors at the 

main campus. 

FDA signed a GSA Area Wide contract with the local 

utility company for the implementation of energy 

projects at the Module One facility in Laurel, Maryland. 

A delivery order is expected in FY 2001. 

In FY 2000, ESPCs were being developed for three 

major CDC facilities. At the CDC Atlanta campus an 

energy retrofit was completed under a UESC that had 

begun in FY1999. 

The IHS Aberdeen Area and Seattle Engineering 

Services is moving forward on a Super ESPC with 

Johnson Controls to implement energy projects at 28 

facilities in North and South Dakota. The Super ESPC 

is anticipated to be awarded in early FY 2001. 

In FY 2000, HHS used $8.4 million of direct agency 

funding to implement energy and water efficiency 

projects and audits. The funding requested for FY 2001 

is $5 million. It is anticipated that most energy and 

water efficiency work will be completed under 

alternative financing contracts. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

HHS uses the HHS Energy Program communication 

tools to relate the significance of using ENERGY STAR® 

and other energy efficient products. Methods for 

procurement of these products are also highlighted and 

described. In general, OPDIVs use the GSA Schedule 

to procure energy efficient products and have revised 

project specifications and standard procurement 

contracts to include their purchase. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

HHS does not have any buildings that have met the

ENERGY STAR® Building criteria. As of FY 2000, 89

percent of the HHS square footage is energy intensive 

facilities such as laboratories, hospitals, and medical 

clinics. The ENERGY STAR® Buildings rating is 

currently applied only to office buildings. In FY 2001, 

the HHS Energy Officer and PSC facility management 

will work together with the Parklawn Building lessor to 

attempt to achieve an ENERGY STAR® rating for the 

building. 

Sustainable Building Design 

In FY 2000, the HHS Energy Program began to 

highlight the concept ofsustainable building design and 

the use of the Whole Building Design Guide through 

the awareness newsletters, training, and direct facility 

management correspondence. 

The NIH Design Policy and Guidelines require that new 

building siting, design, and construction conform to 

Executive Order 13123 sustainable design and 

development principles that are included in the Whole 

Building Design Guide web site. To the greatest extent 

practicable, these principles were applied to those 

portions of existing facilities undergoing renovation or 

upgrade in FY 2000. 

The Whole Building Design Guide and U.S. Green 

Building Council’s LEEDTM (Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design) ratings are now being included 

in the design of a major new CDC laboratory. These 

guides will be standard tools for all future CDC 

building designs. In addition, several IHS Areas utilize 

the principles ofsustainable design in new construction. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

At the IHS Anchorage Area, a ground water cooling 

project is currently under design for the Alaska Native 

Medical Center. A test well has been drilled to assess 

flow rates, which will determine the final project 

configuration. The project feasibility study will be 

completed in early FY 2001, and construction will 

move forward when the project permitting and final 

design have been completed. 

Renovations are continuing at the IHS Albuquerque 

Hospital to replace the old boiler and chiller central 

system with a geothermal ground source heat pump 

loop system. 

A highly efficient system is under construction at the 

NIH Clinical Research Center (CRC), and involves the 

use of steam driven electric generating turbines as a 

means of conserving steam energy that would otherwise 

be lost in the normal pressure reducing process. 

102
Off-Grid Generation 

In FY 2000, PSC installed solar emergency call boxes 

throughout 13 acres of outdoor parking at the Parklawn 

Building. Solar powered outdoor lighting was also 

installed at the IHS ACL Hospital in New Mexico. 

The NIH 23-megawatt cogeneration unit to be 

constructed and operated by the local utility under the 

UESC signed in FY 2000 will generate off-grid power 

to supply the NIH Bethesda Campus with its base 

electrical load. Also, a steam driven electrical 

generating turbine has been designed for inclusion in 

the NIH Bethesda Campus CRC facility to convert 

steam pressure reduction energy to electricity. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Scott Waldman

HHS Energy Officer

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Room 709D

Hubert H. Humphrey Building

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Phone: 202-619-0719

Fax: 202-619-2692

103
F. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) 

Management and Administration 

Implementation of the Energy Management program 

within the Department of the Interior (DOI) is the 

responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget and is delegated to the Office 

of Acquisition and Property Management. The DOI’s 

Energy Management Team consists of an Executive 

Energy Committee, which is comprised of bureau 

representatives at the Assistant Director for 

Administration level, and the Departmental Energy 

Conservation Committee (DECC), and is comprised of 

bureau representatives ranging from property 

management specialists to engineers. 

Recognition 

DOI encourages energy and water conservation 

nominations under the Department’s annual 

environmental award program. This year, a water 

conservation project at Folsom, California, was one of 

a dozen national environmental award winners. Five 

nominations were submitted in FY 2000 for 

consideration under the Federal Energy and Water 

Efficiency Awards program. Three projects were 

honored with awards. 

Performance Evaluations 

The performance evaluation criteria for the Director of 

Administration and the Director, Office of Acquisition 

and Property Management, include energy and water 

conservation elements. 

Training 

DOI energy managers involved in building energy 

efficiency and water conservation have attended 

workshops offered by the Federal Energy Management 

Program, the General Services Administration (GSA), 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

Association of Energy Engineers, public utilities, and 

Bureau energy coordinator’s meetings. DOI’s Property 

Management Conference in FY 2000 offered a track on 

sustainability, with keynote speeches and workshops 

that covered real property, renewable energy, and the 

Whole Building Design Guide. 

Showcase Facilities 

DOI recognized four new Showcase Facilities in FY 

2000: 

! Cottonwood Visitor Use Complex, Joshua Tree 

National Park, California. A 21-kilowatt 

photovoltaic array, a 250-kilowatt bank of 

batteries, a 30-kilowatt inverter and battery 

charger, and a 30-kilowatt propane generator for 

backup power replaced the diesel generators at the 

complex. A separate 2-kilowatt photovoltaic 

system now supplies electricity to the park’s 

amphitheaters. The park also switched electric 

heating loads to propane, installed occupancy 

sensors to control lighting, retrofitted all lighting 

with fluorescent fixtures and lamps, equipped 

residences with highly efficient refrigerators, 

increased building insulation, and added shading 

structures to reduce cooling requirements. The cost 

of the new photovoltaic system was $265,000 with 

an estimated annual operating cost of only $1,100. 

The simple payback is 5.4 years. Battery 

replacement will be necessary in 10 years and will 

cost $25,000. 

! North Manitou Island Visitor Center, Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan. In 

collaboration with DOE and Sandia National 

Laboratories, the National Park Service (NPS) 

invested $190,000 in a hybrid-Photovoltaic system 

that now provides 85 percent of the island’s energy 

needs. The system consists of a 10-kilowatt 

photovoltaic array, installed in three subarrays; a 

battery bank sufficient for five cloudy days; a 15-

kilowatt inverter to convert 12 DC to 120 or 240 

AC power; and controllers and switchgear needed 

to optimize the system’s functioning and backup. 

The hybrid system will also save $2,500 per year in 

diesel fuel costs as well as the costs of transporting 

fuel to the island. In addition, the system educates 

visitors and encourages them to be more 

environmentally conscious in their own homes. 

! Whitman Mission National Historic Site, 

Washington. Since 1992, Whitman Mission 

National Historic Site’s (NHS) Bruce Hancock, 

Chief of Maintenance, and other staff at the park 

have retrofitted outdated lighting systems in the 

maintenance shop and visitor center. The result 

was a 25 to 40 percent reduction in energy 

consumption in 1999. The Lighting Design Lab, 

Steve Butterworth, NPS Regional Energy 

Conservation Manager, and the park staff worked 

together to identify locations and ways to update 

the Park’s lighting. Most of the costs for the 

lighting retrofits were paid with funds authorized 

for park maintenance, but some special regional 

funding for equipment procurement was used in the 

early stages of the project. FEMP staff assisted 

Whitman Mission NHS with an agreement between 

DOE and the Lighting Design Lab. 

104
! Zion Canyon Visitor Center, Zion National Park, 

Utah. Completed in May 2000, the Zion Visitor 

Center demonstrates the concept of “whole 

building design.” The result at Zion is a sustainable 

building that incorporates the area’s natural 

features and energy-efficient building concepts into 

an attractive design that saves energy and operating 

expenses while protecting the environment and 

natural beauty. The Visitor Center uses 70 percent 

less energy than a typical building and because the 

building required no mechanical systems such as 

air conditioning, construction costs were lower. An 

energy-management computer that ensures all of 

the building’s energy-efficient features are working 

together is key to the design of the building. 

Energy Reduction Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOI reported an 11.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOI received credit for purchases of 1.2 billion Btu of 

renewable electricity. Thislowered the energy intensity 

of its standard buildings from 77,744 Btu/GSF to 

77,720 Btu/GSF. 

Renewable Energy 

DOI requires its engineers to implement the use of lowrisk, passive solar strategies, as appropriate, in the 

design of new buildings. DOI has implemented 34 

renewable energy projects including standalone and 

grid connected photovoltaic systems, solar thermal (hot 

water) projects, geothermal (ground source) heat 

pumps, and wind related projects. DOI has also 

committed to purchasing a portion of its monthly 

electric power needs from wind-generated electricity 

through the Wind Source Program offered by the Public 

Service Company of Colorado. 

One of DOI’s Million Solar Roofs projects for FY 2000 

included power and water pumping photovoltaic 

projects at Sand Island Campground/Boat Ramp, 

Monticello, Utah. 

Water Conservation 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mora National Fish 

Hatchery and Technology Center, New Mexico, was 

selected to receive an FY 2000 Federal Energy and 

Water Management Award for the implementation of a 

fishery water reuse system that saves approximately 2.2 

billion gallons of water, based on a remarkable water 

reuse rate of 95 percent. This initiative is one of the 

Department’s most outstanding examples of water 

conservation. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The Departmental Plan encourages the use of life-cycle 

costing techniques for the purchase of energy efficient 

products and investments in facility improvements. 

For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Manual requires that engineers must design buildings or 

building systems that result in lowest total LCC. Their 

basic LCC Costing Model has been distributed to all 

Regional Engineers. 

Energy Audits 

In FY 2000, the DOI received funding from DOE’s 

SAVEnergy audit program for assessing the potential 

for the use of renewable energy at 20 field stations. 

Eight percent of facility space was audited during the 

fiscal year and 61 percent of facility space has been 

audited since 1992. 

The National Park Service continued its partnership 

program with James Madison University. The project 

links university students and faculty with NPS 

personnel to identify and develop sustainable energy 

use practices. The projects included performing energy 

surveys, developing an innovative database system to 

track energy consumption and costs, and identifying 

Shenandoah National Park’s first renewable energy 

project. The goal to apply the partnership philosophy 

elsewhere in the National Park System is moving 

forward. 

Financing Mechanisms 

DOI spent $24 million in FY 2000 for facility energy 

improvements that are expected to improve 

performance in the future. 

Five Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) 

are operating within the DOI with a total contractor 

investment of $5.5 million. Two facilities initiated 

ESPCs in FY 2000: the Bureau of Indian Affair’s 

Chemawa School in Salem, Oregon, and Yosemite 

National Park in California. The School utilized the 

Super ESPC Delivery Order for a variety of energy 

efficiency measures. Yosemite National Park will 

implement electrical upgrades, retrofit lighting, and 

replace boilers. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s use of DOE’s 

SAVEnergy audit program identified projects that may 

also lead to an ESPC. 

105
The most common problem encountered by DOI in 

entering ESPCs is the low return on investment because 

of the relatively small size of DOI’s facilities, which 

does not provide sufficient incentive for contractor 

participation. 

Energy-Efficient Products 

In February 2000, the DOI issued its Strategic Plan for 

greening the agency under Executive Order 13101, 

incorporating energy efficiency considerations into all 

levels of procurement. Under DOI’s Acquisition Intern 

Program, selected participants are provided training on 

how to enhance purchases of environmentally 

preferable and energy-efficient products and services. 

As a result of this successful training program, DOI 

now manages the Government-wide Acquisition 

Management Intern Program. 

DOI’s Integrated Charge Card (Government Purchase 

Card) Program Guidelines Manual dated May 2000 

provides guidance to cardholders and addresses 

preferential purchasing requirements applicable to 

energy-efficient products and services. In September 

2000, DOI’s Procurement Executive issued a 

memorandum reminding procurement professionals to 

look at what they can do to make DOI the “greenest” 

Department in the Federal Government through 

promoting the purchase of energy efficient, recycled 

and environmentally preferable products identified in 

the DOE FEMP and Federal Environmental Executive 

web sites. 

DOI’s procurement and acquisition community 

continues to work closely with program managers to 

consider the incorporation of environmentally 

preferable and energy-efficient attributes and selection 

criteria in making buying decisions. 

DOI established a policy that only re-refined oil would 

be used in its vehicles and equipment. To ensure 

compliance with the policy, DOI requested DLA to 

substitute re-refined oil when virgin lubricating oil was 

mistakenly ordered. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

DOI requested its bureaus to look for office buildings

(minimum of 5,000 gross square feet) for qualification

as an ENERGY STAR® Building by using the

benchmarking tool developed by EPA. DOI is planning

to partner with EPA to include visitor centers in the

ENERGY STAR® Building Labels program.

Sustainable Building Design 

The use of partnering plays a major part in DOI’s 

sustainable design efforts. In April of 1999, DOI and 

DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding to 

launch a new partnership to modernize energy use 

throughout the NPS. The program, Green Energy Parks, 

deploys sustainable energy technologies into National 

Parks and demonstrates the Federal Government’s 

commitment and leadership in efforts to save energy, 

conserve water usage, reduce carbon emissions and 

lower energy costs. The program’s goals are two-fold: 

! Promote the use of energy efficient and renewable 

energy technologies’ and practices, and the 

increased use of alternative fuels throughout NPS 

facilities and transportation systems; and 

! Educate the visiting public about the impact of 

conventional energy use on natural and cultural 

resources, the capacity of current and emerging 

energy technologies to mitigate such impacts, and 

the steps visitors can take at home to reduce their 

own energy use and help protect the environment. 

In FY 2000, the NPS and DOE committed $3.8 million 

for the Green Energy Parks initiative. Over 60 visitor 

centers are incorporating low-cost projects such as: 

replacing high volume water fixtures, purchasing solar 

power generation and installing solar lighting, 

upgrading lighting with motion detectors and 

occupancy sensors, installing or replacing insulation, 

and installing water conserving toilets. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

DOI plans to draft policy directing that all new leases 

include a minimum set of green building and operation 

clauses. The policy will differentiate between leases 

that are for all or most of a building and leases where 

DOI will be a single tenant in a multi-tenant building, 

occupying a small percentage of the building space. The 

policy will identify the role and responsibility of DOI’s 

space lease managers in negotiating and monitoring the 

lease. 

The Main DOI Building, a leased facility that has been 

delegated for operations and maintenance, is preparing 

for a multi-year modernization project. Energy 

efficiency retrofits planned for the building should 

allow for the building to be nominated as an energy 

efficiency Showcase facility when the modernization is 

complete. 

106
Off-Grid Generation 

Following are examples of off-grid generation that were 

implemented by the Bureau of Land Management in FY 

2000: 

! 13-Mile Campground, Red Rock Canyon National 

Conservation Area, Las Vegas Field Office, 

Nevada – Lighting for the interior and exterior of 

the twelve restroom buildings was needed. A small 

photovoltaic power system was designed which 

consisted of a solar panel, charge/light controller, 

and maintenance-free battery. The total cost for the 

12 systems was $15,000. 

! Sand Island Campground/Boat Ramp, Monticello 

Field Office, Utah – A photovoltaic array was 

installed at the River Ranger Station to provide 

power, and a second photovoltaic pumping array 

was installed at the water well. The total cost for 

the photovoltaic water pumping systems was 

$10,000. 

! Case Mountain Research Center, Carrizo Plains 

Natural Area, Bakersfield Field Office, California 

– Two field stations provide temporary quarters for 

employees in remote areas where no utility power 

is available. The portable photovoltaic power 

system selected for the sites is a standard design 

currently used in over 20 other remote 

applications. Total cost for the two systems was 

$17,000. 

! Ayer Spring, Cedar City Field Office, Utah – Ayer 

Spring provides water to wildlife and livestock. A 

photovoltaic pumping system was installed in 

partnership with the local range users. Water will 

be pumped from the spring to a storage tank and 

gravity fed through a pipeline to several troughs. 

Contribution to the project was $5,000. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. John Moresko

Property Management Specialist

Office of Acquisition and Property Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Main Interior Building, Room 5512

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Phone: 202-208-5704

Fax: 202-208-6301

107
G. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) 

Management and Administration 

The Assistant Attorney General for Administration has 

been designated the Senior Agency Official for the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) in accordance with the 

provisions of Executive Order 13123. 

Recognition 

The DOJ plans to implement a combined Energy and 

Environmental Awards program during FY 2001 to 

recognize excellence in energy management. In 

addition, employees are nominated for Department of 

Energy awards annually and are recognized at the local 

level for outstanding performance. 

Performance Evaluations 

The DOJ Energy Program Manager has the 

implementation of applicable provisions of the 

Executive Order included as an element in performance 

evaluations. The expansion of this element to other 

energy team members and appropriate employees will 

be explored during FY 2001. The in-house engineering 

staff of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is 

responsible for energy management activities, and the 

position descriptions and performance evaluations for 

these engineers reflect that proper energy and water 

conservation methods be used in job performance. 

Training 

The DOJ periodically conducts meetings with its 

bureaus to disseminate energy-related information and 

provides guidance and assistance to the bureaus in 

meeting energy efficiency goals and requirements. 

Energy conservation remains a very important topic at 

the Facilities Management training course held biannually and at the National Facilities Managers 

Conference. The course generally has 25-30 

participants from throughout the Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) who hold a wide variety of positions. Topics 

include such items as reviewing the energy program, 

and required documentation for requesting energy 

projects, life-cycle costing, and the requirements of 

Executive Order 13123. A videotape outlining energy 

reduction goals and highlighting energy conservation 

projects is being distributed to institutions throughout 

BOP. 

Showcase Facilities 

Due to the nature of the BOP mission, security 

requirements pertaining to physical access to the 

institution, and the need to maintain control over what 

operating information is released, it is not practicable to 

designate prisons as Showcase Facilities. Similarly, for 

security reasons, the FBI has not designated any 

Showcase Facilities. The INS will attempt to showcase 

three facilities in FY 2001: 

! The Batavia, New York, Federal Detention Facility 

project, completed in FY 1999. The project design 

specified the use of energy efficient materials and 

equipment, and the facility has entered into a 

National Fuels contract to purchase natural gas at 

less than market prices, saving thousands of dollars 

annually. In addition, electrical power is supplied 

by an INS-owned transformer rather than from the 

local utility, saving over $60,000 annually. 

! The Krome Service Processing Center in Florida is 

being designed with energy efficient materials and 

equipment, including solar power. 

! The Border Patrol Station in Remey, Puerto Rico, 

currently in design and construction phase. The 

facility will be built using energy efficient 

materials, equipment and technologies, including 

solar electrical backup. 

The DOJ will strive to designate at least one Showcase 

Facility annually and will work with the bureaus 

towards achieving that goal. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOJ reported a 40.7 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

The BOP, with 88.6 percent of DOJ’s total space, is 

continuing with its efforts to meet the reduction goals. 

Policies have been updated to reflect the new mandates 

regarding the level of energy reduction. The majority of 

institutions have had energy conservation surveys, and 

BOP has established limited funding for a number of 

energy conservation projects. It is anticipated this 

source of funding will be available to assist institutions 

to meet the required reduction goals. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

The DOJ industrial and laboratory facilities are energy 

intensive facilities. They are comprised of large data 

centers, FBI labs, the FBI headquarters facility, and the 

training facility in Quantico, Virginia. These facilities 

operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and are not 

typical office buildings. While these facilities were 

previously designated as being exempt from the energy 

reduction goals due to the critical nature of their 

operations, there have nevertheless been significant 

improvements in energy consumption. Several energy 

108
efficiency projects have been undertaken at these 

locations to improve HVAC systems, lighting and 

electrical distribution. New data centers have recently 

been constructed using energy efficient equipment and 

construction materials. DOJ is planning to consolidate 

two data centers into a new energy efficient complex to 

achieve some economies of scale and relocate FBI labs 

from the headquarters facility into a newly constructed 

energy efficient facility in Quantico, Virginia. 

Renewable Energy 

The BOP entered into an ESPC during FY 1996 that 

covers the provision of domestic hot water, heated by 

solar energy, at the Federal Correctional Institution 

(FCI) in Phoenix, Arizona. The system became 

operational in FY 1999. The BOP is seeking to expand 

the original scope of this contract to include absorption 

chillers, if proven viable, and is in the process of 

identifying additional locations where such technology 

would be operationally viable, and economically 

beneficial. In addition, BOP is currently negotiating a 

contract with the local gas utility to use the methane gas 

resource located at the Federal Prison Camp, 

Allenwood, Pennsylvania. The contractor will provide 

all the necessary pipelines and equipment retrofit at no 

cost to BOP, and BOP expects to retain about 10 

percent of the projected savings over the life of the 

contract. 

Petroleum 

The DOJ has several projects underway to reduce the 

use of petroleum in its facilities. The BOP has an 

operational solar hot water system at the FCI in 

Phoenix, Arizona. The FBI is converting its central 

heating and cooling plant at Quantico, Virginia, from 

fuel oil to natural gas and is participating with other 

Federal agencies in Denver, Colorado, to purchase 

electricity produced by wind turbines from the local 

utility company. The INS is implementing a geothermal 

heat pump project in its U.S. Virgin Islands facility. 

The BOP is continuing its efforts to reduce the use of 

petroleum within its facilities by using alternative fuels 

where applicable. The BOP also has a policy mandating 

life cycle costing (LCC) that has served to limit the use 

of petroleum-based fuels where it is not the most costeffective option. 

Water Conservation 

DOJ developed an initial water baseline data survey 

during FY 2000 and will be re-evaluating the accuracy 

of this data during FY 2001. There will be an increased 

emphasis during FY 2001 and FY 2002 on 

implementing DOE established Best Management 

Practices to reduce water consumption at DOJ facilities 

nationwide. 

The BOP has completed a total of 75 energy and water 

conservation surveys of its facilities. Additional surveys 

have been funded and are ongoing through an existing 

program. Many of the water conservation opportunities 

identified in the survey reports can be implemented as 

an extension of the regular maintenance program, such 

as the replacement of hand operated valves on inmate 

showers with timed push button operators. The surveys 

provide an excellent guideline and management tool at 

the institutions to reduce water consumption and 

associated energy use. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The BOP has a policy in place mandating the use of 

LCC analysis. BOP policies clearly outline procedures 

ensuring that LCC analyses are conducted on all 

projects involving replacement of energy consuming 

major equipment, new construction, renovation, and 

expansion. 

Energy Audits 

The BOP funded and completed six energy audits in FY 

2000, bringing its total number of completed audits to 

76. These audits were conducted throughout the nation 

in a wide variety of institution types and climates and 

have resulted in requests for funding and the 

establishment of energy conservation projects. The 

remaining institutions which have not been surveyed are 

primarily institutions which have been activated in the 

past five years and already include energy conservation 

design features. Postponing surveys at such locations 

will allow resources to be concentrated on the energy 

conservation needs of older institutions. 

Financing Mechanisms 

The BOP entered into an Energy Savings Performance 

Contract in FY 1996, construction began in FY 1998, 

and operation commenced in FY 1999 at the FCI in 

Phoenix. The ESPC is for the installation of a solar 

energy system that will provide a large percentage of 

the domestic hot water for the FCI. The remaining DOJ 

real property holding bureaus each have the 

management structure and authority within their 

respective organizations to implement ESPCs and they 

are encouraged to take full advantage of such contracts 

The BOP currently has one ESPC in place for the 

provision of solar heated domestic hot water at FCI 

Phoenix, which became operational in February 1999. 

Savings for FY 2000 were $75,705 with the retention of 

109
$7,570 by BOP. Additional savings of approximately 

$500 per month accrue due to the decreased 

maintenance required for the existing water heaters. 

Total energy delivered by the system used to estimate 

the energy savings during FY 2000 is 4,030,620 million 

Btu. The cumulative cost for this ESPC is $108,776, 

with $10,877 retained by BOP and 5,773,510 million 

Btu in cumulative energy savings. 

FBI uses its own in-house engineering staff to conduct 

energy conservation surveys rather than using ESPCs. 

Projects with the best investment-to-payback return are 

given the highest priority. Projects with specific funding 

from GSA or that coincide with replacement of 

equipment that has reached the end of its useful life are 

given a high priority. Energy intensive facilities are 

reviewed for improved equipment installation as 

technologies become available. The J. Edgar Hoover 

Building (JEH) in Washington, D.C., received an 

energy audit by GSA three years ago. As a result, a new 

energy management system for JEH is being designed 

to include automated controls and sensors. 

The BOP has actively taken part in a number of utility 

incentives and rebate programs to reduce the amount of 

Government funding required to complete energy 

conservation projects. Both electric and natural gas 

utilities have worked with BOP by providing services, 

guidance, and financial incentives on such systems as 

lighting and HVAC. The cost savings generated by such 

efforts allow for additional projects to be funded in a 

time of limited resources. 

ENERGY STAR® and other Energy-Efficient Products 

The DOJ has employed a variety of management tools 

during FY 2000 in support of the provisions of this 

Section: 

! Bureaus have incorporated energy and water 

efficient design and construction practices in 

specifications for new construction and alteration 

projects; 

! Procurement officials have been notified of the 

requirement to purchase ENERGY STAR® products 

whenever available; and 

! Bureaus have incorporated sustainable design 

principles in new design and construction projects. 

In addition, the INS will be applying the standards for 

ENERGY STAR® designation to one of its facilities 

during FY 2001. 

Sustainable Building Design 

The FBI’s energy management system for JEH is being 

completely redesigned. A new energy management 

system and new energy efficient HVAC equipment are 

being installed during the major renovation project for 

the Main Justice Building in Washington, DC. Upon 

completion, the old, inefficient HVAC equipment will 

be decommissioned and replaced entirely by a modern, 

energy efficient system. 

Off-Grid Generation 

In July 1998, an interagency agreement was entered 

into between the GSA National Utilities Management 

Program (NUMP) and BOP. This agreement provides 

authority to NUMP for negotiation and transportation 

of natural gas for BOP use at various institutions. 

During the first three quarters of FY 1999, with three 

institutions reporting under this contract, the BOP saved 

over $460,000. Since July 1999, a total of six 

institutions reporting under this contract identified 

additional savings of over $230,000. 

The BOP’s solar heated hot water project at the FCI in 

Phoenix was a success, and the BOP is seeking to 

expand the scope to include absorption chillers and is 

identifying additional locations where such technology 

would be operationally viable and economically 

beneficial. 

In addition, FBI is participating with other Federal 

agencies in Denver to purchase electricity produced by 

wind turbines from a local utility company. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. William Lawrence

Energy Program Manager

U.S. Department of Justice

National Place Building, Suite 1050

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Phone: 202-616-2417

Fax: 202-307-1874

110
H. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for DOL is the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration and Management. The 

members of DOL’s energy team consist of 

representatives from the budget, procurement, legal, 

and technical offices. 

Recognition 

DOL participates in the “You Have the Power” 

campaign, and has recognized several employees as 

energy champions. 

Performance Evaluations 

Performance evaluations for DOL managers and energy 

team members include performance measures for 

energy conservation. 

Training 

DOL employees receive energy conservation training 

through in-house programs, participation in energy 

conferences, FEMP workshops, web-based training, 

and private industry workshops. Training was also 

provided as part of the ESPCs awarded by DOL. 

Twenty-three employees were trained in energy 

conservation methods in FY 2000. 

In addition, energy awareness tools are available to all 

DOL employees through employee distribution. DOL’s 

participation in energy programs such as Energy 

Awareness Month, the “You Have the Power” program, 

National Recycling Day, and Earth Day, also promotes 

awareness of energy conservation among its employees. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOL reported a 12.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

One hundred percent of DOL’s facilities are classified 

as standard buildings and facilities. DOL does not have 

any industrial, laboratory, or exempt facilities. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

Several facilities in the Pacific Northwest region 

currently purchase a percentage of electricity generated 

from hydropower. Data for FY 2000 was not available 

to quantify the purchases. 

Million Solar Roofs 

In FY 2000, the Gary Job Corps Center (JCC), in San 

Marcos, Texas, repaired and reactivated a solar water 

heating system in its cafeteria facility. The annual 

energy cost savings from the system are estimated at 

approximately 17,800 therms. 

DOL is in the process of installing solar security film in 

the Frances Perkins Building, located in Washington, 

D.C. 

Petroleum 

DOL reported a decrease of 47 percent in overall fuel 

consumption in FY 2000, as compared to the FY 1985 

baseline. Decreases were seen as a result of replacement 

of oil-fired heating systems with natural gas systems 

during modernization projects. 

Water Conservation 

DOL has implemented water conservation measures at 

the Gary JCC. Renovations at the facilities resulted in 

installation of low-flow toilets, urinals, showerheads, 

and faucet aerators. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

All DOL design and construction projects are required 

to use LCC analysis in the selection of building 

systems, as well as for choosing energy conservation 

measures to implement. Energy conservation projects at 

the the Gary JCC, Sacramento JCC, and the Inland 

Empire JCC used LCC analysis in determining which 

Energy Conservation Measures to undertake. 

Facility Energy Audits 

In FY 2000, DOL audited 12 percent of its facilities. 

DOL received seven FEMP SAVEnergy audits from 

FY 1995 through FY 1999. Since FY 1992, 29 percent 

of DOL facilities have been audited. 

Financing Mechanisms 

To meet the goals of Executive Order 13123, Job Corps 

developed a strategic plan to reduce energy 

consumption by using a combination of ESPCs, Area 

Wide Utility Contracts, and agency funding. In 

addition, many of the JCCs have developed no cost/low 

cost energy conservation programs. 

DOL currently has two Super-ESPCs, with a total 

private sector investment of more than $1.6 million. 

The project at the Gary JCC, awarded in December 

1999, includes lighting upgrades, installation on 

programmable thermostats, replacement of HVAC 

equipment in several buildings, water conservation 

measures, and the refurbishment of the solar water 

heating system. 

111
The ESPC for the Inland Empire JCC and Sacramento 

JCC, awarded in December 1999, is primarily for 

lighting upgrades. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy-Efficient Products 

DOL policy is to purchase ENERGY STAR® computers. 

Sustainable Building Design 

All provisions and standards of the Sustainable 

Building Design are incorporated into all Requests for 

Proposals and work orders issued for construction and 

renovation projects at JCC facilities. 

DOL’s Frances Perkins Building is an Energy Saver 

Showcase facility. The facility employs energy-saving 

measures such as T8 lighting in all office areas, motion 

sensors, revolving doors, and low flush valves in 

restrooms. Measures have also been taken to reduce the 

electrical load, including raising the indoor temperature, 

shutting down elevators during non-peak hours, 

reducing lighting, and reducing the temperature in water 

fountains. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Patricia Clark

Building Manager

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room S-1521

Washington, DC 20210

Phone: 202-219-5205, ext. 117

Fax: 202-501-6886

112
I. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Agency Official for the Department of State 

(DOS) in accordance with the provisions of Executive 

Order 13123 is the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration. 

Recognition 

DOS uses employee incentive programs to reward 

exceptional performance in implementing this order. 

Performance Evaluation 

DOS includes successful implementation in areas such 

as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, sustainable 

design, energy efficient procurement, energy efficiency, 

water conservation, and renewable energy projects in 

the position descriptions and performance evaluations 

of members of the agency energy team, principal 

program managers, heads of field offices, facility 

managers, energy managers, and other appropriate 

employees. 

Training and Education 

DOS ensures that all appropriate personnel receive 

training for implementing Executive Order 13123. DOS 

has developed outreach programs that include 

education, training, and promotion of ENERGY STAR® 

and other energy efficient products for Federal purchase 

card holders. 

Showcase Facilities 

DOS has designated the Florida Regional Center as a 

“Federal Solar Energy Showcase” facility, the first 

specific technology showcase. A contract for a solar 

audit of the property was awarded and work was 

progressing by the end of FY 2000. 

DOS has also designated the Berlin Model Energy 

House as a Model Energy House (MEH) to demonstrate 

increased energy performance, reduced operating costs, 

and the reduced environmental impact associated with 

energy consumption. Through the MEH, the Office of 

Foreign Buildings Operations (FBO) will introduce 

American Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) to the 

technologies that may be incorporated into their 

housing in the future as they rotate to other Posts. 

The MEH should incorporate enhanced energy 

efficiency features, along with provisions for the 

display and demonstration of those features. FBO 

anticipates that the following technologies will be 

included in the MEH: 

! A ground source heat pump system or heat 

recovered from roof photovoltaic panels coupled 

with interior radiant floor heating; 

! Natural ventilation with operable windows, 

incorporated into the mechanical ventilation system 

with heat recovery by use of window contact 

switches; 

! Minimum 2 kilowatt photovoltaic system on the 

roof, qualifying for local utility subsidy; 

! Increased wall insulation, with a cutaway view of 

the wall showing the construction; 

! Use of high performance, electro-chromic or 

polarized glazing window glazing; 

! Plan for incorporation of future fuel cell 

technology by allocating exterior space that is 

convenient to gas and electric connections. Provide 

valved/labeled connection points for the future fuel 

cell; 

! Heat recovered from domestic hot water residual is 

used to pre-heat water heater input. The heat 

exchange device is arranged for viewing; 

! Maximize natural lighting, supplement with energy 

efficient lighting as required, controlled by 

occupancy sensors where appropriate. 

Organization of the electrical circuitry to allow for 

sub-metering of major power uses such as lighting, 

heating/ventilation, appliances, and plug load. 

Energy monitoring and display to permit 

comparison of the MEH energy use to an adjacent 

non-MEH; and 

! Inclusion of highly energy efficient appliances in 

the design. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

In FY 2000, DOS reported a 1.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOS maintains an array of unique special use facilities 

that, by the nature of their design and function, would 

prove detrimental to the agency-wide reporting 

summaries and are excluded from subsequent energy 

goal requirements. DOS intends to comply with the 

spirit and intent of all current, pending, or future energy 

conservation initiatives, statutes, and government-wide 

guidelines, as is practicable, designing energy 

enhancements into foreign and domestic buildings and 

facilities as a part of new construction or retrofit 

projects as circumstance will allow. 

Energy efficiency projects begun or continued in FY 

2000 include various retrofits in the Portsmouth 

National Center, the Charleston Regional Center, the 

International Chancery Center. 

113
The largest ongoing renovation among domestic 

facilities is the Main Street Building renovation. DOS 

has replaced moat and canopy lighting, exit lighting, 

and the four main R-12 refrigeration machines as part 

of the Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Removal Program. 

Significant energy savings from the project have 

already been recorded. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

DOS is a participant in the DOE Alternative Fuel 

Vehicle 5-Year Acquisition Plan Program. DOS’s 

motor pool fleet is 35 percent alternative fueled with 

hybrid fuel vehicles and one shuttle bus of 11 operating 

units fueled with natural gas. DOS currently is reporting 

the energy consumed by vehicles and equipment under 

its control consistent with its mission requirements 

regarding the need for protective, surveillance, and 

other law enforcement vehicles. Vehicles procured or 

acquired for overseas use are excluded from all current 

reporting requirements; however, every effort is made 

to uphold the spirit of energy conservation through the 

acquisition of alternative fueled and energy efficient 

vehicles wherever possible. DOS has committed 

energy and economic resources to promote ride sharing 

and the use of public transportation through employee 

subsidy of the Metro fare card supplement program. 

Renewable Energy 

DOS has expanded the use of renewable energy within 

its facilities; notably solar photovoltaic and solar 

thermal. DOS has instituted the use of alternative fuels 

within its facilities, substituting less greenhouse gasintensive fuel for petroleum base fuel, notably natural 

gas. 

In FY 2000, solar water heating systems were installed 

in residences and recreation facilities in Chennai, India; 

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Niamey, Niger; and Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia. 

DOS has signed an MOU with the Geothermal Heat 

Pump Consortium for application of geothermal 

technology in 1998. 

DOS foreign posts reported a total of 356 solar 

collector systems. These systems include a total of 

approximately 1,285 solar collector panels, and are 

used for various purposes including domestic water 

preheating in residences, office buildings, and to 

supplement the electrical grid and domestic systems. 

Petroleum 

As opportunities arise that lend themselves to dual fuel 

conversion, the potential will be pursued in terms of 

life-cycle cost-effective application as well as 

determination of availability of local fuels, consistent 

with local, state, and Federal clean air statutes and 

policies. 

DOS has dual fuel capability for boilers in the National 

Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) facility. 

However, in the future, fuel cells maymake primary gas 

and oil fuel backup obsolete for emergency generators 

and electric generation. DOS is considering installation 

of a small unit(s). 

DOS has acquired nine natural gas vehicles and one 

natural gas shuttle bus in response to antipollution 

greenhouse gas initiatives. DOS also included 

Diplomatic Security pursuit units in the acquisition 

request for 100 percent natural gas units. The 

expectation of the alternative fuel program is to convert 

all motor pool and shuttle bus units to 100 percent 

natural gas consumption and obtain an all alternative 

fuel motor pool with a fuel resupply station at the 

NFATC. 

Through life-cycle cost-effective measures, DOS shall 

reduce the use of petroleum within its facilities. DOS 

may accomplish this reduction by switching to a nonpetroleum energy source, such as natural gas or 

renewable energy sources; by eliminating unnecessary 

fuel use; or by other appropriate methods. Where 

alternative fuels are not practical or life-cycle costeffective, agenciesshall strive to improve the efficiency 

of their facilities. 

Water Conservation 

DOS has instituted a model pilot program to install 

sensor water faucets and toilets in Main State, to be 

installed under the renovation plan. In addition, sensor 

faucets and toilets were installed in the NFATC. 

The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo replaced old, worn, water 

booster pumps with a newer variable speed system for 

potable city water. This resulted in savings of 

approximately 155 million Btu and $5,000 in electricity 

annually, plus $92,000 and 10,000 gallons of water per 

year – a 20 percent reduction in the total water bill for 

the entire Post. The project cost was $116,000, with 

utility cost savings equal to $97,000 a year, for a 

payback in 1.2 years. 

Through life-cycle cost-effective measures, DOS shall 

reduce water consumption and associated energy use in 

their facilities to reach the goals of Executive Order 

13123. Where possible, water cost savings and 

associated energy cost savings shall be included in 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts and other 

financing mechanisms. 

114
Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOS’s policy is to use life-cycle cost analysis in 

making decisions about investments in products, 

services, construction, and other projects to lower the 

Federal Government’s costs and to reduce energy and 

water consumption. DOS also retires inefficient 

equipment on an accelerated basis where replacement 

results in lower life-cycle costs. 

Energy Audits 

DOS will continue the energy audit and energy

conservation opportunity (ECO) identification program

to pursue maximum energy efficiency of its facilities.

To date, all major facilities (over 300,000 GSF) have

been audited through the comprehensive audit method,

which requires all energy technologies to be considered

for implementation. As new technologies are

developed, re-audits are done to assess applicability for

installation. In addition, all ECOs are grouped into

various categories of package ECOs. Smaller facilities

are audited by walk-through or partial comprehensive

method.

DOS shall continue to conduct energy and water audits

for approximately 10 percent of their facilities each

year, either independently or through Energy Savings

Performance Contracts or utility energy-efficiency

service contracts.

In FY 2000, FBO performed comprehensive energy

management surveys for properties at the following

Posts:

! U.S. Embassy, Buenos Aires, Argentina;

! U.S. Embassy, Conakry, Guinea;

! U.S. Embassy, Bangui, Central African Republic;

! U.S. Embassy, Lilongwe, Malawi; 

! U.S. Embassy, Rabat, Morocco;

! U.S. Embassy, Lima, Peru;

! U.S. Embassy, Vientiane, Laos; 

! U.S. Embassy, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Total area surveyed in FY 2000 was 1,595,000 GSF.

To date, approximately 74 percent of the available

space in the DOS’s worldwide facility inventory have

been surveyed.

Financing Mechanisms 

Three Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and one 

utility energy efficiency service agreement (ESA) have 

been completed by DOS. 

DOS currently has one ESPC for foreign facilities, 

awarded in July 1998, to replace lighting fixtures and 

upgrade HVAC systems at Embassy buildings in 

Mexico City. The FY 2000 measurement and 

verification inspection of the installed ESPC was 

conducted, indicating more than 500,000 kilowatt-hours 

savings per year. While this project has yielded 

substantial energy savings, cost savings are not 

commensurate due to fluctuations in local currency and 

fuel costs. However, by significantly reducing energy 

consumption, the ESPC has yielded savings in avoided 

costs from increased electricity rates equal to 

approximately $18,000 per year. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

DOS participates in the “Buying Energy Efficient 

Products” program of the Department of Energy. For 

procurement of other energy efficient goods and 

services, DOS has established and/or clarified 

procurement policies and procedures including the use 

of life-cycle cost estimating techniques in acquiring 

energy efficient supplies and services that are life-cycle 

cost-effective and environmentally safe alternatives to 

petroleum consumption. 

In addition, DOS has determined that certain 

technologies are implementable as a normal course of 

maintenance replacement action where funds are 

available. Such implementations include the following 

actions: 

! Energy efficient motors and variable speed drives 

are installed as the opportunity arises either 

through maintenance work or ESPC opportunity; 

! T-8 & T-5 electronic lighting is installed by 

contract through the maintenance contractor 

relative to group relamping requirements of the 

contract or through ESPC opportunity; 

! Motion Sensors, either ultra sonic or thermal 

sensing, are installed with lighting or by contract 

maintenance personnel; and 

! Generally, flourescents are installed in place of 

incandescent; Sodium is utilized for light, noncolor-required illumination. 

DOS shall select ENERGY STAR® and other energy 

efficient products when acquiring energy-using 

products where life-cycle cost-effective. 

115
For product groups where ENERGY STAR® labels are not

yet available, DOS shall select products that are in the

upper 25 percent of energy efficiency as designated by

FEMP.

DOS shall incorporate energy efficient criteria

consistent with ENERGY STAR® and other FEMP

designated energy efficiency levels into all guide

specifications and project specifications developed for

new construction and renovation, as well as into

product specification language developed for Basic

Ordering Agreements, Blanket Purchasing Agreements,

Government Wide Acquisition Contracts, and all other

purchasing procedures.

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

DOS shall strive to meet the ENERGY STAR® Building

criteria in eligible facilities to the maximum extent

practicable by the end of 2002. DOS shall integrate this

building-rating tool into their general facility audits. 

Sustainable Building Design 

FBO stimulates the adoption of sustainable building 

practices through training staff in the use of Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental Design Rating System 

(LEED) as a framework for sustainability analysis, 

developing sustainability standards for FBO projects, 

and promoting opportunities for sustainable product 

vendors to present their products to FBO personnel. 

FBO utilizes the following resources related to 

sustainability: 

! The U.S. Green Building Council; 

! The Whole Building Design Guide: 

! Executive Order 13148 Implemenation Activities; 

and 

! The Federal Facilities Council. 

The FBO’s organizational transformation plan seeks to 

increase awareness and knowledge of sustainability 

options and benefits within FBO and the design 

community. With added tools and expertise, design 

firms will pursue sustainable building design options. 

This is expected to result in improved compliance with 

Executive Order 13148 goals and eventual FBO design 

criteria enhancement. FBO compares and reports on 

LEED scores of new office buildings in design and 

construction by FBO. The ranking and reporting draws 

comparisons to FBO competing projects, and helps 

project teams assess performance. 

This activity also includes the provision of Scope and 

Design Criteria language for inclusion into project 

specific documents, and leads to opportunities to 

interact with project teams to customize that language 

for specific projects. These interactions provide a 

valuable forum for discussion and goal setting. 

During the design submittal review process there are 

regular interactions again with the FBO teams and the 

architects/engineers to review and comment on 

sustainability submittals. Where projects are not on 

track to the LEED goals, more intervention is required 

to share ideas for reaching these goals. 

Finally, this activity includes work with the U.S. Green 

Building Council and other Federal Agencies in the 

refinement ofthe LEED Rating system for overseas use. 

This new effort has the potential to transform building 

and design organizations doing work overseas. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

At the time new GSA-controlled leases are negotiated 

and/or existing leases are re-negotiated, GSA is making 

an effort to include energy conservation goals as part of 

the new or re-negotiated leases. In addition, all of the 

Department’s leased facilities are scheduled for energy 

survey through the FEMP Energy Audit program. At 

the time of lease negotiation, energy efficient and 

economically advantageous retrofits that are identified 

through the FEMP program building audit and Energy 

Conservation Opportunity (ECO) identification process 

will be mandated through lease administration. Partial 

funding may be available to co-pay for some of these 

retrofits if both lessor and lessee can equally benefit. 

Regarding federally-owned and/or leased properties 

located in foreign countries, the Office of Foreign 

Buildings Operations (AIFBO) participated in the 

energy tracking program by entering energy data and 

project information for the Scorecard submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget in FY 2000. The 

FBO has embarked upon a proactive energy technology 

installation program in overseas-owned facilities. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

DOS shall implement district energy systems, and other 

highly efficient systems, in new construction or retrofit 

projects when life-cycle cost-effective. DOS shall 

consider combined cooling, heat, and power when 

upgrading and assessing facility power needs and shall 

use combined cooling, heat, and power systems when 

life-cycle cost-effective. DOS shall survey local natural 

resources to optimize use of available biomass, 

bioenergy, geothermal, or other naturally occurring 

energy sources. 

116
Off-Grid Generation 

DOS utilizes off-grid generation systems, including 

solar hot water, solar electric, solar outdoor lighting, 

small wind turbines, fuel cells, and other off-grid 

alternatives, where such systems are life-cycle costeffective and offer benefits including energy efficiency, 

pollution prevention, source energy reductions, avoided 

infrastructure costs, or expedited service. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Richard T. Arthurs

Energy Manager

Facilities Management and Support Services

Department of State

A/OPR/FMSS

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20520

Phone: 202-647-8970

Fax: 202-647-1873

117
J. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Management and Administration 

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the 

Designated Senior Agency Official responsible for 

implementation of energy and environmental 

requirements at the Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

DOT established a technical support team at the 

headquarters level within the Office of the Secretary to 

assist the operating administrations in implementing the 

requirements of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act and Executive Order 13123. 

Recognition 

Within DOT incentive awards are widely used to 

reward conscientious and innovative energy 

management activities. In FY 2000, one individual and 

an organization from the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) were nominated for the 

Department of Energy annual energy awards. Proactive 

individuals and groups have been recognized as energy 

champions through the “You Have the Power” 

campaign. Organizations have used a variety of means 

to reward individuals such as Letters of Appreciation. 

Performance Evaluations 

The operating administrations have included the 

requirement that energy and environmental 

responsibilities be added to management position 

descriptions as they are updated. 

Training 

DOT participates in training opportunities offered by 

the annual energy conferences sponsored by the DOE, 

the General Services Administration (GSA), and the 

Department of Defense. 

Showcase Facilities 

The Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at Palm 

Beach International Airport was recognized as a 

Federal Energy Savers Showcase by DOE’s Federal 

Energy Management Program. Energy efficiency at this 

older facility was vastly improved with the replacement 

of four inefficient air conditioning units, improved 

insulation, and upgraded lighting using modern T-8 

fixtures with electronic ballasts and reflectors. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, DOT reported a 29.3 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

Jet fuel used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and 

FAA represents the majority of consumption in this 

category. Consequently, consumption levels are highly 

dependent on mission requirements and efficiency of 

the equipment in the fleet. Over the years, significant 

energy reductions have been made through improved 

operations such as combining missions and training 

flights. Future reductions will be made through 

equipment replacement and modernization. 

Renewable Energy 

FAA generated an estimated 0.7 billion Btu of 

renewable energy in FY 2000. USCG estimates that 

they generated 0.07 BBtu of renewable energy. USCG 

installed 60 solar hot water systems in Honolulu, 

Hawaii, and increased the buoys using solar power to 

99 percent. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation (SLSDC) also uses solar power for its 

fixed and floating aids to navigation. SLSDC is in the 

process of solarizing its visibility and weather 

monitoring equipment. 

It is DOT policy to use renewable energy sources 

wherever it is economically practical. The requirements 

of Executive Order 13123 have been incorporated into 

the Transportation Acquisition Manual (TAM). FAA is 

also developing procedures for purchasing power 

generated from renewable sources. However, 

opportunities for the purchase of competitive renewable 

energy remain limited. 

Million Solar Roofs 

In FY 2000, FAA had 29 solar units and USCG had 60 

solar units. 

Petroleum 

DOT used 80,789 Btu/GSF in petroleum-based fuels 

(fuel oil and LPG/propane) in buildings in FY 1985 and 

23,031 Btu/GSF in FY 2000 for a 71.5 percentage 

reduction from FY 1985. Since 1985, many DOT 

facilities have switched to natural gas for heating due to 

the better efficiency and lower cost of natural gas. 

118
Water Conservation 

In FY 2000 most DOT water conservation activity 

centered on developing baseline data. The FAA’s Mike 

Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, has installed water meters on buildings. 

FAA is also planning to replace grass with patios at 

some Airport Traffic Control Towers in arid locations 

to reduce water requirements. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The requirement for life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is 

formalized in the TAM. Each of the operating 

administrations has requirements for LCC analysis in 

alteration, construction, and the procurement of energy 

consuming equipment. Staffs have been trained on and 

use the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Handbook 134 and the associated LCC 

software. Use of LCC for the lighting retrofit and air 

conditioning replacement at the Palm Beach ATCT 

identified a payback of less than three years. 

Energy Audits 

During FY 2000, five percent of facilities were audited 

within DOT. Overall, 75 percent of all DOT facilities 

have been audited. Since large facilities with large 

energy usage were audited first, smaller facilities are 

now being audited resulting in a lower percentage of 

square footage completed in the later years of the audit 

plan. 

Financing Mechanisms 

USCG awarded one Energy Savings Performance 

Contract at the Coast Guard Station, Elizabeth City, in 

FY 2000. This ESPC involves a capital investment of 

$1.8 million and brings the total number of ESPCs in 

DOT to seven, with a total capital investment of over 

$9.3 million. FAA has several ESPC delivery orders in 

various states of preparation with at least two expected 

to be awarded in FY 2001. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

The TAM states the requirement to purchase energyconsuming products in the top 25 percent efficiency. 

FAA reports that energy efficiency criteria have been 

incorporated into the In-Service Master Specification 

for new systems. One such system recently modified to 

include energy efficiency criteria is the national 

specification for acquisition of sustainable power 

systems. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

FAA has two new facilities which are expected to attain 

ENERGY STAR® Building recognition after a full year of 

data has been gathered. 

Sustainable Building Design 

FAA is incorporating sustainable design requirements 

into its national design master specifications. The 

specifications standards for large terminal radar 

approach facilities and ATCTs contain sustainable 

design requirements and will be replicated across the 

country as new facilities are constructed. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

DOT has been working with GSA to ensure that energy 

efficiency and sustainable design principles are 

incorporated into future leases. 

Off-Grid Generation 

In FY 2000 the FAA installed 900-watt photovoltaic 

panels on seven Remote Communication Link (RCL) 

facilities. A wind turbine was also installed on an RCL 

in the Pacific Northwest Region. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. George Kuehn

Administrative Services Policy Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

Room 2318, Mail Code M43

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202-366-1614

Fax: 202-493-2006

119
K. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Management and Administration 

The Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Senior 

Agency Official is the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Management and Chief Financial Officer. Each 

Treasury bureau has designated a Senior Bureau Energy 

Official to direct its energy program. The Senior 

Agency and Bureau Officials provide the policy on 

meeting the goals of Executive Order 13123. 

Recognition 

Treasury uses its existing performance awards system 

to recognize individual employees and plans to develop 

an annual Secretary’s Energy Management Award in 

FY 2001. The bureaus will also develop annual awards. 

Performance Evaluations 

Treasury energy managers now have an energy 

management element in their performance criteria and 

the agency is currently examining how to implement a 

similar element for upper management. 

Training 

Treasury trained 17 employees in energy management 

during FY 2000. The agency used the Federal Energy 

Management Program’s course offerings whenever 

available. Energy training and efficient product links 

have been added to the Office of Procurement’s Web 

site. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, Treasury reported a 12.0 percent decrease 

in energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

During FY 2000, Treasury and its bureaus occupied 

approximately 55 million square feet of space, the 

majority of which was in General Services 

Administration (GSA) assigned facilities. 8.3 million 

square feet of space for the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS), the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), and the 

Financial Management Service (FMS) was managed 

directly by Treasury under the GSA Buildings 

Delegations Program. 

Treasury-owned buildings and facilities consisted of 

3.5 million square feet of space in the Main Treasury 

and Annex buildings, the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC), the U.S. Customs Service 

(USCS), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). 

In FY 2000, Treasury’s energy consumption shows a 

significant reduction compared to FY 1999. The change 

is due to the removal of energy intensive IRS facilities 

from the standard building inventory for the fiscal years 

1985, 1990, and 2000. 

All Treasury bureaus follow GSA’s Energy 

Management and Conservation Guidelines for building 

operations. The following projects were undertaken: 

! The IRS’s Andover, Massachusetts, Service Center 

completed a major lighting retrofit. Twenty-five 

hundred old T-12 light fixtures were replaced with 

T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts. Savings of 

650,000 kilowatt-hours and $55,000 are expected 

annually. A $45,000 rebate was received from the 

Massachusetts Electric Company. The Center’s 

mainframe computers were removed and replaced 

by servers with a much lower load. 

! The Ogden, Utah, Service Center completed a 

number of energy retrofits and upgrades, including 

lowering ceilings, window seal improvements, 

variable frequency drives on the fan systems, 

installation of a gas-fired absorption chiller, 

retrofitting parking lot lighting, and insulating 

chiller piping. Also the mainframe computer was 

removed. 

! The FLETC in Glynco, Georgia, conducted an 

investment grade audit of the entire facility and 

expects to enter into a Utility Service Energy 

Contract (USEC) in FY 2001. The USEC will 

include lighting, premium efficient motors, 

building automation, programmable thermostats, 

and geothermal heat pumps. A 9.7 percent 

reduction in consumption is predicted for the 

project. A number of renovation projects include 

energy retrofits. 

! The chillers and cooling towers at the Main 

Treasury Building were replaced with new energy 

efficient equipment. The new chillers do not 

contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A complete 

retrofit of the building’s electrical and lighting 

systems is underway. Single-pane windows are 

being replaced with Argon-filled double-pane 

glazing. 

! The BPD’s Parkersburg, West Virginia, facility 

began conversion to direct digital controls for the 

HVAC systems. 

120
Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

Treasury reports energy consumption for 3.3 million 

square feet of industrial space. The Bureau of 

Engraving and Printing (BEP) and the U.S. Mint (Mint) 

occupied the majority of the space. As of FY 2000, 

Treasury’s industrial facilities have achieved a 6.1 

percent reduction in consumption over their FY 1990 

baseline on a Btu/GSF basis. 

The BEP reports a 14.7 percent reduction in energy 

consumption measured in Btu/unit of production basis 

compared to the FY 1990 baseline. Using the Btu/GSF 

basis, there is a 28 percent increase due primarily to the 

addition of the Fort Worth Currency facility, although 

production remained static. The Fort Worth facility 

came on line in 1991. 

The Mint has had a 38.3 percent increase in energy 

consumption compared to the FY 1990 baseline on a 

Btu/GSF basis. When measured against production, 

Mint had a 12.6 percent reduction in consumption on a 

Btu/unit of production basis. Production has increased 

58.4 percent since 1990. Mint is in the midst of an 

extensive re-tooling to meet the demand for the state 

quarters and new dollar coin. When completed, further 

reductions in consumption are expected. 

The BEP replaced its CFC chillers with new energyefficient, non-CFC chillers. The bureau expects to 

reduce chiller energy consumption by one-third. The 

bureau also replaced its 1918 vintage roof with a new 

standing seam metal roof with increased insulation. 

Renewable Energy 

The Mint agreed to purchase 100 megawatt-hours of 

wind power in Denver, Colorado. The IRS’s Andover, 

Massachusetts, facility is participating in the load 

aggregation for the area-wide contract which calls for a 

certain percentage of power to be supplied from green 

sources. 

Petroleum 

The IRS’s Andover, Massachusetts, Service Center 

completed conversion of its low-pressure steam boilers 

from oil to natural gas. The new burners are 15 percent 

more efficient. The FMS installed a new natural gasfired back-up generator system at the Birmingham, 

Alabama, Financial Center. 

Water Conservation 

BEP renovated all the restrooms in their Annex 

Building in Washington, D.C. The retrofits included 

water-conserving plumbing fixtures and energy efficient 

lighting. The USSS installed motion sensored water 

faucets in all their new buildings and retrofitted several 

of the older buildings at their training center. A 25 

percent reduction in water consumption is expected. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Treasury’s revised energy directive will specifically 

require the use of LCC analysis for all energy projects 

and procurement. 

Energy Audits 

In FY 2000, Treasury performed energy audits in 10 

percent of its space – bringing the total to 90 percent 

since 1992. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2000, Treasury did not enter into any Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts or Utility Service 

Energy Contracts. Five have been completed since 

1997, with three more USECs planned in FY 2001. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

Treasury has had a policy of purchasing only ENERGY 

STAR® compliant computers for a number of years. The 

Department also purchases ENERGY STAR® copiers and 

fax machines, and follows the product 

recommendations in DOE’s Energy Efficient Products 

Guide. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

Treasury applied for ENERGY STAR® certification of the 

Firearms Instructors Building at the USSS Training 

Center in Beltsville, Maryland. The FMS is having the 

Liberty Loan Building in Washington, D.C. evaluated 

for ENERGY STAR® compliance. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Treasury plans to mandate use of the Whole Building 

Design Guide for its new facilities. The new Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms Headquarters building is being 

designed following sustainable design principles. 

Sustainable design principles are being followed for 

design work in the USSS. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Treasury has provided the model green lease provisions 

to each of its bureaus. They are encouraged to follow 

them where they have independent leasing authority and 

ensure that GSA follows the provisions when obtaining 

space for the bureau. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

Two newly constructed buildings at the USSS Training 

Center use new, energy-efficient HVAC systems. 

121
Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Bill McGovern

Environment and Energy Programs Officer

Department of the Treasury

1310 G-400 West

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20220

Phone: (202) 622-0043

Fax: (202) 622-1468

E-mail: william.mcgovern@do.treas.gov

122
L. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) is the Under Secretary for 

Health. The members of the agency’s energy team 

represent the technical, legal, procurement, and budget 

sections of VA. 

The Energy Management Division at VA is responsible 

for ensuring that all medical centers develop and 

implement comprehensive energy management 

programs to reduce overall energy usage in the 

operation and maintenance of buildings and facilities by 

FY 2010 to meet their established energy consumption 

targets. 

Recognition 

VA initiated an Employee Incentive Awards Program 

in 1975 and since then has recognized individuals and 

medical centers for their energy savings efforts. These 

awards also provide motivation for others to identify 

energy reduction measures and energy reduction 

achievements. The VA participates in two energy 

awards program - the Medical Center Director, 

Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Director 

and/or Secretary of the VA Energy Conservation 

Awards, and the Federal Energy and Water 

Conservation Efficiency Awards. 

Performance Evaluations 

It is VA’s policy to include energy conservation 

requirements as part of performance evaluations of 

energy engineers at the Headquarters facility as well as 

at the medical centers. The performance evaluations for 

the Chief, Engineering Service, at the medical centers 

are based upon implementation of Executive Order 

13123 and the percentage of the 2010 target achieved. 

Training 

VA developed a handbook of energy conservation 

methods, concepts, and evaluation procedures for direct 

use by facility engineers. Continuing with the 

philosophy of developing in-house expertise, the VA 

conducted many regional workshops and 

teleconferences. Many medical center engineers 

completed classes offered by the Association of Energy 

Engineers in FY 1999 and FY 2000. Staff also 

participated in Energy Savings Performance Contract 

training courses. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, VA reported a 15.4 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

During FY 2000, electrical consumption went up as a 

result of installation of information technology 

equipment and state-of-the-art medical equipment to 

provide modern care to the nation’s veterans. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

VA does not have separate laboratory facilities. The 

laboratories are an integral part of the overall facility 

and their energy consumption is reported as part of the 

overall facility. 

All VA facilities, as medical centers, are energyintensive facilities. These facilities have steam systems, 

boiler operation, air compressor systems, cogeneration, 

fuel switching and other efficient and renewable energy 

technologies. VA has taken cost-effective steps to 

reduce energy consumption in these facilities and will 

continue to do so to meet the goals established by 

Executive Order 13123. 

Renewable Energy 

The VA medical center at Mountain Home, Tennessee, 

selected an energy services company to finance, design, 

build, and maintain a state-of-the-art energy center on 

the VA campus. This project will be the first privately 

financed and operated energy plant on VA property and 

the first ever in the Federal Government using VA’s 

unique Enhanced-Use authority. The energy center will 

use the most recent cogeneration technologies and 

provide utility services to the medical center and other 

neighboring facilities. This project will replace existing 

facilities and systems with high-efficiency units 

enabling the medical center to reduce energy 

consumption and achieve operational cost savings of 

over $15 million over the term of the lease with no 

capital cost to VA. The project will also result in a cost 

avoidance of over $3 million. 

Water Conservation 

VA has taken steps to promote water efficiency 

throughout the agency by requesting that medical 

centers develop water management plans and 

implement best management practices for efficient use 

of water. 

123
Most of the medical centers which have signed ESPCs 

with energy service companies have asked them to 

recommend water conservation projects as part of their 

proposals. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Since 1975, VA’s policy has been to fund only those 

projects that are cost-effective based upon LCC 

analysis. 

Energy Audits 

Most of the VA facilities had energy audits completed 

in the early 1980s and as a result, a handbook was 

published that consolidated the energy conservation 

methods, concepts and evaluation proceduresfor use by 

the facility engineers. During FY 2000, the medical 

centers that signed ESPCs with energy savings 

companies are having energy audits conducted by them 

as part of their contracts. VA has also used funding 

from DOE to complete energy audits in recent years. 

Financing Mechanisms 

VA takes advantage of ESPCs and utility rebate 

programs whenever possible. The following projects 

have been completed using these alternative financing 

mechanisms: 

! VA Medical Center, LakeCity, Florida, completed 

the retrofit of lighting fixtures throughout the 

facility. Total Project Cost, $308,000, Rebate from 

Utility Company, $28,000, Annual Savings, 

$54,000. Term of contract, 7 years; 

! VA Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, completed the 

installation of a thermal water storage system 

containing a 3.3 million gallons capacity vessel. 

Total Project Cost, $1.9 million, Rebate from 

Utility Company, $475,000, Annual Savings, 

$250,000. Term of contract, 6 years; 

! VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, 

completed the installation of cooling towers. Total 

Project Cost, $529,000, Annual Savings, $85,000; 

! VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, completed 

the retrofit of about 10,000 lighting fixtures, 500 

exit signs and 800 occupancy sensors. Total 

Project Cost, over $1 million, Rebate from Utility 

Company, $240,000, Annual Savings, $103,000; 

! VA Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia, completed 

lighting retrofit project. Total Project Cost, 

$460,000, VA’s portion of Savings, $97,000. Term 

of contract, 4 years; and 

! VA Medical Center, West Los Angeles,California, 

completed an ENVEST EnergyEfficiencyRetrofit 

project. Total Project Cost, $4,338,000, VA’s 

portion of the savings, $560,000. Term of contract, 

12 years. 

All VISNs are in various planning stages for 

implementation of ESPCs. One hundred twenty seven 

ofthe 162 Medical Centers have signed a Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA) either with U.S. Army 

Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, Alabama, 

DOE, GSA Area Wide-based contract, or through 

station level projects, for the various services they offer 

under the ESPC program. Several projects under these 

MOAs have been awarded to ESPC contractors for 

design and others are in various phases of construction. 

VA building retrofit projects include the installation of 

Energy Management Control Systems, modifications of 

existing HVAC systems, replacement of inefficient 

electric motors with energy efficient motors, installation 

of variable frequency speed controllers, steam trap 

replacement, improvement of boiler efficiency, 

improvement by retrofitting and relamping and/or 

replacing existing lighting fixtures, installation of 

electronic ballasts, improvement in power systems, 

installation of additional insulation and storm windows 

and water conservation projects. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

VA is issuing a directive requesting that contracting 

officers, purchasing agents, purchase card holders, and 

other procurement officials purchase ENERGY STAR® 

products when purchasing equipment. If ENERGY 

STAR® products are unavailable for any particular 

energy consuming equipment, then equipment that is 

among the upper 25 percent in energy efficiency. This 

energy efficient criteria has been incorporated into 

VA’s standard specifications and product specifications 

for new as well as renovation construction projects. 

Sustainable Building Design 

VA has integrated the “build green” attitude by 

incorporating sustainable design concepts into 

solicitation requirements for architect/engineering 

firms on all major VA projects. 

124
Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

VA will be incorporating the following clauses in their 

lease bid package for new as well as 

renegotiated/extended leases: 

! All offerors are encouraged to use ESPCs or utility 

agreements to achieve, maintain and/or exceed the 

ENERGY STAR® Benchmark Score of 75, and are 

encouraged to include shared savings in their offer 

as a result of energy upgrades where applicable; 

! All new construction shall achieve an ENERGY 

STAR® Building Label within one year after 

reaching 95 percent occupancy and continue to 

maintain the level of performance; and 

! Offerors may obtain a list of energy service 

companies qualified under the EPACT to perform 

ESPCs, as well as additional information on cost 

effective energy efficiency, renewables, and water 

conservation from FEMP. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

Most of VA’s new and retrofit projects have combined 

cooling, heating, ventilating and power systems as 

integral part of the overall project. 

Increased demands to satisfy the needs of modern 

medical care have resulted in an increase of electrical 

consumption of 28.6 percent as of the third quarter of 

FY 2000 as compared to VA’s consumption in the base 

year FY 1985. 

The following methods have also been implemented to 

reduce this increase: 

! The design criteria for all new construction and 

retrofits now include the use of most energy 

efficient lighting fixtures that have a potential for 

savings of up to 45 percent of energy used for 

fluorescent light fixtures. Also, the new 

construction is now designed to operate at an 

electrical power factor of 0.95 or higher; and 

! Energy Management and Control Systems with 

direct digital controls are specified as part of new 

construction as well as when retrofitting existing 

HVAC systems. 

Off-Grid Generation 

VA has installed many solar hot water systems in its 

medical centers. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Rajinder P. Garg

Chief, Energy Management Division (138C1)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Room 417-LAF

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Phone: 202-273-5843

Fax: 202-273-6298

125
M. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Management and Administration 

In November 2000, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) consolidated energy and water 

management activities in a newly formed Sustainable 

Facilities Practices Branch (SFPB). The SFPB will give 

full-time attention to sustainable practices, policies, 

and project implementation. 

EPA has designated the Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and Resources Management as the 

Agency Energy and Environmental Executive. This 

senior official is supported by a national energy 

coordinator and team manager. The energy team is 

supplemented by architects and engineers from EPA’s 

Architecture, Engineering, and Real Estate Branch and 

by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on a projectspecific basis. 

EPA realizes that the commitment of its employees to 

improve energy efficiency is vital to achieving the 

energy reduction goal. EPA’s energy management team 

uses awards, incentives, and performance evaluations, 

as well as continuing education and training programs, 

to support individual and team efforts in energy 

efficiency. 

Recognition 

EPA is an active participant of the the DOE-sponsored 

“You Have the Power” campaign and has recognized 

19 employees as energy champions. 

EPA has an agency-wide awards program addressing 

sustainable design and resource conservation. In 

addition, EPA established an Award for Excellence in 

Management for individuals or groups that have 

exhibited superior energy and water management. 

Training 

EPA uses several education and training programs to 

ensure that employees are aware of the latest 

technologies and opportunities to increase energy 

efficiency. 

In 1997, EPA, in cooperation with the Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory and the Nationa 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), instituted an 

annual conference for Federal laboratory managers 

interested in energy upgrades for their facilities. The 

“Laboratories for the 21st Century” (Labs 21) initiative, 

which grew out of that conference, provides 

information on energy efficient technology alternatives 

for laboratory applications and creates a forum for 

laboratory designers, owners, and operators to obtain 

up-to-date information and support for implementing 

energy-efficiency programs. 

The Labs21 conference has become an annual event 

and includes plenary and panel sessions to discuss ways 

that successful strategies and technologies are being 

implemented to improve the energy efficiency and 

environmental performance of laboratories. 

The fourth annual Labs21 conference took place from 

September 6 to 8, 2000, in San Francisco, California. 

More than 250 participants attended the conference, 

which was open to both Federal and non-Federal 

participants and to representatives from other countries 

including Canada and Australia. 

Also conducted on a yearly basis is a 3-day Buildings 

and Facilities conference, which all EPA facility 

managers must attend. An entire day is spent on issues 

related to energy-efficient design and management, 

including renewable energy purchases, energy savings 

performance contracting, and energy efficient retrofits. 

Greening EPA is distributed to all EPA facility 

managers and others interested in renewable energy and 

energy and water efficiency activities in EPA facilities. 

For Earth Day 2000, EPA created a 50-foot by 8-foot 

model of a “green” home. Every feature in the house, 

from the construction materials to the furnishings, was 

selected to highlight specific environmental benefits 

that were explained with more than 100 interpretive 

signs. Almost one-quarter of the signs featured energy 

efficiency strategies, including the use of ENERGY 

STAR®-labeled windows, light fixtures, bulbs, 

appliances, and computers. EPA estimates more than 

280,000 people visited the exhibit on Earth Day. In 

May 2000, an additional 80,000 people saw the display 

on the Mall during Public Service Recognition Week. 

Energy Reduction Performance 

Standard Facilities 

Since 1985, the EPA has measured and reported 

laboratory energy and water consumption using the it’s 

standard facility 1985 baseline and reduction 

requirements. Starting in FY 2000 EPA is no longer 

reporting its laboratory energy and water consumption 

under the standard facility designation and is now using 

the more appropriate energy intensive facility 

designation. 

126
Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

EPA has implemented an aggressive strategy to reduce 

energy consumption. EPA reduced energy consumption 

in Agency-owned laboratories from 399,907 Btu/GSF. 

in 1985 to 348,401 Btu/GSF in FY 2000—a reduction 

of 12.9 percent. Energy use fell from 357,348 Btu/GSF 

in 1990 to 348,401 Btu/GSF in FY 2000—a decrease of 

only 2.5 percent—because the Agency built seven 

additional facilities during those years. EPA received 

credit for purchases of 7.6 billion Btu of renewable 

electricity. This lowered the energy intensity of its 

laboratories from 351,251 Btu/GSF to 348,401 

Btu/GSF. 

EPA is maximizing the energy and water efficiency and 

environmental performance of its facilities through a 

variety of innovative projects and commonsense 

initiatives. Following are synopses of the energyefficiency activities at selected EPA laboratories. 

! Ada, Oklahoma – As part of a recently awarded 

Energy Savings Performance Contract, an HVAC 

system renovation/upgrade will install a ground 

source heat pump, variable air volume fume hoods 

and air supply, new and upgraded fan motors, and 

integrated direct digital control system for HVAC, 

energy, fire, and security management; 

! Ann Arbor, Michigan – As part of ESPC 

renovations, a new energy and HVAC 

infrastructure was installed. New air handling units, 

a new cooling tower, a 200 natural gas kilowatt 

fuel cell, and a new direct digital control system 

were installed. The newchilled water plant consists 

of 900 tons of high-efficiency, double-effect 

chiller/h e a t ers, which d o no t use 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or HCFC refrigerants. 

The new chiller/heaters come equipped with units 

to recover waste heat from the condensers in the 

cooling cycle. The chiller/heaters will recover up 

to 25 percent of the input energy from the 

condenser water stream; 

! Cincinnati, Ohio -- The facility installed a closedloop glycol cooling tower, energy-efficient elevator 

motors, boiler controls, a revolving door to help 

maintain temperature and building pressure, a new 

HVAC system, improved windows and insulation, 

a new energy efficient boiler, and enthalpy 

recovery from boiler exhaust; 

! Corvallis, Oregon – The facility installed new 

energy efficient non-CFC chillers and boilers; 

! Duluth, Minnesota – The facility installed an 

energy and environmental management system to 

minimize energy waste through improved 

equipment controls. In FY 2000, EPA replaced 

two large boilers with ten smaller boilers to 

improve the heating system’s efficiency; 

! Golden, Colorado – The facility installed a direct 

digital control system to monitor operating 

conditions of the HVAC unit. The Golden lab’s 

ventilation system conserves energy after work 

hours by cutting the system back to 25 percent of 

its maximum volume. The system is divided into 7 

zones to enable air exchange in selected areas 

when employees work late; 

! Montgomery, Alabama – EPA relocated and 

installed a 150-ton chiller from Ann Arbor to 

Montgomery. This move and installation saved 

money for purchase of a new chiller to condition 

furnace hood wake-up air; and 

! Research Triangle Park, North Carolina– EPA 

installed a Building Automation System that 

enables operations staff to monitor and control 

energy-consuming aspects of the building, 

including temperature, pressures, humidity, 

electrical systems, refrigeration and boiler 

equipment, maintenance indicators and alarms, 

lighting, security, and communications. Fume 

hoods are serviced by a centralized air flow system 

and customized sashes that save energy by 

avoiding the loss of heated or cooled air and by 

reducing the need for numerous energy-consuming 

fans. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

EPA’s Compliance Strategic Plan for the Reduction of 

Petroleum-based fuels in Tactical Vehicles and Other 

Equipment has been developed to meet the provisions 

of Executive Order 13123 and provides a precise 

approach for achieving the fuel reduction goal. The 

approach requires: 

! Reducing the current number of tactical vehicles 

and other equipment provided as Government 

Furnished Equipment to EPA contractors; 

! Acquiring better fuel-efficient equipment, which 

would decrease fuel usage; 

! Re-evaluating mission requirements and 

eliminating equipment where possible; and 

! Creating incentives for EPA employees and 

managers to reduce fuel consumption. 

Renewable Energy 

EPA is committed to buying green power whenever 

possible and can play an important role in assisting the 

Federal Government to accelerate the growth of 

renewable energy sources by requiring the purchase of 

green power for a percentage of its overall energy 

requirements. 

127
In FY 2000, Richmond, California, purchased 100 

percent green power, and Golden, Colorado, purchased 

17 percent green power. Combined, these facilities 

purchased 2.2 megawatt hours of renewable energy. 

This represented 1.6 percent of EPA’s total electricity 

purchases. 

Based on the success of the Richmond pilot and further 

exploration of green power purchasing opportunities 

nationwide, EPA announced its goal of converting all 

EPA laboratories to 100 percent green power over a 10-

year time-frame. 

Recent green power procurement efforts at other EPA 

laboratories include: 

! Golden, Colorado – In October 2000, the Golden 

facility began purchasing 100 percent of its energy 

from wind power; 

! Manchester, Washington—The Manchester lab’s 

green power purchase is unique because 

Washington has not deregulated its utility supply 

industry. This means that the lab is required to 

purchase electricity from Puget Sound Energy, 

which currently supplies only a small amount of 

renewable power generated from hydroelectric 

dams. Based on current market prices, the lab 

determined that purchasing green power from 

Puget Sound Energy would cost approximately 2.2 

cents more per kilowatt hour, representing an 

additional $50,000 annually. EPA decided to 

provide that amount of money to the Bonneville 

Environmental Foundation in the form of a 10-year 

grant to build a wind turbine. The turbine will 

produce approximately 2.1 million kilowatt hours 

of electricity annually – enough energy to power 

the Manchester lab and to produce additional 

power to the regional electric grid; and 

! Chelmsford, Massachusetts—EPA issued a 100 

percent green power Request for Proposals to 

power EPA’s New England Regional Laboratory, 

currently under construction. EPA accepted a bid 

to supply the laboratory with energy derived totally 

from wind. EPA worked with GSA to contract for 

the green power purchase, and EPA’s Region 1 

office will fund the incremental cost. 

By the end of FY 2000, EPA’s wet laboratory in 

Manchester, Washington, one of the facility’s multiple 

laboratory buildings, should become the first 

commercial, solar-powered “net metering” project in 

the Northwest. Under net metering, any excess 

electricity produced by the lab’s 28 new solar panels 

will flow directly into the local utility power grid, 

spinning the electricity meter backwards and offsetting 

the lab’s energy costs. The new solar panels are 

installed and fully operational, generating 

approximately 2 kilowatts of electricity. 

Million Solar Roofs 

As part of the Million Solar Roofs program, EPA has 

installed solar panels at its laboratories in Golden, 

Colorado; Athens (Environmental Service Division), 

Georgia; Manchester, Washington; and Edison, New 

Jersey. This represents 26 percent of the facilities the 

Agency manages. In addition, EPA has funded solar 

panels in facilities it occupies but does not manage, 

including its Waterside Mall facility in Washington, 

DC, and the Region 5 headquarters building inChicago, 

Illinois. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2000, EPA used 187.3 million gallons of water. 

EPA expects water consumption to decrease in its 

facilities as ESPC improvements begin to take effect. 

During the past 5 years, EPA has required its facilities 

to monitor and report water consumption and costs and 

energy consumption data on a quarterly basis. Since 

1994, EPA has required the use of water conserving 

equipment in all newly leased and built facilities. 

Assessments of water efficiency opportunities are part 

of EPA’s facility site visit program and have led to 

operational and management measures that have 

reduced water consumption. Following are brief 

highlights of the water conservation efforts at EPA’s 

facilities. 

! Ada, Oklahoma – As part of the recently awarded 

ESPC, EPA expects water consumption at the Ada 

facility to decrease by 80 percent when the upgrade 

is completed; 

! Ann Arbor, Michigan – As a result of the 

improvements made under the ESPC, EPA expects 

the Ann Arbor facility’s water consumption to 

decrease by 80 percent; 

! Houston, Texas – The facility incorporated a 

cooling tower condensate return system to reduce 

water consumption and operating costs and 

enhance environmental conditions. Without this 

system, large volumes of water would have to be 

supplied by the local water utility; 

! Manchester, Washington – The lab replaced its 4-

inch PVC water lines with 6-inch ductile iron water 

lines. The bigger, stronger lines reduce the 

frequency of leaks and the lab’s overall water 

consumption rate. The lab also replaced a 20-yearold water cooling tower with a new, more efficient 

tower, which reduced the water volume needed to 

run the cooling system. These upgrades have 

128
dropped the facility’s average water bill from $596 

to $203 per month, and reduced water consumption 

66 percent, from 204,000 to 70,000 gallons per 

month; and 

! Research Triangle Park, North Carolina – EPA 

incorporated water-efficient fixtures throughout the 

facility, including flow-restricting nozzles, 

automated shutoff, and hot and cold water delivery 

systems with automatic temperature controls. The 

lavatories have sensor-operated metered faucets 

that regulate the amount of water flow, which will 

save water and the energy needed to heat it. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

When designing, constructing, and maintaining its 

facilities, EPA uses natural resources conservatively 

and seeks to incorporate innovative technologies that 

are cost-effective and environmentally sound 

throughout their life cycles. 

EPA is expanding the time frame it uses to examine 

life-cycle cost (LCC) savings - investigating project 

savings over a 15- or 20-year time frame. Some 

renewable technologies have payback periods of 15 to 

20 years, and in Fort Meade, for example, the payback 

period for the solid oxide fuel cell is approximately 25 

years. EPA considers the reasonable life of these 

products and the potential for decreased energy 

consumption, as well as the cost of product, when 

making investment decisions about which projects to 

pursue. 

Facility Energy Audits 

EPA’s facilities are regularly audited for energy and 

water efficiency. Facilities participate either through a 

contracted audit process, or as part of the ESPC 

evaluation process. Since 1995, 63 percent of all EPAowned facilities have been audited. 

Financing Mechanisms 

EPA is pursuing ESPCs to finance the initial cost of 

comprehensive energy upgrades. In FY 2000, EPA 

awarded one ESPC at its laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, 

worth more than $4 million for facility upgrades. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

EPA actively promotes the purchase of energy-efficient 

products that carry the ENERGY STAR® label. The 

Agency reviews and updates its purchasing 

specifications regularly. 

EPA encourages its employees to become involved and 

responsible participants in the Agency’s energy 

management activities. The Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing program helps train Government purchase

card users on buying energy-efficient and sustainable

products. The Agency also distributes product guides

that explain in greater detail the environmental

attributes of available products, such as light bulbs,

light fixtures, and air conditioning equipment.

Credit card purchasing guidelines on EPA’s

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program’s Web

site provide easy access for credit card holders to

ensure their purchases comply with environmental laws

and EPA policies. The guidelines identify specific

environmental attributes to look for when selecting

products, including the ENERGY STAR® label or other

energy-efficiency designations.

Several EPA newsletters promote the use of energyefficient products and provide resources to EPA

purchasers, including the Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing (EPP) Program’s EPP Update and the

Office of Administration and Resources Management’s

Greening EPA. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

Currently, the ENERGY STAR® Buildings program does

not encompass energy-intensive facilities such as

laboratories, therefore EPA cannot designate its 19

laboratory facilities as ENERGY STAR® buildings. The

Agency is working with GSA, however, to achieve the

ENERGY STAR® Buildings label in its leased office

facilities. Three EPA office buildings, either owned or

leased by GSA, have been awarded the ENERGY STAR®

label. 

Sustainable Building Design 

EPA incorporates sustainable design principles into the 

siting, design, and construction of new facilities, as well 

as the renovation and maintenance of existing facilities. 

The Agency developed a Green Buildings Vision and 

Policy Statement which serves as a guide for a holistic, 

systems approach to building design. 

Several EPA facilities are applying the green building 

principles outlined in the policy statement. In Fort 

Meade, Maryland, the new Environmental Science 

Center features many green building technologies, 

including energy-saving lighting, use of natural light, an 

environmentally-sound climate control system, a 

variable air volume system, direct digital controls, 

environmentally preferable building materials, natural 

landscaping, and water conservation. The facility is also 

pursuing certification of its environmental management 

system under the international ISO 14001 standard. 

129
The new Region 7 Headquarters in Kansas City, 

Kansas, is a “green” office building incorporating 

significant environmental features. EPA leases the 

building and worked with GSA and the building 

developer to increase the building’s environmental 

performance. Environmental components at the new 

office building include energy-efficient and passive 

solar design (using natural light, motion sensors, T-8 

fluorescent bulbs, low-E windows), an advanced water 

management system, erosion control, landscaping and 

use of indigenous plants, recycled materials, and indoor 

air quality. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

EPA does not own most of the buildings it uses. They 

are leased by the Agency directly from the building 

owners or are owned by GSA. As part of its mission to 

protect and improve the environment, however, EPA 

decided to exert some control over the energy and water 

management of its office buildings and recently began 

requiring “green riders” as part of its leases for newly 

constructed leased buildings. The green rider, which 

includes environmentally preferable criteria such as 

energy and water efficiency measures, is an amendment 

to the Agency’s solicitation for offers for constructing 

or retrofitting EPA facilities. EPA used green riders for 

its new Region 3, Region 7, and Region 10 office 

buildings and the Region 7 and Region 1 laboratories 

currently under construction. When potential 

contractors submit bids to build a new facility for 

EPA’s use, they are required to address the green rider 

as part of the proposal process. 

Off-Grid Generation 

To promote environmentally-sensitive energy 

generation, EPA facilities are using renewable energy 

technologies to supplement or replace a large portion of 

their energy requirements. In all ESPCs, EPA requires 

the installation of renewable technologies as part of the 

overall upgrade. The following facilities incorporate 

renewable energy technologies: 

! Ada, Oklahoma – The Ada, Oklahoma, laboratory, 

is installing a geothermal heat pump as part of an 

ESPC upgrade. 

! Ann Arbor, Michigan – A 200 kilowatt natural gas 

fuel cell is being installed as part of an ESPC 

upgrade. The fuel cell will generate 200 kilowatts 

of power and will provide heating water for the 

reheat water loop serving the air handling units. By 

integrating the heating and cooling plant, EPA will 

recover significant amounts of energy. 

! Athens, Georgia – The facility installed a solar 

water heater at the onsite day-care center. 

! Edison, New Jersey – The facility installed three 

solar energy water-heating systems that are now the 

primary source of hot water in their respective 

facility areas. 

! Fort Meade, Maryland – EPA is working with the 

DOE, Siemens-Westinghouse Power Corporation, 

and Cinergy Corporation to demonstrate the 

world’s first megawatt-class solid oxide fuel cell 

(SOFC) power generation system. Never before 

has a fuel cell been built of this size, scale, or 

capacity. The hybrid power system will 

demonstrate the highest electrical efficiency (60 

percent) and lowest emissions of any power plant 

fueled by natural gas. SOFC technology has the 

potential to virtually eliminate nitrous oxide and 

sulfur oxide emissions and drastically reduce 

greenhouse gases. 

! Gulf Breeze – Florida. The laboratory installed a 

photovoltaic system to generate onsite electricity to 

light two of the facility’s four piers. 

! Manchester, Washington – EPA’s wet laboratory 

in Manchester, Washington, may become the first 

commercial solar powered “net metering” project 

in the Northwest. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Philip Wirdzek 

Facilities Management and Services Division 

Mail Stop 3204 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: 202-260-2094 

Fax: 202-401-8971 

130
N. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

Management and Administration 

The Assistant Commissioner for Business Performance 

is designated as the General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) Senior Official responsible for meeting the goals 

and requirements of Executive Order 13123. The 

Official is supported by a team of appropriate 

personnel to expedite and encourage the agency’s use 

of strategies identified in the Executive Order. 

Recognition 

GSA annually participates in the Federal Energy and 

Water Management Awards program, and received six 

awards at the October 2000 program. Internally, GSA 

honors each of the DOE award recipients with a 

ceremony and monetary award. 

Energy reduction and utility cost reduction goals are 

tracked as part of GSA’s performance evaluation to the 

President. Senior management and regional senior 

management executives have energy performance 

included as part of their performance evaluation. In 

each region, Regional Energy Coordinators’ 

performance evaluations and position descriptions 

include a full range of energy efficiency, water 

conservation, and renewable project measures in their 

descriptions. 

Training 

Training workshops held by GSA or in collaboration 

with other organizations in FY 2000 include the 

following: 

! “United Nations Workshop on Energy Efficiency 

and Global Competitiveness and deregulation” in 

New York, New York, with 500 attendees; 

! Energy Centers of Expertise Workshop in Kansas 

City, Missouri, with 35 attendees; 

! “Utilities Workshop” in Annapolis, Maryland, with 

100 attendees; 

! “Energy 2000” in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with 

1125 attendees; and 

! “Energy Workshop” with 75 attendees 

GSA routinely trains its own personnel in all aspects of 

energy and water management and conservation. GSA 

also includes project managers responsible for 

renovation and new construction projects in many 

energy management training activities. 

Showcase Facilities 

In FY 2000, GSA designated two facilities as Showcase 

Facilities. The Denver Federal Court House is crowned 

by a series of glazing-integrated photovoltaic modules 

incorporated into the top horizontal roof louver of the 

tower. Estimated total energy production from the 

system is approximately 25,000 kilowatt-hours per year, 

or about 2 percent of the building’s total annual electric 

consumption. 

The building also incorporated sustainable design 

principles into selections of building materials, making 

use of local materials, steel frames with recycled 

content, and flooring materials made from recycled or 

native sources. The building’s design includes lowimpact landscaping to minimize water use, reduce the 

“urban heat island” effect, and provide an attractive 

outdoor space. Low-flow lavatory faucets and water 

closets will also be used throughout to minimize water 

use. All interior finish materials were carefully selected 

on the basis of their impact on the environment and 

occupants. 

The building will consume 43 percent less energy than 

a building designed according to DOE standards for 

energy efficiency. Because the courthouse has been 

designated a “demonstration project” by GSA, it will be 

used to influence future courthouse design projects. 

As a result of energy-efficient mechanical systems, 

water conservation and the application of renewable 

energy technologies, the 615,000 square foot facility 

will save $300,000 in energy costs per year, in 

comparison to other facilities of this type. A projected 

50 percent cost savings in utility consumption will be 

achieved through attainment ofthe U.S. Green Building 

Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design gold rating. 

The second Showcase building is the Seattle Federal 

Courthouse, with construction scheduled for completion 

in 2002. The facility will serve as an opportunity to 

educate hundreds of visitors per day about sustainable 

building practices. The design of the courthouse 

includes a minimized building footprint, allowing for an 

open courtyard that contains plants requiring little 

water. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, GSA reported a 20.2 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

GSA received credit for purchases of 3.8 billion Btu of 

renewable electricity. Thislowered the energy intensity 

131
of its standard buildings from 66,813 Btu/GSF to 

66,791 Btu/GSF. 

The 1985 baseline for this category of standard 

buildings was modified due to the moving of 

appropriate energy intensive facilities to their own 

category. These facilities were selected in accordance 

with DOE’s guidance issued on December 8, 1999. 

In FY 2000, GSA invested $16.5 million of Energy 

Program appropriations in its standard facilities. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

GSA energy usage in FY 2000 was 287,476 Btu/GSF 

compared to 432,313 Btu/GSF in FY1990. This 

represents a decrease of 33.5 percent compared with the 

1990 base year. The agency achieved this reduction by 

directly investing in energy and water conservation 

opportunities with paybacks of 10 years or less. 

In FY 2000, GSA invested $496,000 of Energy 

Program appropriations in its industrial and laboratory 

facilities, largely for two projects that are part of GSA’s 

energy intensive inventory. GSA has reduced it’s 

consumption in these facilities by 31 percent over the 

FY 1990 baseline, exceeding the goals mandated for 

this category of facility for FY 2005. 

! Region 6 entered into a Utility financed project 

with Kansas City Power and Light at the Federal 

Building in Kansas City, Missouri, for energy 

efficiency measures that are anticipated to save the 

Government 18,800 MBtu annually. This facility is 

classified as an energy intensive facility. 

! Region 10 entered into a Super ESPC with Johnson 

Controls at the FDA Building in Bothell, 

Washington for $577,000. The energy 

conservation measuresimplemented in this project 

are projected to save 9,700 MBtu annually. This 

facility is classified as an energy intensive facility. 

Exempt Facilities 

GSA excluded buildings include those entering or 

leaving the inventory in a given year, buildings 

undergoing renovations, and outside parking garages. 

Renewable Energy 

GSA considers opportunities for solar and other 

renewable energy in building design and retrofits. 

When GSA performs an energy audit of a facility, 

renewable opportunities are identified and implemented 

if they are LCC effective. 

GSA completed three solar projects at facilities across 

the country: 

! In Boston, Massachusetts, at the J.W. Williams CG 

building, GSA installed a 28 kilowatt building 

integrated photovoltaic roof system; 

! In Suitland, Maryland, GSA installed a 100 

kilowatt photovoltaic array at the Suitland FB; and 

! In Auburn, Washington, GSA installed at 2 

kilowatt photovoltaic project at the GSA daycare 

center in the Regional Office. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

In FY 2000, GSA purchased a total of 1,113 megawatthours of electricity from renewables through 

competitive power contracts. 

The New England Region of GSA signed an electric 

generation contract with ENRON Energy Services in 

FY 1998. As part of this contract, the GSA will be 

purchasing 10 percent of its power consumption in the 

State of Massachusetts from a renewable source (4,800 

megawatt-hours). The delivery of the green power 

began in FY 2000. The GSA intends to follow up this 

term with a follow-on term for green power purchase. 

The eight other Federal agencies under the ENRON 

contract will also be using the green power pricing 

negotiated by GSA to procure Green power for their 

facilities. 

In February 2000, the mid-Atlantic Region of GSA 

signed a 12 month agreement with The Energy 

Cooperative of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to purchase 

green power for six accounts, for approximately 2.7 

million kilowatt-hours annually. 

GSA contracted on behalf of the EPA for a 100 percent 

renewable power purchase at their new lab in 

Chelmsford, Massachusetts. The total estimated annual 

contract load for this procurement is 1.9 megawatthours. 

GSA attempts to include the option for renewable 

purchases in all competitive procurements issued and 

exercises the option when possible. 

Million Solar Roofs 

GSA is a participating agency in the Million Solar 

Roofs initiative. GSA developed a plan to install 60 

solar roof projects as defined by DOE under this 

initiative by the year 2010. 

In FY 2000, four qualifying roofs were installed. In 

addition, the GSA Energy Center of Expertise is 

132
funding a photovoltaic project in Washington with FY 

2001 funding. 

Petroleum 

GSA has encouraged the reduction in the use of 

petroleum-based fuel. From the 1975 former base year 

to the 1985 present base year, GSA reduced oil use 

from approximately 18.5 million gallons in Federallyowned buildings to about 7.6 million gallons in 1985 in 

both owned and leased buildings. From 1985 to 2000, 

GSA petroleum-based fuel use in buildings dropped by 

93.5 percent, from 7.6 million gallons to 491.4 gallons. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

GSA used LCC analysis as one ofthe primary factors in 

determining which energy projects to fund in FY 2000. 

GSA conducted two training classes in LCC analysis 

during FY 2000. GSA staff also attend Federal Energy 

Management Program LCC analysis-training classes. 

GSA strives to make LCC analysis a part of the 

selection process for the majority of the agency’s 

construction projects. In addition to being a criteria for 

disbursement of dedicated energy conservation funds, 

other construction projects such as chiller replacements 

utilized this tool in the selection of equipment prior to 

issuance of the construction bid documents to ensure 

that the most life-cycle cost effective equipment would 

be installed. 

Energy Audits 

GSA has a 10-year audit plan in place in which 

approximately 10 percent of all space is audited in any 

given year. The plan is updated each year. 

GSA performs energy and water surveys in accordance 

with its 10 year audit plan. The conservation measures 

that have been identified are developed into energy 

conservation project proposals using LCC 

methodology. Asfunding permits, projects are selected 

for approval and implementation. GSA had planned to 

invest $50 million per year from 1994 through 2000 in 

order to meet the 20 and 30 percent reduction goals. 

The actual appropriations, after rescissions, have 

averaged $16.8 million over 6 years. Other programs, 

such as GSA’s annual Repair and Alterations Program, 

as well as the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Chiller 

Replacement Program, also invest in energy efficient 

facilities and equipment. However, the sum of these 

investments may not be sufficient for GSA to meet the 

energy reduction goals. 

Financing Mechanisms 

During FY 2000, $878,000 in rebates was deposited 

into GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund from demand side 

management programs from energy projects. All of this 

money was distributed to regional programs to fund 

energy retrofits or energy audits. 

GSA requested $20 million in energy funding and 

received $17 million for FY 2000. GSA distributed the 

funds to the Regions for approved energy and water 

conservation projects. These projects were selected 

based on Savings to Investment Ratios, a payback 

analysis, as well as projects which assisted GSA in 

achieving some of the strategic goals. Many were direct 

result of energy audits that were performed at the 

various facilities. 

A goal was set of doubling the number of financed 

projects in FY 2000 compared to FY 1999. GSA is 

proud to report this goal was accomplished. In 1999, 

GSA awarded a total of 4 alternatively financed 

projects, 1 ESPC and 3 UESC projects. In FY 2000, 

GSA awarded 9 financed projects, 6 ESPCs and 3 

utility financed projects. 

GSA used alternatively financed contracting to 

implement a large number of energy retrofits. The 

ECOE developed a guide, “Procuring Energy 

Management Services with the Utility Area-wide 

Contract” to assist Regions in using these vehicles to 

finance energy conservation projects through utilities. 

Additionally, every Region sent employees to the Super 

ESPC Workshops that were offered by DOE to train 

everyone on the team responsible for the execution of 

these projects. 

The annual savings anticipated from GSA’s ESPCs and 

utility contracts currently in place are 223,248 MBtu 

and $4,792,000. 

In FY 2000, GSA used area wide utility contracts and 

basic ordering agreements to obtain utility financing of 

energy projects as follows: 

! Region 2, is currently working on 6 energy 

management projects. The estimated combined 

value of these 6 projects is $5.3 million; 

! Region 4 has 5 Utility Financed projects that are 

currently in repayment status. Total project value 

in the region is $2.7 million; 

! Region 6 has one UtilityFinanced project currently 

in repayment status. This project value was $2.6 

million; 

! Region 7 is currently working on a Utility 

Financed project for the Federal Building in 

133
Houston, Texas. The value is estimated at $3 

million; and 

! Region 11 awarded 3 Utility Financed projects in 

FY 2000. One contract for the National Courts 

Building is for $1.8 million, a 2nd project for FAA 

buildings is for $3.6 million and the 3rd is at the 

Suitland Federal Building 2 and is valued at $1.4 

million. This region is also in the final stages of a 

large Utility Financed project at the Smithsonian 

Institution in Washington, D.C., whose value will 

be close to $50 million. 

GSA currently has 13 utility financed projects in place 

and is pursuing 8 additional projects. Three of the 

utility financed projects were paid off during FY2000. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy Efficient Products 

GSA supports the procurement of energy efficient 

products through a number of activities. GSA provides 

product supply schedules that promote energy efficient 

and environmentally preferable products and to 

mandate the purchase of ENERGY STAR® computers and 

office equipment. GSA is a signatory to and an active 

participant in the “Procurement Challenge”, an 

interagency program through FEMP designed to 

identify the most energy efficient products and to 

increase the purchase of these projects. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

GSA has conducted a mass evaluation of all Category 

A, standard facilities using ENERGY STAR® software 

and forwarded the results to the regions for data 

correction and certification asidentified in the FY 2000 

Implementation Plan. As of September 2000, GSA has 

earned the ENERGY STAR® Building Label for 70 of its 

own facilities and 1 of GSA’s leased facilities. The total 

square footage for the facilities is 17.4 million GSF. 

Sustainable Building Design 

In FY 2000, GSA conducted Sustainable Design 

workshops in all 11 regions. The training was attended 

by employees directly involved in the energy program, 

project managers, building management specialists, and 

engineers. 

As identified in the GSA FY 2000 implementation plan, 

GSA has incorporated sustainable design criteria into 

all guide specifications, facilities standards, and other 

construction requirements for new construction and 

renovation efforts. 

Off-Grid Generation 

GSA has continued to investigate the potential for offgrid generation technologies whenever an energy audit 

or study is conducted at a facility. In FY 2000, the 

ECOE funded a geothermal heat pump project in 

Missouri. GSA also installed four solar photovoltaic 

projects in FY 2000, totaling 140 kilowatt-hours of 

electricity generated. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

The GSA 2000 Implementation Plan included 

incorporating lease provisions that encourage energy 

and water efficiency and sustainable design. In FY 

1999, GSA issued an acquisition letter to all leasing 

activities – the first installment of leasing energy and 

environmental business practices and solicitation for 

offers language for implementation of Executive Order 

13123. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2000, GSA finalized a Water Management Guide 

which is posted on the GSA Energy Center of 

Expertise’s website for use by any Federal agency. This 

guide provides comprehensive guidance on how to meet 

the requirements of Executive Order 13123. 

GSA conducts audits on approximately 10 percent of its 

facilities each year. The scope of these audits always 

includes water conservation measures. GSA also 

includes water conservation savings when investigating 

the feasibility of Energy Service Performance Contract 

and Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC) projects. 

In FY 2000, GSA funded numerous whole building 

retrofits for a variety of facilities across the nation. 

Many of these projects included a detailed energy audit 

that investigates water conservation as well as energy 

conservation. If shown to be LCC-effective, 

conservation projects such as restroom retrofits, 

cooling tower technologies, condensate reuse, and 

irrigation measures continue to be implemented in GSA 

facilities. 

GSA’s water consumption for FY 2000 is estimated to 

be 4 million gallons. This represents consumption for 

all of GSA’s owned facility inventory. The cost of this 

consumption was $16 million , which includes sewage 

costs as well. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Mark Ewing

Director, Energy Center of Expertise

General Services Administration

1500 East Bannister Road

Kansas City, MO 64131-3088

Phone: 816-823-2691

Fax: 816-823-2696

134
O. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Management and Administration 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) Administrator has designated the Associate 

Administrator for Management Systems as the senior 

NASA official responsible for meeting the goals and 

requirements of Executive Order 13123. 

The Energy Efficiency Board (EEB) was established to 

meet the requirement for an Agency Energy Team. The 

EEB provides an agency-level forum to guide the 

planning and implementation of energy efficiency 

activities, including energy and water conservation, 

greenhouse gases reduction, and use of renewable 

energy sources. 

NASA employed the following management initiatives

and tools to promote effective energy and water

management:

! A comprehensive NASA directive was drafted with

assistance from the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL). This directive provides 

agency wide procedures and guidelines for meeting 

the requirements and goals of Executive Order 

13123, using alternative financing, and evaluating 

renewable energy and water conservation 

opportunities. 

! Program Operating Plan guidance was issued to 

NASA Centers and Component Facilities for 

including energy efficiency funds in their FY 2002 

budget requests. 

! Energy and Water Management Functional 

Reviews were conducted at Glenn Research Center 

(GRC), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Goldstone Deep 

Space Communications Complex, Michoud 

Assembly Facility (MAF), and Wallops Flight 

Facility. 

! The NASA Environmental Tracking System 

(NETS) energy reporting module was enhanced to 

include Executive Order 13123 requirements and 

new Federal Energy Management Program /Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) annual 

reporting guidance. A feature was also added to 

NETS to automatically generate Btu/GSF charts 

for each reporting site to track building energy 

reduction progress. 

Recognition 

NASA actively participates in the DOE Federal Energy 

and Water Management Awards program. In addition, 

most NASA Centers and Component Facilities 

recognize employee contributions to energy and water 

savings by utilizing established employee suggestion 

programs, issuing monetary awards based on savings 

achieved, and recognizing employee contributions in 

internal news publications. The following specific 

activities were also pursued: 

! NASA submitted four award nominations in FY 

2000 and received two awards. 

! NASA has named 16 Energy Champions since the 

FEMP program began in FY 1998; 

! The Ames Research Center (ARC) administers a 

Pollution Prevention Award which takes energy 

savings measures into account; and 

! The KSC Joint Base Operations Support 

Contractor established the Energy Achievement 

Goals for Life and Environment (EAGLE) Award 

program, and in FY 2000 recognized employee 

contributions to energy and water efficiency and 

environmental improvement. 

Performance Evaluations 

Most NASA Centers and Component Facilities have 

included, or are including, the successful 

implementation of energy management conservation 

requirements in performance evaluations and positions 

descriptions for all those involved in energy 

management activities. This also includes the Center 

Maintenance and Base Operations Support contractors. 

Training 

NASA completed the following activities to ensure that 

all appropriate personnel receive training for energy 

and water management requirements: 

! An Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation 

course was developed to give energy and facilities 

management professionals the knowledge and 

skills required to successfully implement energy 

efficiency and water conservation projects; 

! NASA Headquarters hosted the NASA 2000 

Environmental Conference at ARC in March 2000. 

The Conference was attended by 150 energy, 

environmental, and facilities professionals from 

across the Agency. The Conference included an 

energy efficiency track including sessions on 

ESPCs and Utility Energy Services Contracts 

(UESC), sustainable design, continuous 

commissioning, renewable energy, water 

conservation, and green power; 

! KSC carried training broadcasts on the Center’s 

closed circuit TV system. 

! Fifty NASA employees and contractors received 

energy and water management training through 

FEMP courses, industry conferences, and 

135
commercial or academic classes. 

Showcase Facilities 

NASA did not designate any new Showcase Facilities 

in FY 2000. NASA currently has one Showcase 

Facility, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) 

Project Engineering Facility, Building 4203. This 

facility features many state-of-the-art energy efficiency 

and environmental quality measures such as tinted 

windows, a variable air volume HVAC system, nonchloroflurocarbon (CFC) chillers, an automated energy 

management system with direct digital controls, selfilluminating exit signs, and a radon venting system. The 

building is heated with steam from the Army’s 

Redstone Arsenal steam distribution system, which is 

connected to the city’s solid waste-to-steam plant. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, NASA reported a 20.5 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

NASA completed a major effort to realign its facility 

designations and historical energy consumption 

baselines to comply with the definitions and goals 

established by Executive Order 13123 for the three new 

categories of Federal buildings and facilities. 

This agency-wide facility realignment brings NASA 

into compliance with the facility definitions of 

Executive Order 13123 and dramatically reduces the 

number of facility exemptions claimed by the agency. 

In FY 1999, 15.5 million gross square feet (GSF), or 39 

percent of NASA’s total facility square footage, was 

designated as exempt. For FY 2000, only 4.9 million 

GSF, or 12 percent of NASA facility square footage is 

designated as exempt. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

NASA has elected to use Btu/GSF as the agency wide 

aggregate performance measure for these facilities. 

Other performance measures are utilized for individual 

industrial facilities, space flight tracking stations, and 

clean rooms. The average energy intensity for NASA’s 

standard buildings was 256,613 Btu/GSF by the end of 

FY 2000, as compared to the FY 1990 baseline value of 

323,955 Btu/GSF. This represents a decrease of 20.8 

percent. 

NASA completed the following activities to improve 

the energy efficiency of its industrial and laboratory 

facilities: 

! JPL included an energy conservation performance 

incentive in a facility maintenance and operations 

services contract The incentive is based on 

achieving specific energy consumption targets for 

each of three consecutive years. The targets were 

set to reduce energy consumption below current 

consumption levels. The incentive structure 

includes a penalty provision if the specified targets 

for energy-intensive mission variable facilities are 

exceeded; 

! NASA continued its shared energy savings contract 

incentive arrangement with Lockheed Martin 

Michoud Space Systems(LMMSS), the contractor 

operator of the NASA MAF. This contract 

incentive arrangement, known as the Energy Cost 

Reduction Program (ECRP), was established in 

1988. Under this program, LMMSS’s prime 

contract with NASA was modified to include an 

energy conservation incentive clause. The program 

rewards LMMSS for exceptional performance in 

the management of energy usage at MAF by 

providing 8 to 14 percent of energy savings 

achieved as an additional award fee. The program 

includes provisions for sharing savings achieved 

through energy conservation projects proposed by 

LMMSS. The share of savings is determined by 

whether NASA or LMMSS funds the capital 

investment. Savings from the ECRP at MAF are 

used to reduce the overall cost of the Space Shuttle 

External Tank program. 

Exempt Facilities 

In FY 2000, only 4.9 million GSF, or 12 percent of 

NASA facility square footage is designated as exempt. 

These facilities are highly specialized and energy 

intensive, having been constructed for specific space 

flight and research programs. Examples are wind 

tunnels driven by multi-thousand horsepower electric 

motors, space simulation chambers, and space 

communication facilities. The facilities range from preWorld War II aeronautical test installations to new 

facilities that support the Space Shuttle and 

International Space Station programs. Energy 

consumption in these facilities varies directly with the 

level and intensity of program activities. 

NASA completed the following activities to improve 

the energy efficiency of its exempt facilities: 

! NASA adopted an internal goal to improve the 

energy efficiency of exempt facilities, where cost 

effective and without adversely affecting mission 

performance, by 10 percent by FY 2005 compared 

with FY 1985 levels. Wind tunnels are excluded 

from this goal; and 

136
! The Merritt Island Launch Annex installed a bustie breaker in the tracking station’s power plant 

reducing the need to operate two out of four 

engine/generator sets. This change in operating 

procedure saves diesel fuel, increases reliability, 

and reduces air emissions and maintenance costs. 

MAF selected billions of Btu per External Tank as its 

industrial energy metric. In the FY 1990 baseline year, 

MAF total energy consumption was 925.8 billion Btu at 

a production rate of 4.6 External Tanks per year, or 

201.3 billion Btu per External Tank. In FY 2000, MAF 

total energy consumption was 957.9 billion Btu at a 

production rate of 6.0 External Tanks per year, or 160.0 

billion Btu per External Tank. This represents a 20.5 

percent reduction in energy consumption per External 

Tank produced. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

NASA received recognition from the Secretary of 

Energy as a leader in improving air quality, 

strengthening the local economy, and enhancing public 

awareness of alternative fuels through its commitment 

to and participation in the Clean Cities Coalition. 

NASA also completed the following activities to reduce 

the use of gasoline and diesel fuels in vehicles: 

! Installed two inductive charging stations to provide 

on-site access for charging electric vehicles; and 

! Continued to operate compressed natural gas 

fueling stations at Glenn Research Center and 

KSC. 

Renewable Energy 

NASA completed the following activities to expand its 

use of on-site renewable energy resources: 

! Procured a small windmill to power a remote 

pumping station as part of an ESPC at Ames 

Research Center. The windmill will save $2,000 

annually; and 

! Continued operation of a major geothermal heat 

pump system for a test area at Stennis Space 

Center (SSC). This system has a total heating 

capacity of 7.1 million Btu per hour. 

Due to the significant cost premium of electricity 

generated from renewable energy, NASA has focused 

its efforts on forms of renewable energy that are costcompetitive with conventional energy sources. NASA 

completed the following activities to increase energy 

purchases from renewable sources: 

! Awarded a landfill methane supply contract at 

GSFC. This contract represents NASA’s largest 

renewable energy project to date. The project will 

replace approximately $1.5 million in natural gas 

purchases with landfill gas, an amount equal to 3.8 

percent of all NASA facility energy. The project 

has the same greenhouse gas reduction benefit as 

planting 68,000 acres of trees or removing 100,000 

cars from Maryland highways. The project will 

also reduce the Center’s annual energy costs by 

approximately $330,000 and enhance fuel supply 

reliability. In awarding this contract, NASA 

became the first Federal agency to sign a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program and the first to use 

landfill gas directly in boilers; and 

! Continued to purchase steam generated from 

municipal solid waste at the Langley Research 

Center (LaRC) and Marshall Space Flight Center. 

Million Solar Roofs 

NASA completed the following Million Solar Roofs 

project in FY 2000: 

! Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) in 

Edwards, California, installed an innovative hybrid 

solar energy and natural gas heating system used 

by NASA to house research aircraft. The new 

heating system uses a 2,500 square foot, transpired 

solar wall in combination with six modular highefficiency condensing boilers. The project reduces 

energy costs, improves indoor air quality and 

worker safety, and reduces air emissions. In 

accomplishing this project, NASA partnered with 

Edwards Air Force Base, who partially funded the 

project as a technology demonstration under its air 

permit elimination initiative, and with NREL, who 

provided project planning and design assistance. 

NASA will nominate this Million Solar Roofs 

project as a FY 2001 Federal Energy Saver 

Showcase Facility. 

Petroleum 

NASA continues to make significant progress in 

reducing the use of petroleum-based fuels in buildings 

and facilities. 

Petroleum, including fuel oil and liquefied petroleum 

gas, represents only 8.7 percent of NASA fuel 

consumption in fixed facilities and 3.0 percent of total 

fixed facility energy usage. 

Water Conservation 

NASA completed the following actions in FY 2000 to 

improve water efficiency: 

137
! Ames Research Center installed an automatic 

irrigation system to reduce the amount of water 

run-off. The $60,000 system is saving 30,000 

gallons of water annually; 

! Goddard Space Flight Center is installing 

automatic sensors on restroom faucets. The 

$412,000 project will save 4.9 million gallons of 

water annually. The Center also plans to drill two 

500 foot water wells through a UESC contract. The 

wells will supply 7 million gallons of make-up 

water to the Center’s cooling towers. The $1.2 

million project will reduce demand on the local 

water utility’s potable water supply and has a 

payback period of less than 4 years; 

! JPL continued the final phase of its program to 

install waterless urinals throughout the Center. In 

FY 2000, JPL invested $1,000 in this technology. 

This investment will be recovered in just over two 

years through reduced water usage and related 

maintenance savings; 

! KSC installed water conservation fixtures in 

bathrooms and in its exercise facility. The $18,000 

project is saving 1.3 million gallons of water 

annually; 

! LaRC initiated a survey of approximately 32 

laboratories to review the use of once-through 

cooling water to equipment; and 

! Michoud Assembly Facility initiated a pilot project 

to determine the feasibility of ozone treatment of 

cooling tower water. This technology has the 

potential for significant water and chemical 

treatment cost savings if implemented site-wide. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Life-cycle costing (LCC) is the primary tool for 

analyzing energy retrofit projects at NASA. Economic 

analyses are performed for all construction and 

revitalization projects in excess of $1.5 million. 

Energy Audits 

During FY 2000, NASA completed audits for 9.6 

percent of its total building square footage. Among 

these audits were DOE SAVEnergy Audits for seven 

buildings at DFRC totaling 420,000 GSF or 

approximately 47 percent of the Center’s total square 

footage. From FY 1991 through FY 2000, NASA 

completed energy audits for 75.7 percent of its total 

building square footage, including 74.4 percent of nonexempt square footage, and 77.1 percent of exempt and 

industrial square footage. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2000, NASA made continued progress in 

implementing ESPC and UESC contracts. Over the past 

2 years NASA has awarded 5 ESPC delivery orders and 

1 UESC at 4 locations (Glenn Research Center, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, 

and Kennedy Space Ceneter) resulting in $28 million in 

energy improvements in NASA facilities that are saving 

$3.2 million annually. The following additional 

accomplishments were achieved in FY 2000: 

! NASA Headquarters issued a letter to all NASA 

Center Directors encouraging continued use of 

ESPC and UESC as important tools for reducing 

energy use and cost in facilities and operations. 

The letter included ESPC implementation 

guidelines based on lessons learned and was widely 

distributed. 

! ARC in Moffett Field, California, issued an ESPC 

Delivery Order to Johnson Controls under the 

DOE Western Region Super ESPC on August 21, 

2000,. The Delivery Order value was $5.1 million 

over its 19-year term. The Delivery Order provides 

for multiple projects involving energy efficient 

lighting systems, an automated building energy 

management and control system, and a small windpowered water pumping system. The initial 

contractor capital investment is approximately $2.1 

million and annual savings of $258,000 are 

anticipated. The work will be performed in 21 

buildings, the majority of which are non-research 

facilities. One added benefit of the project is the 

removal of hundreds of polychlorinated (PCB) 

lighting ballasts still in service in these old 

buildings. 

! GSFC issued its third ESPC delivery order under 

its own multiple award indefinite delivery, 

indefinite quantity ESPCs with two energy service 

companies. This $272,000 delivery order will 

install T-8 lamps, electronic ballasts, and will also 

install motion detectors in offices, hallways, and 

restrooms. Annual savings of $56,000 are 

anticipated. 

! KSC participated in the Air Force 45th Space 

Wing’s ESPC with Noresco, Inc. The value of 

NASA’s share of the ESPC is $3,390,000 over its 

13 year term. Annual savings of $253,000 are 

anticipated. 

! The JPL in Pasadena, California, issued an ESPC 

Request for Proposals involving nine of JPL’smost 

energy-intensive laboratories and research facilities 

on October 5, 2000. JPL is a Federally-Funded 

Research and Development Center operated for 

NASA by Caltech. Because Caltech pays utility 

costs directly and is subsequently reimbursed by 

NASA under the prime contract, it would be 

administratively complex for JPL to use the DOE 

138
Western Region Super ESPC vehicle. JPL will 

develop and award its own ESPC using the DOE 

contract format. 

! Mississippi Power completed walk through audits 

of all NASA and tenant facilities at SSC and 

submitted a Preliminary Analysis Report to NASA. 

SSC established a cross-functional team of 

financial, legal, procurement, and facilities 

engineering, operations and maintenance personnel 

to evaluate Mississippi Power’s Report. The team 

is developing an Indefinite Quantity-Indefinite 

Delivery ordering mechanism under the existing 

GSA Area-wide utility contract that will allow the 

Center to order energy-efficiency services as 

specific lighting, metering, HVAC, and renewable 

energy projects are identified. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy Efficient Products 

In FY 2000, NASA Centers and Component Facilities 

continued to install high efficiency electrical products 

such as variable frequency drive systems for fans and 

pumps, high efficiency fluorescent lamps, electronic 

ballasts, compact fluorescent bulbs as replacements for 

incandescent bulbs, light emitting diode and other low 

power consumption exit lights, and occupancy sensors. 

NASA took the following actions in FY 2000 to 

purchase ENERGY STAR® and other energy-efficient 

products: 

! NASA Headquarters initiated a study to develop a 

NASA-wide consensus standard for Energy 

Monitoring and Control System (EMCS) device 

and system communications and a recommend a 

migration path to the new EMCS open protocol 

standards. 

! DFRC installed a hybrid solar/modular gas-fired 

boiler heating system in a hangar. The new heating 

system uses a 2,500 square foot transpired solar 

wall in combination with six modular highefficiency condensing boilers. The project reduces 

energy costs, improves indoor air quality, and 

reduces air emissions. 

! JPL replaced T-12 lamps and ballasts with T-8 

lamps and electronic ballasts in several buildings. 

The $108,000 investment will payback in just over 

4 years. 

! KSC completed one phase of a lighting retrofit 

project for the Launch Control Complex. The 

project will install T-8 lamps, electronic ballasts, 

and occupancy sensors. The $400,000 project will 

payback in under 6 years. 

! Marshall Space Flight Center installed new 

stairway lighting fixtures incorporating occupancy 

sensors. The fixtures cost $95,000 installed and 

will save $12,000 in energy costs annually. 

! White Sands Test Facility installed low loss 

transformers at the Water Treatment Building. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

NASA analyzed 64 facilities at 9 locations using the 

EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Building Label benchmarking 

tool. Two buildings qualified for and will receive the 

ENERGY STAR® Label; the Child Development Center 

at KSC and the Chief, Naval Meteorology and 

OceanographyAdministration Facility at Stennis Space 

Center. Guidance was also provided to Centers for 

conducting future ENERGY STAR® Label for Buildings 

analyses using the benchmarking tool. Recommended 

ESPC and UESC language was also developed to 

require pre- and post-retrofit ENERGY STAR® analyses 

of projects involving significant energy improvements 

in NASA office buildings. 

Sustainable Building Design 

NASA Headquarters is sponsoring a study to develop 

an integrated strategy for sustainable design, building 

commissioning, and design for maintainability. In the 

course of the study, NASA benchmarked with Federal 

agencies, the U.S. Green Building Council, the 

Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, state 

governments, industry, and academia. NASA’s final 

policy will draw heavily on guidance and criteria from 

the Whole Building Design Guide, the Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard, 

and the Federal Facilities Council’s Guide To 

Integrating Value Engineering, Life Cycle Costing, And 

Sustainable Development. 

Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvements 

NASA completed a number of projects in FY 2000 to 

improve the energy efficiency of standard and energyintensive industrial facilities. Specific projects include: 

! ARC installed new electrical metering as part of 

the ESPC preliminary investigation at a cost of 

$7,000; 

! Glenn Research Center completed projects to 

replace HVAC units, install modern energy 

controls, rehabilitate lighting systems, and replace 

obsolete laboratory fume hood controls in several 

buildings; 

! GSFC replaced HVAC units and controls in 

various buildings with more energy efficient units. 

Variable frequency drives were also installed on 

large motors. The Center also completed $700,000 

in repairs to building roofs and roof insulation. The 

repairs will save $41,000 in energy costs annually; 

! JPL replaced an obsolete fire-tube boiler in the 

Center Cafeteria with a high-efficiency water-tube 

boiler. JPL also completed installation and 

139
calibration of electric and gas meters and gas leak 

repairs at its Pasadena campus; 

! KSC completed the replacement of the HVAC 

system in a training facility with a state of the art 

system using chilled water from a central plant, a 

CO2 demand ventilation control, “Tri-Coil” heat 

transfer coils for free pre-cooling and reheating, 

and direct digital controls. The $303,000 project 

eliminates use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 12 

refrigerant, demonstrates new technologies, and 

will reduce energy costs by $31,000 annually. The 

Center also completed HVAC system renovations 

for an area of the Headquarters Building. The 

project resulted in reduced exhaust and make-up 

air flow by installing new air handling units, 

ambient light sensors and dimmers in rooms with 

windows, and direct digital controls with 

occupancy sensors to adjust outside air 

requirements. The Center consolidated space 

within existing buildings to relocate personnel 

from office trailers and modular buildings. This 

action is saving $22,000 in energy costs; 

! LaRC initiated various maintenance augmentation 

tasks including roofing and HVAC replacement 

projects at a cost of $1.02 million dollars. These 

projects will save $205,000 annually. The Center 

also initiated a project to improve substation 

metering used to collect data on power parameters 

and energy supplied to Langley Air Force Base. 

The project will provide greater accuracy in billing 

the Air Force for electrical energy; and 

! MSFC installed an ultrasonic steam meter in the 

cross-country line from the Army’s Redstone 

Arsenal. The meter station will allow the Center to 

verify actual steam usage and support analysis to 

potentially switch to lower cost energy sources. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

NASA completed the following actions in FY 2000 to 

develop new construction and retrofit projects for 

advanced cooling, heating, and power systems: 

! NASA awarded a landfill methane supply contract 

at GSFC; and 

! KSC and Florida Power & Light Company 

completed a jointly-funded thermal energy storage 

system evaluation for the Industrial Area. 

Off-Grid Generation 

NASA completed the following actions in FY 2000 to 

install new energy off-grid alternatives: 

! KSC received funding to demonstrate a new 

technology or a solar desiccant dehumidification 

systemfor a photographic film storage facility with 

strict environmental control parameters. The 

system will use 640 square feet of solar 

concentrating collectors to heat water to 185 

degrees F. to regenerate a silica desiccant 

dehumidification wheel. Waste heat rejected to the 

atmosphere will be recovered to enhance system 

efficiency. The $85,000 project will be jointly 

funded by the DOE Million Solar Roofs program, 

NASA, and the Florida Solar Energy Center; and 

! MAF installed two solar powered warning lights at 

pedestrian crosswalks at a cost of $5,000. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Richard Wickman 

Environmental Management Division (JE) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

300 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Phone: 202-358-1113 

Fax: 202-358-2861 

140
P. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Management and Administration 

The Assistant Archivist for Administrative Services 

serves as NARA’s Senior Energy Official. 

Recognition 

In concert with the overall Agency award plan, 

employees are granted awards for implementing 

actions associated with Executive Order 13123. 

Performance Evaluations 

All agency personnel directly connected with the 

implementation of Executive Order 13123 have their 

position descriptions and performance evaluations 

annotated accordingly. 

Training 

Members of the agency energy team will seek

additional training in FY 2001 and develop an outreach

program to Federal purchase card holders to promote

ENERGY STAR® and/or energy efficient products.

All NARA employees are to be trained in energy

conservation procedures in FY 2001. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

NARA owns and operates 13 separate facilities, all 

dedicated to the preservation, storage, display, and use 

of historical documents and artifacts. Documents and 

artifacts must be maintained in a controlled 

environment 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. All 

NARA facilities are excluded from the energy reduction 

requirements of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act (NECPA), because of stringent requirements 

for records storage which are very energy intensive and 

preclude major changes in operational parameters to 

conserve energy. These facilities are designated as 

energy intensive (non-industrial) for the purpose of this 

act. 

NARA initiated the development of an agency Energy 

Plan in 1996 in concert with the agency’s Strategic 

Planning Process. The plan included conducting energy 

surveys of existing facilities which continue in 

conjunction with the building assessments and 

evaluations. NARA has an agency-wide policy to 

operate buildings as efficiently as possible with the 

intent to meet the energy reduction goals established in 

Executive Order 13123 and still maintain the 

environmental conditions required for preservation and 

safe storage of the nation’s archival documents. The 

Archives II building (approximately 50 percent of 

NARA’s total square footage of building space) did not 

become fully occupied and operational until 1996 and 

precludes the establishment of a meaningful energy 

consumption figure for 1990. NARA’s yearly energy 

usage figures from FY 2000 vs FY 1997 show an 8 

percent reduction in electricity usage and a 20 percent 

reduction in natural gas usage, which reflects 

implementation of NARA’s Energy Plan. 

Implementation Strategies 

Financing Mechanisms 

NARA is pursuing the option of using Super Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts for pending work at the 

Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Reagan libraries. 

Facility Energy Audits 

At least two Presidential Libraries will be audited 

in FY 2001, and recommendations will be incorporated 

into the agency overall renovation strategy. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy-Efficient Products 

All equipment and products specified in the Archives I

renovation are ENERGY STAR® or energy efficient

products. All new computer hardware purchased by the

agency must have an ENERGY STAR® designation. In FY

2001, renovation plans for the Archives I building

include energy efficient equipment.

In FY 2000, NARA integrated energy conservation

methods into building renovations. Light-fixture tubes

and ballasts were replaced with energy efficient models

in the Archives I building, and elevators were renovated

and upgraded using high efficiency equipment. The

Archives II building implemented peak demand limiting

operation of the Stack AHU’s. Energy efficient

equipment was installed during renovations of the

Presidential libraries. This included the installation of

a new ATC system at the Jimmy Carter library,

replacement of boilers and AHU’s at the Truman

library, and the installation of an energy efficient aircooled chiller at the Ford library.

ENERGY STAR® Buildings

The stringent requirements for records storage prevents

NARA from designating any facilities as ENERGY

STAR® buildings. All NARA buildings, however,

continue to implement the agency’s Energy Plan to

reduce energy consumption.

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Gary Simmons

General Engineer, Facilities Management Branch

National Archives and Records Administration

8601 Adelphi Road

College Park, MD 20740-6001

Phone: 301-713-6470 x251

141
Q. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

Management and Administration 

The Deputy Executive Director for Management 

Services serves as the Senior Energy Official. 

An agency energy team was established in FY 2000 

consisting of procurement, legal, budget, management, 

and technical representatives. 

Recognition 

The Agency’s award program is used to reward 

exceptional performance in implementing Executive 

Order 13123. 

Performance Evaluations 

Performance plans and evaluations for the Senior 

Energy Official take into account programmatic 

responsibility for implementation of Executive Order 

13123. Position descriptions and performance 

evaluations for the Facilities/Energy Managers 

incorporate appropriate provisions for implementation 

of the Executive Order. 

Training 

In FY 2000, members of the energy team attended the 

Department of Energy’s Interagency Energy 

Management Task Force meetings and training on 

Super Energy Savings Performance Contracts. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

Two White Flint North’s (TWFN) gross square footage 

has remained constant at 440,400 since base year FY 

1996, the first year of full occupancy. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2001, NRC will consider installing water saving 

toilets, as recommended in DOE’s Water Management 

Plans and Best Management Practices. 

Implementation Strategies 

Energy Audits 

In FY 2000, two preliminary energy audits were 

conducted at One White Flint North (OWFN) and 

TWFN. This represents 100 percent of the NRC 

facilities’ inventory requiring energy audits. 

The energy audit at TWFN identified the following 

energy conservation measures to be undertaken: 

! Variable frequency drives on cooling towers; 

! Power improvement devices on motors; 

! Lighting upgrades; 

! Occupancy sensors; and 

! Water saving toilets. 

NRC FY 2001 strategy is to perform a preliminary and 

comprehensive energy audit of OWFN, perform a 

comprehensive energy audit of TWFN, and implement 

self-funding projects. 

Financing Mechanisms 

NRC has pursued alternative financing mechanisms for 

funding renovation projects. In FY 2000, NRC entered 

into an Interagency Agreement and Memorandum of 

Understanding with DOE to facilitate the award of a 

Super Energy Savings Performance Contract. A 

preliminary energy audit at OWFN was conducted to 

identify energy conservation methods. TWFN, a leased 

building, was excluded from the preliminary audit. 

Several system upgrades were identified as potential 

financible projects. Further financial analysis of the 

projects, however, led to the determination that the 

projects were not cost-effective Similar self-funded 

renovation proposals have also proven to be infeasible. 

NRC is expecting to have in place a Utility Energy 

Services Contract (UESC) in FY 2001. PEPCO Energy 

Services will implement energy conservation measures 

at the OWFN and TWFN buildings. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

All specifications for renovation projects performed by 

NRC are developed to ensure that energy efficient 

equipment and systems are incorporated into the 

renovation design. Additionally, the building operation 

and maintenance contract specifications for OWFN and 

TWFN have been updated to ensure that all building 

support replacement products and components are 

energy efficient. The NRC’s Affirmative Procurement 

Program for Recovered Materials provides Internet 

links to on-line training for Federal purchase card users 

on ENERGY STAR® acquisitions and other energy 

efficient products. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

GSA serves as the leasing agent for all NRC facilities. 

However, prior to the execution of new leases, 

renegotiations, or extension of existing leases, NRC 

will request the opportunity to reviewall proposed lease 

documents to ensure that they are in compliance with 

the Model Lease Provision of the Executive Order. 

142
Off-Grid Generation Energy Management Contact

Off-grid generation systems such as solar hot water, Mr. Ken McDow

solar electric, small wind turbines, and fuel cells were Division of Facilities and Security

evaluated during a preliminary energy audit and Office of Administration

considered economically infeasible. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Phone: 301-415-1712 

143
R. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)

Management and Administration 

The Director, Office of Contracting and Administrative 

Services, is the Senior Agency Official for the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 

The energy team at OPM has responsibility for strategic 

oversight of OPM’s energy conservation plan and the 

planning and implementation of projects included in 

OPM’s energy conservation program. 

Recognition 

OPM granted cash awards throughout FY 2000 to 

acknowledge work on behalf of the agency’s energy 

conservation program. 

Performance Evaluations 

In FY 2000, OPM management considered energy 

program participation in determining performance 

ratings for members of the agency’s energy team. 

Training 

OPM sent two of its energy team members to the 

Department of Energy-sponsored “Energy 2000 

Conference” in FY 2000. Employee awareness is 

encouraged by OPM’s contracting staff, which issued 

periodic instructions in FY 2000 encouraging OPM 

procurement officials to take advantage of ENERGY 

STAR® products wherever practicable. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

OPM has assumed delegated authority over the 

Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building (TRB) from the 

General Services Administration. TRB’s consumption 

data for FY 1985 was unavailable, thus OPM’s base 

year consumption is based on estimates. The data shows 

that OPM’s energy use has increased by more than a 

third from FY 1985 to FY 2000. 

OPM’s level of energy consumption has been affected 

by the following factors: the extended hours of 

operations since 1985 by permitting more flexible 

working hours; some agency operations are now 

conducted on weekends as well as during the regular 

workweek; operation of a large computer facility that 

runs 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; increased building 

population; and widespread distribution of workstation 

technology including personal computers and printers. 

OPM invested almost $121,000 to accomplish energy 

conservation projects in FY 2000. Among the projects 

undertaken by OPM to reduce energy use included: 

retrofitting of all light fixtures with energy efficient 

bulbs and ballasts, and replacing the air conditioning 

chiller plant with energy efficient equipment. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

In FY 2000, OPM increased the number of alternate 

fuel vehicles in its fleet, while substantially reducing the 

overall size of the fleet. 

Water Conservation 

OPM has made progress in this area by installing watersaving flush valves, automatic flush valves, and by 

installing a new water treatment system. OPM has an 

employee awareness water conservation program in 

place for FY 2001. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

In FY 2000, OPM conducted an LCC analysis to 

determine the feasibility and payback on the investment 

in the air conditioning chiller plant replacement, and the 

expected energy savings from the complete lighting 

retrofit of the TRB. OPM continues to use LCC 

analysis when examining potential renovation projects. 

Facility Energy Audits 

Local utility companies performed audits on OPM’s 

delegated facilities in Macon, Georgia, and 

Charlottesville, Virginia. These audits accounted for 12 

percent of OPM’s total delegated square footage. As a 

result, 100 percent of OPM’s delegated square footage 

has now been audited. 

Financing Mechanisms 

OPM included $1.5 million in its FY 2002 budget 

request to achieve the goals of Executive Order 13123. 

In FY 2000, OPM entered into a $2 million Utility 

Energy Service Contract with its Washington, D.C., 

utility provider. This contract led to the retrofitting of 

all of the lights in the TRB with new energy efficient 

fluorescent tubes and ballasts. The contract was 

amended and enlarged to include the air conditioning 

chiller plant replacement, begun in FY 2000 and 

continued in FY 2001. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

OPM’s facilities management program staff require that 

contractors install the highest efficiency motors in all 

equipment replaced in the TRB. 

144
Highly Efficient Systems Energy Management Contact

OPM has integrated highly efficient systems into most Mr. Ronald Peacock

of its renovation projects, including the water system, Chief Building Operations Branch

air conditioning, and lighting upgrades at the TRB and U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Macon facility. Theodore Roosevelt Building

1900 E Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20415-9110 

Phone: 202-606-5255 

145
S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

Management and Administration 

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) senior 

energy official is the Deputy Commissioner for Finance, 

Assessment and Management (DCFAM). The 

DCFAM’s responsibilities are to ensure agency 

compliance with the goals and requirements of 

Executive Order 13123. 

The members of the agency’s energy team identify and 

implement strategies and approaches to achieve the 

goals of Executive Order 13123 and to facilitate and 

encourage agency usage of appropriations, Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts, and other financing 

mechanisms necessary in the execution of approved 

energy efficient activities. 

Recognition 

SSA recognizes employees whose job descriptions 

require energy management skills and whose overall 

performance or individual acts are exceptional. SSA 

presents an award at the annual Building Managers 

Conference. SSA annually submits energy savings 

projects to the Federal Energy Management Program 

for recognition. SSA recognizes individual 

contributions to energy savings through suggestion and 

cash award programs. In FY 2000, two SSA 

headquarters energy managers’ efforts were recognized 

by receiving cash awards for ongoing efforts to 

encourage and enforce energy management within the 

agency. SSA also received an “Eagle Award” from the 

Advanced Transformer Company for “Excellence in 

using energy efficient technologies in projects in the 

SSA’s Headquarters buildings”. The energymanager at 

the Mid-Atlantic Program Service Center (MATPSC) 

received an Energy Champion award for FY 2000 for 

initiating and completing a lighting project that has 

helped SSA reduce energy costs for the Center by 15 

percent over the last 10 years. 

Performance Evaluations 

SSA has incorporated energy evaluation and analysis 

responsibilities into senior facilities/energy managers’ 

positions. SSA has included energy conservation duties 

into many of the agency’s energy team position 

descriptions and in each building/energy manager 

specialist position nationwide. 

Training 

Building managers and staff have attended a variety of 

training classes and conferences: Life cycle cost (LCC) 

analysis, alternative fuels, lighting, and controls and 

demand side management practices. SSA staff attend 

General Services Administration (GSA) regional 

conferences to become familiar with current strategies 

in GSA’s program to reduce energy consumption. SSA 

participated in a DOE interactive training program to 

ensure the presence of a trained energy manager in each 

of the delegated facilities. SSA provides additional 

training designed to help energy managers track energy 

usage and cost. Energy managers also attend FEMP, 

DOE, and GSA workshops, meetings, and conferences. 

SSA employees are educated on the need and benefits 

of energy conservation through an awareness program 

via email, newsletters, and the agency magazine. In FY 

2000, an educational program for Headquarters 

employees and their children was held in conjunction 

with “Take Our Children to Work Day” and “Earth 

Day”. SSA participated in the celebration of the 30th 

Anniversary of Earth Day on the National Mall in 

Washington, D.C., with an exhibit focused on 

promoting energy conservation and recycling awareness 

accomplishments. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

SSA became an independent agency in FY 1996 -

which serves as the base year for the agency. SSA is 

committed to reducing energy usage and cost in 

accordance with the Energy Policy Act, Executive 

Order 12902 and Executive Order 13123. While SSA’s 

energy initiatives have produced significant energy 

consumption and cost efficiencies, overall energy 

consumption has increased 9.4 percent since the FY 

1996 base year. Substantive changes in the way SSA 

does business have affected the use of facilities and 

related energy costs, including significantly increasing 

automation at SSA, expanding hours of operation, and 

consolidating employees into Government-owned 

space. 

SSA is evaluating a number of options to reduce energy 

consumption and cost, yet still maintain the ability to 

provide world class service to the public 7 days a week, 

24 hours a day. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

The National Computer Center (NCC) is designated as 

an energy intensive building because it contains the 

main database and query server for all of SSA’s 

increasingly automated offices nationwide. The 

mainframe computers operate virtually 24 hours a day, 

365 days a year. 

146
Renewable Energy 

SSA has analyzed a variety of solar and renewable 

energy technologies for its headquarters buildings. 

Natural day lighting appears to be the most viable 

renewable energy source for implementation. The use 

of solar technologies (solar hot water and solar lighting) 

is under evaluation for use in the Richmond, California, 

and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, facilities. 

Solar lighting was installed at the NCC as a 

demonstration project, however it did not provide 

adequate lighting. SSA explored installing day lighting 

in some of the warehouse space, but it was not 

economically feasible when compared with energy 

efficient lighting technologies. SSA is incorporating 

natural day lighting into renovations when possible. 

SSA purchases competitive power in four facilities 

located in states that have deregulated markets. 

Approximately three percent, or 1,371.8 megawatthours of SSA’s competitive power purchases under 

contract are from renewable sources. 

Petroleum 

SSA has taken several steps to reduce the need for 

petroleum products. At the Security West leased facility 

in Baltimore, Maryland, the existing boiler was 

converted from oil to natural gas. At the NCC and the 

Mid Atlantic Program Service Center (MATPSC), new 

boilers that operate on dual fuel (natural gas and oil) 

were installed. In FY 2000, SSA used approximately 

24,300 gallons of fuel oil. This is 59 percent less than 

used in the base year. This reduction is a direct result of 

converting to dual fuel for boilers. 

Water Conservation 

Numerous conversions of existing fixtures to energy 

efficient low flow aerators and water closets have been 

completed, and this technology is used in all major 

building renovations. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

SSA has included LCC analysis in each of its energy 

audits, resulting conservation projects, and prospectus 

projects. SSA has replaced old central chiller plants 

with energy efficient chillers in its delegated buildings. 

Installing new central plants has allowed SSA to 

include energy efficient equipment and reduce 

dramatically the stock of old refrigerant. 

In FY 2000, a central plant in the headquarters 

complex was converted to ice-generating 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-compliant chillers. Another 

project to convert the chiller plant in the Metro West 

facility in Baltimore to District Chilled Water was also 

started. SSA will save approximately 2,250,000 

kilowatt-hours of electricity when this project is 

complete. 

SSA has initiated and completed energy audits in all of 

its Government-owned delegated buildings. In FY 

2000, SSA initiated several of these projects in the 

Headquarters Complex in Baltimore and the Great 

Lakes Program Service Center (GLPSC) in Chicago. 

When completed, these projects should provide annual 

savings of approximately 15 million kilowatt hours. The 

fossil fuel required to produce this amount of electricity 

would have discharged 14,452 lbs. of carbon dioxide, 

54,947 lbs. of sulfur dioxide, and 43,602 lbs. of 

nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. 

Energy Audits 

SSA conducted comprehensive energy audits of its 

entire inventory of Federally-owned delegated space. 

These audits identified projects that will meet the 

criteria for implementation as energy projects. The 

potential projects include retrofits to existing 

equipment, replacement of CFC chillers, and water 

conservation projects. 

Financing Mechanisms 

SSA has made extensive use of Utility Energy Service 

Contracts (UESC). SSA has not initiated any Energy 

Savings Performance Contracts because many of the 

ideal candidate projects either have been accomplished 

or will be through prospectus work, UESCs and utility 

Area-Wide Contracts. In FY 2000, 2 projects – in 

Baltimore and Chicago – were completed via AreaWide contracts. 

In FY 2000, SSA budgeted $1 million for energy 

projects, which included selected lighting retrofits, 

lighting controls, dimmable ballasts, and VSD air 

handlers in the headquarters complex and the GLPSC. 

SSA also replaced the cooling towers at the MATPSC. 

ENERGY STAR® and Other Energy Efficient Products 

SSA purchases energy efficient and ENERGY STAR® 

products for its buildings. 

Energy efficient specifications are incorporated into 

construction criteria for prospectus level projects as 

well. 

Language has been incorporated in SSA contracts to 

purchase energy efficient computers, motors, 

equipment, building systems, etc. SSA is enhancing 

147
training for employees and micro-purchasers to assure 

they are purchasing energy efficient products. 

Sustainable Building Design 

In conjunction with GSA, SSA is renovating the 

Headquarters complex. Sustainable building design 

principles are used to the fullest extent possible. The 

renovations, while not exclusively energy projects, will 

significantly affect SSA’s energy baseline by installing: 

! Energy efficient central heating and air 

conditioning plants; 

! Energy efficient windows and doors; 

! New central computer-based energy management 

systems; 

! Natural daylighting; and 

! Efficient lighting and lighting controls. 

The Child Care Facility at SSA’s headquarters will also 

incorporate sustainable design features. 

The Annex building at SSA headquarters is undergoing 

renovations and energy conserving and demand 

management features have been included in the design. 

One of the project’s primary sustainable design features 

is an ice storage air conditioning system. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

SSA works with GSA to identify the most energy 

efficient buildings for leased field offices. 

Off-Grid Generation 

SSA is working in conjunction with GSA to install solar 

water heating systems in the delegated facility in 

Philadelphia and to implement renewable technologies 

in the Richmond, California facility. 

SSA is also producing off-grid power at NCC. During 

peak electrical demand periods, the facility receives 

monthly utility bill credits, which provide a continuing 

savings in demand charges for the agency. Installation 

of the service was accomplished through the local 

utility and a UESC. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Bette Hoffman

Office of Realty Management

Social Security Administration

1-B-25 Operations Building

6401 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21235

Phone: 410-966-5016

Fax: 410-966-0668

Email: bette.hoffman@ssa.gov

148
T. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (RRB) 

Management and Administration 

The Director of Supply and Service is the designated 

senior energy official and is responsible for 

administering the RRB’s energy program to insure all 

aspects of RRB’s energy conservation plan are 

effectively implemented. 

Bureau Heads, Managers, and Supervisors are 

responsible for ensuring that established energy 

conservation procedures are consistently followed by 

the personnel they supervise. This includes ensuring 

that appropriate efforts are made to conserve energy in 

their work areas. This includes, but is not limited to, the 

reduction of unnecessary lighting, abiding by 

established air temperatures, and the judicious use of 

motor vehicles for official business. 

Training 

Personnel responsible for energy management receive 

the additional training that is provided by the General 

Services Administration (GSA) for energy management. 

Performance Evaluations 

Presently the senior energy official and the facility 

energy manager have performance standards that 

require the successful implementation of provisions of 

Executive Order 13123. The compliance with these 

requirements directly affects their performance 

evaluations. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

The headquarters building in Chicago, Illinois is the 

only building over which the RRB has operational 

control. The RRB operates and maintains the building 

under a delegation of authority agreement established 

with the GSA. Regional and field locations for the RRB 

are in GSA-leased facilities and are reported under the 

GSA inventory of properties. 

Standard Buildings 

The reduction of almost 14.5 percent from FY 1999 to 

FY 2000 is mostly attributable to accurate energy data 

compiled after the completion of a multiyear 

construction renovation project implemented by the 

GSA. Due to construction modifications to the facility, 

accurate energy savings calculations in FY 1999 were 

difficult to quantify. 

Water Conservation 

The RRB consumed 87,000 gallons of water in FY 

2000 at an annual cost of $18,400. 

The RRB has taken great steps toward improving water 

conservation in its headquarters facility. In all the 

restrooms and lavatories 90 percent of all the sinks and 

100 percent of the urinals have automatic faucets and 

flush valves with reduced consumption type diagrams. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The agency utilizes LCC analysis techniques in the 

development of its energy strategy to determine which 

projects should be considered to meet its energy goals. 

Much of this analysis is done in conjunction with GSA 

However, even projects under $50,000 are only 

considered after careful cost analysis and determination 

of 10-year simple paybacks. RRB also utilizes a 

Building Life Cycle Cost Analysis Software Program 

(BLCC), provided by the Federal Energy Management 

Program. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

The RRB supports procurement of energy efficient 

products, and mandates the purchase of ENERGY STAR® 

computers and office equipment. RRB is a signatory to 

and an active participant in Planet GSA. With support 

from the Department of Energy and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, RRB, through GSA, wi11 

encourage the purchase and use of ENERGY STAR® 

products and other products that rank in the upper 25 

percent in terms of energy efficiency. These same 

energy efficient criteria have been incorporated into all 

RRB/GSA Guide specifications and product 

specifications for new construction and renovation 

projects, as well as all new product specification 

language. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Henry J. Valiulis

Director of Supply and Service

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Room 1230

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Phone: 312-751-4565

Fax: 312-751-4923

149
U. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) 

Management and Administration 

The designated senior energy official for the Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) is the Executive Vice President 

of Administration. 

TVA formed an Agency Energy Management 

Committee (AEMC) to facilitate compliance with 

Federal statutes, Executive Orders, Federal regulations, 

TVA energy and related environmental management 

objectives, and obligations under the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Green Lights Program (GL) 

and EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Buildings Program. This 

committee is comprised of representatives from each 

TVA organization responsible for energy management 

and associated environmental considerations in facility 

and general operations inside the agency. 

Recognition 

The AEMC had its annual employee awareness display 

on tour in October 2000. In conjunction with the tour, 

an energy-related article was published in TVA’s 

newspaper. 

Performance Evaluations 

To the extent employees are responsible for activities 

that are related to the objectives of Executive Order 

13123, their job descriptions contain reflective line 

items and their performance is evaluated in terms of the 

extent to which they accomplish such goals. 

Training 

TVA provides updates on current Federal requirements 

and regulations to employees, managers, and TVA 

customers when requested. Energy management and 

associated environmental training is provided to 

managers and employees as needed. Employee 

awareness activities are used to educate employees on 

how they affect energy and the environment through 

their daily activities at work and home. TVA also 

educates staff in both energy and environmental related 

topics through the TVA University. 

Showcase Facilities 

The TVA Chattanooga Office Complex (COC) is 

TVA’s designated Showcase Facility. The COC was 

completed in 1986 and covers approximately 1.2 

million square feet of floor area. It integrates the use of 

passive energy strategies, energy management practices, 

and environmental programs and activities. Occupants’ 

daily activities have been recognized as a major 

component in facility performance. Energy and 

environmental awareness programs have been 

established to inform the occupants of the impacts their 

actions have on this performance. The combination of 

original design elements, energy and environmental 

activities, and aggressive energy reduction operation 

and maintenance efforts have resulted in the COC 

becoming a model facility. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, TVA reported a 27.2 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

TVA received credit for purchases of 0.5 billion Btu of 

renewable electricity. Thislowered the energy intensity 

of its standard buildings from 60,046 Btu/GSF to 

59,995 Btu/GSF. 

Energy consumption in the COC is approximately 

50,000 Btu/GSF. This exceeds TVA’s target for facility 

design and the FY 2010 building energy reduction goal 

established in Executive Order 13123. Since initial 

construction, additional energy and environmental 

improvements have been implemented in the facility. 

One of these improvements was the design and 

installation of a chilled and hot water storage system for 

the COC and Monteagle Place (MP) buildings. This 

system uses three existing 19,000-gallon hot water 

storage tanks. These tanks can be tied into the MP 

chilled water system, the MP chiller heat recovery 

condensing water system, or the COC chilled water 

system. Savings attributed to chilled water storage is 

$40,000 per year, while cost avoidance due to hot water 

storage is $160,000 per year. The systemallowsthe two 

buildings, through a symbiotic relationship, to better 

use site energy and reduce the need for source energy. 

By shifting the peak demand by using the storage tanks 

for chilled water storage, operating costs during the 

cooling season are reduced. By storing hot water during 

the day and using it at night for heating, the use of 

electric boilers to heat the buildings during the heating 

season is virtually eliminated. By using the tanks to 

store chilled water and circulating it through the heat 

recovery bundle of the MP chillers, the MP cooling 

towers can be shut down for maintenance without 

having a building outage. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

TVA ended FY 2000 with a Btu/GSF of 65,960 which 

is a 21 percent reduction from FY 1990 and an 11 

percent reduction from FY 1999. 

TVA’s Hydro Power division considers energy 

efficiency and environmental impacts for each project 

150
and activity. TVA has cooperated with Voith Hydro, 

Inc., in establishing and operating Hydro Resource 

Solutions, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, 

which develops and markets energy efficiency 

enhancing hardware and software for the hydro power 

industry. During FY 2000 many energy management 

and related environmental projects were completed at 

TVA Hydro plants. Benefits from these projects include 

maintaining plant availability, reducing energy 

consumption, lowering maintenance costs, increasing 

overall efficiency, and environmental stewardship. 

Nuclear energy reduction projects in FY 2000 include: 

! Bellefonte – Demobilizing of support facilities to 

minimize energy usage. This was completed during 

FY 2000. Annual savings were 104 kilowatts 

thermal energy. 

! Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant – Control Bay Chiller 

Upgrade - Reduction of 0.23 megawatts thermal 

energy; and removed 12,000 square feet of space. 

This is a reduction of 0.35 megawatts thermal 

energy. 

! Sequoyah Nuclear Plant – Replaced 75 lighting 

ballasts with high efficient electronic ballasts in the 

Solar Building office and Power Stores Building; 

and removed additional temporary office trailers -

Reduction of 94 kilowatts thermal energy. 

! Watts Bar Nuclear Plant – Removed additional 

temporary office trailers. Reduction of 74 kilowatts 

thermal energy. 

Many energy management and related environmental 

projects were completed at TVA fossil plants during FY 

2000. Benefits from these projects include heat rate 

improvements, maintaining plant availability, reducing 

energy consumption, lowering maintenance costs, 

environmental stewardship, and increasing overall 

efficiency. 

Tactical Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

TVA encourages employees to use mass transit systems, 

vans for group travel, and car pools when available and 

feasible. The use of coordinated TVA and vendor 

delivery and pickup routing schedules, and just-in-time 

delivery was expanded throughout TVA. This 

coordinated effort avoids double handling, multiple 

trips to the same sites, and reduces deadheading. 

As a major supplier of electricity, TVA is particularly 

interested in supporting the use of electric vehicles 

(EVs). TVA has incorporated EVs into its fleet 

operations and supports power distributors and local 

communities with EV technology demonstrations. 

Renewable Energy 

TVA and twelve public power companies launched 

Green Power Switch on Earth Day, April 22, 2000. 

Green Power Switch, the first green power program of 

its kind offered in the Southeast, provides consumers 

with the opportunity to participate economically in 

TVA’s development of green power, particularly the 

power generated by three newly-installed wind turbines 

and a number of solar generating facilities. It is planned 

to expand this opportunity to include electricity 

generated by landfill gas. 

Under the program, residential, commercial, and 

industrial consumers sign up for green power blocks of 

150 kilowatt-hours each, which represent approximately 

12 percent of a typical home’s monthly energy use. The 

associated reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 

equivalent to the reduction produced by planting an 

acre of trees. 

Four solar generating facilities are presently operating 

in Tennessee. Seven other solar installations and a 

landfill gas generation site are scheduled to be 

completed in the Valley by the end of calendar year 

2000. One commercial scale wind power generation 

site, has also been completed as part of the initial pilot. 

The pilot project was turned over to the Customer 

Services and Marketing group in FY 2000 to become 

part of their program offering package. 

TVA is currently researching, testing, and 

demonstrating the use of green power technologies. 

Petroleum 

In FY 2000, TVA consumed 13,650 gallons of 

petroleum in building operations. This is a decrease of 

38 percent from the FY 1985 baseline of 21,920 

gallons. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2000, TVA consumed 378 million gallons of 

water with an estimated cost of $803,000. The AEMC 

is in the process of evaluating the best management 

practices for application to TVA facilities. Facilities 

were evaluated for water use during the summer and 

high use areas were noted. TVA has already 

implemented certain BMPs in some of its corporate 

facilities and in some of its public use areas. 

Implementation Strategies 

TVA has implemented many energy management 

measures through its operation and maintenance 

activities and building retrofits. Through TVA’s SWAP 

program, controls are placed on lighting and other 

151
energy consuming equipment, and inefficient lighting is 

replaced when these actions are determined to be 

life-cycle cost effective. This program is implemented 

through the operation and maintenance staff as part of 

its daily activities. TVA has also installed energy 

management control systems (EMCSs) in the majority 

of its corporate facility space and considers the use of 

EMCSs for all facilities when their use is life-cycle cost 

effective. 

As part of its operation and maintenance function, TVA 

has an emergency curtailment procedure which reduces 

energy use in its buildings during energy emergencies. 

This procedure was invoked during periods of peak 

energy use. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

TVA’s Energy Plan provides that life-cycle analyses 

will be used in making investment decisions regarding 

energy conservation measures. 

Energy Audits 

TVA has evaluated its building inventory for potential 

energy conservation measures. These facilities will be 

re-evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 13123 

and TVA’s Memorandum Of Understanding with the 

EPA. 

Financing Mechanisms 

Funding procedures for energy management and related 

environmental projects are reviewed through the IEMP 

and the AEMC. Recommendations and comments are 

submitted to the proper organizations. Projects for 

facilities are primarily funded through renovation, 

operation, maintenance, and modernization efforts. 

Projects covered under general operations are ranked 

for economic benefit compared to other TVA projects 

to determine funding availability and implementation 

status and are funded mainly through the capital 

budgeting process. 

Energy-Efficient Product Procurement 

TVA’s Energy Plan provides that TVA will purchase 

ENERGY STAR® and other energy efficient products 

whenever feasible. 

TVA established the Public Power Institute (PPI) in FY 

1999 to help fulfill its commitment to sustain and 

enhance the environment while continuing to provide 

low-cost, reliable electricity. The PPI’s primary purpose 

is to: 

! Enhance the role of Public Power; 

! Research new energy-related technologies and 

environmental sustainability; 

! Develop and implement strategic partnerships, 

including public and private entities; and 

! Examine emerging energy issues and public power 

policies facing a deregulated marketplace. 

The institute serves both as a research laboratory 

seeking new ways to achieve sustainable power 

production and as a public policy clearinghouse for 

energy and environmental issues. PPI represents the 

vision and ultimate mission of public power: to put the 

public good first and to emphasize long-term benefits 

over short-term gains. 

Headquartered on the TVA campus in Muscle Shoals, 

Alabama, the PPI employs a core staff to coordinate 

projects that further research, showcase innovations, 

and develop policy concerned with new energy-related 

technologies that benefit the public and have economic 

value. The staff draws on the capabilities and expertise 

available throughout TVA’s workforce. 

The PPI forms partnerships with other organizations to 

develop, demonstrate, and deploy technologies that can 

produce and deliver electric power in a more 

environmentally sensitive way. The partnerships 

leverage external expertise and promote cooperation 

between the public and private sectors. 

TVA continues its efforts to buy materials that have 

positive environmental qualities. Examples of 

environmental products purchased include soy ink, 

rechargeable batteries, low mercury lamps, and 

non-toxic supplies. TVA also purchases materials 

which meet sustainable architecture criteria. These are 

building materials which are non-toxic, have recycled 

content, and whose creation, use, and disposal do not 

damage the environment. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

TVA’s COC was recognized for its energy and related 

environmental performance by receiving an ENERGY 

STAR® Building Label from the EPA and DOE. 

Energy consumption in the COC was less than 50,000 

Btu/GSF. This exceeds both TVA’s target for facility 

design and the FY 2010 building energy reduction goal 

established in Executive Order 13123. This low energy 

consumption rate supports reducing the production of 

carbon dioxide, nitogen oxide, and other air pollutants 

at the source. 

152
Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

TVA has developed model lease provisions, based on 

those recommended by the General Services 

Administration, which require energy and water 

efficiency and will be incorporated into new and 

renewed leases as cost-effective. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Stephen L. Brothers

Internal Energy Management Program

Technical Services Section

Tennessee Valley Authority

Facilities and Realty Management

EE 2E-C, 1101 Market Street (EB3-C)

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

Phone: 423-751-7369

Fax: 423-751-6309

153
V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS) 

Management and Administration 

The Vice President of Engineering serves as the United 

States Postal Service’s (USPS) senior energy official. 

The official has overall responsibility for 

implementation of energy efficiency policies and 

practices within the agency. 

Each of the USPS eleven Area offices have designated 

energy coordinators to provide program direction and 

coordination, consistent with national program 

objectives, within their geographical areas of 

responsibility. The Areas are comprised of District 

offices. In each of the districts, there is an employee 

responsible for identifying and coordinating energy 

activities and projects. In all instances, these are “ad 

hoc” responsibilities. 

Recognition 

In FY 2000, the USPS submitted a total of 13 

nominations for the Federal Energy and Water 

Management Awards, and received three awards. One 

of the awards recognized the Office of the Controller, 

the first such award given by DOE. 

The USPS actively participates in the “You Have the 

Power” energy awareness campaign. During FY 2000, 

three “Energy Champions” were recognized. When 

appropriate, postal employees receive monetary awards 

for their energy accomplishments. These awards are 

given at the discretion of the supervisor on a case by 

case basis. In some instances, Vice President spot 

awards are awarded. The energy program uses the 

existing USPS award system and procedures in 

recognizing noteworthy employee contributions. 

Performance Evaluations 

Through the annual goal-setting and review process, 

appropriate managers are evaluated on specific actions 

related to the USPS energy program. Position 

descriptions include responsibilities and accountability 

for management of assigned functions, programs, and 

activities. Because of its impact on total operating 

expenses, energy program performance has a tie to the 

financial performance of the USPS. Financial 

performance, in turn, is one of the factors considered in 

evaluating the performance of senior management and 

managers throughout the organization. 

Training 

Postal Service employees receive ongoing training as 

part of the Corporate Voice of the Employee goal. 

Individual training, education planning, and 

implementation are decentralized to the facility and 

supervisor-subordinate level. Postal employees 

participate in the various educational and training 

opportunities presented by Federal Energy Management 

Program. 

Energy training is integrated with the training provided 

to employees charged with facility responsibilities. 

These in-house energy training programs are provided 

to postal employees at the USPS National Training 

Center. These courses emphasize the energy efficiency 

aspects of proper operation and maintenance of energy 

systems. 

During FY 2000, the USPS completed its final seminar 

on Shared Energy Savings (Alternative Financing). As 

a result, all eleven Areas and associated Purchasing 

Centers have now been trained. 

The Northeast Area conducted a seminar on energy 

efficiency lighting for their energy coordinators, 

maintenance and facility personnel. 

Energy Awareness 

The energy Showcase initiative has been integrated with 

the environmental “green building” program. Eighth 

Avenue Station, Ft Worth,Texas, was the first USPS 

“green building”. Since then, additional projects have 

been completed in places such as Corrales, New 

Mexico, and South Raleigh, North Carolina. The “green 

building” program is managed by the USPS facilities 

department and involves the use of sustainable design 

principles. It further incorporates the use of a “green 

addendum” that is periodically updated to reflect 

applicable, cost-effective emerging technologies. 

Energy Reduction Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2000, USPS reported a 13.5 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

USPS received credit for purchases of 34.1 billion Btu 

of renewable electricity. This lowered the energy 

intensity ofits standard buildings from 74,294 Btu/GSF 

to 74,194 Btu/GSF. 

Renewable Energy 

Facilities in Rancho Mirage, California, and Block 

Island, Rhode Island, have installed and are operating 

photovoltaic units. Geothermal heat pumps have been 

installed at postal facilities in the Southwest, New York 

Metro, and Mid-Atlantic areas. 

USPS has signed a contract in California under which 

154
it will secure 7.5 percent of its power from renewable 

sources. This electricity purchase is estimated at 10,000 

megawatt-hours in FY2000. 

In FY 2000, in partnership with the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, the Postal Service completed the 

design study of standard solar units for use on Postal 

Facilities in Hawaii. 

Water Conservation 

Total USPS water usage for FY 2000 is estimated at 

10,000 million gallons. The cost of water and sewage 

for FY 2000 was slightly less than $20 million. 

In FY 2000, the USPS published the Water Guide for 

Facility Managers and issued drafts of the Water 

Conservation Guide and Water Resources handbooks. 

They were placed on the USPS internal website for use 

by appropriate USPS personnel. The use of the 

handbooks will lead to improved water management. In 

FY 2000, the USPS also commenced a comprehensive 

pilot project at a Baltimore, Maryland, processing and 

distribution center facility to test various water 

conservation techniques. 

Implementation Strategies 

During FY 2000, a focused effort was initiated to 

develop a comprehensive ten-year energy program plan 

for the USPS. The major strategies of the plan currently 

include: Energy Surveys and Retrofits, Operations and 

Maintenance, New Construction (green building), 

Purchasing Utilities and Materials, Emerging 

Technologies, Management and Employee Awareness, 

Standardization and Benchmarking, Goals and Policy, 

Energy Crisis Management, and Financing Methods. 

These strategies integrate the requirements of EPACT, 

Executive Order 13123, and other external 

requirements with the business needs of the USPS. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Within the USPS, capital energy conservation projects 

are subjected to economic analysis. In FY 2000, 

Headquarters EMP approved funding for about $6 

million with an average return on investment exceeding 

35 percent. Projects were also funded at the Area and 

District levels. 

Financing Mechanisms 

Within USPS, one Energy Savings Performance 

Contract was begun in FY 2000 with a total contract 

value of $1.6 million. In addition, $6 million in internal 

funds were approved to finance retrofit projects. 

Facilities also use District and Area funds to implement 

energy projects. 

Energy-Efficient Products 

Whenever possible, efforts are made to assure that 

purchased equipment is ENERGY STAR® rated. The 

USPS environmental department has issued an 

“Environmental Products Directory” and it is 

envisioned that ENERGY STAR® will be integrated with 

this USPS document. 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings 

USPS is working with the EPA’s ENERGY STAR® 

Building to develop specific ENERGY STAR® criteria for 

postal facilities. During FY 2000, a beta test was 

conducted on the criteria using data collected from “Do 

It Yourself” energy surveys and financial performance 

data. When completed, this effort will provide an 

ENERGY STAR® building program addressing USPS 

buildings. 

Sustainable Building Design 

USPS has developed sustainable building designs and 

has also created a “green addendum” for the Medium 

Standard Building Design. These design principles are 

applied to all new construction projects. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

For leased facilities where USPS pays for the utilities, 

USPS energy policy and standards are applied. These 

facilities are included in the national energy program 

initiatives. In some instances, the USPS may retrofit the 

facility to bring it up to energy standards. In leased 

space where the owner pays the utility costs, the lease 

provisions are negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

As referenced under the sustainable design narrative, 

USPS facilities are continually improving their energy 

systems with newer and more energy efficient 

technologies. 

! The Corrales, New Mexico, “green” facility used 

straw bales, a sustainable renewable resource, as 

insulation. The R factor for the straw bale design is 

R-40 to 50, 2 to 3 times greater than conventional 

wall systems; 

! The South Raleigh Annex, North Carolina, facility 

includes the following energy efficiency 

improvements: light colored roofing to reflect 

heat, aluminum storefront incorporates a thermal 

break, exit lights are light-emitting diode type, 

natural lighting supplemented by dimmable energy 

efficient High Intensity Discharge pendent lighting, 

passive solar controls (overhangs and natural 

vegetation) to shade south and west exposure in 

summer, low-e glazing, occupancy sensorsin areas 

155
with intermittent use, increased R-value, high 

efficiency HVAC system; 

! The South Raleigh Annex facility also incorporates 

the following water efficiency improvements: 

xeriscaping carbon sinking, elimination of the 

irrigation system, and installed sensor operated 

faucets and flush valves. 

Off-Grid Generation 

The Anchorage Alaska Processing and Distribution 

Center is powered by fuel cells. Any power not 

consumed by the facility is fed back to the grid. Two 

solar projects are in operation at Rancho Mirage, 

California, and at Block Island, Rhode Island. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Paul Fennewald 

Environmental Programs Analyst 

Environmental Management Policy 

United States Postal Service 

Room 6830 

475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW 

Washington, DC 20260-2810 

Phone: 202-268-6014 

Fax: 202-268-6016 

156
APPENDIX A 


LIST OF AUTHORITIES


ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (Public Law 94-163), December 1975 

SECTION 381 - FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORGANIZATION ACT (Public Law 95-91), August 1977 

TITLE III - TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS 

NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY ACT (Public Law 95-619), 

November 1978 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1988 (Public Law 100-

615), November 1988 

ENERGY POLICY ACT (Public Law 102-486), October 1992 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12902, March 6, 1994 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123, June 3, 1999 

GREENING THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH EFFICIENT ENERGY MANAGEMENT 

OFPP POLICY LETTER NO. 76-1, August 6, 1976 

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY CONCERNING ENERGY POLICY AND 

CONSERVATION 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO OFPP POLICY LETTER 76-1, July 2, 1980 

OTHER FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION 

48 C.F.R. §§ 23.201-203 (1995) 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING PROGRAMS 

10 C.F.R., Part 436 (1996) 

FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATION 

41 C.F.R., Part 101-25 (1996) 

A-1 
This page intentionally left blank. 

A-2

APPENDIX B


DATA COLLECTION


Standard Buildings and Facilities, Energy Intensive Facilities, and Exempt Facilities 

The Federal agencies that own or control buildings are required to report the energy consumption 

in these buildings to FEMP 45 days after the end of each fiscal year. The General Services 

Administration (GSA) reports the energy of buildings it owns and operates, including usage by 

other Federal agency occupants. For buildings which have been delegated by GSA to other 

agencies, the individual agencies are responsible for reporting the energy consumption and 

square footage figures. 

The data shown in this report do not include leased space in buildings where the energy costs are 

a part of the rent and the Federal agency involved has no control over the building’s energy 

management. 

The Federal agencies submit their annual reports expressed in the following units: megawatt 

hours of electricity; thousands of gallons of fuel oil; thousands of cubic feet of natural gas; 

thousands of gallons of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and propane; short tons of coal; billions of 

Btu of purchased steam; and billions of Btu of “other.” DOE reviews this data for accuracy and 

confers with the submitting agency to clarify any apparent anomalies. The data are then entered 

into a computer database management program. 

The tables shown in this Annual Report are expressed in billions of Btu derived from the 

following conversion factors: 

Electricity - 3,412 Btu/kilowatt hour


Fuel Oil - 138,700 Btu/gallon


Natural Gas - 1,031 Btu/cubic foot


LPG/Propane - 95,500 Btu/gallon


Coal - 24,580,000 Btu/short ton


Purchased Steam - 1,000 Btu/pound


The above conversion factors for electricity and purchased steam refer to site-delivered energy 

(or heat content) and does not account for energy consumed in the production and delivery of 

energy products. Tables 1-A, 4-A, and 7-B of this report account for primary energy use, which 

is the sum of the energy directly consumed by end users (site energy) and the energy consumed in 

the production and delivery of energy products. According to the Energy Information 

Administration, in 1999, steam electric utility plants (the largest source of electricity generation) 

were estimated to have used 10,346 Btu of fossil fuel energy to generate 1 kilowatt-hour of 

electricity. DOE uses this conversion factor to calculate primary energy use for electricity and 

1,390 Btu per pound for purchased steam. 

In addition, the Federal agencies annually report to FEMP the gross square footage of their 

buildings and the cost of their buildings’ energy. 

B-1 
Vehicles and Equipment 

Federal agencies are required to report the energy consumption of their vehicles and equipment 

to FEMP within 45 days after the end of each fiscal year. 

The fuels used in vehicles and equipment are automotive gasoline, diesel and petroleum distillate 

fuels, aviation gasoline, jet fuel, navy special, liquefied petroleum gas/propane, and "other." All 

the fuels in this category with the exception of "other" are reported in thousands of gallons. 

"Other" is reported in billions of Btu. 

The conversion factors for these fuels are: 

Gasoline - 125,000 Btu/gallon 

Diesel-Distillate - 138,700 Btu/gallon 

Aviation Gasoline - 125,000 Btu/gallon 

Jet Fuel - 130,000 Btu/gallon 

Navy Special - 138,700 Btu/gallon 

LPG/Propane - 95,500 Btu/gallon 

This report excludes those agencies that have been unable to provide complete fiscal year 

consumption data prior to the publication date. All agency omissions, as well as any anomalies 

in the data, are indicated by footnotes on the tables or in the text of the report. 

B-2 
Calculation of Estimated Carbon Emissions 

In the past, DOE tracked and reported aggregate energy use for all Federal agencies and 

estimated carbon emissions using national fuel-specific emission factors. This approach, 

however, resulted in less accurate emission estimates for electricity use because carbon emission 

factors for electricity vary significantly by utility and State depending on the resource used to 

generate the electricity (e.g., coal, gas, nuclear, hydro). 

To obtain a greater level of accuracy in estimating emissions from electricity use, DOE 

developed a new approach that places little or no additional reporting burden on the agencies. 

Agencies continue to report their aggregated national-level electricity consumption data as they 

have in the past. DOE then takes that total consumption figure and apportions it across the States 

in which the agency has facility locations. DOE will then multiply the apportioned electricity 

usage by the appropriate regional-level carbon emission factor assigned to each State. Once 

emissions from electricity use are calculated, these will be added to the emissions estimated from 

the other fuels used by the agency to determine total carbon emissions. (National factors may be 

appropriately used for fuel oil, natural gas, LPG/propane, coal, and purchased steam.) 

DOE estimated State electricity usage by determining the percentage of facility floor area for the 

agency and apportioning the reported total electricity use according to that percentage. For the 

purposes of estimating changes in greenhouse gas emissions over time, DOE is assuming that 

floor area can be used as a reasonable proxy to represent the State-level usage pattern for 

electricity consumption for an agency. DOE uses historical square footage data for Governmentowned buildings from the General Services Administration’s Office of Governmentwide Policy, 

Office of Real Property to determine each agency’s percentage floor area for each State. 

DOE uses factors derived from data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for 

estimating carbon emissions from non-electric fuels on a nation-wide basis. The regional 

emissions factors for electricity were calculated by summing the annual EIA data on electricity 

sales and carbon emissions for each State in a given region. These sums were then used to 

calculate the regional emissions/kWh (which were then converted to MMTCE/Quad). This value 

will be used for each State in a particular region. 

Non-Electric Fuel National Coefficients


Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) per Site-Delivered Quad


(or Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE] per Site-Delivered Billion Btu)


1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Fu el O il 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 

Natural Gas 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 

LPG/Propane 16.99 16.98 16.99 16.97 17.01 17.00 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 

Coal 25.58 25.60 25.62 25.61 25.63 25.63 25.61 25.63 25.63 25.63 25.63 

Purchased Steam 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 35.63 

Source:	 EIA’s Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1998, Tables 11 and B1, DOE/EIA-0573(98), 

October 1999. The factor for purchased steam is derived from the coefficient for coal adding associated 

losses for generation and transportation (using a factor of 1.39 to convert site-delivered to primary energy). 

B-3 
Electricity Regional Coefficients


Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) per Site-Delivered Quad


(or Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE] per Site-Delivered Billion Btu)


1990 

AK 49.51 

AL, GA, MS, NC, 

SC, TN, VA 

43.28 

AR, KS, LA, MO, OK 57.92 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

49.51 49.51 49.51 44.66 44.66 44.66 44.66 51.92 84.07 84.07 

43.28 43.28 43.28 45.27 45.27 45.27 45.27 45.36 45.47 45.47 

57.92 57.92 57.92 57.74 57.74 57.74 57.74 62.22 63.39 63.39 

AZ, CO, NM 82.50 82.50 82.50 82.50 68.44 68.44 68.44 68.44 69.26 69.13 69.13 

CA 15.12 15.12 15.12 15.12 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42 12.81 17.02 17.02 

CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, 33.08 33.08 33.08 33.08 32.27 32.27 32.27 32.27 27.84 32.02 32.02 

VT 

DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA 47.39 47.39 47.39 47.39 43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36 46.14 46.24 46.24 

FL 46.61 46.61 46.61 46.61 44.34 44.34 44.34 44.34 47.05 45.38 45.38

HI 61.59 61.59 61.59 61.59 49.47 49.47 49.47 49.47 44.70 49.96 49.96 

IA, MN, NE, ND, SD 73.55 73.55 73.55 73.55 66.89 66.89 66.89 66.89 48.69 47.59 47.59 

ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, 41.83 41.83 41.83 41.83 40.12 40.12 40.12 40.12 44.26 39.80 39.80 

WA, WY 

44.50 44.50 44.50 44.50 51.37 51.37 51.37 51.37 49.90 49.76 49.76 

82.23 82.23 82.23 82.23 77.30 77.30 77.30 77.30 78.84 78.20 78.20 

40.59 40.59 40.59 40.59 25.95 25.95 25.95 25.95 28.63 26.69 26.69 

55.75 55.75 55.75 55.75 52.42 52.42 52.42 52.42 58.21 55.82 55.82 

IL, W I 

IN, KY, MI, OH, WV 

NY 

TX 

Note:	Regions match those defined in the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 

Electricity Market Module of the National Energy Modeling System. 1991 through 1993 

use the coefficients developed for 1990, 1994 through 1997 use the coefficients 

developed for 1997. Coefficients were developed for 1998 and 1999 with the year 2000 

using the coefficients developed for 1999. 

Sources: For 1990 generation: EIA, Electric Power Annual 1991 Volume II, Tables 26 and 73, DOE/EIA0348(98)/2, December 1991. (used 1990 data). 

For 1997 generation: EIA, Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume II, Tables 4 and 61, DOE/EIA0348(98)/2, December 1998. (used 1997 data) 

For carbon emissions: EIA, Electric Power Industry Estimated Carbon Emissions 1990 and 1997 

For 1998 and 1999 coefficients: 

EIA - Electric Power Annual - 1999 (Vol. 2), Form-861, “Annual Electric Utility Report”. 

EIA - Electric Power Annual - 1999 (Vol. 2), Form-860B, “Annual Electric Generator Report, NonUtility”. 

EIA - Electric Power Annual - 1999 (Vol. 2), Form-767, “Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design 

Report,” Form-759. “Monthly Power Plant Report”. 

EIA - Electric Power Annual - 1999 (Vol. 2), Form-860B, “Annual Electric Generator Report, NonUtility”. 

B-4 
Vehicle & Equipment Fuel National Coefficients, 1990 - 2000


Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) per Site-Delivered Quad


(or Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE] per Site-Delivered Billion Btu)


Gasoline 19.35 

Diesel 19.95 

Aviation Gas 18.87 

Jet Fuel 19.33 

Navy Special 21.49 

Source:	 EIA’s Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1998, Tables 11 and B1, DOE/EIA-0573(98), 

October 1999. 

B-5 
APPENDIX C


FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES,


FY 1985 THROUGH FY 2000


C-1

TABLE C 


FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES, FY 1985–FY 2000 


(CONSTANT 2000 DOLLARS)


Year Annual Annual Annual Change in Energy 

Energy Use Energy Cost Energy Cost Costs from 19851 

(BBTU) ($ MILLION) ($/MMBTU) ($ MILLION) 

Standard Buildings & Facilities 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Energy Intensive Facilities 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

422,291.4 $5,240.650 $12.410 $0.000 

447,127.9 $5,283.496 $11.817 $42.846 

468,908.8 $5,271.942 $11.243 $31.292 

443,952.8 $4,805.611 $10.825 -$435.040 

440,927.6 $4,406.080 $9.993 -$834.571 

430,911.9 $4,820.824 $11.187 -$419.826 

400,193.6 $4,450.933 $11.122 -$789.717 

405,671.4 $4,188.438 $10.325 -$1,052.212 

395,735.1 $4,374.642 $11.054 -$866.008 

377,815.4 $4,190.107 $11.090 -$1,050.543 

360,875.9 $3,907.130 $10.827 -$1,333.521 

352,023.7 $3,824.452 $10.864 -$1,416.198 

344,548.1 $3,694.247 $10.722 -$1,546.403 

337,572.8 $3,590.809 $10.637 -$1,649.841 

333,715.9 $3,451.459 $10.343 -$1,789.191 

326,841.1 $3,390.166 $10.373 -$1,850.484 

90,013.1 $1,149.721 $12.773 $0.000 

33,019.9 $476.149 $14.420 -$673.572 

32,780.1 $431.744 $13.171 -$717.978 

63,799.2 $788.719 $12.363 -$361.003 

57,653.7 $620.288 $10.759 -$529.434 

75,212.6 $887.669 $11.802 -$262.053 

85,342.6 $922.714 $10.812 -$227.007 

99,094.0 $1,022.520 $10.319 -$127.201 

71,410.7 $661.653 $9.265 -$488.068 

72,099.1 $677.842 $9.402 -$471.879 

76,798.0 $613.509 $7.989 -$536.213 

75,431.9 $648.513 $8.597 -$501.208 

66,084.5 $634.398 $9.600 -$515.323 

64,442.3 $567.835 $8.812 -$581.886 

62,022.8 $550.587 $8.877 -$599.135 

67,005.2 $611.190 $9.122 -$538.531 

1

Changes in energy costs from 1985 should not be construed as savings resulting from Federal energy management activities. 

Many variables contribute to fluctuations in annual energy costs, including changes in square footage, building stock, weather, 

energy efficiency investments, service level, fuel mix, fuel prices, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft fleet composition. This table 

incorporates revisions to previously published energy consumption and cost data submitted to DOE by Federal agencies. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

C-2 
TABLE C (Continued)


FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES, FY 1985–FY 2000 (CONSTANT 2000 DOLLARS)


Year 

Exempt Facilities 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Vehicles & Equipment 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Annual Annual Annual Change in Energy 

Energy Use Energy Cost Energy Cost Costs from 19851 

(BBTU) ($ MILLION) ($/MMBTU) ($ MILLION) 

4,67 6.0 $86.145 $18.423 $0.000 

5,18 0.7 $92.906 $17.933 $6.761 

5,76 4.5 $102.503 $17.782 $16.358 

5,69 4.6 $95.009 $16.684 $8.864 

6,13 7.1 $97.900 $15.952 $11.755 

5,20 2.3 $96.046 $18.462 $9.901 

5,74 6.6 $100.777 $17.537 $14.632 

6,85 0.8 $103.272 $15.075 $17.127 

7,22 0.2 $99.566 $13.790 $13.421 

5,56 3.1 $100.107 $17.995 $13.962 

4,90 8.3 $90.674 $18.474 $4.529 

5,32 8.4 $91.747 $17.218 $5.601 

7,06 9.9 $138.831 $19.637 $52.686 

8,70 0.1 $138.676 $15.940 $52.531 

9,88 8.6 $131.333 $13.281 $45.188 

20,5 61.4 $263.956 $12.837 $177.811 

934,268.4 $8,800.421 $9.420 $0.000 

924,833.7 $5,336.737 $5.770 -$3,463.684 

958,904.3 $5,645.552 $5.888 -$3,154.869 

846,896.2 $5,357.867 $6.326 -$3,442.554 

959,994.6 $6,018.594 $6.269 -$2,781.827 

926,994.8 $6,512.768 $7.026 -$2,287.653 

970,454.3 $8,039.827 $8.285 -$760.594 

783,122.4 $4,785.206 $6.110 -$4,015.215 

772,633.8 $5,034.830 $6.516 -$3,765.591 

722,790.5 $3,621.836 $5.011 -$5,178.585 

687,137.4 $3,734.202 $5.434 -$5,066.219 

675,111.5 $3,667.846 $5.433 -$5,132.575 

665,386.0 $4,227.043 $6.353 -$4,573.378 

627,339.2 $4,500.479 $7.174 -$4,299.942 

607,527.2 $3,987.943 $6.564 -$4,812.478 

566,080.9 $3,099.706 $5.476 -$5,700.715 

1

Changes in energy costs from 1985 should not be construed as savings resulting from Federal energy management activities. 

Many variables contribute to fluctuations in annual energy costs, including changes in square footage, building stock, weather, 

energy efficiency investments, service level, fuel mix, fuel prices, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft fleet composition. This table 

incorporates revisions to previously published energy consumption and cost data submitted to DOE by Federal agencies. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

C-3 
TABLE C (Continued)


FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES, FY 1985–FY 2000 (CONSTANT 2000 DOLLARS)


Year Annual Annual Annual Change in Energy 

Energy Use Energy Cost Energy Cost Costs from 19851 

(BBTU) ($ MILLION) ($/MMBTU) ($ MILLION) 

Total Energy - All End-Use Sectors 

1985 1,451,248.9 $15,276.938 $10.527 $0.000 

1986 1,410,162.2 $11,189.288 $7.935 -$4,087.649 

1987 1,466,357.7 $11,451.741 $7.810 -$3,825.197 

1988 1,360,342.8 $11,047.205 $8.121 -$4,229.732 

1989 1,464,713.0 $11,142.861 $7.608 -$4,134.076 

1990 1,438,321.6 $12,317.307 $8.564 -$2,959.631 

1991 1,461,737.1 $13,514.251 $9.245 -$1,762.686 

1992 1,294,738.6 $10,099.437 $7.800 -$5,177.501 

1993 1,246,999.8 $10,170.691 $8.156 -$5,106.247 

1994 1,178,268.1 $8,589.892 $7.290 -$6,687.046 

1995 1,129,719.6 $8,345.514 $7.387 -$6,931.423 

1996 1,107,895.5 $8,232.558 $7.431 -$7,044.379 

1997 1,083,088.5 $8,694.520 $8.028 -$6,582.418 

1998 1,038,054.4 $8,797.799 $8.475 -$6,479.139 

1999 1,013,154.5 $8,121.321 $8.016 -$7,155.616 

2000 980,488.6 $7,365.018 $7.512 -$7,911.920 

1

Changes in energy costs from 1985 should not be construed as savings resulting from Federal energy management activities. 

Many variables contribute to fluctuations in annual energy costs, including changes in square footage, building stock, weather, 

energy efficiency investments, service level, fuel mix, fuel prices, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft fleet composition. This table 

incorporates revisions to previously published energy consumption and cost data submitted to DOE by Federal agencies. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

C-4 
APPENDIX D


INDUSTRIAL, LABORATORY, RESEARCH, AND OTHER 


ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITIES


Department of Agriculture 


(Agricultural Research Service)


514 Laboratory Buildings 76 

494 Other Building Types 54 

479 Greenhouses 8 

426 Storage Buildings 6 

242 Barns 5 

215 Sheds 4 

158 Shops 2 

137 Housing Buildings 2 

98 Headhouses 2 

87 Chemical Storage Buildings 1 

85 Office/Laboratory Buildings 1 

78 Office Buildings 

Garages


Trailers


Engineering Facilities


Restroom Buildings


Fire Stations


Filling Stations


Waste Treatment Buildings


Incinerator Buildings


Bus Stations


Chapel


Weather Station


Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland Sites 

101 Administration


102 Gate House


202 Eng. Mech.


205 Fire Research


206 Concr. Mtrls.


220 Metrology


221 Physics Lab


222 Chemistry


223 Mtrls. Test.


224 Polymers


225 Technology


226 Building Research


230 Fluid Mech.


231 Industrial


233 Sound


235 Reactor CNRF


236 Hazards


237 Non-magnetic


238 Non-magnetic


245 Radiation


301 Supply and Pln.


302 SCWPG Cooling TWR


303 Service


304 Instr. Shops


305 Switchgear


306 Elec. Sub.


307 Chemical Waste


308 Bowman House


309 Grounds


310 Hazards Strg.


311 Grounds Strg.


411 TRF


412 Temp. Ofc


413 Temp. Ofc


415-418 Temp. Ofc


419 Temp. Childcare


Boulder, Colorado Sites 

1 Radio


1A Radio Building


1B Radio Building


1C Radio Building


1D Radio Building


2 Cryogenics


2A Cryogenics - Annex A


3 Liquifier


3A Liquifier - Annex A


4 Camco


5 Camco Annex


8 Mesa Test Site


9 Gas Meter


11 Ionospheric Observatory


14 Field Strength


21 Maintenance Garage


22 W arehouse


24 Plasma Physics


24A Plasma Physics - Annex A


25 Maintenance Shops


26 Day Care Facility


27 High Frequency


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

D-1 
AKWO11 E.T. Shop


AKW 129 Elec. Storg. Bldg. & Fac.


AKW130 Marine Warehouse


ARM004 W FO


CAW072 SW Fisheries Cntr


CAW107 WSO


CA4486 WSFO


COC004 WSFO


COM 017 Optics Bldg & Fac.


COM018 Lab. Bldg


COM019 Lab. Bldg


COM053 Lab. Bldg


CTE005 Chem. Storg. Bldg. & Fac.


FLE078 Port of Miami


FLM024 WSO


HIW015 W SO


LAM048 Office Bldg


MAE032 Morris Island Observ


MEE00S NWS Forecast Ofc


MOC036 WSFO


MOC037 NEXRAD Bldg


Army 

MSM011 WFO


MTW006 Radar Bldg


MTW0119 Balloon Infltn. Bldg


NCC001 Dive Locker & Fac.


NEC008 Balloon Infltn. Bldg. & Fac.


NMM021 WFO


NVW 016 Balloon Infltn. Bldg


NY5451 30 Rockefeller Plaza


ORW012 Fire Station/WSO


ORW 065 WSO


PAE013 Storage Bldg. & Fac.


TNM 006 WFO


TXM029 WSO


UTW 004 Balloon Infltn. Bldg


VAE014 Antenna Deck & Fac.


WAW052 Behavior Lab. & Fac.


WVE002 NWS Bldg


Bureau of Census 

Charlotte Computer Center 

Department of Defense 

Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Kingsport, TN 

Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Radford, VA 

AAFES Food Processing Plant, Grünstadt, Germany 

Laundry Facility, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 

Navy 

AMFORRDRESINS, Bethesda, MD


COMOPTEVFOR, Norfolk, VA


EODT DI, Indian Head, MD


FISC, Pearl Harbor, HI


FISC, San Diego, CA


FISC, Yokosuka, Japan


INTCOMBATSYSTESTFAC, San Diego, CA


MCLB, Albany, GA


MCLB, Barstown, CA


NAVAIRPROPCEN, Trenton, NJ


NAVAVIONICCE, Indianapolis, IN


NAVAVNDEPOT, Cherry Point, NC


NAVAVNDEPOT, Jacksonville, FL


NAVAVNDEPOT, North Island, CA


NAVORDMISTESTSTA White Sands, NM


NAVPBRO, Magna, UT


NAVSHIPREPFAC, Guam 


NAVSHIPREPFAC, Yokosuka, Japan


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Chula Vista, CA


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Hawkinsville, GA


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Hollandale, MS


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Maricopa, AZ


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Savannah, GA


NAVSPASURFLDSTA, Wetumpka, AL


NAVSPASURFLDSTAELPHAB TRORC, NM


NAVSPASURFLDSTAKIKLK ACH CT, TX


NAVSPASURFLDSTAREDRVR LWSV, AR


NAVWPNINDRESPLNT, Toledo, OH


NAVXDIVINGU, Panama City, FL


NOC PAC DET FALLBROOK, CA


NOCPACDIV DET PORT HADLOCK, WA


NSC, Jacksonville, FL


NSC, Norfolk, VA


NSC, Oakland, CA


NSC, Pensacola, FL


NSC, Puget Sound Bremerton, WA


NSD, Guam


NSWC DET, Bayview, ID


NSWC DET FCDSA, Dam Neck, VA


NSWC DET, Ft. Lauderdale, FL


NSWC DET SSES, Philadelphia, PA


NSWC DIV CARDEROCK, Bethesda, MD


NSWC DIV, Crane, IN


NSWC DIV, Indian Head, MD


NSWC DIV, Pt Hueneme, CA


NSWC DIV, Pt Hueneme, CA


NSWC LCC DET, Memphis, TN


NSWC NWAS CORONA


NSY, Norfolk, VA


NSY, Pearl Harbor, HI


NSY, Portsmouth, NH


NSY, Puget Sound Bremerton, WA


NUWC DET, Andros Isl, BF


D-2 
NUWC DIV, Keyport, WA


NW S Yorktown SJC Annex


SIMA, Pascagoula, MS


SIMA, San Diego, CA


SUBASE, Pearl Harbor, HI


SWFLANT, Kings Bay, GA


SWFPAC, Bangor, WA


TRIREFFAC, Kings Bay, GA


UNISERUOFHEASCN, Bethesda, MD


WPNSTA, Charleston, SC


WPNSTA, Concord, CA


WPNSTA EARLE, Colts Neck, NJ


WPNSTA, Seal Beach, CA


WPNSTA, Yorktown, VA


WV ABL, Mineral, CO


Air Force


Hill AFB, UT


Tinker AFB, OK


Robins AFB, GA


Kelly AFB, TX


McClellan, CA


Arnold AFB, TN


DeCA


ABERDEEN, Baltimore, MD


MCLB ALBAN, Albany, GA


ALTUS, Altus, OK


ANCHORAGE, Anchorage, AK


ANDERSEN AFB, Yigo, Guam 


ANDREWS AFB, Camp Springs, MD


ANNAPOLIS, Annapolis, MD


ARDEC, Patterson, NJ


ARNOLD AFB, Tullahoma, TN


ATHENS NSCS, Athens, GA


ATSUGI, Yokohama, Japan 


BANGOR, Silverdale, WA


BANGOR ANGB, Bangor, ME


BARBERS POINT, Pearl City, HI


BARKSDALE AFB, Bossier City, LA


BARSTOW MCLB, Barstow, CA


BEALE AFB, Marysville, CA


BOLLING AFB, Washington, D.C.


BREMERTON, Bremerton, WA


BROOKS, San Antonio, TX


BRUNSWICK NAS, Portland, ME


C. E. KELLY, Pittsburgh, PA


C.M. PRICE, Granite City , IL


CAMP CARROLL, Taegu, South Korea


CAMP CASEY, Tongduchon, South Korea


CAMP COURTNEY, Gushikawa, Japan


CAMP FOSTER, Naha, Japan


CAMP HOWZE, Munson, South Korea


CAMP HUMPHREYS, Pyongtaek, South Korea


CAMP KINSER, Naha, Japan


CAMP KURE, Hiroshima, Japan 

CAMP LEJUENE, Jacksonville, NC 

CAMP MERRILL, Dahlonega, GA 

CAMP PAGE, Taegu , South Korea 

CAMP PENDLETON, Oceanside, CA 

CAMP STANLEY, Uijongbu , South Korea 

CAMP ZAMA, Tokyo, Japan 

CANNON AFB, Clovis, NM 

CARLISLE, Carlisle, PA 

CHARLESTON AFB, Charleston, SC 

CHARLESTON NW S, Charleston, SC 

CHERRY POINT, Havelock, NC 

CHINA LAKE, Ridgecrest, CA 

CHINHAE NAS, Chinhae, South Korea 

COLUM BUS AFB, Columbus, MS 

CORPUS CHRISTI, Corpus Christi, TX 

CRANE NWSC, Crane, IN 

CUTLER, Machias, ME 

DAHLGREN, Fredericksburg, VA 

DAVIS-MONTHAN, Tucson, AZ 

DDC (New Cumberland), Harrisburg, PA 

DOVER, Dover, DE 

DSCR, Richmond, VA 

DUGWAY, Dugway, UT 

DYESS AFB, Abilene, TX 

EDWARDS, Rosamond, CA 

EGLIN AFB, Niceville, FL 

EIELSON AFB, Fairbanks, AK 

EL CENTRO, El Centro, CA 

EL TORO MCAS, Santa Ana, CA 

ELLSWORTH AFB, Rapid City, SD 

F. E. WARREN, Cheyenne, WY 

FAIRCHILD, Spokane, WA 

FALLON, Fallon, NV 

FITZSIMONS, Aurora, CO 

FT. BELVOIR, Alexandria, VA 

FT. BENNING, Columbus, GA 

FT. BLISS, El Paso, TX 

FT. BRAGG - MAIN, Fayetteville, NC 

FT. BUCHANAN, San Juan, Puerto Rico 

FT. CAMPBELL, Clarksville, TN 

FT. CARSON, Colorado Springs, CO 

FT. DETRICK, Frederick, MD 

FT. DRUM, Watertown, NJ 

FT. EUSTIS, Newport News, VA 

FT. GILLEM, Atlanta, GA 

FT. GORDON, Augusta, GA 

FT. GREELY, Delta Junction, AK 

FT. HAMILTON, New York, NY 

FT. HOOD I , Killeen, TX 

FT. HOOD II, Killeen, TX 

FT. HUACHUCA, Sierra Vista, AZ 

FT. HUNTER-LIGGETT, King City, CA 

FT. IRWIN, Fort Irwin, CA 

FT. JACKSON, Columbia, SC 

D-3 
FT. KNOX, Louisville, KY 

FT. LEAVENWORTH, Leavenworth, KS 

FT. LEE, Petersburg, VA 

FT. LEONARD WOOD, Waynesville, MO 

FT. LEWIS, Tacoma, WA 

FT. MCCLELLAN, Anniston, AL 

FT. MCCOY, La Crosse, WI 

FT. MCPHERSON, Atlanta, GA 

FT. MEADE, Laurel, MD 

FT. MONMOUTH, Eatontown, NJ 

FT. MONROE, Hampton, VA 

FT. MYER, Arlington, VA 

FT. ORD (MONTEREY), Monterey, CA 

FT. POLK, Leesville, LA 

FT. RILEY, Junction City, KS 

FT. RUCKER, Daleville, AL 

FT. SAM HOUSTON, San Antonio, TX 

FT. SHAFTER, Honolulu, HI 

FT. SILL, Lawton, OK 

FT. STEWART, Hinesville, GA 

FT. WAINWRIGHT, Fairbanks, AK 

GOODFELLOW, San Angelo, TX 

GRAND FORKS AFB, Grand Forks, ND 

GREAT LAKES NTC, Waukegan, IL 

GUAM (OROTE), Agat, Guam 

GULFPORT NCBC, Gulfport, MS 

GUNT ER AFB, Montgomery, AL 

HANNAM VILLAGE, Seoul, Korea 

HANSCOM, Bedford, MA 

HARIO HOUSING, Hario, Japan 

HARRISON VILLAGE, Indianapolis, IN 

HICKAM AFB, Honolulu, HI 

HILL AFB, Ogden, UT 

HOLLOMAN AFB, Alamogordo, NM 

HUNTER AAF, Savannah, GA 

HURLBURT FIELD, Fort Walton Beach, FL 

IMPERIAL BEACH, Imperial Beach, CA 

IWAKUNI MCAS, Iwakuni, Japan 

JACKSONVILLE, Jacksonville, FL 

KADENA AFB, Naha, Japan 

KANEOHE BAY, Kaneohe Bay, HI 

KEESLER AFB, Biloxi, MS 

KEFLAVIK, Keflavik, Iceland 

KELLY, San Antonio, TX 

KEY W EST NAS, Key West, FL 

KINGS BAY NSB, St. Marys, GA 

KINGSVILLE, Kingsville, TX 

KIRTLAND AFB, Albuquerque, NM 

KUNSAN AFB, Kunsan City, South Korea 

LACKLAND AFB, San Antonio, TX 

LAKEHURST, Toms River, NJ 

LANGLEY AFB, Hampton, VA 

LAUGHLIN AFB, San Antonio, TX 

LEMOORE, Fresno, CA 

LITTLE CREEK NAB, Virginia Beach, VA 

LITTLE ROCK AFB, Jacksonville, AR 

LOS ANGELES AFB, Los Angeles, CA 

LUKE AFB, Phoenix, AZ 

MACDILL AFB, Tampa, FL 

MALLONEE VILLAGE, Fayetteville, NC 

MALMSTROM AFB, Great Falls, MT 

MARCH AFB, Riverside, CA 

MAXWELL AFB, Montgomery, AL 

MAYPORT NS, Atlantic Beach, FL 

MCCHORD AFB, Tacoma, WA 

MCCLELLAN AFB, North Highlands, CA 

MCCONNELL AFB, Wichita, KS 

MCGUIRE AFB, Wrighttown, NJ 

MEMPHIS NAS, Memphis, TN 

MERIDIAN NAS, Meridian, MS 

MINOT AFB, Minot, ND 

MIRAMAR NAS, San Diego, CA 

MISAWA AFB, Misawa, Japan 

MITCHEL FIELD, Garden City, NY 

MOFFETT FIELD, Mountain View, CA 

MOODY AFB, Valdosta, GA 

MTN HOME AFB, Mountain Home, ID 

NELLIS AFB, Las Vegas, NV 

NEW LONDON, Groton, CT 

NEW ORLEANS NSA, New Orleans, LA 

NEW RIVER MCAS, Jacksonville, NC 

NEW PORT, Newport, RI 

NORFOLK NB, Norfolk, VA 

NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA 

OCEANA NAS, Virginia Beach, VA 

OFFUTT AFB, Bellevue, NE 

OSAN AFB, Osan, South Korea 

PARRIS ISLAND, Beaufort, SC 

PATRICK AFB, Cocoa Beach, FL 

PATUXENT, Lexington Park, MD 

PEARL HARBOR, Honolulu, HI 

PENSACOLA, Pensacola, FL 

PETERSON, Colorado Springs, CO 

POINT MUGU, Point Mugu, CA 

POPE AFB, Fayetteville, NC 

PORT HUENEME, Port Hueneme, CA 

PORTSMOUTH, Portsmouth, NH 

PORTSMOUTH NNSY, Portsmouth, VA 

PRESIDIO OF SF, San Francisco, CA 

PUSAN, Pusan, South Korea 

QUANTICO, Woodbridge, VA 

RANDOLPH AFB, San Antonio, TX 

REDSTONE ARSENAL, Huntsville, AL 

ROBINS AFB, Macon, GA 

ROCK ISLAND AR, Rock Island, IL 

ROOSEVELT ROADS, Ceiba, Puerto Rico 

SAGAMI DEPOT, Tokyo, Japan 

SAGAMIHARA, Tokyo, Japan 

SAN DIEGO NS, San Diego, CA 

SAN ONOFRE, San Clemente, CA 

D-4 
SASEBO, Sasebo, Japan 


SCHOFIELD BKS, Wahiawa, HI 


SCOTIA, Schenectady, NY


SCOTT AFB, Belleville, IL 


SELFRIDGE ANG, Mt Clemens, MI 


SEYMOUR JOHNSON, Goldsboro, NC 


SHAW AFB, Sumter, SC 


SHEPPARD AFB, Wichita Falls, TX 


SIERRA, Herlong, CA 


SMOKEY POINT NS, Marysville, WA 


TAEGU, Taegu, South Korea 


TINKER AFB, Oklahoma City, OK


TOBYHANNA, Scranton, PA 


TRAVIS AFB, Fairfield, CA 


USAF ACADEMY, Colorado Springs, CO 


VANCE AFB, Enid, OK 


VANDENBERG AFB, Lompoc, CA 


WALTER REED, Washington, D.C. 


WEST POINT, Highland Falls, NY


WHIDBEY ISL NAS, Oak Harbor, WA 


WHITE SANDS MR, Las Cruces, NM 


WHITEMAN AFB, Knob Noster, MO 


WHITING FIELD, Pensacola, FL 


WINTER HARBOR, Bangor, ME 


WRIGHT-PATTERSON, Dayton, OH 


YOKOSUKA NESC, Yokosuka, Japan 


YOKOTA AB, Tokyo, Japan 


YONGSAN, Seoul, South Korea 


TWENTYNINE PALMS, Twentynine Palms, CA YUMA MCAS, Yuma, AZ 

TYNDALL AFB, Panama City, FL YUMA PG, Yuma, AZ 

Department of Energy 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Equipment Test Lab


Lab Meson Facility


Operations Bldg


Service Corridor


Accelerator Tec Bldg


LANSCE/WNR Bldg


Proton Storage Ring


High Res Beam Facility


General Purpose Lab


WNR Lab Support Facility


Warehouse


Proton Storage Staging Ring


FMIT Bldg


Accelerator Tec Bldg


Development & Testing


Computer Maintenance


Data Analysis Center


Accelerator Maintenance Bldg


Sub-Stockroom/Wjse


JCl Craft Shop


Proton Storage Ring Eqp


Experimental Area


Neutron Scattering Exper


NPB Technical Support


Shop & Storage Bldg


Office Bldg


Warehouse


Office Bldg


Med Resolution Spect


Neutron Exper Service


GTA Facility


ML Neutron Scattering 


322 Trailers, Transportables & Small Service Sheds


Kansas City Plant 

Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Facility 

Pantex Plant 

16-4/Paint and Sand Blast 

16-10/Vehicle Wash 

Security Lighting 

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque 

(Site No. 0112) 

Building 880 

Building 827 

858/Microelectronics Development Lab 

878/Process Development Lab 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

Maintenance Shop


LTS Gas Plant Main Compressor Building


Steam Generator #1 Facility


Warehouse Quonset


Water Treatment Facility


Field Core Facility


Steam Generator #2 Facility


Steam Generator #3 Facility


Steam Generator #4 Facility


Steam Generator #5 Facility


Field Operations Office


Environmental, Safety, and Health Office


Water Treatment Facility Expansion


UPS Building


LTS Gas Plant Office


Water Disposal Facility


LTS Gas Plant Shop


Polymer Plant


LTS Gas Plant PAMCO Building


D-5 
LTS Gas Plant Lab


LTS Gas Plant Pump House


Fireflood Pump Building


South Terminal Main Building


South Gate Guard Shack


Idaho Operations 

Utility Building


Laboratory


Transportation Complex


Service Building Powerhouse


New Waste Calcining Facility


Coal-Fired Boiler House


Coal Plant Unloading Building


Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal Facility


Hot Shop/Manufacturing and Assembly


SMC Manufacturing and Assembly


ATR Building


ATR Cooling Tower Pumphouse


Deep Well Pump-House #4


Diesel Generator Building


Waste Heat Recovery Building


ICF Kaiser, Hanford Site 

Riggers Loft


Tritium Vault


Tritium Laboratory


6 Reactor Facilities


Decon Station Foundation


4 Effluent Water Outfall Structures


3 Retention Basins


Filter Plant Power Operation Facility


Mechanical Development Lab (D&D in prog-=94)


Main Pump House


Fresh Metal Storage


Development Laboratory (D & D in Prog-=94)


Main Pump HSE-Includes North and South Annex


Biology Laboratory


ERDS Towers On Hanford Site


Warehouse


Mobile Office @105H


Change Room Trailer @ 105H


Mobile Office (FKA:1131N)


Mobile Office @ 105H


Gas Recirculation Building


2 Exhaust Air Sample Building


Power Control Building Columbia River Monitorin


Effluent Water Treatment Pilot Plant


Water Studies Semiworks Facility


Offices and Telephone Exchange


Filter Plant Head House, Chlorine


11 Office Buildings


Badge House Temporary


3 Carpenter Shops


Change Room Building


Crib Effluent Iodine Monitoring Facility


9 Storage Buildings


Demineralization Plant Building


Fuel Oil Storage Tank and Unloading Platform


Vehicle Gate Inspection Bldg


Patrol Boat House


Rivr Guard Tower


Mobile Office W. of 1167A


Process Facility


Tank Farm Waste Support Facility


Gas Preparation Building


Underground Waste Storage Tank Farm


Waste Disposal Tank Farms (4)


Tank


Tank and Vault


Radioactive Particle Research Laboratory


Cask Loading Building


Guard Station for 209E


Office Administration and Gate House


Office Administration Building


Paint Storage Building


Critical Mass Storage


Office Machine Storage


Field Mobile @ Slab Yard


Canine Facility


Fabrication, Mockup Shop Building


Warehouse Essential Materials, NO. Of Purex


Solvent Handling Building


Filter Building


Fanhouse


Mobile Office @ 4th & Baltimore (57B)


Graphics Facility @ 284E (ATT TO MO931)


Survey Mobile Office @ 4th & Baltimore (2910E)


Change Room Trailer @ 284E


Mobile Office @ 202A (ATT=D TO MO948)


Mobile Office @ 202A (ATT=D TO MO542)


Mobile Office @ 202A (ATT=D/ID=D MO355)


Mobile Ofc @ Baltimore N/O 4th


2 Mobile OFC @ Baltimore N/O 4th


1 Janitorial Storage @284E


2 Mobile Office @200 Area ETF


Mobile Office @ Baltimore N/O 4th


Mobile Office @ 4th & Baltimore 


Lunchroom Trailer @ Slab Yard


Mobile Office @ 4th &Baltimore (AKA: 2910E)


Graphics Trlr @ 284E (ATT M O203)


4 Mobile Office @ 4th and Baltimore (AKA:2911E)


Mobile Office @ Purex


Mobile Office @ 202A (ATT=D/D=D AS MO347)


Mobile Office @ 224B


Office Administration Building


Office and Laboratory Building


Concentration Facility, U03 Plant


Calcination Facility


Electrican Shop


D-6 
Pipefitter Storage 

Pipefitter Small Shop 

Gas Bottle Dock 

Pipefitter Small Shop 

Sheetmetal Shop 

Material Storage 

Insulator Shop 

Paint Storage(W-25) 

Laborer Storage 

Non-Tracable Bench Stock Storage 

Ice House 

Heavy Equipment Operator Shack 

Paint Mixing Shop 

Paint Shop 

2 Paint Storage 

Mask Laundry and Office Building 

Materials Engineering Laboratory 

Waste Incinerator Facility 

Plutonium Concentration Facility 

Exhaust Filter Building 

Change House 

Coal Handlers Shelter 

First Aid Station and Offices 

Office and Service Building 

PU Storage 

Welding Laboratory Building 

D&D Female Change Trailor @ 271T 

Chemical Storage Warehouse 

Power House Stream Plant 

Packaged Boiler 

Water Tower 

Exhaust Fan Control House and Stack 

Jet Pit House 

Acid Recovery and Gas Treatment Building 

2 Mobile Office @2704w


Mobile Office @222T


SWP Changeroom Trailer @211U


Decon Trailer @242S


Material Evaluation Laboratory


Material Storage Building


Waste & Material Storage


Uranium Oxide Facility


Uranium Concretion Facility


Uranium Concretion Change Room


Electrician and Pipefitter Shop


Storage


Materials Development Laboratory


2 Fuel Development Laboaratory


SP-100 Ges Tesr Facility


Emergency Storage, Part if 309 Building


N Fuel Manufacturing Support FAX.


Engineering Development Laboratory


Stress Rupture Test Facility


Hydromechanical/Seismic Facility


Model Heat Loop, Part of 321 Building


Mechanical Properties Laboratory 

Chemical Engineering Building 

Stack Sampling Facility 

Post Irradiation Test Laboratory 

Virology Laboratory 

Dog Kennel 

Animal Resources Storage Building 

Packaging Test Facility 

N Fuel Building 

Waste Acid Storage Building 

Waste Neutralization Facility 

Waste Retention Building 

Maintenance Shop 

Communication and Documentation Services 

Change House 

Radioanalytical Laboratory 

Organic Chemistry Laboratory 

Spare Parts W arehouse 

Materials Archive Building 

Laboratory Equipment Central Pool Building 

Sodium Storage Facility 

Chemistry and Metal Sciences Laboratory 

Classified Incinerator Facility 

Fabrication Shop 

Solvent and Acid Storage Building 

Emergency Air Bottle Bldg(ATT to 3701d) 

Classified Vault 

Geotechnicl High-Bay 

Gamma Irrdiation Facility Laboratory Equipment 

Central Pool


Graphite Machine Shop


Paint Storage Building


Radiological Calibrations and Standards


Electron Acclerator Facility


Irradiation Physics Building


Conference Training Building


Technical Security


Offices


Laboratory


Mobile Office 329 T.2


Mobile Office 329 T.1


Mobile Office (377 Trl 1)


Mobile Office 3760 T.1


Mobile Office (3745 Trl 1)


Mobile Office 326 T.2


Mobile Office 306W T.2


Mobile Office 328 T.5


Mobile Office (3705 Trl 1)


Mobile Office (318 Trl 3)


Mobile Office 331 T.5


Mobile Office (323 Trl 2)


Mobile Office (333 Trl 1)


Mobile Office 306W T.6


Mobile Office (366 Trl 4)


Mobile Office (3770 Trl 2)


D-7 
Mobile Office (3770 Trl 1)


4 Mobile Office


Mobile Office 318 T.2


Mobile Office @ FMIT


Mobile Office 325 T.1


Mobile Office 320 T.2


Mobile Office (FMIT TRL 3)


Mobile Office (FMIT TRL 5)


Escort Trailor


Mobile Office to be Excessed 7/94


Mobile Office Also Known As 377 Trl 2


HPT Office @ 340


Mobile Office 306W T.5


Mobile Office Shop (306 Trl 7)


Mobile Office (FMIT Trl 9)


Mobile Office N/O 4 th & Buffalo (A Farm)


Mobile Office (FMIT Trl 4)


Mobile Office 3760 T.3


Mobile Office (FMIT Trl 10)


Mobile Office (3763 Trl 1)


Mobile Office to be Excessed 10/94


Mobile Office @ ESML Constr. Site


Radio Maintenance Shop(655W-AVE)


X Ray Facility


Sand Blast Facility


Telephone Exchange (959FIRSTST)


Hevy Equipment Repair Shop and Office


Oil Storage


Bottled Gas Storage


Fabrication Shop


Compressor Shop


Warehouse and Safety Hall


Combustible Material Storage


Administration Building


Administration and Engineering Office Bldg


Office Building (2770U-Ave)


Consolidated Personnel Building


Telecommunication Shop @1154(2671W-Ave)


Telecommunications Office @ 1154 (2675W-Ave)


Mobile Office Near 1262 Building (2730U-Ave)


Restroom Trlr @ 1209 Bldg Gate


Telecommunications Office @ 1154 (2665W-Ave)


Men’s Restroom Trailers S. Of 1226


Previously Called Trl. 4 Near 1301


Mobile Office Att to 1154-Formerly TrlF 7


Mobile Office Near MO-850(2726U-AVE)


Field Changeroom Trailer S of 1226


2 Telecommunications Parts Storage @1154 


Mobile Office @1154 (2667W-AVE)


Mobile Office (2735U-AVE)


Mobile Office Near 1226(2648W-AVE)


Mobile Office @ EMSL Site EMSL Tr.1


Visitor’s Center


Training Facility


Maintenance and Storage Facility (MASF)


Former Guard Station, Kentucky Blvd


Guard Station, Grant Ave.


Guard Station, Hayes St.


Security Maintenance Shop


400 Area Fire Station


400 Area Site Support Office


Medical Aid Station


Site Service Maintenance Shop


Warehouse (Special Tools)


Warehouse


Mobile Office Of W. Of 4706


Mobile Office (Trl 100) W. Of 4706


Mobile Office (Trl 102) W Of 4706


Field Trailer W. Of 4706


Mobile Office W. Of 4706


Patrol Utiltity Building


Radioecology Field Laboratory, Rattlesnake SPRI


Space Science Laboratory


Pump House


Lysimeter Preparation Building


Ale Field Storage Building


ALE Laboratory 11


Pump House


Fallout Laboratory


Fire Protection Pump House


Mobile Office @ Grout


Escort Trailor @ Gate 814


Mobile Office s/o 622G


Portable GEN/Water Tank @ CTRL Landfill


Mobile Office @243G


Boar House/Storage Building


Savannah River Operations Office 

Downstream River Water Pumphouse


K-Reactor


L-Reactor


Brookhaven National Lab 

Valvehouse


Equipment House


NAT Synchrotron Light Source


High Flux Beam Reactor


Cold Neutron Facility


Fanhouse


Cyclotron


Tandem Van De Graaff


Cryogenic Wing


Pett VI


Heavy Ion Power Supply A


Heavy Ion Power Supply B


Heavy Ion Beam Tunnel


AGS Experimental Halls


Mechanical Equipment


AGS Tunnel


Fan House A


D-8 
Fan House B 

Fan House C/A-10 House 

Fan House D 

Fan House E 

Proton House D18 

Proton House E18 

Proton House F18 

Proton House G18 

Proton House H18 

Proton House I18 

Proton House J18 

Proton House K18 

Proton House L18 

Booster Equipment House L18A 

Proton House A18 

Proton House B18 

Proton House C18 

H-10 Equipment House


Booster


Warehouse


7 Works Buildings


PTR Rect. House #1


PTR Rect. House #2


PTR Rect. House #3


E-10 Power Supply


Exp. Power Supply Building G-2


Scientific Assembly


Electronic Equipment Repair


N. Experimental Tunnel


MG Power Supply


RF Power Supply


200 MEV Linac


Isotope Producer (BLIP)


F-10 House Equipment


Equipment Storage


On-Line Data Facility


Power Supply and Support


Booster Tunnel


Blip Pump House


G-2 Tunnel


Pump Room


4 Storages


Rectifier House A


R & D Facility


Experimental Computer/Electrical Building


Machine Shops/SPS


RHIC Tunnel


W-Line Power Supply


Brahmns Experimental Hall


Instrumentation Brahmns Ser


2:00 Cryo Service Building


Brahmns Counting House


RF Service Building


4:00 Cryo/Main Power Supply SE


Yellow Ring Injection Service 


Compressor Building


5:00 Cooling Tower


Collider Center


Star Experimental Hall


Star Service Building


6:00 Cryo Service Building


Star Counting House


Blue Ring Injection Service


Phenix Experimental Lab


Phenix Service Hall Building


8:00 Cryo Phenix Magnet Ser


Phenix Cooling and Pump House


Phobos Experimental Hall


Cryo Phobos Service Building


Future Facility / Experimental


Cryo Polarimeter Service


Assembly Building


Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

41 Field Instruments Buildings


5 Foam Storage Buildings


6 Control Center Buildings


Maintenance Building


Foam Storage A Building


Potable Water Building


5 Sky Switchgear Building


Maintenance Strg equipment Building


3 Soc Building


Main Guard House Building


3 Property Warehouse Buildings


4 Flammable Storage Buildings


3 Foam Deludge Building


RWIS Pump Hpuse Building


2 Gun Cleaning Building


Weld Shop Building


Grass Maintenance Equipment Building


2 Foam Generator Buildings


Maintenance Facility Building


Radio Repairer Building


Skva Supr Bloc F & G


1 Firewater Pumps


6 Administration Buildings


Fire Pumps on Trucks Building


Paper Recycling Building


Guard House Building


Electrical Moa Building


Substation Electrical Building


Deludge Valve Building


Moc Be-2 Building


Guard House Corner Building


3 Gun Cleaning Building


Water Storage Building


2 Motor Control Center Building


Maintenance & W arehouse Building


Erner Properness Building


D-9 
RWIS Ups Building 

2 Communications Buildings 

Warehouse E Building 

Main Fire Water Building 

Fire At Black Lake Building 

ACUS Small Shed 

Control Room Taxoma Building 

Sky Foam Deluge Building 

Fab Shed Building 

Deluge Valve 

Flammable Storage Shed 

Guard Conet Gate Building 

Ravis Microwave Building 

Ravis Computer Conrno Building 

Sky West Building 

Sky East Building 

Switchgear Building 

Construction and Maintenance Building 

Sample Lab Building 

Pump House Foam Building 

Inert gas Gen Building 

P/S Head Frame 

MOCS s/s Area Building 

Equipment Storage Building 

Fire Truck Building 

Well Water Pump House Building 

Fire Transformer Dei Building 

Fill Site Storage Building 

Maintenance Receiving Building 

Lab Building 

Radio Tower Building 

Guard House On Site 

Foam Prop. #3 Building 

Foam Prop.#2 Building 

Foam Prop. #1 Building 

Foam Prop. #4 Building 

Operator Control Dk1 Building 

Operator Control Dk2 Building 

Foam Prop Dock 1 Building 

Firewater Pump Dk 1 Building 

Foam Prop. Dock 2 Building 

Property Whse/Maint Building 

Vehicle Maintenance Building 

Wash Rack Building 

Wheeled Equip Building 

Sample Storage Building 

Gatehouse Front Hard Building 

Gatehouse #3 Building 

Firewater Pump Building 

Foam Proportioning Building 

Covered Laydown Building 

RWIS Guardhouse Har Building


Substation Building


RWIS Control Building


Prefab. Paint Storage Building


RWIS Comm Building


Microwave Building


HPP/Permit/Fire Pump


S/S Hoist


S/S Head Frame


2 Property Warehouse


Warehouse D


RWIS


Warehouse Guard House


Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

Accelerator Tunnel 

Klystron Gallery 

Beam Switch Yard (BSY) 

Damping Ring Vault, South 

Damping Ring Vault, North 

Damping Ring RF - South 

Damping Ring RF - North 

Collider Housing North Arc 

Collider Housing South Arc 

Power Conversion 

Casting Pad Shelter 

Test Laboratory 

Hydrogen Furnace Housing 

Deionization Plant 

Main Control Center (MCC) 

Cryogenics Building 

Test Cell Facility 

Electronics Building Annex 

End Station A 

Final Focus Test Beam Bldg 

Final Focus Test Beam Bldg 

Bubble Chamber / 40" 

Bubble Chamber Bldg / 82" 

Spear Interaction Area/East 

Spear Control Building 

Spear Interaction Area/West 

SSRL, North Annex 

Test Beam Facility (TBF) 

SSRL South Arc Building 

SSRL Lab/Office/Shop Bldg 

SSRL Spear Injector (in Const.) 

Van Group D 

Experimental Control C-Beam 

East Pit Control Room 

82" BC Support 

82" BC Support 

Control Room B/L 19 

Cryo Eng. & Operations 

West Pit Detector Support Bldg 

Beamline 6 Test Building 

Final Focus Test Beam 

Laser Storage Building 

E 137 Experimental Building 

IR 2 Hall 

D-10 
IR 2 Hall Annex


IR 2 Counting House


IR 2 Support Building


IR 4 Hall


IR 4 Counting House


IR 4 Support Building


IR 6 Hall


IR 6 Counting House


IR 6 Support Building


IR 8 Hall


IR 8 Support Building


IR 10 Support Building


IR 12 Hall


IR 12 Counting House


IR 12 Support Building


SSRL PBF 18


CEH SLC Experimental Hall


MkII Leach


MCC Portable Building


Light Fabrication Building


Heavy Fabrication Building


Plating Shop Annex


Vacuum Assembly Building


Light Assembly Building


EFD Shops and Storage


EFD Shop Building


Rigging Loft


PMU Shops Building


Transport Tire Shop


Electronics Shop Trailer


Research Yard Machine Shop


Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Clifton Road Facility, Atlanta, GA


Chamblee, Atlanta, GA


Lawrenceville, Lawrenceville, GA


Cincinnati Taft North, Cincinnati, OH


Cincinnati Hamilton, Hamilton, OH


Morgantown, Morgantown, WV


San Juan, San Juan, PR


Ft. Collins, Ft. Collins, CO


Spokane, Spokane, WA


Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA


Food and Drug Administration 

Module I and II (MOD 1 & 2) and Beltsville


Research Facility, Beltsville, MD


Gulf Technical Services, Dauphin Island, AL


Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center


(WEAC), Winchester, MA


San Juan District and Laboratory, San Juan, PR


Atlanta Offices and Laboratory, Atlanta, GA


Los Angeles Offices and Laboratory, Los Angeles,


CA


National Center for Toxicology Research (NCTR),


Jefferson, AR


Indian Health Service 

Aberdeen/49, SD, ND, NE 

Albuquerque/26, NM 

Anchorage/23, AK 

Bemidji/9, MN 

Billings/16, MT, WY 

Nashville/4, MS, NC 

Navajo/54, NM, AZ 

Oklahoma City/20, OK, KS 

Phoenix/40, AZ, CA, NV, UT 

Portland/23, WA, OR, ID 

Tucson/6, AZ 

National Institutes of Health 

Bethesda Campus & NIHAC, Bethesda &


Poolesville, MD


Research Triangle Park, Research Triangle,


NCFrederick Cancer Research and Development


Center (FCRDC), Frederick, MD


Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, MT


Gerontology Research Center, Baltimore, MD


5 Research Court, Rockville, MD


Federal Building, Bethesda, MD


12441 Parklawn, Rockville, MD


12300 Twinbrook, Rockville, MD


Twinbrook I & II, Rockville, MD


Department of Justice 

FBI Headquarters, J. Edgar Hoover Bldg, Western Regional, Data Center 

Washington, DC FBI Complex, Clarksburg, WV 

FBI Training Facility, Quantico, VA Justice Data Center, Rockville, MD 

D-11 
Department of the Treasury 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms U.S. Mint 

Canine Training Center, Front Royal, VA Philadelphia Mint, Philadelphia, PA 

Denver Mint, Denver, CO 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing San Francisco Mint, San Francisco, CA 

Washington Currency Facility, Washington, DC West Point Bullion Depository, West Point, NY 

Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX Fork Knox Bullion Depository, Fort Knox, KY 

Internal Revenue Service U.S. Secret Service 

Martinsburg Computer Center, Martinsburg, WV Rowley Training Center, Beltsville, MD 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab, Ada,


OK


National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory,


Ann Arbor, MI


National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA


Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Athens,


GA


Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research


Center, Cincinnati, OH


National Health and Environmental Effects Research


Laboratory - Western Ecology Division, Corvallis,


OR


National Health and Environmental Effects Research


Laboratory - Mid-Continent Ecology Division,


Duluth, MN


Region 2 Laboratory, Edison, NJ


Environmental Science Center, Fort Meade, MD


Region 8 Laboratory, Golden, CO


National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory - Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 

Environmental Laboratory, Houston, TX 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas - On Campus EPA 

Facilities, Las Vegas, NV 

Region 10 Laboratory, Manchester, WA 

National Air and Radiation Environmental 

Laboratory, Montgomery, AL 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory - Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, 

RI 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory - Western Ecology Division, Newport, 

OR 

Central Regional Laboratory, Richmond, CA 

Research Triangle Park, Research Triangle Park, NC 

General Services Administration 

Federal Center-Admin, Waltham, MA 

Boston New Ch, Boston, MA 

EPA Laboratory, Lexington, MA 

US Border Station, Calais, ME 

US Border Station, Coburn Gore, ME 

US Border Station, Fort Fairfield, ME 

US Border Station, Houlton, ME 

US Border Station, Jackman, ME 

US Border Station, Limestone, ME 

US Border Station, Orient, ME 

US Border Station, Vanceboro, ME 

US Border Station, Van Buren, ME 

US Border Station, Calais, ME 

St. Pamphille, Saint Francis, ME 

US Border Station, Madawaska, ME 

USBP Sec Hd Houlton, Hodgdon, ME 

US Border Station, Fort Kent, ME 

USBS/TWP20, Saint Francis, ME 

USBS, Township 11, Saint Francis, ME 

US Border Station, Derby Line, VT 

US Border Station, Norton, VT


US Border Station, Beebe Plain, VT


US Border Station, Alburg Springs, VT


US Border Station, North Troy, VT


US Border Station, West Berkshire, VT


US Border Station USPO, Derby Line, VT


US Border Station, Beecher Falls, VT


US Border Station, Canaan, VT


USBS East Richford, Richford, VT


US Border Station, Richford, VT


USBP Sector Hdqtrs, Swanton, VT


USBS, Highgate Springs, VT


Swanton Border Patrol Bldg, Highgate Springs, VT


Administration Bldg., Champlain, NY 


Inspection Bld Borde, Chateaugay, NY


Temp Frme Gar Bdr St, Massena, NY


Inspection Building, Mooers, NY


Border Station, Fort Covington, NY


Border Station, Rouses Point, NY


Border Station, Rouses Point, NY


D-12 
Border Station, Trout River, NY 

US Mission to the UN, New York-Manhattan, NY 

Administration Bldg, Alexandria Bay, NY 

Rainbow Br Pt Entry, Niagara Falls, NY 

Chas. E. Bennett FB, Jacksonville, FL 

Airside Commerce, Orlando, FL 

Columbus, Miami, FL 

2385 Chamblee Tucker, Atlanta, GA 

Gnann House, Plains, GA 

GSA/FBI Motor Pool, Memphis, TN 

Southplace Office Park, Nashville, TN 

Federal Building, Chicago, IL 

Minton-Capehart F/B, Indianapolis, IN 

US Border Station, Sault Ste Marie, MI 

Cust Cargo Inspection Facility, Detroit, MI 

Food & Drug, Detroit, MI 

Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, MI 

Detroit Computing Ct, Detroit, MI 

Border Station, Grand Portage, MN 

Custom & Immigration Station, Noyes, MN 

US Border Station, International Falls, MN 

Prop. Border Station, Baudette, MN 

FDA Fornsc Chem Center, Cincinnati, OH 

25 Funston Road, Kansas City, KS 

11510 West 80th, Lenexa, KS 

Federal Bldg, Kansas City, MO 

Executive Hills, Kansas City, MO 

Buckeye Industr. Park, Kansas City, MO 

USBP SH Bldg 13, New Orleans, LA 

USBS Import Dock, Santa Teresa, NM 

Border Station, Columbus, NM 

Austin Finance Ctr, Austin, TX 

USBS B&M-Admin Bldg, Brownsville, TX 

Gateway USBS Bldg A, Brownsville, TX 

USBS-Columbia Admin, Laredo, TX 

US Border Station, Laredo, TX 

USBS Admin Building, Del Rio, TX 

BPSH Bldg 1, Hqtrs, Del Rio, TX 

USBS Br Of The Amers, El Paso, TX 

USBS Amdin Building, Eagle Pass, TX 

USBS Admin Building, Hidalgo, TX 

Juarez-Lincoln USBS, Laredo, TX 

USBS Admin Building, Los Indios, TX 

BPSH Bldg A, Laredo, TX 

Los Tomates USBS Ad, Brownsville, TX 

BPSH Administratn Bd, Mcallen, TX 

Headquarters Bldg, Marfa, TX 

USBS Pharr Admin Bld, Pharr, TX 

USBS Paso Del Norte, El Paso, TX 

USBS Admin Building, Progreso, TX 

US Border Station, Rio Grande City, TX 

USBS Admin Building, Roma, TX 

USBS Main Building, El Paso, TX 

Federal Building, Dallas, TX 

US Border Station, Fabens, TX 

USBS Intl RR, Laredo, TX 

US Border Station, Presidio, TX 

Chief Mtn BS & Qtrs, Babb, MT 

Piegan BS & Qtrs, Babb, MT 

Roosville BS, Eureka, MT 

Sweetgrass BS, Sweetgrass, MT 

Border Patrol Sector Hq, Havre, MT 

Turner B, Turner, MT 

Ambrose BS, Ambrose, ND 

Dunseith BS, Dunseith, ND 

Portal BS, Portal, ND 

St John BS, St John, ND 

Bldg A Main Building, Pembina, ND 

Border Patrol Sector Hq, Grand Forks, ND 

Lukeville Dock, Lukeville Arizona, AZ 

BS Old Cus Bldg, Nogales, AZ 

BS Garage, Sasabe, AZ 

BS Main Bldg, Douglas, AZ 

Border Patrol Sector Hqrs, Tucson, AZ 

BS Main Bldg, San Luis, AZ 

BS Main Bldg, Naco, AZ 

BS Office Bldg, Nogales, AZ 

BS Old Customs Bldg, Calexico, CA 

BS Exist Main Bldg, San Diego, CA 

BS Main Bldg, Andrade, CA 

New Commercial Fac, San Diego, CA 

BS Main Bldg, Tecate, CA 

BS Bulk Lot Bldg, Calexico, CA 

US Border Patrol Station, Calexico, CA 

Parkway Centre, Alameda, CA 

Dalton Cache Bor Sta, Haines, AK 

Station Building, Tok, AK 

Post Office Ct Jail, Nome, AK 

Housing Unit No 2, Nome, AK 

Int Ag Motor Pool, Anchorage, AK 

Skagway Border Station, Skagway, AK 

US Border Station, Eastport, ID 

US Border Station New, Porthill, ID 

E.Green - W.Wyatt FB, Portland, OR 

Station Bldg, Blaine, WA 

Danville Border Station, Danville, WA 

Station & Quarters, Curlew, WA 

Station, Laurier, WA 

Station, Metaline Falls, WA 

US Border Station, Oroville, WA 

US Border Station, Sumas, WA 

Kenneth G. Ward BS, Lynden, WA 

Fed Bldg USDJ INS, Seattle, WA 

Fed Bldg USPO & CH, Richland, WA 

Border Patrol Sect Hq, Blaine, WA 

Border Patrol Sec Hq Annex, Blaine, WA 

Border Patrol Sect Hq, Spokane, WA 

Jackson FB, Seattle, WA 

FDA Bldg, Bothell, WA 

New Border Station, Point Roberts, WA 

D-13 
Pacific Hiway Border, Blaine, WA


Border Patrol Annex, Spokane, WA


Central Heating Plant Stm, Washington, D.C.


West Heating Plnt Stm, Washington, D.C.


Wilbur J. Cohen Bldg, Washington, D.C.


Reagan Bldg FOB, Washington, D.C.


Flam Lab- Bldg "A", Gaithersburg, MD


1401 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD


Rickman Building, Rockville, MD


New Carrollton Fed, Lanham, MD


The Gaither Dist Ctr, Gaithersburg, MD


Census Computer Facility, Bowie, MD


U.S. Secret Service Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 

Model Development Facility


Technical Services Shop


Central Computation Facility


Thermal Protection Facility


Arc Jet Facility


Model Construction Facility


Program Support Communication Network Facility


Flight Data Complex


Numerical Aeronautics Simulator


Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Auxiliary Building


Advanced Computation Facility


Flight Data Facility


High Pressure Air Housing


Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 

Chemistry Laboratory 

Instrument Research Laboratory 

Operations/Integration Building 

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 

Central Flight Control Range


Instrument Construction/Development Laboratory


Payload Testing Facility


Environmental Testing Laboratory


Network Control Center


Spacecraft Operations Facility


Data Interpretation Laboratory


EOS/DIS Building


Goddard Geophysical and Astronomical Observatory


Area


Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 

Environmental Laboratory


25 Foot Space Simulator


Spacecraft Assembly Facility


Space Flight Operations Facility


10 Foot Space Simulator


Space Flight Support


Frequency Standards Laboratory


Earth & Space Sciences Laboratory


Micro Devices Laboratory


Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 

Crew Systems Laboratory 

Photographic Technology Laboratory


Central Heating & Cooling Plant


Auxiliary Chiller Facility


Space Environment Simulation Laboratory


Life Sciences Laboratory


Central Computing Facility


Emergency Power Building


Vibration and Acoustic Test Facility


Atmospheric Re-Entry Materials & Structures


Evaluation Facility


Radiant Heat Facility


Thermo Chemical Test Area


Sonny Carter Training Facility


Avionics Systems Laboratory


Planetary & Earth Science Laboratory


Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL 

Hangar L, Life Sciences Support Facility


Hangar AE, Missile Assembly Building


First Wash Building


East High Pressure Wash/Surf Prep


Robot Wash Building


Media Blast


Program Support Communication


Electromagnetic Lab


Central Instrumentation Facility


Film Storage


PGOC Warehouse


Warehouse #1


Operations and Checkout Building


Space Station Processing Facility


Payload Support Building


Canister Rotation Facility


Multi-Payload Processing Facility


Spacecraft Assembly & Encapsulation Facility


Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility


Vertical Processing Facility


Ordnance Storage


Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 

East Area Compressor Station (Closed)


Hydrodynamics Research Facility


Space Environmental Effects Laboratory


Structures and Materials Research Laboratory


Steam to Hot Water Exch/Pump House


D-14 
Central Heating and Steam Generation Plant


Conference Center


Central Scientific Computing Facility


Refuse-Fired Steam Generating Facility


Flight Dynamics Drop Model Facility (Closed)


Anechoic Noise Facility


Compressor Station


Vacuum Pumping Station – Gas Dynamics Complex


Flight Simulation Laboratory


Central Scientific Computing Facility


Earth Orbiting System-DIS-DAAC Facility


Cockpit Motion Facility


Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, LA 

Entire Facility is Industrial 

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 

Microwave Anechoic Chamber


Communications Facility


Photographic Laboratory


SSME - Block II Facility


LIDAR Facility


Power Systems Laboratory


MAST/FSL Simulation Facility


Space Science Labortory


Laboratory & Office Building


Test Stand Support Building


Test Facility 300


Test Facility 116


Structural Test Facility


Test Facility Terminal Building


Hot Gas Test Facility


Test Control and Service Building


TPTA Refurbishment Facility


Pump and Boiler House


Propulsion and Structural Test Facility


Test & Data Recording Facility


Space Environmental Effects Laboratory


Air Compressor Building


Materials & Processes Laboratory


Atmospheric Research Facility


Heat Treatment Facility


Structural Dynamics & Thermal Vacuum Laboratory


Hydrogen Test Facility


Air Compressor Building


High Pressure Test Facility


Multi-Purpose High Bay Facility


Hydraulic Equipment Development Facility


LH2 Vaporization Facility


High Pressure GN2 Facility


Boiler Plant


Computer Facility


Pump House


Advanced Engine Test Facility


Test Support Building


Block House


Boiler House


Helium Compressor Building


Non-Destructive Evaluation Laboratory


Shops & Neutral Buoyancy Simulator


Productivity Enhancement Facility


Engineering & Developmental Laboratory


Developmental Processes Laboratory


X-Ray Calibration Facility


Office and Wind Tunnel


Compressed Air Facility


Air Compressor Facility


High Bay Shop Building


Space Station Development Laboratory


Surface Treatment Facility


High Reynolds Number Facility


Low Density Flow Facility


Engine Dynamic Fluid Flow Facility


NASA Industrial Plant, Downey and Palmdale, CA 

NASA Industrial Plant (Downey) and USAF Plant 

42, Production Site 1 (Palmdale) 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Canoga Park, CA 

Entire facility is laboratory space. 

Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA 

Mainland/Island Areas


Radar Facility


Machine Shop – Fabrication


Aircraft Projects/Hangar Area


Electronics Support/Storage


National Archives and Records Administration 

National Archives I, Washington, D.C. Ford Presidential Library, Ann Arbor, MI


National Archives II, College Park, MD Ford Museum, Grand Rapids, MI


Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, IA Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta, GA


Roosevelt Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, CA


Truman Presidential Library, Independence, MO Kennedy Presidential Library, Boston, MA


Eisenhower Presidential Library, Abilene, KS Bush Presidential Library, College Station, TX


Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX


D-15 
Social Security Administration 

National Computer Center, Baltimore, MD 

Coal Handling Facilities 

Truck Coal Sample Station


BRF Breaker Bldg


GAF Coal Sample Collection Bldg


CUF Coal Sample Bldg


CUF Live Storage Silos


KIF Fuel Handling


SHF Fuel Handling


CUF Reclaim Hopper


CUF Breaker Structure


CUF Surge Hopper Bldg


WCF Fuel Handling System


SHF Coal Yard Lighting


SHF Railroad Hopper Bldg


COF Barge Unloader Building 1


Computer Facilities 

Monteagle Place 

Control Room Facilities 

PAF Security Portal


BOH Control Building


COF Switchyard Control Bldg


KIF Precipitator Control Bldg 3


KIF Demineralization Bldg


KIF Precipitator Control Bldg 2


WBN Control Building Cb


RPS Switchyard Control Building


SHF W ater Treatment Plant


JSF Conveyor Control Tower


KIF Precipitator Control Bldg 1


SHF AFBC Control Bldg


JOF Control Bldg


GFH Control Building


COF Precipitator Control Building 5


SHF Control Bldg


GAF Electrical Control Bldg


BRF Control & Sampling Bldg


SHF Crusher Bldg


Generator Facilities 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

TLH Emergency Generator Building 

NJH Diesel Generator Building 

Laboratory Facilities 

PAF Coal Wash Laboratory


Engineering Labs Building P


Engineering Labs Building D


Engineering Labs Building A


BFN Low Lvl Rdwst Bldg. (E-32)


Aquatic Biology Lab-Wet Lab


Aquatic Biology Lab-Tractor Shed


Aquatic Biology Lab.-Shed


Catalyzer # 4 - Radio/High Pressure Lab


Catalyzer # 1 - Mineral Lab


Catalyzer # 2 - Nitro Fertilization Lab


Catalyzer # 5 - Plant


Catalyzer # 6 - Nitro Fertilization Office


Aquatic Biology Lab-Hatchery


Aquatic Biology Lab (Main)


Chemical Engineering Building Lab


Western Area Radiological Lab


Engineering Lab Annex


N Engineering Lab Bldg B


BFN Biothermal Research


N Maintenance Building


Experimental Greenhouse


Chl/Dc/Msc Coal Laboratory


N Engineering Lab Bldg N


Chl/Dc/Msc Laboratory Bldg/Power Stores


WCF Sample Prep Bldg


N Engineering Lab Bldg H


BFN T oxicity Testing Lab


Load Management Facilities 

FTL Modular Unit 

Glasgow Modular Unit 

Holston Mountain Load 

Hiwassee Microwave 

Microwave Stations 

Hopkinsville Microwave 

TFH Spillway Emergency Generator Building Terrapin Mtn Radio


Powerhouse (Generator Facility) Eaves Bluff Microwave/Radio


WBN Diesel Generator Building Dg-2 Lamar Microwave


WBN Diesel Generator Building Dg-1 Grandview Radio/Microwave


CHH Diesel Generator Building Graham M icrowave


BRH Small Turbine Generator Martin Radio


MHH Diesel Generator Bldg Bruce Radio Station


TFH Diesel Generator Building Elkton Hill Radio/Microwave


D-16 
Russell Hill Microwave 

Ellis Mountain Microwave 

Meredith Microwave 

Oswald Dome Microwave 

Hinze Radio/Microwave 

Norton Hill Microwave 

Beech Grove Microwave 

Montlake Microwave 

Roosevelt Mt Microwave 

Van Vleet Radio/Microwave 

Pickwick Microwave 

Raccoon Mtn Pump House 

Wininger Microwave 

Norris Modular Unit 

Lena Radio/Microwave 

Woodall Mountain Microwave 

Nickajack Modular Unit 

Tuscumbia Microwave 

Stephensville Microwave 

Waynesboro Radio Repeater 

Johnsonville Microwave 

State Line Microwave 

Germantown M icrowave 

McEwen Microwave 

Fain Mountain Microwave 

Sharps Ridge Microwave 

Lambert Chapel Microwave 

Monsanto Microwave 

Monte Sano Microwave 

Rogersville Microwave 

Sebastopole Radio Repeater 

Hornbeak Radio/Microwave 

Holston Mountain Microwave 

Pulaski Microwave 

Church Hill Microwave 

Raccoon M tn Microwave 

Bunker Hill Microwave 

Thorton Town Microwave 

Fort Mountain Radio Station 

Trace Park Microwave 

Rock Springs Microwave 

New Castle Microwave 

Signal Mountain Microwave 

Finger Microwave Station 

Great Falls Microwave 

Vanleer Microwave 

Cottonport Radio 

DGH Modular 

Morristown Microwave 

Sequoyah Training Radio 

New Johnsonville Microwave 

Pulaski Radio Tower 

Brawley Mtn Microwave/Radio 

Sequatchie Valley Radio Station 

Roane Mountain Microwave 

Shawnee Repeater Station


Anderson Microwave


Oak Ridge M icrowave


Smithville Radio


Fabius Microwave


Lynn Grove Microwave


Hickman Microwave


Spring Hill Microwave


Grand River Radio/Microwave


Donelson Microwave


Sewanee Microwave


Centerville Microwave


Broadview Microwave


Model Microwave


WBH Modular Unit


Beech Grove Microwave


Wauchecha Bald Radio


Burney Mountain Microwave


Green Top Mountain Microwave


White Oak Mountain Radio


Bowling Green Microwave


Combs Knob Microwave


Monte Sano VHF


Hollis Chapel Microwave


Powerhouse Facilities 

GAF Powerhouse


BFN Reactor Building


DGH Powerhouse/Dam


WCF Powerhouse Plant A


GFH Powerhouse


RPS Powerplant Chamber and Tunnels


CTH Powerhouse/Dam


GUH Powerhouse/Dam


O1H Powerhouse/Dam


HIH Powerhouse/Control Building


NOH Powerhouse/Dam


BFN Unit 3 Diesel Generator Bldg


BRH Powerhouse


KIF Powerhouse


PAF Powerhouse


BFN Unit 1 & 2 Dsl.Gen. Bldg


O3H Powerhouse/Control Bay


NJH Powerhouse/Dam


MHH Powerhouse/Dam


CRH Powerhouse/Dam


COF Powerhouse


KYH Powerhouse/Dam


SHH Powerhouse


BFN Turbine Building


RPS Ventilation Fan Building


RPS Discharge Structure Pumping Station


WIH Powerhouse/Dam


NTH Powerhouse


WTH Powerhouse


D-17 
BFN Radwaste Evaporator Bldg


WBH Powerhouse/Dam


BRF Powerhouse


SHF AFBC Boiler Bldg


FLH Powerhouse/Dam


SHF Powerhouse


FNH Powerhouse/Dam


PKH Powerhouse/Dam


CHH Powerhouse/Dam


JOF Powerhouse


CUF Powerhouse


WCF Powerhouse Plant B


RPS Surge Chamber and Tunnel


WBH Control Bldg


WEH Powerhouse/Dam


WBN Turbine Building Tb


BOH Powerhouse/Dam


O2H Powerhouse/Dam


RPS Service Equipment Building


BFN Control Building


RPS Power Storage Building


JSF Powerhouse


TFH Powerhouse/Dam


FPH Powerhouse/Dam


APH Powerhouse


Process Facilities 

WTH Control Building


Dandridge Pump Sta. (Doug Dam)


KIF Sample & Hopper Bldg No. 1


Fleet Harbor Pumping Station


HIH Dam


ALF Powerhouse


KIF Switchyard Control Bldg


SQN Diesel Gen. Bldg.


KIF Crusher Bldg


GAF Utility Bldg


BRF Sewage Treatment Plant


NTH Compressor and Blower Building


WCF Forced Oxidation Blower Bldg.


SQN Intake Pump.Stat.


KIF Hopper Bldg No. 2


PDW Pumping Station


SQN Reactor Bldg.


WTH Oil Purification Building


Pump Station (Watts Bar Res)


Prototype Opers Bldg (Pilot Plant)


SQN Turbine Bldg.


KIF Truck Sample Prep Bldg.


TFH Intake Structure


WTH Electrical Equipment Building


KIF W ater Treatment Plant


Lexington Water Pump (Temporary)


Volunteer 500 kV Pump House


WEH Oil Purification Building


GFH Rock House 

O3H Dam/Gallery 

BFN Unit 3 Restart 

Singleton Compressor/Phone Bldg 

O3H Valve House 

PAF Limestone Preparation Bldg 

O2H Water Level Gauge House 

O2H Penstock Valve House 

O2H Trash Rack House 

O2H Water Treatment Plant 

Duck River Ltg/Heat 

COF New W ater Treatment Bldg. 

Martin Pump House 

PAF Barge Unloader 

FNH Diesel Generator Building 

O2H Well Pump House 

O2H Oil Purification Building 

ALF Combustion Turbine Maint Facility 

O1H Diesel Generator Building 

BFN Telephone Node Bldg. (W-19) 

BRF Hydrogen Trailer Port 

PAF Coal Wash Plant 

GFH Intake House 

PAF Conditioner Bldg 

PAF Scrubber Maintenance Bldg 

TLH Dam 

Rockhouse, Buckeye, Bagwell Pump House 

Camden 161 kV Pump House 

Chemical Feed House 

Fultondale Battery Building 

Catalyzer # 3 - Plant 

TFH Aeration and Compressor Building 

South Jackson 161 kV Generator Bldg 

PAF Breaker Building N 

Columbia 161 Well House 

SQN Control Bldg. 

Boiler Building 

ALF W ater Intake Structure 

PAF Scrubber Control Bldg 

CUF Utility Bldg 

Marshall Pump House 

PAF Transfer Station A 

Big Sandy Pumphouse - Motor 

SHH Intake and Access Tunnel 

Roane 500 kV Pump House 

SHF Ash Handling System 

BRH Spillway Equipment Building 

JSF Control Bldg 

APH Dam 

APH Valve House 

GAF Hydrogen Trailer Port A 

APH Diesel Generator Building 

JSF Sample Bldg. 

Phipps Bend 500 Pump House 

Boiler House 

D-18 
CUF PPTR Control Bldg 1A 

JOF Hopper Bldg 

GAF Fuel Handling 

Nickajack FTC New Pump House 

Backwater Protection 

Prototype Operations Building, Plant 

JOF Crusher Bldg 

WBF Boiler Bay 

CUF Water Supply Pumping Station 

SQN Node Bldg 

Big Sandy Pumphouse - Heat/Ltg 

WBF Powerhouse 

WCF Switchyard Control Bldg 

CUF Absorber Building 

JOF Draft Sys. Electrical Building 

WCF Crusher Bldg 

GAF Hopper Bldg 

Pump House 

COF Old Water Treatment Plant 

SHF Hopper Bldg 

WCF Hopper Bldg 

SHF Fly Ash Blower Bldg 

Scottsboro Pump House 

WBF Fuel Handling 

Old Pump House 

WBF Hopper Bldg 

WBN M akeup Water Treatment Plant Mwp 

GAF Water Treatment Plant 

GAF Oil Pumping Station 

CUF Accessory Bldg. 

JSF Demineralizer Bldg 

L&N Building East, Plant 

BRF Aux Hopper 

KIF Water Supply Pumping Station 

WCF Water Supply 

WBN Reactor Building Reac 

Nickajack FTC Ventilator Building 

GAF Combustion Turbine Maintenance Bldg


WBN Auxillary Building Aux


SHF Demineralization Bldg 2


GAF Conveyor Control Bldg


Weakley 500 kV Pump House


SHF Demineralizer Bldg 1


JSF Fly Ash Silo


BLN Turbine Bldg


MSW Plant


JOF Water Supply Bldg


West Sandy Pump House (Lts/Ht)


SHF Surge Hopper Bldg 1


JSF Water Treatment Plant


JSF Chlorination Bldg


BRF Pumping Station


Whiteside Pump House


WCF Scrubber Unit 7


BLN Reactor Bldg


BRF Pptr Control Bldg


Wellhouse (Watauga Dam)


SHF Limestone Conditioner Bldg


Wellhouse


WCF Scrubber Unit 8


SQN Aux.Bldg


Well Houses


National Center For Emmissions Research


West Sandy Pump House


BLN Auxiliary Bldg


SHF Bag House


COF Conveyor Control Bldg


JSF Conveyor Switchgear Bldg


COF Dry Fly Ash Eqpt Bldg


Cable Tunnels


WBN Intake Pumping Station-Intake


BLN Control Bldg


Substation Facilities 

Huntsville 161 kV Switch House


Counce 161 kV Switch House


Hartsville HT SE W arehouse


Columbus Air Force Base 46 kV Switch House


Cornersville 46 kV Switch House


Columbia Primary 161 kV Switch House


Section 46 kV Switch House


Lebanon 161 kV Pump House


Madison 500 kV Switch House


Williamsport 46 kV Switch House


Pin Hook 161 kV Switch House


Trinity 500 kV Switch House


West Cookeville 161 kV Switch House


Bowling Green 161 kV Switch House


Albertville District 46 kV Switch House


Cordova 500 kV Pump House


Nance 161 kV Switch House


Arab 161 kV Switch House


Wilson 500 kV Pump House


Moulton 161 kV Switch House


Calhoun City 161 kV Switch House


Livingston 161 kV Switch House


Salem Carpet Mills 46 kV Switch House


Oglethorpe 161 kV Switch House


Concord 161 kV Switch House


Jackson 500 kV Switch House


Lynchburg 46 kV Switch House


North Huntsville 161 kV Switch House


Unionville 46 kV Switch House


Scottsboro 161 kV Switch House


Reynolds 161 kV Switch House


Red Bay 161 kV Switch House


West Nashville 161 Kv Switch House


Haletown 69 kV Switch House


Bryant 161 kV Switch House


Dupont 69 kV Switch House


D-19 
Shelby 500 kV Pump House 

Dayton 161 kV Switch House 

Ardmore 161 kV Switch House 

Shelbyville 46 kV Switch House 

Albertville 161 kV Switch House 

Spring City 161 kV Switch House 

Centerville Fallout Shelter 

Smithville 161 kV Switch House 

Rockwood 161 kV Switch House 

Mount Pleasant 161 kV Switch House 

Jersey Miniere Zinc Co 161 kV Switch House 

Hillsboro 46 kV Switch House 

Fultondale 115 kV Switch House 

Sherwood 46 kV Switch House 

JSF 161kV Switch House Structure 

Moccasin 161 kV Switch House 

Springfield 161 kV Switch House 

Lewisburg 161 kV Switch House 

North Pigeon Forge 161 kV Switch House 

Lawrenceburg 161 kV Switch House 

Belfast 161 kV Pump House 

Columbia 161 kV Pump House 

Murphy 161 kV Switch House 

Union 500 kV Switch House 

Mt. Pleasant 161 kV Switch House 

Columbia 161 kV Shelter 

Waynesboro 161 kV Switch House 

Sewanee 69 kV Switch House 

Shelby 500 kV Switch House 

Milan 161 kV Switch House 

Culleoka 46 kV Switch House 

South Jackson 161 kV Switch House 

Tupelo 161 kV Switch House 

Goose Pond 161 kV Switch House 

Jersey Miniere Zinc-Elmwood 

Raccoon Mtn Ps Plant 500 kV (161 kV) 

Alpha 69 kV Switch House 

Grove Oak 46 kV Switch House 

Lewisburg 46 kV Switch House 

Ridgedale 161 kV Switch House 

Guntersville 161 Kv Switch House 

GAF 161 kV Switch House 

Henegar 161 kV Switch House 

Bluff City 161 kV Pump House 

Montgomery 500-kV-Pump House 

Roane 500 kV Switch House 

Charleston 161 kV Switch House 

Collinsville 161 kV Switch House 

Smyrna 161 kV Switch House 

Monsanto 161 kV Switch House 

Cullman 161 kV Switch House 

Freeport 500 kV Switch House 

Maury 500 kV Switch House 

Decatur 161 kV Switch House 

Huntsville 161 kV Switch House 

FTL Plant 161 kV Switch House 

Murfreesboro M aintenance Building 

Dry Creek Primary 161 kV Switch House 

Murffessboro Ind Park 161 kV Switch House 

Farley 161 kV Switch House 

Athens 161 kV Switch House 

Marshall 500 kV Switch House 

Clarksville Water Tower/COMM 

Clarksville 161 kV Switch House 

Double Bridges 161 kV Switch House 

North Sardis 161 kV Switch House 

NASA 161 kV Switch House 

Hartsville N.P. 161kV Switch House 

New Albany 161 kV Switch House 

Moscow 161 kV Switch House 

Okolona 161 kV Switch House 

Oxford 161 kV Switch House 

Carthage 161 kV Switch House 

Sardis 161 kV Switch House 

Holly Springs 161 kV Switch House 

Kirkmansville 69 kV Switch House 

Booneville District 46 kV Switch House 

Water Valley 161 kV Switch House 

Franklin 161 kV Switch House 

Lafayette 161 kV Switch House 

Aberdeen 

Bolivar 

Bonicord 

Loudon 161 kV Switch House 

Dunmor 69 kV Switch House 

Rienzi 46 Switch House 

Phipps Bend 500 kV Switch House 

Shoals 161 kV Switch House 

Logan Aluminum 

Centerville 161 kV Switch House 

Edgoten 161 kV Switch House 

Limestone 500 kV Switch House 

Radnor 161 kV Switch House 

West Point 500 kV Pump House 

Etowah Switch House 69 kV Switch House 

Madison 500 kV Pump House 

Hardwick Clothes Inc 

Batesville 161 kV Switch House


Elkton 69 kV Switch House


Weyerhaeuser Co. 161 kV Switch House


Booneville 161 kV Switch House


Oakland 161 kV Switch House


Hopson 69 kV Switch House


Glasgow 161 kV Switch House


Dyersburg 161 kV Switch House


Burnsville 161 kV Switch House


Coffeeville 161 kV Switch House


Bandy, R. H. 115 kV Switch House


Hopkinsville 161 kV Switch House


South Nashville 161 kV Switch House/Nash ADCC


D-20 
White Pine 161 kV Switch House 

Hopkinsville 161 Well House 

Olive Branch 161 kV Switch House 

Cadiz 161 kV Switch House 

WPM Philadelphia 

Russellville 161 kV Switch House 

Union City 161 kV Switch House 

Russellville District 69 kV Switch House 

Alamo 161 kV Switch House 

Guntown 161 kV Switch House 

Ludlow 46 kV Switch House 

South Macon 161 kV Switch House 

Tusculum 161 kV Switch House 

Sturgis 161 kV Switch House 

Nickajack FTC Elec Sim Control 

Weakley 500 kV Switch House 

Bristow 

Kirkville 46 kV Switch House 

Melton Hill Modular Unit 

West Point 500 kV Switch House 

Bolivar 161 kV Switch House 

Bolivar District 46 kV Switch House 

Weyerhauser 161 kV Switch House 

Scott 115 kV Switch House 

Covington 161 kV Switch House 

Chesterfield 161 kV Switch House 

Clarksburg 161 kV Switch House 

Columbus 161 kV Switch House 

Marble 69 kV Switch House 

Paducah 161 kV Switch House


Columbus District 46 kV Switch House


Corinth 161 kV Switch House


Charlotte 69 kV Switch House


Brownsville 161 kV Switch House


Midway 161 kV Switch House


Trinity 500 kV Pump House


East Bowling Green 161 kV Switch House


Dekalb 161 kV Switch House


Sullivan Static Condensor


Hickory Valley 161kV Switch House


Peedee 69 kV Switch House


Casky 161 kV Switch House


Alcoa 161 kV Switch House


Pembroke 69 kV Switch House


Leake 161 kV Switch House


Brownsville District 161 kV Switch House


Louisville 161 kV Switch House


Sullivan 500 kV Switch House


Lonsdale 161 kV Switch House


Northeast Substation


Crossville 161 kV Switch House


Lowndes 500 kV Switch House


McGregor Chapel 161 kV Switch House


Miller 161 kV Switch House


Sullivan 500 kV Pump House


Tri State 161KV Switch House 

West Ringgold 230kV Switch House 

Clinton 161 kV Switch House 

Calvert 161 kV Switch House 

Knoxville 161 kV Switch House 

COF 161 kV Switch House 

Nixon Road 161 kV Switch House 

Finley 161 kV Switch House 

Erin 161 kV Switch House 

East Shelbyville 161 kV Switch House 

North Knoxville 161 kV Switch House 

North Nashville 161 kV Switch House 

Pigeon Forge 161 kV Switch House 

Penchem 69 kV Switch House 

Fort Payne 161 kV Switch House 

Huntsville 161 kV Storage 

Kerr-Mcgee Inc. 161 kV Switch House 

Stevenson 161 kV Switch House 

Columbia District 46 kV Switch House 

Athens 161 kV Switch House 

Valley Creek 115 kV Switch House 

Cranberry 161 kV Switch House 

Jackson 500 kV Switch House 

Lightfoot 69 kV Switch House 

Humboldt 161 kV Switch House 

Elizabethton 161 kV Switch House 

Courtland 46 kV Switch House 

Selmer 161kV Switch House 

Louisville 161 kV Switch House 

South Jackson 

Fayetteville 161 kV Switch House 

Bluff City 161 kV Switch House 

Franklin 161 kV Switch House 

Estill Springs 46 kV Switch House 

Brindley 46 kV Switch House 

Hickory Valley 161 kV Pump House 

Niles Ferry 69 kV Switch House 

Greeneville Ind Park 161 kV Switch House 

Roane Mountain 161 kV Switch House 

Savannah 161 kV Switch House 

Wartrace 161 kV Switch House 

Winchester 161 kV Switch House 

Manchester 161 kV Switch House 

Philadelphia 161 kV Switch House 

East Cleveland 161 kV Switch House 

Vonore 69 kV Switch House 

Portland 161 kV Switch House 

Starkville (New) 161 kV Switch House 

Murfreesboro 161 kV Switch House 

WBF Plant 161 kV Switch House 

Jetport 161 kV Switch House 

Morristown 161 kV Switch House 

Monsanto Chemical 161 kV Switch House 

Baxter 161 kV Switch House Land 

Braytown 161 kV Switch House 

D-21 
Falling Water 161 kV Switch House


North Bristol 161 kV Switch House


Davidson 500 kV Switch House


Wilson 500 kV Switch House


Cerulean 69 kV Switch House


Northeast Johnson City 161 kV Switch House


Casky 69 kV Switch House


National Carbide 161 kV Switch House


Hendersonville 161 kV Switch House


East McMinnville 161 kV Switch House


Belfast 161 kV Switch House


Substation # 1 Plant


Lowland 69 kV Switch House


Copper Basin 161 kV Switch House


Martin 161 kV Switch House


Mayfield 161 kV Switch House


Starkville (Old) 161 kV Switch House


Fultondale AL 115kv Switch House


McMinnville 161 kV Switch House


Summer Shade 161 kV Switch House


Great Lakes SW Station


South Calvert 161 kV Switch House


Wilson 500 kV Maintenance Bldg - M1


Cowan 46 kV Switch House


Franklin 500 kV Switch House


Davidson 500 kV Pump House


Newport 161 kV Switch House


Lebanon 161 kV Switch House


Dickson 161 kV Switch House


Switchgear Facilities 

Nashville ADCC/Switch


COF Gas Turbine Switchgear 1


BRF Electrical Switchgear Bldg


Freeport Abandoned Switch House


Hartsville Admin # 1


Bonicord 69 kV Switch House


GAF Breaker Switchgear Bldg


ALF Switchgear Bldg.


Solutia Switch House


D-22 
APPENDIX E


EXEMPT FACILITIES


Department of Defense


Cold Iron Facilities 

SUBASE, New London, CT


NSY, Norfolk, VA


PWC, Norfolk, VA


WPNSTA, Charleston, SC


NAS, Pensacola, FL


NAS, Key West, FL


NAVSTA ROOSEVELT ROADS, PR


SUBASE, Kings Bay, GA


NAVSTA, Mayport, FL


WPNSTA EARLE COLTS NECK, NJ


NAVSTA, Gauntanamo, Cuba


NSWC COASTSYSTA, Panama City, FL


NAVPHIBASE, Little Creek, VA


NETC, Newport, RI


NAVSTA ROTA SP


NAVSTA, Pascagoula, MS


NAVSTA, Ingleside, TX


NUSC, New London Laboratory


NSC, Oakland, CA


NAVSTA, San Diego, CA


NAS NORTH IS San Diego, CA


NSY Puget Sound Bremerton, WA


NSY, Pearl Harbor, HI


SUBASE, Pearl Harbor, HI


FLEASWTRACENPAC, San Diego, CA


FLEET ACTIVITIES, Chinhae, South Korea


WPNSTA, Concord, CA


COMFLEACT, Yokosuka, Japan


NAVSTA, Guam


CBC Port Hueneme, CA


NAVSHIPREPFAC, Guam


COM FLEACT , Sasebo, Japan


PWC, Pearl Harbor, HI


NAVSTA, Pearl Harbor, HI


SUBASE, San Diego, CA


NAVRESREDCOMREG 22, Seattle, WA


SUBASE, Bangor, WA


NAVSTA, Everett, WA


Simulators 

WPNSTA, Charleston, SC 

NAS, Pensacola, FL


NAS, Jacksonville, FL


NAS, Dallas, TX


NAS, Kingsville, TX


NAVAIRDEVCEN, Warinster, PA


NAS, Lemoore, CA


NSWC DIV, Pt. Hueneme, CA


MCAS, Miramar, CA


Transmitters 

NAS, Jacksonville, FL


NAVSECGRUACT, Winter Harbor, ME


NRTF DIXON


RADTRANF, Annapolis, MD


NAVRADTRANFAC SADDLEBUNCH KEYS


NAVSECGRUACT, Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico


NAVCOMMSTA, Jacksonville, FL


NAVRADSTA /T/ Jim Creek, WA


NAVSECGRUACT GALETA IS PN


Other 

NAS, Dallas, TX


NAVCOMMU, Washington, D.C.


NAF, El Centro, CA


NSWC COASTSYSTA, Panama City, FL


COM FLEACT , Yokosuka, Japan


NAVOBSY, Washington, D.C.


NAF, Atsugi, Japan


CBC, Port Hueneme, CA


CBC, Gulfport, MS


MCAS, Iwakuni, Japan


PWC, Pearl Harbor, HI


NAVSTA ROTA SP


NAS, Keflavik, Iceland


NAVCOM MSTA, Keflavik, Iceland


DoD SCHOOLS, Keflavik, Iceland


HDQTRS 4TH MARDIV, New Orleans, LA


NAVSTA, Pascagoula, MS


“Other” category includes energy consumed by non-


Defense activities, private parties, contractors, and


State and local governments. 


Department of Health and Human Services 

Bethesda Campus Multilevel Parking Garages, 

Bethesda, MD 

E-1 
Federal Aviation Administration 

Oklahoma City, OK 

ARSR-1D 

ARSR-3 main building 

ARSR-3 equip. building 

ARSR-3 tower building 

ASR-8 training lab 

Building 213 (ASR-8 STOR.) 

Antenna range shop 

Antenna test shop 

Ant. test tower (ATCBI) 

Base maintenance 

Building "K" 

Line maintenance building 

Line maintenance shed 

Radar antenna building 

VOR-700 antenna test 

ARSR-3 radar test (RMM) 

ARSR-4


ASDE-3


ASR-7 training facility


ASR-9


Building 210 (ASR-9 STOR.)


FPS-66 training facility


Ind. waste treatment plant


Prog. Supt. fac. (TDWR2)


TDWR #2 equip. building


Radio RFI


Special purpose building


TDWR #1 building 


Thomas P. Stafford


TSI lab building


Waste Coll. Sys. stg. building


TSI compressor building


ARSR-3 storage


TSI storage


Guard house (North)


Guard house (South)


VOR/DME/TACAN


GNAS


Systems support facility


Hazardous waste building


MARK 1 F (Conn. to ILS Com'plx)


MARK1-E


MARK1-F


MARK 20


MARK 20 annex


LSTC


MARK1-B


Digital Remote Switch


Grounds M aint. II


Atlantic City, NJ 

Department of Transportation 

OATS storage 

Various office space 

Storage/Space management 

Integration & Interoperability facility 

Human Factors Laboratory 

Water treatment plant 

Hazardous Material Storage 

NEXCOM Facility 

2 Pump house & well facilities 

JP-4 Trans. building 

OLD Control Tower 

Radio Communications Link 

ASR-8 Radar facility 

Peripheral Communications 

ILS Localizer building R/W 22 

Doppler VOR #2 

Generator building 

DART S trailer 

12 Storage facilities 

Experimental VORTAC 

ARSR-2 RADAR Site 

Federal Air Marshal Headquarters 

Federal Air Marshal Logistics Office 

Materials Fire Test Facility 

Wind tunnel 

Nacelle Test Facility/Model Shop 

Salvage yard 

Crashworthiness Build Up 

Water treatment plant 

Fuel test lab 

Aircraft Safety Branch Office 

Fire test cell 

2 Fuel pump house facilities 

Crashworthiness Lab 

Sewage lift 

Drop test facility 

Sprinkler test building 

Drum storage building 

EAIR radar 

Communications building 

Experimental RW lighting building 

Sewage Lift St. #2 

Aircraft blower 

Pump house 

Fuel storage 

Compressor building 

Fire Test building 

Air Test building 

Chemical lab 

Log cabin 

Radar building 

Pump house well # 5 

Guard house 

E-2 
New helipad building


New radar building


Components Fire Test Facility


Friction test equipment storage


ASDE-3 metal building


New ASDE-3 tower w/trailer


Shoothouse


Fuels research lab


Vapor extraction building


Biotreatment building


Extraction control building


Pavement test facility


Fire & crash station


Power conditioning system


Refueler repair


Wash rack near 302


Mobile equipment storage building


Sand storage building (R&G)


Aviation security laboratory


Advanced automation system


Aircraft battery shop building


Bulk storage building


Trace storage building


Security operations center


2 junk trailers


Office Building addition to 150


RCL trailers (was # 291)


Garage


2 Mode S trailers


Office Modules 6 UNITS


Jet engine shelter behind 202


Fuel tank & generator


Catapult storage metal building


TASR Storage


Range cover & weapon cleaning


Reactive range cover


2Pump houses


Instrumentation trailer


Engine enclosure


Other locations 

FSS, Betttles, AK


FSS (10), Various


ATBM, Tanana, AK


ATBM (7), Various


UB, Cold Bay, AK


ATCT, Fairbanks, AK


VOR, Kotzebue, AK


VOR (25), Various


H, Ambler, AK


H (11), Various


ASR, Fairbanks, AK


ATCT, Bethel, AK


QS, Dillingham, AK


TOWB, Anchorage, AK


UB, Middleton, AK


TOWB, Kodiak, AK


ATCT, Kansas City, MO


ATCT, Des Moines, IA


AFSS, Columbia, MO


ARTCC, Olathe, KS


ATCT, Sioux City, IA


AFSS, Chesterfield, MO


RCLT, Columbia, MO


ARSR, Kirksville, MO


ARSR (6), Various


ASR, Wichita, KS


ASR (5), Various


ATCT, St. Louis, MO


ATCT (17), Various


FSS, Wichita, KS


ATBM, Springfield, MO


VOR, Goodland, KS 


VOR/TACR (49), Various


RCAG, Salina, KS


HDQ, Kansas, MO


AFSS, Columbus, NE


HDQ (5), Various


ATBM, Chanute, KS


ATBM, Scottsbluff, NE


ATBM, Lincoln, NE


RCAG, Manhattan, KS


ARTCC, Islip, NY


ATCT, Rochester, NY


AFSS, Islip, NY


AFSS, Millville, NJ


ATCT, Pittsburgh, PA


AFSS, Leesburg, VA


FSS, Islip, NY


ARTCC, Leesburg, VA


ATCT, Washington, D.C.


ARSR, Benton, PA 


ATCT, Caldwell, NJ


IFST, Sayville, NY


AFSS, Williamsport, PA


ATCT, Long Island, NY


VOR, , Calverton, NY


VOR (78), Various 


HDQS, Charleston, WV


FSS, Salisbury, MD


FSS (4), Various


HDQS, Norfolk, VA


UB, Roanoke, VA


HDQF, Poughkeepsie, NY


ATBM, Long Island, NY


ASR, Syracuse, NY


ASR (13), Various


ARSR, Riverhead, NY


ARSR (7), Various


ATCT, Islip, NY


E-3 
ATCT (25), Various


AFSS, Altoona, PA


ASR, Chicago, IL


ASR (16), Various


ARSR, Cooperville, MI


ARSR (13), Various


ATCT, W. Chicago


ATCT (38), Various


ATBM, Columbus, OH


VOR, Stronghold, IL


VOR (80), Various


HDQS, Willmar, MN


HDQS (6), Various


TOWB, Flint, MI


TOWB (8), Various


MULTI, Dayton, OH


MULTI (7), Various


AFSS, Grand Forks, ND


AFSS, Huron, SD


HDQF, Traverse City


HDQF (5), Various


ARTCC, Oberlin, OH


AFSS, Lansing, MI


FSS, Dayton, OH


AFSS, Kankakee, IL


ATCT, Grand Rapids, MI


AFSS, Green Bay, WI


ARTCC, Aurora, IL


AFSS, Princeton, MN


AFSS, Terre Haute, IN


ARTCC, Farmington, MN


ARTCC, Indianapolis, IN


ATCT, Detroit, MI


MULT, Minneapolis, MN


ATCT, Rapid City, SD


MULT, Indianapolis, IN


ATCT, Minneapolis, MN


ASR, Nantucket, MA


ASR, Boston, MA


ARSR, Cummington, MA


ATCT, New Haven, CT


ATCT (19), Various


ASR, Manchester, NH


ASR, Portland, ME


VOR, Augusta, ME 


VOR (14), Various 


AFSS, Bangor, ME 


AFSS , Burlington, VT 


HDQS, Boston, MA 


ATCT, Providence, RI 


AFSS, Bridgeport, CT 


ARSR, North Truro, MA 


ATCT, Boston, MA 


ATCT, Otis AFB, MA


ARTCC, Boston, MA


ARSR, St. Albans, ME 

ARSR, Bucks Harbor, ME 

AFSS, Cedar City, UT 

AFSS, Great Falls, WY 

AFSS, Casper, WY 

RCAG, Alamosa, CO 

RCAG (8), Various 

RTR, Ogden, UT 

TOWB, Tobe, CO 

RTR, Renton, WA 

RTR, Spokane, WA 

DME, Wenatchee, WA 

RTR, Seattle, WA 

ARSR, Klamath Falss, OR 

ASR, Salt Lake City, UT 

ASR (12), Various 

ARSR (15), Various 

ATCT, Denver, CO 

ATCT (21), Various 

VOR, Myton, UT 

VOR (63), Various 

FSS, Redmond, OR 

FSS (13), Various 

TOWB, Spokane, WA 

SB, Mica Peak, WA 

ARTCC, Auburn, WA 

ARTCC, Salt Lake City, UT 

ARTCC, Longmont, CO 

AFSS, Boise, ID 

AFSS, Seattle, WA 

AFSS, Denver, CO 

ARSR, Malstrom AFB, MT 

ATCT, Colorado Springs, CO 

ARSR, Salt Lake City, UT 

AFSS, Bosie, ID 

AFSS, Casper, WY 

ATCT, Eugene, OR 

AFSS, McMinnville, OR 

ATCT, Grand Junction, CO 

ARSR, Lake Side, MT 

ATCT, Twin Falls, ID 

FSS (8), Various 

ATBM , Tallahassee, FL 

ATBM (7), Various 

RTR, Briltol, TN 

AFSS, Miami, FL 

AFSS, Anderson, SC 

AFSS, Greenwood, MS 

MULTI, Orlando, FL 

RCAG, London, KY 

ARSR, Newport, MS 

ARSR (16), Various 

ASR, Atlanta, GA 

ASR (36), Various 

RTR, Savannah, GA 

E-4 
ATCT, Mobile, AL


ATCT (53), Various


VOR, San Juan, PR


VOR (82), Various


FSS, Mccombs, MS


ARTCC, Memphis, TN


AFSS, Raliegh Durham, NC


AFSS, Nashville, TN


AFSS, Louisville, KY


ATCT, Pensacola, FL


ATCT, Greer, SC


AFSS, Jackson, MS


ATBM, Tri City, TN


ATCT, Wilmington, NC


ATCT, Atlanta, GA


ARTCC, Miami, FL


CERAP, San Juan, PR, 


ATBM , Jacksonville, FL


ATCT, Orlando, FL


AFSS, Gainsville, FL


ATCT, Opa Locka, FL


AFSS, Macon, GA


ATCT, Memphis, TN


ATCT, Charleston, SC


ATCT, Charlotte, NC


ARTCC, Atlanta, GA


ARTCC, Jacksonville, FL


VOR, New Orleans, LA


VOR/TACR (65), Various


ATCT, Corpus Christi, TX


ATCT (37), Various


ASR, El Paso, TX


ASR (17), Various


ARSR, Rogers, TX


ARSR (17), Various


RCAG, El Paso, TX


RCAG (5), Various


TDWR, Houston, TX


FSS, Gallup, NM


FSS (10), Various


ARTCC, Houston, TX


ARTCC, Albuquerque, NM


ATCT, Houston, TX


ATCT, Albuquerque, NM


AFSS, Albuquerque, NM


ATCT, Lafayette, LA


AFSS, De Ridder, LA


AFSS, Conroe, TX


ARTS, El Paso, TX


AFSS, Ft. Worth, TX


ATCT, Oklahoma City, OK


ARTCC, Fort Worth, TX


AFSS, San Angelo, TX


ATCT, Lubbock, TX


AFSS, McAleaster, OK


ATCT, San Antonio, TX 

FSS, Austin, TX 

ATCT, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 

FSS, Fort Worth, TX 

FSS, Jonesboro, AR 

ATCT, Tyler, TX 

ELD, Lafayette, LA 

ATCT, El Paso, TX 

ADQF1, Jonesboro, AR 

MOBIL, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 

ARTS, Oakland, CA 

ASR, Oakland, CA 

ASR (13), Various 

ARSR, Fallon, NV 

ARSR (6), Various 

ATCT, Las Vegas, NV 

ATCT (40), Various 

ATCB, Las Vegas, NV 

HDQ, Reno, NV 

HDQ (5), Various 

FSS, Red Bluff, CA 

FSS (11), Various 

VOR, Kaunakakai, HI 

VOR/TACR (62), Various 

TOWB, Long Beach, CA 

TOWB (6), Various 

AFSS, San Diego, CA 

TRACO, Phoenix, AZ 

ARTCC, Fremont, CA 

CERAP, Honolulu, HI 

FSS, Prescott, AZ 

ARSR, Mount Luguna, CA 

ARSR, Mill Valley, CA 

AFSS, Ranco Muirieta, CA 

ARSR, Unknown 

AFSS, Riverside, CA 

AFSS, Oakland, CA 

AFSS, Hawthorne, CA 

ARTCC, Palmdale, CA 

ARSR, Crescent City, CA 

AFSS, Honolulu, HI 

ATCT, Sacramento, CA 

ATBM, Ontario, CA 

ATCT, Fresno, CA 

VOR, San Catalina, CA 

Federal Highway Administration 

Turner-Fairbanks Facility, McLean, VA 

Maritime Administration 

James River Reserve Fleet, Newport News, VA 

Beaumont Reserve Fleet, Beaumont, TX 

Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet, San Francisco, CA 

E-5 
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Snell Lock, Massena, NY 

Eisenhower Lock, Massena, NY 

Department of State 

Blair House Complex, Washington, D.C. Federal Building (SA-33) International Chancery 

Beltsville Information Management Center, Center, Washington, D.C. 

Beltsville, MD 

General Services Administration 

Region 1 

470 Murdock Avenue, Meriden, CT


Dummy for FBI, New Haven, CT


600 State Street, New Haven, CT 


GSA CD Depot 234, Watertown, MA


100 Concord Street, Framingham, MA


Liberty Tree Mall, Danvers, MA


Parking Facility, Portland, ME


J.B. Brown Block, Portland, ME


J B Brown Block, Portland, ME 


Region 2 

758 Route 18, East Brunswick, NJ 

425 Raritan Center P, Edison, NJ 

F. B. No. 1, New York-Kings, NY 

Silvio V Mollo FB, New York-Manhattan, NY 

Long Island Crthse F, Central Islip, NY 

Mech Equip Garage, Champlain, NY 

W/S Jamiesons Line, Burke, NY 

Resnick Buildings, New York-Bronx, NY 

3 Cottage Place, New Rochelle, NY 

599 Hartsdale Ave, White Plains, NY 

Greenway Plaza, Melville, NY 

200 Montague Street, New York-Kings, NY 

76 Eleventh Avenue, New York-Manhattan, NY 

First Source Credit Union, Utica, NY 

FDA, New York - Queens, NY 

Brookhaven Corporate, Holtsville, NY 

153-155 Bay Ridge Av, New York - Kings, NY 

955 Coney Island Ave, New York - Kings, NY 

Census Bureau Office, New York- Bronx, NY 

660 W 183rd St, New York - Manhattan, NY 

3117 Webster Ave, New York - Bronx, NY 

315 East 62 Street, New York - Manhattan, NY 

750 Grand St, New York - Queens, NY 

Bridge Plaza Office, New York - Queens, NY 

Brooklyn East LCO, New York - Kings, NY 

93 22 Jamaica Ave, New York - Queens, NY 

13216 32nd Ave, New York - Queens, NY 

Miglori Building, Yauco, Mayaguez, PR 

Villa Captain II, Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR 

Region 3 

715 Bldg, Wilmington, DE


Caton Research Ctr., Catonsville, MD


Equitable Bank Ctr I, Baltimore, MD


Windsor Corporate Park, Woodlawn, MD


First National Bank, Camden, NJ


Stegmaier Building, Wilkes Barre, PA


Newton Square Corp, Newton Square, PA


Customhouse, Norfolk, VA


Wise County Plaza, Wise, VA


Fairgrounds Dist Ctr, Richmond, VA


Crossways Com Center, Chesapeake, VA


Cloverleaf Bldg, Harrisonburg, VA 


O.L. 720 Sixth Ave, Huntington, WV


Region 4 

Fb-CT, Ft Myers, FL 

Federal Building, La Fayette, GA 

Phil Landrum Fb-Po, Jasper, GA 

The Hay Building, Atlanta, GA 

J&P Office Park II, Winder, GA 

739 Red Banks Rd, Greenville, SC 

Region 5 

GSA Interag Mtr Pool, Chicago, IL


Banker Building, Chicago, IL


O'Hare Lake Office Plaza, Des Plaines, IL


Clyde Savings Bldg, North Riverside, IL


2100 N California, Chicago, IL


Wash Bicentennial Bg, Springfield, IL


Smoke Tree Bus Park, North Aurora, IL


Glen Hill North Bg A, Glen Ellyn, IL


10 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL


O'Hare Lake Office Plaza, Des Plaines, IL


One Congress Center, Chicago, IL


E Empire & Eastport, Bloomington, IL


Burrell Building, Chicago, IL


1279 North Milwaukee, Chicago, IL


Bank of America, Chicago, IL


901 W arrenville Road, Lisle, IL


1700 South Wolf Road, Des Plaines, IL


Elm Plaza So. Tower, Hinsdale, IL


Soc. Sec. Office, Chicago, IL


204 N. Main Street, Harrisburg, IL


E-6 
IL. Business Center, Springfield, IL


2360 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL


River Center, Chicago, IL


Schaumburg Atrium, Schaumburg, IL


10850 Lincoln Trail, Fairview Heights, IL


600 Joliet Rd, Willowbrook, IL


2350 E. Devon, Des Plaines, IL


Gateway IV, Chicago, IL 


Citicorp Center, Chicago, IL


29 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL


Governors' Office Park, Olympia Fields, IL


One Oakbrook Terrace, Oakbrook Terrace, IL


Xerox Centre, Chicago, IL


Stewart Square, Rockford, IL


Midway Business Center, Chicago, IL


635 Butterfield Rd, Oakbrook Terrace, IL


5353 S. Laramie, Chicago, IL


Illinois Fin. Center, Springfield, IL


Northwestern Bldg, Evanston, IL


The Rookery, Chicago, IL


Heritage Place, Moline, IL


1600 Corporate Center, Rolling Meadows, IL


4849 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago, IL


AT&T Corporate Center, Chicago, IL


801 W arrenville Road, Lisle, IL


1000 Tower Lane Bldg, Bensenville, IL


Olympian Office Center, Lisle, IL 


The Pk At NW Point, Elk Grove Village, IL


945 Lakeview Parkway, Vernon Hills, IL


2860 River Road, Des Plaines, IL


One S. Wacker Bldg, Chicago, IL


Governors Office Pk, Olympia Fields, IL


1830 2nd Ave., Rock Island, IL


The Esplanade, Downers Grove, IL


Network Centre, Effingham, IL


Burr Ridge Executive, Burr Ridge, IL


Firstar Bank Build, Vernon Hills, IL


Two ILL Center, Chicago, IL 


Emco Plaza Bldg, Joliet, IL


Federal Bldg, Vincennes, IN


401 Medical Plaza, Michigan City, IN


5969-6035 Lakeside B, Indianapolis, IN


429 Penn Center, Indianapolis, IN


425 South Main Stree, South Bend, IN


Building 400, Lawrence, IN


Fed Bldg & PO, Benton Harbor, MI


Fed Parking Facility, Detroit, MI


Pontiac Place Bldg, Pontiac, MI


29 Pearl Street, Grand Rapids, MI


Domino's Farm House, Ann Arbor, MI


Brewery Park Phase I, Detroit, MI


Woodcrest Office Park, Troy, MI


Bureau of the Census, Dearborn, MI


US Census Bureau, Ann Arbor, MI


Benstein Business Park, Walled Lake, MI


Food & Drug Adm Bldg, Minneapolis, MN


Frank T. Bow Federal, Canton, OH


Federal Bldg, Zanesville, OH


Federal Bldg, Toledo, OH


Fed Parking Facility, Dayton, OH


Plaza Nine Bldg, Cleveland, OH


Commerce Place, Middleburg Heights, OH


Plaza South II, Middleburg Heights, OH


Sanning Apartments, Cincinnati, OH


926 Taylor Station, Gahanna, OH


One Cleveland Ctr, Cleveland, OH


Lakewood Center West, Lakewood, OH


2026 West Main Street, Springfield, OH


4411 Montgomery Road, Norwood, OH


Cbld Building, Cincinnati, OH


Moraine Bus. Ctr. 2, Moraine, OH


Bank One Center, Cleveland, OH


Eaton Center, Cleveland, OH


Renaissance, Cleveland, OH


228th & Lake Shore B, Euclid, OH


Society Tower, Cleveland, OH


6161 Oaktree, Independence, OH


Rockside Center III, Independence, OH


BP America Bldg., Cleveland, OH


5 Point Shopping Ct, Cleveland, OH


Building One Moraine, Moraine, OH


Census Bureau, Lorain, OH 


Federal Bldg, Wausau, WI


Social Security Off, Wisconsin Rapids, WI


Ace Industrial Dr., Cudahy, WI


Goerke's Park II, Waukesha, WI


700 Regent St, Madison, WI


Region 6 

Herbert Hoover Library, West Branch, IA 

I 80 Building, West Branch, IA 

Service Bg-Eisenhowe, Abilene, KS 

Courthouse, St Louis, MO 

Federal Bg, Kansas City, MO 

SO MO Savings & Loan, Van Buren, MO 

New Construction, Kansas City, MO 

Hruska US Courthouse, Omaha, NE 

2610 Ave "Q" Kearney, Kearney, NE 

Region 7 

Open Land - FDA Site, New Orleans, LA


Food & Drug Lab, New Orleans, LA


Unnamed Building, Opelousas, LA


Bldg 27, Houma, LA


Monta Vista S C, Las Cruces, NM


Solana S C, Santa Fe, NM 


SSA District Office, Ardmore, OK


Natl Park Service Facility, Corpus Christi, TX


Unnamed Building, Laredo, TX


Imperial Square, Irving, TX


E-7 
Greenbriar Business, Stafford, TX


CS Village Shopping, College Station, TX


Valley View Tech Cen, Farmers Branch, TX


Eagle Pass Border Pt, Eagle Pass, TX


Redbird Village S C, Duncanville, TX


World Trade Bridge U, Laredo, TX


T & P Building, Fort Worth, TX


Region 8 

GSA Parking Lot, Denver, CO


Parking Lot, Denver, CO


USGS Water Lab, Arvada, CO


Earth Lab, Arvada, CO


Wildlife Reasearch, Fort Collins, CO


Dangler Bldg, Grand Junction, CO


GSA Storage Bldg, Bismarck, ND


New Parking Lot, Bismarck, ND


Sunbeam Appl Svc, Salt Lake City, UT


Garage, Cheyenne, WY


Region 9 

Tuscon 405 W Congres, Tuscon, AZ


Building 1, Flagstaff, AZ


US Old Mint Bldg, San Francisco, CA


Federal Building, Sacramento, CA


General Services, San Francisco, CA 

15600 Devonshire St., Los Angeles, CA 

P. Burton Fed Bldg, Las Vegas, NV 

Region 10 

Walla Walla Airport, Walla Walla, WA 

Region 11 

POT Annex 1, Washington, D.C. 

White House, Washington, D.C. 

US International Tr, Washington, D.C. 

Judiciary Center, Washington, D.C. 

1990 K Street N W, Washington, D.C. 

425 7th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

625 D Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

628 E Street, Nw, Washington, D.C. 

Columbia Plaza, Washington, D.C. 

Executive Plaza, Rockville, MD 

Washington Comm Ctr, Landover, MD 

The Hamptons, Capitol Heights, MD 

Woodmont Complex, Bethesda, MD 

6700 Springfield Ctr Dr, Springfield, VA 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 

Pilot Model of 3.5 foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel


12 Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel


Pressurized Ballistic Range


Flight Support Facility


7 X 10 Foot Wind Tunnel #1


7 X 10 Foot Wind Tunnel #2


Magnetic Calibration Laboratory


14 foot Transonic W ind Tunnel Laboratory


40 X 80 Foot Wind Tunnel


2 X 2 Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel


Electrical Substation


6 X 6 Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel


Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Building


3.5 Foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel


Fluid Dynamics Laboratory


Hypervelocity Free Flight Facility


Life Sciences Research Laboratory


Airborne Missions/Life Science Facility


Vestibular Research Facility


Vertical Motion Simulator


Space Projects Facility


Space Sciences Research Laboratory


Aircraft Service Facility


Outdoor Aerodynamic Research Facility


Man-Vehicle System Research Facility


High Altitude Aircraft Support Facility


Fluid Mechanics Laboratory


Biomedical Research Laboratory


Human Performance Research Laboratory


Automated Sciences Research Facility


Computational Fluid Dynamics Building


Vertical Gun


12 Foot Wind Tunnel Auxiliaries


Propulsion Simulations Calibration Laboratory


Model Preparation Facility


Model Assembly


Magnetic Test Laboratory


14 Foot Electrical Equipment Building


Fan Blade Shop


20-G Centrifuge


80 X 120 Foot Wind Tunnel


Electrical Substation North


11 Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel


9 X 7 Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel


8 X 7 Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel


3.5 Foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Auxiliary Building


3.5 Foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Storage Building


Thermal Protection Boiler


Life Sciences Equipment Facility


Life Sciences Flight Experiments


Vertical Motion Simulator Equipment Facility


Aircraft Service Facility


Aircraft Service Facility


E-8 
RSRA Calibration Facility 

Aircraft Service Facility 

Bioscience Laboratories 

Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, 

Goldstone, CA 

Entire facility is exempt. 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 

Engine Research Building


Icing Research Tunnel – Refrigeration Building


Icing Research Tunnel – Cooling Tower No. 1


Icing Research Tunnel


Engine Research Building – West Wing


Special Projects Laboratory


Materials Research Laboratory


Engine Research Building – Northwest Wing


Engine Research Building – High Pressure Facility


8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel


8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Cooling Tower


No. 2


Materials & Structures Laboratory


8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Drive Equipment


Building


8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Air Dryer


Building


Central Air Equipment Building


Central Air Equipment Building - PSLCooling Tower


No. 3


Central Air Equipment Building - Cooling Tower


Water Pump Building


Engine Research Building – Spray Cooler Building


Engine Research Building – Cooling Tower No. 4


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Office &


Control Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - 2nd


Compressor & Drive Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Air Dryer


Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Substation


"K"


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Main


Compressor & Drive Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Low Pressure


Fuel Pump Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - High Pressure


Fuel Pump Building


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Cooling


Tower No. 5


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Cooling


Tower Water Pump Building


Central Air Equipment Building - PSL Desiccant Air


Dryer


Engine Research Building Combustion Air Heater


Engine Components Research Laboratory


Materials Processing Laboratory


Basic Materials Laboratory


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Shop Building


(#86)


10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Exhauster


Building


PSL Heater Building


PSL Engine Test Building


Central Air Equipment Building - PSL Cooling


Tower No. 6


Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory & Control


Room


Electric Power Laboratory


Energy Conversion Laboratory


Space Power Research Laboratory


Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 

Spacecraft Systems Development/Integration Facility 

Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 

Mission Simulation Development Facility 

Jake Garn Simulator and Training 

Mission/Space Station Control Center 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 

8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel (Closed)


University of Virginia & ART Management Office


Building


30 X 60 Foot Tunnel


Transonic Dynamic Tunnel


16 Foot Transonic Tunnel


Subsonic Tunnel Offices


Hypersonic Propulsion Facility


Frequency Converter Building


National Transonic Facility (NTF)


Drive Control Facility


0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel


Atmospheric Sciences/Systems Development


Laboratory


Unitary Wind Tunnel


8 Foot High Temperature Tunnel


TDT Complex--Cooling Tower


16 Foot TWT Cpx.—Equipment Fac.


16 Foot TWT Cpx.--Valve House


16 Foot TWT Cpx.--Cool.Twr/Pump Hse


16 Foot TWT Complex—Annex


16 Foot TWT Complex—Annex


16 Foot TWT Complex—Annex


16 Foot TW T Cpx.--Gas Stor. Shed


16 Foot TWT Cpx.--Motor House #1


16 Foot TWT Cpx.--Motor House #2


16 Foot TWT Complex—Annex


16 Foot TWT Cpx.--Air Exchange Twr.


16 Foot TWT Complex—Annex


E-9 
16 Foot TWT Complex—Access Area


High Speed 7 X 10 Foot Tunnel


14 X 22 Foot Subsonic Tunnel


High Intensity Noise Research Laboratory


Hypersonic Propulsion Facility


Hypersonic Propulsion Facility


Hypersonic Propulsion Facility


Hypersonic Propulsion Facility


NTF Annex—ME


NTF Annex--Vent Structure


NTF Tunnel Model Storage


NTF Annex


Foundry & Glass Blowing Shop


0.3 Meter Tunnel Annex


Gas Dynamics/Fluid M echanics Research Facility


Hypersonic Facilities Complex - West Wing


Hypersonic Facilities Cooling Tower


Hypersonic Facilities Complex - East Wing


60-Inch M18 Helium Tunnel Facility


Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory Annex


Unitary Complex--31 Inch M10 Annex


Unitary Complex Cooling Tower


Unitary Complex Annex—Chem. Treat.


Unitary Complex Annex—Sprink. House


Unitary Complex Annex— Flamm. Stor.


8 Foot HTT Complex—Bottle Storage


8 Foot HTT Complex—Combuster Fac.


8 Foot HTT Complex—Cooling tower 

8 Foot HTT Complex--Fuels Equip. Fac 

8 Foot HTT Complex—Storage Annex 

8 Foot HTT Cpx--6000PSI Bottle Fld 

8 Foot HTT Complex—Annex 

Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, OH 

Plum Brook Station (PBS) 

Spaceflight and Data Network, Ponce de Leon, FL 

Entire facility is exempt. 

White Sands Complex, White Sands, NM 

Entire facility is exempt. 

White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM 

Boiler Building


Water Treatment Building


300 Area Cooling Pond


Boiler Building


Switchgear Building


Altitude Simulation System Building


Steam Generator Support Building


Treated Water Storage Facility


Altitude Simulation System (Steam Generator)


E-10 
APPENDIX F


FEDERAL INTERAGENCY ENERGY POLICY COM MITTEE


(656 COMM ITTEE)


FY 2000


Committee Chair


Mr. Dan W. Reicher


Assistant Secretary


Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


U.S. Department of Energy, EE-1


Forrestal Building, Room 6C-016


1000 Independence Avenue, SW


Washington, DC 20585


Phone: 202-586-9220


Fax: 202-586-9260


Agriculture


Mr. Paul W. Fiddick


Assistant Secretary for Administration


U.S. Department of Agriculture


Administration Building, Room 240W


14th and Independence Avenue, SW


Washington, DC 20250-0103


Phone: 202-720-3590


Fax: 202-720-2191


Commerce


Linda J. Bilmes


Assistant Secretary for Administration


U.S. Department of Commerce


Main Commerce, Room 5830


14th and Constitution Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20230


Phone: 202-482-1200


Fax: 202-482-1962


Defense


Mr. Randall A. Yim


Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense


(Installations)


3330 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E-1074


Washington, DC 20301-3330


Phone: 703-697-1771


Fax: 703-695-6929


Education


Mr. W illie H. Gilmore


Director of Office for Management


U.S. Department of Education


400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3E-1069


Washington, DC 20202


Phone: 202-401-0470


Fax: 202-401-0485


Environmental Protection Agency


Mr. John C. Chamberlin


Director Office of Administration


and Resources Management


Environmental Protection Agency


Room 1109 West Tower, MS3201


401 M Street, SW


Washington, DC 20460


Phone: 202-260-8400


Fax: 202-260-8408


General Services Administration


Mr. Robert A. Peck


Commissioner of Public Buildings Service


General Services Administration


Room 6344


18th and F Streets, NW


Washington, DC 20405


Phone: 202-501-1100


Fax: 202-219-2310


Health and Human Services 

Mr. John Callahan 

Assistant Secretary 

for Management and Budget 

U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 

Room 514-G 

200 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20201 

Phone: 202-690-6396 

Fax: 202-690-5405 

Housing and Urban Development


Ms. Karen Jackson


Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration


U.S. Department of Housing and 


Urban Development


Room 10110


451 7th Street, SW


Washington, DC 20410


Phone: 202-708-0940


Fax: 202-619-8129


F-1 
Interior


Mr. John Berry


Assistant Secretary for Policy, 


Management and Budget


U.S. Department of the Interior


Room 6130


1849 C Street, NW


Washington, DC 20240


Phone: 202-208-4203


Fax: 202-208-4561


Justice


Mr. Stephen R. Colgate


Assistant Attorney General


for Administration


U.S. Department of Justice


Room 1111


10th and Constitution Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20530


Phone: 202-514-3101


Fax: 202-514-1778


Labor


Ms. Patricia W. Lattimore


Assistant Secretary for Administration 


and Management


U.S. Department of Labor


Room S-2514


200 Constitution Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20210


Phone: 202-693-4040


Fax: 202-693-4055


National Aeronautics and


Space Administration


Mr. Jeffrey E. Sutton


Associate Administrator for Management


Systems 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Code J, Room 6W17 

300 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Phone: 202-358-2800 

Fax: 202-358-3068 

Postal Service


Mr. William Dowling


Vice President, Engineering


U.S. Postal Service


8403 Lee Highway


4th Floor


Merrifield, VA 22082-8101


Phone: 703-280-7001


Fax: 703-280-8401


State


Mr. Patrick S. Kennedy


Assistant Secretary


for Administration


U.S. Department of State


Room 6330


22nd & C Streets, NW


Washington, DC 20520


Phone: 202-647-1492


Fax: 202-647-1558


Transportation


Ms. Melissa Allen


Assistant Secretary for Administration


U.S. Department of Transportation


Room 10314


400 7th Street, SW


Washington, DC 20590


Phone: 202-366-2332


Fax: 202-366-9634


Treasury


Ms. Lisa G. Ross


Assistant Secretary


for Management/Chief Financial Officer


U.S. Department of the Treasury


Room 2426, Main Treasury Building


1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20220


Phone: 202-622-0410


Fax: 202-622-2337


Veterans Affairs


Dr. Thomas L. Garthwaite


Deputy Under Secretary for Health (10A)


U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs


Room 806


810 Vermont Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20420


Phone: 202-273-5803


Fax: 202-273-7090


Office of Management and Budget


Dr. Kathleen Peroff


Deputy Associate Director


Energy and Science Division


Office of Management and Budget


New Executive Office Building


Room 8001


725 17th Street, NW


Washington, DC 20503


Phone: 202-395-3404


Fax: 202-395-4817


F-2 
APPENDIX G 

PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

FY 2000 Personnel


Dan W. Reicher


Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 


and Chair, Federal Interagency


Energy Policy Committee


Federal Energy Management Program Staff:


Beth Shearer, Director 


Executive Secretary, Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee, 


Executive Director, Interagency Energy Management Task Force


Joan Glickman, Deputy Director


Veronica Bellamy


Ted Collins


Anne Crawley


Doug Culbreth


Jerry Dion


Curtis Framel


Mike Fulton


Sharon Gill


Brad Gustafson


Annie Haskins


Arun Jhaveri


April Johnson


Randy Jones


Paul King


Bill Klebous


Rick Klimkos


Helen Krupovich


Will Lintner


Katie McGervey


Claudia Marchione


LaDeane Moreland


Tatiana Strajnic


Pat O’Brien


Beth Peterman


Vic Petrolati


Will Prue


Tanya Sadler


Cheri Sayer


Nellie Greer


Eileen Yoshinaka


G-1