Annual Report to Congress 

on Federal Government 

Energy Management and 

Conservation Programs 

Fiscal Year 2005 

September 26, 2006 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Federal Energy Management Program 

Washington, DC 20585 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................E-1 

I. Overview of Federal Energy Consumption and Costs ................................................1 

A. Standard Buildings................................................................................................5 

B. Industrial, Laboratory and Other Energy Intensive Facilities...............................5 

C. Exempt Facilities ..................................................................................................5 

D. Vehicles and Equipment .......................................................................................6 

II. Overall Progress Toward the Goals of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act 

and Executive Order 13123............................................................................................7 

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

B. Energy Efficiency Improvement Goals for Standard Buildings.........................10 

C. Goals for Industrial, Laboratory, and Other Energy Intensive Facilities............13 

D. Greenhouse Gases Reduction Goal.....................................................................16 

E. Renewable Energy Goal .....................................................................................18 

F. Petroleum Reduction...........................................................................................20 

G. Source Energy.....................................................................................................23 

H. Water Conservation ............................................................................................26 

I. Investments in Energy Efficiency.......................................................................27 

1. Direct Appropriations .............................................................................27 

2. Energy Savings Performance Contracting..............................................27 

3. Utility Energy Service Contracts ............................................................30 

4. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) ......................................................................31 

III. Interagency Exchange of Information ........................................................................32 

A. Federal Coordination ..........................................................................................32 

B. Training...............................................................................................................33 

C. Awards and Recognition.....................................................................................34 

D. Public Education Programs.................................................................................35 

IV. Federal Agency Energy Management Activities........................................................37

A. Department of Agriculture..................................................................................37 

B. Department of Commerce...................................................................................43 

C. Department of Defense .......................................................................................46 

D. Department of Energy.........................................................................................55 

E. Department of Health and Human Services........................................................62 

F. Department of Homeland Security .....................................................................70 

G. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..............................................76 

H. Department of the Interior ..................................................................................77 

I. Department of Justice .........................................................................................84 

J. Department of Labor...........................................................................................88 

K. Department of State ............................................................................................91 

L. Department of Transportation.............................................................................92 

i 
M. Department of the Treasury ................................................................................95 

N. Department of Veterans Affairs........................................................................101 

O. Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................104 

P. General Services Administration ......................................................................113 

Q. International Broadcasting Bureau ...................................................................117 

R. National Aeronautics and Space Administration..............................................118 

S. National Archives and Records Administration ...............................................125 

T. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................................................................127 

U. Railroad Retirement Board ...............................................................................128 

V. Social Security Administration.........................................................................131 

W. Tennessee Valley Authority..............................................................................136 

X. United States Postal Service .............................................................................141 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Energy Consumption and Cost Detail Tables ..............................................145

Appendix B Data Collection and Carbon Calculations ....................................................157

Appendix C Acronyms.........................................................................................................162

TABLES 

Table 1 Key Requirements of Statutory and Executive Order Authorities........................8 

Table 2 Federal Standard Buildings Site-Delivered Energy Use per Gross Square Foot, 

and FY 1985 and FY 2005............................................................................12 

Table 3 Federal Energy Intensive Facilities Energy Use per Gross Square Foot, 

FY 1990 and FY 2005...................................................................................14 

Table 4 Estimated Carbon Emissions from Federal Agency Facility Use ......................17 

Table 5 Federal Agency Progress toward the Renewable Energy Goal FY 2005 ...........19 

Table 6 Federal Petroleum Usage in FY 2005.................................................................21 

Table 7 Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Standard Building & Energy Intensive 

Facilities........................................................................................................22 

Table 8 Primary Energy Use in Standard Buildings and Energy Intensive Facilities .....24 

Table 9 Federal Standard Buildings Primary Energy Use per Gross Square Foot, 

FY 1985 and FY 2005...................................................................................25 

Table 10-A Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Efficiency Projects, 

FY 1985 through FY 2005............................................................................28 

Table 10-B Agency Direct Appropriations for Energy Efficiency Projects, 

FY 1985 through FY 2005............................................................................29 

Table 11 Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Delivery Orders, and Contract 

Modifications Awarded by Federal Agencies in FY 2005 ...........................30 

Table 12 Utility Energy Service Contracts and Delivery Orders Awarded by 

Federal Agencies in FY 2005 .......................................................................31 

Table 13 Federal Energy and Water Management Awards by Group and Type...............34 

ii 
Table A-1 Total Primary Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies ...............................146 

Table A-2 Total Site-Delivered Energy Consumption by Federal Agencies.....................147 

Table A-3 Primary Energy Consumptions in Federal Standard Buildings ........................148 

Table A-4 Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Federal Standard Buildings ...............149 

Table A-5 Consumption and Costs of Federal Standard Buildings Energy 

by Fuel Type in FY 2005, FY 2005 and FY 1985......................................150 

Table A-6 Site-Delivered Energy Consumption in Federal Energy Intensive Facilities ...151 

Table A-7 Consumption and Costs of Federal Energy Intensive Facilities .......................152 

Table A-8 Energy Consumption, Costs and Gross Square Footage of Federal Exempt 

Facilities, FY 2005......................................................................................153 

Table A-9 Consumption and Costs of Federal Exempt Facility Energy 

by Fuel Type in FY 2005............................................................................153 

Table A-10 Federal Energy Consumption in Vehicle and Equipment Operations..............154 

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

by Fuel Type in FY 2005............................................................................155 

Table A-12 Federal Energy Expenditures, FY 1985 - FY 2005 ..........................................156 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 Federal Energy Consumption, by Fuel Type and End-Use Sector, FY 2005.......3 

Figure 2 Federal Energy Costs by Fuel Type and End-Use Sector, FY 2005.....................4 

Figure 3 Overall Government Progress toward Efficiency Goals for 

Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2005 ...........................................10 

Figure 4 Individual Agency Reductions in Btu per Square Foot of 

Standard Building Space in FY 2005 Compared to FY 1985.......................11 

Figure 5 Progress toward the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal .......................................16 

Figure 6 Renewable Energy Use as a Percentage of Facility Electricity Use, 

FY 2000 to FY 2005 .....................................................................................18 

Figure 7 Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Federal Standard Buildings and Energy 

Intensive Facilities; 1985, 1990, and 1995 through 2005...................................20 

iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

OVERVIEW OF CONSUMPTION AND COSTS 

This report on Federal energy management for fiscal year (FY) 2005 provides information on 

energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles and documents activities 

conducted by Federal agencies to meet the requirements of: 

• Title V, Part 3, of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. §§ 8251-8259, 8262b-k); 

• Title VIII of NECPA (42 U.S.C. § 8287-8287c); 

• The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) (42 U.S.C. § 8262c); and 

• Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management. 

The reporting requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will be addressed in the report for 

FY 2006. 

Overall Energy Consumption and Costs 

• The Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) or “quads” during 

FY 2005 when measured in terms of energy delivered to the point of use (site-delivered 

energy consumption). 

• The total site-delivered energy consumption in FY 2005 was 20.8 percent less than the 

FY 1985 base year and 2.5 percent less than in the previous year. 

• The total cost of the 1.1 quads was $14.5 billion in FY 2005. 

o Federal energy costs represented approximately 0.6 percent of the total Federal 

expenditures of $2.472 trillion for all purposes in FY 2005. 

• In constant 2005 dollars, Federal energy costs decreased 25.0 percent from $19.3 billion 

in FY 1985 to $14.5 billion in FY 2005. 

• The Federal energy bill for FY 2005 increased 24.1 percent compared to FY 2004. 

o Overall, the unit cost of all fuel types used increased 27.2 percent, from $9.90 per 

million Btu in FY 2004 to $12.59 per million Btu. 

o Contributing to the overall increase in unit costs were increases in the prices paid 

by the Government for: 

 Jet fuel (47.9 percent increase), 

 Navy special fuel oil (44.6 percent increase), 

 Fuel oil (33.5 percent increase), 

 Natural gas (16.1 percent increase), 

 Diesel fuel (33.4 percent increase), and 

 Electricity (4.6 percent increase). 

Four Federal Energy End-Use Sectors 

• Federal agencies report energy consumption under four end-use sectors: 1) standard 

buildings; 2) industrial, laboratory and other energy intensive facilities; 3) exempt 

facilities; and 4) vehicles and equipment. Total Federal energy consumption and costs 

are summarized below by end-use sector: 

E-1
End Use Trillion Btu Cost Cost Percentage 

Standard Buildings 300.0 $4.26 Billion 29.5% 

Energy Intensive Facilities 74.2 $0.93 Billion 6.4% 

Exempt Facilities 23.2 $0.42 Billion 2.9% 

Vehicles & Equipment 750.6 $8.86 Billion 61.3% 

PROGRESS MADE TOWARD FEDERAL ENERGY GOALS IN FY 2005 

Energy Efficiency Improvement Goals for Standard Buildings 

• Section 202 of Executive Order 13123 requires each agency to reduce energy 

consumption per gross square foot of its standard buildings by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 

percent by 2010 relative to 1985. 

• Eight agencies have reduced energy use per gross square foot in standard buildings by 

more than 30 percent from 1985. (Purchases of certain types of renewable energy are 

treated as energy use reductions). 

• During FY 2005, the Government as a whole decreased energy consumption per gross 

square foot by 29.6 percent relative to FY 1985. 

o Although the 30 percent reduction goal was narrowly missed for 2005, the 

Government is on track to meet the 35 percent goal for 2010 (28 percent reduction 

by 2005 is the goal path for meeting 35 percent reduction by 2010). 

• The Government’s performance for each year since FY 1985 is illustrated below. 

Overall Government Progress Toward the Energy Efficiency Goals 

for Standard Buildings, FY 1985 through FY 2005 

(Certain types of renewable energy purchases are treated as energy reductions) 

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 

FISCAL YEAR 

80,000 

85,000 

90,000 

95,000 

100,000 

105,000 

110,000 

115,000 

120,000 

125,000 

130,000 

135,000 

140,000 

Btu p

er Gross S

q

u

are Foot

10% Goal - 1995 (NECPA) 

20% Goal - 2000 (EPACT 1992) 

30% Goal - 2005 

(EO 12902) 

35% Goal - 2010 

(EO 13123) 

29.6% Reduction, 2005 

Actual Energy Use 

E-2
Goals for Industrial, Laboratory, and Other Energy Intensive Facilities 

• Section 203 of the Executive Order requires agencies to reduce energy consumption per 

square foot, per unit of production, or per other applicable unit, by 20 percent by 2005 

and 25 percent by 2010 relative to 1990 in industrial, laboratory, and other energy 

intensive facilities. 

• During FY 2005, eight agencies had achieved reductions greater than 20 percent 

compared to FY 1990. (Purchases of certain types of renewable energy are treated as 

energy use reductions). 

• In total, the Government achieved a reduction of 17.6 percent in Btu per gross square foot 

in its industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities compared to FY 1990. 

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals 

• Section 201 of the Executive Order establishes a greenhouse gas reduction goal of 30 

percent by 2010 compared to such emissions levels in 1990. (This goal applies to 

standard buildings and industrial, laboratory, and other energy-intensive facilities.) 

• DOE estimates carbon emissions from agency-reported energy use using national fuelspecific emission factors, except for emissions from electricity use which are calculated 

using regional coefficients derived from Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. 

(See Appendix B for more information on the methodology.) 

• The Government shows a reduction of 22.1 percent from 14.9 million metric tons of 

carbon equivalent (MTCE) in FY 1990 to 11.6 million MTCE in FY 2005. 

• Carbon emissions decreased by 411,221 MTCE or 3.4 percent from FY 2004. 

Renewable Energy Goal 

• Section 503 of the Executive Order directed the Secretary of Energy, in collaboration 

with the heads of other agencies, to develop a goal for increased renewable energy use in 

the Federal Government. 

• In July 2000, the Secretary of Energy approved a goal that an equivalent of 2.5 percent of 

electricity consumption from Federal facilities should come from new renewable energy 

sources by 2005. 

o New renewable energy only includes energy from projects or purchases of 

renewable energy contracted or built after 1990. 

• Ten agencies have surpassed the goal of obtaining the equivalent of more than 2.5 

percent of total electricity consumption from new renewable sources. 

• As a whole, the Government reported purchasing or producing 13,003.8 billion Btu of 

new renewable energy in FY 2005, equivalent to 6.9 percent of the Federal Government’s 

electricity use, and greatly surpassing the goal of 2.5 percent. 

• Reported consumption of new renewable energy in FY 2005 was nearly double the 

amount reported by the agencies in FY 2004. 

o The main contributors to this increase were DOD and GSA. 

 DOD reported more than two-and-a-half times the amount of selfgenerated and purchased renewable energy than the previous year’s 

accounting. 

E-3
• Much of this increase is a result of DOD reporting large-scale 

geothermal projects and waste-to-energy systems in FY 2005 that 

were not accounted for in previous years. 

 In FY 2005, GSA quadrupled its purchases of renewable energy over FY 

2004. 

• Purchases of renewable electricity, renewable electricity certificates, and landfill gas 

comprised 75.7 percent of Government renewable energy use in FY 2005. 

• Self-generated energy, including electricity, solar thermal applications, and geothermal 

heat pump installations, comprised 24.3 percent of renewable energy use. 

o On-site electricity generation from photovoltaics, wind, and other renewable 

sources constituted 10.5 percent the Government’s renewable energy total. 

Petroleum Reduction 

• Section 205 of Executive Order 13123 directs agencies to minimize the use of petroleumbased fuels in buildings and facilities. 

• Federal agencies reduced petroleum-based fuels by 70.0 percent in FY 2005 compared to 

FY 1985, from 118.8 trillion Btu to 35.7 trillion Btu. 

• Compared to the previous year, use of these fuels fell by 7.1 percent. 

INVESTMENTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

• During FY 2005, Federal agencies had three primary options for financing energy 

efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy projects in buildings and facilities: 

o Direct appropriated funding, 

o Energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), and 

o Utility energy service contracts (UESCs). 

• Funding from the three sources totaled approximately $463.0 million in FY 2005. 

o Direct appropriations accounted for approximately $290.6 million (not including 

the incremental cost of purchasing green power, renewable energy certificates, or 

other renewable energy generated by other entities). 

o ESPC contract modifications and awards by agencies resulted in approximately 

$96.8 million in estimated contractor investment in FY 2005. 

 $72.2 million resulted from DOE Super ESPC delivery orders and $24.6 

million resulted from other agency ESPCs. 

o $75.6 million in private sector investment came from UESCs. 

• Since 1985, the Government has invested approximately $7.3 billion in energy efficiency. 

o $4.2 billion of which was direct appropriations. 

o $3.1 billion from ESPCs and UESCs. 

 $2.0 billion from ESPCs and $1.1 billion from UESCs. 

Direct Appropriations Increase Significantly from Previous Year 

• Reports from Federal agencies indicated that $290.6 million was spent on energy 

efficiency projects in FY 2005, compared with $173.8 million in FY 2004, a 67.2 percent 

increase. Large increases were seen in three of the top energy using agencies below: 

E-4
o DOD funded $189.0 million for energy efficiency projects in FY 2005, an 

increase of 55.7 percent from the previous year. 

o GSA spent $35.2 million compared to $5.0 million in FY 2004. 

o VA reported funding $18.7 million for energy efficiency compared to $2 million 

in FY 2004. 

E-5
I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS 

This report on Federal energy management for fiscal year (FY) 2005 provides information on 

energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles 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). Activities undertaken during FY 

2005 by the Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Executive 

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

discussed in this report. The requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will be addressed in 

the annual report for FY 2006. 

Based on reports submitted to the Department of Energy (DOE) by 25 Federal agencies, the total 

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

consumed to produce, process, and transport energy, was approximately 1.6 quadrillion British 

thermal units (Btu) or “quads” during FY 2005 (see Table A-1 in Appendix A, Energy 

Consumption and Cost Detail Tables).1 These 1.6 quads, consumed by the Government in 

buildings and operations to provide essential services to its citizens, including the defense of the 

Nation, represent approximately 1.6 percent of the total 99.84 quads2 used in the United States. 

In total, the Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the Nation, although its 

pattern of consumption is widely dispersed geographically. 

When measured in terms of energy delivered to the point of use or site-delivered energy 

consumption, the Government consumed 1.1 quads during FY 2005 (Table A-2). Unless 

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

for electricity and steam to British thermal units (Btu). The total site-delivered energy 

consumption in FY 2005 was 20.8 percent less than the FY 1985 base year. This reduction of 

302.3 trillion Btu could satisfy the energy needs of the State of Montana for more than one year.3 

The total cost of the 1.1 quads was $14.5 billion in FY 2005 and represented approximately 0.6 

percent of the total Federal expenditures of $2.472 trillion4

 for all purposes in FY 2005.5 In 

1

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

Tables 8, 9, A-1, and A-3 show primary energy consumption while the rest of the tables in the report reflect sitedelivered consumption. See Appendix B for information on energy conversion factors. 

2

DOE/EIA, Monthly Energy Review March 2006, Table 1.1. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf 

3

Based on energy consumption estimates for 2001 in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation 

sectors (279.8 trillion Btu). Source: DOE/EIA-0214(01), State Energy Data: Consumption, 2001, Table R1. 

4

Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 

5

Unless otherwise noted, all costs cited in this report are in constant 2005 dollars, calculated using Gross Domestic 

Product implicit price deflators. See Bureau of Economic Analysis web site, www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls. 

1
constant 2005 dollars, this equates to a decrease of 25.0 percent from $19.3 billion in FY 1985 to 

$14.5 billion in FY 2005 (Table A-12). The reductions in energy costs from 1985 are 

attributable primarily to reduced energy prices and reduced Government activity, although they 

also reflect the effects of agency energy management efforts. 

Federal energy expenditures for FY 2005 increased 24.1 percent compared to the previous year 

in constant 2005 dollars. Overall, the unit cost of all fuel types used increased 27.2 percent, from 

$9.90 per million Btu in FY 2004 to $12.59 per million Btu. Contributing to the overall increase 

in unit costs were increases in the prices paid by the Government for: 

 Jet fuel (47.9 percent increase), 

 Navy special fuel oil (44.6 percent increase), 

 Fuel oil (33.5 percent increase), 

 Natural gas (16.1 percent increase), 

 Diesel fuel (33.4 percent increase), and 

 Electricity (4.6 percent increase). 

In addition to prices and Federal energy management activities, many other variables contribute 

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

weather, tempo of operations, fuel mix, and vehicle, naval, and aircraft fleet composition. 

In FY 2005, the Department of Defense (DOD) spent $11.1 billion for energy out of the total 

Federal energy expenditure of $14.5 billion. Overall, DOD used 25.5 percent less site-delivered 

energy in FY 2005 than in FY 1985—a reflection of reduced Defense-related activity and 

successful energy management efforts. 

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

2005 and its cost. As illustrated, jet fuel and electricity account for approximately 59.3 percent 

of the total energy consumption represented in Figure 1 and approximately 71.1 percent of the 

total energy costs in Figure 2. 

Federal agencies report energy consumption under four end-use sectors: 1) standard buildings; 

2) industrial, laboratory and other energy intensive facilities; 3) exempt facilities; and 

4) vehicles and equipment. Total Federal energy consumption and costs are summarized below 

by end-use sector: 

End Use Trillion Btu Cost Cost Percentage 

Standard Buildings 300.0 $4.26 Billion 29.5% 

Energy Intensive Facilities 74.2 $0.93 Billion 6.4% 

Exempt Facilities 23.2 $0.42 Billion 2.9% 

Vehicles & Equipment 750.6 $8.86 Billion 61.3% 

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. 

2 
Figure 1 

Federal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type and End-Use Sector, FY 2005 

Total by Energy Type: 1.15 quads Total by End-Use Sector: 1.15 quads 

ELECTRICITY 

16.4% 

JET FUEL 

NATURA 42.9% L GAS 

11.4% 

NAVY SPECIAL 

15.0% 

OTHER 

11.4% 

FUEL OIL 

3.0% 

E.I. FACILIT

6.5% 

EXEMPT 

FACILITIES 

2.1% 

IES 

STANDARD 

BUILDINGS 

26.1% 

VEHICLES 

65.4% 

Standard Buildings: 0.30 quads Energy Intensive Facilities: 0.07 quads 

OTHER 

6.9% 

COAL 

4.3% 

FUEL OIL 

9.4% 

NATURAL GAS 

33.2% 

ELECTRICITY 

46.1% 

OTHER 

6.2% 

COAL 

5.5% 

FUEL OIL 

5.6% 

NATURAL GAS 

39.1% 

ELECTRICITY 

43.6% 

Exempt Facilities: 0.02 quads Vehicles & Equipment: 0.75 quads 

OTHER 

7.3% 

FUEL OIL 

8.9% 

ELECTRICITY 

73.1% 

NATURAL GAS 

10.7% 

DIST/DIESEL 

4.5% 

OTHER 

0.8% 

JET FUEL 

65.6% 

AUTO GAS 

6.3% 

NAVY SPECIAL 

22.9% 

3 
Figure 2 

Federal Energy Costs by Fuel Type and End-Use Sector, FY 2005 

Total by Energy Type: $14.5 Billion Total by End-Use Sector: $14.5 Billion 

ELECTRICITY 

26.5% 

JET FUEL 

44.6% 

NATURAL GAS 

7.5% 

NAVY SPECIAL

 8.3% 

FUEL OIL 

2.2% OTHER 

10.3% 

E.I. 

FACILITIES

 6.3% 

STANDARD 

BUILDINGS 

29.5% 

VEHICLES 

61.3% 

EXEMPT FACILITIES 

2.9% 

Standard Buildings: $4.3 Billion Energy Intensive Facilities: $0.9 Billion 

COAL 

0.9% 

FUEL OIL 

6.2% 

OTHER 

5.7% 

NATURAL GAS 

19.3% 

ELECTRICITY 

67.8% 

COAL 

1.1% 

OTHER 

5.3% 

FUEL OIL 

4.0% 

NATURAL GAS 

25.8% 

ELECTRICITY 

63.8% 

Exempt Facilities: $0.4 Billion Vehicles & Equipment: $8.9 Billion 

OTHER 

5.5% DIST/DI

4.3% 

NATURAL GAS 

4.9% 

FUEL OIL

3.8%

ELECTRICITY 

85.9% 

ESEL 

OTHER 

0.5% 

JET FUEL 

72.8% 

AUTO GAS 

8.0% 

NAVY SPECIAL 

14.4% 

4 
A. Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, the Federal Government used 300.0 trillion Btu to provide energy to 3.0 billion 

square feet of standard buildings space (Table A-4). This consumption represents a 27.7 percent 

decrease compared to FY 1985 and a 3.6 percent decrease relative to FY 2004. The significant 

drop from FY 1985 reflects the success of Federal energy management efforts in reducing fossil 

fuel use in Federal facilities as well as reduced defense-related activity. The cost of energy for 

buildings and facilities in FY 2005 was $4.3 billion, an increase of approximately $132.2 million 

from FY 2004 expenditures, and a decrease of 34.3 percent from the FY 1985 expenditure of 

$6.5 billion (Table A-5).6 Of the $4.3 billion spent for energy used in standard buildings, 

$2,526.6 million was spent by DOD with the remaining $1,731.7 million spent by the civilian 

agencies. 

B. Industrial, Laboratory and Other Energy Intensive Facilities 

In FY 2005, the Federal Government used 74.2 trillion Btu of energy in energy intensive 

operations, approximately 6.5 percent of the total 1.1 quads consumed. Total energy 

consumption in this category increased 6.5 percent relative to FY 1990 and 14.4 percent relative 

to FY 2004 (Table A-6). These increases resulted from changes in agency activity levels, 

changes in agency building classification, and energy management efforts. 

The Federal Government spent $927.1 million on energy intensive operations in FY 2005 (Table 

A-7), $191.2 million more than the FY 2004 expenditure of $735.9 million in 2005 constant 

dollars. Of the $927.1 million spent for energy used in energy intensive operations, $293.5 

million was spent by DOD with the remaining $633.5 million spent by the civilian agencies. 

The industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities reported by the agencies under 

this category are listed at www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/eifacilities05.pdf. 

C. Exempt Facilities 

Ten agencies, DOD, DOE, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

State, and Transportation, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the General Services Administration 

(GSA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority have chosen to exempt facilities from energy 

management requirements. These facilities are listed at 

www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exemptfac05.pdf and include: 

 Structures such as outside parking garages which consume essentially only lighting 

energy, yet are classed as buildings. 

 Buildings where energy usage is skewed significantly due to reasons such as: buildings 

entering or leaving the inventory during the year, buildings down-scaled operationally to 

6

Cost and consumption figures for FY 1985 may be different from those published in last year’s annual report since 

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

5 
prepare for decontamination, decommissioning and disposal, and buildings undergoing 

major renovation and/or major asbestos removal. 

 Federal ships that consume “Cold Iron Energy” (energy used to supply power and heat to 

ships docked in port), and airplanes or other vehicles that are supplied with utilityprovided energy. 

 Buildings and facilities in which it is technically infeasible to implement energy 

efficiency measures or where conventional performance measures are rendered 

meaningless by an overwhelming proportion of process-dedicated energy. 

In addition, the U.S. Postal Service has reported electricity consumption used in mail processing 

automation under the exempt category without reporting associated facility square footage. The 

Treasury Department also reported electricity used for parking lot lighting at two Internal 

Revenue Service sites because the electricity is separately metered. 

Energy used in exempt facilities totaled 23.2 trillion Btu in FY 2005 (Table A-8), approximately 

2.1 percent of the total 1.1 quads used by the Federal Government. Electricity constitutes 73.1 

percent of the energy used in exempt facilities, 10.7 percent is accounted for by natural gas and 

8.9 percent by fuel oil. Small amounts of purchased steam, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)/ 

propane, and “other” energy account for the remaining 7.3 percent. 

The energy used in exempt facilities in FY 2005 accounted for approximately 2.9 percent of the 

total Federal energy bill. The Federal Government spent approximately $416.2 million for this 

category’s energy during the fiscal year (Table A-9). 

D. Vehicles and Equipment 

Vehicles and equipment energy 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 2005, the Federal Government used approximately 750.6 trillion Btu of energy in vehicles 

and equipment, 65.4 percent of the total 1.1 quads consumed (Table A-10). Total energy 

consumption in vehicles and equipment decreased 19.7 percent relative to FY 1985 and 3.3 

percent from the FY 2004 consumption of 776.4 trillion Btu. DOD consumed 697.5 trillion Btu 

or 92.9 percent of all vehicles and equipment energy used by the Federal Government. 

The Federal Government spent almost $8.9 billion on vehicles and equipment energy in FY 

2005, almost $2.5 billion more than the FY 2004 expenditure, a 38.7 percent increase in constant 

dollars. For all fuels, the cost per million Btu increased from $8.22 in FY 2004 to $11.80 in FY 

2005. The unit cost of the most-used fuel, jet fuel, increased 47.9 percent from the previous 

year. Gasoline prices paid by the Government increased 8.0 percent from the previous year. 

6 
II. PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOALS OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY 

 CONSERVATION POLICY ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13123 

A. Overview of Federal Energy Management Policy and Legislative Mandates 

This section of the report documents activities conducted by Federal agencies to meet the 

statutory requirements of Title V, Part 3, of 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 2005 by the Federal agencies under EPACT 1992 (42 U.S.C. § 8262c) and 

Executive Order 13123 are also discussed in this report. 

NECPA requires Federal agencies to improve energy management in their facilities and 

operations. Amendments to NECPA made by the Federal Energy Management Improvement 

Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-615), 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 (Btu/GSF) basis (42 U.S.C. § 8253 (a)(1)). It also directed DOE to 

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

Interagency Energy Management Task Force. Section 543 of NECPA contained provisions 

requiring a reduction in Btu/GSF of 20 percent by 2000, 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. 

On June 3, 1999, Executive Order 13123 was signed, superseding Executive Order 12902, 

Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities. Executive Order 13123 

established goals for 2005 and 2010 for both standard buildings and energy intensive facilities, 

addressed renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from Federal facilities energy 

use, and provided tools to facilitate energy management at Federal agencies. 

The key requirements of the statutory and Executive Order authorities are outlined in Table 1 

along with findings for FY 2005. 

7 
TABLE 1 

KEY REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORITIES 

Statute/Directive Requirement FY 2005 Findings Annual Report 

Discussion 

Section 543, NECPA 

Executive Order 13123 

20 percent reduction 

(Btu/GSF) in Federal 

buildings by 2000 from 

1985. 

30 percent reduction (Btu/ 

GSF) by 2005 from 1985. 

35 percent reduction by 

2010 from 1985. 

Federal agencies reported a 

29.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption in 

buildings in FY 2005, 

compared to FY 1985. 

Section II (B), 

page 10 

Section 545, NECPA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C., 

§ 8255) 

Transmit to Congress the 

amount of appropriations 

requested in each agency 

budget for electric and 

energy costs incurred in 

operating and maintaining 

facilities and for 

compliance with applicable 

statutes and directives. 

Approximately $290.6 

million was appropriated 

and spent on energy 

efficiency projects in 

Federal facilities. 

Section II (I) (1), 

page 27 

Section 546, NECPA 

(42 U.S.C., § 8256(a)) 

Establishment of a program 

of incentives within Federal 

agencies to expedite Energy 

Savings Performance 

Contracts. 

In FY 2005, 20 ESPC 

contracts and delivery 

orders were awarded under 

DOE Super ESPCs and 

other agency contracts. 

Section II (I) (2) 

page 27 

Section 157, EPACT 

1992 (42 U.S.C., § 

8262c) 

Federal agencies to 

establish and maintain 

programs to train energy 

managers and to increase 

the number of trained 

energy managers within 

each agency. 

During FY 2005, Federal 

agencies reported spending 

$2.6 million to train 4,744 

Federal personnel in energy 

efficiency, renewable 

energy, and water 

conservation subjects. 

During FY 2005, FEMP 

conducted 71 training 

workshops and symposia 

for more than 3,200 

attendees. 

Section III (B), 

page 33; 

Section IV, 

Agency Reports, 

page 37 

Executive Order 13123 20 percent reduction for 

Federal industrial/ 

laboratory facilities by 2005 

from 1990. 

25 percent reduction by 

2010 from 1990. 

Overall the Government 

reduced its energy use per 

gross square foot by 17.6 

percent compared to FY 

1990. 

Section II (C), 

page 13 

Section IV, 

Agency Reports, 

page 37 

8 
Statute/Directive Requirement FY 2005 Findings Annual Report 

Discussion 

Executive Order 13123 30 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions 

attributed to Federal 

facilities by 2010 from 

1990. 

Carbon emissions from 

energy used in non-exempt 

Federal facilities declined 

22.1 percent in FY 2005 

compared to FY 1990. 

Section II (D), 

page 16 

Executive Order 13123 Expand use of renewable 

energy by implementing 

renewable energy projects 

and by purchasing 

electricity from renewable 

sources. 

Agencies reported 

renewable energy use in 

2005 equivalent to 6.9 

percent of Government 

facility electricity use. 

Section II (E), 

page 18 

Section IV, 

Agency Reports, 

page 37 

Executive Order 13123 Minimize petroleum use 

within Federal facilities 

through use of nonpetroleum energy sources 

and eliminating 

unnecessary fuel use. 

The consumption of 

petroleum-based fuels in 

standard buildings and 

energy intensive facilities 

during FY 2005 decreased 

70.0 percent compared to 

FY 1985 and 7.1 percent 

from FY 2004. 

Section II(F), 

page 20 

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 standard buildings and 

energy intensive facilities in 

FY 2005 decreased 12.9 

percent from FY 1985 and 

4.3 percent from FY 2004. 

Measured in terms of 

primary energy, Federal 

standard buildings show a 

reduction of 16.3 percent in 

Btu/GSF during FY 2005 

compared to FY 1985. 

Section II (G), 

page 23 

Executive Order 13123 Reduce water consumption 

and associated energy use. 

During FY 2005, all 

reporting agencies 

combined consumed almost 

174.7 billion gallons of 

water at a cost of $420.0 

million. This was a decrease 

of 19.6 percent compared to 

the FY 2000 water 

consumption and an 

increase of 11.0 percent 

from the previous year. 

Section II (H), 

page 26 

9 
B. Energy Efficiency Improvement Goals for Standard Buildings 

Section 202 of Executive Order 13123 requires each agency to reduce energy consumption per 

gross square foot of its standard buildings by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 relative 

to 1985. Standard buildings do not include agency-designated industrial, laboratory and other 

energy intensive facilities which are subject to a separate goal under Section 203 of the Order. 

Agencies provided data to DOE for FY 2005 indicating a decrease in energy consumption per 

gross square foot of 29.6 percent relative to FY 1985. Although the 30 percent reduction goal 

was narrowly missed for 2005, the Government is well on track to meet the 35 percent goal for 

2010. 

The Government’s performance for each year since FY 1985 is illustrated in Figure 3. This 

reduction was the result of significant decreases in the consumption of fuel oil, natural gas, 

LPG/propane, and coal. The use of non-electric fuels in Federal buildings has declined 43.8 

percent since 1985, while the consumption of electricity has increased by 8.4 percent. The 

installation and increased use of electricity-driven electronic equipment contributed to increases 

in electricity through the years. Electricity now represents about 67.8 percent of the total energy 

costs of Federal buildings and accounts for 46.1 percent of total site-delivered energy 

consumption in standard buildings. This is compared to 30.7 percent of the total site-delivered 

energy consumption in standard buildings in FY 1985. 

Figure 3 

Overall Government Progress Toward the Energy Efficiency Goals for Standard Buildings, 

FY 1985 through FY 2005 

10 
Btu per Gross Square Foot

140,000 

135,000 

130,000 

125,000 

120,000 

115,000 

110,000 

105,000 29.6% Reduction, 2005 

100,000 

30% Goal - 2005 

95,000 (EO 12902) 

90,000 35% Goal - 2010 

(EO 13123) 

85,000

80,000

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 

FISCAL YEAR 

10% Goal - 1995 (NECPA) 

20% Goal - 2000 (EPACT 1992) 

Actual Energy Use 

Executive Order 13123 allows agencies to credit renewable energy purchases toward their 

performance under the reduction goal for standard buildings. In FY 2005, these credits 

amounted to almost 7.8 trillion Btu that were subtracted from agencies’ consumption before 

Btu/GSF was calculated. Similarly, Section 502(e) of the Executive Order provides credit to 

agencies that implement cost-effective projects that save primary energy, but not necessarily sitedelivered energy. In FY 2005, these credits amounted to 1.8 trillion Btu. Without these credits, 

the Government’s reduction in FY 2005 would have been 27.3 percent compared to FY 1985. 

The credits as applied to each agency are documented in Table 2. 

Agency performance in FY 2005 compared to FY 1985 is illustrated below in Figure 4 and 

documented in Table 2. Eight agencies, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Justice, Transportation, GSA, NASA, and the Tennessee Valley Authority have reduced energy 

use per gross square foot in standard buildings by more than 30 percent from 1985. One 

additional agency, the Department of Defense is on track to meet the 35 percent reduction goal 

for 2010 with a decline of greater than 28 percent. 

Figure 4 

Individual Agency Reductions in Btu per Square Foot of Standard Building Space 

in FY 2005 Compared to FY 1985 

11 
Agency 

DOE 52.6% 

Justice 40.0% 

GSA 35.3% 

Commerce 34.6% 

DOT 34.2% 

USDA 30.6% 

NASA 30.4% 

TVA 30.0% 

DOD 28.2% 

Postal Service 24.2% 

Treasury 21.3% 

HHS 19.8% 

Labor 15.5% 

VA 11.6% 

HUD 8.8% 

Interior 4.9% 

-18.6% State 

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 

FY 2005 Btu/Square Foot Reduction from FY 1985 

Note: Dark shaded bars indicate that agencies have met the reduction goal for FY 2005. 

12 
TABLE 2

FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 2005 

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 2005 % CHANGE 

GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF 1985-2005 

VA† 123,650.0 24,552.0 198,560 160,747.0 28,228.5 175,609 -11.6 

USPS 189,400.0 16,238.3 85,736 360,484.7 23,423.7 64,978 -24.2 

DOE† 60,457.1 28,603.8 473,126 67,240.4 15,064.7 224,043 -52.6 

GSA† 190,966.7 15,865.6 83,080 174,762.7 9,389.2 53,725 -35.3 

DOI† 54,154.4 4,762.4 87,940 62,500.4 5,229.1 83,664 -4.9 

NASA† 14,623.4 3,760.1 257,130 22,351.0 3,997.7 178,860 -30.4 

DHS† 0.0 0.0 NA 39,927.5 3,789.5 94,910 NA 

USDA 24,061.0 1,953.6 81,195 45,278.8 2,551.8 56,358 -30.6 

DOL 18,268.3 2,153.0 117,852 22,705.5 2,261.3 99,593 -15.5 

DOJ 20,768.8 6,112.0 294,289 6,244.0 1,102.3 176,537 -40.0 

DOT 32,291.1 4,614.5 142,904 7,202.2 676.8 93,971 -34.2 

TVA† 4,886.6 402.4 82,357 9,333.0 537.7 57,618 -30.0 

DOC† 4,522.6 540.3 119,476 4,836.2 377.7 78,103 -34.6 

ST 2,597.0 232.2 89,392 3,183.2 337.5 106,020 18.6 

TRSY† 4,225.0 426.0 100,830 3,590.3 284.8 79,328 -21.3 

HHS 2,649.8 253.0 95,491 2,696.0 206.5 76,596 -19.8 

HUD 1,432.0 116.9 81,668 1,432.0 106.6 74,441 -8.8 

OTHER*† 3,172.0 406.8 128,249 9,900.5 980.7 99,060 -22.8 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

SUBTOTAL† 752,125.8 110,993.1 147,573 1,004,415.4 98,546.2 98,113 -33.5 

DOD† 2,224,527.3 304,190.0 136,744 1,953,859.2 191,870.9 98,201 -28.2 

TOTAL† 2,976,653.1 415,183.1 139,480 2,958,274.6 290,417.1 98,171 -29.6 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

*Other includes the FCC, FEMA, NRC, OPM, PCC, RRB, SSA, and BBG/IBB. RRB and SSA are included under the Other category because 

they lack FY 1985 baseline data. 

†Indicates that reductions were made to FY 2005 energy use and Btu/GSF (shown in italics) to reflect purchases of renewable energy. When 

calculating Btu/GSF, the following amounts were subtracted from agency energy use for FY 2005: VA, 304.4 BBtu (1.1% of energy use); DOE, 

301.3 BBtu (2.0%); GSA, 2,147.6 BBtu (18.6%); DOI, 5.6 BBtu (0.1%); NASA, 272.5 BBtu (6.4%); DHS, 68.4 BBtu (1.8%); TVA, 4.0 BBtu 

(0.7%); DOC, 106.2 BBtu (21.9%); TRSY, 18.1 BBtu (6.0%); SSA, 5.5 BBtu (0.6%); civilian agencies subtotal, 3,233.7 BBtu (3.2%); DOD, 

4,550.3 BBtu (2.3%); and all agencies total, 7,783.9 BBtu (2.6%). The following agencies also received Section 502(c) credits: VA, 159.7 

BBtu; GSA, 2.3 BBtu; DOD, and 1,657.0 BBtu 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

13 
C. Goals for Industrial, Laboratory, and Other Energy Intensive Facilities 

Section 203 of Executive Order 13123 requires each agency to reduce energy consumption per 

square foot, per unit of production, or per other unit as applicable, by 20 percent by 2005 and 25 

percent by 2010 relative to 1990 in industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities. 

The designation of these facilities is at the discretion of each agency. Table 3 documents agency 

progress made toward the goals for industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities. 

Currently, 15 agencies are reporting energy intensive facilities under the provisions of Executive 

Order 13123: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), 

Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), 

and the Treasury, EPA, Federal Communications Commission, GSA, NASA, the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), TVA, and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). A list of energy 

intensive facilities reported by each of these agencies can be found at 

www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/eifacilities05.pdf. 

During FY 2005 eight agencies, DOC, DOD, DOE, EPA, GSA, IBB, USDA, and TVA, had 

already achieved reductions greater than 20 percent compared to FY 1990. Three agencies, HHS, 

the Treasury, and SSA, achieved reductions between 10 and 20 percent. Two agencies, the 

Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, were unable to provide base year data for FY 

1990. As a whole, the Government achieved a reduction of 17.6 percent in Btu per gross square 

foot in its industrial, laboratory, and other energy intensive facilities compared to FY 1990. 

DOD reports facilities that perform production or industrial functions under the energy intensive 

facilities category. Because the relationship between energy consumption and production varies 

widely between processes, DOD has decided to use energy usage per gross square foot as the 

performance measure for the industrial and laboratory facility category. DOD considers an entire 

military base an industrial facility if 60 percent or more of the base-wide energy use is for 

industrial purposes. DOD reported a reduction of 21.6 percent in its laboratory and industrial 

facilities compared to FY 1990. 

In FY 2005, DOE reported a reduction in its laboratory and industrial facilities Btu per gross 

square foot of 26.8 percent compared to FY 1990. 

The Department of Health and Human Service’s energy intensive facilities include laboratories, 

hospitals, animal centers, health clinics, and other related support space. In FY 2005, the energy 

consumption of HHS energy intensive facilities declined 18.4 percent compared to FY 1990. 

USDA measures the energy performance of its Agricultural Research Service based on AirQuality-Adjusted Btu/GSF, which removes the impact of present day requirements for increased 

laboratory ventilation air for safety and health reasons. These requirements have become more 

stringent and require greater energy use than the standards that were in place in the FY 1990 base 

year. USDA reported a decrease of 47.5 percent from FY 1990 based on Air-Quality Adjusted 

Btu/GSF. Without the adjustment, the decrease would have been 16.8 percent. 

In FY 2005, the Department of Justice began reporting its Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities 

(formerly categorized as standard buildings) as energy intensive facilities. Since BOP did not 

begin reporting its facilities until FY 1986, no revisions were made to FY 1985 data. (No 

14 
TABLE 3 

FEDERAL ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITIES ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1990 AND FY 2005 

FISCAL YEAR 1990 FISCAL YEAR 2005 % CHANGE 

GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF 1990-2005 

DOJ 0.0 0.0 NA 57,325.3 12,916.5 225,319 NA 

HHS1

† 18,294.7 7,738.3 422,981 24,567.2 8,482.0 345,258 -18.4 

DOE† 18,852.8 7,507.9 398,237 24,291.2 7,083.7 291,615 -26.8 

GSA† 10,071.3 4,354.0 432,313 20,288.5 5,893.5 290,487 -32.8 

NASA† 12,787.9 4,142.9 323,972 12,159.8 3,303.9 271,710 -16.1 

TRSY† 7,018.5 1,773.8 252,734 9,005.7 1,865.1 207,103 -18.1 

USDA2

† 13,403.8 2,416.2 180,262 14,533.3 1,375.0 94,612 -47.5 

DOC† 3,090.6 976.6 315,975 5,717.2 1,358.9 237,678 -24.8 

IBB 1,012.5 1,406.9 1,389,496 962.6 910.8 946,187 -31.9 

EPA† 2,090.0 747.0 357,414 3,706.7 793.5 214,065 -40.1 

DHS 0.0 0.0 NA 2,437.3 549.2 225,326 NA 

SSA3 611.3 215.5 352,599 611.0 183.5 300,362 -14.8 

TVA 404.9 112.2 277,180 404.9 75.2 185,799 -33.0 

FCC 0.0 0.0 NA 20.1 1.1 54,726 NA 

PCC4 2,219.8 190.8 85,934 0.0 0.0 NA NA 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

SUBTOTAL† 89,858.1 31,582.1 351,467 176,030.9 44,792.0 254,455 -27.6 

DOD† 183,779.2 39,209.1 213,349 158,230.2 26,459.4 167,221 -21.6 

TOTAL† 273,637.3 70,791.2 258,705 334,261.1 71,251.4 213,161 -17.6 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

1HHS/NIH adjusted its baseline to account for mandated air quality improvements in later years. 2USDA Agricultural Research Service laboratory facilities consumption is measured in Air-Quality Adjusted Btu/Square Foot. 3Indicates estimated baseline 4PCC ceased to exist in 2000. 

†Indicates that reductions were made to FY 2005 energy use and Btu/GSF (shown in italics) to reflect purchases of renewable energy. When 

calculating Btu/GSF, the following amounts were subtracted from agency energy use for FY 2005: HHS, 12.5 BBtu (0.1% of energy use); 

DOE, 185.9 BBtu (2.6%); GSA, 66.2 BBtu (1.1%); NASA, 165.4 BBtu (4.8%); USDA, 0.9 BBtu (0.1%); TRSY, 26.6 BBtu (1.4%); DOC, 193.1 

BBtu (12.4%); EPA, 516.8 BBtu (39.4%); civilian agencies subtotal, 1,167.4 BBtu (2.5%); DOD, 780.3 BBtu (2.9%); and all agency total 1,947.6 

BBtu (2.7%). The following agencies also received Section 502(c) credits: HHS, 367.2 BBtu and DOD, 314.90 BBtu. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

15 
revisions were provided to any year’s data prior to FY 2005.) BOP facilities operate 24 hours per 

day, 365 days per year with energy consuming functions that include daily food preparation, 

dishwashing, inmate showers, laundry, and industrial activities. The performance measure DOJ 

uses for BOP facilities is Btu/GSF per inmate. By this measure, BOP has reduced its energy 

intensity by 63 percent from FY 1986. DOJ also changed the reporting of the FBI headquarters 

facility from the energy intensive facilities to the standard buildings category in FY 2005. DOJ 

has not provided FY 1990 baseline data for its energy intensive facilities. 

The Treasury reports energy consumption for 9.0 million square feet of industrial space for 

Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and U.S. Mint facilities. As of FY 

2005, the Treasury’s industrial facilities have achieved a 18.1 percent reduction in consumption 

over their FY 1990 baseline on a Btu/GSF basis. 

Energy use at EPA laboratories decreased by 40.1 percent from 357,414 Btu per gross square 

foot per year in 1990 to 214,065 Btu per gross square foot per year in FY 2005. EPA’s energy 

intensity for FY 2005 was adjusted to reflect purchases of 516.8 billion Btu of renewable energy. 

GSA’s Btu/GSF in its energy intensive facilities decreased 32.8 percent compared with the 1990 

base year. FY 2005 data reflects purchases of 66.2 billion Btu of renewable electricity. 

NASA has elected to use Btu/GSF as the agency-wide aggregate performance measure for 

energy intensive facilities. Other performance measures are utilized for individual industrial 

facilities, space flight tracking stations, and clean rooms. The average energy intensity for 

NASA’s energy intensive buildings was 277,138 Btu/GSF by the end of FY 2005, as compared 

to the FY 1990 baseline value of 323,972 Btu/GSF. This represents a decrease of 14.5 percent. 

DOC’s energy intensive facilities are operated by two of its bureaus: the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). NIST installations are comprised of laboratories that require constant environmental 

space control and base electrical loads for scientific equipment and computers. NOAA Weather 

Service facilities operate 24 hours a day and consist of radar towers and other equipment. Marine 

Fisheries and Laboratories utilize refrigerators, freezers, incubators, coolers, pumps, and 

compressors that operate 24 hours a day. In FY 2005, DOC energy intensive facilities decreased 

consumption per square foot by 24.8 percent from FY 1990, from 315,975 Btu/GSF to 237,678 

Btu/GSF. DOC’s energy intensity for FY 2005 was adjusted to reflect purchases of 193.1 billion 

Btu of renewable electricity. 

The International Broadcasting Bureau designates domestic and overseas Voice of America 

Relay Stations as energy-intensive facilities and measures using the rate-based unit of billion Btu 

per thousand transmitter hours (BBtu/Khrs) and a base year of 1997 due to the availability of 

historical metrics. In FY 2005, IBB reduced its energy intensity from 2.449 BBtu/Khrs to 1.907 

BBtu/Khrs, a 22.2 percent reduction from the base year. 

The Social Security Administration, which began reporting energy consumption in 1996 as an 

independent agency, has designated its National Computer Center as an energy intensive facility. 

Using FY 1996 as its base year, SSA saw a reduction of 14.8 percent in Btu/GSF in FY 2005. 

16 
D. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals 

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

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

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

goals of Section 203. The requirement states: 

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

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

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

energy improvements, agencies can count greenhouse gas reductions from improvements 

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

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

DOE estimates carbon emissions from agency-reported energy use using national fuel-specific 

emission factors, except for emissions from electricity use which are calculated using regional 

coefficients derived from Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. (See Appendix B for 

more information on the methodology.) As shown in Table 4, when the carbon emissions from 

standard buildings and industrial, laboratory, and other energy-intensive facilities are combined, 

the Government shows a 

reduction of 22.1 percent Figure 5 

from 14.9 million metric Progress Toward the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal 

tons of carbon equivalent 16 

(MTCE) in FY 1990 to 

11.6 million MTCE in FY 

2005. Much of this decline 

is attributable to the 35.1 

percent reduction of DOD 

during this period. Carbon 

emissions decreased by 

411,221 MTCE or 3.4 

percent from FY 2004. 

Figure 5 illustrates the 

Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent 15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

22.1% Reduction 

2005 

trend from FY 1990 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 

through FY 2005. Fiscal Year 

Carbon Emissions Goal Path 

The creation of the 

Department of Homeland Security had a significant impact on the calculation of carbon 

emissions of two other agencies during FY 2005. The entire building inventory of FEMA is now 

reported under DHS, resulting in the 100 percent decrease from previous years on Table 4. The 

transfer of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration from the 

Department of Transportation to DHS (beginning in FY 2003) resulted in DOT’s 74.0 percent 

decrease in carbon emissions from the base year. 

17 
Aside from FEMA and DOT, five agencies, EPA, DOD, DOE, HUD, and IBB, have reduced 

carbon emissions by more than 20 percent from FY 1990. Four other agencies, RRB, NASA, 

GSA, and the State Department, have also had declines in carbon emissions since FY 1990. 

18 
TABLE 4 

ESTIMATED CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FEDERAL AGENCY FACILITY ENERGY 

(In Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MTCE)) 

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

USPS 722,711 725,690 754,657 810,286 823,895 827,214 855,771 784,543 830,133 831,527 963,258 911,358 913,891 900,843 VA 687,514 689,299 691,790 704,279 708,115 704,737 730,492 741,031 748,661 747,630 754,508 802,866 792,661 824,811 DOE 904,689 862,869 887,049 884,790 871,935 856,948 832,095 793,466 748,870 732,857 710,856 735,107 723,204 743,732 

GSA 604,248 562,655 557,841 566,280 553,366 534,068 558,009 565,674 563,041 572,475 622,160 633,053 609,235 628,154 

DOJ 157,889 199,009 156,968 198,055 213,756 221,666 272,141 272,379 280,253 290,088 334,196 333,828 328,009 351,505 

NASA 292,829 291,807 296,069 293,049 288,546 281,861 274,103 283,850 284,004 276,222 274,144 269,084 259,847 246,625 

HHS 224,596 196,188 217,755 226,951 229,302 194,634 208,053 231,698 228,683 219,180 238,356 244,630 251,778 253,833 DHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155,550 

USDA 145,906 140,804 138,144 143,864 143,310 136,636 139,976 134,500 144,142 136,027 139,436 145,852 136,348 167,726 DOT 111,387 100,457 125,039 125,028 121,113 119,087 133,075 141,605 129,161 126,785 122,342 125,872 135,130 29,546 DOI 128,167 128,690 117,470 141,425 141,276 125,679 100,587 114,268 119,429 118,863 133,143 160,813 158,565 149,275 TRSY 81,682 92,270 100,781 92,051 90,875 85,947 85,479 111,771 97,978 99,663 106,313 102,202 110,513 90,883 DOC 49,109 47,510 51,459 54,717 66,726 71,616 72,477 63,570 62,802 63,320 59,138 72,264 64,335 67,460 DOL 68,641 66,055 66,797 69,054 69,250 66,308 68,164 69,483 70,171 54,382 74,037 78,063 76,610 79,801 EPA 26,700 28,796 29,429 30,780 31,714 33,973 33,874 33,722 34,224 36,969 31,491 35,743 26,351 24,493 TVA 20,014 19,426 19,752 21,572 30,915 34,842 34,506 33,248 31,923 31,542 30,603 31,132 30,818 30,604 IBB 33,614 22,529 22,506 22,314 20,608 21,253 23,012 27,423 25,282 22,735 23,133 9,430 34,426 35,505 FEMA 7,862 7,321 7,461 6,834 6,488 6,465 6,509 6,559 6,573 6,706 6,885 6,608 7,161 0 

ST 15,589 15,850 15,758 2,388 4,221 4,476 14,001 5,202 5,255 5,304 6,782 5,676 11,060 12,191 HUD 6,641 6,164 5,742 5,366 5,012 4,736 5,137 4,944 4,725 4,753 4,923 4,932 4,727 4,781 NRC 1,961 2,940 2,614 2,686 2,803 3,707 4,009 4,210 4,120 4,082 4,036 3,652 3,663 3,877 

RRB 1,405 1,457 1,563 1,604 1,406 1,359 1,417 1,511 1,309 1,232 1,211 1,128 1,138 1,097 Other 25,902 16,255 15,866 16,554 16,293 43,757 82,739 87,203 71,286 72,183 74,087 68,944 66,719 90,394 CIVILIAN AGENCIES SUBTOTAL 4,319,055 4,224,041 4,282,509 4,419,925 4,440,925 4,380,968 4,535,625 4,511,859 4,492,025 4,454,530 4,715,039 4,782,238 4,746,189 4,892,686 DOD 10,624,130 10,029,510 10,650,088 9,692,082 9,150,419 8,501,381 8,193,372 7,958,137 7,785,738 7,628,420 7,535,656 7,346,187 7,311,470 7,205,783 TOTAL 14,943,185 14,253,550 14,932,596 14,112,007 13,591,344 12,882,348 12,728,997 12,469,996 12,277,763 12,082,950 12,250,695 12,128,424 12,057,659 12,098,469 

*Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, FCC, FTC, NSF, OPM, PCC, and SSA. Note: Carbon emission calculations were adjusted in FY 2005 for 14 agencies to reflect purchases of renewable energy. These agencies, and their corresponding crepurchases are: VA, 16,043 MTCE; DOE, 18,855 MTCE; GSA, 112,733 MTCE; NASA, 10,560 MTCE; HHS, 194 MTCE; DHS, 3,071 MTCE; USDA, 47 MTCE; DOI, 31DOC, 14,932 MTCE; EPA, 27,477 MTCE; TVA, 193 MTCE; SSA, 244 MTCE; and DOD, 246,896 MTCE. Similar adjustments were made for renewable energy purch

Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Calculated from energy consumption data from Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports, see Appendix B. 

19 
Eleven agencies have seen increases in carbon emissions from facility energy use since FY 1990, 

mainly due to larger building inventories and heightened industrial, laboratory, and research 

operations resulting in increased energy consumption. 

E. Renewable Energy Goal 

Section 503 of Executive Order 13123 directed the Secretary of Energy in collaboration with the 

heads of other agencies to develop a goal for increased renewable energy use in the Federal 

Government. The Renewable Energy Working Group of the Interagency Energy Management 

Task Force worked with agency and industry representatives to develop an appropriate 

renewable energy goal and guidance on how to measure progress toward the goal. In July 2000, 

the Secretary of Energy approved a goal that the equivalent of 2.5 percent of electricity 

consumption from Federal facilities should come from new renewable energy sources by 2005. 

New renewable energy only includes energy from projects or purchases of renewable energy 

contracted or built after 1990. 

Although the goal is based on Federal electricity consumption, non-electric renewable energy 

use is also eligible to be counted toward progress in meeting the goal. 

Based on FY 2005 Federal electricity consumption of 55,035 gigawatthours (GWh), the goal for 

new renewable energy use in the Federal Government is 1,376 GWh. In terms of site-delivered 

Btu, 2.5 percent of Federal electricity consumption is equal to 4,695 billion Btu. 

As shown in Table 5, Federal agencies reported purchasing or producing 13,003.8 billion Btu 

(3,811.2 GWh) of new renewable energy in FY 2005, equivalent to 6.9 percent of the Federal 

Government’s electricity use, and greatly surpassing the goal of 2.5 percent. Figure 6 illustrates 

that the consumption of new renewable energy in FY 2005 nearly doubled the amount reported 

by the agencies in FY 2004. The main contributors to this increase were DOD and GSA. DOD 

reported more than twoand-a-half times the amount Figure 6 

Renewable Energy Use as a Percentage of Facility Electricity Use, of self-generated and FY 2000 to FY 2005 

6.93% 

energy than the previous 6.0% 

year’s accounting. Much of 

this increase is a result of 5.0% 

DOD reporting large-scale 4.0% 

geothermal projects and 

waste-to-energy systems in 3.0% 

purchased renewable 7.0% 

2.78% 

FY 2005 that were not 2.0% 

1.60% accounted for in previous 

years. In FY 2005, GSA 1.0% 

0.15% 0.26% 0.53% quadrupled its purchases of 0.0%

renewable energy over FY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

2004. Actual Goal 

20 
Purchases of renewable energy, including green power, renewable electricity credits, and landfill 

gas comprised 75.7 percent of Government renewable energy use in FY 2005. Self-generated 

energy, including electricity, solar thermal applications, and geothermal heat pump installations, 

comprised 24.3 percent of renewable energy use. Electricity generation from photovoltaics, 

wind, and other renewable sources constitutes 10.5 percent the Government’s renewable energy 

total. 

Ten agencies have surpassed the goal of obtaining the equivalent of more than 2.5 percent of 

total electricity consumption from renewable sources. These agencies are EPA (112.6 percent), 

DOC (27.4 percent), GSA (22.8 percent), NASA (8.4 percent), DOD (8.3 percent), DOE (3.3 

percent), the Treasury (3.1 percent), DHS (3.0 percent), VA (2.9 percent), and TVA (2.8 

percent). The Interior Department used renewable energy equivalent to 1.4 percent of its 

electricity use and the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) used 1.0 percent. Six agencies reported 

using renewable energy, but in amounts of less than 1 percent of their electricity use. 

TABLE 5 

FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRESS TOWARD THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GOAL 

FY 2005 

Agency 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

Purchased 

Renewable 

Energy 

Total 

Renewable 

Energy 

Total 

Facility 

Electricity 

Use 

Renewable 

Energy vs. 

Electricity 

Use 

Electricity Biomass 

Natural Gas 

Thermal 

Energy Other 

Total SelfGenerated 

Renewable 

Energy 

MWH Million Btu Million Btu Million Btu Billion Btu Billion Btu Billion Btu Billion Btu Percentage 

DOD 387,452.0 695.8 1,600,489.1 99,859.9 3,023.0 5,330.5 8,353.6 100,977.1 8.3% 

GSA 60.5 0.0 2,030.0 0.0 2.2 2,252.7 2,254.9 9,893.2 22.8% 

DOE 132.4 0.0 130.2 14,671.6 15.3 530.0 545.3 16,701.7 3.3% 

EPA1 107.4 0.0 7,800.0 0.0 8.2 516.8 525.0 466.1 112.6% 

NASA 295.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 462.5 463.5 5,529.7 8.4% 

VA 33.5 0.0 2,920.0 0.0 3.0 304.4 307.4 10,606.4 2.9% 

DOC 91.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 299.3 299.6 1,093.7 27.4% 

DHS 251.8 0.0 1,666.8 0.0 2.5 68.4 71.0 2,397.5 3.0% 

TVA 3,630.0 0.0 0.0 37,030.4 49.4 4.0 53.4 1,876.4 2.8% 

TRSY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.7 44.7 1,424.3 3.1% 

DOI 4,410.0 0.0 5,500.0 4,100.0 24.6 5.7 30.3 2,187.9 1.4% 

DOT 378.9 0.0 15,750.0 0.0 17.0 10.0 27.0 2,928.8 0.9% 

HHS 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 12.5 3,538.2 0.4% 

USDA 1,350.9 0.0 200.0 0.0 4.8 0.9 5.7 2,138.1 0.3% 

SSA 28.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.3 5.4 747.8 0.7% 

DOJ 1,099.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 4,987.3 <0.1% 

USPS 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 18,162.2 <0.1% 

RRB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 15.7 1.0% 

ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 505.1 0.0% 

DOL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,042.4 0.0% 

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 560.2 0.0% 

TOTAL 399,472.5 695.8 1,636,490.2 155,661.9 3,155.8 9,847.9 13,003.8 187,779.8 6.9% 

1EPA’s renewable energy use is 112.6% of its electricity use due to its purchases and generation of non-electric renewable energy. 

21 
F. Petroleum Reduction 

In FY 2005, petroleum-based fuels accounted for 788,317.3 billion Btu (0.79 quads) of the total 

1.1 quads consumed by the Federal Government (Table 6). Of that, approximately 726,569.8 

billion Btu (0.73 quads) were used by DOD primarily for jet fuel, navy special fuel oil, and 

distillate/diesel for vehicles and equipment energy. Only 0.03 quads (35,662.7 billion Btu) of 

petroleum-based fuels were used for Federal non-exempt facility energy. 

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 fuel oil and LPG/propane in their standard buildings and energy intensive 

facilities. Table 7 shows that when these end-use sectors are combined, Federal agencies reduced 

petroleum-based fuels by 70.0 percent in FY 2005 compared to FY 1985, from 118.8 trillion Btu 

to 35.7 trillion Btu. Compared to the previous year, use of these fuels fell by 6.2 percent. Figure 

7 illustrates this consumption for the previous 10 years and for FY 1985 and FY 1990. 

Figure 7 

Petroleum-Based Fuel Consumption in Federal Standard Buildings and 

Energy Intensive Facilities; 1985, 1990, and 1995 through 2005 

140 

119 

120 

100 94 

80 

57 57 60 

51 

46 44 42 42 42 40 38 40 36

20 

1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Fiscal Year 

Trillions of Btu 

22 

0 
TABLE 6

FEDERAL PETROLEUM USAGE IN FY 2005 

(in Thousands of Gallons, Billions of Btu, and Petajoules [Joule x 1015]) 

Unit Total BBTU* BBTU* BBTU* Petajoules* 

(K Gal) DOD Civilian Total Total 

Standard Buildings 

Fuel Oil 203,615.7 23,545.1 4,696.4 28,241.5 29.8 

LPG/Propane 31,877.1 1,799.0 1,245.3 3,044.3 3.2 

Energy Intensive Facilities 

Fuel Oil 29,743.3 2,009.4 2,116.0 4,125.4 4.4 

LPG/Propane 2,633.7 40.0 211.5 251.5 0.3 

Exempt Facilities 

Fuel Oil 14,946.1 1,689.3 383.7 2,073.0 2.2 

LPG/Propane 267.9 4.0 21.6 25.6 0.0 

Vehicles & Equipment 

Motor Gas 377,543.0 16,564.1 30,628.8 47,192.9 49.8 

Dist-Diesel & Petrol. 243,282.7 23,522.2 10,221.1 33,743.3 35.6 

Aviation Gas 3,085.5 75.6 310.1 385.7 0.4 

Jet Fuel 3,786,306.4 484,607.0 7,612.9 492,219.8 519.3 

Navy Special Fuel Oil 1,238,063.4 170,543.5 1,175.9 171,719.4 181.2 

LPG/Propane 549.7 6.5 46.0 52.5 0.1 

Other 5,242.4 2,164.1 3,078.3 5,242.4 5.5 

Total 726,569.8 61,747.5 788,317.3 831.6

 *Uses a conversion factor of:

 95,500 BTUs/gallon for lpg/propane

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

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

 130,000 BTUs/gallon for jet fuel

 947.9 Billion BTUs/Petajoule

 1,055 Petajoule/quad 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

23 
TABLE 7 

PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL* CONSUMPTION IN STANDARD BUILDING & ENERGY INTENSI

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY F

AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2

DOD 101,385.4 77,517.0 46,340.5 46,463.0 38,082.0 36,940.5 35,632.5 32,748.8 39,297.4 33,794.7 32,410.3 29,756.0 DOE 1,773.3 1,965.8 2,093.2 1,630.9 1,518.8 859.9 944.9 1,063.9 1,706.0 1,207.3 1,501.4 1,409.4 DOI 1,591.6 1,273.9 1,574.3 1,177.7 799.6 964.7 835.1 996.7 1,324.0 1,382.5 1,238.6 1,574.8 DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,400.3 1,223.1 

USDA 900.6 732.7 426.7 367.0 377.4 387.3 170.7 226.0 327.6 422.4 460.5 586.2 VA 2,176.7 2,219.3 1,292.9 2,098.2 1,186.3 954.6 954.8 1,045.4 3,040.5 1,206.2 1,644.3 1,114.7 USPS 1,673.2 1,502.2 813.9 595.2 819.0 1,139.4 821.7 857.9 1,425.5 719.9 948.5 673.7 HHS 2,096.5 2,282.0 1,152.5 1,718.8 760.7 498.6 492.3 751.4 897.0 636.6 887.3 477.4 IBB 0.0 1,055.2 375.6 386.0 415.0 395.0 472.7 472.7 472.7 660.1 447.2 416.3 

DOJ 381.7 371.6 286.2 354.9 247.2 212.7 219.1 240.5 261.5 289.0 188.8 161.1 NASA 652.6 896.4 360.9 446.5 253.4 239.6 212.7 206.1 265.2 229.0 312.3 308.6 DOL 437.8 331.2 210.8 220.6 254.2 226.1 188.9 193.2 210.0 405.0 362.4 337.4 DOC 157.2 77.6 354.8 695.7 55.2 44.3 48.2 77.7 56.6 33.7 122.5 42.8 

TRSY 22.5 291.4 117.1 116.5 57.4 45.2 65.7 120.7 102.1 80.1 61.5 60.4 

GSA 3,120.0 2,040.4 250.3 310.7 183.1 125.0 111.3 121.1 466.7 99.7 108.4 103.0 SSA 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 29.2 28.5 3.5 40.2 37.7 50.9 44.0 40.6 EPA 16.7 5.9 43.4 51.8 26.2 9.6 19.9 33.7 113.3 17.7 73.8 95.4 

DOT 2,380.4 1,524.1 912.2 709.9 670.9 817.2 824.3 815.0 928.2 1,014.2 3.8 3.4 TVA 4.2 3.2 3.9 4.1 0.0 3.0 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9 

FCC 1.7 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 

HUD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

ST 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 118,772.1 94,091.9 56,610.3 57,398.8 45,737.4 43,892.8 42,023.0 40,013.5 50,934.1 42,251.0 42,217.7 38,386.3 MBOE 20.4 16.1 9.7 9.9 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.9 8.7 7.3 7.2 6.6 PETAJOULE 125.3 99.3 59.7 60.6 48.3 46.3 44.3 42.2 53.7 44.6 44.5 40.5 

*Petroleum-based fuels comprise fuel oil and LPG/propane. Note: Ellipses after fiscal year (1985. . .) indicate where intervening years’ data are left off the table, but available upon request from FEMP. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

24 
G. Source Energy 

Section 206 of Executive Order 13123 directs the Federal Government to strive to reduce 

primary energy use as measured at the source of generation. Primary energy consumption 

considers all resources used to generate and transport electricity and steam. The source 

conversion factors of 11,850 Btu per kilowatt hour for electricity and 1,390 Btu per pound of 

steam are used to estimate primary energy consumption. See Appendix B for conversion factors 

used to calculate site-delivered energy consumption. 

Table 8 shows that when Federal standard buildings and energy intensive facilities are combined, 

primary energy use for these sectors declined 12.6 percent in FY 2005 compared to FY 1985, 

from 882.9 trillion Btu to 771.4 trillion Btu. Compared to FY 1990 consumption of 953.3 trillion 

Btu, FY 2005 primary energy use declined 19.1 percent. Primary energy used in Federal 

facilities during FY 2005 decreased 4.5 percent from the previous year. 

Table 9 shows Federal agency progress toward the Executive Order 13123 goals for standard 

buildings in terms of primary energy use per gross square feet. Measured in terms of primary 

energy, the Federal Government shows a reduction of 16.3 percent in FY 2005 compared to FY 

1985. The large difference from the site-delivered Btu/GSF reduction of 29.6 percent (as shown 

previously in Table 2) reflects the significant declines in direct use of fossil fuels and the 

offsetting increases in the share of the fuel mix contributed by electricity. Similarly, appendix 

Table A-3 shows primary energy use for standard buildings in absolute terms. 

25 
TABLE 8 

PRIMARY ENERGY USE IN STANDARD BUILDINGS AND ENERGY INTENSIVE FACI

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

DOD 611,431.9 663,669.2 556,998.3 535,338.8 517,439.5 507,265.7 499,669.2 492,646.7 482,168.3 480,472.1 474,371.8 471,709.5 

USPS 40,143.9 47,824.8 57,606.8 59,866.0 54,696.6 57,068.7 58,333.5 66,217.4 62,202.1 62,145.5 60,810.9 63,678.4 VA 42,864.1 44,400.3 47,474.3 48,716.5 49,087.3 49,577.6 49,880.1 49,633.7 52,031.5 52,217.8 53,840.6 54,694.9 DOE 66,407.8 67,974.2 62,984.0 63,641.4 61,787.1 58,157.8 43,158.0 56,356.8 52,584.0 56,996.4 58,101.2 56,585.1 GSA 45,589.4 39,162.3 36,535.0 37,391.2 37,560.1 37,315.3 38,308.1 40,614.0 41,558.5 40,737.5 41,920.6 41,404.9 DOJ 9,048.5 9,512.4 14,011.9 17,152.6 17,158.5 17,788.9 18,504.8 20,975.6 21,300.1 21,209.2 23,402.7 24,556.5 HHS 10,128.1 13,188.4 12,084.2 12,806.8 14,530.7 14,178.7 13,700.9 14,633.6 15,334.3 15,696.3 16,111.2 16,672.1 NASA 17,379.0 20,954.2 21,138.1 20,450.0 21,083.5 21,075.6 20,458.0 19,625.0 19,363.4 19,018.2 18,433.6 17,741.3 DOI 8,542.8 7,616.8 7,770.1 6,274.6 7,311.3 7,533.8 7,631.3 8,202.1 9,685.2 9,690.9 9,071.2 11,428.7 USDA 7,947.0 9,668.0 9,502.6 9,594.9 9,266.1 9,735.0 9,252.2 9,339.8 9,620.5 9,078.5 10,703.0 9,548.5 DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,750.2 10,479.6 TRSY 1,723.3 5,542.2 6,009.7 5,888.1 7,603.2 6,873.1 7,025.6 7,148.0 6,972.5 7,032.5 6,021.9 5,882.8 DOL 3,734.1 3,916.2 3,979.2 4,100.5 4,137.2 4,167.4 3,264.6 4,392.2 4,666.0 4,813.7 5,068.9 4,997.8 DOC 3,075.3 3,283.4 4,906.7 4,800.0 4,399.8 4,300.2 4,392.8 3,963.2 4,893.3 4,400.0 4,558.2 4,804.5 TVA 1,779.5 1,830.1 2,797.8 2,716.4 2,598.7 2,557.5 2,587.7 2,426.7 2,427.1 2,210.2 2,220.6 2,188.2 DOT 8,746.5 7,217.0 8,472.5 9,647.7 10,021.9 9,062.4 8,996.8 8,810.5 8,849.0 9,326.2 1,979.3 1,969.9 ST 702.6 833.6 260.3 795.4 299.9 301.7 306.3 389.6 324.4 738.6 840.9 975.1 

EPA 1,644.1 1,643.0 2,165.1 2,128.9 2,107.9 2,114.9 2,334.5 1,959.9 2,297.0 2,089.6 2,322.2 2,467.7 HUD 356.2 435.0 322.3 339.2 326.7 316.5 324.2 324.2 336.7 327.8 324.8 312.8 OTHER* 1,668.4 4,642.8 6,110.0 9,022.8 9,746.0 8,425.2 8,203.4 8,115.1 7,980.9 10,080.9 9,442.4 5,394.6 TOTAL 882,912.5 953,313.9 861,128.9 850,671.8 831,162.0 817,816.0 796,332.0 815,774.1 804,594.8 808,281.9 810,296.2 807,492.9 

MBOE 151.5 163.6 147.8 146.0 142.7 140.4 136.7 140.0 138.1 138.7 139.1 138.6 PETAJOULE 931.4 1,005.7 908.5 897.4 876.8 862.8 840.1 860.6 848.8 852.7 854.8 851.9 

*Other includes, for certain years, CIA, FCC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, and IBB. Notes: Renewable energy purchases have been accounted for, having the effect of reducing primary energy consumption in FY 2005 for the following agencies by the 17,000.0 BBtu; VA, 1,057.2 BBtu; DOE, 1,692.0 BBtu; GSA, 7,688.7 BBtu; HHS, 13.3 BBtu; NASA, 773.4 BBtu; DOI, 19.6 BBtu; USDA, 3.0 BBtu; DHS, 237.7 BBtu; T

BBtu; TVA, 13.9 BBtu; and EPA, 1,785.3 BBtu.Ellipses after fiscal year (1985. . .) indicate where intervening years’ data are left off the table, but available upon request from FEMP. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports

26 
TABLE 9 

FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS PRIMARY ENERGY USE 

PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, FY 1985 AND FY 2005 

FISCAL YEAR 1985 FISCAL YEAR 2005 % CHANGE 

GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF GSF (Thou.) Billion Btu BTU/GSF 1985-2005 

USPS 189,400.0 40,143.9 211,953 360,484.7 64,656.4 179,360 -15.4 

VA† 123,650.0 42,864.1 346,657 160,747.0 54,263.0 337,568 -2.6 

DOE† 60,457.1 48,300.5 798,922 67,240.4 32,957.5 490,144 -38.6 

GSA† 190,966.7 40,134.3 210,164 174,762.7 23,475.5 134,328 -36.1 

DOI† 54,154.4 8,542.8 157,748 62,500.4 10,655.6 170,489 8.1 

NASA† 14,623.4 8,899.9 608,608 22,351.0 10,441.7 467,169 -23.2 

DHS† 0.0 0.0 NA 39,927.5 9,069.7 227,154 NA 

USDA 24,061.0 4,156.4 172,746 49,831.2 6,161.9 123,655 -28.4 

DOL 18,268.3 3,734.1 204,404 22,705.5 4,855.8 213,860 4.6 

DOJ 20,768.8 9,048.5 435,679 6,244.0 2,777.0 444,747 2.1 

DOT 32,291.1 8,746.5 270,863 7,202.2 1,881.9 261,295 -3.5 

TVA† 4,886.6 1,349.0 276,067 9,333.0 1,852.5 198,493 -28.1 

ST 2,597.0 702.6 270,529 3,183.2 1,040.4 326,841 20.8 

DOC† 4,522.6 1,208.3 267,167 4,836.2 1,035.9 214,201 -19.8 

TRSY† 4,225.0 1,094.9 259,142 3,590.3 804.4 224,049 -13.5 

HHS 2,649.8 677.7 255,759 2,696.0 546.0 202,522 -20.8 

HUD 1,432.0 356.2 248,708 1,432.0 305.9 213,617 -14.1 

OTHER*† 3,172.0 1,087.7 342,897 9,900.5 2,764.7 279,244 -18.6 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

SUBTOTAL† 752,125.8 221,047.4 293,897 1,061,363.8 229,545.7 216,274 -26.4 

DOD† 2,224,527.3 512,581.0 230,422 1,953,859.2 392,228.1 200,745 -12.9 

TOTAL† 2,976,653.1 733,628.3 246,461 3,015,223.0 621,773.8 206,212 -16.3 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

*Other includes the FCC, FEMA, NRC, OPM, PCC, RRB, SSA, and BBG/IBB. RRB and SSA are included under the Other category because 

they lack FY 1985 baseline data. 

†Indicates that reductions were made to FY 2005 energy use and Btu/GSF (shown in italics) to reflect purchases of renewable energy. When 

calculating Btu/GSF, the following amounts were subtracted from agency energy use for FY 2005: VA, 1,057.2 BBtu; DOE, 1,046.3 BBtu; 

GSA, 7,458.7 BBtu; NASA, 352.1 BBtu; DOI, 19.6 BBtu; DHS, 237.7 BBtu; TVA, 13.9 BBtu; DOC, 368.9 BBtu; TRSY, 63.0 BBtu; SSA, 18.9 

BBtu; and DOD, 15,030.0 BBtu. 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

27 
H. Water Conservation 

Under Section 207 of Executive Order 13123, agencies are required to reduce water consumption 

and associated energy use in their facilities to reach the goals set under Section 503(f) of the 

Executive Order. 

The water conservation goals require agencies to implement life-cycle cost-effective water 

efficiency programs that include developing a comprehensive water management plan and at 

least four separate Water Efficiency Improvement Best Management Practices (BMPs), as 

defined in DOE guidance documents. The goals include the following schedule for program 

implementation in agencies’ facilities: 

• 5 percent of facilities by 2002, 

• 15 percent of facilities by 2004, 

• 30 percent of facilities by 2006, 

• 50 percent of facilities by 2008, and 

• 80 percent of facilities by 2010. 

Eleven agencies reported that at least 20 percent of their facilities have implemented 

comprehensive water management plans. These agencies are DOC, DOD, DOI, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, RRB, SSA, NASA, HHS, the Treasury, GSA, and EPA. Eleven 

agencies also reported having implemented at least four BMPs in at least 20 percent of their 

facilities. These agencies are DOC, DOD, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RRB, SSA, 

NASA, NARA, HHS, the Treasury, GSA, and EPA. Of the remaining agencies, seven reported 

implementing water management plans and BMPs in at least some of their facilities, and five 

reported no facilities with plans or BMPs. 

FY 2000 water consumption data are used by agencies as baseline usage to measure progress in 

water conservation efforts. Agencies use actual data where available or develop estimates where 

actual data are not available. During FY 2005, all reporting agencies combined consumed almost 

174.7 billion gallons of water at a cost of $420.0 million. This was a decrease of 19.6 percent 

compared to the FY 2000 water consumption level of 217.4 billion gallons, and a decrease of 

11.0 percent from the previous year. 

28 
I. Investments in Energy Efficiency 

During FY 2005, Federal agencies had three primary options for financing energy efficiency, 

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

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

contracts (UESCs). Known funding from the three sources totaled approximately $463.0 million 

in FY 2005. Direct appropriations accounted for approximately $290.6 million. ESPC contract 

modifications and awards by agencies with limited authority resulted in approximately $96.8 

million in estimated contractor investment in FY 2005 ($72.2 million from DOE Super ESPC 

delivery orders and $24.6 million from other agency ESPCs), and approximately $75.6 million in 

private sector investment came from utility energy service contracts. 

Since 1985, the Government has invested approximately $7.3 billion in energy efficiency, almost 

$4.2 billion of which was direct appropriations and $3.1 billion from ESPCs and UESCs ($2.0 

billion from ESPCs and $1.1 billion from UESCs). 

1. Direct Appropriations 

Section 545 of NECPA 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 (42 U.S.C. § 8255). Table 10-A presents agency funding (in nominal dollars) reported 

from FY 1985 through FY 2005 for energy conservation retrofits and capital equipment. Table 

10-B presents the same information in constant 2005 dollars. Reports from Federal agencies 

indicated that $290.6 million was spent on energy efficiency projects in FY 2005, compared with 

$173.8 million in FY 2004, a 67.2 percent increase. 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. 

DOD funded $189.0 million for energy efficiency projects in FY 2005, an increase of 55.7 

percent from the previous year. GSA spent $35.2 million compared to $5.0 million in FY 2004. 

Similarly, VA reported funding $18.7 million for energy efficiency compared to $2 million in 

FY 2004. 

2. Energy Savings Performance Contracting 

At the end of FY 2003, the authority granted by Congress to Federal agencies to enter into 

ESPCs expired. Authority was retroactively reinstated at the start of FY 2005 ((Sec. 1090(a), 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005; P.L. 108-375). 

During FY 2005, 20 ESPC contracts or delivery orders were awarded at five agencies. These 

include delivery orders awarded through the DOE/FEMP Super ESPC programs as well as 

projects awarded by the DOD. Project investment from these projects totaled approximately 

$96.8 million, providing the Government with an opportunity to save more than 726.4 billion 

Btu each year. Details of these contract awards are provided by agency in Table 11. 

29 
31 

TABLE 10-A 

ECT APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICENCY PROJECTS, FY 1985 THROUGH FY 2005 

(Thousands of Nominal (As-Spent) Dollars) 

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY % CHANGE

0. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 04-05

$1,020 $189,600 $112,487 $118,970 $191,446 $91,243 $44,442 $57,113 $60,600 $103,490 $121,400 $188,961 55.7

$11,125 $7,242 $7,400 $20,000 $0 $25,000 $17,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,800 $5,000 $35,213 604.3

$11,200 $11,960 $3,700 $7,400 $13,000 $10,500 $0 $15,000 $898 $686 $2,000 $18,700 835.0

$2,943 $20,666 $30,266 $15,919 $13,813 $18,509 $11,731 $6,045 $9,389 $8,501 $11,118 $10,950 -1.5

$0 $779 $891 $0 $160 $1,730 $23,999 $3,220 $22,800 $26,134 $5,740 $7,592 32.3

$427 $1,271 $2,676 $2,879 $2,200 $4,793 $8,440 $8,640 $1,771 $3,700 $2,934 $7,363 151.0

$0 $1,720 $1,600 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $1,963 $1,684 $2,439 $3,458 $3,790 9.6

$0 $0 $0 $0 $330 $0 $257 $257 $1,883 $621 $3,537 $3,405 -3.7

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700 $1,740 $2,714 56.0

$1,547 $2,894 $5,983 $3,891 $1,765 $994 $1,954 $2,100 $3,818 $2,000 $2,958 $2,655 -10.2

$1,134 $2,810 $170 $2,990 $1,400 $1,495 $2,152 $4,670 $8,678 $7,854 $8,662 $2,379 -72.5

$0 $3,793 $2,585 $3,176 $3,000 $9,005 $2,664 $4,321 $2,085 $1,243 $978 $2,318 137.0

$19,500 $30,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $1,400 $1,500 $1,963 $1,951 -0.6

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,776 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $175 $500 $885 77.0

$6,100 $994 $1,559 $2,091 $1,500 $1,615 $1,170 $489 $968 $223 $1,300 $651 -49.9

$17 $0 $366 $0 $0 $40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $448 NA

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $68 $140 $100 $295 195.0

$0 $4,277 $522 $1,158 $1,466 $1,022 $284 $300 $365 $400 $336 $278 -17.1

$0 $33 $0 $38 $23 $0 $0 $35 $10 $15 $15 $15 0.0

$0 $0 $0 $1,902 $51 $1,238 $0 $260 $4 $847 $70 $0 -100.0

$0 $43 $0 $2,418 $0 $0 $0 $55 $22 $68 $8 $0 -100.0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,600 $0 $2,770 $0 $0 NA

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$361 $14 $23 $3 $104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$4,000 $10,050 $9,000 $16,000 $31,000 $38,000 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$59,374 $288,346 $179,228 $200,435 $264,034 $206,184 $121,093 $131,302 $121,442 $169,306 $173,815 $290,563 67.2

Data as of 7 June 2006

savings performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, and utility demand side management incentives. Ellipses after fiscal year (1985. . .) indicate where 

ff the table, but available upon request from FEMP. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Energy Management Data Reports 
32 

TABLE 10-B 

ECT APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICENCY PROJECTS, FY 1985 THROUGH FY 2005 

(Thousands of Constant 2005 Dollars) 

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY % CHANGE0. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 04-05

$1,596 $262,968 $150,384 $152,136 $234,903 $107,219 $50,388 $64,244 $67,110 $111,640 $125,673 $188,961 50.4

$17,410 $10,044 $9,893 $25,575 $0 $29,377 $19,274 $5,624 $4,983 $5,178 $5,176 $35,213 580.3

$17,527 $16,588 $4,947 $9,463 $15,951 $12,338 $0 $16,873 $994 $740 $2,070 $18,700 803.2

$4,606 $28,663 $40,463 $20,357 $16,948 $21,750 $13,300 $6,800 $10,398 $9,171 $11,509 $10,950 -4.9

$0 $1,080 $1,191 $0 $196 $2,033 $27,210 $3,622 $25,249 $28,192 $5,942 $7,592 27.8

$668 $1,763 $3,578 $3,682 $2,699 $5,632 $9,569 $9,719 $1,961 $3,991 $3,037 $7,363 142.4

$0 $2,386 $2,139 $2,046 $0 $0 $0 $2,208 $1,865 $2,631 $3,579 $3,790 5.9

$0 $0 $0 $0 $405 $0 $291 $289 $2,085 $670 $3,661 $3,405 -7.0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,834 $1,801 $2,714 50.7

$2,421 $4,014 $7,999 $4,976 $2,166 $1,168 $2,215 $2,362 $4,228 $2,157 $3,062 $2,655 -13.3

$1,775 $3,897 $227 $3,824 $1,718 $1,757 $2,440 $5,253 $9,610 $8,472 $8,967 $2,379 -73.5

$0 $5,261 $3,456 $4,061 $3,681 $10,582 $3,020 $4,861 $2,309 $1,340 $1,013 $2,318 128.9

$30,516 $41,886 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,250 $1,550 $1,618 $2,032 $1,951 -4.0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,406 $1,175 $1,134 $1,125 $554 $189 $518 $885 71.0

$9,546 $1,379 $2,084 $2,674 $1,840 $1,898 $1,327 $550 $1,071 $241 $1,346 $651 -51.6

$27 $0 $489 $0 $0 $47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $448 NA

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10 $75 $151 $104 $295 185.0

$0 $5,932 $698 $1,481 $1,799 $1,201 $322 $337 $404 $431 $347 $278 -20.0

$0 $46 $0 $48 $28 $0 $0 $39 $11 $16 $16 $15 -3.4

$0 $0 $0 $2,432 $63 $1,455 $0 $292 $4 $914 $72 $0 -100.0

$0 $60 $0 $3,092 $0 $0 $0 $62 $25 $73 $8 $0 -100.0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,922 $0 $2,988 $0 $0 NA

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $254 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$565 $19 $31 $4 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$6,260 $13,939 $12,032 $20,460 $38,037 $44,653 $6,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

$92,917 $399,925 $239,610 $256,310 $323,968 $242,284 $137,294 $147,696 $134,487 $182,639 $179,933 $290,563 61.5

Data as of 7 June 2006

savings performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, and utility demand side management incentives. Ellipses after fiscal year (1985. . .) indicate where 

ff the table, but available upon request from FEMP. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

Energy Management Data Reports.
TABLE 11

ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS, DELIVERY ORDERS, AND 

CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS AWARDED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES IN FY 2005 

Allocation of Project Cost Savings (Thousand $) 

Agency 

Number of Delivery 

Orders/ Modifications/ 

Contracts 

Project Investment 

(Thou. $) 

Total Guaranteed Cost 

Savings 

Payment to 

Contractor 

Net Savings to 

Government 

Annual Energy 

Savings 

(MMBtu) 

Defense 15 $71,192 $141,686 $140,955 $731 456,537 

Social Security Admin. 1 $2,388 $4,740 $4,740 $0 5,171 

GSA 1 $17,797 $73,584 $73,584 $0 227,530 

DHS/U.S. Coast Guard 1 $1,108 $2,142 $1,789 $353 6,667 

National Archives 2 $4,275 $8,909 $8,891 $18 30,497 

Total 20 $96,761 $231,061 $229,959 $1,101 726,402 

Through a decentralized approach, DOD awarded the largest number of contracts/delivery orders 

with 15 ESPC projects in FY 2005. These contracts include many infrastructure upgrades and 

new equipment to help DOD installations reduce energy and water consumption. Examples 

include new thermal storage systems, chillers, boilers, lights, motors, energy management 

control systems (EMCS), and water reducing devices. Normally, cost savings are used to first 

pay the contractor, and then are used to offset other base operating support expenses. In some 

cases, however, installations decided to seek a shorter contract term and defer all Government 

cost savings until contract completion. In these cases, the savings generated by ESPCs help to 

reduce the energy consumption, but do not reduce the total cost of operation until the contracts 

expire. After contract expiration and the retrofits are paid in full, DOD will retain any future cost 

savings. 

Nine DOE/FEMP Super ESPC delivery orders were awarded during FY 2005. Super ESPCs are 

broad area indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts that allow agencies to 

negotiate site-specific performance-based delivery orders with an energy service company 

(ESCO) under the umbrella contracts. Project investment totaled $72.2 million, providing 

annual savings of more than 559.0 billion Btu to the Government. These delivery orders include 

four by DOD, one by SSA, one by GSA, one by the DHS/Coast Guard, and two by the National 

Archives and Records Administration. 

3. Utility Energy Service Contracts 

In FY 2005, Federal agencies awarded 40 UESCs as shown in Table 12. Financed investment in 

the projects totaled approximately $75.6 million. The estimated annual energy savings from the 

40 projects is 795.1 billion Btu. 

Projects were undertaken by agencies to accomplish a wide variety of energy efficiency 

improvements. Of the 40 UESCs awarded in FY 2005, 32 were implemented by the DOD. 

Contracts were put in place to perform infrastructure upgrades and purchase new equipment to 

help installations reduce energy and water consumption. Examples of equipment purchased with 

32 
TABLE 12

UTILITY ENERGY SERVICE CONTRACTS AND DELIVERY ORDERS AWARDED 

BY FEDERAL AGENCIES IN FY 2005 

Agency 

Number of Delivery 

Orders/ Contracts 

Total Capital Cost 

(Thou. $) 

Financed Investment 

(Thou. $) 

Appropriations 

(Thou. $) 

Annual Cost Savings 

(Thou. $) 

Annual Energy 

Savings 

(MMBtu) 

Commerce 1 $804.5 $804.5 $0.0 $80.4 10,022 

Defense 32 $73,167.8 $68,457.2 $4,710.7 $8,701.6 708,316 

Energy 3 $242.0 $95.2 $146.8 $72.2 3,517 

GSA 1 $1,700.0 $1,700.0 $0.0 $147.4 19,456 

HHS 1 $587.2 $293.6 $293.6 $58.7 8,250 

NASA 2 $4,206.0 $4,206.0 $0.0 $1,100.1 45,506 

Total 40 $80,707.5 $75,556.4 $5,151.1 $10,160.5 795,067 

UESCs include: HVAC and steam system upgrades, chillers, boilers, lights, motors, EMCS 

systems and water reducing devices. 

4. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) 

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) publishes updated fuel energy price indices 

and discount factors for life-cycle cost analyses. The most recent 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 2005. 

A set of Building Life-Cycle Cost (BLCC) computer programs have been developed and 

supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under FEMP 

sponsorship. The latest update of the BLCC5 version of the software, which incorporates the 

2005 DOE/FEMP discount rate and the latest energy price projections from the Energy 

Information Administration, was released April 1, 2005. Version BLCC 5.1-02 includes two new 

modules for evaluating Military Construction (MILCON) projects. BLCC 5.1-02 now contains 

the following four modules for analyzing energy and water conservation and renewable energy 

projects: 

• Analyses for Federal agency-funded projects; 

• Analyses for Federal agency projects financed through energy savings performance 

contracts or utility energy savings contracts; 

• MILCON analyses for DOD-funded projects; and 

• MILCON analyses for projects under DOD’s Energy Conservation Investment Program. 

33 
III. INTERAGENCY EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 

A. Federal Coordination 

Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee 

The members of the Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee met on February 25, 2005 

during a meeting of Federal Senior Energy and Environmental Officials to review Federal 

agency progress in implementing Executive Orders 13101, 13123, 13148, and 13149. Executive 

Order progress reports on government-wide implementation were presented for energy, 

transportation, and environmental requirements. Representatives from DOD, Interior, and NASA 

also gave presentations highlighting their accomplishments toward the requirements, and recent 

progress within agencies was also discussed. For most agencies, the Senior Energy Official is 

also their Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee member. 

Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force 

In FY 2005, meetings of the Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force were held on 

October 19, 2004; January 26, 2005; April 12, 2005; and August 4, 2005. The memoranda of 

record from these meetings are posted at www.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fiemtf.cfm. Issues 

highlighted in these meetings included the following: 

 Agency energy management programs, budgets, challenges, opportunities, and activities 

to meet Executive Order energy reduction and renewable energy goals for FY 2005. 

 Guidance for completing annual reports and scorecards. 

 The General Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the energy savings performance 

contracting program and other alternative financing approaches, and its recommendations 

in two reports to the Office of Management and Budget. 

 A strategic energy management planning exercise developed by FEMP and completed by 

agencies to provide a strategic view of their performance toward the Executive Order 

2005 goals and the strategies they will use to meet reductions required for 2010. 

 Information and updates on the “180-Day Report”, a mandated review of the ESPC 

program that included the barriers that prevent agencies from fully utilizing the program 

and how the program could be more flexible and effective. 

 EPACT 2005 and its provisions affecting federal energy management, including new 

energy management goals and a 10-year reauthorization of energy savings performance 

contracting. 

 Federal Energy and Water Management Awards and the Presidential Awards for 

Leadership in Federal Energy Management event status and successes. 

 FEMP’s technical assistance programs, workshops, and conferences related to Federal 

energy management. 

34 
B. Training 

Many agencies have their own internal training and recognition programs. Overall, Federal 

agencies reported spending $2.6 million to train 4,744 Federal personnel in energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and water conservation subjects. During FY 2005, FEMP conducted 71 

training workshops and symposia for more than 3,200 attendees in the efficient use and 

conservation of energy, water, and renewable energy in Federal facilities. FEMP workshops 

conducted during FY 2005 included the following: 

 Advanced ESPC/Financing, 

 Advanced Facility Energy Decision System (FEDS), 

 Building Commissioning to Optimize Efficiency and Operations at Federal Facilities, 

 Commissioning: The Best Bang for Your Building Buck, 

 Creating Sustainable Federal Buildings, 

 Design Strategies for Low-Energy, Sustainable, Secure Buildings, 

 Energy 2005, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 1a: Utility Energy Services 

Contracting, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 1b: ESPC Contracting, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 2a: Buying Energy Efficient 

Products, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 2b: Life-Cycle Costing – Basic, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 3a: Water Resource Management, 

 Energy Management Telecourse/Live Streaming: Part 3b: Operations and Maintenance 

Management, 

 Evolving Energy Markets, 

 FEMP Lights Lighting and Health Workshop, 

 FEMP Lights Online Course, 

 Hands-On Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Training, 

 Implementing Renewable Energy Projects, 

 Introduction to Distributed Energy, 

 Introduction to ESPC, 

 Introduction to Facility Energy Decision System (FEDS), 

 Labs21 High Performance, Low Energy Laboratory Design Course, 

 Meeting Federal Renewable Energy Goals, 

 Operations and Maintenance Management, 

 Optimizing Steam System Performance, 

 Utility Energy Service Contracting, and 

 Water Resource Management. 

“Energy 2005,” the energy efficiency workshop and exposition sponsored by FEMP, and cosponsored by DOD and GSA, was held Aug. 14-17, 2005 in Long Beach, California. The 

conference provided participants with opportunities to explore such topics as strategies for 

energy projects, selling energy projects, and alternative financing. The conference had panel 

discussions and an exhibit hall showcasing energy technologies. More than 1,362 were in 

attendance and more than 117 companies exhibited at the event. 

35 
C. Awards and Recognition 

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

were recognized with the presentation of the 2005 Federal Energy and Water Management 

Awards on October 27, 2005, at the U.S. Department of State Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

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; 

 Applied advanced strategies and load reduction techniques to decrease or eliminate griddependence and increase the assurance of critical functions; 

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

or 

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

water-conserving products to one or more Federal agencies. 

Recipients of the 2005 awards were selected from 101 nominees submitted by 17 Federal 

agencies. There were 16 awardees representing 9 different Federal agencies. Distribution of 

awards among the Federal agencies for accomplishments in the previous fiscal year is indicated 

in Table 13. 

TABLE 13.

2005 FEDERAL ENERGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT AWARDS 

BY GROUP AND TYPE 

Agency Individual Small 

Group 

Organization Total Energy 

Efficiency 

Renewable 

Energy 

Water 

Management 

Energy 

Security 

Exceptional 

Service 

Army 1 1 1 

DOI 1 1 2 1 1 

GSA 2 2 1 1 

NASA 1 1 1 

Navy 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 

Smithsonian 2 2 1 1 

USAF 1 1 1 

USMC 1 1 3 1 1 

VA 1 1 1 

TOTAL 2 9 5 16 6 4 3 1 2 

The Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management recognize highly 

successful efforts, leadership, and support in promoting and improving Federal energy 

management. In 2005, these awards were presented in a combined ceremony with the Federal 

36 
energy awards program. Five organizations, four from DOD and one from GSA, received this 

prestigious award. 

D. Public Education Programs 

The DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Information Center 

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

energy technologies and programs. The EERE Information Center telephone number is 877-337­

3463. The EERE Information Center has two operations—the Message Center and the Mail 

Center. The Message Center is the location where the calls are answered, and emails and letters 

are received. The Mail Center ships the products requested from the orders received from the 

Message Center. 

The EERE Information Center processed 17,997 inquiries during FY 2005. These inquiries were 

received via telephone, email, fax, and U.S. mail. Customers included consumers, utilities, 

businesses, technology companies, individual manufacturing plants, federal facilities, building 

energy code officials, and the hydrogen energy community. The Mail Center processed 12,929 

orders and shipped 287,465 products during FY 2005. EERE also hosts a Web site at 

www.eere.energy.gov and offers free subscriptions to the EERE Network News e-mail 

newsletter. 

The Energy Information Administration's 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. NEIC provides information to Federal 

employees and the public at www.eia.doe.gov. Electronic inquiries may be sent to 

infoctr@eia.doe.gov. During FY 2005, NEIC staff responded to 31,974 inquiries. The EIA web 

site recorded 22.2 million user sessions during FY 2005. 

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

provides leadership and coordination for the DOE-wide Scientific and Technical Information 

Program (STIP). In this capacity, OSTI assures access by DOE, the scientific research 

community, academia, U.S. industry, and the public to DOE research results in support of the 

DOE mission. Key collections developed and maintained by OSTI on behalf of DOE include 

Energy Citations Database (ECD), the DOE Information Bridge, the E-print Network, Research 

and Development (R&D) Project Summaries, and EnergyFiles. In FY 2005, more than 38 

million user transactions were accommodated via systems residing on OSTI servers. 

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

provide technical assistance to specific target groups. Two of these programs are the State 

Energy Program (SEP) and the Industrial Assessment Center Program. 

SEP provides funding to states to carry out their own energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs. SEP funding enables state energy offices to design and implement programs according 

to the needs of their economies, the potential of their natural resources, and the participation of 

local industries. States use grants to address their energy priorities and program funding to adopt 

emerging renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Funding from SEP goes to state 

37 
energy offices in all states and U.S. territories. SEP projects are managed by state energy offices, 

not by DOE directly. There are three sources of funding for DOE’s SEP: DOE grants, SEP 

Special Projects, and Petroleum Violation Escrow (PVE) Funds. 

The SEP provides grants based on a yearly appropriation by Congress and a formula that takes 

into account population and energy consumption in each state. The second source of funding is 

from technology programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for 

deployment projects in the states. EERE awards this funding annually to state energy offices 

through a competitive solicitation for SEP Special Projects. Since the competition for these funds 

is keen, many states join forces with private sector partners and contribute their own funds 

toward these projects. State energy offices can use PVE funds for SEP projects if they appear in 

the SEP plan that the states file yearly with DOE. These funds proceed from court settlements 

for overcharges by oil companies in the 1970s and 1980s. The last distribution of PVE funds was 

in the late 1980s, and a final distribution of funding from these escrow accounts was scheduled 

for 2005. 

The SEP plays a role when the state energy office is involved in the project, the State Energy 

Program provides funding, or the state uses petroleum violation escrow funds for part of the 

project and it is in the state's SEP plan. The results from the State Energy Program reflect the 

work of state energy offices. The outcome is an innovative deployment of new energy efficiency 

and renewable energy technologies across the geographic panorama of the United States and its 

territories. Additional information is provided on the program website at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program. 

The Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs), sponsored by EERE's Industrial Technologies 

Program, provide no-cost energy, waste, and productivity assessments to help eligible small and 

mid-sized manufacturers identify measures to maximize energy-efficiency, reduce waste, and 

improve productivity. Additionally, the IACs serve as a training ground for the next-generation 

of energy savvy engineers. The assessments are conducted by local teams of engineering faculty 

and students from 26 participating universities across the country. Additional information is 

provided on the program website at www.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/iacs.html. 

38 
IV. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

A. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) 

Management and Administration 

During FY 2005, the Senior Energy Official for the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) was the Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA). The 

Acting ASA has the authority to implement federal 

energy management policy related to the internal operations of USDA, and to exercise full Departmentwide contracting and procurement authority. Two of 

USDA’s largest agencies, the Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) and the Forest Service (FS), also have 

agency Senior Energy Officials. Within the ASA, the 

Office of Procurement and Property Management 

(OPPM) has Departmental responsibility for policy, 

planning, and reporting, and serves as the primary inter-and intra-Departmental liaison on energy matters 

related to the facilities and internal operations of the 

Department. The USDA agencies, in concert with 

OPPM, are responsible for the identification of appropriate energy conservation actions and programming, 

budgeting, and implementing the Executive Order 

13123 requirements and the USDA Annual Energy 

Implementation Plan within their own organizations. 

USDA has an Energy Support Team comprised of 

management, procurement, legal, real property, budget, 

and technical personnel. The team has representatives 

from various USDA agencies, including ARS, FS and 

the Office of Operations (OO). The overwhelming 

majority of facilities ownership and related direct facilities energy consumption is attributable primarily to 

ARS, FS and OO. ARS and FS also have established 

internal energy teams. 

Management Tools 

In FY 2005, USDA continued the implementation of 

the Corporate Property Asset Information System 

(CPAIS). CPAIS is a web-based system designed to 

meet USDA’s real property management, inventory 

and reporting needs. Several data fields for reporting 

facilities energy information have been incorporated 

into CPAIS. These fields include information on types 

and quantity of fuel used at the facility, energy audit 

history, and whether or not a facility has an energy and 

water conservation plan, uses energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), and sustainable design principles. 

Awards 

USDA participated in the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE’s) Annual Federal Energy and Water Management Awards program and the “You Have the Power” 

recognition program. Agency personnel were encouraged to submit nominations for these programs to recognize outstanding contributions by employees to the 

energy and water conservation effort. 

Individual USDA agencies conducted their own employee award and recognition programs as well. The ARS 

incentive and awards program recognized and rewarded employees for their energy saving contributions, and was implemented in varying ways by the 

geographic areas within the agency. At the ARS MidSouth Area, employees received monetary awards for 

the implementation of measures/projects that resulted 

in improved service, savings or other benefits including 

reduced energy consumption. Also, in the South Atlantic and Pacific West Areas, employees who provided 

feasible suggestions on how to significantly reduce 

energy and water consumption while remaining compatible with the agency’s mission received spot awards 

proportional to the savings. 

Within FS, the Region 2 forester designated a new 

category named “Sustainable Operations” under the 

honor awards program. The intent is to recognize an 

individual or group that makes a contribution to reducing the region’s energy and environmental footprint. 

Training and Education 

USDA personnel participated in training opportunities 

throughout FY 2005 from a variety of sources, including energy management-related sessions offered by the 

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and 

other educational organizations. Additionally, USDA’s 

Energy and Environment Division disseminated hundreds of copies of various energy awareness and educational materials to agency facility and energy managers, and directed them to the Division’s Facilities 

Energy web site. Furthermore, staff from OPPM participated in the Energy 2005 Workshop and Exhibition 

in Long Beach, California. 

Within ARS, relevant energy management training and 

materials was provided to the workforce. Employees 

were encouraged to attend energy management training 

offered by FEMP, private or public educational institutions, Federal agencies, or professional associations. 

Managers were encouraged to establish and involve 

energy committees in energy management decision 

making. At some ARS locations, the facility engineers 

received training by local power and water utilities on 

39 
general conservation, best practices and rate structures 

available to minimize operating costs. Other locations 

discussed water conservation during staff meetings, 

educated building occupants about various energy conservation measures, and encouraged all personnel to 

play a proactive role in water conservation. Also, numerous individuals were trained on LEED, bio-based 

building materials, distributed energy, and the LABS 

21 program. 

In FY 2005, FS conducted and participated in various 

training and education programs. Specific FS activity 

involved training provided through the Bonneville 

Power Administration that discussed energy tracking 

and use analysis, energy efficient products, and project 

financing. Other FS training events included a sustainability summit, LEED accreditation and energy management systems. 

Showcase Facilities 

Several facilities in the design or construction phase 

within FS have been designated as Showcase facilities; 

specifically: 

• Mystic District Office, Black Hills National Forest 

(NF): A biomass boiler that is integrated with 

natural gas boilers will provide heat for the facility. The biomass boiler will utilize logs to meet 80 

to 90 percent of the heating requirements. The design of the project is 90 percent completed and 

will be implemented once funding is available. 

This project will demonstrate using wood waste as 

a building heat source. 

• Big Goose Ranger Station, Big Horn NF: Two 5 

kilowatt fuel cells have been installed to provide 

power to two bunkhouses, a shop, trailer pedestals, 

and the water and waste water systems. Additionally, waste heat from the fuel cell is utilized to heat 

domestic water and provide heat to the building 

through a baseboard system. A photovoltaic system provides power to a sump pump and a satellite 

uplink. The uplink allows engineers to operate and 

monitor fuel cell operation and determine fuel cell 

efficiency. Power and heating was previously provided by a propane generator. This is the first fuel 

cell project in FS. It is installed at a high altitude 

(7,800 feet above sea level), not tied to the 

electrical grid, and will be shut down during the 

winter. 

• Bessey Nursery/District Office, Nebraska NF: 

This is the region’s first LEED designed facility. It 

is anticipated the facility will achieve LEED Silver 

rating. Heating and cooling and domestic hot water 

preheat is provided by a ground-coupled heat 

pump system. Waterless urinals, dual-flush toilets, 

and low flow faucets reduce the water consumption by 50 percent. The building construction will 

demonstrate the utilization of materials obtained 

within a 500-mile radius. Seventy five percent of 

construction waste will be diverted from landfills 

by recycling or reuse. This is especially difficult in 

remote/rural areas. High efficient lighting, controls, and daylighting will reduce energy consumption. Overall the building will utilize 45 percent less energy than a standard designed facility. 

• Shell Falls Visitor Contact Station, Big Horn NF: 

A micro-hydro plant is under design to replace the 

three plus miles of buried power line. This plant 

will produce power for the contact station with excess power provided to the utility grid. Other conservation measures at the visitor contact station include waterless urinals, low voltage lighting, and 

vending misers. Shell Falls provides an excellent 

opportunity to educate the public on sustainability 

and water and energy conservation since it has 

750,000 visitors per year. 

• The Shoal Creek Ranger District (RD) Office will 

be designated a Showcase facility, as it is expected 

to be the first FS LEED certified building. Construction of this office was completed in October, 

with certification expected near the end of calendar 

year 2006. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, USDA reported a 30.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

USDA used an estimated 56,358 Btu per square foot in 

its standard buildings during the year. 

USDA’s OO reported a considerable increase in energy 

consumption between FY 1985 and FY 2005; and a 

nominal increase was also reported from FY 2004 to 

FY 2005. However, there are several extenuating factors that may be skewing the accuracy of this performance measure. In 1985 the Sidney R. Yates Building 

(150,000 square feet) was partially occupied and under-utilized. By 1991 the building was fully renovated 

and was being fully utilized. In FY 1991electricity usage increased over 300 percent after the building was 

fully occupied. 

Furthermore, OO notes that energy consumption is 

affected by USDA mandates to increase its space utilization rate and dramatic increases in the number of 

personal computers and other office equipment in the 

facility. As a result, the concentration of employees 

and office equipment (and the associated energy use) 

per gross square foot has been steadily increasing as 

leased facilities are shut down and employees are 

moved to the USDA Headquarters Complex, and as 

40 
USDA automates its office space. These changes have 

resulted in skewed results that understate the actual 

energy reductions being accomplished by OO. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

All ARS facilities and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-owned facilities are considered industrial and laboratory facilities. For the FY 

2005 Energy Scorecard, USDA reported energy consumption of 94,612 Btu per square foot. USDA 

received credit for purchases of 0.9 billion Btu of 

renewable energy for its industrial and laboratory 

facilities. This lowered the energy intensity of these 

facilities from 94,540 to 94,480 Btu per square foot. 

Compared to 180,262 Btu per unit in the 1990 baseline 

year, USDA reported a 47.5 percent reduction, more 

than double the 20 percent reduction target for FY 

2005. This Btu per unit calculation is based on a combination of unadjusted energy use for APHIS and adjusted energy use for ARS as explained below. 

As noted above, the entire ARS building inventory is 

categorized as Industrial, Laboratory, Research, and 

Other Energy Intensive Facilities. Performance in these 

facilities is measured based on Air-Quality-Adjusted 

(AQA) Btu per gross square foot, which removes the 

impact of present day requirements for increased laboratory ventilation air for safety and health reasons. 

These requirements have become more stringent and 

require greater energy use than the standards that were 

in place in 1990, the base year of the Executive Order 

13123 goal. 

Based on ARS’s best engineering judgment, the laboratory and research space accounts for more than 90 

percent of ARS building energy consumption, and the 

impact of modifying existing space-conditioning systems to improve indoor air quality more than doubles 

the energy intensity of the buildings affected by the 

modernization program. To eliminate the distorting 

impact of air-quality improvements, and to allow a 

more accurate apples-to-apples comparison of current 

energy use with the baseline year, annual consumption 

data is adjusted accordingly to reflect actual progress 

of the modernization program. This AQA measurement 

method has been used for this reporting since FY 2000. 

In FY 1990, ARS consumed a total of 2.3 trillion Btu 

in 12.7 million gross square feet of facilities (or 

178,014 Btu per gross Square feet). In FY 2005, ARS 

consumption was 2.038 trillion Btu in 13.4 million 

gross square feet of facilities (or 152,354 BTU per 

gross square feet). Since a total of approximately 1.95 

million gross square feet of the laboratory facilities 

have been modernized from FY 1990 through FY 

2005, the ARS Air-Quality Adjusted consumption for 

FY 2005 should be 91,952 Btu per gross square feet. 

This represents a reduction of about 46.9 percent from 

the baseline consumption in FY 1990. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

In FY 2005, USDA reported using 825,300 gallons of 

aviation gasoline, which is a significant increase from 

FY 2004. USDA’s fuel use related to aircraft is reported in the Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting 

System. 

Renewable Energy 

During FY 2005, USDA used 5.7 billion Btu of renewable energy through a combination of purchases and 

on-site generation. This 5.7 billion Btu is equivalent to 

0.3 percent of USDA’s total electricity use. 

Also, as part of the Renewable Energy Systems and 

Energy Efficiency Improvements program, USDA approved nearly $21 million in grant funds to rural utilities and electric cooperatives to assist with the development that derive energy from wind, solar, biomass or 

geothermal source; or hydrogen derived from biomass 

or water using wind, solar, or geothermal energy 

sources. Grant funds can be used to pay a portion of 

eligible project costs. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

Within USDA, FS continued to install photovoltaic 

systems at remote sites, and used passive solar design 

strategies, to the greatest extent possible, in new facility design and construction. Since 1990, FS has installed over 500 photovoltaic units mainly at remote 

sites formerly served by fossil-fueled generators. FS 

projects reported in FY 2005 include: 

• Region 1: Flathead NF generated electricity using 

a water turbine, Nez Perce NF installed a potable 

water system and well powered by a photovoltaic 

solar panel, and Lewis & Clark NF installed solar 

panels on lookouts. 

• Region 2: The Comanche National Grasslands 

utilized solar thermal application for space heating. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison NF constructed two toilet facilities that utilize 

solar power to operate the fans. At the Cottonwood 

Creek Campground, a photovoltaic system provided power to pump and distribute water to the 

campground. Big Horn NF used a photovoltaic 

system to power a sump pump to keep water out of 

the building during the winter when the buildings 

are unoccupied. The photovoltaic system also provides power to the fuel cell’s satellite uplink. 

• Region 4: Solar panels were installed to power 

pumps at various water systems within the region; 

also, various buildings were converted from grid 

41 
supplied electricity to hybrid propane generator/photovoltaic systems. 

• Region 5: With technical assistance from Bonneville Power Administration and grant funds from 

DOE, a 1,500-watt photovoltaic array was installed at the Mt. Whitney Ranger Station. 

The Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), 

which is part of ARS, has installed approximately 68 

generators operated by B-20 (biodiesel fuel) in its facilities. Though the use of these generators is infrequent, each recycled at least once a month during FY 

2005. BARC utilizes a turbine at the dairy fueled by 

methane abstracted from animal waste. BARC continues assessing other renewable sources that are locally 

available. Also, the ARS Pacific West Area partnered 

with the State of Idaho to monitor wind velocity for 

potential wind-generated electricity. 

The OO had one solar thermal system that generated 

approximately 0.2 billion Btu in FY 2005. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

The FS Region 2 purchased 255 megawatthours of 

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) as part of an 

effort to support co-firing coal and small-diameter tree 

(woody biomass) development. The Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy Management and Conservation 

developed the RECs through a DOE program. The Region’s purchase equals the amount of energy needed to 

power seven FS district offices for one year. 

Petroleum 

Data from the agency’s National Finance Center and 

purchase card records showed that USDA used 2.7 

million gallons of fuel oil in its standard facilities during FY 2005 compared to 886,500 gallons in FY 1985. 

In USDA laboratory facilities, fuel oil consumption 

decreased, from 3.5 million gallons in FY 1985 to 1.4 

million gallons in FY 2005. 

Water Conservation 

USDA agencies made progress in implementing the 

water conservation goals of Executive Order 13123. 

Overall, 27 USDA facilities implemented or continued 

to implement Water Management Plans (WMPs); 

while 19 facilities implemented WMPs and had at least 

four water conservation Best Management Practices 

during FY 2005. In FY 2005, USDA used an estimated 

4.2 billion gallons of water in its standard buildings 

and energy intensive buildings combined. 

The baseline water consumption of 718.3 million gallons of water is considered to be low due to lack of 

data collection systems in 2000. USDA continues to 

lack a departmental system for tracking water use, and 

has to rely on cost-based estimates for reporting. However, improved data collection continues to capture 

more consumption and costs each year. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

ARS used life-cycle cost (LCC) methodologies and 

value engineering to identify energy conservation opportunities. Agency policies and procedures are in 

place requiring use of LCC analysis for evaluating energy conservation opportunities and decision making. 

FS policy requires the use of LCC analysis and value 

engineering for new buildings, as directed in the Forest 

Service Manual. In FY 2005, the Bessey District/Nursery Office utilized LCC analyses to select the 

Geothermal Heat Pump System. Additionally, the 

Southern Research Station employed LCC analyses for 

new construction and major renovation: At the North 

Central Research Station, it is mandatory to conduct a 

LCC analysis in order to obtain the necessary funding 

to construct new facilities. 

For major facilities renovations and equipment replacement, LCC analysis is integral to the decisions 

about products, services, construction, and other projects at the Forest Product Labs (FPL). Benefit-cost and 

cost-effectiveness analyses are conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular No. A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs”. FPL also 

makes decisions related to construction projects and 

energy reduction practices using the “Choosing by Advantages” process. All of the major Capital Improvement projects that were implemented in FY 2005 were 

selected, in part, for benefits determined by life-cycle 

cost. 

Facility Energy Audits 

ARS reported that five locations in the North Atlantic 

Area have undergone energy audits during FY 2005, 

for a total of 157,480 square feet. ARS also indicated 

that in the Pacific West Area and South Atlantic Area, 

four percent and 10 percent, respectively, of the buildings were audited in FY 2005. 

In FY 2005, FS reported that two energy audits were 

performed to examine the feasibility of a geothermal 

project and a biomass project. Neither audit resulted in 

favorable conditions to allow the projects to proceed. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2005, USDA agencies received benefits in reduced energy usage from ESPCs awarded in previous 

fiscal years. The National Animal Disease Center, in 

42 
Ames, Iowa, continued its ESPC which was awarded in 

1999 under the DOE Mid-West Area Super ESPC. 

Payments totaling $600,872 were made to Johnson 

Controls, Inc. in FY 2005. Also, the National Agricultural Library, in Beltsville, Maryland, continued its 

ESPC to cover lighting retrofits, burner replacement, 

chiller plant automation, and building automation system. The ESPC, awarded in FY 2001, yields an estimated energy savings of 11.5 billion Btu per year. FY 

2005 payments totaling $125,602 were made to ERI 

Services, Inc. 

The implementation of a biomass heating plant for the 

Black Hills Forest Mystic Ranger District Office in 

Region 2 of the Forest Service is nearing completion. 

The Region is working with DOE and an Energy Service Provider to look at other energy conserving opportunities in the region that could be financed through 

ESPC or utility energy services contract (UESC). Also, 

Region 2 worked with DOE and an Energy Services 

Company to study the use of biomass for power generation and building heating several facilities. These 

funding methods were not utilized due to the long finance period required. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

In FY 2005, USDA continued its policy of buying 

computer equipment and other high volume products 

that meet the ENERGY STAR requirements. USDA 

agencies have been proactive in requiring the purchase 

of these products. For example, ARS acquired microcomputers that meet the ENERGY STAR requirements; 

and all new and replacement information technology 

equipment purchased by GIPSA were required to have 

an ENERGY STAR label. Also, purchases of equipment 

made directly and indirectly were monitored to ensure 

that they meet ENERGY STAR requirements. 

Also in FY 2005, USDA joined the White House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive’s Federal 

Electronic Challenge (FEC). FEC is a voluntary government-wide program that encourages agencies to 

manage their electronics equipment in an environmentally responsible and energy-efficient manner. USDA’s 

OPPM solicited participation in the FEC program from 

USDA agencies, offices, and facilities. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

In FY 2005, new leased offices within the Forest Service’s Greys River RD were designed to ENERGY STAR 

Building Standards. Also, in the Inyo National Forest, 

the Leased Supervisors Office and Interagency Visitors 

Center are both ENERGY STAR buildings; as is the 

Leased Supervisors Office in the Shasta Trinity National Forest. All three of these buildings, located in 

Region 5 of FS, were completed in FY 2003. 

Sustainable Building Design 

During FY 2005, USDA agencies had a total of six 

buildings that were either in the design or construction 

phase that will be LEED-certified. 

At ARS, appropriate sustainable design considerations 

were given in the siting, design, and construction of 

new facilities. These principles have been incorporated 

in the facilities design standards. Within FS, sustainable building design is inherent in the LEED certification process. Sustainable building principles are incorporated into all aspects of design and construction of 

new facilities and, where feasible, into existing facility 

reconstruction/renovation. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

In FY 2005, USDA directed its agencies to incorporate 

the model lease provisions contained in the USDA 

Real Property Leasing Handbook and the General Services Administration Energy and Environmental Business Practices in Lease Acquisition Guide. Eight 

USDA agencies have leasing authority and continued 

to address energy issues in their lease solicitations. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

For the Ames, Iowa modernization project, USDA 

signed a pilot partnership agreement in the Labs21 

program that is jointly sponsored by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE. The program 

focuses on laboratory facilities and is intended to 

improve energy and water efficiency and to encourage 

the use of renewable energy sources. The project 

involves two of USDA’s largest agencies: ARS and 

APHIS. The partnership agreement was signed in FY 

2003, and work continued on this project in FY 2005. 

As part of their ongoing facilities repair and maintenance program, USDA agencies spent more than $2.65 

million for related building energy efficiency and conservation improvements during FY 2005. Specific facility energy efficiency activities included the “Chemical Wing” modernization at the ARS Eastern Regional 

Research Center in Pennsylvania, which entailed replacing electrical lighting systems, insulation systems 

and building automation control systems with the most 

up-to-date efficient equipment. 

Within FS, the FPL began construction to correct lab 

hood exhaust deficiencies. Two buildings have laboratories, each with approximately 30 exhaust hoods. The 

buildings were originally designed for one-pass air, 

where nearly 100 percent of the supply air is exhausted 

up the hoods. All hoods are currently designed to stay 

on at all times. At the completion of the project, each 

43 
building will have the 30 fans removed combining 

them in a common plenum with three exhaust fans on 

the roof. By adjusting hood airflow using information 

on required air supply under various laboratory operating conditions and schedules, energy will be saved by 

reducing the volume of air that is conditioned shortly 

before being exhausted. The new high-velocity fans are 

capable of maintaining a set negative pressure regardless of the flow. Also installed will be “smart” control 

dampers to reduce the flow rate through the hood as the 

door is closed, resulting in a continuous savings of 

30,000 cubic feet per minute of conditioned air. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

The FS Southern Research Station reported several 

activities during FY 2005, including: 

• A contract awarded for installation of a geothermal 

HVAC system in the new Southern Research Station laboratory facility in New Ellenton, South 

Carolina. The geothermal system is expected to 

reduce energy consumption by 35 percent over 

conventional systems, and ensures the new facility 

will attain LEED certification. 

• A new 70-ton air cooled, helical rotary chiller was 

installed in a 27,500 square foot laboratory facility 

in Athens, Georgia, in May 2005. A 20 percent 

monthly energy reduction has been realized since 

installation. 

• A new 150-ton water-cooled, screw type chiller 

was installed at the Alexandria Forestry Center, 

Pineville, Louisiana, in September 2005. Initial 

utility billings indicate the new chiller has reduced 

energy costs by 21percent at this 30,600 square 

foot facility. 

Distributed Generation 

USDA’s ARS continues to consider off-grid electricity 

opportunities that provide energy and environmental 

benefits when life-cycle cost-effective. The cogeneration and standby generation systems completed in FY 

2001 allow the National Animal Disease Center to 

generate electrical power off-grid as needed. Off-grid 

generation is also provided to the National Soil Tilth 

Laboratory by Iowa State University, where small solar 

cell systems are used on several field instrumentation 

operations. Also, in the ARS Southern Plains Area, a 

micro-turbine has been purchased and will be used to 

provide power to the wind-diesel research efforts and 

mini-grid in Bushland, Texas. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

USDA and its agencies continued to pursue and implement necessary electrical load reduction measures 

by relying upon established procedures during FY 

2005. USDA sites have enhanced communications with 

the local utility company to better understand their 

needs for load reductions during peak times. Appropriate facility load reduction measures have also been 

identified. Systems have been established to alert employees of expected high demand days via email, voice 

mail, and public bulletin boards. Also during FY 2005, 

employees were encouraged to take steps to reduce 

lighting, personal computer and electrical appliance 

usage. 

The ARS’s BARC joined with PEPCO in an Energy 

Reduction Plan designed to limit electricity use during 

non-occupied periods; and installed 68 generators operated by B-20 that operate on automatic switch gear 

control mode to support emergencies. The ARS Location in Fort Collins, Colorado, has installed tariff ceilings that work with the city’s “hot shot” signals to reduce power usage at critical times on the grid. Also, 

when needed, the National Agricultural Library reduced some of the power requirements during power 

emergencies by using a 500-KVA emergency generator 

to power elevators, data centers, life safety equipment, 

and mechanical equipment. 

In other parts of ARS, the new facility in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was built with an HVAC system that is 

integrated into a computerized, zone-controlled management system which will reduce electrical usage 

during unoccupied hours. Also, at the Florence, South 

Carolina location, a large portion of HVAC units are 

controlled by a computer-operated energy management 

system, which sheds load for management of peak 

electrical load demand. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Charles D. Johnson 

Energy and Water Program Manager 

Energy and Environment Division 

Office of Procurement and Property Management 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202-720-2941 

Fax: 202-720-8972 

Email: charles.d.johnson@usda.gov 

44 
B. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for Commerce (Commerce) 

is the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary 

for Administration. The Senior Energy Official participates at the Interagency Energy Policy Committee 

meetings and ensures actions under the Commerce 

Strategic Implementation Plan for Energy Management 

are accomplished to meet the Federal goals. 

Departmental organizations and bureaus with responsibility for energy and water management in Commerce 

facilities include the following: 

• Office of the Secretary (OSEC), 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), 

• National Technical Information Service (NTIS); 

and 

• Bureau of Census (Census.) 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Each Commerce Bureau takes advantage of its own 

incentive programs to reward its exceptional employees. In addition, the Department of Commerce actively 

participates in the Department of Energy’s, Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP) “You Have the 

Power” awareness campaign and Federal Energy and 

Water Management Awards programs. 

Training and Education 

Commerce recognizes that access to job-related training is important for every employee to do his/her job 

well. The energy team promotes appropriate training 

opportunities for facility energy management personnel. 

Commerce personnel are regularly advised of upcoming energy-related training as information becomes 

available. Thirteen employees attended the Energy 

2005 Workshop. Two employees also attended a U.S. 

Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Training Workshop. 

Commerce Bureaus make energy awareness a key part 

of their energy programs, using materials provided 

through the “You Have the Power” program, as well as 

with additional materials procured on their own. 

Commerce also implemented energy conservation 

awareness campaigns in conjunction with Energy 

Awareness month in October 2004, and Earth Day in 

April 2005. The campaigns included displays, informational materials and posters in the lobby of the Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB). 

Energy Reduction Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, Commerce reported a 34.6 percent decrease in energy consumption from FY 1985 for its 

standard buildings when measured in Btu per gross 

square foot. Commerce used 78,103 Btu per gross 

square foot in its standard buildings during the year. 

Commerce received credit for purchases of 106.2 

billion Btu of renewable energy for its standard 

buildings, lowering the energy intensity of these facilities from 100,066 Btu per square foot to 78,103 Btu per 

square foot. 

While Commerce has been very aggressive in making 

progress toward its energy goals, traditional energy 

reduction measures were supplemented this year with 

purchases of renewable energy to further reduce the 

amount of traditional (non-renewable) energy consumed. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

In FY 2005, Commerce reported a 24.8 percent decrease in energy consumption from FY 1990 for its 

energy intensive buildings when measured in Btu per 

gross square foot. Commerce used 237,678 Btu per 

gross square foot in its energy intensive buildings 

during the year. Commerce received credit for 

purchases of 193.1 billion Btu of renewable energy for 

these facilities, lowering the energy intensity from 

271,454 Btu per square foot to 237,678 Btu per square 

foot. 

Energy use for energy intensive buildings was 315,975 

Btu per square foot for FY 1990 and 237,678 Btu per 

square foot for FY 2005. This is a 25 percent decrease, 

as compared to FY 1990, and a 26 percent decrease, as 

compared to FY 2004. The DOC has exceeded the 

2005 energy reduction goals for energy intensive 

buildings, and has met the 2010 energy reduction goals 

for energy intensive buildings. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

NOAA uses diesel fuel, aviation gasoline and jet fuel 

for its marine and aviation vehicles. NOAA operates a 

wide assortment of marine survey and research vessels. 

45 
Airplanes and helicopters are flown in support of 

NOAA’s environmental research missions. 

NOAA schedules its marine operations in advance in 

order to operate these vehicles as efficiently as possible. Fuel usage for these vehicles has remained relatively consistent in recent years. Flights of NOAA aircraft, however, are more dependent on weather events. 

The FY 2005 hurricane season kept the NOAA hurricane aircraft extremely busy. NOAA’s aircraft flew the 

most hours in its history this past fiscal year, flying 

approximately 5,000 hours. 

NOAA has been experimenting with the use of biodiesel products in some of its ships. The Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory has begun converting ship systems to use biodiesel products (not 

blends) to replace all petroleum products in use onboard. The results of a 5-year test program have shown 

improved crew working conditions, increased equipment life, and reduced environmental risks, in addition 

to reducing the amount of petroleum products in use. 

Further implementation of the biodiesel products program will depend on development of reliable supply 

systems in the areas where the ships operate. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

Small-scale photovoltaic projects that self-generate 

energy using renewable sources continue to be operated by NOAA in American Samoa and San Diego, 

California, and by NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

NOAA’s systems produce a combined total of 31.5 

megawatthours of electricity. NIST’s system produced 

a total of 36.6 megawatthours of electricity in 2005. 

NIST’s Boulder campus completed the installation of 

solar powered lighting in the Building 2 Parking lot. In 

addition, they also installed solar powered security 

lighting in conjunction with some new construction. 

Together these two projects will save an estimated 23 

megawatthours of electricity each year. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

NIST and NOAA continue to purchase wind-generated 

renewable power to supply a portion of the electrical 

needs of their facilities in Boulder, Colorado. In FY 

2005, NIST consumed 882 megawatthours of purchased renewable energy, and NOAA consumed 1,129 

megawatthours of purchased renewable energy. 

Petroleum 

Consumption of petroleum-based fuels in buildings in 

FY 1985 was 130.3 billion Btu. In FY 2005, this was 

reduced to 68.3 billion Btu, a 48 percent reduction 

since FY 1985. Most Commerce facilities only use 

petroleum-based fuels, such as diesel, for their emergency generators. NIST uses fuel oil as a back-up fuel 

for natural gas fired boilers in the central plant in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

Water Conservation 

Commerce’s FY 2005 water consumption is estimated 

to be 351.2 million gallons, at a cost of $1.9 million. 

NOAA estimated water consumption for its facilities, 

based on a unit consumption factor of 30 gallons per 

day per person; NOAA’s total water usage for FY 

2005 is 56.8 million gallons. In addition, the Census 

facility at Jeffersonville, Indiana, uses only well water 

and estimates its water consumption to be 4.2 million 

gallons per year. 

Commerce Bureaus are incorporating and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for efficient 

use of water. These practices include water conservation awareness, installing low-flow devices and sensors, planting indigenous plants and landscaping, and 

water recycling. 

Water Management Plans are a fairly recent (1999) 

requirement for the agencies. Beginning in September 

2003, Commerce funded contract assistance from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory to help the 

Bureaus develop these plans. The efforts to date have 

generated two Water Management Plans. In September 

2005, Commerce awarded a follow-on contract to continue the work begun in 2003. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Commerce Bureaus employ life-cycle cost analysis as 

an integral part of making investment decisions in 

products, services, construction, and other projects to 

lower the Federal Government’s costs and to reduce 

energy and water consumption. 

Facility Energy Audits 

NIST audited approximately 10 percent of its Gaithersburg, Maryland, and most of its NIST Boulder campus 

facility this year. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2005, Commerce requested $4.6 million for the 

performance of energy audits and implementation of 

energy conservation measures. Congress appropriated 

$3.3 million in the FY 2005 Appropriations Bill. 

Commerce Bureaus were able to make use of some 

additional funds that became available during the year, 

bringing the total energy program expenditures to $3.5 

million. 

46 
NOAA has been investigating various options for using 

energy savings performance contracting at its facilities, 

including bundling small regional facilities, and partnering with other agencies. NOAA is also investigating 

the use of utility energy savings contracts where available. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

Commerce supports the use of ENERGY STAR and other 

energy-efficient products. Information on the availability and benefits of purchasing ENERGY STAR products has been distributed to the appropriate functional 

managers and their contracting officers. Commerce 

includes purchase of energy-efficient products in its 

Green Purchasing program, spearheaded by the Environmental Manager. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

Since there are no ENERGY STAR Building types that 

match the most common building types that Commerce 

constructs, Commerce has elected to focus on the use 

of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED criteria 

instead of the ENERGY STAR Building criteria. Most 

new buildings and major renovations target a LEED 

silver rating. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Most of Commerce’s new buildings and major renovations target a LEED silver rating. Commerce is working with GSA as it strives to achieve a LEED silver 

rating for the planned renovation of its headquarters 

facility, the HCHB, in Washington, D.C. 

NOAA has adopted sustainable building design principles developed under the LEED certification program, 

and are incorporating them into the siting, design, and 

construction of new facilities. NOAA is currently pursuing LEED certification for the following construction 

projects: 

• Weather Forecasting Office, Key West, Florida; 

• Dr. Nancy Foster Environmental Center, Key 

West, Florida; 

• Pacific Regional Center, Honolulu Project - Honolulu , Hawaii; and 

• NOAA Satellite Operations Center - Suitland, 

Maryland. 

Two NOAA facilities have already received LEED 

certification - the West Coast Alaska Tsunami Warning 

Center, Palmer, Alaska; and Weather Forecasting Office, Caribou, Maine. Both projects have been “firsts” 

in their states, making NOAA a leader in sustainable 

building. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Energy and water efficiency are considered along with 

other factors when entering into new leases and renegotiating or extending existing leases. GSA leasing 

guidance is followed for buildings leased by and for 

Commerce. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

A recent study of the NIST facilities in Boulder, Colorado, indicated that NIST could benefit from a consolidation of its heating and cooling systems in a central 

plant. NIST has begun implementing that project which 

is expected to be completed in 2009. 

Off-Grid Generation 

Small-scale projects that self-generate energy using 

renewable sources (such as photovoltaics or wind turbines) or renewable energy thermal projects (such as 

solar thermal, biomass, or geothermal) are used to supplement commercial power. NOAA continues to operate a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic unit in American Samoa 

and a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic system in San Diego, 

California. NIST continues to operate its 28-kilowatt 

photovoltaic array on the roof of the Administration 

Building at its Gaithersburg, Maryland, facility. NOAA 

is also investigating use of photovoltaics at its facilities 

in Hawaii. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

Major lighting retrofit projects have been initiated at 

the HCHB and at two NOAA Marine Operations Center sites. Projects will be completed in FY 2006. The 

HCHB project had not been cost effective in the past 

due to a planned major renovation of the building. Due 

to the rising cost of electricity and the development of 

phases for the planned renovation project, management 

reevaluated the situation and determined that it was 

cost-effective to upgrade the lighting in portions of the 

building that the planned renovation will not be affecting for several years. The lighting project includes 

a variety of lighting initiatives including LEED exit 

signs, high pressure sodium lighting in warehouse areas, and compact fluorescent lamps, as well as energy 

efficient fluorescent lamps. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Regina Larrabee 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Energy Manager 

Office of Real Estate 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW 

Room 1036 

Washington, DC 20230 

Phone: 202-482-2345 

Fax: 202-482-1969 

Email: rlarrabee@doc.gov 

47 
C. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 

Management and Administration 

The facilities energy program at the Department of 

Defense (DOD) is decentralized, with Defense Component Headquarters providing guidance and funding, 

and installations managing site-specific energy and 

water conservation programs. Energy project funding 

comes from a combination of government and alternative financing initiatives. Military installations are responsible for maintaining awareness, developing and 

implementing projects, and ensuring that new construction meets sustainable design criteria. 

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 DOD Installations Capabilities Council (ICC), 

chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) and chartered to address a 

broad spectrum of installation issues, is designated as 

the DOD Agency Energy Team. The membership of 

the ICC contains the cross-section of DOD senior leadership necessary to make decisions needed to remove 

obstacles hindering compliance with Executive Order 

13123. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

To increase energy conservation awareness and to recognize energy-saving efforts, DOD rewards individuals 

and organizations that demonstrate excellence in the 

field. These rewards serve to highlight and share the 

best practices among DOD agencies and to motivate 

employees. 

The Air Force participated in the 2005 Federal Energy 

and Water Management Awards; 17 award candidates 

were submitted, with one individual award and one 

Presidential award received. The Air Force also received the 2005 Green Power Purchase Award as the 

largest federal purchaser of green power with over 41 

percent of the Federal Governments purchase. 

Headquarters (HQ) Air Force Civil Engineer Support 

Agency (AFCESA) has developed a rewards program 

called “Reduced Energy Appreciation Program 

(REAP)” which rewards the top three installations for 

the best overall reduction in energy use based on their 

previous year. The winners were Little Rock Air Force 

Base (AFB), Arizona, Nellis AFB, Nevada, and LaJes 

AFB, Azores. 

Several commands have developed energy award programs that distribute funds to their base winners each 

year. They include: 

• Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) has a $225,000 annual award program recognizing long- and shortenergy reduction projects at their installations. 

• Air Force Combat Command (ACC) has a base 

energy award program that awards up to a total of 

$1.0 million to ACC bases that exceeded the FY 

2005 30 percent milestone goal and/or improved 

over last year’s performance. 

The Department of the Navy (Navy) annually presents 

Secretary of the Navy energy awards to recognize 

achievement in the efficient use of energy. Five awards 

were provided to Navy and Marine Corps winners in 

the categories of facilities and industrial installations. 

In addition to these awards, installations with an 

aggressive and successful program were recognized as 

achieving Platinum (highest) or Gold (second highest) 

level rankings for their energy programs. 

The Navy Region Southwest energy team received a 

Presidential Energy award for reducing energy costs by 

ten percent, saving over $4 million in FY 2004 and 

another $1 million in FY 2005. The Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton California energy team also received a 

Presidential Energy award for replacing inefficient 

HVAC and lighting systems, saving $1.9 million. Navy 

installations and individuals received six awards for 

Federal Energy and Water Management. 

In the Army, energy conservation awards are presented 

to individuals, organizations, and installations in recognition of their energy/water-saving efforts. The installations and regions participated in three energy 

awards programs—the Secretary of the Army Energy 

and Water Management Awards, the Presidential Energy Awards, and the Department of Energy Federal 

Energy and Water Management Awards. Each program 

recognizes individuals and organizations for exceptional performance in implementing energy efficiency 

achievements as set forth under Executive Order 

13123. The Secretary of the Army Energy and Water 

Management Awards were presented on August 28, 

2005, for accomplishments during FY 2004. The U.S. 

Army Installation Management Agency Southeast 

Region (IMA-SER) won a Presidential Award for 

Leadership in Federal Energy Management. Fort 

Lewis, Washington, won a Federal Energy and Water 

Management award in the Energy Efficiency/Energy 

Program Management for organizations category. 

48 
Training and Education 

In FY 2005, DOD provided energy management training for 3,481 personnel. 

The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Civil 

Engineer and Services School at Wright-Patterson 

AFB, Ohio, conducts an Energy Management Training 

(EMT) course. AFIT has also included the energy 

course material in an on-line computer-training program. Additionally, a one-hour energy briefing is provided in the civil engineers programmer’s course. 

The AFCESA developed a web-based ESPC training 

program providing training for 35 personnel from nine 

locations. 

The HQ AFCESA developed and fielded a web-based 

Facility Managers Energy awareness course to assist 

base energy managers in training new building managers. 

The Army’s IMA Regions also provide training to their 

respective installations. For example, in April 2005, the 

Southeast Region (SERO) held an Energy Manager’s 

Forum in Atlanta, Georgia. SERO brought together 

installation staff, HQ Army staff, DOE Staff, and various other energy consultants and personnel to discuss 

strategies, approaches, programs, processes, and procedures to improve energy operations and assist in meeting the goals of Executive Order 13123. Other IMA 

regions participated in DOE/FEMP training via web 

cast and teleconferencing. Europe Region conducts 

annual energy manager training, with a curriculum 

consistent with the proficiency requirements of the 

Energy Policy Act. 

The Army uses energy management training courses 

available from commercial sources, such as Association of Energy Engineers, to meet the requirements of 

Executive Order 13123. The DOD Energy Manager’s 

Handbook is distributed on the Construction Criteria 

Base CD. The Army’s Energy website has been revised 

and is accessible at http://hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov 

and provides current information and reference materials applicable to the energy program. 

Showcase Facilities 

DOD continues to participate in DOE-designated 

Showcase facilities to demonstrate new and innovative 

energy saving technologies. Facilities that are designated Showcase facilities may incorporate energy and 

water saving designs, energy conservation improvements, and renewable energy use. 

The Navy established two new Showcases in FY 2005. 

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay brought the world’s 

largest wind farm diesel hybrid system on line. The 

3.8-megawatt plant is improving the installation’s grid 

reliability, producing 25 percent of the station’s power, 

and saving the Navy $1.2 million annually. 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California 

awarded over $6 million in utility energy service 

contracts, decentralizing a steam plant and installing 

high efficiency lighting systems, daylighting for 

warehouses, and solar-powered outdoor lighting 

systems. 

Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California, 

and the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 

continue as on-going Navy Showcase installations due 

to the large numbers of Academy midshipmen, Civil 

Engineer Corps officers, and Navy facilities managers 

who receive operations and facilities training there. 

Other continuing Showcase projects are: The Naval 

Base San Diego Admiral Prout Field House and Pool, 

the direct digital controls system at Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren, the seven-megawatt 

cogeneration system at Marine Corps Air Ground 

Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twenty-Nine Palms, the 

750-kilowatt photovoltaic system at Naval Base Coronado, California, the ground source heat pumps and 

Energy Management and Control Systems (EMCS) at 

Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South 

Carolina, the Bachelor Officer Quarters at Naval 

Training Center (NTC) Great Lakes, and various projects at Naval Medical Center San Diego, California. 

In DeCA, the designated Showcase facility for the FY 

2006 construction program is the Barksdale AFB, 

Louisiana Commissary. Energy efficiency features 

include heat reclaim from the refrigeration systems for 

space and water heating and refrigeration compressor 

systems comprised of several compressor sizes to ensure the most efficient combination of compressors is 

running at any one time to meet the load. The Refrigeration Monitoring and Control System (RMCS) for 

control of the Refrigeration System and HVAC system 

ensure efficient equipment operation. DeCA maximized use of energy efficient glass door refrigerated 

display cases, installed automatic scheduling of sales 

area and display case lighting, anti-sweat heater 

controls, temperature-terminated defrost and energy 

efficient lighting systems. Additional energy efficiency 

features of this facility are occupancy sensors, 

automatic water control on restroom fixtures, dual path 

HVAC systems for the sales area, maximum use of 

wall and roof insulation, energy efficient doors and 

windows, and utility metering. 

49 
Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOD reported a 28.2 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOD used an estimated 98,201 Btu per gross square 

foot in its standard buildings during the year. DOD 

received credit for purchases of 6.2 trillion Btu of renewable energy, lowering the energy intensity of these 

facilities from 101,378 Btu per square foot to 98,201 

Btu per square foot. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

In FY 2005, DOD reported a 21.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1990 for its energy intensive facilities when measured in Btu per gross 

square foot. DOD used an estimated 167,221 Btu per 

gross square foot in its energy intensive facilities during the year. DOD received credit for purchases of 1.1 

trillion Btu of renewable energy for these facilities, 

lowering the energy intensity from 174,142 Btu per 

square foot to 167,221 Btu per square foot. 

Exempt Facilities 

The Navy exempts mission critical, concentrated energy use transmitters, simulators, cold iron support to 

ships, and some private party facilities. The Army and 

Air Force have no exempt facilities. The Air Force 

exempts the energy consumed by streetlights and airfield lighting, equivalent to 5.7 gigawatthours. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

In FY 2005, DOD consumed approximately 5.17 billion gallons of mobility fuels, a decrease from 5.35 

billion gallons in FY 2004. Spending on mobility fuels 

increased 47 percent from $5.39 billion in FY 2004 to 

$7.95 billion in FY 2005. This increase in cost is attributed to the rise in fuel prices. For example, the price 

of jet fuel increased from $1.11 per gallon in FY 2004 

to $1.70 per gallon in FY 2005. 

The Air Force made significant positive improvements 

in processes for the procurement/lease of alternative 

fueled vehicles and utilization of alternative fuels. For 

the third year in a row, the Air Force estimates it will 

surpass the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Alternative 

Fuel Vehicle (AFV) acquisition mandate of 75 percent 

by 23 percent. If current strategies and assumptions 

remain unchanged, the Air Force will continue to exceed the AFV acquisition mandate in FY 2006 and FY 

2007 and increase the amount of alternative fuels consumed by Air Force vehicles. The Air Force’s success 

is largely due to major commands and local commanders placing special emphasis on obtaining AFVs within 

their owned and GSA leased fleets. Additionally, the 

Air Force Petroleum Office (AFPET) has made great 

strides working with the Defense Energy Supply Center (DESC) in obtaining more alternative fuel infrastructure and alternative fuels. One significant factor 

for the success towards the AFV acquisitions mandate 

is the increased use of Biodiesel or B-20; from 7,000 

Gasoline Gallons Equivalents (GGE) in FY 2001 to 

approximately 3.8 million GGE in FY 2005. 

Thirteen alternate fuel projects are underway which 

will continue to improve progress to satisfy the mandates and utilizations of alternative fuels. Six of the 

thirteen projects have an E-85 scope/goal, four have a 

Bio-diesel scope/goal, and the rest is overall maintenance (piping or tank maintenance) of facilities to provide alternative fuels. Additionally, approximately 45 

additional alternative fuel infrastructure projects have 

been submitted to DESC. 

Renewable Energy 

DOD remains dedicated to fulfilling the goals of the 

Executive Order 13123 by purchasing and generating 

electricity from renewable sources. In FY 2005, DOD 

used 8.35 trillion Btu of renewable energy from selfgeneration and through purchases. This translates to 

over 8 percent of DOD’s electricity consumption, well 

exceeding the Executive Order 13123 goal of 2.5 percent by 2005. DOD emphasizes the use of solar and 

other renewable energy sources where it is cost-effective and has just recently established a long range goal 

of 25 percent by 2025. Passive solar designs, such as 

building orientation and window placement and sizing, 

have been implemented in a variety of existing buildings and new facility construction. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

DOD has integrated photovoltaic power systems, solar 

water heating systems, and transpired solar collectors 

(solar walls) into its facilities. Active solar heating applications have included maintenance facility solar 

walls, swimming pool heating, and hot water heating. 

In the Air Force, Luke AFB Arizona awarded an ESPC 

to install a 122-kilowatt photovoltaic system that will 

be operational in FY 2006. F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, installed two on-grid wind generation units with 

a capacity of 1.2 megawatts. The USAF Academy generated and captured over 870,000 cubic feet of digester 

gas in lieu of natural gas for use in the process of hot 

water boiler at the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, Eielson AFB, Alaska, has a refuse derived fuel 

program and processed over 890 tons, generating 12.2 

billion Btu and saving over 840 tons of coal. 

The Navy is increasing generation of renewable energy, operating the largest wind/diesel hybrid plant in 

the world and the two largest federal photovoltaic sys50 
tems in the United States. The Navy is generating 

“free” thermal energy from the waste heat of five cogeneration systems, and a sixth plant will add to this 

generation in early FY 2006. The eastern flank of a 

geothermal well at Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) 

China Lake, California, has been producing 345 gigawatthours of electricity per year since 1990. In 2005, 

the Navy generated a total of 353 gigawatthours of 

renewable electricity and over 1.2 trillion Btu of 

renewable thermal energy from all sources. The Navy 

is also negotiating award of a geothermal electrical 

generating plant at Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon, 

Nevada. Once constructed, the plant will produce 

power for the electric grid. 

Navy projects made operational in FY 2005 include a 

3.8-megawatt wind/diesel hybrid system, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and a 10-megawatt cogeneration plant at Naval Training Center Great Lakes, 

Chicago, Illinois. 

The Army was also successful in funding the installation of 10-kilowatt wind turbines at Fort Huachuca, 

Arizona, and at the Headquarters for the Arizona National Guard. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

DOD continued to purchase energy from renewable 

sources. In FY 2005, total DOD renewable energy purchases amounted to 834.4 billion Btu. 

In the Air Force, Dyess AFB and Fairchild AFB purchase 100 percent renewable power for their installations. 

The Navy purchased 114.6 gigawatthours of renewable 

electricity and 601.3 billion Btu of renewable thermal 

energy. Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia 

(industrial consumption), purchases electricity and 

steam from a privatized waste to energy plant. NAS 

Keflavik, Iceland, purchases electricity and steam generated from geothermal energy. 

In the Army, Redstone Arsenal purchases steam from 

the City of Huntsville that is produced from municipal 

solid waste. In FY 2005, Redstone purchased 609.8 

billion Btu. This renewable energy source was developed prior to 1990 and is therefore not included in the 

Renewable Energy/Renewable Energy Credit Purchases on the DOD Scorecard. Fort Carson is purchasing 6.6 gigawatthours of electrical power generated 

from renewable sources from Colorado Springs Utility. 

The Army is making a special effort to purchase renewable energy generated from solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. 

The Presidio of Monterey purchased 14.5 gigawatthours of solar energy in FY 2005 and Fort Sill purchased 116.4 gigawatthours of solar energy in FY 

2005. Fort Lewis purchased 12.0 gigawatthours of Solar and Wind energy and Aberdeen Proving Ground 

purchased 469.3 billion Btu of thermal energy in FY 

2005. 

DeCA purchased 8.7 billion Btu of thermal energy 

generated by geothermal energy and 1.8 billion Btu of 

electricity generated by hydroelectric sources for the 

Keflavik commissary in FY 2005. 

Petroleum 

DOD continues to make significant progress in reducing the consumption of petroleum-based fuels. In the 

Navy, fuel oil use in facilities decreased 1.8 million 

gallons, or 2.6 percent, from last year. Several installations optimized central steam plant start-up/shut-down 

based on weather forecasts. Some installations installed 

boiler control systems to monitor and adjust efficiency 

and optimizing performance. Others upgraded heating 

systems to more efficient units. 

Since FY 1985, the Army has reduced petroleum-based 

fuel use at its facilities by 94.8 percent. Army installations have been encouraged to investigate alternative 

fuels such as natural gas and renewable energy that 

produce less carbon emissions. Installations have also 

been encouraged to use more natural gas with fuel oil 

as back up. 

Water Conservation 

DOD remains committed to reducing overall consumption of natural resources by recording annual water consumption data from the services. In FY 2005, 

195 DOD facilities developed Water Management 

Plans and implemented Best Management Practices 

(BMPs). This year, DOD consumed 124.3 billion gallons of potable water, a 28.3 percent decrease in consumption when compared to a FY 2000 base year. 

During the year, Navy Region Southwest installed water efficient washing machines and waterless urinals, 

and implemented a wastewater recycling system at 

Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island. 

Naval Base Ventura County implemented xeriscaping 

at Point Mugu, converting 1.5 acres from watered turf 

to drought-tolerant xeriscaping. Naval Air Weapons 

Station China Lake is using a SCADA system to measure and alert maintenance personnel when abnormal 

flow rates from reservoirs occur. Alarms were successfully used this year to alert personnel to a 14" water 

distribution line break. Quick repair reduced the 

amount of water lost. Naval Weapons Station Seal 

51 
Beach reduced irrigation water by 50 percent by not 

watering non-prestige areas. 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, was 

pumping water from utility tunnels approximately 18 

hours per day. A water survey was performed in utility 

tunnels in industrial buildings to determine the source 

of water leaks. Repairs have reduced water use and 

pumping requirements to approximately six hours per 

week. 

Naval Station Great Lakes, Chicago, Illinois, replaced 

more than 6,600 feet of condensate return piping, saving 33.6 million gallons of water per year. 

Naval Base Coronado, California Naval Base San 

Diego, California, and Naval Base Point Loma, 

installed 529 water-efficient washers and 13 water free 

urinals. Naval Base Coronado developed an efficient 

leak reporting and response system. Excessive water 

use meter reads are automatically flagged; Resource 

Efficiency Managers (REMs) are promptly notified to 

investigate to determine root cause and resolve. REMs 

also began use of innovative leak detection equipment 

to aid the program. 

At the Washington Headquarters Service, efforts were 

focused on identifying locations of main water supplies 

to the reservation as well as existing water meters. 

These efforts consisted of reviewing existing condition 

drawings, reviewing as-builds from recently completed 

(within last five years) projects and field surveys to 

verify meter existence and locations. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOD’s Facilities and Energy managers utilize life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis in making decisions about their 

investment in products, services, construction, and 

other projects to lower costs and to reduce energy and 

water consumption. DOD considers the life-cycle costs 

of combining projects, and encourages bundling of 

energy efficiency projects with renewable energy projects, where appropriate. Projects are prioritized for 

capital funding and execution is based upon the greatest life-cycle savings to investment ratio. The use of 

passive solar design and active solar technologies are 

recommended where cost-effective over the life of the 

project. Sustainable development projects use LCC 

methodology and follow the Whole Building Design 

Guide. 

In the Air Force, LCC analysis was used on all new 

construction projects and retrofit projects, including 

ESPC, UESC, and Energy Conservation Improvement 

Programs. Examples include: 

• Dormitory construction at Barksdale AFB Louisiana; 

• Dining hall/Airmen’s Center at Cannon AFB New 

Mexico; 

• Infrared heating systems replaced an old forced air 

heating system at Altus AFB Oklahoma; and 

• Compact fluorescent lighting retrofit at Yokota AB 

Japan. 

Facility Energy Audits 

DOD demonstrates its commitment to energy conservation and the goals of Executive Order 13123 by conducting energy audits of facilities and installations. In 

FY 2005, DOD completed an audit of 225,129 thousand square feet, or 10.7 percent of total facility square 

footage in FY 2005. 

DeCA is partnering with the DOE for a retro-commissioning plan to audit commissaries with the objective 

of providing a baseline for a detailed retro-commissioning plan that will be applied to all commissaries 

system-wide. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2005, DOD components, through a decentralized 

approach, awarded 22 UESC and 15 ESPC task orders/contracts producing an estimated annual energy 

savings of 1,058 trillion Btu and a total life-cycle savings of $282 million. 

The Air Force awarded eight new ESPC and three new 

UESC task orders during the year. These task orders 

include energy infrastructure upgrades and new equipment to help the installations reduce energy and water 

consumption. Examples include new thermal storage 

systems, chillers, boilers, lights, motors, EMCS systems, and water reducing devices. 

In FY 2005, the Army awarded seven ESPC contracts 

with an annual savings of 34.3 billion Btu. The Army 

awarded seven UESCs, with utility company investment of approximately $29 million. Most of the anticipated $54.6 million in total LCC savings will be returned to the utility company to pay for improvement 

measures. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

When life-cycle cost-effective, DOD organizations 

select ENERGY STAR and other energy-efficient products when acquiring energy-consuming products. 

Guidance generated by DOE, GSA, and DLA for energy-efficient products are incorporated into the sustainable design and development of new and renovated 

52 
facilities. The components are procuring energy-consuming products that are in the upper 25 percent of 

energy efficiency. Energy efficient technologies include high-efficiency lighting and ballasts, exit signs, 

energy efficient motors, low-voltage distribution transformers, and the use of packaged heating and cooling 

equipment with energy efficiency ratios that meet or 

exceed Federal criteria for retrofitting existing buildings. Information technology hardware, computers and 

copying equipment are acquired under the ENERGY 

STAR program using GSA Schedules and either government-wide or service contracts. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

Two Air Force hospital clinics at Eielson AFB Alaska 

and Nellis AFB Nevada have been designated ENERGY 

STAR Buildings. Facilities #35, 316, 351 and 1030 have 

all been designated ENERGY STAR at Buckley AFB 

Colorado. In addition, all new military family housing 

units must be designed to meet the ENERGY STAR criteria. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Sustainability initiatives require an integrated design 

approach to the life cycle of buildings and infrastructure. The concepts of sustainable development as applied to DOD installations have been incorporated into 

the master planning process of each of the services. 

Installations are encouraged to approach land use planning and urban design in a holistic manner and integrate it with energy planning. In FY 2005, DOD 

adopted and applied sustainable design principles in 

867 new building projects. Of these, 254 projects can 

or will be certified under the U.S. Green Buildings 

Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The following provides examples of 

DOD sustainable building design and construction efforts. 

The Air Force Civil Engineer established an Air Force 

Sustainable Development Policy in FY 2002. All 

facility and infrastructure military construction (MILCON) projects must apply sustainability development 

concepts in the planning, design, construction, environmental management, operation, maintenance and 

disposal process by FY 2009. The Air Force sustainable target for FY 2005 was 35 percent. The Air Force 

completed 44 out of 260 projects, or 17 percent (MILCON and major renovation). The following are examples of using sustainable design concepts: 

• Four Air Combat Command facilities obtained 

LEED certification, including a library at Shaw 

AFB South Carolina and an ADAL Intelligence 

production complex at Wright-Patterson AFB 

Ohio. 

• Laughlin AFB Texas is designing a hybrid water 

source ground source heat pump dormitory project. 

• The NORTHCOM addition and Mission Support 

facility addition is in construction at Peterson AFB 

Colorado. 

• Consolidated Support Facility at Edwards AFB 

was rated at a silver level under LEED and was 

awarded the Air Force design for sustainability in 

FY 2005. 

All Army installations have been encouraged to designate their own Showcase Projects and strive for higher 

sustainable rating levels (Silver, Gold, and Platinum). 

In accordance with Army policy, in FY 2005, Rock 

Island Arsenal and Tooele Army Depot designated 

themselves as Army showcase facilities. In FY 2005, 

the Army design/constructed 612 new buildings. Of 

those 612 new buildings, 163 can or will be LEEDcertified. 

In the Washington Headquarters Service, the Pentagon 

Renovation Office (PENREN) incorporates sustainability requirements and goals in each of their designbuild Requests for Proposal. In all PENREN designbuild contracts, the LEED rating system is the primary 

green building metric used. Design-build projects 

awarded between 1999 and mid-2002 did not require 

that contractors use the LEED rating system, but they 

volunteered to use it as a metric. PENREN’s newer 

contracts included a requirement for earning a LEED 

certification as a minimum. The Pentagon Library and 

Conference Center (PLC2) contract was awarded in 

July 2004. However, most of the design was accomplished in FY 2005. This design-build contract included a requirement that LEED certification for New 

Construction must be met. The contractor set the bar 

higher at “Silver” and is currently tracking well to earn 

this rating. Wedge 3 started in FY 2005 and is following the LEED for Existing Buildings rating system. 

Although this project is still in the early stages, it is on 

track to earn LEED certification. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

DOD emphasizes energy and water conservation in 

leased facilities and each of the services has issued 

guidance directing that all leased spaces comply with 

the energy and water efficiency requirements of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992. It is DOD’s intent to continue to have the landlord make appropriate investments in energy efficiency, which can be amortized in 

the lease, provided the new total cost (energy costs plus 

lease cost) does not exceed total costs without improvements. These leases should amortize the investments over the economic life of the improvements. 

Build-to-lease solicitations for DOD facilities will 

53 
contain criteria encouraging sustainable design and 

development, energy efficiency, and verification of 

building performance. DOD relies upon the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to ensure the above 

provisions are included in buildings that they lease for 

DOD. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

DOD continues to make progress toward energy reduction goals. The following highlights several industrial facility improvement projects. 

Naval Air Depot North Island, Coronado, California, 

installed several industrial facility efficiency improvements including: retrofit of three existing chillers with 

a new Turbocor Compressor and connecting the chillers to a direct digital controls system, high bay lighting 

for the southwest hangar with programmable circuit 

breaker panel connected to the energy management 

system/direct digital controls, demonstration tank cover 

on clean processing tank to provide ventilation control, 

compressed air reduction devices and meters with 

scheduled operation valves (repair leaks, replace disconnects, filters, & hoses), and lighting, ballast and 

occupancy sensor upgrades in office spaces. 

Projects undertaken by DeCA during the year include: 

• DeCA installs dual-path air conditioning to control 

commissary store humidity as an alternative to 

natural gas or propane fired desiccant dehumidification systems. 

• DeCA uses and plans to increase use of heat-pipe 

technology for dehumidification and heat reclaim. 

Domestic hot water and HVAC heat reclaim systems are standard in most large commissary store 

systems. 

• A Quality Surveillance Representative at each 

commissary monitors refrigeration and HVAC 

maintenance contract performance. 

• DeCA conducts remote diagnostic monitoring of 

Refrigeration Monitoring and Control Systems at 

approximately 191 individual commissaries to ensure that refrigeration and lighting systems are 

being operated and maintained at their design 

specification. Discrepancies are forwarded to 

maintenance contractors on a daily basis for correction. Lighting controls were monitored and adjusted by this same method in FY 2005. This surveillance resulted in improved contractor 

maintenance and improved equipment operation 

and less energy consumed. Web-based energy 

monitoring control systems are being evaluated for 

DeCA wide use. 

The National Security Agency (NSA) maintenance 

work force uses strategies to ensure that the most energy efficient products and procedures are used at all 

times on mechanical and electrical systems throughout 

the NSA campus. These systems include but are not 

limited to the following: compressed air systems, 

lighting, chilled water systems, pumping systems, hot 

water heating systems, etc. 

Most of the chiller plants at the NSA campus are fully 

automated. Chillers and associated equipment are programmed to operate automatically based on building 

load. A MILCON project is underway which will interconnect all of the main campus chilled water systems, 

thereby allowing the most efficient chillers to provide 

chilled water for the buildings cooling requirements. 

Variable speed drives on HVAC airside equipment are 

also being installed in three large facilities. 

NSA is also continuing the replacement of its legacy 

EMCS with a new state-of-the-art system. This new 

system is more flexible, will be monitoring more 

points, and running more energy efficient temperature 

control algorithms. NSA is also integrating a software 

package that will analyze system operation and determine where energy is being wasted. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

DOD encourages the components to combine cooling, 

heating, and power systems in new construction and/or 

retrofit projects when cost effective. The following 

provides examples of efforts to reduce energy consumption through the implementation of efficiency 

technologies and projects. 

The Navy worked with the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and DOE to develop appropriate credit for 

cogeneration systems on the annual report. The Navy’s 

cogeneration capacity is 44 megawatts. Plants at 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine; Marine 

Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine 

Palms, California; Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris 

Island, South Carolina; Naval Submarine Base, New 

London, Connecticut; Naval Medical Center San 

Diego, California; Naval Base, San Diego, California; 

and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, 

Maryland, continue to operate and provided cogeneration credits contributing 2.8 percent of the Navy’s energy reduction. The Naval Training Center Great 

Lakes, Chicago, Illinois, 10-megawatt cogeneration 

project was scheduled to be completed by December 

2005. No local natural resources (biomass, geothermal, 

etc.) were available to utilize in these projects. 

In the Army, in addition to the centrally funded program, the installations also used their O&M funds to 

implement energy saving projects such as - upgrade 

boilers and distribution systems, improved high effi54 
ciency pumps and motors, and updated system controls. Army regions and installations, along with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, evaluate the deployment of 

highly efficient energy systems for all new construction 

and major retrofit projects and incorporate these systems where cost-effective. 

Distributed Generation 

DOD is pursuing distributed and off-grid generation 

where it is life cycle cost-effective to provide peak 

saving opportunities and energy security. Typical applications include micro-turbines, fuel cells, cogeneration plants, flywheels and back-up generators. 

In the Air Force, March AFB California is installing a 

300-kilowatt photovoltaic system above a carport 

structure. Eielson AFB will complete installation of 

small wind generators and improved solar controllers at 

23 remote sites. 

The Navy uses off-grid generation for island installations, and remote applications. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, installed four wind turbines totaling 

3.8 megawatts, providing 25 percent of the power for 

this isolated facility. Diesel engine generators were 

overhauled and provide the remaining off-grid power. 

Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, British Indian 

Ocean Territory, installed solar street lighting fixtures 

in various areas of the base. 

Naval Base Coronado, California, installed Solar Powered light emitting diode (LED) lights at the Naval Air 

Station North Island Fishing Pier. 

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, installed one 

mile of solar lighting along a perimeter fence and 

multi-use pathway. 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, installed more than 200 solar-powered street lights and 

caution lights over the past several years, and expanded 

the technology to provide solar-powered lighting at bus 

stops, carport electric vehicle charging stations, wastewater overflow detection stations, and notification and 

communication systems. In FY 2006, the base will 

install 100 new streetlights at remote, off-grid locations. 

Other installations installed renewable power systems 

that are grid connected but reduce outside grid demand. 

These include a 30-kilowatt photovoltaic system at 

Naval Base Point Loma, California, a 20-kilowatt 

photovoltaic system at Naval Air Facility El Centro, 

California, and a 300-kilowatt photovoltaic system at 

Navy Region Hawaii. 

The Navy continues to validate the performance and 

cost of Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells 

power plants in combined heat and power applications. 

Although PEM technology has made progress toward 

viable commercial products, there are still substantial 

durability, reliability, and availability issues that remain (e.g., due to hydrogen processing techniques, the 

PEM fuel stack becomes contaminated and can fail 

with as little as 6 months of continuous operation). The 

following installations are hosting the fuel cell demonstrations: 

• Naval Base Coronado, California (five power 

plants); 

• Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, California (three power plants); 

• Naval Base Ventura County, California (two 

power plants); and 

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hawaii, 

Peal Harbor, Hawaii (one power plant). 

All the fuel cells extract hydrogen from natural gas 

except for the plant at Pearl Harbor, which processes 

propane. The intent of the demonstration is to assess 

the performance, operations, maintenance, and repair 

requirements of the PEM fuel cells. The fuel cell power 

plants will operate for one year under this program. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

In the Air Force, Cheyenne Mountain AFS Colorado, 

uses generators to their advantage by being on the “super peak” kilowatcher tariff and runs the generators 

when the local utility calls for load shedding. 

Beale AFB continues to operate a radio system to limit 

demand by controlling electric water heaters and air 

conditioning units. The system allows the base to curtail demand by over one megawatt (about 10 percent) 

when electricity shortages are probable. 

FY 2005 marked the fourth year the USAF Academy 

participated in Demand Side Management efforts during “super peak” periods called by the local utility. The 

Academy’s automated DSM program duty-cycled noncritical fan and pump motor loads to achieve approximately 4 percent reduction in peak power demand 

during the scheduled periods. 

The Navy is validating the performance of energy 

technologies such as cool roofs, heat pipes, air conditioning compressors with integrated variable speed 

drives, air conditioning duct sealants, high efficiency 

air conditioning systems, scotopic lighting and destratification fans. The results of the demonstrations will be 

used to guide installations on the life cycle cost benefits of using these technologies to reduce electrical 

loads. 

55 
Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan, de-lamped excessive 

lighting, shortened the A/C season by four weeks, encouraged people to turn off the air conditioning 30 

minutes before the office closed, turned off lights during lunch, controlled lighting by using a card-key system in BEQ/BOQ, installed T-8 lamps, CFL, LED exit 

lights and photocells in all newly built or renovated 

spaces, and restricted room temperature controls. 

Naval Air Facility El Centro, California, shut down 

unoccupied bachelor quarters and hangars by turning 

the HVAC system off and unplugging all appliances. 

HVAC systems throughout the base were adjusted and 

Direct Digital Controls were used to turn temperatures 

in occupied office buildings and hangars to 78 degrees 

during the cooling months and 65 degrees during the 

heating months. The two flight-line compressors were 

shut down on weekends and during holidays. HVAC 

systems were shut down in unoccupied buildings during government holidays. HVAC scheduling was applied to the Navy Exchange, various MWR buildings, 

and all office buildings using the direct digital control 

system. 

Naval Base Ventura County, California, replaced photocells and/or time controls to eliminate outdoor lights 

remaining on during daylight hours and shutdown nonessential galley refrigeration units. 

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California, raised 

temperature set point and shortened hours of operation 

in air conditioned buildings, removed or disabled 15 

window air conditioners, and removed 35 personal 

refrigerators. 

Army installations use a variety of methods to reduce 

peak load and demand. In FY 2005, many Army installations in the Western part of the United States 

continued to take advantage of projects developed and 

initiated in FY 2004 based on the findings from the 

Western Power Grid Peak Demand and Energy Reduction Program. These studies provided a site-wide assessment of the energy-saving potential at the installation. 

Other installations use other energy consumption and 

cost savings measures. For example, Fort Gordon employs diesel generators to manage its peak load. Fort 

Gordon leases 13.5 megawatts of diesel generator assets from the 249th Prime Power Program. The generators allow Fort Gordon to peak shave the electrical 

load shape which amounts to at least $300,000 in annual savings or credits. Fort Lewis has various energy 

projects in which they do load shedding. Other installations use energy management control systems and 

utility monitoring control systems (UMCS) for peak 

shaving. 

In the DeCA, California, stores turn off 50 percent of 

sales area lighting during load reduction warning periods. All stores with electronic Refrigeration Monitoring and Control Systems turn off 50 percent of sales 

area and all display case lighting during non-business 

hours. 

Energy Management Contact 

Commander Robert Tomiak 

Associated Director, Utilities and Energy Management 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations and Environment) 

Department of Defense 

3400 Defense Pentagon, Room 3D784 

Washington, D.C. 20301-3400 

Phone: 703-571-9074 

Fax: 703-693-5659 

Email: robert.tomiak@osd.mil 

56 
D. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 

Management and Administration 

Within the Department of Energy (DOE), the Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is the Senior Agency Official responsible 

for advocating policy, programs, and new initiatives to 

take appropriate actions to conserve energy at DOE 

facilities to the maximum extent consistent with the 

effective discharge of public responsibilities. The head 

of this organization is ideally suited to the role of the 

Senior Agency Official, since the organization is responsible for conducting research in energy conservation and renewable energy technologies and for accomplishing energy conservation actions at DOE 

facilities through the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). During FY 2005, The Acting Program 

Manager was the agency official responsible for implementing the policies, programs, and new initiatives 

of the Assistant Secretary at DOE facilities and for 

accomplishing the requirements of public law, Executive Order 13123, and the Presidential Directive of 

May 3, 2001, “Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities.” 

The agency energy team at headquarters is FEMP’s 

Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP) 

Team. In addition to the energy team at headquarters, 

DOE also has a team of energy management professionals from headquarters, DOE Field Offices, and 

sites called the Energy Efficiency Working Group 

(EEWG), which is sponsored by FEMP. This group has 

a goal of promoting excellence in energy management 

through the active exchange of timely management and 

technical information. Working meetings are conducted two to three times a year. 

The DEMP staff is the expert staff within FEMP that 

advocates energy efficiency and the cost effective acquisition of energy supplies and services for DOE facilities. The team provides support to the EEWG, and 

Senior Agency Official by drafting plans and policy, 

budgets, and reports for DOE’s energy and utility management efforts. They also assist the DOE Program 

Office’s in drafting the Energy and Utilities Management Performance Agreements, which are negotiated 

with the DOE Field Offices and sites. 

The DOE Energy Coordinators and Utility Coordinators are designated persons at DOE Operations Offices 

and Field Offices responsible for acquiring utility services and for coordinating energy conservation actions 

and other energy initiatives at the sites. Implementation 

is carried out primarily through Management and Operating Contractors since the majority of DOE sites are 

managed and operated by the private sector or not-forprofit divisions of universities. 

Site energy coordinators are individuals designated by 

their site management as responsible for advocating 

energy efficiency at the site. These individuals prepare 

plans and reports, often initiating projects and support 

activities and other DOE energy management projects 

at their sites. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

The Departmental Energy Management Awards were 

established in FY 1979 by the In-House Energy Management Program of the Department, which is now part 

of the Federal Energy Management Program under the 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Each year, these awards are presented to 

DOE personnel in recognition of their outstanding 

contributions toward energy and dollar savings at DOE 

facilities and field organizations. Many DOE organizations have employee incentive programs to reward exceptional performance in implementing Executive Order 13123. 

Training and Education 

Technical training and energy awareness activities 

continue to be a large component of site programs. 

During FY 2005, DOE organizations reported training 

137 employees in energy management. 

Showcase Facilities 

Many DOE facilities do not qualify as potential Federal 

Energy Saver Showcase Facilities because visitation is 

restricted because of national security or safety reasons. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOE reported a 52.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOE used 224,043 Btu per gross square foot in its 

standard buildings during the year. DOE received 

credit for purchases of 301.3 billion Btu of renewable 

energy, lowering the energy intensity of these facilities 

from 228,523 Btu per square foot to 224,043 Btu per 

square foot. 

This reduction is partially due to reduced mission-related activities and overall downsizing of operations 

57 
and facilities. As manpower is reduced and facilities 

are closed, efforts are ongoing to consolidate operations and minimize energy use in vacated buildings. 

The reduced energy use in vacated buildings will be 

accomplished through shutting off or setback of HVAC 

systems, lighting, transformers, and other building 

equipment usage. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

In FY 2005, DOE’s laboratory and industrial facilities 

saw a reduction in Btu per gross square feet of 26.8 

percent since FY 1990. This reduction is mainly attributable to reduced mission-related activities and overall 

downsizing of operations and facilities. 

DOE used 291,615 Btu per gross square foot in its 

energy intensive facilities during the year. DOE 

received credit for purchases of 185.9 billion Btu of 

renewable energy for these facilities, lowering the 

energy intensity from 299,269 Btu per square foot to 

291,615 Btu per square foot. 

Exempt Facilities 

Most of DOE’s facilities that are proposed for exemption are currently reported under the metered process 

category and have been scaled back operationally to 

prepare for decontamination and decommissioning. 

These facilities have traditionally been energy intensive operations that will in many cases dominate the 

energy consumption being reported at the site and the 

site consumption will vary in direct relationship to the 

energy consumption of these facilities. Traditional energy conservation measures will not significantly effect 

the energy consumption that will be reported for these 

facilities, and it would be impractical to meet the goals 

with these facilities included in other than the exempt 

category. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) uses incentives to encourage a rideshare program such as parking 

priority for the building garage. BPA encourages mass 

transit and has provided a new park and ride station. 

BPA also provides free transit tickets for employees 

traveling on short trips for business and training. 

Savannah River Site (SRS) has purchased alternative 

fueled vehicles that use E85 fuel for over 75 percent of 

its light duty fleet vehicles. In FY 2005, SRS consumed 

over 300,000 gallons of clean burning E85 fuel, reducing petroleum use. 

In FY 2005, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

purchased 11 ethanol-burning vehicles, bringing the 

total to 91 since 1999. 

In 2005, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

Facility (TJNAF) replaced two gasoline powered vehicles with E85 vehicles. The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) purchased three additional 

Neighborhood Electrical Vehicles (NEVs) in FY 2005, 

bringing the total to 24 NEVs at the site. The batteryoperated NEVs allow SLAC to discontinue lease of 

some GSA gasoline-powered vehicles. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, DOE facilities reported using a total of 

15.3 billion Btu of self-generated energy, comprised of 

132.4 megawatthours of self-generated electricity, 

130.2 million Btu of renewable thermal energy, and 

4,300 megawatthours of “other” renewable energy. 

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Records Storage 

Facility includes a solar wall that provides heat, resulting in approximately $1,250 per year in avoided 

energy costs for space conditioning. INL used a total of 

120 million Btu of self-generated renewable thermal 

energy during the year. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) generates about 53.0 megawatthours of electricity from 

grid-connected PV panels each year. These panels are 

located at the Solar Energy Research Facility, the STM 

Site Entrance Building, the Outdoor Test Facility, the 

National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) Site Entrance Building, and the Distributed Energy Resources 

(DER) Test Facility, as well as remote applications 

including signs, walkway lights and parking lighting. 

The NWTC has approximately 1.6 megawatts of installed wind turbine capacity used for research purposes. The energy produced is used to offset simultaneous NWTC site energy use. The turbines produced 

over 60.0 megawatthours in FY 2005. Total self-generated electricity at NREL was 113.0 megawatthours. 

NREL also reported using 10.2 million Btu of self-generated renewable thermal energy during the year. 

The Hanford Site utilizes two mobile and 41 fixed solar-powered emergency sirens. Each siren is powered 

by two 120-watt panels totaling 240 watts and producing 12 volts. This year the Hanford Site Emergency 

and Alerting System (HSEAS) included the installation 

of two new low-power AM broadcast stations and 

renovation of two existing radio station sites. The stations’ antennas and broadcast equipment are powered 

by a solar-charged battery system. 

The Hanford Site also completed a project to install 

remote operated isolation valves on its export water 

system. This project incorporated a series of solar 

58 
charging stations and new, remote-operated valves and 

pressure transmitters to provide monitoring and control 

capabilities from the water plant control room. 

Under normal conditions, produced fluids at Naval 

Petroleum Reserve (NPR) #3 are heated by burning 

natural gas to augment separation of oil and water in its 

treatment facilities. NPR #3 has naturally occurring, 

flowing hot water supply and production wells. Field 

staff has routed some of the hot water to “pre-heat” 

produced fluids and buildings to reduce the consumption of natural gas. 

DOE Headquarters (Headquarters) installed 7-kilowatt 

photovoltaic arrays and solar water collectors at the 

Germantown, Maryland, and Forrestal building child 

development centers. Headquarters also installed 

photovoltaic arrays on the south side of the South 

Building. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

On April 20, 2000, the Secretary of Energy directed 

DOE to purchase three percent of its total electricity 

needs from non-hydro renewable energy sources by 

2005, and 7.5 percent of its total electricity purchases 

from renewable sources by 2010. At 3.3 percent, DOE 

has met the requirement at the end of FY 2005 to 

purchase three percent of its total electricity needs from 

non-hydro renewable energy sources. 

In certain cases, DOE officials may find that electricity 

produced from renewable power costs more than electricity produced using other energy sources, such as 

conventional fossil fuels. In those instances, DOE will 

cover the incremental costs with money saved from 

energy projects, savings obtained through lower energy 

costs as a result of retail electric competition, contract 

negotiations with utility companies, and utility rate 

reductions. By combining the lower cost of electricity 

with some portion of moderately more expensive renewable electricity, DOE will not increase its overall 

utility budget. During FY 2005, DOE purchased 

54,727.7 megawatthours of green power at a cost of 

$3.0 million. 

The Richland Operation’s Office 10-year Power Sales 

Agreement (2002-2011) with BPA provides for the 

purchase of 1.5 megawatts of Environmentally Preferred Power (EPP) for the first five-year rate period. 

EPP is generated from endorsed hydroelectric generating facilities, wind projects, and other endorsed projects. Through this agreement, the Hanford Site received credit for purchasing 11,206.0 megawatthours 

during FY 2005, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) received credit for purchasing 1,918 

megawatthours of renewable electricity. 

PNNL also acquired 9,250 megawatthours of local 

wind power from the Stateline Wind Farm. In total, 

PNNL is able to claim that in FY 2005, the lab was 

approximately 16.5 percent green-powered, its highest 

percentage ever. 

Headquarters purchased 16,443 megawatthours of renewable electricity for the Germantown campus and 

Forrestal building. The FY 2005 amount accounts for 

44 percent of Headquarters’ electric power consumption and 23.5 percent of the total energy consumption. 

During FY 2005, NETL purchased 786 megawatthours 

of renewable energy from its electric power supplier. 

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve also purchased 

1,720.0 megawatthours of renewable energy credits. 

NREL purchased approximately 97 percent of its total 

electrical use of 16.2 gigawatthours of its DOE-owned 

buildings in renewable energy certificates (RECs), a 

purchase of 15.7 gigawatthours. When these RECs 

were purchased earlier in FY 2005, in order to achieve 

100 percent coverage of electrical use, it was estimated 

the FY 2005 electrical energy use would be equal to 

that of FY 2004 or 15.6 gigawatthours. Since the actual 

electrical consumption was higher, to true up the purchase difference, additional energy will be purchased 

as a part of the FY 2006 REC purchase. Twenty-three 

percent of the FY 2005 purchase was made through 

Community Energy, Inc. These RECs were from a 

small, rural wind project owned by the City of Lamar 

and the Arkansas River Power Authority. Seventythree percent of this purchase was made through the 

Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency 

Master Purchase Agreement. The RECs for this agreement are derived from biomass resources in California. 

The remaining RECs were purchased through the Xcel 

Energy Windsource program. 

Petroleum 

Since FY 1985, DOE has substantially reduced its use 

of petroleum-based fuels in its facilities. In FY 2005, 

DOE reduced consumption of fuel oil in all of its facilities by 47.8 percent from 19.0 million gallons in FY 

1985 to 9.9 million gallons in FY 2005. The use of 

LPG/propane was reduced 58.8 percent during the period, a reduction of 843,000 gallons. 

Hanford Site’s FY 2005 petroleum-based fuel consumption indicates a 75.6 percent decrease from the FY 

1985 baseline. This achievement continues to be made 

possible by the ESPC contractor replacing old steam 

plant facilities in 1998 with new portable boilers running on high-quality diesel and natural gas. Both fuels 

burn cleaner than heavy oil. 

59 
Petroleum based fuels used in buildings at National 

Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Site Office 

sites consist specifically of fuel oil used in buildings at 

the Nevada Test Site. Consumption for FY 1985 was 

318,852 gallons while consumption for FY 2005 was 

137,392 gallons, a reduction in consumption of 56.9 

percent. 

Water Conservation 

DOE recognizes the potential to save money and natural resources through water conservation. To meet the 

goals of Executive Order 13123, facilities are using 

life-cycle cost-effective measures to reduce water consumption and associated energy use. DOE also encouraged its field offices and sites to include water management plans within their facility management plans. 

DOE sites reported using 5.6 billion gallons of water 

during FY 2005 costing $13.6 million. 

Hanford Site’s total water produced/purchased for FY 

2005 was 268.9 million gallons, a reduction of 17.28 

percent from the FY 2000 baseline of 325.1 million 

gallons. The reduced water need for fire suppression 

activities, post-wildfire dust control, and tree planting, 

as well as construction dust suppression activities and 

facility stand downs, accounted for the majority of the 

decline. Water consumption declined 9.8 percent from 

FY 2004 to FY 2005 due to facility closures and employee reductions. 

PPPL has successfully minimized the use of potable 

water through an agreement with the State of New Jersey to draw raw water from the Delaware and Raritan 

canal. Potable water consumption decreased by approximately 14 percent during FY 2005. 

Approximately 58.8 million gallons of water was consumed this year at TJNAF. The bulk of the water used 

is directly related to process or facility heat rejection 

and is recycled. Sealing water, when used for its intended purpose, is collected and pumped to the cooling 

towers as feed water. This eliminates a waste stream 

and recycles 1.4 million gallons of water per year. 

Also, separate metering has been installed for lawn 

sprinklers. Lawn sprinkling is adjusted for rainfall and 

is kept to the minimum level. This provision is included in the grounds maintenance subcontract and 

performance is monitored regularly. Also, the laboratory implements seven of 10 BMPs for water on all 

building water systems on the campus. 

In FY 2005, PNNL installed 14 Infra-Red (IR) handsfree faucets and 19 IR flushometers. PNNL continues 

to conserve water from the Columbia River using the 

advanced landscaping methods and strategies developed and implemented in FY 2002. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Fermilab conducted life cycle cost (LCC) analysis on 

each of its energy conservation projects developed 

during FY 2005 to ensure feasibility and help identify 

optimal solutions. These same principles are employed 

in the design of general construction. Two LCC costeffective energy conservation projects were developed 

in FY 2005 that will pay back DOE investment costs 

within five years, and were funded by DEMP to help 

the lab follow through on EPACT requirements. 

In FY 2005, SRS continued an aggressive deactivation 

and decommissioning (D&D) program in various site 

facilities. The intent of this program is to ensure accelerated environmental clean-up of the site. The scope of 

this effort includes the decommissioning of 225 facilities by the end of FY 2006. Many of these are energyconsuming facilities while a large number are not. The 

shutdown and physical removal of site facilities as part 

of the accelerated D&D program was certainly the best 

evidence of LCC analysis at work at SRS. 

Facility Energy Audits 

DOE sites are working to meet the Executive Order 

13123 goal of conducting energy and water audits for 

approximately 10 percent of their facilities each year. 

Audits are conducted independently, through ESPCs or 

UESCs. From FY 1992 to FY 2005, more than 90 

percent of DOE’s total facility space received energy 

audits. 

DEMP funding was utilized in FY 2005 to complete a 

Model Program entitled “Retro-Commissioning of BArea Laboratory Facilities” in four SRS facilities. For 

this project, retro-commissioning procedures specifically targeted at energy efficiency improvements in the 

buildings were implemented. ORNL staff was selected 

to conduct the technical development and front-end 

implementation of the project due to the exploratory 

nature of procedure development and previous 

extensive involvement with development of energy 

assessment and re-commissioning procedures for energy efficiency projects. ORNL also has extensive energy management experience in laboratory environments. The primary objective of the project was to 

conduct re-commissioning assessment and testing of 

important energy systems in the facilities. This led to 

development of recommendations for energy system 

modifications, which in turn resulted in facility improvements and energy cost savings. This project confirmed experience from previous projects that adaptation of energy systems sometimes allows significant 

savings potential to be achieved, but special interventions from facility staff are often required. 

60 
During FY 2005, NETL successfully passed both 

ISO14001 Semi-annual Surveillance Audits and will 

maintain its ISO14001 Certification. NETL has identified 10 significant Environmental Aspects which can 

be controlled or influenced by planned or new developments, or new or modified activities, product and 

services. One of the Significant Environmental Aspects 

identified is Energy and Fuel Usage. This Aspect was 

comprised of six targets: improving the energy management program, reducing energy use per square foot, 

increasing purchase of electricity from clean sources, 

reducing petroleum consumption, acquiring more alternative fuel vehicles, increasing the usage rate of 

alternative fuel in vehicles, and attaining LEED 

certification for NETL’s new building design and 

construction 

At PNNL, two buildings, the Environmental Technology Building (ETB) and the National Security Building 

(NSB), were re-audited in FY 2005 after analyzing the 

metered end use data for FY 2004 to provide improved 

energy use baselines. These baselines are now used to 

determine when energy use is considered excessive and 

re-commissioning is required. In the process of performing these energy audits, PNNL identified many 

operational no-cost or low-cost ECMs that could be 

done in its facilities. Many of these ECMs involved 

developing better control strategies using its METASYS building control system to shut off, reduce runtime, or eliminate wasteful heating and cooling practices. This was developed into a continuous recommissioning process that continues in all PNNL and 

Battelle facilities. This strategy was implemented in the 

leased ETB and NSB buildings in FY 2005. This is 

more challenging in leased facilities as there is no direct access to the operational parameters and control 

strategies and partnerships must be developed with the 

building owner/operators. 

Financing Mechanisms 

DEMP received $1.95 million in appropriations for FY 

2005. Funds received in FY 2005 were distributed 

between activities to introduce new energy management practices into DOE sites through Model Program 

Development, and funding support for energy projects 

through Energy Retrofit Project Support, that provide 

known energy savings and reductions in energy use. In 

this way, DOE sustains an effective program balance 

between implementing new initiatives for energy management emphasizing best practices and achieving 

known quantifiable energy savings through retrofit 

projects. 

Through an agency-wide competition, nine sites 

received Energy Retrofit Project Support funds and 

eight sites received funds for Model Program 

Development. The retrofit projects will save 25.7 

billion Btu annually. The Government will save 

approximately $303,000 per year in avoided utilities 

and maintenance costs when these projects are 

completed. 

At the Hanford Site, two BPA projects totaling 

$515,730 in FY 2003 alternative funding were continued during FY 2005. Completion of these projects will 

reduce electricity costs by approximately $167,614 and 

provide an annualized energy savings of over 4.8 gigawatthours. One of the alternative financed projects 

completed during FY 2005 was Project L-327, 100 

Area Export Water Pumps Replacement. Three energyefficient 2400-volt motors/pumps were installed at the 

50-year-old 182B export water pumping facility. Flows 

for the new system are expected to range from 500­

9,300 gallons per minute. This project is based on energy savings and will utilize a variable-speed magnadrive coupler on the 250-hp pump, between the motor 

and pump to control water flow during times of low 

demand and during pump transition periods. An estimated savings of approximately 3.3 gigawatthours per 

year has been calculated with the implementation of 

this new pumping configuration. 

PNNL had three BPA projects totaling $95,200 in alternative funding undertaken or completed during FY 

2005. The 326 Building Variable Frequency Drive 

(VFD) project added VFDs to a 100 HP exhaust fan 

and to a 15 HP supply fan. These 326 VFDs will save 

an estimated 187.9 megawatthours per year. The 331 

Building VFD project added VFDs to two 100 HP supply fans and to two 50 HP exhaust fans for a measured 

savings of 549.4 megawatthours per year. The other 

project was the National Security Building 

(NSB)/Environmental Technology Building (ETB) recommissioning project which used previously installed 

sub-metering in the building to determine why energy 

usage in ETB is climbing at a faster rate than its mirror 

image twin (NSB building). Analyses of the energy use 

data identified 714.4 megawatthours per year that 

could be saved with minimal changes in building operations. These changes will be implemented during 

FY 2006. Savings from these three projects will provide an annual energy savings of 1.5 gigawatthours and 

a reduction of utility costs of about $82,175. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

Fermilab promoted the purchase of ENERGY STAR and 

FEMP-recommended products, and continued to notify 

engineers, designers, and buyers in the procurement 

department of available rebates on such goods. Specific 

language to this effect was also incorporated in guide 

specifications for new construction and in product 

61 
specifications. Fermilab acquisition systems also incorporated recommendations for low standby power 

products from FEMP’s “Standby Power Data Center” 

into purchasing decisions. 

NETL purchases ENERGY STAR products and other 

energy-efficient products. This is accomplished 

through NETL’s procurement group which has 

ENERGY STAR products incorporated into their procurement packages. The majority of the ENERGY STAR 

products are associated with computer equipment. 

NETL incorporates energy efficient products such as 

HVAC equipment into their designs using EPA’s and 

DOE’s FEMP guidelines. 

Over the last year NREL has deployed Verdiem’s 

(formerly EZConserv) Surveyor tool to some 1,143 

PCs throughout the Laboratory. This is nearly 100 percent of the PCs at the Laboratory that can appropriately 

be managed. This tool tracks computer modes (on, off, 

standby) and power management settings. It also has 

the capability to centrally shut down computers at predetermined times and set power management settings. 

A pilot program to implement automatic shutdown and 

set aggressive power management setting was implemented during FY 2004 and continued into FY 2005. A 

web-interface of Surveyor data was developed so that 

staff can easily access personal use data on a real-time 

basis. 

TJNAF uses energy efficient products where possible. 

One example of this is the use of low-mercury fluorescent lamps. Air conditioners and new computers are 

purchased with an ENERGY STAR rating. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

In FY 2005, BNL obtained the ENERGY STAR designation for the DOE Brookhaven Site Office. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Fermilab’s LEED principles and standards have been 

increasingly integrated into the lab’s design practices. 

In FY 2005, a second member of the Facilities Engineering Group became a LEED-Accredited Professional. All projects are analyzed at the conceptual design review stage for conformance to LEED standards. 

In FY 2005, this amounted to five projects. The lab 

routinely receives credit for water efficient landscaping, use of low-emitting materials, alternate transportation, and reduced site disturbance. The routine use of 

direct digital control (DDC) technology also positions 

the lab to often receive credit for measurement and 

verification and carbon dioxide monitoring. 

INL Energy Management currently has seven LEED 

accredited professionals and is working to incorporate 

sustainable design criteria into the INL Architectural 

Engineering standards and to champion sustainable 

principles for design and operations personnel. DEMP 

Model Program funding was provided in FY 2005 to 

provide LEED direction and technical support for the 

INL’s new Radiological and Environmental Sciences 

Laboratory (RESL) facility. This Model Program 

championed sustainable design principles for the RESL 

during conceptual design by providing technical direction on LEED qualification points, design and drawing 

review, and the development of a display model of the 

new RESL facility. This model showcases the various 

sustainable concepts included in the design and has 

been displayed at numerous functions, including Earth 

Day and a site open house. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Approximately one half of NREL employees currently 

occupy leased office space. These leases have been 

renewed through 2008. NREL’s leases include clauses 

that open the door for NREL and the lessor to “enter 

into negotiations with the object of equitably sharing 

the capital costs and benefits of energy efficiency improvements.” While small energy efficiency projects 

(lighting) have been completed with the current lessor, 

there has not been sufficient interest on the part of the 

lessor to promote additional, higher-cost energy efficiency projects in NREL’s leased spaces. NREL does, 

however, encourage employees to save energy and 

water in their own workspaces and operations. 

SLAC leased three modular office units in FY 2005 to 

provide temporary office space until a permanent office 

building is constructed. Energy conservation specifications for the units were met or exceeded when the units 

were assembled. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

At SRS, boiler controls for boiler #2 at the 784-A 

steam plant were upgraded in FY 2005 from old, inefficient pneumatic controls to new state-of-the-art multiloop digital controllers. This followed a previous upgrade of the controls for the other boiler unit. The 

combustion controller controls air flow, furnace draft, 

and oxygen trim, as well as the induced-draft/forcedraft fan speed. The boiler master controller controls 

firing rate, drum level, and feedwater flow. The plant 

master controller provides control based on steam 

header pressure or boiler steam flow. The successful 

installation and startup of the new controls on these 

boilers to provide support for the Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) project will save SRS approximately $200,000 each year that the DUS project 

requires steam. 

62 
During FY 2005, BNL, with regard to efficiency in energy intensive facilities has rescheduled 30 megawatts 

of demand to avoid coinciding with the utility summer 

peak; obtained DEMP funding for two projects: Free 

Cooling at the Central Chilled Water Facility and 

Steam Manhole Insulation; and construction of a 

1,300-ton satellite chiller project that will displace 

older, less efficient chillers. 

During FY 2005, NETL’s B-94 Analytical Chemistry 

Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, installed three new 

satellite natural gas-fired high efficiency multi-stage 

low pressure hot water boilers. During the fourth 

quarter of FY 2005, NETL awarded a construction 

contract to install two new central steam plant natural 

gas-fired boilers at its Morgantown, West Virginia site. 

When installed, these new boilers will be more energy 

efficient and have automated controls for better operational efficiencies. 

PPPL’s Central Plant has four boilers with dual-fuel 

capability. Boiler fuel can be either natural gas or No. 2 

fuel oil when cost effective and allowed by the supplier. The boilers operate primarily on natural gas. In 

addition to normal maintenance, a project was completed during FY 2005 to further improve efficiency by 

converting the four boilers in the Central Plant to use 

No. 2 fuel oil as well as natural gas to allow for efficient operations under different energy market conditions. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

The TJNAF Lab’s new CEBAF Center addition is a 

heat pump system with ground-coupled heat “storage.” 

A significant fraction of the heat removed from the 

building in the summer will be captured by the heat 

pumps in the winter to heat the building. 

Distributed Generation 

NNSA/NSO has distributed generation sites using solar 

panels for local power in remote areas and emergency 

backup generators for some facilities, but no 

generation-specific resources that supply a regular 

power source. 

At NREL, a 900-watt wind turbine at NWTC Site Entrance Building was installed and placed in operation. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

Fermilab extended its participation in voluntary power 

curtailment programs with the local electric utility in 

FY 2005. The contract curtailment load target remained at 25.0 megawatts and durations from the previous year were maintained. Due to mild weather and 

supply improvements, Fermilab was not called upon to 

curtail load this year. 

As in previous years, BNL participated in LIPA’s Peak 

Load Curtailment Program during the summer of FY 

2005. Upon notification by the utility that a critical day 

was in progress, all employees as well as the operators 

of critical facilities were notified and asked to reduce 

power consumption. BNL contracted to reduce electric 

demand by 4 megawatts during critical periods. However, LIPA did not call any reduction periods in 2005 

due to recent capacity additions, despite record temperatures and demand. 

Many electrical load reduction measures described in 

the Hanford Site’s Electrical Load Curtailment Plan 

have been implemented, reducing the load available for 

reduction in any subsequent emergency situation. Activities conducted during FY 2005 that contributed to 

this effort include reducing lighting, HVAC, office 

equipment, other electrical equipment, shutdown/ deactivating facilities, and downsizing/removing transformers. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Brian Connor 

Team Lead, Departmental Energy Management 

U.S. Department of Energy, EE-2L 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Phone: 202-586-3756 

Fax: 202-586-0233 

Email: brian.connor@ee.doe.gov 

63 
E. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) 

Management and Administration 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) has established a centralized energy program to 

coordinate the energy and water conservation efforts, 

facilitate alternative financing of energy and water 

projects, promote federal energy programs, manage an 

extensive energy awareness campaign, and provide 

information and assistance to meet the federal energy 

management goals. 

The HHS Senior Energy Agency Official is the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. 

The six HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs) that manage real property have also submitted FY 2005 annual 

energy reports in compliance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13123. These OPDIVs are the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA), the Indian Health 

Service (IHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 

the Office of the Secretary (OS), and the Program Support Center (PSC). Each OPDIV has identified their 

energy and water efficiency efforts, which are highlighted in the detailed sections of this report. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

The annual HHS Energy and Water Management 

Awards Program recognizes the exceptional performance of HHS energy management personnel in implementing projects, programs, and alternative financing 

contracts to meet the requirements of the various Executive Orders and laws. In FY 2005, 23 award winners were honored as part of the HHS Energy and Water Management Awards. These individuals and organizations reduced energy and water use through a wide 

range of energy projects and programs. The use of 

alternative financing, Department of Energy (DOE) 

Industrial Assessment Centers for energy auditing, 

waterside economizer and heat recovery systems, 

boiler plant upgrades, lighting timers, direct digital 

controls, and strong management support of the implementation of energy projects by these award winners have led to significant annual energy and water 

savings. 

The HHS Energy Program relies on such outreach tools 

as seminars, newsletters, awareness events, and afterhours energy audits to inform employees about their 

energy-saving performance. In addition, HHS Operating Divisions incorporate life-cycle cost analyses, sustainable design, ENERGY STAR equipment procurement, 

and renewable energy technology in design policy and 

guidelines for new construction and renovation projects. 

HHS uses the “You Have the Power” campaign Energy 

Champion posters to recognize individuals and small 

groups for their outstanding efforts in energy and water 

efficiency. In FY 2005, an Energy Champion poster 

and an Energy Project Poster were published for HHS. 

In addition, CDC, IHS, and OS used internal awards 

programs in FY 2005 to recognize individuals for their 

work on improving central plant efficiency and increasing energy awareness. CDC currently uses the 

cash incentive award system to award exceptional 

overall and on-the-spot exceptional performances over 

and beyond the employee’s everyday responsibilities. 

The IHS Albuquerque and Bemidji Areas use Area 

Director’s Awards Programs to recognize energy saving projects and individual initiatives. The IHS Portland area uses an “on-the-spot” awards program to 

motivate efforts. 

Training and Education 

In FY 2005, 91 HHS energy personnel received training in energy and water efficiency topics. This training 

included OPDIV specific workshops, DOE Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP) classes, and 

utility or manufacturer-sponsored training. The subject 

content of the courses covered the broad spectrum of 

energy and water efficiency, varying from specific 

equipment instruction to alternative financing techniques and sustainable design. 

In FY 2005, the HHS Energy Program sponsored a 

one-day energy workshop held in conjunction with the 

HHS Energy and Water Management Awards Ceremony. The workshop focused on green power procurement, water efficiency opportunities, and renewable energy project applications. In addition, the HHS 

Energy Officer and support contractor held three specific energy sessions for IHS covering topics such as 

energy funding, reduction requirements, sustainable 

design, and an energy and water efficiency overview 

for the highest level of IHS facility management. These 

OPDIV-specific training sessions offered an arena to 

meet the needs of IHS and generated new tasks to enhance the energy efficiency efforts of the Areas. 

The IHS Alaska Area provided energy management 

and conservation training to staff engineers in FY 

2005. IHS engineers participated in many energy conservation seminars and workshops that focused on 

relevant topics such as the energy conservation ele64 
ments of HVAC and direct digital control (DDC) systems and energy awareness. The FEMP energy awareness publications and information have been channeled 

to the facility managers for implementation at their 

sites. 

NIH sponsored the 4th Annual DHHS Environmental 

Networking Conference in May 2005, at the Lister Hill 

Auditorium of the Bethesda campus. More than 20 

NIH personnel including environmental, planning, 

utilities, and engineering staff attended the conference. 

The conference included sessions on green procurement, sustainability, biodiesel as an alternate fuel, and 

an overview of the HHS Energy Program. 

OS and PSC sponsored major Earth Day Expos in FY 

2005, highlighting sustainability and choices that employees can make in their everyday lives to conserve 

energy, water, and natural resources. The expos were 

entitled “The Price is Green” and was based on the 

Price is Right game show. Vendors displayed products 

and provided information on alternative fueled vehicles, water conservation, solar energy, electricity deregulation, local environmental organizations, ENERGY 

STAR homes and appliances, air duct sealing, home 

energy audits, backyard habitats, green power procurement, and recycling. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, HHS reported a 19.8 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

HHS used an estimated 76,596 Btu per gross square 

foot in its standard buildings during the year. Only ten 

percent of the HHS square footage is considered standard space. 

The FY 2005 energy consumption rate for standard 

facilities is 7.9 percent lower than the FY 2004 usage. 

The reduced consumption is primarily due to a major 

decrease of energy use at the PSC Parklawn Building. 

In the beginning of FY 2005, the PSC facility management installed separate electricity meters on a 

10,328 square foot data center and found that it used 

28.5 percent of the total electricity consumed by the 

building. This is a very large percentage of energy consumption for a space that is only 0.6 percent of the 

building’s square footage and that cannot be subject to 

energy conservation measures. The electricity used by 

the data center for the year was then exempted from the 

overall consumption for the building. The square footage for the data center was also subtracted from the 

facility’s total square footage. The result of this concise 

energy monitoring is a more accurate reflection of the 

electricity consumption in the building with the computer data center excluded. The data center was exempted per the provisions of Executive Order 13123 

for exempt facilities. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

Ninety percent of the HHS square footage is considered energy intensive including laboratories, hospitals, 

animal centers, health clinics, and other related support 

space. The performance measure used for the HHS 

energy intensive facilities is Btu per square foot. 

In FY 2005, the energy consumption of HHS energy 

intensive facilities was 8.5 trillion Btu and 345,258 Btu 

per gross square foot. This consumption rate includes a 

credit for the NIH cogeneration project that increases 

site energy, but decreases source energy. HHS received 

credit for purchases of 379.7 billion Btu of renewable 

energy for these facilities, lowering the energy 

intensity from 360,715 Btu per square foot to 345,258 

Btu per square foot. The revised FY 1990 baseline 

(including new NIH Code Compliant Baseline) for the 

HHS energy intensive facilities resulted in a total 

energy consumption of 7.7 trillion Btu, and a 

consumption rate of 422,981 Btu per gross square foot. 

This equates to an 18.4 percent decrease when 

comparing FY 2005 to the baseline year of FY 1990. 

The FY 2005 energy consumption was 2.4 percent 

higher than the FY 2004 usage, due to the continued 

new construction at the NIH campus that has offset the 

energy efficiency reductions realized from implemented projects. Energy is used in the construction 

projects, but the square footage is not included in the 

OPDIV inventories, so the energy consumption on the 

campuses increases. In addition, much of the construction (or renovation) is focusing on bringing HHS laboratories and hospitals up-to-date with current ventilation standards for laboratory and animal care. 

Therefore, these projects result in greater energy consumption due to the increased ventilation required, 

even when energy efficiency technologies are introduced. 

Exempt Facilities 

Two HHS sites have exempted facilities. NIH has outdoor multilevel parking garages on the NIH Bethesda 

Campus that consume lighting energy only. These facilities are not metered separately. Therefore, the energy consumption of these structures has been estimated based on the number of lighting fixtures and the 

time of use. Total energy use is estimated at 7.7 billion 

Btu or 8,685 Btu per gross square foot. 

The PSC Parklawn Building has a large computer data 

center that is metered separately and has been ex65 
empted for the first time this year. The computer center 

consumes 5.6 gigawatthours or 28.5 percent of the 

building’s entire electrical load while only occupying 

0.6 percent of the space. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

The energy consumption in this category is incurred by 

NIH only. Its use of 200.2 billion Btu is 3.3 percent of 

the total NIH consumption. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, the operation of the FDA White Oak 

Campus photovoltaic system was optimized. The system was installed under a photovoltaic energy savings 

performance contract (ESPC) and included a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic system to augment the electrical distribution system. The ESPC is between SEMPRA Energy Services and the General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

A solar energy feasibility study was completed at the 

FDA Muirkirk Campus facility in Beltsville, Maryland. 

The study identified projects that are estimated to reduce energy costs by more than $87,000 per year from 

solar air heating at the pasture buildings, MOD 1 & 2 

buildings, and the BRF buildings. The energy savings 

would represent 4.4 percent of the current energy use at 

the Muirkirk Campus. 

Specifically, the projects include the installation of 21 

solar roofing panels and siding systems or ground 

mounted solar heating systems for 17 out buildings and 

four emergency generators. The solar systems, covering 70,000 square feet, would produce heated air and 

deliver the air to preheat outside air for the buildings or 

equipment. The estimated cost for the projects is about 

$600,000, yielding a simple payback period of six 

years. This study was forwarded to GSA for review 

since the majority of the work involved the MOD II 

facility, which is a GSA-owned facility. 

OS completed a feasibility study on the application of a 

solar thermal system on the roof of the Humphrey 

Building to heat domestic water supplies. The project 

was found to be feasible with a ten to eleven year payback period. However, due to a major building renovation planned to begin in FY 2006, the final application 

of the system has not been determined and is therefore 

on hold. 

In FY 2005, PSC facility management completed a 

solar energy survey at the Parklawn Building. The 

study identified projects that would save over $1,700 

per year in energy costs from solar air heating, but at 

this time the cost of the project was too high to receive 

a payback prior to lease termination. The recommended projects include heating the air from two solar 

siding systems to reduce the year round electric resistance heat energy use by generators, and heating domestic hot water with a solar system that delivers hot 

air to an air-to-water heat exchanger. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

Most HHS facilities have not entered into competitive 

contracts for the procurement of electricity with a 

green component, which is often the only way the purchase of renewable energy is economical. Current estimates show that the increase in cost for direct renewable energy procurement may not prove cost effective 

and may prohibit the purchase of this energy source for 

many HHS facilities. 

The IHS Albuquerque Area’s major utility provider 

implemented an alternative wind energy program. The 

Albuquerque Indian Hospital and Santa Fe Indian Hospital, the area’s highest electricity users, purchase 

roughly three percentage of their electricity from wind 

energy. The Area is looking to expand the procurement 

of wind energy at other IHS sites. In addition, more 

than 12,219 million Btu of waste heat was purchased in 

FY 2005 from local utility companies and piped into a 

heat exchanger at the Bethel Hospital in the IHS 

Alaska Area. 

Petroleum 

In FY 1990, HHS energy intensive facilities used 2.2 

trillion Btu of fuel oil and LPG/propane. In FY 2005, 

these facilities used 612.9 billion Btu of petroleum 

products, resulting in a 72.7 percent reduction in consumption. 

From FY 2004 to FY 2005, petroleum use increased by 

28.4 percent primarily due to an operational problem at 

the FDA MOD 1 & 2 facility. A leaky central utility 

piping system at MOD 2 was shut down and temporary 

boilers were installed that use propane. In addition, the 

fuel oil tanks that supply the diesel emergency 

generators were filled this fiscal year. 

Water Conservation 

The HHS OPDIVs reported usage of 1.7 billion gallons 

at a cost of $7.0 million in FY 2005. This represents a 

10.9 percent increase from FY 2000 the baseline year 

and a 3.6 percent decrease from FY 2004. Often 

changes in scientific mission can significantly change 

the consumption of water at HHS facilities. 

This consumption is a low reading or estimate of the 

actual water used for the entire agency. Due to a lack 

of manpower and data, IHS has been unable to provide 

66 
accurate metered or estimated data on water consumption in the 155 facilities they manage. The IHS Areas 

will continue to gather water consumption data, however, it is expected that accurate data and sound estimates will be very difficult to obtain. Several facilities 

reported that local water utility billing procedures were 

often erratic and difficult to monitor. Therefore, development of water management plans at IHS sites has 

been delayed and will be a focus in FY 2006. 

In FY 2005, several HHS OPDIVs refined water management plans in accordance with Executive Order 

13123 and 22.8 percent of HHS facilities implemented 

Best Management Practices in water conservation. This 

task enabled facility managers to further prioritize water conservation projects and highlight areas of waste 

or opportunity. Many HHS laboratories reported that it 

was common for facilities to change the type of experiment performed or the frequency of performance, 

which would in turn, change the amount of water used 

in that facility. 

The IHS Bemidji Area installed new water softener 

units that use reduced volume regeneration cycles and 

reduce water waste. The IHS Tucson Area facilities, 

along with many other IHS Areas, are replacing outdated toilets, faucets, shower heads and other devices 

with water saving products. The facilities offices are 

reviewing watering schedules and desert landscaping to 

reduce the amount of water used maintaining landscaping. The replacement of irrigation system with 

lower usage system will be accomplished when funding becomes available. In addition, new facilities will 

minimize the quantity of landscaping requiring watering and implement the use of native plants to minimize 

landscape watering. 

Innovative grounds maintenance initiatives at NIH 

minimize water use on campus. “Treegator” water bags 

are used around trees. These large water bags can be 

filled and provide slow drip irrigation over the root 

ball. A plan has been developed to install 1,600 linear 

feet of drip irrigation in five shrub bed locations. In 

addition, NIH uses native trees that are drought resistant to reduce the need to water. Gardens at NIH continue to include drought resistant plant material and 

native species such as crape myrtle, butterfly bush, 

juniper varieties, native viburnum, holly and dogwood 

varieties, seven varieties of day lilies and drifts of 

black-eyed susans and purple cone flowers and incorporates water absorbing pellets, to help absorb and 

retain natural moisture and then slowly release that 

moisture to the plants over an extended period. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

All HHS OPDIVs use life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to 

prioritize and justify the implementation of energy efficiency projects. 

LCC analysis is used by FDA in the early design 

phases of new construction projects. For example, a 

life-cycle cost analysis was performed for an HVAC 

system renovation at the Dauphin Island Laboratory in 

Alabama. LCC analysis was also used in the design of 

the White Oak Laboratory in Maryland, and the FDA 

laboratory in Irvine, California. 

The IHS Areas use LCC analysis extensively to analyze and prioritize energy and water efficiency projects. The IHS Aberdeen Area performed LCC analyses on new facility designs for the Winnebago and 

Sisseton sites influencing the decision on building utility systems. In the Bemidji Area, LCC is required for 

all contract services and procurement of products, services, construction, and other projects that will lower 

energy and water consumption. 

Facility Energy Audits 

In FY 2005, 2.8 million square feet, or 10 percent, of 

HHS facilities were audited. CDC, IHS, and NIH performed comprehensive audits, many in conjunction 

with utility energy services contracts. To date, approximately 95 percent of the HHS facility square 

footage has received energy and water efficiency audits. OPDIVs are responsible for ensuring that 10 percent of their facilities are audited each year according 

to the OPDIV Ten Year Audit Plans established in FY 

1994 (in compliance with Executive Order 12902). 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2005, the HHS Energy Program continued efforts on promoting and facilitating the use of alternative financing mechanisms to implement energy and 

water efficiency projects, and two new contracts were 

signed. 

Approximately 60 percent of all CDC facilities have 

had alternative financing contracts implemented. The 

continued use of energy savings performance contracts 

(ESPCs)/utility energy services contracts (UESCs) at 

CDC may be with new construction since the OPDIV 

expects a large amount of new work in the near future. 

In FY 2005, FDA spent $2.3 million of direct agency 

funding on UESC annual payments for the Jefferson 

Laboratory Complex (JLC) contract and projects 

funded from FDA headquarters. Larger projects within 

FDA have also been funded through alternative 

67 
financing contracts. In FY 2005, project implementations continued under two follow-on task orders 

of the JLC UESC with Entergy. The largest task order 

included the construction of an $8 million dollar 

project to upgrade the district cooling system by replacing chilled water piping, installing variable volume 

pumping, and expanding the chilled water loop; replace 

an energy management control system (EMCS) to 

monitor and control HVAC equipment and lighting; 

and install an energy recovery system on a 100 percent 

outdoor air configuration. The project will include removing 11 chillers and reconfiguring 15 water-cooled 

chillers in the central (district) chilled water loop, 

thereby, significantly decreasing domestic water consumption and costs. The estimated annual energy savings of these projects total $500,000 and the payback 

period is ten years. 

In FY 2005, NIH entered into two UESCs totaling $3.1 

million that are estimated to save 38.0 billion Btu annually. One contract was a PEPCO UESC, used to refurbish and commission air to air heat recovery system. 

The other was a Washington Gas UESC, used for upgrades in Building 10. 

In total, in FY 2005, HHS used $7.4 million of direct 

agency funding to implement energy and water efficiency projects and audits. The funding projected for 

FY 2006 is $6.2 million. It is anticipated that most 

energy and water efficiency work will be completed 

under alternative financing contracts. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

The HHS Energy Officer uses the HHS Energy Program communication tools to relate to the OPDIVs the 

significance of using ENERGY STAR and other energy 

efficient products. Methods for procurement of these 

products are also highlighted and described. In general, 

OPDIVs use the GSA Schedule to procure energy 

efficient products and have revised project 

specifications and standard procurement contracts to 

include their purchase. Many HHS facilities purchase 

standard stock items, such as light bulbs and ballasts, 

as recommended by FEMP and ENERGY STAR guidelines. 

PSC facility management met with the Cadmus group 

(ENERGY STAR contractor) on the implementation of 

the EPA EZ-Save PC power management software for 

the Parklawn Building. The PSC information technology (IT) staff at the building experienced problems 

with software compatibility with the existing security 

patches and hardware. The IT staff informed facility 

management that the current network software did have 

energy saving functions that were not fully utilized and 

in time they would try to improve on those features. In 

addition, energy efficiency criteria have been incorporated into guide specifications for Parklawn Building 

alterations. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

In FY 2002, the IHS Blackfeet Hospital in Browning, 

Montana, was awarded this Department’s first ENERGY 

STAR label from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). The Blackfeet Hospital is part of the 

IHS Billings Area. In addition to the Blackfeet 

Hospital, there are two other hospitals in the Area that 

are in the ENERGY STAR Label Database. At this time 

the other hospitals do not meet the top 25 percent 

ranking, but the Area engineers and managers will 

continue to improve the efficiency of these sites in 

hopes of achieving the required energy savings for the 

ENERGY STAR label. 

The new Winnebago Hospital in the IHS Aberdeen 

Area may meet ENERGY STAR building criteria, but has 

not been officially designated as such. The Sophie 

Trettevick Health Clinic in the IHS Neah Bay Service 

Unit within the Portland Area is eligible to be officially 

designated as an ENERGY STAR Building. An application will be submitted in FY 2006. 

Sustainable Building Design 

In FY 2005, the HHS Energy Program continued to 

highlight the concept of sustainable building design, 

and the use of the Whole Building Design Guide and 

LEED rating system through the awareness newsletters, training, and direct facility management correspondence. 

FDA utilizes basic sustainable building design criteria 

when planning new construction. For example, the 

FDA Irvine Laboratory is tall and narrow to take advantage of natural lighting, and the walls will be constructed of architectural concrete that will not require 

insulation and drywall. In addition, native vegetation 

was planted to reduce maintenance and irrigation requirements of the landscaping. Reclaimed water is on a 

timer system used for the necessary irrigation of those 

plants at the optimal time. Currently, the FDA new 

construction and renovation design policies are being 

reviewed to ensure that sustainable building design 

principles are clearly stated. 

The Oklahoma City Area made significant progress in 

FY 2005 on the use of sustainable building design 

principles into the siting, design, and construction of 

new facilities. LEED certification is being pursued on a 

36,760 square foot expansion project at the Lawton 

Indian Hospital, and a Design Development LEED 

Submittal for the project was received in July of 2005. 

68 
Aspects of the performance criteria in five environmental categories (sustainable sites, water efficiency, 

energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, and indoor environmental quality) will be complied with in 

order to achieve the certification. 

The Tucson Area has one facility currently in the design phase. The plans have been reviewed for sustainable building concepts and as a result will incorporate 

more efficient lighting and environmental systems, 

native vegetation with water efficient landscaping, and 

reduced storm water runoff. The Tucson Area also began establishing the requirements of a comprehensive 

energy audit that will incorporate the LEED for Existing Buildings criteria. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Only 7.2 percent of the reportable HHS square footage 

is leased space. Where appropriate, OPDIVs review 

lease agreements to give preference to buildings with 

sustainable and energy efficient designs. 

FDA leases 9.5 percent of its square footage. Whenever possible, energy and water efficiency measures 

are implemented in the leased facilities. The Atlanta 

Laboratory is a leased facility which will be up for renewal in FY 2006. FDA is currently working with 

GSA and has issued a requested scope of work to include energy and water efficiency measures in the new 

lease. 

The White Oak Campus is a GSA leased property. Currently, GSA, FDA, and SEMPRA Energy Services are 

working together to design and construct an energy 

efficient state-of-the art laboratory and office campus. 

Phase I of the project has been completed and Phase II 

will begin in FY 2006. The design and construction is 

being completed by SEMPRA under a photovoltaic 

energy savings performance contract with GSA. Since 

FDA is the client for the facility, the FDA has outlined 

specific requirements and energy efficient technologies 

to be included in the design. Once the construction is 

completed, FDA will pay for utilities as part of the 

lease payment to GSA. However, the utility portion of 

the lease payment will be significantly less than that for 

a standard laboratory facility under GSA rates, due to 

the increased energy efficiency. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

The majority of HHS square footage is considered energy intensive. Therefore, most energy projects address 

energy intensive systems such as steam systems, boiler 

operation, fuel switching, and cogeneration. 

In new energy-intensive renovations or new construction, HHS looks to improve automated control methods, night setback operations, and energy recovery 

methods. Due to changes in lab functions and layouts, 

many new laboratories have higher airflow requirements. This has also been the case with major renovation projects. It has been found that older laboratory 

facilities did not meet the existing standards and therefore, the new renovations result in even more energyintensive facilities. 

FDA laboratories are continuously studying new ways 

to save energy in the facilities. The project design of a 

major HVAC upgrade for the Gulf Coast Seafood 

Laboratory at Dauphin Island was completed in FY 

2005. The project includes the installation of new self 

contained HVAC system for each room with supplemental fresh air from central system and air-cooled 

chillers. All new equipment will be energy efficient 

type models. 

The JLC facility continued task orders in FY 2005 involving the construction of an $8 million project to 

upgrade the district cooling system by replacing chilled 

water piping, installing variable volume pumping, and 

expanding the chilled water loop; replacing an EMCS 

to monitor and control HVAC equipment and lighting; 

and installing an energy recovery system on a 100 percent outdoor air configuration. The estimated payback 

period of this project is ten years. The specific projects 

are described below. 

Under the UESC, a comprehensive HVAC and energy 

management controls renovation was completed in 

Building 53. This project cost $2.8 million and will 

have annual energy savings of $152,000. The project 

consisted of a new air-to-air heat exchanger, a manifold 

fume hood exhaust system, 310 new variable air volume terminal boxes, new DDC systems for 39 laboratories and 54 animal holding areas, and a conversion 

from a constant volume air distribution system to variable air volume air distribution system. The new DDC 

controls replaced a pneumatic system that required 

frequent calibration and was not capable of implementing sophisticated energy conservation control 

strategies. The energy savings will be realized through 

the implementation of energy efficient control strategies including: chilled water reset, condenser water 

reset, heating water reset, optimal start/stop, unoccupied/occupied temperature and air flow settings. The 

project is currently in the commissioning and inspection phases, and will be completed in early FY 2006. 

Another project was the upgrade and redesign of the 

campus-wide energy management control system totaling $1.4 million of work. The contract included the 

installation of 1,374 DDC points that replaced a pneumatic system requiring frequent calibration and was not 

69 
capable of implementing sophisticated energy conservation control strategies. The energy savings will be 

realized through the implementation of control strategies such as chilled water reset, condenser water reset, 

heating water reset, optimal start/stop, unoccupied/occupied temperature and air flow settings. The 

estimated annual energy savings of this project total 

$50,000. 

The largest project completed in FY 2005 was the implementation of a district cooling system and regional 

condenser water systems. Significant energy savings 

will be achieved through the elimination of inefficient 

air cooled chillers, optimum dispatch of cooling 

equipment, high efficiency motors, cooling load diversity, and variable frequency drives on the cooling tower 

fans. The projects completed under the UESC cost $4.4 

million and will save an estimated $300,000 and 8.2 

million kilowatthours annually. 

In FY 2005, JLC also began the construction of two 

additional projects. The first is a renovation of eight 

animal rooms in Building 5A. This project is being 

completed with $1.5 million of funding from the National Toxicological Program. All architectural and 

mechanical systems will be upgraded including an energy recovery unit with an air-to-air heat exchanger, 

and variable frequency drives for supply and exhaust 

fans. New ductwork with nine supply and exhaust terminals, controlled by DCC, will be installed. In addition, a new complete heating water system consisting 

of dual steam-to-hot water heat exchangers, dual 

pumps, controls and piping is planned. The project will 

be completed in early FY 2006 and is expected to save 

$6,400 yearly on energy costs. 

The second project is the laboratory and HVAC renovation in Building 51. This $2.1 million project is being implemented with Buildings and Facilities Funds, 

and will include the installation of three energy recovery units with air-to-air heat exchangers, new ductwork, a manifold fume hood exhaust system, 13 VAV 

fume hoods, and a DDC system. A new efficient water 

heating system will be installed consisting of dual 

steam-to-hot water heat exchangers, dual pumps, and 

DDC controls. The projected energy savings are 

$21,600 annually. 

FDA ORPS focused FY 2005 efforts on new construction design projects and integrating energy efficient 

technologies. The newly constructed Irvine Laboratory 

has been designed to maximize natural lighting and 

includes low-e windows. The White Oak Campus will 

include a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic system, cogeneration, absorption chiller, variable frequency drives on 

chilled and condenser water pumping and cooling 

tower fans, reduced lighting loads, variable air volume 

systems with variable frequency drives, demand control ventilation, night-setback strategies, and an 

economizer cycle. 

IHS Areas implemented several energy efficiency improvements in their energy-intensive hospitals and 

clinics. In the Aberdeen Area, new direct digital controllers were installed at six locations to achieve computer automated control of heating and cooling systems. Several construction and renovation projects 

were completed in FY 2005, and have improved energy 

efficiency performance. These include roof replacements at Kyle Health Center, Wagner Health Center, 

and Rosebud Hospital; ground source heat pump installations at Mandaree and Twin Buttes Health Stations plus 33 staff quarters units at Pine Ridge and 

three staff quarters units at New Town; HVAC controls 

upgrades at Minne Tohe Health Center; and equipment 

replacement at Pine Ridge Hospital for VFDs, 

evaporative coolers, boiler burners and controls, and 

cooling tower packing. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

The FDA White Oak Campus will utilize cogeneration. 

As designed, one 5,800 kilowatt dual fuel (natural gas 

and diesel) engine-driven generator will produce 100 

percent of the power for the main office building on the 

campus. The annual cost of natural gas and diesel fuel 

for the engine is less than the annual cost of purchased 

power from PEPCO. The “free” waste heat recoverable 

from the engine oil cooler and water jacket is transferred to the hot water heating system. Recoverable 

higher temperature waste heat from the exhaust stack 

gases is used in warm weather to power a 900-ton absorption chiller. In cold weather the recoverable engine 

stack gas heat is added to the heating hot water system. 

At the IHS Anchorage Area, a ground water cooling 

project has been completed for the Alaska Native 

Medical Center. Facility management must wait until 

the spring to operate the system when temperatures are 

more temperate. The estimated savings of the project is 

$50,000 annually. The Aberdeen Area installed ground 

source heat pumps in FY 2005 at two health centers. 

The IHS Oklahoma City Area will utilize a vertical 

closed-loop ground source heat pump system for the 

new Pawnee Health Center. 

Distributed Generation 

The HHS Energy Program promotes the installation of 

distributed generation projects and alternatives through 

its established communication tools. Lack of funding is 

often the prohibitive factor when considering a distributed generation project. Many of these types of projects, already identified by the HHS OPDIVs, are too 

70 
small to take advantage of alternative financing 

mechanisms. 

The NIH 23-megawatt cogeneration unit, constructed 

by the local utility under a UESC, generates off-grid 

power to supply the NIH Bethesda Campus with its 

base electrical load. Also, a steam driven electrical 

generating turbine is under construction at the NIH 

Mark O. Hatfield CRC facility to convert steam pressure reduction energy to electricity. It is expected that 

the turbine will be on-line in FY 2006. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

In FY 2005, HHS facility managers fine-tuned existing 

load reduction plans for their buildings in place for 

emergency situations and made improvements as necessary. These plans were used to respond to high demand days and curtailment periods. Ninety percent of 

the HHS square footage is energy-intensive space that 

includes hospitals, laboratories, and animal centers. 

The bulk of the electrical loads in these facilities are 

mission critical or life, health and safety driven. Therefore, these facilities are limited in the extent to which 

equipment can be powered down. 

The Presidential Directive of September 2005, required 

OPDIVs to identify actions to reduce energy consumption during the first half of FY 2006. Many of the actions identified by the OPDIVs resulted in substantial 

planned electrical reductions totaling 16,950 megawatthours. Electricity conservation opportunities included 

reducing HVAC equipment operating hours and 

temperature set-points, optimizing lighting for energy 

efficiency, improvement of facility operations and 

maintenance procedures for peak performance and actions such as the installation and calibration of direct 

digital controls, adjusting temperature setpoints, curtailing use of elevators, shifting nighttime janitorial 

services to day, and prohibiting use of space heaters. 

ENERGY STAR and energy-efficient designated products 

will be procured whenever applicable. 

Most HHS facilities have established communications 

with local utility companies in regards to peak load 

periods and demand load reduction programs. In response to these discussions, OPDIV facility managers 

have developed individual facility plans to reduce peak 

demand on high load days. For example, the NIH Bethesda Campus participates in the PEPCO Curtailable 

Load Program and the Voluntary Load Reduction Program. Several HHS facilities established a system to 

alert employees of expected high demand days. Facility 

managers monitored weather forecasts and communicated with local utilities to predict high demand days. 

Where available, energy management control systems 

were used to monitor total facility demand and loads 

for individual pieces of major equipment. This allowed 

facility managers to determine target levels for demand 

reduction and to monitor daily use patterns. When 

electrical demand approached high levels, or during 

utility curtailment periods, the control systems were 

programmed to automatically power down nonessential 

equipment. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Scott Waldman 

Department of Health and Human Services 

200 Independence Avenue, SW 

ASAM/OFMP/DRP 

Room 318E, HHH Building 

Washington, DC 20201 

Phone: 202-619-0719 

Fax: 202-619-2692 

Email: scott.waldman@hhs.gov 

71 
F. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) 

Management and Administration 

The Chief Administrative Officer is the designated 

Senior Agency Official for the DHS Energy Program, 

with overall responsibility for the design and implementation of energy policies and practices within DHS. 

Each organizational element is required to designate a 

Senior Agency Official. 

The DHS energy management committee has oversight 

responsibility for management and direction of the 

energy program. The committee is chaired by the DHS 

Energy Analyst, DHS headquarters, and includes the 

DHS Energy representatives from each Under Secretary, DHS Procurement and the energy point of contact 

from each organizational element. The energy management committee consists of two subcommittees: the 

Energy Commodity Committee, and the Fuels Working 

Group. 

DHS energy usage is consolidated and reported by 

eight agencies: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), United 

States Secret Service (USSS), Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG), Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

(PIADC). These are the only DHS agencies which pay 

their utility bills directly; all other agencies reside in 

space provided by the General Services Administration 

(GSA) and GSA reports the consumption and cost 

information for that space. 

For FY 2005, DHS has reclassified some buildings and 

is exempting the USSS computer operations, and some 

CBP buildings. These changes will influence some 

comparisons to the baseline figure. The report meets 

the requirement that DHS submit an annual report for 

energy management, and it accurately reflects DHS 

management activities and energy consumption based 

upon the best data available. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

As incentives for implementation of proactive energy 

efficiency and conservation measures, DHS and its 

organizational elements participate in the Department 

of Energy’s annual energy award program and the 

“You Have the Power” recognition campaign. 

Training and Education 

Information regarding energy training and education is 

distributed through DHS energy websites and email. A 

master energy stakeholder email list provides a mechanism for outreach activities that includes disseminating 

information from the Department of Energy’s Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding ENERGY 

STAR and other energy-related topics. 

DHS employees participated in the Energy 2005 Workshop and the FY 2005 DHS Safety, Energy, and Environmental Forum (SEEF). 

Informative quarterly fuel and energy meetings are also 

held. Energy conservation and outreach was conducted 

at both TSA Headquarters and the TSOC facility in 

October 2005 as part of Energy Awareness Month. 

Showcase Facilities 

The US Coast Guard Training Center in Petaluma, 

California was designated as the Coast Guard’s showcase facility in September 2005. The Training Center 

has established a system to reduce overall energy consumption while embracing renewable energy. In FY 

2004, the Training Center installed 125 kilowatts of 

photovoltaic modules on the roofs of several buildings. 

The photovoltaic modules were installed with a nonpenetrating mounting system to allow for ease of installation while maintaining the integrity of the roof. 

The Training Center is also investigating additional 

wind applications given their success with the wind 

turbine that is used to circulate water in the lake. 

DHS will consider nominating the TSOC facility in FY 

2006 as the DHS Federal Energy Saver Showcase and 

will consider certifying the building as an ENERGY 

STAR Building. The TSOC building is designed with 

the latest energy efficient and effective lighting design, 

extensive energy management controls, exhaust heat 

recovery wheels, high efficiency chillers and roof top 

units, and water-saving plumbing fixtures. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DHS reported a 27.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

Since the agency did not exist in the FY 1985 baseline 

year, energy reduction performance against this goal is 

not measured. Estimated FY 1985 energy use was constructed using historical data from the DHS component 

72 
agencies. DHS used an estimated 94,910 Btu per gross 

square foot in its standard buildings during the year. 

DHS received credit for purchases of 68.4 billion Btu 

of renewable energy, lowering the energy intensity of 

these facilities from 96,624 Btu per square foot to 

94,910 Btu per square foot. 

Most DHS buildings are classified as standard. The 

DHS facility space figure includes owned and leased 

buildings where DHS pays for utilities. Energy consumption data is derived from financial performance 

and Energy Information Administration pricing data, 

extraction from actual utility bills, or a combination 

thereof. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

TSA, USCG and Plum Island have facilities that are 

classified as industrial, laboratory, research, and other 

energy intensive facilities. In FY 2005, DHS used an 

estimated 225,326 Btu per gross square foot in its energy intensive facilities during the year. 

TSA’s Cabot Tech building is energy intensive. The 

TSA has only one reporting facility, the TSOC facility. 

The TSA TSOC facility has over 50 percent of its occupied square footage devoted to energy intensive 

functions such as computer command centers requiring 

strict temperature and humidity settings 24 hours per 

day, seven days per week. The 114,000 square foot 

facility uses electricity as the primary energy source 

with fuel oil used as a backup during outages. In FY 

2005, the building used 5.7 gigawatthours, or 19.4 billion Btu of electricity at a cost of approximately 

$318,600. Fuel oil, the back-up energy source, was 

used at a rate of 620.5 gallons, or 90.3 million Btu, for 

the year at a cost of $924. The resulting energy consumption rate was 171,000 Btu per square foot. 

The PIADC is classified as a laboratory facility (BSL3Ag laboratory). Fuel and electric power consumption 

have increased. 

During FY 2004, the USCG Yard and the Aircraft Repair Service Center (ARSC) were reclassified as industrial, and serves as the baseline for comparison. The 

FY 2005 USCG industrial facility energy consumption 

increased by 4.6 percent on a Btu per gross square foot 

basis. This reflects the impact of external factors such 

as production requirements and weather, as well as 

operational readiness. 

Exempt Facilities 

The USSS classifies its James J. Rowley Training 

Center (JJRTC) Computer Science building with about 

30,500 square feet, (255,049 Btu per square foot) as an 

exempt facility due to its energy intensive computer 

operations. This building houses an extensive amount 

of computer equipment that is used 24 hours per day, 

seven days per week. 

CBP has (intense) Lighting and Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems along the border. CBP currently tracks electricity consumption and cost data for 

those sites and systems that are separately metered. 

However, some are connected to facilities and are not 

separately metered. For these sites, consumption and 

cost data is still included and reported in the FY 2005 

usage data. A project to sub-meter and track electricity 

usage at these sites and reclassify them as exempt in 

FY 2006 is being considered. A total of 40 buildings 

with a floor area of about 219,566 square feet are considered exempt facilities due to the lighting, RVS, and 

telecommunications requirements. However, since energy use information was not available for these 

buildings at the time of this report, they are not included in the energy data report. 

The USCG currently reports shore-electricity used by 

vessels as facility consumption. In the long term, this 

moored vessel usage will be pursued as part of a metering project and appropriate adjustments will be made 

to exempt this usage in FY 2006. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

DHS mobile energy consumption includes fuel consumed by cutters, boats, aircraft and automobiles. 

In FY 2005, DHS used a total of 11.9 million gallons 

of gasoline, a 6.3 percent decrease from FY 2004. Jet 

fuel consumption increased by 5.6 percent, and diesel 

fuel decreased by 57.3 percent from the previous year. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

The Coast Guard continually evaluates renewable energy projects for economic viability. Several Energy 

Saving Performance Contract (ESPC) projects are under development containing renewable energy subcomponents. In FY 2005, the following self-generated 

renewable energy projects were in operation: 

Solar Water Heating: 

• 62 housing units in Honolulu, Hawaii; 

• 149 homes in Puerto Rico Air Station; 

• Indoor swimming pool in Alameda, California; 

and 

• San Francisco Air Station. 

Photovoltaics: 

• Roof panels in Petaluma, California; 

73 
• Mobile photovoltaic system for charging battery 

for emergency generator in Puerto Rico; and 

• Lighted aids to navigation: 4,779 solar 

panel/battery powered light-buoys and 11,620 solar panel/battery powered lighted-fixed aids to 

navigation. 

Other: 

• Bio-diesel project for marine applications at 

USCG Academy in Connecticut; and 

• Ground source heat pump in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 

The USSS has installed 50 solar daylighting systems in 

classrooms, exercise workout rooms, active storage 

areas and other locations. This system has proven to be 

and effective load reduction method. 

CBP has an ongoing program to install solar energy 

cells on each Remote Video Surveillance System 

(RVS) along the Northern and Southern borders. The 

use of solar energy cells aids in the transitioning of the 

RVS energy consumption from commercial power to 

solar power to maintain a 24-hour operational requirement. There is a need to maintain the RVS at optimum 

effectiveness, which increases the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the Border Patrol officers. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

DHS purchased 20.0 gigawatthours of Renewable Energy Certificates for FY 2005 through the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). This alone represents 

about three percent of total DHS annual electricity use, 

and exceeds the 2.5 percent goal for FY 2005. In addition, the USCG facilities in New York City are included as part of an electric utility contract awarded in 

FY 2004 and continuing through FY 2007. Part of the 

award package included a requirement that the equivalent of 10 percent of the total load (roughly 60 megawatthours per year) must be purchased from renewable 

sources. The buildings covered under these contracts 

are all standard buildings. 

Petroleum 

DHS used approximately 7.6 million gallons of heating 

oil in 2005 and 346,700 gallons of propane. The 1985 

baseline for these fuels is 16.6 million gallons of fuel 

oil and 338,700 gallons of propane. This represents a 

54.5 percent reduction in fuel oil usage and essentially 

no change in propane usage over the 1985 baseline. 

TSA’s TSOC facility uses fuel oil to power two 1,500­

kilowatt emergency generators. In FY 2005, 650.5 

gallons, or 90.3 million Btu, of fuel oil was used at the 

facility at a cost of $925. The electrical service to the 

facility experiences frequent outages that require the 

use of the emergency generators. 

USCG consumption calculations indicate that 5.8 million gallons of heating oil and 384,859 gallons of propane were used by all USCG facilities (including industrial) in FY 2005. 15.8 million gallons of petroleum 

fuel and 251,000 gallons of LPG were reported in FY 

1985. This represents a usage reduction of 63 percent 

in petroleum fuel and a 53 percent increase in propane 

consumption from the baseline year. 

Water Conservation 

The National Education Training Center (NETC, operated by FEMA) continually explores new and emerging 

technologies for their adaptability to the facilities along 

with updating, expanding or replacing existing equipment or technologies as they reach their useful life expectancies. During FY 2005, the NETC, operated by 

FEMA, increased their water usage from 60.8 million 

gallons in FY 2004 to 64.4 million gallons. The local 

water district approved the use of their water to cool 

the NETC emergency generators in the event the well 

runs dry. Less water per minute should be required 

from the water district due to the design setup. 

FLETC has made significant efforts with regard to 

water savings. A project has been funded at Glynco for 

the City of Brunswick to meter the water usage. This 

will allow the facility to realistically quantify water 

usage, so water consumption Best Management Practices can be implemented and efficiency can be determined. 

Implementation Strategies 

The DHS Energy Management Council is responsible 

for analyzing and developing Departmental projects to 

achieve efficiencies in the DHS Energy program and 

implement strategies to achieve efficiency goals. The 

group is also responsible for acting as the group of Departmental subject matter experts for all issues referred 

to it by the DHS Joint Requirements Council (JRC), 

DHS Management Council, or DHS Strategic Sourcing 

Group. The DHS energy management council has 

oversight responsibility for the management and direction of the energy program. The council is chaired by 

the DHS Energy Analyst, and includes the DHS Energy representatives from each Under Secretary, DHS 

Procurement and the energy point of contact from each 

organizational element. This council met monthly in 

FY 2005. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The architectural and engineering firm that performed 

the design of TSA’s Cabot Tech facility used life-cycle 

cost analysis to determine the most efficient HVAC 

design. 

74 
The Coast Guard Shore Facility Capital Asset Management (SFCAM) principles consider total ownership 

costs through the full life-cycle of a facility. Included 

in these costs are energy costs. The USCG Facilities 

Energy Manual, COMDINST M1000.7, outlines policy 

and procedures for life-cycle analysis in new construction and major renovation projects. 

Facility Energy Audits 

FLETC has audited all of its Glynco facility. Most of 

its other facilities are new or represent new floor area. 

The net result is that FLETC has audited all its eligible 

floor area, and in total has audited 67 percent of its 

floor area through FY 2005. 

The TSOC facility was not audited in FY 2005 due to 

continual space development and operational security 

concerns. However, OSHE did perform a discovery 

visit to the facility, and plans to conduct an official 

energy audit in 2006. 

By FY 2003 about 80.7 percent of USCG facility 

square footage had been audited. In FY 2005, a Resource Efficiency Manager (REM) was put in place for 

the Pacific Area. As a part of the PAC REM program, 

portions of all major facilities in the PAC area were 

audited, or 14.7 percent of the total USCG facility 

square footage. In FY 2006, the USCG may update the 

total tabulation or, more likely, use the FY 2005 data as 

a new base year for starting the auditing process over. 

The USSS is in the process of further defining the infrastructure at the JJRTC through a study which will 

conclude in the spring of FY 2006. From this study, 

additional energy conservation opportunities will be 

identified. The USSS will also continue to develop the 

utility energy services contract (UESC) contract with 

Washington Gas for further energy savings. 

Financing Mechanisms 

FLETC and USSS have both previously used UESC 

mechanisms to implement energy retrofits at their facilities. 

The Coast Guard obligated an estimated $1.7 million 

towards projects directly addressing the goals of Executive Order 13123. These included Federal Energy 

Efficiency Fund (FEEF) projects which are low-cost 

and high return-on-investment (less than 10-year payback) facility retrofits and/or they enable the utilization 

of renewable energy. 

The Coast Guard has awarded one energy savings performance contract (ESPC) on the West Coast, which is 

in the design phase. It will accomplish multi-million 

dollars of energy efficient retrofits after a final delivery 

order is awarded. An ESPC is under negotiation at the 

Coast Guard Shipyard to utilize landfill gas in a cogeneration plant. Two more ESPCs are in a pre-“notice 

of intent” phase in Kodiak, Alaska and the lower New 

York state area. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

DHS agencies actively disseminate ENERGY STAR rated 

product information to its field units and encourages 

use of the products. Through published agency guidance to the field, the Coast Guard has offered financial 

as well as public recognition incentives to units that 

meet the ENERGY STAR goals. GSA and their associated ENERGY STAR program, serves as a source for 

energy consumables. 

TSA has purchased high efficiency motors and HVAC 

equipment, energy efficient lighting products, and 

ENERGY STAR office equipment in the TSOC facility. 

Project and product specifications and designs for new 

construction in the building will be reviewed to ensure 

that energy efficient and ENERGY STAR products are 

the standard requirements. 

CBP actively disseminates ENERGY STAR-rated product 

information to its field units and encourages the use of 

ENERGY STAR products. Through published agency 

guidance to the field, CBP has offered financial and 

public recognition incentives to units that meet the 

ENERGY STAR goals. 

The Coast Guard disseminates ENERGY STAR-rated 

product information to its field units and encourages 

use of the products. GSA and their associated ENERGY 

STAR program, also serves as a source for energy consumables. 

The USSS, under its UESC contract is expected to look 

into using monitoring controls on the HVAC systems 

that operate only when needed. They will also evaluate 

the outside street lights with consideration to convert it 

to a solar powered source. The existing guard booths 

will also be reviewed for powering by solar energy. 

With each construction and renovation project, the 

FLETC is replacing less efficient items/equipment (i.e. 

lamps, HVAC equipment, windows, and motors) with 

more efficient models. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings

USSS actively works with BG&E and independent 

contractors to determine if buildings can eventually 

qualify as ENERGY STAR buildings. 

75 
It is established USCG engineering practice to require 

new construction and renovation projects to comply 

with ENERGY STAR criteria. 

Sustainable Building Design 

TSA is currently planning a 13,000-square foot buildout construction project for the TSOC facility and will 

use the Whole Building Design Guide and the Field 

Guide for Sustainable Construction as sustainability 

guidelines for the new construction. 

SFCAM principles balance sustainability design features with other operational requirements. The principles of the Green Building Council’s Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are being 

applied to a building retrofit in Emerald Isle, North 

Carolina. 

The design for the New Border Patrol Station in El 

Paso, Texas will seek a LEED rating. CBP already 

incorporated designs at the CCD phase to earn some 

points. For this facility, concrete flooring is used in 90 

percent of the building instead of resilient flooring. 

CBP is planning to contain all surface runoff into catch 

basins on the property. The facility was designed to use 

low-level lighting for perimeter use. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

The majority of the DHS facility leases follow the direction of GSA when leasing existing buildings and 

vehicles. When evaluating structures prior to entering 

into direct leases, the DHS considers the projected 

lease rate structure along with energy costs. The projected energy cost is a major consideration during the 

lease evaluation. 

TSA leases all of its square footage. In the case of the 

TSOC building, only the shell of the building is leased 

and all of the mechanical, electrical, and office equipment within the building is owned by TSA. Therefore, 

the implementation of energy and water efficiency 

measures will be considered and the provisions of Executive Order 13123 and the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 will be upheld. 

The majority of the CBP facility leases follow the direction of GSA when leasing existing buildings and 

vehicles. When evaluating structures prior to entering 

into direct leases, the CBP considers the projected lease 

rate structure along with energy costs. The projected 

energy cost is a major consideration during the lease 

evaluation. 

The majority of Coast Guard facility leases follow the 

direction of GSA when leasing existing buildings and 

vehicles. When evaluating structures prior to entering 

into direct leases, the Coast Guard considers the projected lease rate structure along with energy costs. The 

projected energy cost is a major consideration during 

the lease evaluation. 

USSS, through the GSA, uses energy saving provisions 

in their leases for Secret Service offices. They encourage the Lessor to contact an energy service company 

qualified under the Energy Policy Act to perform 

ESPCs to determine whether opportunities for costeffective improvements to the space are available. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

In FY 2004 the USCG classified two facilities as industrial: USCG Shipyard and the Aircraft Repair and 

Service Center (ARSC). FY 2004 is the baseline year 

for future comparisons. Both sites have been actively 

engaged in energy improvement activities in recent 

years and plan to continue their efforts. 

The TSA TSOC building is an energy intensive facility 

with over half of the occupied square footage devoted 

to extensive, open space coordination centers housing 

large numbers of computers, plasma screen monitors 

and televisions, and other audio-visual equipment. 

These areas operate 24 hours per day, seven days per 

week. Space temperature settings are held at fairly tight 

settings and humidity control is a priority. 

In order to achieve optimal comfort and efficiency in 

these large areas, several Liebert air-conditioning units 

are employed to maintain temperature and humidity set 

points. For example, in the Transportation Security 

Coordination Center (TSCC) and the Federal Air Marshall Coordination Center, three zones have been designed to meet the loads of the area. This strategy allows part of the extensive area to be controlled 

separately to meet varying loads due to occupancy or 

usage patterns. The conditioned air is supplied to the 

space via a sub-floor plenum and then exhausted 

through the ceiling space to maximize natural airflows. 

Rooftop HVAC units are used to supply conditioned 

air to the office areas in the building and are also used 

as back-up systems to the Liebert units. The all-electric 

rooftop units employ economizer cycles to take advantage of free cooling during temperate months. The 

office area units are operated on a schedule to mirror 

the building occupancy. In FY 2004, the rooftop units 

were reconfigured to receive full three-phase power 

that will improve the efficiency of the units. 

There are two 1,500-kilowatt oil-fired emergency generators for the building. The generators are used during 

electrical outages. A solar heating system has been 

identified to heat the generator enclosure space and to 

76 
heat the fuel oil. This system will save an estimated 

$2,000 per year on energy costs. The project will be 

implemented once funding becomes available. 

All lighting in the building is energy efficient with T-8 

lamps, electronic ballasts, and compact fluorescent 

bulbs in the recessed lighting. The lighting design is 

state-of-the-art and efficient, employing pendant and 

wall-washing lighting with surface task lighting. 

However, occupancy motion sensors have not been 

installed at the facility. In FY 2006, a pilot study will 

be completed on the use of the occupancy sensors in 

the building. The men’s and women’s locker rooms 

and the fitness center will be retrofitted with occupancy 

sensors to test their performance as applied to the existing low voltage lighting system. 

The exterior glass of the building is double-pane and 

solar tinted. Plumbing fixtures are low-flow models. 

Domestic hot water is supplied by point-of-use hot 

water heaters located at each restroom and break room. 

The CBP Laboratory and Scientific Services facility in 

San Francisco is an energy intensive facility with over 

half of the occupied square footage devoted to extensive laboratory equipment, open space coordination 

centers housing large numbers of computers, plasma 

screen monitors, and other audio-visual equipment. 

These areas operate 24 hours per day, seven days per 

week. Space temperature settings are held at fairly tight 

settings and humidity control is a priority. In order to 

achieve optimal comfort and efficiency in these large 

areas, several air-conditioning units are employed to 

maintain temperature and humidity set points. This 

strategy allows part of the extensive area to be controlled separately to meet varying loads due to occupancy or usage patterns. The conditioned air is supplied 

to the space via a sub-floor plenum and then exhausted 

through the ceiling space to maximize effectiveness. 

In FY 2004 the USCG classified two facilities as industrial. Both sites have been actively engaged in energy improvement activities in recent years and plan to 

continue to do so. One site, the USCG Curtis Bay 

Shipyard in Maryland is currently in negotiations with 

the City of Baltimore and an energy services company 

to install a methane capture system at a neighboring 

landfill and replace current natural gas services. 

The USSS’s Wilkie Building, which experienced a 

major fire in FY 2004, was redesigned in FY 2005 using energy efficient improvements. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

In FY 2005, the Coast Guard installed a ground source 

heat pump system for HVAC heat transfer at Air Station Cape Cod. 

Distributed Generation 

In FY 2005, the 250-kilowatt molten carbonate fuel 

cell system at Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, Massachusetts continued to generate local (distributed) 

power. Additionally, 700 megawatthours of renewable 

energy was generated at USCG locations nationwide. 

The PIADC has notable generation capacity and is 

presently completing construction of a new power station. Existing generation capacity has historically been 

used to receive rebates from the utility company for 

assisting during peak power demand. On these critical 

days, PIADC operates its generators to lighten the load 

on the power grid, and receives credit from the power 

company in the form of a rebate in the electric bill. 

This has not happened since the new power plant is 

being constructed, and since the New York Department 

of Environmental Conservation has added requirements 

to allow this peak shaving by customers of the utility. It 

is anticipated that the power plant construction will be 

concluded in 2005 and PIADC will once again be able 

to participate in this program. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

TSA has an emergency-operating plan in place to address periods of power emergencies. This plan incorporates normal load shedding principles. A secondary 

power line was installed in FY 2005 to feed the building as a backup electricity source. 

FLETC continues to add buildings under its real time 

pricing meter rate at its Glynco facility. Load shedding 

of chillers is the principal means to achieve emergency 

electrical load reductions. The facility’s energy management control systems are used to reduce electrical 

loads. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Paul Fennewald 

Energy Manager 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Room 3522-22 

7th and D Streets, SW 

Washington, DC 20528 

Phone: 202-692-4222 

Fax: 202-772-9749 

Email: Paul.Fennewald@dhs.gov 

77 
G. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the Assistant Secretary for Administration, who is responsible 

for meeting the goals and requirements of Executive 

Order 13123. HUD’s energy team is comprised of staff 

members from the agency’s Facilities Management 

Division, Building Maintenance and Energy Branch, 

Office of Budget and Administrative Services, Office 

of the Chief Procurement Officer, and Office of Information Technology. The members of the agency energy team provide support consisting of appropriate 

procurement, budget, management, and technical expertise to expedite and encourage the agency’s use of 

appropriations, utility energy services contracts 

(UESCs), and other alternative financing mechanisms 

necessary for energy conservation initiatives. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

HUD uses the Department of Energy’s “You Have the 

Power” awareness campaign to reward employees for 

exceptional performance in implementing Executive 

Order 13123. 

Training and Education 

During FY 2005, nine personnel were trained on the 

operation of the building’s new energy management 

control system. These included eight contract maintenance personnel and one government technical monitor. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, HUD reported an 8.8 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

HUD used an estimated 74,441 Btu per gross square 

foot in its standard buildings during the year. 

Petroleum 

In FY 2005, HUD Headquarters used 174.1 thousand 

cubic feet of natural gas. The building’s emergency 

generator used 476 gallons of fuel oil. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2005 HUD Headquarters used approximately 

16.7 million gallons of water, at a cost of $58,519. 

During the year, the building’s cooling tower maintenance procedures were modified to significantly reduce 

water consumption. Additionally, water-saving flush 

valves were installed on many of the restroom plumbing fixtures in the building. 

Implementation Strategies 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

HUD continues to require that all office automation 

equipment procured is ENERGY STAR-compliant. Design specifications for HUD’s capital improvements 

projects, accomplished through GSA contracts, incorporate energy efficiency criteria. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

HUD Headquarters Building participated in the 

PEPCO Load Curtailment Program. Under the program, the water temperature of the building’s main air 

conditioning chillers is raised, as is the supply air temperature of the main air handling units. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Robert Byrd 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Room 5174 

451 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20410 

Phone: 202-708-1955 

Fax: 202-708-0328 

Email: Robert_E_Byrd@hud.gov 

78 
H. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) 

Management and Administration 

The Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and 

Budget is the Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) 

Senior Agency Official responsible for meeting the 

goals of Executive Order 13123. Implementation of the 

Energy Management and Conservation Program within 

DOI is the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and Budget and is delegated to the 

Office of Acquisition and Property Management 

through the Deputy Assistant Secretary - Business 

Management and Wildland Fire. DOI’s Energy Management Team consists of Senior Bureau Asset Management Officers who are responsible for managing 

DOI’s real property assets. In addition, the Departmental Energy Conservation Committee (DECC), established in 1981, and comprised of bureau representatives ranging from property management specialists to 

engineers provides advice and recommendations to 

senior leadership on energy management initiatives and 

policies as well as guidance on bureau energy management operations. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Three DOI projects were recognized by the Department 

of Energy’s FY 2005 Federal Energy and Water Management Awards. 

• Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) Brazoria 

Environmental Discovery Education Center, Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Texas, received a Renewable Energy Award to Small 

Groups. 

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Center 

in Reston, Virginia, received an Organization 

Award for Energy Efficiency/Energy Program 

Management. 

• FWS Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters and Kettle Pond Visitor Center, 

Charlestown, Rhode Island, received an Energy 

Saver Showcase Facility Award. 

Four facilities were recognized by the DOI FY 2005 

Environmental Achievement Awards. Areas of activity 

recognized by this award include: environmental stewardship, waste/pollution prevention, recycling, green 

purchasing, sustainable design/green building, minimizing petroleum use in transportation, and environmental management systems. 

• FWS Brazoria Environmental Discovery Education Center, Brazoria NWR, Texas; 

• National Park Service (NPS) Midwest Regional 

Office, Omaha, Nebraska; 

• BLM Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming; and 

• NPS Xanterra Employee Housing at Yellowstone 

National Park, Gardiner, Montana, Honorable 

Mention. 

Training and Education 

In FY 2005, energy management training was provided 

for 149 of the 1,057 appropriate personnel. Energy 

managers involved in building energy efficiency and 

water conservation have attended workshops offered 

by the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Several have also 

attended training offered by other organizations such as 

the General Services Administration (GSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Association of 

Energy Engineers, U.S. Green Building Council, public 

utilities, and Bureau energy coordinator’s meetings on 

topics such as green power purchasing, the LEED rating system, building insulation advances, and water 

conservation. Several DOI energy managers attended 

the Energy 2005 Workshop in Long Beach, California. 

During the reporting period, DOI energy managers 

provided information to personnel on available energy 

management training and encouraged them to attend as 

much training as operational requirements and funding 

permitted. Energy managers disseminated relevant information concerning emerging technologies, alternative means of financing, and energy efficient practices; 

and developed employee outreach programs to educate 

building occupants about energy and water management programs. 

DOI’s Energy Web pages “Greening of the Department 

of the Interior” and “Energy Management Information” 

were continually updated in FY 2005. These web sites 

provide relevant information and related internet links 

to numerous energy management and conservation 

initiatives and environmental, green building, and alternative fueled vehicle information. 

BLM issued pertinent Instruction Memoranda (IMs) in 

FY 2005 which are directly applicable to the energy 

management and conservation efforts. These memoranda, which establish official bureau policy, are issued 

to all employees and contract employees of BLM. Specifically, BLM issued IM No. 2005-006 on the subject 

“Solar Energy Development Policy,” IM 2005-109 on 

BLM Space Leasing Program and Priorities, IM 2005­

79 
192 on BLM Biomass Utilization Strategy, and IM 

2005-203 on Inclusion of Biomass Use as a Proposal 

Evaluation Factor. 

Showcase Facilities 

Two DOI facilities were designated by DOE as Federal 

Energy Saver Showcase Facilities: 

• BLM Escalante Science Center at Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Utah. 

• FWS Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters and Kettle Pond Visitor Center, 

Charlestown, Rhode Island. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOI reported a 4.9 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOI used an estimated 83,664 Btu per gross square 

foot in its standard buildings during the year. DOI received credit for purchases of 5.6 billion Btu of renewable energy, lowering the energy intensity of these facilities from 83,755 Btu per square foot to 83,664 Btu 

per square foot. 

Factors affecting variability of the data include: 

• Accurate measurement of standard building energy 

using gross square footage; 

• Concerted efforts to ensure accuracy of the data; 

• Changing weather conditions; 

• Impacts of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma 

required the use of FY 2004 data for some southeast region facilities; 

• Increased number and use of more electric devices; 

• Increased plug load; 

• Acquiring aged, inefficient buildings and facilities 

through land acquisition; and 

• Accurate separation of process energy from building energy use in buildings with only one electric 

meter. 

Building consumption of all major fuels was reduced 

from that reported in FY 2004. Usage of electricity 

declined by 0.64 percent, fuel oil by 34.5 percent, natural gas by 24.3 percent and propane by 0.3 percent. 

Although DOI has been reporting building and process 

energy use for many years, methodologies to separate 

these energy uses vary widely. Process energy is for 

operating equipment and facilities that are not used to 

provide building energy. Process energy is significant 

and is difficult to quantify because it is usually not 

metered separately at field stations. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

In FY 2005, DOI used 1.4 million gallons of auto 

gasoline, diesel, and propane for use in vessels, heavy 

equipment, standby generators, all terrain vehicles, 

blowers, mowers, outboard motors, and other small 

equipment not reported on-line via GSA’s Federal 

Automotive Statistical Tool. A total of 1.4 million 

gallons of aviation gasoline and jet fuel were used. 

Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, DOI used 30.3 billion Btu of renewable 

energy from self-generation and through purchases. In 

January 2005, DOI issued “Renewable Resources for 

America’s Future” which reemphasized DOI’s commitment to increase renewable energy production on 

Public Lands and implementation of the recommendations of the National Energy Policy. 

In June 2005, BLM issued the final Wind Programmatic Environmental Impact Study. The principal outcome of this study was the development of best management practices, which address wind energy siting, 

construction, and operations mitigation activities to 

reduce adverse environmental impacts. These best 

management practices are being incorporated into the 

BLM Wind Energy Development Policy as additional 

guidance for BLM field offices for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions in wind development right of way applications. 

BLM also issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) in FY 

2005 on “Solar Energy Development Policy,” establishing policy for processing right-of-way applications 

for solar energy development projects on public lands 

administered by BLM, and evaluating the feasibility of 

installing solar energy systems on BLM administrative 

facilities and projects. This IM provides basic information about solar technology, resources and potential use 

within the bureau. BLM also issued IM “Biomass 

Utilization Strategy” which provides a policy 

framework to allow and encourage the use of biomass 

from BLM lands for purposes including power 

generation. 

FWS issued Interim Guidance on “Avoiding and 

Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines” on 

May 13, 2003, with a two-year comment period, which 

was later clarified by the Director in April 2004, in a 

memorandum entitled, “Implementation of Service 

Voluntary Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize 

Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines.” The public 

comment period closed on August 10, 2005. FWS is 

80 
reviewing all comments received, and will be working 

with the wind industry and other stakeholders to minimize avian impacts with best practices. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

DOI has implemented 838 renewable energy projects 

since 1990, including standalone and grid-connected 

photovoltaic systems, solar thermal (hot water) projects, geothermal (ground source) heat pumps, and 

wind-related projects. 

BLM photovoltaic systems that went on line in FY 

2005 include: a 3-kilowatt array on Washburn Ranch in 

California, a 5.2-kilowatt standalone array at Kane 

Gulch Ranger Station, Utah and a 7.5-kilowatt, gridconnected array at the Escalante Science Center, Utah. 

Photovoltaic systems were also installed for the Lark 

Canyon water supply well in the El Centro District of 

California, and a similar campground supply well in 

the Elko District in Nevada. 

BLM completed a biomass utilization project for the 

Campbell Creek Science Center in Anchorage, Alaska 

for heating buildings in this complex. The project does 

not generate electrical power, but does reduce the need 

for nonrenewable energy at the complex. The biomass 

heating system, wood source heating a circulating glycol solution, has a capacity of approximately 160,000 

Btu per hour, calculated at the heat exchanger. 

FWS Brazoria NWR Environmental Education Building, Texas, completed in FY 2005, includes the installation of an off-grid, 12.5-kilowatt photovoltaic electric 

system to provide 100 percent of the electrical power to 

the building. Solar lighting at the Tundra Swan Watch 

Boardwalk, Eastern Neck NWR, Maryland; a new 33­

ton geothermal heat pump HVAC system installed at 

Crab Orchard NWR, Illinois; and a hybrid solar/wind 

system installed at Galbraith Lake Cabin, Arctic NWR, 

Alaska, to provide 600-watt solar and 400-watt wind 

electric generation to this remote cabin were completed 

in FY 2005. 

NPS, in cooperation with Electric Power Research Institute, Case Western Reserve University, the US Army 

Research and Development Center-Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and First Energy Corporation will install a 10-kilowatt fuel cell at the November Lodge at the Cuyahoga Valley Environmental 

Education Center in Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 

Ohio. The fuel cell system installed in two phases: 

Phase I - a 5-kilowatt fuel cell was installed in April 

2005; and Phase II - a second 5-kilowatt fuel cell is 

scheduled for installation in Winter 2005/2006. When 

fully installed, the fuel cell system will provide 10 

kilowatts of energy, which can be operated grid interconnected or stand alone, to power the November 

Lodge. NPS installed a photovoltaic system on maintenance facilities at Cabrillo National Monument, California. This system provides 96 Kyrocera 187 panels 

for a CEC/AC rating of 15.19 kilowatts, which works 

out to be a DC rating of 17.95 kilowatts. A 1,800-watt 

solar panel array was installed at the Marion Creek 

Ranger Station, Alaska. Coal Creek Camp, YukonCharley Rivers NP, Alaska, is expected to complete the 

installation of a photovoltaic system to provide all the 

camp’s electrical needs in FY 2006. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

DOI continues to purchase energy from renewable 

sources. In FY 2005, total DOI renewable energy purchases amounted to 1.6 gigawatthours. 

BLM continues to purchase wind-generated renewable 

energy for its Moab Field Office, as well as for the new 

Escalante Science Center during FY 2005. These purchases were made under the Blue Skies Program offered by the utility company, Utah Power and Light. 

Total purchased renewable energy was approximately 

52.9 megawatthours during FY 2005. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and USGS purchased 35.2 

million Btu of geothermal heat for the new Snake River 

Area West office building in Boise, Idaho. The geothermal heat (purchased hot water) is the primary 

heating source for several buildings on campus. 

Petroleum 

In FY 2005, DOI used 530 billion Btu, a 50.5 percent 

decrease from consumption of 1.1 trillion Btu in FY 

1985. Consumption of LPG/propane increased 46.4 

percent versus FY 1985, from 521 billion Btu to 763 

billion Btu in FY 2005. 

Fuel switching continues to be a viable energy management strategy for DOI. In FY 2005, FWS and NPS 

projects included lighting retrofits, HVAC replacements, addressing deferred maintenance, and installation of new energy efficient equipment at many refuges 

and parks. BLM focused on lighting and envelope improvements and the USGS worked towards minimizing 

emissions resulting from petroleum-based fuel usage, 

by increasing the efficiency of existing equipment, 

switching to cleaner burning natural gas, replacing inefficient equipment and specifying natural gas for new 

equipment where justifiable through life-cycle cost 

analysis. 

Water Conservation 

While there is no specific water reduction goal outlined 

in Executive Order 13123, DOI issued policy on baselining water usage in March 2000. Bureaus established 

81 
a baseline of potable water usage at owned buildings, 

report in millions of gallons of per year, and focus conservation efforts on those buildings with the highest 

use. Many of DOI’s buildings do not have metered 

water consumption; Bureaus were encouraged to provide estimates of the water consumption. For FY 2005, 

DOI reports potable water consumption of 2.8 billion 

gallons. This is a decrease of 1.4 billion gallons from 

the March 2000 baseline and a 47 percent decrease 

from FY 2004. 

DOI continues to design and install low-flow or ultra 

low-flow plumbing fixtures in all new facilities. Landscaping design and construction has emphasized the 

use of native plant species, minimization or elimination 

of artificial irrigation, and maximizing efficiency of 

necessary irrigation, such as through use of drip systems, precipitation detection systems, and optimal 

timing. Public information related to drought and water 

conservation is available at many facilities and is recognized as a Best Management Practice (BMP) in the 

FEMP guidance. 

BLM performed water audits at the Red Rock Canyon 

National Conservation Area Visitor Center Complex in 

FY 2005. BLM will be implementing water conservation and wastewater reclamation and reuse projects at 

the complex as a result, expected to be completed in 

FY 2006. It is anticipated that potable water use at 

these facilities will be reduced at least 350,000 gallons 

per year after the improvements are completed. BOR 

Snake River Area West Office Building utilizes watersaving and reuse technologies to reduce waste water 

volumes. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOI utilizes life-cycle cost analysis in making decisions about investment in products, services, construction, and other projects to lower costs and to reduce 

energy and water consumption. DOI actively manages 

a portfolio of capital investments in order to maximize 

the return on investment to the taxpayer and government at an acceptable level of risk. DOI’s Asset Management Plan outlines the process whereby DOI is 

moving from a current reliance on a project-based review process to a life-cycle, asset-based portfolio management process. Effective capital planning within DOI 

requires improved long range planning and a disciplined budget process as the basis for managing a portfolio of assets to achieve performance goals and objectives with minimal risks, lowest life-cycle costs, and 

greatest benefits to the business of the bureaus and DOI 

overall. 

DOI has developed and continues to refine its approach 

to establishing a more consistent, structured, performance-based, integrated approach to its Capital Planning 

Investment Control (CPIC) process. As its portfoliobased approach matures, DOI and the bureaus will 

continue to improve their ability to manage risks and 

returns of capital assets throughout their life cycle necessary to ensure that DOI’s investments are well conceived, cost-effective, and support strategic mission 

and business goals. The analysis of these investments is 

a tool that will be continually revisited, refined and 

updated. It is articulated in a business case, the extent 

of which is commensurate with the cost and impact of 

the investment on the organization and mission. 

DOI has incorporated language into the annual budget 

formulation guidance and into DOI’s five-year deferred 

maintenance plan that identifies planned energy projects and emphasizes life-cycle costing. Projects identified to be cost effective (10-year simple payback rule) 

will be ranked in accordance with their payback and 

funded within resource limitations. Bureaus will retire 

inefficient equipment on an accelerated basis where 

replacement results in lower life cycle costs. 

Facility Energy Audits 

In FY 2005, DOI completed audits for 2.5 million 

gross square feet or four percent of total gross square 

footage. Since 1992, audits were completed on a total 

of 74.2 percent of total gross square footage. DOI continues to use facility energy audits to identify potential 

energy and water conservation projects. Facilities with 

the highest consumption rates of energy or high water 

use are audited first. 

In FY 2005, DOI received funding from DOE’s 

SAVEnergy audit program at the FWS Genoa National 

Fish Hatchery, Wisconsin. The audit was completed in 

August 2005. Montana State University completed an 

“Alternative Energy Feasibility and Conservation 

Study” at the Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Montana. Various facility energy audits were conducted by 

the local service providers. 

USGS has incorporated preliminary energy audits into 

the Condition Assessment and Building Engineering 

Report contract as part of the Deferred Maintenance 

Program. These reports identify facilities with the 

greatest potential for energy and water related savings. 

In FY 2005, BLM performed energy audits on the Turn 

Point Light House and Keepers Quarters, San Juan 

Islands, Washington; and on the Piedras Blancas Light 

House in California. Recommendations from these 

audits will be implemented as these facilities are stabilized and rehabilitated in FY 2006. Energy conserva82 
tion opportunity recommendations from previous audits in Oregon and Wyoming are being implemented 

and will produce measurable savings beginning in FY 

2006. This year an energy audit was conducted at the 

Fort Simcoe Job Corps office. As a result of this audit, 

BOR has entered into an interagency agreement with 

Bonneville Power Administration to perform an energy 

retrofit for this site which will provide an estimated 

annual savings of 273.0 megawatthours and $19,000. 

Financing Mechanisms 

No utility energy services contracts or energy savings 

performance contracts were entered into in FY 2005. 

The most common problem encountered is the low 

return on investment because of the relatively small 

size of DOI’s facilities, which does not provide sufficient incentive for contractor participation. DOI will 

continue to investigate opportunities for use of these 

mechanisms. 

Partnerships help leverage funding for a range of energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The partnership between FWS Eastern Neck NWR, the State of 

Maryland, and the Maryland Energy Administration is 

expanding into utilizing sustainable energy in conjunction with wetland management. Grant proposals are 

being developed that would install solar-powered 

pumps for water level manipulation at waterfowl impoundments on state, Federal, and county lands in Kent 

County, Maryland. In FY 2005, NPS partnered with the 

Corps of Engineers, Electric Power Research Institute, 

Case Western Reserve University, and First Energy 

Corporation for installation of a propane powered gridconnected fuel cell at the November Lodge at the 

Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education Center. 

The Green Energy Parks partnership continues to result 

in parks nationwide receiving funding and technical 

support from DOE and other public/private partners for 

projects that promote the use of energy efficient and 

renewable energy technologies and practices in our 

National Parks, and to educate the visiting public about 

these efforts. Energy projects completed in FY 2005 

under the Green Energy Parks Program include photovoltaic powered interpretive devices at Petersburg National Battlefield, Virginia and Richmond National 

Battlefield, Virginia. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

Since FY 2003, the Federal Procurement Data System 

has been updated to track the Resource Conservation 

Recovery Act requirements. The data element for 

tracking the use of recovered material provides for data 

collection on the use of recycled material, including 

materials that promote and enhance energy management. 

DOI continues to pursue goals established in its Strategic Plan for greening the agency under Executive Order 13101, incorporating energy efficiency considerations into all levels of procurement, resulting in a 

greener DOI. Under DOI’s Government-wide Acquisition Intern Program, selected participants are provided 

with training on purchasing environmentally preferable 

and energy-efficient products and services. 

DOI continued its practice of purchasing energy efficient appliances (especially microwave ovens and refrigerators for offices and a card was developed of 

“do’s and don’ts” for using the purchase card that refers to buying green and energy-efficient items on the 

GSA schedule through the Javits Wagner O’Day 

(JWOD) Program, which aggressively incorporate energy-efficient items into their product lines. The JWOD 

Program provides employment opportunities for thousands of people with severe disabilities to earn good 

wages and move to greater independence. 

DOI established a policy that only re-refined oil would 

be used in its vehicles and equipment. To ensure compliance with the policy, DOI requested that the Defense 

Logistics Agency substitute re-refined oil when virgin 

lubricating oil is ordered. In addition, DOI has encouraged bureaus to replace many of its gasoline-fueled 

vehicles with alternative fueled vehicles using biodiesel. The use of biodiesel is a significant part of 

DOI’s strategy to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum. 

Yosemite National Park acquired 18 diesel-electric 

hybrid buses. This, coupled with an extensive public 

education effort will increase awareness about hybrid 

bus technology and cleaner transportation options. 

BLM’s Guide Specifications, which are tailored for use 

in construction projects nationwide, are being converted for application of the American Institute of Architects MasterSpec system. Customization made during FY 2005 and which will be completed in coming 

years includes specific requirements and/or provisions 

related to minimum efficiencies of energy-consuming 

equipment and motors, performance of systems related 

to energy-efficiency and waste minimization and recycling at construction sites. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

DOI has requested that its bureaus identify office 

buildings (minimum of 5,000 gross square feet) that 

may qualify as ENERGY STAR buildings by using the 

benchmarking tool developed by EPA. DOI is planning 

83 
to partner with EPA to include visitor centers in the 

ENERGY STAR Building Labels program. 

Draft policy has been developed that would require any 

new construction or rehabilitation of buildings to be 

consistent with industry standard building ratings, such 

as LEED Green Building Rating System, and ENERGY 

STAR -compliant. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Sustainable building design principles have been incorporated into the siting, design, and construction of 

DOI projects. In FY 2005, 17 design/construction projects were identified as being LEED certifiable. Energy 

coordinators are working closely with their engineering, architect, and design offices to address energy 

conservation retrofits and new building designs and 

ensure that buildings comply with Federal energy laws 

and regulations. All cost effective, energy conservation 

opportunities are analyzed for consistency with resource management objectives. Energy conservation 

efficiency standards are included as an integral part of 

all engineering design and construction project technical specifications. 

Four DOI projects recently obtained LEED certification: 

• NPS Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters, Omaha, Nebraska, earned LEED Gold certification; 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Baca/Dlo'ay azhi 

Community School, in Prewitt, New Mexico; 

• NPS South Rim Maintenance and Warehouse 

Facility, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona; 

and 

• NPS Xanterra Parks and Resorts/National Park 

Service Concessioner Employee Housing, Gardiner, Montana. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

The Strategic Plan for Greening the Department of the 

DOI includes in its action plans that DOI ensure that 

leased building space incorporates sustainable design, 

green products and services, recycling, energy management and water conservation in building development and operation. 

BLM’s standard leasing provisions require energy efficient (T-8 or better) lamps and light fixtures in all interior and exterior lighting, use of occupancy sensors, 

scheduled programmed controls or daylight dimming 

controls for all lighting applications, and contain glazing, cladding and thermal break requirements for windows. Energy cost savings provisions include achievement of ENERGY STAR Building Labels and the use of 

DOE qualified Energy Service Companies. The guidance also includes requirements for maintenance of 

indoor air quality standards and use of certified sustainable wood products in new applications, and provisions for use of recycled content and environmentally 

preferable materials. BLM recently procured new 

leased space for the Utah State Office, which will be 

LEED-certified, likely at the silver level. BLM is considering requiring LEED certification for all newly 

leased space in the future. 

USGS is making an effort to ensure that when entering 

leases, including the re-negotiation or extension of existing leases, provisions that encourage energy and 

water efficiency are incorporated. Build-to-suit lease 

solicitations shall contain criteria encouraging sustainable design and development, energy efficiency, and 

verification of building performance. In addition, a 

preference for buildings having the ENERGY STAR 

building label will be included in the selection criteria 

for acquiring leased buildings, and leasing companies 

will be encouraged to apply for the ENERGY STAR 

building label. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

DOI used the technological tools developed by DOE 

and its laboratories and other tools, including the 

LEED rating system, to identify the potential use of 

highly efficient systems, including the use of biomass, 

geothermal, or other renewable energy sources. The 

National Business Center used the LEED rating system 

to help guide them toward greater energy efficiency for 

the Main Interior Building. Bureaus analyze the potential for use of district energy systems, and other highly 

efficient systems, in new construction or retrofit projects. Bureaus are to consider combined cooling, heat, 

and power when upgrading and assessing facility 

power needs and use of combined cooling, heat, and 

power systems when life-cycle cost-effective. Other 

steps include incorporation of certification procedures 

to ensure major projects are reviewed for energy efficiency. 

Distributed Generation 

DOI continues to pursue projects that self-generate 

energy using renewable sources (such as photovoltaics 

or wind turbines) or renewable energy thermal projects 

(such as solar thermal, biomass, or geothermal) where 

life-cycle cost effective. 

Following are examples of distributed generation and 

off-grid generation that were implemented in FY 2005: 

• BLM, Kane Gulch Ranger Station, Utah, included 

a 5.2-kilowatt standalone photovoltaic system. 

84 
• FWS, Brazoria NWR, Texas, a 12.5 kW photovoltaic system provides 100 percent of the electrical power to the new Environmental Education 

Building. 

DOE funded a $40,000 Request for Technical Assistance for a Wind/Solar Resource Assessment on National Wildlife Refuges in the northeast region. FEMP 

awarded $20,000 to the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory to conduct a GIS-analysis of wind resources on refuges in the northeast region. Wind resources within one-half mile around 50 sites were 

analyzed and 30 sites were found to be suitable for 

small (10-kilowatt, 80 feet tall) wind turbines. The 

analysis will be further refined by collaborating with 

refuge managers and personnel from other programs to 

determine potentially appropriate sites for installing 

turbines. Sandia National Laboratory was recently 

awarded a similar contract with regards to solar resources in the northeast region. The goal of this program include demonstrating to the public responsible 

use of renewable energy, developing sound criteria for 

monitoring and minimizing impacts on wildlife, reducing annual operating costs at FWS stations, and 

educating the public about overall environmental impacts of various energy sources. 

NPS Channel Islands National Park continued to implement sustainable practices and utilization of alternative fuel programs. From past years the park has 

been operating 77 renewable energy systems on the 

islands, which have been providing 29 kilowatts of 

energy for remote power, water pumping, communications and resource monitoring. These energy systems 

have continued to eliminate or preclude the usage of 

28,000 gallons of diesel fuel for power generation. On 

Santa Rosa Island the photovoltaic systems providing 

power to the housing area were expanded by 2.5 kilowatts to account for increased demand due to resource 

management activities and new communications 

equipment. The National Marine Mammal research 

facility on Channel Islands National Park’s San Miguel 

Island was reconstructed and a 1,600-watt photovoltaic/600 watt wind hybrid system was installed by 

park staff to provide power to the facility. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

DOI continues to implement operational strategies to 

reduce electrical load and peak demand. The strategies 

include specific identification of short- and long-term 

electricity load reduction measures, monitoring of total 

facility demand, strengthened coordination with local 

utilities, and enhanced communications with employees about the benefits of and best practices for increased energy efficiency. DOI facilities continue to 

address the energy situation in areas that are vulnerable 

to energy shortages and rising energy costs. 

In addition, the Main and South Interior Buildings 

continued as active participants in the Pepco Load 

Curtailment Program which reduces energy consumption and costs while helping the local utility meet its 

customers’ demand for energy during periods of high 

demand. 

At the close of FY 2005, the nation witnessed the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the 

Gulf Coast States. On September 26, 2005, President 

Bush issued a Presidential Memorandum which directed Federal agencies to take immediate actions to 

conserve energy and fuel use throughout Federal facilities. DOI Bureaus have and will continue to respond 

to the President’s Memorandum to conserve energy 

and fuel through the FY 2006 heating season. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Debra Sonderman 

Director, Office of Acquisition and Property

 Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Main Interior Building, Room 5512 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Phone: 202-208-6352 

Fax: 202-208-6301 

Email: debra_sonderman@ios.doi.gov 

85 
I. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) 

Management and Administration 

In the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Assistant Attorney General for Administration is the designated 

Senior Agency Official. The members of the DOJ Energy Team are comprised of representatives from 

DOJ’s Facilities and Administrative Staff, Procurement 

Services Staff, Budget Staff, Finance Staff, Personnel 

Staff, and the Office of the Procurement Executive. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

DOJ implemented a combined Energy and Environmental Awards program during FY 2002 to recognize 

excellence in each of these areas annually. In addition, 

employees are nominated for the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

Federal Energy and Water Management Awards and 

are recognized at the local level for outstanding performance. 

Training and Education 

The DOJ periodically conducts meetings with its bureaus to disseminate DOE, Office of Management and 

Budget and other energy-related information and provides direction, guidance and assistance to the bureaus 

in meeting energy efficiency goals and requirements. 

Budget constraints have limited the amount of energy 

training available on a large scale to Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) staff. The number and complexity of issues inherent to institution staff, including handicapped accessibility, life safety, environmental regulations, seismic 

safety, and other responsibilities have limited the potential for having a dedicated position for an energy 

specialist at every institution. Through telephone contacts between institution staff, the Regional Energy 

Conservation Coordinators, and the Central Office Energy Conservation Program Manager, specific concerns 

are addressed. Energy conservation remains a very 

important topic at the Facilities Management training 

course held bi-annually and at the National Facilities 

Managers Conference. The bi-annual course generally 

has 25-30 participants from throughout BOP who hold 

a wide variety of positions. Topics include such items 

as reviewing the energy program and required documentation for requesting energy projects, life cycle 

costing, and the requirements of Executive Order 

13123. A videotape outlining energy reduction goals 

and highlighting energy conservation projects is being 

distributed to institutions throughout BOP. 

Showcase Facilities 

The BOP complies with national model codes for construction and mandates the use of life-cycle costing in 

the selection of energy consuming systems. Based 

upon this, all new institutions should be as energy efficient as life cycle costing allows. Due to the nature of 

the BOP mission, security requirements pertaining to 

physical access to the institution and the need to maintain control over what operating information is released, it is not practicable to designate prisons as 

showcase facilities. Similarly, for security reasons, the 

FBI has not designated any showcase facilities. DOJ 

will strive to designate at least one showcase facility 

annually and will work with the bureaus towards 

achieving that goal. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOJ reported a 40.0 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. DOJ used 176,537 Btu per 

square foot in its standard buildings during the year. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

In FY 2005, DOJ used an estimated 225,319 Btu per 

gross square foot in its energy intensive facilities during the year. 

In FY 2005, the Department of Justice began reporting 

its Bureau of Prisons facilities (formerly categorized as 

standard buildings) as energy intensive facilities. Since 

BOP did not begin reporting its facilities until FY 

1986, no revisions were made to FY 1985 data. (No 

revisions were provided to any year’s data prior to FY 

2005.) BOP facilities operate 24 hours per day, 365 

days per year with energy consuming functions that 

include daily food preparation, dishwashing, inmate 

showers, laundry, and industrial activities. DOJ also 

changed the reporting of the FBI headquarters facility 

from the energy intensive facilities to the standard 

buildings category in FY 2005. DOJ has not provided 

FY 1990 baseline data for its energy intensive 

facilities. 

Based on a formula that DOJ believes most accurately 

reflects the energy conservation accomplishments of its 

largest real property holding organization, the BOP has 

reduced its energy intensity in Btu per gross square 

foot per inmate by 63.5 percent from its FY 1986 baseline. This formula takes into account the significant 

increases in the housed federal prison population, a 

86 
direct determinant of energy consumption in BOP facilities. 

Other DOJ industrial and laboratory facilities are comprised of large data centers, FBI and Drug Enforcement 

Agency (DEA) labs, the United States Marshals 

Service airplane hangar and the FBI training facility in 

Quantico, Virginia. These facilities operate 24 hours 

per day, 365 days per year and are not typical office 

buildings. In the past, these facilities have been 

reported in the category of “Exempt Buildings.” While 

these facilities were previously designated as being 

exempt from the energy reduction goals due to the 

critical nature of their operations, there have 

nevertheless been significant improvements in the 

energy consumption. Several energy efficiency projects 

have been undertaken at these locations to improve 

HVAC systems, lighting and electrical distribution. 

New data centers have recently been constructed utilizing energy efficient equipment and construction materials. DOJ will continue to improve the operating 

efficiencies of these facilities in the future. Toward this 

goal, the FBI has relocated its labs from the headquarters facility into a newly constructed, energy efficient 

facility in Quantico, Virginia. DOJ encourages lab operators to participate in the Environmental Protection 

Administration (EPA)-sponsored “Labs for the 21st 

Century”. 

Renewable Energy 

The BOP entered into an energy savings performance 

contract (ESPC) during FY 1996 to provide domestic 

hot water, heated by solar energy, at the Federal Corrections Institute (FCI), Phoenix, Arizona. The system 

became operational in February 1999. The BOP is 

seeking to expand the original scope of this contract to 

include absorption chillers, if proven viable, and they 

are in the process of identifying additional locations 

where such technology would be operationally viable 

and economically beneficial. The BOP currently is 

working with DOE on potential ESPCs for FCI La 

Tuna, Texas (solar hot water system) and FCI Englewood, Colorado (solar hot water and wind generation 

systems). An ESPC was signed on September 30, 2003, 

for FCI Victorville, California to provide both electrical solar array and wind turbine electrical generation 

systems; this project became operational in June 2005. 

Petroleum 

The DOJ has several projects underway to reduce the 

use of petroleum in its facilities. The BOP has an operational solar hot water system at FCI, Phoenix, Arizona; the FBI has converted its central heating and 

cooling plant at Quantico, Virginia from fuel oil to 

natural gas. 

The BOP is continuing its efforts to reduce the use of 

petroleum within its facilities by utilizing alternative 

fuels where applicable. The BOP also has a policy 

mandating the use of life-cycle costing that has served 

to limit the use of petroleum-based fuels where it is not 

the most cost-effective option. 

Water Conservation 

The DOJ revised its initial water baseline data during 

FY 2002 and will be re-evaluating the accuracy of this 

data during FY 2006. There will be an increased emphasis on implementing DOE-established Best Management Practices to reduce water consumption at DOJ 

facilities nationwide. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

All DOJ Procurement Chiefs were initially notified of 

the changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to 

implement Executive Order 13123 by memorandum 

dated May 31, 2000, and a subsequent annual notification has been issued. These changes include the use of 

life-cycle cost analysis, procurement of ENERGY STAR 

products and guidance to contracting officers on the 

use of ESPCs and other alternative financing mechanisms. In December 2001, a Procurement Conference 

for all DOJ Offices, Boards, Divisions and U.S. Attorney procurement offices was conducted and compliance with the Greening of the Government Executive 

Orders was emphasized. 

The BOP has a policy in place mandating the use of 

life-cycle cost analysis. Facilities Operational Manual, 

Program Statement 4200.09, Chapter 6, Energy Conservation, clearly outlines procedures ensuring that lifecycle cost analyses are conducted on all projects involving replacement of energy consuming major 

equipment, new construction, renovation, and expansion. The FBI Headquarters Engineering Staff uses 

life-cycle cost analysis in its designs or has them included in design and construction contract language for 

projects it monitors. 

Facility Energy Audits 

The BOP has completed energy audits for approximately 89 percent of its facilities nationwide. These 

audits were completed at a wide variety of institution 

types subject to diverse climates. Audits completed to 

date have resulted in requests for funding and the establishment of energy conservation projects. The remaining institutions that do not have audits scheduled 

were activated within the past ten years and it would 

better serve the purpose of energy conservation to focus resources on the energy conservation needs of 

older institutions. Institutions that are 50 years or older 

87 
are under a Physical Plant Review Survey and Long 

Range Master Plan Program (LRMP). These institutions will have energy and water conservation opportunities identified in the LRMP and FEMP is providing 

assistance on this project. The DEA has completed an 

energy audit of its headquarters complex. 

The FBI uses its own in-house engineering staff to 

conduct energy conservation surveys in addition to 

using ESPCs. Each facility is reviewed by the FBI’s 

engineering staff for energy savings projects for prioritization and implementation. Projects with the best 

investment-to-payback return are given the highest 

priority. Projects with specific funding from the General Services Administration or that coincide with replacement of equipment that has reached the end of its 

useful life are given a high priority. Energy intensive 

facilities are reviewed for improved equipment installation as technologies become available. After conducting an extensive analysis, the FBI has used an 

ESPC to replace the original 30 year old chillers in the 

J. Edgar Hoover Building in FY 2004. This ESPC was 

utilized to replace constant speed air handler fan units 

with variable speed frequency drives in FY 2005. 

Financing Mechanisms 

The BOP has actively taken part in a number of utility 

incentives and rebate programs in an effort to reduce 

the amount of Government funding required to complete energy conservation projects. Both electric and 

natural gas utilities have worked with BOP by providing services, guidance and financial incentives on such 

systems as lighting and HVAC. The cost savings generated by such efforts allow for additional projects to 

be funded in a time of limited resources. The BOP currently is working with DOE and the local utility company on a utility energy services contract (UESC) at 

the FCI in Englewood, Colorado and reviewing additional sites for potential UESCs. 

The BOP entered into an ESPC in FY 1996, construction began in FY 1998, and operation commenced in 

FY 1999 at the FCI in Phoenix. This ESPC was for the 

installation of a solar energy system that provides a 

large percentage of the domestic hot water for this FCI. 

Assuming that savings are represented by the total cost 

of energy that would have been incurred had electricity 

been purchased in lieu of solar energy, savings for FY 

2005 were approximately $70,000 with the retention of 

$7,000 by BOP. Additional savings of approximately 

$500 per month accrue due to the decreased maintenance required for the existing hot water heaters. 

A second ESPC was awarded on September 30, 2003, 

for a solar photovoltaic system and wind turbine electrical generation system at the FCI Victorville, California. In addition, BOP continues to work with DOE at 

potential ESPC sites, including at the Federal Corrections Center in Allenwood, Pennsylvania that will incorporate landfill gas to fuel the institution’s boiler 

system. The FBI utilized an ESPC to replace the 30 

year old chillers in its headquarters facility during FY 

2004 and to replace the constant speed air handler fan 

units with variable speed frequency drives in FY 2005. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

DOJ Bureaus have incorporated energy and water efficient design and construction practices in specifications 

for new construction and alteration projects. DOJ procurement officials have been notified of the requirement to purchase ENERGY STAR products whenever 

available. 

Sustainable Building Design 

The new Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

headquarters facility in Washington, D.C. is being designed and will be constructed to the U.S. Green 

Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified standards with a 

goal of achieving the higher LEED Silver rating. Bureaus have incorporated sustainable design principles 

in new design and construction projects. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

The BOP relies on a computer-based maintenance 

scheduling and tracking system. This system is a valuable asset in assuring that preventive maintenance is 

completed according to schedule, and helps to assure 

equipment will continue to run as efficiently as possible. There has also been increased energy awareness by 

the staff throughout BOP which has proven to be a 

valuable tool in efforts to reduce fuel consumption despite a rapidly increasing inmate population. 

A new energy management system and new energy 

efficient HVAC equipment has been installed during 

the major renovation project for the Robert F. Kennedy 

Building in Washington, D.C. Phase I of this project 

was completed in FY 2000, Phase II was completed in 

FY 2002 and the final Phase III was completed in FY 

2004. Continuous commissioning of installed equipment has resulted in identifying and correcting equipment operating deficiencies. 

The DEA utilizes the services of a Commercial Facilities Management (CFM) contractor to provide operation and maintenance services for its headquarters facility. The contractor is mandated to provide DEA with 

onsite energy management guidance and implementation in the performance of their daily contractual duties 

and responsibilities. The contractor is vigilant in per88 
forming all preventive maintenance on all operating 

equipment and machinery to achieve optimum operating efficiency. The CFM contractor utilizes a computer 

based maintenance program that is based on GSA’s 

comprehensive preventative maintenance handbook. 

Strict adherence to the maintenance schedules ensures 

that equipment is operating in the most energy efficient 

condition. There has been an increased awareness by 

both DEA staff and contractor personnel regarding 

equipment operation, thus further enhancing efforts to 

improve energy conservation. 

The BOP, with 95 percent of DOJ’s total space, is continuing with its efforts to meet the reduction goals. 

Policies have been updated to reflect the new mandates 

regarding the level of energy reduction. Over 80 percent of BOP institutions have had energy conservation 

surveys and BOP has established limited funding for a 

number of energy conservation projects. It is anticipated this source of funding will be available to assist 

institutions to meet the required reduction goals. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Bill Lawrence 

Departmental Energy Program Manager 

U.S. Department of Justice 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20530 

Phone: 202-616-2417 

Fax: 202-307-1874 

Email: bill.lawrence@usdoj.gov 

89 
J. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) 

Management and Administration 

In the Department of Labor (DOL), the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management serves as 

the Environmental Executive. 

DOL’s Energy Team consists of individuals who have 

been assigned primary programmatic responsibility for 

energy management and conservation, and agency representatives who promote and oversee the energy programs within their organization. The team plans and 

directs DOL’s energy initiatives, implements best 

practices and promotes energy awareness and conservation. 

The team includes members from DOL’s Business 

Operations Center, Administrative Services, Procurement, Finance and Budget, Procurement Policy, Facilities Management, Building Management, Fleet Management, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 

Safety and Health, Employment and Training Administration, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

In addition, the MSHA and the Employment and 

Training Administration, Office of Job Corps (Job 

Corps), have established internal working groups that 

provide continuing support for their individual program 

efforts. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Beginning in 2002, DOL has recognized groups and 

individuals who have made significant contributions to 

the conservation and efficient use of energy by awarding a DOL Energy Conservation Award at the Annual 

Secretary’s Honors Award Ceremony Program. 

In addition, individual agencies sponsor internal 

awards recognizing the efforts of individuals within 

their organizations. For example, the Office of Job 

Corps, which owns and operates over 120 Job Corps 

Facilities nationwide, awards Job Corps Centers that 

achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy use, mandated 

by Executive Order 13123 with program incentives and 

its own Energy Saver Award. DOL also submitted 

nominations for the 2005 Federal Energy and Water 

Management Awards, and the Department of Energy, 

Federal Energy Management Program’s (FEMP’s) 

2005 Energy Champion awareness program. 

Training and Education 

Program flyers and mini-training sessions are used to 

promote energy savings and environmental initiatives 

and to keep staff updated with the latest conservation 

requirements. DOL participates in training information 

sessions provided by the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, and 

FEMP. These forums provide an information exchange 

that is shared with the sub-agency staff responsible for 

energy management. 

The Office of Job Corps’ internal reporting system 

provides quarterly updates on progress toward achieving energy conservation targets. These reports become 

the cornerstone of follow up meetings to discuss energy awareness and conservation issues. 

A number of specific initiatives that promote energy 

awareness are highly visible. Notably, the Office of Job 

Corps has developed a web-based training curriculum 

of courses in partnership with the International Facility 

Management Association covering the following energy and environmental topics: 

• Facility and Energy Management; 

• HVAC; 

• Preventive Maintenance; and 

• Renewable Energy. 

Job Corps includes information promoting energy conservation awareness among its participants as part of 

regular student development and vocational skills 

training. Job Corps’ base curriculum includes the importance of energy conservation, and ways to improve 

the conservation and energy efficiency of residences 

and the overall campus. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

In FY 2005 the Office of Job Corps developed a webbased energy tracking and monitoring system for the 

utilities consumed at its sites. The system’s reporting 

and graphics package has provided a valuable tool to 

analyze utility data. One example of the benefits derived from the information generated by the system is 

demonstrated in the clarification of a $440,000 utility 

billing error from the Muhlenberg Job Corps Center. 

The error was identified and documented utilizing the 

new web-based tracking system. The system is also 

utilized to generate the information contained in this 

report. 

90 
Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOL reported a 15.5 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. DOL used an estimated 

99,593 Btu per square foot in its standard buildings 

during the year. 

Significant impact and changes in energy usage have 

occurred at Job Corps facilities. Energy usage per 

square foot for FY 2005 was 34 percent below the FY 

1985 base year. Overall, Job Corps FY 2005 energy 

usage per square foot is 7.2 percent below what was 

recorded in FY 2004. This change is, in part, attributed 

management guidance set forth in the Job Corps Policy 

Requirements Handbook. It establishes performance 

measures, giving consideration to local conditions and 

the availability of energy resources. In addition, this 

guidance outlines long-term goals, including preventive maintenance for all major energy systems. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-generated Renewable Energy 

In partnership with the FEMP renewable energy project 

in Louisiana, DOL has made significant progress in 

generating renewable energy. Job Corps continues to 

adhere to its Strategic Energy Plan and pursue a number of renewable energy projects. A FEMP renewable 

energy grant will be used to identify a suitable site after 

the initial study is completed. The following projects 

are currently underway: 

• Potomac Job Corps Center: Installation of a geothermal heat pump; 

• Puerto Rico Job Corps Center: Installation of solar 

hot water unit; 

• Albuquerque Job Corps Center: Installation of a 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) solar hot water system utilization system; 

and 

• New Haven and Woodstock Job Corps Centers: 

Feasibility study for solar ventilation air preheating. 

Petroleum 

DOL reported a 20 percent decrease in petroleum usage compared to FY 2004 and a 52 percent energy reduction compared to the 1985 baseline. 

Water Conservation 

As part of enhanced water conservation effort, in FY 

2005 implementation of the Job Corps Energy Strategic 

Plan resulted in the consumed 1.05 billion gallons of 

water at a cost of more than $4.6 million. This is a 0.4 

percent decrease in consumption from the FY 2004 

amount, which cost $4.2 million. The escalating costs 

are attributed to local water rate increases. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

A life-cycle cost analysis is required for all Job Corps 

construction projects. All design contracts include lifecycle analysis and are reviewed for compliance with 10 

CFR 435 and Executive Order 13123 life-cycle investment analysis requirements 

Facility Energy Audits 

The Job Corps program performs audits on at least 10 

percent of its facilities each year. Every Job Corps 

Center undergoes a total facility survey on a three-year 

cycle. A team of architects and engineers surveys the 

entire facility for building deficiencies and evaluates 

the general condition. Since energy issues are an integrated part of the survey, problem areas are identified 

during the more frequent three-year cycle instead of the 

required ten-year time-frame. 

Financing Mechanisms 

DOL has provided direct funding for audit and energy 

conservation initiatives utilized by Job Corps. Over 

$1.0 million was made available for the installation of 

energy efficient technologies at 13 centers selected for 

energy and conservation improvements in FY 2005. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

DOL continues to meet or exceed requirements to purchase post-consumer content paper. As has been DOL 

practice, service contracts for the headquarters Frances 

Perkins Building include energy efficient criteria in the 

contract specifications. These requirements mandate 

that materials and services promote the efficient use of 

energy and recycled materials. 

Under the Job Corps program, the 51 audits already 

completed and 15 completed energy savings performance contracts formulate an energy conservation strategy for specific energy conservation measures. The 

completed audits are alike in energy saving strategy 

and the same technologies can be implemented at centers where audits have not been completed. This is the 

most cost effective strategy for centers with similar 

equipment and facilities. 

Since Job Corps Centers are similar in building configuration and construction, the results of completed 

energy audits at Job Corps Centers have pointed to four 

primary methods of energy consumption reduction: 

91 
• Lighting retrofits, including changing T-12 ballasts 

to T-8 fluorescent ballasts and replacement of incandescent lighting with compact fluorescent; 

• Installation of low flow plumbing fixtures such as 

toilets, sinks, and showerheads; 

• Installation of occupancy sensors for lighting; and 

• Installation of thermostat controls (i.e. 

programmable, night setback). 

Sustainable Building Design 

Job Corps building design guide has been revised to 

incorporate sustainable design building principles that 

are incorporated into each scope of work. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Lease provisions under which Job Corps Centers operate do not assign responsibility for energy efficiency to 

the lessor. Most leases are one dollar per year intergovernmental relationships, which place responsibility for 

energy efficient measures on the tenant. Cost effective 

energy and water conservation measures are monitored 

through the energy audits conducted at each facility. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

During 2005, the General Services Administration 

completed the chiller replacement project in the Frances Perkins Building. The project included replacement 

of four existing 1,500-ton Carrier centrifugal chillers 

with three 1,600-ton York centrifugal chillers and the 

addition of a plate heat exchanger that provide free 

cooling if needed during the fall/winter months. The 

new chillers and the free cooling system control have 

been connected to the building automation/energy 

management system, the system monitors and will 

automatically control the chillers, based on building 

loads, and determine when to cycle the chillers to 

provide the required cooling while minimizing energy 

consumption. 

Under the Job Corps program, experience has shown 

that basic systems are the most effective and energy 

efficient implementation strategy. Preventative maintenance manuals are completed and tracked by Center 

facility managers, and provide the Center with first 

hand knowledge of the levels of efficiency of operating 

equipment. The infrastructure developed to track energy and utility usage through EnergyWatchdog.com. 

is currently being implemented for all 93 Job Corps 

Centers, and should provide additional energy savings. 

Funds have been redirected to focus on LEED and renewable energy as a strategy to improve energy efficiency devices that rely on sophisticated control systems. For example, Job Corps Centers in Puerto Rico 

are constructing solar water heaters and the Job Corps 

Facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico is constructing a 

LEED facility focusing on capital investment in lieu of 

reliance on operators to extract energy performance. 

Electrical Lead Reduction Measures 

The local power supplier (PEPCO) has abandoned the 

Curtailable Load Program, however the Frances Perkins Building is available to reduce electrical loads 

during emergencies or network grid capacity concerns. 

When requested, DOL will apply load shedding and 

power reductions to meet emergency requirement in 

the area following their notification. Further reductions 

in electrical consumption have been achieved through 

reduced running hours of heating and cooling equipment and temperature setbacks. 

Job Corps Center buildings are relatively small in size 

and are not usually considered for formal demand reduction programs administered by local utility companies. Job Corps examines each facility’s ability to shed 

loads and participate in these local programs on a caseby-case basis. No opportunities were found for load 

reduction agreements during the energy audits performed in FY 2005. However, in a declared emergency 

situation, it is standing policy that centers must shed air 

conditioning loads and other related electrical loads, as 

needed. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Patricia Clark 

Building Manager 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Frances Perkins Buildings 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Room S-1520 

Washington, DC 20210 

Phone: 202-693-6669 

Fax: 202-693-7230 

Email: clark-patricia-c@dol.gov 

92 
K. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (State) 

Management and Administration 

In the Department of State (State), the Assistant Secretary for Administration is the Senior Energy Official. 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Operations assists 

the Senior Energy Official. The State energy team develops and implements the various activities and initiatives to meet the goals of Executive Order 13123. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

State uses various employee incentive programs to 

reward exceptional performance in implementing Executive Order 13123. The most frequently given financial awards are the Extra Mile and Franklin awards, 

which are under $2,000 and are given to outstanding 

achievers. Other awards over $2,000 are given in conjunction with performance evaluations. Awards are 

usually given only to government employees, but a few 

have been awarded to contract employees for outstanding performance in implementing energy efficient 

measures in State buildings. 

Training and Education 

State employees are encouraged to receive appropriate 

training for implementing Executive Order 13123. 

Showcase Facilities 

State has two Showcase facilities. The George P. 

Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center 

(NFATC) has incorporated energy efficient lighting 

and variable speed drives into the facility. Motion sensors and daylighting are used to curtail energy used for 

lighting. 

The Florida Regional Center is the State “Solar Energy 

Showcase” facility. Photovoltaic cells provide power 

for parking lot and exterior building lighting. A survey 

for an additional photovoltaic and solar trough project 

is being explored. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, State reported an 18.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. State used an estimated 

106,020 Btu per square foot in its standard buildings 

during the year. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

State has installed photovoltaic cells for parking lot 

lighting and a passive solar trough for water heating in 

its Florida Regional Center. The array and trough generate approximately 159 kilowatthours per year. Additional photovoltaic panels are scheduled to be installed 

for net-metering and to provide electrical power to the 

facility. In addition, a small, 35.1-kilowatthour array is 

installed on the Harry S Truman 8th floor building 

roof. 

Implementation Strategies 

Facility Energy Audits 

State completed energy audits in its FY 2002 buildings 

inventory. Buildings coming into the FY 2003 and FY 

2004 workload will also be audited in a reasonable 

time period. This will complete the audit cycle for all 

buildings in State’s domestic inventory. 

Sustainable Building Design 

State encourages the adoption of sustainable building 

practices through training staff in the use of LEED as a 

framework for sustainable analysis, developing sustainability standards for State projects, and promoting 

opportunities for sustainable product vendors to present 

their products to State personnel. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

All State facilities developed electrical load reduction 

plans for a 10, 20, and 30 percent electrical load reduction, in accordance with the President’s May 3, 2001 

Memorandum for Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Tim Arthurs 

Energy Conservation and Policy Officer 

Office of Facility Management and Support Services 

U.S. Department of State 

A/OPR/FMSS 

2201 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20520 

Phone: 202-647-6001 

Fax: 202-647-1873 

Email: r.tim.arthurs@state.gov 

93 
L. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) 

Management and Administration 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is organized 

into ten Operating Administrations and the Office of 

the Secretary (OST). Six of the Operating Administrations and OST operate facilities and report energy use 

in buildings and facilities. Each of these organizations 

has energy and water management programs in place. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the 

largest of the Operating Administrations in DOT managing 85 percent of the buildings and facilities. A large 

percentage of the FAA facilities have been exempted 

from energy reduction requirements because they are 

critical to the safety of air travel. 

The Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration is 

the Designated Senior Agency Official responsible for 

implementation of energy and environmental requirements at DOT. 

The Department established a technical support team at 

the headquarters level within OST to assist the Operating Administrations in implementing the requirements of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act 

as amended, and Executive Order 13123. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Within DOT, incentive awards are widely used to reward conscientious and innovative energy management 

activities. For example, each year the FAA awards an 

Administrator’s Environmental Excellence Award. 

In FY 2005, the Office of the Federal Environmental 

Executive recognized the FAA Northwest Mountain 

Region for their efforts in constructing a certified sustainable design building, the Seattle-Tacoma Terminal 

Radar Approach Control (TRACON). FAA representatives were awarded a White House Closing the Circle 

Award, this past spring, for their efforts. 

In addition, two FAA employees were recognized as 

Energy Champions in the “You Have the Power” campaign for their roles in securing over $2 million for the 

purchase of energy efficient obstacle lighting that is 

being installed in the Regions. 

Training and Education 

With the limited training and travel funds available, it 

is critical that DOT leverage these resources. DOT 

relies heavily on the broad training opportunities offered by the annual energy conferences sponsored by 

the Department of Energy (DOE), the General Services 

Administration (GSA), and the Department of Defense 

(DOD). DOT also relies on the “You Have the Power” 

campaign materials for our outreach and employee 

awareness efforts. 

The FAA Air Traffic Organization’s Energy Management Program Office funded, organized, and facilitated 

a national training workshop in FY 2005 for Center and 

Regional Energy Managers. The workshop was held in 

Long Beach, California following the DOE-sponsored 

Energy 2005 and provided education and training on: 

• The new ATO Corporate Work Plan; 

• The new Power Monitoring System for air route 

traffic control centers, terminal radar approach 

controls, and airport traffic control towers; 

• The FY 2006 and FY 2007 Energy Program Business Case; and 

• Photovoltaic power systems at remote sites. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, DOT reported a 34.2 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

DOT used and estimated 93,971 Btu per square foot in 

its standard buildings during the year. 

Exempt Facilities 

DOT organizations continue to perform energy and 

water audits and implement cost effective conservation 

projects in exempt facilities. 

The FAA continues to evaluate its exempt buildings 

and facilities list to determine which spaces should be 

re-categorized as either standard or industrial. 

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has three 

facilities and 45 out ported ships which are carried as 

exempt. These are the three reserve fleet locations and 

45 ships that are anchored, which use “Cold Iron Energy”. 

Energy use reduction planning and conservation measures are being implemented for exempt spaces, as well 

as for facilities in the standard building category. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

Jet fuel and aviation gasoline used by FAA represents 

the majority of consumption in this category. Consequently, consumption levels are highly dependent on 

mission requirements and efficiency of the equipment 

94 
in the fleet. In FY 2005, consumption was up slightly 

due to increased operations as a result of increased 

hurricane activity. Over the years, significant energy 

reductions have been made through improved operations such as combining missions and training flights. 

Future reductions, however, will have to be made 

through equipment replacement and modernization. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

FAA generated approximately 371 megawatthours of 

renewable energy in FY 2005 from a combination of 

hydrogen-powered fuel cells, photovoltaic, and wind 

power systems. These systems are located in the Western Pacific, Alaskan, Great Lakes, Northwest Mountain, Southwest, and Eastern Regions. 

Two new 1-kilowatt fuel cell projects were installed in 

FY 2005. One fuel cell, partially funded by the Construction Engineering Research Lab (CERL), was installed in the Eastern Region. The other fuel cell was 

installed by the Northwest Mountain Region. In addition, two 1.5 kilowatts wind turbines were installed at a 

non-directional beacon in Alaska and three 1 kilowatt 

photovoltaic systems were installed in the New England Region. 

MARAD is completing the installation of two geothermal heat pump systems rather than two 440 ton 

chillers and a new gas boiler at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The geothermal heat pumps 

are estimated to be 25 percent more efficient in cooling 

and 400 percent more efficient in heating. 

Also, the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center 

in Atlantic City, New Jersey has installed solar panels, 

which produce 30 kilowatts of power. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

The FAA’s Northwest Mountain Region is purchasing 

two percent of its energy requirements from renewable 

resources. 

Petroleum 

In FY 2005, DOT used a total of 1.2 million gallons of 

fuel oil compared to the 3.0 million gallons of fuel oil 

reported in FY 1985 in its buildings and exempt facilities. This represents a reduction of 60.7 percent in fuel 

oil. Since 1985, many DOT facilities have switched to 

natural gas for heating due to the better efficiency and 

lower cost of natural gas resulting in reduced fuel oil 

usage. 

Water Conservation 

DOT estimates that $2.5 million was spent for water in 

FY 2005. However, it is extremely difficult to develop 

accurate water consumption data due to the wide 

variation in units of measure used by water authorities 

and the lack of any metering at some locations. DOT 

continues to establish a supportable baseline using the 

minimal information that is available. This requires 

that consumption be estimated for the majority of the 

facilities. Upon review, the lack of data precluded the 

development of an accurate estimate. Therefore, water 

consumption is strictly an educated estimate at this 

time. There will be continued efforts to improve water 

data collection. 

While emphasis has been placed on water conservation, such as the use of waterless urinals at the USMMA and at the Nassif Building no specific data is 

available to quantify the Agency reduction. The implementation of the ESPC at the USMMA has provided 

for specific water conservation through the installation 

of over 900 new water fixtures. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

The requirement for life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis is 

formalized in the Transportation Acquisition Manual 

(TAM). Each of the Operating Administrations in turn 

has requirements for LCC analysis in alteration, construction, and the procurement of energy consuming 

equipment. Staffs have been trained on and utilize the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Handbook 134 and the associated LCC software. 

In FY 2005, FAA used life-cycle cost analyses to justify the Energy Program Business Cases for FY 2006 

through FY 2016. The overall present value benefitcost ratio for the energy program was shown to be 5.6 

over this 10-year time frame. Also, MARAD used LCC 

to justify the ESPC modifications at the USMMA. 

Facility Energy Audits 

The FAA has used comprehensive audits on certain 

typical facilities and extrapolated the results to facilities of the same type nationally. In FY 2005, FAA 

found that some facilities previously thought to have fit 

within these prototypical categories in fact do not. 

Consequently, additional audits will need to be performed. Because of this change, we now estimate that 

85 percent of its facilities have been audited. 

Financing Mechanisms 

In FY 2005, the FAA Air Traffic Organization received 

$690,000 for implementing an alternative financing 

program. The FAA Southern Region is reviewing an 

95 
ESPC proposal from a qualified energy service company (ESCO) to implement $6.75 million in energy 

efficiency measures. The ESPC has a proposed term of 

15 years. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient Products 

DOT has made it a requirement to purchase energyconsuming products in the top 25 percent efficiency, in 

the department’s procurement guidance, the TAM. 

The FAA In-Service Review Master Specification (ISR 

Checklist) requires designers to review new design 

scopes to identify areas where ENERGY STAR technologies are applicable. Four national design scopes were 

evaluated in FY 2004 using the ISR Checklist. 

Sustainable Building Design 

The FAA’s Northwest Mountain Region has incorporated sustainable building features into several new 

designs. The recently completed TRACON facility at 

the Seattle-Tacoma Airport was built to sustainable 

design guidelines sufficient to attain the prestigious 

LEED Gold certification from the Green Building 

Council. In addition, the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is using sustainable building 

design in two facilities currently under design: the 

11,035-gross square foot Security Control Center and 

the 14,000 gross square foot Screening Facility. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

DOT continues to work with GSA to have energy efficiency and sustainable design principles incorporated 

into the new DOT headquarters to the extent possible 

within budget constraints. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

DOT has not installed any cogeneration projects in FY 

2005. However, MARAD evaluated and is installing 

geothermal systems during FY 2005 and should complete installation in FY 2006 as part of the barracks 

renovation at the USMMA. 

Distributed Generation 

An FAA non-directional beacon in Summit, Alaska, 

will be powered by two 1.5 kilowatts wind turbines 

that were installed at the end of FY 2005. Wind turbines will replace the existing diesel generator as the 

primary power source for the site. In the New England 

Region: an outer marker in Providence, Rhode Island; a 

middle marker in Hyannis, Massachusetts; and a visual 

approach slope indicator in Provincetown, Massachusetts, will each be retrofitted with a 1-kilowatt photovoltaic system to provide primary power. 

Two new 1-kilowatt fuel cell projects were installed in 

FY 2005. One fuel cell project, partially funded by 

CERL, was installed in the Eastern Region. The other 

fuel cell was installed by the Northwest Mountain Region. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

Most of DOT’s major buildings have at least a limited 

curtail plan or have identified systems that can be shut 

down in time of crisis. The DOT building has a curtailable load agreement with the local utility (PEPCO) and 

is able to reduce demand through the building energy 

management system. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Catherine Johnson 

Acting DOT Energy Coordinator 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Room 2310, M-93 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202-366-0266 

Fax: 202-366-3192 

Email: catherine.johnson@dot.gov 

96 
M. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Treasury) 

Management and Administration 

In the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) the Senior Energy Official is the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer. Each of the 

Treasury Bureaus has designated a Senior Bureau Energy Official to direct its energy program. The Senior 

Agency and Bureau Officials provide energy policy 

guidance in accordance with the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT), and Executive Order 13123. 

The members of the Departmental level team include 

the Chief of Procurement, Senior Counsel for Technology, and staff from the Environment, Safety and Health 

Division (ESHD). Additionally, several of the Bureaus 

already have formed their own teams. These teams are 

addressing how to budget for energy projects, design 

award programs and prepare performance plans. ESHD 

provides oversight for Treasury’s energy management 

program. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Treasury has been utilizing existing performance award 

systems to recognize individual employees. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) and the U.S. 

Mint (Mint), as non-appropriated Bureaus, use their 

gain-sharing programs and beneficial suggestion programs to award cash for energy savings. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) submitted one successful nomination for “You Have the Power” poster 

campaign featuring their site energy team from Memphis, Tennessee. Other IRS site energy teams received 

cash awards. 

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 

provides spot awards and free lunch coupons to employees shown to have taken extra steps to conserve 

energy. 

Training and Education 

Treasury sent 37 employees to energy training at a 

cost of $60,300 during FY 2005. Treasury utilized the 

Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) course offerings whenever 

available because of their high quality and low cost. 

Energy training and efficient product links have been 

maintained on the Office of Procurement’s and the 

Environment, Safety and Health Division’s web sites to 

assist the Bureaus. Treasury remains an active participant in the “You Have the Power” energy awareness program and disseminated materials from the 

campaign to support the Department’s Earth Day, Load 

Reduction, and Energy Awareness Month efforts. 

In FY 2005, 18 IRS employees attended the Energy 

2005 Workshop. Several field energy coordinators attended various regional DOE classes on purchasing 

renewable energy, energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), distributed generation, and other topics. 

Site coordinators provide conservation news to building occupants through campus newsletters, e-mail logos, and slides shown on in-house Closed Circuit TV 

systems. 

In FY 2005, the BEP trained employees in direct digital control/energy management system for heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning and Johnson Controls’ 

Metasys Control System. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, Treasury reported a 21.3 percent decrease 

in energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured 

in Btu per gross square foot. Treasury used an estimated 79,328 Btu per square foot in its standard 

buildings during the year. Treasury received credit for 

purchases of 18.1 billion Btu of renewable energy. This 

lowered the energy intensity of its standard buildings 

from 84,380 Btu per square foot to 79,328 Btu per 

square foot. 

During FY 2005, the majority of the Treasury and its 

Bureaus occupied space was located in General Services Administration (GSA)-assigned facilities. Treasury reports energy statistics only for the Treasury 

owned and GSA delegated space for which it controls 

the utilities. In FY 2005, Treasury reported consumption for 3.5 million square feet of space in the standard 

buildings category. 

Some 2.1 million square feet of space for the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS), the Bureau of the Public Debt 

(BPD), and the Financial Management Service (FMS) 

was managed directly by the bureaus under the GSA 

Buildings Delegations Program. IRS occupied the majority of delegated space for standard buildings. 

Treasury-owned or leased standard buildings consisted 

of 1.4 million square feet of space in Departmental 

Offices (DO) (the Main Treasury and Annex buildings), the OCC, and the Office of Thrift Supervision 

(OTS). 

97 
However, three Bureaus exceeded the FY 2005 reduction goal and exceeded the 2010 goal mandated by 

Executive Order 13123. The FMS achieved a 56 

percent reduction, OTS reported a 43 percent reduction 

and IRS reported a 35 percent reduction. 

In FY 2005, renovation of the Main Treasury Building 

continued. This includes energy efficient doors, windows, lighting, and cooling and heating. 

Although IRS occupied many of its existing buildings 

in 1985, GSA did not delegate responsibility until the 

1987-1988 timeframe. In addition, IRS has vacated 

some buildings, gained some new buildings, corrected 

the classification of buildings and moved from one 

building to a larger building during the interim. Those 

buildings classified as standard buildings are: the 1932­

era IRS Headquarters building in Washington, D.C.; 

the Atlanta, Georgia returns files and the Atlanta warehouse; the Austin, Texas warehouse; the Covington, 

Kentucky child care center; and the Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania warehouse. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

Treasury reports energy consumption for 9.1 million 

square feet of industrial space. Some 5.6 million square 

feet for the IRS was managed directly by IRS under the 

GSA Buildings Delegations Program. The remaining 

3.5 million square feet of space belongs to the BEP and 

the Mint. The lack of a common unit of production 

across the bureaus continues to require the use of the 

Btu per square foot as the reporting unit for Treasury’s 

industrial/energy intensive facilities. 

As of FY 2005, Treasury’s industrial facilities have 

achieved an 18.1 percent reduction in consumption 

over their FY 1990 baseline on a Btu per square foot 

basis. Treasury received credit for purchases of 26.6 

billion Btu of renewable energy for these facilities, 

lowering the energy intensity from 210,054 Btu per 

square foot to 207,103 Btu per square foot. 

Sixteen IRS buildings are classified as industrial due to 

multiple shift occupancy, computer rooms, heavy personal computer use and centralized group printers, intensive telecommunications systems, laser print operations, etc. During FY 2005, IRS’s industrial facilities 

were able to reduce energy consumption by 21 percent. 

Although the Mint strives to meet the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy Act and Executive Order 

13123, the process of stamping coins is an energy intensive activity, and the Mint is subject to the requirements of Congress and the nation’s demand for coinage. Fluctuations in demand cause fluctuations of 

energy consumption for coin manufacturing activities. 

An HVAC feasibility study was completed on August 

29, 2005. The purpose of the study was to determine 

whether renovating the HVAC of the Washington, 

D.C. facility would be economically justified. 

The study includes energy modeling of the existing 

building envelope, lighting, and HVAC against the 

proposed building envelope, lighting, and HVAC system. The energy model predicts that the proposed 

HVAC system would reduce annual consumption of 

electricity from 50.2 gigawatthours to 33.7 gigawatthours and reduce steam consumption from 105.3 million pounds to 44.7 million pounds. The 20-year lifecycle cost (LCC) analysis predicts the present value of 

energy saving is $35.5 million, while the HVAC upgrade cost is $24.0 million. 

A study was also conducted to examine the feasibility 

of installing variable frequency drives at the secondary 

chilled water pumps at the Washington, D.C. facility. 

Three existing secondary chilled water pumps circulate 

chilled water through the distribution system and 

through all of the air handling units. The pumps are 

designed to operate at constant speed with two pumps 

operating simultaneously and one pump on standby. 

Two 200 horsepower variable frequency drive (VFD) 

pumps are proposed to be installed to vary the speed of 

the two chilled water pumps. An estimated energy 

saving of 2.4 gigawatthours per year is expected from 

the VFD installations. With the electricity unit rate of 

$0.062 per kilowatthour, the annual saving is calculated to be $147,700. Simple payback is within three 

years. 

Installation of the direct digital control/energy management system (DDC/EMS) was completed during 

May 2005. The DDC/EMS, on a daily basis, starts and 

stops 86 air handling units (AHUs) and opens and 

closes their outside air dampers during weekdays. 

During the weekend, the 86 AHUs are stopped and the 

outside dampers are closed. The DDC/EMS is interfaced through the Washington, D.C. facility’s Ethernet 

network, thus the system can be programmed and 

monitored through any web browser. 

Having the ability to turn the 86 AHUs off during unoccupied hours saves fan, cooling, and heating energy. 

From the preliminary estimation, the DDC/EMS will 

save approximately 3.2 gigawatthours of electricity and 

13.4 billion Btu of steam. The estimated annual utility 

saving is $600,000. 

A lighting system retrofit survey was performed during 

FY 2005 in the Main and Annex buildings of the 

Washington, D.C. facility. This survey was performed 

by PEPCO Energy Services (PES), an area-wide con98 
tractor. This survey included the feasibility of replacing 

fluorescent and other lighting, and the feasibility of 

installing occupancy sensors at appropriate locations. 

At the time of the survey, the budget estimate for this 

project was $1.6 million. PES estimates that implementation of the project would result in a total energy 

reduction of approximately 7.2 gigawatthours or a 

reduction of 57.4 percent from the lighting energy 

baseline of approximately 12.6 gigawatthours. 

Exempt Facilities 

IRS received guidance from DOE to exempt the parking lot lights at Atlanta and Covington because the 

consumption data is metered separately from the main 

facilities. In addition, the Atlanta main facility and the 

Atlanta Child Care electricity and natural gas are reported by GSA Atlanta due to a consolidated purchasing agreement. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

The BEP owns three armored vehicles - two at the 

Washington, D.C. facility and one at the Fort Worth, 

Texas facility. Only the armored vehicles owned by 

the BEP are included in this report. The amount of diesel fuel used in FY 2005 was 556 gasoline gallons 

equivalent. Due to the special security requirements, a 

number of BEP’s vehicles require high performance 

engines, special tires (non-retread), as well as other 

security features which result in higher operating and 

maintenance costs than conventional motor vehicles. 

During FY 2005, BEP replaced nine petroleum-base 

fueled vehicles with nine alternative-fuel vehicles, for a 

total of 12 alternative-fuel vehicles. 

IRS has implemented the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool prescribed by DOE to assist in meeting data 

reporting requirements. The IRS General Fleet is comprised of 480 vehicles: 276 sedans, 83 light duty trucks, 

20 medium duty trucks and 52 heavy duty trucks. IRS 

used diesel, E-85, and gasoline fuel. 

Renewable Energy 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

In past years, the Denver Mint has participated in an 

energy savings performance contract (ESPC). The 

savings from that project was re-invested in purchasing 

wind power. The Denver Mint has contracted in FY 

2005 with the local utility to provide 1.2 gigawatthours 

per year of renewable energy. The contracted amount is 

approximately 9.6 percent of the Denver Mint consumption, which exceeds the goal of 2.5 percent. In 

addition, the Philadelphia Mint also purchased 787.4 

megawatthours from a local utility. 

Based on 2004 research into costs and availability, 

during 2005, IRS made a corporate purchase of 7.0 

gigawatthours of Renewable Energy Certificates 

(RECs) from generated wind technology. This 

exceeded the goal of 2.5 percent of the electricity 

consumption in FY 2004. IRS Procurement worked 

with a local utility to purchase the RECs for a cost of 

$8,750, which represents 3.0 percent of the total 

electricity consumption. IRS qualified for and joined 

the Environmental Protection Agency Green Power 

Partnership in 2005. 

Petroleum 

At the Washington, D.C. facility, BEP owns and operates for testing or actual emergency conditions, two 

diesel engines which provide power to the Fire Protection Systems, one for the Annex building and the other 

for the Main building. There is also a small dieselpowered generator that provides emergency power for 

critical operations, which is operated for test purposes 

or emergencies. 

At the Fort Worth, Texas facility, the BEP owns and 

operates three boilers that can be operated by natural 

gas or No. 2 oil for producing building steam. Three 

diesel-fueled generators provide emergency power for 

critical operations. 

Seven of the 11 IRS sites use fuel oil primarily for 

emergency power backup generation. Some sites have 

dual fuel boilers that can be switched to fuel oil when 

natural gas prices rise. These numbers indicate a substantial reduction; however, consumption is reported in 

the year fuel is purchased. A number of IRS locations 

purchased enough quantity in FY 2003 to use in future 

years. The Atlanta, Georgia facility replaced an old 

underground storage tank including new pumps. 

Water Conservation 

Treasury consumed 451 million gallons of water at a 

cost of $1.6 billion during FY 2005. During the year, 

27 percent of Treasury facilities met the requirement 

for water management plans and implementation of 

Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

The BEP continues to investigate the possibility of 

recycling water from the spent intaglio water wipe solution that is used for cleaning engraved inked plates 

used for printing Federal Reserve Notes. This process 

accounts for the use of as much as 65,000 to 80,000 

gallons of water per day. At the Bureau’s Western Currency Facility, located in Fort Worth, Texas, a regenerative thermal oxidizer is used for the destruction of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Domestic water is 

used to cool the bearings during this VOC destruction 

operation. This one time use of domestic water was 

99 
wasteful of the BEP’s resources. A new condenser loop 

was installed to provide cooling of the bearings. This 

resulted in savings of approximately one million gallons of domestic water annually. 

In the IRS, water is used for a variety of purposes including cooling tower condensers, restrooms, 

kitchen/canteen equipment, lawn irrigation, fire suppression, etc. The Brookhaven, New York campus is 

unique in having an on-site sewage treatment plant. All 

11 IRS sites developed Water Management Plans. The 

IRS Headquarters building in Washington, D.C. is not 

billed for water, but starting in FY 2005 has obtained 

consumption data. Their water is supplied under a 

multi-agency agreement between GSA and the District 

of Columbia. As a result, the IRS water consumption 

figures have increased to reflect the new District of 

Columbia data. IRS sites have been taking a variety of 

conservation measures, including changing restroom 

fixtures to low flow, sensor operated. This data is then 

posted to a matrix showing the same data for the prior 

FY 2004 for comparison. Any anomalies are quickly 

identified and investigated to see if corrective actions 

are necessary. 

For the 11 IRS sites covered by the 10 existing BMPs, 

there are 110 implementation possibilities. The sites 

have implemented 64 of the 110 and identified 32 as 

non-applicable, so IRS is well ahead of the required 40 

percent goal to implement by 2004. 

In FY 2005, IRS consumed 211.1 million gallons, versus 172.7 million gallons in FY 2004. The consumption increase is due to new reporting by the IRS Headquarters building in Washington, D.C. of 28.2 million 

gallons. In prior years, consumption data was unavailable due to an agreement with the District of Columbia 

and Federal Triangle agencies. If not for this one increase, IRS would have shown an overall decrease in 

consumption. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Treasury’s energy directive specifically requires the 

use of life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis for all energy 

projects and procurements. All of the Bureaus continued to use LCC analysis for their energy projects. In 

addition, the following are completed for each project: 

• Alternatives and Assumptions; 

• Return on Investment; 

• Investment Analysis and Recommendation; and 

• Net Present Value. 

The IRS project managers regularly use the Federal 

LCC procedures to evaluate energy related projects. In 

addition, IRS is factoring in the future status of the 

buildings as a result of internal process changes and 

modernization efforts. For example, the LCC analysis 

may indicate a payback of 10 - 15 years on a proposed 

project; however, workload considerations may indicate the building will be vacated or totally gutted and 

rehabilitated in less than 10 years. As a result, for those 

IRS sites most immediately impacted by these workload changes (e.g., Andover, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Atlanta, Georgia), only energy 

projects with very short payback periods are being considered. For example, Philadelphia was funded for 

short-term lighting and restroom water projects because the pay-back is two years or less. Philadelphia 

has just received Congressional funding for a campus 

replacement, so minimal expenditures will be made on 

that campus. 

When practical, the BEP uses Federal LCC procedures 

to evaluate energy related projects. In other instances, 

estimated LCC analysis is utilized, a requirement of 10 

CFR 436. This procedure evaluates energy-related investments on the basis of minimum life-cycle costs. 

Facility Energy Audits 

In FY 2005, Treasury performed energy audits in 26 

percent of its space. This brings the total space audited 

to 87 percent since 1992. 

In the BEP, starting in November 2003 and ending in 

January 2004, an Investment Grade Audit was performed by Washington Gas Energy Services (WGES). 

WGES provided energy conservation measures, including equipment power requirements yielded by this 

audit, that were used in business cases for the Direct 

Digital Control/Energy Management System (DDC/ 

EMS) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

(SCADA) efforts. During September FY 2004, an 

agreement was signed with Potomac Power Electric 

Company (PEPCO) Energy Services to perform a free 

lighting survey. The survey was completed during FY 

2005. The business case for the lighting project is 

scheduled for approval and funding in the 3rd quarter 

of FY 2006 with implementation projected for the 4th 

quarter of FY 2007. 

In the IRS, the Martinsburg, West Virginia site had a 

DOE/IRS-funded SAVEnergy audit during the year. 

The Brookhaven, New York facility had an ESPC audit 

in FY 2005. The Memphis, Tennessee site received the 

energy assessment report in FY 2005 of a review conducted in late FY 2004, and the team has implemented 

three of the five recommendations (two were later determined not feasible). The Andover, Massachusetts 

100 
site had a demand response energy audit by Massachusetts Electric. The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility 

had an audit conducted by Exelon Corp. The Atlanta, 

Georgia facility is the only campus to not have an audit, but their consumption is the smallest and potential 

workload changes in the near future preclude any significant investment. In addition, IRS has conducted 

Energy Program Operational Reviews on four of the 

reporting sites. 

The OTS controls and pays for utilities at one facility 

located in Washington, D.C. and is audited annually as 

part of long-term planning for operating and budgeting 

purposes. Numerous energy saving projects have been 

identified during audits over the past several years including the installation of direct digital controls and 

upgrading energy management systems. 

Financing Mechanisms 

The BEP’s strategy for meeting the requirements of 

Executive Order 13123 is to use funding from its revolving fund for energy-related projects. 

The Mint has three on-going ESPCs awarded in 1997 

and 1998. In addition, the San Francisco Mint has 

identified funding for energy savings through the Pacific Gas & Electric Savings Performance Projects. The 

facility will develop SPC submissions prior to construction. 

IRS traditionally self-finances energy and program 

related alterations. IRS has had delegated funds from 

GSA and agency-appropriated funds to use and will 

continue to do so as funds are available. The IRS Energy Team has been exploring the use of ESPC and 

utility energy services contract funding as well as having discussions with the Bonneville Power Administration. An energy savings contractor conducted an 

initial assessment in the Brookhaven, New York site; 

however, due to funding and responsibility issues with 

GSA, the ESCO project has not moved forward. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

Treasury has had a policy of purchasing only ENERGY 

STAR-compliant computers since 1995. Treasury also 

purchases ENERGY STAR copiers and fax machines, and 

follows the product recommendations in DOE’s Energy Efficient Products Guide. Links to web sites for 

DOE’s, GSA’s and the Defense Logistic Agency’s web 

sites have been added to the ESHD and Office of 

Procurement’s web sites to assist the bureaus in obtaining information of energy efficient products. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

The IRS Austin, Texas facility has received the first 

ENERGY STAR® designation in 2005 for any buildings within Treasury. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Treasury has mandated, through Directive, use of the 

Whole Building Design Guide for its new facilities. 

GSA coordinates most of the design work for Treasury 

facilities using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. 

The IRS plans to incorporate LEED certification into 

the new Philadelphia, Pennsylvania campus design 

criteria. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Treasury has provided the Model Green Lease provisions to each of its Bureaus. The Bureaus are using 

them where they have independent leasing authority, 

and GSA includes the provisions when obtaining space 

for the Bureaus. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

In the BEP, 16 energy inefficient vacuum pumps were 

replaced during FY 2005. It is estimated that the new 

pumps will reduce the electrical energy consumption 

1.6 million kilowatthours per year. This electrical energy saving exceeds the preliminary estimate of 881.2 

megawatthours per year. Based on the electricity rate 

of $0.062, this translates into a saving of $99,200 per 

year. Also, during FY 2005, BEP spent $30,000 for a 

compressed air survey. The survey identified system 

deficiencies and made recommendations on air distribution modifications, compressor control schemes, and 

modifications to the compressor plant. The anticipated 

energy saving from the implementation of this project 

is 1.5 million Btu. 

The Mint is working toward improving its energy efficiency performance and optimizing the savings which 

would be partially reinvested into making further improvements over time. The following facility efficiency 

improvements are either being implemented currently 

or are to be reviewed for possible implementation: 

• HVAC equipment consolidation; 

• Air compressor replacements; 

• Building envelope upgrades such as replacement 

energy efficient windows; 

• HVAC controls; and 

• Expanding energy management systems to control 

additional equipment such as additional HVAC 

and electrical equipment. 

101 
The Austin, Texas IRS site replaced 171 parking lot 

lights with energy efficient lights. They also replaced a 

rotary Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) with energy efficient static UPS. The Andover, Massachusetts 

office replaced a 40 year-old, 460-ton steam absorption 

chiller with a high efficiency chlorine-free 225-ton 

chiller in July 2005. In addition, a 1967 era electric 

chiller was removed from service, and the associated 

cooling tower was decommissioned. The new chiller 

qualified for a rebate of $13,905 from Massachusetts 

Electric. Savings should be realized in the 2006 cooling 

season. The Andover, Massachusetts facility also installed variable speed drives on all three cooling tower 

fans with an expected savings of 69.0 megawatthours 

annually. This project was funded completely with 

funds received from rebates in FY 2004 and a rebate 

that was paid directly to the vendor by Massachusetts 

Electric. Two refurbished Data-Air units were installed 

in the telephone switch room replacing three Leibert 

units. The new units were tied into the existing drycoolers, eliminating the three old Leiberts, three roof 

top condensing units, three local chillers and associated 

equipment. They are now able to use free cooling and 

reduced the amount of refrigerant from approximately 

600 pounds to 48 pounds. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

Every Treasury-owned or fully delegated facility continues to follow the electrical load reduction plan developed in FY 2001 based on DOE’s “Plan of Action 

Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities” and the load 

reduction measures listed on the FEMP web site. Several bureaus in leased space implemented plans and 

awareness campaigns. Peak demand reduction and conservation awareness materials from the FEMP “You 

Have the Power” campaign were distributed across 

Treasury. All Treasury Bureau facilities participated in 

their utilities’ load reductions programs. 

Each of the 11 IRS sites developed an electrical reduction plan. Treasury identified critical loads and options 

for keeping the facilities operational during extended 

commercial utility outages. 

The Covington, Kentucky site installed variable frequency drives and incorporated them into a Metasys 

BAS system. All programming was done in-house. 

Various control loops in the BAS were studied and 

tuned up for more efficiency. Covington also upgraded 

the BAS system to include York chillers allowing for 

remote reset of chilled water temperatures. All baseboard heating systems were wired into the BAS system. Temperatures were reset based on actual space 

temperatures. Three air handler units were converted to 

DDC controls. Snow-melting infrared lamps were tied 

into the BAS system, providing remote control and 

outside air temperature lockout. In addition, Covington 

automated the chiller plant start/stop and chiller plant 

selection in the BAS. Automated blow down systems 

were installed on both main boiler systems. The cooling tower blow down systems were tied into the BAS 

system for remote monitoring and alarming. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Les Smith 

Environmental & Energy Programs Officer 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Annex Building 6004 

Washington, D.C. 20220 

Phone: 202-622-0989 

Fax: 202-622-5334 

Email: les.smith@do.treas.gov 

102 
N. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the Assistant Secretary for Management. The Senior Energy Official is responsible for 

Department-wide energy policy and oversight of the 

VA Energy Conservation Program. The Office of Asset 

Enterprise Management (OAEM) is the lead office at 

the Department level for providing management and 

oversight of the energy program. 

VA’s energy conservation program is a team effort 

with a core Agency Energy Team headed by a senior 

agency official and an energy official representing each 

of VA’s three administrations: Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA); National Cemetery Administration (NCA) and 

staff offices. The administrations, along with staff offices, have in turn created their own Administration 

Energy Team. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

Three VA facilities in South Dakota and Minnesota, 

part of the VA Midwest Health Care Network, won a 

Federal Energy and Water Management Award during 

the year. They used a two-phase energy savings performance contract to fund $14 million in capital improvements for energy and water efficiency, replacement of aging infrastructure, and enhanced energy 

security. 

VA’s Honolulu medical and regional office center received its second ENERGY STAR award in the medical 

office building category. The award, received in September 2005, sets an example for all of VA. Honolulu’s 

efforts to create an energy efficient building while providing top-notch medical care will serve as a model for 

future VA award applications. In the upcoming fiscal 

year, VA anticipates more VA facilities awards, particularly in the Acute Care Hospital category. 

In March 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency 

recognized the team at VA’s San Diego, California 

medical center with this award for their team approach 

to recommending and implementing on-site tri-generation of electricity, steam, and chilled water. The 4.2­

megawatt Solar Turbines Mercury 50 gas-fired turbine 

used in this project was developed under the DOE’s 

Advanced Turbine Systems program and is guaranteed 

to emit no more than five parts per million by volume 

of nitrogen oxides. 

The medical and regional office in Honolulu also won 

an award for sustainable design/green building. 

Training and Education 

In FY 2005, over 100 VA employees participated in 

energy-related training. These training events included: 

• Technical and financial assistance to improve the 

energy efficiency of Federal facilities; 

• Water resource management; and 

• ENERGY STAR web-based conferences. 

VA also provided in-house training. The VA Office of 

Acquisition and Materiel Management offered conferences designed to assist all Administrations and staff 

offices to meet Federal mandates regarding acquisition 

of energy efficient products and materials. 

Finally, OAEM represented VA at several energy conferences, including the Energy 2005 Workshop in Long 

Beach, California. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Electricity comprised the largest VA energy expenditure and natural gas the largest amount of energy consumed in FY 2005. VA is working to reduce both natural gas and electricity consumption and to control 

associated costs. Healthcare is increasingly dependent 

on imaging and other advanced technologies that increase “plug” load over time, and facility workloads 

are growing. In addition, VA facilities continue to add 

to their information technology infrastructure and acquire state-of-the-art medical equipment to provide the 

best treatment possible for veterans. In the face of this 

contribution to increasing energy intensity, VA is 

making all efforts to manage facilities as cost-effectively as possible to keep overall energy costs in check. 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, VA reported an 11.6 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. VA used an estimated 

175,609 Btu per square foot in its standard buildings 

during the year. VA received credit for purchases of 

464.1 billion Btu of renewable energy. This lowered 

the energy intensity of its standard buildings from 

178,495 to 175,609 Btu per square foot. This decrease 

is partly a result of correcting for interstitial spaces. 

Renewable Energy 

FY 2005 was the first full fiscal year in which VA collected renewable energy data from facilities throughout 

the VA portfolio. VA continues to improve Depart103 
ment-wide understanding of this new category and 

anticipates increases in both purchased and self-generated renewable energy use. FY 2004 total renewable 

energy use was 1.82 billion Btu versus FY 2005 use of 

307 billion Btu, or 89.2 gigawatthours, at a cost of 

$45,000. This reflects more accurate reporting of existing self-generation as well as additional purchased 

renewable energy. VA hopes to increase renewable use 

even more in FY 2006. 

Petroleum 

VA consumed 6.5 million gallons of fuel oil at a cost 

of $14.1 million during the year, an 18 percent decrease versus FY 2004. 

Water Conservation 

VA increased its water consumption 5 percent from FY 

2004 to FY 2005, with a 21 percent increase in cost. 

Consumption was 9.2 million gallons during the year, 

at a cost of approximately $21.6 million. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Since 1975, it has been VA’s policy to fund only those 

energy projects that are cost-effective based upon the 

life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis that determines the savings to investment ratio (SIR). The higher the SIR, the 

better the return will be on the investment. In FY 2004, 

VA established a policy regarding the term of payment 

and life-cycle of energy projects. The policy states that 

the term of financing for an energy project should not 

be longer than the shortest life-cycle of an individual 

energy improvement. This is to ensure that VA is not 

financing an energy project that will need to be replaced before it has been fully funded. 

Financing Mechanisms 

VA began its energy investment pilot program in the 

summer of 2003. The purpose of the pilot program is to 

test and obtain independent advice on: 1) Commodity 

acquisition practices; 2) Establishment of a baseline for 

energy savings contracts; 3) Identification of potential 

cogeneration opportunities; 4) Identification of energy 

conservation measures (ECMs); 5) Development of 

competitive solicitations for ECMs; and 6) ECM installation and post-installation oversight. 

The pilot program is underway in four regions. In three 

of these regions, a baseline has been established and a 

prioritized list of ECMs has been finalized based on the 

results of independent energy assessments of facilities 

in the region. Energy services companies will be invited to bid on implementation. In a fourth region, VA 

is contracting for ECM installation and maintenance at 

five medical centers as consideration under an existing 

energy center enhanced use lease agreement. VA anticipates completing the energy services agreement for 

these measures early in FY 2006. 

In FY 2004, Veterans Integrated Service Network, 

Region 4 (VISN 4) (a region comprised of most of 

Pennsylvania, all of Delaware, and portions of New 

Jersey and West Virginia) completed a study to determine the feasibility of implementing cogeneration energy centers at high-potential locations utilizing VA’s 

enhanced-use lease authority. Findings were favorable 

for five Pennsylvania sites. At the close of FY 2005, 

VA was nearing completion of the source selection 

process for one or more developers to finance, construct, own, operate, manage and maintain an energy 

center at each of these sites. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

VA has mandated that all contracting officers, purchasing agents, purchase card holders and other procurement officials purchase ENERGY STAR-rated 

equipment when cost effective. If ENERGY STAR-certified equipment is not available (as is the case with 

many medical devices and imaging equipment), officials are to acquire energy efficient equipment on the 

basis of cost effectiveness. This standard for procurement is also being incorporated into VA’s standard 

specifications and product specifications for new and 

renovation construction projects. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

The Spark M. Matsunaga Medical Center in Honolulu, 

Hawaii - received an ENERGY STAR Label for the category of Medical Office Building. VA benchmarked 

close to 30 hospitals in FY 2005. VA’s FY 2006 Implementation Plan addresses VA’s plan for earning 

additional ENERGY STAR Labels and benchmarking 

most of the remaining facilities in this category. 

Sustainable Building Design 

VA is committed to protecting the environment. One 

element of VA’s environmental strategic plan is to 

“build green.” This integrates economic and environmental impacts and performance on a full life-cycle 

basis. The life-cycle analysis addresses the environmental, economic and performance aspects for every 

phase of building construction. This includes material 

extraction, product manufacture, product transportation, site selection, building design and construction, 

building operation and maintenance, and building reuse 

or disposal. The Office of Facilities Management is in 

the process of updating its design standards to incorporate the latest best practices for sustainable design. 

VA has integrated the “build green” approach by: 

104 
• Incorporating sustainable design concepts into 

solicitation requirements for architect/engineer 

firms on all major VA projects; 

• Participating in the U.S. Green Building Council, 

National Institute of Building Sciences, and other 

leading organizations in the sustainable design 

movement; 

• Continuous green updating of the VA master 

specification design manuals and guides; and 

• Integrating a design approach that features use of a 

highly insulated building envelope, high efficiency 

HVAC systems, and non-toxic building materials 

to create a healthy indoor environment for patients 

while reducing energy and water use. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Since FY 2003, VA has included the lease provisions 

listed below in lease solicitation packages. In addition 

to price, VA evaluates proposals based upon the technical quality of the bid. 

• All new construction will achieve an ENERGY 

STAR building label within one year after reaching 

95 percent occupancy and will continue to maintain that level of performance; and 

• Apply the requirements of ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1-1989, “Energy Efficiency of New Buildings 

Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings” and 

Standard 90.1-1989 Addenda to this building. 

As one example of the result of these policy changes, 

VBA’s Houston facility was able to renegotiate the 

terms of its lease to specify that the landlord work with 

VA to improve the building’s overall energy conservation efforts. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

VA construction standards require that consultants 

evaluate the use and cost effectiveness of available 

natural resources for new as well as retrofit projects. 

New and/or retrofit projects consider the use of combined cooling, heating, ventilating and power systems 

as an integral part of the overall project. Projects are 

evaluated and funded based upon LCC analysis. 

Distributed Generation 

VA is pursuing development of cogeneration energy 

centers at five medical center sites in Pennsylvania, 

using its enhanced-use lease authority as a vehicle for 

achieving significant energy cost savings and related 

benefits. VA has solicited developers to build, own, 

and operate an energy center at one or more of these 

sites, leasing the relevant space and supplying energy 

services to the facility. 

In FY 2005, VA completed cogeneration feasibility 

studies of ten high potential facilities in California. VA 

plans additional feasibility studies for cogeneration 

energy centers at VA facilities around the country. A 

2003 study preliminarily identified a total of 48 high 

potential sites (including the Pennsylvania and California facilities). 

In addition, selected VA facilities in Texas, Arizona 

and New Mexico feature solar thermal installations that 

supplement distribution of hot water. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

Demand side management (DSM) offers the means for 

VA to achieve electrical load reduction at minimal 

cost. In recent years, VA has awarded numerous contract task orders to upgrade existing HVAC, lighting, 

and energy management control systems, install light 

and body sensors, and upgrade infrastructure to reduce 

electrical consumption. These DSM plans are consistent with Joint Commission on Accreditation of 

Healthcare Organizations standards. 

Most VA medical centers have emergency and/or back 

up generators designed to act as electrical redundancy 

systems to serve essential areas of the hospital (such as 

intensive care units and operating rooms) in times of 

electrical failures. Some facilities have utilized these 

generators to shave peak electrical loads. The VA is 

currently working to create uniform guidance for use of 

generators to shave peak electrical loads. VA is also 

exploring the wider use of biodiesel in electrical generators to reduce reliance on imported fuel oil. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Edward Bradley 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Energy Team Leader 

Office of Asset Enterprise Management 

Room 275F 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Phone: 202-273-9489 

Fax: 202-273-9374 

Email: edward.bradley@mail.va.gov 

105 
O. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

Management and Administration 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the Office 

of Administration and Resources Management 

(OARM) as the Agency Energy and Environmental 

Executive. The Senior Official is supported by a national energy team located in the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) and the Facilities Management and Services Division (FMSD). The Sustainable 

Facilities Practices Branch (SFPB) energy team works 

closely with architects and engineers from EPA’s 

Architecture, Engineering, and Asset Management 

Branch (AEAMB) and ventilation safety experts from 

EPA’s Safety, Health, and Environmental Management 

Division (SHEMD). EPA also receives support from 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) on a project-specific 

basis. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

In FY 2005, SFPB continued its internal peer awards 

program, collectively known as the “Btu Buster 

Awards,” first established in FY 2003. The program 

recognizes and encourages energy and water conservation among EPA facility managers and building design 

and construction personnel. Winners were recognized 

at EPA’s Buildings and Facilities Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in March 2005. 

Training and Education 

Employees who have energy management responsibilities are evaluated annually against criteria based on 

the agency’s energy management principles. EPA uses 

several education and training programs to ensure that 

employees are aware of the latest technologies and 

opportunities to increase energy efficiency and overall 

sustainability. 

The Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) program is a joint partnership between EPA and DOE 

dedicated to improving the environmental performance 

and energy efficiency of U.S. laboratories. The program provides information on energy-efficient technology alternatives for laboratory applications and creates 

a forum for laboratory designers, owners, and operators 

to obtain up-to-date information and support for implementing energy-efficient and sustainable projects. In 

FY 2005, Labs21 held 14 one-day workshops on energy-efficient laboratory design and operations, training more than 600 professionals, each of whom is eligible for continuing education credits. The Labs21 

team designed the course to provide a comprehensive 

understanding of the opportunities to optimize energy 

performance of new and existing laboratories. The 

Labs21 Laboratory Ventilation Design Course, part of 

a series of advanced course modules on sustainable 

laboratory design and related topics, and based on 

Labs21 Best Practice Guides, was offered for the first 

time at the FY 2006 conference. The FY 2005 Labs21 

Conference took place in St. Louis, Missouri, October 

5-7, 2004. More than 500 public and private sector 

laboratory energy managers, policymakers, and other 

technical experts from the United States, Canada, Great 

Britain, New Zealand, and Australia attended the conference, including 30 EPA employees. 

In March 2005, EPA conducted its annual three-day 

Buildings and Facilities Conference in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. The 75 conference attendees included 

facility managers from EPA-operated laboratories and 

GSA-assigned regional offices and headquarters. 

Energizing EPA is an internal EPA newsletter that 

highlights the agency’s efforts to improve overall sustainability, including energy and water efficiency, at its 

facilities. The newsletter is produced on a quarterly 

basis and distributed electronically to all EPA employees to educate them about such issues as energy efficiency, green power, green buildings, alternative energy, recycling programs, water conservation, and lowimpact development. In FY 2005, EPA initiated a new 

section in each issue focusing on tips that employees 

can use to reduce energy, water, and other resource use 

in their day-to-day lives. 

EPA’s Office of Administrative Services (OAS) continues to update and enhance its public web site on 

sustainability at the agency (www.epa.gov/greeningepa). The web site is a central source of information 

about energy efficiency approaches and projects, renewable energy procurement, and green buildings developed by and for EPA. The site also provides information on facility gross square footage, energy and 

water consumption data, facility manager contact information, and “green” building highlights for each 

major facility EPA occupies. In FY 2005, EPA revamped the site to improve navigation and highlight 

facilities with energy efficiency, water conservation, 

and other sustainable accomplishments. 

As part of its efforts to implement environmental management systems (EMSs) at 34 agency locations, EPA 

has conducted a variety of training modules for its em106 
ployees on energy and water conservation and other 

significant environmental aspects associated with the 

agency’s facilities and operations. 

Showcase Facilities 

EPA’s designated Showcase facilities include: the 

Kansas City, Kansas, Science and Technology Center; 

the Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building (a GSA-owned 

building housing EPA’s Region 5 Office), and the New 

England Regional Laboratory in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

Primarily through the purchase of green power or renewable energy certificates that offset the emissions 

associated with its electricity use, EPA has exceeded 

the Executive Order 13123 goal of reducing reportable 

energy use by 20 percent from a FY 1990 baseline. 

EPA finished FY 2005 40.1 percent below its FY 1990 

baseline, with green power netted out. EPA received 

credit for purchases of 516.8 billion Btu of renewable 

energy. In FY 2004, with green power netted out, 

EPA’s energy use was down 17 percent, and in FY 

2003 energy use was down 14.6 percent. While EPA 

currently relies heavily on green power purchases to 

achieve its reportable energy reductions, the agency 

will continue to improve its energy efficiency through 

infrastructure improvements and conservation measures. EPA expects to have a better balance of energy 

use reduction and green power procurement by FY 

2010 to meet Federal greenhouse gas reduction requirements, and intends to significantly reduce its actual energy use to meet the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 

of 2005 requirements. 

Without deducting green power, EPA’s FY 2005 energy use on a Btu per gross square foot basis was virtually even with the baseline year of FY 1990. In FY 

2004, EPA’s energy use on a Btu per gross square foot 

basis was virtually even with FY 1990; in FY 2003, it 

was 8.8 percent lower; and in FY 2002, it was 15.3 

percent lower. EPA attributes this upward trend in energy consumption to: 

• The beginning of energy data reporting for its New 

Main laboratory and National Computer Center in 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, on October 1, 2002 (FY 2003), both of which have greatly 

exceeded the energy use estimates made at the 

time the buildings were designed; 

• A significant increase in Btu/energy use at its Human Studies Laboratory in Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina, where more accurate utility billing has 

greatly increased reported energy use; and 

• Workload changes at the Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 

facility, quirks in the energy savings performance 

contract (ESPC) measurement and verification 

agreement that discourage additional energy saving efforts, and recent energy-inefficient facility 

additions have degraded the energy performance 

of the ESPC successfully completed there in 2001. 

The two new RTP facilities account for approximately 38 percent of EPA’s energy consumption. 

The Chapel Hill facility accounts for approximately nine percent of EPA’s energy consumption. EPA has made RTP facilities its top energy conservation priority, but the fruits of these 

labors may not be realized for at least a year. The 

Ann Arbor NVFEL, meanwhile, accounts for approximately six percent of EPA’s energy consumption. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

To reduce emissions and fuel consumption and increase fuel efficiency, EPA has incorporated alternative 

fuel vehicles (AFVs) into its nationwide fleet of 1,163 

automotive vehicles. In FY 2005, EPA leased 96 (replacement or new) AFVs that use electricity, 

compressed natural gas, or ethanol/gasoline mixtures, 

increasing the Agency’s AFV fleet by 22 vehicles, for 

a total of 401 vehicles. In fact, for the sixth straight 

year, EPA exceeded the EPAct 1992 and Executive 

Order 13149 requirements that 75 percent of nonexempt, new vehicles be AFVs. In FY 2005, 84 percent 

of the vehicles acquired by EPA were AFVs. 

Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, EPA continued its support of renewable 

energy development with the procurement of green 

power and/or Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) at 

eight new facilities. Over the past six years, the agency 

has seen its green power commitments grow from one 

facility in 1999 to 30 facilities in FY 2005. As a sign of 

the maturing of it’s green power program, EPA also 

has had to replace or exercise extension options on 

contracts serving nine major facilities. When combined 

with previous commitments, EPA purchased nearly 

225 million kilowatthours of green power at the 30 

facilities in FY 2005, a figure equivalent to nearly 76 

percent of total electric use at offices and laboratories. 

Nearly all of those 30 facilities procure green power to 

meet 100 percent of their electricity needs. On an annual basis, existing green power contracts will displace 

83 percent of EPA’s estimated annual electricity use. 

EPA also consumed 28,897 gallons of soy ester biodiesel in FY 2005 at its Narragansett, Rhode Island, 

and Manchester, Washington, laboratories. 

107 
Contracts covering the eight new EPA facilities receiving green power in FY 2005 include: 

• San Francisco, California: In November 2004, 

EPA completed a green power purchase for its Region 9 Office in San Francisco through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). The 

three-year contract with 3 Phases Energy Services 

will provide the Region 9 Office with approximately 2.3 million kilowatthours of renewable 

energy certificates (RECs) per year. The purchase 

supports the generation of renewable energy at a 

geothermal facility in Middletown, California. 

• Denver, Colorado: In early FY 2005, EPA worked 

with WAPA to procure green power for the Region 8 Office in Denver. A three-year contract 

with Aquila, Inc., for 4.7 million kilowatthours of 

RECs annually will allow the facility to offset 100 

percent of its annual electricity consumption by 

supporting the Colorado Green Wind Project in 

Prowers County, Colorado. 

• Kansas City, Kansas: In December 2004, EPA 

finalized green power contracts through WAPA 

for two additional locations: the Region 7 Office 

and Kansas City Science and Technology Center 

(KCSTC)-both in Kansas City. EPA signed threeyear contracts for both facilities covering a combined annual total of more than 8 million kilowatthours of green power in RECs from Aquila, Inc. 

The procurement offsets 100 percent of annual 

electricity consumption at each location with renewable energy, 4.45 million kilowatthours for the 

Region 7 Office and 3.85 million kilowatthours of 

RECs each year for KCSTC. The RECs support 

the Gray County Wind Farm in Kansas. 

• Narragansett, Rhode Island: In February 2005, 

EPA worked with the Defense Energy Support 

Center (DESC) to procure green power for the 

Atlantic Ecology Division Laboratory in Narragansett. The three-year contract with 3 Phases Energy Services for approximately 3 million kilowatthours of RECs annually offsets 100 percent of 

annual electricity consumption at the laboratory 

and supports wind power generation in California 

and Minnesota. 

• Ada, Oklahoma: In April 2005, EPA agreed to 

terms on a three-year contract for the procurement 

of 3 million kilowatthours of RECs annually for 

the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center 

in Ada. This allows the laboratory to offset 100 

percent of its annual electricity consumption with 

green power and makes the Ada facility EPA’s 

first carbon neutral laboratory, in conjunction with 

the ESPC there. The purchase supports the generation of renewable energy at wind farms in 

Wyoming, California, and Nebraska. 

• Chicago, Illinois: In August 2005, EPA finalized a 

contract (through Defense Energy Support Center) 

for green power at EPA’s Region 5 Office in 

Chicago. Over the course of the one-year contract, 

the Region 5 Office will receive 9 million 

kilowatthours in the form of RECs from the Basin 

Electric Power Company. With this purchase, the 

Region 5 Office now offsets 100 percent of its 

annual electricity consumption and supports wind 

power projects in Lamoure County, North Dakota, 

and Hyde County, South Dakota. 

• Fort Meade, Maryland: In August 2005, EPA 

worked with DESC to finalize a contract for green 

power at the Environmental Science Center (ESC) 

in Fort Meade. According to the terms of the oneyear contract, ESC will receive 6.4 million kilowatthours in RECs from the Basin Electric Power 

Company. The RECs, associated with renewable 

energy generation at wind power facilities in North 

Dakota and South Dakota, offset 100 percent of 

annual electricity consumption at ESC. 

EPA replaced or extended six green power contracts 

for nine major facilities in FY 2005: 

• Cincinnati, Ohio: In October 2004, EPA worked 

with the General Services Administration (GSA) 

to extend the green power contract at three facilities in Cincinnati: 1) The Andrew W. Breidenbach 

Environmental Research Center (AWBERC); 2) 

The Testing and Evaluation Center; and 3) The 

Center Hill facility. EPA exercised a three-year 

extension option in the original contract for RECs 

worth 15.56 million kilowatthours, 100 percent of 

the three facilities’ annual electricity consumption. 

As with the original contract, Community Energy 

provides 778.0 megawatthours per year of wind 

power and ComEd provides the additional 14.8 

million kilowatthours per year from landfill gas. 

• RTP, North Carolina: In November 2004, EPA 

finalized a replacement contract through DESC for 

several facilities on the agency’s RTP campus. In 

what was the largest EPA green power purchase to 

date, EPA procured 100 million kilowatthours annually in RECs for FY 2005, enough renewable 

energy to offset 100 percent of annual electricity 

consumption at the four main facilities and all ancillary facilities. The contract with Unicoi Energy 

Services supports renewable energy generation at a 

wood and paper pulp waste plant in Port Wentworth, Georgia. 

• Golden, Colorado: In December 2004, EPA signed 

a green power contract through WAPA for its Region 8 Laboratory in Golden. The three-year contract provides the laboratory with 2.1 million kilowatthours in RECs, offsetting 100 percent of 

108 
annual electricity consumption. The purchase supports the Colorado Green Wind Project in Prowers 

County, Colorado, and replaces an earlier contract 

for 2 million kilowatthours in RECs annually. 

• Chelmsford, Massachusetts: In August 2005, EPA 

signed a new green power contract through DESC 

for its New England Regional Laboratory (NERL) 

in Chelmsford. The new three-year contract provides 3 million kilowatthours in RECs per year 

and supports renewable energy generation at wind 

farms in North Dakota and South Dakota. The new 

contract with Select Energy offsets 100 percent of 

the laboratory’s annual electricity consumption. 

• Edison, New Jersey: In August 2005, EPA worked 

with DESC to replace its green power contract for 

the Region 2 Laboratory in Edison. The new, 

three-year contract with Select Energy will provide 

the laboratory with 6 million kilowatthours per 

year in RECs, offsetting 100 percent of its annual 

electricity consumption and supporting wind 

power from Wyoming and North and South Dakota. 

• Richmond, California: In August 2005, EPA 

worked with DESC to finalize a replacement contract for green power at the Region 9 Laboratory in 

Richmond. The new three-year contract with 3 

Phases Energy Services provides 1.9 million kilowatthours per year in RECs and offsets 100 percent of the laboratory’s electricity consumption. 

The purchase supports wind farms in Northern and 

Southern California and replaces a previous contract for 1.85 million kilowatthours in RECs from 

landfill gas. 

In addition to these procurement efforts, EPA continued to receive green power at 11 other facilities in FY 

2005. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

In December 2004, EPA completed installation of a 

9.5-kilowatt photovoltaic array on the roof of its Western Ecology Division Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. 

EPA continued to operate numerous other self-generation technologies in FY 2005, including: 

• Solar Arrays: EPA continued to operate a 100­

kilowatt photovoltaic array installed in 2002 on the 

roof of its National Computer Center in RTP, 

North Carolina, and a 10-kilowatt solar array installed on the roof of its Region 5 Office in Chicago’s Metcalfe Federal Building in 2000. EPA’s 

Region 10 Laboratory also continued operation of 

28 solar panels with a combined 2-kilowatt capacity. 

• Photovoltaic Lighting: EPA’s campus in RTP, 

North Carolina, includes solar street lights that 

have served the entrance road and parking lot facilities since FY 2002. EPA believes this is the 

largest solar road lighting project in the United 

States. 

• Solar Water-Heating Systems: In FY 2004, EPA 

installed a solar water-heating system at its Region 

9 Child Care and Fitness Center in San Francisco, 

California. EPA’s Region 2 Laboratory in Edison, 

New Jersey, utilizes three solar water-heating systems that have been the primary source of hot water in their respective facilities since 1998. 

Petroleum 

In FY 2005, EPA used a total of 183,234 gallons of 

fuel oil at six of its reporting laboratories. Of those six 

facilities, two are using a blend of soy ester biodiesel 

fuel as a clean-burning alternative to traditional diesel 

fuel. The Atlantic Ecology Division Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island, and Region 10 Laboratory in 

Manchester, Washington, used a combined 28,897 

gallons of 100 percent biodiesel, mixed with traditional 

diesel fuel in a one-to-four ratio. In addition, EPA used 

a total of 8,002 gallons of propane at two facilities 

during FY 2005. 

Water Conservation 

EPA has set an internal goal to reduce water consumption by 15 percent (from an FY 2000 baseline) by FY 

2010. In pursuit of this goal, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13123, EPA has conducted water use 

assessments and prepared detailed water management 

plans that include Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for 45 percent of its laboratories. Through FY 2005, 

EPA has completed such plans for 13 of its 29 laboratories, with more underway. EPA far exceeds the FY 

2005 Executive Order 13123 requirement to complete 

water management plans at 20 percent of its facilities 

(as well as the FY 2006 requirement for water management plans at 30 percent of its facilities). These and 

other efforts to promote water efficiency and implement water-saving projects have allowed EPA to significantly reduce water consumption. 

During FY 2005, EPA facilities reaped the benefits of 

water conservation initiatives and continued to take 

steps to significantly reduce water consumption at its 

facilities. 

For example, in Corvallis, Oregon, the National Health 

and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

(NHEERL) replaced a single-pass cooling system in 

the computer room of its main laboratory with a closed 

loop system that uses recycled glycol for cooling instead of a continuous flow of chilled water. This upgrade was part of a water management plan completed 

in 2004 that also included the installation of water 

109 
control valves on three autoclaves (which has already 

saved an estimated 1 million gallons of water), irrigation system controls, and less water-intensive plumbing 

fixtures. As a result of these improvements, in FY 2005 

the Corvallis Lab used less than half the water 

consumed on average during the same time period in 

FY 2003 to FY 2004. In that time, the water efficiency 

upgrades have saved 5.4 million gallons of water and 

approximately $27,000 in costs. 

During FY 2005, EPA also completed water conservation assessments and water management plans for its 

facilities. For example, in July 2005 the Region 6 

Laboratory in Houston completed a water assessment 

and established a water management plan that set a 

goal to reduce water consumption in 2010 by three 

percent. Under the environmental management system 

set forth in the plan, the laboratory will be tracking and 

evaluating water consumption in pursuit of the conservation target. Additionally, the laboratory will be investigating the feasibility of upgrading the irrigation 

system with a rain or moisture sensor, incorporating 

low flow toilets, urinals, and showerheads, installing 

faucet flow restrictors, and promoting water conservation awareness. The Region 6 Laboratory already recovers air handler condensate for reuse as cooling 

tower make-up water at the rate of 1.4 million gallons 

per year, resulting in more than $3,500 annual savings. 

Implementation Strategies 

In FY 2005, EPA focused on its largest and most energy-intensive facilities-particularly the four in RTP, 

North Carolina. Addressing energy efficiency in RTP 

will be critical to meeting the new EPAct 2005 energy 

reduction requirements, because these facilities represent 50 percent of EPA’s energy consumption and are 

four of EPA’s five highest energy users on a Btu per 

gross square foot per year basis. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

When developing, constructing, and operating its facilities, EPA makes every effort to conserve energy and 

water, incorporate sustainable design, and identify innovative technologies, products, and services that are 

environmentally sound and cost-effective throughout 

their life cycles. All energy projects, for example, go 

through life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, as evidenced in 

the two ESPCs EPA implemented at its Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, and Ada, Oklahoma, laboratories. These 

projects have allowed the agency to realize significant 

energy efficiency upgrades and life-cycle savings that 

would have gone unrealized under the traditional 

funding process, which emphasizes up-front costs. 

LCC analyses help EPA justify energy efficiency improvements; in Richmond, California, for example, the 

six-year payback on the upgrades EPA was seeking 

was short enough to warrant making those mechanical 

system investments, as EPA’s lease expires at the end 

of 2013. 

EPA is working to institutionalize its energy master 

planning process, investigating energy performance 

projects over a 15- or 20-year time frame, since laboratories are long-term investments. EPA has taken that 

idea one step further and in FY 2005 drafted a standard 

statement of work for sustainable master planning to 

examine all types of sustainable features on a life-cycle 

basis for EPA’s future facility projects. When procuring new buildings, EPA generally uses energy modeling during the design process, to help identify additional opportunities for improvement. Such modeling, 

conducted during the 35 percent drawings for EPA’s 

recently completed Science and Technology Center in 

Kansas City, Kansas, revealed additional economical 

energy conservation measures that were incorporated 

into the project. 

Facility Energy Audits 

To help identify opportunities for energy efficiency 

improvements to mechanical systems, EPA’s office 

and laboratory facilities are regularly audited as part of 

a tiered process. The first tier, or Stage 1 audit, is a 

basic energy use assessment conducted as a stand-alone 

activity or in conjunction with water use assessments. 

Stage 2 assessments encompass more thorough energy 

consumption analysis, focus on specific areas of concern, identify various energy conservation measures, 

and calculate simple payback schedules, allowing facility managers to make decisions and prioritize energy 

improvements. Nearly every EPA reporting laboratory 

has had a Stage 1 or Stage 2 audit conducted in the past 

one to five years. 

Financing Mechanisms 

As mentioned earlier, EPA has taken advantage of the 

ESPC financing mechanism to realize significant energy and cost savings at its Ann Arbor, Michigan, laboratory (completed in 2001) as well as in Ada, Oklahoma (accepted in September 2005). EPA is also using 

ESPC-like mechanisms to finance future improvements. Under an agreement with the firm from which 

EPA leases its Richmond, California laboratory, the 

lessor is financing a natural gas co-generator to produce electricity and hot water, two small staging boilers to replace a larger version, and an HVAC controls 

upgrade. The contract for these projects was awarded 

in May 2004, and they were completed in Summer 

2005. Lease payments will be made by EPA using the 

15 percent utility savings, plus a one-time $60,000 rebate from the utility, PG&E. 

110 
ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

EPA actively promotes the purchase of energy-efficient 

products that carry the ENERGY STAR label, including 

photocopier equipment and computers. The Agency 

reviews and updates its purchasing specifications 

regularly and incorporates ENERGY STAR and other 

sustainable product requirements into new lease provisions when the occasion arises. 

EPA encourages its employees and other Federal purchasers to participate in energy management activities 

through its Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

(EPP) Program. EPP helps train government purchase 

card users on buying energy-efficient and sustainable 

products. In FY 2005, EPA made mandatory for 

agency purchase card holders use of a Blanket Purchasing Agreement (BPA) with office supply company 

Corporate Express, which provides environmentally 

preferable non-electronic office products Through the 

BPA and its EPP program, EPA maintains a comprehensive database of environmentally preferable products for government purchasers and other users, as well 

as sample contract language for procuring these products. EPA also published newsletters, including the 

EPP Update and Energizing EPA, which promote the 

use of energy-efficient products and provide resources 

to EPA purchasers through articles on specific products 

and purchasing procedures. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

Because the ENERGY STAR program does not encompass laboratories in its labeling program, EPA cannot 

designate its 29 reporting laboratory facilities as 

ENERGY STAR Buildings. However, the agency continues to work with the General Services Administration 

(GSA) to achieve the ENERGY STAR Building label in 

office facilities it occupies, including: 

• Seattle, Washington: The Park Place Building, 

which houses EPA’s Region 10 Office, received 

the ENERGY STAR label in November 2004, after a 

series of improvements by the building’s owner, 

Benaroya Companies, and EPA, which occupies 

10 of the facility’s 21 floors. EPA installed occupancy sensors and energy-efficient light fixtures, 

and the owner replaced the HVAC systems and 

modified the penthouse ventilation system to recover heat leaving the building. 

• Atlanta, Georgia: In April 2005, EPA received the 

ENERGY STAR label at the Sam Nunn Federal 

Center in Atlanta, where its Region 4 Office is located. Through a pilot project with GSA and other 

tenants in the building, a multi-agency team evaluated the building, conducted pilot tests, and identified simple, low-cost modifications, such as occupancy sensors, lighting upgrades, and repairs. 

In addition to focusing on ENERGY STAR labeling at its 

office buildings, EPA continued to expand collection 

of energy data from each of its major regional and 

Headquarters office buildings in FY 2005. Although 

GSA has had the responsibility to report energy use for 

these buildings under Executive Order 13123, EPA 

wants to use this data to further identify opportunities 

to improve energy performance in the offices it occupies. 

Sustainable Building Design 

EPA incorporates sustainable building design principles into the siting, design, and construction of all new 

facilities, as well as the renovation and maintenance of 

existing facilities. EPA outlined in its Green Buildings 

Vision and Policy Statement a holistic approach to 

minimize environmental impacts while maintaining a 

healthy, comfortable workplace, and its Architecture 

and Engineering Guidelines reflect these principles in 

all aspects of design, construction, and operation of its 

facilities. 

EPA works closely with GSA in the selection of architects, mechanical engineers, and building developers, 

and incorporates sustainable design language into the 

solicitations for these vendors. The Agency requires a 

minimum LEED-New Construction (LEED-NC) Silver 

rating for its major new office building leases and requires that each major new office facility obtain the 

ENERGY STAR label within a fixed post-occupancy time 

period. EPA also typically sets a 30 percent better than 

the ASHRAE 90.1 (1999) goal for energy performance 

for all new major facilities. Future projects with sustainable design features include: 

• Denver, Colorado, Region 8 Office: In June 2005, 

EPA and GSA broke ground for the new 250,000­

square-foot Region 8 headquarters building in 

downtown Denver. Designed to achieve a minimum Silver LEED-NC certification, the building 

is likely to exceed expectations and achieve Gold. 

Numerous environmental features include: a 

50,000-square-foot, highly reflective ENERGY 

STAR-rated roof to reduce energy consumption and 

heat island effects; native vegetation in the rooftop garden to manage and filter rain water; a ninestory atrium that provides abundant natural lighting to reduce energy consumption; photovoltaic 

panels that generate electrical power to supplement 

green power purchases and reduce energy consumption; low-flow plumbing fixtures and native, 

drought-tolerant landscaping to conserve water; 

low volatile organic compound interior adhesives, 

111 
paints, sealants, and caulks to improve indoor air 

quality; environmentally preferable janitorial and 

cleaning products to improve indoor air quality 

and reduce the use of toxic chemicals; an integrated pest management plan to reduce the use of 

toxic chemicals; a recycling collection program for 

newspapers, mixed office paper, cardboard, glass, 

plastics, metals, and toner cartridges; and extensive bike parking and shower facilities to encourage healthy, low-impact commuting. The project 

should be completed and ready for occupancy in 

October 2006. 

• New Childcare Facility, RTP, North Carolina: 

Construction of EPA’s new childcare facility in 

RTP, North Carolina, began in April 2004 and was 

completed in November 2005. Like the rest of the 

RTP campus, the new childcare facility incorporated green building features such as effective 

daylighting and energy-efficient design. By incorporating these and other sustainable design principles, the facility will strive to achieve a LEED-NC 

Silver rating. 

Some of the newer EPA facilities that have incorporated sustainable design include: 

• NCC, RTP, North Carolina: Built on the main 

campus in RTP, North Carolina, and opened in 

January 2002, NCC houses EPA’s central data 

processing and exchange operations. The facility 

includes extensive daylighting and a rooftop 

photovoltaic system that helps power the facility. 

In January 2005, the facility received LEED-NC 

Silver certification. 

• EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC: In collaboration with GSA, EPA Headquarters initiated a lowimpact development demonstration project in FY 

2004 designed to reduce the peak volume and 

pollutant load of storm water runoff entering 

Washington, D.C.-area waterways from the 

agency’s Federal Triangle campus. The first phase 

of the project was completed in the summer of 

2005 and included bioretention cells and a 

soil/grass stabilization/parking area installed along 

Constitution Avenue. Construction has started in 

the Ariel Rios South Courtyard on a porous paving, native landscaping, and rainwater collection 

system, with construction expected to be completed by Spring 2006. Design for the EPA West 

garage cistern began in Fall 2005, with construction also scheduled for completion in 2006. Storm 

water management and water conservation features 

will be included in GSA’s design for the Benjamin 

Franklin Circle, and will require final review and 

approval by the Commission of Fine Arts and the 

Washington, D.C., government before moving 

from concept design to the construction document 

and construction phases. The remaining phases, for 

which designs will be developed beginning in FY 

2007, include plans to introduce native landscaping in the EPA West Courtyard and green roofs installed on two of the buildings. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

GSA leases most of the office buildings EPA uses. 

When EPA needs new space, the agency works with 

GSA to ensure the new office facility, whether the 

lease of an existing building or a build-to-suit (newly 

constructed) lease facility, adheres to minimum environmental performance standards. EPA originally used 

“green riders” to get the best possible existing or newly 

constructed building, recognizing that there may be 

limitations. Green riders were appended to GSA standard language in leases for the Region 3, Region 7, and 

Region 10 office buildings, including requirements for 

reusing materials, purchasing environmentally preferable products, recycling construction and demolition 

debris, promoting public transportation, and improving 

the facilities’ energy performance through energy-efficient HVAC systems. As green buildings have become 

more accepted, GSA has upgraded the environmental 

performance requirements of its standard leases, and 

EPA has continued to raise the environmental performance expectations and specifications for its facilities. 

Now, numerous GSA and EPA environmental performance standards are incorporated throughout lease 

documents. 

As mentioned previously, green lease provisions ensure 

that the new and renovated buildings under development in Denver, Boston, and Northern Virginia will 

promote energy efficiency, water conservation, resource reuse, and a healthy work environment. Using 

appropriate lease language, the Agency is able to ensure that all new facilities achieve a minimum LEEDNC Silver rating, the ENERGY STAR building label, and, 

typically, 20 to 30 percent better than the ASHRAE 

90.1-(1999) standard (for both offices and laboratories). 

EPA is currently working with GSA to incorporate 

mandatory quarterly energy reporting in all of its major 

office building leases, so that it can better understand 

its office energy use profile, identify poor energy performers in its inventory, and target locations where 

collaboration among EPA, GSA, and the landlord will 

economically reduce energy use. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

Even as EPA met the FY 2005 goal outlined in E.O. 

13123 with a combination of mechanical improvements and green power purchases, the agency kept its 

112 
focus on commissioning, re-commissioning, and retrocommissioning the facilities that use the most energy 

and water, as well as identified opportunities to improve efficiencies cost-effectively within laboratories 

and offices of all sizes. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: EPA’s largest 

energy consumers-the New Main building, NCC, and 

their sister facilities, the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in Durham and the 

Human Studies Laboratory in Chapel Hill-continued to 

be a major area of focus for EPA in FY 2005. 

The New Main facility was fully occupied in January 

2003. When the facility was accepted, the energy metering system for the building was not functional. One 

of EPA’s current priorities is to properly meter the facility; a contract for a web-based metering and energy 

management system was awarded in May 2005, and 

the project was completed in December 2005. 

Implementation of a laboratory controls optimization 

pilot project initiated in FY 2004 should be completed 

by the end of March 2006. Using laboratory commissioning protocols developed in the summer of 2004, 

EPA has been safely reducing the ventilation rates of 

laboratory modules campus-wide since November 

2004. EPA anticipates saving 187,000 cfm of outside 

air by eliminating single-pass air, for an anticipated 

campus-wide energy savings of 10 percent. 

An office re-commissioning pilot project was designed 

in the summer of 2005 to ensure proper operation of 

the variable-air-volume (VAV) boxes and economizers 

and appropriate integration with the building automation system. If a pilot project that reconfigures one air 

handling unit (AHU) succeeds, EPA will apply it to all 

the office AHUs, for an energy savings of approximately 15 percent. 

Humidification problems that first appeared in FY 

2004 in one of the four main laboratory wings (the “A” 

Wing or the animal wing) have turned into an energy 

savings opportunity as well. A humidity system upgrade was designed in December 2004 for the A wing, 

which includes heat recovery. EPA awarded a construction contract for this mechanical system change in 

July 2005 and expects completion of construction in 

January 2006. Together, these projects should solve 

humidification problems in the A wing and save 25 to 

30 percent of the energy used in the A wing, for a savings to taxpayers of approximately $200,000 per year. 

In addition to this project, the A wing is reconfiguring 

its controls to reduce airflow in the vivarium laboratory 

10 to 15 percent, which will result in a one to two percent campus-wide energy use reduction. 

In September 2005, the ESPC at EPA’s Robert S. Kerr 

Environmental Research Center was formally accepted, 

with the review and approval of a measurement and 

verification plan. Major systems construction was 

completed in November 2004. The ground-source heat 

pump, VAV fume hoods and air supply, new fan motors, and integrated direct digital control system for 

HVAC, energy, fire, and security management have 

resulted in energy savings even higher than expected. 

Energy use has decreased approximately 45 percent 

compared to pre-ESPC baseline consumption. Between 

the geothermal heat pump, which replaced natural gas 

use, and the green power purchase to offset energy use, 

the Ada laboratory became EPA’s first “carbon-neutral” facility in 2005, meaning the building has virtually eliminated the greenhouse gas emission footprint 

associated with its energy use. To track the ESPC’s 

success, EPA completed the review and approved a 

measurement and verification protocol in the summer 

of 2005, which includes cost verification of energy, 

water, and operations and maintenance expenditures. 

EPA’s second largest laboratory, AWBERC, in Cincinnati, Ohio, is implementing an infrastructure/energy 

master plan to replace the facility’s long outdated mechanical systems over the next several years. Construction on a new “lead and lag” cooling tower with 

variable volume/separate cells and a water distribution 

system featuring variable drive pumps was completed 

in March 2005. The replacement of these 30-year-old 

cooling towers with new, more efficient ones should 

reduce energy use by approximately 4.5 percent or 5.9 

billion Btu annually. An infrastructure phasing plan for 

air handling units, ducts, and exhaust systems replacements was completed in December 2004, and design of 

these systems will be awarded in FY 2006. In March 

2005, EPA completed a steam study, which determined 

that using steam to generate hot water was more economical that replacing the steam boilers with hot water 

boilers. However, the laboratory will replace two 

45,000 lb/hour boilers, which would have required 

extensive repairs, with three 22,500 lb/hour boilers, 

which can run more efficiently and require full capacity only at peak loads. 

AWBERC is in the process of adding a second annex, 

Annex 2, which will feature two buildings with a combined 42,000 square footage designed to LEED-NC 

Gold standards, including an efficient under floor 

heating and cooling supply. A construction contract 

was awarded in September 2005, and construction 

should be completed May 2007. 

Construction started in the fall of 2004 on several mechanical upgrades to EPA’s Region 9 Laboratory in 

Richmond, California. Funded by utility savings 

113 
through an agreement with building owner Wareham 

Development, the project includes installation of a 

natural gas co-generation unit for electricity and hot 

water; replacement of a single, oversized boiler with 

two smaller ones; and an HVAC controls upgrade. Energy savings from the upgrades, which were completed 

in June 2005, are expected to be at least 15 percent. In 

addition to the six-year payback resulting from these 

savings, local utility company Pacific Gas & Electric 

gave a one-time rebate of $60,000 to Wareham, or 

$10,000 for every 10 kilowatts it removed from the 

grid by generating energy onsite through the natural 

gas unit. 

EPA is working to increase energy efficiency at its 

historic Federal Triangle buildings owned by GSA and 

occupied by EPA. The agency initiated a three-phase 

commissioning effort in January 2005 that covers an 

evaluation of the mechanical systems/plumbing/ 

HVAC; current status of fire/life/safety systems and 

certifications; and an analysis of contractor-performed 

operations and maintenance activities. Upon 

completion of the final report in October 2005, EPA 

began partnering with GSA to prioritize needed 

mechanical system changes, address required 

improvements in operations and maintenance services, 

and continue to provide expert mechanical engineering 

support to GSA. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

EPA has worked to install highly efficient combined 

cooling, heating, and power systems at a number of its 

laboratories. As part of an energy infrastructure upgrade at its Richmond, California, laboratory in 2005, 

the agency began operating a natural gas combined 

heat and power unit. The cogenerator will help 

conserve energy while serving electricity and hot water 

needs. A geothermal heat pump system was installed at 

EPA’s Ada, Oklahoma, laboratory as part of the ESPC 

upgrade there. The system, which has been in operation 

since June 2002, generates approximately 7.8 billion 

Btu of energy each year, which helps augment the 

facility’s use of electricity and natural gas. 

Distributed Generation 

EPA utilizes distributed generation to diversify its energy portfolio and improve the reliability of its electric 

supply. Off-grid electricity sources are an important 

fixture at NVFEL in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As part on 

an energy infrastructure upgrade in 2001, a 200-kilowatt capacity natural gas fuel cell was installed to provide both base load power and emergency backup 

power for the facility. The fuel cell supplies heating 

water for the reheat water loop serving the air handling 

units, saving significant amounts of energy that would 

otherwise be wasted in cooling towers and radiators. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

EPA is doing its part to work with local utilities to reduce its buildings’ electricity loads during peak times 

and throughout the day: 

• Atlanta, Georgia: As part of the building’s efforts 

to achieve the ENERGY STAR building label in FY 

2005, EPA’s Region 4 Office: strategically reduced lighting in excessively lit areas; installed 

occupancy sensors as standard operating procedure; repaired improperly installed or broken 

equipment; adjusted after-hours energy usage and 

system start-up by carefully analyzing the energy 

management system; developed policies to ban 

space heaters; and mandated air balancing when 

offices are constructed in open space. 

• Edison, New Jersey: The laboratory has three solar 

water-heating systems that are the primary source 

of hot water in their respective facility areas. Because the building relies on the electrical systems 

only for auxiliary water heating when necessary, 

the solar heaters allow the facility to conserve 

electricity and fossil fuel. So far, Edison’s solar 

technology has registered energy savings results 

significantly higher than expected. 

• Golden, Colorado: The Region 8 Laboratory employs extensive daylighting, energy-efficient 

lighting, a solar wall, nighttime setbacks for the 

ventilation system, and direct digital controls to 

monitor the HVAC system as part of its energy-efficient operations. 

• Gulf Breeze, Florida: EPA utilizes timers on approximately 20 electric water heaters to save energy during off-peak hours. 

• Houston, Texas: The Environmental Services 

Branch Laboratory incorporates a night setback 

system to control exhaust fans, fume hoods, and 

supply air. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Bucky Green 

Energy & Environmental Coordinator 

Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailstop 3204R 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Phone: 202-564-6371 

Fax: 202-564-8234 

Email: green.bucky@epa.gov 

114 
P. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) 

Management and Administration 

The General Services Administration (GSA) has formally designated the Director, Office of Applied Science, as GSA’s Senior Agency Energy Official responsible for meeting the goals and requirements of 

Executive Order 13123. 

The primary role of the Senior Agency Energy Official 

is that of coordinator and facilitator to ensure that there 

is a single focal point knowledgeable of the numerous 

energy conservation programs in place and planned 

across GSA. The Energy Official is assisted by the 

Public Buildings Service (PBS) Energy Subject Matter 

Expert and the Energy Center of Expertise Staff. The 

Energy Official relies on the Energy Subject Matter 

Expert to develop and implement the various activities 

and initiatives undertaken by GSA to meet the goals of 

the Order. 

Members of the GSA energy team consist of Energy 

Center of Expertise staff. The team meets with appropriate program representatives to address specific issues that arise regarding the furtherance of meeting the 

goals of the Executive Orders. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

GSA annually participates in the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

Federal Energy and Water Management Awards 

program, and received two awards at the October 2005 

program. 

The Great Lakes Region was honored with the 2005 

Presidential Energy Management Award. 

Training and Education 

Under Sec.156 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, GSA 

is required to hold ten energy management workshops 

for Federal, state, local, and tribal communities biannually. In 2005, GSA held or co-sponsored five conferences/workshops in partnership with Federal agencies 

and state governments toward this requirement. 

These workshops included the following dates, locations and approximate attendees: 

• Federal Utility Partnership Working Group, Rapid 

City, South Dakota, with 75 attendees; 

• Get it Right Utility Acquisition, San Francisco, 

May 2005 with 45 attendees, Chicago, July 2005 

with 50 attendees; Washington D.C., September 

2005 with 40 attendees; and 

• Energy 2005 in Long Beach, California, August, 

2005 with 1,200 attendees. 

GSA continues to train its own personnel in all aspects 

of energy and water management and conservation. 

GSA also includes project managers responsible for 

renovation and new construction projects in many of 

these training activities. GSA currently has on staff 28 

trained energy managers. Routine training includes 

such topics, among others, as: 

• Industrial Energy Process and Building Analysis; 

• ASHRAE 90.1; 

• Energy Management Techniques; and 

• Building Life Cycle Costing. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Due to problems encountered with electric billings 

under deregulation, some electric figures are estimated. 

For example, in Texas both the supplier and the utility 

companies continue to send erroneous and duplicate 

billings, and GSA is working to resolve the billing errors and correct the data. 

Additionally, GSA is encountering an increasing number of operating hours in a large portion of its inventory that has had a serious impact on consumption 

numbers. This after-hour usage is largely attributed to 

added security requirements for some agencies. 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, GSA reported a 35.3 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. GSA used an estimated 

53,725 Btu per square foot in its standard buildings 

during the year. GSA received credit for purchases of 

2.1 billion Btu of renewable energy. This lowered the 

energy intensity of its standard buildings from 66,027 

Btu per square foot to 53,725 Btu per square foot. 

GSA achieved this reduction by directly investing in 

energy and water conservation opportunities with paybacks of 10 years or less. From 1990 through 2005, 

GSA invested approximately $360 million in projects. 

The 1985 baseline for this category of goal-tracked 

facilities was modified due to the moving of appropriate energy intensive facilities to their own goal-tracked 

category. These facilities were selected in accordance 

with DOE’s guidance issued on December 8, 1999. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

For the 12 months ending FY 2005, GSA’s energy usage was 290,487 Btu per gross square foot and was 

115 
432,313 Btu per gross square foot in FY 1990, a decrease of 32.8 percent compared with the 1990 base 

year. This reduction incorporates the green power reduction credit of 66.2 billion Btu. The agency achieved 

this reduction by directly investing in energy and water 

conservation opportunities with paybacks of 10 years 

or less. 

Exempt Facilities 

GSA excluded buildings include those entering or 

leaving the inventory in a given year, buildings undergoing renovations, and outside parking garages. Typically, buildings undergoing renovations will include 

energy reduction opportunities as a part of the project 

and the building is returned to the goal group at the 

completion of the project. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

GSA considers opportunities for solar and other renewable energy in building design and retrofits. When 

GSA performs an energy audit of a facility, renewable 

opportunities are identified and implemented if they are 

life-cycle cost effective. In addition, The Facility Standards for Public Buildings, PBS P100.2 incorporates 

language for solar/renewable energy sources to be considered in the proposed design. 

In FY 2005, GSA received an estimated 2.2 billion Btu 

in energy use from self-generated projects. Approximately 60.5 megawatthours of this came from GSA’s 

13 photovoltaic installations, 1.200 billion Btu came 

from GSA’s two solar thermal projects and 830 million 

Btu came from the one completed geothermal project. 

The photovoltaic output is significantly lower this year 

than in past years due to two system malfunctions that 

are currently being repaired and will hopefully be back 

up and running for FY 2006. GSA also has funded the 

repair of five existing solar thermal projects that are 

currently inactive to bring them back to operating condition. 

In FY 2005, GSA completed one new photovoltaic 

system, a 1.5-kilowatt system at the new Seattle Courthouse. 

GSA has begun the initial study into another photovoltaic system at a Border Station in Highgate Springs, 

Vermont. Additionally, in FY 2005 GSA funded a 

small photovoltaic array at the McCormack Post Office 

and Courthouse in Boston. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, GSA purchased a total of 660.2 gigawatthours of electricity from renewable sources through 

competitive power contracts and use of green power 

programs offered by local distribution companies. 

In FY 2005 GSA had active competitive power contracts that contained green power components in 10 of 

11 Regions; New England Region, Northeast Caribbean Region, Mid-Atlantic Region, Great Lakes Region, Heartland Region, Greater Southwest Region, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Pacific Rim Region, 

Northwest Arctic Region and National Capital Region. 

These renewable power purchases were primarily for 

facilities in GSA’s Standard Category, 629.4 gigawatthours. Therefore the credit should be applied to the 

standard category reduction. An additional 19.4 gigawatthours of green power was purchased for facilities 

in GSA’s Intensive Category. The remaining 11.4 gigawatthours were purchased for facilities that are exempt. 

GSA attempts to include the option for renewable purchases in all competitive procurements issued, and exercises the option when it makes sense. The use of Renewable Energy Certificates has become the most 

viable choice for these purchases. 

Petroleum 

GSA has traditionally encouraged the reduction in the 

use of petroleum-based fuel as far back as the 

1973/1974 oil embargoes. From the 1975 former base 

year to the 1985 present base year, GSA reduced oil 

use from approximately 18.5 million gallons in Federally owned buildings to about 7.6 million gallons in 

1985 in both owned and leased buildings. From 1985 

to 2005, GSA petroleum-based fuel use in buildings 

dropped by 95 percent, from 7.6 million to 0.38 million 

gallons. 

Water Conservation 

GSA’s water consumption for FY 2005 is estimated to 

be 4.5 billion gallons. This represents consumption for 

GSA’s entire owned facility inventory. The cost of this 

consumption was $25.6 million dollars. This cost also 

includes sewage charges. 

In FY 2005, GSA funded and implemented several 

water conservation projects. The New England Region 

implemented a condensate heat recovery at the JFK 

Federal Building in Boston, in which 100 percent of 

domestic hot water needs are provided by the heat recovery system. Excess condensate is circulated though 

an ice-melt system that cools the heated condensate to 

ground. During the winter months, when outside conditions call for it, the energy management system directs heated condensate to the ice melt system keeping 

the perimeter areaway dry and non-slip. 

116 
GSA also funded a water conservation project at Federal Building in Austin, Texas to install 39 waterless 

urinals. 

GSA finalized a Water Management Guide in FY 

2000, which is posted on the GSA Energy Center of 

Expertise’s website for use by any Federal agency 

(www.gsa.gov/pbs/centers/energy). GSA facility and 

project managers continue to make use of this valuable 

tool. This guide provides comprehensive guidance on 

how to meet the requirements of Executive Order 

13123, from detailed descriptions of water conserving 

technologies and principles and how to measure water 

use and develop a water management plan to economic 

analysis and innovative financing options. The guide 

makes reference to the FEMP Best Management Practices (BMPs) that were developed and is referenced on 

FEMP’s Water Management Working Group web site. 

GSA utilizes a proactive approach with water management. Every GSA facility has an Operations & 

Maintenance plan that incorporates water management. 

The majority of the scopes of work for energy audits 

that GSA completes each year, include water conservation as well. The guidance issued that establishes a 

water conservation goal for Executive Order 13123, is 

unclear on several areas regarding when one can consider a facility complete, specifically in facilities where 

certain BMPs could not be implemented at all. Lastly 

GSA has a comprehensive maintenance program that 

already incorporates many of the Best Management 

Practices identified by FEMP into everyday requirements for maintenance at its facilities. 

GSA continues to experience extreme difficulty in obtaining water consumption data for buildings located in 

the District of Columbia. The data comes in sometimes 

as much as a year behind, making it impossible to provide actual consumption data for these sites. Since the 

D.C. area sites comprise a large percentage of the Federal inventory, the water reporting is very uncertain. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

GSA used life cycle cost (LCC) analysis as one of the 

primary factors in determining which energy projects 

to fund in FY 2005. GSA continued to train project 

managers in LCC analysis by conducting two training 

classes during the year. GSA continues to fund travel 

for select personnel to attend FEMP LCC analysis 

training classes. 

Through these efforts GSA strives to make LCC analysis a part of the selection process for the majority of 

GSA’s construction projects. In addition to being a 

criteria for disbursement of dedicated energy conservation funds, other construction projects such as chiller 

replacements utilized this tool in the up front selection 

of equipment prior to issuance of the construction bid 

documents to ensure that the most life-cycle cost effective equipment would be installed. 

With very rigid and streamlined budgets for capital 

improvements as well as new construction, ensuring 

that the most life cycle cost effective measures remain 

in the project after value engineering remains a constant challenge. 

Facility Energy Audits 

Comprehensive audits are performed by a variety of 

agents: In-house personnel, utilities, FEMP’s audit 

contractors, and architect/engineer contractors or 

energy service companies. 

Audits identify energy and water conservation measures. These measures are developed into energy conservation project proposals using LCC methodology. 

The project submissions are compiled into a database 

for ranking by Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). As 

funding permits, projects are selected for approval and 

implementation. 

Financing Mechanisms 

GSA requested and received $30 million in energy 

funding for FY 2005. The funded energy projects were 

selected based on SIR, a payback analysis, as well as 

projects, which assisted GSA in achieving some of the 

strategic goals. 

As a result of the Government Accounting Office audits regarding appropriate use of energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) that occurred, GSA conducted an internal review of policies and procedures 

used when making a decision to proceed with a financed energy project. Guidance regarding the appropriate use of ESPCs was issued in early FY 2006. 

GSA identified maximizing the use of available alternatively financing contracting mechanisms as a strategy in the FY 2005 Implementation Plan, provided the 

authority was reinstated. In FY 2005, GSA awarded 

one ESPC: Phase 2 of a previously awarded project in 

White Oaks, Maryland. This brings GSA’s total to 32 

ESPCs and 24 utility energy services contracts 

(UESCs) currently active and in place. GSA currently 

has three projects that are in various stages of development, with potential FY 2006 award for most of 

these. 

117 
ENERGY STAR Buildings 

In 2005, GSA earned the ENERGY STAR Building Label 

for three additional facilities, the IRS Service Center in 

Austin, Texas, the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in 

Texarkana, Arkansas, and the Duncan Federal Building 

in Knoxville, Tennessee, bringing the total of labeled 

buildings to 101 of its owned facilities and one leased 

facility. 

GSA has inputted the majority of its inventory information into the label program and is using these scores 

as one tool to determine priorities for allocating appropriated energy funding for energy efficiency. There are 

many more facilities currently in the process of obtaining the label. Much of GSA’s inventory is actually 

not eligible for the label due to excessive square footage that is not classified as office space. 

Sustainable Building Design 

GSA project managers and energy coordinators attend 

national conferences, which have tracks and sessions 

providing more information and assistance in incorporating sustainability into its retrofit and new construction programs. 

The following GSA documents now include sustainable design guidance: The Design Excellence Program 

Guide, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings 

Service, and GSA’s Solicitation for Offers for Leasing. 

While GSA has achieved salutary targets in sustainable 

design, no building constructed has obtained a point in 

the LEED system related to energy conservation. In 

2006, thinking beyond LEED, GSA will propose guidance for design that tailors LEED to GSA’s needs, and 

indeed, goes “beyond LEED” a theme that began just 

this year with a detailed examination of how the Alexandria Bay Border Station might be a better building 

than even envisioned at the highest current LEED 

level. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

The GSA 2005 Implementation Plan included continuing to incorporate lease provisions that encourage 

energy and water efficiency and sustainable design. 

GSA’s Solicitation for Offers (SFO) for Leasing includes sustainable design guidance. 

Distributed Generation 

GSA has continued to investigate the potential for offgrid generation technologies whenever an energy audit 

or study is conducted at one of our facilities. 

In FY 2005, GSA claimed the Source Use Reduction 

Credit for a cogeneration project at the Williams 

Building in Boston, Massachusetts. The credit uses the 

displaced grid electricity in kilowatthours per year 

multiplied times 8,438 Btu per kilowatthour. GSA’s 

White Oak complex Super-ESPC, awarded in FY 2003, 

included a 5.8-megawatt cogeneration plant that became fully operational in FY 2005. 

Additionally, GSA funded a large 1.46-megawatt combined heat and power project at 201 Varick Street in 

Manhattan, New York, with construction anticipated to 

begin in FY 2006. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

In FY 2005, GSA continued to establish and implement 

electricity emergency load reduction guidance to be 

used by regions on an individual building basis. While 

a few regions took maximum advantage of local utility 

load response programs incorporating them into each 

facility strategy with great deal of success, most regions of GSA took minimum advantage of local utility 

load response programs. Additionally, GSA looked for 

opportunities to improve GSA’s load management capabilities under deregulation of the electricity industry. 

GSA also took advantage of the DOE Alert Audits to 

assist them in identifying additional load reduction 

opportunities. 

GSA’s Energy Center of Expertise developed a Tactical Curtailment plan to determine the effectiveness and 

appropriateness of a number of specific actions implemented in California and nationwide to provide convincing leadership in this area. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Mark Ewing 

Director, Energy Center of Expertise 

General Services Administration 

301 7th Street, SW (WPE) 

Washington, D.C. 20407 

Phone: 202-708-9296 

Fax: 202-401-3722 

Email: mark.ewing@gsa.gov 

118 
Q. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING BUREAU (IBB) 

Management and Administration 

In the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), the 

Associate Director for Management serves as the 

agency Senior Energy Official. The agency energy 

team is comprised of the Director of Administration, 

staff from the Office of Engineering and Technical 

Services and the Office of Contracts, and the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

Management Tools 

Training and Education 

Because the IBB transmitting stations are energy intensive broadcast facilities, the terms technical training 

and energy management training are synonymous. Because training is continuously provided for the operation of the stations’ broadcast equipment, the requirements for specialized energy training are minimal. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

Although network energy efficiency declined from FY 

2004, IBB still achieved the FY 2005 goal of a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency as established in 

Executive Order 13123. In FY 2005, IBB achieved a 

31.9 percent improvement in energy efficiency from 

the 1997 baseline. 

The decrease in energy efficiency from the previous 

year can be partially attributed to the relocation of the 

medium wave transmitting facility in the Philippines. 

IBB used an old (1950) version Continental Electronics 

medium wave transmitter as a substitute when the Harris 1,000-kilowatt medium wave transmitter was relocated. Network energy efficiency declined because the 

substitute transmitter employed old technology and 

was much less energy efficient. 

Throughout the year, each transmitting station manager 

was required to document steps taken to increase energy efficiency and save money. This year’s efforts 

included the use of new energy efficient lamps for light 

fixtures, installation of solar water heating units, acquisition of ENERGY STAR products and appliances, installation of photocells, and the installation of on/off 

switches for street lighting. 

In addition to these energy initiatives, IBB was tasked 

with the President’s September 26, 2005 Memorandum 

to conserve energy due to shortages as a result of Hurricane Katrina. IBB responded favorably to the Memorandum and was able to conserve an additional 223.0 

megawatthours of electricity, 11,030 gallons of fuel oil, 

and 1,000 gallons of gasoline, saving approximately 

2.4 billion Btu of energy. 

Petroleum 

IBB’s primary consumers of petroleum-based fuels are 

the Kavala and Sao Tome Transmitting Stations. These 

two stations exist without commercial power and are 

required to generate their own electricity. At both stations, petroleum consumption depends of the broadcast 

schedule. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

IBB uses life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis on all procurements for major broadcast equipment items. By 

including LCC provisions as part of the cost criteria for 

transmitter procurements, IBB can obtain the modern 

solid state broadcast equipment that provides the best 

value for the government. 

Facility Energy Audits 

IBB has implemented a policy of conducting facilities 

assessments of its transmitting stations. The facilities 

inspection teams will review energy consumption as 

part of their scheduled station assessments. 

Financing Mechanisms 

Because of the specialized nature of its mission, IBB 

has not yet found an instance where the use of either an 

energy savings performance contract or utility energy 

services contract appears to be cost effective. IBB will 

continue to consider the future use of these alternative 

financing mechanisms. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

IBB endorses and continues the use of ENERGY STAR 

products. In fact, energy efficiency becomes a prime 

consideration in the majority of IBB’s equipment procurements. 

Energy Management Contact 

Ms. Freda Gerard 

Director of Administration 

International Bureau of Broadcasting 

Wilbur J. Cohen Building, Room 1274 

330 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20547 

Phone: 202-203-4006 

Fax: 202-401-2374 

Email: fgerard@ibb.gov 

119 
R. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Management and Administration 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) Administrator has designated the Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Infrastructure and Administration, as the Senior Energy Official responsible 

for meeting the goals and requirements of Executive 

Order 13123. The Senior Official is responsible for 

providing agency-wide executive and functional leadership, oversight, guidance, coordination, and advocacy 

for agency logistics, industrial relations, facilities, environmental management and energy efficiency programs, aircraft management, quality management systems, headquarters operations, NASA Employee 

Exchanges, and management policy directives, systems, and controls. The Senior Official also represents 

NASA on the Interagency Energy Policy “656" Committee. 

NASA’s Energy Efficiency Panel (EEP) provides an 

agency-level forum to guide the planning and implementation of energy efficiency activities, including 

energy and water conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, and use of renewable energy sources. EEP 

membership includes the following: 

• Director, Environmental Management Division, 

Chair; 

• NASA representative to the Interagency Energy 

Management Task Force, Executive Secretary; 

• A representative of the Facilities Engineering and 

Real Property Division; 

• A representative from each Mission Directorate, 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the 

Office of Procurement; 

• The designated Energy Managers of each NASA 

Center and Component Facility; 

• A Center Facilities Engineering representative for 

each Mission Directorate; and 

• Representatives from the Office of the General 

Counsel and the Institutional Management Office 

to serve as non-voting advisors to the EEP. 

The EEP supports the Environmental and Energy Management Board (EEMB) for research and implementation of energy programs, issues, and initiatives. Significant issues and initiatives identified by the EEP 

requiring agency-wide capital investments or investment policy to achieve or sustain compliance with Federal energy efficiency and water conservation goals and 

objectives are presented to the Operations Management 

Council through the EEMB. 

Management Tools 

NASA employed the following management initiatives 

and tools to promote effective energy and water management: 

• NASA directive NPR 8570.1, Energy Efficiency 

and Water Conservation Technologies and Practices, provides agency-wide procedures and guidelines for meeting the requirements and goals of 

Executive Order 13123, using alternative financing, and evaluating renewable energy and water 

conservation opportunities. 

• Program Operating Plan guidance was issued to 

NASA Centers and Component Facilities for including energy efficiency funds in their FY 2007 

budget requests. 

• The NASA Headquarters Environmental Management Division conducted six Energy and Water 

Management Functional Reviews during FY 2005. 

These Reviews were performed at Marshall Space 

Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, Langley Research Center, 

Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, 

and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 

Awards 

NASA has developed the Blue Marble Award, an 

Agency Environmental/Energy Awards Program to 

recognize accomplishments in implementing all of the 

Greening the Government Executive Orders; the award 

program’s first call for nominations will occur in FY 

2006. NASA continues to be an active participant in 

the Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy and 

Water Management Awards program. In addition, most 

NASA Centers and Component Facilities recognize 

employee contributions to energy and water savings 

through established employee suggestion programs by 

issuing awards and monetary rewards based on savings 

achieved, and by recognizing employee contributions 

in internal news publications. The following specific 

activities were pursued: 

• NASA received a 2005 Federal Energy and Water 

Management Award in the renewable energy category for the Kennedy Space Center Solar Thermal 

Pilot Project that uses the sun’s heat to offset electricity consumption for regenerating dehumidification desiccant. 

• NASA named one new Energy Champion and 

featured a new Federal Energy Saver Showcase facility in FY 2005, for a total of 24 NASA Energy 

Champions and three Projects since the DOE Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) initiated this program in FY 1998. 

120 
• The Kennedy Space Center Environmental Program Branch manages two award programs for 

Center employees and contractors. The Catch an 

Environmentalist Award is a quick recognition 

program managed by the Environmental Program 

Office to reinforce positive behaviors. The Environmental & Energy Award is a biannual competition conducted by the Center Awards Office. 

This award recognizes significant achievements in 

all areas of environmental and energy management, and in FY 2005 the program recognized 

HVAC maintenance technicians for restoring energy efficiency to a facility that had developed a 

control problem. 

• The Kennedy Space Center Joint Base Operations 

Support Contractor continued its Energy 

Achievement Goals for Life and Environment 

(EAGLE) Award program to recognize employee 

contributions to energy and water efficiency and 

environmental improvement. In FY 2005, the program recognized the boiler plant foreman for operational efficiency improvements that reduced 

natural gas consumption. 

• Ames Research Center supports pollution prevention and energy conservation awards, and provides cash awards to winners. 

Training and Education 

NASA employees attended a variety of training opportunities to further improve the knowledge base of its 

workforce. Opportunities included topics such as natural gas procurement and cost control, pumping systems, 

sustainable building design and Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design, large motor soft starts, 

building design energy analysis, indoor air quality, 

distributed energy, energy awareness, energy audits, 

life-cycle cost analysis, water conservation, renewable 

energy resources, and alternative financing. In addition 

to the above-mentioned training, NASA completed the 

following additional activities to help ensure that all 

appropriate personnel receive training for energy and 

water management requirements: 

• NASA conducted a Sustainable Design of Facilities (SDF) course at Kennedy Space Center during 

FY 2005. The SDF course was developed to give 

energy and facilities management professionals the 

knowledge and skills required to successfully implement sustainable designs in new and renovation 

construction projects. 

• Several NASA Centers hosted employee energy 

awareness activities as part of October Energy 

Awareness Month and Earth Day observances. 

• NASA Headquarters continued broadcasting recurring energy conservation messages to all employees via the Headquarters Information Television 

closed circuit system. 

• Twelve NASA and contractor energy-related personnel attended the Energy 2005 Workshop, one 

of whom supported planning and implementation 

of conference sessions, and one of whom presented at a session. 

• Approximately 37 NASA employees and contractors received energy and water management training through NASA- and FEMP-sponsored courses, 

industry conferences, and commercial or academic 

sources at a cost of approximately $117,500. 

Showcase Facilities 

NASA nominated and DOE recognized newly constructed Building 4600 at Marshall Space Flight Center 

as a Federal Energy Saver Showcase facility in FY 

2005. The building’s east-west orientation and sun 

shades minimize sun exposure, while an open floor 

plan allows for an abundance of natural light. Other 

energy-saving features include light sensors, photovoltaic roof panels that provide about 5 percent of the 

facility’s power, photovoltaic parking lot lighting, and 

a reflective white ENERGY STAR roof membrane. Waste 

water from the campus chiller plant is distributed to a 

retention pond for irrigation, saving 3.5 million gallons 

of potable water annually. More than 85 percent of 

construction waste was re-used or recycled, and 20 

percent of the building material is made of recycled 

content. Low-Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) materials, efficient air flow, and greater access to daylight 

and views provide a healthy and productive interior 

work environment. NASA’s two previous Showcase 

Facilities are the Project Engineering Facility Building 

4203 at Marshall Space Flight Center designated in FY 

1996, and the Aircraft Maintenance Hangar Building 

1623 at Dryden Flight Research Center designated in 

FY 2001. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

In FY 2000, NASA realigned its facility designations 

and historical energy consumption baselines to comply 

with the definitions and goals established by Executive 

Order 13123 for the three new categories of Federal 

buildings and facilities. These categories are: 

• Standard buildings/facilities subject to Section 

202, Energy Efficiency Improvement Goals. 

NASA refers to these as Non-Mission Variable 

(NMV) buildings. 

• Industrial, laboratory, research, and other energyintensive facilities subject to the goals of Section 

203, Industrial and Laboratory Facilities. NASA 

refers to these as Energy-Intensive Facilities (EIF). 

121 
• Exempt facilities as defined under Section 704. 

NASA refers to these as Mission Variable (MV) 

facilities. 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, NASA reported a 30.4 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. NASA received credit for 

purchases of 272.5 billion Btu of renewable energy. 

This lowered the energy intensity of its standard facilities from 191,052 Btu per square foot to 178,860 Btu 

per square foot. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

NASA has elected to use Btu per gross square foot as 

the agency-wide aggregate performance measure for 

these facilities. However, NPR 8570.1 establishes other 

performance measures, such as Btu per Production 

Unit per Degree-Day, Btu per Tracking Hour, and Btu 

per Gross Cubic Foot for individual industrial facilities, 

space flight tracking stations, and clean rooms. 

After removing credit received for 165.4 billion Btu of 

purchased renewable energy, the average energy intensity for NASA’s EIF facilities was 271,710 Btu per 

gross square foot at the end of FY 2005, as compared 

to the FY 1990 baseline value of 323,972 Btu per gross 

square foot. This represents a 16.1 percent decrease, 

which falls short of the required 20 percent reduction 

for FY 2005 due in part to including buildings in the 

category that would more appropriately have been exclusions. NASA plans to address this as the agency 

responds to EPAct 2005’s requirements of re-baselining to FY 2003 and eliminating the Energy Intensive 

Facilities category. 

Exempt Facilities 

In FY 2005, only 5.2 million gross square feet, or 13.1 

percent, of NASA facility square footage is designated 

as exempt. These facilities are highly specialized and 

energy intensive, having been constructed for specific 

space flight and research programs. Examples are wind 

tunnels driven by multi-thousand horsepower electric 

motors, space simulation chambers, and space communication facilities. The facilities range from pre-World 

War II aeronautical test installations to new facilities 

that support the Space Shuttle and International Space 

Station programs. Energy consumption in these facilities varies directly with the level and intensity of program activities. Concise justifications are provided for 

each MV facility exemption to explain why it is either 

technically infeasible to implement energy efficiency 

measures or to apply conventional performance measures due to the overwhelming proportion of processdedicated energy consumed in these facilities. 

NASA adopted an internal goal to improve the energy 

efficiency of exempt MV facilities, where cost effective and without adversely affecting mission performance, by 10 percent by FY 2005 compared with FY 

1985 levels. Due to the unique nature of their design 

and operation, wind tunnels are excluded from this 

goal. After removing purchased renewable energy, the 

average energy intensity for NASA’s exempt MV facilities was 271,443 Btu per gross square feet at the end 

of FY 2005, as compared to the FY 1985 baseline 

value of 310,000 Btu per GSF. This represents a 12.4 

percent decrease, which is better than NASA’s internal 

goal of 10 percent reduction for FY 2005. 

Renewable Energy 

NASA increased its use of self-generated and purchased renewable energy by 82 percent from FY 2004 

to FY 2005. This increase resulted in an amount of 

renewable energy use equivalent to 8.4 percent of 

NASA’s electricity consumption, which well exceeds 

the FY 2005 goal of 2.5 percent. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

NASA’s use of self-generated renewable energy is not 

directly metered, and the quantity produced is relatively small. 

Two NASA sites installed new photovoltaic systems in 

FY 2005, which more than tripled NASA’s on-Earth 

use of photovoltaics: 

• The Marshall Space Flight Center Building 4600 

roof-mounted array produces about 5 percent of 

the facility’s power; the system can serve 30 kilowatts of load under optimal insulation conditions. 

The parking lot lighting at this facility utilizes an 

additional nine kilowatts of photovoltaics. 

• At the Kennedy Space Center landfill, which is not 

connected to the Center’s electrical distribution 

system, KSC installed a 5-kilowatt photovoltaic 

modular autonomous power system to replace two 

diesel generators that ran five days per week to 

power landfill operations. 

NASA also continues to generate renewable energy 

from the following: 

• Marshall Space Flight Center 2-kilowatt solar 

parking lot lighting at the Wellness Center, Building 4315. 

• Ames Research Center has 10 kilowatts of rooftop 

photovoltaic arrays in operation. 

• Kennedy Space Center 1.05-kilowatt photovoltaic 

system for lightning sensing equipment at FieldMillsite #18. The system replaced a diesel generator that was operated continuously to provide 

122 
power to an area that had been disconnected from 

the Center’s distribution grid. 

• White Sands Test Facility Sewage Lagoon Aerators. This project utilizes wind-powered turbines to 

produce compressed air and replaces four 5-horsepower continuously run electric motors. 

• Kennedy Space Center continues to offset electric 

resistance heating using evacuated tube heat pipe 

solar collectors to generate hot water to regenerate 

a desiccant dehumidification wheel at the Film 

Storage Building. 

NASA continues to study potential additional applications of renewable energy technologies: 

• White Sands Test Facility has an ongoing study to 

determine the feasibility of developing wind power 

and solar power to run environmental remediation 

systems. 

• Wallops Flight Facility is nearing completion of an 

extensive wind power study to determine the feasibility and costs for implementing a wind turbine 

to provide a portion of the facility’s electrical 

power. This work is in conjunction with James 

Madison University under a grant from the DOE. 

• Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex 

has contracted for support to collect wind data 

from atop a windy ridge within the Complex. 

• Florida Power & Light has approached Kennedy 

Space Center and neighboring Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station to consider a wind-driven electricity 

generation project. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

NASA has focused its efforts on purchasing renewable 

energy from sources that are cost-competitive with 

conventional energy sources. The following purchases 

qualify for reporting: 

• Goddard Space Flight Center continues to minimize its natural gas and fuel oil consumption by 

utilizing landfill methane from the local county 

landfill. Purchasing landfill methane rather than 

conventional fuels resulted in a $2 million cost 

avoidance in FY 2005. 

• Johnson Space Center began purchasing the 

equivalent of 20 percent of its incoming electricity 

from Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). 

These RECs cover the incremental cost of generating electricity from biomass, specifically municipal solid waste, which was only $16,000 per 

year or a $0.0004 per kilowatthour premium. 

• Dryden Flight Research Center purchases electricity from Edwards Air Force Base, which obtains 

65 percent of its electrical power from renewable 

sources. 

NASA also purchases energy from renewable sources 

that does not qualify for reporting against metrics: 

• A portion of Ames Research Center’s electricity is 

from Pacific Gas and Electric, whose generation 

mix is 13 percent renewable. 

• The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goldstone 

Deep Space Communications Complex both purchase electricity from Southern California Edison, 

whose generation mix is 20 percent renewable. 

• Langley Research Center purchases electricity 

from Dominion Virginia Power, whose generation 

mix is 3.4 percent renewable. 

• Langley Research Center purchases steam generated from municipal solid waste, but this plant was 

built before 1990 and hence does not qualify. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center purchases steam 

partially generated from municipal solid waste, but 

does not have a means of distinguishing renewable 

from conventional energy. 

Petroleum 

NASA reduced facility petroleum use by 66.4 percent 

since FY 1985. The following projects were undertaken to further reduce NASA’s use of petroleum in 

facilities and transportation uses: 

• Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex 

reduced its on-site power generation requirement 

for distant spacecraft communication operations, 

which will decrease diesel consumption roughly 

120,000 gallons per year. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center has contracted with a 

consultant to select and design boiler 

modifications for burning biodiesel fuel (B20) in 

two boilers in Building 4567, which will save 

approximately 36,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center plans to purchase 

ethanol motor fuel (E10) to be used for all fleet 

vehicles in response to the Presidential Memorandum of September 26, 2005. The E10 initiative requires no infrastructure modifications, and is expected to conserve 865 gallons of gasoline 

annually. 

• White Sands Test Facility converted an existing 

gasoline storage tank to be compatible with ethanol motor fuel (E-85) and acquired 31 vehicles 

from GSA in preparation for FY 2006 E-85 fuel 

procurement. 

• Kennedy Space Center’s renewable energy project 

directly replaces two diesel generators. 

Water Conservation 

NASA used 2.2 billion gallons of potable water in FY 

2005, compared with 2.3 billion gallons in FY 2000, a 

4.8 percent decrease. Water management plans are in 

place and at least 4 of the DOE Best Management 

123 
Practices for Water have been fully implemented at 

28.6 percent of Centers and Component Facilities. 

Centers implemented the following water conservation 

activities in FY 2005 to comply with Executive Order 

13123 requirements: 

• Goddard Space Flight Center awarded a UESC 

project to fund toilet replacements Center-wide 

and reduce water use by two gallons per flush. In 

addition, maintenance costs will decrease from the 

installation of new equipment. 

• Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex 

refurbishment of an administrative building included upgrading to waterless urinals, low flow 

toilets, and low flow faucets. 

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory expanded use of lowflow devices in various buildings. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center is continuing its efforts to identify and eliminate all once-through 

cooling systems, such as 2.6 million gallons per 

year at Building 4711. 

• White Sands Test Facility reduced water consumption by switching to digital photography and 

thereby eliminating wet film photographic processing’s water use for print rinsing and single-pass 

cooling. 

In addition, Langley Research Center plans to replace 

high-flow fixtures with low-flow fixtures (73 urinals 

and 107 faucet aerators) and is conducting a Preliminary Engineering Report to reduce city water consumption for laboratory cryogenic pump cooling. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Members of the energy teams at each Center and Component Facility propose projects and surveys, which 

compete for funding along with other Center requirements. To compete successfully, projects having energy conservation as their sole purpose must have relatively short amortization periods since construction 

funds are very limited and there are many other high 

priority projects competing for funding. Life cycle 

costing is the primary tool for analyzing energy retrofit 

projects. Full economic analyses are performed for all 

construction and revitalization projects in excess of 

$1.5 million in accordance with OMB Circular No. A94. NASA Policy Directive (NPR) 8820.1, “Design 

and Construction of Facilities” establishes this requirement. 

Facility Energy Audits 

NASA is required to complete facility audits for 10 

percent of its building square footage each year beginning March 1994. NASA Headquarters provided guidance to Centers and Component Facilities indicating 

the level of auditing that will be required for different 

types of facilities, recommendations on which mission 

variable facilities could benefit from comprehensive 

audits, and suggested criteria for determining audit 

priorities. Using this guidance, Center energy managers 

developed plans to perform the audits. NASA has 

completed audits for 114 percent of its total building 

square footage (includes square footage re-audited). 

This includes 101 percent of gross square feet for standard buildings and 139 percent of gross square feet for 

industrial and exempt facilities. NASA Centers will 

continue to employ current strategies to target facilities 

for additional audits and opportunities to reduce energy 

and water use. 

Financing Mechanisms 

NASA made continued progress in implementing energy savings performance contract (ESPC) and utility 

energy services contract (UESC) delivery orders. 

NASA awarded two UESC projects in FY 2005 for an 

approximate investment value of $4.2 million. These 

projects reduce water, electricity, and natural gas consumption and costs and associated maintenance costs 

by replacing flush valves for toilets and urinals with 

water saving units, replacing boilers and chillers with 

right-sized new equipment, upgrading HVAC equipment and controls, and implementing automated load 

shedding to reduce electrical peak demand. To date, 

NASA has awarded ten ESPC and seven UESC delivery orders at seven locations (Ames Research Center, 

Glenn Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Stennis 

Space Center, and Wallops Flight Facility), and participated in DOD-managed ESPC and UESC contracts 

at two Centers (Dryden Flight Research Center and 

Kennedy Space Center). These actions have resulted in 

$45.6 million in energy improvements for NASA facilities that are saving $6.2 million annually. Additionally, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is set to award an 

ESPC contract in early FY 2006 which will include 

lighting and HVAC retrofits. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

NASA Centers and Component Facilities are actively 

procuring energy efficient goods and products that are 

the most cost-effective, considering the life cycle, pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. In FY 2005, NASA Centers and Component Facilities continued to install high efficiency electrical products such as liquid crystal display (LCD) and 

other ENERGY STAR-rated computer monitors, dry 

transformers, variable frequency drive systems for fans 

and pumps, high efficiency fluorescent lamps, electronic ballasts, compact fluorescent lamps as replacements for incandescent bulbs, light emitting diode 

124 
(LED) and other low power consumption exit lights, 

and occupancy sensors. NASA took the following actions in FY 2005 to purchase ENERGY STAR and other 

energy-efficient products: 

• Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex 

modified procurement procedures to ENERGY 

STAR and FEMP-designated products; Johnson 

Space Center plans a similar approach through issuance of a Common Work Instruction via International Standards Organization 9000, and Langley Research Center’s Office of Procurement 

ensures purchases comply. 

• Several Centers updated local operating instructions and technical reference standards to ensure 

purchase of energy efficient products. 

• Kennedy Space Center’s base operations contractor purchased 300 LCD energy efficient computer 

monitors. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center is implementing a 

network-based Verdiem software system to monitor and initiate a sleep mode for computers during 

times when not in use. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

Two NASA buildings have received the ENERGY STAR 

label. No new ENERGY STAR buildings were designated 

in FY 2005, but NASA plans to review actual energy 

consumption of newly constructed or significantly 

renovated facilities to determine if they qualify. 

Buildings under consideration include Kennedy Space 

Center’s Operations Support Building 2 and future Life 

Support Facility, and Marshall Space Flight Center’s 

new Building 4600. 

Sustainable Building Design 

NASA continued implementing an integrated sustainable design policy that combines the traditional sustainability concepts of the Whole Building Design 

Guide with building commissioning, design for maintainability, safety, and security. Detailed implementation procedures and guidelines have been developed 

and integrated into the Agency’s facilities project implementation process. A companion in-house training 

course has also been continued in FY 2005. The Centers continued work on several facility project designs 

that incorporate sustainable design features. Some examples include: 

• Marshall Space Flight Center was previously 

recognized by the design and construction industry 

journal, The Construction Specifier, for its work to 

obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) certification for the MSFC Replacement Office Building 4600 (described in 

Section I.B.4 Showcase Facilities). Construction is 

complete, and the facility is expected to be 

NASA’s first LEED-certified building. 

• Johnson Space Center completed construction of 

the replacement Astronaut Crew Quarters in FY 

2005, and is pursuing LEED certification. Sustainable features include designing the landscape & 

exterior to reduce roof heat islands, reducing energy consumption over ASHRAE minimum performance building, using 100 percent Green-e 

electrical power - twice the LEED minimum required to achieve the Green Power Credit, storing 

and collecting recyclables during occupancy, using 

low VOC adhesives, paints and carpets, installing 

ultraviolet lights in air supply ducts to improve indoor air quality by reducing mold and bacteria, 

using 100 percent recycled steel in the structure 

and concrete reinforcing and flooring material 

made from used tires, and installing a Pre-treated 

Outside Air System that cools down and/or warms 

up incoming air using building exhaust. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

This strategy is of only minor importance to NASA 

since leased space represents about 1.5 percent of 

NASA’s total building inventory. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

NASA completed a number of projects in FY 2005 to 

improve the energy efficiency of standard and energyintensive industrial facilities. The majority of projects 

fall into the following categories: 

• HVAC system modernization including replacement of inefficient chillers, installation of variable 

air volume systems and removal of constant volume, terminal reheat systems. 

• EMCS upgrades and expansions to monitor and 

control heating and cooling apparatus startup and 

shutdown, fluid temperatures and pumping rates, 

use of outside air for cooling and ventilation, electrical demand limiting, and optimization of equipment operation. 

• Lighting and electrical system efficiency improvements including lighting upgrades, re-lamping projects, power factor correction, and installation of 

metering equipment. 

• Weatherization and other energy conservation 

measures involving the building envelope, including repair and upgrade of roof and wall insulation. 

• Improved operations and maintenance programs 

focusing on low-and no-cost operational changes, 

reliability-centered maintenance, and computerized maintenance management systems. 

• Metering and monitoring system improvements. 

125 
Specific project examples undertaken in FY 2005 are 

listed below: 

• Dryden Flight Research Center completed decommissioning a boiler plant and installed high-efficiency localized flash boilers. 

• Glenn Research Center is repairing aging natural 

gas distribution infrastructure and replaced windows in a facility. 

• Goddard Space Flight Center utilized Johnson 

Controls to study HVAC optimizations, which 

might lead to a 5 percent reduction in HVAC energy consumption. 

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory implemented lighting 

retrofits. 

• Kennedy Space Center implemented lighting upgrades, programmable thermostats and interlocked 

damper controls, HVAC pre-treatment upgrades, 

air handling unit replacements, securing unnecessary HVAC equipment, and damper replacement. 

• Langley Research Center installed an integrated 

boiler control system to improve communication 

and coordination between the Refuse-Fired Steam 

Generating Facility and the main steam plant. The 

control system will allow more efficient operation 

of the two plants. 

• Marshall Space Flight Center improved a building’s chilled water system efficiency by programming setback space temperatures, installing direct 

digital controls for the chiller plant, and optimizing 

chiller plant operation. This Center also installed a 

steam trap monitoring system connected to the 

Utility Control System, which monitors steam trap 

failures and provides an early warning of which 

traps need replacement. 

• Many Centers continue to upgrade utility metering 

and information systems. Ames Research Center 

installed electrical metering at 24 buildings. Johnson Space Center upgraded electricity and natural 

gas metering at the physical plant for increased 

plant efficiency and cost effectiveness. Kennedy 

Space Center is upgrading hot and chilled water 

monitoring, palm computer meter data collection 

devices, and utility data reporting systems. Langley Research Center upgraded 8 meters and associated communication capability. Marshall Space 

Flight Center installed two water meters and tied 

them into the Utility Control System for remote 

monitoring. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

NASA completed the following actions in FY 2005 to 

reduce peak demand for electricity, particularly in areas experiencing short-term electricity shortages: 

• Several Centers actively utilize load shedding 

plans to reduce demand, including Ames Research 

Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Kennedy 

Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Michoud Assembly Facility. 

• Goddard Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space 

Center, and Wallops Flight Facility utilize automated control system load rolling algorithms to 

reduce demand peaks. 

• In addition to automated mechanisms, Goddard 

Space Flight Center and Kennedy Space Center 

utilize messages to all-hands during load control 

events to obtain reductions by users. 

• Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center, 

and Kennedy Space Center are reviewing building 

energy profiles in stand-alone and networked controls systems, and are taking actions to increase 

conservation profiles. 

• Many Centers utilize Reliability Centered Maintenance practices to keep equipment such as chillers, 

boilers, pumps/motors, electrical switchgear, etc. 

operating safely and efficiently. 

Energy Management Contact 

Wayne Thalasinos 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Energy Resources Manager 

Environmental Management Division 

Suite 1800-M-B 

300 E Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 

Phone: 202-358-3811 

Fax: 202-358-2861 

Email: wayne.b.thalasinos@nasa.gov 

126 
R. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA) 

Management and Administration 

The Senior Energy Official for the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA) is the Assistant 

Archivist for Administration, who provides senior 

management level direction and guidance of overall 

strategic energy goals and incentives and ensures that 

the agency energy plan goals are incorporated into the 

budget process. The agency energy team will continue 

to refine the agency energy plan and to identify 

opportunities for improvement. Additionally, the team 

will keep senior management apprised of the status of 

agency Executive Order 13123 implementation and 

make recommendations as necessary. All 

modifications/renovations to the facilities will be reviews for possible energy savings opportunities. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

In concert with the overall agency awards plan, employees may be granted awards (monetary and time 

off) for exceptional performance in implementing 

Executive Order 13123. Outstanding achievements will 

be recognized during the annual Archivist’s Special 

Achievement awards ceremony. 

Training and Education 

Several members of the agency energy team attended 

the Energy 2005 Workshop in Long Beach, California. 

Several members followed the alternative financing 

track. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Exempt Facilities 

The Archives I (AI), Archives II (AII), 11 Presidential 

Libraries, Southeast Record Center and Ford Museum 

are designated as exempt facilities because conventional performance measures are rendered meaningless 

by an overwhelming proportion of process-dedicated 

energy. This criteria is met due to the large percentage 

of gross square footage of NARA’s holdings dedicated 

to “stack” space. These spaces have extremely strict 

24/7 environmental (temperature & humidity) standards. 

Water Conservation 

Strong water conservation measures continue at 

NARA. A pilot waterless urinal program is currently 

underway. Waterless urinals have several published 

pros and cons and NARA is evaluating them for more 

extensive use after the test period. Low flow shower 

heads were installed in all locker rooms at AI and AII. 

Several water conservation measures have been included in the Detailed Energy Study performed on AII 

and under consideration. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

With the ongoing renovation of the AI building, the 

design engineers have specified energy efficient 

(ENERGY STAR-compliant) equipment to replace any 

equipment removed. In the other buildings, NARA 

continues to look for ways to reduce energy consumption and any major pieces of equipment that are replaced are updated with the latest energy efficient 

equipment. 

Facility Energy Audits 

AII was audited in FY 2005 and NARA is evaluating 

the Detailed Energy Study in anticipation of awarding 

a Super ESPC. 

Financing Mechanisms 

Most improvements at NARA buildings are financed 

through appropriated funds for specific projects (such 

as the Southeast Regional Archives). The DOE Super 

ESPC contract was used in the past to perform some 

energy savings projects at NARA facilities (Eisenhower and Reagan Libraries) and review of other opportunities is forthcoming to save energy utilizing these 

contracts. A new ESPC financed project is beginning 

construction at the Johnson library and Ford library. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

All equipment and products specified in the AI building renovation are ENERGY STAR or energy efficient 

products. All new computer hardware purchased by the 

agency must have an ENERGY STAR designation. 

Sustainable Building Design 

Sustainable building design criteria and principles were 

used during the design of the Regional Archives and 

Record Center in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

In the past, NARA has leased space through the General Services Administration, relying on their expertise 

in leasing energy efficient space. NARA has leased 

new space in Atlanta and California for Regional Records Centers to be compliant with 36CFR1228. 

NARA has begun a new lease for the Southwest Region Federal Record Center. Most of the facilities will 

house temporary records which will have the minimal 

127 
conditioned space requirements. Pre-archival materials 

will have to be maintained in space that will assure its 

preservation. That space will be conditioned in a manner similar to that of AI or AII. 

Distributed Generation 

NARA is in the process of installing a new emergency 

generator at the Gerald R. Ford Museum. This generator is sized larger than the one being replaced due to 

increased demand from the addition being constructed 

to the museum and the additional demand required by 

the current building codes. The generator is sized only 

large enough to meet the emergency requirements of 

the museum and is not eligible for grid connection. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

NARA is a voluntary member of the PEPCO load reduction program during high demand situations. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. John Bartell 

Chief, Facilities Management Branch 

National Archives and Records Administration 

8601 Adelphi Road 

College Park, MD 20740-6001 

Phone: 301-837-1813 

Fax: 301-837-0336 

Email: john.bartell@nara.gov 

128 
T. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) 

Management and Administration 

In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the 

Senior Energy Official’s responsibilities consist of developing polices and procedures for the Implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13123. An agency energy 

team was established in FY 2000 consisting of procurement, legal, budget, management, and technical 

representatives. The team is responsible for expediting 

and encouraging the use of appropriations, energy 

savings performance contracts, and other alternative 

financing mechanisms necessary to meet the goals and 

requirements of Executive Order 13123. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

NRC’s award program will be used to reward exceptional performance in implementing Executive Order 

13123. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, NRC reported a 3.9 percent decrease in 

energy consumption for its One White Flint North 

(OWFN) facility compared to its FY 1989 baseline 

year, and a 6.8 decrease for its Two White Flint North 

(TWFN) facility as compared to its FY 1996 base year. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

Energy audits conducted in FY 2000 concluded that 

self-generated renewable energy production at OWFN 

and TWFN is not economically feasible. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2005, water consumption at OWFN was 9.5 

million gallons, at a cost of more than $87,700. At 

TWFN, consumption was over 11.9 million gallons, 

costing $105,800. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

In FY 2005, GSA identified the need to install a direct 

digital control (DDC) system at the OWFN building. 

The DDC will manage, monitor, and control HVAC 

equipment to ensure optimum operation and energy 

reduction. As part of its funding justification and design requirements, GSA will conduct a life-cycle cost 

analysis to determine the expected useful life of a DDC 

system and the projected payback period. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient 

Products 

NRC is not responsible for the construction of buildings. However, all specifications for renovation projects performed by NRC are developed to ensure that, 

when applicable, energy efficient equipment and systems are incorporated into the renovation design. Additionally, the building operation and maintenance 

contract specifications for OWFN and TWFN have 

been updated to ensure that all building support replacement products and components are energy efficient. The NRC’s Affirmative Procurement Program 

for Recovered Materials provides Internet links to online training for Federal purchase card users on 

ENERGY STAR and other energy efficient acquisitions. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

NRC is not responsible for the formulation or negotiation of leases. GSA serves as the leasing agent for all 

NRC facilities. However prior to the execution of the 

new lease at the NRC’s Warehouse, located in Rockville, Maryland, NRC reviewed the lease documents 

and recommended the lease be in compliance with the 

Model Lease Provision of Executive Order 13123. 

Distributed Generation 

During a preliminary energy audit in FY 2003 by 

PEPCO Energy Services and an independent contractor, distributed generation systems were considered 

economically unfeasible. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

NRC participates in the PEPCO Load Curtailment Program. During high demand periods, NRC, at the request of PEPCO, reduces its energy load by securing 

non-critical building support equipment. Additionally, 

an employee awareness program is in place which encourages to secure extraneous appliances at work stations during high demand periods. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Mike Springer 

Director 

Office of Administration 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

11545 Rockville Pike 

MS T7D57, Room 7D28 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Phone: 301-415-6222 

Fax: 301-415-5400 

Email: mls@nrc.gov 

129 
U. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (RRB) 

Management and Administration 

The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has made extensive efforts in reducing energy consumption and 

establishing an energy policy that will ensure compliance with the energy reduction goals established by 

Executive Order 13123 and National Energy Conservation Act and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (NECPA/ 

EPACT). The agency strictly enforces the energy guide 

established by the energy conservation plan which was 

developed in March of 1993. This report demonstrates 

that RRB has made tremendous progress in meeting the 

energy goals established by the 1985 baseline, and it 

will continue in its efforts to meet or exceed the goals 

established for 2010. 

The present Board Orders issued by the RRB specify 

the responsibilities and involvement of management in 

the direction of the energy conservation program. The 

Director of Administration is designated as the energy 

conservation coordinator and is responsible for overseeing and supervising the RRB’s conservation practices. The Director of Administration is also the designated senior energy official and is responsible for 

administering the RRB’s energy program to ensure all 

aspects of RRB’s energy conservation plan are effectively implemented. The Facility Manager is designated the responsibility to carry out the implementation 

of the energy program as directed by the senior energy 

official. 

Bureau Heads, Managers, and Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that established energy conservation 

procedures to conserve energy in their work areas are 

consistently followed by the personnel they supervise. 

This includes ensuring that appropriate efforts are 

made. This includes, but is not limited to, the reduction 

of unnecessary lighting, abiding by established air temperatures, and the judicious use of motor vehicles for 

official business. 

Management Tools 

Training and Education 

In accordance with the energy management training 

provision of the EPACT, personnel responsible for 

energy management will receive the additional training 

that is to be provided by the General Services Administration (GSA) under the EPACT requirements. This 

training includes FEMP sponsored seminars. Seminars 

offered this year included a workshop on utility 

acquisitions sponsored by GSA. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, RRB reported a 22.8 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 for its standard 

buildings when measured in Btu per gross square foot. 

The decrease of almost 3.2 percent from FY 2004 to 

FY 2005 was a significant accomplishment considering 

that increased building operating hours were continued 

as part of an expanded flexible time program. 

Operating hours have increased 18.2 percent since 

establishment of the original 1985 baseline. 

The RRB headquarters in Chicago, Illinois is the only 

building over which the RRB has operational control. 

The RRB operates and maintains the building under a 

delegation of authority agreement established April 1, 

1986 with GSA. This agreement is currently being updated and a newly signed agreement is anticipated in 

FY 2005. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy 

GSA, as the government owner of the RRB building, 

has the responsibility to fund all projects and facility 

improvements over $50,000. As part of the GSA inventory, all self-generated renewable projects and solar 

roof projects of this type would fall under the jurisdiction of GSA based on this delegation of authority 

agreement. 

Purchased Renewable Energy

In FY 2005 RRB participated in partnership efforts 

with GSA Region 5 in an Illinois Electric Solicitation. 

This solicitation had a component which included a 

portion of the power to be electricity generated from 

renewable energy sources. This contract began May 1, 

2002 and was awarded to Exelon Energy Corporation. 

RRB purchased 46.0 megawatthours of renewable 

power in FY 2005 and expects to purchase the same in 

FY 2006. 

Water Conservation 

The RRB consumed 500,000 gallons of water in FY 

2005 at a cost of $12,929. As required by Executive 

Order 13123, RRB has reduced its water consumption 

by 42.5 percent from the established base year. Independent water meters are installed for the first floor 

commercial tenant spaces which were not included in 

RRB’s consumption total. Total consumption increased 

from the previous fiscal year due to construction projects. These three projects involved flushing and filling 

130 
the chilled water system several times throughout the 

year. 

The RRB has taken great steps toward improving water 

conservation in its headquarters facility. In all bathrooms and lavatories, 100 percent of the sinks and urinals have automatic faucets and flush valves with reduced consumption type diaphragms. In FY 2003 the 

RRB received approval from the Metropolitan Sanitary 

District of Chicago for a reduction in sewer charges for 

plant water losses from the cooling tower. In FY 2005 

the RRB installed automatic flush valves with reduced 

consumption type diaphragms on several toilets. The 

trial installation will be expanded to various floors in 

FY 2006. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

RRB uses life-cycle cost analysis techniques in order to 

determine which projects should be considered in 

meeting its energy goals. Much of this analysis is done 

in conjunction with GSA, which is responsible for the 

implementation of all projects over $50,000 in value 

under the current delegation of authority agreement. 

However, even projects under $50,000 are only considered after careful cost analysis and determination of no 

more than 10-year simple pay backs. Analysis is conducted utilizing a DOE2.1E building energy simulation 

model as provided by DOE/FEMP. An example of how 

life-cycle cost analysis was used for initiating effective 

energy reducing construction projects was a SAVEnergy Audit performed by Architectural Energy 

Corporation (AEC). This audit provided various 

alternatives and provided a complete life-cycle cost 

analysis on various energy projects utilizing this 

DOE2.1E building energy simulation model. 

Facility Energy Audits 

The RRB is included as part of the GSA inventory of 

property. GSA schedules the energy audits for the 

building. In FY 2003, the RRB in conjunction with 

GSA and FEMP completed a SAVEnergy Audit. This 

Energy and Water Conservation Action Plan was performed by AEC. 

Financing Mechanisms 

The RRB has not entered into any ESPC contracts. The 

comparatively small size of potential contracts available to RRB, because of the delegation of authority 

agreement with GSA, is not practical for this type of 

procurement. However, the RRB was contacted by the 

Super ESPC contractor who was granted permission by 

the Facility Manager through FEMP to proceed with 

obtaining an initial proposal under the Super ESPC 

contract. This initial proposal is on hold pending the 

active involvement and support for the project from 

GSA. 

The RRB has successfully worked with GSA on utility 

energy service contracts. RRB participated in partnership efforts with GSA Region 5 in the development of 

an Illinois Electric Solicitation to procure electricity 

under a single Government contract. This resulted in 

procurement of electricity through Exelon Energy Corporation beginning May 1, 2002. In FY 2005 the RRB 

purchased all of its electric power under this contract 

agreement. This amounted to 4.6 gigawatthours of 

electricity. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy Efficient Products 

The RRB supports procurement of energy efficient 

products and mandates the purchase of ENERGY STAR 

computers and office equipment. RRB is a signatory to, 

and an active participant in, Planet GSA. Planet GSA 

includes four pillars: Buy Green, Build Green, Drive 

Green, and Save green. Buy Green includes purchasing 

products that have recycled content, are energy and/or 

water efficient, are bio-based, and have other attributes 

that make these products environmentally preferable. 

Buy Green also encompasses the re-use or recycling of 

these products. With support from DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), RRB, through 

GSA, will encourage the purchase and use of ENERGY 

STAR products and other products that rank in the upper 25 percent in terms of energy efficiency. These 

same energy efficient criteria have been incorporated 

into all RRB/GSA guide specifications and product 

specifications for new construction and renovation 

projects, as well as all new product specification language. 

Sustainable Building Design 

One of the pillars of Planet GSA is Build Green. It employs sustainable design principles in all phases of 

Federal facilities initial design, construction, remodeling, renovation and construction waste management. 

Sustainable principles apply to all elements of building 

and landscape design; maintenance and operation activities using water, energy, and pesticides; and those 

activities that impact indoor environmental quality and 

the recycling infrastructure. RRB/GSA, in collaboration with DOE and EPA, will promote the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In 

FY 2005, the RRB procured a new energy efficient 

HVAC system for three floors of the RRB. This new 

HVAC system consists of frequency drives and an 

automated variable air volume control system which 

helped to significantly reduce the electrical 

consumption from the previous constant volume air 

system. It also included providing a primary and sec131 
ondary chilled water system with variable frequency 

drives on the chilled water pumps in lieu of previous 

constant volume chilled water pumping configuration. 

In addition, RRB recently completed installation of 

new micro-processor based lighting controls on several 

floors. These improvements will provide greater 

building comfort as well as help reduce electrical consumption. 

Energy Efficiency In Lease Provisions 

RRB regional and field locations are located in Government owned or leased commercial space. These 

offices comply with existing energy conservation 

measures specified by GSA. All leasing arrangements 

are made through GSA, which assures the energy efficiency in the facilities leased. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

GSA completed a prospectus development study for 

the RRB headquarters facility in FY 2002. This study 

included the complete renovation of the HVAC systems. It looked at the potential for a combined heat and 

power system for the RRB facility. RRB also had a 

preliminary cost analysis and feasibility study completed which looked at potential savings per year in 

overall utility costs from the installation of this equipment. Further analysis is planned in consideration of 

this project in future years. 

Distributed Generation 

There is presently no off-grid equipment installed at 

the RRB headquarters facility. In FY 2002, a preliminary feasibility study was completed by the local utility 

provider that looked at the feasibility of providing cogeneration equipment to generate electricity for the 

critical loads at the RRB facility. Further analysis is 

needed before proceeding with this project. GSA has 

this project under consideration for future years. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

The RRB signed an agreement with Commonwealth 

Edison, the local utility provider to participate in a load 

curtailment program called Voluntary Load Reduction 

Program (VLR). This curtailment program will enable 

RRB to save on electrical costs and actively help to 

reduce electrical load for the area. The RRB reviewed 

its current energy emergency plan of action. This plan 

will be initiated when emergency electricity load 

reductions are required. As part of this VLR program 

an energy tracking system is currently installed on all 

electrical meters to monitor electrical consumption and 

control electrical loads. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Scott Rush 

Facility Manager 

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street 

Chicago, IL 60611 

Phone: 312-751-4566 

Fax: 312-751-4923 

Email: scott.rush@rrb.gov 

132 
V. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) 

Management and Administration 

SSA’s senior energy official is the Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment and Management 

(DCFAM). The DCFAM’s responsibilities are to ensure agency compliance with the goals and requirements of Executive Order 13123. 

Members of the SSA energy team are responsible for 

identifying and implementing strategies and approaches to achieve the goals of the Executive Order 

and to facilitate and encourage agency usage of appropriations, energy savings performance contracts 

(ESPCs), and other financing mechanisms necessary in 

the execution of approved energy efficient activities. 

SSA’s Agency Support Team includes members who 

work with the General Services Administration (GSA) 

to include energy efficient technologies in SSA’s 

leased building space nationwide. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

SSA recognizes employees nationwide whose job descriptions require energy management skills and whose 

overall performance or individual acts are exceptional. 

Many of SSA’s energy and building managers received 

performance awards for their contributions to the energy program. SSA also recognizes individual contributions to energy savings through the employee suggestion and performance award programs. 

SSA received the Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program’s (FEMP’s) 2004 

Federal Energy and Water Management Award for the 

Annex Building for exceptional accomplishments in 

energy efficiency. 

Training and Education 

Twenty-four members of SSA’s nationwide energy/support team attended the Energy 2005 Workshop. Other training attended this year included: Basic 

training on Super-ESPC’s, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE) Conference and National Facilities Management and Technology Conference and Exposition. 

SSA staff also attend monthly and periodic meetings 

with GSA, DOE, and ASHRAE, and are active participants on numerous committees such as DOE’s “You 

Have the Power” awareness campaign, ASHRAE’s 

Standard 9.9 (Total Facilities Management), the U.S. 

Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) implementation committee, and the Federal Environmental Stewardship and 

Sustainable Executive Steering Work Group. 

SSA educates its employees nationwide on the need 

for, and benefits of, energy conservation through an 

awareness program via e-mail, SSA’s Office of 

Facilities Management, Office of Realty 

Management’s web-site and newsletters. All of SSA’s 

delegated facilities nationwide sponsored exhibits for 

“Energy Awareness Month,” “Earth Day” and 

“America Recycles Day” to promote energy 

conservation and publicize energy projects underway 

or completed. Federal purchase card users and SSA’s 

procurement staffs have been instructed to buy only 

ENERGY STAR products. 

Showcase Facilities 

The SSA’s 412,220-square foot Annex Building continues to be the agency’s Showcase facility. In keeping 

with sustainable design practices, SSA and GSA opted 

to reuse the existing Annex structure rather than build a 

new one. In doing so, over $25 million in new 

construction costs were saved and 76 percent of the 

building’s interior was reused. 

The building was designed as an open office plan to 

allow natural lighting to diffuse through the floor plate 

and to reduce the need for internal partitions. Skylights 

were also used to bring lighting to the interior spaces 

on the third and fourth floors, and efficient lights and 

low wattage electronic ballasts were installed 

throughout the building. These lighting upgrades led to 

a 32 percent reduction in lighting energy use. 

Other building upgrades included the installation of 

thermal ice storage, economizers, energy efficient 

HVAC equipment, and auto shut-off and low flow 

bathroom fixtures. The building facade was replaced 

with new, well-insulated wall construction and the roof 

was significantly upgraded with a highly reflective 

roofing surface. These shell performance upgrades 

resulted in a 50 percent reduction of heating energy 

costs for the building. 

The Annex building exceeds the requirements of 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999 by a total of 12.8 percent. Technologies from this LEED-rated building have been 

implemented in SSA’s Child Care Facility and will be 

incorporated in the Operations Buildings Renovation 

Project now underway. 

133 
Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

SSA became an independent agency in 1995; since 

1996 was the first full reporting year; it serves as the 

base year by directive from DOE. In FY 2005, SSA 

reported an 11.5 percent increase in energy consumption from FY 1996, for standard buildings when 

measured in Btu per gross square foot. SSA received 

credit for purchases of 5.5 billion Btu of renewable 

energy. This lowered the energy intensity of its 

standard buildings from 99,406 Btu per square foot to 

98,775 Btu per square foot. 

SSA is committed to reducing energy consumption and 

costs in accordance with the Energy Policy Act, Executive Order 12902 and Executive Order 13123. Even 

though SSA has taken many steps to reduce energy, FY 

2005 consumption increased by 3.3 percent from last 

year and increased 13 percent as compared to the baseline year. SSA’s data indicates that SSA is already 

functioning at an extremely efficient rate with energy 

intensity of 98,793 Btu per gross square foot, significantly lower than other agencies that have met reduction goals. 

Substantive changes in the way SSA does business 

continue to affect the use of its facilities and related 

energy costs: 

• Significant and continuing increases in automation. Prior to 1995, SSA had fewer personal computers or associated equipment. SSA now has extensive national and local area networks, integrated 

workstations, scanners, printers and other peripherals for programmatic and operational activities. 

SSA continues to introduce e-business Internet applications. 

• Constantly expanding hours of operation. To 

maintain the world-class public service for which 

SSA is known, and to provide a worker-friendly 

workplace, SSA offers its employees a flexible 

work schedule which now includes a 10-hour 

workday for employees. This requires additional 

hours of operation. Workloads often provide for 

weekend overtime for both Saturdays and Sundays. This level of service to the public and commitment to flexibility for employees increases energy consumption and affects energy reduction 

efforts. However, SSA is striving to meet both the 

energy reduction goals and the agency’s needs. 

• Extensive ongoing building renovations. There are 

substantial renovations occurring at SSA’s headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. Work continues 

on a one million square foot building (Operations 

Building). Renovations include energy efficient 

motors, better insulation, a new automated building management system, and numerous energy 

savings devices and elements that will help mitigate the increased energy usage due to automation 

and increased hours of operation. 

• Consolidating employees into Government-owned 

space. SSA has improved space utilization in its 

larger buildings. SSA’s population has increased 

in several facilities due to the Medicare Modernization Act and the SSA 800 telephone service initiative. For example, the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania site increased by approximately 300 

employees. SSA has reconfigured space to include 

these additional employees without leasing additional space. Although this is cost effective for the 

agency it does slightly increase energy consumption in delegated buildings. 

SSA is evaluating a number of options to reduce 

energy consumption and costs by installing lighting 

control devices, updating energy management systems 

and replacing inefficient equipment and systems. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

SSA has designated the National Computer Center 

(NCC) at the headquarters complex in Baltimore, 

Maryland, as an energy intensive building because it 

contains the main database and query servers for SSA’s 

initiative to automate offices nationwide. SSA’s mainframe computers operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a 

year. Approximately 60 percent of the space in the 

NCC has supplemental environmental support that operates to meet the needs of the information technology 

equipment on the same 24/7 schedule. The NCC also 

interfaces with other government agencies (Treasury, 

Census and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS). 

In FY 2005, SSA reported a 14.8 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1990 for its energy intensive facilities when measured in Btu per gross 

square foot. SSA used an estimated 300,362 Btu per 

gross square foot in its energy intensive facilities during the year. 

The NCC saw an energy increase of one percent from 

FY 2004, but an overall decrease of 14.8 percent from 

the base year in energy use. 

Renewable Energy 

SSA has completed a 100-kilowatt photovoltaic rooftop array solar system in its Chicago site. This system 

ties directly into the power system. By avoiding the 

purchase of fossil fuel-generated electricity, this solar 

electric system spares the environment from thousands 

of tons of polluting emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. It is estimated that 

134 
over the next 30 years, the solar-generated electricity 

will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 1,900 tons. 

These emissions reductions are equivalent to planting 

545 acres of trees or not driving 4.8 million miles on 

the Chicago area roadways. 

SSA also awarded a Super-ESPC in late FY 2005 at the 

Western Program Service Center in Richmond, California. This Super-ESPC includes the purchase and 

installation of a 17-kilowatt photovoltaic system and a 

248-kilowatt combined heat and power system. 

SSA continues to work with FEMP to identify possible 

solar applications for its Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 

facility. 

Self-generated Renewable Energy 

SSA has installed a photovoltaic 100-kilowatt rooftop 

solar system in Chicago, Illinois. During the first two 

and a half months of use SSA generated approximately 

29.0 megawatthours of electricity. 

SSA and DOE continue to monitor the unique solar hot 

water system in the Mid-Atlantic Social Security Center (MATSSC) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which 

came on line in late 2003. During FY 2005, this system 

saved 10.0 megawatthours of electricity. SSA placed 

solar/wind lighting on the parking lot at MATSSC as 

well as solar lighting for the salt shed at the WilkesBarre Facility in FY 2005. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

SSA is purchasing 10 percent of its power from renewable energy sources for its Jamaica, New York facility 

(Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Building). SSA purchased 

a total of 1.5 gigawatts of renewable power. 

SSA continues to purchase competitive power in four 

facilities located in deregulated states. Approximately 

three percent, or 4.1 gigawatthours of SSA’s competitive power purchases under contract are from renewable sources. 

Petroleum 

The only petroleum product SSA reports on is fuel oil. 

In FY 2005, SSA (Wilkes-Barre\Data Operations Center, Mid-Atlantic Social Security Center, and Northeastern Program Service Center) used approximately 

93,000 gallons of fuel oil. SSA continues to take advantage of price fluctuations in energy markets and the 

ability to heat certain sites with duel fuel. Consequently, consumption increased only slightly over FY 

2004 due to significant price increases in natural gas. 

Water Conservation 

SSA continues to look for ways to improve water efficiency. The main complex site, part of the headquarters 

buildings located in Baltimore, Maryland, has major 

restroom renovations in process which include energy 

efficient fixtures and technology. Chicago, Illinois and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania completed major restroom 

renovations in late FY 2005. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

SSA uses life cycle cost (LCC) analysis for energy 

audits, conservation projects, and prospectus projects. 

This mechanism has been effective in identifying projects that save both energy and money. 

SSA initiated and completed energy audits in all of its 

Government-owned delegated buildings. These audits 

identified projects and completed a LCC analysis for 

each project. As a result of LCC analysis, SSA obligated FY 2005 energy budget funds to: 

• Install energy efficient fixtures in the Philadelphia 

location; 

• Install solar lighting at the salt shed in WilkesBarre and a trial solar parking lot lighting project 

at the headquarters location in Baltimore, 

• Re-commission the building automated system; 

• Remove an outdated air-condition system at the 

Chicago facility; 

• Install a new energy efficient boiler; 

• Perform repairs to chilled water regulating valves; 

and 

• Install new garage lighting at the Frank Hagel Federal Building in Richmond, California. 

Facility Energy Audits 

Prior to FY 2005, SSA completed audits of 100 percent 

of its delegated spaces. SSA is currently working with 

a Super-ESPC contractor who is performing an energy 

audit at one of the Program Service Centers, as well as 

reviewing all of the previous audits to determine new 

energy savings projects. SSA will continue to implement projects from existing energy audits that meet the 

criteria (10-year or less simple payback) for implementation as energy projects, depending on the availability of funding. 

Financing Mechanisms 

SSA awarded a Super-ESPC for its Richmond, California facility. SSA has also initiated a Super-ESPC in 

its Chicago facility and is currently having a detailed 

energy audit performed. SSA has also been contacted 

by a Super-ESPC contractor for its Wilkes-Barre site 

and is planning an initial meeting in early FY 2006. 

135 
The availability of funds in FY 2006 will dictate 

whether these projects can be advanced. 

SSA directly funded $885,000 in FY 2005 to complete 

energy efficient projects in its delegated facilities nationwide. These projects included: 

• Solar lighting at the Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre, 

and Baltimore Headquarters; 

• Reduction in air-conditioning equipment in Chicago; 

• Purchase of a smaller energy efficient boiler, repair of chilled water regulating valves, and energy 

efficient garage lighting in Richmond, California; 

• Re-commissioning and detailed energy audit in 

Chicago; 

• Installation of energy efficient stairwell lighting in 

Philadelphia. 

SSA has requested $250,000 in FY 2006 to perform 

energy projects. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

SSA purchases energy efficient and ENERGY STAR 

products for installation in its buildings. The types of 

energy efficient equipment installed include: ENERGY 

STAR office equipment (computers, monitors, copiers, 

and printers), and energy efficient lamps, ballasts, motors and building systems. Energy efficient specifications have been incorporated into construction criteria 

for prospectus level renovation projects as well. 

SSA policy requires language to be incorporated in 

contracts to purchase energy efficient computers, motors, equipment, building systems, etc. Government 

credit cards for micro-purchases have empowered 

many employees, and SSA continues to train employees and micro-purchasers to ensure they are purchasing 

energy efficient products. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

SSA is gathering the data required to determine its 

buildings’ compliance with the ENERGY STAR criteria. 

The SSA Child Care Center and Annex Building located in Baltimore have received a LEED 2.0 certification. SSA continues to implement energy conservation 

measures in the Child Care Center. The object of this 

effort is to attain an ENERGY STAR rating for this site. 

Sustainable Building Design 

In conjunction with GSA, SSA is renovating its headquarters complex. The renovations are prospectus level 

projects. Sustainable building design guidelines are 

used to the maximum extent possible. In FY 2003 the 

renovations of the Operations Building began and continued into FY 2005. 

This project, while not exclusively an energy project, 

will significantly affect our energy consumption by 

installing: 

• Energy efficient windows and doors; 

• A new central computer-based energy management system; 

• Natural daylight; 

• Efficient lighting and lighting controls; and 

• A highly insulated façade and reflective roof. 

SSA’s new Headquarters child care facility incorporated sustainable design features and received a LEED 

2.0 certification. The Annex Building also received 

LEED 2.0 certification. Renovations currently underway at SSA headquarters Operations Building include 

energy conservation and demand management features. 

This project’s primary sustainable design feature is 

natural day light atriums. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

SSA added an energy efficiency provision into its national Solicitation for Offers for leased space. SSA will 

continue to work with GSA to identify the most energy 

efficient buildings for the leased field offices. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

SSA has designated the NCC at the Headquarters 

Complex in Baltimore as an energy intensive building. 

The NCC has increased electric consumption by one 

percent from last year. The NCC currently has a prospectus project for the installation of new generators. 

These generators allow SSA to provide generation to 

NCC during peak demand and in the event of a power 

outage. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

GSA has primary responsibility for construction; however, SSA engineers and energy management staff actively participate in the design and construction of 

buildings for SSA employees. The Operations Building 

at SSA headquarters includes energy conserving and 

demand management features, such as natural day 

lighting atriums. 

The SSA Richmond, California location Super-ESPC 

includes the use of a combined heating and power system. SSA is also exploring the use of combined heating 

and power applications in the Chicago facility. 

Distributed Generation 

SSA produces off grid power intermittently at the 

NCC. During peak electrical demand periods, SSA 

receives stipulated credits on its utility bill, providing a 

cost saving for the agency. 

136 
Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

For electrical power emergencies in the Baltimore area, 

SSA has the ability to take its energy intensive building 

(National Computer Center) off line and support the 

facility with on site generation. 

SSA has implemented building curtailment plans in all 

Government-owned delegated buildings nationwide. 

These plans include procedures for cycling air handling 

units, elevator sequencing, and turning off non-essential lighting. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Scott Howard 

Social Security Administration 

(0134 Dunleavy) 

6401 Security Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21235 

Phone: 410-965-4980 

Fax: 410-966-3338 

Email: scott.howard@ssa.gov 

137 
W. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) 

Management and Administration 

In the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the designated Senior Energy Official is the Executive Vice 

President of Administrative Services. The Chief Energy Manager manages the TVA Internal Energy Management Program (IEMP) under Administrative Services. 

TVA formed the Agency Energy Management Committee (AEMC) to facilitate compliance with Federal 

statutes, Executive Orders, Federal regulations, TVA 

energy and related environmental management objectives, and obligations under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Green Lights Program (GL), 

EPA’s ENERGY STAR Buildings Program (ESB) and 

EPA’s ENERGY STAR Program. The AEMC serves as 

the agency energy team. This committee is comprised 

of representatives from each TVA organization responsible for energy management and associated environmental considerations in facility and general operations 

inside the agency. The AEMC provides an avenue for 

sharing lessons learned and replicating success. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

TVA uses a “Winning Performance” process as a 

method to reward employees’ efforts toward meeting 

agency goals. Examples of pay for performance goals 

include reduction in cost per square foot for building 

operations. Energy efficiency and sustainable improvements are contributors to reduced cost per square 

foot goals. 

Training and Education 

TVA utilizes various methods of training to educate 

employees on the objectives of the IEMP which includes energy management requirements. Staff is educated on energy and environmental related topics 

through the TVA Employee Technical Training and 

Organizational Effectiveness group. The TVA Intranet 

and employee awareness programs are also used as 

tools to educate employees on how they impact energy 

use and efficiency both at work and home. Energy efficiency and information updates are provided on current 

Federal requirements and regulations to employees, 

managers, and TVA customers upon request. Energy 

management and associated environmental training is 

provided to managers and employees as needed. 

Showcase Facilities 

The TVA Chattanooga Office Complex (COC) continued to be TVA’s designated Showcase facility for FY 

2005. The COC, completed in 1986, encloses approximately 1.2 million square feet of floor area, and is 

made up of five interconnected buildings. It integrates 

the use of passive energy strategies, energy management practices, and environmental programs and activities. Occupants’ daily activities have been recognized as a major component in facility performance. 

Energy and environmental awareness programs have 

been established to inform the occupants of the impacts 

their actions have on this performance. The combinations of original design elements, energy and environmental activities, and aggressive energy reduction operation and maintenance efforts have resulted in the 

COC becoming a model facility. 

During FY 2005, TVA continued to consolidate space 

to reduce cost. This resulted in an increase in the occupancy density of the COC. To offset the increased energy demand from this increased density, TVA continues to investigate and implement energy efficiency 

measures. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, TVA reported a 30.0 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. TVA used an estimated 

57,618 Btu per gross square foot in its standard buildings during the year. TVA received credit for purchases 

of 4.0 billion But of renewable energy. This lowered 

the energy intensity of its standard buildings from 

58,046 Btu per square foot to 57,618 Btu per square 

foot. 

Industrial and Laboratory Facilities 

In FY 2005, TVA reported a 33.0 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1990 for its energy intensive facilities when measured in Btu per gross 

square foot. TVA used an estimated 185,799 Btu per 

gross square foot in its energy intensive facilities during the year. 

Exempt Facilities 

TVA’s facility inventory and the type of activities for 

which these facilities are used continue to evolve as the 

agency faces new challenges. Facility information is 

updated through the AEMC. The AEMC remains the 

focal point for disseminating energy and related environmental information to TVA organizations and employees and implementing TVA’s Energy Plan. The 

AEMC is also responsible for the development of 

TVA’s Implementation Plan. To benchmark success, 

138 
the AEMC utilizes many tools including the Energy 

Scorecard. The AEMC allows representatives to voice 

problems in meeting regulations and goals and share 

success stories which can then be applied throughout 

TVA. To benchmark success, the AEMC uses many 

tools including: 

• TVA new building design; 

• TVA facility improvements; 

• Operations and Maintenance activities for buildings; 

• Power system operations efficiency; and 

• Fossil efficiency. 

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use 

TVA’s fleet strategy is to examine current vehicle use 

and replacement and where feasible, choose replacement vehicles that are most efficient. TVA, as a major 

provider of electricity, will continue to make use of 

alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs), including those that 

use electric power, and acquire additional vehicles to 

meet requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 

1992. TVA has recognized the value of hybrid electric 

vehicle technology in reducing fuel consumption, increasing versatility, and promoting electric propulsion 

and has included these vehicles in its fleet. TVA created a hybrid-fleet program in FY 2002 which is a 

partnership effort between TVA’s Energy Management 

and Fleet Management organizations. In FY 2005, 

TVA added five hybrid gas/electric vehicles and 20 

AFVs to its fleet bringing the total number of hybrid 

vehicles to 25 and AFVs to 54. 

During FY 2005, TVA gasoline fuel usage was reduced 

by nine percent compared to FY 2004 while diesel fuel 

use decreased by 15 percent compared to FY 2004. 

TVA encourages employees to use mass transit systems, vans for group travel, and car pools, when available and feasible. The use of coordinated TVA and 

vendor delivery, pickup routing schedules, and just-intime delivery is utilized throughout TVA. This coordinated effort reduces deadheading and avoids double 

handling and, multiple trips to the same sites. 

The TVA service area covers all of Tennessee and portions of six other states; therefore, employees are 

widely dispersed and often travel significant distances 

to attend meetings and presentations. TVA continues to 

install technologies which enable employees to travel 

less and conduct more meetings from their remote 

work sites. The reduction of required travel realized 

through telecommunication improvements has resulted 

in a savings of fuel and related expenses. 

For its heavy equipment, TVA continued the utilization 

of the Total Base Number (TBN - measure of oil’s alkalinity) value as an oil indicator. This effort has resulted in a reduction in TVA’s oil consumption due to 

extended oil drain intervals. Accordingly, the oil 

change interval in some of the smaller diesel engines 

has changed to 320 hours or 10,000 miles to protect 

TVA’s equipment. Turbo pre-cleaners are being used 

on tractor scrapers and dozers to lengthen air filter life 

and extend oil change intervals. Air filter indicators 

used on TVA’s equipment have reduced filter changes 

(especially oil bath type), and have additionally provided better engine protection. TVA also used turbo 

pre-cleaners to reduce contaminants entering the engines along with air filter indicators to insure dirty filters are identified and changed resulting in increased 

engine efficiency. 

TVA continued using Fuel Mag with small compressors to kill bacteria and spores that grow in fuel that is 

stored for long periods of time. Its use should decrease 

the amount of contaminated fuel that has to be disposed. These units can also eliminate down time due to 

filter and fuel injector plugging. 

TVA’s maintenance shops use filter crushers to get all 

possible oil out of filters before disposal. Three maintenance facilities are using oil burners to heat their facilities using TVA’s generated used oil. 

These projects provide TVA with the benefits of reduced potential of adverse environmental impacts from 

spillage of waste oil and fuel, increased operational 

efficiency, increased availability of units, and decreased cost due to reduction in oil consumption. 

TVA incorporates EPA emission standards in specifications for both on-road and off-road trucks. TVA also 

is in constant communication with equipment providers 

on their emission standards and latest engine components to insure the best and most economical equipment is used. 

As a major supplier of electricity, TVA is particularly 

interested in supporting the use of electric vehicles 

(EVs). TVA has incorporated EVs into its fleet operations and supports power distributors and local communities with EV technology demonstrations. TVA is 

also utilizing electric vehicles at its plant sites to reduce 

fuel consumption and emissions. 

TVA currently has the following EVs: 

• 1 U.S. Electricar Prism sedan; 

• 1 Solectria Ford sedan; 

• 5 GEM electric cars; and 

• 44 EZGOs electric vehicles. 

139 
Renewable Energy 

TVA and 12 public power companies launched Green 

Power Switch (GPS) on Earth Day, April 22, 2000. 

GPS was the first program of its kind offered in the 

Southeast and provided consumers with an economical 

opportunity to participate in TVA’s development of 

renewable energy resources. The program originally 

included supply from wind and solar energy sources. 

The program was expanded in FY 2001 to include 

electricity generated from methane gas at a waste water 

treatment plant in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Sixteen solar generating facilities are presently operating in Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia and 

Mississippi. One commercial scale wind power generation site has been operational since November 2000. 

TVA has agreed to purchase, from a new project developer, Invenergy TN LLC, 27 megawatts of new 

wind energy for the next 20 years. Fifteen 1.8-megawatt wind turbines were added to the existing three 

wind turbines currently located on Buffalo Mountain in 

Anderson County, Tennessee. These units became operational December 2004. GPS also benefits from generation produced from an eight megawatt waste water 

treatment methane gas project located at TVA’s Allen 

Fossil plant near Memphis, Tennessee. The GPS program is managed through TVA’s Marketing Organization. 

Under the GPS program, residential customers can 

purchase green power blocks of 150 kilowatthours 

each, at a cost of $4.00 per block. These blocks represent approximately 12 percent of a typical home’s 

monthly energy use. Commercial and industrial customers can sign up for the 150-kilowatthour blocks 

based on the amount of energy they use each month. 

When two blocks of GPS are purchased each month for 

one year, the associated reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide is equivalent to planting an acre of trees in 

the Tennessee Valley. As of September 30, 2005, there 

were 8,318 residential customers purchasing 14,860 

blocks and 433 business customers purchasing 15,301 

blocks for a total of 30,161 purchased blocks of green 

power. 

Today there are 90 TVA power distributors and one 

direct-served customer participating in the GPS program throughout the Tennessee Valley. TVA plans to 

continue expanding the GPS program by offering it to 

additional power distributors as renewable energy supplies allow. 

TVA launched the Generation Partners Program in 

support of Green Power Switch. The Generation Partners program pays participants for 100 percent of their 

green power output at a rate of 15 cents per kilowatthour for the generation produced from solar and wind 

installations on participants’ home or small business. 

The energy from Generation Partners is used to supply 

renewable energy for GPS. 

TVA’s GPS and Generation Partners programs were 

awarded the State of Tennessee Energy Leadership 

Award in 2005. 

TVA identifies and evaluates emerging renewable energy technologies in support of its strategic needs. The 

renewable energy program provides data to support 

debate on renewable energy policy; monitors advancements in renewable energy to keep TVA organizations and customers informed on technology issues; 

and demonstrates and develops the most viable technologies in the areas of bio-energy, waste-to-energy, 

wind, solar, and other renewable resources. 

TVA’s Green Power Switch program is the primary 

driver for renewable energy technologies at TVA. 

However the potential for national Renewable Portfolio 

Standards (RPS) and carbon constraint legislation still 

exists and could become drivers in the future. Renewable energy portfolios are currently mandated in 18 

states and although it was defeated, an amendment for 

a national RPS was proposed during the 2005 energy 

bill conference hearings. In anticipation of renewable 

portfolio mandates and in response to customer needs, 

TVA continues to assess and evaluate new and advanced renewable technologies. Project plans include 

developing and demonstrating large scale biomass 

gasification for production of electricity and valueadded products from regional biomass, and evaluating 

other advanced renewable energy supply options in 

wind and solar. 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

Through TVA’s GPS program, TVA utilizes photovoltaics, wind, and methane as part of its mix to provide renewable energy to its customers. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

Through the TVA GPS program, TVA purchased 1.2 

gigawatthours for use in its Knoxville Office Complex, 

Chattanooga Office Complex, and Huntsville office. 

TVA committed to a 20 year Power Purchase Agreement with Invenergy TN, LLC, for 27 additional 

megawatts of large scale wind power. The expansion 

consists of 15, 1.8-megawatt wind turbines at the existing Buffalo Mountain wind site in east Tennessee. 

The GPS Generation Partners demonstration continued 

to allow residential and small commercial customers to 

140 
install solar/wind generation and sell their power to 

TVA’s GPS program. In FY 2004, GPS Generation 

Partners was expanded to allow larger, demand-metered customers to participate with solar generation 

only. More information on the demonstration may be 

found at www.gpsgenpartners.com. 

Petroleum 

TVA consumed 10,700 gallons of petroleum in building operations in FY 2005, which is a decrease of 51 

percent from the FY 1985 baseline of 21,920 gallons. 

Water Conservation 

During FY 2005, energy surveys including water were 

conducted at multiple TVA sites. TVA consumed 

158.1 million gallons of potable water in FY 2005 with 

an estimated cost of $331,600. These numbers exclude 

the water consumption of the exempt buildings. TVA 

considers water management plans as part of its operation and maintenance activities. As part of these activities, more than 271 facilities have been covered, representing over 4.3 million gross square feet. To date, 

TVA has implemented the Best Management Practices 

in more than 11 percent of its gross square footage. 

Implementation Strategies 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

TVA’s Energy Plan provides that life-cycle analysis 

will be used in making investment decisions regarding 

energy/water efficiency and sustainable practices. 

Facility Energy Audits 

TVA has evaluated building inventory for potential 

energy conservation measures. These facilities are being re-evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 

13123 and TVA’s Memorandum of Understanding 

with the EPA. During FY 2005, TVA surveyed its facilities located at 28 hydro plant sites. 

Financing Mechanisms 

Projects for facilities are primarily funded through 

renovation, operation, maintenance, and modernization 

efforts. Projects covered under general operations are 

ranked for economic benefit compared to other TVA 

projects to determine funding availability and implementation status and are funded mainly through the 

capital budgeting process. TVA considers the use of 

energy savings performance contracts and utility energy services contracts where cost effective and in the 

best interest of the agency and its customers. During 

FY 2005, TVA did not utilize these financing mechanisms. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

TVA’s Energy Plan provides that TVA will strive, 

where cost-effective, to meet the ENERGY STAR Building criteria for energy performance and indoor environmental quality in eligible facilities to the maximum 

extent practicable as described by Section 403(c) of 

Executive Order 13123. This includes purchasing 

ENERGY STAR and other energy efficient products 

when feasible. 

TVA continues its efforts to buy materials that have 

positive environmental qualities including soy ink, 

rechargeable batteries, low mercury lamps, and nontoxic supplies. TVA also purchases materials that meet 

sustainable architecture criteria. These are non-toxic 

building materials that have recycled content, and their 

creation, use, and disposal does not damage the environment. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

TVA currently has two facilities that meet the ENERGY 

STAR Buildings criteria. These are the Chattanooga 

Office Complex and the Edney building, which represent 11 percent of TVA’s overall corporate square 

footage. 

Sustainable Building Design 

TVA is incorporating sustainable design criteria into 

renovation and new construction efforts. TVA is in the 

process of reviewing its building inventory in an effort 

to reduce inefficient, high cost, underutilized space. 

This consolidation effort provides an opportunity to 

further practice sustainable efforts such as: 

• Renovate space using removable, reusable wall 

systems; 

• Recycle and recondition office furniture and panel 

systems; 

• Install recyclable carpet tiles and low VOC finishes; and 

• Upgrade lighting systems using T-5 and T-8 

lamps, room and personal work station occupancy 

sensors, and internet based digital lighting control 

systems. 

All of these efforts are being done as part of an agency 

sustainable program under TVA’s IEMP. 

TVA continues to buy materials that have positive environmental qualities and include those that meet 

EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements and other recycled content materials. Examples of environmental products purchased include 

soy ink, rechargeable batteries, low mercury lamps, 

and non-toxic supplies and movable/reusable wall sys141 
tems in place of drywall. TVA also purchases materials 

that meet sustainable architecture criteria. These nontoxic building materials have recycled content, and 

their creation, use, and disposal minimize environmental impacts. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

Where applicable, TVA uses model lease provisions 

based on those recommended by the General Services 

Administration and such provisions will be incorporated into new and renewed leases provided they are 

cost-effective. The model lease provisions address energy, sustainability and water efficiency. 

Industrial Facility Efficiency Improvements 

TVA looks for opportunities to improve energy efficiency in its industrial facilities. Energy savings opportunities include lighting, HVAC, motor, and building control. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

TVA considers the implementation of high efficiency 

systems as mentioned above when it is life-cycle cost 

effective. 

Distributed Generation 

TVA is a utility; however, the use of distributed generation, where applicable, is considered. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

As part of its operation and maintenance function, 

TVA has an emergency curtailment procedure which 

reduces energy use in its buildings during energy 

emergencies. 

Energy Management Contact 

Mr. Steve Brothers 

Manager, Agency Energy Management 

Internal Energy Management Program 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

CST 6D-C 

1101 Market Street 

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 

Phone: 423-751-7369 

Fax: 423-751-6309 

Email: slbrothers@tva.gov 

142 
X. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS) 

Management and Administration 

In the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Acting 

Manager of USPS’s Environmental Management Policy (EMP) is the senior energy executive and is the 

Director of the National Energy Management Program. 

In this role, he leads efforts in nationwide energy planning, developing USPS’s energy management policies 

and supporting implementation of energy management, 

efficiency and conservation strategies across the U.S. 

Postal Service. USPS also maintains a national level, 

energy management work group that consists of representatives from appropriate USPS departments such as 

Facilities Design and Construction, Maintenance/Engineering, Operations and others. 

Work group members provide technical guidance, support program development and implementation, and 

perform program effectiveness reviews. 

Management Tools 

Awards 

USPS employees who help to reduce operating costs 

are recognized with monetary incentives. The USPS 

strongly encourages facility managers to reduce energy 

costs for purposes of reducing operating costs. In FY 

2005, members of the national energy management 

workgroup received Letters of Accommodation and 

cash awards for their voluntary contributions to the 

national energy program. In FY 2006, the Energy Program will continue to seek recognition for key contributors to the Energy Management Program. 

USPS takes advantage of other venues to recognize the 

accomplishments of employees. In FY2005, USPS’s 

Energy Management Program submitted several nominations for DOE FEMP individual and group awards. 

In addition, the USPS Shared Energy Savings (SES) 

Program received an Energy Planning Network Excellence Award for Best Initiative in Demand Management at a national chain for their work to reduce USPS 

energy demand across the nation. USPS winners of 

external awards are announced through internal publications. 

Training and Education 

In its 2006-2010 Strategic Transformation Plan, the 

USPS outlines several transformation strategies to engage employees and develop and manage talent. 

Through its Voice of the Employee survey, USPS also 

gauges employees’ perspectives on their specific work 

environment and key workplace factors that affect their 

job performance. 

Individual training, education planning, and implementation are decentralized to the facility and supervisor-subordinate level. However, USPS employees are 

encouraged to participate in the various educational 

and training opportunities presented by the Department 

of Energy’s (DOE’s) Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP). Also, energy training is integrated 

into broader training provided to employees with facility operations and maintenance responsibilities. For 

example, HVAC systems training covers energy efficiency aspects of such systems. These training programs are conducted at the USPS National Training 

Center. USPS will add more specific energy management training elements in FY2006. 

Showcase Facilities 

Five USPS facilities have received Showcase Facility 

awards from DOE since 2001. USPS did not receive 

any additional DOE showcase awards during FY2005. 

In FY 2005, USPS’s Energy Management program 

identified several additional USPS facilities as showcase facility candidates. These facilities, which will be 

targeted for multi-year, whole-building energy efficiency upgrade and renewable energy projects, include: 

• USPS Headquarters Facility at L’Enfant Plaza, 

Washington, D.C.; 

• Northern Virginia Processing & Distribution Center (P&DC), Fairfax, Virginia; 

• Bolger Training & Conference Center, Potomac, 

Maryland; and 

• Engineering Facility, Fairfax, Virginia. 

Energy Efficiency Performance 

Standard Buildings 

In FY 2005, USPS reported a 24.2 percent decrease in 

energy consumption from FY 1985 when measured in 

Btu per gross square foot. USPS used an estimated 

64,978 Btu per gross square foot in its standard buildings during the year. All USPS buildings are classified 

as standard. 

Estimated energy use increased in FY 2005 by about 

0.15% compared to FY 2004. This estimate is based on 

expenditure data and average price data by State, provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

When prices for a given energy source was not available in a particular State, national or regional averages 

were used. 

143 
Exempt Facilities 

The USPS does not have any exempt facilities. However, USPS assumes that at least eight percent of its 

total facility energy use is used for process energy purposes. For energy reporting purposes, the process energy amount is subtracted from the standard buildings 

amount and is reported under exempt facilities. 

Renewable Energy 

Self-Generated Renewable Energy

The USPS has working solar photovoltaic systems at 

Postal facilities in California and Rhode Island. Postal 

facilities in Oklahoma and Maryland are using geothermal heat pump technology to provide heating and 

cooling. In FY 2005, USPS identified several other 

candidate facilities for solar photovoltaic projects. The 

Energy Management Program is currently evaluating 

the potential for photovoltaic systems at these facilities. 

The USPS continues to seek opportunities to expand 

the use of these and other renewable energy technologies in FY 2006. 

Purchased Renewable Energy 

In FY 2005, USPS began working with the Environmental Protection Agency’s landfill methane outreach 

program to identify USPS facilities that may be able to 

purchase and utilize nearby landfill gas resources. The 

USPS continues to seek opportunities to purchase renewable energy and encourages suppliers to do so 

whenever possible. 

Petroleum 

Petroleum use increased by 9.6 percent, from 4.9 million gallons in FY 2004 to 5.3 million gallons in FY 

2005. Petroleum use is estimated based on USPS expenditures and price data provided by the Energy Information Administration. 

Water Conservation 

In FY 2005, USPS used 4.74 billion gallons of water at 

a cost of $23.4 million, versus FY 2004 usage of 4.72 

billion gallons. Water usage is also estimated from 

expenditure and average price data. USPS’ advanced 

metering initiative, which started in FY 2005, may include water meters at USPS’s highest water consuming 

facilities. Total water use remained virtually constant 

from FY 2004 to FY 2005 and expenditures increased 

by 8 percent during that period. In FY 2005, USPS has 

been focusing on water conservation programs, setting 

benchmark standards and comparing actual use to the 

benchmark for each USPS Performance Cluster. The 

number of Districts reaching the standard has been 

rising through time, and USPS will continue its efforts 

to provide guidance and support for water conservation 

efforts. 

Implementation Strategies 

The mission of the USPS Energy Management Program is to integrate energy management principles into 

USPS business functions, and to optimize USPS energy decisions to the benefit of our employees, business and communities. In FY 2005, USPS revised its 

National Strategic Energy Management Plan, which 

outlines five strategic target areas for the program over 

the next several years. As one of its core implementation strategies, USPS’s Energy Program initiated its 

first national Call for Energy Projects and successfully 

identified over 100 energy efficiency and renewable 

energy projects across the nation. This process facilitates project identification and implementation on an 

annual basis by providing USPS Areas with guidance 

and allocating capital funding to high impact energy 

projects. For example, USPS’s Energy Program tracks 

State and utility co-funding and technical assistance 

programs and disseminates its findings through the Call 

for Projects. The Call for Energy Projects process improves both energy awareness and outreach while 

helping USPS personnel identify and fund energy projects. 

The USPS Energy Program targets the following areas: 

• Energy Conservation. Improve energy efficiency, 

reduce the impacts of USPS operations on environmental resources, and reduce dependence on 

non-renewable fuel sources. 

• Energy Cost Reduction. Reduce USPS utility costs 

through utility optimization and facility, system, 

and equipment efficiency improvements. Implementation strategies include: 

• Reliability. Improve the reliability of facilities, 

equipment and systems through energy strategies 

that will improve operational continuity and effective energy management. 

• Integrate sustainable energy management principles into corporate business processes. Maximize 

the benefits of the Energy Management Program 

by incorporating energy conservation and cost 

considerations into decision-making processes. 

• Energy data management. Enable a robust and 

thorough Energy Management Program by ensuring the availability of necessary information and 

analysis results to influence and guide decisionmaking. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Within the USPS, all capital improvement projects 

including energy projects are subject to rate of return 

analysis, and require at least a 20 percent return on 

144 
investment. The amount of energy saved, the cost of 

that energy, and changes in maintenance or other activities are taken into account. The USPS seeks outside 

sources of capital investment (through the SES program and other state and utility co-funding programs) 

whenever possible. 

Facility Energy Audits 

Energy audits are performed within USPS in connection with broader project analyses. The SES program, 

the USPS alternative finance mechanism, uses energy 

service companies to audit USPS facilities in several 

Postal Areas. USPS also encourages internal audits of 

its facilities and helps to finance identified energy conservation measures through its annual call for energy 

projects process. 

USPS’s national advanced metering program will enhance the ability for facility and maintenance managers 

to perform internal facility audits and identify and 

monitor energy conservation measures at USPS’s large 

facilities across the country. 

Financing Mechanisms 

USPS makes extensive use of SES contracts. SES projects have provided an extremely efficient means to 

reduce energy use while preserving capital funding for 

other purposes. In FY 2005, the SES program continued to capitalize on the program’s success to date and 

to encourage increased demand-side management at 

USPS facilities in the future. USPS awarded 14 SES 

task orders in FY 2005 with a total award value of 

$48.1 million. These tasks are expected to reduce annual USPS energy consumption by 43.6 gigawatthours 

and save the USPS about $5.6 million annually in energy costs. Along with the Utilities Category Management Center, the National Energy Program continued 

to work to standardize the national program and 

streamline SES processes across all USPS Areas. 

ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient 

Products 

USPS has issued an Environmental Products Directory, 

which aids personnel in locating energy-efficient products and services. 

ENERGY STAR Buildings 

In FY 2002 USPS carried out a nation-wide survey of 

energy use and operating characteristics of its stations 

and branches. The data were given to EPA for analysis 

and review. In FY 2005, USPS continued to work with 

the EPA to develop ENERGY STAR criteria for certain 

Postal facilities. 

Sustainable Building Design 

USPS updated its Building Design Standards in FY 

2005 to include improved energy efficiency requirements for Postal new construction and major renovation projects. These design standards, which also contain a green design addendum, are contained in USPS 

Master Specifications for facilities and are applied to 

all new construction projects and major renovations. 

USPS reviews these standards periodically to ensure 

that the sustainable design standards remain current 

and are consistent with new technology. 

USPS facilities may qualify for the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) certification at the bronze or silver 

level. Due to the time, effort, and data required to complete the LEED certification process, these facilities 

have not been evaluated using current LEED criteria. 

In the past, USPS has constructed 500-700 new facilities a year. However, due to funding constraints and the 

Postal Service’s commitment to staying in downtown 

areas, USPS is now more focused on renovation and 

alteration than on new construction. 

Energy Efficiency in Lease Provisions 

In leased facilities where USPS pays for utilities, USPS 

energy policy and standards are applied. These facilities are included in national energy program initiatives, 

and in some instances USPS may retrofit the facility to 

comply with energy standards. When the owner pays 

utility costs, lease provisions are negotiated on a caseby-case basis. Where USPS leases space to third parties 

within its facilities, there is a requirement that occupants adhere to USPS standards for building energy 

management. 

Highly Efficient Systems 

USPS facilities are seeking to improve their energy 

efficiency with new technologies. In addition to several 

innovative facility projects in the past, USPS has been 

active during FY 2005 to deploy current and highly 

efficient systems at Postal facilities. For example: 

• The Postal Service installed a 403-kilowatt peak 

photovoltaic parking shade structure at the Sacramento, California Processing and Distribution facility during FY 2005. This project included several additional efficiency measures as well, 

namely: a compressed air system upgrade, variable 

volume air handlers, variable speed chilled and 

heated water pumps, energy management system 

re-commissioning, air curtains, high efficiency 

chillers, light-emitting diode exit signs, compact 

fluorescent lighting, T-8 lighting, electronic ballasts, and occupancy sensors. The overall project is 

expected to save 5.5 gigawatthours per year. 

145 
• In FY 2005, USPS planned and designed a turnkey 

combined heat and power (CHP) system for the 

Margaret L. Sellers P&DC in San Diego, California. As part of a SES contract, USPS will install a 

1.5-megawatt natural gas-fired, reciprocating engine coupled to a 300-ton absorption chiller. This 

system is expected to supply approximately 85 

percent of the electric demand at the facility and 

reduce natural gas demand by 165,000 therms annually. 

• USPS began planning a CHP project at the San 

Bernadino, California P&DC in FY 2005. The 

project will include a 1.2-megawatt natural gas 

fired reciprocating engine coupled to an absorption 

chiller. This project is expected to go online in FY 

2007. 

• USPS is implementing a combined heat and power 

project at the Mid-Florida Processing and Distribution Center in Orlando FL. In FY 2005, USPS 

completed the design phase for the project, which 

consists of four 60-kilowatt, natural gas fired, micro-turbine generators coupled to an absorption 

chiller. The generators will run during the utility 

company peak hours, and during brownouts and 

blackouts. The system will have the capacity to 

power most of the automated mail processing 

equipment. The absorption chiller will provide 

building cooling during all but the hottest summer 

afternoons and building heating whenever needed 

(between 165 and 250 tons of cooling capacity). 

The project goal is to demonstrate a CHP project 

in partnership with the state Public Service Commission and the serving investor-owned utility 

companies, then document and disseminate the resulting CHP success story to encourage others 

across USPS. 

Distributed Generation 

Solar photovoltaic projects are in operation at postal 

facilities in Sacramento, California, Rancho Mirage, 

California, Marina Del Ray, California and at Block 

Island, Rhode Island. In FY 2005, USPS installed a 

large photovoltaic parking shade system at the Sacramento P&DC, as described above, and began planning 

a project at the San Francisco Processing & Distribution Center. The San Francisco P&DC project will include a 250-kilowatt fuel cell and two solar photovoltaic technologies: thin-film roof-integrated panels; 

and a tracking parking shade structure, totaling 309 

kilowatts. These efficiency upgrades and on-site generation are expected to lower the facility’s total annual 

electricity purchases by about 10 million kilowatthours - a 46 percent reduction - saving $1.2 million in 

energy costs annually. USPS will fund the project using a combination of energy savings, contributions 

from the USPS CFC/HCFC refrigerant replacement 

program, and more than $2.6 million in grants and incentives from the U.S. Department of Defense and the 

State of California. The Postal Service expects the fuel 

cell and photovoltaic systems to become operational in 

FY 2006. 

USPS has also begun identifying viable photovoltaic 

projects at several facilities on the east coast in FY 

2005 and hopes to begin planning and funding these 

distributed generation project in FY 2006. USPS’s operating distributed generation projects produce a total 

541 kilowatts: 

• Marina Del Ray P&DC, Marina Del Ray, California, solar photovoltaic, 127 kilowatts capacity; 

• Sacramento P&DC, West Sacramento, California, 

solar photovoltaic, 403 kilowatts capacity; 

• Block Island Post Office, Shoreham, Rhode Island, 

solar photovoltaic, 6 kilowatts capacity; and 

• Rancho Mirage Post Office, Rancho Mirage, California, solar photovoltaic, 5 kilowatts capacity. 

These distributed generation activities will continue 

and new ones will be investigated as financing and 

opportunities become available. 

Electrical Load Reduction Measures 

The USPS has installed telemeters at 24 of its largest 

facilities in California to measure electricity usage on a 

real time basis and to allow rapid response to high 

electricity prices at peak demand times. In FY 2004 

and continuing in FY 2005, USPS began an initiative 

to install advanced metering systems at its highest cost 

facilities across the country. USPS completed 40 facility surveys during FY 2005 to determine what new 

equipment (e.g., meters and sub-meters) is required at 

these sites before the advanced metering systems can 

be installed effectively. The USPS National Energy 

Program has worked closely during FY 2005 with 

USPS’s information technology organization to determine how advanced metering systems can be integrated 

into the existing information technology network. 

Energy Management Contact 

Michael J. Fanning 

Acting Manager, Environmental Management Policy 

U.S. Postal Service Room 1P830 

475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. 

Washington, DEC 20260-0830 

Phone: 202-268-3364 

Fax: 202-268-6016 

Email: michael.j.fanning@usps.gov 

146 
APPENDIX A 

ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND COST DETAIL TABLES

147 
TABLE A-1 

TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES 

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 USPS 51,668.1 59,961.0 72,178.0 74,083.1 78,333.1 78,883.0 80,083.3 89,381.4 86,142.5 85,320.9 83,069.4 84,553.5 DOE 98,876.9 90,859.5 88,840.8 89,070.0 86,928.2 71,555.2 57,999.7 72,041.6 72,338.7 72,682.0 73,732.1 73,854.2 VA 43,456.9 44,918.6 47,827.9 49,377.1 50,286.4 50,957.9 51,217.7 50,557.0 52,945.1 53,074.2 55,014.6 55,729.1 GSA 47,235.8 40,780.8 36,626.3 37,490.0 37,680.0 37,437.4 38,433.2 42,409.1 42,969.5 42,297.8 43,413.3 43,057.0 DOJ 11,112.5 11,610.3 17,193.4 20,845.6 20,307.8 24,960.3 24,961.1 30,431.8 30,338.1 28,515.1 29,679.1 29,118.2 DHS1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24,340.6 29,351.8 

NASA 23,771.3 28,741.6 29,434.4 27,159.0 28,814.8 27,936.2 27,275.8 26,087.4 25,210.0 24,726.7 24,152.1 23,302.1 HHS 10,501.4 13,188.5 12,189.6 12,825.4 14,965.7 14,626.4 14,148.6 15,255.5 16,078.3 15,903.6 16,712.4 17,033.8 DOI 11,596.7 10,969.3 10,552.2 7,622.1 10,255.0 10,213.7 11,292.7 12,041.4 14,497.5 12,999.8 12,222.4 14,206.3 USDA 12,266.6 14,620.4 14,324.3 14,249.7 12,419.1 13,124.4 12,590.1 12,365.5 12,096.6 11,622.1 13,079.6 12,056.6 DOT1 28,959.2 28,666.3 28,971.2 32,612.7 30,842.9 32,001.4 41,881.8 41,018.6 32,503.7 30,707.3 13,522.5 12,897.4 TRSY1 3,878.3 7,015.4 7,783.1 7,238.9 9,164.5 8,951.7 9,145.7 9,651.3 9,550.3 9,910.8 7,878.2 6,193.5 

TVA 8,856.0 8,214.3 7,913.9 7,591.5 7,425.7 7,183.6 7,998.4 8,325.7 8,392.7 7,945.1 7,517.8 7,332.2 DOC 4,085.5 6,383.7 5,667.2 5,370.1 5,328.8 5,008.6 5,227.3 4,117.5 5,489.0 4,760.0 4,918.2 4,935.5 

DOL 3,966.3 4,155.2 4,336.2 4,438.2 4,473.4 4,517.7 3,614.8 4,761.1 5,024.8 5,177.0 5,466.3 5,395.0 

EPA 1,776.4 1,643.0 2,264.7 2,205.5 2,245.1 2,212.6 2,455.1 2,057.7 2,407.0 2,204.4 2,455.3 2,577.8 

ST 717.3 868.5 1,342.3 1,903.8 7,363.5 7,361.5 6,898.4 7,631.9 6,503.0 1,669.3 2,047.1 2,130.9 HUD 356.2 435.0 347.7 364.7 355.0 339.9 347.5 362.0 370.1 365.8 356.1 345.5 

OTHER* 2,250.4 5,591.2 8,649.2 11,254.4 12,044.4 9,919.1 9,683.4 9,454.3 9,353.3 11,388.7 10,830.5 6,747.9 CIVILIAN AGENCIES SUBTOTAL 365,331.7 417,307.9 396,442.6 405,701.8 419,233.4 407,190.8 405,254.6 437,950.8 432,210.4 421,270.7 430,407.5 430,818.5 DOD 1,502,111.8 1,545,014.4 1,197,891.7 1,166,540.8 1,134,674.9 1,087,225.4 1,059,455.0 1,042,511.1 1,043,757.4 1,097,163.4 1,159,365.8 1,223,168.6 1,ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 1,867,443.5 1,962,322.3 1,594,334.3 1,572,242.6 1,553,908.4 1,494,416.2 1,464,709.6 1,480,462.0 1,475,967.9 1,518,434.1 1,589,773.2 1,653,987.1 1,MBOE 320.6 336.9 273.7 269.9 266.8 256.6 251.5 254.2 253.4 260.7 272.9 283.9 PETAJOULE 1,970.1 2,070.2 1,682.0 1,658.7 1,639.3 1,576.6 1,545.2 1,561.8 1,557.1 1,601.9 1,677.2 1,744.9 

1FY 2003 was the first year for reporting by the Department of Homeland Security. Significant declines in energy use were also evident in that year for agencies such 

Transportation and the Treasury which transferred functions to the new Department. *Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, BBG/IBB, and FERC. Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 11,850 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam. Agencies are listed in descending order of year. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

148 
TABLE A-2 

TOTAL SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 USPS 27,762.5 30,616.2 36,220.9 36,427.1 40,760.0 39,487.3 39,774.0 43,284.2 43,397.4 41,617.4 42,606.2 40,664.4 DOE 52,201.6 43,454.6 47,255.4 44,609.3 43,070.4 31,520.2 26,998.3 30,492.9 31,065.5 30,668.3 30,701.1 31,398.5 VA 25,144.7 24,898.4 25,428.9 26,832.9 27,261.1 27,597.2 27,472.4 27,043.9 27,661.9 27,722.6 29,644.5 29,888.5 DHS1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18,333.3 23,527.9 

DOJ 8,176.0 6,961.6 10,193.3 12,127.7 11,999.9 15,805.1 15,366.2 19,693.0 19,681.9 17,692.4 18,028.3 17,544.4 

GSA 20,721.1 16,995.5 13,671.8 14,499.2 14,364.3 14,095.0 14,359.9 17,632.3 18,415.8 17,473.9 18,591.3 18,291.6 NASA 10,855.1 12,399.0 12,394.7 11,459.7 11,996.1 11,731.4 11,433.4 11,120.8 10,934.5 10,677.0 10,075.5 9,858.1 HHS 5,953.5 7,119.0 6,129.7 6,628.9 7,852.7 7,400.8 7,131.2 7,952.5 8,541.0 7,999.8 8,659.9 8,761.5 

DOI 7,816.3 7,391.9 6,378.4 4,326.6 6,612.2 6,427.3 7,456.0 7,845.9 9,504.5 8,224.9 7,559.4 8,742.6 

USDA 8,358.7 9,573.4 9,045.8 9,056.9 7,370.7 7,917.0 7,828.6 7,446.7 7,373.6 7,170.5 7,216.9 6,978.5 DOT1 19,568.0 18,965.2 18,688.7 19,564.1 19,125.9 18,509.8 22,570.8 21,215.6 17,810.2 18,256.8 5,618.1 5,159.4 

TRSY1 2,868.3 3,643.0 4,132.6 3,764.1 4,597.6 4,816.3 4,899.4 5,337.0 5,355.6 5,506.3 4,144.4 2,585.3 

DOC 2,489.1 4,476.3 2,882.8 2,883.1 2,721.4 2,470.3 2,684.3 1,907.1 2,521.9 2,197.3 2,333.9 2,216.8 

TVA 2,975.9 2,717.7 2,687.9 2,627.8 2,483.3 2,379.3 2,609.2 3,006.6 3,005.8 2,824.0 2,838.2 2,717.7 

DOL 2,385.2 2,376.0 2,385.7 2,491.5 2,490.2 2,540.4 2,048.1 2,480.7 2,671.4 2,775.1 2,964.3 2,896.2 

EPA 904.5 747.0 1,120.5 1,100.0 1,149.3 1,120.4 1,290.8 1,038.1 1,228.3 1,094.5 1,388.4 1,421.3 

ST 246.9 302.7 437.3 653.3 2,938.8 2,934.2 3,053.1 3,379.1 2,700.7 626.6 1,033.3 1,032.5 HUD 116.9 140.3 131.3 140.8 137.6 126.4 129.6 144.1 149.0 148.0 144.3 142.8 

OTHER* 1,156.1 3,072.0 4,108.4 4,814.5 5,040.5 3,889.4 3,865.9 3,731.3 3,727.1 4,606.6 4,293.7 2,694.5 CIVILIAN AGENCIES SUBTOTAL 199,700.5 195,849.7 203,294.2 204,007.7 211,971.9 200,767.7 200,971.4 214,752.0 215,746.1 207,281.9 216,175.1 216,522.4 DOD 1,250,613.8 1,241,655.8 926,022.9 904,456.2 880,007.7 837,115.8 810,663.0 779,055.2 787,216.4 837,525.4 904,356.1 960,668.6 ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 1,450,314.3 1,437,505.5 1,129,317.1 1,108,463.9 1,091,979.6 1,037,883.5 1,011,634.4 993,807.2 1,002,962.5 1,044,807.3 1,120,531.1 1,177,191.0 1,MBOE 249.0 246.8 193.9 190.3 187.5 178.2 173.7 170.6 172.2 179.4 192.4 202.1 PETAJOULE 1,530.0 1,516.5 1,191.4 1,169.4 1,152.0 1,094.9 1,067.2 1,048.4 1,058.1 1,102.2 1,182.1 1,241.9 

1FY 2003 was the first year for reporting by the Department of Homeland Security. Significant declines in energy use were also evident in that year for agencies such 

Transportation and the Treasury which transferred functions to the new Department. *Other includes, for certain years, CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, BBG/IBB, and FERC. 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 cSum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

149 
TABLE A-3 

PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS 

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

USPS 40,143.9 47,824.8 57,606.8 59,866.0 54,696.6 57,068.7 58,333.5 66,217.4 62,202.1 62,145.5 60,810.9 63,678.4 64,6VA 42,864.1 44,400.3 47,474.3 48,716.5 49,087.3 49,577.6 49,880.1 49,633.7 52,031.5 52,217.8 53,840.6 54,694.9 55,3DOE 48,300.5 47,636.0 44,231.2 44,087.6 41,373.4 40,680.7 39,588.4 37,938.9 39,238.3 36,880.6 37,300.2 35,758.2 34,0GSA 40,134.3 32,651.2 33,523.9 34,903.9 35,121.4 35,106.2 35,413.0 31,717.6 31,683.3 31,076.1 31,500.2 30,953.2 30,9NASA 8,899.9 10,764.0 11,435.9 11,671.5 11,524.9 11,532.2 11,174.5 10,970.3 11,259.8 10,838.8 10,650.5 10,109.5 10,7DOI 8,542.8 7,616.8 7,770.1 6,274.6 7,311.3 7,533.8 7,631.3 8,202.1 9,685.2 9,690.9 9,071.2 11,428.7 10,6DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,300.9 9,489.4 9,3

USDA 4,156.4 5,203.3 5,210.4 5,369.7 4,782.6 5,054.8 4,501.0 4,919.6 4,902.2 5,182.3 6,286.0 5,628.3 5,8DOL 3,734.1 3,916.2 3,979.2 4,100.5 4,137.2 4,167.4 3,264.6 4,392.2 4,666.0 4,813.7 5,068.9 4,997.8 4,8DOJ 9,048.5 9,512.4 12,004.2 14,600.8 14,881.7 15,488.4 16,117.8 18,612.5 18,967.3 18,806.1 20,676.7 21,442.6 2,7DOT 8,746.5 7,217.0 8,472.5 9,647.7 10,021.9 9,062.4 8,996.8 8,810.5 8,849.0 9,326.2 1,979.3 1,969.9 1,8TVA 1,349.0 1,440.3 2,517.7 2,438.5 2,298.7 2,267.9 2,243.5 2,131.2 2,161.6 1,949.3 1,956.4 1,918.6 1,8DOC 1,208.3 953.1 1,387.8 1,338.3 1,328.8 1,231.2 1,268.2 1,232.5 1,379.3 1,331.9 1,415.2 1,398.6 1,4ST 702.6 833.6 260.3 795.4 299.9 301.7 306.3 389.6 324.4 738.6 840.9 975.1 1,0TRSY 1,094.9 719.9 3,822.9 3,670.7 4,890.2 4,638.7 4,680.0 1,456.8 1,504.6 1,398.9 824.6 875.5 8

HHS 677.7 734.4 593.9 586.8 573.9 538.6 524.5 582.7 590.1 576.1 614.9 608.6 5HUD 356.2 435.0 322.3 339.2 326.7 316.5 324.2 324.2 336.7 327.8 324.8 312.8 3OTHER* 1,087.7 1,703.8 3,261.6 5,266.4 5,542.7 5,172.1 5,446.6 5,309.5 5,283.5 6,900.6 6,432.4 2,647.3 2,7CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

SUBTOTAL 221,047.4 255,661.8 243,875.0 253,674.1 248,199.0 249,738.9 249,694.1 252,841.2 255,064.7 254,201.2 259,894.5 258,887.3 239,9DOD 512,581.0 587,974.8 483,052.7 459,175.5 443,225.4 434,713.1 433,321.6 426,630.8 425,948.7 423,330.2 414,841.3 408,273.9 407,2ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 733,628.3 843,636.6 726,927.7 712,849.6 691,424.4 684,451.9 683,015.6 679,472.0 681,013.4 677,531.4 674,735.8 667,161.1 647,1MBOE 125.9 144.8 124.8 122.4 118.7 117.5 117.3 116.6 116.9 116.3 115.8 114.5 1PETAJOULE 774.0 890.0 766.9 752.0 729.4 722.1 720.6 716.8 718.4 714.8 711.8 703.8 6

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, BBG/IBB, and FERC. Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 11,850 Btu per kilowatt hour and 1,390 Btu per pound of steam. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

150 
TABLE A-4 

SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDIN

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

VA 24,552.0 24,380.1 25,075.4 26,172.3 26,062.0 26,216.9 26,134.8 26,120.6 26,748.3 26,866.2 28,470.5 28,854.2 28,6

USPS 16,238.3 18,480.0 21,649.7 22,210.0 22,006.4 22,683.9 23,127.0 25,238.3 24,974.3 23,671.1 23,968.6 23,388.2 23,4

DOE 28,603.8 25,610.7 23,740.0 21,456.5 19,818.3 19,363.7 18,533.5 17,350.2 18,356.4 17,021.6 16,991.9 16,202.0 15,3

GSA 15,865.6 12,513.4 12,366.7 13,439.4 13,353.7 13,123.7 13,083.9 11,728.0 12,024.9 11,436.9 11,940.5 11,638.4 11,5

DOI 4,762.4 4,039.4 3,596.3 2,979.1 3,668.5 3,747.4 3,794.6 4,006.6 4,692.2 4,916.0 4,408.3 5,965.0 5,2NASA 3,760.1 4,381.0 4,381.2 4,436.1 4,350.7 4,404.8 4,303.3 4,263.7 4,418.3 4,231.6 4,153.0 3,926.2 4,2DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,508.6 4,146.5 3,8USDA 1,953.6 2,204.9 2,083.1 2,261.3 1,996.0 2,111.1 1,901.8 2,052.5 2,070.8 2,410.8 2,631.2 2,384.9 2,5DOL 2,153.0 2,137.1 2,028.8 2,153.9 2,153.9 2,190.2 1,697.9 2,111.8 2,312.5 2,411.8 2,566.9 2,499.0 2,2DOJ 6,112.0 4,863.8 6,303.9 7,490.6 8,003.7 7,783.0 8,047.1 9,374.6 9,798.9 9,547.8 10,790.6 11,773.8 1,1DOT 4,614.5 3,750.4 3,669.1 4,058.0 3,959.6 3,779.5 3,828.1 3,716.4 3,913.8 3,971.4 721.6 713.8 6

TVA 402.4 427.8 748.5 728.4 665.6 658.4 650.8 617.7 626.2 565.0 565.9 557.0 5

DOC 540.3 399.4 494.9 490.1 457.2 429.9 449.4 437.0 471.4 442.0 509.9 492.7 4ST 232.2 267.8 92.9 289.2 114.0 113.2 114.7 152.9 123.2 245.5 300.8 323.8 3

TRSY 426.0 396.0 1,418.3 1,484.9 1,904.4 1,741.2 1,815.0 530.0 573.0 498.0 295.5 309.1 3HHS 253.0 273.1 201.7 204.7 200.1 188.8 184.8 212.3 219.6 200.9 236.8 225.0 2HUD 116.9 140.3 105.9 115.4 109.3 103.1 106.3 106.3 115.6 109.9 112.9 110.2 1

OTHER* 406.8 660.0 1,235.8 1,929.8 2,035.7 1,911.5 1,982.6 1,946.3 1,944.9 2,592.1 2,437.9 946.1 9

CIVILIAN AGENCIES 

SUBTOTAL 110,993.1 116,099.6 109,191.8 111,899.6 110,859.1 110,550.2 109,755.6 109,965.3 113,384.3 111,138.6 115,611.3 114,455.6 101,9

DOD 304,190.0 321,101.6 247,166.9 235,994.1 227,070.0 220,567.6 217,958.2 210,965.0 211,528.2 206,315.2 204,435.4 196,654.0 198,0ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 415,183.1 437,201.2 356,358.8 347,893.7 337,929.1 331,117.8 327,713.8 320,930.3 324,912.5 317,453.7 320,046.7 311,109.6 300,0MBOE 71.3 75.1 61.2 59.7 58.0 56.8 56.3 55.1 55.8 54.5 54.9 53.4 PETAJOULE 438.0 461.2 375.9 367.0 356.5 349.3 345.7 338.6 342.8 334.9 337.6 328.2 3

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, EEOC, FEMA, FTC, NARA, NSF, NRC, OPM, RRB, SSA, BBG/IBB, and FERC. Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

151 
TABLE A-5 

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL STANDARD BUILDINGS ENERGY 

BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2005, FY 2005, AND FY 1985 

(Constant 2005 Dollars) 

ENERGY TYPE COST COST/ COST PER 

BILLION BTU (MILLION $) MILLION BTU PHYSICAL UNIT 

2005 

ELECTRICITY 138,427.3 $2,887.842 $20.86 $71.18 /MWH 

FUEL OIL 28,241.5 $263.890 $9.34 $1.30 /Gallon 

NATURAL GAS 99,598.4 $823.690 $8.27 $8.53 /Thou. Cubic. Ft. 

LPG/PROPANE 3,044.3 $36.728 $12.06 $1.15 /Gallon 

COAL 12,914.6 $38.934 $3.01 $74.10 /Short Ton 

PURCHASED STEAM 12,358.7 $130.057 $10.52 $10.52 /MMBtu 

OTHER 5,435.3 $77.112 $14.19 $14.19 /MMBtu 

TOTAL 300,020.1 $4,258.254 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $14.193 

2004 

ELECTRICITY 141,876.9 $2,860.776 $20.16 $68.80 /MWH 

FUEL OIL 31,174.7 $218.286 $7.00 $0.97 /Gallon 

NATURAL GAS 105,418.8 $748.707 $7.10 $7.32 /Thou. Cubic. Ft. 

LPG/PROPANE 2,736.0 $30.858 $11.28 $1.08 /Gallon 

COAL 12,782.7 $36.960 $2.89 $71.07 /Short Ton 

PURCHASED STEAM 13,294.1 $188.454 $14.18 $14.18 /MMBtu 

OTHER 3,826.3 $42.011 $10.98 $10.98 /MMBtu 

TOTAL 311,109.6 $4,126.053 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $13.262 

1985 

ELECTRICITY 127,649.0 $3,925.075 $30.75 $104.92 /MWH 

FUEL OIL 92,947.1 $1,020.079 $10.97 $1.52 /Gallon 

NATURAL GAS 127,690.3 $1,082.746 $8.48 $8.74 /Thou. Cubic. Ft. 

LPG/PROPANE 3,162.1 $40.224 $12.72 $1.21 /Gallon 

COAL 52,380.1 $223.647 $4.27 $104.95 /Short Ton 

PURCHASED STEAM 7,171.4 $154.862 $21.59 $21.59 /MMBtu 

OTHER 4,215.1 $37.667 $8.94 $8.94 /MMBtu 

TOTAL 415,215.2 $6,484.301 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $15.617 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

152 
TABLE A-6 

SITE-DELIVERED ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN FEDERAL ENERGY-INTENSIVE FAC

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

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

AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

DOJ 0.0 0.0 707.8 944.1 846.9 850.7 862.8 862.2 845.1 838.7 961.3 1,208.9 12,HH S 5,327.2 6,845.9 5,822.6 6,405.6 7,217.7 6,764.3 6,498.6 7,138.8 7,597.8 7,612.2 7,842.5 8,193.8 8,

DOE 6,991.4 7,507.9 6,939.1 7,262.5 7,429.3 6,415.8 2,431.6 6,663.3 5,090.0 7,242.2 7,403.5 7,412.1 7,GSA1 4,146.9 4,354.0 1,213.8 961.0 890.7 849.2 1,150.8 5,093.8 5,799.4 5,453.3 5,997.6 5,948.5 5,NASA 3,496.3 4,142.9 3,900.6 3,535.9 3,835.6 3,897.9 3,794.5 3,585.5 3,413.9 3,382.0 3,294.7 3,211.9 3,USDA 2,085.5 2,416.2 2,141.0 2,140.8 2,221.6 2,416.5 2,589.0 2,368.5 2,826.7 2,216.1 2,209.1 2,085.6 2,TRSY 287.3 1,773.8 941.0 928.3 1,131.8 996.5 964.2 2,303.7 2,204.8 2,130.1 1,992.7 1,965.6 1,DOC 938.6 976.6 1,627.4 1,823.0 1,335.2 1,332.0 1,400.4 1,315.8 1,454.6 1,395.3 1,464.1 1,593.0 1,

EPA 772.3 747.0 1,020.9 1,023.5 1,012.1 1,022.7 1,170.2 940.3 1,118.3 979.7 1,255.3 1,311.2 1,

DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 239.0 534.3 

USIA 0.0 1,406.9 878.2 936.2 1,092.2 1,020.4 951.4 951.4 951.4 1,229.6 1,033.2 943.9 

SSA 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.5 204.7 211.4 199.1 237.5 201.9 190.6 186.1 181.8 

TVA 124.0 112.2 80.6 80.0 86.4 83.4 99.1 85.1 76.5 75.1 76.1 77.6 FCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 0.0 

PCC 167.2 190.8 209.4 218.6 221.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CIVILIAN AGENCIES SUBTOTAL 24,336.6 30,474.0 25,482.2 26,475.1 27,525.1 25,860.8 22,111.9 31,551.9 31,586.7 32,751.4 33,961.4 34,668.1 46,DOD 55,743.9 39,209.1 37,962.6 37,260.1 35,702.3 36,588.4 32,919.0 32,280.9 28,649.8 28,459.4 28,614.5 30,196.8 27,

ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 80,080.5 69,683.2 63,444.8 63,735.2 63,227.4 62,449.2 55,030.9 63,832.8 60,236.4 61,210.8 62,575.8 64,864.9 74,MBOE 13.7 12.0 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.7 9.4 11.0 10.3 10.5 10.7 11.1 

PETAJOULE 84.5 73.5 66.9 67.2 66.7 65.9 58.1 67.3 63.5 64.6 66.0 68.4 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. 

1GSA’s large increase in energy reported under this category beginning in FY 2000 is a result of the agency reclassifying buildings from the standard buildings invento

subsequent years without adjusting data for the intervening years. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

153 
TABLE A-7 

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITIES 

ENERGY BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2005 

ENERGY TYPE COST COST PER COST PER

BILLION BTU (MILLION $) MILLION BTU PHYSICAL UNIT

ELECTRICITY 32,377.0 $591.867 $18.28 $62.37 /MWH 

FUEL OIL 4,125.4 $36.763 $8.91 $1.24 /Gallon 

NATURAL GAS 29,015.2 $239.181 $8.24 $8.50 /Thou. Cubic. Ft. 

LPG/PROPANE 251.5 $2.838 $11.28 $1.08 /Gallon 

COAL 4,085.1 $10.006 $2.45 $60.21 /Short Ton 

PURCHASED STEAM 3,656.9 $36.693 $10.03 $10.03 /MMBtu 

OTHER 700.2 $9.722 $13.89 $13.89 /MMBtu 

TOTAL 74,211.4 $927.070 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $12.492 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

Note: This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

154 
TABLE A-8 

ENERGY CONSUMPTION, COSTS, AND GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 

FEDERAL EXEMPT FACILITIES, FY 2005 

Agency 

Energy Consumption Energy Costs Facility Gross Square Feet 

Billion Btu % of Agency's Total 

Facility Use ($ Million) % of Agency's Total Facility Costs (Thou. Sq. Ft.) % of Agency's Total Facility Space 

DOD 

DOE 

DOT 

USPS 

NASA 

TVA 

GSA 

NARA 

ST 

HHS 

DHS 

TRSY 

Total 

8,981.7 

4,978.1 

3,177.9 

1,489.3 

1,439.3 

1,265.5 

859.7 

685.2 

325.5 

26.8 

7.8 

0.1 

23,236.8 

3.8% 

18.0% 

82.4% 

6.0% 

15.7% 

67.2% 

4.7% 

100.0% 

49.1% 

0.3% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

NA 

$151.206 

$70.681 

$80.828 

$37.145 

$21.412 

$18.545 

$18.218 

$10.208 

$7.074 

$0.632 

$0.221 

$0.002 

$416.173 

1.4% 

18.9% 

71.4% 

4.7% 

14.6% 

44.6% 

5.3% 

100.0% 

36.0% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

NA 

0.0 

11,393.1 

20,205.4 

0.0 

5,211.7 

18,646.7 

16,817.7 

3,945.9 

2,598.8 

892.8 

30.5 

332.0 

80,074.6 

0.0% 

11.1% 

73.7% 

0.0% 

13.1% 

65.7% 

7.9% 

100.0% 

44.9% 

3.2% 

0.1% 

2.6% 

NA 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

TABLE A-9 

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF FEDERAL EXEMPT FACILITY ENERGY

BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2005 

ENERGY TYPE COST COST/ COST PER 

BILLION BTU (MILLION $) MILLION BTU PHYSICAL UNIT 

ELECTRICITY 16,975.4 $357.323 $21.05 $71.82 /MWH 

FUEL OIL 2,073.0 $15.795 $7.62 $1.06 /Gallon 

NATURAL GAS 2,489.6 $20.193 $8.11 $8.36 /Thou. Cubic. Ft. 

LPG/PROPANE 25.6 $0.339 $13.26 $1.26 /Gallon 

COAL 132.6 $0.354 $2.67 $65.62 /Short Ton 

PURCHASED STEAM 828.2 $11.052 $13.34 $13.34 /MMBtu 

OTHER 712.3 $11.117 $15.61 $15.61 /MMBtu 

TOTAL 23,236.8 $416.173 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $17.910 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

This table uses a conversion factor for electricity of 3,412 Btu per kilowatt hour. Sum of components may not equal total due to independent 

rounding. 

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

155 
TABLE A-10 

FEDERAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT OPERATIO

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

CIVILIAN FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AGENCY 1985. . . 1990. . . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2

USPS 11,524.2 12,136.2 14,571.2 14,217.1 16,779.2 14,777.2 14,583.7 15,976.3 16,192.1 15,831.8 17,173.5 15,821.0 DHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13,583.9 18,837.1 

DOJ 2,064.0 2,097.9 3,181.6 3,693.0 3,149.3 7,171.4 6,456.3 9,456.3 9,037.9 7,305.9 6,276.4 4,561.7 DOI 3,053.9 3,352.5 2,782.2 1,347.5 2,943.7 2,679.9 3,661.4 3,839.3 4,812.3 3,308.9 3,151.2 2,777.6 DOE 2,882.0 2,520.4 1,841.9 1,561.0 1,971.0 1,955.6 1,444.6 1,803.4 1,714.4 1,587.0 1,417.1 2,736.6 USDA 4,319.6 4,952.3 4,821.7 4,654.8 3,153.0 3,389.4 3,337.9 3,025.7 2,476.2 2,543.5 2,376.6 2,508.0 TRSY 2,155.0 1,473.2 1,773.4 1,350.9 1,561.4 2,078.6 2,120.2 2,503.3 2,577.8 2,878.3 1,856.3 310.5 DOT 11,957.0 12,150.8 12,193.7 12,222.9 12,347.9 10,145.0 10,870.5 11,122.9 8,739.3 10,865.9 1,476.4 1,146.8 VA 592.8 518.3 353.6 660.7 1,199.1 1,380.3 1,337.6 923.4 913.6 856.4 1,174.0 1,034.2 

NASA 1,972.7 1,736.7 1,750.9 1,539.3 1,622.1 1,428.3 1,412.8 1,490.1 1,455.1 1,372.2 982.8 1,263.1 DOC 1,010.2 3,100.3 760.6 570.1 929.1 708.4 834.5 154.3 595.8 360.0 360.0 131.1 TVA 578.5 476.6 541.7 583.8 479.5 429.1 423.3 850.1 822.3 747.9 942.3 845.3 HHS 373.3 0.0 105.5 18.6 435.0 447.7 447.7 593.2 715.2 178.5 572.4 335.1 ST 14.8 34.9 0.0 0.0 44.7 40.9 40.9 486.4 37.1 49.4 444.2 451.7 

DOL 232.2 239.0 356.9 337.7 336.2 350.2 350.2 368.9 358.9 363.3 397.4 397.2 EPA 132.3 0.0 99.6 76.5 137.2 97.7 120.6 97.9 110.0 114.8 133.1 110.1 GSA 144.1 128.1 91.3 98.8 119.9 122.2 125.2 127.0 112.7 74.9 80.3 49.2 HUD 0.0 0.0 25.4 25.4 28.3 23.3 23.3 37.8 33.4 38.0 31.4 32.6 

OTHER* 582.1 732.4 992.9 951.4 914.0 154.2 150.6 45.3 48.8 58.8 51.7 57.3 

CIVILIAN AGENCIES SUBTOTAL 43,588.5 45,649.7 46,244.1 43,909.5 48,150.6 47,379.4 47,741.4 52,901.5 50,753.0 48,535.5 52,480.9 53,406.1 DOD 890,679.9 881,345.1 640,893.4 631,202.0 617,235.4 579,959.8 559,785.8 526,234.1 537,168.4 593,506.3 662,116.2 723,008.8 ALL AGENCIES TOTAL 934,268.4 926,994.8 687,137.4 675,111.5 665,386.0 627,339.2 607,527.2 579,135.6 587,921.5 642,041.8 714,597.1 776,414.9 MBOE 160.4 159.1 118.0 115.9 114.2 107.7 104.3 99.4 100.9 110.2 122.7 133.3 PETAJOULE 985.6 977.9 724.9 712.2 702.0 661.8 640.9 611.0 620.2 677.3 753.9 819.1 

*Other includes for certain years the CFTC, CIA, FEMA, NSF, NRC, OPM, and BBG/IBB. Note: Sum of components may not equal total due to independent rounding. Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

156 
TABLE A-11 

CONSUMPTION AND COSTS OF VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT

ENERGY BY FUEL TYPE IN FY 2005 

ENERGY TYPE COST COST/ COST PER

BILLION BTU (MILLION $) MILLION BTU PHYSICAL UNIT

AUTO GASOLINE 47,192.9 $708.156 $18.07 $1.88 /Gallon

DIST/DIESEL 33,743.3 $377.164 $8.85 $1.55 /Gallon

LPG/PROPANE 52.5 $0.610 $8.69 $1.11 /Gallon

AVIATION GASOLINE 385.7 $10.079 $12.35 $3.27 /Gallon

JET FUEL 492,219.8 $6,449.088 $2.45 $1.70 /Gallon

NAVY SPECIAL 171,719.4 $1,278.839 $12.19 $1.03 /Gallon

OTHER 5,242.4 $31.798 $13.89 $13.89 /MMBtu

TOTAL 750,556.0 $8,855.734 

AVERAGE COST PER MMBTU = $11.799 

Data as of 7 June 2006 

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

Source: Federal Agency Annual Energy Management Data Reports 

157 
TABLE A-12 

FEDERAL ENERGY EXPENDITURES, FY 1985–FY 2005 

(Constant 2005 Dollars) 

Sector/ Fiscal Year 

Annual 

Energy Use 

(BBtu) 

Annual 

Energy Cost 

($ Million) 

Annual 

Energy Cost 

($/MMBtu) 

Change in Energy 

Costs from 1985 

($ Million)1 

Standard Buildings 1985 415,183.1 1986 443,667.3 1987 465,393.9 1988 440,381.3 1989 437,487.3 1990 437,201.2 1991 394,459.0 1992 401,667.6 1993 391,492.2 1994 373,532.2 1995 356,358.8 1996 347,893.7 1997 337,929.1 1998 331,117.8 1999 327,713.8 2000 320,930.3 2001 324,912.5 2002 317,453.7 2003 320,046.7 2004 311,109.6 2005 300,020.1 

$6,484.300 $6,564.140 $6,530.684 

$5,904.158 $5,499.332 $5,988.094 $5,749.973 $5,408.153 $5,636.090 $5,298.614 $4,928.827 $4,736.422 

$4,416.352 

$4,168.237 

$3,902.798 

$3,768.978 

$4,377.708 $4,072.708 

$3,997.401 $4,126.053 $4,258.254 

$15.618 $14.795 $14.033 

$13.407 $12.570 $13.696 $14.577 $13.464 $14.396 $14.185 $13.831 $13.615 

$13.069 

$12.588 

$11.909 

$11.744 

$13.473 $12.829 

$12.490 $13.262 $14.193 

$0.000 

$79.841 $46.384 

-$580.141 -$984.968 -$496.206 -$734.326 

-$1,076.146 

-$848.210 

-$1,185.686 -$1,555.473 -$1,747.877 

-$2,067.948 

-$2,316.063 

-$2,581.502 

-$2,715.321 

-$2,106.592 -$2,411.592 

-$2,486.898 -$2,358.247 -$2,226.046 

Energy Intensive Facilities 1985 80,080.5 1986 20,321.6 1987 24,827.5 1988 55,666.3 1989 52,355.4 1990 69,683.2 1991 78,976.9 1992 92,335.0 1993 65,689.6 1994 65,725.8 1995 63,444.8 1996 63,735.2 1997 63,227.4 1998 62,449.2 1999 55,030.9 2000 63,832.8 2001 60,236.4 2002 61,210.8 2003 62,575.8 2004 64,864.9 2005 74,211.4 

$1,279.814 

$474.002 $441.278 $875.310 $682.781 

$1,018.152 $1,106.339 

$1,237.681 

$810.468 $767.365 $697.524 $720.738 $704.625 $617.036 $564.532 $626.332 $711.776 $653.451 $700.174 $735.898 $927.070 

$15.982 

$23.325 $17.774 $15.724 $13.041 

$14.611 $14.008 

$13.404 

$12.338 $11.675 $10.994 $11.308 $11.144 

$9.881 

$10.258 

$9.812 

$11.816 $10.675 $11.189 $11.345 $12.492 

$0.000 

-$805.813 -$838.536 -$404.504 -$597.033 

-$261.663 -$173.476 

-$42.133 

-$469.346 -$512.449 -$582.290 -$559.076 -$575.189 -$662.779 -$715.282 -$653.482 -$568.038 -$626.364 -$579.641 -$543.917 -$352.745 

Sector/ Fiscal Year 

Annual 

Energy Use 

(BBtu) 

Annual 

Energy Cost 

($ Million) 

Annual 

Energy Cost 

($/MMBtu) 

Change in Energy 

Costs from 1985 

($ Million)1 

Exempt Facilities 

1985 20,782.4 

1986 17,878.5 1987 17,195.9 

1988 17,367.6 1989 14,840.0 1990 14,800.8 1991 17,851.3 

1992 17,677.5 

1993 16,981.0 

1994 16,172.3 1995 22,376.0 1996 21,723.5 

1997 25,437.2 

1998 16,977.4 

1999 21,362.5 

2000 29,908.5 

2001 29,892.1 2002 24,101.0 

2003 23,311.5 2004 24,801.7 2005 23,236.8 

$357.351 

$286.536 $270.682 

$261.767 $249.781 $288.588 $344.574 

$279.976 

$266.592 

$274.253 $247.197 $254.134 

$353.075 

$300.861 

$288.804 

$445.660 

$521.438 $458.151 

$416.681 $408.749 $416.173 

$17.195 

$16.027 $15.741 

$15.072 $16.832 $19.498 $19.302 

$15.838 

$15.699 

$16.958 $11.047 $11.699 

$13.880 

$17.721 

$13.519 

$14.901 

$17.444 $19.010 

$17.874 $16.481 $17.910 

$0.000 

-$70.815 -$86.669 

-$95.584 

-$107.570 

-$68.763 -$12.777 

-$77.375 

-$90.759 

-$83.098 

-$110.154 -$103.217 

-$4.276 

-$56.490 

-$68.547 

$88.309 

$164.086 $100.800 

$59.330 $51.398 $58.821 

Vehicles & Equipment 

1985 934,268.4 

1986 924,833.7 1987 958,904.3 1988 846,896.2 1989 959,994.6 

1990 926,994.8 1991 970,454.3 

1992 783,122.4 

1993 772,633.8 1994 722,790.5 1995 687,137.4 1996 675,111.5 1997 665,386.0 1998 627,339.2 1999 607,527.2 2000 579,135.6 2001 587,921.5 2002 642,041.8 2003 714,597.1 2004 776,414.9 2005 750,556.0 

$11,146.121 

$6,673.362 $7,042.390 $6,631.023 $7,477.648 

$8,245.429 

$10,570.533 

$6,235.522 

$6,542.811 $4,618.459 $4,753.110 $4,583.424 $5,155.047 

$5,327.204 

$4,590.891 

$3,640.866 

$5,227.001 $5,564.753 $5,259.926 $6,383.032 $8,855.734 

$11.930 

$7.216 $7.344 $7.830 $7.789 

$8.895 

$10.892 

$7.962 

$8.468 $6.390 $6.917 $6.789 $7.747 $8.492 $7.557 $6.287 $8.891 $8.667 $7.361 $8.221 

$11.799 

$0.000 

-$4,472.759 -$4,103.731 -$4,515.098 -$3,668.474 

-$2,900.693 

-$575.588 

-$4,910.599 

-$4,603.310 -$6,527.663 -$6,393.012 -$6,562.698 -$5,991.074 -$5,818.918 -$6,555.231 -$7,505.255 -$5,919.120 -$5,581.368 -$5,886.196 -$4,763.089 

-$2,290.387 

Sector/ Fiscal Year 

Annual 

Energy Use 

(BBtu) 

Annual 

Energy Cost 

($ Million) 

A

Ene

($/

Total Energy - All Sectors 

1985 1,450,314.4 

1986 1,406,701.1 1987 1,466,321.6 

1988 1,360,311.4 

1989 1,464,677.3 

1990 1,448,680.0 1991 1,461,741.5 

1992 1,294,802.5 

1993 1,246,796.6 

1994 1,178,220.8 

1995 1,129,317.0 1996 1,108,463.9 

1997 1,091,979.7 

1998 1,037,883.6 

1999 1,011,634.4 

2000 993,807.2 

2001 1,002,962.5 2002 1,044,807.3 

2003 1,120,531.1 2004 1,177,191.1 2005 1,148,024.3 

$19,267.586 

$13,998.041 $14,285.034 

$13,672.259 

$13,909.542 

$15,540.263 $17,771.418 

$13,161.332 

$13,255.962 

$10,958.690 

$10,626.657 $10,294.718 

$10,629.100 

$10,413.337 

$9,347.025 

$8,481.837 

$10,837.922 $10,749.062 

$10,374.181 $11,653.732 $14,457.230 

1Changes in energy costs from 1985 sh

as savings resulting from Federal energactivities. Many variables contribute to energy costs, including changes in squastock, weather, energy efficiency investfuel mix, fuel prices, and vehicle, naval, composition. This table incorporates revpublished energy consumption and cosDOE by Federal agencies. Source: Federal Agency Annual EnergReports 

158 
APPENDIX B 

DATA COLLECTION AND CARBON CALCULATIONS

159 
APPENDIX B 

DATA COLLECTION 

Standard Buildings, Energy Intensive Facilities, and Exempt Facilities 

The Federal agencies that own or control buildings are required to report the energy consumption 

in these buildings to FEMP by January 1 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 agencies which have been delegated authority by GSA to 

enter into contracts for energy and utility services, 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: 

megawatthours of electricity; thousands of gallons of fuel oil; thousands of cubic feet of natural 

gas; thousands of gallons of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and propane; short tons of coal; 

billions of Btu of purchased steam; and billions of Btu of “other.” DOE reviews this data for 

accuracy and confers with the submitting agency to clarify any apparent anomalies. The data are 

then entered into a computer database management program. 

The tables shown in this annual report are expressed in billions of Btu derived from the 

following conversion factors: 

Electricity - 3,412 Btu/kilowatt hour 

 Fuel Oil - 138,700 Btu/gallon 

Natural Gas - 1,031 Btu/cubic foot 

LPG/Propane - 95,500 Btu/gallon 

Coal - 24,580,000 Btu/short ton 

Purchased Steam - 1,000 Btu/pound 

The above conversion factors for electricity and purchased steam refer to site-delivered energy 

(or heat content) and do not account for energy consumed in the production and delivery of 

energy products. Table 6 of this report accounts for primary energy use, which is the sum of the 

energy directly consumed by end users (site energy) and the source energy consumed in the 

production and delivery of energy products. Using 2002 data from EIA, a blended heat rate of 

10,191 Btu/kWh was calculated for fossil and nuclear steam-electric plants. In addition to 

conversion losses, transmission and distribution losses (9 percent) and power plant use (5 

percent) are also factored into the delivered heat content, resulting in a total source energy input 

for electricity of 11,850 Btu/kWh. DOE uses this conversion factor to calculate primary energy 

use for electricity and 1,390 Btu per pound for purchased steam. 

In addition, the Federal agencies annually report to FEMP the gross square footage of their 

buildings and the cost of their buildings’ energy. 

160 
Vehicles and Equipment 

Federal agencies are required to report the energy consumption of their fleet vehicles through 

DOE’s Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST) no later than November 1 after the end of 

each fiscal year. Energy consumption in other types of equipment not reported through FAST is 

required to be reported to FEMP by January 1 after the end of each fiscal year. 

The fuels used in vehicles and equipment are automotive gasoline, diesel and petroleum distillate 

fuels, aviation gasoline, jet fuel, navy special, liquefied petroleum gas/propane, and “other.” All 

the fuels in this category with the exception of “other” are reported in thousands of gallons. 

“Other” is reported in billions of Btu. 

The conversion factors for these fuels are: 

Gasoline - 125,000 Btu/gallon 

Diesel-Distillate - 138,700 Btu/gallon 

Aviation Gasoline - 125,000 Btu/gallon 

Jet Fuel - 130,000 Btu/gallon 

Navy Special - 138,700 Btu/gallon 

LPG/Propane - 95,500 Btu/gallon 

This report excludes those agencies that have been unable to provide complete fiscal year 

consumption data prior to the publication date. All agency omissions, as well as any anomalies 

in the data, are indicated by footnotes on the tables or in the text of the report 

161 
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED CARBON EMISSIONS 

In the past, DOE tracked and reported aggregate energy use for all Federal agencies and 

estimated carbon emissions using national fuel-specific emission factors. This approach, 

however, resulted in less accurate emission estimates for electricity use because carbon emission 

factors for electricity vary significantly by utility and State depending on the resource used to 

generate the electricity (e.g., coal, gas, nuclear, hydro). 

To obtain a greater level of accuracy in estimating emissions from electricity use, DOE 

developed a new approach that places little or no additional reporting burden on the agencies. 

Agencies continue to report their aggregated national-level electricity consumption data as they 

have in the past. DOE then takes that total consumption figure and apportions it across the States 

in which the agency has facility locations. DOE will then multiply the apportioned electricity 

usage by the appropriate regional-level carbon emission factor assigned to each State. Once 

emissions from electricity use are calculated, these will be added to the emissions estimated from 

the other fuels used by the agency to determine total carbon emissions. (National factors may be 

appropriately used for fuel oil, natural gas, LPG/propane, coal, and purchased steam.) 

DOE estimated State electricity usage by determining the percentage of facility floor area for the 

agency and apportioning the reported total electricity use according to that percentage. For the 

purposes of estimating changes in greenhouse gas emissions over time, DOE is assuming that 

floor area can be used as a reasonable proxy to represent the State-level usage pattern for 

electricity consumption for an agency. DOE uses historical square footage data for Governmentowned buildings from the GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Real Property to 

determine each agency’s percentage floor area for each State. 

DOE uses factors derived from data from EIA for estimating carbon emissions from non-electric 

fuels on a nationwide basis. The regional emissions factors for electricity were calculated by 

summing the annual EIA data on electricity sales and carbon emissions for each State in a given 

region. These sums were then used to calculate the regional emissions/kWh (which were then 

converted to MMTCE/Quad). This value will be used for each State in a particular region. 

Non-Electric Fuel National Coefficients 

Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) per Site-Delivered Quad 

(or Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE] per Site-Delivered Billion Btu) 

Fuel 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Fuel Oil 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 19.95 

Natural Gas 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 14.47 

LPG/Propane 16.99 16.98 16.99 16.97 17.01 17.00 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 

Coal 25.82 25.89 25.87 25.77 25.77 25.80 25.75 25.76 25.79 25.80 25.74 25.74 25.74 25.74 25.74 25.74 

Purchased Steam 35.12 35.21 35.18 35.05 35.05 35.09 35.02 35.03 35.07 35.09 35.01 35.01 35.01 35.01 35.01 35.01 

Source: EIA’s Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001. Table B1, DOE/EIA-0573, December 

2002. The factor for purchased steam is derived from the coefficient for coal adding associated losses for generation 

and transportation (using a factor of 1.39 to convert site-delivered to primary energy). 

162 
Electricity Regional Coefficients 

Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) per Site-Delivered Quad 

(or Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent [MTCE] per Site-Delivered Billion Btu) 

State/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

AK 66.63 63.51 59.34 59.42 58.42 59.33 59.53 63.33 56.48 55.52 57.68 59.47 64.99 57.20 57.20 57.20 

AL, GA, MS, NC, 

SC, TN, VA 

45.42 43.91 44.90 47.94 44.94 45.99 47.00 48.15 46.64 46.73 47.80 48.15 49.18 48.37 48.37 48.37 

AR, KS, LA, MO, 

OK 

64.43 65.26 65.55 61.92 64.06 65.35 64.73 65.15 64.69 65.36 64.75 65.52 68.22 69.80 69.80 69.80 

AZ, CO, NM 83.70 78.50 82.03 82.02 80.49 72.87 70.30 70.98 71.79 72.15 74.32 74.68 71.64 71.92 71.92 71.92 

CA 16.82 16.06 18.76 17.71 20.19 15.59 13.99 14.12 14.74 16.15 18.71 20.90 19.68 18.07 18.07 18.07 

CT, MA, ME, NH, 

RI, VT 

35.25 35.56 33.08 29.90 29.62 29.32 30.05 37.13 36.52 33.46 30.92 31.68 34.18 33.58 33.58 33.58 

DC, DE, MD, NJ, 

PA 

49.94 48.19 48.45 48.86 47.41 47.17 47.65 48.17 48.32 47.11 49.11 45.36 45.66 44.64 44.64 44.64 

FL 48.33 50.80 49.50 49.92 48.59 47.10 48.03 48.86 50.52 48.91 47.68 46.97 45.96 46.29 46.29 46.29 

HI 73.27 60.60 67.70 67.24 66.51 66.83 67.65 66.80 65.92 65.57 65.47 64.60 64.90 61.67 61.67 61.67 

IA, MN, NE, ND, 

SD 

75.96 74.11 75.58 76.43 73.77 72.44 71.63 71.15 74.52 72.61 73.27 72.05 73.79 74.62 74.62 74.62 

ID, MT, NV, OR, 

UT, WA, WY 

43.15 43.34 47.79 45.02 48.67 42.95 42.23 41.74 46.31 44.31 46.31 54.26 50.30 52.30 52.30 52.30 

IL, WI 46.10 45.26 43.76 47.48 47.74 47.13 51.24 54.17 51.56 51.45 54.06 53.34 56.26 56.33 56.33 56.33 

IN, KY, MI, OH, 

WV 

85.54 82.63 82.08 82.38 81.04 79.17 81.54 82.48 83.18 80.85 82.29 80.69 81.42 82.82 82.82 82.82 

NY 40.23 37.64 35.03 30.84 30.29 32.49 29.39 32.26 34.10 33.03 31.69 31.46 30.49 30.73 30.73 30.73 

TX 66.89 65.88 65.39 67.42 63.49 62.54 62.14 61.73 60.64 62.36 61.37 58.42 64.70 63.16 63.16 63.16 

Note: Regions match those defined in the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Electricity Market 

Module of the National Energy Modeling System. 2004 and 2005 use coefficients developed from 2003 data. 

Source data for developing these coefficients: 

• For generation: EIA, Electric Power Annual 2003. 1990-2003 Retail Sales of Electricity by State by Sector 

by Provider, Form-861, “Annual Electric Power Industry Report.” 

• For carbon emissions: EIA, Electric Power Annual 2003. 1990-2001 Emissions SO2, NOX, and CO2 by 

State: Form-767, “Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Report;” Form-759, “Monthly Power Plant 

Report;”Form-867, “Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report;” Form-860B, “Annual Electric Generator 

Report - Nonutility;” EIA Form-906, “Power Plant Report;” and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Form 423, “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report.” 

163 
APPENDIX C 

ACRONYMS 

Agency Acronyms 

Broadcasting Board of Governors/ 

 International Broadcasting Bureau BBG/IBB 

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 Homeland Security DHS 

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 

 International Broadcasting Bureau IBB 

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 Postal Service USPS 

164 
Other Acronyms 

Assessment of Load and Energy Reduction Techniques ALERT 

Building Life-Cycle Cost BLCC 

British Thermal Unit(s) Btu 

Energy Citations Database ECD 

Energy Information Administration EIA 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EERE 

Energy Management Control Systems EMCS 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPACT 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse EREC 

Energy Service Company ESCO 

Energy Savings Performance Contract ESPC 

Facility Energy Decision System FEDS 

Federal Automotive Statistical Tool FAST 

Federal Energy Management Program FEMP 

Fiscal Year FY 

Gross Square Foot GSF 

Industrial Assessment Center IAC 

 Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contract IDIQ 

Life-Cycle Cost LCC 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas LPG 

Megawatthours MWH 

Military Construction MILCON 

Million Barrels of Oil Equivalent MBOE 

Million British Thermal Units MMBtu 

National Energy Conservation Policy Act NECPA 

National Energy Information Center NEIC 

National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST 

Office of Industrial Technologies OIT 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information OSTI 

Quadrillion British Thermal Units Quad 

Research and Development R&D 

State Energy Program SEP 

Utility Energy Service Contract UESC 

165