Legislative Branch: Energy Audits are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Published: 2007-04-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Because of concerns about changes in Earth's climate due to greenhouse gas emissions and the potential economic and environmental consequences of these changes, GAO (1) inventoried greenhouse gas emissions generated by legislative branch operations in fiscal year 2006, as well as identified trends in emissions starting from a base year of the average annual amount emitted in fiscal years 1998 through 2001, and (2) identified a strategy for reducing emissions. To perform this work, GAO followed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and additional guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency, using data provided by officials responsible for legislative branch operations and the General Services Administration.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Legislative branch operations generated about 316,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents) in fiscal year 2006. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by legislative branch operations is equal to the emissions produced by about 57,455 cars and represents an increase of about 4 percent from the average annual quantity emitted in fiscal years 1998 through 2001. The largest source of these emissions (63 percent) was the consumption of electricity purchased from an external provider that relies primarily on fossil fuel combustion to generate the electricity. The second-largest source of emissions (32 percent) was the combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant to produce steam for the majority of the legislative branch buildings. The remaining 5 percent of emissions came from other sources that each generated 1 percent or less of emissions, such as natural gas and chilled water purchased from outside sources and business travel in government-owned and -leased vehicles. While emissions in 2006 increased 4 percent over the base year levels, emissions in the intervening years varied depending on factors such as fluctuations in weather, the fuel mix used at the Capitol Power Plant, and the quantity of renewable energy used by legislative branch operations. A strategy for reducing emissions includes conducting energy audits to identify and evaluate energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, as well as evaluating other emissions-reduction projects that may fall outside the scope of energy audits. Such a strategy would also involve developing an implementation plan that considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and funding options. Energy audits are a key step because the projects identified through the audits would address the largest sources of emissions--purchased electricity and fossil fuel combustion in the Capitol Power Plant--and would include information on cost-effectiveness and the potential for reducing emissions. Agencies could finance these projects through direct appropriations or contracts with utility or energy service companies. Since fiscal year 1998, the Architect of the Capitol, GAO, and the Government Printing Office have commissioned 11 energy audits of some of their facilities, but the audits have generally not been comprehensive and the agencies have varied in the extent to which they have implemented the projects identified through the audits. Another part of a strategy would involve evaluating the cost-effectiveness, emissions reduction, and funding options of projects that may fall outside the scope of energy audits--such as acquiring fuel-efficient vehicles--on a case-by-case basis. The energy audits and evaluations of other projects would provide information for legislative branch agencies to develop plans for implementing projects to reduce emissions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Greenhouse gas emissions—including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous  oxide, and certain synthetic chemicals—result from a variety of sources,  such as the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial activities, and natural  processes. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,  greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, have contributed to  increased global temperatures and related changes in Earth’s climate.  Climatic changes resulting from greenhouse gas emissions could have  significant economic and environmental consequences, including elevated  sea levels, shifts in agricultural productivity, and damage to sensitive  ecosystems. Because most U.S. carbon dioxide emissions result from the  combustion of fossil fuels, efforts to cut emissions generally focus on  increasing the efficiency of activities powered by fossil fuels or switching  to renewable-energy sources. Besides decreasing emissions, these efforts  often achieve financial savings through decreased energy expenditures.
The U.S. government has taken some action to inventory and reduce  greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the federal government published  an inventory of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 and has  developed voluntary programs that encourage participants to conduct  inventories and set targets to reduce their emissions. Furthermore, certain  energy-efficiency and air-quality programs for the federal government,  while not specifically designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have  had that effect. Agencies within the executive branch of government have  also responded to an executive order that directed them to inventory their  emissions and set an emissions reduction target. However, legislative  branch agencies have not been required to inventory their emissions or  implement an overall emissions reduction strategy, and they have not  undertaken any comprehensive voluntary efforts.
The legislative branch includes Congress and its supporting agencies—  the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), GAO, Government Printing Office  (GPO), Library of Congress (LOC), Congressional Budget Office (CBO),  U.S. Botanic Garden, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and  Stennis Center for Public Service. (See app. III for a map of legislative  branch facilities in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.) AOC has  jurisdiction over the day-to-day operations of the legislative branch  facilities that are located in the Capitol complex, including the Senate  Office Buildings, House Office Buildings, U.S. Capitol Building and  Grounds, LOC Buildings and Grounds, Capitol Power Plant, U.S. Capitol  Police Buildings, and U.S. Botanic Garden.
GAO was asked to (1) conduct an inventory (including the amount and  sources) of greenhouse gas emissions generated by legislative branch  operations in fiscal year 2006, as well as identify trends in emissions  starting from a base year of the average annual amount emitted in fiscal  years 1998 through 2001, and (2) identify a strategy for reducing emissions.
To conduct an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by  legislative branch operations, we followed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol  and additional guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) Climate Leaders program. In accordance with the Greenhouse Gas  Protocol, the scope of our work included direct emissions, such as the  combustion of fossil fuels at the Capitol Power Plant, and indirect  emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity, natural gas,  steam, and chilled water. We excluded other indirect emissions that are  optional under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, such as those generated  from business travel in private vehicles or commercial airplanes, employee  commuting, or paper use. Our work covered the legislative branch’s leased  and owned facilities and vehicles within the Washington, D.C.,  metropolitan area. We excluded indirect emissions from the U.S. Capitol  Police for security reasons, as well as nonlegislative branch facilities  under AOC’s jurisdiction, such as the U.S. Supreme Court. We also  excluded emissions from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and  the Stennis Center for Public Service because of their small size and  location within buildings outside of the legislative branch. To calculate  emissions and identify emissions trends, we collected and analyzed data  for fiscal years 1998 through 2006 from AOC, CBO, GAO, GPO, LOC, the  Senate Sergeant at Arms, the House of Representatives Chief  Administrative Officer, and the General Services Administration (GSA).  The House of Representatives Chief Administrative Officer was unable to  provide fuel use data from the House of Representatives’ 23 vehicles or  volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions data from its furniture shop  that performs wood refinishing, painting, and upholstery. In addition, AOC  was unable to provide data on leaks from their oil, diesel, and propane  tanks. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from these sources were not  included in our calculations. We used the average annual emissions in  fiscal years 1998 through 2001 as the base year for our trend analysis  because this is the time period set by the Chicago Climate Exchange, a  voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program. We also used data from the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to compare changes in  the local weather to changes in emissions to help explain emission trends.
To identify a strategy for reducing emissions, we reviewed documents  from the World Resources Institute (WRI), and Congressional Research  Service (CRS); and we interviewed officials and reviewed documents from  AOC, GPO, and GAO to learn about energy audits and emissions reduction  projects that the legislative branch has already implemented. We also  interviewed officials from DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory  (NREL) and Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) about energy  audits, and types of emissions reduction projects and their cost- effectiveness; and officials from GSA about emissions reduction projects  related to government-owned and -leased vehicles. In addition, we  interviewed Pepco Energy Services about its renewable-energy contracts  with the legislative branch agencies. (See app. I for a more detailed  description of our scope and methodology and app. II for the steps we  followed to conduct an inventory of legislative branch greenhouse gas  emissions.) We conducted our work from August 2006 through April 2007.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Carbon dioxide is by far the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases— gases that trap heat in the atmosphere—emitted in the United States,  accounting for about 85 percent of emissions. The other principal  greenhouse gases are methane, nitrous oxide, and three types of synthetic  gases—hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.  Like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are released during the  combustion of fossil fuels by stationary and mobile sources.  Hydrofluorocarbons are emitted from refrigerants that leak from chillers  and air-handling units. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are  generally not emitted by legislative branch operations.
Each greenhouse gas has a global warming potential—a measure of its  heat-trapping ability relative to that of carbon dioxide. For example,  methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so its global  warming potential is 21. Global warming potentials are used to convert  emissions of non-carbon-dioxide gases into their carbon dioxide  equivalents to allow comparisons of the total cumulative warming effects  of different greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide equivalents are calculated  by multiplying the emissions of the non-carbon-dioxide gas by its  corresponding global warming potential (see app. I for a list of the global  warming potentials of the principal greenhouse gases). The common unit  of measure for reporting greenhouse gas emissions is metric tons of  carbon dioxide equivalents.
Legislative branch operations generate greenhouse gas emissions from the  combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant; business travel in  government-owned and -leased vehicles; the use of heavy machinery; the  release of VOCs in furniture and print shops; fugitive emissions, such as  leaks in refrigeration equipment and fuel tanks; the combustion of fossil  fuels in emergency generators; and the consumption of purchased  electricity, natural gas, steam, and chilled water. AOC, GAO, and GPO  have jurisdiction over the majority of these sources through their  management of legislative branch property. While AOC operates the  facilities within the Capitol complex, LOC, CBO, the Senate, and the House  of Representatives are responsible for their own energy consumption.  These entities also procure their own office equipment, and own and lease  vehicles independent of AOC. In addition, the Senate and House of  Representatives run the operations of their own furniture shops that  perform wood refinishing, painting, and upholstery, and the Senate  operates its own print shops. LOC also leases facilities independent of  those managed by AOC. Table 1 shows the number of facilities, vehicles,  and other property managed by each entity.
The Capitol Power Plant produces steam and chilled water for the  majority of the Capitol complex, as well as steam for GPO. Steam is used  for heating buildings and hot water, as well as for cooking and  humidification. Chilled water is used for cooling buildings and equipment,  as well as for dehumidification. Two of the Capitol Power Plant’s seven  boilers are coal-fired units with auxiliary gas burners, and the other five  run on natural gas or oil. AOC uses a mix of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and  natural gas—in the Capitol Power Plant to help ensure continuity of  operations in case of a supply shortage or an increase in the price of one  of the fuels. Ten chillers in the Capitol Power Plant’s refrigeration plants  run on electricity to generate chilled water. In addition to the steam and  chilled water produced by the Capitol Power Plant, AOC purchases steam  and chilled water from GSA for one building under its jurisdiction (the  Ford House Office Building), and GAO also purchases its steam from GSA.  GAO has six electric-powered chillers and GPO has three electric-powered  chillers that produce chilled water for these agencies. The legislative  branch agencies purchase their electricity primarily from Pepco Energy  Services and natural gas from Washington Gas.
Options to reduce emissions include projects that can be divided into five  categories—energy efficiency, renewable energy, adjustment of power  plant fuel mix to include less carbon-intensive fuel, energy curtailment,  and offsets. Energy efficiency means using less energy to produce a given  level of service or an increase in output for the same amount of energy.  Energy-efficiency projects include enhancing the energy efficiency of  equipment, installing a cogeneration (combined heat and power) system,  and upgrading vehicles to more fuel-efficient models. Renewable energy is  derived from resources that are generally not depleted by human use, such  as the sun, wind, and water movement. In most cases, renewable energy  releases less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels. Renewable-energy projects  include purchasing renewable energy, generating renewable energy on  site, procuring alternative-fuel vehicles, and adjusting power plant fuel mix  to include renewable fuels. In addition to adjusting the fuel mix to include  renewable fuels, adjustments could be made to the fuel mix to use less  carbon-intensive fuel, such as natural gas. Energy curtailment means a  decrease in activity to reduce energy consumption, such as turning off  lights when not in use. Finally, offsets refer to projects that would reduce  or remove emissions outside an entity’s sphere of operations and are  generally used to supplement other projects that directly reduce  emissions.
section_title: Legislative Branch Operations Generated 316,000 Metric Tons of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2006, a 4 Percent Increase from Base Year Levels
paragraphs: Legislative branch operations generated about 316,000 metric tons of  greenhouse gas emissions (expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents) in  fiscal year 2006. Electricity use was the largest source of emissions,  accounting for 198,989 metric tons, or approximately two-thirds   (63 percent) of total emissions (see fig. 1). Electricity purchased by  legislative branch agencies is generated primarily from the combustion of  fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The second-largest source of  emissions was the combustion of fossil fuels—primarily coal and natural  gas—in the Capitol Power Plant to produce steam for the majority of the  legislative branch buildings. The Capitol Power Plant produced   102,659 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in fiscal year 2006, or  approximately one-third (32 percent) of total emissions. In addition, the  consumption of purchased natural gas, steam, and chilled water each  accounted for approximately 1 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions  from legislative branch operations. The natural gas was used to heat  buildings within the Capitol complex that do not receive steam from the  Capitol Power Plant, to operate appliances in GAO’s cafeteria, and as part  of the printing process at GPO. Finally, business travel in government- owned and -leased vehicles and the use of heavy machinery, the release of  VOCs in furniture and print shops, the combustion of fossil fuels in  emergency generators, and leaks in refrigeration equipment at the Capitol  Power Plant each accounted for less than 1 percent of emissions.
Our analysis of emissions by type of greenhouse gas showed that carbon  dioxide represented 99 percent of total emissions from legislative branch  operations in fiscal year 2006. Hydrofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and  methane made up the remaining 1 percent of emissions. Although nitrous  oxide and methane emissions were generated from multiple sources and  hydrofluorocarbons were generated from a sole source—R-134a  refrigerant that escaped from two chillers at the Capitol Power Plant  through a gasket leak between June and August 2006— hydrofluorocarbons represented the majority of the non-carbon-dioxide  emissions, in part because of R-134a’s high global warming potential.
Overall, greenhouse gas emissions generated by legislative branch  operations in fiscal year 2006 increased 4 percent from the annual average  quantity emitted in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 (see fig. 2). Factors that  could have influenced emissions trends—and may continue to influence  trends in the future—include emissions reduction projects and changes in  square footage of buildings, weather, numbers of employees, operating  hours, security measures, sources of production, energy prices, and  numbers of vehicles. Despite the overall increase in emissions, there was  one notable decrease in emissions during this time period—a 6 percent  decrease from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004. The 6 percent decrease  can likely be attributed to AOC’s purchase of renewable energy from  Pepco Energy Services during an 8-month period beginning in September  2003. The most recent decrease in emissions (1 percent), from fiscal year  2005 to fiscal year 2006, was likely influenced by two factors: a change in  the fuel mix at the Capitol Power Plant that was due to a malfunction in  the coal-fired boilers, which required AOC to replace some coal with more  expensive—but less emissions-intensive—natural gas; and lower fuel  consumption that was due to more moderate temperatures. Emissions  trends varied by agency (see app. IV for emissions trends by agency).   For example, GPO emissions decreased 28 percent primarily due to a  reduction in staff levels.
section_title: A Strategy for Reducing Emissions Generated by Legislative Branch Operations Includes Conducting Energy Audits and Evaluating Other Projects
paragraphs: A strategy for reducing emissions includes conducting energy audits to  identify and evaluate energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects, as  well as evaluating other emissions reduction projects that may fall outside  the scope of energy audits. The strategy would also involve developing an  implementation plan that considers cost-effectiveness, the extent to which  the projects reduce emissions, and funding options.
subsections: section_title: Energy Audits Are Key to Addressing Largest Sources of Emissions
paragraphs: Conducting energy audits would assist the legislative branch in addressing  the largest sources of emissions—the consumption of purchased  electricity and fossil fuel combustion in the Capitol Power Plant—because  these audits identify cost-effective systemwide energy-efficiency and  renewable-energy projects. Energy audits typically include information  on projects that could address these emissions sources, as well as projects  that could reduce emissions from other sources, such as the consumption  of purchased natural gas and 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, which assist  agencies in evaluating and selecting projects. In general, projects  identified by energy audits as generating savings sufficient to pay for the  capital costs of the projects are deemed cost-effective. Other projects  identified through the energy audits may partially pay for themselves and  could be considered cost-effective relative to other projects. Energy- efficiency projects are generally more cost-effective than renewable- energy projects because many renewable-energy projects are not cost  competitive when compared with more traditional sources of power.
There are three main types of energy audits—preliminary, targeted, and  comprehensive. Each type is distinguished by the level of detail and  analysis required to complete the audit. Less detailed audits include less  accurate estimates of project costs and energy savings. Preliminary energy  audits are the least detailed and provide quick evaluations to determine a  project’s potential. These energy audits do not provide sufficiently detailed  information to justify investing in the identified projects. Instead,  preliminary audits are primarily used to decide if a more detailed  evaluation is necessary. Targeted audits are detailed analyses of specific  systems, such as lighting or boiler replacement. Comprehensive audits are  detailed evaluations of all major energy-using systems. Targeted and  comprehensive audits provide sufficiently detailed information to justify  investing in projects. AOC, GAO, and GPO commissioned six preliminary,  four targeted, and one comprehensive energy audit of some of their  facilities from fiscal years 1998 through 2006.
AOC commissioned preliminary audits of the Capitol in June 2000, the  Rayburn House Office Building in April 2003 and December 2003, the Hart  Senate Office Building in December 2003, and the LOC Madison Building  in May 2005. These audits identified cost-effective projects, meeting the  definition of cost-effectiveness found at 10 CFR §§ 436.18-436.22. For  example, the energy audit of the LOC Madison Building identified 12 cost- effective projects with savings-to-investment ratios ranging from 1.02 to  3.87. It was estimated that these projects would reduce emissions from  electricity by approximately 4,760 metric tons per year. However,  according to agency officials, AOC has not followed up with energy audits  that provide sufficiently detailed information to justify investing in  projects at these facilities because of fiscal constraints. There are also  approximately 27 buildings under AOC’s jurisdiction that have not had any  type of energy audit. In the fiscal year 2008 budget, AOC requested   $1.1 million to fund the first two years of a five-year plan to perform  energy surveys of all its facilities.
In addition to the energy audits, AOC has conducted Facility Condition  Assessments and other studies of facilities in need of upgrades and  repairs, which identified projects that would yield potential energy  efficiency improvements. However, most of these projects have not been  implemented. Since 2004, AOC has evaluated the viability of changing the  Capitol Power Plant to cogeneration, which could provide steam,  supplementary electricity, and backup power to the Capitol complex and  reduce emissions by more efficiently capturing the energy output. AOC  also began a project in 2001 to evaluate the clean coal technology  alternatives to supplement or replace the existing Capitol Power Plant  steam generating facilities to reduce emissions from burning coal. In  addition, AOC took initial steps in response to legislation that required the  agency to develop and implement a cost-effective energy conservation  strategy. For example, AOC purchased a building automation system that  will be used to operate mechanical and electrical systems more efficiently  throughout the Capitol complex, purchased energy-efficient chillers to  supplement production of chilled water at the Capitol Power Plant, and is  evaluating proposals from contractors for installing energy conservation  measures, including on-site renewable energy, on the rooftop of the  Dirksen Senate Office Building.
In 1999, GPO had a preliminary energy audit and chose to implement two  of the projects identified as cost-effective—the replacement of its chillers  and 15,000 light fixtures–after a targeted energy audit of the chillers in  2000. According to officials, GPO pursued only those projects with the  shortest payback periods because of its limited budget and plans to  relocate. GPO does not have a regular schedule for conducting energy  audits.
GAO had a comprehensive energy audit in 2002 and plans to have another  comprehensive energy audit by fiscal year 2009. GAO also conducts a  targeted energy audit of its facility every 2 years as part of its building  assessment report. GAO has implemented the majority of the projects  identified through its audits, such as installing optimization controls for  the air-handling system and installing specialized software to decrease  electricity use during periods of peak demand. In addition, GAO routinely  considers other opportunities taking into account technology, price, and  available funding.
Legislative branch agencies have three methods for financing energy  audits and implementing projects: energy savings performance contracts  (ESPC), utility energy savings contracts (UESC), or direct appropriations.  Congress authorized agencies to use ESPCs to privately finance energy- efficiency and renewable-energy projects in 1986. Under an ESPC,  agencies enter into a long-term contract (up to 25 years) with a private  energy services company under which the company conducts a  comprehensive energy audit of the agency, then finances and implements  projects approved by the agency. The agency then repays the company  with the resulting energy savings. The energy audits of the Rayburn and  Hart buildings were done through an initial proposal for an ESPC. UESCs  are similar to ESPCs, but are offered by electric and gas utilities and can  cover smaller projects. The third financing mechanism is direct  appropriations. While GPO’s preliminary audit was conducted by Pepco  Energy Services under an initial proposal for an UESC, GPO opted to fund  the projects with direct appropriations. According to GPO officials, the  projects cost $6 million and reduced the agency’s energy bills by $1 million  a year. GAO funds its energy audits through direct appropriations and  seeks funding for implementing projects in its annual budget requests.
In 1995, DOE’s FEMP initiated the SAVEnergy Program, which provided  funding for energy audits of federal facilities but not for project  implementation. FEMP funding for SAVEnergy audits was eliminated in  fiscal year 2006. Three energy audits—for the Capitol and the Rayburn and  Madison buildings—were conducted under the SAVEnergy Program.
section_title: Evaluating Other Projects Could Identify Additional Ways to Reduce Emissions
paragraphs: In addition to projects identified through energy audits, a strategy would  include evaluating other projects to reduce emissions that may fall outside  the scope of energy audits, such as (1) projects to reduce electricity  emissions by curtailing energy use, purchasing high-efficiency appliances,  using renewable electricity, and considering the energy efficiency of  facilities when constructing new facilities and before entering into leases;  (2) projects to reduce emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the  Capitol Power Plant by adjusting the fuel mix; (3) projects to reduce  vehicle emissions by acquiring fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles that run  on renewable fuel; and (4) projects to reduce overall emissions by  purchasing offsets. The cost-effectiveness, emissions reductions, and  funding options for each of these projects would have to be evaluated on a  case-by-case basis. Compared with projects identified through energy  audits, several of these projects cost more to implement but could reduce  emissions faster.
subsections: section_title: Projects to Further Reduce Electricity Emissions
paragraphs: Curtailing energy use: These projects would include enhancing outreach  and education efforts to encourage building occupants to curtail their  energy use. Examples of energy curtailment outreach efforts include a  June 2006 memo from GAO management requesting all employees to help  conserve electricity, AOC’s “how-to guides” distributed to Members of  Congress and their staff detailing cost-effective methods to save energy in  the workplace, and GPO’s goal-sharing program, which is an incentive  award program that encourages employees to reduce energy consumption  and splits the cost savings realized from these efforts equally between the  agency and its employees. According to GPO, fiscal year 2006 energy  savings totaled $558,604, for an estimated award of $126.27 per employee.  Energy curtailment activities generally involve a trade-off between  convenience and productivity, and energy use.
Purchasing energy-efficient computer equipment and appliances:  Energy-efficient products have been identified through two federal  programs—the Energy Star Program and FEMP. Energy Star-qualified and  FEMP-designated products meet energy-efficiency guidelines set by EPA  and DOE 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.  Under section 104 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, agencies are required  to purchase Energy Star-qualified and FEMP-designated products. Some of  the agencies have reported adopting such practices to further reduce  emissions. For example, officials from AOC and GAO reported that they  currently have all Energy Star-qualified information technology equipment.
Purchasing renewable electricity: Renewable-energy certificates (REC)  represent the environmental, social, and other positive attributes of  electricity generated by renewable resources. RECs can be purchased  independent of the associated electricity from a wholesale supplier or  bundled with the electricity from a utility company. It is usually less  expensive to buy RECs from a wholesale supplier because a supplier  generally has access to a wider array of resources than a utility company.  In both cases, purchasing RECs helps the electricity generator invest more  money in renewable energy, increasing the amount of renewable  electricity and decreasing the amount of fossil fuel electricity entering the  country’s power supply. For 8 months beginning in September 2003, AOC  purchased RECs from its utility, Pepco Energy Services—equal to  51,296,000 kilowatt hours, or approximately 15 percent of its annual  electricity use. In November 2006, AOC, GPO, and GAO participated in a  GSA areawide electricity contract with Pepco Energy Services to purchase  RECs equal to 3 percent of their energy consumption in order to meet the  Energy Policy Act of 2005 federal purchase requirement. Other federal  agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have chosen to  purchase RECs equal to 100 percent of their energy use.
Leasing and constructing energy-efficient facilities: Another way to  reduce emissions is to consider the efficiency of potential building space  when renewing or entering into a new lease as well as applying energy- efficiency measures in the design and construction of new federal  facilities. Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, executive branch agencies  are required to fully consider energy efficiency when leasing and  constructing facilities. AOC was also required to apply federal building  energy standards adopted under the act to new buildings within its  jurisdiction. AOC adopted a standard equivalent to a Silver rating of the  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building  Rating System in 2006 as a minimum standard for all new construction.  The LEED Rating System, created and maintained by the U.S. Green  Building Council, provides a benchmark for the design, construction, and  operation of high-performance green buildings.
section_title: Projects to Further Reduce Emissions from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels in the Capitol Power Plant
paragraphs: Adjusting the fuel mix: The fuel mixture at the Capitol Power Plant could  be adjusted to include renewable fuels, such as biomass. However, using  renewable fuels would require extensive boiler retrofits and changes to  emissions control technology. The agency could also adjust the fuel  mixture to increase the use of natural gas since natural gas produces less  carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel. As discussed earlier, when AOC  substituted natural gas for some coal in 2006 because of problems with its  coal boilers, emissions from the power plant decreased. However, in 2006,  the price of natural gas was more than five times higher than coal.
section_title: Projects to Further Reduce Vehicle Emissions
paragraphs: Acquiring fuel-efficient vehicles: Approximately 296—92 percent—of  legislative branch vehicles in fiscal year 2006 were trucks (approximately  73 percent of which are light duty trucks). Heavy duty trucks have an  actual average fuel economy of 8.8 miles per gallon, light duty trucks have  an actual average fuel economy of 16.2 miles per gallon, and cars have an  actual average fuel economy of 22.4 miles per gallon. Hybrid-electric  vehicles have even higher fuel economies because they combine an  electric motor and battery pack with an internal combustion engine to  improve efficiency. For example, the hybrid Toyota Camry is rated at   39 miles per gallon, while the rating for the gasoline-fueled standard model  is 27 miles per gallon. There are currently no hybrid-electric vehicles in the  legislative branch vehicle fleets. Hybrid electric vehicles are, on average,  about $8,200 more expensive than the lowest-priced gasoline vehicle in  fiscal year 2007.
Acquiring alternative-fuel vehicles: Alternative-fuel vehicles include  dedicated, flexible-fuel, or dual-fuel vehicles designed to operate on at  least one alternative fuel, such as ethanol or biodiesel. The legislative  branch vehicle fleets include 35 alternative-fuel vehicles and, in September  2006, AOC adopted a policy specifying that all newly acquired vehicles,  with a few exceptions, are to be alternative-fuel vehicles. Although  legislative branch entities are purchasing these vehicles, they generally  fuel them with gasoline because the infrastructure for supplying  alternative fuel in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is not  conveniently located for legislative branch employees. LOC was the only  entity that reported using ethanol to fuel its alternative-fuel vehicles to  date, using 18 gallons in fiscal year 2006. LOC also reported using 8 cubic  feet of compressed natural gas in fiscal years 2005 through 2006 to fuel its  two gasoline/compressed natural gas light-duty vehicles. Alternative-fuel  vehicles that run on ethanol or gasoline are, on average, $1,500 more  expensive than the lowest-priced gasoline vehicle in fiscal year 2007 and  get 20 percent to 30 percent fewer miles per gallon, but Congress is  encouraging the use of these vehicles because burning ethanol in vehicles  instead of gasoline reduces emissions by 18 percent to 29 percent per  gallon. In response, AOC’s alternative fuel-vehicle policy states that the  initial cost shall not be considered as a factor unless it exceeds the initial  cost of a comparable conventionally fueled vehicle by at least 5 percent.  However, despite the emissions reductions associated with burning  ethanol in vehicles instead of gasoline, the net energy benefit of using  ethanol is less clear cut when full life-cycle emissions are taken into  account. If the emissions from the production of ethanol are included,  ethanol can have higher emissions per gallon. It can also have higher  emissions of VOCs per mile traveled, compared with gasoline.
section_title: Projects to Reduce Overall Emissions
paragraphs: Purchasing offsets: Offsets are credits for emissions reductions outside an  entity’s sphere of operations and can be purchased in the retail  marketplace. Offset projects range from buying credits for carbon  sequestration resulting from planting trees to funding energy-efficiency  upgrades at a power plant in another city. The price of offsets ranges from  $5 to $25 per ton, averaging about $10 per ton. While not specifically  considered offsets, RECs also reduce emissions outside an entity’s sphere  of operations. The renewable electricity associated with nationally- sourced RECs—those generated by sources in another part of the  country—do not enter the customer’s electricity supply. In general, these  RECs are less expensive than RECs generated from local sources.  However, RECs generated from local sources support local projects, and  the renewable energy enters the local electricity supply which increases  the amount of renewable electricity received by the customer. The  legislative branch agencies’ RECs contract did not exclude national RECs,  but Pepco Energy Services won the contract with a proposal that included  only RECs generated from local sources.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the legislative branch is not required to inventory greenhouse  gas emissions or develop an overall strategy to reduce emissions,  individual legislative branch agencies have been taking some steps to  minimize or reduce emissions. However, the legislative branch as a whole  has not focused on reducing emissions. The base year, inventory, and  trends presented in this report could serve as a starting point for a  legislative branch initiative to follow the efforts of other U.S. government  and private-sector entities to reduce emissions.
Energy audits are a key step in identifying projects to reduce the largest  sources of emissions from legislative branch operations. While all  legislative branch agencies recognize the benefits of energy audits to  reduce emissions, the agencies have varied in the extent to which they  have used such audits. Consequently, each agency would benefit from a  schedule to conduct audits regularly and a plan for implementing and  financing the most cost-effective projects identified through the audits.  The legislative branch could also evaluate other projects to reduce  emissions, including curtailing energy use, acquiring fuel-efficient and  alternative-fuel vehicles, and purchasing offsets, and combine these  evaluations with information acquired from energy audits to develop an  implementation plan for reducing emissions.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Agencies that manage the operations of the legislative branch should  establish a schedule for routinely conducting energy audits that provide  sufficiently detailed information-—such as targeted or comprehensive  audits-—to justify investing in projects. Furthermore, the agencies should  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Architect of the Capitol, the  Government Printing Office, and GAO for review and comment. We  received comments orally and via e-mail from officials designated to speak  for their agencies. All of the agencies agreed with the report’s overall  findings and recommendations and offered technical suggestions that we  have incorporated, as appropriate. The Architect of the Capitol noted that,  while AOC operates the facilities within the Capitol complex and would be  responsible for energy audits of the building systems and implementing  the projects that result from the energy audits, the agency has little  influence over the energy use activities of the occupants of the facilities.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Architect of the Capitol, and the Acting Public  Printer. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, this report will be available at no cost on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6923 or dornt@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To conduct an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by  legislative branch operations, we followed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol  and additional guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) Climate Leaders program. In accordance with the Greenhouse Gas  Protocol, the scope of our work included direct emissions, such as the  combustion of fossil fuels at the Capitol Power Plant, and indirect  emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity, natural gas,  steam, and chilled water. We excluded other indirect emissions that are  optional under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, such as those generated  from business travel in private vehicles or commercial airplanes, employee  commuting, or paper use. Our work covered the legislative branch’s leased  and owned facilities and vehicles within the Washington, D.C.,  metropolitan area. We excluded indirect emissions from the U.S. Capitol  Police for security reasons, as well as non-legislative branch facilities  under AOC’s jurisdiction, such as the U.S. Supreme Court. We also  excluded emissions from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and  the Stennis Center for Public Service because of their small size and  location within buildings outside of the legislative branch.
To calculate emissions for the inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and  identify emissions trends, we selected a base year, which is a reference  year against which changes in emissions are measured over time. We  selected the average annual emissions in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 as  the base year because this is the time period set by the Chicago Climate  Exchange, a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program. We collected  activity data from the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), GAO, Government  Printing Office (GPO), Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office,  Senate Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives Chief Administrative  Officer, and General Services Administration (GSA) for each source of  emissions, such as kilowatt hours of electricity, from fiscal years 1998  through 2006. In general, we multiplied the data by a corresponding  emissions factor to determine emissions for each year. An emissions  factor is a representative value that relates the quantity of a pollutant  released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of  that pollutant. See table 2 for a list of emissions factors. We converted all  greenhouse gas emissions to carbon dioxide equivalents by multiplying  emissions for each greenhouse gas by its corresponding global warming  potential. See table 3 for a list of the global warming potential of each  greenhouse gas. The House of Representatives Chief Administrative  Officer was unable to provide fuel use data from the House of  Representatives’ 23 vehicles or volatile organic compounds (VOC)  emissions data from its furniture shop that performs wood refinishing,  painting, and upholstery. In addition, AOC was unable to provide data on  leaks from their oil, diesel and propane tanks. Therefore, greenhouse gas  emissions from these sources were not included in our calculations. In  analyzing emissions trends from the base year to fiscal year 2006, we used  data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to  compare changes in the local weather to changes in emissions to help  explain emission trends.
Some legislative branch entities verified the accuracy of their activity data  and made corrections as they deemed appropriate. Some entities also  made assumptions about their data. For example, AOC’s data were  incomplete because there were periods of time for which AOC was not  billed for energy use. AOC officials made the assumption that these  facilities were under the control of a contractor/vendor during this period  and bills were being paid for by these outside entities. We did not  independently verify the accuracy of the data. In calculating the  greenhouse gas emissions, we also had to make several assumptions in the  absence of data. (See app. II for additional details on the calculations and  assumptions.) Unless otherwise noted, we determined the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To identify a strategy for reducing emissions, we reviewed documents  from the World Resources Institute, and Congressional Research Service;  and we interviewed officials and reviewed documents from AOC, GPO,  and GAO to learn about energy audits and emissions reduction projects  that the legislative branch has already implemented. We also interviewed  officials from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and DOE’s  Federal Energy Management Program about energy audits, and types of  emissions reduction projects and their cost-effectiveness; and officials  from GSA about emissions reduction projects related to vehicles. In  addition, we also interviewed Pepco Energy Services about its renewable  energy contracts with the legislative branch agencies. We conducted our  work from August 2006 through April 2007.
section_title: Appendix II: Technical Information on Methodology, Calculations, and Assumptions Used in Conducting an Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
subsections: section_title: Methodology
paragraphs: To develop a greenhouse gas inventory in accordance with the  Greenhouse Gas Protocol, we set an organizational boundary, operational  boundary, and base year.
subsections: section_title: Organizational boundary
paragraphs: This boundary defines the legislative branch and the criteria for reporting  emissions.
For the purpose of this report, the legislative branch includes the  Architect of the Capitol (AOC), GAO, Government Printing Office  (GPO), Library of Congress (LOC), Congressional Budget Office (CBO),  and U.S. Botanic Garden. AOC has jurisdiction over the day-to-day  operations of the Senate Office Buildings, House Office Buildings, U.S.  Capitol and Grounds, LOC Buildings and Grounds, Capitol Power  Plant, and U.S. Botanic Garden.
We applied the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s control approach based on  the operational control criterion. Under this criteria, the legislative  branch accounts for 100 percent of emissions from operations over  which it has operational control—the full authority to introduce and  implement operating policies.
While the Greenhouse Gas Protocol states that geographic location is  not relevant to establishing an organizational boundary, the scope of  this study was limited to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area  because the majority of the legislative branch activity is located in this  geographic area and data for activities outside this area were not  readily available.
section_title: Operational boundary
paragraphs: This boundary identifies and categorizes the sources of emissions from  legislative branch operations.
The inventory includes emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in  the Capitol Power Plant and emergency generators, business travel in  government-owned and leased vehicles, and heavy machinery; leaks in  refrigeration equipment; the release of volatile organic compounds  (VOC) in furniture and print shops; leaks from oil, diesel and propane  tanks; and the consumption of purchased electricity, natural gas,  steam, and chilled water.
These emissions are placed in categories, or “scopes,” defined by the  Scope 1 (direct emissions from sources that are controlled by the  legislative branch):    combustion of fossil fuel at the Capitol Power Plant;    combustion of fossil fuels in emergency generators;    business travel in government-owned and leased vehicles, as  well as heavy machinery;  leaks in refrigeration equipment;  leaks from oil, diesel and propane tanks; and  release of VOCs in furniture and print shops.
Total Scope 1 emissions in fiscal year 2006: 106,045 metric tons of  carbon dioxide equivalents.
Scope 2 (indirect emissions from the consumption of purchased  electricity, natural gas, steam, and chilled water by the legislative  branch):    use of electricity,    use of natural gas,    use of steam, and    use of chilled water.
Total Scope 2 emissions in fiscal year 2006: 209,946 metric tons of  carbon dioxide equivalents.
Scope 3—optional (all other indirect emissions such as paper use,  contracted work, shipping/courier services, Member or employee  travel and commuting, resource extraction, production and waste  disposal, and transmission and distribution losses associated with the  consumption of purchased electricity):    none of these optional sources were included in the inventory.
section_title: Base year
paragraphs: A base year is a reference year against which changes in emissions are  measured over time. We selected the average annual amount emitted in  fiscal years 1998 through 2001 for the base year because this is the time  period set by the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary greenhouse gas  reduction program.
section_title: Calculations and Assumptions
paragraphs: The following section explains calculations and assumptions needed to  prepare the data for the standard emissions equation (activity data x  emissions factor = emissions) as well as additional information on specific  sources. It is organized by relevant emissions sources and greenhouse  gases. The first part includes those calculations and assumptions that  apply to all legislative branch operations; the second part includes those  that are specific to individual entities. The second part also contains tables  that show the results of the emissions calculations by entity, source, and  scope.
subsections: section_title: General
paragraphs: Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from business travel in  government-owned and -leased vehicles: We substituted the  appropriate carbon dioxide emission factors for the methane and  nitrous oxide emission factors. However, unlike carbon dioxide  emission factors for vehicles, which are expressed in kilograms per  gallon, these emission factors are expressed in grams per mile.  Therefore, we used the formula: mileage = fuel use x fuel economy  when the mileage was not provided. Except where noted, we obtained  the average fuel economy figures from the Federal Highway  Administration’s 2004 Highway Statistics. For vehicles fueled with  ethanol, we reduced the fuel economy by 30 percent because ethanol  has approximately 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline.   For vehicles fueled with compressed natural gas (CNG), we used an  average fuel economy of 13 miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent as  found at www.fueleconomy.gov. Since methane and nitrous oxide  vehicle emission factors vary by model year and vehicle type, we  categorized each entity’s vehicles by type (car, light truck, or heavy  truck) and model year to the best of our ability. Since emission factors  are available only through fiscal year 2002, we used the fiscal year 2002  figure for all vehicles from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Similarly, if  vehicles were older than the earliest available emissions factors, we  used the earliest available factors. To estimate the mileage for each  type of vehicle, we calculated the percentage of the vehicle type out of  the total number of vehicles and then used that percentage of the total  mileage. By equating the percentage of vehicle type with the  percentage of mileage, we are assuming that all vehicles are driven  equally.
Emissions from the release of VOCs: We first calculated the carbon  emissions using the formula: carbon emissions = VOC release x carbon  content. We used the standard carbon content of VOCs, which is   56 percent of the VOC release, according to the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA). To convert carbon emissions to carbon  dioxide emissions, we used the conversion factor 44/12 as laid out in  EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2004.
Emissions from the consumption of purchased steam: To convert  steam consumption at the Ford House Office Building and GAO from  pounds to BTUs, we used the heat content 1,003.342 BTUs/pound. To  determine emissions, we calculated the activity data—that is, the fuel  used by the General Services Administration (GSA) to generate every  mmBTU of steam consumed. We used the formula: activity data [fuel  input] = steam produced/boiler efficiency. We took boiler efficiency  into account because some fuel input is lost in flue gases when fuel  enters the boiler. Since we were unable to obtain the boiler efficiency  for GSA’s boilers, we used the default efficiency value of 80 percent  recommended by the EPA Climate Leaders program. Next, we divided  the activity data into fuel type because the fuel input included both  natural gas and oil. We calculated the emissions for each type of fuel  and then added them to determine total emissions.
Emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity and  natural gas at leased facilities: Under the operational control  approach set forth by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, we defined  operational control based on the agency occupying the space and,  therefore, included the emissions from legislative branch capital leases  and operating leases as Scope 2 emissions, even if this required  estimating energy use based on an entity’s occupied square footage.
Emissions from leased vehicles: Under operational controls set forth  by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, all leased vehicles are Scope 1  emissions. Therefore, there was no need to differentiate between  government-owned and -leased vehicles.
Adjustment for purchased renewable energy certificates (REC): We  used the following formula to calculate emissions from renewable  electricity: emissions = activity data for green electricity x emissions  factor for power pool where renewable power is generated. We  determined the power pool where the renewable power was generated  using data provided to us by Pepco Energy Services. These emissions  were subtracted from Scope 2 emissions to determine total net  emissions.
section_title: Entity specific
subsections: section_title: Senate Sergeant at Arms
subsections: section_title: Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
paragraphs: Emissions from business travel in government-owned and -leased  vehicles: We needed to calculate activity data because CBO does not  maintain fuel use data. The formula we used was: activity data   = mileage/fuel economy. We used the average fuel  economy figures provided by the Federal Highway Administration’s  2004 Highway Statistics. CBO first obtained a vehicle in the last   2 months of fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the activity data for that year  are prorated.
Emissions from business travel in government-owned and -leased  vehicles: The vehicle activity data were available for fiscal years 2004  through 2006. Therefore, we assumed fuel use remained constant for  fiscal years 1998 through 2004.
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from business travel in  government-owned and -leased vehicles: We obtained 2006 model year  and type data. We assumed the vehicle type data remained constant  from fiscal years 1998 through 2006. We also assumed that the model  year was 1 year earlier than the year for which we were calculating  emissions, unless the model year provided in the fiscal year 2006 data  was earlier. In such cases, we kept the earlier year. To convert cubic  feet of compressed natural gas to gallons of gasoline equivalent, we  used the conversion factor 121.5 cubic feet/gallon of gasoline  equivalent found at www.fueleconomy.gov.
Emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity and  natural gas at leased facilities: LOC has operating leases for two  facilities—Landover warehouse and National Library for the Blind and  Physically Handicapped. GSA provided us with activity data for both  leases. To convert cubic feet of natural gas to BTUs, we used the heat  content 1,011.5691 BTUs/cubic feet.
section_title: Appendix III: Map of Legislative Branch Facilities
subsections: section_title: Opertion nder GAO’ridictionOpertion nderAOC’sridiction
paragraphs: The Army Corps of Engineers leases space within GAO’s building.
The Architect of the Capitol leases space within the Government Printing Office’s building.
section_title: Appendix IV: Emissions Trends, by Agency
paragraphs: Capitol complex operations under the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC)  jurisdiction accounted for 88 percent of legislative branch greenhouse gas  emissions in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 3). The Government Printing Office  (GPO) and GAO accounted for 7 percent and 4 percent of emissions,  respectively. Capitol complex operations not under AOC’s jurisdiction,  such as Senate Sergeant at Arms’ vehicles and release of volatile organic  compounds and the Library of Congress’ two leased facilities, made up the  remaining 1 percent of emissions.
Overall, emissions from Capitol complex operations under AOC’s  jurisdiction increased by 8 percent from the base year to fiscal year 2006.  There were two decreases in emissions during this time period—  a 7 percent decrease from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004 and a   1 percent decrease from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 4).
The emissions generated by GPO decreased by 18 percent from the base  year (the average of fiscal years 1998 through 2001) through fiscal year  2003 and then continued to decrease through fiscal year 2006, for an  overall decrease of 28 percent (see fig. 5).
The emissions generated by GAO increased 9 percent through 2004 and  then decreased 8 percent through fiscal year 2006, for an overall increase  of 0.2 percent (see fig. 6).
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt,   Michael Hix, Bert Japikse, Heather Krause, Sara Ann Moessbauer,   Joshua Ormond, Frank Rusco, and Stephanie Sand.