Annual Report to Congress 

on Federal Government 

Energy Management and

Conservation Programs

Fiscal Year 1999

January 11, 2001

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Federal Energy Management Program

Washington, DC 20585
i

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. Federal Coordination ........................................ 17

D. Personnel and Energy Awareness Activities ...................... 19

- Training ................................................. 19

- Recognition .............................................. 20

- Energy Awareness ......................................... 24

- Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities ...................... 25

E. Funding for Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Facilities ........... 26

- Direct Appropriations ...................................... 26

- Federal Energy Efficiency Fund .............................. 30

- Energy Savings Performance Contracting ....................... 32

- Utility Partnerships ........................................ 37

F. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) .................................... 37

G. Procurement Policy ......................................... 38

H. Public Education Programs ................................... 39

II. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ........ 43

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Buildings and Facilities ......... 43

B. Progress Toward the Mandated Goals for Buildings and Facilities ..... 51

C. ENERGY STAR® Program Participation .......................... 56

D. Federal Building Energy Performance Standards .................. 58

III. ENERGY INTENSIVE OPERATIONS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES .... 60

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Energy Intensive Operations ...... 60

B. Statutory Background and Progress Toward Goals

for Industrial Facilities ....................................... 64

IV. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ........ 67

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Vehicles and Equipment ......... 67

B. Alternative Fuel Vehicles ..................................... 72

 V. FEDERAL AGENCY ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....... 75

1. Department of Agriculture .................................... 75

2. Department of Commerce .................................... 78

3. Department of Defense ...................................... 80

4. Department of Energy ....................................... 87

5. Department of Health and Human Services ....................... 93

6. Department of Housing and Urban Development .................. 99

7. Department of the Interior ................................... 101
ii

8. Department of Justice ...................................... 106

9. Department of Labor ....................................... 109

10. Department of State ........................................ 111

11. Department of Transportation ................................ 114

12. Department of the Treasury .................................. 116

13. Department of Veterans Affairs ............................... 118

14. Environmental Protection Agency ............................. 120

15. General Services Administration .............................. 123

16. National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................. 127

17. National Archives and Records Administration .................. 131

18. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................. 132

19. Railroad Retirement Board .................................. 134

20. Social Security Administration ............................... 135

21. Tennessee Valley Authority .................................. 139

22. United States Postal Service ................................. 142

TABLES

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

Table 1-B Total Net Energy Consumption By Federal Agencies ............... 12

Table 2 Federal Petroleum Usage in FY 1999 ........................... 15

Table 3-A Agency Expenditures for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital 

 Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 1999 

 (Thousands of Nominal Dollars) .............................. 27

Table 3-B Agency Expenditures for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital 

 Equipment, FY 1985 through FY 1999 

 (Thousands of Constant 1999 Dollars) ......................... 28

Table 4-A Federal Primary Energy Consumption in Buildings and Facilities ..... 44

Table 4-B Federal Net Energy Consumption in Buildings and Facilities ......... 45

Table 5 Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Buildings and Facilities ...... 48

Table 6-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Buildings Energy in FY 1999 . . 49

Table 6-B Consumption and Costs of Federal Buildings Energy 

 by Fuel Type in FY 1999, FY 1998, and FY 1985 ................ 50

Table 7-A Federal Buildings and Facilities Net Energy Use

 Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 1999 ................... 53

Table 7-B Federal Buildings and Facilities Primary Energy Use

 Per Gross Square Foot, FY 1985 and FY 1999 ................... 54

Table 8 Federal Net Energy Consumption in Excluded Buildings/

 Process Operations ......................................... 61

Table 9 Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Excluded Buildings/

 Process Energy in FY 1999 .................................. 63

Table 10 Federal Energy Consumption in Vehicle and Equipment Operations ... 68

Table 11-A Defense and Civilian Federal Costs for Vehicle and Equipment 

 Energy in FY 1999 ......................................... 70
iii

Table 11-B Consumption and Costs of Vehicle and Equipment Energy 

 by Fuel Type in FY 1999, FY 1998, and FY 1985 ................ 71

Table C Federal Energy Expenditures, FY 1985 through FY 1999 ........... C-2

FIGURES

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

 Buildings and Facilities from FY 1985 .......................... 4

Figure ES-2 Federal Consumption of Petroleum-Based Fuels

 FY 1985 through FY 1999 .................................... 5

Figure 1 Federal Energy Consumption, FY 1999 .......................... 13

Figure 2 Federal Energy Costs, FY 1999 ................................ 14

Figure 3 Carbon Emissions from Federal Energy Consumption, 

FY 1990 to FY 1999 ........................................ 16

Figure 4 Energy Conservation Retrofit Expenditures ...................... 29

Figure 5 Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption 

 in Buildings and Facilities by Fuel Type, FY 1999 ................ 43

Figure 6 Consumption of Electricity and Other Fuels

 in Buildings and Facilities, FY 1985 through FY 1999 ............. 46

Figure 7 Energy Costs (Constant 1999 Dollars) in Buildings 

 and Facilities, FY 1985 through FY 1999 ....................... 47

Figure 8 Progress Toward the Energy Reduction Goals for Federal

Buildings and Facilities, FY 1985 through FY 1999 ............... 51

Figure 9 Range of Energy Intensity (Btu/GSF) in Buildings and Facilities

by Agency in FY 1999 ....................................... 56

Figure 10 Defense and Civilian Federal Energy Consumption 

in Vehicles and Equipment by Fuel Type, FY 1999 ................ 69

APPENDICES

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

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

Appendix C Federal Energy Expenditures FY 1985 through FY 1999 ........... C-1

Appendix D Buildings Exempted From NECPA’s Performance Goal in FY 1999 . D-1

Appendix E Department of Energy: Education, Extension, and

 Information Services ...................................... 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 CFTC

Central Intelligence Agency CIA

Department of Agriculture USDA

Department of Commerce DOC

Department of Defense DOD

Department of Energy DOE 

Department of Health and Human Services HHS

Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD

Department of the Interior DOI

Department of Justice DOJ

Department of Labor DOL

Department of State ST

Department of Transportation DOT

Department of the Treasury TRSY

Department of Veterans Affairs VA

Environmental Protection Agency EPA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC

Federal Communications Commission FCC

Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC

Federal Trade Commission FTC

General Services Administration GSA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA

National Archives and Records Administration NARA

National Science Foundation NSF

Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC

Office of Personnel Management OPM

Panama Canal Commission PCC

Railroad Retirement Board RRB

Social Security Administration SSA

Tennessee Valley Authority TVA

United States Information Agency USIA

United States Postal Service 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
 

1

Primary en ergy consum ption considers all energ y resources u sed to gene rate and tran sport electric ity and steam. 

Tables 1-A, 4-A, and 7-B show primary energy consumption for comparison with net consumption shown in Tables

1-B, 4-B, and 7-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.

 

2DOE /EIA-00 35(20 00/12), Monthly Energy Review, December 2000.

 

3

Based on net energy consumption estimates for 1994 in the residential, comme rcial, industrial, and transportation

sectors (362.4 trillion Btu). Source: DOE/EIA-021 4(96), State Energy Data Report, 1996, Tables 1 and 8; February

1998.

 

4Unless otherwise noted, all costs cited in this repo rt are in constant 1999 d ollars, calculated using Gross

Dome stic Produ ct implicit price deflators. See DOE /EIA-03 84(99 ), Annual Energy Review 1999, Table E 1; July

2000). 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report on Federal Energy Management for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 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 1999 by the Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (EPACT) and Executive Order 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at

Federal Facilities, are also discussed in this report. On June 3, 1999, President Clinton signed

Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management. Initial

activities undertaken to meet the requirements of this Order are discussed in this report, however,

FY 2000 will be first full reporting year for Executive Order 13123.

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 1999.1

 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 1.5 percent of the total 93.03 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.

The Government consumed 1.01 quads during FY 1999 when measured in terms of energy

actually delivered to the point of use (net 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 net energy consumption in FY 1999 decreased

30.1 percent from the FY 1985 base year. This reduction of 435.7 trillion Btu could satisfy the

energy needs of the State of Idaho for more than one year.3

 The total cost of the 1.01 quads was

almost $8.0 billion in FY 1999.4 This is $2.9 billion less than the $10.8 billion reported in
 

5

Calculation of percent c hanges in this rep ort do no t account for rounding o f numbers in te xt.

 

6Cost 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

FY 1985, a 26.5 percent5

 decrease in nominal costs. In constant 1999 dollars, this equates to a

decrease of 47.8 percent from $15.2 billion in FY 1985 to $8.0 billion in FY 1999, which reflects

the reduced energy use and a 25.3 percent reduction in the inflation-adjusted cost of energy per

quad. The Federal energy bill for FY 1999 decreased 7.5 percent from the previous year.

Federal agencies report energy consumption under three categories: buildings and facilities,

energy intensive operations, and vehicles and equipment.

Buildings and Facilities

In FY 1999, the Federal Government used 336.2 trillion British Thermal Units (Btu) to provide

energy to approximately 500,000 buildings and facilities. This consumption represents a 28.4

percent decrease compared to FY 1985 and a 1.1 percent decrease relative to FY 1998. The cost

of energy for buildings and facilities in FY 1999 was $3.4 billion, a decrease of approximately

$124.4 million from FY 1998 expenditures, and a decrease of 39.5 percent from the FY 1985

expenditure of $5.6 billion.6 

During FY 1999, 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-sponsored demand side

management (DSM) incentives. Known funding from the three sources totaled approximately

$338 million in FY 1999. Direct appropriations accounted for approximately $205 million. 

ESPC contracts awarded in FY 1999 resulted in more than $130 million in estimated contractor

investment (at least $87 million from conventional, site-specific ESPCs and $44 million from

Super ESPC delivery orders), and agencies reported more than $2.6 million in utility incentives

received. 

In FY 1999, direct funding identified by agencies for energy conservation retrofits and capital

equipment decreased 22.5 percent to $205.2 million from $264.7 million dollars in FY 1998. 

Energy Intensive Operations

The energy intensive operations category covers energy used in buildings excluded from the 

10 and 20 percent reduction goals for buildings and facilities under section 543 of NECPA,

42 U.S.C. §§ 8253(a)(2) and 8253(c). This category includes the energy consumed in industrial

operations, certain research and development activities, and electronics-intensive facilities.

In FY 1999, the Federal Government used 68.1 trillion Btu of energy in energy intensive

operations, approximately 6.7 percent of the total 1.01 quads consumed. Total energy

consumption in this category increased 56.0 percent relative to FY 1985 and decreased 2.5
3

percent relative to FY 1998. These increases are the result of changes in reporting procedures by

individual agencies as well as changes in agency missions.

The Federal Government spent $639.7 million on energy intensive operations energy in FY 1999,

$28.2 million less than the FY 1998 expenditure of $667.9 million constant dollars. 

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 1999, the Federal Government used approximately 607.5 trillion Btu of energy in vehicles

and equipment, nearly 60.0 percent of the total 1.01 quads consumed. Total energy consumption

in vehicles and equipment decreased 35.0 percent relative to FY 1985 and was 3.2 percent less

than the FY 1998 consumption of 627.3 trillion Btu. The Department of Defense consumed

559.8 trillion Btu or 92.1 percent of all vehicles and equipment energy used by the Federal

Government.

The Federal Government spent $3.9 billion on vehicles and equipment energy in FY 1999,

$492.4 million less than the FY 1998 expenditure. 

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 1999 agencies provided data to DOE that indicated a decrease in energy consumption

per gross square foot of 20.7 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 41.9 percent since 1985, while the consumption of electricity has

increased by only 0.8 percent. The installation and increased use of electricity-driven electronic

equipment contributed to increases in electricity through the years, peaking in FY 1990 at 12.5

percent above FY 1985. Since FY 1990, electricity consumption has declined 10.4 percent. 

Electricity now represents about 73.2 percent of the total energy costs of Federal buildings and

accounts for 43.3 percent of total net energy consumption in buildings. This is compared to 30.7

percent of the total net energy consumption in buildings in FY 1985.

Agency efforts undertaken in FY 1999 to increase energy efficiency in buildings included:
4

FIGURE ES-1

Decrease in Btu per Gross Square Foot

in Federal Buildings and Facilities from FY 1985

# 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.

Executive Order 13123 expands the scope of Federal energy management activities beyond the

NECPA mandates by establishing goals for industrial, laboratory, and other energy-intensive

facilities. Section 203 of Executive Order 13123 requires agencies, through life-cycle costeffective measures, 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.

Procurement of Energy-Efficient Products

Section 507 of Executive Order 12902 requires all Federal agencies to buy “best practice”

products when practicable, when they meet the agency’s specific performance requirements, and

are cost-effective. Best practice products are those which are in the upper 25 percent of energy

efficiency for all similar products, or products that are at least 10 percent more efficient than the

minimum level that meets Federal standards. During FY 1999, DOE continued its program to

assist agencies in implementing the EPACT and Executive Order requirements for energy
5

FIGURE ES-2

Federal Consumption of Petroleum-Based Fuels

FY 1985 through FY 1999

efficient procurement. In 1999, DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) produced

and distributed seven additional product energy efficiency recommendations to be added to the

one-stop shopping guide, Buying Energy Efficient Products, to help Federal purchasers identify

products which meet the energy efficiency requirements of Executive Order 12902. Since 1996,

over 30 product energy efficiency recommendations have been issued.

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 1999, petroleum-based fuels accounted for 0.65 quads of the total

1.01 quads consumed by the Federal Government, with 0.60 quads used by the Department of

Defense, primarily for jet fuel and distillate/diesel for vehicles and equipment. The Federal

Government consumed 38.3 percent less petroleum-based fuel in FY 1999 than in FY 1985. 

Figure ES-2 illustrates the trend in the Federal Government’s use of petroleum 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 1999, 36.7 trillion Btu of petroleum-based fuels were used for

buildings and facilities energy, a 66.8 percent decrease from FY 1985 and a 6.7 percent decrease

from FY 1998. This represents 10.9 percent of total buildings and facilities energy consumption.
6

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

1999 dollars has fallen from $15.2 billion in FY 1985 to $8.0 billion in FY 1999. 

# Total net energy consumption in FY 1999 decreased 30.1 percent from FY 1985.

# Energy consumption in buildings in FY 1999 decreased 28.4 percent from FY 1985.

# On a Btu-per-gross-square-foot basis, the 20.7 percent reduction in buildings energy puts the

Federal Government past the 20 percent reduction goal for 2000, one year early.

# Eight agencies, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Justice, Labor,

Transportation, 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 1999 was used for the following purposes:

End Use Percentage Cost

Buildings & Facilities 33.3 percent $3.4 billion

Energy Intensive Operations 6.7 percent $0.6 billion

Vehicles & Equipment 60.0 percent $3.9 billion
7

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) 1999 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

1999 by the Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Executive

Order 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities, are also described

in this report. On June 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13123, Greening the

Government through Efficient Energy Management. Initial activities undertaken to meet the

requirements of this Order are discussed in this report, however, FY 2000 will be first full

reporting year for Executive Order 13123. 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 Orders 12902 and 13123

During the majority of FY 1999, Executive Order 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water

Conservation at Federal Facilities was in effect for Federal agencies. This Executive Order,

signed by President Clinton on March 8, 1994, superseded Executive Order 12759 but left in

effect sections 3, 9, and 10 of that Order. On June 3, 1999, President Clinton 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, as well as making energy-efficiency targets more stringent. 

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

exhibit below along with current findings.
8

KEY REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORITIES

Statute/Directive Requirement FY 1999 Findings Annual Report

Discussion

Section 543, NECPA,

42 U.S.C., § 8253(a)(1)

Executive Order 13123

(increasing requirement

from E.O. 12902)

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

20.7 pe rcent decre ase in

energy con sumption in

buildings in FY 1999,

compared to FY 1985.

Section II (B),

page 51

Section 545, NECPA,

42 U.S.C., § 8254

DOE to e stablish life-cycle cost

methods to determine c osteffectiveness of proposed energy

efficiency projects.

The 1999 edition of the

energy price indices and

discount factors for lifecycle cost analysis was

published and distribu ted to

Federal energy man agers.

Section I (F ), 

page 37

Section 545, NECPA,

42 U.S.C., § 8255

Transmit to Congress the amount

of appro priations req uested in

each agen cy budget fo r electric

and energ y costs incurred in

operating and maintaining

facilities and for c omplianc e with

applicable statutes and directives.

Appro ximately $20 4.2

million was appropriated

and spent on energy

efficiency pro jects in

Federal facilities.

Section I (E ), 

page 26

Section 546, NECPA,

42 U.S.C., § 8256(a)

Establishment of a program of

incentives within Federal

agencies to expedite Energy

Savings Performan ce Contracts.

In FY 1999, 13 conventional ESPC contracts were

awarded by agencies and 16

delivery orders were issued

under DOE and DOD Super

ESPCs.

Section I (E ), 

page 32

Section 546, NECPA,

42 U.S.C., § 8256(b)

DOE to establish a Federal

Energy Efficiency Fund to

provide grants to agenc ies.

There w ere no ap propriations for the Fund in FY

1999; FY 1995 funds were

allocated and progress of

the few rema ining proje cts

is being monitored.

Section I (E ), 

page 30

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 ag ency.

DOE’s FEMP conducted 54

training workshops and

symposia for more than

4,700 attendees in the

efficient use and

conserva tion of energy,

water, and re newable

energy in Federal facilities.

Section I (D ), 

page 19;

Section V, Agency

Reports, page 75
Statute/Directive Requirement FY 1999 Findings Annual Report

Discussion

9

Executive Order 13123

(increasing requirement

from E.O. 12902)

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 64

Executive Order 13123 30 perc ent reductio n in

greenhouse gas emissions

attributed to Federal facilities by

2010 from 1990.

Carbon emissions from

energy used in standard and

excluded/industrial

buildings de clined 15 .7

percent in FY 1999

compared to FY 1990.

Section I(B),

page 16

Executive Order 13123 Expand use of renewable energy

by implementing renew able

energy projects and by

purchasing electricity from

renewable sources. The Federal

Government will strive to insta ll

20,000 solar roofs by 2010.

Findings are specific to

individual ag encies. A

Government-wide

discussion will be included

in the FY 2000 annual

report.

Section V, Agency

Reports, page 75

Executive Order 12902

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 1999

decreased 66.8 percent

compared to FY 198 5 and

6.7 percent from FY 1998.

Section II(A),

page 47

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 an d facilities in

FY 19 99 decr eased 16 .7

percent from FY 1985 and

0.4 percent from FY 1998.

Measured in terms of source

energy, Federal buildings

show a red uction of 7.8

percent in Btu/GSF during

FY 1999 compared to FY

1985.

Section II(A ), 

page 43, 46, and

52

Executive Order 13123 Reduce water consumption and

associated energy use.

Findings are specific to

individual ag encies. A

Government-wide

discussion will be included

in the FY 2000 annual

report.

Section V, Agency

Reports, page 75
 

7DOE /EIA-00 35(20 00/12), Monthly Energy Review, December 2000.

 

8Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2000

 

9Appen dix C indica tes the annual c ost of energy u sed in Fed eral buildings and facilities, vehic les and equ ipment,

and energy intensive operations for FY 1985 through FY 1999. The combined cost per Btu for energy in each fiscal

year is also shown in the table.

10

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 1,394,450.9 billion Btu during FY 1999. 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 net energy consumption.) These 1.39 quads represent

approximately 1.5 percent of the total 93.03 quads7 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 Government consumed 1.01

quads during FY 1999 when measured in terms of energy actually delivered to the point of use

(net consumption). As shown in Table 1-B, Federal agencies reported a 30.1 percent decrease in

total net energy consumption compared to FY 1985, and a 2.4 percent decrease from FY 1998. 

The cost of this energy was $8.0 billion and represented approximately 0.5 percent of the total

Federal expenditures of $1.727 trillion8

 for all purposes in FY 1999. The Federal energy bill for

FY 1999 fell 7.5 percent from the previous year, decreasing $650.0 million in constant dollars

compared to FY 1998.9

In FY 1999, the Department of Defense spent $5.8 billion for energy of the total Federal energy

expenditure of $8.0 billion. Overall, the Department of Defense used 35.2 percent less net

energy in FY 1999 than in FY 1985. 

Figures 1 and 2 depict the percentage of total energy used by the Federal Government in FY 1999

and its cost. As illustrated, jet fuel and electricity account for approximately 62.1 percent of the

total energy consumption represented in Figure 1 and approximately 74.0 percent of the total

energy costs in Figure 2.

Petroleum-based fuels used by the Federal Government are shown in Table 2. In FY 1999,

petroleum-based fuels accounted for 0.65 quads (650,664.6 billion Btu) of the total 1.01 quads

consumed by the Federal Government. Of that, approximately 0.60 quads (595,418.4 billion

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

vehicles and equipment energy. Only 0.04 quads (36,742.2 billion Btu) of petroleum-based fuels

were used for Federal buildings and facilities energy.
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 Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

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 72,898.5 53.7 1.4

DOE 88,660.3 82,447.3 79,395.5 82,543.2 79,546.4 78,656.3 81,131.1 80,797.6 69,893.3 64,093.9 63,910.5 -27.9 -0.3

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 47,069.4 16.9 0.4

DOT 27,181.6 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 36,377.8 33.8 22.9

GSA 39,163.3 33,255.3 33,455.8 32,929.2 33,599.2 33,112.8 32,634.6 33,506.2 33,628.8 33,375.8 34,221.9 -12.6 2.5

NASA 21,465.6 25,779.9 26,607.0 26,874.9 26,695.9 27,242.2 26,419.2 24,457.1 25,821.7 25,055.8 24,459.8 13.9 -2.4

DOJ 10,595.9 10,790.3 13,230.3 12,139.6 13,964.4 15,664.1 15,959.9 19,309.5 18,857.8 23,353.4 23,274.6 119.7 -0.3

HHS 9,692.6 14,941.5 13,252.0 14,665.0 15,026.8 15,260.7 11,110.8 11,722.2 13,699.6 13,352.0 12,778.6 31.8 -4.3

USDA 11,576.9 13,655.1 13,830.4 13,287.1 13,650.6 13,721.9 14,072.5 13,348.3 11,534.8 12,212.2 11,764.7 1.6 -3.7

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 10,611.1 -3.0 11.2

TRSY 3,489.9 6,013.2 7,397.2 8,104.2 8,014.0 7,843.1 7,149.0 6,637.4 8,375.9 8,228.1 8,025.7 130.0 -2.5

ST 1

6,224.6 6,358.0 6,347.8 747.0 1,060.4 1,137.8 1,184.7 1,686.9 7,486.3 7,455.3 7,114.7 14.3 -4.6

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 6,737.4 -9.3 10.9

DOC 3,804.6 6,046.9 4,261.0 4,083.2 4,287.4 5,007.0 5,173.4 4,930.3 4,866.3 4,558.3 4,777.1 25.6 4.8

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 3,337.1 -9.5 -19.9

EPA 1,621.0 1,483.2 1,635.5 1,662.7 1,845.1 1,922.7 2,062.6 2,010.2 2,050.8 2,021.4 2,250.6 38.8 11.3

HUD 315.2 384.2 407.0 378.7 346.0 324.0 310.6 326.8 318.0 303.2 310.2 -1.6 2.3

FCC 39.2 46.1 46.5 38.1 38.9 42.2 42.2 33.5 35.9 35.4 35.4 -9.6 0.0

OTHER* 898.6 3,784.3 2,825.3 2,885.8 3,210.1 4,051.6 6,207.3 8,491.6 9,229.4 8,819.1 8,569.1 853.6 -2.8

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 335,606.4 350,508.0 350,844.3 350,810.1 360,203.0 363,147.8 363,124.1 369,588.0 374,013.1 370,984.7 378,524.1 12.8 2.0

DOD 1,457,548.3 1,491,843.4 1,511,223.6 1,346,120.3 1,288,504.3 1,211,887.4 1,150,296.9 1,120,399.0 1,090,079.5 1,043,465.2 1,015,926.8 -30.3 -2.6

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 1,793,154.7 1,842,351.4 1,862,067.9 1,696,930.4 1,648,707.2 1,575,035.2 1,513,421.0 1,489,987.0 1,464,092.7 1,414,449.8 1,394,450.9 -22.2 -1.4

MBOE 307.8 316.3 319.7 291.3 283.0 270.4 259.8 255.8 251.3 242.8 239.4

Petajoules 1,891.7 1,943.6 1,964.4 1,790.2 1,739.3 1,661.6 1,596.6 1,571.9 1,544.6 1,492.2 1,471.1

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA, and FERC.

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.

2

TVA’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 descending order of consumption for the

current y ear. Sum of comp onents may n ot equa l total due to indepen dent rou nding. 

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
TABLE 1-B

TOTAL NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

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 39,774.0 43.3 0.7

DOE 51,527.5 43,467.5 42,178.6 44,300.2 43,688.5 42,279.2 47,089.7 44,424.9 33,926.3 31,450.1 30,363.9 -41.1 -3.5

VA 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 27,472.4 9.3 -0.5

DOT 19,462.3 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 20,508.1 5.4 10.8

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 15,366.2 87.9 -2.8

GSA 17,330.7 14,226.0 13,985.0 13,842.0 14,149.4 13,963.0 13,671.8 14,499.2 14,364.3 14,096.2 14,337.7 -17.3 1.7

NASA 10,827.9 12,321.8 12,455.4 12,538.8 12,358.7 12,588.3 12,395.3 11,480.6 11,980.3 11,717.1 11,419.1 5.5 -2.5

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 7,828.6 -6.3 -1.1

DOI 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 7,456.0 -4.6 16.0

HHS 5,953.5 7,957.0 7,107.1 7,954.7 8,146.3 8,408.3 6,129.7 6,628.9 7,852.8 7,400.8 7,036.3 18.2 -4.9

TRSY 2,770.0 3,391.6 4,177.1 4,628.4 4,912.7 4,558.2 4,132.6 3,764.1 4,597.6 4,816.3 4,598.4 66.0 -4.5

ST 1

2,771.7 2,827.4 2,799.0 273.8 390.2 422.3 437.3 653.3 3,278.0 3,258.4 3,368.6 21.5 3.4

DOC 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 2,684.3 7.8 8.7

TVA 2

2,851.9 2,605.4 2,623.2 2,380.9 2,246.2 2,534.9 2,607.3 2,547.8 2,396.9 2,295.9 2,510.1 -12.0 9.3

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 2,048.1 -14.1 -19.4

EPA 904.5 747.0 822.4 839.7 994.8 1,041.2 1,120.6 1,099.7 1,148.3 1,120.6 1,290.6 42.7 15.2

HUD 116.9 140.3 164.9 156.7 147.8 144.2 131.3 140.8 137.6 126.4 129.6 10.8 2.5

FCC 23.6 23.9 22.1 19.9 20.2 20.7 20.7 17.5 19.9 19.4 19.4 -17.9 0.0

OTHER* 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 3,835.5 839.5 -0.9

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 197,805.6 195,961.3 193,244.4 191,825.1 199,150.2 202,128.4 203,695.1 203,763.8 203,063.9 200,925.6 202,047.1 2.1 0.6

DOD 1,250,613.8 1,241,655.8 1,269,291.5 1,103,990.1 1,048,772.9 977,040.4 926,022.9 904,150.2 880,007.7 837,115.8 810,663.0 -35.2 -3.2

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 1,448,419.4 1,437,617.1 1,462,535.9 1,295,815.2 1,247,923.1 1,179,168.8 1,129,718.0 1,107,914.0 1,083,071.6 1,038,041.4 1,012,710.1 -30.1 -2.4

MBOE 248.7 246.8 251.1 222.5 214.2 202.4 193.9 190.2 185.9 178.2 173.9

Petajoules 1,528.0 1,516.6 1,542.9 1,367.0 1,316.5 1,244.0 1,191.8 1,168.8 1,142.6 1,095.1 1,068.4

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA, and FERC.

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.

2

TVA’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 descending order of consumption for the

current y ear. Sum of comp onents may n ot equa l total due to indepen dent rou nding. 

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
13

Total by Energy Type: 1.01 quads Total by Sector: 1.01 quads

Buildings & Facilities: 0.34 quads

Energy Intensive Operations: 0.07 quads Vehicles & Equipment: 0.61 quads

FIGURE 1

Federal Energy Consumption, FY 1999

Data as of 10/26/00

Source: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports

Note: Sum of components may not equal 100 percent due to independent rounding.
14

Total by Energy Type: $7.96 Billion Total by Sector: $7.96 Billion

Energy Intensive Operations: $0.64 Billion Vehicles & Equipment: $3.91 Billion

Buildings & Facilities: $3.41 Billion

FIGURE 2

Federal Energy Costs, FY 1999

Data as of 10/26/00

Source: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports

Note: Sum of components may not equal 100 percent due to independent rounding.
TABLE 2

FEDERAL PETROLEUM USAGE IN FY 1999

(in Thousands of Gallons, Billions of Btu,

and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

Unit Total BBTU* BBTU* BBTU* Petajoules*

(KGa l) DOD Civilian Total Total

Buildings & Facilities

Fuel O il 248,90 3.9 28,980 .7 5,542.2 34,523 .0 36.42

LPG/Propane 23,238 .4 1,525.9 693.3 2,219.3 2.34

Energy Intensive Operations

Fuel O il 45,289 .9 5,029.8 1,251.9 6,281.7 6.63

LPG/Propane 1,418.3 96.1 39.4 135.4 0.14

Vehicles & Equipment

Motor Gas 328,52 3.9 13,495 .7 27,569 .8 41,065 .5 43.32

Dist-Diesel & Petro l. 840,48 3.2 104,88 9.2 11,685 .8 116,57 5.0 123.01

Aviation Gas 1,067.0 0.3 133.1 133.4 0.14

Jet Fuel 3,420,6 16.0 436,76 1.0 7,919.0 444,68 0.1 469.12

Navy Special 32,760 .9 4,543.8 0.1 4,543.9 4.79

LPG/Propane 829.0 69.0 10.2 79.2 0.08

Other 428.1 26.8 401.3 428.1 0.45

Total 595,41 8.4 55,246 .2 650,66 4.6 686.40

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

 *Uses a co nversion fac tor 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/Pe tajoule

Note: FY 19 99 conta ins estimated d ata for the follow ing agencies: F EMA , FTC, an d OPM . 

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

Source: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
 

10Carbon emissions were calculated by multiplying energy consumption for each fuel type by an associated

carbon c oefficient show n in Appe ndix B. T hese coefficie nts are derive d from D OE/EIA-057 3(98), Emissions of

Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1998, Octobe r 1999; T ables 11 a nd B1. 

16

 FIGURE 3

Carbon Emissions from Federal Energy Consumption, FY 1990 to FY 1999

Carbon emissions from Federal Government energy consumption have decreased significantly

since FY 1990, the base year for the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework on

Climate Change. As shown in Figure 3, the Federal Government has reduced carbon emissions

across the three end-use sectors by 26.0 percent from 33.4 million metric tons in FY 1990 to 24.7

million metric tons in FY 1999.10 The largest contribution to this reduction is from the vehicles

and equipment sector, which has seen a decrease in carbon emissions of 34.4 percent. This is a

result of a reduction of almost 5.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions from jet fuel, as well

as smaller reductions from diesel, aviation gasoline, navy special, and LPG/propane. 

Carbon emissions have decreased by 19.5 percent in the buildings and facilities sector since

1990. Contributing to this reduction was a 10.1 percent reduction in gross square footage since

FY 1990 and a 8.2 percent decrease in primary energy intensity (245,730 Btu/GSF in FY 1990,

225,543 Btu/GSF in FY 1999). Carbon emissions from energy intensive activities in excluded

buildings increased 4.6 percent (0.1 million metric tons) since FY 1990.

Section 201 of Executive Order 13123 establishes a goal for each agency to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions attributed to facility energy use by 30 percent by 2010 compared to such emissions

levels in 1990. When the carbon emissions from energy used in the buildings and facilities and

the excluded buildings and industrial sectors are combined, a reduction of 15.7 percent is

exhibited in FY 1999 compared to FY 1990.
17

C. 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. There were no

meetings of the 656 Committee held in FY 1999. At the Committee’s January 24, 2000 meeting,

the following items were discussed:

• The U.S. Army’s initiative to utilize wind power 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 Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee (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
18

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.

Over the last year, the Task Force met six times: January 21, 1999; May 20, 1999; July 14, 1999;

September 15, 1999; November 10, 1999; and January 12, 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.

• Energy efficiency opportunities at buildings that agencies have designated exempt from

energy reduction goals.

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

• Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy

Management, 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.

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

Through Efficient Energy Management. FEMP has been charged with a myriad of support and

analysis tasks that will help operationalize the Executive Order and achieve its goals. To this

end, 10 working groups were established under the Task Force. These cover:

• Energy Efficient Product Procurement;

• Energy Intensive Facilities;

• Leasing;

• New Space;

• Project Financing;

• Renewable Energy;

• Reporting;

• Technical Tools/Training;

• Utility Markets; and

• Water Conservation
19

Most of the activity so far has been concentrated in the Energy Intensive Facilities, Project

Financing, Reporting, Renewable, Utility Markets, and Water Conservation working groups. 

Each of these groups has either produced guidance, or is currently working on guidance, that will

enable Federal agencies to correctly interpret and implement the Executive Order. Documents

and guidance materials produced by the various working groups must be approved by the

Interagency Energy Management Task Force.

D. Personnel and Energy Awareness Activities

During FY 1999, DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) conducted 54 training

workshops and symposia for more than 4,700 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 1,235

viewers; the Utility Financing and the Utility Deregulation Impacts teleworkshops attracted 170

students each.

Nine workshops on energy savings performance contracting (ESPC) were conducted in FY 1999

for 242 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. ESPC allows energy-efficient improvements to be

installed by private contractors with no up-front capital costs.

The Designing Low Energy Buildings course was presented twice for 28 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 satellite

presentation of the course attracted 633 viewers. 

The FEMP Lights course was conducted twice for a total of 46 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 1999 for 15

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

conservation, technical, and financial opportunities utilizing the FEDS-Level 1 project screening

software and the FEDS-Level 2 project implementation software. 

The Operations and Maintenance Management classroom course was presented once for 7

students; the satellite version was presented once for 250 students.

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

workshops on life-cycle costing and building retrofit simulation for 81 students. The Buying

Energy-Efficient Products course was presented twice for 39 students.
20

The Implementing Renewable Energy Projects course was presented twice for 44 students, and

the Laboratories for the 21st Century course attracted 189 students.

FEMP continued to offer its Water Resource Management course with one workshop for 12

attendees in FY 1999. 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 1999, FEMP participated in the organization and presentation of 23 panel discussions

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

management conferences around the country, attracting 1,602 attendees.

The Federal Energy Management Program 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 organization for those courses by responding to numerous requests from Federal

energy managers, utility managers, engineers, building operators, and facility personnel.

Recognition

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

were recognized with the presentation of the 1999 Federal Energy and Water Management

Awards on October 28, 1999 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;

# 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 1999 awards were selected from 180 nominees submitted by 21 Federal

agencies. Award recipients totaled 51, representing 19 different Federal agencies. Distribution

of awards among the Federal agencies for accomplishments in FY 1998 is indicated below. 

Awards were presented to agencies in the categories shown in the exhibit below:
21

Agency Individual Small

Group

Organization Total Energy

Efficiency

Alternative

Financing

Renewable

Energy

Mobility Water 

Mgmt.

Exceptional

Service

Army 3 2 1 6 4 1 1

Navy 1 2 3 1 1 1

USAF 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 1

USMC 1 1 1

DOE 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Interior 1 1 1 3 2 1

DOJ 1 1 1

State 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

DOT 2 1 3 1 1 1

EPA 1 1 1

GSA 2 5 2 9 5 2 1 1

HHS 1 1 1

NASA 2 2 1 1

NIMA 1 1 1

SSA 1 1 1

Treasury 1 1 1

Agriculture 1 1 1

USPS 1 2 1 4 2 1 1

VA 2 1 3 1 2

TOTAL 18 18 15 51 18 11 5 2 5 11

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

Energy Efficiency Award to Organization:

United States Army Tank Automotive Center, Armament Research Center, United States Army

Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. The United States Army Tank-Automotive Armaments

Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC) has

exceeded the FY 1998 Army energy goal by 13 percent compared with FY 1997. Dual fuel

capability for heating contributed to savings of almost $314,000 in FY 1998 and cumulative

savings of $5.6 million since the program’s inception in FY 1991. TACOM-ARDEC

participated in a fuel cell project that involved the conversion of all boilers in the powerhouse to

dual fuel capacity and completed a lighting retrofit in FY 1998 for 128 buildings. Estimated

savings from these projects are 2,600 kilowatts, 8.2 million Btu, and yearly budget savings of

$243,000.

Energy Efficiency Award to Small Group:

Larry Emmons, Carl C. Fillingame, Stuart Hammons, Mark L. Haskett, Douglas Sanford.

United States Marine Corps, Barstow, California. The team of professionals at Marine Corps

Logistics Base (MCLB) Barstow avoided costs of $2.7 million in FY 1998. To achieve this, the

team installed T-8 32-watt fluorescent lighting systems with electronic ballasts, energy-efficient

motors, satellite boilers, and an energy monitoring and control system through a demand side

management (DSM) project with ENVEST, a division of Southern California Edison. The group

renegotiated the $4.2 million contract and reduced the interest from 14 percent to 9 percent,

avoiding $1.5 million in interest costs. Additionally, they used the Base newspaper, local

newspapers and radio stations, billboards, announcements, memos, and the Internet to get the

energy efficiency message out to Base personnel. The MCLB Barstow team has proven its
22

adeptness both at installing and demonstrating advanced technologies and using DSM third party

financing and energy award funds to finance energy products. In FY 1998, MCLB Barstow

saved a total of 95 billion Btu and more than $1.2 million. 

Energy Efficiency Award to Individual:

Ron Jakaitis, General Services Administration, Denver, Colorado. In a cooperative agreement

with Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), Mr. Jakaitis made the new Dave Skaggs

Research Center the first building in the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Rocky

Mountain Region to comply and exceed the requirements listed under the Department of

Energy’s Federal Energy Efficiency Requirements of Part 435, Title 10-Energy. GSA entered

into agreements with PSCO to obtain energy efficiency upgrades in less than five years. The

upgrades will result in estimated annual savings of $130,000. Upgrades include the installation

of occupancy sensors and dimming controls for lighting, premium efficiency motors for HVAC

equipment, and a flat heat exchanger. Under the agreement, PSCO provided financing and

technical expertise to assist Mr. Jakaitis in ensuring that compliance was met all the way through

construction. Mr. Jakaitis also educated others by speaking at utility conferences about the

unique energy and resource efficiency features of the Dave Skaggs Research Center. 

Energy Savings Performance Contracting Award:

Fermilab, Department of Energy, Batavia, Illinois. The Fermilab Central Cooling Retrofit

project replaced worn and inefficient CFC chillers and pumping systems installed in the 1960s. 

A utility service agreement was procured through the local Department of Energy (DOE) office

and was competed between both the local gas utility company and the local electric company to

maximize cost competitiveness. The $3.55 million award was won by Commonwealth Edison,

the local electric company. The project was completed in May 1999. Due to the success of the

project, the last of the old Class 1 CFC chillers has been eliminated, making Fermilab one of the

first DOE facilities to become fully compliant with the requirements of the Secretary of Energy

to eliminate such units whenever possible. Discounted savings over the 25-year life of the

project are projected at $12.3 million based upon annual energy savings of 68.2 billion Btu.

Renewable Energy Award:

Joshua Tree National Park, Department of the Interior, Twentynine Palms, California. President

Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Joshua Tree National Park in 1936 to protect significant

examples of the Mojave and Colorado Desert ecosystems. Until 1998, diesel-powered generators

were the primary source of power to sustain operations at the remote Cottonwood visitor use area

and employee housing facility located in the southeast portion of the Park. In 1998, the Park

replaced two 32-kilowatt diesel generators with a 21-kilowatt photovoltaic power array system

and a 30-kilowatt propane backup generator that now totally support the electrical power needs

of the Cottonwood area. The diesel system produced 5,770 pounds of nitrous oxide, 120 tons of

carbon dioxide, and 218 pounds of suspended particulates. Total annual operating costs were

estimated to be $49,770. Annual operating costs have been lowered by 90 percent and pollution

emissions have been all but eliminated. 

Mobility Energy Management Award:

Timothy A. Debth, Keith Gunsch, Leland Leard, Leslie A. Main, John H. Glenn Research Center

at Lewis Field, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cleveland, Ohio. Since the
23

issuance of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 and Executive Order 12759, it was decided

that natural gas would be the alternative fuel used at NASA’s John H. Glenn Research Center

(GRC), Cleveland, Ohio. It wasn’t until FY 1997 that GRC reached an agreement with East

Ohio Gas that enabled the Center to construct a twin-hose, fast-fill compressed natural gas

refueling station on site. Construction was completed in September 1998. The twin hose

dispenser can fuel two vehicles simultaneously in about the same time it takes to fill a single

vehicle with gasoline. With 12 natural gas vehicles on-site, an annual dependence on 8,000

gallons of gasoline has been avoided annually.

Water Management Award:

36th Civil Engineer Squadron, Andersen Air Force Base, United States Air Force, Guam. The

36th Civil Engineer Squadron’s Operations Flight at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, achieved

remarkable results in water conservation initiatives in FY 1998. Compared to FY 1997, more

than 140 million gallons of water were saved as a result of aggressive maintenance and repair of

the Base’s water distribution system and implementation of water conservation measures. 

Andersen Air Force Base is one of the few U.S. Air Force bases that produce its own water. 

Given the unique challenge of living in an island environment subject to drought conditions and

significant shifts in the climate, water is a most precious resource. Water main breaks and leaky

valves are just two examples of problems with the water distribution system that resulted in the

Base having to produce over 1.1 billion gallons of water in FY 1997. To address these problems,

members of the 36th Civil Engineer Squadron Operations Flight identified and repaired leaks and

replaced valves throughout the Base. Because of these aggressive repair efforts, monthly water

production rates decreased 35 percent by the end of FY 1998, and sustained results in FY 1999

are expected to yield additional savings of 300 million gallons from the FY 1998 baseline. 

Actual savings in water production, energy, and sewage treatment costs exceeded $490,000 in

FY 1998, while projected cost savings in FY 1999 are $789,000. 

Exceptional Service Award:

United States Mint, Department of Treasury, Washington, DC. The United States Mint Energy

Performance Team has taken sustained and aggressive action to reduce energy costs and

consumption at its facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The team installed electric chillers at

the site, then negotiated rate reduction incentives with Philadelphia Electric Power Company that

will earn the Mint $200,000 in savings over the next 10 years. Next, the team renegotiated the

non-fuel portion of its steam rate with TRIGEN, another local utility, eventually achieving a 20

percent reduction in nonfuel rate charges. As a result, the Mint avoided $87,200 in costs during

1997 and $82,500 in 1998. As a part of the renegotiated contract, the team also persuaded

TRIGEN to provide the Philadelphia Mint a back pressure steam turbine generator at no cost. 

Another project involved replacing the Mint’s existing main electrical transformer with a larger

unit. By replacing the existing transformer, the Mint was able to change from secondary service

rates to primary services rates that will save $35,000 per year in electrical costs. During 1998,

the team’s initiatives produced almost $400,000 in savings and cost avoidance, reduced energy

usage by 9.7 trillion Btu, and conserved more than 2.1 million gallons of water. Moreover, the

Mint achieved these savings and efficiencies on the eve of minting two of the largest and longestrunning coin programs in U.S. history – the introduction of a new dollar coin and 50 State

commemorative quarters, five new quarters each year for a decade.
24

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

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

TVA T T T

USPS T T T T T
25

Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities

Nine facilities in five different Federal agencies have been designated Federal Energy Saver

Showcases for 1999 for incorporating cost-effective energy efficiency, water conservation, and

renewable energy technologies. The agencies and showcase facilities are as follows:

General Services Administration

# Denver Federal Courthouse, Colorado

# Seattle Federal Courthouse, Washington

Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Hawaii

Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of Health

# Building 50, Consolidated Laboratory Facility, The Louis Stokes Laboratories, Maryland

Department of the Interior: National Park Service

# Cottonwood Visitor Use Complex, Joshua Tree National Park, California

# North Manitou Island, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan

# Visitor Center, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, Washington

# Zion Canyon Visitor Center, Zion National Park, Utah

Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration

# West Palm Beach Air Traffic Control Tower, Florida

Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, states

that agencies shall 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 nine facilities designated Federal Energy Saver Showcases for FY 1999 are expected to save

the Government more than $1.4 million in energy costs each year. These showcases represent

some of the best applications of energy efficiency and renewable energy in the Federal sector,

and each helps the Government run more efficiently.
26

E. Funding for Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Facilities

During FY 1999, 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-sponsored demand side

management (DSM) incentives. 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 1999. 

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

sources totaled approximately $338 million in FY 1999.

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 3-A presents agency funding (in nominal dollars) reported

from FY 1985 through FY 1999 for energy conservation retrofits and capital equipment. Table

3-B presents the same information in constant 1999 dollars. In constant dollars, funding for

energy conservation declined from $399.6 million in FY 1985 to a low of $65.1 million in

FY 1989. Reports from Federal agencies indicated that $205.2 million was spent on retrofit

expenditures in FY 1999, compared with $264.7 million in FY 1998. 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 $91.2 million in expenditures for energy efficiency projects in

FY 1999, $102.7 million less than the previous year.

No direct funding was appropriated for the Department of Energy in FY 1999 for retrofit projects

in buildings and metered process facilities.
27

Table 3-A

Agency Expenditures for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipment,

FY 1985 through FY 1999 (Thousands of Nominal Dollars)

Projected

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

DOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 872 0 51 0 0 NA 330 N/A N/A

DOD 136,100 120,000 5,550 5,280 1,500 1,020 10,000 49,669 14,444 109,000 189,600 112,487 118,970 191,446 91,243 54,831

DOE 14,800 14,500 16,500 18,900 19,400 19,500 20,400 20,650 20,950 24,850 30,200 0 0 0 0 0

DOI 3,198 5,535 0 0 4,338 0 1,272 9,800 4,859 1,662 779 891 0 160 1,730 868

DOJ 0 0 0 195 484 6,100 26,400 0 N/A 1,284 994 1,559 2,091 1,500 1,615 1,500

DOL 238 31 106 142 584 17 35 16 0 0 N/A 366 0 0 40 200

DOT 13,650 15,000 12,104 12,700 2,908 0 460 143 593 5,970 3,793 2,585 3,176 3,000 9,005 9,800

EPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 1,720 1,600 1,600 0 0 0

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 20,000 0 25,000 N/A

HHS 0 0 0 427 427 427 427 0 1,813 1,915 1,271 2,676 2,879 2,200 4,793 7,803

HUD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 30 43 0 2,418 0 0 0

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 15,919 13,813 18,509 20,162

PCC 1,274 73 1,174 600 378 361 807 249 500 608 14 23 3 104 N/A N/A

RRB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 13 33 0 38 23 0 0

STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 1,902 51 1,238 N/A

TRSY 0 0 2,977 2,393 2,823 1,134 836 0 1,344 4,826 2,810 170 2,990 1,400 1,495 1,000

TVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 844 4,277 522 1,158 1,466 1,022 750

USDA 2,500 0 0 500 500 1,547 1,752 7,300 7,045 7,277 2,894 5,983 3,891 1,765 994 N/A

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 16,000 31,000 38,000 15,000

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 7,400 13,000 10,500 10,500

Total 258,560 194,139 57,611 65,597 52,209 59,374 114,038 145,078 120,870 230,228 288,346 179,228 200,435 261,258 205,184 122,414

Notes: 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
28

Table 3-B

Agency Expenditures for Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipment,

FY 1985 through FY 1999 (Thousands of Constant 1999 Dollars)

Projected

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

DOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 991 0 55 0 0 0 334 0 0

DOD 210,355 179,372 8,032 6,839 1,870 1,223 11,601 56,442 15,978 118,093 201,060 117,174 121,895 193,968 91,243 53,756

DOE 22,875 21,674 23,878 24,482 24,190 23,381 23,666 23,466 23,175 26,923 32,025 0 0 0 0 0

DOI 4,943 8,274 0 0 5,409 0 1,476 11,136 5,375 1,801 826 928 0 162 1,730 851

DOJ 0 0 0 253 603 7,314 30,626 0 0 1,391 1,054 1,624 2,142 1,520 1,615 1,471

DOL 368 46 153 184 728 20 41 18 0 0 0 381 0 0 40 196

DOT 21,097 22,422 17,517 16,451 3,626 0 534 163 656 6,468 4,022 2,693 3,254 3,040 9,005 9,608

EPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 0 1,824 1,667 1,639 0 0 0

GSA 10,355 9,118 4,197 12,176 6,070 13,339 34,945 42,045 33,186 40,087 7,680 7,708 20,492 0 25,000 0

HHS 0 0 0 553 532 512 495 0 2,005 2,075 1,348 2,788 2,950 2,229 4,793 7,650

HUD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 33 46 0 2,477 0 0 0

NASA 18,238 18,087 2,460 1,813 5,610 3,529 8,766 8,052 27,735 26,715 21,915 31,527 16,310 13,995 18,509 19,767

PCC 1,969 109 1,699 777 471 433 936 283 553 659 15 24 3 105 0 0

RRB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 14 35 0 39 23 0 0

STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 1,949 52 1,283 0

TRSY 0 0 4,308 3,100 3,520 1,360 970 0 1,487 5,229 2,980 177 3,064 1,418 1,495 980

TVA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 525 914 4,536 544 1,186 1,485 1,022 735

USDA 3,864 0 0 648 623 1,855 2,032 8,295 7,793 7,884 3,069 6,232 3,987 1,788 994 0

USPS 85,471 13,901 7,381 4,922 4,988 4,796 4,640 2,606 1,235 1,217 10,657 9,375 16,393 31,408 38,000 14,706

VA 20,093 17,190 13,748 12,772 6,858 13,429 11,566 11,364 13,385 9,805 12,683 3,854 7,582 13,171 10,500 10,294

Total 399,629 290,193 83,373 84,970 65,099 71,192 132,295 164,861 133,706 249,434 305,775 186,696 205,363 264,699 205,184 120,014

Notes: 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
29

FIGURE 4

Energy Conservation Retrofit Expenditures

(In Constant 1999 Dollars)

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports
30

Federal Energy Efficiency Fund

The Federal Energy Efficiency Fund (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: 

1. The cost-effectiveness of the project (saving-to-investment ratio).

2. The net dollar cost savings to the Federal Government.

3. The amount of energy savings to the Federal Government.

4. The amount of funding committed by the agency requesting financial assistance.

5. 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. A

summary of the funded projects is shown on the next page.

EPACT, 42 U.S.C. § 8258, requires energy and cost savings to be reported annually after

completion of construction, for each project funded under the Federal Energy Efficiency Fund. 

Of the 37 funded projects, 25 are complete and operational, realizing annual energy and cost

savings which equal or exceed the values projected in the original proposals for Fund grants. Six

energy efficient lighting projects, two water projects, and one each HVAC, chiller, and natural

gas conversion projects remain under construction for completion by the end of FY 1998. These

projects have been integrated into other non-Fund building upgrades funded by the respective

agencies, resulting in longer time periods required for completion. In some cases, mission

requirements have also limited building access.

Three Federal Energy Efficiency Fund projects will each put in place one base-wide energy

savings performance contract (ESPC) for the U.S. Coast Guard in Honolulu, HI, and the National

Park Service for the Presidio of San Francisco, CA, and two ESPCs will be put in place for the

U.S. Army at Fort Huachuca, AZ. One of the Fort Huachuca projects and the U.S. Coast Guard

project will install renewable energy solar hot water systems. 
31

Federal Energy Efficiency Fund Projects - FY 1999 Status

Agency State Project Description

Funds

Awarded

Installation

Status 

(Percent

Complete)

 DOC - NOAA WA NW Fish Science Center - Fish Culture System $471,399 100%

 DOD - US Army AZ Solar and Base-wide Upgrades $310,000 15%

 DOI - National Park Service UT Dangling Rope Marina - PV System $350,000 100%

 DOI - National Park Service DC White House - Transformer & NPS Detailee $74,000 100%

 DOI - National Park Service WY Yellowstone NP - Lighting, Heat, & Insulation $455,665 100%

 DOI - National Park Service WY Yellowstone NP - Phase 2 Lighting, Heat, & Insulation $174,500 95%

 DOI - National Park Service CA Channel Island Santa Rosa Island - Wind & PV System $272,394 95%

 DOI - National Park Service CA Yosemite N ationa l Park - L ighting Retro fit $73,621 100%

 DOI - National Park Service CA Golde n Gat e NRA, Pre sidio - L ighting Retro fit $175,000 50%

 DOL - Job Corps Center MT Electric to Natural Gas Conversion $225,000 100%

 DOT - FAA OH Lightin g Retr ofit $103,706 100%

 DOT - Coast Guard AK Used O il Process ing Facility $530,000 100%

 DOT - Coast Guard MD USCG Yar d, Ligh ting Re trofit $80,671 100%

 DOT - Coast Guard HI Housing Area - Solar Water Heating $100,000 100%

 Treasury - US Mint PA Lightin g Retr ofit $103,180 100%

 Exec. Residence Agency DC White House - Lighting Retrofit & Refrigerator $50,477 100%

 HHS - N IH/Nation al Canc er Inst. MD Chiller Installation $283,463 56%

 HHS - N IH/Nation al Canc er Inst. MD Occupancy Sensor Installation $129,090 25%

 NASA - Dryden CA Edwa rds AF B Bldg #4800 Lightin g Retr ofit $265,414 100%

 NASA - Godda rd MD Bldg’s # 17, 21 , 22, & 2 3 Ligh ting Re trofit $286,715 100%

 NASA - Godda rd MD E-Build ing Comple x Ligh ting Re trofit $94,812 100%

 NASA - Kennedy FL Bldg M7-505 Lightin g Retr ofit $144,500 100%

 NASA - Kennedy FL Bldg M6 -336 Lig hting & HVAC Retrofits $41,800 100%

 NASA - Kennedy FL Bldgs M6-3 39 & M7-581 Lightin g Retr ofit $36,942 100%

 NASA - Kennedy FL Hanger L, Bldg 1732 Lighting & HVAC Mods $88,900 100%

 NASA - Kennedy FL Laun ch Comple x 39 L ighting Retro fit $106,050 100%

 NASA - Mar shall AL Bldg. 4610 Lighting Modifications $120,000 91%

 NASA - Mar shall AL Building 4250 Water Conservation $116,500 91%

 National Gallery of Art DC HVAC Automation System $2,000,000 95%

 Smithsonian Institution MD Support Center - Phases 3, 4, & 5 Lighting $100,000 100%

 Agency for Int’l Development Jamaica Executive Office Bldg - Lighting & Windows $69,798 100%

 USDA - Agric. Research Service MD Bldg 0 11A - F luores cent L amp Retro fit $3,640 100%

 USDA - Agric. Research Service MD Bldg 011A - Lighting Occupan cy Sensors $33,326 100%

 USDA - Forest Service AZ Apac he-Sit greav es NF Lightin g Retr ofit $35,000 100%

 USDA - Forest Service AZ Kaibab NF - Replace Telephone Switch $66,500 100%

 USDA - Forest Service CA Shas ta-Trin ity NF - NCSC Ligh ting Re trofit $28,500 100%

 US Soldiers & Airmen’s Home DC Lightin g Retr ofit $274,677 100%
32

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 energy

savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and describes the methodology of contract

implementation. The ESPC program was created to provide agencies with a quick and costeffective 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 and

water 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 directly 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 and achieved the directive

to substitute regulations for certain provisions in the FAR. On April 18, 1995, DOE published a

correction that changed the effective date of the final rule from May 10 to April 10, 1995. 

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 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 the President

to become Public Law 105-388. The law makes 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, the President signed Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government

Through Efficient Energy Management. 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.” Inherent to implementation of the ESPC regulation is the necessity for

action by senior agency officials, agency priority on employing ESPCs, development and

maintenance of trained and dedicated procurement personnel, and accountability for results.

During FY 1999, 13 conventional ESPCs were awarded. Total contractor investment from these

projects is more than $87 million, providing the Government with an opportunity to save

millions of dollars in energy costs during the life of the contracts. These ESPCs include seven by

the United States Postal Service, four by the Department of Defense, and one each by the

Department of the Treasury and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration.
33

Conventional Energy Savings Performance Contracts Awarded 

by Federal Agencies in FY 1999

Project Name/Location Project Description Contractor Investment Savings

Dept. of Defense, U.S.

Army, Military District of

Washington

Lighting retrofit, building

automation systems, building

envelope modifications, and

boiler, chiller, and

water/sewer system upgrades

$67,090,407 Annual savings of

$11,898,523

Dept. of Defense, U.S.

Marine Corps, Marine

Corps B ase Kane ohe Ba y,

Oahu, H awaii

Chiller upgrades $55,260 Not availa ble

Dept. of Defense, U.S.

Marine Corps, Marine

Corps B ase Kane ohe Ba y,

Oahu, H awaii

Hot water decentralization $3,349,600 Not availa ble

Dept. of Defense, U.S.

Army, West Point Keller

Hospital, West Point, New

York

HVAC upgrades $1,152,887 Not availa ble

Dept. of the Treasury, U.S.

Secret Service, Beltsville,

Maryland

Lighting retrofits, day

lighting

Not availa ble Annual savings of

$39,000

NASA, Goddard Space

Flight Center, Greenb elt,

Maryland and Wallops

Flight Facility, Wallops

Island, Virg inia

Lighting retrofits through

two delivery orders under

two GSFC IDIQ contract

awarded to two ESCOs

Each IDIQ has a

maximum value of $5

million

The first two delivery

orders will produce

annual savings of

$50,000

USPS, New Jersey Lighting retrofits $8,450,000 investment

in 7 facilities

Annual savings of

$1,300,000

USPS, West Chester, New

York

Lighting retrofits $210,0 00 investment in

6 facilities

Annual savings of

$54,800

USPS, Dallas, Texas HVAC upgrad es, lighting

retrofits

$2,774,000 investment

in 8 facilities

Annual savings of

$403,226

USPS, Atlanta BMC,

Georgia

Lighting retrofits, HVAC

upgrades

$155,0 00 investment in

1 facility

Annual savings of

$25,000

USPS , Suncoast D istrict,

Florida

Not availa ble $660,0 00 investment in

17 facilities

Annual savings of

$110,000

USPS, Las Vegas, Nevada Lighting retrofits, air

compressor

$221,0 00 investment in

1 facility

Annual savings of

$32,715

USPS, Tulsa, Oklahoma HVAC upgrad es, lighting

retrofits

$1,310,953 investment

in 1 facility

Annual savings of

$187,955
34

The ESPC covering the Military District of Washington is the single largest ESPC any Federal

agency has awarded. Through a partnership between the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense

Energy Support Center (DESC), the U.S. Army’s Military District of Washington (MDW), and

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) savings of over $100 million will be

achieved over the 18-year contract period at 837 buildings across the five participating

installations (Fort Belvoir, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Myer, Fort McNair, and Fort Meade). Utilizing

“best value” buying techniques, DESC, in conjunction with its Government partners, determined

that the Viron/Pepco Services offer provided the greatest overall benefits to the Government in

the areas of energy engineering, equipment installation, construction supervision,

commissioning, and measurement and verification. All capital investments will be made within

the first three years of the contract. As a result of this ESPC, the five installations will have their

overall energy consumption reduced by at least 23 percent in comparison to 1998 levels by 2005. 

This translates into annual reductions of 89 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and 294 billion

Btu in fuel. 

However, 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’s Federal Energy Management Program

(FEMP) has 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. The

second, and real benefit to agencies, is that Super ESPCs substantially reduce the lead time to

contract with an energy savings company (ESCO) for energy services. Super ESPCs are broad

area indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts that allow agencies to negotiate sitespecific delivery orders with an ESCO without having to start the 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. The Southeast,

Midwest, and Central Regional Super ESPCs were awarded to various ESCOs during FY 1998. 

On March 1, 1999 the Mid-Atlantic Regional Super ESPC (covering Delaware, Maryland, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia) was awarded to six

ESCOs (ERI Services, EUA Cogenex, HEC Energy and Design Services, Honeywell,

NORESCO, and Siebe Government Services). Also on March 1, 1999, the Northeast Regional

Super ESPC (covering Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode

Island, and Vermont) was awarded to seven ESCOs (CES/Way International, ERI Services, HEC

Energy and Design Services, Honeywell, Johnson Controls Government Services, Siebe

Government Services, and XENERGY). Each Regional Super ESPC has a contract ceiling of

$750 million.

During FY 1999, 16 Regional Super ESPC delivery orders were awarded. Total contractor

investment is more than $44 million, providing very significant energy and cost savings to the

Government. These delivery orders include three by the Department of Defense and the

Department of Transportation, two by the Department of the Interior, the Department of
35

Veteran’s Affairs, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and one each by the

Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the General Services Administration, and the

National Archives and Records Administration. Many more delivery orders are expected to be

awarded during FY 2000.

DOE Regional Super ESPC Delivery Orders

Project Name/Location Project Description Contractor

Investment

Savings

Dept. of Defense, DOD

Center M onterey Bay,

California

Lighting retrofit, energy management and

control system, and boiler, HVAC, and

hot water/steam system upgrades, and

efficient motors

$1,891,128 Annual savings of

$354,738

Dept. of D efense, U.S . Navy,

U.S. Naval Submarine Base,

Bangor, Washington

Lighting retrofit, energy management and

control system, and upgrades to the

chiller and hot water/steam systems

$663,559 Not availa ble

Dept. of D efense, U.S . Navy,

Port M ugu Nava l Air

Weapons Station and Naval

Construction Battalion Center,

Port Hu eneme, California

Lighting retrofit, energy management and

control system, HVAC, boiler and chiller

system upgrades, and hot water pipe

insulation

$1,699,458 Not availa ble

Dept. of Transportation, U.S.

Coast Guard, Integrated

Support Command, Alameda,

California

Lighting retrofit, building automation

systems, and HVAC system upgrades

$1,149,112 Not availa ble

Dept. of Transportation, U.S.

Coast Guard, Integrated

Support Command, Kodiak

Island, Alaska

Lighting retrofit, upgrades to steam,

water, and heat recovery systems 

This is the sec ond delive ry order on this

site

$3,166,628 Not availa ble

Dept. of Transportation, U.S.

Coast Guard, Support Center,

Elizabeth City, North Carolina

Lighting retrofit, efficient motors and

drives, build ing automa tion systems, rate

reductions and audits, and water and

sewer system upgrades

$1,830,611 Annual savings of

$271,140

Dept. of the Interior, National

Park Ser vice, Yose mite

National P ark, California

Lighting retrofit, efficient motors and

drives, building automation systems, and

upgrade s to boiler, H VAC, a nd electric

distribution systems

$584,535 Annual savings of

$81,539

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau

of Indian Affairs, Chemawa

Indian School, Salem, Oregon

Building automation systems, building

envelope modifications, efficient motors

and drives, and boiler and HVAC system

upgrades

$1,546,684 Annual savings of

$159,361

Dept. of Veteran’s A ffairs,

VA D omiciliary, W hite City,

Oregon

Lighting retrofit, building automation

systems, upgrades to the HVAC system

$395,629 Annual savings of

$64,734
Project Name/Location Project Description Contractor

Investment

Savings

36

Dept. of Veteran’s A ffairs,

Medical Center, Grand

Junction, Colorado

Lighting retrofit, upgrades to the steam,

water, and heat recovery systems

$755,857 Annual savings of

$81,539

NASA, Johnson Space C enter,

Houston, Texas

Lighting retrofit, compressed air system

modifications, variable speed pumping

systems, cooling tower control systems,

water conservation measures, energy

management control system installation,

HVAC control system upgrade

$21,000,000 Annual savings of

$2,074,000

NASA, Glenn Research

Center at Lewis Field,

Cleveland , Ohio

Lighting retrofit an d boiler imp rovemen ts $1,747,830 Annual savings of

$275,127

Dept. of Energy, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee

Lighting retrofit and water conservation $279,462 Annual savings of

$37,797

Dept. of Labor, Job Corps

Centers, San Bernadino and

Sacrame nto, California

Lighting retrofit $169,170 Annual savings of

$29,267

General Services

Administration, bundled sites,

Atlanta, Ge orgia

Lighting retrofit, efficient motors and

drives, and chiller and HVAC system

upgrades

$7,045,074 Annual savings of

$1,005,386

National Archives and

Records Administration,

Eisenhower Museum and

Library, Abilene, Kansas

Lighting retrofit, energy management and

control system, and steam trap

replacements

$266,431 Annual savings of

$35,914

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.

The first Technology-Specific Super ESPC was awarded in September 1996 to provide solar hot

water heating with parabolic troughs. Contract value is $30 million. During FY 1998, the

photovoltaics Technology-Specific Super ESPC was awarded to two ESCOs. This contract is

worth $50 million. In February 1999, the geothermal heat pump Technology-Specific Super

ESPC was awarded to five ESCOs (Constellation Energy Source, DukeSolutions, The Enron

Team, Exelon Energy Services, and The Trane Company). This contract is worth $500 million.

Over the next several years more Technology-Specific Super ESPCs will be awarded covering a

wide range of energy and cost saving technologies.
37

Utility Partnerships

Although the availability of utility-sponsored demand side management programs is waning,

Federal agency reports identified the receipt of at least $2.6 million in incentive rebates in FY

1999. Utility incentive activities reported by the agencies occurred at installations widely

distributed across the country. This decentralization of utility incentive participation makes it

difficult for agencies to track all utility incentive activities undertaken by all respective subagencies, bureaus, and field offices. Total utility incentive benefits received by the Federal

Government as a whole for FY 1999 are therefore assumed to be greater than reported.

Under incentive programs, utilities offer rebates to the customer which partially fund and help to

promote the installation of new, more efficient equipment such as lighting systems, insulation,

cooling equipment, and high efficiency motors. The customer, in this case the Federal

Government, is then required to finance the remainder of the equipment cost. Utility incentive

programs provide leverage for the user’s investment dollars and at the same time help the utility

to avoid the cost of building new power plants. EPACT and Executive Orders 12902 and 13123

place heavy emphasis on utility incentive as a means for Federal agencies to achieve energy

conservation. 

The following agencies reported participation in demand side management programs in FY 1999:

# Department of Defense,

# Department of Energy,

# Department of the Interior,

# Department of Transportation,

# Department of the Treasury,

# General Services Administration,

# Health and Human Services,

# Housing and Urban Development, and

# National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

F. 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.

On November 20, 1990, DOE issued a Notice of Final Rulemaking to amend Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 436, which sets forth guidelines applicable to Federal agency

in-house energy management programs. The principal regulatory changes involved amending the
38

life-cycle cost methodology and procedures to provide for an annually determined, market-based

discount rate and for a more effective system to revise annually the energy cost escalation rates

that Federal agencies are required to assume. In developing the final amendments, the

Department of Energy actively consulted with the Office of Management and Budget, the

Department of Defense, and the General Services Administration. 

In the past, DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program 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 1999 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 1998. 

G. Procurement Policy

The U.S. Government is the single largest user of energy in the world. Not surprisingly, it is also

the largest purchaser of energy-related products, buying an estimated $10 to $20 billion worth

each year for its buildings. Consequently, there is an enormous potential for energy and dollar

savings through procurement policies emphasizing energy efficiency. Such policies not only

save taxpayer dollars, but also decrease the emission of air pollutants associated with fuel

combustion (both directly and in the generation of electricity), while simultaneously expanding

the overall market for energy-efficient products.

Executive Order 13123, “Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management,”

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 . . . energy-efficient 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. Presently, the program includes

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, such as exit signs, low-voltage distribution

transformers, and roof products, is also covered.

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
39

Executive Order. The Recommendations also provide cost-effectiveness examples, tips on

important product selection parameters such as sizing and fuel choice, and leads to the Federal

supply agencies (the Defense Logistics Agency and the General Services Administration) that

offer efficient models. 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 loose-leaf 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. FEMP is working with GSA’s

Federal Supply Service arm 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 most cases, distinguish models that are ENERGY STAR

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. DLA has

established a database “field” highlighting positive environmental attributes (such as energyefficient or made from recycled material) within the FLIS, and has utilized the FEMP efficiency

thresholds as its definitions for “energy-efficient” and “water-conserving” (for plumbing fixtures

such as showerheads and toilets).

FEMP’s biggest success to date with its energy-efficient purchasing program has been 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 1999 include electric chillers, fluorescent lighting, exit

signs, distribution transformers, and roof products.

H. 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
40

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/cgi-bin/borwsere.pl. Subjects

include commuter issues and travel demand, traffic congestion, land-use development, and risk

assessment. In addition, a variety of products of the National Science and Technology Council’s

Subcommittee on Transportation R&D are also available through the site.

The Department of Energy’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 1999, EREC staff responded to 70,296 inquiries and

disseminated 373,672 publications.

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. In 1999, EREN averaged 86,000 unique users per

month, and 5 million hits per month. The site is a comprehensive resource for energy
41

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 Federal Energy Management Program (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 toll-free 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 1999, NEIC staff

responded to 25,049 inquiries and distributed approximately 30,635 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. 

In support of national competitiveness, OSTI collects, processes, and disseminates DOEoriginated research information and selected worldwide research literature on subjects of interest

to domestic communities. OSTI also provides scientific and technical information services to, or

on behalf of, DOE elements in support of Departmental 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 a wide array of energy-related

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

electronic full-text collection of 26,000 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

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 1999, OSTI
42

added more than 110,879 research summaries to the database and provided 18,356 full-text

documents for public availability to the National Technical Information Service and the

Government Printing Office Depository Library Program. 

FY 1999 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 unique and effective 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.

A full list of DOE’s energy education, extension, and information services is provided in

Appendix E to this report.
 

11Process energy is that energy used in buildings for operations other than standard building services. In cases

where separate reporting was not possible, due to the lack of meters or estimation techniques, process energy was

reported as though it was pa rt of the energy used for standard b uilding services. 

 

12The General Services Administration (GSA) is the primary leasing agent for the Federal Government, although

most of the other agencies do have some leasing authority. In 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 rep orting energ y consump tion. 

 

13Source 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 for net energy consumption.

43

FIGURE 5

Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption in

Buildings and Facilities by Fuel Type, FY 1999

II. ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Buildings and Facilities 

The Federal Government provides energy to approximately 500,000 buildings and facilities

comprising approximately 3.1 billion square feet of floor area. This energy is used to provide

lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and other standard building services, as well as a

significant amount of process operations that are not reported separately.11 Federal buildings

include both Federally-owned and leased buildings. However, 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.12

Table 4-A shows the total primary energy consumed in Federal buildings and facilities, including

energy resources used to generate, process, and transport electricity and steam.13 Primary energy

consumed in buildings and facilities in FY 1999 decreased 16.7 percent from FY 1985 and 0.4

percent from FY 1998.

Table 4-B shows that agencies have decreased net energy consumption in buildings by 28.4

percent, from 470.4 trillion Btu in FY 1985 to 336.9 trillion Btu in FY 1999. A comparison to

FY 1998 shows a decrease of 1.1 percent in

total buildings energy consumption.

Of the 28 agencies represented on the tables

for FY 1999, 11, including DOD, consume

more than 98 percent of the reported

buildings energy use. Energy used in

buildings accounts for approximately 33.3

percent of the total 1.01 quads used by the

Federal Government. The mix of Federal

buildings energy use for Defense and

civilian agencies is depicted in Figure 5. 

Electricity constitutes 43.3 percent (145.8

trillion Btu) of Federal buildings energy use;

35.4 percent is accounted for by natural gas 
TABLE 4-A

FEDERAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

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 52,058.2 44.9 2.2

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 45,731.8 15.3 0.5

DOE 53,246.1 50,948.4 49,154.4 52,211.1 53,011.7 51,148.3 49,739.6 49,759.9 46,277.4 45,107.4 43,445.8 -18.4 -3.7

GSA 37,553.7 32,697.3 31,461.5 31,129.0 31,050.0 30,558.4 29,845.2 31,186.6 31,339.2 31,278.2 31,527.5 -16.0 0.8

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 14,696.6 72.3 4.0

NASA 6,257.3 7,333.0 7,481.2 7,254.2 7,289.4 7,375.9 7,877.4 8,613.0 9,058.4 9,132.0 8,836.0 41.2 -3.2

DOT 7,811.6 6,601.8 6,104.4 7,677.4 7,954.1 7,736.2 8,345.0 8,367.3 8,661.3 7,835.4 7,779.2 -0.4 -0.7

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 6,949.6 -11.8 1.3

ST 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 6,173.0 -0.6 -5.5

HHS 4,581.3 14,941.5 13,252.0 14,665.0 14,849.6 15,084.4 11,005.3 11,703.6 13,264.6 5,027.0 5,076.6 10.8 1.0

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 4,045.5 0.9 -10.9

TRSY 1,334.9 4,540.0 3,933.6 4,350.4 3,843.4 3,936.9 3,399.3 3,287.8 4,363.8 4,126.0 4,011.4 200.5 -2.8

DOL 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 2,986.9 -13.6 -21.8

EPA 1,488.8 1,483.2 1,635.5 1,662.7 1,744.4 1,824.9 1,963.1 1,933.8 1,914.0 1,923.7 2,130.1 43.1 10.7

TVA 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 1,959.6 66.0 -1.1

DOC 1,092.9 2,946.6 2,945.7 1,340.6 1,499.9 1,851.9 1,231.1 1,190.5 1,175.6 1,090.5 1,125.3 3.0 3.2

HUD 315.2 384.2 374.3 345.2 314.4 293.4 285.2 301.4 289.7 279.9 286.8 -9.0 2.5

FCC 26.7 37.0 39.3 30.6 31.7 35.5 35.5 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 7.7 0.0

OTHER* 859.4 1,593.2 1,168.0 1,164.4 945.5 932.2 2,772.5 4,551.1 4,792.4 4,568.8 4,754.9 453.3 4.1

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 221,502.9 238,929.8 237,901.0 234,296.3 243,120.5 243,145.7 240,159.4 249,460.8 252,169.5 244,699.0 243,603.5 10.0 -0.4

DOD 545,800.0 541,109.0 487,672.6 489,972.8 486,658.5 466,182.5 441,755.4 419,879.3 405,417.0 397,287.8 395,675.6 -27.5 -0.4

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 767,302.9 780,038.8 725,573.6 724,269.1 729,779.0 709,328.2 681,914.7 669,340.0 657,586.5 641,986.7 639,279.1 -16.7 -0.4

MBOE 131.7 133.9 124.6 124.3 125.3 121.8 117.1 114.9 112.9 110.2 109.7

Petajoules 809.5 822.9 765.5 764.1 769.9 748.3 719.4 706.1 693.7 677.3 674.4

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA, 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 following agencies: FEMA (1997,

1998), F CC (19 97, 199 8, 1999 ), FTC (1 997, 19 98, 199 9), and O PM. (19 97, 199 8, 1999 ). Sum o f comp onents may n ot equa l total due to indepen dent rou nding. 

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.
45

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
TABLE 4-B

FEDERAL NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

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 26,134.8 6.4 -0.3

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 23,127.0 42.4 2.0

DOE 32,607.5 29,297.3 28,077.6 29,564.3 30,546.8 29,193.0 28,011.6 25,987.3 23,746.2 23,126.7 21,730.4 -33.4 -6.0

GSA 16,563.0 13,937.3 13,116.3 13,061.4 13,075.2 12,832.9 12,366.7 13,439.4 13,353.7 13,123.7 13,083.9 -21.0 -0.3

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 8,047.1 31.7 3.4

NASA 3,095.7 3,450.1 3,375.6 3,335.8 3,250.4 3,262.6 3,466.3 3,730.4 3,875.4 3,941.4 3,847.8 24.3 -2.4

DOI 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 3,794.6 -20.3 1.3

DOT 4,534.6 3,750.4 3,297.6 3,918.0 3,886.6 3,903.0 3,898.8 3,948.8 3,857.7 3,679.3 3,722.6 -17.9 1.2

ST 1

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 3,012.2 9.3 4.1

HHS 2,962.8 7,957.0 7,107.1 7,954.7 7,969.1 8,231.9 6,024.2 6,610.3 7,417.8 2,744.0 2,810.6 -5.1 2.4

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 1,901.8 -9.3 -9.9

TRSY 615.0 1,918.4 1,494.7 1,749.1 1,568.0 1,624.7 1,418.3 1,484.9 1,904.4 1,741.2 1,701.6 176.7 -2.3

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 1,697.9 -21.1 -22.5

EPA 772.3 747.0 822.4 839.7 894.1 943.4 1,021.1 1,023.3 1,011.5 1,022.9 1,170.1 51.5 14.4

TVA 402.4 427.8 426.6 425.6 439.8 664.0 748.5 728.4 665.6 658.4 650.8 61.7 -1.2

DOC 540.3 1,376.0 1,406.9 531.0 571.9 752.9 494.9 490.1 457.2 429.9 449.4 -16.8 4.5

HUD 116.9 140.3 132.2 123.1 116.2 113.5 105.9 115.4 109.3 103.1 106.3 -9.1 3.1

FCC 11.2 14.8 14.9 12.4 12.9 14.1 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 14.4 0.0

OTHER* 369.0 698.5 503.8 518.3 426.0 403.9 1,189.7 1,884.6 1,989.1 1,898.7 1,958.9 430.9 3.2

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 121,288.4 122,799.3 120,127.9 117,664.1 123,672.5 123,258.6 119,621.9 123,044.5 125,219.3 120,107.8 118,960.5 -1.9 -1.0

DOD 349,076.7 321,101.6 286,885.7 295,719.8 279,726.5 262,661.5 247,166.9 235,688.1 227,070.0 220,567.6 217,958.2 -37.6 -1.2

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 470,365.1 443,900.9 407,013.6 413,383.9 403,399.0 385,920.2 366,788.8 358,732.6 352,289.3 340,675.4 336,918.7 -28.4 -1.1

MBOE 80.7 76.2 69.9 71.0 69.3 66.3 63.0 61.6 60.5 58.5 57.8

Petajoules 496.2 468.3 429.4 436.1 425.6 407.1 386.9 378.4 371.7 359.4 355.4

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, USIA, 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, 1998), FCC (1997, 1998, 1999), FTC

(1997, 1 998, 19 99), and OPM. (1997, 1 998, 19 99). Sum of comp onents may n ot equa l total due to indepen dent rou nding. 

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.
47

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
48

(119.2 trillion Btu), and 10.2 percent by fuel oil (34.5 trillion Btu). Coal, purchased steam,

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)/propane, and energy reported as “other” (comprised mainly of

chilled water and renewable energy), account for the remaining 11.1 percent.

Figure 6 illustrates the proportion of energy consumption in buildings and facilities that is

attributable to electricity for FY 1985 through FY 1999. 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 1999, electricity consumption, including energy used at the source of generation,

accounted for approximately 69.1 percent (441,964.6 billion Btu) of the total primary Btu

consumed in buildings and facilities (639,279.1 billion Btu; see Table 4-A). Of this amount,

approximately 29.4 percent or 145.8 trillion Btu reached the site of use. The remaining

70.6 percent, 296.2 trillion Btu, was lost during the generation and transmission processes. 

FIGURE 6

Consumption of Electricity and Other Fuels in Buildings/Facilities, 

FY 1985 through FY 1999

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 co nversion).

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 consum ed at the source. The source co nversion factor is 10,346 Btu per kilowatt hour.

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
49

FIGURE 7

Energy Costs in Buildings and Facilities

FY 1985 through 1999

Decreases in consumption relative to FY 1998 were seen in fuel oil (5.1 percent), natural gas (1.0

percent), LPG/propane (26.0 percent), and coal (6.3 percent). Increases from the previous year

were seen in electricity (0.3 percent), purchased steam (1.9 percent) and in fuels reported under

the category of “other” (52.5 percent).

The mix of fuels consumed by Government buildings has changed notably from FY 1985

through FY 1999. The actual consumption of electricity has remained fairly steady since FY

1985, with a increase of 0.3 percent in FY 1999 while square footage has declined 9.7 percent. 

However, the proportion of energy consumed in Federal buildings and facilities that is electricity

has increased from 30.7 percent in FY 1985 to 43.3 percent in FY 1999. Over the same period,

fuel oil use decreased from 22.7 percent of the total in FY 1985 to only 10.2 percent in FY 1999. 

The portion of the Federal buildings fuel mix comprised by natural gas has increased from 30.8

percent in FY 1985 to 35.4 percent in FY 1999. The use of coal as a fuel source, which

accounted for 12.3 percent of the total energy consumed in FY 1985, has declined to 5.3 percent

of the total in FY 1999. 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 5, the consumption of petroleum-based fuels in buildings during FY 1999

decreased 66.8 percent compared to FY 1985 and 6.7 percent from FY 1998. 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 1999 represented only 10.9 percent of all

energy consumed in Federal buildings. Of this amount, 94.0 percent is attributed to fuel oil and

the remaining 6.0 percent to LPG/propane.

The energy used in buildings in FY 1999 accounted for approximately 42.9 percent of the total

Federal energy bill. Tables 6-A and 6-B show that the Federal Government spent approximately

$3,410.8 million for buildings energy during the fiscal year, a decrease in constant dollars of

approximately $124.4 million from FY 1998 expenditures. The combined cost of buildings

energy in FY 1999 was $10.12

per million Btu, down 2.4 percent from

the combined cost of $10.38 reported in

FY 1998.

Figure 7 illustrates energy expenditures

for buildings and facilities from FY

1985 through FY 1999. In constant

1999 dollars, Federal energy costs for

buildings and facilities decreased 39.5

percent from $5,642.2 million in FY

1985 to $3,410.8 million in FY 1999. 

The combined cost for buildings energy

in constant dollars in FY 1999 was

$10.12 per million Btu, down 15.6

percent from $12.00 per million Btu in

FY 1985. 
TABLE 5

PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL* CONSUMPTION IN BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

(In Billions of Btu)

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

DOD 96,817.3 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 30,506.7 -68.5 -5.7

ST 1817.8 817.8 817.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 706.0 706.0 1,098.0 34.3 55.5

VA 2,176.7 2,219.3 1,404.9 1,506.0 1,533.9 1,827.4 1,292.9 2,098.2 1,186.3 954.6 954.8 -56.1 0.0

USPS 1,673.2 1,502.2 1,219.4 1,195.8 988.8 983.7 813.9 595.2 819.0 1,139.4 821.7 -50.9 -27.9

DOT 2,376.9 1,524.1 1,308.4 1,426.0 854.0 1,001.6 911.7 709.2 670.5 816.8 823.9 -65.3 0.9

DOE 1,641.8 1,900.5 2,063.7 2,042.7 1,943.5 1,924.4 1,973.5 1,554.1 1,394.0 1,174.5 646.5 -60.6 -45.0

DOI 1,591.6 1,273.9 1,141.1 919.1 1,181.9 1,560.6 1,574.3 1,177.7 799.6 964.7 835.1 -47.5 -13.4

HHS 710.7 2,138.7 1,545.9 2,144.2 1,765.2 1,525.7 1,152.5 1,718.8 760.7 333.4 324.5 -54.3 -2.6

DOL 437.8 331.2 258.3 263.6 276.1 277.5 210.8 220.6 254.2 226.1 188.9 -56.8 -16.4

DOJ 381.7 371.6 503.7 383.8 250.8 234.8 182.8 234.3 134.9 103.1 115.0 -69.9 11.5

NASA 230.2 277.8 161.6 217.6 129.0 139.6 88.6 110.9 88.3 93.5 83.1 -63.9 -11.1

GSA 991.3 668.1 443.1 418.2 359.4 379.8 199.0 242.3 143.0 54.8 68.4 -93.1 24.8

CIA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.6 87.9 84.6 60.2 53.6 0.0 -11.1

TRSY 22.5 281.3 127.7 84.2 190.5 160.8 116.6 116.2 57.0 44.8 43.3 92.9 -3.3

FEMA 56.7 72.3 59.1 66.9 67.6 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 30.6 -46.1 -37.6

EPA 16.8 5.9 6.4 17.6 13.9 26.8 43.4 51.8 26.1 9.6 20.0 19.0 107.2

USDA 414.2 260.0 291.3 242.9 255.6 236.3 244.1 242.5 272.2 270.6 114.1 -72.4 -57.8

DOC 130.3 77.6 13.1 9.8 23.8 52.4 10.8 33.4 9.3 8.7 6.1 -95.3 -30.1

TVA 4.2 3.2 0.1 1.3 2.7 3.5 3.9 4.1 0.0 3.0 2.9 -31.4 -2.3

FCC 1.7 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.0

Other** 19.4 11.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 11.8 8.9 3.5 -82.0 -60.7

TOTAL 110,512.9 82,768.8 70,817.9 76,595.5 65,423.9 60,671.0 51,857.6 52,139.7 42,682.9 39,378.1 36,742.2 -66.8 -6.7

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Petroleum-based fuels include fuel oil and LPG/propane.

**Other includes for certain years EEOC, NSF, SSA, and USIA.

Note: Contains estimated data for the following agencies: FEMA (1997, 1998), FCC (1997, 1998, 1999), FTC (1997, 1998, 1999), and OPM. (1997, 1998, 1999). Sum of components may

not equ al total due to indepe ndent ro unding . 

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 : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
51

TABLE 6-A

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR BUILDINGS ENERGY IN FY 1999 

(In Millions of Dollars)

ELECTRICITY FUEL OIL NATURAL LPG/ COAL PURCHASED OTHER TOTAL

GAS PROPANE STEAM

DEFENSE 1,384.470 149.000 285.608 14.310 32.712 159.510 0.765 2,026.375

CIVILIAN 1,112.432 23.791 177.410 4.665 4.521 53.719 7.850 1,384.389

TOTAL 2,496.902 172.790 463.018 18.975 37.234 213.229 8.615 3,410.764

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES

ELECTRICITY = 58.45 / MWH

FUEL OIL = 0.69 / GALLON

NATURAL GAS = 4.01 / THOUSAND CUBIC FEET

LPG/PROPANE = 0.82 / GALLON

COAL = 50.98 / SHORT TON

PURCHASED STEAM = 13.52 / MILLION BTU

OTHER = 5.67 / MILLION BTU

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

Note: Co ntains estimated data for the fo llowing agen cies: FCC, F TC, and OPM . 

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

Source: Federal A gency Annual Energ y Manageme nt Data Reports.
52

TABLE 6-B

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS ENERGY 

BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 1999, FY 1998, AND FY 1985 

(Constant 1999 Dollars)

ENERGY TYPE BILLIONS OF COST PER COST (IN MILLIONS

BTU MMBTU OF DOLLARS)

FY 1999

ELECTRICITY 145,755.2 17.1308 2,496.902

FUEL OIL 34,523.0 5.0051 172.790

NATURAL GAS 119,176.8 3.8851 463.018

LPG/PROPANE 2,219.3 8.5503 18.975

COAL 17,953.8 2.0739 37.234

PURCHASED STEAM 15,772.0 13.5194 213.229

OTHER 1,518.7 5.6729 8.615

TOTAL 336,918.7 3,410.764

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $10.123

FY 1998

ELECTRICITY 145,296.7 17.6552 2,565.244

FUEL OIL 36,380.2 5.2841 192.235

NATURAL GAS 120,371.4 4.0621 488.958

LPG/PROPANE 2,997.9 8.7866 26.338

COAL 19,162.8 2.0357 39.008

PURCHASED STEAM 15,470.7 14.1702 219.224

OTHER 995.7 4.1668 4.149

TOTAL 340,675.4 3,535.157

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $10.377

FY 1985

ELECTRICITY 144,581.5 23.6376 3,417.560

FUEL OIL 106,902.6 8.4149 899.577

NATURAL GAS 144,653.7 6.4941 939.391

LPG/PROPANE 3,610.2 9.7121 35.063

COAL 57,923.3 3.3034 191.340

PURCHASED STEAM 7,983.9 15.9461 127.312

OTHER 4,709.9 6.7771 31.920

TOTAL 470,365.1 5,642.163

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $11.996

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

Note: FY 19 98 conta ins estimated d ata for the follow ing agencies: F EMA , FCC, FT C, and O PM; 

FY 19 99 conta ins estimated d ata for: FCC, FTC, an d 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: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
 

14The legislative authorities for Federal agencies are detailed in Appendix A.

53

FIGURE 8

Progress Toward the Energy Reduction Goals for Federal Buildings and Facilities,

FY 1985 through FY 1999

Electricity costs of $2,496.9 million represent approximately 73.2 percent of total expenditures of

$3,410.8 million for buildings energy in FY 1999. Natural gas costs account for approximately

13.6 percent of the total, expenditures for fuel oil account for 5.1 percent, with the remaining 8.2

percent attributable to expenditures for LPG/propane, coal, purchased steam, and “other.” 

In FY 1999, 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, $0.81 was spent for electricity, $0.15 was

spent for natural gas, $0.06 was spent for fuel oil, and the remaining $0.09 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.14 Federal Government progress toward the 10, 20, and 30 percent energy

reduction goals of NECPA and Executive Order 12902 is illustrated in Figure 8. (Executive

Order 13123 establishes a 35 percent reduction goal for 2010.) Overall, the Federal Government

reduced its net energy consumption in buildings and facilities by 20.7 percent in FY 1999

compared to FY 1985 when measured in terms of British Thermal Units consumed per gross

square foot (Btu/GSF) of floor area. 
54

Table 7-A shows the FY 1999 performance of the individual agencies in net Btu/GSF compared

to FY 1985. Net Btu reflects the amount of energy delivered to the point of use and is used to

measure agency performance toward the mandated goals. 

Table 7-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 7.8 percent in FY 1999 compared to

FY 1985. This large difference from the net Btu/GSF reduction of 20.7 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 20.7 percent in net Btu/GSF were the percentage

reductions greater than 20 percent made by the following eight agencies: the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

These 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 1999, 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.

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.
55

TABLE 7-A

FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES NET ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 1999

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 1999

GSF BTU GSF BTU %CHANGE

(Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF (Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF 1985-1999

VA 123,65 0.0 24,552 .0 198,560 154,66 9.0 26,134 .8 168,972 -14.9

USPS 189,40 0.0 16,238 .3 85,736 329,06 2.6 23,127 .0 70,281 -18.0

DOE 72,920 .8 32,607 .5 447,163 79,055 .0 21,730 .4 274,876 -38.5

GSA 196,34 1.4 16,563 .0 84,358 186,78 8.1 13,083 .9 70,047 -17.0

DOJ 20,768 .8 6,112.0 294,289 45,959 .1 8,047.1 175,092 -40.5

NASA 11,509 .1 3,095.7 268,977 20,110 .7 3,847.8 191,330 -28.9

DOI 54,154 .4 4,762.4 87,940 51,192 .7 3,794.6 74,124 -15.7

DOT 32,007 .8 4,534.6 141,673 35,865 .5 3,722.6 103,793 -26.7

ST 144,674 .4 2,756.9 61,711 52,469 .5 3,012.2 57,409 -7.0

HHS 11,895 .2 2,962.8 249,078 13,215 .0 2,810.6 212,686 -14.6

USDA 24,709 .9 2,096.3 84,837 28,916 .6 1,901.8 65,767 -22.5

TRSY 5,776.9 615.0 106,463 11,843 .6 1,701.6 143,672 34.9

DOL 18,268 .3 2,153.0 117,852 18,582 .5 1,697.9 91,372 -22.5

EPA 1,931.2 772.3 399,923 3,103.4 1,170.1 377,048 -5.7

TVA 4,886.6 402.4 82,357 10,230 .8 650.8 63,608 -22.8

DOC 4,522.6 540.3 119,476 5,629.4 449.4 79,837 -33.2

HUD 1,432.0 116.9 81,668 1,432.0 106.3 74,235 -9.1

FCC 121.0 11.2 92,182 124.8 12.8 102,204 10.9

OTHER* 2,558.5 369.0 144,232 15,945 .3 1,958.9 122,853 -14.8

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 822,02 1.4 121,28 8.4 147,549 1,064,1 95.6 118,96 0.5 111,784 -24.2

DOD 2,578,9 84.0 349,07 6.7 135,354 2,007,7 14.4 217,95 8.2 108,560 -19.8

TOTAL 3,401,0 05.4 470,36 5.1 138,302 3,071,9 10.0 336,91 8.7 109,677 -20.7

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Archives and Records

Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Railroad

Retirement Board, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Note: This table uses a c onvers ion factor fo r electricity of 3 ,412 Btu per kilowa tt hour. 

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 buildin gs it owns an d leas es. Th is met hod w as sub sequ ently a pplied to estimate FY 1991 energ y cons ump tion an d 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 : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
56

TABLE 7-B

FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES PRIMARY ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 1999

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 1999

GSF BTU GSF BTU %CHANGE

(Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF (Thousands) (Billions) BTU/GSF 1985-1999

USPS 189,40 0.0 35,915 .2 189,626 329,06 2.6 52,058 .2 158,202 -16.6

VA 123,65 0.0 39,673 .2 320,851 154,66 9.0 45,731 .8 295,675 -7.8

DOE 72,920 .8 53,246 .1 730,191 79,055 .0 43,445 .8 549,564 -24.7

GSA 196,34 1.4 37,553 .7 191,267 186,78 8.1 31,527 .5 168,788 -11.8

DOJ 20,768 .8 8,531.9 410,805 45,959 .1 14,696 .6 319,775 -22.2

NASA 11,509 .1 6,257.3 543,679 20,110 .7 8,836.0 439,366 -19.2

DOT 32,007 .8 7,811.6 244,053 35,865 .5 7,779.2 216,900 -11.1

DOI 54,154 .4 7,879.7 145,504 51,192 .7 6,949.6 135,754 -6.7

ST 144,674 .4 6,209.8 139,002 52,469 .5 6,173.0 117,649 -15.4

HHS 11,895 .2 4,581.3 385,135 13,215 .0 5,076.6 384,154 -0.3

USDA 24,709 .9 4,008.4 162,218 28,916 .6 4,045.5 139,903 -13.8

TRSY 5,776.9 1,334.9 231,071 11,843 .6 4,011.4 338,694 46.6

DOL 18,268 .3 3,455.8 189,167 18,582 .5 2,986.9 160,736 -15.0

EPA 1,931.2 1,488.8 770,909 3,103.4 2,130.1 686,382 -11.0

TVA 4,886.6 1,180.5 241,575 10,230 .8 1,959.6 191,537 -20.7

DOC 4,522.6 1,092.9 241,648 5,629.4 1,125.3 199,900 -17.3

HUD 1,432.0 315.2 220,090 1,432.0 286.8 200,300 -9.0

FCC 121.0 26.7 220,860 124.8 28.8 230,617 4.4

OTHER* 2,558.5 859.4 335,891 15,945 .3 4,754.9 298,198 -11.2

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 822,02 1.4 221,50 2.9 269,461 1,064,1 95.6 243,60 3.5 228,909 -15.0

DOD 2,578,9 84.0 545,80 0.0 211,634 2,007,7 14.4 395,67 5.6 197,078 -6.9

TOTAL 3,401,0 05.4 767,30 2.9 225,611 3,071,9 10.0 639,27 9.1 208,105 -7.8

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Archives and Records

Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Railroad

Retirement Board, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Note: This table uses a c onvers ion factor fo r electricity of 1 0,346 B tu per kilow att hour a nd 1,39 0 Btu pe r 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 buildin gs it owns an d leas es. Th is met hod w as sub sequ ently a pplied to estimate FY 1991 energ y cons ump tion an d 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 : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
57

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.” Other agencies

grouped under the category of “Other” in the tables had no 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, 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 1999, 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. 

The Treasury Department’s large increase in buildings energy consumption since FY 1985, is a

result of the addition of the Internal Revenue Service delegated buildings to the Department’s

building inventory. Also contributing to the Treasury’s increase was the additions, in FY 1989,

of the Office of Thrift Supervision’s square footage and the GSA delegation of building

management authority for the Financial Management Service. The energy consumption and

square footage for these delegated buildings were included in GSA’s FY 1985 reports.
58

FIGURE 9

Range of Energy Intensity (Btu/GSF) in Buildings and

Facilities by Agency in 1999

Figure 9 illustrates the range of

energy intensity in agency buildings

measured in terms of Btu/GSF. 

High rates of energy intensity at the

EPA, HHS, and DOE reflect the

special requirements of their

laboratory and research facilities. At

DOE, if more than 80 percent of a

facility’s metered energy is

dedicated to process operations, then

the entire facility’s energy is

excluded from the buildings

category, according to how DOE

defines its buildings and facilities. 

The Interior Department’s relatively

low Btu/GSF results from the lack of

energy intensive activities (i.e.,

laboratories, hospitals, etc.) in space

under its control. The wide range of

rates of Btu/GSF among different

agencies is a result of the varying

missions of the agencies as well as

their varying criteria for excluding

energy intensive facilities.

C. ENERGY STAR® Program Participation

The Federal ENERGY STAR® Buildings Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was

signed by Mary Nichols, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Christine Ervin, former

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, in

March 1997. 

During FY 1999, several Federal agencies took actions regarding both the Federal ENERGY

STAR® Buildings and the Green Lights programs:

# Department of Defense—The Norfolk District, Army Corps of Engineers, in a joint

demonstration with DOD and the EPA, developed a military housing design to achieve an

“EPA 5 Star Energy Efficiency Rating” for 135 family housing units at Fort Lee,

Virginia. 
59

# Department of the Interior—In conjunction with EPA and DOE, DOI prepared a MOU to

participate in the Federal ENERGY STAR® Program partnerships. This MOU was

forwarded to the Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget.

# Department of State—State has committed to meeting ENERGY STAR® Building Program

goals for all new overseas construction.

# Department of Transportation—The United States Coast Guard is actively engaged in the

development of eight ENERGY STAR® buildings that will become showcase buildings

upon project completion.

# Environmental Protection Agency—Several EPA facility construction projects

demonstrate ENERGY STAR® Buildings technologies and concepts including the New

Headquarters Buildings (Washington, DC), the New Consolidated RTP Facility

(Research Triangle Park, NC), the Region IV Science and Ecosystems Support

Laboratory (Athens, GA), Region IV Office (Atlanta, GA), Region III Office

(Philadelphia, PA), Region VII Central Regional Laboratory (Kansas City, KS), National

Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (Ann Arbor, MI), and the Fort Meade

Environmental Science Center (Fort Meade, MD).

# Department of Health and Human Services—The HHS Energy Officer and the operating

division energy coordinators met with EPA to discuss the Federal ENERGY STAR®

Buildings program. Each HHS operating division will sign a MOU which will be

forwarded to operating division heads with a cover letter encouraging participation from

the Office of the Secretary’s Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget.

# National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Both Goddard Space Flight Center and

the Santa Susana Field Laboratory participate in the Green Lights program.

# Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—TVA is in the process of becoming a partner in the

Federal ENERGY STAR® Buildings program. As a member of the Green Lights program,

TVA developed the SWAP program to eliminate the cycle time for lighting upgrades and

to reduce survey and design cost as part of these efforts. SWAP II, which will evaluate

the implementation of lighting controls as a first step in the reduction of energy, will be

initiated in FY 1998.

# United States Postal Service—Signed MOU with EPA to participate in the Federal

ENERGY STAR® Buildings program. 
60

D. Federal Building Energy Performance Standards

Federal agencies are subject to the provisions of 10 CFR part 435, subpart A, which set forth

interim building energy performance standards for new Federal buildings. Standards for new

Federal buildings are issued under the Energy Conservation Standards in New Buildings Act of

1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq, and under Title V, subtitle H, of the Energy Security

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 8286 and 8286a. On August 6, 1996, the Department of Energy issued a

proposed rule in the Federal Register, 61 FR 40882, to revise the 1989 interim rule, 10 CFR part

435, which established energy efficiency voluntary performance standards for design of new

Federal commercial and multi-family high-rise residential buildings. 

EPACT 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 (IES) Standard 90.1-1989 and the Council of

American Building Officials Model Energy Codes (MEC) 1992.

Furthermore, Executive Order 12902, which was designed to assist agencies in meeting or

exceeding the Federal energy and water efficiency provisions contained in EPACT, requires each

agency involved in the construction of a new facility that will be either owned by or leased to the

Government to:

(1) design and construct such facility to minimize the life-cycle cost of the facility by utilizing

energy efficiency, water conservation, or solar or other renewable energy technologies; 

(2) ensure that the design and construction of facilities meet or exceed the energy performance

standards applicable to Federal residential or commercial buildings as set forth in 10 CFR 435,

local building standards, or a Btu-per-gross-square-foot ceiling as determined by the Task Force

within 120 days of the date of this order, whichever will result in a lower life-cycle cost over the

life of the facility; 

(3) establish and implement, within 270 days of the date of this order, a facility commissioning

program that will ensure that the construction of such facilities meets the requirements outlined

in this section before the facility is accepted into the Federal facility inventory; and 

(4) utilize passive solar design and adopt active solar technologies, where cost-effective.

The Department of Energy has endeavored to fulfill these requirements by developing common

energy conservation standards for all new Federal buildings and by issuing life-cycle costing

procedures for use by Federal agencies in the assessment of energy conserving investments for

existing buildings.

In response to the Executive Order 12902 requirement for Federal agencies to establish and

implement a facility commissioning program, DOE formed the New Space Working Group

under the Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force. The Working Group, in

conjunction with GSA and other Federal agencies, drafted a Building Commissioning Guide
61

which has been distributed to agencies for final comment. The Guide is designed to help all

parties involved in the planning, design, construction, acceptance, and post-acceptance phases

work together to produce a building that operates according to design intent and provides

occupant comfort and energy savings. The draft Guide will be posted on the Federal Energy

Management Program’s Internet Web site at www.eren.doe.gov/femp for use during the review

process.

A proposed rule, Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise

Residential Buildings, revises the interim Federal standards to conform generally with the

codified version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 and incorporates changes in the areas of

lighting, mechanical ventilation, motors, building envelope, and fenestration rating procedures,

and test procedures for heating and cooling equipment. Since Standard 90.1-1989 is written as a

standard of professional practice, it cannot be directly adopted as a building code. DOE’s New

Space Working Group expressed concern that the Energy Code be concise as possible,

publishing the minimal exceptions to the commercial standard, rather than publishing an entire

new energy code. Using one standard would allow the architect/engineer community to focus on

designing energy saving elements, rather than on implementing an unique Federal standard. The

Working Group also recommended that an electronic version of the codified rule be placed on

the Internet. The final version of the Energy Code is expected to be published by DOE in 2000.

A separate proposed rule for new Federal residential buildings was issued by the Department of

Energy in the Federal Register in May 1997. The proposed rule, Energy Code for New Federal

Residential Buildings, uses the Model Energy Code (MEC) format and contains performance

standards from the current Federal residential standard, the MEC, and the codified version of

ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993 that are economically justified and technologically feasible.

DOE has also worked closely with HUD in coordinating the technical factors and data used to

develop HUD’s Manufactured Housing Standards and has committed to work closely with all

Federal agencies to coordinate and upgrade the standards applied by these agencies to nonFederal buildings. 

DOE is concurrently working on a model commissioning plan based on a GSA plan for a Federal

courthouse in Portland, Oregon. This model will be more detailed than the Building

Commissioning Guide and will include forms, model plans, training, and acceptance procedures

for the building.
62

III. ENERGY INTENSIVE OPERATIONS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES

A. Energy Consumption and Costs for Energy Intensive Operations

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 excluded/process energy. The reporting of energy used in

excluded buildings assures that total Federal energy consumption is monitored.

The designation of excluded buildings is at the discretion of each agency. Currently, 15 agencies

are excluding specific facilities from the NECPA goal: the Departments of Agriculture,

Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, State, Transportation, and the

Treasury, the General Services Administration, 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. Lists of the

excluded buildings that have been identified by the agencies are included in Appendix D. 

Table 8 shows that fuels consumed by excluded/process energy have increased 56.0 percent 

compared to FY 1985 and decreased 2.5 percent from FY 1998. During FY 1999, the

Department of Defense consumed 32.9 trillion Btu of excluded/process energy, 48.2 percent of

all excluded/process energy used by the Federal Government. 

Some of the fluctuations in consumption of excluded/process energy 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 exclude check processing facilities as energy intensive. In FY 1994, the

Tennessee Valley Authority began reporting electricity used for certain processes of its

generating plants. The Department of Justice also commenced reporting energy consumption in

its excluded buildings during FY 1994. Increases in consumption of excluded/process energy

compared to FY 1985 is also partially attributable to DOD’s reallocation, beginning in the

FY 1988 reporting year, of energy previously reported in the buildings category to the process

category. Also contributing to this increase was the Treasury Department’s initial reporting of

process energy in FY 1991. Treasury neither reported process energy prior to 1991 nor revised

its building energy consumption prior to 1990 to exclude process energy. NASA began reporting

process energy in FY 1989 and has revised its prior year data. As a result of the prioritization

survey required by Executive Order 12902, NASA redesignated the entire Dryden Flight

Research Center, virtually all of the White Sands Test Facility, and many individual facilities at

the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Langley Research Center as non-exempt facilities in FY

1996. NASA also redesignated the entire Michoud Assembly Facility as an industrial facility.

USIA also began reporting energy under this category in FY 1989. USIA has not reported any

process energy consumption for any prior years. GSA began reporting energy in excluded

buildings in FY 1990 and has backed out this energy consumption from its FY 1985 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 
TABLE 8

FEDERAL NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN EXCLUDED BUILDINGS/PROCESS OPERATIONS

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

DOE 16,038.0 11,649.9 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 -55.2 12.9

NASA 5,759.6 7,135.0 7,215.7 7,327.6 7,310.3 7,590.9 7,172.0 6,210.8 6,482.8 6,347.4 6,158.5 6.9 -3.0

DOT 2,970.7 3,064.0 3,323.0 4,406.8 4,703.8 2,952.5 2,559.8 3,392.5 2,920.2 4,685.6 5,915.0 99.1 26.2

HHS 2,617.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,209.1 3,778.0 44.3 -10.2

USDA 1,942.8 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 33.3 7.1

USPS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,974.4 2,026.2 2,063.3 0.0 1.8

TVA 1,871.0 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 -23.2 18.8

DOC 938.6 0.0 0.0 976.6 770.8 1,110.2 1,627.4 1,823.0 1,335.2 1,332.0 1,400.4 49.2 5.1

GSA 623.6 160.6 746.2 677.6 994.6 1,060.2 1,213.8 961.0 890.7 849.2 1,150.8 84.5 35.5

USIA 0.0 1,406.9 850.6 828.5 796.8 861.1 878.2 936.2 1,092.2 1,020.4 951.4 0.0 -6.8

DOJ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 668.4 707.8 944.1 846.9 850.7 862.8 0.0 1.4

TRSY 0.0 0.0 1,026.8 814.1 923.7 771.8 941.0 928.3 1,131.8 996.5 776.2 0.0 -22.1

NARA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 274.7 610.7 792.2 562.9 572.7 591.8 582.1 0.0 -1.6

ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.4 339.4 344.4 364.1 339.1 324.2 315.5 0.0 -2.7

SSA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.5 204.7 211.4 199.1 0.0 -5.8

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 32,928.8 27,512.3 28,695.9 31,395.8 30,731.0 30,676.5 37,823.1 36,810.1 29,694.4 33,437.3 35,367.3 7.4 5.8

DOD 10,857.2 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 32,919.0 203.2 -10.0

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 43,786.0 66,721.4 85,068.0 99,308.9 71,890.4 70,457.9 75,785.7 74,070.1 65,396.7 70,025.7 68,286.3 56.0 -2.5

MBOE 7.5 11.5 14.6 17.0 12.3 12.1 13.0 12.7 11.2 12.0 11.7

Petajoules 46.2 70.4 89.7 104.8 75.8 74.3 80.0 78.1 69.0 73.9 72.0

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

Note: T his table uses a c onversion factor for elec tricity of 3,412 Btu per kilo watt hour. 

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

Source: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
64

Department revised its FY 1985 base year data only to reflect the exclusion of its energy intense

facilities. The State Department and NARA began reporting excluded/process energy in FY

1993 and have not revised data for any prior years. The Justice Department commenced

reporting of excluded buildings in FY 1994 and has not revised data for any prior years. The

U.S. Postal Service began reporting energy consumption under this category in FY 1997 with no

revisions to prior years. In FY 1999, HHS began reporting National Institutes of Health facilities

under this category. HHS revised its FY 1985 baseline data to reflect this change and provided

aggregated energy consumption information, not by energy type, for the intervening years. 

Therefore, the intervening years are not reflected in Table 8 and are instead included in HHS

totals for standard buildings and facilities.

Energy used in energy intensive operations accounts for approximately 6.7 percent of the total

1.01 quads used by the Federal Government. Electricity constitutes 56.7 percent of the energy

used in energy intensive operations, 26.2 percent is accounted for by natural gas, 4.8 percent by

coal, and 9.2 percent by fuel oil. Small amounts of purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas

(LPG)/propane, and “other” energy account for the remaining 3.2 percent.

The energy used in energy intensive operations in FY 1999 accounted for approximately 8.0

percent of the total Federal energy bill. Table 9 shows that the Federal Government spent

approximately $639.7 million for excluded/process energy during the fiscal year. The combined

cost of excluded/process energy in FY 1999 was $9.37 per million Btu, down 1.8 percent from

the combined cost of $9.54 reported in FY 1998 (see Appendix C). 
65

TABLE 9

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR EXCLUDED BUILDINGS/

PROCESS ENERGY IN FY 1999 

(In Millions of Dollars)

ELECTRICITY FUEL OIL NATURAL LPG/ COAL PURCHASED OTHER TOTAL

GAS PROPANE STEAM

DEFENSE1173.334 13.514 30.835 0.523 5.464 3.905 0.005 227.580

CIVILIAN2362.427 6.133 27.836 0.278 0.327 12.774 2.379 412.155

TOTAL 535.762 19.647 58.671 0.800 5.791 16.679 2.384 639.735

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES

ELECTRICITY = 47.25 / MWH

FUEL OIL = 0.43 / GALLON

NATURAL GAS = 3.38 / THOUSAND CUBIC FEET

LPG/PROPANE = 0.56 / GALLON

COAL = 43.85 / SHORT TON

PURCHASED STEAM = 8.60 / MILLION BTU

OTHER = 25.28 / MILLION BTU

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

1

Includes D OD co sts for proce ss and cold iron energy.

2

Includes DOE costs for metered process energy and energy costs for buildings excluded from performance

measurement by DOC, DOJ, DOT, GSA, HHS, NASA, NARA, SSA, STATE, TRSY, TVA, USDA, and USIA.

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

Source: Annual energ y cost data submitted to DO E by Federal age ncies.
66

B. Statutory Background and Progress Toward Goals for Industrial 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, 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 presented 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. 
67

The Department of Defense excludes two types of energy from the NECPA performance goal: 

process energy and “cold iron” energy. Process energy is used in facilities that perform

production or industrial functions. “Cold iron” energy is used to supply power to Navy ships

docked in port. Both types of energy are included in this report under the category of

excluded/process.

The Department of Energy reports its use of metered energy in extensive experimental research

and production processes under excluded/process energy. The metered process energy used by

DOE includes energy 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. Excluded/process energy totaled almost

7.2 trillion Btu in FY 1999, which represents 23.7 percent of all energy consumed by DOE. The

use of excluded process energy by DOE in FY 1999 was 55.2 percent less than in FY 1985, and

12.9 percent more than FY 1998. 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.

NASA excludes from the NECPA performance goal facilities which fall under its definition of

mission-variable facilities. These highly specialized, energy-intensive facilities house space

science experimental and testing activities, as well as some industrial operations. Examples of

these facilities include wind tunnels driven by multi-thousand horsepower electric motors, launch

facilities, space simulation chambers, space communication facilities, and research analysis

centers. The Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), which manufactures the Space Shuttle external

tank, is the only NASA facility subject to the Executive Order goal for industrial facilities. MAF

selected billion Btu (BBtu) per external tank as its industrial energy metric. In the FY 1990

baseline year, MAF total energy consumption was 925.8 BBtu at a production rate of 4.6 external

tanks per year, or 201.3 BBtu/external tank. In FY 1999, MAF total energy consumption was

996.5 BBtu at a production rate of 7 external tanks per year, or 142.4 BBtu/external tank. This

represents a 29.3 percent reduction in energy consumption per external tank produced.

The Department of Commerce excludes buildings 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 have been excluded

because they 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.

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.
68

The U.S. Information Agency designates domestic and overseas Voice of America Relay Stations

as energy-intensive facilities and reports this consumption as process energy excluded from the

NECPA performance goal.

The GSA excludes from the NECPA performance goal 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 down-scaled 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. GSA’s excluded buildings, due to these factors, could distort GSA’s actual progress

toward meeting the energy reduction goal.

Energy reported by the Treasury Department under the category of excluded/process energy is

comprised mainly of industrial energy consumption by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and

the Mint.

The State Department excludes 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 Main State Facility.

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 Department of Justice excludes the Justice Data Center in Washington, DC, a 24-hour-a-day

energy intensive facility and five installations operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

which operate 24 hours per day. These facilities have limited conservation measures available. 

Also exempted by the Justice Department are Immigration and Naturalization Service repeater

stations located nationwide that house equipment operations only.

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.

Since 1985, the Postal Service has deployed energy intensive automated equipment which has

improved the efficiency of mail operations. Surveys indicate that this equipment deployment has

increased process energy usage by 8.9 percent in FY 1999. 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

non-excluded buildings in order to provide a better measure of their energy efficiency status.

Beginning in FY 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services reported the facilities

controlled by the National Institutes of Health under energy-intensive category. HHS expects

that a large portion of its entire inventory will eventually be subject to the goals established by

Section 203 of Executive Order 13123 for industrial, laboratory, and other energy-intensive

facilities.
69

IV. 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 10 shows that in FY 1999, the Federal Government used approximately 607.5 trillion Btu

of energy for vehicles and equipment, a decrease of 35.0 percent relative to FY 1985. DOD’s

vehicle and equipment energy consumption decreased 37.2 percent from FY 1985, while the

civilian agencies increased consumption by 9.5 percent. Overall, vehicle and equipment

consumption decreased 3.2 percent from FY 1998. 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 73.2 percent of all vehicle and equipment energy in FY 1999. 

In FY 1999 compared to the previous year, jet fuel consumption decreased 0.2 percent from

445.5 trillion Btu to 444.7 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.

Increased mission activities accounted for higher levels of operations energy use by some

agencies. The Commerce Department’s significant increase in consumption during FY 1990 was

due primarily to increased miles driven by Census personnel in conducting the 1990 Census. 

Energy consumption in DOC’s vehicles has declined by 73.1 percent in FY 1999 from FY 1990.

Other fluctuations in consumption of vehicle fuels resulted from changes in data collection and

reporting procedures. The significant decrease in vehicular fuel consumption compared to

FY 1985 reported by the Department of Health and Human Services is the result of data

collection difficulties which omitted from their reports fuel consumed by leased vehicles and

privately-owned vehicles authorized for Government service after FY 1987. HHS reported no

vehicles under the agency’s control during FY 1990, FY 1991, and FY 1992.
TABLE 10

FEDERAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS

(In Billions of Btu, with Conversions to Millions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent [MBOE], and Petajoules [Joule x 1015])

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY %CHANGE %CHANGE

AGENCY 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 85-99 98-99

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 14,583.7 26.5 -1.3

DOT 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 10,870.5 -9.1 7.2

DOJ 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 6,456.3 212.8 -10.0

DOI 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 3,661.4 19.9 36.6

USDA 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 3,337.9 -22.7 -1.5

TRSY 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 2,120.5 -1.6 2.0

DOE 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 1,444.6 -49.9 -26.1

NASA 1,972.7 1,736.7 1,864.0 1,875.4 1,798.0 1,734.9 1,757.0 1,539.3 1,622.1 1,428.3 1,412.8 -28.4 -1.1

VA 592.8 518.3 317.4 634.9 663.9 374.4 353.6 660.7 1,199.1 1,380.3 1,337.6 125.7 -3.1

DOC 1,010.2 3,100.3 1,315.2 952.5 995.7 995.2 760.6 570.1 929.1 708.4 834.5 -17.4 17.8

HHS 373.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.3 176.3 105.5 18.6 435.0 447.7 447.7 19.9 0.0

TVA 578.5 476.6 534.7 408.8 452.4 480.3 541.7 583.8 479.5 429.1 423.3 -26.8 -1.4

DOL 232.2 239.0 401.9 388.7 369.1 369.6 356.9 337.7 336.2 350.2 350.2 50.8 0.0

EPA 132.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.7 97.8 99.5 76.3 136.8 97.7 120.5 -8.8 23.4

GSA 144.1 128.1 122.6 102.9 79.6 69.9 91.3 98.8 119.9 123.3 102.9 -28.6 -16.6

ST 14.8 34.9 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.7 40.9 40.9 177.0 0.0

HUD 0.0 0.0 32.7 33.6 31.6 30.7 25.4 25.4 28.3 23.3 23.3 0.0 0.0

FCC 12.4 9.1 7.2 7.5 7.2 6.6 6.6 4.8 7.1 6.6 6.6 -46.7 0.0

OTHER* 39.2 69.6 27.6 113.6 106.7 105.4 119.6 116.9 140.1 147.6 144.0 267.1 -2.4

CIVILIAN AGENCIES

TOTAL 43,588.4 45,649.7 44,420.7 42,765.2 44,746.7 48,193.3 46,250.1 43,909.3 48,150.2 47,380.6 47,719.4 9.5 0.7

DOD 890,679.9 881,345.1 926,033.6 740,357.2 727,887.1 674,597.5 640,893.4 631,202.0 617,235.4 579,959.8 559,785.8 -37.2 -3.5

ALL AGENCIES

TOTAL 934,268.3 926,994.8 970,454.3 783,122.4 772,633.7 722,790.8 687,143.4 675,111.3 665,385.6 627,340.3 607,505.2 -35.0 -3.2

MBOE 160.4 159.1 166.6 134.4 132.6 124.1 118.0 115.9 114.2 107.7 104.3

Petajoules 985.6 977.9 1,023.8 826.2 815.1 762.5 724.9 712.2 702.0 661.8 640.9

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, FEMA, HUD, NSF, NRC, OPM, and USIA.

Note: FY 1998 d ata was used to estimate the n on-tactical veh icle comp onent of age ncy energy co nsumption for FY 1 999. 

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

Source: F ederal Ag ency Annu al Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
71

FIGURE 10

Defense and Civilian Energy Consumption in 

Vehicles and Equipment by Fuel Type, FY 1999

Figure 10 depicts the vehicles and equipment fuel mix within DOD and civilian agencies. Jet

fuel accounts for 444.7 trillion Btu or 73.2 percent of the total energy usage in the category, with

19.2 percent attributed to diesel and distillate fuel, 6.8 percent to auto gasoline, and 0.9 percent to

aviation gasoline, navy special, LPG/propane and other fuels, combined. 

As shown in Tables 11-A and 11-B, the Federal Government spent $3,908.0 million on vehicles

and equipment energy in FY 1999, 11.2 percent less than the FY 1998 expenditure of $4,400.4

million constant dollars. In FY 1999, the combined price for all types of vehicles and equipment

energy was $6.43 per million Btu, down 8.3 percent from FY 1998. The average real cost of

gasoline to the Federal Government rose from $1.05 per gallon in FY 1998 to $1.10 in FY 1999. 

The unit cost for diesel/distillate fuel declined 10.3 percent while the unit cost for jet fuel fell 9.1

percent. 

When compared to FY 1985 using constant 1999 dollars, energy costs for vehicles and

equipment decreased 54.2 percent from $8,528.1 million to $3,908.0 million in FY 1999. During

that same period, the Government’s combined cost for vehicles and equipment energy, in

constant dollars, fell 29.5 percent from $9.13 per million Btu to $6.43 per million Btu. 

Vehicle and equipment fuel costs in FY 1999 represent 49.1 percent of the Government’s total

energy costs of $8.0 billion.
72

TABLE 11-A

DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN FEDERAL COSTS FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT ENERGY

IN FY 1999

 (In Millions of Dollars)

AUTO GAS DIST. LPG/ AVIATION JET FUEL NAVY OTHER TOTAL

DIESEL PROPANE GAS SPECIAL

DEFENSE 121.041 595.346 0.569 0.008 2,799.107 15.725 0.160 3,531.955

CIVILIAN 240.367 69.273 0.078 1.807 61.156 0.002 3.397 376.080

TOTAL 361.408 664.619 0.647 1.815 2,860.263 15.727 3.556 3,908.035

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT, BASED ON REPORTS FROM AGENCIES

AUTO GAS = 1.10 / GALLON

DIST/DIESEL = 0.79 / GALLON

LPG/PROPANE = 0.78 / GALLON

AVIATION GAS = 1.70 / GALLON

JET FUEL = 0.84 / GALLON

NAVY SPECIAL = 0.48 / GALLON

OTHER = 8.31 / MILLION BTU

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

Note: FY 1998 data was used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency energy costs for FY 1999.

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

Source: Federal A gency Ann ual Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
73

TABLE 11-B

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT

ENERGY BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 1999, FY 1998, AND FY 1985 

(Constant 1999 Dollars)

ENERGY TYPE BILLIONS OF COST PER COST (IN MILLIONS

BTU MMBTU OF DOLLARS)

FY 1999

AUTO GASOLINE 41,065.5 8.8008 361.408

DIST/DIESEL 116,575.0 5.7012 664.619

LPG/PROPANE 79.2 8.1776 0.647

AVIATION GASOLINE 133.4 13.6105 1.815

JET FUEL 444,680.1 6.4322 2,860.263

NAVY SPECIAL 4,543.9 3.4611 15.727

OTHER 428.1 8.3067 3.556

TOTAL 607,505.2 3,908.035

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $6.433

FY 1998

AUTO GASOLINE 43,050.5 8.3733 360.471

DIST/DIESEL 132,313.3 6.3525 840.524

LPG/PROPANE 393.0 9.9326 3.904

AVIATION GASOLINE 209.9 14.3325 3.009

JET FUEL 445,520.3 7.0794 3,154.017

NAVY SPECIAL 0.0 0.0000 0.000

OTHER 5,853.3 6.5793 38.511

TOTAL 627,340.3 4,400.436

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $7.014

FY 1985

AUTO GASOLINE 50,420.0 10.6290 535.916

DIST/DIESEL 169,215.0 8.4857 1,435.895

LPG/PROPANE 149.2 9.8609 1.471

AVIATION GASOLINE 1,882.3 15.7075 29.565

JET FUEL 705,675.5 9.1698 6,470.828

NAVY SPECIAL 6,687.7 7.8695 52.629

OTHER 238.6 7.5864 1.810

TOTAL 934,268.3 8,528.115

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $9.128

DATA AS OF 10/26/00

Note: FY 1998 data was used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency energy costs for FY

1999. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding.

Source: Federal A gency Ann ual Energy M anageme nt Data Re ports
74

B. Alternative Fuel Vehicles

An alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) can be manufactured as an AFV or converted to an AFV as

either a bi-fuel, flexible fuel, or dedicated vehicle. A bi-fuel vehicle has the ability to operate on

either an alternative fuel or gasoline, whereas a flexible fuel vehicle has the ability to operate on

a mixture of alternative fuel and petroleum-based fuels. Dedicated vehicles are designed to

operate only on alternative fuel. The alternative fuels currently used by Federal agencies are: 

M-85 (85 percent methanol, 15 percent gasoline), E-85 (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline),

CNG (compressed natural gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas), LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), and

electricity.

The U.S. Postal Service continues to operate the largest CNG fleet in the country. Since 1989,

7,678 vehicles have been converted to compressed natural gas. Most USPS AFVs are dualfueled (gasoline and CNG). USPS acquired two electric vehicles in FY 1998 in joint efforts with

the Department of Energy and under contract with Ford Motor Company and General Motors

Corporation-Hughes. USPS engineering staff, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and

private industry, continues to evaluate electric and alternative fuel technologies as they become

available.

Section 308 of Title III of EPACT, 42 U.S.C. § 13217, requires agencies to measure the

aggregate percentage of alternative fuel use in dual-fueled vehicles in their fleets. In an effort to

better fulfill this reporting requirement, vehicle fleet managers and representatives from DOE,

GSA, and other agencies conducted coordinating meetings during FY 1996 on this issue. These

meetings resulted in a revised GSA Agency Report of Motor Vehicle Data (form SF-82) for

collecting acquisition, fuel consumption, and fuel cost data for non-tactical motor vehicles. The

revised SF-82 was distributed by GSA to agency fleet managers beginning in FY 1997. GSA

compiled this data for FY 1998, including alternative fuel consumption data reported under

Sections 303 and 308 of EPACT, and forwarded this information to DOE for inclusion in the

Annual Report to Congress for that year. GSA was unable to provide FY 1999 fuel consumption

data for non-tactical motor vehicles in time for the publication of this report. FY 1998 data was

used to estimate the non-tactical vehicle component of agency vehicles and equipment energy

consumption and costs.

During FY 1998, compressed natural gas (CNG) comprised the largest portion of alternative fuel

consumption with 91.7 percent. An ethanol and gasoline blend (E-85) is the second most

consumed alternative fuel with 6.5 percent.

The Department of Energy has made efforts to provide the private and public sector with

information on issues concerning AFVs. An Alternative Fuels Hotline (1-800-423-1DOE) was

established in June 1992 to provide callers from Federal agencies, industry and the public with

answers to questions on AFVs. By calling the toll free number, callers can request information

on AFVs. 

The Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), which is located at the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, may be accessed by the public on the Internet at

http://www.afdc.nrel.gov. The AFDC is the central repository for data from DOE’s alternative
75

fuel vehicle demonstration programs. The AFDC stores data on demonstration programs that

receive funding support authorized by the AMFA of 1988. Information collected and provided

by the AFDC includes:

# data on 600 government fleet vehicles;

# refueling site information for CNG, LPG, Ethanol, and Methanol; 

# information on emissions, mileage, fuel economy;

# information on emissions, for flexible fuel vehicles running on alcohol fuels and gasoline; 

# repair and maintenance logs for alternative fuel fleet vehicles;

# heavy duty and transit bus data on performance, emissions, fuel economy, and mileage;

# data on the Clean Fleet Program - run by Federal Express and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (a controlled comparative study of operating data from gasoline

vehicles and different types of alterative fuels).

Federal efforts to expand deployment of AFVs were boosted by the Clean Cities Program during

FY 1999. The Clean Cities Program, initiated by the DOE in September 1993, is a voluntary

program designed to increase fleet vehicle alternative fuel use by encouraging partnerships

between fuel suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, fleet managers, and Federal, State, and local

government agencies. DOE supports Clean Cities participants through the placement of Federal

vehicles and by maintaining a national hotline and a support staff member at each of its ten

regional support offices, which provide local assistance concerning Federal and State

requirements for AFV acquisitions and conversions and assist local Clean Cities with their

alternative fuels market development. In 1999, 10 new cities were awarded the Clean Cities

designation, for a total of 79 Clean Cities. DOE has established a number to handle inquiries

from cities interested in joining the program: 1-800-CCITIES. The program’s Internet address is

www.ccities.doe.gov.
76

This page intentionally left blank.
75

USDA P erforman ce Toward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 22 .5

percent in Btu per g ross square foot comp ared to FY

1985.

USDA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,033.4 19,740 .1

Fuel Oil 12.4 89.6

Natural Gas 573.3 1,994.7

LPG/Propane 101.7 637.2

Coal 0.6 3.0

Purchased Steam 112.0 1,126.0

Other 68.4 1,562.0

Total 1,901.8 25,152 .6

The signing of Executive Order 13123 prompted USDA

to initiate a reassessment of energy management

program activities; specifically those related to energy

data collection and analysis, ex amination o f its building

inventory, determining building status under various

goals, and perfo rming outreach assistance to USDA

agencies.

USD A’s major facility-owning and leasing agencies

have made substantial progress since 1995 in funding

energy conservation projects, incorporating energy

factors into Solicitations for Offers, designating energy

showcase facilities, and utilizing active and passive

solar power systems. Based on the prioritization surveys

and SAVEnergy audits of previous years, numerous

retrofit and new consumption projects have been

undertake n across the c ountry.

DOE ’s Federal Energy Management Program, through

its SAVEnergy program, has completed com prehensive

energy audits on 305 Forest Service (FS) buildings for

a total of 1.4 m illion square fee t.

An in-house survey of the energy consumption at ARS

facilities identified those research locations with a high

Btu per gross square foot energy utilization. Based on

this survey, ARS develop ed a national priority list for

conducting comprehensive facility audits. The order of

audit priorities was assigned considering such factors as

current level of energy utilization per gross square foot,

research program priority, and past and future planned

renovation/mode rnization actions.

Energy conservation activities identified in a previously

completed audit for the N ational Animal Disease Center

(NADC) facility in Ames, Iowa, have been incorporated

in planning for an ESPC contract anticipated for

NADC.

The Animal Pla nt and He alth Inspectio n Service’s

(APHIS) Hawaii Fruit Fly Rearing Facility in

Waimanaalo, Hawaii rep laced ten eig ht-year old

corroded air handling units with new efficient motors.

The new system is designed to permit 36 p ercent less

outdoor air intake.

During FY 1999, ARS conducted energy efficiency

improvement projects at more than 30 facilities across

the country. Energy conservation measures

implemented include roof replacements, upgrading

HVAC and lighting system s, building env elope

improvements, boiler repla cements, and office

equipment upgrades. Other energy and water projects

implemented during FY 1999 at ARS’s Midwest and

North Atlantic Area include:

# Recirculating water bath with annual savings of

315,000 g allons.

# New water tower for heat pumps at a cost of

$204,000 and an annual savings of $12,000 and 10

million cubic feet of water.

# HVAC steam coil pr eheat pro ject comp leted at a

cost of $64,000 for an annual savin gs of 24.4

billion Btu at National Soil Tilth Lab.

# Replacement of archaic win dows at the m ain

building of Ft. Detrick, Maryland with energy

efficient insulated glass windows at a cost of

$75,000.
76

# A building automated control system is being

upgraded in Boston, Massachusetts. Phase 1 was

implemented during FY 1999 at a cost of

$247,000.

# Growth chamber controls and lighting systems

have been upgrade d at a facility in Beaver, West

Virginia for maximum efficiency at a cost of

$155,000. Also, greenhouse control systems have

been converted and upgraded with computer based

control systems at a cost of $69,000.

# Installation of variable frequency drives, hot water

line sensors, and pressure sensors on fume hood

ducts at a Riv erside, Califo rnia facility.

# Several fume hoo ds at the ARS’s Wap ato,

Washington facility were pla ced on a night

shutdown schedule, cutting the facility’s heating

fuel usage by almost 50 percent, and producing

estimated sav ings of $50 ,000 ann ually.

Water conservatio n efforts implemented during FY

1999 included ARS’s Wap ato, Wa shington facility

totally eliminating waste water from its evaporators

with a newly designed recirculating closed water

cooling system. Water usage was cut by an estimated

240,00 0 gallons an nually.

ARS’s National Center for Agricultural Utilization

Research (NCA UR) in P eoria, Illinois also installed

several water conservation projects during FY 1999.

They include:

# A cooling water loop replacing single pass water

used for heat pumps and air con ditioning units with

recycled water. Annual savings are estimated at

$13,766 and more than 1 million cubic feet of

water.

# A condensate control project with annual savings

of $3,679 and more than 10,00 0 therms.

In FY 1999, ARS activities to reduce the use of

petroleum in buildings and facilities included the

following:

# Dual fuel burners (oil and gas) for spot gas market

availability are utilized at the Eastern Regional

Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania and

the Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation

Research Laboratory in Beaver, West Virginia.

# A natural gas em ergency gen erator in lieu of a

diesel generator has been installed for the new

25,000-square-foot laborator y/office building

nearing completion in Weslaco, TX.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

DOE ’s Federal Energy Management Program funded

the following two projects during FY 1998 and FY

1999 at the FS’s Fishlake National Forest in Utah:

# A trailer-mounte d photo voltaic system for the Big

Flat Guard S tation. Fund s provide d totaled

$48,700. P roject payback pe riod is 9.3 years.

# Portable photovoltaic generators for use in fighting

fires. Estimated payback is 8.8 years.

The Forest Service’s Missoula Technology and

Development Center received, in FY 1999, a $44,000

grant from the D epartmen t of Energy to install

photovoltaic lighting systems at fire camps. Other FY

1999 Forest Service renewab le projects include the

installation of:

# Ground-source heat pumps during the construction

of the Choctaw Ranger District Office in

Oklahoma and the M iddle For k Office in the

Willame tte National F orest.

# Photovoltaic-powered pumps at the BaselineHoresprings Allotments Range/Wildlife Watering

Project in Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and

the Douglas Ranger District in Coronado National

Forest.

# Photov oltaic lighting and fan systems at three toilet

buildings and a photovoltaic powered pump at the

Red Canyon Camp Ground in the Cibola National

Forest.

# Photov oltaic systems to power a pump and alarm

system for a wastewa ter holding tan k at the Alto

Pit in the Pre scott Natio nal Forest.

# Three communication repeaters powered by

photovo ltaic batteries in the Coronado National

Forest.

During FY 1999, ARS’s Horticultural Research

Labora tory in Fort Pierce, Florida, implemented passive

solar strategies including daylighting, shading, and

glazing.

Showcase Facilities

ARS has named the Horticultural Research Laboratory

in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the San Joaquin Valley

Agricultural Center in Parlier, California as new
77

building showcase s. These b uildings incorporated

advanced technologies and practices for energy

efficiency and conservation.

Personnel Developmen t 

ARS, the Office of O perations a nd the For est Servic e

report that energy conservation will be incorporated as

an element, as appropriate, in position descriptions and

performance standards of engineers, facility managers

and other personnel considered to be critical for the

implementation, coordination, and monitoring of

USDA’s energy management program.

In FY 1999, ARS engineers and other employees

participated in energy management training or attended

energy conferences offered by the Federal government

or private sector. The Forest Service often includes

energy management issues and short training sessions

during the Forest Service National Facilities Workshops

and regional meetings.

Three Office of Operations engineers are Certified

Energy Man agers.

Funding

During FY 1999, the Office of Operations (OO)

reported the funding of e nergy conservation

improvements by the Washington Area Service Center

(WASC) amounting to $100,000. Most of this funding

was expende d in the modernization of an energy and

water efficient showcase facility in the South Building

Phase I, and the design of a new sh owcase in S outh

Building Phase II.

Also during FY 1999, ARS accomplished more than

$2.2 million worth of building energy efficiency

projects in m ore than 30 facilities across the country.

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC)

ARS will award a delivery order under the Department

of Energy’s M id-Atlantic Re gional Sup er ESPC in

February 2000. The project at the National Agricultural

Library in Beltsville, M aryland will include lighting

retrofits, burner replaceme nts, chiller system updates,

and a building automation system. Estima ted cost

savings over the 18-year contract are $1.8 million.

ARS will also award a delivery order under the

Midwest Regional Super ESPC in January 2000 at the

National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa. The

project will include lighting, HVAC, and chiller system

retrofits and replacemen ts, and installing cogenerators.

Savings are estimated at $13.1 million over the 17-year

contract.

The Forest Service signed an ESPC delivery o rder with

Honeyw ell, Inc., in September 1998 fo r the Corvallis,

Oregon Laboratory. The installation phase began in

February 1999. Energy conservation measures installed

will include lighting retrofits, steam system

modifications, and prem ium efficiency motors. The

project will produce annual savings of $84,500 over the

10-year term.

The Forest Ser vice is evaluati ng several ESPC

opportunities for FY 2000:

# The Rocky Mountain Research Station is

proposing to use an ESPC at the Southwest Forest

Science Complex in Flagstaff, Arizona.

# The Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station/Northeastern Area are evaluating possible

ESPCs at the Ohio, Durham Eastern, and W est

Virginia Forestry Sciences La boratories.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

USDA relies on government-wideprocurement policies

for purchase of life-cycle cost-effective goods and

products, as promulgated by GSA and DO D supp ly

schedules, DOE guidelines, and the FAR.

One particular area in which USDA has made

significant progress is the procurement o f

environmentally sound energy-efficient products and

those products that contain a high percentage of

recovered materials. USDA age ncies purchase

energy-efficient products whenever practicable and

whenever they meet the Agency’s sp ecific performance

requirements and are cost-effective.

ARS purchases all its energy-efficient pr oducts through

the Departments Customer Supply Centers, and through

GSA. In accord ance with Executive Order 12845, ARS

acquired microcomputers which met the Environmental

Protection Agency ENERGY STAR® requirements for

Energy Efficiency Prod ucts.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Ms. Sonia Torres

Office of Pr ocureme nt, Prope rty Manag ement, 

and Emergen cy Preparedne ss

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mail Stop 7304

Washington, DC 20250-9304

Phone: 202-720-3673

Fax: 202-720-3747
78

DOC Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Commerce reported a

decrease in buildings energy c onsump tion of 33.2

percent in Btu per g ross square foot comp ared to FY

1985.

DOC Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 324.1 6,949.0

Fuel Oil 5.3 22.6

Natural Gas 75.2 295.5

Propane 0.8 5.3

Purchased Steam 44.1 659.4

Total 449.5 7,932.8

Commerce Department bureaus with responsibility for

energy and water management in Federal facilities are:

# DOC, Headq uarters, He rbert C. H oover Building

(HCHB);

# National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA);

# National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST);

# Patent and Trademark Office; and

# Bureau of Cen sus.

Commerce is continuing to benefit from the SAVEnergy audits offered by the Department of Energy’s

Federal Energy Management Program. In FY 1999,

Commerce completed five audits and p lans to complete

approximately six more in FY 2000. These include

audits of weather service stations, laboratories, and

office buildings.

NIST requested SAVE nergy audits for Buildings 1, 24,

and 2 on the Boulder campus and Building 101 on the

Gaithersb urg camp us. 

Commerce is participating on the Task Force Wo rking

Group developing Federal gu idelines for susta inable

development and is prep aring a far-reac hing sustainab le

design policy statement to incorporate into its standard

practices. NOA A is already inc orporatin g this criteria

into designs for the new laboratory in Santa Cruz

eliminating the traditional mechanical ventilation

systems and, utilizing natural ventilation instead.

NIST facilities are defined as energy intensive due to

the nature of the lab oratory operations and required

environmental conditions. NIST isthereby exempt from

some energy reduction requirements of the National

Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) Section 543

and Executive Order 12902. How ever, NIST is working

to meet these goals to the extent possible without

affecting mission critical operational needs. NIST is

planning to reduce e nergy consumption at facilities in

the following ways:

The site-wide energy conservation master plan for

NIST ’s Gaithersburg Cam pus is used for planning

energy conservation projects. Architectual/engineering

design of energy c onservation measures for building

modifications to conserve energy and water is

underway. The design contract includes HVAC

enthalpy-based economizer and HVAC setback

controls. Design of e nergy conse rvation mea sures in

one laborator y building will retrofit variable air volume

measures and contro l adjustmen ts to air handling units

that are planned for FY 2000 construction. Calculated

savings projected for FY 2001 are $34 2,000 for gas and

electricity.

Improve ments at the NIST steam and chilled water

generation plant continued during FY 1999. The two

new boilers at the central steam plant are operating.

New boiler submittal information shows operating

efficiencies from 82 to 85 percent, whilst the older

boilers were performing at efficiencies of less than 80

percent. The improved steam p lant efficiency will

provide savings in future years. Upgrading the older

four existing boilers h as similarly impro ved their

performance and reduced emissions.

NIST ’s Technical Services Division,Boulder, Colorado

completed a study to evalu ate the poten tial energy

savings of a central utility plant instead of existing

satellite heating and cooling facilities. The study
79

revealed that a central plant will be more efficient than

older individual equipment. They also continue the

upgrading of buildings by adding additional R-22

insulation to exterior walls during remodeling.

Conversion to energy efficient lighting continues

through the use of efficient ballasts and lower energy

use bulbs during maintenance.

A contract design for installation of water flow restrictors, low flow toilets and urinals within six Gaithersburg site buildings is now complete.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

Solar film installation has been completed on the NIST

Administration Building with estimated savings of

$6,000 per year.

NOA A’s Wester n Administra tive Suppo rt Center

installed photovoltaic security lights and solar water

heaters. More photovoltaics are planned.

Showcase Facilities

Commerce designated HCHB an energy showcase and

has identified eight major projects at an estimated cost

of $3 million and savings o f $745,0 00 annua lly.

The Kihei W hale Sanctu ary in Kihei M aui, Hawa ii, is

also designated an energy showcase.

Personnel Development

Commerce cospons ored the W orld Ene rgy and En vironmental Congress and Environmental Technology

Conference (WEEC/ETE) hosted by the Association of

Energy Engineers in Atlanta, GA. In addition,

WEEC/ETE was selected by Commerce as an official

Foreign Buyer Program in support of the export

potential of the industry it serves. 

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

NOAA is working with the Department of Energy using

the Super Energy Saving Performance Contract (ESPC)

program to impleme nt energy cost savings projects. The

proposed projects include:

# Upgrade ex isting HVAC units;

# Replace existing HV AC units;

# Replace and/or retro fit flourescent lighting fixtures.

Utility Partnerships

Commerce is working with G SA and D OE to

implement some of the HCHB projects through an

energy service agre ement with the lo cal utility

company, PEPCO. Using this method, improvements

will be completed at no initial cost to the go vernment.

The Kihei Whale Sanctuary photovoltaic project is

being cofunded by DOE’s National Renewable Energy

Labora tory and the M aui Electric Compan y.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. James Woods

Energy Conservation Officer

Office of Federal Property Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1329

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

Phone: 202-482-0885

Fax: 202-482-1969
80

DOD Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Defense reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 19 .8

percent in Btu per g ross square foot comp ared to FY

1985.

DOD Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Tho u.)

Electricity 85,404 .3 1,384,4 70.2

Fuel Oil 28,980 .7 148,99 9.5

Natural Gas 75,758 .6 285,60 7.8

Propane 1,525.9 14,309 .9

Coal 14,982 .6 32,712 .2

Purchased Steam 10,654 .8 159,51 0.0

Other 651.1 765.2

Total 217,95 8.2 2,026,3 74.8

The Departm ent’s excluded buildings and industrial

process facilities (i.e. buildings with energy intensive

operations) consumed 171,348 BTU /square foo t in FY

1999. DOD cannot measure specific progress towards

meeting the Executive Order 13123 goal for these

facilities (25 percent energy reduction between

FY 1990 and FY 2 010), because many Defense

Comp onents lack adequate square footage records prior

to FY 1996 and no other practical metric has been

found. However, on a BTU /Square foot basis, the

energy consumed in these facilities has come down 3.9

 percent since FY 1996–an average of 1.3 percent per

year–a rate greater than the 1.25 percent annual

reduction called for by Executive Order 13123.

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 th e Depu ty

Under Secretary of Defense (Installations) and chartered

to address a broad spectrum of installations issues, has

been designated as the DOD Agency E nergy Team. The

membership of the IPB contains the cross-section of

DOD senior leadership necessary to make decisions

needed to remove obstacle s hindering co mpliance w ith

the Executive Order

All 61 U.S. Navy FY 1999 Military Construction

(MILCON) projects incorporated sustainable design

criteria. The N avy participa ted in the National Town

Meeting for a Sustainable America in Ma y 1999. T heir

booth highlighted the W hole Building Design Guide and

the bachelor enlisted quarters (B EQ) at Grea t Lakes,

Illinois. The BEQ was accepted by the U.S. Green

Building Council as on e of their 25 p ilot projects being

used to test their Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design criteria. The new BEQ at Naval

Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, incorporating several

sustainable design features, was awarded the First

Annual Good Business Energy Efficiency Award by the

Hawaiian Electric Company in February 1999.

The Air Force has employed sustainability concepts

during the planning, design, construction, operation, and

demolition of Air Force facilities. T his also supp orts

many aspects of DOD’s compliance assurance and

pollution prevention pro gram req uirements. P rojects

designed or built this fiscal year using sustainable design

principles include: 108 units of replacement housing at

Vandenberg AFB, California; FY 2000 Fitness Center at

Barksd ale AFB, LA; and a multimillion-dollar MILCON

C-17 beddown at M cChord AFB, W ashington.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers h as the respo nsibility

to develop and adopt sustainable design for Army

installations. The installations are enc ouraged to

approach land use planning and urban design in a more

holistic manner and integrate sustainable development

into the master planning process. The Army Planning for

Community Energy, Economic, and Environmental

Sustainability program (PLACE3S), which creates a

coordinated, information-b ased plann ing process, is

facilitated by “Smart P laces,” a public do main software.

Other DOD agencies emphasize energy efficiency in new

facility construction and rental procurement. Agencies

that do not use the Army Corps of Engineers or Naval
81

FacilitiesEngineering Command issue their own energy

policy. The Defen se Commissary Agency (DeCA) has

published a design criteria handbook, which emphasizes

sustainable design, life cycle costing, and pollution

prevention. The Fort McPherson, Georgia ,

Commissary, built in 1999, incorpo rates dual pa th air

conditioning, occupancy se nsors, refrigera tion

monitoring control system, and state of the art lighting

systems.

The new remo te delivery facility pr oject, being built

directly adjacent to the Pentagon for Washington

Headquarters Service, will inco rporate sustainable

design principles to minimize the impact that the

facility has on the environme nt. These d esign elemen ts

include minimizing the building profile, low

maintenance, native landscaping, energy efficient

mechanical and electrical systems, indoor air q uality

monitoring and ventilation control, and the use of

environmentally preferred p roducts.

NIMA complete d a constr uction of a replacement

facility in Arnold, M issouri for those lost during the S t.

Louis floods in 1993. The new facility, a $40 million

complex to house printing, distribution, and storage

functions, has been d esigned to conform with DOD

energy efficiency requirements. In FY 1999, the

National Security Agency has obtained a new and more

efficient leased office building at their annex complex.

The main strategy was to ensure that new buildings and

renovations are being designed with “energy smart”

features and endorsing the Agency’s procurement of

more ene rgy efficient equip ment. 

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)

and other DOD compo nents using GSA leased facilities

incorpo rate sustainable technologies when renovating

existing facilities or when new buildings are designed.

In close coordin ation with GSA and using an Army

Corps of Engineers design, a complete renovation was

made to the DFAS Indianapolis Center. The project

included improvements to the building envelope and

replacement of the heating, ve ntilation, and air

conditioning (HVAC) system. In addition, four other

MILCON program improvement projects were

completed in FY 1999 for DFAS facilities at Rock

Island,Illinois, Columbus and Dayton, Ohio, and DFAS

Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. T hese proj ects

featured energy efficiency measures such as energy

monitoring systems, motio n sensors, state o f the art

controls, efficient HVAC systems, double pane windows, and building insulatio n. 

DOD fuel oil consum ption in buildings decreased by

5.8 percent from FY 1998 to FY 1999. Each

compone nt’s energy manageme nt plan includes a

strategy to reduce the use of petroleum and to replace the

fuel oil-fired boilers with natural gas or dual-fuel

burners. The Army encourages maximum efforts be

taken to improv e plant efficiency and implement usage

of non-petroleum fuels. The Air Force has a program to

convert from petroleum to other energy sources where

cost effective and lo gical, achieving a 66.9 percent

decrease since FY 1985.

The Navy aggressively pursues the elimination of fuel oil

for heating build ings where na tural gas is available and

conversion costs can be recovered within 10 years

resulting in petroleum use decreasing by 16 percent from

FY 1998 to FY 19 99. Distrib uted heatin g projects are

currently underway a t Naval Air Engineering Station

Lakehurst, New Jersey; Naval Technical Training

Center Pensacola, Florida, and Naval Air Station Fallon,

Nevada. The Navy also uses an optimization program for

its central plants, which includes reviewing boiler

loading and redundancies, and operator training. In FY

1999, projects identified include fuel switching, remo te

monitoring and contro l, and re-build ing equipm ent. 

DESC is the implementing agency for the DOD Direct

Supply Natural Gas P rogram. T he objec tive of this

program is to obtain the most cost-effective and reliable

supply of natural gas for DOD installations, encouraging

the Components to minimize their use and reliance on

petroleum products. In FY 1999, DESC competitive ly

procured over 46 trillion Btu of natural gas, with 166

DOD installations participating in the program, saving

more than $29 million (five more installatio ns and $5 .5

million greater savings than FY 1998). Fuel oil as

backup to interruptible natural gas reduced by 18,375

gallons (2.5 billion Btu) from FY 1998 to FY 1999.

Direct conversion from fuel oil to natural gas eliminated

more than 55,000 gallons of fuel oil in FY 1999 (annual

thermal con tent of 7.6 billio n Btu). 

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

In early 1998, the Departm ent committed itself to the

Million Solar Roofs Initiative, with a Departmental goal

of 3,000 solar roofs in use by the end of FY 2000. The

Department installed 1,226 solar roofs in FY 1998 and

another 1,436 solar roofs in FY 1999. These 2,589 solar

roofs demonstrate the Department’s commitment to the

increased use of solar energy and other forms of

renewab le energy, where it is cost-effective. Passive

solar designs, such as building orientation and window

placement/sizing, are already being implemented in a

variety of building types as part of sustainable design

features. 

In general, renewable energy projects still are not

competitive with other ene rgy projec ts on a life-cycle
82

cost basis. The capital costs tend to be high for the

energy savings generated, resulting in paybacks that are

considera bly longer than competing conventional

technolog y. Each of the Services has developed

strategies to overcome this problem. The Navy uses the

revenue from sales of e xcess geoth ermal power at

Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake,

California to finance additional energy conservation

and technology projects. The Army intends to increase

their renewable energy program by putting special

emphasis on it in their Energy Conservation Investment

Program (ECIP) projects and by increasing the use of

DOE renewable energy funding pr ograms. T he Air

Force specifically sought energy service companies

(ESCOs) with experien ce in renewa ble energy p rojects

for their regional ESPCs.

Washington Headquarters Servic es (WH S), in

collaboration with DOE , and with cost-sharing support

from private-secto r compa nies, installed a 15kW

photovoltaic panel array demonstration project at the

Pentagon Heating and Refrigeration Plant compound.

This project demonstrates a new technology–microinverters attached to each panel rather than one large

inverter on the entire array. This will facilitate the

planned increase in size of the array to 60kW in FY

2000. In FY 2001, WHS is planning a roof-top solar hot

water heating system for the Pentagon, allowing the

steam distribution lin e serving the building to be

secured during the summ er months.

The Department also is developing other solar and

solar-thermal projects. A t Luke AFB , Arizona, an

ESCO has proposed refurbishing and modifying

existing solar systems to heat water for some

dormitories and a nearby dining hall. The National

Imaging and Mapping A gency (NIMA), S t. Louis,

Missouri, is currently investigating solar and other

renewab le energy pro jects within the scope of the ESPC

that is being implemented, and they are investigating

the augmentatio n of the dom estic hot water system with

solar heating. 

In addition to th e applicatio n of solar energy, the

Department is also committed to other renewable

energy technolog ies. The la rgest on-going r enewable

energy project is the 180 megawatt geothermal power

plant located at the NAWS China Lake, California.

Revenue from the excess electric power from the

geothermal plant is used to finance energy cost

reduction e fforts througho ut the Navy.

Other renewable initiatives are being undertaken.

Design has been completed o n a projec t to install

almost 1,000 geothermal heat pumps at Charleston

AFB. Additionally, Air Forc e Space Command is

designing a project to install more wind turbines and is

considering the use of pumped water for energy storage

at Ascension Island. The Air Force also asked the Idaho

Engineering Laboratory to perform a wind study for a

5 megawatt power plant at Lajes AFB , Azores.

Additionally, Sandia National Laboratory has been

surveying Nellis, Davis Monthan, Edwards, and Luke

AFBs for the Air Force to find potential rene wable

projects. Finally, DLA has continued testing of solar

tracking skylights.

Showcase Facilities

Showcase facilities demonstrate the use of innovative

techniques to improve e nergy and w ater efficiency.

Although hindered by a lack of funding in previous

years, the Department intends to emphasize the benefit

of these facilities, with a target of developing at least

three showcase facilities per year.

Two modifications to existing facilities have been

designated showcase facilities by the Air Force. Budget

constraints have limited this designation elsewhere

within the Depa rtment. Th e two Air Force projects were:

# Dyess AFB, T exas. At the airc raft hanger, sup ply

warehouse, and youth center both active and passive

daylighting with lighting controls was installed. 460

units in all were installed.

# Misawa AB, Japan. An ECIP project enabled the

replacement of 6 200-ton centrifugal chillers and

removed 4,000 pounds of R-11 refrigerant from

operation. This produced 9.2 billion Btu in annual

energy savings.

Personnel Development

Adequ ately trained personnel are critical to the safe and

efficient operation of DOD utility systems. During FY

1999, more than 1,600 DOD employees received energy

managem ent or technic al training. 

DOD components include specific energy related

responsibilities into position descriptions, provide

performance reco gnition programs, and sup port the use

of incentive awards, which are normally implemented at

the installation level. The Services and Components have

individual aw ards prog rams and a re also partic ipants in

the DOE Federal Energy and Water Management

Awards Program. In FY 1999, DOD received 14 awards

(6 Army, 4 Navy, and 4 Air Force).

The Army Energy Program Team was the recipient of

Vice President Gore’s Hammer Award, presented by the

Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Louis Caldera on
83

September 9, 1999. The team is composed of action

officers from the Army’s Logistics Integration A gency,

the U.S. Arm y Corps o f Engineers, a nd the Offi ce of

the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation

Manag ement.

The Navy hosted the FY 1999 annual Secretary of the

Navy awards ceremony with the Honorable Robert B.

Pirie, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for

Installations and Env ironment, p resenting the awards.

Seven awards were provided to Navy and Marine Corps

winners in the categories of facilities, ships, an d air

squadro ns. 

USAF ’s Air Education Training Command (AETC) has

an energy man agement incentive award p rogram to

award the two best energy management programs in the

command each fiscal year. The Air Mobility Command

energy awards provide $400,000 to bases who

demon strate the greatest energy program emphasis and

success toward meeting reduction goals. Both awards

evaluate both industrial and family housing categories,

cumulative energy reduction between the current year

and the FY 1985 baseline year, current year and the

previous year, and a narrative from each installation

detailing their en ergy progr am efforts. 

DOD components routinely incorporate energy

management responsibilities into their unique and

respective awards and performance appraisal programs.

The Washington Headquarters Service, for example,

established an “on the spot” cash award pro gram to

recognize outstanding performance in energy

managem ent. Most major DOD installations have

Certified Energy Managers assigned and installations’

performa nce goals ar e established at each site level. 

DOD emphasizes and supports cost effective training,

through recognized professional organizations, DOE

and other Governme nt agencies’ training programs,

multi-media sources and energy management training

offered by the Military Services’ training programs for

all personnel within the Department’s energy

management community. The Department also

participates in the identification and development of

long term training needs and initiatives to meet the

energy management training and certification requirements, supporting the planned increase in energy and

water conservation.

The Army provided energy management training for

685 personnel during FY 19 99. The curren t year cost

for the training was $200,000. The U.S. Army Logistics

Integration Agency (LIA) conducts Army Energy

Awareness Seminars at approximately 20 installations

per year. A course in energy management for existing

facilities for trained Energy Mana gers is availab le

through the Association of Energy Engineers, and the

Army Corps of Engineers in Huntsville, Alabama. LIA

has also established an Army Energy Program Home

Page on the Internet. It contains numerous reference

materials applicab le to the energy program as well as an

“Ask Captain Conservo” interactive e-ma il chat room

feature to promote information sharing and interaction

within the Army energy man agement c ommunity.

Appro ximately 415 Navy energy managers/facilities

personnel received tec hnical training in areas specified

in EPAct. Personnel attended technical courses offered

by universities, associations and government agencies.

Four sessions of the N avy in-house facilities energy

management course were conducted in four different

Engineerin g Field Div ision regions. 

The Air Force Institute of Tec hnology (A FIT) Civil

Engineering School a t Wright-Patterso n AFB, Ohio

conducts an Energy Management Training (EMT) course

twice a year. AFIT has also incorporated emphasis on

energy efficiency in its other technical courses offered,

as well as in their on-line computer-training programs.

The Air Force uses specialized courses from other

sources when the need arises, i.e., a training class by

Association Energy Engineers Instructors, provided

Certified Energy Manager (CEM) training to 33

individuals. During FY 1 999, 299 p ersonnel (from

engineering, contracting, legal and comp troller areas)

from 41 locations were trained via satellite down-link on

the Air Force Regional ESPC program.

Each DOD c omponent has its own unique energy

management training plan. Many of them have

implemented extensive public relations camp aigns.

These include recognizing non-ene rgy individuals for

conservation efforts, producing stickers for light

switches, publishing “how-to” and “point of contact”

manuals, and suppo rting energy poster contests.

Funding

In FY 1999, Con gress appropriated $32.5 million for the

ECIP. Although Congress cut all ECIP funding for FY

2000, the FY 2001 President’s budget contains $33.6

million for the program. DOD has typically used ECIP

funding to augment private-sector investment and plans

to focus more on projects with large energy savings that

are not very attractive to the private sector because they

require substantial up-front capital investments with long

pay-back periods. DOD plans to program about $50

million per yea r for the ECIP in the future. 

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts
84

In FY 1999, DO D greatly increased the use of Energy

Savings Performance Co ntracts (ESP Cs) and utility

incentive agreemen ts–saving nea rly 1.7 trillion BTU

per year, and more than doubling the energy savings

obtained the previou s year. In exce ss of $6 billio n in

ESPC investment capacity is now available to DOD

installations as a re sult of indefinite-de livery contrac ts

developed by the Military Departments and a

memorandum of agreement between the Defense

Energy Su pport Center (DE SC) and DOE . 

FY 1999 was a record year for the DOD ESPC

programs in terms of the number of awards and the

magnitude of potential savings (the Defense components awarded 45 ESPC task/delivery orders with an

average contract term of 16 years, with an estimated

life-cycle savings of nea rly $379 m illion). The annual

energy savings resulting from these awards is estimated

to be 1,204,533 million BTU. There are now

approximately 70 ESP C proje cts underwa y within

DOD.

A combined private sector investment capacity of $3.2

billion is available for use by the Department on one of

the existing Defense indefinite delive ry indefinite

quantity (IDIQ) multi-regional ESPCs, which cover all

50 states and the District of Columbia. A dditionally,

several Defense components have executed Memorandums of Agreem ent (MOA) to use DOE Regional or

Techno logy-Spec ific Super-ESPCs. In June, DESC

awarded the single largest ESPC issued by the Federal

Government to date, that will use over $67 million in

private capital to install energy savings measures at five

bases in the Army’s Military District of Washington.

This ESPC guarantees a n annual red uction of 59 7.7

billion Btu, annual cost savings of $11.9 million. There

will also be an a nnual reduc tion of app roximately

24,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (carbon

is the standard for measurements) and more than 600

metric tons of pollutants that cause smog and acid rain,

and saves over 50 million gallons of water. Over the

18 year term of the contract, cost savings are expected

to total more than $219 million.

Congress added $4 million to the Defense-wide O&M

account in FY 20 00, to assist in training, providing

technical expertise and performing energy audits, and

otherwise facilitate the ESPC proc ess. This money has

been allocated to the comp onents for technical support

and project oversight, measurement and validation

training, and an ES PC awa reness pro gram. DO D will

continue to build on its FY 1999 successes with the

Military Departments planning to use more than

$1.2 billion in private-sector financing over the next

five years.

The Navy has initiated a pilot program that offers some

up-front funding to help overcome some of the

reluctance of installation comm anders to e nter into

ESPCs. Using FY 1999 operations and maintenance

energy program funds, this program invested $1 million

to reduce the capital investment co st of ESPCs.

Utility Projects

There are now approximately 150 demand side

management (DSM) and utility partnership agreemen ts

in effect at Defen se installations. 

The Air Force and Navy have continued to aggressive ly

pursue DSM agreemen ts with local utility companies for

energy and water re trofit projects. In FY 19 99, the Air

Force initiated 10 D SM ag reements tha t will initially

save 97,877 Btu per year, while the Navy initiated

107 DSM projects. The Navy also in vested $7 million in

O&M funds to reduce the amount of project financing

required, which installed $66 million in energy efficiency

equipme nt. Basic ordering agreemen ts are in place w ith

most utility companies servicing Navy activities. These

contracts cover a wide range of technologies including

lighting, natural gas conversions, controls, and boiler

systems. DESC continues to work with the Services and

local utilities to encourage the use of these incentives.

Other Defense components, including the NSA and

DeCA , have entere d into long-term electricity purchase

agreeme nts with their local utilities that facilitate the use

of various financial incentives.

The Department intends to take maximum advantage of

electricity rate restructuring to lower its energy costs, and

will include green power in its procurem ents where it is

cost-effective. Where practicab le, DOD will bundle

regionally the diverse loa ds of DO D installations to

create greater buying power. DESC has established a

competitive electricity procurement program. Power

contracts awarded by DESC in Californ ia, Pennsylva nia

and New Jersey, bundled deman d regionally to obtain

the best rates po ssible and re sulted in app roximate ly

$825,0 00 in cost av oidance. 

DOD continues its efforts to privatize its utility systems.

Defense Reform Initiative Directive #49 directed the

Military Departments to develop plans for privatizing a ll

of their utility systems by September 30, 2003. This

initiative is designed to allow the Department to manage

resources rather than utility infrastructure B using the

expertise and investment capital of local utilities and

private-sector suppliers to modernize, operate, and

maintain DOD’s utility systems more efficiently and

effectively. The scope of the task is daunting, however,

with over 1,500 systems remaining to be evaluated for

transfer. 
85

In June 199 7, DOD , DOE, and EP A entered into a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding

ENERGY STAR® labels for all DOD buildings. The

MOU considers buildings as E NERGY STAR® Buildings

if they were included in comprehensive audits a nd all

projects with a 10-year or better payback are

implemented, to the maximum extent practicable,

within agency reso urces. DO D continu es to hono r its

commitment as an ENERGY STAR® Buildings p artner

with EPA and DOE, to encourage the use of costeffective, energy-efficient building designs and

technologies, and to imp rove pers onnel pro ductivity

and reduce p ollutant emissions. This is reinforced by

the Depa rtment’s commitment to susta inable desig n. 

The Air Force has obtained the ENERGY STAR®

information and the DOD partnership agreement and

placed it on the AFCESA hom e page. Additionally, the

Air Force ha s distributed this information to all major

commands (MAJCOMs), and is encouraging the

MAJCOM /bases to participate in this program. Several

Air Force bases have signed up for the “Green Lights”

program including Bolling AFB, Maryland; Westover

ARB, Massa chusetts; and Malmstrom AFB,

Massachusetts. At Malm strom, they have surveyed 74

percent of the facilities and upgraded 31.2percent of the

facilities. For Westover ARB, they have surveyed

64 percent of floor space, and upgraded 46 percent of

lighting to “Green Lights” standards.

The Navy has surveyed ap proxima tely 51 perc ent of its

facilities and installed approximately half of the

projects identified. The other DOD components occupy

fewer facilities, operations are smaller in scope, and

typically have fewer resources an d oppo rtunities to

implement the princip le of the ENERGY STAR®

Program. However, they are all partners and support

and implement ENERGY STAR® principles as resources

allow.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

The Departm ent is committed to actively searching the

competitive markets to identify and procure energy

efficient products for facilities and equipment, as

required by the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The Defen se

Logistics Agency (D LA), is working clo sely with other

Federal agencies, such as the D epartmen t of Energy’s

Federal Energy Management Program and GSA , to

identify energy efficient p roducts. T he FEM P, GSA and

DLA product catalogs are widely used within DOD.

Although no specific procurement targets exist within

the Department, purchasing agents, including users of

government credit card s, are encou raged stron gly to

procure ENERGY STAR® products and products in the

top 25 percent of energy efficienc y, when they are c osteffective. 

DOE and GSA were tasked with identifying energy

efficient produc ts for the Federal Government. The Navy

was an active participant in the GSA working group of

Energy Efficient Products. The Department concentrated

its efforts on ma king use of the guidance generated by

the lead agencies. In addition, the Navy recommends that

energy managers utilize the DLA lighting catalog and

Washington State Energy Office M otor-Master datab ase

to assist in purchasing energy efficient equipment. The

recently published DOE resource of energy efficient

produc ts was distributed to all Navy energy managers in

FY 1999. Energy managers were encouraged to ensure

planners, estimators an d other pr ocureme nt officials

received th e DOE guidance. 

During programming an d early design reviews of

renovation projects, the Air Force encourages the use of

highly energy efficient products such as lighting, motors,

and chillers. Criteria have been provided to the base

level designers to purchase only energy efficient

equipment (based on life-cycle cost). The Air Force

continues encouraging energy managers to use the

references in the Construc tion Criteria Base (CCB), the

DLA lighting catalog, and the electronic version of ESource, d elivered to a ll installation energ y managers. 

Other Defense components follow DOD and other

Federal guidance in planning, procurement and use of

cost-effective energy efficient an d environm entally

preferred prod ucts. Most locations support recycling of

toner cartridges and other materials (paper, aluminum,

glass, and plastics).

Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFV)

In FY 1999, DO D acquired 2,712 AFV s. In addition, the

Department received 102 extra AFV credits for acquiring

medium- and heavy-duty AFVs, for a total of 2,814

AFVs and credits. The total of 2,814 AFVs and credits

for FY 1999 represent an increase of 549, or 24 pe rcent,

over the FY 1998 total of 2,26 5 AFV s and cred its

included in last year’s DOD report. DOD’s acquisition

rate for AFV increased from 32.3 percent in FY 1998 to

36.6 percent in FY 1999.

DOD continues to take steps in the areas of policy,

management and oversight, and budget to achieve

compliance with the requirements of Executive Order

13031, “Federal Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership.” With orig inal equipment manufacturers making

more AFV models available, and with use of biodiesel

now counting toward achievement of AFV goals, DOD
86

expects to continue to increase the percentage of AFVs

that it acquires.

The Department does not have an automated system to

identify, collect, record, and report alternative fuel

usage data. Developing suc h a system at a time when

DOD is still striving to ensure that sufficient funds are

available to meet mandated AFV acquisition

requirements, is cost prohibitive. Manual collection of

the data is also co st-prohibitive. T hus, DO D is able to

provide only an incom plete estimate of alternative fuel

used in FY 19 99. One major ob stacle to collecting and

reporting alternative fuel usage data is that the Government credit card system curren tly is unable to collect

and report detailed data, known as Level 3 data, on the

types of fuel being p urchased . DOD will continue to

work with GSA so that in the future DOD will be able

to obtain more complete data on the types of alternative

fuel purchas ed with Go vernment c redit cards. 

Environmental Benefits of Energy 

Management Activities

The Department closely coordinates its energy

management and enviro nmental p rograms to take full

advantage of their synergy. As a result, DOD has been

very successful in reducing its greenhouse gas

emissions. From FY 1998 to FY 1999, DOD

installations reduced their carbon emissions by

1.2 perc ent. 

The Navy, through its energy program efforts, reduced

carbon equivalent emissions by approximately 500,000

metric tons carbon equivalent compar ed to emissio ns in

FY 1985. At a cost of $3 per ton for externalities, the

reductions are worth $ 1.5 million an nually.

The Air Force ’s windfarm an d photo voltaic systems at

Ascension Island redu ce greenho use gases by 2 .9

million pounds per year for carbon dioxide and 103,000

pounds per year for nitrous oxides. In addition to the

direct environmental benefits of energy conservation,

the Air Force has also realized the following indirect

environmental benefits: 

# Under a DSM contract with Virginia Power,

Langley AFB, Virginia has disposed of all the

obsolete ballasts as part of the $10.8 million

delivery order which involved lighting and HVAC

for 15 buildings. The co st to dispose these obso lete

ballasts was $ 23,200 . 

# An ECIP p roject at M t. Home AFB, Idaho

replaced 13 oil-fired boilers in 13 facilities with

high efficiency natural g as boilers. A s part of the

environmental clean up p rogram, the 13 oil tanks

were remo ved. 

# Offutt AFB, Nebraska eliminated 1400 pounds of

the CFC refrigerant R-11. An FY 1999 ECIP project

for Building 3 04 elimin ated an additional 7200

pounds of R-11.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Captain K evin E. M ikula

Director, Energy Office

Housing a nd Energ y Directora te

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations

3000 Defense Pentagon, Room 3D-784

Washington, DC 22301

Phone: 703-697-6195

Fax: 703-695-1493
87

DOE Performance Toward 

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

Energy Efficiency Performance and

Implementation Strategies:

For FY 1999, the Department of Energy reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 38 .5

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

Energy Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 10,355.3 144,91 7.4

Fuel Oil 608.1 2,247.7

Natural Gas 6,253.5 22,596 .7

Propane 38.4 235.3

Coal 2,720.4 4,136.9

Purchased Steam 1,720.6 12,024 .4

Other 34.1 715.1

Total 21,730.3 186,87 3.4

This reduction is p artially due to re duced m issionrelated activities and over all 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. This

includes review of heating, ventilating , and air

conditioning (HVAC) systems; lighting; transformers;

and other building equipment usage. Appendix A

includes a comparison of DOE’s energy consumption

and costs for FY 1999 with FY 1985 for specific fuel

types within each of the three end-use sectors:

Buildings and Facilities, Metered P rocess Facilities,

and Ve hicles and E quipmen t.

DOE ’s metered proce ss facilities, excluded from the 30

and 35 percent reduction goals of Executive Order

13123 for standard buildings, saw a reduction in Btu per

gross square feet o f 64.9 per cent since FY 1985. This

reduction is mainly attributable to reduced missionrelated activities and overall downsizing of operations

and facilities. 

As directed by Executive Order 13123, DOE has

designated Deputy Secretary of Energy, T.J. Glauthier as

the senior official res ponsible for meeting the goals and

requireme nts of the Order. DOE also designated a senior

level Agency Energy Team consisting of: Dan W.

Reicher, Assistant Secr etary for Ene rgy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy; Michael L. Telson, Chief Financial

Officer; Richard H. Hopf, Director of the Office of

Procurement and Assistan ce Man agement; and Elizabeth

L. Shearer, Director of the Federal Energy Management

Program, to expedite and encourage use of

appropriations, energy savings performanc e contracts,

and other alternative financing mechanisms necessary to

meet the goals and requirements of the Order.

In FY 1999, the Department’s Energy Managem ent

Team assisted the efforts of the Energy Management

Steering Committee (EMSC) to reduce energy costs by

integrating all energy management activities into DOE

program operations. The EMSC is comprised of Federal

Energy Management Program and DOE Secretarial

Officer representatives. It establishes and implements

internal policy for energy management, and integrates

these activities into DOE program operations. The

EMSC looked beyond the 35 percent reduction goal of

Executive Order 13123 by outlining key elements for

reducing energy consumption per square foot by 40

percent in 2005 (from the1985 base year). These key

elements are:

# Phasing out Class 1 ozone-d epleting refrige rants in

old chillers;

# Reducing energy consumption in surplus facilities;

# Procuring energy-efficient products (lighting,

CFL’s);

# Achieving ENERGY STAR® labels for DOE office

buildings;

# Adopting sustainable gu idelines for all new

buildings; and

# Procuring cost-effective ren ewable energy systems

and electricity.
88

In 1999, the EM SC agree d that all DO E sites would

begin reporting greenhouse gas emissions using data

from its energy data collection and reporting system

(EMS3) in adherence to the Energy Information

Agency’s voluntary pro gram. DO E has set a go al to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent in the

year 2010 (from 1 990 base year). T his exceeds the 30

percent goal set by Executive Order 13123.

Additiona lly, the EM SC estab lished guide lines to

achieve the Secretary’s “Phaseout Goal for DOE’s AirConditioning and Refrigeration Chillers to Protect the

Ozone Layer and to Reduce Energy Costs.” DOE will

replace or retrofit all of its chillers that use Class 1

refrigerants by 2005 . Meeting th is goal would eliminate

50 percent of Class 1 refrigerant use by DOE, as well as

reduce energy costs by $6 million annually. The

“Phaseout Goal” will be reached by developing:

# Refrigerant management plans;

# Guidanc e on dispo sition of Class 1 refrigerant;

# Energy management plans and programs; and

# Chiller exemption process when retrofitting or

replacement is not cost effective.

DOE is adopting sustainable design for its new

construction and major renovations. Sustainable Design

uses a life-cycle cost effec tive integrated a pproac h to

appraise all elements of a building to minimize its

impact on the environm ent. 

Many DOE sites have implemented a number of

ongoing energy-saving measures resulting from

previously funded comprehensive audits such as

installing energy monitoring control systems, replacing

mercury vapor lamps with higher efficiency metal

halide lamps, replacing old fluorescent lamps and

ballasts with high-efficiency lam ps and elec tronic

ballasts, installing automatic on-off control systems for

lighting, installing and rep lacing buildin g satellite

boilers, and maintaining and upgrading HVAC

equipment and systems to optimize performance. DOE

also seeks to improve energy efficiency through

efficient operation of buildings, improved preventive

mainte-nance, and improved energy training for

personne l.

Examples of operational and energy efficiency proj ects

accomplished in FY 1999 include:

# The Albuquerque Operations Office completed a

number of HVAC and lighting retrofits at the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The Kansas

City Plant (KCP) accomplished several energy

conservation activities, including upgrading

boilers, installing direct digital controls, replacing

CFC chillers with 134a chillers, installing new

steam traps and KCP’s plate/frame heat exchanger

project, and free co oling during th e winter. The

Pantex Plant installed p hotocells o n outside lighting,

identified and repa ired leaking water lines, tuned

boilers, right-sized a new air compressor (saving

more than $36,000 per year), installed new steam

traps, installed variable-frequency drives, repaired

natural gas line leaks, and right-sized chilled water

pumps. Pantex also has a water conservation project

under construction that will replace domestic water

chlorine injection at the sewer plant with sewer

water chlorine injection, saving more than 15

million gallons of water per year. The Los Alamos

National Laboratory (LANL) audited five buildings

and four transpo rtable buildin gs. The au dit

identified measures that, if implemented site-wide,

could save $4.3 million annually. LANL installed 64

infrared occupancy sensors in offices, conference

rooms, and hallways in six buildings. Sandia

National Laboratory improved their energy

management control system with a demand-based

control strategy, reducing run time of fans and

pumps, and reducing simultaneo us heating and

cooling. One building was completely retrofitted,

changing 6,000 lamps from T-12 to T-8 and

eliminating more than 1,000 ballasts. Annual

savings are estimated at 250,00 0 kilowatt-hours,

with simple payback period of three years. Twelve

remote area buildings were converted from propane

to natural gas-fired boilers, saving $70,000 a year.

Also, a 1-million-gallon chilled water storage tank,

rated for 10,000 ton-hours of chilled water c apacity,

was constructed. When this is integrated with the

existing chilled water plant, annual savings of

$150,000 are expected.

# Argonne National Laboratory-East completed two

projects: implementing heat recovery in 200 Area

Buildings ($500,000, with a 3.4-year payback

period), and impro ving raw wate r distribution

($260,000, with a 4.4-year payback period).

# The Rocky Fla ts Environm ental Tec hnology Site

(RFETS) performed a SAVEnerg y audit of 12

buildings along with an energy consumption

analysis of 69 other typical buildings, installed two

package boilers to impro ve steam feed efficiency,

and reduced exterior lighting a t the east and west

entry gates.

# The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL) performed facility audits that

developed 274 conservation opportunities. If
89

implemented, these would save more than $51,000

annually. An excess buildings study was

completed, finding that actio ns comp leted to date

are saving $269,200 per year. During the next five

years, an additional $149,200 will be saved as

eight other buildings are removed from service.

Total annual saving s are estimated to be $420,000.

INEEL also installed occupancy sensors, setback

thermostats, and LED exit lamps.

# Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has

installed a cooling tower water treatment device at

Dittmer Control Center that filters out particle s in

the loop resulting in savings of nearly 12,000

gallons of water a day and $ 17,000 annually. Th is

system will serve as a model for several cooling

towers at the Celilo Converter DC Station. Radiant

heaters have been installed in garages where the

external temperatures can reach -25/F. By heating

an object and not the entire space, these measures

have reduced the energy bill by 30 percent. BPA

replaced a 60 ton air condition er with a 12 ton un it

at the Alston Substation and will save $20,000

annually.

# The Ohio Field Office’s Fernald Environmental

Management Project switched to a smaller cooling

tower, decreasing the cooling w ater loop le ngth

and redu cing pump ing energy.

# Pacific Northwest National Laboratory improved

energy-related operatio ns and maintenance in the

William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular

Sciences Labora tory. Early results indicate annual

savings of $100,000.

# The Richland Operations Office upgraded the

lighting system at the Fuels and Materials

Examination Facility. At the Plu tonium Finishing

Plant, 900 standard fluorescent light fixtures were

replaced with T-8s and electronic ballasts, and fan

motors were upgraded. Numerous general-purpose

facilities also had T-12 fixtures (7,550 in all)

replaced with T-8s, saving more than 140,000

kilowatt-hours and $3,533 annually. Also during

FY 1998, 13 transformers were removed and 7

were exchanged, reducing energy consumption and

costs by more than 325,000 kilowatt-hours and

$7,800.

# The Nevada Operations Office installed energyefficient lighting in the Remote Sensing

Labora tory. This project included replacing

magnetic ballasts and T-12 lamps with ene rgyefficient electronic ballasts and T-8 lamps with

reflectors. Total estimated annual savings are

$52,50 0. 

# The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

completed nine energy conservation projects. The

projects consist of DDC system installations,

lighting retrofits, occupancy sensor installations, and

HVAC upgrades. Total construction cost was $1.36

million with a cumulativ e paybac k period o f 3.3

years.

# Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) began five

new projects. These are an energy management

control system optimization, insulation of steam

stations and manholes, exit sign LED retrofits,

installation of a side-stream filter for the Central

Chilled Water Facility’s refrigeration machines, and

HVA C balanc ing. 

# Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory completed roof

repairs and insulation, occupancy senso r

installations, central heating plant improvements,

improvements to the energy management system for

building HVAC controls, installation of an efficient

vacuum pump system, and the installation of

efficient heaters on the Corrosion Laboratory

autoclaves. Energy savings of 14.5 billion Btu were

achieved.

# The Oak Ridge Operations Office completed several

projects. The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and

Education (ORISE) replac ed an inefficien t electric

HVAC system with a digitally controlled system

with natural gas heating, and complete d a multi-site

energy audit, an energy conservation baseline stud y,

an HVA C system stud y, and a lighting system

upgrade. ORISE also comp leted a multi-phase

retrofit construction project at the sites 2714FG

Building, which included installing dual glazed

windows, attic insulation, and T-8 fluorescent

fixtures and electronic ballasts.

# The National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL) complete d a prelimin ary energy au dit for

both its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and its Morgantown, West V irginia sites. NETL also began a

lighting retrofit at its Morgantown day care facility.

# The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) retrofitted all incand escent lights in

common areas and department head office s with

compact fluorescent b ulbs, saving 7 9,120 k ilowatthours and more than $6 ,300 per year. It also

removed 48 recessed incandescent lights in 16

locations, saving 11,232 kilowatt-hours and nea rly
90

$900 annually. Va riable spee d drives were

installed on fans and water pumps, saving at least

123,00 0 kilowatt-ho urs annually. 

# Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)

completed eight energy efficiency retrofits. These

measures included lighting retrofits, installing

variable frequency drives, variable speed drives,

boiler retrofits,HVAC replacements, cooling tower

efficiency improvements, and installing lighting

controls. Estimated annual cost savings are

$154,000. The annual energy savings of nearly

3,000 megawatt-ho urs will avoid emissions of 725

tons of carbon dioxide, 1.8 tons of nitrogen oxides,

and 0.6 to ns of sulfur diox ide. 

# The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center started a

project to install programmable thermostats at

packaged H VAC units.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

FEMP’s Departmen tal Energy M anageme nt Team is

actively promoting solar and renewable energy and the

Presiden t’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative, and DOE has

solar and renewable projects at the following DOE

sites:

# Forresta l and Germantown Headq uarters,

photovoltaic and so lar hot water heating systems;

# LBNL, solar hot water heating system;

# Nevad a Test Site , nine photovoltaic systems;

# Western Area Power Administration, two

photovoltaic systems;

# National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),

passive solar design features and daylighting,

trombe wall and pho tovoltaic systems;

# Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), ground source

heat pumps, daylighting, passive solar design,

trombe wall, hot water heating system;

# WIPP, skylights/daylighting; and,

# Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), passive

solar building.

Funding

DOE received n o direct a ppropriations for in-house

energy management during FY 1999. No funds have

been appropriated b y Congress for DOE in-hou se

energy efficiency projects since FY 1995 when DOE

received $30 million.However, the FEMP-Departmental

Energy Manag ement Team and the E MSC worked to

provide DOE sites with $6.4 m illion in energy retro fit

project funding in FY 1998. These funds were made

available after being retu rned by D OE field sites to

FEMP from previous projects that were completed but

still had funds remaining. In response to requests for

project submissions, over 60 projects were submitted

with more than $25 million in total estimated cost. Of

these, 32 projects were selected with an average simple

payback of 3.5 years. The FEM P-Departmental Energy

Management Team has also provided funds to support

development of energy savings performa nce contra cts

and utility contracts at 12 DOE sites.

DOE has requested $5 million for energy efficiency

projects for FY 2001.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

Obtaining alternate financing for energy efficiency

projects is considered vital to continued energy

reductions. DOE has awarded five site-specific ESPCs to

date and is working on sev eral other projects:

# Savannah Operatio ns Office awa rded an E SPC to

CES/Way International (now Sempra Energy

Services) on March 2, 1998. The primary focus of

the Savannah River Site Energy Management Team

was developing Task Orders, the first of which was

approved in FY 1999. Task 1 consists of upgrades

in 16 administrative facilities. A total of 540,000

square feet was audited resulting in $1,65 5,000 in

capital upgrades. Guaranteed energy and O&M

savings are appro ximately $26 8,000, d ue to

improvements such as lighting enhancements,

energy management control system installations, and

HVA C mod ification. 

# The Richland Operations Office’s Hanford Site

awarded an ESPC in FY 1997 to Johnson Controls,

Inc. During FY 1999, the 200 East and 300 Area

steam plants were closed and replaced with 42 stateof-the-art package boilers. The new boilers

eliminate steam and c ondensa te discharges and

reduce energy consumption by 30 percent. More

than $108 million in energy and related operations

and maintenance expenses will be saved over the 25

year contrac t term. 

# The Albuque rque Op erations Office’s W aste

Isolation Pilot Project began work to utilize DO E’s

regional Super ESPC. The initial Request for

Proposal (RAP) targets the main chillers, variablefrequency drives for the main underground

ventilation fans, DDC for monitoring and co ntrol,
91

and several lighting projects. Estimated investment

is $3 million, with a 15-year payback. The Pantex

Plant received a final proposal for $4,473,000 of

energy conservatio n measure s with a simple

payback period of 9.6 years. Two million square

feet of plant floor space will be audited. U tility

incentives of more than $2.6 million over the

project’s life have been identified.

# LANL entered into an agreement with its support

services subcontractor whereby the contractor

would perform ESPC tasks at LANL. One chiller

replacement is at the approval stage for

construction, one lighting and HVA C upgrad e is at

the energy audit stage, and a steam plant and

another lighting retrofit are at the proposal stage.

# INEEL submitted a delivery order for the Western

Regional Super ESPC. This initial delivery order

included ligh ting and transfo rmers. 

# The Nevada Operations Office has an ESPC study

near completion, which pro poses to use efficient

technologies in lighting, HVAC, and energy

management control systems. A deliv ery order is

expected during FY 2000.

# ORNL engaged an ESCO th rough the Southeast

Regional Super ESPC. A delivery order covers

four buildings, involving lighting, chillers, variab le

frequency drives, and water fixtures.

# NREL has initiated a delivery order under the MidAtlantic Regional Super ESPC and selected EUA

Cogenex/SAIC as the ESCO.

Utility Partnerships

DOE sites continue to participate in and provide u tility

company incentives and demand-side management

programs. Examples include:

# Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) developed an

agreement with Commonwealth Edison to provide

energy conservatio n projects u nder their utility

incentive program initiative. The first delivery

order for a pump motor replacement was valued at

approximately $180,0 00. AN L also con tinued its

participation in Commonwealth Edison’s demandside reduction program, receiving more than

$450,000 in compensation. ANL also negotiated a

reduced rate from the lo cal gas utility.

# Pumps at the Strategic P etroleum Reserve’s (SPR)

Raw Water Intake Structure (RWIS) were

increased in size, warranting an increase in the size

of Entergy-owned transformers providing power to

the RWIS. SPR negotiated an agre ement with

Entergy to off-set the cost of construction with

actual power usage from the site, saving about

$200,000 during the contract period. Three field

sites, Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and both W est

Hackberry substations use Entergy’s time of use rate

for annual savings o f approxim ately $350 ,000. Also,

the Bryan M ound site is using an interruptib le

service rate from Houston Lighting and Power.

# BNL modified its contract with the New York

Power Authority (NYPA) to save $2 million. To

date, this has saved BNL more than $190,000 in fuel

costs by switching to natural gas compared to the

cost of the pre viously used fue l oil.

# LBNL equalized its electrical energy rates with

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s(LLNL)

rates, which have been historically lower. This

change to the 3-Lab (LBNL, LLN L, and the

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) Rebilling

Systems will save LBNL an estimated $800,000 per

year.

# The Richland Operations Office started its

comprehensive energy management plan and

entered into a utility agreement with BPA for energy

management services.

At the end of FY 19 99, DOE ’s utility purchasing

function was moved from the O ffice of Field

Management to FEMP’s Dep artmental Energy

Management Team. The active Utility Program has made

continual progress in reducing the cost of utilities to a

current $.047 per kilowatt-hour. This has been

accomplished with wheeling of low cost power from the

Power Marketing Administrations to DOE sites, and

competitive procurement of natural gas and electricity at

a number of DOE sites. DOE has also pursued green

power purchase s at the following sites:

# NREL, commitment for wind power purchase;

# Richland Operations Office, completed study, action

pending with a BPA rate case resolution; and

# Albuquerque Operations Office, Public Service

Company of New Mexico completed a request for

propo sals for a solar pla nt that will eventually

provide service to D OE sites.
92

Vehicles

DOE has an ongoing program to improv e vehicle

efficiency, including acquiring alternative-fueled

vehicles, downsizing vehicles when appropriate,

upgrading preventive maintenanceprograms, improving

maintenance techniques, e xpanding waste minimiz ation

programs, implementing driver awareness training, and

providing employee outreach.

Fleet vehicles at a num ber of DO E sites were, o r will

soon be, conve rted from gasoline to methanol or dual

fuel. Liquified petroleum gas, liquified natural gas,

compressed natural gas, electricity, and biodiesel gas

are some of the alternate fuels currently in use.

Most DOE sites have an ongoing employee commuter

program. These programs promote using ridesharing

and mass transit services, as applicable at eac h site. A

transportation coordinator at each site promotes these

efforts, as appropriate.

DOE has been turning over more of its fleet operations

to GSA to take advantage of their vehicle programs.

This provides the benefit o f having an ever more

efficient, and less c ostly to maintain, v ehicle fleet.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

DOE continued to focus on reducing CFCs by replacing

CFC chillers with new higher efficiency, non-CFC

chillers and refrigerant recovery programs. Other

measures include fluorescent lamp recycling, procuring

recycled goods and products such as printer/copier

toner cartridges and paper products, reducing power

plant emissions, and reducing automobile emissions

through the use of compressed natural gas at many DOE

sites. Soy-based inks, which are e nvironme ntally

friendly, are used in DOE printing plants. Site-wide

recycling of aluminum beverage c ans, batteries,

cardboard, paper products, and fluorescent lamps

occurs at many DOE sites. Examples include:

# ANL found an outlet for recycling fly ash produced

at the ANL steam plant. More than 700 metric tons

per year is being converted into a by-pro duct,

saving $40,000 to $80,000 per year.

# The Savannah River Operations Office implemented

the GeoSiphon Cell as a remediator of contaminated

groundwater. This is an emerging technology

developed on site, that is a reductive de-chlorination

process, utilizing induced flow, to draw

contaminated groundwater through a treatment cell.

In addition to the positive effect on the environment

there is a savings of $1.20 per 1,000 gallons. A total

of 12 chillers were replaced with 9 new, non-CFC

chillers as part of a project to replace 37 major

refrigeration units at the site.

# SPR has minimized bio hazards b y modifying its

supply system. For example, aerosol spray painting

has been banned. SPR eliminated the use of SPRowned equipment conta ining polycho lrinatedbiphenyls (PCBs). Also, the SPR completed an

inventory of all utility-owned electrical equipment

for PCB content. The amount of PCBs involved was

documented, and plans h ave been develop ed to

assure the PCBs are not introduced into the

environment.

# ORNL replaced four chillers totaling 1,746 tons of

rated capacity with more efficient, non-CFC chillers.

The new chillers save app roximately 2 0 percen t in

chiller energy. Fou r additiona l chillers will be

replaced by FY 2003.

# Nevada Operations Office has replaced two 195-ton

chillers. The Nevada O perations Office recycles all

petroleum waste products at the Nevada Test Site by

placing refined products back in service.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Victor Petrolati, EE-91

DOE Energy Management Team Leader

Federal Energy Management Program

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Phone: 202-586-4549

Fax: 202-586-3000
93

HHS Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

5. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 19 99, the D epartmen t of Health and Human

Services reported a decre ase in energy con sumption in

buildings of 14.6 percent in Btu per gross square foot

compared to FY 1985.

HHS Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,112.2 19,654 .0

Fuel Oil 206.3 1,339. 0

Natural Gas 1,312.4 4,066.0

Propane 118.2 790.0

Coal 46.9 116.0

Purchased Steam 14.6 219.0

Total 2,810.6 26,184 .0

While HHS is fine -tuning each of its operating

compo nents energy plans in order to fully meet

Executive Order 13123 energy targets, further DOE

funding for energy conservation projects would be very

helpful to the success of the Departments program.

Although HHS’s estimates show that direct agency

funding for projec ts in FY 20 00 will be roughly 3.6

million dollars, this still falls short of the funding

needed to meet the aggressive energy reduction goals.

HHS will rely more on energy savings performance

contracting (ESPC) and other alternative financing

methods to meet its energy mandates. In FY 1999, four

alternative financing agre ements wer e signed to

implement energy and water conservation projects that

will save approximately $1 million in annual energy

costs. The outlook for FY 2000 is promising, as many

more HHS facilities are expe cted to use E SPC o r are in

the process of investigating the benefits and impact of

this contracting mechanism.

Preventative maintenance programs are widely used

throughout HHS’s O perating D ivisions (OP DIVs) to

maintain the highest efficiency output of mechanical

equipme nt. The large r HHS facilities use energy

management and control systems. These systems are

continuou sly enhanced to increase their span of control

and their energy saving capacity. The smaller facilities

take advantage of stand-alon e thermosta tic controllers.

Timers are used to start and stop HVAC equipm ent and

control lighting.

The Indian He alth Service (IHS) Albuquerque Area has

a goal to replace existing pneumatic controls, in all

Area hospitals with new direct digital controllers and

computer-based energy manageme nt systems.

As of FY 1999, 30.2 percent of the HH S square footage

has been audited. These audits have been performed by

utility companies, energy service c ompanies, in-house

personne l, university engine ering students, u niversity

Industria l Assessment Centers, and the DOE

SAVEnergy Audits program. Approximately 30 percent

of the total Natio nal Insititutes of Health (NIH) space

has been a udited. 

Energy and water conservation projects and initiatives

performed during FY 1999 include:

# The Center for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) Clifton Road facility in Atlanta, Ge orgia

had a compr ehensive au dit completed as part of an

ESPC. Several energy conservation measures were

recommended including a lighting retrofit that will

be completed in FY 2000.

# The Food a nd Drug Admin istration’s (FDA)

Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center

(WEAC) in Winch este r, Massac husetts

implemen ted a lighting up grade pro ject.

# The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological

Research (NCTR) in Jefferson, Arkansas installed

new cooling towers, fan and pump motors, variable

frequency drives, and po wer factor corrections.

# An FDA laboratory in San Juan, Puerto Rico

installed a new HV AC roo ftop unit and e nergyefficient lighting.

# The Indian Health Service (IHS) Albuquerque

Area has installed a the rmal groun dwater-source

loop system to a hospital that has both individual

and rooftop heat pumps for heating and cooling.
94

# Several energy conservation measures were

installed at various IHS facilities across the nation

including lighting retrofits, boiler and chiller

upgrades, HVAC system improvements, and

window and bu ilding envelope upgrad es.

# The Program Sup port Center’s (PSC) Parklawn

Building installed water conserving toilets and

faucets and implemented a ligh ting retrofit.

Expected annual savings are $270,000 with a

simple payback of five years.

# NIH is currently expanding its power plant to

provide necessary utilities for new and existing

buildings on its Maryland campus. During the

design and construction phases of the facility

renovation many energy conservation measures

were installed. Annual estimated savings are $1.59

million, or 6 percent of the annual ene rgy costs.

# The NIH National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina installed a new energyefficient chiller.

# The NIH Rocky M ountain Laboratory in Denver,

Colorado is undergoing a major renovation that

will include ene rgy-efficient equip ment.

# The NIH Bethesda campus modified the chiller

control software to allow the chillers to run at a

reduced condens or water temperature of 65/F

rather than 85/F during the off-summer mo nths.

The annual reduction in powe r use is estimated at

576 megwa tts.

# The NIH’s Gerontology Research Center (GRC) in

Baltimore, Maryland saved approximately

$362,400 by adjusting building temperatures and

turning off unused lights and equ ipment. A lighting

retrofit is underway a nd a steam r ecovery un it is

planned for installation in FY 2000.

# The Office of the Secretary (OS) plans to upgrade

HVAC motors at the Hubert H. Humphrey

Building during FY 2000.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

In FY 19 99, the H HS En ergy Officer a ggressively

worked w ith the OPDIVs to explore the installation of

renewab le energy applications. The Assistant Secretary

of Management and Bud get wrote a memo to the

OPDIV heads co ncerning the M illion Solar Roofs

Initiative and the importa nce of rene wable energy to the

Federal government, taxpayers, and the envir onment.

HHS continues to follow up on this memo with each

OPDIV to ensure that the investigation o f renewable

technologies are included in all ESPC studies and

analyses, comprehensive energy audits, and funding of

energy efficiency projects.

IHS makes exte nsive use of renewable techno logies.

Examples include:

# An Aberdeen Se rvice Area hospital installed a

thermal protection system to prevent a dangerous

overheating potential. This system cost about

$150,000 and was funded by the FY 1999 IHS

non-recurring M&I funding.

# The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) awarded a grant to IHS to install four

solar lights at the living quarters of the IHS

Acoma-Canonc ito-Laguna Hospital in New

Mexico. NREL also awarded a grant to the S anta

Fe Indian Ho spital to study the r efurbishme nt of a

20-year-old solar system.

# The IHS Billings Area is considering the

installation of an experimental solar gene rator in

Fort Washakie, Wyoming. The pro ject was

propo sed by the loc al utility compan y.

# The IHS Phoenix Area is plan ning to install a flat

plate heat exchanger at the San Carlos Indian

Hospital, enabling the central cooling system to use

chilled water directly from the cooling tower under

certain weather conditions. Significant energy

savings are expected.

# In FY 2000, the IHS Anchora ge Area will insta ll a

groundw ater source cooling system in the Alaska

Native Medical Center (ANM C) to suplement the

building chiller cooling ca pacity. The project will

take 38/F groundwater through a heat exchan ger to

provide 44/F chilled water, in lieu of utilizing the

existing three rotary screw chillers. The

preliminary cost estimate for the project is

approx imately $356,0 00 with a simple payback of

7 years. Savings will total more than $50,000 per

year. 

Also in FY 2000, the PSC Parklawn Building will study

the application of a solar wall to pr eheat com bustion air

for the house boiler. A roof-top PV collector system for

domestic hot water heating will also be analyzed.
95

In addition, NIH will perform feasibility studies in FY

2000 to determin e the poten tial applicatio n of

renewable energy techno logies at its sites.

Showcase Facilities

The 1999 HHS showcase facility is the NIH

Consolidated Labora tory Facility, Bu ilding 50 in

Bethe sda, Maryland . The ene rgy-effic iency

technologies installed at this site will save more than $1

million annually, which is more than 40 percent of the

potential energy use without the measure s.

Personnel Development

Six FY 1998 HHS Energy and Water Management

Awards were awarded to HHS personnel for

outstandin g achievements in the conservation and

efficient use of energy a nd water. T he progra m is

administered by the Division of Polciy Coordination,

located within the Office of Facilities Services,

Assistant Sec retary for M anageme nt and Bu dget.

Night-time audits were performed in three HHS

facilities at the end of FY 1999. The aud its were deskto-desk with the purpose of increasing public awareness

of energy efficiency in the work place. No tes were left

on employees’ desks that either commended them for

having all lights and office equipment turned off, or

reminded them to do so. Stickers, magnets, and

information cards were also placed at employees’ desks

and work areas.

There are two employee incentive programs at OS; the

Special Achievement Award and On The Sp ot Awards.

Employee excellence is recognized, including energy

related performance. The HHS energy officer and

contracting staff were awarded a 1999 Federal Energy

and Water Management Award.

HHS energy and facility related personnel receive

energy management training base d on scheduling

opportunities and available funding.

HHS held a one-day energy seminar in FY 1999.

Energy managers and engineers from around the

country attended the seminars to learn the latest on

federal energy efficiency. Speakers from DOE, NREL,

HHS, and private industry presented a wide array of

energy efficiency topics including alternative financing

using actual HHS case studies, renewable energy

opportunities, water conservation, and new

technologies.

The IHS energy coordinator continues to offer a oneweek course for the IHS Area engineers and facility

managers as well as other HHS personnel. At the

completion of this course, the attendees have the option

of taking a four-hour exam administered by the

Association of Energy Engineers for energy manager

certification.

IHS and W ashington S tate University teamed up to

offer a 3-day hands-on HVAC training seminar at four

IHS Portland Area facilities. The seminar discussed

topics which will familiarize facility maintenanc e staff

with energy efficient HVAC operations and

maintenance and troub le shooting procedu res.

Funding

The HHS ener gy projects c ompleted or began in FY

1999 have been funded by direct agency expenditures,

through ESPCs and utility partnerships, and GSA

delegated agency funding. Utility rebates were

requested wherever possible. The total amount invested

in energy and water efficiency projects in FY 1999 was

$4.8 million, which was more than twice the funding

spent in FY 1998. In FY 2000, direct agency funding

for energy and water proj ects is estimated at $3.6

million.

OPDIV energy efficiency and water conservation

project funding was repo rted as follows:

# CDC spent $19 6,000 o n energy co nservation

projects primarily consisting of HVAC

replacements and upgrades. ESPC was used for

lighting upgrades.

# Direct agency funding of $265,000 was spent on

FDA laboratory upgrades consisting of HVAC and

lighting improvements. A power factor correction

project was also directly funded at the FDA NCTR.

The project cost was approximately $35,000 and is

expected to have a simple payback period of two

years.

# IHS spent $4 million on proje cts covering the full

spectrum of energy efficiency measures. The

projects included implementatio n of a thermal

ground-source heat pump loop system to replacing

large central boile rs and chiller, lighti ng system

upgrades, boiler and chiller replacements, building

envelop improvem ents, building control system

installations and upgrades, medica l waste

incinerator upgrade, domestic hot water heater

replacements, air compressor upgrade, window

replacements, HVAC system upgrades to energy

efficient models fuel source conversions, free

cooling system installation using flat plate heat

exchanger, and energy auditing.
96

# OS used $45,400 of direct agency funding to

upgrade lighting systems, track utility

consumption, improve HVAC equipment, and

evaluate generator efficiency and operations.

Major HVAC equipment cleaning was completed

with $70,000 of GSA delegated agency funding.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

FY 1997 was the inaugural year for HHS involvement

in ESP type-contrac ts, and since that time five ESP-type

contracts have been signed. Seven more are expected to

be signed in FY 2000.

# CDC facilities in Atlanta will begin a super ESPC

in early FY 2 000. T his will be a contractoridentified delivery order and should result in a

completed delivery order by FY 2001. The

Interagency Agreement and Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) have already been signed

by both CDC and DOE.

# The CDC o ffice in Cincinna ti has interviewed

Sempra Energy regarding the use of a super ESPC.

Several ideas were discussed such as lighting,

boiler and chiller retrofits, along with reducing the

demand change. The target date for having a

delivery order in place is the 4th quarter of FY 2000

or the 1st quarter of FY 2001.

# The IHS Aberdeen Area and Seattle Engineering

Services has signed an MOU with DOE for

implementation of a Super ESPC delivery order at

28 facilities in North and South Dakota. The IHS

ESPC Team has issued a Task Order to John son

Controls to perform a detailed energ y audit in

order to verify energy saving opportunities prior to

awarding a contract. T he delivery o rder should be

awarded in February 2000. The IHS Oklahoma

City (OKC) Area is also investigating Super ESPC.

The Area office has received a proposal for energy

conservation measure at th ree hospit als and one

health center. Ho wever, since m any IHS h ospitals

and clinics are being turned over to the Tribes, the

OKC Area is awaiting a decision from the Office

of General Counsel on whether the agency should

enter into long -term Supe r ESPC contract.

# The IHS Oklahoma Area is implementing a form

of ESPC, without guaranteed savings, for the

Creek Nation under a Performance Agreement for

Comfort from Trade (PACT) Program. The

detailed facility audit identified several energy

conservation measures for the Creek Nation

Community Hospital in Okemah and three nearby

health clinics. Lighting upgrades, two new aircooled chillers, three new air handling units, a

reduction in kitchen outdoor air quantity, and a

new direct disposal control (DDC) system will be

installed as a res ult of this audit.

Utility Partnerships

In FY 1997, the NIH Frederick Cancer Research and

Development Center (FCRDC) located in Frederick,

MD housed within the DOD Fort Detrick campus

partnered with DOD in developing and signing a B asic

Order Agreeme nt (BOA ) with the local utility

(Allegheny Power). Im plementatio n of the energy

conservation measures began in FY 1999. The total cost

of the targeted projects is $2.3 million with a total

savings of $3.2 million and a p ayback of 10 years.

NIH is also analyzing the use of a GSA Area Wide

Public Utilities contrac t with PEPCO Se rvices to

perform energy audits and evaluate the energy

conservation opportu nities at buildings on its main

campus. The N ational Libra ry of Med icine is the first

building to receive a comprehensive audit and a

feasibility study on the id entified energy conservation

measures (ECM). Contractual negotiations are

underway to impleme nt the ECMs.

NIH has also established an electricity curtailment

program with PEPCO at a lea sed facility in Rockville,

Maryland, and funded the installation of emergency

generators using natural gas instead of fuel oil. These

generators are used as peak shaving devices by

generating electric power during PEPC O peak use

curtailement periods resulting in annual savings of

$18,000.

CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, has signed a GSA Area Wide

with Georgia Power to perform energy efficient lighting

upgrade s at the Clifton Road Fac ility. 

FDA is involved in three se parate utility partnerships:

# The Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center

in Winchester (WEA C) Massachu setts, financed a

lighting replacement project through the local

utility. The project was completed in January 1999,

with estimated sav ings of appr oximately $ 10,000

(a payback of roughly three years).

# The National Center for Toxicological Research

(NCTR) in Jefferson, Arka nsas, has entere d into

GSA A rea Wide with the local utility company to

complete several compre hensive ene rgy projec ts

including energy efficient lighting, building

envelop improvements, HVAC upgrades, cooling

plant improvem ent, energy management control
97

system replacement, and electricity and natural gas

procurement. This contract will save an estimated

one million dollars per year and reduce energy

usage by ap proxima tely 25 perc ent. 

# FDA contracts is currently reviewing ES PC with

PEPCO Services for the Mod ule One fac ility in

Laurel, Maryland. This ESPC vehicle will cover

projects such as chiller replacement and HVAC

equipment and systems upgrades and is anticipated

to be signed in FY 2000.

PSC has entered into a GSA Area Wide Public Utilities

Contract with PEPCO Services at its Parklawn

Building, in Rockville, Maryland. Two projects were

selected for implementation in FY 1999 u nder this

contract. The first project was a large lighting upgrade

which replaced 26,200 fluorescent light fixtures with

energy efficient T-8 fixtures and electronic ballasts. An

additional 322 incandescent down lights were

retrofitted with compact fluorescent kits. This project is

expected to save $211,000 annually and received a

$138,000 utility rebate. The second project involves the

replacement of 360 toilets with water saving models,

which will decrease annual water and sewer costs by

$58,000 and save roughly 6.3 million gallons of water

each year. PSC reports the economic payb ack of these

projects, including rebates, is approximately five years.

The Office of the Secretary is investigating a GSA Area

Wide Public U tilities contract with Washington Gas

Energy Services to implement a lighting project that

involves both delam ping and re trofits. The contract is

targeted for signing in late FY 2000.

The PSC Parklawn Building purchased deregulated gas

in FY 1998 from Washingto n Gas Energy Se rvices,

saving around $ 17,000 for the year. T he facility

remained with Washington Gas in FY 1999, and in FY

2000 will investigate the procurement of natural gas

through DOD’s Defense Energy Service Center.

The IHS Oklahoma Area also signed a contract in FY

1998 to purchase deregulated natural gas. In FY 1999,

annual savings totaled only $ 3,400 d ue to a mild winter

and rate bidding issues. Estimated annu al savings,

under standard conditions, should approach $16,000.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

HHS contracts offices follow the guidelines as

established in the Code of Federal Regulations when

purchasing energy efficient equipment. OPDIVs have

established separate procedures that address recycling

paper, motor oils, fly-ash content in concrete materials,

operations and mainte nance pro ducts, E NERGY STAR®

computers, and many other products. When possible,

HVAC equipment is purchased with the highest

efficiency ratings to take ad vantage of utility reb ates

and is selected and sized near p eak efficiency points.

The handbook from the Federal Procurement Challenge

that provided information on how to buy energy

efficient products has been distributed to all HHS

facility managers.

The OS pro curement o ffice is analyzing a model

purchasing and procurement policy developed by DOE

FEMP. In FY 2000, the policy will be reviewed and

tailored for all HHS OPDIVs in order to meet

Executive Order 3123 requirements on energy efficient

products and service s.

At the IHS Billings Service Area, new energy efficient

produc ts are reviewed by the Facilities Management

Branch engineers using the “SweetSource” product

information catalog. These computerized CD catalogs

are updated and provided on a quarterly basis by the

contracted vendor. T he IHS B emidji, Po rtland, and

Tucson Service Area have written guidelines and

specifications on the procurement of energy efficient

equipme nt. 

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

Facilities in each HHS OPDIV have completed, planned, or are in the process of chiller replacement. New

non-CFC chillers have been installed that no t only

adhere to the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 and

the Clinton Climate Change Action Pla n, but oper ate at

increased efficiency, thereby saving energy. HHS

facilities have also in stituted CFC reduction programs

for other H VAC e quipmen t.

Lighting retrofit and upgrade projects in CDC, FDA,

IHS, and PSC facilities resulted in the disposition of

obsolete bulbs and ballasts in accordance with local

Hazardous Waste Management codes and CERCLA

(Comprehensive Environmental Response ,

Compensation and Liability Act). In some cases, the

fluorescent light tubes were recycled. Estimates show

that the PSC lighting project will eliminate 367 metric

tons of carbon emissions.

The CDC water conservation project co mpleted in FY

1998, is saving app roximate ly 15 million gallons of

water per year. This project involved the installation of

a recirculating cooling tower to provide chilled water to

HVAC water source cooling equipment. The system

previously used cold chiller water that was dumped

down the sewer drain after only one pass through the

equipme nt.
98

The use of a thermal groundwater-source heat pump,

closed-loop system for heating and cooling at the

Albuquerque IHS hos pital eliminate d the need for

natural gas boilers and centrifugal chillers, thus

reducing the emissions of the boiler and chiller

operation. A groundwater-sourc e cooling system is also

targeted for implementation in FY 2000 a t an IHS

hospital in Anchorage, Alaska. The project p roposes to

use groundwater from a drilled well adjacent to the

energy plant, through a heat exchanger to provide

chilled water, thereby eliminating the use of three 335-

ton rotary screw chillers. Significant energy

consumption and carbon emission reductions are

expected.

The NIH Main Campus has made significant strides in

reducing overall source emissions by converting the

central boilers from petroleum-based fuel to natural gas

and upgrading the control and burner systems for more

efficient operation. From 1992 to 1996, the power

plant’s total boiler emissions were reduced from 866 to

144 tons (83 percent reduction). This includes

reductions of nitrous oxide (NOx) from 252 tons to 105

tons over the same period through the installation of

low-NOx

 burners on existing boilers. These emission

reductions are being used as offsets against anticipated

emissions from a proposed 23-megawatt cogeneration

system for which the S tate of Maryland has issued an

Air Quality P ermit to Co nstruct.

Energy Manag ement 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 
99

HUD Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

6. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Housing and Urban

Development reported a decrease in energy

consumption in buildings of 9.1 percent in Btu per

gross square foot compared to FY 1985.

HUD Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

 BBtu $ (Th ou.)

Electricity 84.8 1,814.2

Natural Gas 0.3 2.7

Purchased Steam 21.2 317.5

Total 106.3 2,13 4.4

In order to meet the goal of 20 percent reduction per

square foot by the year 2000 as required by the

National Energy Conservatio n Policy Act, Section 543

(a), HUD plans to implement the following energy

conservation measures (ECM’s) during FY 2000:

# Lighting retrofit throughout building. Change T12, 34 watt with magnetic balla st fluorescent

lights with T-8, 32 watt lights with reflector and

electronic b allast.

# Replace original exiting cafeteria steam dishwasher, two hot top ranges, and one griddle top

range with an energy efficient dishwasher, two

open burner skeleton ranges, and a char broiler.

HUD follows the operations and maintenance (O&M)

procedures as outlined in GSA’s Building

Maintenance Management Handbook and E nergy

Management Handbook. These handbooks are used to

implement the rules and regulations for Federal

Energy Property Management. In addition, updated

written guidelines are issued to the O&M contractor

annually to ensure operating procedures for heating,

ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) coincide with

newly implemented ene rgy initiatives.

The HUD Headquarters Building currently uses FEDS

software to perform energy audits when analyzing energy

data to develop appropriate and cost effective energy

conserva tion proje cts and initiatives. H ighest priority is

given to the energy conservation measures which show

the quickest payback (10 years or less) and/or energy

savings.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

The HUD H eadquarters Building currently has no clear

and renewable energy projects, however, HUD

Headquarters plans to participate in these types of energy

initiatives through DOE as they are available.

Showcase Facilities

The HUD H eadquarters Building is a DOE Government

Showcase Facility. An audit will be performed during

FY 2000 to incorpor ate advanc ed techno logies and

practices for energy efficienc y, water conservation, and

solar and other renewa ble energy sources.

Personnel Development

HUD’s energy coordinators have attended the ESPC

workshop given through the DOE Federal Energy

Management Program.

Three HUD e mployees continue to be recognized for

their contributions for energy management programs

through the Federal Energy Management Program

(FEMP) “Y ou Have the Power” campaign.

Funding

Funding for HUD ’s ECMs has b een provided by the

GSA Energy Conservation Program, by DOE, and

through HUD’s repair and alteration funds as they are

available. 

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

HUD tried to enter into two ESPCs in the past. The first

ESPC was cancele d in FY 1 991 whe n GSA d ecided to

incorpo rate a lighting retrofit as part of the building wide

Sprinkler Installation Project. The second ESPC was

canceled in FY 1996 when GSA replaced HUD ’s main

chillers as part of the chloroflourocarbon (CFC)

reduction program.
100

Utility Partnerships

During FY 1999, PE PCO and Wash ington Gas, two

local utilities performed energy audits at the

Headquarters building. The two energy conservation

measures (total cost, $1.1 million) scheduled for FY

2000 were identified in these audits and will be

implemented using the GSA Public Utilities Area

Wide Contract.

HUD also implements a self imposed load curtailment

program and parti cipates in PEPCO’s Load

Curtailment Program in order to maintain building

demand at a predete rmined leve l.

HUD will be contrac ting the local wa ter utility to

perform a water audit during FY 2000.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

The produc ts purchased during FY 1999 w ere in

compliance with all Federa l recommendation

regarding energy efficiency and were covered by the

EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR® program.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

HUD Headquarters ha s implemented several

environmentally friendly energy conservation measures

which include the following:

# HUD currently recycles plastic, glass, paper,

cardboard, and polystyrene.

# Replaced existing CFC chillers with non-CFC

energy efficient chillers.

# Installed thermostatic controls on perimeter fan coil

units througho ut the building to maintain

temperature standard s in exterior offices.

# Installed solar film on 1 ,584 exte rior windo ws to

limit ultraviolet rays and for better control of

interior temperatures.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Michael T. Zelaska

Director, Building Operations Division

Department of Housing and Urban De velopment

Room 5180

451 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410-3000

Phone: 202-708-2711 x227

Fax: 202-708-0299 
101

Interior Perform ance To ward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

7. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Interior Department reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 15 .7

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

Interior Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,546.4 35,605 .3

Fuel Oil 486.6 2,508.6

Natural Gas 1,352.3 4,863.0

Propane 348.5 2,390.7

Coal 0.7 0.4

Purchased Steam 31.6 470.1

Other 28.5 149.0

Total 3,794.6 45,987 .1

The Interior Department Energy Management Plan for

Buildings and Facilities, revised in June 1995 to meet

requirements of EPACT and Executive Order 12902,

provides guidance to its Bureaus in e stablishing and

implementing energy man agement program s.

In FY 1999, the Department established a renewed

emphasis on energy management through an Interior

Management Leadership Program (EML ). The

Departmental Energy Conservation Com mittee

developed recommendations for implementing energy

efficiency and green energy-saving technology

initiatives Department-wide.

The Bureau of Reclamation continued in FY 19 99 to

evaluate prioritization surveys to determine facilities for

comprehensive audits. Energy conservation projects in

Reclamation are usually financed via the operations and

maintenance funds identified for energy conservation as

a working capital fund.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) nominated 27

sites for energy audits utilizing the S AVEnergy Aud it

program conducted through DOE’s Federal Energy

Management Program (FEM P). Through FY 1999, six

of 27 nominated surveys were completed.

The U.S. Geological Survey accomplished preliminary

audits at the Powell Building in Reston, Virginia and

condition assessments at the Patuxent W ildlife Research

Center, Maryland. A comprehensive audit has been

completed for the EROS Data Ce nter in South Dakota.

The National Park Service (NPS) formed an ‘energy

partnership’ with James Madison University (JMU).

The program enlisted students from JMU’s Integrated

Science and Technology Program to work with NPS

engineers. Projec tsincluded energy surveys, developing

an innovative database to trach energy consumption and

costs, and identification of a renewa ble energy p roject.

In April 199 9, a memo randum o f understanding was

signed between DOE and the Department to further

solidify the partnership between NPS and DOE. This

new program is called the “Green Energy Parks

Program: Making the Na tional Parks a Showca se for a

Sustainable Energy Future (GEPP).” The program

promotes the use of ener gy efficient and re newable

energy technologies and prac tices in the National Parks,

and educates the visiting public about the cost and

environmental benefits o f energy impro vements. 

Preliminary audits were conducted in the Main Interior

Complex which identified lighting opportunities. Other

bureaus also reported using the FEDS Level II software

to perform energy aud its.

The following energy and water conservation audits and

initiatives were under way or completed during FY

1999:

Bureau of Reclamation:

# Xeriscaping was used at the newly constructed

Centennial Job Corp Center in Nampa, Idaho.

# The Hungry H orse Field Office, Montana

continued to retrofit their lighting system.

# New insulation, siding, double pane windows, and

new doors were installed in the crew quarters at
102

Jackson Lake Dam, W yoming.

# The Folsom Dam, California HVAC system was

upgrade d. 

# Energy-efficient water heaters were installed at the

Lake Berryessa dormitory. Also, a non-operational

solar hot water system was evaluated for use.

# A lighting retrofit at two facilities in Bo ulder City,

Nevada.

# The heating and cooling system at Carl Hayden

Visitors Center has been re placed. T he system is

saving approximately 31,000 kilowatt-hours and

$24,000 per month during the cooling season and

20,000 kilowatt-hours and $1,600 during the

heating season.

Fish and Wildlife Service:

# The Mora National Fish Hatchery and Technology

Center of the Southwestern Fisheries Technology

Center in New Mexico has incorporated extensive

water reuse into the design of the hatchery.

U.S. Geological Survey:

# At the John Wesley Powell Fe deral Bu ilding in

Reston, VA, maintenance on existing equipment

and systems was completed to maintain peak

operating efficiency. The building automation

system is utilized to operate systems in accordance

with the building operating plan, reducing

equipment run times, adjusting space tempera tures,

and shedding load s during peak period s.

# Projec ts to be completed at the EROS Da ta Center,

Sioux Falls, South Dakota during FY 2000 include

the replacement of an uninterrup tible powe r supply

and a lighting retrofit. Estimated annual savings are

$37,800.

# Various Biological Resources Division Science

and Research Centers hav e undertak en to install

several energy conservation measures including

lighting retrofits, HVAC system upgrades, new

fume hoods, b oiler and chiller replacements,and

installation of ene rgy-efficient office eq uipment. 

Bureau of Land M anageme nt:

# The Administrative Office Building for the Alaska

Fire Service upgraded its insulatio n, replaced its

roof, and conducted a lighting and HV AC retro fit.

# The Northern Field Office in Fairbanks, Alaska

conducted a lighting retrofit and replaced the roof

and insulation.

# Little Sahara and Fillmore Fire stations in Utah had

a lighting retrofit and low-e windows installed.

# The Fillmore, U tah Field Office replaced a HVAC

roof-mounted unit. Both the Lower Snake River

District Office in Idaho and the Roseburg, Oregon

District Office also upgraded their HVAC systems.

# The Colorado State Office installed a natural gas

heating system and tinted window c overings.

# The Saguache Field Office improved insulation

and air flow.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

The Department has become a leader in ground source

heat pumps, with seven proje cts installed since 1994,

including the $11 m illion, 42,000 squ are foot P rairie

Learning Center in P rairie City, Iowa, and th e $6.3

million, 22,000 square foot Visitor Center in the

Wichita M ountains W ildlife Refuge, O klahoma. 

The NPS u ses an innova tive strategy to augment

funding for a number of photovoltaic projects.

Photov oltaic installations are used as training sessions

to provide p articipants with hands-on training including

site selection, assembly, battery connections and wiring,

and maintenanc e. Training fees are used to subsidize

the project cost. In FY 1999, this strate gy was used to

install photovo ltaics at Horn Island, Gulf Shore

National Seashore.

During FY 1999 photovo ltaic projec ts were installed at

the following 13 NP S sites:

# Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona;

# Alcatraz Island National H istoric Site, California;

# Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida;

# Hawaii V olcanoes National P ark, Hawa ii;

# Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana;

# Isle Royle National Park, Michigan;

# Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina;

# Round Top Mountain at Dinosaur National

Monument, Utah;

# Rainbow Point, Bryce National Park, Utah;

# Manti-LaSal National Forest, Utah;

# Zion National Park, Utah;

# Lake Roosev elt National Recreation Area,

Washington; and,

# USS A rizona visitor’s site parking lot.
103

These projects included photovoltaic powered lights,

trailer-mounted systems, power systems, and solar

water heating systems.

During FY 1999, the Bureau of Indian Affairs installed

several renewable energ y systems:

# The Sherman Indian School in Riverside,

California installed a new pho tovoltaic system that

can supply 30 kilowatts of power and will be

connected to the power distribution grid. The

project will also be used as an educational and

training resource.

# The Truxton Canyon A gency installed three

photovo ltaic systems at facilities in Supai, Arizona,

on the Havasupai Indian Reservation. Power will

be provided to the school, jail, and government

housing. This will also be used for training.

# The Seba Dalkai school in Arizona installed a

building-integrated photovo ltaic system to help

prevent blackouts and brow nouts in the scho ol’s

computer-based curriculum.

# The Fort Apache Agency installed five wind

turbines in Arizona to provide reliable power for

fire lookout towers in the White Mountains.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region

installed grid tied solar panels at the Water Education

Center, Folsom, CA. Financial incentives and other

services provided by utilities are utilized whenever

possible to promote the use of renewables. For

example, Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the

Western Area Power Administration subsidized the cost

of the solar panels installation at the Education Center

and the donation of two electric buses from Sacr amento

County. Reclamation is also installing a solar lighting

system for outdoor lights at Davis Dam, Arizona.

Reclamation, as the nation’s sixth largest producer of

hydroelec tric power, is committed to provide hydro

power in a cost effective manner and to protect the

water resources necessary to produce this power.

In FY 1999 the Bureau of Land Management completed

11 photovoltaic projects. Six were for facility power,

four for water pumping projects, and one for lighting.

The U.S. Geological Survey has installed 11 solar

powered emergency telephones in parking lots in

Reston, Virginia.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) installed several

renewable projects during FY 1999:

# The Alchesay National Fish Hatchery in Arizona

repaired a solar-powered early warning system.

This system provides notice to downstream

facilities of an impending flood.

# The Farallon N ational W ildlife Refuge in

California completed a photov oltaic system which

converted the diesel generator system to a 6.84

kilowatt photovoltiac system with generator backup. Fuel usage fell from 5 ,000 gallo ns per year to

600 gallons. Operations and maintenance savings

are estimated at $82,00 0 annually. Annual energy

savings are estimated at 61 million Btu.

# The Cusano Environmental Education Center

installed a geothermal heat pump.

# The John He inz Nation al Wildlife Refuge in

Pennsylvan ia included a geothermal system in the

design of a new education/headquarters building.

# The Madison Wetland Manageme nt District in

South Dakota replaced an existing solar system and

heat pumps with a geothermal heat pump system.

# Five wind energy projects have been constructed at

National Wildlife Refuges in Brazoria and

Hagerman, Texas, Harris Neck, G eorgia, M axwell,

New Mexico, and H awaii. These are not curre ntly

operation al due to high maintenanc e costs. 

Proposed FWS renewable projects for FY 2000 include

a photovo ltaic power system at the Havasu National

Wildlife Refuge in Arizona and a solar hot water system

at the Imperia l National W ildlife Refuge also in

Arizona.

The Department continues to work with DOE and the

Corporation for Solar Tech nology and Renewab le

Resources (CSTRR) on the purchase of ‘green’

electricity.

Showcase Facilities

The Department designated the National Conservation

Training Center (NCTC) in West Virginia as a new

construction energy saver showcase. Passive solar

energy strategies and energy-efficient technologies and

recycled materials were incorporated in the design and

construction.

Two FWS b uildings were recognized a s showcases in

1998. The W ichita Mo untains Visitor Center in

Indiahoma, Oklahoma displays earth coupled heat

pumps. The Pr airie Learning Center in P rairie City,

Iowa displays earth coupled heat pumps along with

earth sheltering, celestory lighting, low-flow plumbing
104

and wetland s waste water tre atment.

Reclamation has four showcase facilities. Glen Canyon

Dam Visitor’s Center demon strates energy conserva tion

within a hydroelectric generating facility. Lighting

retrofits and occupancy sensors are being installed

throughout the facility. Toilets were replaced with lowflush units, single pane windows with insulated glass,

and the existing solar hot water heating system was

repaired.

The Denver Federal Center showcase facility is a joint

effort between Reclamation, GSA, DOE, EPA, the local

water utility, and four manufacturers of water-saving

devices. This 2-year project demonstrates and evaluates

water conservation technologies and provides a learning

center for other Federal agencies, private or ganizations,

and the general public. The project will also document

the performance of water conse rvation devices,

determine life-cycle cost savings, and determine if

improvements are needed before deployment in the

Federal sector. An irrigation control system was a lso

installed, and a xeriscape garden has been planted.

Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Reg ion showcase

facility is the new Centennial Job Cor ps Center in

Nampa, Idaho. A dedication ceremony for the new

center was held in October 1997. Included at the

October dedication ceremony was an exhibit that

featured the energy-efficient and water-conservation

technologies.

The Davis Dam Building in Bullhead City, Arizona,

highlights lighting and electric savings opportunities.

NPS’s showcase is the Golden Gate Club at Golden

Gate National Recreation A rea in California. The U.S.

Geological Survey’s EROS Data Center’s Mundt

Building in South Dakota exhibits mechanical

upgrades. No new showcases were identified in FY

1999.

Personnel Development

Several bureaus have developed energy management

workbooks and training packages covering the various

energy-efficiency and renewable ene rgy technologies.

These are helpful in raising awareness and providing

educational opportunities for employees and have

resulted in the sharing of ideas and promotion of energy

conserva tion manag ement. 

Energy managersinvolved in building energy efficiency

and water conservation have attended workshops

offered by DOE’s Federal Energy Manage ment

Program. Several have also attended training offered by

other organizations such as GSA, EPA, the Association

of Energy Engineers, public utilities, and Bureau energy

coordinators meetings. Energy managers are

encouraged to attend as much training as local funding

will allow.

Both the NPS and the FWS were recognized for

excellence in the area of renewable energy at the 1999

Federal Energy and Water M anagement Award s.

Funding

The Department funded $1.73 million in retrofit and

capital equipme nt for FY 1 999. Estimated project

funding for FY 2000 is $900,000 and $700,000 for FY

2001. As in previous years, the Department funding for

retrofit and capital improvements result from

expenditures from the Bureaus’ operations,

maintenanc e, constructio n, and reha bilitation funds. 

During FY 1999, NPS committed the following to

support the Green Energy Parks program: $500,0 00 to

fund the planning and implementation of sustainable

energy parks in 20 parks around the country, and

$75,000 to jointly fund with FEMP a university-based

audit program that will conduct audits in 14 parks by

September 30, 2000.

DOE committed nearly $1 million in FY 1 999 to the

Green Energy Parks program. The Clean Cities and

Regional Biomass programs contributed $500,000 to

fund acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles. FEMP

contributed $100,000 to fund energy projects, and

$75,000 to the university audit program. FEM P also

provided a minimum of $150,000 in technical

assistance to for the implementation of energy projects.

In FY 1999, the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory provided $35,00 0 in funding for renewable

energy opportunity assessmen ts on 20 FW S field

stations. The assessments will be made using the

Federal Renewable Energy Screening Assistant

software and other analysis method s.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also applied for FEMP

Renewa ble Energy Project Funding for two projects (a

10 kilowatt wind g enerator at E rie Nationa l Wildlife

Refuge in Pennsylvania and a 40 kilowatt wind

generator in Prime Hook National Wild life Refuge in

Delaware) in FY 1999. The projects were not selected

for funding.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

ESPCs currently in plac e are lighting pr ojects at the

National Park Ser vice’s Statue o f Liberty and E llis

Island National Monument, and three Bureau of

Reclamation sites including Weber Basin Job Corp

Center, Colbran Job Corp Center, and the Provo Area
105

Office. 

The use of the indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity

contracts d eveloped by NPS in conjunction with DOE

is expected to increase familiarization with ESPCs and

hopefully increase the number of ESPCs in the

Departm ent.

Presently, at the Lake Mead National Recreational

Center in Nevada, NPS is exploring the possibility of

building five park entrance stations that would be

powered by photovoltaics and heated by ground source

heat pumps. N PS is very inter ested in using D OE’s

technology-specific, photovo ltaic Super E SPC to

complete this project.

Utility Partnerships

NPS and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company

negotiated an innovative demand side management

contract that pays NPS for energy saved. N ow in its

fifth year, savings are approaching $1 million.

Each Reclamation office is encouraged to period ically

check with their utility to determine if any incentives

are being offered.

The U.S. Geolog ical Survey, as a n ongoing part of their

energy and water management program, consults with

servicing utilities at least annually to ensure that each

facility has the lowest possible rate schedule. Utilities

are consulted about incentive and rebate opportun ities.

High energy-use systems are scheduled to take advantage of off-pea k rates. 

Fish and Wildlife Service field stations also maintain

contact with their local utilitie s in order to obtain any

available demand -side management services.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

The Departm ent is currently making eve ry effort within

budgetary limitations to implement applicable rules and

regulations regarding procurement of energy-efficient

goods and service s.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The Bureau of Land Managem ent introduced a fleet of

75 bicycles that are used in lieu of motor vehicles at

Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The bicycles save thousands

of dollars in fuel and maintenance, and provide exercise

for employee s. At other bu reau sites, the use of mass

transit and car pooling is encouraged, and a pro posal to

reduce fuel consumption was presented to bureau

Deputy State Directors for Administration.

During FY 1999, NPS established a several initiatives

in partnership with the Department of Transportation,

including:

# Grand Canyon National Park; natural gas and

electric transit vehicles, bike trails, and a fixed rail

system.

# Zion National Pa rk; propane buses.

# Yosemite National P ark; two electric buses with

plans for a multi-modal system.

# Golden Gate National Recreation Area currently

has an electric tram and is pursuing a multi-modal

system includin g water-base d transit.

# Cape Cod National Seashore acquired two hybrid

electric buses to replace aging veh icles.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

Environmental and energ y education efforts are being

implemented on a daily basis and include information

about energy and water conservation needs, purchase of

energy-efficient equipment, replacing lighting and

plumbing fixtures with energy/water efficient

equipme nt, and entering into dem onstration p rojects

and partnerships with others.

At the request of the Departmen t of the Interior’s

Management Council, a task force of bureau energy

managers was convened to develop recommendations

for implemen ting energy efficien cy and gree n energysaving technology initiatives Department-wide. The

recommendations help provide energy management

leadership and will be incorporated into the

Departmental Energy Management and W ater Conservation Plan for Buildings and Facilities.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. John Moresko

Property M anagement Spe cialist

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
106

Justice Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

8. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Justice reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 40 .5

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

Justice Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 3,224.1 53,471 .5

Fuel Oil 104.4 639.8

Natural Gas 4,393.4 19,681 .3

Propane 10.6 4.5

Coal 62.9 123.0

Purchased Steam 249.6 2,734.7

Other 2.0 0.0

Total 8,047.0 76,654 .8

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) funded and completed six

energy audits in FY 1999, bringing its total number of

completed audits to 70. An additional fo ur audits will

be funded in FY 2000. The remaining institutions which

have not been su rveyed are primarily institutions that

have been activated within the past five years and

already include energy con servation design features.

The following energy and water conservation audits and

initiatives were under way or completed during FY

1999:

Bureau of Prison s:

# Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Sandstone,

Minnesota. This project entails the installation of

an energy management system. Projected annual

energy savings are in ex cess of 48 b illion Btu with

the expected payback of the initial investment

projected to be in the second year of operation.

# United States Me dical Facility for Federal

Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri. Project elements

include the replacem ent of an air conditioning unit

with an energy-efficient model, and a lighting

retrofit. Projected annual savings in electrical

consumption are estimated at 400 ,000 kilow atthours with an associated cost savings of more than

$15,000. Simple payback is expected to occur in

four years.

# FCI Florence, Colorado. Lighting controls were

installed and are expected to reduce electrical

consumption by over 1 million kilowatt-hours per

year, with associated electrical charges expected to

decrease by approximately $45,000 annually.

Payback is expected in year two. Also at FCI

Florence, water saving devices for showers and

faucets were installed. Natural gas consumption

will decrease by more than 96,000 terms annua lly,

with attributable annual cost savings of more than

$18,000. Savings from the decrease in water

consumption are estimated to be in excess of

$290,000 per year. Payba ck will occur in one year.

# FCI Englewood, Colorad o. A lighting retro fit will

produce estimated annual savings of more than

740,000 kilowatt-hours a nd $37 ,000. Simple

payback will occur in the sixth year.

# United States Penitentiary (USP), Leavenworth,

Kansas. New HID high mast lights were installed

with projected energy savings of more than

200,000 kilowatt-hours and $17,000 per year.

Simple payback will occur in year five.

# Federal Detention Cen ter, Miami, Florida. A

lighting retrofit will produce estimated annual

savings of more than 300,000 kilowatt-hours and

$20,000. Simple payback will occur in year five.

# FCI Seagoville, Texas. A lighting retrofit will

produce estimated annual savings of more than

640,000 kilowatt-hours a nd $25 ,000. Simple

payback will occur in year three.

# Metropolitan Detention Center, New York, New

York. A lighting retrofit will produce estimated

annual savings of more than 75,000 kilowatt-hours

and $8,000. Simple payback will occur in year

seven.

# FCI Allenwoo d, Pennsylv ania. A lighting re trofit
107

and the replacement of exit signs with LED signs

will produce estimated annual savings of more than

125,000 kilowatt-hours and $9,000 . Simple

payback will occur in year ten.

# USP Marion , Illinois. Energy-efficient windows

were installed with annual energy savings in excess

of nine tons of coal. Payback will occur in year

eight.

# Federal Prison Ca mp, Yan kton, South Dakota. A

HVAC system upgrade and improvements to the

energy managem ent system will produce estimated

annual savings of more than 54,000 kilowatt-hours

with an annual reuction in utility charges and

maintenance. Payback will occur in year 11.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):

# In addition to the $1.8 million energy management

system contract to be awarded in FY 2000, the FBI

is implemen ting additiona l energy conservation

projects at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC.

These include installing new high-efficiency

lighting in garages, installing high-efficiency

motors and variable-speed drives for pumps, and

the installation of a new air handler with a high

efficiency motor for th e gymnasium. An energy

conservation program was a lso installed to

centrally shut off perimeter office lighting during

non-office hours.

# Equipment at the FBI Academy in Quantico,

Virginia that used number 2 fuel oil is being

converted to natural gas. Also, chillers are being

replaced with more e fficient units.

# The Strategic Information and Operation Center at

FBI Headquarters ha s been designed and

constructed using variable frequency drives on

chilled water pumps, high efficiency compressors

and dimmab le electronic ballasts.

Six new energy-efficient refrigerated rooms are planned

to replace existing equipment at the FBI Headquarters

cafeteria, and new, more efficient, escalator motors are

to be installed in 2004. Funding has been requested for

replacement of the original Headquarters elevator

generators in FY 20 00. 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA):

# DEA is conducting a lighting retrofit at its

Headquarters facility that should b e comple ted

during FY 2000.

# 320 500-watt sodium vapor lamps have been

repalced with eight-foot, energy-efficient, high

lumen output flourescent fixtures in the DEA

garage facility. The new fixtures have been placed

on timers that activate every third fixture from 6:00

PM to 6:00 AM daily instead of lighting the entire

garage 36 5 days per year, 24 ho urs each da y.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

The BOP ESPC discussed below utilizes solar power to

provide hot domestic water to a prison in Arizona.

The FBI will includ e renewab le energy sources in

future designs wherever feasible. So far, budget

constraints have prevented the use of active solar or

other renewable technolog ies in new FBI construction

projects, but passive solar design has been

incorporated. The FBI has identified sites that would be

cost-effective for active solar en ergy retrofits. 

Showcase Facilities

INS will attempt to sho wcase three facilities in FY

2000:

# The Batavia, N ew York Federal D etention Fac ility

was completed in FY 1999; its design incorporates

energy-efficient materials and equipment, and the

facility has entered into a nationa l fuels contract to

purchase natural gas at less than market price,

saving thousands o f dollars annu ally. Electric

power is supplied b y an INS-owned transformer

rather than the local u tility, saving more than

$60,00 0 annually.

# The Krome Service Proce ssing Center in South

Florida is being design ed with energ y-efficient

mate rials and equipment, including solar

technologies.

# A Borde r Patrol Sta tion in Reme y, Puerto Rico is

being designed with the use of energy-efficient

materials and equip ment, includin g solar power

backup.

DOJ will establish a goal of designating at least one

facility from each of its bureaus in FY 2000 as a

showcase facility.

Personnel Development

DOJ periodica lly conducts m eetings with its Bu reaus to

disseminate information and provide guidance and

assistance. In FY 1999, DOJ m ade arran gements with

DOE representa tives to presen t alternative energy

strategies and metho ds of funding to the major Burea us.
108

Energy conservatio n has been a topic at the bi-annual

Facilities Managem ent training course. The cou rse

generally has 25 participants from throughout the

Bureau of Prisons. Topics include such items as review

of the energy program and required documentation for

requesting energy pro jects. A life-cycle costing

workshop has been provided at some of the more recent

courses.

Efforts in promoting energy conservation can be

recognized in performance evaluations of BOP

personnel involved with the energy conservation

program. The in-house eng ineering staff of the FBI is

responsible for energy management activities and the

position description s and perfo rmance ev aluations fo r

these engineers reflects that proper energy and wate r

conservation methods be used in job performance.

Bureaus will be encouraged to establish sep arate award

programs for energy and water conservation. However,

existing employee award pro grams are su fficiently

broad to recognize these types of contributions.

Employees are nominated for Federal Energy and

Water M anageme nt Awards a nnually.

Funding

Energy conservation projects have been funded in the

amount of $1,529,000 during FY 19 99. The se projec ts

have an estimated annual ener gy savings of ov er 70.7

billion Btu.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

Operation commenced during FY 1999 on the ESPC at

FCI Phoenix in Arizona. Under this ESPC, a solar hot

water system has be en installed that w ill provide a large

percentage of the domestic hot water for the prison. The

ESPC became operational in February 1999; as of June

1999, total savings were $33,070. Additional savings of

$500 per month result from decreased required

maintenanc e. 

Utility Partnerships

The BOP has actively taken part in a number of utility

incentives and rebate programs in an effort to reduce

the amount o f Government funding required to

complete energy con servation pr ojects. Bo th electric

and natural gas utilities have worked with BOP by

providing services, guidance, and financial incentives

on lighting and HVAC system improvements. The Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) will also be addressing

these issues with Virginia Power as part of its energy

audit procedure.

The FBI Headquarters and the Main Justice Building

participate in the PEPCO energy curtailment program

during peak coo ling periods in the summer mo nths.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

The BOP’s policy requires the selection of en ergyconsuming equipme nt be mad e on the ba sis of life cycle

cost analysis.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

DOJ’s Justice Manag ement Div ision (JM D) is curren tly

working with a major automob ile manufactur er to

acquire two compressed natural gas (CNG) sedans and

an electric pickup truck to supp ort the moto r pool in

Washington, DC.

The BOP is in the process of locating compressed

natural gas vehicles at several of their prison facilities.

CNG refueling pumps and vehicles have been funded

and currently are on order.

The U.S. Marshals Service purchased seven methanol

flex-fuel vehicles when the infrastructure was expected

to increase. Since this expectation was not met, it will

pursue other types of AFV.

JMD staff is serving on a government-wide committee

that has chosen six U.S. cities to create pilot programs

that will assist in the development of alternate fuel

vehicle (AFV) m arkets by incre asing local

infrastructures to support AFV use. In addition, the

GSA is sponsoring a similar program in Washington,

DC. These cities will be targeted for vehicle placeme nt,

fueling infrastructure, and combining with local

government fleets to crea te an AFV market.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

BOP and FBI include energy and water conse rvation

criteria in their position descriptions and performance

evaluations for relevant staff members.

DOJ encourag es its Bureau s to establish separate award

programs for energy and water conservation.

Emplo yees are also nominated for the annual Federal

Energy and W ater Managem ent Awards.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. William Lawrence

Energy Program Manager

U.S. Department of Justice

Main Justice Building, Suite 1050

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Phone: 202-616-2417

Fax: 202-307-1874 
109

Labor Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

9. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Labor reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 22 .5

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

DOL Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Tho u.)

Electricity 630.0 12,092 .8

Fuel Oil 159.0 535.7

Natural Gas 856.7 4,419.0

Propane 29.9 191.2

Purchased Steam 22.3 333.8

Total 1,697.9 17,572 .5

DOL’s steep declin e in Btu/G SF during FY 19 99 is

partially attributable to incomplete reporting. Labor

reported consump tion in only 2.0 million square feet of

buildings space in FY 1999. This is compared to 18.6

million square feet in FY 1998. While not all data was

reported during FY 1999, DO L’s building inventory

remains at ap proxima tely 19 million sq uare feet.

In compliance with the Executive Order 13123, Job

Corps Program has developed a strategic plan to fulfill

the requireme nts of this order and to reduce energy

consumption in all its facilities using a combination of

energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), areawide utility contracts, and direct agenc y funding. In

addition, many Job Corps Centers (JCCs) have

developed a no-cost/low cost energy conservation

program to reduce th e facility energy co nsumption . 

Facility energy aud its finalized during FY 1999

included Gary, IN; Pittsburgh, PA; Kittrell, NC; Inland

Empire, CA; and Sacramento, CA Job Corps C enters.

Building envelope improvements, HVAC and electrical

system upgrade s, lighting retrofits, and water

conservation efforts have been implemented at the

following JCCs during F Y 199 9: 

# Albuquerque,

# Clearfield,

# Delawar e Valley; 

# Guthrie,

# Kicking Horse,

# Kittrell, 

# Penob scot,

# Ramey;

# Tongu e Point,

# Tulsa, and

# Turner.

Future projects under consideration include:

# Conduct EPA Green Lights Program. This program

is designed to promote energy efficiency by

implementing cost effective programs to maintain

or improve the quality of safety of the workplace.

# Conduct a survey and monitor energy use each

week for three months. The survey will provide a

source of energy use informatio n, and

recommendations for a director of best practices

can be identified from survey results.

# Review light practices a nd recom mend pr oposals

for lighting, e.g., if you don’t need it, turn it off.

There are a significant sa vings availab le with

improved lighting control. Find out what

information is available from the “Watts-On”

program from PEPCO.

# Other Projects. Develop a quarterly information

exchange bulletin. Conduct annual energy

management seminar. Sch edule events throughout

the year with continuous empha sis applied to the

energy management program to educate employees

within the organization.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

San Diego JCC utilizes solar energy for domestic water

heating. Plans to upgrade and recommission an existing

non-functional solar water heating system at the Gary

Job Corps Center are underway as part of ESPC

discussed below.

Showcase Facilities

The variation of function am ong the typica lly small
110

buildings of Job Corps facilities limits the choice of

suitable candidate buildings. In addition, the limited

public exposure of Job Corps buildings further

diminishes the potential benefits of showcase

construction. As a result, no showcase facilities have

been constructed.

Personnel Development

Plans to attend the ESPC, Super ESP C and other energy

management workshop s are under way for design ated

energy managers.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

Job Corps is cu rrently involved with two pro jects

utilizing DO E’s Regio nal Super E SPCs: 

# The DOE Central Region selected the Gary JCC as

one of two federa l facilities to be include d in their

RFP solicitation. Sempra Energy services, the

selected energy services company, has developed

a report of all applicable energy conservation

measures and financing. The projectscope includes

lighting upgrades, installatio n of progra mmable

thermostats, replacement of HVAC equipment in

several buildings, water measures, and the

refurbishment and decomm issioning of a cu rrently

non-operational solar hot water heating system. It

is anticipated that the Gary delivery order will be

signed soo n. 

# ERI Services has prepared a scope for both the

Inland Empire JCC and Sacramento JCC as a

bundled ESPC project. The project incorporates

lighting upgrades. DOL signed the delivery order

and construction should be completed in December

1999.

Utility Partnerships

Job Corps is currently working on two projects which

utilize GSA Area-W ide Contracts:

# Kittrell JCC completed negotiations with Carolina

Power and Light (CP&L) for an energy

conservation project. CP&L has commenced the

design/retro fit phases and the lighting retrofit work

will be comp lete by the end of this calendar year.

# Pittsburgh JCC initiated an energy conservation

retrofit project with Equitable G as, the natural gas

supplier for the center. T he preliminary project

proposal submitted b y the utility compa ny is

currently being reviewed by DOL. It is anticipated

that funds to implement this project will be paid up

front by DOL as opposed to using a financing

option. The proposal includes a center-wide

lighting retrofit and modification of the current

natural gas rate schedule.

Job Corps has also taken steps to take advantage of

electricity deregulation. An agreement has been made

between DOL a nd GSA , Mid-Atla ntic Region to

purhase electricity at a competitive rate for Pittsburgh,

Keystone, Red Rock and Edison JCCs. Throug h this

agreeme nt, the lowest rates available will be obtained.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The DOL vehicle fleet consists of ap proxima tely 4,000

GSA Fleet vehicles a nd 190 agency ow ned or le ased

vehicles. In co mpliance w ith Executive Order 13031 -

Federal Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership, the

DOL has acquired vehicles in the following categories:

ethanol flex fuel, dedicated methanol, compressed

natural gas and electric vehicles.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

All agencies are required to recycle white paper,

newspaper, glass, and aluminum can. Containers have

been placed thro ughout D OL build ings for employees

to recycle. Funds from recycling are given to the DOL

Child Development Center for tuition subsidies for

DOL employees and improvem ents to the Center.

Contractors that provide goods and services to the DOL

are encouraged to use recycled goods and

environmentally-preferable pro ducts.

The Atlanta Reg ional Office is partnering with the State

of Georgia in support o f the Partnersh ip Initiative for a

Smog Free Georgia. Several environmental activities

which comply with mandates of the Clean Air Act have

also been implemented.

As part of an education and awareness program a

Recycled Produc ts Fair is being plann ed. Vend ors will

be invited to sell environmental preferable products and

services, to display their merchand ise, and to provide an

opportunity for employees to become aware of what

types of goods and services are available.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Ms. Patricia C. Clark

Department of Labor Energy Manager

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Phone: 202-219-5205 X115

FAX: 202-501-6886

E-mail: pcclark@dol.gov
111

State Perform ance To ward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

10. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of State reported a

decrease in energy con sumption in b uildings of 7.0

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

State Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,553.0 33,243 .2

Fuel Oil 1,098.0 3,883.9

Natural Gas 349.0 2,060.2

Purchased Steam 12.3 646.7

Total 3,012.2 39,834 .0

The extreme fluctuations in the State Depa rtment’s

Btu/GSF is a result of the inclusion of energy

consumption and square footage from the Foreign

Buildings Operations for certain years. During FY

1998, the State Department developed a statistical

method for estimating the energy co nsumption of its

foreign buildings worldwide and included these

estimates in their data for the years 1985, 1990, 1991,

1998, and 1999.

State will continue the energy audit and energy

conservation opportu nity identification p rogram to

pursue maximum energy efficiency of its facilities. To

date, all major facilities (over 300,000 square feet) have

been audited through comprehensive audit method. As

new technologies are develop ed, re-audits a re done to

assess applicability for installation. Smaller facilities

are audited by walk-through or partial comprehensive

method.

State has determined certain technologies should be

installed as a normal course of maintenance where

funds are available:

# Energy-efficient motors and variable speed drives;

# T-8 and T-5 electronic lighting;

# Ultrasonic or thermal mo tion sensors;

The following energy and water conservation audits and

initiatives were under way or completed during FY

1999:

# Sensor water faucets and toilets were installed in

the Main State building and the National Foreign

Affairs Training Center (NFATC) in Arlington,

Virginia.

# At the Main State building, steam consumption has

been red uced by 2 2 percen t.

# The Main Sta te building implemented a lighting

retrofit and installed an energy management system

and motion sensors in corridors and public spaces.

GSA is replacing the four main refrigeration machines

in the Main State building. GSA also began an

extensive renovation of the Main S tate building during

FY 1999. This will entail the replacement of all

electrical and mechanical systems; first will be the

replacement of chillers. The renovation will be

complete in FY 20 12. 

During FY 1999, comp rehensive surveys were

performed at the following U .S. Embassies:

# Santiago, Chile;

# Rome, Ita ly;

# Kingston, Jamaica;

# Tokyo, Japan;

# Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia;

# Managua, Nicaragua;

# Oslo, No rway;

# Riyadh, Saudi Arabia;

# Singapore, Singapore;

# Paramaribo, Surinam; and,

# Monte video, U ruguay.

Comprehensive surveys were also performed at the

following Consulate Gen erals:

# Hamburg, Germany; and,

# Munich , German y.
112

Three ra te and mete ring surveys we re perform ed at:

# U.S. Emba ssy Port Louis, Mauritius;

# U.S. Embassy Belize City, Belize; and,

# U.S. Consulate General Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

State has signed a memorandum of understand ing with

the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium for application

of geotherm al technolog y.

State dedicates 10 percent of foreign building energy

conservation measure implementatio n funding to

renewable energy projects. More than 350 solar hot

water systems have been installed at State foreign

buildings worldwide, including FY 1999 installations of

solar hot water systems at residences in Bridgetown,

Barbado s; Nassau, Bahamas; and Port Louis, Ma uritius.

Additio nal FY 1999 renewable energy activities include

installation of a 10-kilowatt wind turbine generator at

the Port Louis residence, and installation of daylighting

in a Jakarta warehouse.

Energy Showcases

State has designated the Florida Regio nal Center as a

Federal solar energy showcase facility, the first

technolog y-specific showcase. A solar audit of the

facility will be implemented.

Designs were initiated or ongoing during FY 1999 for

a new office building in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and for

housing in Shanghai, China, which are de signated

showcases. The Chancery Office Bu ilding and D eputy

Chief of Mission Residence are designated showcases

in Port Lo uis. 

Personnel Development

State will include successful implementation of

Executive Order 13123 provisions in the position

descriptions and performance evaluations of the agency

energy team, principal program managers, heads o f

field offices, facility managers, energy managers, and

other approp riate employees.

State will ensure that all appropriate personnel receive

training. State is attempting to develop overseas

resident energy man agers or, at a minumum , to

encourage energy awareness through the Overseas

Facilities Manager Program. Twe nty-one additional

FBO staff became trained energy mangers through a

five-day Association of Energy Engineers course.

Funding

During FY 19 99, the O ffice of Foreign Buildings

Operations (FBO) committed $1.2 million to overseas

posts; this is expected to yield annual energy cost

savings of $230,000. In addition, $347,000 has been

committed to support energy efficiency improvem ents

in future construction projects. This is expected to yield

an additional $35,000 annual saving.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

FBO has one ongoing ESPC at the U.S. Embassy in

Mexico City. Cumulative cost and energy savings over

the nine year contract term will be $603,000 and 6.6

million kilowatt-hours.

FBO has also negotiated two additional international

ESPC efforts, with the loca l host governments and

utilities, to install natural gas fuel cell power plants at

U.S. Embassy Tokyo, Japan, and U.S. Consula te

General Frankfurt, Germany. These unique contracts

form international energy partnerships among the U.S.

foreign mission, the host local government, an

American energy service company, and often the local

utility. Delivery orders are expected in the first quarter

of FY 2000.

Utility Partnerships

State has attempted to enter into one utility energy

efficiency service agreemen t.

FBO will continue to w ork with loca l utilities to

develop energy efficiency strategies.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

State will select, where life-cycle cost-effective,

ENERGY STAR® and o ther energy e fficient produ cts

when acquiring energy-using products. For product

groups where ENERGY STAR® labels are not yet

available, State will select prod ucts that are in the upper

25 percent of energy efficiency as designated by FEMP.

State will incorpor ate energy efficie nt criteria consistent

with ENERGY STAR® and other FEMP designated

energy efficiency levels into all guide specifications.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

State has acquired three alternative fuel natural gas

vehicles and one fleet bus. S tate included diploma tic

security pursuit units in the acquisition request for 100

percent natural gas units. The aim of the alternative fuel

program is to convert all bus fleet units to 100 percent

natural gas consumption and obtain an all alternative

fuel motor pool with a fuel re-supply station at NFATC.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

State promo tes ride-sharing programs in coordin ation

with GSA a nd disseminates information on

government-wide ride-sharing p rograms. V anpools

automatica lly receive parking permits. State has been

involved with the Council of Governments network to
113

expand and enhance ride-sharing.

FBO will continue to develop and implement energy

conservation measures thr ough its Arch itectural and

Engineering Guidelines and Criteria for N ew Embassy

Buildings.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Richard T. Arthurs

Energy Manager

Facilities Management and Support Services

Departm ent of State

A/OPR/FMSS

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

Phone: 202-647-8970

Fax: 202-647-1873
114

DOT Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

11. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Transportation reported

a decrease in energy consumption in buildings of 26.7

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985.

DOT Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,994.4 40,068 .9

Fuel Oil 791.9 4,681.2

Natural Gas 895.1 5,058.9

Propane 32.0 309.0

Purchased Steam 9.2 119.2

Total 3,722.6 50,237 .2

Opera tions and maintenance procedures are

decentralized within DOT. Basic procedures include

securing HVAC equipm ent, unnecessary lighting, and

office equipment during unoccupied hours. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) even reduces runway

lighting when it will no t compro mise safety.

DOT has completed mo re than 100 audits. Th ese audits

identified energy and water conservation opportunities

with an estimated implementation cost of more than $20

million. During FY 1999, the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG) implemented energy related projects costing

$6 million. USCG currently estimates that it has an $18

million backlog for projects, audits, and metering. FAA

currently estimates it has a project backlog of more than

$60 million.

The following energy and water conservation audits and

initiatives were under way or completed during FY

1999:

# The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

replaced old inefficient cooling towers with new

more efficient units with variable frequency drives

and electric water level controls.

# The Maritime Administration (MARAD) installed

waterless urinals and new energy-efficient

windows a t the U.S. M erchant M arine Acad emy.

# MARAD installed dual fuel boilers using

interruptible gas service thereby reducing fue l oil

use by 80 p ercent.

# The St. Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation (SLSDC) replaced roofs and windows

for better insulation on their maintenance facilities.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

The FAA Southwest Region has an ongoing p roject to

install photovoltaic panels and batteries at remote and

unmanned sites. Six remote co mmunica tion link sites in

the Wester n Pacific Region received panels in FY 1999.

The FAA Alaskan Region recieved a grant from the

National Renewab le Energy Laboratory (NREL) and

installed two wind turbine generators.

During FY 1998 and FY 1999, USCG received funding

from DOE to help purchase and install a solar hot water

system for housing units in Hawaii. USCG continues to

pursue financing options to make up the shortfall. The

DOE grant completed a limited portion of the whole

project, and USCG is looking into u sing DO E’s

Techno logy-Spec ific Super ESPC to complete the rest.

When complete d, the proje ct will make a sig nificant

contribution to achieving the Million Solar Roof

Initiative.

Both USCG and SLSDC continue to use photovo ltaic

powered bu oys.

Showcase Facilities

DOT ’s headquarters building was designated as a

showcase in 1995. Energy improvements avoid $1

million in cost each year.

Personnel Development

Each personnel office and operating administration has

been advised o f the requirement for energy and water

efficiency to be included in performance evaluations.

The FAA has established an energy and water

conservation category within their environmental

excellence award program. Operating administrations

are strongly enco uraged to nominate employees for the
115

annual Federal Energy and Water Management Awards.

During FY 1999, the USCG energy program sponsored

three training sessions; subjects included the USCG

facilities energy program and ESPCs. All FAA regional

energy managers and center energy managers have been

trained in the use of ESPC s.

The FAA’s Mike Monro ney Aeronautical Center

(MMAC) has developed its own manager’s energy

conservation guidelines handbook that has been

distributed to all managers and e nergy coordinators.

Funding

DOT leverages funding for surveys and audits. The

USCG and the FAA have both u sed DO E FEM P’s

SAVEnergy program and utility company incentive

programs.

In FY 1999, MMA C received $65,000 earmarked for

energy projects, all of which was used on a hanger

lighting retrofit pro ject.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

There are currently six ESPCs in place within DOT.

The USCG expects to sign ESPC delivery orders at its

Air Station Cap e Cod a nd Supp ort Center E lizabeth

City under DOE’s Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Super

ESPC’s in the very near future. The FAA has been

actively working towards three additional Super ESPC

delivery orders for award in FY 2000.

Annual cost savings after the term of the contract from

the four ESPCs award ed during F Y 199 8 will be in

excess of $1,438,000, with annual en ergy savings in

excess of 100 billion Btu, which is more than one

percent of DOT’s primary facilities energy consumption

in FY 1998. As savings are realized from ESPCs they

will be reinvested in new energy pro jects.

Utility Partnerships

The FAA received over $209,000 in incentives from

various utilities around the country during FY 1999.

The USCG also received $680,000 in incentives which

were used to shorten the term of the ESPC at the USCG

Academ y in New Lo ndon, Co nnecticut.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

DOT purchases ‘best practice’ products that are

practical and cost-effective and in the upper 25 percent

of energy and water efficiency. The FAA has provided

its energy managers, purchasing agents, and contracting

officers with the DOE FEMP publication Buying

Energy Efficient Pro ducts.

Environmental Ben efits of Energy Ma nagement 

USCG ’s energy program has actively engaged in the

development of a number of ENERGY STAR® Buildings.

EPA is providing guidance and DOT is in the process

of assessing performance. These b uildings have all

undergone comprehensive audits and are in various

stages of dev elopmen t.

Energy Manag ement 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 
116

Treasury P erforman ce Toward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

12. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TRSY)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of the Treasury reported an

increase in energy con sumption in b uildings of 34 .9

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1985. This statistic is misleading in that it has not been

adjusted to account for a quadrupling of energy usage,

over the 1985 base year, which occurred in 1988 when

the General Services Administration (GSA) delegated

to Treasury the energy reporting responsibility for 35

buildings. Of the 35 b uildings that GSA delegated, 32

were Interna l Revenue Service (IRS) facilities. 

Treasury Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 1,123.4 23,324 .1

Fuel Oil 39.9 157.3

Natural Gas 466.2 1,806.2

Propane 3.4 25.5

Purchased Steam 68.7 1,013.8

Total 1,701.6 26,326 .9

Over the next two years the U.S. Mint will have a

significant increase (45 perc ent) in energy consumption

due to the Commemorative Quarter Program and the

new dollar c oin. Althoug h the Mint striv es to meet the

goals and objectives of EPAct and Executive Order

13123, the process of stamping coins is an energy

intensive activity, and the M int is subject to the

requirements of Congress and the nation’s demand for

coinage.

The following energy and water conservation audits and

initiatives were under way or completed during FY

1999:

# The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Andover

Service Center, M assachusetts c ontinued its

upgrade program with their three chillers being

interconnected allowing for better load

managem ent. This will save approximately $4,000

and 165 ,000 cub ic feet of water an nually.

# The Main Treasury building rehabilitation work

began. The T reasury Bu ilding & Annex

Renovation and Restoration (TBARR) project will

incorporate a lighting retrofit, window

replacement, motor upgrades, installation of an

energy management and control system, new

energy-efficient chillers, upgrade of the cooling

towers, and a dramatic reduc tion in water

consumption. The project will also separate the

sanitary and storm drain systems.

# The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) upgraded

their direct digital controls, installed new motor

control centers, and a new high-pressure steam

reducing station which is expected to reduce usage

by 15 pe rcent.

# The Financial Management Services (FMS)

replaced motors an d tube bu ndles at their

steam/water converter with expected steam and

cost reduction of 15 percent, and recalibrated their

pneumatic controls with an expected 10 percent

steam consumption saving.

# The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

(FLETC) in Glynco, G eorgia completed a lighting

retrofit in two build ings and expects to finish

retrofitting three additional buildings in FY 2000.

Personnel Development

During FY 19 99, Treasury sent eigh t employee s to

energy management training courses. DOE FEMP

courses were used whenever possible due to their low

cost and hig h quality.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

The U.S. Secret Service entered into a second ESPC for

their Beltsville, Maryland training facility. The ESPC

with Baltimore Gas and Electric covered a lighting

retrofit in all buildings and installation of da ylighting in

five buildings. Savings are expected to be $39,000

annually. The installation of the oil to gas conversion

under the FY 1997 ESPC with Washington Gas was

completed. Savings of $15,000 per year began with the

Novem ber 199 8 bill.

The Mint has awarded three ESPCs in the last two
117

years, producing estimated savings of 3.913 billion

kilowatts, more than 3 million gallons of water, and

$410,0 00 annua lly.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is discussing the

possible development of an ESPC with PEPCO.

Utility Partnerships

The IRS’s Andover Service Center entered into a GSA

Area-wide contract in June 1999 to purc hase electricity.

Savings are expected to be $100,000 per year. The

facility also switched to the Massac husetts Electric

Comp any’s interruptible rate schedule, saving $4,500

per year. IRS’s Brookhaven Service Center participated

in the commercial peak reduction p rogram w ith their

local utility, resulting in a reimbursement of an

estimated $90,000 per year.

The Mint entered into a GSA A rea-wide co ntract in

January 1999 to purchase electricity. The Mint saved

$102,000 in FY 1999. The Mint also renego tiated its

contract with the steam utility in Philadelphia for a

saving of $100,000 in FY 1999.

Funding

Treasury bureaus spent $1.495 million to install energy

and water conservation measures d uring FY 1 999. T his

figure does not reflect GSA’s expenditure in buildings

delegated to Treasury. Anticipated savings from the FY

1999 investments total $107,000 per year.

The bureaus p lan to spend $1.1 million in FY 20 00, to

implement energy efficiency measures. T he bulk of this

spending will be at the Main Treasury building and

Mint facilities.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

Treasury is committed to the purch ase of prod ucts in

the top 25 percent of energy efficiency. Copies of

DOE ’s Energy Efficient Product Guide have been

provided to energy managers and procurement

personne l.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The AFV fleet number at the Burea u of Alcoho l,

Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has reached 9 percent of

its total. FLETC has six with two being police packages

used on the pursuit training course. Th e IRS ad ded its

first AFV during FY 1999.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

The bureaus have implemented driver awareness

programs aimed at ge tting employe es to drive in the

most fuel efficient mann er possible . Treasury is

developing a telecommuting policy that will allow for

work at home, satellite facilities, and hotels.

Energy Manag ement 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 
118

VA Perform ance To ward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

13. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs

reported a decrease in energy consumption in buildings

of 14.9 percent in Btu per gross square foot compared

to FY 1985.

VA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 9,411.0 165,40 0.7

Fuel Oil 952.6 3,512.0

Natural Gas 14,270 .3 50,317 .0

Propane 2.2 19.3

Coal 139.7 142.1

Purchased Steam 1,209.0 9,529.7

Other 150.0 635.2

Total 26,134 .8 229,55 6.1

During FY 1999, VA concentrated heavily on research

for and the development of cost-effective methods such

as utility rebates and ESPCs.

The design criteria for all new construction and retrofits

now include the use of the most energy-efficient

lighting fixtures that have savings potential of up to 45

percent. Energy management and control systems with

direct digital controls are specified as part of new

construction as well as retrofits.

Two medical centers have recently completed projects

using a thermal stora ge system using in centives from

local utility companies.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

Some medical centers are evaluating the use of solar

and other renew able energ y projects as part of their

ESPCs.

Personnel Development

VA conducted a national survey to determine how many

energy managers at the medical centers qualify as

trained energy managers. Survey results were submitted

to DOE who determined that many would need some

training before they could qualify as trained energy

managers. Staff have been informed of relevant DOE

and Association of Energy Engineers classes they need

to take. Many took advantage of these during FY 1999

and will continue to do so in the future.

Funding

VA’s funding for energy conservation cost-effective

retrofits and capital improvement projects was

approximately $10.5 million for FY 1999.

Energy Savings Performance C ontracts and Utility

Partnerships

VA completed its first ESPC in 1993. Since then, VA

has issued guidance to all medical centers regarding

their use of ESPCs. The following projects have been

completed:

# Medical Center, Lak e City, Florid a, completed a

lighting retrofit.

# Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, completed the

installation of a thermal water storage system.

# Medical Center, Ric hmond, V irginia, completed

the installation of cooling towers.

# Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, completed a

lighting retrofit, including installation of

occupancy senso rs.

# Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia, completed a

lighting retrofit.

# Medical Center, West Los Angeles, California,

complete d a comp rehensive en ergy retrofit.

As of the fourth quarter of FY 1999, the Veterans

Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) are in various

planning stages for ESPC implementation. The

following number of facilities have p rogressed in

implementation efforts and have decided the ESPC

method they are planning to use:
119

Station level contracts - 13 facilities

DOE-based contracts - 42 facilities

DOD-based contracts - 56 facilities

GSA Area-wide based contracts - 14 facilities

Contractor investment of $54.53 million will genera te

$8.99 m illion in savings to VA in operating and utility

cost avoidance du ring the life of these projects.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

VA’s acquisition and material management service has

issued guidelines for the medical centers to purch ase

energy-efficient produc ts whenever th ey meet VA ’s

performance requirements, and they are cost-effective.

Energy Manag ement 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
120

EPA Perfo rmance Toward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

14. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency

reported a decrease in energy consumption in buildings

of 5.7 percent in Btu per gr oss square foot comp ared to

FY 1985.

EPA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 463.4 7,084.8

Fuel Oil 19.3 74.7

Natural Gas 639.9 2,453.7

Propane 0.7 9.2

Purchased Steam 46.9 579.6

Total 1,170.1 10,202 .0

The main objective of EPA’s Energy and Water

Conservation Program is to effectively and efficiently

use natural resources when designing, constructing, and

maintaining EPA facilities and facility systems.

Although EPA could have exempted all of its facilities

from reporting b ecause as lab oratories th ey all fall

under the original ind ustrial facility exclusion, EPA

established and met the 10 percent energy reduction

goal in 1995 a s required b y EPAct for nonindustrial

facilities. EPA will continue to strive to meet the more

ambitious 30 and 35 percent reduction goals of EPAct

and Executive Order 13123.

While implementing its energy program, EPA has

learned that its largest energy co nservation o pportunity

is within the HVAC system of its labo ratories. Du e to

energy-intensive health and safety requirements for onepass air for a labo ratory, EPA’s energy consump tion is

extraordin arily high. To a ddress this, EPA is

aggressively pursuing energy-efficient upgrades at

several of its laboratories.

Excluding new facilities, EPA’s water consumption

decreased 6.3 percent in FY 1999. Several facilities

reduced water consumption by more than 20 percent

including Narragansett, Rhode Island; Gulf Breeze,

Florida; Duluth, Minnesota; Las Vegas, Nevada; and,

Manchester, Washington. EPA expects significant

reductions in water consumption at its facilities by

installing ground source heat pum ps.

Descriptions of facility energy and water reduction

activities worked on during FY 1999 include:

# Athens, Georgia. A biomass feasibility study has

been complete d with the help of DOE, Tennessee

Valley Authority, USDA, University of Georgia,

and Georgia State Fo restry. The next project ph ase

will determine what equipment is suited to the

Athens laborator y. Also, a solar hot water heater

was installed at the on-site day care center, and has

contributed to the 17 percent decrease in energy

consumption at the facility from 1997 to 1999.

# Ada, Oklahom a. The Ada Facility decreased

energy consumption by 15.5 percent from FY 1997

to FY 1999. To further streamline its energy usage,

the laboratory will soon undergo a comprehensive

energy efficiency upgrade of its HVAC system.

The upgrade will include installation of a ground

source heat pump system, comp lete variable a ir

volume system for air supply and fume h ood air

exhaust, and an integrated direct digital control

system for HVAC, energy, fire, and secu rity

managem ent.

# Cincinnati, Ohio. Energy-efficient projects for this

facility included installing a closed-loop glycol

cooler tower, energy-efficient elevator motors,

boiler controls, a revolving d oor to help maintain

temperature and build ing pressure, a new HVAC

system, improved windows and insulation,

adopting the Green Lights program, and a new

energy-efficient boiler.

# Ft. Meade, Maryland. EPA completed occupancy

of its new labora tory facility at the Ft. Meade

Army base in the spring of 1999. T he facility was

designed with a variety of advanced energy

components including variable air volume

technolog y. 
121

# Houston, Texas. This facility conducted air system

modifications and upgraded an existing direct

digital control (DDC ) system. It incorporated a

cooling tower condensate return system to reduce

water consump tion and oper ating costs and to

enhance environme ntal conditio ns. Witho ut this

system, large volumes of water would have to be

supplied b y the local water utility. 

# Narragansett, Rhode Island. EPA is designing an

HVAC system upgrade that will use geothermal

heat pumping and latent energy recovery

technologies. In addition, EPA is researching the

purchase of green power for this facility as well as

a wind-powered electric generator for the site.

# Golden, Colorado. EPA incorporated a variety of

energy-efficiency components including a DDC

system to monitor operating conditions of HVAC

systems. By monito ring equipm ent in this way, the

facility is saving time, money, and energy by fixing

problems immediately. Further, EPA applied for a

DOE renewable energy project grant to build a

transpired solar collector p anel for the so uth wall

of the facility’s hazardous materials building. In

addition, EPA is currently negotiating with NREL

to purchase wind pow er to serve 2 0 percen t of its

electricity needs.

# Gulf Breeze, Florida. EPA installed timers on

approxima tely 20 electric water heaters and is

installing nodal direct digital controls (NDDCs).

The NDDCs will imp rove build ing controls to

minimize energy waste a nd monito r building

security, fire protection, and indoor environmental

quality.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

By partnering w ith Virginia Alliance Solar E lectricity

(VASE), Solarex, PowerLight, and the Department of

Energy (DOE), EPA successfully arranged for

$500,000 in financial assistance for a partially solarpowered computer center at EPA’s Research Triangle

Park (RTP) facility. When construction on the National

Computer Center is completed, it will mark the opening

of one of the largest photovoltaic (PV) installations on

the east coast. The 100-kilowatt, integrated roof power

system will convert the sun’s light into energy, feeding

it directly to the building and supplementing the main

power utility. Among one of the largest single PV

systems in a Federal facility, the RTP computer center

not only gives EPA the opportunity to demonstrate the

effectiveness and marketability of an alternative

technolog y, but it also serves as a powe rful example of

the Agency’s commitment to sustainable energy

principles. In addition, the PV syst em supports the

Million Solar Roofs initiative, which challenges

American businesses an d comm unities to install solar

systems on one million roof tops by 2010. More

specifically, the RTP installation supports President

Clinton’s 1997 commitment that the Federal Government alone will install 20,000 solar rooftop systems by

2010. 

EPA recently installed three solar energy water-heating

systems at its Edison, New Jersey facility that are now

the primary sou rce of hot water in their respective

facility areas. All three solar heating systems consist of

a preheat tank and various numbers of roof-mounted,

single glazed, liquid evacuated tube collectors. To date,

energy savings results are significantly higher than

expected.

EPA’s leased laboratory facility in Richmond,

California is in the planning stages of a third party

financing agreement for energy efficiency

improvements to be provided by the owner of the

facility. In addition, 100 percent of the electricity for

the laboratory is green power provided by landfill

methane gas.

Personnel Development

EPA’s Office of Ad ministration (O A) has instituted a

semi-annual conference entitled “Laboratories for the

21st Century” for agencies pursuing energy upgrade s in

Federal laboratories. EPA and DO E partner ed in this

effort. The 1999 conference was held in Cambridge,

MA. Almost 200 participants attended the conference,

which was open to both Federal and non-Federal

participants for the first time.

Energy S avings Perfo rmance C ontracts (ES PCs)

An Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) to

conduct a complete energy upgrade at the National

Vehicle and Fuel E missions Lab oratory (N VFEL ) in

Ann Arbor, Michigan was awarded in the Spring of FY

1998. The new energy system currently being installed

will guarantee at least a 66 percent reduction in energy

consumption. The plan ned energ y upgrade will

establish NVFEL as an energy and environmental

showcase facility by reducing source emissions, energy

consumption, energy costs, a nd incorporating

renewab le technologies. Installation of a real-time

demand meter will help the facility reduce its electrical

demand peak. The project will be completely

operational in the summer of 2000.

EPA is planning to use ESPCs to finance

comprehensive energy upgrades at the following

facilities: Narragansett, Rhode Island; Manchester,

Washington; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Athens, Georgia;

and Ada, Oklahoma. EPA expects to achieve a 50
122

percent reduction from current energy consumption

levels for each facility undergoing a comprehensive

upgrade paid through an ESPC.

Acquisition of A lternative Fue l Vehicles (AFV s)

EPA made significant progress in increasing its

acquisition percentage of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

(AFVs) during FY 1999. E PA exp ects that this success

increase in meeting the AFV acquisition targets set

forth by Executive Order 13123 will continue. Already,

EPA has been able to increase from a 14 percent

acquisition rate in FY 1997, to 35 percent in FY 1998,

and has be en able to a chieve 56 percent in F Y 199 9. 

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

EPA has developed personnel performance standards to

rate staff efforts toward achieving energy and water

conservation program objectives –outstanding,

satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Implementation of

these standards helps ensure tha t personne l will

consider energy-efficient oppo rtunities.

OA has a steering c ommittee to organize E PA’s

integrated pollution prevention management program,

that includes EPA energy and water conservation

efforts. 

EPA is committed to purchasing best-prac tice energyefficient and water-saving products that are in the upper

25 percent of a ll products in that category. EPA is also

committed to purchasing emerging technologies and

produc ts that offer greater energy-efficienc y, water

savings, or use of renewable resources than products

now commercially available.

EPA is committed to accelerating the acceptance of

cleaner power alternatives and has established a pilot

project at its Richmond, California facility. In M ay,

1999, EPA, the National Renewable Energy

Labora tory, and GSA awarded a renewable energy

contract to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District

(SMUD). SMUD now provides the Lab with 100

percent renewable electricity from a landfill gas plant.

Purchasing renewable electricity at the Region 9 Lab

reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with fo ssil

fuel-based power by more than 2.3 million pounds per

year. This is equivalent to reducing the number of

automob ile miles driven annually in California by two

million miles. The project also m akes EPA the first

government entity to implement the use of green power

at one of its facilities.

The Agency also plans to implement green power

purchasing at its Chelmsford, Massachusetts, and

Golden, Colorado, facilities. Whe n these transactions

are completed, the Chelmsford facility will purchase

100 percent of its electricity from renewable power

sources and the G olden facility will purchase 35

percent. In addition, EPA is supporting a biomass

combined heat and power system at the U.S.

Department of Agriculture field station in Athens,

Georgia. This project could reduce EPA’s Athens-ORD

facility’s reliance on traditional electricity energy

sources by 1 00 perc ent.

A series of energy awareness posters have been

developed, illustrating energy-efficie nt HVAC systems,

ESPCs, and pollution prevention. These posters are

displayed at all EPA func tions.

EPA continues to produce and distribute its quarterly

newspaper, Greenin g EPA, formerly Conservation

News. Articles in this newspaper provide the basis for

facility managers to implement campaigns to conserve

energy and at the sam e time inform th e general p ublic

about EPA-specific conservation activities. EPA’s Web

site also offers a great opportunity to spread the energy

and water conservation word , and includes the latest

issue of Greening EPA.

Energy Manag ement 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
123

GSA Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

15. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 19 99, the G eneral Serv ices Administration

reported a decrease in energy consumption in buildings

of 17.0 percent in Btu per gross square foot compared

to FY 1985.

GSA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 8,814.6 181,73 4.3

Fuel Oil 68.4 248.7

Natural Gas 2,841.2 13,288 .9

Purchased Steam 1,359.8 19,760 .5

Total 13,083 .9 215,03 2.4

GSA has had an energy reduction plan since 1991. The

plan was upda ted in 199 8, which co incided with G SA’s

creation of an Energy Center Of Expe rtise and reflec ts

the new approved business plan. The Energy Center of

Expertise will reduce utility costs by promoting optimal

energy use while protecting the environment and

ensuring a q uality workspa ce for GS A clients. 

The Energy Center will have approximately 25 staff,

plus regional associates. There are five people in

Kansas City, Missouri; seven in the Public Utilities

Center in Washington, DC; seven in the National

Energy and Water Management Center in Fort Worth,

Texas; and one or two regional associates in each of

GSA’s 1 1 regions. 

Over the past few years, GSA has been installing state

of the art building automated control systems,

occupancy sensors, varia ble speed drives, efficient

lighting, and other energy savings technologies. GSA

has partnered with the National Institute of Standards

and Technology in testing ASHRAE’s BACNet

standard, an open communication protocol for building

automated controls. This testing was continued in 1999

with an $80 0,000 a ddition to the BACN et project.

GSA’s Energy Center of Expertise has several

objectives:

# Optimize utility management and life-cycle costs

and enha nce building operation s efficiency;

# Establish GSA as the Government’s provider of

choice for utility commodities and serv ices;

# Encourage advocacy and partnering; and,

# Provide leadership and prom ote energy efficiency

and renew able energ y.

In order to respond to the needs of Federal age ncies, the

Energy Center pro vides:

# Area-wide contracts for th e procure ment of utilities

and for the acquisition of value-added services,

such as utility financing of energy conservation

projects;

# Aggregate purchasing of natural gas a nd electricity

in deregulated markets;

# Energy use and analysis data; and,

# Advocacy in the public policy arena to include

renewable power sources as part of its energy

portfolio.

GSA performs audits on 10 percent of its building

inventory each year in accorda nce with GSA’s 10-year

audit plan, which is upd ated annua lly. Comprehensive

audits are performed by a variety of agents: in-house

personnel, utilities, DOE-FEM P’s SAVEnerg y

contractors, and A/E contractors. Some audits are

obtained at no cost from utilities, some are obtained

through DOE’s SAVE nergy audit program, and the rest

are funded by G SA. As fund ing permits, GSA will

implement all life cycle cost-effective projects with a

payback of 10 years or less that are identified by these

audits.

GSA has traditionally encouraged a reduction in the use

of petroleum-based fuel as far back as the 1973/1 974

oil embargo . From the 1 975 form er base yea r to the

1985 present base year, GSA reduced oil use from

approx imately 18.5 million gallons in Fed erally owned

buildings to about 7 .6 million gallo ns in 1985 in both

owned and leased buildings. From 1985 to 1999, GSA

petroleum-based fuel use in buildings dropped by 89

percent, from 7.6 million to 84 2.1 thousand gallons.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy
124

GSA considers opportunities for solar and other

renewable energy in building design and retrofits. When

GSA p erforms an e nergy audit o f a facility, renewab le

opportunities are identified and implemented if they are

life-cycle cost effective. In a ddition, T he Facility

Standards for Public Buildings, PBS P 100.2

incorporates language for solar/renew able sources to be

considered in the proposed design.

GSA is a participating agency in the Million Solar

Roofs initiative. GSA developed a plan to install 220

solar roof projects as defined by DOE under the

initiative by the year 2010.

Showcase Facilities

GSA has the first Federal building to receive an

ENERGY STAR® Building designation—its property at

290 Broadway, New York City, New York. GSA has

been working with EPA and has uploaded information

regarding over 700 G SA buildings into the EPA

ENERGY STAR® Build ing web site. G SA is in the

process of field verifying the data and will be applying

for ENERGY STAR® Building designations as

appropriate.

Personnel Development

Under Sec. 156 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, GSA

is required to hold five energy management workshops

for Federal, state, local and tribal communities. In

1999, GSA held se ven workshops in p artnership with

Federal agencies and state governments.

These workshops included the following dates,

locations and activities:

# April 6, 1999 “Water Conserv ation in Pub lic

Buildings” in Denver, CO with 65 attendees

# August 23-25, 1999 “Energy/Water Conservation

and Utility Dereg ulation” in O rlando, FL with

1,100 attendees

# January 27-28, 1999 “Utility Deregulation in NY

and NJ” in Albany, NY with 125 attendees

# January 4-5, 199 9 “Utility Der egulation in

Northeast States” in Arlington, VA with 300

attendees

# June 15-18, 1999 “Utility Deregulation” in San

Diego, CA with 65 attendees

# November 16-17, 1998 “Border States Energy

Forum” in Chihuahua, Mexico with 270 attendees

# December 2, 1998 “Data Gathering for

Deregulation” in New York with 25 attendees

# January 29, 1998 “Deregulation in N ew York City”

in New York, NY with 325 attendees

GSA continues to train its own personnel in all aspects

of energy and water management and conservation.

GSA currently has 28 trained energy man agers on staff.

Routine training includes such topics, among others, as:

# Industrial Energy Processes and Building A nalysis

# ASHR AE 90 .1

# Energy Management Techniques

# Building Life Cycle Costing

Energy reduction a nd utility cost reduction goals are

tracked as part of GSA’s performance evaluation to the

President. Senior ma nagemen t and region al senior

management executives have energy performance

included as part of their p erformanc e evaluation. In

each region, Regional Energy Coordinators’

performance evaluation and position descriptions

included a full range of en ergy efficiency, water

conservation, and renewable projects in their

descriptions.

GSA a nnually participates in the DOE Federal Energy

and Water Management Awards program and received

nine awards at the October, 1999 program. GSA

internally honors ea ch one of the DOE award rec ipients

with a ceremony and monetary award.

Funding

Funding for projects h as been low er than need ed to

meet GSA’s energy reduction goals. GSA had planned

to invest $50 million per year from 1994 through 2000

in order to meet the 20 and 30 perce nt reduction goals.

The actual appropriation, after recessions, has averaged

$16.8 million over 6 years. GSA is able to fund some

energy audits at no cost through utilities, or through

DOE ’s SAVEnergy Aud it Program. Other pro grams,

such as GSA’s annual Repair and Alterations Program,

as well as the Chloro fluorocarb on (refrigera nt) 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 red uction goa ls.
125

Energy S avings Perfo rmance C ontracts (ES PCs)

GSA’s Regional Energy Coordinators in each region

identify energy conservation opportunities and

opportunities for Energy Savings Performance

Contracts (ESPCs). T he Coordinato rs assemble and

manage the project team, which may include a

contracting officer, legal counc il, a project manager, or

others as necessary. The Energy Center of Expertise

coordinates congressional notification, provides

guidance and information of best p ractices, and

promotes the use of ESPCs. The Office of Finance p ays

the contractor and implements GSA accounting

procedures.

GSA is currently pursuing 6 active projects to be

funded through ESPCs although only 2 have been

awarded.

In FY 1999, GSA is negotiating with Honeywell, Inc.

for a $1,500,000 contract for energy conservation

measures at the Leo O ’Brien Fed eral Building in

Albany, NY.

In FY 1999, GSA Region 4 is working with 3 Super

ESPC contractors in 3 different states to consider

contractor identified ene rgy conservation opportunities.

To date, only 1 contract will be signed late this fiscal

year. GSA is cu rrently waiting for the congressional

notification time period to expire prior to signing the

contract. This project includes a $9 million chiller plant

replacement at the Richard B. Russell Federal Building

and Courthouse.

The annual savings anticipated from GSA’s ESPCs and

utility contracts currently in place are 52,298 million

BTU and $1.73 million.

Utility Partnerships

In 1999, GSA used area wide utility contracts and basic

ordering agreemen ts to obtain utility financ ing of

energy projects as follows:

# In Vermont, GSA comp leted construction and

started payments on four utility financed projec ts

at U.S. Border Station facilities that were awarded

in 1998. These projects consisted of installing

energy efficient T-8 lighting and electronic ballast

retrofits. Total project costs were $4,872, with an

expected annual savings of $3,735 and 153.71

MM Btus.

# In Florida, a $235,226 project financed through the

GSA utility area wide contract starte d paymen ts in

September, 1998.

# In GSA Region 4, a $1,102,128 project is

scheduled to start payme nts in Octob er, 1999 . 

# GSA Region 11 started payments on a $1,589,884

utility financed project. Also, Region 11 is working

with the utility company to implement a $20

million utility financed cogenera tion proje ct.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

GSA continues to support the procurement of energy

efficient produc ts through a number of activities. GSA

provides product supply schedules that promo te energy

efficient and environmentally preferable products and

mandates the purchas e of ENERGY STAR® computers

and office equipment. GSA is a signatory to and an

active participant in the “Procurement Challenge,” a

DOE FEM P interagency program designed to identify

the most energy efficient products and to increase the

purchase of these proje cts.

Environmental Ben efits of Energy Ma nagement 

GSA continued advoca ting Planet G SA, which c alls

attention to four key are as in which G SA alread y plays

a significant role: “buying green ,” “building gre en,”

“driving green,” and “saving green.” GSA is working

on these four areas while pursuing its mission of

creating great workplaces.

# Buying Green. GSA manages a nationwide

recycling program for 650,000 Federal employees

in 1,100 Federal buildings. GSA is going p aperless

in the procurement process and using elec tronic

billing and payment systems. GSA products are

advertised on the Interne t at http://www.gsa.gov.

GSA’s Environmental Products Guide carries over

3,000 products and services that are

environmentally oriented.

# Buildin g Green. GSA w ill implement su stainable

design principles in designing, constructing,

modernizing, and disposing of its buildings. In FY

1998, GSA funded experts to design the Denver

Courthouse projects to serve as a mo del for its

sustainable buildings program. GSA chooses

produc ts with recycled content, for example:

insulation, cement and concrete, late x paint,

carpets, shower dividers, and restroom partitions.

GSA installs water-saving devices and plumbing

fixtures. GSA reduces the amount of construction

waste it produces.

# Driving Green. GSA bought 24,000 alternativefuel vehicles (AFVs) for the nationwide Federal

fleet GSA manages. AF Vs can run on ethano l,

methanol, natural gas, or e lectricity thereby

reducing reliance on foreign oil; they also crea te

less pollution than gasoline engines. The Energy
126

Policy Act of 1992 requires that within the largest

cities in 1998, 50 percent of all new vehicles must

use alternative fuel. GSA’s objective for FY 1999

is that 75 percent of such vehicles will be A FVs.

To help meet the challenge, GSA has waived

lengthy justifications to upgrade from a compact

sedan to a mid-size AFV.

# Saving Green. GSA follows the Energy Center of

Expertise business plan that includes installing the

most energy efficient equipm ent to oper ate its

building mechanical systems. In New York and

San Francisco, GSA is testing new lighting

technologies and lighting-control strategies. In the

Northea st, GSA ha s awarded a contract th at can

provide “green po wer” for up to five percent of

Federal needs. GSA is a recognize d leader in

energy conservation. G SA has co ntracted on behalf

of EPA to purc hase 100 percent green power for

EPA’s Richmond, CA lab.

GSA has signed the DOE and EPA MOU for ENERGY

STAR® Partnerships and received a charter member

designation for the Foley S quare Fe deral Bu ilding at

290 Broad way in New York City. This was the only

Federal Building to receive and EN ERGY STAR®

Building designation. GSA worked w ith EPA to upload

data about GSA’s building inventory into the

Benchmarking tool web site. O ver 700 buildings have

been preliminarily evaluated and it appears that over

200 will qualify as ENERGY STAR® Buildings. GSA

will take actions to increase the number qualifying

buildings.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Mark Ewing

Director, Energy Ce nter Of Expertise

General Services Administration

1500 East Bannister Road

Kansas City, MO 64131-3088

Phone: 816-823-2691

Fax: 816-823-2696
127

NASA P erforman ce Toward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

16. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

During FY 1999, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration reported a 28.9 pe rcent reduc tion in

buildings energy consumption in Btu per gross square

foot compared to FY 1985.

NASA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 2,433.4 35,502 .0

Fuel Oil 78.5 281.0

Natural Gas 1,221.0 4,113.0

Propane 4.6 30.0

Purchased Steam 110.3 3,089.0

Total 3,847.8 43,015 .0

NASA manages nine Centers, one Federally Funded

Research and Development Center (FFRD C), and

several component facilities and off-site program

facilities from its Washington, DC, H eadquarters.

NASA ’s mission variab le and industrial facilities,

although exempt from NECPA requirements, are the

Agency’s biggest energy consumers, representing over

60 percent of total facility energy costs. For this reason,

NASA has established an internal goal to improve the

energy efficiency of mission-variable buildings by 10

percent by FY 2000 compared to FY 1985 levels,

where cost-effective and without adversely affecting

mission performance.

From FY 19 91 through FY 1999, NASA completed

energy audits for 74.4 percent of its total building

square footage, including 74.3 percent of non-exempt

square footage, and 74.5 percent of exempt and

industrial square footage.

Dryden Flight Research Center requested DOE

SAVEnergy audits for seven buildings totaling 420,000

square feet. The comprehensive audits will be

conducted in early FY 2000.

Langley Research Center initiated a survey of

approx imately 32 laboratoriesto determine where oncethrough cooling water systems exist. These systems will

be replaced with alternate cooling systems where costeffective.

During FY 1999, NASA implemen ted several p rojects

identified during energy efficiency audits. Glenn

Research Center completed a project to install new

HVAC units, water lines, and lighting in its Building

14. The pro ject is expec ted to save $ 52,300 annually.

The Center initiated a project to rehabilitate the

mechanical system in Building 77 with new four-pipe

fan coil units and ligh ting. This pro ject is expec ted to

save $26,400 annually. The mechanical and electrical

systems in Building 302 are also being rehabilitated

with new exhaust fans and office fan coil units, modern

office lighting, and replacement windows. This project

is expected to save $6 2,200 a nnually.

Langley Research Center initiated various maintenance

augmentation tasks including roofing and HVAC

replacement projects at a cost of $2.2 m illion. These

projects w ill save $446 ,000 ann ually.

Goddard Space Flight Center initiated HVAC and

lighting system upgrades in various buildings that will

reduce energy costs by $59,000 annually. The Center

also continues to expand the c ontrol capabilities of its

direct digital control energy management control

system to additional buildings.

Kennedy Space Center initiated several energy

efficiency projects in F Y 199 9. The H VAC system in

the M7-351 Training Facility is being replaced with a

state-of-the-art system using chilled water from the

central plant, wrap-around water transfer coils, a carbon

dioxide demand ventilation control, and direct digital

controls. The new system eliminated use of CFC 12

refrigerant, demonstrates new tech nologies, an d will

reduce energy costs by about $13,000 annually. The

Center also replaced lighting fixtures and lamps as part

of the facility rehabilitation project for the M7-657

Parachu te Refurbishment Facility. The project will save

$8,000 annually. Use of parabolic louvers increases

illumination at working surfaces and reduces glare from

bright white parachutes. Another project was initiated

to replace or retrofit lighting in the Launch Control

Complex with energy efficient fixtures. The p roject will
128

reduce energy costs by $70,000 annually by

incorporating T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts and

occupancy sensors. A project was c ompleted in

Building M6-342 that replaced 3-way chilled water

valves with 2-way valves and installed a variable speed

pumping system to reduce pumping costs. The project

also installed direct digital controls to reduce

overcoo ling and rehe at, saving $9,0 00 annua lly.

Kennedy Space Center co mpleted a proje ct to reuse

wash and rinse water from the solid rocket booster

parachute cleaning pro cess. The reclaimed water is

pumped to the Industrial Area Chiller Plant where it is

reused as make-up water for the p lant’s cooling towers.

The system reclaims 50,000 gallons of wate r per shuttle

flight or approximately 300,000 gallons annually. Th is

innovative project was selected to receive a 1999

Federal Energy and Water Management Award.

The Michoud Assembly Facility expanded its natural

gas metering system by installing electronic natural gas

meters on a number of buildings. The meters are

connected to the central energy monitoring and control

system. The project cost totaled $50,000. The meters

will be used to track gas co nsumption and calcula te air

emissions from industrial pr ocess equ ipment.

In FY 1999, the Merritt Island Launch Annex replaced

a motor generator set serving an antenna with solidstate technolog y. Also at M erritt, installed air

conditioning capacity was reduced in one building by

7.5 tons due to changes in building operations. The se

measures will reduce en ergy costs by $2,00 0 annually.

NASA continues to make sign ificant progre ss in

reducing the use of petroleum-based fuels in buildings

and facilities. Petroleum, including fuel oil and

liquefied petroleum gas, represents 10 percent of NASA

fuel consumption in fixed facilities and 3.6 percent of

total fixed facility energy usage.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

NASA Headq uarters con tinued its partne rship with the

DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

to identify opportunities for increasing NASA’s use of

renewab le energy technologies. The effort produced a

draft Million Solar Roofs Implementation Plan and a

guide specification for terrestrial photovoltaic power

systems. 

NREL also assisted se veral NA SA Cen ters in

developing renewable energy projects, including

providing assistance to the Dryden Flight Research

Center in determining the feasibility of a

hybrid/modular gas-fired boiler heating system. The

study concluded that solar ventilation preheat is viable

for use in reducing natural gas utilization for space

heating, how ever, the red uction in boiler size to “right

size” the units was the most cost-effective approach.

NREL also completed a comprehensive rene wable

energy opportunities study for the Center using the

Federal Renewable Energy Screening Assistant

(FRESA) software. The study identified nearly $2

million in potentially cost-effective renewable energy

projects including wind generation, daylighting, and

lighting controls, and other technologies.

NREL assisted the K ennedy S pace Center in

determining the feasibility of a solar thermal preheating system that will reduce electricity consumption

at a photog raphic film stor age facility that must

maintain low humidity conditions. The system will use

640 square feet o f solar collecto rs to pre-hea t the

reactivation air stream for the facility’s desiccant

dehumid ification equipment. The $85,000 project will

be jointly funded by th e DOE Million So lar Roofs

Program, NASA, and the Florida Solar Energy Center.

Ames Research Center pla ns to install a small winddriven water pump in a remote area of the Center as

part of a Super-ESPC delivery order planned for award

in FY 2000. The system is expected to pay for itself in

two years.

Johnson Space Center is curren tly working with

DOE/FEMP to develop a follow-on Super-ESPC

delivery order to install a solar water heating system for

the astronaut training pool at the Sonny Carter Training

Facility.

Marsha ll Space Flight Center plans to install a solar

ventilation preheat system at the Building 4760 Surface

Treatment Facility. Due to the large tempered make-up

air requireme nt of the building , this $100,000 project

will save $14,000 an nually in steam heating costs.

Showc ase Facilities 

The Marshall Space Flight Center Project Engineering

Facility, Building 4203, was designated as a NASA

showcase facility. The facility features many state of the

art energy efficienc y environme ntal quality measures

such as tinted windows, a variable air volume HVAC

system, non-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 of Huntsville’s solid waste-tosteam plant.

Personnel Development

In FY 1999 NASA energy managers attended numerous

energy training courses offered by DOE/FEM P, the
129

Department of Defense, professional associations, trade

organizations, and education al institutions. The DOE ’s

regional Super ESPC Delivery Order Workshops were

particularly well attended by NASA energy personne l.

The majority of NASA energy managers also attended

a NASA-sponsored working meeting held in April 1999

in Cleveland , Ohio. The purpo se of the mee ting was to

discuss ESPC contracting, the requirements of the

proposed Executive Order on Greening the Government

through Efficient Energy Management, and the new

energy reporting capabilities of the NASA

Environmental Tracking System (NETS). NETS is an

agency-wide database application that supports the

collection, aggregation, analysis, and reporting of

environmental information required for agency-level

reporting to other Federal agencies and organizations,

agency-wide metrics, and fu nctional ma nagemen t.

NASA is in the process of developing an energy and

water conservation training course for Center energy

managers and facility professionals. The course will be

a four-day pro gram offere d through N ASA’s Academy

of Program and Project Leadership.

NASA Headquarters and Center personnel also

participated in various energy awareness activities

throughout the fiscal year. These activities centered

around the DOE/FE MP Y ou Have the P ower program s,

Earth Day observances, and community outreach

programs, including alternative community and transit

programs.

The Kennedy Space Center Base Operations Contractor

established the Energy Achievement Goals for Life and

Environment awards program. The award recognizes

employee contributions to energy and water efficiency

and environmental improvement. During FY 1999, an

award was given to an employee for reducing unneeded

hot water heating. This emp loyee’s actions will reduce

electricity use by more than 200,000 kilowatts per year

and save $9,40 0 in annual energy costs.

Funding

NASA-funded facilities energy conservation pro jects

are divided into two categories. The first consists of

minor capital impr ovemen t projects (under $500,000)

that can be achieved with Center funds. The second

consists of major capital improvement projects (over

$500,000) requiring Construction of Facilities (CoF)

program funding. Energy conse rvation projects must

compe te with all other construction projects for CoF

funding. Life-cycle costing is the primary tool for

analyzing energy retrofit projects.

It is not possible to accurately break out the cost of

energy efficiency and water conservation measures

from the overall budgeted amount for CoF discrete,

repair, and rehabilitation and modification projects. The

following estimate of FY 1999 and FY 2000 direct

agency expenditures for energy efficiency and water

conservation improvement projects and audits is based

on data reported by the Centers and Component

Facilities:

 FY 1999 FY 2000

Direct Agency Expenditures $18,509K $20,162K

Energy S avings Perfo rmance C ontracts (ES PCs)

In FY 1999, NASA made ma jor strides in implementing

ESPC contracts. NASA’s first Energy Savings

Performance Contract (ESPC) delivery orders were

awarded at three different Centers, including the largest

delivery order awarded to date through a DOE Regional

Super ESPC. Up to nine additional ESPC delivery

orders are planned for FY 2000.

Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA, has

received a delivery order proposal for projects tha t will

reduce energy consumption and related operations and

maintenance costs at the Center. The work involves the

installation of energy-efficient lighting systems in

buildings, variable speed drives on chilled water and

hot water pumps, and an automated building energy

management and control system. Annual savings of

$380,000 are anticipate d, and final ne gotiations are

currently in progress. The delivery order is scheduled

for award through the DOE Western Region Super

ESPC contract in early FY 2000.

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD,

established its own multiple a ward inde finite

delivery/inde finite quantity (IDI Q) ESP C contrac ts with

two Washington, DC-area small, disadvantaged energy

service compan ies. Both IDIQ contract vehicles were

awarded in May 1998. Each has a maximum value of

$5 million. These contract veh icles will provide for the

installation of energy-efficient equipment in various

buildings at Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops

Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA, including

replacement of light fixtures, installation of motion

sensors, LED exit signs, and other energy savings

technologies. The first delivery order for lighting

upgrades in Building 8 was issued in ea rly FY 19 99. A

second delivery order for lighting upgrades in Building

28 was issued in late FY 1999. Together, these two

projects will save $50,00 0 per year in energy costs.

Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, awarded the

largest delivery ord er to date under a DOE Super ESPC

contract. The comprehensive delivery order involves

work in five different area s at the Center w ith a total

capital investment of over $20 million. The work

includes installation of energy-efficient lighting
130

systems, variable speed drives on chilled water and hot

water pumps, synchronous belt motor drives, low-flow

aerators on restroom fixtures, low-flow flush valves on

urinals and water closets, and an automated building

energy management and control system. It is estimated

that the project will save more than $ 2 million ann ually,

and was featured in the June 1999 TeleFEM P VII

satellite broad cast.

Kennedy Space Center, Florida, is working with DOE

to award a minimum purchase project under the DOE

Southeast Region Super ESPC contract. The project

will provide energy-efficient lighting and HVAC

system modifications for eight buildings. Annual energy

savings of $368,000 are anticipated. Kennedy Space

Center is also working with the Air Force 45th Space

Wing to include NASA buildings in the scope of a new

Air Force ESPC project planned for the Cape Canaveral

Air Station. The project will reduce energy

consumption and bring natural gas to Cape Canaveral

Air Station via a pipeline extension from Kennedy

Space Center under the Banana River.

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field awarded a

minimum purchase delivery orde r to Duke Solutions,

Inc., under the DOE Midwest Region Super ESPC

contract. The work involve s lighting system upgrades

and lighting controls for 15 buildings and installation of

a boiler economizer and lower drum steam heating coil

in Building 12. The project will save $240,000

annually.

Utility Partnerships

NASA Centers received no utility rebates or other

incentives in FY 1999. However, several NASA

Centers and component facilities continued to receive

utility cost credits by voluntarily shedding electrical

loads or operating standby generation capacity when

requested by their local utility companies. Centers have

also received large reductions in energy costs through

negotiations with utility suppliers or by taking

advantage of cost savings pro grams.

For example, Ames Research is saving $400,000

annually on electrical demand charges asso ciated with

wind tunnel operations by joining Pacific Gas and

Electric’s Real Time Pricing program. Michoud

Assemb ly Facility, New Orleans, LA, negotiated a

lower electrical rate with its local utility company and

the state utility regulators. The new rate will save

NASA $240,000 annually in energy and demand

charges. Stennis Space Center, MS, initiated

discussions with its local utility comp any to install

power factor corre ction capacitors thro ugh a utility

energy efficiency service contract. An nual savings of

$192,000 are anticipated.

In addition, Kennedy Space Center issued a delivery

order to Florida Power and Light (FPL) to finance and

construct the upgrade of the LC-39 Emergency

Generator Plant. Construction was completed in FY

1999 and the plan t is now being used for emergency

backup and peak sh aving under FPL’s

Commercial/Industrial Load Control (CILC) program.

The $6.83 million project will be repaid over a period

of 15 years using electricity service rate savings, which

is projected at $770 ,000 ann ually.

Procurement of Ener gy-Efficient Products

NASA Centers and compo nent facilities are ac tively

procuring energy efficient goods and products that are

the most life cycle cost-effective. In FY 1999, NASA

Centers and Com ponent F acilities continued to install

high efficiency electrica l products su ch as variab le

frequency drive systems for fans and replacements for

incandescent bulbs, light emitting diode (LED) and

other low power consumption exit lights, and

occupancy sensors. Procedures have also been adopted

to procure ENERGY STAR® personal computers

whenever possible.

Several roof-top package air conditioning units and heat

pumps were replaced at Kennedy Space Center in FY

1999 with smaller and more efficient units. These

measures will result in savings of $4,000 annually. The

Center also installed more than 1,3 00 motio n sensors to

control lighting systems and purchased 400 ENERGY

STAR® compliant co mputers.

Environmental Activities

Several Centers hav e established fluorescent tube and

PCB ballast recycling programs, or specify on ly lowmercury “green” fluorescent lamps as replacements

since they may be disposed as non-hazardous waste.

Energy Manag ement 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
131

17. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

The National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA) owns and operates 1 3 separate facilities

dedicated to the preservation, storage, display, and use

of historical documents and artifacts. Because stringent

storage requirements are very energy-intensive and

preclude major changes in operational parameters to

conserve energy, all of the NARA facilities are

excluded from the energy reduction requirements of the

National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA).

NARA ’s yearly energy usage figures from FY 1999

show a continued reduction in energy use and are a

reflection of the implementation of NARA’s Energy

Plan. Examples of measures taken to reduce the energy

consumption during this time period are:

# Participation in electrical companies’ load

curtailment programs;

# Load-shedding p olicies at individual facilities;

# Lamp and b allast replacement projects;

# LED exit light retrofit projects;

# Installation of a cooling tower with V FDs to

control the fan motors;

# Modification of AHU ATC sequences so that the

discharge temperature is reset based on the return

air temperature;

# Operational modifications made to reduce energy

consumption;

# Installation of lighting controls; 

# Replacement of existing equipment with new highefficiency equip ment.

# Operation of the emergency generator at specific

times to reduce the electrical peak demand rate

charge; and

# Modification of the AHU discharge air temperature

set point based on hea ting/cooling seasons.

NARA ’s policy is to continue to maximize the

operational efficiency of its build ings and min imize

energy consumption. Items that are being planned for

FY 2000 are:

# Continued implementation of energy conservation

policies;

# Replacement of chillers at one of N ARA’s library

facilities;

# Implementation of an ESP C at one o f NARA ’s

library facilities; 

# Replacement of lighting systems with efficient

lamps and ballasts; and

# Continuing a joint energy purchasing agreement at

one of NAR A’s library facilities with other Federal

agencies in the area.

In addition, energy and water surveys are continuing to

be done in conjunction with NARA’s building

assessments and evaluations.

Showcase Facilities

NARA is currently reviewing its facilities to determine

if any qualify to be showcase facilities.

Personnel Development

NARA has an overall incentive award program that

includes an award fo r exception al performance in

energy con servation. 

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

An energy audit and the negotiation of an ESPC was

recently completed at one of the NARA facilities. The

work has begun and will result in an energy savings of

$34,05 7 annually.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

NARA ’s agency wide policy is to purchase and spec ify

energy efficient equipm ent whenev er it is feasible and

cost econo mical.

Energy Manag ement 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
132

18. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999 , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

(NRC) One White Flint North (OW FN) building

reported a 3 percent decrease in energy consumption

compared to FY 1989, the first full year the building

was occupied. Two White Flint North reported a 2

percent increase in co nsumption compar ed to its 1995

base year.

NRC Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 86.0 1,959.0

Natural Gas 1.0 8.0

Total 87.0 1,967.0

The energy management strategies implemented for

both the OW FN Building and the Two W hite Flint

North (TWFN) building in FY 1999 are:

# Utilization of an automated energy management

system to maximize energy efficiency of HVAC

equipme nt;

# Implementation of an employee awa reness

program that includes turn ing off lights when not in

use;

# Utilization of occupancy sensors to control interior

lighting;

# Utilization of HVAC free cooling using heat

exchange r technolog y;

# Reduced ch iller operations;

# Energy-e fficient design te chnologies in

construction and space renovations;

# Quality Assurance inspections and Quality Control

to identify wasteful and/or good operating

practices;

# Enhanced water treatment and filtering to improve

energy-efficient equipment operation s;

# Utilization of water management and conservation

technology; and

# Implementatio n of comm ercial facilitie s

management contract requirements to conserve

energy by prudent equipment operating procedures

and maintenance.

Showc ase Facilities

Security restrictio ns limit public access to OWFN and

TWFN, thereby reducing their availability as showcase

facilities. However, upon completion of noteworthy

energy reduction proje cts, NRC will request that DOE

publish a case survey in its FEMP Fo cus newsletter.

Personnel Development

NRC is an active participant in the Interagency Energy

Management Task Force. Members have attended

seminars, workshop s, and confe rences spo nsored b y the

Task Force.

Appro priate personnel have been trained and instructed

to procure ENERGY STAR® and other energy efficient

equipme nt. The building operating contractor has

received training in the goa ls of the energy conservation

program and specific guidance on me eting these goals.

Implementation of energy conservation projects are

included as elements in the position descriptions and

performance plan s of NRC facility managers.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

Initiatives are underway to meet the requirements of

Executive Order 13123 with regard to using Energy

Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs). A technical

support team has been designated to expedite and

encourage the use of these contracts as a financing

mechanism to acco mplish energy reduction pro jects.

NRC’s strategy is to use the DOE Mid-Atlantic Super

ESPC. Meetings have been held with DO E officials to

discuss program requirements. The Interagency

Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding will be

signed during the first quarter of F Y 200 0. A

comprehensive energy audit and life-cyc le cost analysis

of OWFN will be completed in the second quarter of

FY 2000 by the DOE co ntractor. The audit will identify

potential energy reduction projects and determine the

payback period of the projects. If the DOE contractor

identifies econom ically feasible pro jects, NRC will

enter into an E SPC with DOE . 

NRC will establish a con tract for a sepa rate

comprehensive energy aud it for TW FN that will

establish recommendations similar to those anticipated

under the ESPC program for OWFN.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

NRC has acquired desktop computers and monitors that

are ENERGY STAR® certified. N RC will con tinue to use
133

the ENERGY STAR® certificatio n as a selection criteria

for other energy-using products. Additionally, the

specifications for OWFN and TWFN building

operation and management services require the

contractor to opera te and main tain the facilities in

accordance with the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act and Fed eral Supply Prod uct Standards.

NRC also has an ongoing program to purchase goods

and products containing re cycled ma terials, and to

recycle aluminum cans, pape r, cardboard, glass bo ttles,

and laser toner cartridges.

Utility Partnerships

During FY 19 99, TW FN build ing participate d in the

Potomac Electric Power Company’s (PEPCO)

voluntary load curtailment program.

Workforce Transportation

NRC has implemented several initiatives to reduce

gasoline consumption including:

# A video conferencing program which reduces the

number of employees traveling;

# A transportation program which promotes the use

of car and van pools and provides priority parking

at the NRC site to employees who use them;

# A subsidy program for employees who use pu blic

transit;

# Bicycle racks and shower facilities are provided for

employees who commute by bicycle;

# A partnership agreement with a local transportation

organization provides free transportation home

when an employee who commu tes by car of van

pool or public transit has an emergency; and

# Use of other incentives such as flextime and

compressed work schedules to reduce employee

trips.

These stra tegies have en abled N RC to red uce daily 

vehicle trips by 227 to the NRC Headquarters site.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Ken McDow

Division o f Facilities and S ecurity

Office of Administration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Phone: 301-415-1712
134

19. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (RRB)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the Railroad Retirement Board reported an

increase in energy consumption in buildings of 3.1

percent in Btu per gross square foot compared to FY

1986, the year it was deleg ated autho rity to operate its

building by GSA.

RRB Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 19.7 493.5

Natural Gas 24.2 83.4

Total 44.0 576.9

The headquarters building in Chicago, Illinois, is the

only building over which RRB h as operatio nal control.

RRB operates and maintains the building under a

delegation of authority agreement with the General

Services Administration (GSA).

RRB updated its energy conservation plan in March

1993 to incorporate the requirements of NECPA,

Executive Order 12759, and EPACT.

A facility energy audit of the headquarters building was

conducted by consultants in 1994, using life cycle cost

analysis. Partly as a resu lt of this audit, RRB ha s

invested in energy-efficient equipment and items such

as T-8 lamp s, electronic b allasts, comp act fluorescent

bulbs, light sensors, air controllers, new energy-efficient

motors on all air handling units, timers on water

fountains, automatic faucets in six rest rooms, new

caulk on the inside of windows, and reinsulation of

steam and water pipes which have helped reduce energy

and water consumption. Also, RRB operating

procedures have been refined further to achieve the

maximum energy savings, including a significant

reduction o f staff hours work ed on Sa turday.

Personnel Development

This agency does not meet the definition of an

executive department under sectio n 101 o f Title 5 and

therefore is not subject to the energy management

training provision of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct).

However, personnel responsible for energy

management will receive the additional training that is

to be provided b y GSA under the E PAct requireme nts.

Funding

RRB utilizes building operation funding for energy

conservation measures. Between $10,000 and $20,000

per year of building operating funds are available for

such measures. GSA, as the Government owner of the

RRB building, has the res ponsibility to fund projects

over $50,000 and has future projects planned but not

funded.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts

RRB has not entered into any energy saving

performance contracts. The comparative ly small size of

potential contracts av ailable to RR B at a $50,000 limit

because of the delegation of authority agreement with

GSA is no t practical for this typ e of procu rement.

Utility Partnerships

RRB will be joining o ther area bu sinesses in curtailing

electricity use during the summer’s peak demand

periods. Upon notification, an energy action plan will

be implemented–a predetermined checklist of electrical

equipment and/or circuit breakers that can be switched

off. These curtailment efforts are not expected to impact

comfort or safety. Each agency will pay the contract

price for electricity, which will be time-of-day and

load-sensitive. GSA w ill provide assistance in

purchasing the necessary meters. RRB has submitted its

energy requirements to GSA for participation in this

program, but was not selected. RRB will attempt to be

included in a utility contract at another time.

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

RRB has develo ped pro cedures to ensure procurement

of energy-efficient products whenever cost-effective.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

New electric chillers installed by GSA utilize approved

R-22 refrigerant. All obsolete fluorescent ballasts have

been and will continue to be disposed of safely. Older

CFC drinking fountains are being replaced with new

energy-efficient, non-CFC refrigerant fountains.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. He nry M. V aliulis

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 
135

20. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

SSA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 639.8 11,864 .0

Fuel Oil 3.5 10.4

Natural Gas 132.0 1,137.3

Purchased Steam 26.4 358.5

Total 801.8 13,370 .2

SSA has aggressively p ursued G SA funding to install

energy efficient systems and equipment. SSA invested

$2.3 million of its own funds in energy efficient lighting

conversions in FY 1998 and $750,000 in FY 1999.

These renovations should yield $800,000 in annual

energy and maintenance savings. By the year 2001,

SSA will have implemented all energy and water

conservation projects in its delegated buildings, not

scheduled for a prosp ectus proje ct.

SSA has developed building action plans for each of its

federally-owned delegated buildings. These p lans list

feasible energy and demand savings projects. Each

project listing includes the payback period, and

projecte d energy sav ings. 

While SSA’s energy initiatives will produce significant

energy consumption and cost efficiencies, substantive

changes in the way SSA does business have affected the

use of its facilities and related energy costs. These

changes include:

# Significantly increasing automation at SSA. Prior

to 1985, SSA ha d few personal com puters or

associated equipme nt. Now with th e introducti on

of local area networks (LANs), systems include

personal compute rs, scanners, p rinters and other

periphera ls as the baseline of support fo r all SSA’s

programmatic and operational activities.

# Expanding hours of operation. To achieve the

world-class public service for which SSA is known

and to provide a worker-friendly workplace, SSA

opens its buildings for 12 hours a day, frequently

extended to 14 hou rs a day, plus 8 to 16 hours each

weekend. This level of service to the public and

commitment to flexibility for its employees

increases energy con sumption a nd impac ts its

energy reduction efforts.

# Consolid ating emplo yees into government-owned

space. SSA has improved space utilization in many

of its larger build ings. Recently, 400 SSA

employee s formerly ho used in prime leased space

in San Francisco mo ved to its We stern Program

Service Center (WNPSC) building in Richmond,

California. The energy these employees consume

is now a part of SSA’s baseline data.

SSA has implemented projects at all of its delegated

buildings to meet the required 10-year payback

established in EPAC T. 

Each of SSA’s government-owned delegated buildings

has an energy action plan. These plans identify critical

systems, outline the mo st cost effective wa y to operate

the building and identify energy/water conservation

projects. The projects are based on information

provided in the comp rehensive en ergy and wa ter audits

performed at its facilities.

SSA’s strategy for meeting the goals established in the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Executive

Order 13123 are being carried out through a

combination of energy audits, energy conservation

projects and pros pectus level p rojects thro ughout its

delegated space. Prior to August 1986, the General

Services Administration (GSA) was responsible for all

SSA-occupied space. Since then, GSA has delegated to

SSA the operational and maintenance responsibility for

9,380,000 gross square feet of space, part of a total of

26,807,000 gross square feet of space occupied by SSA

nationwide.

In conjunction with GSA, SSA has completed or

expects to complete in excess of $ 67 million in

renovations to its delegate d buildings between Fiscal

Year (FY) 1997 and FY 2000. The vast majority of

these renovations are GSA-funded prospectus level

projects. These p rojects, while not exclusively energy

projects, will significantly affect its energy baseline by

installing: 1) energy efficie nt central heating and air

conditioning plants; 2) energy efficient windows and

doors; 3) new central computer-based energy

management systems; natural day lighting; and, 4)

lighting controls.

SSA rec ently condu cted comprehensive energy aud its

of its entire inventory of federally-owned delegated

space. Audited facilities include:

# Northeast Program Service Center, New York,

New York;

# Mid-A tlantic Program Service C ente r,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
136

# W ilkes-Barre Data Operations Center,

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania;

# Woodlawn Headquarters Complex, Woodlawn,

Maryland;

# Western Program Service Center (WNSPC),

Richmond, California; and,

# Great Lakes Program Service Center, Chicago,

Illinois.

These audits covered 90 percent of SSA’s delegated

space; the remaining 10 percent is leased space.

Energy efficiency projects completed in FY 1999

include:

# Energy-efficient lighting, Operations Building,

Woodlawn, Maryland;

# New Cooling Towers, Mid-Atlantic Program

Service Center, Philadelphia, PA;

# Automa tic Revolving Doors, M id-Atlantic

Program Service Center, Philad elphia, PA ; 

# Water Conserving Fixtures, Mid-Atlantic Program

Service Center, Philadelphia, PA; and,

# Energy-efficient Lighting, Wilkes-Barr Data

Operations Center, Wilkes-Barr, PA.

In FY 19 99 comprehensive energy and water audits

were completed at SSA delegated facilities, which had

not been previously audited. SSA expects to implement

projects identified in these comprehensive audits. SSA

has budgeted for this work and may use ESPCs or area

wide utility contracts for those projects for which SSA

does not have sufficient funding. SSA anticipates using

area-wide utility contracts in New York, Baltimore and

Chicago to implement energy conservation and demand

side management projects id entified in comprehensive

audits performed b y local utility companies.

SSA has audited all of its government-owned delegated

space as indicated above. From the six comprehensive

energy aud its conducte d in FY 1999 SSA has initiated

five projects. SSA is completing a feasibility study for

a compre hensive hea ting and coo ling plant upgrade at

its building in New York. SSA does not have sufficient

funds to accomplish this work, but has established a

team to implement a performance contract through an

existing area-wid e utility contract.

A major water conservation project was completed at

its WNPSC, in Richmond, California in December

1999 to use water from an underground stream for:

# irrigation;

# gray water for flushing water closets; and,

# make up water for co oling towers.

SSA has taken several steps to reduce its need for

petroleum products. At the Security West lea sed facility

in Baltimore, Maryland, SSA has converted the existing

boiler from oil to natural gas. At the NCC, SSA

installed a new chiller and boilers that operate on dual

fuels (natural gas and oil) to allow for flexibility in the

operation of the plant and use of the lowe st cost fuel. 

In cooperation with GSA, SSA has purchased

competitive power as utility markets are deregulated.

SSA now purchases competitive power for its delegated

buildings in Pennsylvania. In FY 1999 SSA saved

approx imately $12 0,000 in e lectric utility expens es. 

SSA operates its facilities according to the energy

conservation guidelines established in the Federal

Property Management Regulations (FPMR) in the Code

of Federal Regulations, including the latest revisions for

space temperatur es. SSA train s its mechanical staff and

requires contractors to train their staffs to operate and

maintain energy efficient equipment and systems

installed in its buildings and to enhance the efficient use

of new techn ologies. 

GSA’s area-wide u tility contracts includ e all its

delegated buildings and SSA is designated as an

ordering official on these contracts. SSA has used them

to perform e nergy audits and energy conservation

lighting proje cts. 

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

SSA has analyzed a variety of solar and renew able

energy technologies for its headquarters buildings, but

their costs keep them from being viable option s. Solar

lighting was installed at its NCC as a demonstration

project. SSA explored installing daylighting in some of

its warehouse space, but it was not economically

feasible when compared with energy efficient lighting

technologies. SSA is incorporating renewable

technolo gy such as natural d aylighting into its

prospec tus level renov ations. 

While solar technologies (solar hot water and solar

lighting) have not pr oven as ec onomica lly viable as

energy projects, SSA is evaluating the use of solar

preheating for outdoor ventilation air and ground source

heat pumps as renewable technolog ies. SSA believes

that these systems can potentially be incorp orated into

designs of ex isting and new buildings. 

The SSA/GSA pro spectus for a new child care facility

at its headquarters in Woodlawn, Maryland, includes

renewab le technologies in its design. This project has

been approved for c onstruction. Renewable

technologies to be incorporated into the design of

showcase facility include:
137

# Ground sou rce heat pumps;

# Natural day lighting; and,

# Passive solar design.

Showcase Facilities

SSA is renovating existing buildings with energy

efficient technologies such as thermal storage, efficient

lighting, cogenera tion and pa ssive solar tech nology.

GSA has submitted and received approval for a

prospectus project to build a new, standalone childcare

facility at SSA Headquarters in Woodlawn, Maryland.

Personnel Development

Building managers and staff have attended a variety of

training classes and conferences: life cycle cost (LCC)

analysis, alternative fuels, lightingcontrols, and demand

side management practices. SSA staffs attend GSA

regional conferences to become familiar with current

strategies in GSA’s program to reduce energy

consump tion. In FY 1998, SSA participated in a

Department of Energy (DOE) interactive training

program to ensure the p resence o f a trained energy

manager in each of its delegated facilities. SSA has

scheduled additional training designed to help energy

managers track energy u sage and c ost.

SSA’s Agency Energy Management Team has been

established. In addition to working on implementation

of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs),

SSA has used this team as a mea ns of educa ting its

employees about the benefits of energy conservation

and metho ds they can use to help con serve energ y.

SSA has a designated agency energy manager who

meets with DOE representatives on energy conservation

issues affecting SSA. SSA has a building/facilities

manager at each of its delegated facilities re sponsible

for evaluating energy use and implementing energy

conservation measures. All personnel responsible for

tracking energy perform ance have been trained in

energy con servation. 

SSA has incorp orated en ergy evaluatio n and analysis

responsibilities into Building Man agement Specialist

positions. SSA has ensured that facilities manag ers in

all its facilities are aware of energy regulations and

guidelines. Managers monitor energy consumption and

savings.

While SSA has not established an incentive program for

employees implementing EPACT and Executive Order

13123, SSA does award employees whose job

descriptions require energy management skills and

whose overall performance or individ ual acts are

exception al. SSA also recognizes individual

contributions to energy savings through its on-the-spot

and suggestion awards programs. In FY 1999, its Chief

Energy Manager’s e fforts were recognized when he

received a 1999 Federal Energy and Water

Manag ement Award from the Departm ent of Energ y.

Funding

While GSA’s energy conservation funds for delegated

agencies have been its primary funding source, those

funds are no longer available. SSA has funded many

projects itself to keep energy projects moving and

achieve additional savings. For example, in FY 1998

SSA awarded $2.3 million in lighting and lighting

controls projects for SSA’s Headquarters Operations

and Sup ply buildings. 

Since there are no energy c onservatio n funds availab le

through GSA, SSA has included funding for energy

conservation measures identified in the audits in its

operating plan for FY 2000 and 200 1. SSA is using

both agency and delegations funds to accomplish

energy con servation pr ojects. 

Energy S avings Perfo rmance C ontracts (ES PCs)

SSA has not initiated ESPCs because many of the ideal

candidate projects (primarily lighting) either have been

accomplished or will be through prospectus work. To

date, SSA has used direct funding for its energy

conserva tion proje cts. 

SSA may be able to perform some sma ller projec ts

through an ESPC, e.g., converting the remaining

lighting and motors to energy efficient technologies.

Other projects (variable frequency drives for pump s,

elevators, and air handlers) can be accomplished

through an ESPC. All projects will need to have an

adequa te return on investment for poten tial bidders to

have sufficient inter est in perform ing the work. 

Procurement of Ener gy Efficient Products

SSA selects energy efficient and ENERGY STAR®

produc ts for installation in its buildings. The types of

energy efficient equipme nt installed includ e: ENERGY

STAR® office equipment (computers, monitors, copiers,

and printers), and energy efficient lamps, ballasts, and

electric motors. Before large c apital equipment is

installed, various types of equipment are analyzed,

through energy aud its, for the lowest life cyc le cost.

Examples of equipment analyzed are: pump s, air

handlers, heating and cooling eq uipment. SS A’s facility

managers recognize the need to conserve energy and

actively reduce energy consumption through smart

management of its facilities.

Procurement of energy efficient goods has been one of

the topics for action at the kick-off meeting of SSA’s

Agency Energy M anagement Team. The use of

government credit cards for micro-purchases have
138

empowered many employees. SSA is enhancing training

for employees and micro-purchasers to assure they are

purchasing energy efficient produc ts.

Environmental Ben efits of Energy Ma nagement 

SSA has reduced its stock of CFC equipment

dramatica lly. SSA has a total of 12 central plants. Three

central plants are located in leased facilities, and are not

within SSA or G SA’s purvie w to repla ce. SSA is

working with GSA on the construction of new leased

space for its operatio ns in Albuq uerque an d possibly in

Birmingham. The new space will be CFC compliant and

energy efficient.

In FY 2000 SSA will convert ano ther central pla nt into

new ice generating CFC co mpliant chillers. SSA will

then have seven of its nine gover nment-owned plants

converted to new equipment. In the two remaining

plants SSA is moving to install new equipment. 

The central plant in the Northeastern Program Service

Center, delegated to SSA in FY 1997 is not CFC

complian t. In this plant, SSA intends to install new

equipment through a utility energy-efficiency service

contract. In its plant in the Metro West facility SSA is

evaluating the feasibility of connecting to a district

chilled water system and removing the old chillers. SSA

will continue to address the compliance issue.

It is SSA’s routine practice to recycle both lamps and

ballasts. SSA has incorpor ated this requ irement into its

contracts. SSA prefers to recycle polychlorinated

biphenyl (PCB) containing ballasts, as it has done for

three years. All existing motors, which SSA has

replaced with energy efficient motors, have been

recycled. This saves landfill space and better uses

limited resou rces. 

SSA will realize additional benefits as energy

conservation projects ar e comple ted. The p rojects

initiated in FY 1999, when completed, should provide

annual savings of approximately 14,764,051 Kilowatt

hours. The fossil fuel required to produce this amount

of electricity would have discharged 14,291 pounds of

carbon dioxide, 54,334 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and

43,115 pounds of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere.

These gases are known to contribute to depleting the

ozone layer and creating acid rain.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Ed Harmon

Office of Realty Management

Social Security Administration

1-B-25 Operations Building

6401 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21235

Phone: 410-965-4989

Fax: 410-966-0668
139

TVA Perfo rmance Toward

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

21. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

During FY 1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority

reported a decrease in energy consumption in buildings

of 22.8 percent in Btu per gross square foot compared

to FY 1985.

TVA Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY98

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 644.0 8,493.9

Fuel Oil 2.9 20.2

Natural Gas 3.8 36.7

Total 650.8 8,550.8

TVA ’s Energy Plan ensures the efficient use of energy

in the operation, maintenance, and design of TVA

buildings and facilities. During FY 1999, TVA

implemented energy conservation opportunities costing

$1.49 million with a po tential annual savings of more

than $650,000. This is an average payback of 2.27

years.

To meet the challenge of surveying more buildings, the

DOE Facility Energy Decision System (FEDS) building

energy analysis program is used to identify and evaluate

potential energy con servation opportunities (ECOs).

Cost effective ECOs are identified through the FEDS

software, allowing manpower to be used more

effectively and efficiently for implementation of

measures.

The following are e nergy conse rvation pro jects

completed during FY 1999:

Lighting and lighting control systems were upgraded at

TVA facilities under SWAP II. The concept of SWAP

II is to visit a facility, perform an evaluation, consider

upgrades on the lighting controls, and install con trols in

applications that meet a prescribed threshold. The

average payback period for upgrades during FY 1999

was less than one year.

At the Cherokee Dam Reservation, non-working street

lights were replaced with low pressure sodium light

fixtures. 

At the Chickamauga Power Service Center, restroom

exhaust fans were hooked to e xisting motion sensors.

The cost to install the technology was $500, while the

potential annual savings is more than $1,000.

A variable frequency drive was installed on the air

handler in Monteagle Place Building. The cost of the

retrofit was $9,00 0 and the p otential annua l savings is

$400 per year for energy use with a one time

maintenanc e savings of $ 10,000 . 

Upgrades of electrical service, heating equ ipment, and

roof insulation were conducte d at the Norris Dam

Visitor Building. 

More energy efficient central air conditioning systems

were installed in 12 new switchhouses this year as

opposed to traditional, less efficient window units.

The Natural Reso urce Build ing had an e xcessively

complex system to control the cooling tower and

electric heaters for the water loop heat pump system.

This was replaced with a simpler, more efficient system.

TVA has installed energy management systems at more

than 25 other facilities.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

To save energy and periodic maintenance costs, solar

panels have been installed to power F AA warn ing lights

at four locations.

TVA has develo p ed a pro ject in which it is following

the development of technologies for wind turbines and

for solar PV and thermal. TVA is evaluating sites

within the Tennessee Valley for potential wind farm

siting. The status of this project is as follows:

# The wind monitoring program has been completing

and identifying potential wind sites.

# Recommendations to conduct advanced monitoring

are under considera tion right now. 

# The solar technology following program will

continue to assess technology advances and pricing

trends.
140

# A PV installation to support green pricing will be

a visible dem onstration o f this technolog y.

Showcase Facilities

The 738,500 gross square foot Knoxville Office

Complex (KOC) in Knoxville, TN continues to be

TVA ’s building showcase, as a new showcase facility

was not designa ted for FY 1999. W ith over 20 energyefficient and enviro nmentally friend ly measures

implemented, building energy use in the KOC was

reduced by 23 pe rcent. 

Personnel Development

TVA provides training for emp loyees in ord er to

accomplish objectives for the Internal Energy

Management Program (IEMP). TVA provides updates

on current Federal requirements and regulations for

employees, managers, and TVA customers, when

requested. Ongoing energy man agement tra ining is

provided to manage rs of facilities. Building energy

monitors are appointed and trained for all primary

corporate buildings. T VA also educates sta ff in both

energy and environmental related topics through the

TVA University.

Funding

Funding procedures for energy management and related

environmental projects are reviewed through the IEMP

and through the AEMC. Recomm endations and

comme nts are submitted to the proper organizations.

Projec ts 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 proc ess.

Energy Savings P erformance Contra cts (ESPCs)

TVA considers the use of Energy Savings Performance

Contracts (ESPCs) when cost effective for TVA and its

customers. During FY 1999, T VA did not enter into

any ESPCs.

Procurement of Ener gy-Efficient Products

TVA ’s affirmative procurement po licy includes a

statement that energy manageme nt and efficienc y will

be considered along with environmental impacts when

new or replacement equipment is purchased.

TVA continues its efforts to buy mate rials that have

positive environmental qualities. In FY 1999, TVA

purchased $1.5 million of materia ls that met

requireme nts of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCR A), and $1 .4 million of other

recycled content materials. TVA also purchases

materials which meet sustainable architecture criteria

(materials which are non-toxic, have recycled content

and whose creation, use, and disposal do not damage

the environment). TVA ’stotal environmental purchases

exceeded $6.1 million in FY 1999.

Utility Partnerships

TVA continues to support electrical demand-side

management activities in lieu of building additional

generation. This is achieved through good working

relationships with retail powe r distributors and large

industrial customers. 

TVA partners with power distributors to provide direct

load control by utilizing cycling switches on water

heaters and air con ditioners. T hese switches allow for

reduction of peak demands during critical load periods.

TVA has entered into rate incentive contractual

arrangements with power distributors and industrial

customers to provide for interruption of industrial loads

during peak dem and situations.

Vehicles

As a major supplier of elec tricity, TVA is particularly

interested in supporting the use of electric vehicles

(EVs). TVA continues to in corpora te EVs into its fleet

operations, and continues to support power distributors

and local communities with EV technology

demon strations. 

TVA ’s alternative fueled vehicle (AF Vs) fleet con sists

of 20 EV S, which are: one van, nine sedans, and 10

pickup trucks. In FY 1999, TVA entered into an

agreement with a major auto manufacturer for five

leased EV s to add to its c urrent fleet. 

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

TVA encourages employee s to use mass tra nsit systems,

vans for group travel, and ca r pools when available and

feasible. The use of coordinated TVA and vendor

delivery and pick-up routing schedules and just-in-time

delivery was expan ded throu ghout TV A. This

coordinated effort avoids double handling, multiple

trips to the same sites, and reduces deadheading.

During Federal Energy Awareness Month, an energy

exhibit was displayed for a week at each of TVA ’s

major corporate locations. The exhibit informed TVA

employees about Fe deral energy requirements, the steps

TVA is taking to mee t those require ments, and

encouraged employees to help reduce energy use. The

display showed how much energy each piece of

equipment in an office uses in one year and also how

much energy the appliances and lighting in a typical

home uses each year. This allows the employees to
141

realize how much they can con tribute to energy savings

through their wise use of equipment and appliances and

by turning off energy-consuming equipment when not

in use.

In May 1999, TVA established a Public P ower Institute

to help new ideas and technolog ies get into the elec tric

industry marketplac e. The Institute is located in M uscle

Shoals, Alabama , and will focus o n develo pment,

demonstration, and deployment of technologies in the

areas of sustainable and clean energy, environmental

emissions reductions, environmental end-use

technologies, and improvements in energy use.

TVA has comm itted to offer a green power p roduct to

selected areas of the Tennessee Valley by summer of

FY 2000. A group of TVA employees, power

distributors, and environmental constituents has

designed a product comprised of new renewable sources from solar, win d, and land fill gas. The p roduct is

intended to be offered in incremental blocks to

consume rs. 

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Stephen L. Brothers, Jr.

Internal Energy Management Program

Technical Services Section

Tennessee Valley A uthority

Facilities and Realty Management

EE 2E-C, 1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

Phone: 423-751-7369

Fax: 423-751-6309
142

USPS Pe rformanc e Towa rd

Buildin gs En ergy Reduc tion Go als

22. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS)

Energy Efficiency Performance and 

Implementation Strategies

In FY 1999, the U.S. Postal Service reported a decrease

in energy consumption in b uildings of 18.0 percen t in

Btu per gross square foot compared to FY 1985.

USPS Buildings Energy Use and Costs, FY99

BBtu $ (Thou.)

Electricity 14,236 .2 301,76 7.0

Heating O il 821.7 3,220.0

Natural Gas 7,500.1 38,240 .0

Other 569.0 4,645.0

Total 23,127 .0 347,87 2.0

In the past, energy prioritization surveys have been

completed to determine potential energy savings

opportunities at more than 36,000 postal facilities

nationwide. The pace of completing additional

comprehensive facility audits will be determined on the

basis of the USPS’s ability to implement subsequent

energy conservation pr ojects. US PS plans to focus its

audit priorities on processing and distribution facilities

and customer service facilities that are more than

10,000 square feet in size. The main audit strategy is to

conduct audits in conjunction with alternative financing

projects.

USPS is committed to the goal of minimizing the use of

petroleum as a fuel source. Many postal facilities have

begun using natural gas in lieu of heating o il. Because

of this conversio n, USP S is reducin g the inventory of

underground storage tanks and their potential leakage

problems. The consumption of heating oil is declining

but the consumption of natural gas is increasing as a

result.

Solar and Other Renewable Energy

USPS has entered into a partnership with D OE in

supporting further development and commercial

application of solar and other renewable energy

sources. The Block Island Post Office of Rhode Island

has installed photovoltaic demonstration project. Seven

additional photovoltaic projects are planned for postal

facilities in Southern Californ ia. The U SPS will

participate in DOE’s effort by jointly developing

projects and providing pilot cases wh ere these pro jects

and concepts could be tested.

Showcase Facilities

USPS has designated three buildings as “Showcase for

Energy” facilities. These facilities are loca ted in

Portland, Oregon ; St. Paul, Minnesota; and , Ft.

Lauderdale, Florida. Energy audits have been

completed at all three facilities and various retrofit

projects are scheduled for comp letion. The se projec ts

include installing T-8 with electronic ballasts,

upgrading central HVAC systems, and installing better

energy management controls. USPS also installed pilot

sulfur lamps at Portland and F t. Lauderdale facilities.

Personnel Development

Training materials have been developed to emphasize

the role and responsibility of contracting officers in

complying with energy and environmental regulations.

USPS participated in the “You Have the Power”

campaign, distributing more than 10,000 posters

throughout 36,000 postal facilities. Seven USPS

energy champions are featured among these p osters.

A series of training seminars on Shared Energy Savings

(SES) contracts, energy program management, and

utility procurement strategies, was developed in FY 98.

Newly appointed energy managers and procurement

officials responsible for buying utilities and awarding

energy retrofit projects attend these training classes.

USPS will continue to provide additional training in

energy management as the need is identified.

Funding

USPS prioritizes energy projects based on operational

needs, safety and hea lth issues, and en vironmen tal

benefits, in addition to energy savings and economic

analysis. The local and are a office budgets or

Headquarters may provide funds for implementation of

energy retrofit projects.

In FY 1999, USPS Headquarters funded $15.3 million

for the purpose of improving en ergy efficiency; $3 .2

million for expense projects; and $12.1 million for

capital improvement projects. This ongoing energy
143

retrofit program identifies and implements high return

on investment projects. Headquarters funds for energy

retrofits are made available for projects that are

prioritized b ased on re turn on investm ent. 

USPS developed a program to replace

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerant-based chillers.

USPS allocated $ 22 million in FY 1998 to this

program, and funding priority is based on the energy

efficiency gains, age of equipment, and scheduling of

companion projects. Recovered CFCs are transferred to

the Department of Defense for their use in critical

weapon systems where phasing out CFCs is tec hnically

and fiscally not feasible.

Energy S avings Perfo rmance C ontracts (ES PCs)

USPS manages Shared Energy Savings (SES) contracts,

equivalent to DOE’s Energy Savings Performance

Contract (ESPC) program. Since the first SES contract

in 1987, USPS has mad e significant pro gress in

overcoming skepticism o f the SES concept. Now, USPS

has 33 SES contracts in place for 1,157 facilities; the

total estimated investment value is more than $79

million and the expected total energy savings are $7

million per year.

Procurement of Ener gy-Efficient Products

USPS ’s overall “best value” buying philosophy is a

perfect fit with the procurement of energy efficient

goods and products. Under this philosophy, USPS

recognizes that price and price-rela ted factors are not

the only key elements in a buying decision. Other

factors, such as energy consumption, energy efficiency

and other life cycle costing factors relating to energy

conservation should carry as much or more weig ht in

determining contract awards. USPS developed and

published the EnvironmentalProduc ts Guide promoting

purchases of energy efficient prod ucts.

Environmental Benefits of Energy Management

In FY 1999, US PS built a post office in Fort Worth ,

Texas, incorporating its Green Building Design criteria.

During the design process, an architect and engineering

firm were required to perform an energy analysis of the

design. The design analysis must demonstrate that

energy efficiency meets or exceeds stringent design

targets stipulated in the design criteria.

Energy Manag ement Contact

Mr. Pa ul Fennewa ld

Environmental Pro grams Analyst

Environment 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
A-1

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 12759, April 17, 1991

 FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12902, March 6, 1994

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES

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-2

This page intentionally left blank.
B-1

APPENDIX B

DATA COLLECTION

Buildings and Facilities

Excluded Buildings/Process Operations

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

In addition, the Federal agencies annually report to FEMP the gross square footage of their

buildings and the cost of their buildings’ energy.

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

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:

Automotive 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

Missing data and anomalies are addressed in the same fashion as those described previously in

this appendix.
B-3

Calculation of Estimated Carbon Emissions

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

associated carbon coefficient shown below. These coefficients are derived from DOE/EIA0573(98), Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1998, October 1999; Tables 11

and B1.

Carbon coefficients are calculated by dividing the carbon content of a particular fuel (for

example, 0.85 metric tons of carbon per ton of fuel) by the energy content of that fuel (say, 43

million Btu per metric ton), producing an emissions coefficient (in this example, 19.8 million

metric tons of carbon per quadrillion Btu (quad), which is the same as 19.8 metric tons per

billion Btu). The different coefficients result from differences in the amount of carbon released

when the various fossil fuels are burned. The amount of carbon released depends, in turn, on the

density, carbon content, and gross heat combustion of the fuel in question. 

The coefficients used in this report are as follows:

Metric Tons/Billion Btu 

Energy Type (Site-Delivered)

Electricity 48.17

Fuel Oil 19.95

Natural Gas 14.47

LPG/Propane 16.99

Coal 25.63

Purchased Steam 35.63

Auto Gas 19.35

Diesel 19.95

Aviation Gas 18.87

Jet Fuel 19.33

Navy Special 21.49

The electricity coefficient is based on 1995 carbon emissions from electric utilities per 1995 sitedelivered electricity consumption. (Table 11, DOE/EIA-0573(98) and Table 8.1, DOE/EIA0384(98), Annual Energy Review 1998.) This coefficient of 48.17 metric tons per billion Btu (or

million metric tons per quad) is applied to site-delivered Btu consumption of electricity. It is

equivalent to a coefficient of 14.12 metric tons per billion Btu used for primary Btu consumption

of electricity and reflects a generation mix of electricity consumption of approximately 51

percent coal, 15 percent natural gas, 2 percent fuel oil, 20 percent nuclear, and 12 percent hydro/

renewables.

The purchased steam coefficient applies the coefficient for coal to the primary energy Btu

(converted from site-delivered Btu by using a factor of 1.39).
B-4

This page intentionally left blank.
C-1

APPENDIX C

FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES,

FY 1985 THROUGH FY 1998
C-2

TABLE C 

FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES, 

FY 1985 THROUGH FY 1998 (CONSTANT 1998 DOLLARS)

Year Annual Annual Annual Change in Energy

Energy Use Energy Cost Energy Cost Costs from 19851

(BBTU) ($ MILLION) ($/MMBTU) ($ MILLION)

Buildings & Facilities

1985 470,996.2 5,732.004 12.169 0.000

1986 447,121.7 5,187.856 11.603 -544.148

1987 468,780.3 5,188.398 11.068 -543.607

1988 443,827.0 4,712.353 10.618 -1,019.651

1989 440,744.8 4,305.996 9.770 -1,426.008

1990 441,376.1 4,786.415 10.845 -945.589

1991 404,488.9 4,350.590 10.756 -1,381.415

1992 413,383.9 4,129.214 9.989 -1,602.790

1993 403,399.0 4,304.976 10.671 -1,427.028

1994 385,920.2 4,100.330 10.625 -1,631.674

1995 366,747.0 3,816.736 10.407 -1,915.268

1996 358,736.0 3,740.690 10.427 -1,991.314

1997 349,675.0 3,592.137 10.273 -2,139.867

1998 349,402.4 3,530.307 10.104 -2,201.697

Vehicles & Equipment

1985 934,333.0 8,700.327 9.311 0.000

1986 924,833.7 5,254.680 5.681 -3,445.647

1987 958,904.3 5,561.290 5.799 -3,139.037

1988 846,896.1 5,259.686 6.211 -3,440.641

1989 959,994.5 5,890.057 6.136 -2,810.271

1990 926,994.8 6,340.348 6.840 -2,359.979

1991 970,454.3 7,816.240 8.054 -884.087

1992 783,122.4 4,634.151 5.918 -4,066.176

1993 772,633.7 4,868.846 6.301 -3,831.481

1994 722,790.8 3,485.969 4.823 -5,214.358

1995 687,143.4 3,593.288 5.230 -5,107.039

1996 675,111.3 3,528.602 5.226 -5,171.725

1997 665,385.6 4,073.332 6.122 -4,626.995

1998 627,729.9 4,346.405 6.924 -4,353.922

Energy Intensive Operations

1985 39,575.5 582.260 14.713 0.000

1986 38,167.9 538.387 14.106 -43.872

1987 38,532.6 529.509 13.742 -52.751

1988 69,488.5 871.060 12.535 288.801

1989 63,735.5 706.719 11.088 124.459

1990 65,020.5 790.869 12.164 208.609

1991 83,406.1 917.224 10.997 334.964

1992 97,762.4 1,010.311 10.335 428.051

1993 70,536.3 659.400 9.348 77.140

1994 70,457.9 684.471 9.715 102.211

1995 75,575.3 614.855 8.135 32.596

1996 73,855.8 649.676 8.796 67.416

1997 65,501.1 674.260 10.294 92.000

1998 65,930.5 621.337 9.424 39.077

1

Chang es in ene rgy costs from 19 85 sho uld not be construe d as sav ings resu lting from F ederal e nergy m anagement a ctivities. 

Many variables contribute to fluctuations in annual energy costs, including change s in square footage, building stock, weather,

energ y efficie ncy inv estments, s ervice level, fu el mix, f uel pric es, an d veh icle, na val, an d aircra ft fleet compo sition. T his tab le

incorporates revisions to previously published energy consumption and cost data submitted to DOE by Federal agencies.

Source : Federa l Agency Annua l Energy Mana geme nt Data R eports
D-1

APPENDIX D

BUILDINGS EXEMPTED FROM NECPA’S 

PERFORMANCE GOAL IN FY 1998

Section 543(a)(2) of NECPA states, “An agency may exclude from the requirements of paragraph

(1) any building, and the associated energy consumption and gross square footage, in which

energy intensive activities are carried out. Each agency shall identify and list in each report made

under section 548(a) the buildings designated by it for such exclusion.” These buildings are not

included in the calculations for determining performance toward the buildings Btu/GSF reduction

goals. Instead, they are included under the category of excluded buildings/process energy. The

energy consumed in these buildings is included on tables and figures which show total

consumption (buildings and facilities, vehicles and equipment, and excluded buildings/process).

Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland Sites

101 Administration

102 Gate H ouse

202 Eng. Mech.

205 Fire Research

206 Conc r. Mtrls.

220 Metrology

221 Physics Lab

222 Chemistry

223 M trls. Test.

224 Polymers

225 Technology

226 Building Research

230 Fluid Mech.

231 Industrial

233 Sound

235 Reactor CNRF

236 Hazards

237 N on-magne tic

238 N on-magne tic

245 Radiation

301 Supply and Pln.

302 SCWPG Cooling TWR

303 Service

304 Instr. Shops

305 Switchgear

306 Elec. Sub.

307 Ch emical W aste

308 Bo wman House

309 Grounds

310 Hazards Strg.

311 Grounds Strg.

411 TRF

412 T emp. Ofc

413 T emp. Ofc

415-41 8 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 S trength

21 Maintenance Garage

22 Wa rehouse

24 Plasma Physics

24A Plasma Physics - Annex A

25 Maintenance Shops

26 Day C are Facility

27 High Frequency

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

AKWO11 E.T. Shop

AKW129 Elec. Storg. Bldg. & Fac.

AKW 130 M arine Wareho use

ARM004 WFO

CAW 072 SW Fisheries Cn tr

CAW107 WSO
D-2

CA4486 WSFO

COC004 WSFO

COM017 O ptics Bldg & Fac.

COM018 Lab. Bldg

COM019 Lab. Bldg

COM053 Lab. Bldg

CTE005 Chem. Storg. Bldg. & Fac.

FLE078 Port of Miami

FLM024 WSO

HIW015 WSO

LAM048 Ofc. Bldg

MAE03 2 Morris Island Observ

MEE 00S NWS F orecast O fc

MOC036 WSFO

MOC037 NEXRA D Bldg

MSM011 W FO

MTW006 R adar Bldg

MTW0119 B alloon Infltn. Bldg

NCC001 Dive Locker & Fac.

NEC008 Balloon Infltn. Bldg. & Fac.

NMM021 W FO

NVW016 Balloon Infltn. Bldg

NY5451 30 Rockefeller Plaza

ORW012 Fire Station/WSO

ORW065 W SO

PAE013 Storage Bldg. & Fac.

TNM006 W FO

TXM029 W SO

UTW004 Balloon Infltn. Bldg

VAE014 Antenna Deck & Fac.

WAW 052 Behavior Lab. & Fac.

WVE002 NW S Bldg

Bureau of Census

Charlotte Computer Center

Department of Defense

Process energy use at D epartmen t of Defense (DOD ) facilities, or “buildin gs” under th e definition of P L 100-6 15, is

separately identified from the building and facilities energy use reported under the goal of section 543. Some DOD

facilities have both building and facility use, and process energy use. DOD actively manages process energy

facilities in such a manner as to achieve a 10 percent energy efficiency improvement goal by FY 1995. The

following lists those facilities which rep ort proce ss energy and are exemp t from NECPA's pe rformance goal.

Army

Cold Region R&E Lab, Hanover, NH

Stratford Engine Plant, CT

21st SU PCO M, Ge rmany 

Lima ARMODCTR, OH

Tobyhanna ARDEP, PA

Scranton AAP, PA

Radford AAP, VA

Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL

V Corps, Frankfurt, Germany

Holston AAP, Kingsport, TN

Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR

Dist. Engr., New Orleans, LA

Louisiana AAP, Shreveport, LA

Sunflower AAP, Laurence, KS

Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI

Lake City AAP, Independence, MO

Fort Leonard Wood, Waynesville, MO

Mississippi AAP, Picayune, MS

Navy

NSY, Portsmouth, NH

NSY, Philadelphia, PA

NAC, Indianapolis, IN

NSY, Portsmouth, VA

NSC, Norfolk, VA

NSY, Charleston, SC

NSY, Mare Island, CA

NSC, Oakland, CA

NSC, San Diego, CA

NSY , Puget So und, WA

NSY , Pearl Ha rbor, Ha waii

NAV SUB ASE, P earl Harb or, Hawa ii

NSC, P uget Soun d, WA

NSC, P earl Harb or, Hawa ii

NSC, Charleston, SC

NSY, Long Beach, CA

NAPC, Trenton, NJ

NSRF Guam, Marianas Islands

NSSPO, Magna, UT 

NARF, Alameda, CA

NARF, Jacksonville, FL

NARF, Norfolk, VA

NARF, San Diego, CA

NARF, Pensacola, FL

NARF, Cherry Point, NC

NSPASURSTA, Chula Vista, CA

NSPASURSTA, Maricopa, AZ

NSPASURSTA, Truth or Consequences, NM

NSPASURSTA, Archer City, TX
D-3

NSPASURSTA, Lewisville, AR

NSPASURSTA, Hillandale, MS

NSPASURSTA, Wetumpka, AL

NSPASURSTA, Hawkinsville, GA

NSPASURSTA, Savannah, GA

NWIRP, Toledo, OH

NIROP, Rochester, NY

Grumman Aerospace, Bethpage, NY

NIROP, Pittsfield, MA

NIROP, Minneapolis, MN

NIROP, Sunnyvale, CA

Allegany Ballistics Lab, Pin to, WV

NIRP, St. Paul, MN

NWIRP, Bloomfield, CT

NIROP, Pomona, CA

NWRIP, Bedford, MA

Grumman Aircraft Eng., Calverton, NY

DLA

DCSC, Columbus, OH

Department of Energy

Los Alamo s National Lab oratory

Equipment Test Lab

Lab M eson Fac ility

Operations Bldg

Service Corridor

Accelerator Tec Bldg

LANSCE/WNR Bldg

Proton Storage Ring

High Re s Beam F acility

General Purpose Lab

WN R Lab S upport F acility

Wareho use

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 T echnical Support

Shop & Storage Bldg

Office Bldg

Wareho use

Office Bldg

Med Resolution Spect

Neutron Exper Service

GTA Facility

ML Neutron Scattering 

322 Trailers, Transportables & Small Service Sheds

Kansas City Plant

 

Industrial W astewater P retreatment F acility

Pantex Plant

16-4/Paint and Sa nd Blast

16-10/Vehicle W ash

Security Lighting

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

(Site No. 0112)

Building 880

Building 827

858/Microelectronics Development Lab

878/Process Development Lab

Naval P etroleum and O il Shale Re serves in

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming

Maintenance Shop

LTS Gas Plant M ain Compressor Building

Steam G enerator # 1 Facility

Warehouse Quonset

Water T reatment Fa cility

Field Co re Facility

Steam G enerator # 2 Facility

Steam G enerator # 3 Facility

Steam G enerator # 4 Facility

Steam G enerator # 5 Facility

Field Operations Office

Environmental, Safety, and Health Office

Water Treatment Facility Expansion

UPS Building

LTS Gas Plant Office

Water D isposal Fac ility

LTS Gas Plant Shop

Polymer Plant

LTS Gas Plant PAM CO Building

LTS Gas Plant Lab

LTS Ga s Plant Pump H ouse

Fireflood Pump Building

South Terminal Main Building

South Gate Guard Shack
D-4

Idaho Operations

Utility Building

Laboratory

Transportation Complex

Service Building Po werhouse

New W aste Calcining Facility

Coal-Fired Bo iler House

Coal Plant Unloading Building

Liquid Effluent Treatm ent and D isposal Fac ility

Hot Sho p/Man ufacturing and Assembly

SMC Manufa cturing and A ssembly

ATR Building

ATR Cooling Tower P umphouse

 Deep Well Pump-House #4

 Diesel Generator Building

Waste Heat Recovery Building

 

ICF Ka iser, Han ford Site

Riggers Lo ft

Tritium V ault

Tritium Laboratory

6 Reactor Facilities

Decon Station Foundation

4 Effluent Water Outfall Structures

3 Retention Basins

Filter Plant P ower Op eration Fac ility

Mechanical Development Lab (D&D in prog-’94)

Main Pum p House

Fresh Metal Storage

Development Laboratory (D & D in Prog-’94)

Main Pump HSE-Includes North and South Annex

Biology Laboratory

ERD S Tow ers On H anford Site

Wareho use

Mobile Office @105H

Change Room Trailer @ 105H

Mobile Office (FKA:1131N)

Mobile Office @ 105H

Gas Recirculation Building

2 Exhaust Air Sample Building

Power C ontrol Bu ilding Colum bia River M onitorin

Effluent Water Treatment Pilot Plant

Water S tudies Semiworks Fac ility

Offices and Telephone Exchange

Filter Plant Head House, Chlorine

11 Office Buildings

Badge House T emporary

3 Carpenter Shops

Change Room Building

Crib Effluen t Iodine M onitoring Fa cility

9 Storage Buildings

Demineralization Plant Building

Fuel Oil Storage Tank and Unloading Platform

Vehicle Gate Inspection Bldg

Patrol Boat H ouse

Rivr Guard Tower

Mobile Office W. of 1167A

Process Facility

Tank F arm W aste Supp ort Facility

Gas Preparation Building

Underground W aste Storage Tank Farm

Waste Disposal Tank Farms (4)

Tank

Tank an d Vault

Radioactive Particle Research Laboratory

Cask Loading Building

Guard Station for 209E

Office Administration and G ate House

Office Administration Building

Paint Storage Building

Critical Mass Storage

Office Machine Storage

Field Mobile @ Slab Yard

Canine Fa cility

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 MO 931)

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)

Mob ile Ofc @ Baltimore N/O 4th

2 Mo bile OFC @ Ba ltimore N/O 4th

1 Janitorial Storage @284E

2 Mobile Office @200 Area ETF

Mob ile Office @ Baltimore N/O 4th

Mobile Office @ 4th & Baltimore 

Lunchroom Trailer @ Slab Y ard

Mobile Office @ 4th &Baltimore (AKA: 2910E)

Graphics Trlr @ 284E (ATT MO203)

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

Pipefitter Storage

Pipefitter Small Shop

Gas Bottle Dock

Pipefitter Small Shop

Sheetmetal Shop

Material Storage
D-5

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 I ncinerator F acility

Plutonium Concen tration Facility

Exhaust Filter Building

Change Ho use

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 W arehouse

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 & M aterial Storage

Uranium Oxide F acility

Uranium Concretio n Facility

Uranium Concretion Change Room

Electrician and Pipefitter Shop

Storage

Materials Development Laboratory

2 Fuel Development Laboaratory

SP-100 Ges Te sr Facility

Emergency Storage, Part if 309 Building

N Fuel Manufacturing Support FAX.

Engineering Development Laboratory

Stress Rup ture Test F acility

Hydrom echanical/S eismic Facility

Model Heat Loop , Part of 321 Building

Mechanical Properties Laboratory

Chemical Engineering Building

Stack Sam pling Facility

Post Irradiation Test Laboratory

Virology Laboratory

Dog Kennel

Animal Resources Storage Building

Packag ing Test Fa cility

N Fuel Building

Waste Acid Storage Building

Waste N eutralization F acility

Waste Retention Building

Maintenance Shop

Communication and Documentation Services

Change Ho use

Radioanalytical Laboratory

Organic Chemistry Laboratory

Spare Parts W arehouse

Materials Archive Building

Laboratory Equipment Central Pool Building

Sodium Storage F acility

Chemistry and Metal Sciences Laboratory

Classified Inc inerator Fa cility

Fabrication Shop

Solvent and Acid Storage Building

Emergency Air Bottle Bldg(ATT to 3701d)

Classified V ault

Geotechnicl High-Bay

Gamma Irrdiation Facility Laboratory Equipment

Central Pool

Graphite Machine Shop

Paint Storage Building

Radiological Calibrations and Standards

Electron A cclerator F acility

Irradiation Physics Building

Conference Training Building

Technic al Security

Offices

Laboratory

Mob ile Office 32 9 T.2

Mob ile Office 32 9 T.1

Mobile Office (377 Trl 1)

Mob ile Office 37 60 T.1

Mobile Office (3745 Trl 1)

Mob ile Office 32 6 T.2

Mob ile Office 30 6W T .2

Mob ile Office 32 8 T.5

Mobile Office (3705 Trl 1)

Mobile Office (318 Trl 3)

Mob ile Office 33 1 T.5

Mobile Office (323 Trl 2)

Mobile Office (333 Trl 1)

Mob ile Office 30 6W T .6

Mobile Office (366 Trl 4)

Mobile Office (3770 Trl 2)

Mobile Office (3770 Trl 1)

4 Mobile Office

Mob ile Office 31 8 T.2

Mobile Office @ FM IT

Mob ile Office 32 5 T.1

Mob ile Office 32 0 T.2

Mobile Office (FMIT TRL 3)

Mobile Office (FMIT TRL 5)
D-6

Escort Trailor

Mobile Office to be Excessed 7/94

Mob ile Office Also Known As 377 T rl 2

HPT Office @ 340

Mob ile Office 30 6W 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)

Mob ile Office 37 60 T.3

Mobile Office (FMIT Trl 10)

Mobile Office (3763 Trl 1)

Mobile Office to be Excessed 10/94

Mob ile Office @ ESM L Constr. S ite

Radio Maintenance Shop(655W-AVE)

X Ray Fa cility

Sand Blast Facility

Telephone Exchange (959FIRSTST)

Hevy Equipment Repair Shop and Office

Oil Storage

Bottled Gas Storage

Fabrication Shop

Compressor Shop

Ware house 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 @ 1 209 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)

Mob ile Office @ EMS L Site EM SL Tr.1

Visitor’s Center

Training F acility

Maintenance and Storage Facility (MASF)

Former Guard Station, Kentucky Blvd

Guard Station, Grant Ave.

Guard S tation, Haye s St.

Security Maintenance Shop

400 Area Fire Station

400 Area Site Support Office

Medical Aid Station

Site Service Maintenance Shop

Wareho use (Special To ols)

Wareho use

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 H ouse

Lysimeter Preparation Building

Ale Field Storage Building

ALE Laboratory 11

Pump H ouse

Fallout Laboratory

Fire Protection Pum p House

Mobile Office @ Grout

Escort Trailor @ Gate 814

Mobile Office s/o 622G

Portable GEN /Water T ank @ CTRL L andfill

Mobile Office @243G

Boar House/Storage Building

Savannah River Operations Office

3 Pumphouses

4 Reactor Buildings

4 Area Cooling Water Pumphouses

4 Area Fuel Unloading Facilities

4 Emergency Diesel Generator/Fuel Oil Storage

Facilities

Brookhaven National Lab

Accelerator Storage

Medical Research Reactor

AGS Switchho use

Pumphouse, Cooling Tower

Valvehouse

Equipment H ouse

NAT Synchrotron Light Source

Gamma-Ray Beam Reactor

High Flux Beam Reactor

Cold N eutron Fac ility

Fanhouse

Dynam V an De G raaff

Cyclotron

Machine Shop

Tandem Van D e Graaff

Magnet Development

Magne t Assembly

Electricians Work Area

Cryogenic Test Fac ility

Pett VI

Heavy Io n Power Supply A
D-7

Heavy Io n Power Supply B

Heavy Ion Beam Tunnel

AGSE xperimen tal Halls

Mechanical Equipment

AGS Tunnel

Fan House A

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 Equ ipment House

Booster

Wareho use

7 Works Building

E-10 P ower Sup ply

Exp. Po wer Supp ly Building G -2

Scientific Assembly

Works Building

N. Experimental Tunnel

MG P ower Sup ply

RF Po wer Supp ly

200 MEV Linac

Irradiation F acility (Cliff0

Isotope Producer (BLIP)

F-10 House Equipment

Radiation Effects Tunnel

On-Line D ata Facility

Booster Tunnel

Blip Pump House

4 Storages

Dead Storage

Experimental Computer/Electrical Building

Compressor Building

Electronic Equipm ent Repa ir

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 Ho use Building

3 Property Warehouse Buildings

4 Flammable Storage Buildings

3 Foam Deludge Building

Rwis Pump Hpuse Building

2 Gun Cleaning Building

Weld Shop B uilding

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 B uilding

Guard House Corner B uilding

3 Gun Cleaning Building

Water Storage Building

2 Motor Control Center Building

Maintenance & W arehouse Building

Erner Properness Building

Rwis Ups Building

2 Communications Buildings

Warehouse E Building

Main Fire Water Building

Fire At Black Lake Building

ACUS Small Shed

Control Room Taxom a 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

Contruction 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 Hou Building
D-8

Fire Transformer Dei Building

Fill Site Storage Building

Maintanance Receiving Building

Lab Building

Radio Tower Building

Guard H ouse On Site

Foam Prop. #3 Building

Foam Prop.#2 B uilding

Foam Prop. #1 Building

Foam Prop. #4 Building

Operator Control Dk1 Building

Operator Control Dk2 Building

Foam Prop Do ck 1 Building

Firewater Pump Dk 1 Building

Foam Prop. Dock 2 Building

Property Whse/Maint Building

Vehicle Maintenance Building

Wash Rack Building

Wheeled Equip B uilding

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 W arehouse

Warehouse D

Rwis

Wareho use Guard H ouse

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Accelerator Tunnel

Klystron Gallery

Beam Switch Yard (BSY)

Damp ing Ring V ault, South

Damp ing Ring V ault, North

Damp ing Ring RF - South

Damp ing 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 F acility

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 Are a/East

Spear Control Building

Spear Interaction Are a/West

SSRL, North Annex

Test Beam Facility (TBF)

SSRL South Arc Building

SSRL Lab/Office/Shop Bldg

SSRL S pear Injec tor (in Const.)

Van Group D

Experimental Control C-Beam

East Pit Control Room

82" BC Supp ort

82" BC Supp ort

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 Ha ll

IR 2 Hall Annex

IR 2 Counting H ouse

IR 2 Support Building

IR 4 Ha ll

IR 4 Counting H ouse

IR 4 Support Building

IR 6 Ha ll

IR 6 Counting H ouse

IR 6 Support Building

IR 8 Ha ll

IR 8 Support Building

IR 10 Support Building

IR 12 H all

IR 12 Cou nting House

IR 12 Support Building

SSRL PBF 18

CEH SLC Ex perimenta l Hall

MkII Leach

MCC Po rtable Building

Light Fabrication Building

Heavy Fabrication Building

Plating Shop Annex

Vacuum Assembly Building

Light Assembly Building

EFD Shops and Storage

EFD Shop B uilding

Rigging Lo ft
D-9

PMU S hops Building

Transport Tire Shop

Electronics Shop Trailer

Research Yard Machine Shop

Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation Administration

62 Automated Flight Service Stations

Airport Information D esk

Automated International Flight Service Station

119 Approach Light Systems

Airway Beacon

127 Air Route Surveillance Radar -

 FAA and Military

Air Route Traffic Control Center

189 Automated Radar Terminal Systems

23 Airport Surface Detection Equipment

647 Altimeter Setting Indicators

263 Airp ort Surveillan ce Rada r - 

 FAA and Military

568 Airway/Terminal Building Maintenance

23 Air Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator

331 Air Traffic Control Radar Beacons

464 Airport Traffic Control Towers

398 Automatic Terminal Information Systems

356 Automated Weather Observing Systems

Aerial Tramway

597 BRIT E Radar Indicator Terminal Equipment

294 Backup Em ergency Communications

116 Computer Based Instruction

2 Central Computer Complexes

120 Closed Circuit TVs

229 Commo n Digitizers

10 Cloud Height Indicators

Computer Display Channel

Combined Center/RAPCO

11 Control Circuit Equipment

407 Control Line Maintenance

17 Com munication s Microw ave Link T erminals

23 Com mand Communic ations Outle ts

Center Building Maintenance

23 Dire ct Access Radar Cha nnels

Display Channel Complex

337 Direction Finders - VHF

226 Direction Finder Indicators

584 Distance Measuring Equipment

51 Distance Measuring Equipment Remaining

558 Data Multiplexors

811 Data Terminal Equipme nt

En Route Automated Radar 

 Tracking System

5 Electronic Data Processing Systems

468 Electrical Distribution Systems

12 Emergency Operating Facilities

50 Flight Data Entry and Printout

23 Flight Data Input/Output Centers

391 Flight Data Input/Output Remotes

Flight Data Remoting System Intermediate 

 Fields and Landing Areas

39 Fan Markers

20 Flight Service Data Processing Systems

189 Flight Service Stations

46 Ground/Air Transmitter Receivers

Guidanc e Light Facility

Gap Filler Radar

85 Geo stationary Op erational 

 Environmental Satellite Systems

864 Glide Slopes

1143 Homing Rad io Beacons

5 Central H eating Facilities - P er Unit

22 Helip orts

Homing Radio Beacon - High Power

1 Internation al Aerona utical 

Telecommunications Switching Center

260 Integrated Communications 

 Switching Systems

26 Identification, Friend or Foe

International Flight Service Station

International Flight Service 

 Transmitter Station

81 Inner Markers

136 V HF/UH F Link Te rminals

23 Localizer Type Directional Aids

20 Lead-in Light Facilities

37 Living Quarters

114 Low Level W ind Shear Alert

 Systems

Compass Locator at the ILS

 Middle Marker

4 Link Repeaters

1053 ILS Localizers

473 Compass Locators at the ILS

 Outer Marker

94 Medium-Intensity Approach

 Lighting Systems

633 Medium-Intensity ALS (MALS)

 with Runway Alignment

 Indicator Lights (RAIL)

4 Mete orologica l and Aero nautical 

 Presentation Systems

9 Marine Equipment Bo ats and Docks

625 Multichannel Recorders

17 Military Height Finder Radar

33 Military Interface Groups

Military Interface Modification
D-10

272 Microwave Landing Systems

 Azimuth

160 M icrowave Landing S ystems 

 Back A zimuth

271 Microwave Landing System Distance

 Measuring Equipment Precision 

276 Microwave Landing System Elevation

1 Microwave Landing System Flare

828 Middle M arkers

14 Mobile Laboratories

105 Mod e S/Data Links

46 Maintenance Processing Systems

400 M obile Eng ines or Ge nerator P lants

28 National Data Interchange Networks

1282 National Radio Communications Systems

39 Next Generation Weather Radar

65 Off Airways Weather Stations

50 Omnidirectional Airport Lighting Systems

Oceanic Display and Planning System

325 Heavy Equipment and Off-Road Vehicles

831 Outer Markers

General Oil Distribution System

180 Precision Approach Path Indicators

2 Precision Approach Radar

707 Power Conditioning Systems

19 Primary Powe r Engines o r Genera tor Plants

68 Quarters Building - Other than

 Living Quarters

8 Radar Approach Control - Air Force

111 Rotating Beam Ceilometers

11 Radar Bright Display Equipment

22 Radar Beacon D ata Processor Equipment

277 Remote Beacon Performance Monitor

685 Remote Center Air/Ground

 Communications Facilities

99 Rem ote Contro l Interface U nits

752 Radio Communications Link Repeat

233 Ra dio Com munication s Link Terminals

1837 R emote Communic ations Outle ts

692 Ru nway End Identification L ights

215 Remote Monitor Control Facilities

214 Radar M icrowave Link Repeaters

138 Ra dar Mic rowave Link Terminals

189 Remote Reado ut Hygrothermometers

95 Radar Remote W eather Display Indicators

135 Radar Remote Weather Display Systems

12 Remote Towe r Communications

 Control Systems

1222 Remote T ransmitter Receivers

537 Runway Visual Range

Shortened Approach Light System

Sanitation System

661 Storage Buildings

Systems Command Center

Sensor, Receiver, and Processor

72 Simplified Short Approach Lighting 

 Systems with Ru naway Alignm ent 

 Indicator Lights (RAIL)

Simplified Short Approach Lighting System

Self Sustained Outlet

49 Sewerage Systems

666 Tactical Air Navigation

8 Tow er Cab D igital Displays

144 Terminal Data Display Systems

496 Telephone Exchanges

589 TELC Interface Maintenance

19 Terminal Information Processing Systems

125 Television Microwave Link Indicators

110 Television Microwave Link Repeaters

138 Television Microwave Link Transmitters

414 Tower Buildings

529 Trails and Roads

25 Te rminal Rad ar Appr oach Co ntrols

17 Teletypewriter Facilities

137 Tran scribed Weather Broadc ast

743 Utility Buildings

1387 Visual Approach Slope Indicators

769 Vehicle Maintenance 

1025 VH F Omnidirectional Range

95 VH F Omnidirectional Range Test

Weather Message Switching Center

Water System Maintenance
D-11

General Services Administration

Region 1

GSA Cd Depot 234, Watertown, MA

Federal Building, Lowell,MA

EPA Laboratory, Lexington, MA

US Border Station, Calais, ME

US Border Station, Coburn Gore, ME

US Border Station, Fort Fairfield, ME

28 Lord Road, Marlborough, MA

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

USBS,St.Pamhille, Saint Francis, ME

US Border Station, Madawaska, ME

USBP Sec Hd Houlton, Hodgdon, ME

Parking Facility, Portland, ME

US Border Station, Fort Kent, ME

Warren B. Rudman, Concord, NH

USBS Highgate Springs, VT

US Border Station, Derby Line, VT

US Border Station, Highgate Springs, 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

US Border Station, East Richford, Richford, VT

US Border Station, Richford, VT

Border Station, Sector Hdqtrs, Swanton, VT

US Border Station, Twp20, Saint Francis, ME

US Border Station, Township 11, Saint Francis, ME

Swanton Bdr Ptl Building, Highgate Springs, VT

Region 2

3000 JFK Blvd., Jersey City, NJ

FB, New York-Kings, NY

Border Station, Rouses Point, NY

Mech Equip Garage, Champlain, NY

Corporate Place, Rochester, NY

17 Cronin Road,Glens Falls, NY

10 Bouck Ct, New York-Kings, NY

25-27 East Park Ave., Long Beach, NY

80-02 Q Gardens, New York-Queens, NY

Century Mall, Amherst, NY

16 Court St. Bklyn, New York-Kings, NY

B&B Bldg, San Sebastian, PR

Nazario Building, San German, PR

AL Cohen Plaza, Charlotte Amalie, VI

US Border Station, Champlain, NY

Inspection Bld Borde, Chateaugay, NY

Main Inspector Station, Massena, NY

Inspection Building, Mooers, NY

US Border Station, Fort Covington, NY

US Border Station, Rouses Point, NY

US Border Station, Trout River, NY

Administration Building, Alexandria Bay, NY

Gateway I, Newark, NJ

W/S Jamiesons Line, Burke, NY

Quaker Village, Glenn Falls, NY

NY5 Washington Sq Alba, Albany, NY

Greenway Plaza, Melville, NY

76 Eleventh Avenue, New York, NY

Mayaguez Mall, Mayaguez, PR

Region 3

Annapolis Comm. P.K.E, Annapolis, MD

Gwynn Oak Building, Woodlawn, MD

Federal Building 01, Philadelphia, PA

The Metro Center, Philadelphia, PA

5000 Wissahickon Ave., Philadelphia, PA

Erie Library, Erie, PA

Custom House, Norfolk, VA

Berris Plaza, Philadelphia, PA

Gateway, Philadelphia, PA

Wise County Plaza, Wise, PA

FairGrounds Dist Ctr, Richmond, VA

Region 4

FB PO, Port Gibson, MS

Battlefield Mall, Vicksburg, MS

Judicial Building, Biloxi, MS

MICC-DEA Warehouse, Miami, FL

E Pointe Bus Ctr, Jacksonville, FL

Cobb Corporate Ctr, Marietta, GA

BP Building, Macon, GA

Courthouse Annex, Columbia, SC

Region 5

Illini Fin Center, Springfield, IL

GSA Interag Mtr Pool, Chicago, IL

US Border Station, Sault Ste Marie, MI

Fed Parking Facility, Detroit, MI

Cust Cargo Insp Fac, Detroit, MI

US Border Station, Grand Portage, MN

Custom & Immig Stat, Noyes, MN

US Border Station, International Falls, MN

Federal Building, Medina, OH

Federal Building, Zanesville, OH

Fed Parking Facility, Dayton, OH

Bankers Building, Chicago, IL
D-12

Social Security Building, Danville, IL

Park Ridge Ofc Ctr, Park Ridge, IL

O'Hare Lake Ofc Plz, Des Plaines, IL

Insurance Exchange B, Chicago, IL

Plaza Tower Office, Evergreen Park, IL

Clyde Savings Building, North Riverside, IL

2100 N California, Chicago, IL

Wash Bicentennial Bg, Springfield, IL

Smoke Tree Bus P ark, North Aurora, IL

Glen Hill North Bg A, Glen Ellyn, IL

10 West Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL

O'Hare Lake Off. Pla, Des Plaines, IL

One Congress Center, Chicago, IL

E Empire & Eastport, Bloomington, IL

Burrell Building, Chicago, IL

Oakmont Corporation, We stmont, IL

1455 Golf Mill Road, Des P laines, IL

1279 North M ilwaukee, Chicago, IL

Bank Of America, Chicago, IL

901 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL

1700 South W olf Road, Des Plaines, IL

Elm Plaza So. Tower, Hinsdale, IL

Soc. Sec. Office, Chicago, IL

125 Fairfield Way, Bloomingdale, IL

IL Business Center, Springfield, IL

2360 E. Devon A ve., Des Plaines, IL

923-25 Dillon, Wood Dale, IL

River Center, Chicago, IL

Schaumburg Atrium, Schaumburg, IL

600 Joliet Rd, Willowbrook, IL

2350 E. Devon, De s Plaines, IL

Gateway IV, Chicago, IL

Citicorp Center, Chicago, IL

Liberty Business Park, Elk Grove Village, IL

29 North Wacker D rive, Chicago, IL

Governors' Off. Park, Olympia Fields, IL

One Oakbrook T errace, Oakbrook Terrace, IL

Xerox Centre, Chicago, IL

Stewart Square, Rockford, IL

635 Butterfield Rd, Oakbrook Terrace, IL

Governors Off Pk IV, Olympia Fields, IL

Glenwood Plaza, Glenwood , IL

Northwestern Building, Evanston, IL

The Rookery, Chicago, IL

1600 Corporate Cntr, Rolling Meado ws, IL

4849 N. M ilwaukee Av, Chicago, IL

AT&T Corporate Cntr, Chicago, IL

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL

1000 Tower Lane B uilding, Bensenville, IL

Olympian Office Cntr, Lisle, IL

The Park at NW Point, Elk Grove Village, IL

945 Lakeview Parkway, Vernon Hills, IL

2860 River Road, Des P laines, IL

One S. Wacker Building, Chicago, IL

Governors Office Pk, Olympia Fields, IL

Fox River Center, Ottawa, IL

1600 Lebanon Avenue, B elleville, IL

Lakeside Ofc Building, Indianapolis, IN

429 Penn Center, Indianapolis, IN

The Furniture Co., Grand Rapids, MI

Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, MI

Arlington Plaza, Sault Ste Marie, MII

5015 South Cedar Str, Lansing, MI

Domino's Farm House, Ann Arbor, MI

Brewery Park Phase I, Detroit, MI

Plaza Nine Building, Cleveland, OH

Commerce Place, Middleburg Heights, OH

Plaza South I, Middleburg Heights, OH

Sanning Apartments, Cincinnati, OH

One Cleveland Ctr, Cleveland, OH

Lakewood Center West, Lakewood, OH

Plaza South I, Middleburg Heights, OH

2026 West Main Stree, Springfield, OH

Corporate Center, Middleburg Heights, OH

4411 Montgomery Road, Norwood, OH

CBLD Building, Cincinnati, OH

Bank One Center, Cleveland, OH

Eaton Center, Cleveland, OH

Wright Executive Ctr, Fairborn, OH

Renaissance, Cleveland, OH

228th & Lake Shore B, Euclid, OH

Society Tower, Cleveland, OH

6161 Oaktree, Independence, OH

Rockside Center III, Independence, OH

Old Ba yfield Cthse, Bayfield, WI

Social Sec urity Off, Wisc onsin Rap ids, WI

Vande r Heyden II, West B end, W I

575 Le ster Street, On alaska, W I

1830 2nd Ave. Rock Island, IL

Midway Business Ctr, Chicago, IL

5353 S. Laramie, Chicago, IL

Illinois Financial Ctr, Springfield, IL

Burr Ridge Executive, Burr Ridge, IL

Lucy and Water St., Saugatuck, MI

IRS Data Center, Pontiac, MI

Pontiac Place Building, Pontiac, MI

Social Security Building, West Branch, MI

Federal Building, Redwood Falls, MN

Federal Building Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN

U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN

Building 201, St. Paul, MN

Custom and Immigration Stat., Baudette, MN

Moraine Business Center II, Moraine, OH

Moraine Business Center III, Moraine, OH

Peck Engraving Co., Lakewood, OH

The Es planade, 2 001Butterfield Rd, 

 Downers Grove,IL

1207 Network Centre Blvd, Effingham, IL

IRS Data Center, Detroit, MI

BP America Building. Cleveland, OH
D-13

Ace Indu strial Dr., Cud ahy, WI

FWS Center, O nalaka,W I

700 Re gent St, Madison,W I

Region 6

T-Hangar "G", Grand Island, NE

2610 Ave “Q”, Kearney, NE

US Courthouse, Kansas City, MO

Herbert Hoover Library, West Branch, IA

Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS

U.S. Geological Survey Building, Rolla, MO

2323 Grand Building, Kansas City, MO

Region 7

USBP Sh Building 13, New Orleans, LA

Open Land - FDA Site, New Orleans, LA

US Border Station, Columbus, NM

USBS, Santa Teresa, NM

Federal Building, Altus, OK

USBS B&M Bridge, Brownsville, TX

Gateway USBS Building A, Brownsville, TX

Columbia USBS, Laredo, TX

US Border Station, Laredo, TX

USBS Admin Building, Del Rio, TX

BPSH Building 1, Hqtrs, Del Rio, TX

USBS Br Of The Amers, El Paso, TX

U S Border Station, Eagle Pass, TX

Juarez-Lincoln USBS, Laredo, TX

USBS Admin Building, Los Indios, TX

BPSH Building A, Laredo, TX

BPSH Administratn Bd, McAllen, TX

Headquarters Building, Marfa, TX

USBS Paso Del Norte, El Paso, TX

USBS Main Building, El Paso, TX

USBS Good Neighbr Br, El Paso, TX

Unnamed Building, Fort Smith, AR

Unnamed Building, Metairie, LA

Building 27, Houma, LA

Sun Belt Buis Ctr, Albuquerque, NM

SSA District Office, Poteau, OK

US Border Sta -New, Hidalgo, TX

US Border Station, Progreso, TX

US Border Station, Rio Grande City, TX

US Border Station, Presidio, TX

Unnamed Building, Laredo, TX

Vicar Center, San Antonio, TX

USBS Intl Rr Land, Laredo, TX

T & P Building, Fort Worth, TX

USBS Admin Building, Hidalgo, TX

Chase Plaza SVC CTR, Oklahoma City, OK

USBS Pharr Admin Bld, PHARR,TX

USBS Paso Del Norte, El Paso,TX

USBS Admin Building, Progreso,TX

USBS Admin Building, Roma, TX

GEO H Mahon FB CTHS, Lubbock, TX

Region 8

GSA Parking Lot, Denver, CO

Chief Mtn BS & Qtrs, Babb, MT

Piegan BS & Qtrs, Babb, MT

Roosville BS, Eureka, MT

Sweetgrass BS, Sweetgrass, MT

Bdr Patrol Sector HQ, Havre, MT

Turner BS, Turner, MT

Ambrose BS, Ambrose, ND

Dunseith BS, Dunseith, ND

Portal BS, Portal, ND

St John BS, St John, ND

Pembina BS, Pembina, ND

GSA Storage Building, Bismarck, ND

Bdr Patrol Sector HQ, Grand Forks, ND

New Parking Lot, Bismarck, ND

Sunbeam Appl Svc, Salt Lake City, UT

Garage , Cheyenne , WY

Tatum Parking Lot, Helena, MT

Region 9

US Border Station, Lukeville, AZ

BS Old Cus Building, Nogales, AZ

BS Garage, Sasabe, AZ

BS Main Building, Douglas, AZ

Bdr Patl Sector Hqrs, Tucson, AZ

BS Main Building, San Luis, AZ

BS Main Building, Naco, AZ

BS Office Building, Nogales, AZ

Tucson L. E. Site, Tucson, AZ

BS Old Customs Building, Calexico, CA

BS Exist Main Building, San Diego, CA

BS Main Building, Andrade, CA

BS Main Building, Tecate, CA

US Border Patrol Sta, Calexico, CA

Federal Building, Sacramento, CA

Parking Garage, Los Angeles, CA

Motor Pool, San Francisco, CA

1303 Albee Street, Eureka, CA

Building 1, Flagstaff, AZ

NPS Building, Grand Canyon, AZ

Buildings 4 & 5, Flagstaff, AZ

Sorrento Exec Plaza, San Diego, CA

15650 Devonshire Street, Los Angeles, CA

Region 10

Dalton Cache Bor Sta, Haines, AK

Station Building, Tok, AK

Int Ag Motor Pool, Anchorage, AK

Skagway Border Stat, Skagway, AK

US Border Station, Eastport, ID

US Border Sta New , Porthill, ID

Station Bu ilding No.1 & 2, Bla ine, WA

Danville Border Sta , Danville, W A

Station & Q uarters, Curle w, WA

Station, Laurier, WA
D-14

Station, M etaline Falls, W A

US Border Sta tion, Orov ille, WA

US Border Sta tion, Sumas, W A

Building 6 01, Walla Wa lla, WA

Kenneth G. Wa rd BS, Lynden, W A

US Border Sta tion, Point Roberts, W A

Borde r Patrol Se ct HQ, B laine, WA

Borde r Patrol Se ct HQ A nnex, Blain e, WA

Borde r Patrol Se ct HQ, S pokane , WA

Miuw Facility, Portland, OR

U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR

USD A Buildin g, Blaine, W A

Operatio ns Building , Moses L ake, WA

Borde r Patrol Se c HQ A nnex, Blain e, WA

Region 11

FOB 6, Washington DC

White House, Washington DC

Delasalle, Avondale, MD

1800 G Street NW, Washington DC

Doggett Building, Washington DC

Central Htg Plant Stm., Washington DC

West Htg Plant Stm., Washington DC

U.S. International Tr, Washington DC

1724 F Street NW, Washington DC

Reagan Building FOB,Washington DC

601 4th St, NW, Washington DC

Universal, Washington DC

Penn-Belt Center, Forrestville, MD

9620 Medical Center, Rockville, MD

Manor Business Ctr, Landover, MD 

Census Computer Fac., Bowie, MD

5000 Philadelphia Way, Lanham, MD

Mat Land Co Office & Lab, Glendale Heights, MD

Rockwall Building, Rockville, MD

Herndon Industrial Park, Herndon, VA

7405 &7407 Lockport, Lorton, VA

Poplar Run Park Builing 5, Alexandria, VA

Gunston Industrial Park C, Arlington, VA

Arlington Center, Arlington, VA

AV Bryan Sr Courtshe, Alexandria, VA
D-15

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ames Research Center (ARC)

Computational Fluid Dynamics Building

Vertical Gun

3.5 Ft. Wind Tunnel Mo del Building

12 Ft. Pressure Wind Tunnel

12 Ft. Wind Tunnel Auxiliaries

Propulsion Simulations Calibration Laboratory

Ballistic Range

Flight Supp ort Facility

Mod el Develo pment Fa cility

7x10 Ft. Wind Tunnel #1

7x10 Ft. Wind Tunnel #2

Mod el Prepar ation Facility

Mod el Assemb ly

Magnetic Calibration Laboratory

Magnetic Test Laboratory

14 Ft. Transonic Wind Tunnel

14 Ft. Electrical Equipment Building

Fan Blade Shop

Technical Services Shop

40x80 Ft. Wind Tunnel

20-G Centrifuge

80x120 Ft. Wind Tunnel

2x2 Ft. Transonic Wind Tunnel

Electrical Substation

Electrical Su bstation N orth

6x6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel

Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Building

11 Ft. Transonic Wind Tunnel

9x7 Ft. Subsonic Wind Tunnel

8x7 Ft. Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Auxiliary Building

3.5 Ft. Hypersonic Wind Tunnel

3.5 Ft. Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Auxiliary Building

3.5 Ft. Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Storage Building

Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Central Co mputation F acility

Advanc ed Com putation Fa cility

Thermal Protectio n Facility

Thermal Protection Boiler

Bioscience Laboratories

Hyperve locity Free Flig ht Facility

Arc Jet Fa cility

Life Sciences Research Laboratory

Life Science s Equipm ent Facility

Life Science s Flight Expe riments Fac ility

Airborne Missions/L ife Science F acility

Vestibular Research Facility

Vertical Motion Simulator

Vertical M otion Simu lator Equ ipment Fa cility

Space P rojects Fac ility

Space Sciences Research Laboratory

Mod el Construc tion Facility

Aircraft Serv ice Facility

Aircraft Serv ice Facility

Aircraft Serv ice Facility

RSRA Calibration Facility

Aircraft Serv ice Facility

Outside A erodynam ic Researc h Facility

High Pressure Air Housing

Propa ne Facility

Program Suppo rt Communication N etwork Fa cility

Flight Data Complex

Flight Data F acility

Man-V ehicle System Research Facility

Numerical Aeronautics Simulator

High Altitud e Aircraft Sup port Facility

Fluid Mechanics Laboratory

Biomedical Research Laboratory

Human Performance Research Labo ratory

Hazard ous Ma terial Storage Facility

Automa ted Scienc es Researc h Facility

NASA Industrial Plant (Downey) and USAF Plant 42,

Production Site 1 (Palmdale)

Entire Fac ilities are Missio n Variab le

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

Central Flight Control Range

Instrument Construction/Development Laboratory

Payload Testing Fa cility

Environmental Testing Laboratory

Network Control Center

Spacec raft Opera tions Facility

Data Interpretation Laboratory

Spacec raft Systems D evelopm ent/Integration Facility

EOS/DIS Building

Godd ard Geo physical and Astronom ical Obser vatory 

 Area

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

Environmental Laboratory

25 Ft. Space Simulator

Spacec raft Assemb ly Facility

Space F light Opera tions Facility

10 Ft. Space Simulator

Space Flight Support

Frequency Standards Laboratory

Earth & Space Sciences Laboratory

Micro Devices Laboratory
D-16

Johnson Space Center (JSC)

Flight Operations Support

Flight Operations

Jake Garn Simulator and Training

Crew Systems Laboratory

Photographic Technology Laboratory

Central Data Office

Avionics Systems Laboratory

Central Heating & Cooling Plant

Auxiliary Chille r Facility

Mission/Space Station Control Center

Planetary & Earth Sciences Laboratory

Space Environment Simulation Laboratory

Mission S imulation D evelopm ent Facility

Life Sciences Laboratory

Central Co mputer Fa cility

Emergency Power Building

Vibration and Aco ustic Test Fa cility

Atmospheric Re-Entry Materials & 

 Structures Evaluation Fa cility

Radiant H eat Facility

Thermochemical Test Area

Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Hangar L , Life Science s Suppo rt Facility

Hangar AE, Missile Assembly Building

Robot W ash

Manufacturing Building

Launch Complex 39 A & B

Communication Distribution & Switching Center

Operations Building

Operations and Checkout Building

Space S tation Proc essing Facility

Hypergo l Modu le Process North

Hypergol Support Building

Payload Spin Test Facility Replacement

Spacec raft Assemb ly & Enca psulation Fa cility

Hypergo l Modu le Process South

Payload Hazard ous Servic e Facility

Vertical P rocessing F acility

Central Instrumentation F acility

First Wash Building

Orbiter P rocessing F acility High Bay 3

Orbiter P rocessing F acility

Launch Control Center

Vehicle Assembly Building Repeater

Comp onent Serv ice Facility

Prope llent Labora tory and H igh Pressure Gas Fac ility

Program Support Communication

Film Storage

Payload Support Building

Canister Ro tation Facility

Ordnance Storage

Langley Research Center (LaRC)

8 Ft. Transonic Pressure Tunnel

University of Virginia and ART Management Office 

 Building

30x60 Ft. Tunnel

Transonic Dynamic Tunnel

Hydrod ynamics Re search Fac ility

Space Environmental Effects Laboratory

16 Ft. Transonic T unnel.

Subsonic Tunnel Offices

High Speed 7x10 Ft. Tunnel

14x22 Ft. Subsonic Tunnel

Central Heating and Steam Generation Plant

Conference Center

Anecho ic Noise F acility

Hyperso nic Prop ulsion Facility

High Intensity Noise Research Laboratory

Frequency Converter Building

National Transonic Facility (NTF)

NTF Tunne l Model Storage

Foundry & Glass Blowing Shop

Drive Co ntrol Facility

0.3 Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel

Gas Dyn amics/Fluid M echanics Research Fa cility

Hypersonic Facilities Complex - West Wing

Hypersonic Facilities Cooling Tower

Hypersonic Facilities Complex - East Wing

Compressor Station

60-Inch M 18 Helium Tunn el Facility

Vacuum Pumping station - Gas Dynamics Complex

Atmosp heric Scienc es/Systems D evelopm ent 

 Laboratory

Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory Annex

Unitary Wind Tunnel

8 Ft. High Temperature Tunnel

Central Sc ientific Comp uting Facility

Flight Simulation Laboratory

Central Sc ientific Comp uting Facility

EOSD IS-DAA C Facility

East Area Compressor Station

Flight Dynam ics Drop Mod el Facility

Structures and Materials Research Laboratory

Lewis Research Center (LeRC)

Engine Research Building

Engine Research Building–West W ing

Engine Research Building–Northwest Wing

Engine Research Building–H igh Pressure Facility

Engine Research Building–Spray Cooler Building

Engine Research Building–Cooling Tower No . 4

Chemistry Laboratory

Icing Research Tunnel

Icing Research Tunnel–Refrigeration Building

Icing Research Tunnel–Cooling Tower No. 1 
D-17

Special Projects Laboratory

Materials Research Laboratory

Materials & Structures Laboratory

Central Air Equipment Building

Central Air Equipment Building–PSL Cooling Tower 

 No. 3

Central Air Equipment Building–PSL Cooling Tower 

 Water Pump Building

Central Air Equipment Building–PSL Desiccant Air 

 Dryer

Central Air Equipment Building–PSL Cooling Tower

 No. 6

Instrument Research Laboratory

Engine Research Building Combustion Air Heater

Engine Components Research Laboratory

Materials Processing Laboratory

Basic Materials Laboratory

Aero-Ac oustic Pro pulsion Lab oratory 

 & Control Room

PSL Heater Building

Electric Power Laboratory

Energy Conversion Laboratory

Space Power Research Labo ratory

8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel

8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind T unnel– Cooling Tower 

 No. 2

8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind T unnel–Drive Equipment

 Building

8 X 6 Ft. Supersonic Wind T unnel–Air Dryer 

 Building

10 X 10 Ft. Supersonic Wind Tunnel (SWT)

10 X 10 Ft. SW T–Office and Control Building

10 X 10 Ft. SWT–2nd Co mpressor and Drive 

 Building

10 X 10 Ft. SW T–Air Dryer Building

10 X 10 Ft. SWT–Substation “K”

10 X 10 Ft. SWT–M ain Compressor and Drive 

 Building

10 X 10 Ft. SW T–Low Pressure Fuel Pump Building

10 X 10 Ft. SW T–High Pressure Fuel Pump B uilding

10 X 1 0 Ft. SW T–Co oling To wer No. 5

10 X 10 Ft. SWT–Cooling Tower Water Pump 

 Building

10 X 10 Ft. SWT–Shop Building (#86)

10 X 10 Ft. SW T–Exhauster Building

Operations/Integration Building

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)

Microwave Anechoic Chamber

Communications Fa cility

Photographic Laboratory

SSME - Block II Facility

LIDAR Facility

Power Systems Laboratory

MAS T/FSL Simulation F acility

Space Science Labortory

Laboratory & Office Building

Test Stand Support Building

Test Facility 300

Test Facility 116

Structural T est Facility

Test Facility Terminal Building

Hot Ga s Test Fac ility

Test Control and Service Building

TPT A Refurb ishment Fac ility

Pump and Boiler House

Propulsio n and Struc tural Test Fa cility

Test & D ata Reco rding Facility

Space Environmental Effects Laboratory

Air Compressor Building

Materials & Processes Laboratory

Atmosp heric Rese arch Facility

Heat Treatment Fa cility

Structural Dynamics & Thermal Vacuum Laboratory

Hydrog en Test F acility

High Pre ssure Test F acility

Multi-Pur pose H igh Bay Fa cility

Hydraulic Equipm ent Deve lopment F acility

LH2 V aporizatio n Facility

High Pre ssure GN 2 Facility

Boiler Plant

Comp uter Facility

Pump H ouse

Advanc ed Engine Test Fac ility

Test Support Building

Block Ho use

Boiler House

Helium Compressor Building

Non-Destructive Evaluation Laboratory

Shops & Neutral Buoyancy Simulator

Produc tivity Enhancement Facility

Engineering & Developmental Laboratory

Developmental Processes Laboratory

X-Ray Calibration Fa cility

Office and Wind Tunnel

Comp ressed Air F acility

Air Compressor F acility

High Bay Shop Building

Space Station Development Laboratory

Surface T reatment Fa cility

High Re ynolds Number Fa cility

Low De nsity Flow Fac ility

Engine D ynamic Fluid Flow Fac ility

Michoud Asssembly Facility (MAF) Entire Facility is Industrial
D-18

Plum Brook Station (PBS)

Entire Fac ility is Mission V ariable

Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)

Entire Fac ility is Mission V ariable

Tracking Stations

Deep Space Network, Goldstone, CA

TDRSS Ground Terminals, White Sands, NM

STDN Site, Ponce de Leon, FL

Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)

Radar F acility

Machine Shop - Fabrication

Aircraft Projects/Hangar Area

Electronics Support/Storage

Mainland/Island

White Sa nds Test F acility

Altitude Simulation System (Steam Generator)

Diesel Pad

Boiler Building

Switchgear Building

Altitude Simulation System Building

Steam Generator Support Building

Boiler Building

Water Treatment Building

Treated Water S torage Fac ility

300 Area Cooling Pond

Panama Canal Commission

Marine Bu reau (159 buildings)

Lock chambers

Electrical towing locomotives

Canal navigational lighting

Computerized marine traffic control

Repair facilities

Related infrastructure

Engineering & Construction Bureau (2 57 buildings)

Industrial sector

Tug, loco motive, and dredging-re lated equip ment 

 repair shops

Potable water processing 

Communication

Utility services

General Services B ureau (239 bu ildings)

Vehicle maintenance and repair shops

Fire stations

Sanitation and grounds management facilities

High energy-consuming activities

U.S. Information Agency

Relay Station, Greenville, North Carolina

Relay Station, Delano, California 

Relay Station, Dixon, California (inactive)

Relay Station , Bethany, O hio

Relay Station, Munich, Germany

Relay Station, Kavala, Greece

Relay Station, Rhodes, Greece

Relay Station, Bangkok, Thailand

Relay Station, Tangier, Morocco

Relay Station, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Relay Station, Botswana

Relay Station, Belize

Relay Station, Philippines
D-19

U.S. Department of Agriculture

242 Barns

2 Bus Stations

87 Chemical Storage Buildings

8 Engineering Facilities

4 Filling Stations

5 Fire Stations

479 Greenhouses

76 Garages

98 Headhouses

137 Housing Buildings

2 Incinerator Buildings

514 Laboratory Buildings

78 Office Buildings

85 Office/Laboratory Buildings

Chapel

6 Restroom Buildings

215 Sheds

158 Shops

426 Storage Buildings

54 Trailers

Weather Station

2 Waste Treatment Buildings

494 Other Building Types

U.S. Department of Justice

FBI Headquarters, J. Edgar Hoo ver Building

FBI Academy, Quantico

FBI Miami

FBI Western Region

FBI West Virginia Complex

Justice Data Center, Washington, DC

Immigration & Naturalization Service Repeater 

 Stations - Nationwide

U.S. Department of State

Main State Complex

Blair House Complex

Beltsville Information Management Center

International Chancery Center

National Archives and Records Administration

National A rchives Bu ilding, Wa shington D C, 

National Archives at College Park, MD

Herbert Hoover Library, West Branch, IA

Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, MO

Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS

Lyndon B. Johnson Library, Austin, TX

Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI

Gerald R. Ford Museum, Grand Rapids, MI

Jimmy Carter Library, Atlanta, GA

Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston, MA

Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY

Social Security Administration

National Computer Center, Baltimore, MD
E-20

This page intentionally left blank.
E-1

APPENDIX E

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: EDUCATION, EXTENSION,

AND INFORMATION SERVICES

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC)

Contact: Pat Rose, (202) 586-9645

Office of Public Affairs

Contact: F. Chester Gray, (202) 586-6827

Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) Program

Contact: Charles J. Glaser, (202) 586-1298

Inventions and Innovation Program (IIP)

Contact: Sandy Glatt, (202) 586-2079

Gas Mileage Guide

Contact: David Greene, (423) 574-5963

National Energy Information Center, Energy Information Administration (NEIC/EIA)

Contact: Sandra Wilkins, (202) 586-1173

Office of Federal Energy Management Programs (FEM P) 

Contact: Shelley Fidler, (202) 586-5772

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

Contact: Bill Edmunds, (423) 576-3382

Technical Information Program, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Contact: David Warner, (303) 275-4373

State Energy Program

Contact: Thomas Stapp, (202) 586-2096

Technical Information and Communication Program 

Contact: Marilyn Burgess (202) 586-2040

Weatherization Assistance Program

Contact: Gail McKinley, (202) 586-4074
E-2

This page intentionally left blank.
F-1

APPENDIX F

FEDERAL INTERAGENCY ENERGY POLICY COMMITTEE

(656 COMMITTEE)

FY 1998

Committee Chair

Mr. Dan W. Reicher

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. De partment o f 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. Pearlie Reed

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

Mr. Sco tt Gould

Chief Financial Officer and 

 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Main Commerce, Room 5830

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

Phone: 202-482-4951

Fax: 202-482-3592

Defense

Mr. John Goodman

Deputy Und er Secretary of Defense

Industrial Affairs and Installations

3330 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E-1074

Washington, DC 20301-3330

Phone: 703-697-0051

Fax: 703-695-4277

Education

Mr. Gary J. Rasmussen

Director for Management

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 2164

Washington, DC 20202

Phone: 202-401-0470

Fax: 202-401-0485

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Joh n C. Cham berlin

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 . Humph rey Building , 

Room 416-G

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Phone: 202-690-6396

Fax: 202-690-5405

Housing and Urban Developm ent

Mr. Willie Gilmore

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-2

Interior

Mr. Brooks B. Yeager

Acting Assista nt Secretary fo r Policy, 

 Management and Budget

U.S. Department of the Interior

Mail Stop 6130, Room 6130

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Phone: 202-208-4203

Fax: 202-208-4561

Justice

Mr. Step hen R. Co lgate

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

Acting Assistant Secretary

 for Administration and Management

U.S. Department of Labor

Room S-2514

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Phone: 202-219-9086

Fax: 202-219-1270

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mr. Jeffrey E. Sutton

Associate Administrator for Management

 Systems and Facilities

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. De partment o f State

Room 6330

22nd & C Streets, NW

Washington, DC 20520

Phone: 202-647-1492

Fax: 202-647-1558

Transportation

Ms. Melissa Spillenkothen

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. Nancy Killefer

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. Tho mas L. Ga rthwaite

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. Kath leen Pero ff

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
G-1

APPENDIX G

PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FY 1998 Personnel

Dan W. Reicher

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

and Chair, Federal Interagency

Energy Policy Committee

Federal Energy Management Program Staff:

John Archibald, Director 

Executive Secretary, Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee, 

Executive Director, Interagency Energy Management Task Force

Veronica Bellamy

Ted Collins

Anne Sprunt Crawley

Jerry Dion

Judy Florance

Curtis Framel

Mike Fulton

Nancy Hapstack

Louis Harris

Annie Haskins

Arun Jhaveri

April Johnson

Randy Jones

Paul King

Bill Klebous

Rick Klimkos

Katie Kroehle

Helen Krupovich

Will Litner

Dean McCauley

Bob McLaren

Tatiana Strainic Muessel

Pat O’Brien

Vic Petrolati

Will Prue

Ernie Rios

Tanya Sadler

Cheri Sayer

Fred Singleton

Nellie Tibbs