Green Building: Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration
Released: 2011-12-02T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Green building is the practice of designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and removing buildings in ways that conserve natural resources and reduce pollution. There is no generally accepted definition for green building, but according to our analysis of various standards, it may incorporate one or more of the following six generally recognized elements:  energy conservation or efficiency measures: the use of strategies to reduce energy consumption in a building or use renewable sources of energy; indoor environmental quality measures: the use of strategies to enhance indoor environmental quality through ventilation, control of pollution sources, and the use of low pollution-emitting materials;  water conservation or efficiency measures: the use of strategies to reduce water consumption inside and outside the building; integrated design principles: the use of a collaborative planning and design process that involves a project team with a variety of stakeholders, such as architects, builders, and building engineers, who participate in all stages of a building’s lifecycle, including planning, building, and operation; sustainable siting or location measures: the use of certain strategies when deciding on building location, including discouraging development on previously undeveloped land and minimizing a building’s impact on the nearby ecosystem, among other things; and  measures to reduce the environmental impact of materials: the use of strategies to reduce the environmental impact of materials, such as using sustainably grown materials and products with high recycled content, among other things.

Not having a generally accepted definition for green building has led to the development of several national and regional standards that builders and developers can use to certify whether a particular structure is a green building. These standards include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system—the most widely known standard—which was developed and is administered by the U.S. Green Building Council. Many of these standards use a system that assigns points for a variety of practices and certifies a building at various levels of “green” depending on the number of points acquired.

The federal government has long shown an interest in promoting green building practices in buildings owned or leased by federal agencies. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 contains efficiency requirements for the use of energy and water in federal buildings. Furthermore, the federal Interagency Sustainability Working Group was formed under DOE’s Interagency Energy Management Task Force in 2001 in response to an executive order to, among other things, serve as a forum and develop policy and technical guidance to promote green building for federally owned, operated, and leased buildings. The group is coordinated by DOE and consists of approximately 60 active members, including at least one representative from every major federal department and agency.

More recently, the federal government has also focused on promoting green building practices in the nonfederal sector. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided tax credits for home improvements that increase energy efficiency and tax deductions for commercial buildings that meet specific efficiency standards; the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorized $1.52 billion over 10 years, starting in fiscal year 2008, for DOE’s efforts to promote commercial green building in partnership with other federal, as well as nonfederal, entities; and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided at least $13 billion to foster green building in the nonfederal sector through various agency initiatives, such as DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program—which is designed to make long- term energy-efficiency improvements to the homes of low-income families. Weatherization includes installing high-efficiency boilers, insulation, and energy-efficient windows.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) provides tools that agencies can use to assess the results of their activities, including efforts that foster green building. Under GPRA, federal agencies are required to develop strategic plans with long-term, outcome- oriented goals and objectives, annual goals linked to achieving the long- term goals, and annual reports on the results achieved. Principles of good governance also indicate that agencies should establish quantifiable performance measures to demonstrate how they intend to achieve their program goals and measure the extent to which they have done so. These measures should allow agencies to compare their programs’ actual results with desired results and should be linked to program goals. Moreover, as we have reported, GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the development of long-term goals, and accountability for results, provides a framework that Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and executive branch agencies can use to consider the appropriate mix of long-term strategic goals and strategies needed to identify and address federal goals that cut across agency boundaries. For example, we have reported that the strategic and annual performance planning processes under GPRA provide opportunities for federal agencies to identify other agencies addressing related outcomes and coordinate with agencies across the government to ensure that program goals are complementary; strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as appropriate, common performance measures are used. To this end, under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, agencies will be required to adopt a more coordinated and crosscutting approach to achieving common goals and will be required to describe in their fiscal year 2012 performance plans, and each fiscal year thereafter, how they are coordinating and collaborating with other agencies to achieve the plans’ goals.

Agencies Foster Green Building in the Nonfederal Sector through More Than 90 Initiatives, Primarily for Energy Conservation or Efficiency

We identified 94 federal initiatives that foster green building in the nonfederal sector; these initiatives, implemented by 11 agencies, vary in how they foster green building, including which elements of green building they foster, whether fostering green building is a primary purpose of the initiative, what types of assistance they provide, and what groups are expected to benefit. Furthermore, some of these initiatives are required by statute, while others are being implemented under agencies’ discretionary authority. A description and other information for each initiative are presented in appendixes II and III.

Eleven Agencies Foster Green Building in the Nonfederal Sector, Most Commonly through Energy Conservation or Efficiency

Table 1 shows the 11 federal agencies implementing the 94 green building initiatives we identified. As table 1 indicates, 3 of the 11 agencies fostering green building in the nonfederal sector—HUD, EPA, and DOE— are implementing most (about two-thirds) of these initiatives.

We examined the 94 initiatives by (1) the type of green building elements they foster, (2) whether they foster green building directly or indirectly as part of a broader effort, (3) the type of assistance they provide, and (4) the recipients expected to directly benefit from the assistance.

Many of the initiatives we identified foster multiple elements of green building. Table 2—which shows the green building elements fostered by the 94 initiatives—indicates that energy conservation or efficiency is the most commonly fostered element of green building.

All 11 agencies reported implementing initiatives that foster green building through the energy conservation or efficiency element. For example, DOE’s Tribal Energy Program offers financial and technical assistance to Indian tribes to help them evaluate and develop methods to reduce their energy consumption through energy efficiency and weatherization of buildings. This program also provides education and training opportunities to develop and implement energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects. In addition, the tax code offers the Energy Investment Tax Credit— implemented by the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—which provides tax credits to businesses for certain qualified renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies. This program includes incentives for combined heat and power investment and for fuel cells and microturbines. However, the agencies reported that most initiatives fostering green building through the energy conservation or efficiency element also foster green building through one or more additional elements. For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Improved Building Energy Performance Program is intended to develop better tools for accurately evaluating a building’s energy consumption and indoor air quality after it is constructed.

According to our analysis of questionnaire responses, about three- quarters of the 94 initiatives foster green building through more than one element, including 21 initiatives across seven agencies that foster green building through all six green building elements. For example, through the Tribal Green Building Initiative, EPA is working with tribal and federal partners to advance tribes’ efforts to adopt building codes related to green building and to address barriers associated with developing and implementing these codes. The initiative supports tribal building codes that reduce energy and water use, improve indoor air quality, use nontoxic building materials, and conserve other resources—all of which touch on the six elements of green building. In addition, HUD’s Green Retrofit Program for Multifamily Housing makes loans and grants for retrofits (i.e., the addition of new technology or features to older systems) that foster any or all of the green building elements in certain HUD- assisted multifamily buildings.

According to our analysis, over two-thirds (64) of the 94 initiatives foster green building directly—that is, one of their primary purposes is to foster green building through one or more green building elements. For example, EPA’s Indoor Environments Program is intended to provide resources to promote and protect occupants’ health while saving energy and money. These resources include Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools, a program whose goal is to help schools establish and maintain a healthy environment in school buildings by providing guidance, training, checklists, and other resources to identify, correct, and prevent indoor air quality problems; and the Radon Program, which is intended to promote radon-resistant construction techniques for new homes and to educate the public on radon testing and mitigation technologies in existing homes.

The remaining 30 initiatives foster green building indirectly—that is, as part of a broader effort not primarily focused on green building. For example, HUD’s Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program is intended to expand the supply of affordable housing with services for the low-income elderly by providing them with options for independent living in an environment with support activities, such as cleaning, cooking, and transportation. HUD seeks to accomplish this purpose by providing interest-free capital advances to private and nonprofit sponsors to finance development of the housing. To support HUD’s strategic goal of reducing energy consumption, however, HUD requires applicants seeking Section 202 funding for new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects to include energy efficiency and water conservation strategies. In addition, HUD requires pre- and post- construction energy audits for other types of rehabilitation projects funded through the Section 202 program.

Agencies reported that many of the 94 initiatives foster green building by providing multiple types of assistance, most commonly through grants or technical assistance, as shown in table 3. Technical assistance can take many forms, including technical guidance and expert advice; tools to evaluate performance against green building metrics; education on the benefits of green building; and work with organizations and end users to develop strategies to achieve their green building goals.

Agencies reported providing grants for different purposes related to green building. For example, DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant is intended to assist U.S. cities, counties, states, territories, and Indian tribes to develop, promote, implement, and manage energy efficiency and conservation projects for buildings, among other things. In addition, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Small Business Energy Audit and Energy Efficiency Program makes grants to Small Business Development Centers—partnerships primarily between the federal government and colleges and universities—to provide green building-related training to small businesses. Also, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction Program is intended to provide grants to public transit agencies to implement new strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce energy usage from their operations.

Agencies reported that the 94 initiatives are expected to directly benefit a variety of recipients and can directly benefit multiple recipients, as shown in table 4.

As table 4 indicates, the types of recipients that agencies reported expecting to directly benefit from these initiatives range widely. For example, under IRS’s Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction, businesses can claim a tax deduction for equipment that reduces energy costs in buildings associated with lighting systems; building envelopes; and heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water systems. In addition, through the Sustainable Community Challenge Planning Grants Program, HUD makes funds available to state and local governments, tribal governments, and other entities to, among other things, promote green building and revise their building codes to allow for more energy-efficient rehabilitation of older buildings. Furthermore, through the WaterSense program, EPA partners with local water utilities, local governments, product manufacturers, retailers, and consumers to promote water- efficient products and practices, which can benefit a wide variety of recipients—including individual property owners, state and local governments, public housing agencies, and businesses. Products and new homes can earn the WaterSense label by being independently certified to meet EPA’s criteria for efficiency and performance. For example, WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures reportedly use at least 20 percent less water and perform as well or better than standard models.

Recipients of some of these initiatives told us that these initiatives provide indirect benefits as a result of the money saved through green building retrofits. For example, officials representing two apartment complexes we visited said they are able to use the money saved to offer additional services to their tenants that improve their quality of life. One official stated these additional services include after-school programs and dental services.

Some Agency Efforts to Foster Green Building Are Required by Statute

According to our analysis of questionnaire responses, agencies are implementing many of the initiatives we identified because they are required to by statute. For example, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directed DOE to conduct outreach activities to inform the public about education resources, technical assistance, or other forms of assistance useful in planning and constructing high-performance green building. DOE officials stated that they are implementing the Commercial Building Initiative because of this requirement. According to DOE, this initiative is intended to improve the energy efficiency of new and existing commercial buildings by researching technologies, strategies, and tools that improve energy savings and by working with commercial building owners and operators to ensure these technologies are market ready.

In addition, EPA’s Brownfields Program—required by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act—provides financial and technical assistance intended to encourage states, communities, and other stakeholders to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and reuse brownfields, which are properties where reuse may be complicated by the potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. By reusing brownfields, this program, among other things, is attempting to encourage economic activity on previously developed land rather than on undeveloped land, according to an EPA official.

Furthermore, USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program—required by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008—promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy for agricultural producers and rural small businesses through the use of (1) grants and loan guarantees for energy- efficiency improvements and renewable-energy systems and (2) grants for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance.

According to our analysis of questionnaire responses, agencies are also using their discretionary authority to implement some of the initiatives we identified. For example, EPA’s Green Infrastructure Program is intended to promote cost-effective strategies for storm-water management, including using rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvesting for nonpotable uses such as landscape irrigation. In addition, DOE’s Superior Energy Performance Program is a certification program intended to provide managers of industrial and commercial buildings with guidance on how to achieve continual improvement in energy efficiency while maintaining competitiveness. The program is intended to provide a transparent, globally accepted system for verifying energy performance improvements and management practices.

The Overall Results of Federal Green Building Initiatives in the Nonfederal Sector Are Unknown

About one-third of the federal initiatives we identified have green building goals and performance measures; therefore, the overall results of most initiatives and their related investments are unknown. Agency officials provided several reasons for not having performance information on the results of most green building initiatives for the nonfederal sector. To assess initiatives’ results, some agencies have begun to collaborate, but we did not identify any broader, or governmentwide, efforts to collaborate on assessing the results of these initiatives in the nonfederal sector.

Some Initiatives Have Green Building Goals and Performance Measures

According to our analysis of questionnaire responses, about one-third of the 94 federal initiatives we identified that foster green building in the nonfederal sector had goals and performance measures specific to green building. Following are two examples:  Under the Recovery Act, HUD established the Green Retrofit Program for Multifamily Housing, which makes grants or loans to owners of residential assisted housing for energy retrofit or other green investments. According to HUD officials and our review of program requirements and documents, HUD measures this initiative’s progress toward green building goals by collecting energy consumption data for participating properties before and after they are retrofitted and plans to compare these data to calculate savings and evaluate effectiveness. The Castle Square Apartments in Boston received assistance under this initiative. Once completed, the project’s 192 midrise apartments will reduce energy consumption by 72 percent, according to estimates by HUD officials and the private developer.  DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program is a $3.2 billion Recovery Act program that makes grants to cities, counties, states, territories, and Indian tribes to develop and implement energy efficiency and conservation projects for buildings, among other things. DOE officials stated that the program has implemented projects in more than 16,000 buildings. For example, according to DOE’s response to our questionnaire, the city of San Francisco used these funds to help multifamily residential property owners replace aging, inefficient boiler systems. Also, according to its response, DOE has established project management milestones and goals for the program that measure overall progress. DOE officials told us the program has no official green building targets, and grant recipients determine their own green building goals, such as the amount of building space they want to retrofit. According to its questionnaire response, DOE strongly encourages, but does not require, grant recipients conducting green building activities to perform industry-standard measurement and verification of their projects to track performance on key metrics such as energy savings and emissions reductions. To accomplish this purpose, DOE has issued optional guidance for grant recipients on program evaluation and has provided resources and training on suggested methods for recipients to estimate energy savings and collect data.

As we have reported, leading organizations commonly define clear goals and related outcomes, measure performance to gauge progress, and use performance information to assess the results of their efforts and the related investment. Leading organizations recognize, as well, that performance measures can create powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior. When resources are limited and public demands are high, it is particularly important that agencies are accountable to Congress, the executive branch, and the public for the results of their activities and investments. In the federal sector, agencies are required to meet green building goals for energy and water efficiency, among other things. Federal agencies are also required to measure and report to DOE the progress they have made meeting federal green building goals. DOE, in turn, uses this information to report annually to Congress on agencies’ energy use and progress toward meeting federal green building goals.

Agency Officials Provided Reasons for Not Having Performance Information on the Results of Green Building

Agency officials provided various reasons for not having performance information on the results of green building initiatives for the nonfederal sector. For example, some agency officials said that many of the initiatives we identified have a broader focus than green building and may have performance goals and measures but not ones specific to green building. Therefore, key performance information related to green building is often not available. For instance, the HUD Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program is designed to help expand the supply of affordable housing with services for the low-income elderly by providing them with options for independent living in a supportive environment. According to our analysis of questionnaire responses and program documents supplied by HUD, in fiscal year 2010, HUD incorporated green building into this program by establishing both minimum requirements as well as incentives for, among other things, energy efficiency and water conservation practices for these properties. In addition, Department of Defense (DOD) officials told us that the main goal of DOD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and suitability of energy technologies that could help DOD meet mandated reductions in energy use. DOD officials said that the program has no overall goals specific to green building; instead, individual demonstration projects under the program use goals and performance measures specific to those projects. The officials stated that it would not be appropriate for DOD to expend the funds needed to assess the extent to which any of the technologies developed affect green building.

In addition, agencies reported that they may not have information on the results of green building initiatives for the nonfederal sector, in part, because they face several challenges in gathering and analyzing appropriate and reliable performance data. A 2011 industry report identified several challenges in gathering utility usage data for multifamily properties, including difficulty in obtaining the resources necessary to develop systems for accurate data collection, a lack of industry standards for performance data collection, and utility companies’ diverse policies governing data sharing, as well as their wide-ranging capacities to collect data. HUD officials told us the quality of utility data can vary by utility, especially for water consumption data—which can be incomplete and inaccurate and is often not available in electronic form. In addition, the results of some green building elements are more easily measured than others. For example, a General Services Administration official we interviewed testified before Congress in 2010 that it is easier to compare before and after utility consumption data (water or energy conservation or efficiency) than to measure indoor environmental air quality or the impact a building’s siting has on transportation. However, several federal and local agencies and entities we reviewed reported making progress toward overcoming data gathering and reporting challenges through better use of technology. For example, officials at the Cambridge Housing Authority in Massachusetts told us that they are developing an electronic billing system and installing the technology necessary to collect and track utility usage. They said they anticipate being able to use the system to generate quantitative energy reports—a major step toward accurately measuring, analyzing, and reporting energy consumption in the housing authority’s buildings.

Agencies Have Begun to Collaborate to Assess Results for Some Initiatives, but without Apparent Governmentwide Collaboration to Assess Overall Results

We identified some instances in which agencies are collaborating on specific initiatives, including establishing compatible procedures and adopting common performance measures for assessing results. As we have previously reported, achieving results for the nation increasingly requires that federal agencies work together to identify ways to deliver results more efficiently and in a way that is consistent with their multiple demands and limited resources. Agencies and programs working collaboratively can often achieve more public value than when they work in isolation. We have also identified key practices that can help enhance and sustain such federal agency collaboration.

We found instances in which agencies used some of these key practices, including establishing compatible procedures and adopting common performance measures for assessing results, when working together on specific initiatives that cut across agencies. For example, under the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, DOT, EPA, and HUD collaborated on a number of grant and technical assistance initiatives, including recently developing guidance for HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grants Program. This program makes funds available to state and local governments, tribal governments, and other entities to promote affordable, economically vital, and sustainable communities through green building and a variety of other eligible activities, including developing building codes that promote the energy-efficient rehabilitation of older buildings to create affordable and healthy housing. According to earlier guidance, the agencies plan to adopt a common set of performance measures for this and other related initiatives, but the more recent guidance does not define these measures. Also, through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, DOT and HUD coordinated to accept a single application for their respective transportation and community planning grant programs that, according to agency documents, made it easier for communities to apply to both programs simultaneously. HUD officials told us that, other than through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, they typically coordinate on green building on a targeted basis with DOE and EPA. According to these officials, HUD has collaborated with EPA on the adoption of the Energy Star standard in HUD programs. In addition, according to these officials, HUD established an active partnership with DOE on the implementation of the Recovery Act-funded Weatherization Assistance Program, as well as on elements of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program.

Furthermore, DOE chairs the Interagency Energy Management Task Force, a group of agency headquarters energy managers who, among other things, address energy issues affecting federal buildings and operations. The task force includes 10 of the 11 agencies implementing the initiatives in our review and establishes working groups for specific issues—including green building—across federal agencies. Since 1988, this task force has served as the interagency group for collaborating on green building in the federal sector, measuring progress, and acting as a forum for addressing challenges to green building and developing common solutions for the federal sector. For example, one of the task force’s working groups sought EPA’s expertise in storm-water management to respond to new requirements in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. EPA developed and provided guidance that other agencies could use in meeting the new requirements.

However, we did not identify a governmentwide effort to collaborate on green building issues, including shared goals and common performance measures, for the nonfederal sector that is comparable to the task force’s efforts for the federal sector. Without such an effort, agencies may be missing opportunities to, among other things, reach agreement on governmentwide goals and measures for assessing the overall progress of their efforts to foster green building in the nonfederal sector.

Conclusions

The federal government has launched a variety of initiatives to promote green building in the nonfederal sector—the vast majority of the nation’s building stock. These initiatives are intended to reach many types of beneficiaries, ranging from individual renters and homeowners to state governments. In some cases, agencies have measured progress for individual initiatives and have collaborated on initiatives across agencies, including identifying shared goals and adopting common performance measures for assessing results. However, the overall effect of these initiatives on the nation’s nonfederal buildings is unknown because agencies have largely not assessed either the individual or the combined results of green building initiatives in the nonfederal sector or the related investments. In contrast, the federal government has been measuring, and reporting on, its progress in making federal buildings greener. Because federal agencies have experience with measuring progress in the federal sector, they are well- positioned to apply this experience to measuring such progress in the nonfederal sector, as well. In addition, DOE’s Interagency Energy Management Task Force has served as an agency forum for 10 of the 11 agencies implementing the initiatives to discuss challenges to green building and develop common solutions for the federal sector. However, we did not identify a similar governmentwide effort among the 11 agencies to collaborate on green building in the nonfederal sector. Without comprehensive information about individual initiatives’ effects on fostering green building, and without collaboration across federal agencies to establish green building goals and ways to measure progress, Congress, agency heads, and the public—including potential beneficiaries of federal initiatives—have incomplete information about the effectiveness of individual and overall federal efforts to foster green building in the nonfederal sector.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To help assess the results of investments in individual federal initiatives to foster green building in the nonfederal sector, as well as their combined results, we recommend that the Secretaries of Energy and of Housing and Urban Development work with the Administrator of EPA in leading an effort with other agencies that are implementing green building initiatives to collaborate on identifying performance information, such as shared goals and common performance measures, for green building initiatives for the nonfederal sector. This effort should include, if necessary, an exploration of the need for additional legislative or executive authority, such as the authority to establish a coordinating entity (e.g., an interagency working group).

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOD, the Department of Education (ED), DOE, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HUD, and DOT, as well as EPA, IRS, NIST, and SBA. In written comments, reproduced in appendix V, DOE generally agreed with our recommendation. In written comments, reproduced in appendix VI, HUD stated that it welcomes our recommendation and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. On October 17, 2011, USDA provided comments in an e-mail message, stating that it generally concurred with the information applicable to its Rural Development programs. USDA also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. On October 20, 2011, DOD provided comments in an e-mail message, stating that it concurred with the draft report as written. On October 21, 2011, EPA provided comments in an e-mail message, stating that it generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendation. In particular, EPA stated that it believes significant benefits could be achieved by identifying information on performance for green building efforts in the nonfederal sector across federal agencies and that our recommendation supports the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. DOT, ED, IRS, and SBA did not provide formal written comments but provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. In its technical clarifications, ED noted the announcement of its new Green Ribbon Schools Initiative, which is being implemented in fiscal year 2012. According to ED, the initiative resulted from cooperative efforts made with other federal agencies, state and local school officials, and other potential stakeholders. ED also stated that the initiative’s preparation work and announcement is already having a positive impact on the “efforts of state and local officials to recognize the exemplary efforts of schools and communities to be energy conscious, promote healthy and sustainable environments, and educate students to become environmentally literate citizens.” HHS and NIST stated that they did not have any comments on the draft report.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation; the Administrators of EPA and SBA; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov or David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) identify current initiatives by federal agencies to foster green building in the nonfederal sector and (2) determine what is known about the results of these initiatives on fostering green building in the nonfederal sector. For the purposes of this review, the nonfederal sector includes private, state, local, and tribal entities.

To identify current initiatives by federal agencies to foster green building in the nonfederal sector, we first developed a working definition of green building, which often varies, depending on the stakeholder. To develop the definition, we reviewed and analyzed five sources for key elements of a green building: (1) the requirements for a high-performance green building in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, (2) the U.S. Green Building Council’s green building certification system, (3) the Green Globes assessment and rating system, (4) the Enterprise Community Partners green communities criteria, and (5) a memorandum of understanding signed by many federal agencies to commit to federal leadership in the design, construction, and operation of high-performance and sustainable buildings. We identified these five sources on the basis of background research and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders from the following nonprofit groups and trade associations: the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the Housing Assistance Council, the International Facility Management Association, the National Housing Trust, the National Institute of Building Sciences’ High Performance Building Council, Neighborworks America, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, and the U.S. Green Building Council. Knowledgeable stakeholders from these organizations stated that these sources represent leading efforts to promote green building nationwide. From our analysis of these sources, we determined that, for the purposes of this report, a “green building” is a building that, through its design, construction, rehabilitation, operation, or maintenance, incorporates one or more of the following six elements: (1) integrated design principles, (2) energy conservation or efficiency measures, (3) water conservation or efficiency measures, (4) indoor environmental quality measures, (5) measures to reduce the environmental impact of materials, and (6) sustainable siting or location measures.

With this definition of a green building, we then developed a list of key terms and used them to search a broad range of sources for federal initiatives with descriptions containing any of the terms. The sources we searched primarily included federal agency budget justifications, program websites, and databases. We also searched Federal Register announcements, agencies’ news releases, and strategic planning documents. We analyzed each initiative identified through this process to determine whether it fell within the scope of our objectives, including whether it was active anytime during fiscal year 2011, and through this analysis, we developed a list of initiatives organized by agency. We confirmed these initiatives with officials at the federal agencies with roles in implementing the initiatives, and we asked the officials to identify other initiatives they were aware of that might fall within the scope of our objectives. We identified at least one initiative at each of the following 11 agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT), and the Treasury (Treasury); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and the Small Business Administration. Although we attempted to ensure that we had a complete list of federal green building initiatives, our list is not intended to be comprehensive because, in part, of differences in definitions of a green building across agencies.

We then developed a questionnaire to collect information on the green building initiatives we identified at the 11 agencies. To identify officials who were most knowledgeable about each initiative, and thus the most appropriate person to complete the questionnaire, we used information from our initial meetings with agency officials and information gathered by each agency’s audit liaisons. Working with an independent GAO survey expert, we conducted, in person, pretests of draft questionnaires with officials we had identified at three agencies. The pretests took place with officials with expertise in green building at HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing, officials with tax credit expertise at Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service, and commercial and residential building program officials at DOE. We conducted pretests to check that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, (4) the information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. Using the feedback we received, we made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire. After deciding on the final questionnaire, we sent it to the appropriate agency officials by e- mail in an attached Microsoft Word form. For each initiative, the questionnaire asked officials to (1) confirm general information, (2) report funding for green building, (3) identify goals and performance measures for green building, and (4) provide additional information that would help us further understand the initiative. We received a questionnaire response for each initiative and, thus, had a response rate of 100 percent. After analyzing the responses, we conducted follow-up interviews, e-mail exchanges, or telephone discussions with agency officials when responses were unclear or conflicting, such as when both “Yes” and “No” boxes were checked or boxes were left completely unchecked. When necessary, we used the clarifying information provided by agency officials to update answers to questions to improve the accuracy and completeness of the data. During our follow-up conversations, agency officials stated that, for many initiatives, green building funds are not tracked separately from other related activities; therefore, we could not determine governmentwide funding for green building in the nonfederal sector because we could not collect complete or reliable funding data. As a result, we did not report the responses about funding for green building. In addition, the questionnaire asked agency officials to identify entities expected to directly benefit from the initiatives. However, we did not evaluate the effectiveness of the initiatives, including the extent to which the entities identified may or may not have received benefits. The initiatives we identified may vary in the scale of their funding or the number of entities expected to benefit from them, among other things; however, in this report, we do not discuss these differences or compare the scale of the initiatives we identified. A copy of our questionnaire is presented in appendix IV.

Because this effort was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in interpreting a particular question, sources of information available to respondents, or entering data into a database or analyzing them can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in developing the questionnaire and collecting and analyzing the data to minimize such nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff who had subject matter expertise. We pretested the draft questionnaire to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to understand. When we analyzed the data using computer programs, an independent analyst checked the results from all the computer programs. Finally, we verified the accuracy of a small sample of keypunched records by comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and we corrected the errors we found. Less than 0.5 percent of the data items we checked had random keypunch errors that would not have been corrected during data processing.

To determine what is known about the results of these initiatives on fostering green building in the nonfederal sector, in addition to analyzing questionnaire data on goals and performance measures, we conducted follow-up interviews with officials representing initiatives for which fostering green building is a primary purpose. We identified this subgroup of initiatives by conducting a content analysis of the initiative descriptions each agency had confirmed or updated in its questionnaire responses. More specifically, based on the research we conducted to develop our full list of initiatives, we had prepopulated each questionnaire with a description of the initiative and then asked respondents to confirm the description or edit it, as appropriate. Using these confirmed or edited descriptions, we categorized initiatives into two groups: those where a primary purpose of the initiative was to foster the use of one or more green building elements by nonfederal entities, and those where it was a secondary or other purpose. Our content analysis results indicated that 64 of the 94 initiatives had green building as a primary purpose. In consideration of resource constraints, to limit the number of follow-up interviews, we listed the initiatives in the primary purpose subgroup by agency to identify the agencies with the most initiatives. On the basis of this analysis, we determined that HUD, DOE, and EPA were the three agencies that had the most initiatives with green building as a primary purpose, accounting for about 67 percent of the initiatives in our subgroup. We then conducted follow-up interviews with officials from the offices chiefly responsible for implementing the three agencies’ initiatives, based on the number of initiatives, general mission of the office, or both. During these interviews, we asked officials about their progress and the challenges they face, if any, in implementing the pertinent initiatives, including the extent to which the agency collects performance data and coordinates—internally and with other agencies—on similar initiatives. We also asked the officials to provide related documents, and we reviewed these and other relevant documents from their offices.

Finally, we conducted site visits to green building projects that have received support from some of the initiatives we identified. During these site visits, we interviewed officials connected to the projects—including developers, resident groups, and property managers; local housing authority officials implementing green building projects; and regional federal officials with expertise in fostering green building through some of the initiatives. We identified sites to visit from examples provided in agency responses to our questionnaire, and we selected locations that had several projects that could be visited, covered a range of agencies and building types, and were convenient to GAO offices. During these visits, we toured projects at varying stages of completion. Specifically, we toured projects funded by the HUD Green Retrofit Program at Castle Square Apartments in Boston and Eden Issei Terrace Apartments in Hayward, California. In addition, we toured a project being conducted by the Cambridge Housing Authority in Massachusetts that participates in the HUD Moving to Work program. We toured projects funded by the DOT Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program at Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District facilities in Oakland, California. We also toured two Energy Star hotels in Boston and San Francisco. We interviewed officials responsible for overseeing the projects and asked them to discuss, among other things, the progress and challenges they faced, if any, in implementing the projects. The findings from our site visit interviews cannot be generalized to sites or projects not included in this nonprobability sample.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Federal Initiatives Identified That Foster Green Building in the Nonfederal Sector

We identified 11 federal agencies with 94 initiatives that foster green building in the nonfederal sector, which includes private, state, local, and tribal entities. The following tables provide summaries, based on the questionnaire responses, of each of these initiatives by agency, and whether—according to our analysis—they foster green building directly or indirectly. A primary purpose of direct initiatives is to foster green building (or any element thereof); thus, they foster one or more green building elements directly. Indirect initiatives are part of broader efforts not focused primarily on green building (or any element thereof); thus, they foster green building elements indirectly.

Appendix III: Selected Questionnaire Responses for Federal Initiatives That Foster Green Building in the Nonfederal Sector

We identified 11 federal agencies with 94 initiatives that foster green building in the nonfederal sector, which includes private, state, local, and tribal entities. We developed a questionnaire about the initiatives and submitted it to the agencies. The following tables provide selected questionnaire responses for each of the initiatives, by agency. We are reporting responses that elaborate on our report findings and for which agencies provided the most complete information.

Appendix IV: GAO’s Questionnaire for Federal Agencies with Initiatives That Foster Green Building in the Nonfederal Sector

QUESTIONS ABOUT FEDERAL INITIATIVES TO FOSTER GREEN BUILDING AMONG LOCAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE ENTITIES Introduction The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, legislative branch agency, is examining how the federal government is fostering green building among local, state, and private entities across the United States—that is, for buildings that are not owned or leased by the federal government. GAO is undertaking this work at the request of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Specifically, we are first seeking to identify federal government initiatives to foster green building among local, state, and private entities active during fiscal year 2011, including those funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Second, we are seeking to collect certain information about these initiatives, including the progress federal agencies are making and the challenges they face, if any, in implementing them.

For our purposes, a green building is one that, through the design, building, rehabilitation, and/or maintenance or operation of the building, incorporates one or more of the following: (1) integrated design principles, (2) energy conservation or efficiency measures, (3) water conservation or efficiency measures, (4) indoor environmental quality measures, (5) measures to reduce the environmental impact of materials, or (6) sustainable siting or location measures.

For our purposes, a green building initiative is any program or activity related to one or more of these six elements, regardless of funding, that an agency is implementing for the purpose of fostering green building among local, state, and private entities. These initiatives may include direct financial support, research and development, technical assistance, tax credits, tax deductions or other types of support or assistance provided by the federal government to local, state, and private entities.

Through this questionnaire, we are asking federal agencies to provide certain information about the initiatives that we have identified. After we have gathered the responses, we plan to speak with pertinent agency officials to discuss in more detail the agency’s role in implementing the initiatives and to collect other information related to this review, such as the progress that the agency has made in implementing the initiative and the challenges it has faced, if any.

Please complete this questionnaire and return it to one of the individuals mentioned below by May 5, 2011. When returning the questionnaire, please attach any relevant supporting documentation to your email.

If you have any questions or comments about this questionnaire, please call or e-mail John Barrett at (202) 512-5902 (barrettj@gao.gov) or Nathan Morris at (617) 788-0553 (morrisn@gao.gov). Thank you very much for your assistance.

This questionnaire can be filled out using MS-Word and returned via e-mail to barrettj@gao.gov or morrisn@gao.gov. Please complete this questionnaire and return it by May 5, 2011.

Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field or check box answer.

To select a check box or button, simply click on the center of the box and an ‘X’ will appear.

To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check box and the ‘X’ will disappear.

To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, click on the answer box and begin typing. The box will expand to accommodate your answer.

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION FOR INITIATIVE We have collected some preliminary information on your initiative, which is listed below. a) Initiative Title: b) Implementing Agency: c) Implementing Office: d) Description: 1) Is the information provided above about the initiative correct and complete?

Yes ............................. No…...........................

If you answered No, what information is incorrect or incomplete, and what is the correct or complete information? Please use the space provided below. 2) Has this initiative been active at your agency at any time during fiscal year 2011?

Yes ............................. No…...........................

3) Is your agency required to implement this initiative by statute, executive order or other mandate external to the agency? a) Statute?................................................................. b) Executive Order? ................................................. c) Other mandate external to the agency?................ d) Other? .......................................

If you answered Yes to any of the above, please provide the name or citation for the specific statute(s), executive order(s) or other mandate(s) in the space provided below.

If you answered No to all of the above, please explain the impetus for the initiative in the space provided below. 4) Does your agency have documents describing how this initiative should be implemented?

Yes .......................... No............................

5) For our purposes, a green building is one that, through the design, building, rehabilitation, and/or maintenance or operation of the building, incorporates one or more of the elements defined below. Additionally, a green building initiative is any program or activity related to one of these six elements, regardless of funding, that an agency is implementing for the purpose of fostering green building among local, state, and private entities.

Based on the definitions below, which of the following element(s) of green building pertain to this initiative? a) Integrated design: Integrated design can involve the use of a collaborative, integrated planning and design process that initiates and maintains an integrated project team in all stages of a building’s lifecycle, including planning, building, and deconstruction. Integrated design can also entail the use of ongoing maintenance and operation to verify performance of building components and systems and help ensure that design requirements are met........................................ b) Energy conservation/efficiency: The energy conservation/efficiency element can involve the use of strategies to reduce energy consumption, such as through ongoing maintenance; energy use monitoring; efficient design and construction; efficient appliances, systems and lighting; the use of renewable and clean sources of energy generated on-site or off-site; and other innovative strategies… c) Water conservation/efficiency: The water conservation/efficiency element can involve the use of various strategies to reduce water consumption inside and outside the building, such as through more efficient appliances, fixtures and fittings inside and water-wise landscaping outside. .................................................. d) Indoor environmental quality: The indoor environmental quality element can involve the use of various strategies to enhance indoor environmental quality through ventilation, thermal comfort, acoustics, moisture control, daylighting, pollution source control, and the use of low-emission materials. ............................. e) Environmental impact of materials: The environmental impact of materials element can involve the use of various strategies to reduce the environmental impact of materials such as using sustainably grown, harvested, and transported products and materials; using products with high recycled and/or biobased content; reducing or eliminating the use of ozone depleting compounds; and promoting the reduction of waste through reuse and recycling. ............................... f) Sustainable siting or location: The sustainable siting or location element can involve using certain strategies when deciding on building location, including discouraging development on previously undeveloped land; minimizing a building's impact on ecosystems and waterways; encouraging regionally appropriate landscaping; rewarding smart transportation choices; controlling stormwater runoff; and reducing erosion, light pollution, heat island effect and construction-related pollution. ..................................................................................

If needed, please use the space provided below to provide further details regarding your answers above.  If you answered No to all green building elements listed above, please stop and return this questionnaire or contact us to discuss whether your initiative should be included in our review (see page one for contact information). Thank you very much for your time. 6) For this initiative, what type(s) of assistance or support does it provide to foster green building? a) Contracts? ................................................ b) Direct loans?............................................ c) Grants?..................................................... d) Mortgage-related assistance?................... e) Rent subsidies? ........................................ f) Research and development? .................... g) Tax credits?.............................................. h) Tax deductions?....................................... i) Technical assistance?............................... j) Other? ...........................

If needed, please use the space provided below to provide further details regarding your answers above.

7) What type(s) of buildings are eligible for this initiative? a) Education? ............................................... b) Hospital / Health Care? ........................... c)

Industrial? ............................................... d) Laboratory?.............................................. e) Lodging? ................................................. f) Office? ..................................................... g) Residential (owner-occupied or rental property)? ................................................ h) Retail? ..................................................... i) Warehouse? ............................................. j) Other? ............................

8) Which entities are expected to directly benefit from the assistance or support provided by this initiative? a) Businesses? .............................................. b)

Individual property owners or renters?.... c) Local governments?................................. d) Nonprofit organizations? ......................... e) Public housing agencies? ......................... f) State governments? .................................. g) Other? ............................ 9) If possible, please describe two or three examples of specific projects funded or supported by this initiative in the space provided below.

If needed, please use the space provided below to provide further details about your answers in Section I of this questionnaire.  SECTION II: FUNDING FOR INITIATIVE 10) For each of the following, please indicate whether your agency dedicated funds to this initiative. “Dedicated funds” means that the Congress or the agency set aside money to fund the initiative. a) From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)?........ b) In fiscal year 2009 (excluding ARRA)?.... c) In fiscal year 2010? ................................... d) In fiscal year 2011? ...................................

11) If you answered Yes to any of the above in Question 10, please provide the exact or estimated amount dedicated to the green building portion of this initiative. Please round to the nearest $100,000 (e.g., $1.2 million).

Dedicated ($million) a) From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)?....................................... b) In fiscal year 2009 (excluding ARRA)? ........................................ c) In fiscal year 2010? ....................... d) In fiscal year 2011? .......................

12) Does this initiative, or any portion of it, currently have an expiration date?

Yes .......................... No............................ Not Sure .................. Not Applicable........

If you answered Yes, please provide date: If you answered Yes, and if only a portion of the initiative is set to expire, please provide details on the portion that is set to expire in the space provided below.

SECTION III: GOALS AND PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR INITIATIVE 13) Has your agency established goals for the green building portion of this initiative?

Yes ............................. No.............................. Not Sure ..................... Not Applicable...........

If you answered Not Sure or Not Applicable, please explain using the space provided below.  If you answered Yes, does your agency have documents describing the goals for the green building portion of this initiative?

Yes ....................... No......................... Not Sure ............... Not Applicable.....

14) Has your agency established performance metrics or measures for the green building portion of this initiative?

Yes ............................. No............................... Not Sure ..................... Not Applicable...........

If you answered Not Sure or Not Applicable, please explain using the space provided below.  If you answered Yes, does your agency have documents describing the performance metrics or measures for this initiative?

Yes ...................... No........................ Not Sure ............... Not Applicable.....

SECTION IV: OTHER INFORMATION FOR INITIATIVE 15) Are there any additional data, further sources of information, or comments that would help us further understand and report on how this initiative is being implemented? If so, please describe and/or provide link(s) to the relevant website(s) in the space provided below. If applicable, please provide electronic copies of the relevant documents when returning this questionnaire. Alternatively, you can suggest that further discussion about this initiative be conducted through follow-up conversations with GAO. 16) Please provide the contact information for a representative from your agency for follow-up questions we may have about this initiative: Please remember to attach any relevant supporting documentation when returning this questionnaire to either barrettj@gao.gov or morrisn@gao.gov.

Thank you for your time!

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Karla Springer (Assistant Director), Maria Edelstein (Assistant Director), John Barrett, Cindy Gilbert, Chad M. Gorman, Gary Guggolz, Nathan Morris, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Barbara Timmerman made key contributions to this report.