U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–557 PDF 2011

GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES IN THE FEDERAL

SECTOR: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES TO DATE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 21, 2010

Serial No. 111–147

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

DIANE E. WATSON, California, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

JACKIE SPEIER, California

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

BERT HAMMOND, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 21, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Green, Henry, president, National Institute of Building Sciences; Ellen

Vaughan, policy director, high performance green buildings, Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Lynn Bellenger, president, American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

[ASHRAE]; and James Bertrand, vice president, Delphi, president, Delphi Automotive Holdings Group and Delphi Thermal Systems ................ 57

Bellenger, Lynn ......................................................................................... 73

Bertrand, James ........................................................................................ 85

Green, Henry ............................................................................................. 57

Vaughan, Ellen .......................................................................................... 65

Kampschroer, Kevin, Director, Office of Federal High Performance Green

Buildings, General Services Administration; Kathleen Hogan, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; and Dennis

Bushta, Deputy Director, Office of Administration, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency ......................................................................................... 7

Bushta, Dennis .......................................................................................... 33

Hogan, Kathleen ........................................................................................ 20

Kampschroer, Kevin .................................................................................. 7

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bellenger, Lynn, president, American Society for Heating, Refrigeration,

and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], prepared statement of ....... 75

Bertrand, James, vice president, Delphi, president, Delphi Automotive

Holdings Group and Delphi Thermal Systems, prepared statement of ... 87

Bushta, Dennis, Deputy Director, Office of Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of ..................................... 35

Green, Henry, president, National Institute of Building Sciences, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 60

Hogan, Kathleen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of

Energy, prepared statement of .................................................................... 22

Kampschroer, Kevin, Director, Office of Federal High Performance Green

Buildings, General Services Administration, prepared statement of ....... 10

Vaughan, Ellen, policy director, high performance green buildings, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, prepared statement of ............... 67

(1)

GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES TO DATE

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Diane E. Watson

(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Watson, Connolly, Cuellar, Quigley,

Towns, Bilbray, and Luetkemeyer.

Staff present: Bert Hammond, staff director; Adam Bordes, senior policy advisor; Deborah Mack, professional staff member; Valerie VanBuren, clerk; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant

and clerk; Sery Kim, minority counsel; and Molly Boyl and James

Robertson, minority professional staff members.

Ms. WATSON. I call the meeting to order. And our first order of

business is to wish Chairman Towns a happy birthday. OK. On

three, let’s hear it.

One, two, three, happy birthday, Chairman Towns.

And welcome. Thank you for sitting in with us.

All right. I would like to welcome all of you to today’s hearing

examining the application of green building practices in the Federal sector. In recent years, there has been a movement toward

greening various aspects of the Federal Government, for improving

energy efficiency to constructing buildings with environmentally

sustainable materials and technology.

The subcommittee will receive testimony from the General Services Administration, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in addition to several witnesses from the

private sector. I welcome our list of distinguished panelists and

thank them for their participation.

Today’s hearing will explore how well the key agencies responsible for greening Federal buildings are progressing and what additional steps should be taken to assure that the Federal Government is being proactive in its approach to green building practices.

Despite the recent growth in green building construction and retrofitting of existing buildings across the Federal Government, Congress has been slow to conduct oversight in this area, in part due

2

to the rapid growth in green building projects and also due to the

range of agencies involved in the undertaking.

Some of the issues I hope our panelists address today include:

Finding out how successful current Federal green building programs have been to date, and what tangible outcomes have resulted from the agencies’ collaborations with various government

working groups, such as the Interagency Sustainable Working

Group, which is managed by the Department of Energy.

I am particularly interested in hearing from today’s witnesses on

how the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [EISA],

and Executive Order 13514, among other relative statutes, have set

the parameters for green building practices, and how effectively

agencies are coordinating their efforts across the government to

meet the timelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

achieve zero net usage in Federal buildings by 2030, as directed by

Executive Order 13514.

Given the ongoing debate about the merits of various green

building certification standards and ratings systems and DOE

pending notice of proposed rulemaking calling for a revised performance standards and for a uniformed set of green building

standards, I am interested in hearing from the witnesses as to

what they might think is the best approach for the government to

take in adopting a uniformed set of green building certifications

standards.

With the infusion of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, agencies have received additional assistance in meeting the requirements for achieving energy efficiency

and increasing the stock of renovated or new green buildings. However, as this source of funding winds down, there is a growing concern that agencies will have difficulty in continuing to achieve their

goals by the dates outlined in EISA and related Executive orders.

I am, therefore, interested in hearing how GSA, DOE, and EPA intend to advance their green buildings agenda on an ongoing basis,

given their budget projections and the deadlines imposed by Congress and the executive branch.

There has been an emphasis on energy reduction usage as it pertains to green building projects, and the subcommittee would like

the panelists’ input on how Congress may provide constructive

guidelines and assistance in this area.

And, finally, I would like to hear more about how the Federal

Government’s implementation of green building practices is affecting the growth of green buildings across the country.

Again, I want to thank our panelists for joining us today, and I

look forward to their testimony.

With that, I would like to call on Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate you having this hearing.

And, Madam Chair, I would just like to start off by apologizing

to the panel, because before you stands a man who stands as a

very strong critic. I am very cynical about this entire concept.

Sadly, I am not a cynic by nature; I am a very optimistic person.

Living proof is I actually thought I could get elected some day.

But the fact is that after 40 years involvement in environmental

movement, over 34 years involvement in government environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:39 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65557.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
3

mental strategies, just history has taught me that government is

quick to make promises about the environment and not just slow

to delivery but almost lacking in delivery.

You know, we promised people that we are going to clean up our

gasoline; we put additives in that not only rob our gas mileage but

pollute our air and claim it is good for the environment.

We promised to create offsets for the Washington Capitol and

said that we are going to make sure that we are not responsible

for pollution. And while we continue to burn dirty coal to power our

Federal operations, we talk about how terrible it is and how we are

so far against it, but we subsidize it consistently.

Frankly, as I look at this issue, I see that it has been government regulation that stands in front of innovative alternative technologies that could not only save energy but save natural resources.

And so I have to apologize up front. I am going to be very critical

of saying, it sounds good in a report, but does it actually work out?

I mean, I have actually seen government agencies tell individuals

who have used appropriate alternative construction techniques:

Tear it down, not because it is bad, but because it is unapproved

by the government process yet. A sad commentary to the fact that

those of us in government are quick to require everyone else or expect everyone else to change the way they do business, the way

they live, the way they make everyday decisions, but government

is so slow to change our regulations, our attitudes, and our procedures to reflect the environmental reality that all of us, all of us,

including and especially those of us in government, have a responsibility to share.

So, with that, enjoy the testimony. I look forward to getting your

little tidbits of wit and wisdom on this, but I am very critical that

there is a huge gap, Madam Chair, between the theoretical approach here in Washington and what we think is going to get done

and hope to get done and what actually happens in the real world.

And I hope by this hearing we can help to try to bridge that gap.

I yield back.

Ms. WATSON. Without objection, the chair and ranking minority

member will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and

without objection, the Members may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

I would like now to recognize the distinguished Member, Mr.

Towns, for any remarks you would like to give.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

And thank you for recognizing my birthday. Thank you.

And let me thank you and Congressman Bilbray for holding this

hearing.

Over the past several years, Americans have increasingly focused

on ways to save energy while also saving money. This focus has

given way to the popularity of what many see as part of a solution

to America’s energy needs, ‘‘going green.’’

The backbone of going green is saving energy, and saving energy

means saving the environment and saving money. Today, we are

here to talk about going green as it relates to the construction of

Federal buildings; in other words, buildings paid for with taxpayer

dollars.

4

The Federal Government is the Nation’s largest energy consumer. Green building practices are essential to achieving the goal

of energy conservation. And I fully support green initiatives. Going

green is essential not only to the sustainability of our environment

but to the sustainability of our country.

However, I do have some questions about the government’s

progress in implementing green initiatives, like the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Let me conclude by saying I am interested in learning how Federal agencies plan to continue greening the government once Recovery Act funds are no longer available. While I am all for the greening of Federal buildings, I strongly believe that we need to invest

taxpayers’ dollars very wisely. We need to make sure money is

spent only on green initiatives that are cost effective.

And I strongly feel that the Federal Government ought to be

leading the way to energy independence, but the question is, are

we doing it right? That is the question. And I hope you can help

us answer that question today.

Madam Chair, I yield back, and I look forward to the testimony.

Ms. WATSON. Well, I am very pleased that you are spending

some time with us and made that statement. Thank you very

much.

I yield now to Mr. Luetkemeyer for an opening statement.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no statement at this time.

Ms. WATSON. I will now yield to Mr. Cuellar for an opening statement.

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you and Mr.

Chairman, again.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses that are with us here

today. I think what we are looking at, we are certainly looking at

some opportunities that I think we are all familiar with the opportunities, what it means to green the buildings. And I think the

ranking member is right, that if we are going to be asking the private sector to do certain things, we ought to look at our own reflection and see what we are doing with GSA or with the other agencies to make sure that we do the same thing if we are going to be

asking the private sector to do that.

I think we are familiar with the opportunities, what it means to

the workplace. And I think our first witness has talked about what

not only the ability to look at, but it is a place to work and to spend

a lot of time there.

But I think what we ought to look at today and what I am interested in, Madam Chair, is that we look at, what are the performance measures? You know, when we talk about greening, what does

that mean? How do we actually—I am not interested in measuring

activity; I am more interested in measuring the results of what we

mean by greening. What about having the trained Federal agency

staff to make sure that we oversee those results? What does that

mean? And, if we contract energy-saving performance contracts,

making sure that we have that available. Certainly, activities and

efforts that comply with the provisions in hindsight is important,

also.

5

And the other thing that I am looking at also is to, as we do

those performance measures, make sure that one agency, another

agency, the other agencies are using uniformity in those performance measures.

And, again, we have to be very careful about this, Madam Chair,

because I think in the past, when we talked about performance

measures, agencies, with all due respect, sometimes—and I think

Members of Congress do the same thing—is that we measure the

activity. You know, what are we doing to do this? But I think the

results, and that is the definitional challenges that we face is, I

think, what we ought to be looking at.

So, again, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I think we

are going to have a great hearing.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Ms. WATSON. And I will now yield to Mr. Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you so much for holding this hearing, which I think

is very important.

While I certainly join with my friend from San Diego in the caveat that he laid in front of us, I cannot join with him in his

avowed cynicism. I actually think this is an exciting challenge with

enormous potential. And when I was chairman of Fairfax County,

until I came to this Congress, we were doing similar things, requiring LEED certification of all of our government buildings, a standard reflected certainly in the commitment embodied in the Energy

Independence and Security Act [EISA], and the Executive Order

13514.

We spend $241⁄2 billion a year in energy costs as a Federal Government, Federal facilities. And if we can meet the standards we

have set for ourselves of 26 percent energy savings by going to

LEED-certified buildings, we can save $6 billion of that cost every

year. $6 billion. That is not trivial. That is significant. And those

are real savings to be had as we move forward. And so I think the

potential is enormous. And we have just got to, as my friend from

Texas just said, we have to have real metrics and measurable goals

and milestones along the way to make sure we are in fact reaching

that savings. But that savings can really help us a lot as we go forward.

We have already got 12 LEED-certified buildings. We are committed to carbon-neutral buildings, and we have one now in Denver. Obviously, this committee wants to know more about, well, all

right, what are the plans to making sure we get to our goals by

2030? Because they are generating 33 percent lower greenhouse

gas emissions than normal buildings.

I might add that sometimes there are upfront costs in going to

LEED-certified buildings, but the payoff is considerable. In my

county, for example, we, as a matter of measurement, said, OK, it

costs a little bit more to initially build a green-certified building,

but by year 14, we start saving that money—we fully recouped

those costs, and we started saving money every year thereafter.

And we, as a life span, put 40 years in a building, even though we

usually get more.

6

The Federal Government, it is much more dramatic. We put 100

years on a building. So the outyears in terms of cost savings are

quite considerable.

The other thing we are committed to is predevelopment hydrology standards for storm water runoff at Federal facilities. Very important for endangered estuaries, very important for fragile ecosystems, certainly here in the National Capital Region, a very important standard as we are trying to restore the Chesapeake Bay,

the largest estuary in the United States.

And finally, Madam Chair, I believe low-impact development

techniques can make a big difference when we are looking at the

entirety of a Federal facility. It may be impervious pavers. It may

be rain gardens on the roof. It may be an alternative to asphalted

and impervious service parking lot.

I will say, however, in my view, we should not be building onefor-one structured parking spaces on a Federal facility next to a

transit station. That defeats the whole purpose of what we are trying to do here, and it is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer,

and I think we have to abandon that practice.

But we also, in urban areas, need to use these techniques to

lower, if you will, what is known as the heat island effect. We know

that in some urban areas, the temperature variance can be 22 degrees higher Fahrenheit than in the comparable rural areas because of the radiant heat effect on asphalt and buildings and structures. So we, the Federal Government, need to make sure that we

are cognizant of that and addressing that as well. Every 1 degree

increase in Celsius increases ground ozone levels by 5 percent,

leading to higher asthma rates and other respiratory illness. So we

have an obligation to be addressing that, too.

But finally, Madam Chairwoman, I want to congratulate you for

holding this and a series of hearings. I think this is a very significant hearing, and I think here is an opportunity for the Federal

Government to strike a blow for the environment, for public health,

and to help save significant amounts of taxpayer dollars while we

are at it. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.

If there are no additional statements, the subcommittee will now

receive the testimony from our witnesses that are before us today.

We will now turn to our first panel.

It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. And I would

like to ask all of you to please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. WATSON. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

And you may be seated. And I will now introduce the first panel.

And I would like to start now with Kevin Kampschroer, who is

the director of the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings for the General Services Administration.

Mr. Kampschroer oversees the framework for which GSA responds to the challenges of greenhouse gas emission reductions and

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s mandate to move

GSA’s Federal building inventory toward high-performance green

buildings.

7

Kathleen Hogan is the deputy assistant secretary for Energy Efficiency in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where her portfolio

of $900 million annually includes energy efficiency policy, program,

and research. Previously, as a division director, Dr. Hogan directed

EPA’s clean energy programs and focused on removing market barriers for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

And Dennis Bushta is the deputy assistant director in the Office

of Administration for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Bushta previously served as EPA’s director of the Safety,

Health, and Environmental Management Division, and as acting

director of Facilities Management Services Division. He was director of industrial relations for Newmont Mineral Corp., and he has

worked as an adjunct faculty member at the West Virginia University.

And I would like to welcome all of you and thank you very much

for being here this morning. I ask that each one of the witnesses

now give a brief summary of their testimony, and to keep this summary under 5 minutes if you can do that. Your complete written

testimony will be included in the hearing record.

And Mr. Kampschroer, please proceed.

STATEMENTS OF KEVIN KAMPSCHROER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; KATHLEEN HOGAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND DENNIS BUSHTA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KAMPSCHROER

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you, and good morning, Chairwoman

Watson, Ranking Member Bilbray, and members of this subcommittee. My name is Kevin Kampschroer, and I am the director

of the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings in the

U.S. General Services Administration. Thank you for inviting us

today to discuss the progress and challenges with green building

practices in the Federal Government, and thank you for including

my full written statement into the record.

In 2007, under the Energy Independence and Security Act, Congress created the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings to enable and enhance Federal leadership in sustainable real

property portfolio management and operations. The office now combines deep knowledge of Federal processes with multidisciplinary

expertise in high performance green buildings, providing leadership

both within GSA and the Federal Government, as well as influence

and interaction with the broader commercial property market, to

ensure that our buildings minimize their burden on both the environment and the taxpayer.

A principle duty of the office is to ensure full coordination of high

performance green building information and activities within GSA,

and this duty expanded with the passage of the Recovery Act.

Under the Recovery Act, GSA received $5.55 billion to be reinVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:39 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65557.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
8

vested in the Federal buildings portfolio and to create a few new

buildings as well on an accelerated basis. And, in fact, GSA to date

has done four times as much work in this regard as it ever has

done before, and today we stand with contracts in place of $4.4 billion.

GSA has leveraged its specialized expertise in sustainability and

procurement practices to support the investment of these funds

consistent with the intent of the Recovery Act. In the months immediately following the passage of the Recovery Act, we engaged

directly across GSA, in the public buildings in particular—service

in particular, to provide support to the development of and the plan

for executing these projects.

We established minimum performance criteria to guide the

scoping and execution of projects to transform Federal buildings

into high performance green buildings that use less energy, have

better indoor environmental quality and health and performance

conditions, reduce pollution, and produce less waste. Building tuneup, lighting, HVAC, retrofit and replacement, renewable energy

generation and water conservation projects have all been incorporated into projects based on the limits of funding, the scope of

the act, and return on investment analysis for the components of

the investment.

An example of a project taking full advantage of these greening

opportunities is the modernization of the Edith Green WendellWyatt building in Portland, OR. It will attain LEED platinum, the

highest LEED rating available under the U.S. Green Building

Council’s LEED rating system. Using advanced design features, including radiant panels fenestration on different sides of the building to react differently to the way that the sun rises and sets in

that particular climate, the structure will consume 60 percent less

energy of a typical office building in that location and will incorporate a facade that is designed specifically for the location within

the city. I might also add that the oldest planted roof in GSA’s inventory is on the parking garage of that same building. It was

planted in 1975 and has never leaked.

Another example is the new Department of Homeland Security

headquarters that we are building on the St. Elizabeth Campus in

Washington, DC, the initial building, the new Coast Guard headquarters will have 5 acres of vegetative roof, narrow foreplates to

maximize access to natural light, an innovative heating system

that will be using combined heat and power for the facility and provide infrastructure support for the rest of the Department of Homeland Security in that campus, as well as being highly transit-accessible.

We are leveraging our Recovery Act investments to turn our

large, varied, and stable inventory of buildings into a proving

ground for green building technologies, materials, and operating regimes in order to become one of the real estate industry’s sources

for data on the actual performance of systems in use, and we will

be measuring that performance over a minimum of 3 years after

complete operation and acceptance.

We have worked to support and apply the most effective green

building rating systems and standards, drawing on objective analysis performed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:39 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65557.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
9

aged by the Department of Energy, GSA has identified LEED as

the most effective rating standard for the Federal real property inventory to attain with a focus on the LEED new construction system and a growing focus on existing buildings. GSA requires that

a LEED rating of gold or better be part of the design criteria for

all new construction and major renovation projects, and the agency

currently has 48 LEED-certified owned and leased buildings, with

approximately 150 more working toward accreditation at the end

of their project period.

Eighteen of these projects to date have exceeded the minimum

with LEED gold certifications, and one GSA-leased, the FBI regional office in Chicago, has achieved the LEED platinum rating

for existing buildings, the first of those ratings ever to be given.

The Energy Star system developed by EPA and the Department

of Energy together and managed by them is also used by GSA and

other Federal agencies. GSA today has over 100 buildings with Energy Star ratings, and we are expanding that into the leased inventory as well. We track environmentally preferable purchasing in

compliance with Federal mandates.

And I just want to conclude with a couple of challenges related

to measuring green building performance outcomes.

A key issue is increasing the number of advanced or smart meters in Federal buildings that track energy and water usage, which

we are doing in every building that was touched by Recovery Act

funds.

Indoor environmental quality is particularly difficult to track and

measure because it involves such a wide variety of pollutants as

well as atmospheric conditions, all of which can interact with each

other and impact occupants’ health and productivity in many ways.

Research to develop user-friendly indoor environmental quality

metrics is needed.

Another area that the Federal Government’s ability to invest in

projects with greatest environmental benefits would also be advanced is if the authority of agencies to make contracts for renewable energy were extended from the current limit in GSA’s authorizing legislation of 10 years to 20 years, and this would allow a

cost-effective creation of markets for renewable energy that is not

there.

And, finally, GSAhas long history of working cooperatively and

effectively with Federal partners, and I will cover that in the

longer testimony that is there. And with that, I think I should stop

because I am over my time. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kampschroer follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Ms. WATSON. We will now proceed on to Ms. Hogan.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HOGAN

Ms. HOGAN. Good morning, Chairman Watson, Ranking Member

Bilbray, and members of the subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the Department of Energy’s efforts with Federal green buildings.

The Federal Government is becoming a leader in green building

practices across its 3.2 billion square feet and its very large annual

facility energy bill. And it is raising the bar through Executive

Order 13514, that was signed in October 2009. These efforts do

make good sense by providing significant savings in taxpayer dollars, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and, of

course, creating jobs.

Today I would like to update the subcommittee on Federal facility performance, share how the Federal agencies do collaborate to

make buildings more energy efficient and sustainable, and to discuss some additions to the Federal toolkit that could help the government more readily achieve future statutory targets and others

recently set by Executive Order 13514.

The Department’s Federal Energy Management Program [FEM],

works with agencies to help them improve and to track their performance on key sustainability metrics that have been set forth by

statute as well as Executive orders. Preliminary data for fiscal year

2009 are quite promising and show a number of things. They show

a reduction in energy intensity of about 13 percent relative to fiscal

year 2003, surpassing the annual goal that had been set. The data

also show an increase in renewable energy use, which now meets

more than 4 percent of the government’s electricity demand, also

surpassing the fiscal year 2009 goal. The data show a decrease of

more than 4 percent in water intensity relative to 2007, surpassing

the fiscal year 2009 goal. And the data show close to full compliance, 99 percent, with metering the electricity use in the buildings

where that is appropriate and show very high compliance with the

design of new Federal buildings to be substantially more efficient

than the typical building built to code.

Further, we do expect to have strong results for fiscal year 2010,

as investment and energy efficiency and renewable energy at Federal agencies did increase 84 percent in fiscal year 2009 over the

prior year for really the highest year ever at about $1.7 billion.

Now, success does take a team effort, and the Department of Energy does work closely with GSA, EPA, and other agencies. We are

organized through Executive Order 13514 into a set of topical

working groups with clear roles and responsibilities. Through these

working groups, we can tap the communal knowledge and resources available across the entire Federal Government, and my

written statement provides greater detail on those efforts.

So as we look forward, and we know we have taken big strides,

we also see that we have more room to drive down energy costs in

Federal facilities and to meet future statutory and Executive order

requirements. Energy efficiency does remain a top priority. There

are literally hundreds of off-the-shelf technologies and products the

government can use to save energy, technologies and products that

21

are lifecycle cost-effective. As facilities last decades, these energy

efficient retrofits can reap rewards for years to come.

Cool roofs are another important efficiency measure. Cool roofs

reflect the sunlight and reduce heat gain, lower air conditioning

bills for direct benefits, as well as improve air quality. Just this

week, DOE released guidelines for selecting cool roofs for Federal

agencies, and the Department’s Secretary Chu sent a memo to departmental leadership instructing them to use cool roofs when

building or replacing existing roofs.

The Federal Government has a number of tools to overcome the

higher initial costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy,

which do frequently hinder investment. For example, as mentioned,

energy saving performance contracts, which can provide investment

capital to improve Federal facilities. This tool has provided around

$2.3 billion in Federal facilities investment and helping us save

more than $18 trillion BTUs of energy annually, enough energy to

power a city slightly larger than Kansas City, Missouri.

With a few additional tools, we could help deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy at greater scale, which is necessary

to meet our future targets. For example, as just mentioned, we cannot currently use power purchase agreements broadly across the

Federal Government. Except for the Defense Department and the

Western Area Power Administration, the government can only

enter 10-year agreements with renewable energy producers. Extending that renewable energy power purchase authority to 20 or

25 years for all the agencies as well as changing the way these

projects are scored in the budget process could significantly increase renewable energy use across the government.

We also need to look at ways for Federal agencies to reinvest

savings to support additional retrofits so we can save even more

money rather than reducing the agency operating budgets to match

the reduced use of energy and water.

And, last, if the definition of renewable energy were changed to

include renewable thermal energy that displaces our need for electricity, the agencies would have a much wider set of options for

low-cost renewable energy.

So I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to share

this update, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you

have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Ms. WATSON. And we thank you.

You may proceed, Mr. Bushta.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS BUSHTA

Mr. BUSHTA. Chairman Watson, Ranking Member Bilbray, and

members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing me with the

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s work, success stories, and challenges

associated with green building practices and improving environmental performance in Federal facilities.

EPA occupies nearly 11 million square feet of office, support, and

laboratory space across the country. The agency relies upon the

General Services Administration to acquire virtually all of its office

and nonlaboratory facilities.

The agency is currently meeting or exceeding the green building

requirements found in the Energy Independence and Security Act

of 2007 and Executive Order 13514, and considers itself to be a

leader in the Federal Government in the renovation and construction of green buildings in both facilities owned by EPA and those

provided through GSA. We have worked very hard to acquire the

U.S. Green Building Council’s leadership in energy and environmental design, LEED, new construction certification for buildings

we have constructed or are leasing through GSA and private property owners. As of last December, EPA had gold or silver certification for over 186,000 square feet of property that we own and

over 1 million square feet of rented property.

EPA has reduced energy at its reporting facilities by over 18 percent since 2003. Since September 2006, the agency has acquired delivered green power and renewable energy certificates equivalent to

100 percent of its conventional electricity use.

In addition, the agency has applied a variety of innovative approaches to reduce water use by almost 11 percent since 2007. Both

EPA and GSA facilities contain numerous green roofs, large and

small pervious pavement parking lots, rain gardens, and systems

to harvest and reuse rainwater. EPA also makes extensive use of

recycled materials in its construction projects.

Energy efficiency is an essential component of green buildings.

Several of our offices include EPA’s Region 8 Building in Denver,

Colorado, which has earned the Energy Star rating, further highlighting the significance that EPA and GSA place on achieving top

energy performance.

The agency currently has systems in place to collect and measure

data for energy efficiency, water conservation, construction waste

recycling, and scope one and two greenhouse gas facility emissions.

And, throughout the Federal Government, agencies are working together to improve systems for collecting information related to employee commuting and waste diversion rates.

The EPA works within its appropriation to implement the many

dimensions of our green building program. We are currently exploring ways to fund upgrading old mechanical systems in 4 million

square feet of our laboratories to improve their energy efficiency.

The agency is also committed to finding ways to ensure that building operators are available and trained to oversee and maintain increasingly more complex green building equipment.

34

EPA believes that Congress and the executive branch play a significant role in promoting the design and use of green buildings

through the passage of the current Federal laws and Executive orders which set challenging energy and water reduction goals for

Federal facilities. These current requirements have and will continue to make a meaningful impact in helping EPA and other agencies achieve significant energy reductions and improve their environmental performance.

The EPA has shared a very positive experience in collaborating

on numerous projects with other Federal agencies in promoting

green facilities. The Interagency Energy Task Force and the Interagency Sustainability Working Group, coordinated by the Department of Energy and GSA, have provided a critical service in assembling and sharing information about best practices, and GSA has

provided a testing ground for new technologies in design approaches.

Several online energy management tracking and assessment

tools that EPA developed include portfolio manager and target

finder. An estimated 20 percent of the commercial building market

representing 15 billion square feet uses portfolio manager to track

energy and water usage, assess the performance of buildings, set

goals, and make reductions across building portfolios.

Some of EPA’s greatest success in promoting green buildings and

technologies can be found in our numerous voluntary partnership

and product labeling, programs including Energy Star, Water

Sense, and Climate Leaders, just to name several. By following the

Energy Star guidelines for energy management, buildings can

achieve on average a 35 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and realize energy savings.

The EPA has also issued storm water guidance to provide information about permeable pavement and roofing options that address

environmental issues associated with water runoff. EPA strongly

endorses the many benefits associated with green buildings and

looks forward to continuing our work with the subcommittee, our

partners throughout other Federal agencies, and the public to ensure an economically and healthier country.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to

answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bushta follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much.

I would first like to make the statement, and I am sure that all

of our Members would concur, that we are struck by the fact that

the Federal Government is the Nation’s largest consumer and

greenhouse gas emitter. And I am particularly struck by the fact

that our Nation’s buildings account for 40 percent of our primary

energy use.

Obviously, the Federal Government can and must play a leading

role in providing guidance on how the buildings must be constructed in the future to maximize the goals of energy efficiency

and environmental sustainability, and I appreciate the testimony.

I think that you have addressed a lot of the initial areas of concern that I have. I will call on other Members in just a second, but

I would like to start with Mr. Kampschroer and say, is the GSA

committed to eventually making all of its buildings LEED certified?

And, if so, how long will this take? And at what cost to government?

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Today, we require every major renovation

and new construction project and major lease construction project

to achieve a LEED gold rating. That is the new buildings.

Ms. WATSON. So most of it is prospective.

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Correct. And the existing buildings are a

large component of Executive Order 13514 as well as some previous Executive orders. The current goal is to have a minimum of

15 percent of our inventory certified by 2015. We are actually looking at accelerating that. We will not have the schedule for acceleration probably for several months yet, but we believe that we can

do more in the short run with existing buildings, especially based

on the work that we are doing with the Environmental Protection

Agency to use the Energy Star portfolio manager as a screening.

So what we will be doing is looking at how many of the buildings

today are capable—but we just don’t happen to know it—of achieving such a rating.

We currently are on track to meet that 15 percent goal. We do

not expect that the cost of achieving those ratings will be an incremental change to our budget request because we have seen that,

as we move these buildings to greater energy performance, that

those kinds of improvements that we make to achieve the ratings

actually pay for themselves in relatively short order.

In yesterday’s meeting that was hosted by the White House on

related topics of high performance green buildings, Ken Hubbard

from the Hines Corp. stated that his company, when they take over

a new building from another owner, can typically reduce the energy

consumption by 20 percent solely through the imposition of better

management practices and better measurement metrics combined

with their preexisting high quality labor force. So we are hoping to

emulate some of those practices in our existing buildings and accelerate that. And I would ask that, as we get that plan closer, that

we could submit it to you.

Ms. WATSON. Great.

Ms. Hogan, would you like to comment?

Ms. HOGAN. We at the Department of Energy are also looking to

see what we can do with our existing buildings. As you just heard,

there are important requirements for the new buildings which we

51

are of course on target to meet. So a big part of the question is how

you address the existing building stock.

What we are doing somewhat similarly to GSA is undertaking

sort of an information collection effort to really better understand

the state of these buildings, figure out what we can do, and implementing a number of initiatives to see how we can improve them,

you know, quickly and in a way that will get the savings that is

there to be gotten, as well as to train the people that are out there

that need to be trained to maintain that continued improvement.

So really investing in the infrastructure so we can get these lowcost savings.

Ms. WATSON. And Mr. Bushta, would you like to comment?

Mr. BUSHTA. Yes. Thank you.

EPA’s real Federal property inventory primarily consists of laboratories, which tend to be a bit more energy intensive, environmentally intensive, and a bit more complex. And because of that

inventory, we are able to, or we have applied a number of different

approaches, first starting with commissioning and recommissioning

of the mechanical systems, updating technologies, and making

some renovations.

And on the new construction and major construction, we believe

we are in line with meeting those requirements. In some of our

older structures, we are currently working on upgrading those and

plan to hit those targets in a timely fashion.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

I would like now to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

And Madam Chair, I know I was pointing out some of the things

that we are not doing. We talk a lot about what we are not doing.

I would like to point out an example that today there is 155 applications for siting renewable energy facilities on Bureau of Land

Management property in California alone, 155. Been there for

years. Not one permit has been issued. It is easier to say no than

it is to try to move forward because there is risk.

I would like to sort of back up and start where it all starts, and

that is when energy enters our Federal facilities. Where is the electricity coming from that is lighting these light bulbs?

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. It is coming from the PJM grid with a series

of different production facilities contracted for by PEPCO, generally

speaking.

Mr. BILBRAY. And what are their major energy sources?

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. PEPCO I believe has a portfolio that is predominantly coal-fired plants but with some renewable energy

mixed in there. We can certainly look up that information as it is

recorded in the Energy Information Agency of the Department of

Energy.

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, let me tell you, as a Californian, when I came

here, I was appalled to see the coal plants here. In California, you

go to prison for burning coal. OK?

And for the Federal Government to be so punitive at those of us

in California while we struggle to clean up our environment, then

to come here and see what appears to be a total lack of standards

really concerned me about we, ourselves, at the Federal Government.

52

Now I know one thing about energy, the ability to wheel. Are you

here today saying that this is the cleanest portfolio that we can legally purchase, that we are forced in the Capitol of the United

States, to have to buy dirty coal energy to generate our light bulbs?

Have you had anybody look at the possibility of wheeling and specifically purchasing zero-emission electricity?

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Today, GSA purchases zero emission electricity at about 10 percent of its total electricity purchases across

the board, and we have committed to reach 30 percent within—by

year 2020.

Mr. BILBRAY. Why 10 percent? Why don’t we tell—basically say,

look, we are in the market, we will go buy zero emission electricity

and wheel it into the region? Why—because are we worried about

the price of buying clean energy? Is that the problem? I only say

this because I know in California, and I think that Madam Chair

will know that, consumers have the ability to go shop, purchase

clean technology, even if it is paid at a premium. But that is a consumer decision that individuals make. We are not allowed to make

that? We can’t make that as the Federal Government sitting in the

Capitol of the United States?

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I am not aware of any law that would prevent us from making that decision. I am certain that there would

be a cost impact of that decision.

Mr. BILBRAY. I wonder if the cost impact would be as much as

$90,000 or whatever. Frankly, we see the history that we try to

make this effort of playing the offset game, trying to play, you

know, do a smoke-and-mirror game rather than saying specifically,

we want to buy it from these locations, and we will not buy—the

Federal Government will not buy coal, unless—basically anything

that has that emissions, especially when the fact that we have facilities that are zero-emission generators. And I would like to open

that up for a conversation.

Think about what we are doing here. We ought to do conservation. It is not just environmentally responsible; it is economically

responsible.

But if you have the ability to make sure that you have zero

greenhouse emissions caused by your electricity use, when do we

stand up and say, we are willing to do the right thing and set an

example for the rest of the country? I guess the argument is, how

do I face off with the people in Ohio and tell them they have to

do without if those of us in Washington, DC, won’t do without?

Go for it, EPA.

Ms. HOGAN. I think you are asking some very important questions. I think what the Federal Government is doing is getting organized to make important progress in all of the areas that you are

mentioning. And I think what is important when you think about

renewable energy, when you think about greenhouse gas emissions

is you put together a strategy from how to get from where you are

today to where you need to get tomorrow.

Mr. BILBRAY. Where are we today? What is the total emissions

of the electricity that we are using on Capitol Hill today? What is

the total emissions annually of the electricity we are using today

on this Hill?

53

Ms. HOGAN. We can get you the numbers of what the greenhouse

gas inventory is for the Federal Government. That is what the

agencies are working to put together as a result of Executive order

that we have been talking about. As part of that Executive order,

each agency has been asked to put together an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction target and then put together a strategy for

how to meet that target.

For the Department of Energy, we have put together a goal of

reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by the year

2020. And to do that, we will be investing more in renewable energy. We will be doing more with energy efficiency, and we will be

addressing our fleet issues, and we will be doing it across that full

portfolio in as cost-effective a means as possible.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And, Madam Chair, I will just say, I grew up working on pollution problems, and the one thing I realize it is a lot easier not to

dump the sewage into the environment than it is to try to clean

it up later. So I would like us to go be proactive and eliminate the

emissions rather than mitigate them. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. I think that you are addressing one of the missions

of this subcommittee. And obviously, we are going to be holding

more hearings, looking at the reports that we get from your various

agencies.

It is important that we have this discussion, and we definitely

will allow time to continue this discussion until we hit on something.

I can concur with our distinguished ranking member. I also am

from California. I worked in Sacramento, and I remember flying

down into this gunky kind of airspace.

Do you remember that?

And so I remind, Former Governor Jerry Brown that he talked

about the environment before most people could spell it. That was

in the 1970’s. And so we took it on. And now I happily fly into my

city of Los Angeles, and I can see the water. But I tell you, it was

really bad. So we are going to continue.

Mr. BILBRAY. For the record, L.A. basin has twice as many people and twice as clean air.

Ms. WATSON. We have worked on it over the years.

I will now yield to Mr. Quigley.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate this

meeting and the panelists.

My thoughts and questions are a variation of what the ranking

member is talking about in the building that is far from green, to

talk about these issues, and parked in front of this meeting and

every committee meeting we have in this building, and the Energy

Committee meets in this building as well, are SUVs the size of Detroit. I don’t know why people in this town feel the need that the

only way they can get around is in a vehicle that large, with a perfectly good subway system. Several of us ride bikes.

But I think the point the ranking member was getting to is it

is up to us. And I am there as the sponsor of a LEED-certified

building ordinance which passed in Cook County, the third largest

in the country. We actually have new courthouses that are being

built that are LEED certified. It is up to us.

54

What we learned there was we were creating markets. Government is such a large purchaser, not just the Federal, but State and

local. We can change things. Which gets to the point the ranking

member is, we have to look beyond the point we are trying to do

here.

The variation of that I would like you to comment on, if you

would, is the standards you are talking about. When we started,

we were just happy to pass a bill. We thought any standards are

fine. Now we have heard of concerns perhaps beyond that with Energy Star standards as it relates to the consumer level at least, but

also occasionally with LEED.

Who is deciding where we can go? As technology changes, as our

needs change, as the needs change to do this, you know, is LEED

where we need to be? Are there others that we are looking at? Are

we pushing the envelope in other manners?

Mr. KAMPSCHRODER. Thank you for that question. At the moment, I think LEED is the—I know LEED is the best rating system

that is in the market in the United States today. We did a study

in 2006 with Pacific Northwest National Laboratories to ascertain

that. The Energy Independence and Security Act asks us to repeat

that study once every 5 years, and we will be commencing the follow on study next year.

It is not, on the other hand, a standard. The most recent standard which GSA and the Department of Energy and EPA have all

been working on, together with a variety of other public-State-private entities, is the ASHRAE Standard 189.1 for sustainable buildings. It is a comprehensive standard language, standard for green

buildings. And it, for example, the law currently requires us to be

30 percent better than the ASHRAE Energy Code, and this particular green building standard achieves that within the code standard

language.

If I were predicting, I would say that the decision we make 5

years from now may be different. I would expect the standards to

increase. I know that the Energy Code itself and the ASHRAE

Committee is getting more stringent as technology and adoption of

that technology has gotten greater throughout the industry, and I

would expect the subsequent revisions of the Energy Code to become much, much closer to what the government is trying to do

today.

Mr. BUSHTA. I would agree with GSA. However, I think there are

a number of folks that feel that while LEED provides a good application, there is a considerable variability in the LEED approach,

which as one is using as the point system, that two buildings that

may receive the same LEED rating may have a considerable variability, for example, in energy consumption, so the focus on specific

applications may not be the same. So there is a considerable interest, and EPA would support that in raising the bar on some of

those applications. I think that is going to happen over time. We

would agree that LEED is a very usable across-the-board application at this time and one that we should focus on.

Ms. HOGAN. And I think these are the types of discussions that

the agencies do engage in as part of their interagency working

groups, and as a result of some of these discussions, what you will

see reflected in the notice of proposed rulemaking that the DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:39 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65557.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
55

ment of Energy has out on sustainability principles is sort of a

framework for how to approach green rating programs.

What you will see in that notice of proposed rulemaking is that

we are not selecting one green building rating system. We are putting forth a set of criteria that we think a green building system

ought to meet to be a green building certification system the Federal Government would use.

So what you want are performance-based metrics, so that you

can sort of measure and strive for high performance. You also want

there to be a strong verification system so that when you get a certification for the building’s design, that down the road you go back

and check to make sure the building was designed to meet those

levels and sort of maintains that level of performance.

But we have taken that path. That notice of proposed rulemaking is currently out for public comment, and we are holding a

public meeting I believe next week, and we will be happy to come

back and share what the outcome of that process is.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. We will now go to Mr. Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Let me begin first of all by saying I concur with our friend from

San Diego, the ranking member, on the need to shift the Federal

energy supply from coal to renewable sources. That is why I and

so many others in this Congress supported the energy legislation

we passed in the House last year which creates alternative and

new and renewable energy markets. Frankly, without that kind of

legislative framework, we will be stuck where we are today. So it

is a laudable goal, but we all got to be willing to do the tough lifting to make sure that we can reach that goal.

Let me ask Mr. Kampschroder, does GSA have different standards, parking standards, for Federal facilities, transit versus nontransit?

Mr. KAMPSCHRODER. We do not today. However, the Executive

order has asked us to work with other Federal agencies to develop

different policies than exist today that are around transit-oriented

development in siting of Federal locations. The initial recommendations of the working group have now been made public, and the

next step is to make them actual.

So today our parking policies are fairly uniform without regard

to the existence of transportation. However, our procurements take

the location next to leases and new buildings, requiring where they

exist, that we locate those facilities near public transit, whether it

is bus or subject wail or the like.

Mr. CONNOLLY. If the chair does not object, I would ask that the

subcommittee formally request the GSA respond back to us within

the next month on what steps it is taking formally to change that

policy, because it makes no sense whatsoever to have one uniform

standard of parking when you may have a building in the middle

of a wheat field in Kansas versus a building in a very congested

urban area next to a transit station. Furthermore, frankly, it pits

the Federal Government, not intentionally, against the intentions

of the localities.

My locality, for example, we have moved Heaven and Earth to

get rail to Dulles. We want to redevelop the Dulles Corridor as a

56

transit-oriented development corridor. That means we want to

change parking requirements on normal office buildings, so that we

are encouraging people to get out of the single occupancy vehicles

and to use alternative methods of transportation, transit, to wit.

We need the Federal Government as a partner if it has facilities

in that corridor, not as something that stands alone and has its

own uniform policies irrespective of those changes.

So if it helps a little bit as a prod, Madam Chairwoman, I would

make that request and urge you to on our behalf make that request.

Ms. WATSON. Without objection, that will be the order.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairwoman so much.

What about transportation demand management plans, TDMs?

Does the GSA have such programs for its Federal facilities? And,

again, does it differentiate between congested urban and suburban

and other?

Mr. KAMPSCHRODER. Our experience with those is principally in

the Washington, DC, area, where we have used for them. For example, we did a rather extensive transit study at the commencement of the development of the White Oak campus in suburban

Maryland to make sure that we did not overburden the existing

road system.

We have provided a lot of—in that context we have provided encouragement to people through transit subsidies. For example, GSA

today provides transit subsidies for nearly half of its employees

around the country, a lot of those in Washington, DC. There are

a number of programs that are very community-specific to not just

GSA employees but all Federal employees in finding and using ride

sharing and other methods of reducing the transportation impact

of the facilities.

The Executive order also directs us to go further than we have

in the past in ensuring that in all of our planning, that we not only

consult with, but plan together with local planning entities. So the

States and the counties and the localities with planning goals and

zoning rules, and so on, are reemphasized in this Executive order,

that it is an important part of what we should be doing as good

citizens of the neighborhoods within which we live.

Mr. CONNOLLY. You know, our colleague from San Diego began

by saying he was cynical about the gap between goals and reality,

and one can understand. But I guess I see the glass as half full,

not half empty. I think the Federal Government has an incredible

opportunity here to actually go from being what it is today, or has

been in the past, to actually being the cutting edge model.

Let me just say, nothing can be more exciting to me than actually see us, the Federal Government, leading the way in green certification, in predevelopment hydrology standards, in saving $6 billion a year in energy costs. If we are committed to the goal of energy independence, we have to take the lead.

So I applaud what you are doing and I hope you will be seized

with this mission, because here is an opportunity really for us to

strike a blow for energy independence and for the environment at

the same time.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much.

57

I would like to thank this panel for your information provided to

us. Know that we will expect to hear from you as mentioned to you.

I would like to say to all of you, we appreciate the testimony you

have raised. You have raised issues that will guide this subcommittee in the very near future. As I said, we will have several hearings. We are just beginning this debate.

So I will now adjourn the first panel and ask for Panel II. Thank

you. You may take your seats.

I would now like to take a moment to introduce our second panel

of distinguished members. First, Mr. Henry Green is the president

of the National Institute of Building Sciences. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Green served as executive director of the Bureau of Construction Code in the Michigan Department of Labor for more than

19 years. He was a founding member of the International Code

Council Board of Directors where he served as president.

Ms. Helen Vaughan is the policy director for high performance

green buildings in the Environmental and Energy Study Institute,

where she leads the High Performance Green Building Initiative.

She has authored or coauthored several articles, including Beyond

Green: High Performance Buildings, which was part of the fall

2009 edition of the MIT press journal called Innovations.

Ms. Lynn Bellenger is president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Ms. Bellenger

is a partner with Pathfinders Engineers and Architects, LLP, in

Rochester, NY, and is ASHRAE’s first female president in the society’s 116 year history.

Mr. Bertrand is vice president of Delphi, where he also serves as

president of Delphi’s Automotive Holdings Group and Delphi Thermal Systems.

Thank you so much for being here this morning. As you know,

it is required of us to ask you to stand and to take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. WATSON. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

I would like now to proceed first to Mr. Henry Green for your

testimony.

STATEMENTS OF HENRY GREEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES; ELLEN VAUGHAN, POLICY

DIRECTOR, HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE; LYNN

BELLENGER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HEATING, REFRIGERATION, AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS

[ASHRAE]; AND JAMES BERTRAND, VICE PRESIDENT, DELPHI, PRESIDENT, DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS GROUP

AND DELPHI THERMAL SYSTEMS

STATEMENT OF HENRY GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairwoman Watson and Ranking Member Bilbray, and members of this committee, for this opportunity

to speak to you on high performance green buildings within the

Federal Government.

58

Congress established the National Institute of Building Sciences

in 1974 as an authoritative national source to make findings and

to advise the public——

Ms. WATSON. Excuse me, would you check your mic, please.

Mr. GREEN. There we go. I apologize. Someone left the sign that

says it is on. OK.

Starting over I guess, thank you very much this morning for allowing me to come in and testify on the state of high performance

in green buildings in the Federal sector.

Congress established the National Institute of Building Sciences

in 1974 as an authoritative national source to make findings and

to advise the public and private sector on the use of building

sciences and technology. The Institute’s enabling legislation calls

upon Federal agencies to work with the Institute when appropriate. Through this engagement with public and private sectors,

the Institute provides an unbiased focus on building science.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 called for the establishment of a

high performance building council within the Institute to look at

the diversity of codes and standards and to determine the need for

implementation of high performance buildings. The Council, with

70-plus private sector organizations, public agencies, produced a report in 2008 based on the eight attributes of a high performance

building. These are sustainability, cost effectiveness, accessibility,

productivity, historic preservation, aesthetics, functionality, and

safety and security. These attributes reflects the definition of high

performance building and high performance green building within

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The definition

also includes sustainability, or green, as one of the aspects of high

performance buildings.

Federal agencies also have requirements that relate to high performance buildings and attributes beyond energy, water, and sustainability. A sampling of such laws and Executive orders includes

the Americans With Disabilities Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Public Buildings Act, National Environmental Policy

Act, Executive Orders 13006, historic properties, 12977, security

standards, and 12941 and 12699 on seismic safety.

With numerous requirements impacting how Federal buildings

are designed, constructed and maintained, achieving high performance is challenging, particularly given the complex interactions

among these and other requirements.

As the High Performance Council reported, common metrics are

needed to provide consistent comparable measurements for the individual attributes and to understand and address the interactions

across attributes. No single organization or profession has the

knowledge or expertise to fully integrate the attributes into a clear

path to high performance. But the High Performance Building

Council with its broad-based membership can facilitate the coordination and cooperation needed to achieve delivery of high performance buildings. However, since the completion of the initial report,

resources have not been available to continue this effort.

Once the metrics are identified and performance levels to reach

high performance must be agreed upon, the underlying standards

as well as research and development in both the societal and building sciences must be supported.

59

Agencies have significant resident expertise on the individual aspects of high performance, but there is no single focal point for integration. The lack of integration should not be attributed to the

agencies themselves, but to the fundamentals of the agency structure. Agencies generally focus on their key missions.

Achieving high performance will require an integrated design,

construction and operation process that engages key professionals

early on and throughout design and construction. The current

budget process with separate capital and operational budgets is not

conducive to this approach.

The procurement process also tends to hamper collaboration.

Most contractors and subcontractors are engaged after the initial

building design is completed, so components and systems addressing high performance attributes have been selected without their

input and expertise.

Some agencies have identified best practices and technologies

and contribute to achieving high performance. These should also be

shared and expanded. The whole building design guide, supported

by 11 Federal agencies, can serve as a repository for such case

studies and validations.

Several concepts will assist in achieving Federal high performance buildings; education and training of Federal personnel engaged in the procurement, design, construction and operation of

Federal buildings; building information modeling to facilitate a holistic approach to building design, construction and operation, and

indeed construction through the building’s life cycle; total building

commissioning upon completion of the building, retro-commissioning and periodic recommissioning; utilization of integrated processes resulting in holistic and efficient approaches to meeting the

numerous requirements placed on Federal buildings.

The Department of Homeland Security’s high performance based

design project within the Science and Technology Infrastructure

and Geophysical Division illustrates how the range of attributes

can be used in developing high performance buildings. This project

integrates blast protection, chemical, biological and radiological

protection, along with energy, sustainability, durability, air and

water protection, and other major building requirements.

With an integrated approach, high performance buildings can be

achieved. The structure to achieve this goal is partially in place,

but there needs to be a sustained effort to bring about the collaboration and consistency essential to bring high performance Federal

buildings to fruition.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

60

61

62

63

64

65

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Ms. Vaughan.

STATEMENT OF ELLEN VAUGHAN

Ms. VAUGHAN. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman Watson, Ranking Member Bilbray, members of the subcommittee and

staff, for this opportunity to present our views on Federal green

building progress and practices.

I have a written statement for the record that I would like to

summarize in the slides that I hope you can see. My name is Ellen

Vaughan, and I lead the Buildings Initiative at the Environmental

and Energy Study Institute. It is a nonprofit policy education group

here in Washington.

High performance green buildings are an essential part of EESI’s

mission to advance sustainable solutions to climate change and

other critical issues.

Slide two shows what we mean by a high performance building.

It is energy efficient at its core. It is green. It is energy efficient,

green, and maybe at the VA hospital that must deliver high performance in accessibility for disabled vets, lots of natural light and

good indoor air quality to promote healing and well-being, and

maybe it is in an historic building that must be preserved.

Henry mentioned seismic standards. Certainly a green building

destroyed by an earthquake is not sustainable.

So all these things are achievable, but it requires a holistic approach to planning, designing, and retrofitting. If these goals were

considered separately as an afterthought, or not at all, they would

not likely be achieved.

Slide three shows the evolution of the legal framework and resources for creating energy efficient green high performance buildings in the public and private sectors. We are grateful to this committee for your leadership in putting the definition of high performance buildings in the 2007 energy bill. This lays the foundation for

the important work ahead in achieving high performance buildings.

Slide four discusses the shades of green again in that Federal

agencies have been leading in every shade of green for years, and

they can’t continue to break the mold. A GSA border station for

port of entry, for example, can it provide superior indoor air quality

despite the exhaust from idling vehicles; can it provide lots of view

glass; can it be energy efficient; can it protect against security

threats, and come in on budget? Yes. GSA has accomplished this

by setting these and other performance goals at the beginning and

throughout the project with each member of the team.

In slide five, this shows further evolution in Federal building

performance, and this requires governmentwide performance targets and standards, consistent guidance, holistic planning, life cycle

budgeting, a nonlinear integrated approach to design, and simple

design tools. New capabilities for training with 3-D virtual buildings make this possible like never before.

Slide six, Congress has shown leadership by requiring performance targets such as reduced energy consumption and the statutory

authority for high performance buildings. Congress can further enable Federal buildings to lead by example by funding training,

66

standards development, R&D, testing, demonstration and information dissemination that is focused on high performance.

Finally, in slide seven, Federal agencies can rise to the challenge

with the right resources. They already are making amazing

progress in spite of stacks of requirements and FEMP’s elimination

of whole building training courses. We question who the ombudsman is or the coordinator for high performance. Is it FEMP or is

it GSA?

DOE’s proposed rulemaking on sustainable design is a great

thing to see. It folds in the Executive order and the MOU on sustainable building principles. So why doesn’t it address fossil fuel reduction requirements at the same time? They are connected. Renewable energy supply needs must be determined. Federal procurement will help drive the market for renewable energy production

in this country.

International high performance building standards such as German Passive House and Swiss Menergy should be studied and utilized. Federal procurement of high performance green materials,

innovative technologies, and best practices and design services will

stimulate the market for better buildings nationwide.

What green building pioneers have started, Federal agencies can

propel toward a revolution in the building industry like we have

seen in electronics and communications.

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Ms. Bellenger.

STATEMENT OF LYNN BELLENGER

Ms. BELLENGER. Chairwoman Watson, Ranking Member Bilbray,

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to speak to you today about standards and opportunities for the

Federal Government to optimize building efficiency.

My name is Lynn Bellenger and I am president of ASHRAE, an

international engineering society of over 52,000 members in more

than 140 countries. Our members represent the breadth of professionals involved in the building environment, from consulting engineers and architects to manufacturers’ representatives and academics.

ASHRAE fulfills its mission to serve humanity and promote a

sustainable world through research, standards writing, publishing,

and continuing education. We are the acknowledged experts on energy and buildings and indoor environmental quality.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the Federal Government’s role in greening buildings. ASHRAE has long partnered

with the Federal Government on this very issue, working to reduce

energy waste while developing and consistently improving energy

efficiency standards and advanced design guidance.

In the 1970’s, during this Nation’s first modern energy crisis, the

Federal Government approached ASHRAE to develop a standard to

address the energy use by buildings. This standard became

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which now serves as a Federal building

standard.

Through the High Performance Building Congressional Caucus

Coalition, ASHRAE has taken the lead role in raising the awareness of high performance buildings in Congress. Over the past 2

years, the coalition has held 27 briefings for Federal policymakers

on a wide range of building-related issues.

My presidential theme is modeling a sustainable world. Building

modeling represents one of the most powerful tools for optimizing

building performance, and to exploit the full capability of modeling

tools, we must transform our design approach from a sequential

process where one discipline completes its work and hands off the

design to the next, to an integrated building design process, where

all of the disciplines involved in the building design and construction work as a team from the beginning to evaluate options and optimize building design.

Our biggest challenge is implementing integrated design in daily

practice. It is going to require a cultural shift in our industry to

transform the design process, and it is a shift that has to occur if

we are going to reach our goal of net zero energy buildings. To accelerate this cultural shift, we recommend creating a new demonstration program with selected geographically diverse Federal

buildings.

Earlier this year, in partnership with USGBC and the Illuminating Engineering Society, ASHRAE published Standard 189.1, the

first code-intended commercial green building standard in the

United States. Standard 189.1 serves as a compliance path of the

74

International Green Construction Code published by the International Code Council.

Standard 189.1 is a game changer in building standards, and

ASHRAE recommends authorizing a pilot program with a select

group of geographically diverse Federal buildings to examine the

effects of requiring all new Federal buildings to meet the IGCC by

2020, and include ASHRAE Standard 189.1 as a compliance path.

This will help the Federal Government meet the objectives of Executive Order 13514 of ensuring that beginning in 2020 all new Federal buildings are designed to achieve zero net energy by 2030.

In addition to Standards 90.1 and 189.1, ASHRAE has designed

tools and initiatives targeted for enhanced building performance,

including certification programs and advanced energies design

guides. ASHRAE also has developed a building energy labeling program which clearly shows tenants, building owners and others the

difference between as-designed and in-operation building energy

used and includes an energy assessment with recommendations for

increasing energy efficiency.

Congress can help close the gap between the designed and operational energy use of Federal buildings by requiring all new and

existing Federal buildings to put in place within 3 years an energy

performance information program that identifies both designed and

in-operation performance. Understanding where energy is used in

a building is the first step in reducing energy consumption.

In closing, significant progress has been made over the years in

the Federal, commercial, and residential sectors, and we are poised

to embark on a new era of energy efficiency and taxpayer dollar

stewardship that will lead us to net zero energy buildings. Much

work remains to achieve that goal, and as a national and world

leader in developing building standards, ASHRAE looks forward to

opportunities for working with Congress and the executive agencies

as we all move toward a more sustainable tomorrow.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address this subcommittee, and feel free to contact me or our D.C. office if you have any

additional questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bellenger follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Ms. Bellenger.

Mr. Bertrand, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES BERTRAND

Mr. BERTRAND. Good morning, Chairwoman and Ranking Member Bilbray. I am Jim Bertrand, and as president of Delphi Thermal Systems, I am pleased to be a part of this panel raising awareness and creating focus on the great opportunities for energy savings in our Federal buildings and installations.

I recognize that implementing the policies and regulations that

will govern these reforms presents a significant challenge. We at

Delphi want to be part of that dialog that is used to resolve these

questions, because we think that we have technology that can solve

some of the problems. We are also pleased to share our experiences

and present our technology to the Federal Government. We hope

we can provide insights to help improve regulations and policies.

Delphi is widely known as an auto parts manufacturer, but the

reality is that we are a technology company. We hold over 7,000

patents, and while most of our intellectual property is utilized by

automotive manufacturers, there are many non-automotive applications for our technology.

One example is our micro-channel heat exchanger technology

which has proven successful in both automotive and non-automotive markets. The micro-channel heat exchanger has the potential to provide improved energy efficiency and reduce the impact on

the environment because it is smaller, lighter, uses less refrigerant,

and is able to achieve higher energy efficient ratings.

If we replaced one aging heat exchanger in each of the 500,000

Federal buildings, there would be four immediate benefits. First, 5

to 10 million less pounds of refrigerant in the atmosphere; 10 million fewer pounds of materials, mostly imported copper; more energy efficient optimized heating and cooling systems in reduced

spaces; and, last, energy savings of up to 25 to 30 percent over traditional AC units with lower ratings.

Delphi has sought to offer this solution to the Federal Government. However, our experience is that the Federal effort is focused

on achieving building-wide reductions in efficiencies. We applaud

this focus. But at the same time, this focus should not come at the

cost of incremental but significant gains in efficiency. Better focusing on building components could result in some dramatic results.

But from our view, the efforts to date have not yielded powerful

enough incentives to accelerate the adoption of innovative green

components in Federal buildings.

Despite these challenges, there are some things that can be done

to improve the situation. First, establish incentives for the implementation of energy efficient components. For example, Delphi is

supportive of a provision of the Home Star legislation that establishes powerful additional incentives for homeowners who choose to

implement available SEER standards, 18 SEER. Is there an opportunity to create comparable incentives for buildings that are owned

or leased by the Federal Government? The U.S. Green Building

Council has also identified existing authority for DOE and the GSA

to improve performance standards applicable to Federal buildings

and leases.

86

Second, examine opportunities for Federal procurement reform.

Delphi is supportive of elements of legislation that improves Federal procurement of energy efficient building technology, such as

Senator Carper’s Improving Federal Use of Renewable Energy and

Energy Efficiency Act of 2010. Delphi supports better measurement

and data collection to assist in Federal energy efforts.

We also believe greater flexibility is needed in procurement requirements for Federal buildings projects facing long delays. Technology is changing quickly, and this flexibility allows for the adoption of the best and newest technologies.

Third, consider pilot programs to test and analyze retrofit performance. We believe that a pilot program examining implementation cost of retrofits, as well as the short-term and long-term efficiencies in savings of technology upgrades, would be helpful in

guiding Federal efforts to select energy efficient technologies. We

respectfully recommend that the pilot program should examine

technology components.

In conclusion, we have already stated that reducing energy consumption is an extremely hard challenge and we are no experts in

creating guidelines like organizations such as the U.S. Green

Building Council. But we do believe that the tools that are at the

government’s disposal have not been used in a way to encourage

rapid adoption of components like our technology that can help the

government achieve its goal of greener Federal buildings.

We are honored to be on this panel and look forward to being

part of the continuing dialog. Thank you. We look forward to taking any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertrand follows:]

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I would like to thank all the members

of the panel for your testimony today.

We are now going to move to the question period and proceed

under the 5-minute rule, but I want to remark on the testimony,

Ms. Vaughan, that you made.

I was thinking, and you had your slides up, and you said green

buildings and so on, and I thought about airports. California was

the first State in the Union to ban smoking on airlines, and now

it is global. But you come out of the airports, and the first breath

of air is all of that smoke that gets captured under the eaves because people are taking their last smoke before going in or their

first coming out.

So I would hope that when we talk about green buildings that

we would attach ‘‘and adjacent environment,’’ because I think you

are tremendously at risk when the first breath outside is filled with

toxic smoke and the last breath going in, you have it in your lungs

and it settles there for the whole time you are inside.

So I just had to throw that out, and it occurred to me when you

made your testimony. All of you are offering us valuable input as

to how we need to proceed from here, and we are talking about perspectively but we are talking about retrofitting what we have now,

and we are keeping in mind the cost.

We have this huge deficit that people are harking at all the time,

but there are certain things we need to do now to guarantee the

health of people in this country and those coming into this country.

So we are trying to balance between that. But I just wanted to reflect on the testimony that was made.

So I am going to ask all of you, would you please define ‘‘zero

net energy’’ and to what extent has the physical comfort of human

beings been considered in the movement toward zero net energy

usage?

I will start with you, Mr. Green, please.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

As I noted in my testimony, the work to do this or to accomplish

this is very broad-based. There are a whole number of attributes

that have to be looked at in that respect. So when we start looking

at the indoor air quality, for example, how we look at achieving

zero energy, there is a balance between all the components that are

there. So it is going to take not only both the scientific research to

get there, but it is also going to talk about human behavior and

how we in fact achieve better human behavior in the buildings we

are in.

As you noted, once we stop people smoking in the buildings, the

first thing they do is go outside of the building and start smoking.

So what we have to do is we have to talk about how do we affect

that behavior as well. How do we impact how we use our buildings?

How do we impact the future of our buildings by achieving greater

utilization today, even in existing buildings? I think that is part of

the difficulty.

So your question is what do we define as zero energy. Zero energy can take on a whole number of different definitions, and I

think that the industry, as very broad-based as it is, must come together and also help define what zero energy is. Does it start at

the supply? Does it start at the building? Where does it start iniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:39 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65557.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
95

tially and then where does it end, and how can we gather all the

data necessary that we can make that achievement known? The

metrics to get there have to be defined and also the level of performance.

So what we have to do, there is a very long path to follow to get

there. So I know I am not answering your question specifically. I

am just trying to lay the groundwork that there is more work that

needs to be done to say how do we achieve zero.

Ms. WATSON. Get us thinking.

Ms. Vaughan.

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you. Yes, there are several different definitions. One of the working definitions of net zero energy is first you

reduce the energy load as much as possible so your building, it is

a low energy building and it uses only as much energy per year as

it can produce onsite from renewable sources. That is one working

definition, but there are others as well.

And how to balance energy efficiency and indoor air quality, we

have some fine engineers in the room who are working on these

things. We have standards like ASHRAE 62.

And one of the things that we learned, I think, it is a very good

question, back after the seventies when there was a focus on really

tightening up buildings, some people forgot there was an indoor air

quality issue if we did that. So there has been a lot of learning and

adjusting, and I think a lot of progress in balancing the two, and

it is that tradeoff that is so key.

I would just refer quickly to Passive House. If we can learn,

study these best practices and these examples, Passive House in

Germany, it is a standard that can reduce energy use to the point

where they don’t even need a furnace, or improve the building envelope. It is focused on high insulation levels. But they have this

constant air exchange. There are different concerns about how that

could work in a hot, humid climate. But people are working on this,

so I am hopeful.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Ms. Bellenger.

Ms. BELLENGER. Before I address the current question, I want to

respond to your first question about smoking outside airports and

public buildings. One of the provisions in ASHRAE Standard 189.1

is prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of an entrance, and there

needs to be signage on the building to indicate that. So that is a

recognized problem, that you don’t want people jumping outside the

building and smoking immediately, and that is addressed in that

standard.

The definition Ms. Vaughan gave for net zero energy buildings

is really what we have been using. As Henry noted, there are a lot

of different ways to define it. The building owner sees the utility

bill, so we are looking at site energy and using a definition of net

zero buildings as those that use no more energy on an annual basis

than they can produce onsite. So that is consistent with what Ms.

Vaughan just said.

Within Standard 189.1 there is a requirement to comply with two

other ASHRAE standards. ASHRAE has Standard 62.1, which is a

ventilation standard, and you must comply with the ventilation

rates that are required within that standard for the various types

96

of building occupancy in order to comply with 189.1. So you can’t

avoid bringing in the outside air or the proper amount of ventilation.

Another standard we have is Standard 55, which is a standard

for thermal comfort, and 189.1 also requires that you comply with

Standard 55. So it is very much looking at the indoor environmental quality as part of doing a high performance green building.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. BERTRAND. Chairwoman Watson, Delphi is an eight-track

component supplier. Our efforts relative to zero net energy have

really focused at the component level and are very much geared toward the development of devices that have minimal impact on the

environment.

The micro-channel technology that I had in my testimony that I

referred to is a good example of that, a device that obviously minimizes to the maximum extent possible energy consumption and

minimizes environmental impact. So that is really the field of play

that we have in the debate.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

I now recognize Mr. Bilbray, our ranking member.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. Just for the record, I want to assure

everybody, but California will not have the problem with people

smoking outside. The way it is going, we are going to outlaw all

public smoking in the State of California, at least public smoking

of tobacco.

Why do people think I am joking when I say that? I will put you

on an airplane and send you back to Sacramento.

It is interesting to hear in this discussion, because we all know

that indoor air is a major air pollution issue down the line. And

not to make you think I am some kind of seventies hippie, but I

actually own an adobe house. My wife, who is from New Orleans,

said she came all the way across the country to live in a mud

house. Now, I imagine what our radon numbers are, but it is a

good thing southern California is not a high radon area.

You remember how we did that. We sealed up in the seventies,

and by the eighties the one crisis on energy was curtailed, and then

we had the radon exposure was the next crisis, and so we kind of

go through these series. I want to sort of get around to how we get

to this practical application.

Mr. Bertrand, you are talking about sub-components which really

could add up. A good example I guess, what you are doing is with

the electronic aspect on reducing energy consumption. What I need

to do more of in my adobe house is go around and seal up all those

little cracks that over 100 years have steadily widened. But you are

doing it from an electron point of view, the component.

It seems like though that our system, and I will say this, go back

and forth, our system would not be able to accommodate your improvement, because we are looking more at the total refrigeration

unit or air conditioning unit, not a component that could be

plugged in to it.

Have you run into that problem with our Federal process?

Mr. BERTRAND. I think to be fair, we could use more clarity on

directing our efforts. What we have encountered, as I mentioned,

97

is there is an emphasis on the total building system. There is a lot

of energy around obviously the new standards for new buildings.

But the question of how do we bring innovation to the existing fleet

of buildings that we have is one that we think deserves more attention and one where maybe we don’t need to paint such grandiose

pictures.

We should go after implementation—there was earlier testimony

around how many off-the-shelf technologies there are. Certainly we

have some. Other companies have them. There are many opportunities out there for us to make a significant improvement in the efficiency of the structures.

Mr. BILBRAY. Small steps make a lot of difference. And to paraphrase the Democratic Party, the way you eat an elephant is one

small bite at a time.

Ms. Bellenger, do we have the ability, see that we are not going

over to Home Depot and pulling an air conditioner off-the-shelf and

sticking it in, as much as some people might think. We are actually

designing engineering, not just the building, but even the electronic

components, the refrigeration. Anybody here want to comment on

that, and about the ability for us to integrate and get the expertise?

Do we have the ability to tap into the expertise to know that

these improved components may be out there and may be incorporated into our next big building that we look at? Do we have that

capability in-house or do we have the ability to contract that capability to make sure that the finished product—is that part contracts

we do when we go to the engineering side, we go to the design side?

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Bilbray, you certainly have the capability of

doing it. The difficulty I think today in the way buildings are procured don’t facilitate that kind of collaboration. The problem today

is that on the one hand you have a design component that designs

a building. There are design engineers that are engaged in the design of the subsystems and the total building system, architectural,

engineering, which includes mechanical, pumping, etc. They design

a building based upon their best practice or their understanding.

They may not reach out as broadly as going to a manufacturer of

components to determine exactly what is new in the marketplace.

Now, once the building is designed and it has been approved and

started construction, you can’t go back and change when you find

there is something new or innovative that you could include in the

building, because now we have a set of design documents that you

have a bid process that says here is what you are going to build

and here is what you are going to get.

The capability of doing this is to go back to a systems approach

and then doing what we would call an approach to design that is

by not specification, but performance, allowing the performance factors to determine how the building is designed and making it—

incentivizing during the construction process if in fact there is a

way to change the project from its design in the construction process that would yield additional savings and/or better performance,

and, again, based upon performance, not specifications.

Mr. BILBRAY. Right. Outcome based—let me tell you something.

All the time I have been frustrated with environmental strategies

98

or whatever is when the Federal Government goes to process-based

instead outcome-based.

One of the things I am very, very proud of as a Californian is

so much of our environmental programs are successful, like our

clean air, like our clean ocean plan, is that unlike the Feds, like

the Clean Water Act, which are process-based, outcome-based is

truly the environmental step. It is an evolutionary step beyond

that.

But before I leave, let me just ask for your indulgence. I would

like to get down to one issue that we need to address. We may talk

about these components, but one thing I learned at the Air Resources Board in California was before we allowed somebody to

transfer a component into an automobile, even selling after-market,

we prove longevity.

Before I leave that analogy, I want to say one thing. Just as we

forced the auto industry to go from carburetors to injectors, though

they didn’t want to, but to come up to the efficiency of clean and

mileage, they had to go to a different technology. We need to put

the same pressures on ourself to kind of force us to be on our game.

But when it comes down to longevity, you take one of these components, let’s just say you do have an efficient one. How are we

doing the testing and how do we make sure that a unit is not just

effective the day you buy it, but over 5, 10, 15 years? Because there

is where you will find marked differences in certain types of technologies.

We have run into that in the air emissions issues with automobiles, where we literally had to outlaw products that looked good

when you first bought them but became major environmental problems later. Do we have that strategy when it comes to this kind

of efficiency, like the Star program?

Mr. BERTRAND. The other panel members may want to comment

further on the details on the procurement process. The nature of

our products do though, some of them can decay in terms of performance over time. So, Congressman, you are on to a very real

issue, which is the efficiency of the component level at the start of

the life versus later on. And looking at that total life cycle cost development I believe is a very important aspect and should be, if it

isn’t, strongly featured in the entire government procurement process as you would look to put precious taxpayer dollars to work to

make sure the components we are putting in have the sustainability and will hold up over time and still deliver that performance

level.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I appreciate you giving me the time.

I would like to make a statement, and I sure hope somebody is listening about this.

Of all the years working on environmental oversight stuff, I will

bring a little street knowledge to you. I believe the E-Star program

needs to move on, needs to become more effective. I believe that

there should be an E-Star standard that starts off with the initial

efficiency that we use today. But there ought to be longer term ratings, to where we have two or three or four numbers so people understand that this product is very effective today, it will be effective in 2 years, it will be effective in 10, but at 12 there is going

99

to be major problems, and that the consumer knows that because

we have done the testing.

That may seem like a whole big drawn out thing, but let me tell

you something. Every after-market product that is sold in this

country goes through that for automobiles. It is time we take a look

at the same thing when we talk about efficiency.

So those numbers, that ESTAR really means something beyond

just what—how well something works today. And that means that

we have to do the research, because I think all of us agree we are

doing things to try to save this planet and trying to do it quickly

and effectively. But where it is really going to pay off is the accumulative impact as long as the technology continues to operate. If

it doesn’t, everything we are doing is really for show.

Thank you very much.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank all the witnesses today. As you

have just heard in the ranking member’s comments, this is a burgeoning area of concern to our Federal Government, and those of

us who have worked at local government and State government

have been challenged by these issues, particularly those of us on

the West Coast. So this is just the beginning of this dialog that we

will be having. And technologies are being invented every single

day that must be taken into consideration as we go for green buildings.

So thanks to all of the witnesses. Your input goes into the record.

And, Mr. Ranking Member, without objection—I would like to

also thank the other Members that were here—but, without objection, we will adjourn this meeting.

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ