Architect of the Capitol: Progress in Improving Energy Efficiency and Options for Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Published: 2008-06-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In April 2007, GAO reported that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex facilities--managed by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC)--resulted from electricity use throughout the complex and combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant. The report concluded that AOC and other legislative branch agencies could benefit from conducting energy audits to identify projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GAO also recommended that AOC and the other agencies establish a schedule for conducting these audits and implement selected projects as part of an overall plan that considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and funding options. AOC and the other agencies agreed with our recommendations. This statement focuses on (1) the status of AOC's efforts to implement the recommendations in our April 2007 report and (2) opportunities for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and associated environmental impacts. The statement is based on GAO's prior work, analysis of AOC documents, and discussions with AOC management.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: AOC has made some progress toward implementing the recommendations in GAO's April 2007 report, but opportunities remain. For example, AOC has prioritized a list of Capitol Hill buildings that need energy audits but has not developed a schedule for conducting the audits that explains the prioritization scheme or provides information on the anticipated costs. AOC prioritized the order of energy audits based on each building's energy use and has begun conducting the first of the audits. In addition, AOC has contracted with a private firm to conduct preliminary audits of the Senate office buildings that could lead to more targeted audits and eventually identify cost-effective projects that would decrease energy use and related greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that developing a more detailed schedule for future audits that includes an explanation of the prioritization scheme and cost estimates would assist the Congress in its appropriations decisions and facilitate the completion of additional audits. With respect to our recommendation that AOC implement selected projects as part of an overall plan to reduce emissions, AOC has implemented projects to reduce energy use and related emissions, but the projects were not identified through the processes we recommended. AOC could more fully respond to our recommendation by first completing the energy audits and then evaluating the cost-effectiveness and relative merits of projects that could further decrease the demand for energy. The Senate's options for decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions and related environmental impacts associated with its operations fall into three main categories--implementing projects to decrease the demand for electricity and steam derived from fossil fuels, adjusting the Capitol Power Plant's fuel mix, and purchasing carbon offsets or renewable electricity from external providers. Of these options, efforts to decrease the demand for energy could lead to recurring cost savings through reductions in energy expenditures while the other options may prove less cost-effective and involve recurring expenses. However, a key challenge in identifying energy-saving opportunities results from limited data on the baseline level of energy use within each Senate building. Specifically, the meters for steam and chilled water no longer function or do not provide reliable data. In addition, the buildings are not equipped with submeters for electricity that, if installed, could enhance efforts to identify sections of the buildings that consume relatively high levels of energy. AOC has purchased but not installed new chilled water meters, is evaluating options for acquiring new steam meters, and plans to install submeters by February 2009.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss  opportunities for enhancing energy efficiency and decreasing the carbon  footprint of the Capitol Hill Complex. In April 2007, we reported that 96  percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex  resulted from purchased electricity (59 percent) and the combustion of  fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant (37 percent).  The Architect of the  Capitol (AOC) has jurisdiction over the day-to-day operations of facilities  located in the complex.  Because the vast majority of greenhouse gas  emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex stem from energy use, our April  2007 report recommended that AOC and other legislative branch agencies  conduct energy audits to identify projects that would reduce greenhouse  gas emissions.  We also recommended that AOC and other legislative  branch agencies establish a schedule for conducting these audits and  implement selected projects as part of an overall plan that considers the  cost-effectiveness of the projects, the extent to which they reduce  emissions, and options for funding them.  AOC and the other agencies  agreed with our recommendations.
In addition to the work we did for our April 2007 report, we analyzed the  potential costs of fuel-switching from coal to natural gas at the Capitol  Power Plant, as directed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House  of Representatives in the Green the Capitol Initiative.  Specific actions  outlined in the initiative included purchasing electricity generated by  renewable sources, purchasing carbon offsets, and directing AOC to adjust  the fuel mix of the Capitol Power Plant so that the portion of its output  consumed by the House is derived entirely from natural gas.  In May 2008,  we recommended that, before adjusting the plant’s fuel mix beyond the  level directed by the initiative, AOC consult with its oversight committees  in the Congress and evaluate the economic and environmental tradeoffs  associated with the use of each fuel at the plant.
My statement today will focus on (1) the status of AOC’s efforts to  implement the recommendations in our April 2007 report and, (2)  opportunities for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,  including the cost-effectiveness of decreasing demand for energy relative  to other options such as fuel switching at the Capitol Power Plant or  purchasing renewable electricity and carbon offsets.  Today’s remarks are  based on our prior work, analysis of documents provided by AOC on its  progress in responding to recommendations in our April 2007 report, and  related discussions with AOC management.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Energy audits typically identify information on projects that could address  the consumption of fossil fuel and electricity as well as projects that could  reduce emissions from other sources, such as leaks in refrigeration  equipment.  Energy audits also include information on the cost- effectiveness of projects and on the extent to which the projects could  reduce emissions.  This information can then be used to evaluate and  select projects.  The audits generally fall into three categories— preliminary, targeted, and comprehensive—and are distinguished by the  level of detail and analysis required.  Preliminary audits are the least  detailed and provide quick evaluations to determine a project’s potential.   These audits typically do not provide sufficiently detailed information to  justify investments but may prove useful in identifying opportunities for  more detailed evaluations.  Targeted audits are detailed analyses of  specific systems, such as lighting.  Comprehensive audits are detailed  analyses of all major energy-using systems.  Both targeted and  comprehensive audits provide sufficiently detailed information to justify  investing in projects.
Energy-saving projects that fall outside the scope of energy audits include  efforts to enhance outreach and education efforts to curtail energy use by  building occupants and purchasing high-efficiency appliances.  Outreach  and education efforts include providing information on how employees  can conserve energy, such as AOC’s “how-to guides” that detail cost- effective methods to save energy in the workplace.  Efforts to curtail  energy use include purchasing energy-efficient computer equipment and  appliances, using information available from the Environmental Protection  Agency’s Energy Star program or the Federal Energy Management  Program (FEMP).  Energy Star-qualified and FEMP-designated products  meet energy-efficiency guidelines set by the Environmental Protection  Agency and the Department of Energy and, in general, represent the top 30  percent most energy-efficient products in their class of products.  These  products cover a wide range of categories, including appliances and office  equipment.  According to the Energy Star program, office products that  have earned the Energy Star rating use about half as much electricity as  standard equipment and generally cost the same as equipment that is not  Energy Star qualified.
section_title: AOC Has Made Some Progress toward Implementing GAO’s Recommendations on Energy Audits and Implementing Projects that Decrease Emissions
paragraphs: AOC has made some progress toward implementing the two  recommendations in our April 2007 report.  First, AOC has taken steps to  address our recommendation that it develop a schedule for routinely  conducting energy audits by developing a prioritized list of buildings for  which it plans to conduct comprehensive energy audits (see App. 1).   Specifically, AOC is currently undertaking a comprehensive energy audit  of the U.S. Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds and obtained a draft  submission in May 2008 from the private contractor performing the audit.   AOC also plans to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2008 funds to perform  comprehensive energy audits of the Capitol Building and the Ford House  Office Building, and says it will direct any remaining fiscal year 2008 funds  to an audit of the Hart Senate Office Building.  Additionally, AOC has  contracted with a private firm to conduct a preliminary energy audit of the  Senate Office Buildings that could prove useful in identifying opportunities  for more comprehensive and targeted evaluations.
AOC officials said that they developed the prioritized list of buildings to  audit by comparing the amount of energy used per square foot of space in  each building (referred to as energy intensity) and then placing the  buildings that use relatively higher levels of energy at the top of the list.   However, AOC’s prioritized list does not provide information on the  energy intensity of each building, an explanation of its prioritization  scheme, or cost estimates.  Furthermore, AOC has not developed a  schedule for routinely conducting audits as we recommended in our April  2007 report.  AOC officials said that they cannot complete a more  comprehensive schedule because of uncertainty about the extent to which  AOC will receive future appropriations to conduct the audits.  We believe  that developing a more detailed schedule for future audits along with an  explanation of its prioritization scheme and cost estimates would assist  the Congress in its appropriations decisions and facilitate the completion  of additional audits.
Second, AOC can do more to fully address the second recommendation in  our April 2007 report that it implement selected projects as part of an  overall plan to reduce emissions that considers cost-effectiveness, the  extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and funding options.  In  recent years, AOC has undertaken numerous projects throughout the  Capitol Hill Complex to reduce energy use and related emissions, but  these projects were not identified through the process we recommended.   Projects completed or underway include upgrading lighting systems,  conducting education and outreach, purchasing energy-efficient  equipment and appliances, and installing new windows in the Ford  building.  Examples of projects in Senate office buildings include  upgrading the lighting in 11 offices with daylight and occupancy sensors,  installing energy efficiency ceiling tiles in the Hart building, and replacing  steam system components.  According to AOC, these efforts have already  decreased the energy intensity throughout the Capitol Hill Complex.   Specifically, AOC said that it decreased its energy intensity—the amount  of energy used per square foot of space within a facility—by 6.5 percent in  fiscal year 2006 and 6.7 percent in fiscal year 2007.
As AOC moves forward with identifying and selecting projects that could  decrease energy use and related emissions, it could further respond to our  recommendation by developing a plan that identifies the potential benefits  and costs of each option based on the results of energy audits.  Such a  plan could build on AOC’s existing Sustainability Framework Plan and its  Comprehensive Emissions Reduction Plan for the Capitol Complex, which  identify measures that could lead to improvements in energy efficiency  and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.  Complementing these plans  with information on projects identified through energy audits would  further assist AOC in using the resources devoted to energy efficiency  enhancements as effectively as possible.
section_title: Efforts to Further Reduce Energy Consumption May Prove More Cost- Effective Than Other Measures in Decreasing Emissions
paragraphs: The Senate has three primary options for decreasing greenhouse gas  emissions and related environmental impacts associated with its  operations.  These include (1) implementing additional projects to  decrease the demand for electricity and steam derived from fossil fuel; (2)  adjusting the Capitol Power Plant’s fuel mix to rely more heavily on  natural gas, which produces smaller quantities of greenhouse gas  emissions for each unit of energy input than the coal and oil also burned in  the plant; and (3) purchasing renewable electricity or carbon offsets from  external providers.  Each option involves economic and environmental  tradeoffs and the first option is likely to be the most cost-effective because  the projects could lead to recurring cost savings through reductions in  energy expenditures.
Regarding the first option, as we reported in April 2007, conducting energy  audits would assist AOC in addressing the largest sources of emissions  because the audits would help identify cost-effective energy-efficiency  projects.  In general, energy projects are deemed cost-effective if it is  determined through an energy audit that they will generate sufficient  savings to pay for their capital costs.  These projects may require up-front  capital investments that the Senate could finance through direct  appropriations or contracts with utility or energy service companies,  under which the company initially pays for the work and the Senate later  repays the company with the resulting savings.  Until AOC exhausts its  opportunities for identifying energy-efficiency projects that will pay for  themselves over a reasonable time horizon, this option is likely to be more  cost-effective than the second two options, both of which would involve  recurring expenditures.
In pursuing energy audits, AOC faces a significant challenge collecting  reliable data on the baseline level of energy use within each Senate office  building.  Such data would help identify inefficient systems and provide a  baseline against which AOC could measure potential or actual energy- efficiency improvements.  First, while AOC has meters that track  electricity use in each building, the meters that track the steam and chilled  water used by each building no longer work or provide unreliable data.   AOC officials said that they have purchased but not installed new meters  to track the use of chilled water and are evaluating options for acquiring  new steam meters.  Installing these meters and collecting reliable data  would enhance any efforts to identify potential energy saving measures.   Second, AOC does not have submeters within each building to track the  electricity use within different sections of each building.  Such  submetering would further assist in targeting aspects of the Senate  buildings’ operations that consume relatively high quantities of energy.
AOC said that it plans to install submeters for electricity, chilled water,  and steam by February 2009.
A second option for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would involve  directing AOC to further adjust the fuel mix at the Capitol Power Plant to  rely more heavily on the combustion of natural gas in generating steam for  space heating.  The plant currently produces steam using a combination of  seven boilers—two that primarily burn coal, but could also burn natural  gas, and five boilers that burn fuel oil or natural gas.  The total capacity of  these boilers is over 40 percent higher than the maximum capacity  required at any given time, and the plant has the flexibility to switch  among the three fuels or burn a combination of fuels.  The percentage of  energy input from each fuel has varied from year to year, with an average  fuel mix of 43 percent natural gas, 47 percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil  between 2001 and 2007.
In June 2007, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of  Representatives released the Green the Capitol Initiative, which directed  AOC to operate the plant with natural gas instead of coal to meet the  needs of the House.  The House Appropriations Committee subsequently  directed GAO to determine the expected increase in natural gas use for  House operations and the associated costs at the power plant that would  result from the initiative.  In May 2008, we reported that the fuel-switching  directive should lead to a 38 percent increase in natural gas use over the  average annual quantity consumed between 2001 and 2007.  We also  estimated that the fuel switching should cost about $1.4 million in fiscal  year 2008 and could range from between $1.0 and $1.8 million depending  on actual fuel costs, among other factors.  We also estimated that the  costs would range from between $4.7 million and $8.3 million over the  2008 through 2012 period, depending on fuel prices, the plant’s output, and  other factors.  While we have not analyzed the potential costs of fuel  switching at the Capitol Power Plant to meet the needs of the Senate, our  estimates for the House may provide some indication of the potential costs  of such a directive.  Additionally, AOC officials said that further directives  to increase its reliance on natural gas in the plant could require equipment  upgrades and related capital expenditures.
Our May 2008 report also found that decreasing the plant’s reliance on  coal could decrease greenhouse gas emissions by about 9,970 metric tons  per year at an average cost of $139 per ton and could yield other  environmental and health benefits by decreasing emissions of nitrogen  oxides, particulate matter, and pollutants that cause acid rain.  While fuel  switching could decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful  substances, it would also impose recurring costs because natural gas costs  about four times as much as coal for an equal amount of energy input.   Thus, fuel switching may prove less cost-effective than decreasing the  demand for energy.
Finally, a third option for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions  and related environmental impacts includes purchasing electricity that is  derived from renewable sources and paying external parties for carbon  offsets.  Neither of these activities would involve modifications to the  Capitol Complex or its operations but could nonetheless lead to offsite  reductions in emissions and related environmental impacts. Both options,  if sustained, would result in recurring costs that should be considered in  the context of other options for decreasing emissions that may prove more  cost-effective.
Madam Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee  may have.
For further information about this testimony, please contact Terrell Dorn  at (202) 512-6923. Other key contributors to this testimony include Daniel  Cain, Janice Ceperich, Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Michael Hix, Frank Rusco,  and Sara Vermillion.
section_title: Appendix I: Prioritized List of Buildings for Comprehensive Energy Audits
paragraphs: Senate Employees Child Care Center  CPP Storage (Butler) Building  East and West Underground Garages  Capitol Police Courier Acceptance Site  BG Production Facility (Greenhouse)
Construction Management Division  Supreme Court Building  This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.